The Martyrdom of John the Apostle

Author(s): F. P. Badham
Source: The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Jul., 1904), pp. 539-554
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: [Link] .
Accessed: 02/09/2014 07:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
[Link]
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].
.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Theology.
[Link]
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
539
THE
MARTYRDOM OF
JOHN
THE
APOSTLE.
IN Vol. III of this
JOURNAL
I called
attention,
under a similar
title,'
to evidence
tending
to show that
John
did not die
naturally
at
Ephesus
in
Trajan's reign,
but was
martyred
in
Jerusalem
some
thirty years earlier;
and that therefore the fourth
gospel
could not have come from his hand.
There were
(a)
that statement of
Papias
that
"John
the divine and
James
his brother were slain
by
the
Jews;" (b)
the fact that the ancient
Syriac
calendar commemorates on December
27,
and
specifies
as
martyrs, "John
and
James
the
apostles
in
Jerusalem;" (c)
the
implication
in Matt.
2o:
23;
Mark
Io: 39
that
John
should
be,
or had
been, bapti7ed
with the same
blood-baptism
as
James; (d)
the absence of
John's
name in Heracleon's
list of
apostles
who had died natural
deaths; (e)
the non-mention of
John's
name in the
Ignatian epistles
to the
Ephesians
and
Polycarp, emphasized
by
the fact that the writer makes a
point
of
noticing
the
apostolic
associa-
tions of those whom he addresses. I then endeavored to show that the con-
trary evidence-viz.,
that of
Irenaeus, Polycrates,
the Muratorian
fragment,
and
John
2i:
22-was dubious.
It is with no intention of
repeating myself
that I now revert to the sub-
ject-still
less
so, seeing
that the
arguments (except
that
supplied by
the
Syriac calendar)
have
recently
been
repeated by
Professor Schmiedel in
the
Encyclopedia
Biblica-but in order to add certain
supplementary
points. Though
none of
them,
taken
separately, may
be of much
impor-
tance, yet,
taken in
conjunction
with the evidence
previously adduced,
and
in view of the
far-reaching consequences
of the establishment of
John's
martyrdom, they
seem to be worth
collecting.
i. The
Syriac
calendar above mentioned is
by
no means
unique
in its
representation.
Years
ago
Dr.
Sinker,
of
Cambridge, pointed
out that
the Armenian calendar commemorates the two brothers
together
on Decem-
ber
28;
the
Ethiopic,
on December
27.
The Gothico-Gallic missal com-
bines them in the same
way,
and
distinctly represents
them as
martyrs:
"Natale
Apostolorum Jacobi
et
Joannis."
The
Carthaginian
calendar
runs: "VI Kal.
Jan.
Sancti
Joannis Baptistae
et
Jacobi Apostoli quem
Herodes
occidit;"
but as another
day
is
assigned
to the
Baptist (viz.,
in
July),
and none to the
apostle,
it seems obvious that there is a mistake. "I
must
say,"
wrote Dr. Sinker
recently,
"in view of all the evidence before
us,
I do not now feel
any
doubt that
'Baptistae'
is a
lapsus plumae
for
'Evangelistae.'"
Even in the Western
Church, though James
has been
relegated
to a
' "The
Martyrdom
of St.
John,"
AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF
THEOLOGY,
Vol.
III, pp.
729-40.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
540
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
separate day
of his
own,
the commemoration of
John
the
Evangelist
on
December
27,
between
Stephen
and the
Innocents,
still
points
to a time
when
John
was
regarded
as
having
been a
martyr
in no less real a sense
than his brother.
Iconography perhaps supplies
some further evidence in the same direc-
tion.
Representations
of
John
are
found,
not with the conventional
chalice,
but with a
palm branch;
and with a
viper indeed,
but one twined
around a sword.2
2. In the Ebionite
gospel
the
apostles
are enumerated in the
following
order:
John
and
James,
sons of
Zebedee,
and Simon and
Andrew.3
From
the
Syriac
calendar's
point
of
view-viz.,
that
John
and
James
were the
pillar-martyrs
of
Jerusalem,
and were there buried-this
phenomenon
is
quite
understandable;
and
any
other
explanation presents grave difficulty.
Professor
Hilgenfeld
has
suggested
that the Ebionite
gospel may
have
origi-
nated in
Asia,
and have had a
design
of
increasing
the
Ephesian John's
prestige.
But
against
this there is the a
priori improbability
that this
gospel originated
elsewhere than in
Syria,
where the Ebionites had their
headquarters;
and
also, considering
that this
gospel
was
comparatively
late,
the
improbability
that Ebionites
would,
at Peter's
expense,
exalt the
prestige
of an
apostle
whom most of their hearers
already
identified with
the author of our fourth
gospel.
3.
If the
Carthaginian
calendar commemorated
John
as a
martyr,
like
his
brother,
not
merely
in
intention,
but in
fact,
one would
naturally expect
some allusion in north
African
writers. Such allusion is
found, unqualified
by any gloss
which would attenuate the
effect,
in the tract De
Rebaptismate,
ca.
250
A. D.: "He said to the sons of
Zebedee,
'Are
ye
able ?' Because
he knew that the men had to be
baptized,
not
only
in
water,
but also in
their own blood."4
4.
Clement of Alexandria is inconsistent on the
point.
On the one
hand he cites with
approval
the
story
of
John
and the robber
(which
involves
the former's residence in
Ephesus,
and his
protracted age).
But else-
where he states without
any qualification
that the
apostles
were all dead
by 70
A. D.: "The
teaching
of the
apostles, embracing
the
ministry
of
Paul,
ends with
Nero."s5
5.
In
Gregory
of
Nyssa's
Laudatio
Stephani
we have the
following:
"Of
these
champions
the leaders and chief are
Peter, James,
and
John,
who ran their race after the same fashion to the end of
life, contending
in
2
HUSENBETH,
Emblems
of Saints, p.
I
15.
3
HILGENFELD, Evangelia
extra canonem
receptum, pp. 33, 35.
4
ROUTH, Reliquiae Sacrae,
Vol.
