Critics of the attribution of the fourth gospel to John the son of Zebedee often cite Polycrates as a witness against that attribution. Polycrates referred to the Beloved Disciple as "a priest, wearing the high-priestly frontlet" (in Eusebius, Church History, 5:24:2). In an article here, I argue against Richard Bauckham's formulation of the objection. I'm not aware of any easy explanation for why Polycrates referred to the Beloved Disciple as he did. We have to choose among options that are all difficult to some degree. But I proposed some possible explanations that I consider less problematic than Bauckham's. What I want to do here is expand on one of those alternatives to Bauckham's view.
How plausible is it that Polycrates was referring to the son of Zebedee as a high priest in a metaphorical sense? Notice that one of the Johannine documents, Revelation, puts substantial emphasis on the theme of the priesthood of all believers (1:6, 5:10, 20:6). And notice that the theme appears early, within the first several verses, in addition to being spread out over a few segments of the book. It's a somewhat prominent theme. Similarly, both the fourth gospel and Revelation make much of Jesus' role as a sacrificial lamb, which has priestly associations, especially given the Johannine emphasis on how Jesus offered himself rather than having his life taken unwillingly. And the lamb of God theme appears early in the fourth gospel, in the first chapter (1:29). So, both of these Johannine documents put a lot of emphasis on priestly themes, even referring to them near the beginning, and Revelation emphasizes the theme of a metaphorical priesthood in particular.
If all believers are viewed as priests, it's not much of a further step to think of somebody like an apostle as a priest in a higher sense, such as being a high priest. In fact, Polycrates starts with a reference to the Beloved Disciple as a priest, then qualifies it with a reference to being a high priest. He may have had the Johannine concept of the priesthood of all believers in mind, which he then expanded into a metaphorical high priesthood for John.
Keep in mind, too, that the passage in Polycrates begins with a reference to figures like John as "great lights". There's no question that Polycrates is being metaphorical to some extent.
Much more can be said about Polycrates' comments. I'm not trying to be exhaustive here. Those who want to read more about the subject can consult my post responding to Bauckham linked above, his book, or Dean Furlong's recent book that I referred to earlier.
While my book The Identity of John the Evangelist does discuss the various interpretations that have been offered, two chapters in my upcoming book, The John also called Mark: Reception and Transformation in Christian Tradition (https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/the-john-also-called-mark-9783161592775?no_cache=1), will provide my own attempt at answering the question of how this depiction of John (as well as similar ones of James and Mark) arose.
ReplyDeleteMy amateur speculation is that this may be a garbled legend based on the fact that John had a priestly lineage (as argued by scholars like Wenham and John Robinson). By the time it gets to down to Polycrates, it's undergone legendary embellishment, not necessarily intentionally on his part. But it may attest to the authentic memory of John's priestly lineage, even if it became exaggerated or embroidered in the process of transmission.
ReplyDeleteAs strange as it sounds, I wonder if someone along the line wasn't mentally confusing him with John the Baptist, who really was from a priestly lineage.
Delete