V, p. 319. s Stromata, VII, I7.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
541
different kinds of
martyrdom." Then,
after
saying
that Peter was cruci-
fied
and
James beheaded, Gregory proceeds:
"
The blessed
John,
contend-
ing
in
many
and diverse contests
through
his
life,
and
distinguishing
him-
self in all
righteous
acts of
piety, being
condemned into
boiling
water-
this
goal-was
numbered in the choir of
martyrs.
Even thus was the
manner of their death
[i. e.,
of
Peter, James,
and
John],
who
through
death
have
bequeathed
their deathless
memory
to the churches."6
6.
Similarly Chrysostom: "My cup ye
shall
drink,
and with
my bap-
tism shall
ye
be
baptized.
Wondrous
glories
he
prophesied
for them!
That is to
say,
Ye shall be
judged worthy
of
martyrdom,
and suffer the same
things
as I. Ye shall
lay
down
your
life
by
a violent
death,
and in these
things
be fellow-sharers with
me."7
Again:
"Ye shall die for
me,
and be
slaughtered
for the sake of the
preaching,
and be fellow-sharers with me in
suffering."8 Again:
"The
cup
is
passion,
but the
baptism
death
itself."9
This all seems clear
enough;
but elsewhere one finds a
Milderung
on
Chrysostom's part: "James
was
beheaded,
and
John
died oft."Io It
would
seem, then,
that
Chrysostom
wavered on the
point,
or
perhaps
that
he held different views at different times.
Now,
to turn from the
positive
evidence of
martyrdom
to the accommo-
dations
by which,
even before the close of the second
century,
it was endeav-
ored to
get
rid of
martyrdom
in the real sense. Once the tradition of
John
the
apostle's long
residence in
Ephesus
was well
established,
some
escape
6MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca,
Vol.
XLVI, p. 750.
The Greek text is
obviously
corrupt,
but its
general
drift seems clear: 6
6&
ccaKdpLo~ 'Iwodvv'~s v
7roXXc is Ki
5tac6-
pots Kard& TbY
6 lou
40&XJasL
dyWoal Kai ?v raLL
L8tarp6pas roLts KaropOdblaaLtr
Ts eoreelcas
KEP6V /V eis
C
owp 70OTO7 ierpas
KEKptFYPO,
TXopyC
pY
TwV ~alpT76pW V
c
UYplOpOrat.
For
7ro'XX^
read
TroXXo^ ;
for
KevJbv /Pv read, with
Zacagni, Kab6/.eo,
or
-eb6evov
. Zahn,
with less
probability, suggests
Kal eis
latqpa.
It must be added that one of the two
Vatican recensions of
Gregory's
works attenuates the force of the above
quotation by
inserting
after
ovvrqpiOlAyrat
the
following: rap& (1. irpas) y p
B&LKrdovOw obSK drorLoCL
(1.
&arbr
T) dKdBir 700os TO
rdOovs
&XX&
rap'
alpoeems
[read 7rpoLptloews] TOl 70r6ov KplPera-t
Tb
Capnlpto.
This
statement,
that
martyrdom
is to be
judged
not so much
by
the actual
issue as
by
the readiness to
suffer, points
doubtless to the idea that
John escaped;
but
while there would be
strong
reason
why
a scribe should insert such a
gloss,
it is most
unlikely
that
finding
it before
him,
he would excise it.
And,
besides the extreme
difficulty
of
referring
Trovlro
rpas
to
anything
else than the termination of
life,
the
context,
both that
preceding
and that
following, appears
to exclude the idea of
escape.
7 In
Matthaeum, MIGNE,
Vol.
LXV, p.
620.
8
Ibid.
9
Opus imperfectum
in
Matthaeum, MIGNE,
Vol. LXIV. Critics are of
opinion
that this work comes from another hand than
Chrysostom's.
But the
"spuriousness"
of course increases the value of the
passage
in this
present case,
as
providing
the tes-
timony
of an extra witness.
Io roXXLKcr dCtr
cave.-De
pet. fil.
Zeb.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
542
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
from the
implication
of Matt.
20:23;
Mark
Io:39,
was
inevitable,
and hence
the
extraordinarily
wide
acceptance
of such miracles as the
poison-cup
and
the
boiling
caldron. Do these command more
respect
than
any
other
prodigies
found in the
Acta
Apocrypha
of the same
period
?
As
regards
the
poison-cup, hagiology
shows
many examples
of the
transference of details from an obscure saint to a more
famous;
and
Papias's
record of the
escape
of
Joseph
Barsabbas from a
cup
of
"viper
poison"", supplies
a
starting-point
for the idea of such a miracle. The
transference to
John
was
probably
the
easier, owing
to the fact that from
him,
as a
virgin,
Christ was said in Encratite
parlance
to have "taken the
poison
of the
serpent,"
i.
e.,
sexual desire.12 As to the
boiling
caldron
Renan,
with one of his brilliant
flashes,
has
suggested
that a historical
origin may possibly
be found in
John's having
been smeared with
pitch,
not
boiling indeed,
but
warm,
to serve for one of Nero's flambeaux. But
from flambeaux to
caldron
is a
long leap.
And if there is
antiquity
in
Jerome's
statement that
John,
instead of
being hurt,
was
reinvigorated
by
the
boiling oil,'3
then what we have before us looks like the
rejuvenating
caldron of
Medaea; perhaps
the more
appropriate
in view of the tradition
of
John's longevity.
Whether the
"boiling
water" above mentioned-
from
which, however, John
did not
escape-is
more than a variant of the
boiling
oil
may
be
doubted;
but if an
independent origin
be
sought,
such
may
be found in some transference from the
history
of the
Baptist,
at whose
entry
into the
Jordan
for Christ's
baptism,
so we
frequently hear,
"the
waters
boiled,"
and the
Baptist "escaped."'4
Of
course,
there remains
the
alternative, perhaps
a
probable one,
that
boiling oil,
or
boiling water,
was
actually
the instrument of
John's martyrdom,
and that the
escape
was
simply
a device for
reconciling Syriac
traditions with
Ephesian.
If
martyred,
when ? Professor Schmiedel has
suggested
that it was on
the same occasion as his brother: "He slew
James,
and
John
his
brother,
with the
sword,"
but
against
this one has to
put
the
disparity
of the subse-
z
16P
ixibns.
See DE
BOOR, Neue
Fragmente
des
Papias.
12
FORBES ROBINSON, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, p. 93: "John,
I have sanctified
thee,
and have taken from thee the
poison
of the
serpent." Cf.
Acta
Apocrypha,
ed.
TISCHENDORF, p. 76; Apocalypses, p. 142:
"Flee from the
serpent,
that his
poison may
not be
poured
into
your
mouth."
"Desire,
which is the venom of the
serpent."
The
common source of this
language
would
probably
be the
Evangelium
secundum
Aegyp-
tios.
'3 Adv.
Jov., I,
26:
"purior
et
vegetior
exiverit
quam
intraverit."
'4 WARDROP,
S.
Nino, p. 27:
"The waters
arose,
the son of Zacharia fled."
Chron. Pasch:
,VEK&b6Xaav,'
r
icc8ara. EPHRAEM: "The waters bubbled."
SEVERUS:
"The waters were made hot."
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
543
quent reputation
of the two
brothers,
which is at least most
easily
accounted
for
by longer activity
on the
part
of
John. See,
for
example,
the inversion
of rank in Acts 1:
13, "Peter, John, James,
Andrew." And what a contrast
between the almost
complete
silence of tradition and
legend
in the case of
James,
and the wealth of
Johannine
literature! Would an
apostle
who
perished
so
early
have been chosen as a
peg
to
hang
these documents
upon
?
Could the author of the fourth
gospel
have come forward as
impersonator
or
literary
executor of an
apostle
so
long
dead ? And
then, again,
there is
the triumvirate of Gal. 2:
13: "James, Cephas, John;"
and
though
the
hypothesis
of a substituted
John,
after the
analogy
of the substituted
James,
is
conceivable, yet
the coincidence would be
extraordinary;
and one cannot
easily postulate
in a second case that
exceptional qualification
which enabled
the Lord's brother to take the
place
of his namesake.
Having adopted
the idea of an
early martyrdom,
and thus discon-
nected the
apostle entirely
from Patmos and
Ephesus,
Professor Schmiedel
naturally proceeds
to discredit the evidence of the existence of two Asian
Johns.
It is a trifle that he
rigidly
confines the evidence of two
Johns
in
Ephesus
to the works of
Dionysius
of
Alexandria, Eusebius,
and the
Apostolic Constitutions, passing
over the Book
of
the
Bee,
where one
hears of
"John,
and
John,
his
disciple;" for, though
some
ingredients
of this book are
very early,
the work itself is late. But how can one
get
over the evidence of the
Apocalypse,
and the second and third
epistles-
whether written
by genuine Johns
or
impersonators signifies
little-the
Apocalypse
with its "I
John
in
Patmos,"
the
epistles
with their local
per-
sonal
detail-except
on the
hypothesis
that there
were,
or had
been,
in
Asia two well-known
Johns,
both
qualified
to address the Asian churches
in a tone of
authority
?
One of the chief
points
that seem to have influenced Professor Schmie-
del's
judgment, viz., Polycrates's only mentioning
one
John,
can be
explained
readily by
the fact that
Polycrates
is
speaking
of tombs: "In Asia also
mighty
luminaries have fallen
asleep;"
and if the author of the
Apocalypse
had died
elsewhere,
had been
martyred
in
Jerusalem,
his name would not
have answered
Polycrates's purpose any
more than Paul's.
If, however,
Professor Schmiedel be
right
in thus
putting
the
martyrdom
so
early,
and
attributing
the
Apocalypse
to other than the
apostle,
then the
Judaically
minded writer whom it seems to be
necessary
to desiderate in his
place
may perhaps
be found in the
person
of
John
Mark. For reasons below
given,'s
it
appears
almost certain that
John
Mark is not to be identified
Is
(a) I
Pet.
5: 3:
"Mark
my
son." But the
companion
of Paul and Barnabas
in
44
A. D. would
by
this time be a
disciple
of more than
twenty years' standing,
and
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
544
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
with
Mark,
Peter's
interpreter.
And the curious coincidence that tradi-
tion makes both the
apostle
and Mark of
priestly descent,
and describes
the
priestly
rTraAov
to
both,'6 is somewhat
suggestive
of a confluence of
personality.
In
any case,
whoever be the author of the
Apocalypse,
the evidence of
the existence of a namesake of the
apostle's
seems almost inevitable. Not
to
repeat
what has been said on this
subject before,
one
may
notice that
in the
Syriac History of
the
Virgin, recently published by
Dr.
Budge,
though only
one
John
is
mentioned,
he is entitled "the
Less;"
a fact
sug-
gesting that,
in the tradition
behind,
some distinction between two
Johns
had been
necessary. Also,
one
may
notice the
strange incongruity
that
appears
in
Polycrates's description
of the
John
who
slept
at
Ephesus.
On
the one hand he describes him as the one that leaned on Christ's
breast,
and, therefore, inferentially,
the author of the most
spiritual
of the
gospels;
on the other hand he describes him as
ultra-Judaic,
decked in the old
Jewish
accoutrements. And
then, again,
he describes him as
tpprvm,
which
in its full sense
(and
the
polemical, pragmatic
tone of
Polycrates
seems to
require
this full
sense)
cannot
easily
be
predicated
of
any John
buried at
Ephesus.
He mentions him second to
Philip, who,
if
piaprv
were used in
other than the full
sense, might
have been so labeled too.
Moreover,
as
he
distinguished Philip
as "one of the
Twelve,"
and also as the father of
prophesying daughters-thus
almost
certainly blending
the
personality
of
Philip
the
apostle
and
Philip
the deacon-there is the more
opportunity
for
suspecting confluency
also in his
description
of
John.'7
in
age
over
forty. (b)
The limitation mentioned
by John
the
elder,
that the
evangelist
was
entirely dependent
on his recollection of Peter's
preaching,
would
scarcely
be
applicable
to so
early
a
disciple
as
John Mark,
a
Jerusalemite,
and
companion
of
Barnabas.
(c) Dionysius speaks
of
John
Mark in a
way
which
proves
that he had not
the
slightest
idea of
identity
with the
evangelist,
traditional founder of his own see.
However worthless
may
be the list of the
seventy disciples by Pseudo-Hippolytus,
yet
the fact that three Marks are there enumerated
(viz.,
the
evangelist, bishop
of
Alexandria;
the cousin of
Barnabas, bishop
of
Apollonia; John Mark, bishop
of Biblou-
polis)
reminds one how thin a thread connects the New Testament Marks
together.
x6 EPIPH., Haer., XXIX, 4; cf.
Passio
Marci, quoted
in
ROUTH, Reliquiae, II,
28:
"Quem quidem
B. Marcum
juxta
ritum carnalis
sacrificii, pontificalis apicis petalum
in
populo gestasse Judaeorum,
illustrium virorum
syngraphae
declarunt: ex
quo
mani-
feste datur
intelligi,
de
stirpe
cum
Levitica,
immo
pontificis
Aaron sacrae successionis
originem
habuisse."
17 A similar
confluence, owing
to
homonymy,
seems to have taken
place
in the
case of Simeon. When
Hegesippus
informs us that
Simeon,
first cousin of the
Lord's,
was
martyred
under
Trajan
at the incredible
age
of one hundred and
twenty,
it is the
most reasonable
explanation
that he is
confounding
a
grandson
with a
similarly
named
grandfather.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
545
Let us now
pass
on from the evidence of the existence of two
Johns
to the
question
of the
credibility
of
Polycrates
and
Irenaus,
with whom
may perhaps
be
joined
Proclus the Montanist. It is not in their favor
that the Asian assertion of
apostolic
claims should be made in fierce con-
troversy. Polycrates,
in the interest of
Quartodecimanism,
and
Proclus,
so it would
seem,
in the interest of
Montanism, magnified
the Asian claims
as
against Rome,
and
pointed
to the tombs of
John
and
Philip
as a coun-
terpoise
to those of Peter and Paul. But it would seem that this claim
was not admitted without
protest.
If Professor Rendel Harris be
right
in
identifying Caius,
the Roman
opponent
of
Proclus,
as one of the
alogi,
there is considerable
probability
that it was on the
ground
of some his-
torical
flaw,
such as is obvious in the case of
Philip,
that Caius
rejected,
not
merely
the
Apocalypse,
but also the fourth
gospel.
When we consider the
previous history
of the
Ephesian church,
the
claim advanced in the latter
part
of the second
century
becomes still more
dubious.
For,
in the first
place, why
did not
Ephesus
become a
patri-
archate?
Jerusalem, Antioch,
and Rome
acquired
that
dignity,
both
by
reason of
being missionary centers,
and also on account of
apostolic
resi-
dence. What a
unique position
of
dignity Ephesus
would have
held,
if an
apostle
resided there
thirty years
after his
colleagues
were
all
extinct! In
the second
place,
would not
any genuine Ignatius
have addressed
churches,
so
recently
under the
apostle's governance,
in the same deferential tone
which he
employs
to the Romans? Would he have ventured to admonish
Polycarp,
if an immediate and intimate
disciple
of an
apostle,
and to teach
him his
religious alphabet
? Does not the same consideration
apply
almost
equally
to an
impersonator
of
Ignatius,
one
writing
not later than
50
A. D. ?
Far more
important
than the evidence of
Polycrates
is that of
Irenaus;
for,
in his
case,
the identification of the
Ephesian John
as one of the Twelve
is clear. We find that
Irenaeus,
too,
had an end to
serve-that,
in
opposi-
tion to recent Gnostic
heresy,
he was
straining every
nerve to
prove
that he
himself, by
reason of his connection with
Polycarp,
was in
possession
of
direct
apostolic
tradition.
Consequently
his
statements,
like those of all
partisans, require rigid scrutiny.
As an
example
of the
length
to which
Irenaeus
allows himself to be
carried
by
his febrile
bias,
one
may
notice his
sweeping
denial of the honors
of
martrydom
to
any
sects outside the church: "The heretics have
nothing
of this kind to
point
to . . . . with the
exception, perhaps,
that one or two
of
them, during
the whole time which has
elapsed
since the Lord
appeared
on
earth,
have
occasionally, along
with our
martyrs,
borne the
reproach
of
the
name."''8
Contrast with this the
acknowledgment
of Asterius Urbanus
x8
Adv.
Haer., IV, 33, 9-
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
546
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
that heretics-Marcionites in
particular-had supplied
"a
great
number"
of
martyrs.'9
Coming
now to the
particular point
under
discussion,
at
every step
Irenasus's
language
leaves him
open
to
suspicion
of extreme
exaggeration.
To
begin with,
he tells us that
Polycarp
had not
merely
met
John
the
apostle,
but also
"many
who had seen
Christ;'"20
and,
even
accepting
the earliest
possible
date that has been
suggested
for his
martyrdom, viz., 155
A.
D.,2
and
admitting
the statement in the
Martyrium
that he reached the
great
age
of
eighty-six,
we still have a
gap
of
forty years
between
Polycarp's
birth
and the crucifixion. Yet
Polycarp
had seen
"many"!
Even could it be
so, yet,
as
they
could
only
have seen Christ in
boyhood,
and been seen
by
Polycarp
in his own
boyhood,
the
evidentiary
value of
Polycarp's testimony
would be less than
Irenasus
represents.
After
speaking
of the
"many,"
Irenmsus
goes
on to state that
Polycarp
"was not
only
instructed
by
apostles,
but was also
by apostles
in Asia
appointed bishop
of the church
in
Smyrna."
In
using
the
plural "apostles,"22
it
appears probable
that
Irenmsus,
like
Polycrates,
was
wrongly identifying Philip
the deacon as one
of the Twelve. And it is
only by making Polycarp's
ordination take
place
at a
very early age,
about
twenty-five,
that even this
younger Philip's
intervention becomes
quite
credible.
Alternatively, considering
that in
2 Cor.
8:23; Eph. 4:II,
the title
"apostle"
is extended to a
younger genera-
tion,
such as Titus and
Timothy,
it is not
impossible
that
Irenasus
is restrict -
ing
some earlier wider use of the
term, by Papias
or
Polycarp,
into a
rigid
reference to the Twelve.
Next,
one
may
notice the
authority
which
Irenmsus
alleges
for his own
startling
notion that
Christ,
when he
suffered,
was
nearly fifty:
"as the
gospel [i. e., John
8:
57]
and all the elders-those who were conversant in
Asia with
John,
the
disciple
of the
Lord-testify
that
John conveyed
to
them that information. And he remained
among
them
up
to the time of
Trajan.
Some of
them, moreover,
saw not
only John,
but other
apostles
also,
and heard the same account from
them,
and bear witness to the state-
ment."'23
Now,
in the first
place, considering
that such an
authority
as
I9
EUSEBIUS,
H.
E., V, 16; cf. ibid., IV, I5.
If Montanist
martyrs
be
included,
the references
might
be
considerably increased;
but it is doubtful whether
Irenaeus
regarded
Montanism
as
heresy.
2o Adv.
Haer., III, 3, 4.
21
An earlier date is
precluded by Polycarp's
visit to Anicetus.
22Adv.
Haer., III, 3, 4.
23
Ibid., II, 22, 5.
The
original
Greek is
partly preserved
in
EUSEBIUS,
H. E
III, 23.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
547
Melito had
distinctly
limited our Lord's
age
to
thirty-three,24
Irenleus
is
here
giving
another
flagrant example
of his one-sidedness: his
object being
to score a
point against
the
Valentinians,
who laid stress on the usual
figures. Moreover,
he never
pauses
to consider whether his own idea
(not
necessarily
that of his
authorities2s),
that the
ministry
lasted
nearly twenty
years,
can be reconciled with the
data,
which he
accepted,
of Luke
3: I, 23.
But
passing
over this indication of
levity,
if we
accept
Irenaeus's
statement
of
authority literally,
that at least three witnesses testified on the direct
evidence of at least three
apostles,
there is no alternative but to
accept
the
"nearly fifty years."
And if
"nearly fifty years"
be inadmissible histori-
cally,
there must be some
misrepresentation
of
authority.
One can
easily
imagine
a statement
by Papias (obviously
the
authority
whom
Irenaeus.
is
building on)
which would account for the statement as we have it.
Papias
probably
said that he had it from the elders who were familiar with
John
the
elder,26
and
among
them
Polycarp,
that
John
the elder had made such
an
assertion;
and
Polycarp
had also known
Philip.
Irenaeus
was
just
the
man
to turn a statement like this into one such as he
gives
us.
Alternatively
as
before,
one
may suppose
some looser use of the word
"apostle"
on the
part
of
Papias.
What
grounds
could
Irenaeus
have had for
identifying
the
Ephesian
John,
who survived "till the time of
Trajan" (i. e.,
later than
98
A.
D.),
with the
homonymous apostle
? In the first
place,
he had before him the
works of
Papias;
but then we find Eusebius in
exactly
the same
position,
drawing
a
precisely opposite
conclusion. And it is difficult to see how
and
why Papias,
if he
had,
or had
had,
an
apostle
of the first rank within
reach,
should have bothered himself at all with second-hand
reports
about
other
apostles;
or have had
any
need of the care and
scrupulosity
in
weighing
evidence with which he credits himself. In the second
place,
Ireneus
had
his own
personal
recollection of
Polycarp's
discourses. But what was this
worth ? In his own
words,
he was
iv
7~
rpO7rl /Or-
v
iXtKL',
CTL Vrats
v;
and
though
it has been
pointed
out that these
expressions
do not
necessarily
exclude the idea of
manhood,
that cannot be said of their context.
Irenmeus
24
RoUTH, Reliquiae, I,
121: "He indicated his
deity by
his miracles
during
the
three
years
that
elapsed
after his
baptism;
his
humanity during
the
thirty
which
pre-
ceded his
baptism." By
the
way,
it
may
be noticed in
passing
that
Irenaeus's dis-
regard
of
Melito,
when Melito did not
suit,
serves to
explain
his similar
disregard
of
Papias's
evidence
(supra, p. 539)
as to
John's martyrdom.
25 Vide
infra.
*6The
fact that a hundred miles or more
separates Hierapolis, Papias's home,
from
Ephesus
will account for
Papias's saying,
as he
appears
to
do,
that his
obligation,
even in the case of
John
the
elder,
was
partly
second-hand.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
548
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
insists on the
fact,
as
something remarkable,
that he can even remember the
place
where
Polycarp
used to
sit,
and what was his
appearance;
and
though
he
professes
to remember the
gist
of
Polycarp's discourses,
he contents
himself with
giving
a
single
direct
quotation.
We
may conclude, then,
that
Irenaus
was about twelve.
But,
even
granting
two or three
years
more,
how much does a man remember of the sermons heard at such an
age?
A few
disjointed
sentences of
Polycarp's,
a
general impression
of
appeals
to the name of
John-that
is all that reason warrants our ascrib-
ing
to
Irenaus.
More
especially might
a hearer of
Polycarp's
have made a mistake as to
identity,
if
Polycarp
referred to
John
his master as
having
seen
Jesus.
The
last man who could
say
"I saw
Jesus" must,
in the
ordinary
course of
nature,
have been one who saw him in
childhood;
and in such a case there
is
nothing improbable
in survival "till the time of
Trajan."
One
cannot,
indeed, lay very
much stress on the
expressions
in
I
John
i: i;
for what
the writer
says
that he has "seen" and "handled" is not the
person
of
Jesus,
but
"concerning
the Word of
life,"
the
Logos
invisible and intan-
gible.
And
Origen's
comment
suggests
itself: "No one is so foolish as not
to see that the word 'hands' is taken
figuratively,
as when
John says,
'our
hands have handled.' "27 But there is
really
much in favor of the idea
that
John
the elder had seen Christ in childhood. The
commanding posi-
tion which he attained
requires
some
exceptional qualification; and,
how-
ever little of real value his
memory might retain, still,
if he had seen with
his
eyes,
and handled with his
hands,
that fact would
ultimately
set him
quite apart. Moreover,
to those who had seen Christ in childhood would
last
be applied
the cherished
promise,
"Some
standing
here who shall not
taste of death." One can understand
how,
after a
century's mist,
such a
figure
would have loomed into
apostolic proportions.
To sum
up, then,
with
regard
to
Ireneus:
Florinus,
whom he
attacked,
might
well have
replied:
"You
say
that
you
knew
Polycarp,
who knew
John,
who knew
Jesus.
If for 'knew'
you
substitute
'saw',
I
may
admit
your
statement;
but the link in all three cases is vitiated
by youth,
or child-
hood. It is the rare
exception
if a child ever realizes those
points
on which
in later life information
appears
most
desirable;
and however
incapable
27 C.
Celsum, VII, 34.
As
confirming
the idea that it is not his
physical
knowl-
edge
that the writer of
I
John
I: I
is
attesting,
but the
certainty
of his
spiritual
convic-
tions,
and also as
showing
that the
expressions
there used were
proverbial,
one
may
notice
Recognitions, I, 17:
"He set forth so
openly
who that
prophet was,
that I
seemed to have before
my eyes,
and to handle with
my hand,
the
proofs
which he
pro-
duced;
and I was struck with intense astonishment how no one
sees, though placed
before his
eyes,
those
things
which all are
seeking
for."
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
549
you may
be of conscious
dishonesty,
what
you
are
doing
with
your pretended
traditional succession
puts you,
for
practical purposes,
almost on a
par
with those
impostors
who found their
systems
on some
Glaucias,
inter-
preter
of
Peter,
or
Mariamne, disciple
of
James,
or
Theodates, disciple
of
Paul."
To turn now from
Irenceus
to the fourth
gospel
itself: Was not Irena~us
justified
in
appealing
to
John 8:57,
"not
yet fifty years old,"
to
prove
his
point
? The evidence
certainly
seems clear that
John
the elder believed
Christ to have been over
forty;
and if the fourth
gospel
came from his
hands, John 8:57
is
explained.
Could an
apostle
have entertained such
an idea ? The
argument
in the above case is vitiated
by
the reflection that
perhaps,
after
all,
the idea
may
be
partly
true.28
But it is
decidedly
diffi-
cult,
if not
impossible,
to make such a concession in the
following
test case
--lately
treated
by
Dr.
Wendt, though
not
very fully-as
to the date of the
commencement of Christ's
ministry.
Did the
public ministry begin
before
or after the
Baptist's
arrest ?
(a)
In Matt.
4:
12 we are
distinctly
told that
"Jesus began
to
preach"
only
after the
arrest;
and a similar statement is found in the
parallel
passages,
Mark
i: 14, 5;
Luke
3: 8, 21;
the
latter,
with its notice that
Christ's
baptism
took
place
"when all the
people
had been
baptized,"
putting
the case more
strongly. (b)
The statement in Matt. 11:
2;
Luke
7:
i8,
"Now when
John
heard in
prison
the works of the
Christ,
he sent his
disciples
and said to
him,
'Art thou he that cometh ?"'
points
in the same
direction;
and if other than the obvious
interpretation
of these
words,
considered
by themselves,
is
possible,
it is
precluded by
the
context,
in
which the least of the
newcomers, recognizing
Christ's true office and
character,
is declared to be on that account
greater
than
John. (c)
Similar
representations
that Christ's
ministry only began
"after the
baptism
that
John preached,"
and that
John's highest
witness to Christ was reference
to an unnamed
superior,
who was to follow at some indefinite
interval,
are
found in Acts
io:37;
I2: 24, 25; 19:4. (d)
The
captious
attitude of
John's
disciples (Matt. 9: 14), during
their master's
imprisonment,
is difficult to
reconcile with the idea that
he,
before his
imprisonment,
had defined his
own
personal relationship
to Christ.
(e)
Most
striking
of all is the casual
artless notice that not
only Herod,
but
many others,
believed that Christ
was
"John
the
Baptist
risen from the dead"
(Matt. 14:2; 16:14;
Mark
6:14;
8:
28;
Luke
9: 7, 19);
which bizarre idea shows
clearly
that the two men
cannot ever have shown themselves
publicly
side
by
side.
28
Not, indeed,
in the
extravagant
form in which
Irenaeus
gives it,
that the
ministry
lasted
nearly twenty years,
but that Christ was older than Luke
thought
when it
began.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
550
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
Thus the
dating
of Christ's
ministry,
as
commencing only
after the
close of the
Baptist's, is,
in the
synoptic gospels
and
Acts,
no mere inci-
dental
chronological note,
excisable as an
error,
but
belongs
to the
warp
and woof of these documents.
Contrast the
Johannine representation, John
i:
15, I9, 37; 5:33. John
receives a
delegation
from
Jerusalem,
and
repudiates
the idea of his own
Messiahship publicly.
The
superior
who was to follow is
already
"in the
midst of
you."
The descent of the
Spirit
at Christ's
baptism
is attested.
And
John points
to him in
person
as "the Lamb of God."
Then,
after
Christ's visits to
Cana, Capernaum, Jerusalem,
which
require
some
weeks,
we find in
John 3: 22-30; 4: I, 2,
that he and
John
are both establishd on
the
Jordan,
so
continuing,
as it would
appear,
for some months. And
John repeats
his
testimony
in more decisive
terms,
which leaves no
legiti-
mate room for
any
further
question among
his
disciples
as to their mas-
ter's absolute
recognition
of Christ's claim and their own
duty
to submit
to it. Thus the
overlapping
of the two ministries is no less of the
warp
and woof of the fourth
gospel
than the
nonoverlapping
is of all other evi-
dence. That the fourth
evangelist
was
fully
conscious of what he was
doing, fully
conscious that he was
contradicting previous evidence,
is
proved
by
his
deliberate,
calculated
assertion,
"for
John
was not
yet
cast into
prison."
Which of these
absolutely incompatible representations
is unhistorical ?
Dispassionate judgment
can
scarcely
fail to
answer,
the
Johannine.
In
the
synoptic gospels
and Acts the
story
is told with no arriere
pensie;
and
there is absolute
congruity. Moreover,
the
subsequent history
of the
Bap-
tist's
disciples-the
fact that a
considerable, perhaps
the
main, body per-
sisted in
preferring
their master's claims to
Christ's,29 corroborates
this
representation.
On the other
hand,
the fourth
gospel
stands
absolutely
alone in its
chronology;
and the motive
(i. e.,
that of
compelling
the sub-
mission of the
Baptist's disciples,
who
appear
from Acts
19: 1-7
to have
had a
special
center in
Ephesus)
is obvious. Could an
apostle
have delib-
erately
distorted facts to such an extent ? Could one so near Christ have
lied ? But it is understandable that one who had little historical knowl-
edge
of his
own, only
such as he had
gained
in
childhood, might
in a moment
of
inspiration supply what,
from an
apologetic point
of
view,
was
requisite.
There remains to be noticed that
standing difficulty
of
John
21:
22,
"If I will that he
tarry
till I come"--a
difficulty
which Professor Schmiedel
evades,
with the remark that it is obscure because intended to be obscure.
The one
thing quite
certain is
that,
of all
explanations offered,
the ordi-
29
Recognitions, I, 60; EPHRAEM,
ed.
MOESINGER, p.
288.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
551
nary
orthodox ones are the
very
weakest. How
great
the
difficulty really
is,
and how
early
there was a
deficiency
in
genuine tradition, may
be
gauged by
the fact that even before the close of the second
century30
there
was
already
current the
legend
of
John's
miraculous
disappearance
and
translation to
paradise.
And the
difficulty remains,
whatever view of
the
authorship
and
authenticity
of the fourth
gospel
be
adopted.
If the
authentic work of the
apostle,
one would
expect
the
prediction
to be
jus-
tified. If the work of an
impersonator
of the
apostle, writing
after the
apostle's death,
one would
expect
this
justification
still more. We are told
by apologists (e. g.,
Dr.
Salmon)
that
John
in extreme old
age
was still in
doubt as to the
meaning
of Christ's
promise,
and wrote to
point
out that the
general expectation
was not
necessarily
well founded. But if there is no
more in the
passage
than
this,
the
objection
lies
that, though
the condition
"If I will" saves a
positive
false
statement,
we are most
distinctly
left with
a
suggestio falsi. Moreover,
while carnal
misunderstandings
like that of
vs.
23,
"Then went abroad this
saying,"
are a
regular
feature of the fourth
gospel (e. g., 2:30; 3:4; 4:11, 33),
in
every
other case these misunder-
standings
are
reported
in order to
bring
out some
deep underlying spiritual
truth. More
especially
should we look for such truth
here,
in an
emphatic
position,
at the
gospel's
close. "No business of
yours" would,
as a termi-
nation of the fourth
gospel,
be
extraordinary.
Another
objection
is furnished
by
the
fact, that,
whereas all
previous
notices of the beloved
disciple
have the effect of
equalizing
him to
Peter,
or
putting
him above
Peter,
here we should have an
insulse,
otiose notice
with no such effect. This last-mentioned
difficulty
is
only
increased
by
3o At
any rate,
at the
beginning
of the third
century;
for we find HIPPOLYTUS men-
tioning,
as to the
mystery
of the Beast's
number,
that
John
was indefinite about
it,
"for when he
appears,
the blessed one will show us what we seek to know"
(De
Antichristo, 50; cf. PSEUDO-HIPPOLYTUS,
De
Antichristo, 21);
and it is
scarcely
neces-
sary
to
point
out that this notion of
John's reappearance
at the end of the world as
one of the
witnesses,
to convict Antichrist and be slain
by him, implies
the idea that
he,
like
them,
had not seen
death, and,
like
them,
must
eventually
be
subjected
to the
inexorable fate of
humanity.
It is
apparently
a
post-addition
to the
Acta
Johannis
(ed. BONNET, Vol. II, p. 216)
which
supplies
the
story
of
John vanishing Undine-wise,
leaving
a
spring
in the
place
where he
lay down;
but we have what looks like an allu-
sion to it in Acta
Philippi (ed. BONNET, p. 58),
where
John
is called
vlbs Papeya (v.
1.
#ap'r.
1D11)
5 rw
rtv rb
iop
rb
i'.
And the
very
wide
prevalence
of the idea that
John
was to be one of the final witnesses
(teste Photio; cf. Pseudo-Methodius,
Scla-
vonic
Daniel,
and Codex
Templariorum
in
John I7: 26), points
to the
legend
of the dis-
appearance being early. According
to
John Malalas, who, however,
is
untrustworthy,
it was even
accepted by Irenaeus,
and
though
the now extant works of
Irenaeus
do
not
support
this
statement,
there is
nothing very unlikely
in
it, seeing
that
Irenaeus
was
the teacher of
Hippolytus.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
552
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
making
the
"coming"
refer to a natural
death,
in contradistinction to
Peter's
martyrdom;
a natural death which would
distinctly
leave the beloved
disciple
at a
disadvantage! And,
besides the
frigidity
of such reference
to mere natural
death,
Peter's
martyrdom
was no less the Lord's
"coming
for
him;"
and
thus,
as Alford
points out,
the contrast between the des-
tinies of the two
disciples
would be lost.
Less
open
to
objection
is the
referring
of the
"coming"
to the fall of
Jerusalem.
Such visitations are
spoken
of as a
"coming,"
e.
g.,
in Rev.
2:
5,
I6:
"Lest I come and remove
thy candle-stick;"
"Or else I come
to thee
quickly."
And it is
very
understandable how the author or read-
ers of
Matt., chap. 24, connecting
the fall of
Jerusalem closely
with the
second
advent,
and
disappointed
as to the
latter,
should after
70
A. D.
try
to
persuade
themselves that in some sense Christ had
really
"come"
already. But,
as I
pointed
out in
my previous article,
this
explanation
will
certainly
not bear to be
surcharged
with the further
hypothesis
that
John
survived the
catastrophe. "Tarry
till I come and
thirty years
after"
would leave the
promise singularly pointless.
And
John
still in doubt
as to the
meaning, years
after the
promise
had been fulfilled! Besides
what credit would it reflect on
John, merely
that he was for a few
years
to survive Peter ?
No,
there must be some
genuine significance
in
John 21:22, standing
in the
emphatic position
it
does,
and the effect must be
John's special
exaltation. The
following explanations supply
these
requisite qualifica-
tions:
(i)
Strauss's-that the fourth
gospel
was
designed
to
supersede
previous gospels;
that
John's high spiritual teaching
was to be
perma-
nent as contrasted with
Peter's;
and he notes that the writer
immediately
proceeds
to
speak
of the
authorship.
The obvious
objection
to this is
the
difficulty
of
supposing
that the writer who had
just
recounted Peter's
pastoral
commission would
proceed
to indicate that Peter's
teaching
was
to be
ephemeral. (2) Jerome's-that
there is a reference to
John's
vir-
ginity; "Quid
ad te si eum volo sic esse ?" To be a
virgin, says Jerome,
is to be immortal:
"Virginitatem
non
mori."31
We do find in the Dor-
mitio
Marice
and Pistis
Sophia32
that
John's virginity
is made the
ground
for
equalizing
him
to,
or
putting
him
above,
Peter. And one
might
com-
pare passages
in Methodius and the A
cta
Thomce,
where
chastity
is
styled
"the root of
immortality."
It
is, indeed,
difficult to extract this
special,
definitely
restricted sense from
John 21:22, seeing
that the
gospel
contains
3' Adv.
Jov., MIGNE, Vol. XXIII, p. 246.
32
Cf.
Judicium
Petri, HILGENFELD, Evangelia
extra
canonem, p. iii,
where
John
heads the
apostolic
list. These authorities
exalting John
seem to have a common source
in the
Evangelium
secundum
Aegyptios.
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE
553
no reference to
virginity.
But if for
virginity
we substitute
John's deeper
spiritual perception, deeper
than Peter's
(20:8; 21:7), something
similar to
Jerome's
idea seems sustainable. "He that believeth in me shall never
die;" "John's
union with me shall be continuous." It is noticeable that
before in this
gospel,
when
"coming again"
is
spoken
of
(14: 3, 18, 19, 21,
23, 28),
it is not so much the
resurrection, paraclete,
or the advent on the
clouds that is alluded
to,
as the realization and
indwelling
of Christ in the
hearts of believers. The weak
point
in this mode of
interpretation
is that
it
scarcely
allows the natural force to "until "-an
expression
which cer-
tainly
seems to fix a definite terminus ad
quem. (3)
Ireneus's-that
the
reference is to
John's
vision in
Patmos; "cujus prora
ac
puppis,"
remarks
Bengel,
"est
frequens
illud ac
sollenne, 'venit,' 'venio;"'
Ireneus's
words
being, "Joannes
in
Apocalypsi
sacerdotalem et
gloriosum Regni ejus
videns
adventum." True that the
Apocalypse
is not the
advent,
but a
prophecy
of the
advent; but, strange though
it sounds to modern
ears,
the
apoca-
lyptic thought
of the time dated
events,
not from the time of their actual
occurrence on
earth,
but from the time of their
predetermination
in the
divine
will;
indeed one
might say
their
heavenly
enactment. Thus we
find Dr. Wendt
saying:
"It was a current
conception
of
Jewish theology
that the messianic
blessings
had a
heavenly
existence before their
earthly
realization." Proofs of this mode of
thought might
be
multiplied;
but
it is sufficient here to cite the
Apocalypse
itself: "the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world":
"Write,
for these
things
have come to
pass."
There is this additional merit in the reference of
John
21:22 to the
Apoca-
lypse, that,
as in the
very
next verse
authorship
is
spoken of,
"This is the
disciple
who testified these
things,
and wrote these
things,"
the statement
serves as a
literary
identification. The
Apocalypse being already
a rec-
ognized
work of
John
the
apostle,
vss. 22, 23,
hitched the
gospel
on to
the same
authority. Moreover,
one
may
observe that the
possible points
of differentiation between Peter and
John are,
after
all, limited;
and the
process
of exhaustion seems now to be
complete.
The conclusion
follows,
I
think,
that
John
21:22 cannot be made evi-
dentiary against
the idea of
John's martyrdom.
The evidence
against
that idea is all
of
it
dubious,
and is more than counterbalanced
by
that
on the other side.
F. P. BADHAM.
THE
TEMPLE,
London.
[P. S.-Since
the
foregoing
article was
written,
Profe3,sor
Bacon,
of
Yale,
has
published
on the same
subject
in the Hibbert Journal. He
adopts
Professor
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
554
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
Schmiedel's
views,
but carries them still
farther, denying
that even
"John
the
elder" was at
Ephesus.
He is of
opinion
that both
John
the elder and Aristion
were
Palestinians,
the former
perhaps
to be identified with the
Jerusalemite
"bishop"
of that name
(Eus.,
H.
E., IV, 5),
and the latter with Aristo of Pella.
Papias
and
Polycarp,
he
suggests, may
have met
John
the elder in Palestine.
Granted that
Papias's expressions,
considered
by themselves,
leave this
explana-
tion
possible, yet
do the attendant circumstances allow it ? I venture to
suggest
that in
the
face of Rev.
1:4, 9,
and
of
2 and
3 John-to say nothing
of the
Acta
Joannis, Polycrates, Irenaeus,
Proclus-Professor Bacon is
assuming
the
possi-
bility
of too much smoke in
Ephesus
without
any
fire.-F. P.
B.]
This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 [Link] AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions