* Though Lightfoot, Ign. and Polyc.^ vol. I. p. 432, quotes passajj'es showing the extreme looseness with which such words as vebif were used.
jx Totiitit fjLa.iir,ffut rvto-C^evrcu rii ^^Ln'^ ivoZtrau a.i/rji aim f*t iivetffSat k'tiT, x«ii Tit rim sf Z xeidt^c/Altai 3jfXc>-ire i f*a»afii§i llokCxttfitret, Kxt ritf xpethnui aijTtfo Kv.\ rtt( Cniout luLt rot X"/"^' XT^px rov Jioy xai rxt rcu roiu^rac CiitLt xol'i rcct itct^t^iif tL( irttttr* Tpoi ri r^^Oor *«J Tr* f^rit 'lauitvteu rutxta^rpa^y,* ur o-rKyyAXt tuH ry,t fMrit r-2t/ XdiTu* T&i, ia/pstxirat* rot Kvpiot xxi a>; ttxtuty;f.ootiui rovt Xcyout otirMV juti wipi rou JCupiou ritet %* « Toop' ixfitttt uKlxou, Ma>l wipi TMt iuvxiuon etvToij XMi wlp'i rr,c iiiotffXMXictt if ^OLOot rut OL'^ro^rSt r^f t,oni< rov Xoyov rotpuXfifo/! o lloXuxapirof aTr,yyf\X. roLtrtt rufjL^tao rooit yptc^etie.
JOHN, APOSTLE
JOHX, APOSTLE
6S3
natural, and it would require very considerable positive evidence to overthrow it.
Such evidence is not forthcoming. The two fragments which bear on the question are less convincing than the passage from Irenreus, but their natural meaning is consistent with the above interpretation of Irenaeus. Polvcrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing to Victor of Kome about A.D. 180, mentions various distinguished persons in the early history of the Cliurch who are buried in Asia Minor. Amongst these he names the Apostle Pliilip, John the Apostle, and Polycarp. He is a person of importance, a bishop liiiuseff, belonging to a family which has given 7 bishops to the church, and he describes himself (probably) as 65 years old {i^'^KOvra tt^vtc fr-rj yeyovujs iv Kvpiifj). This would bring his birth to the year A.D. 115. He describes the work of the apostle at Ephesus in the words iy^urtdi) Upcirt t6 n^aXov TreipoptjKujt. If the evidence of Irena-'us is invalid, doubtless the probability is increased tliat Polyerates hjus made a similar confusion, and has mistaken John tlie Presbyter for John the Apostle. If, however, Irenanis may be trusted in his account of Poly- carps teaching, then Polyerates becomes an in- de[iendent witness to the state of things described by Polycarp, and a witness of some importance. He bears testimony to the existence of tliis tradition in the ecclesiastical circles at Ephesus, and he had probably extremely good opportunities of knowing what these were.*
Lastly, we come to Papias. It is to a fragment of this author that we owe our knowledge of the existence of the Presbyter John. In a passage from the Prologue to his lost work, Expositions of tlic Oracles of the Lord, which Euscbius quotes (JIE III. xxxi.\.), Papias explains his method. He has not paid attention to those who have much to SJiy (rois ri. TroWd Xiyoi^aiv), but to those who teach the truth. He has collected and examined the sayings of those who followed the elders (ef jtou A'tti 7caipaKo\ovOy}Kii3^ ris rots Trpfu-^vT^pots) : endeavour- ing to ascertain 'what Andrew, or Peter said, or what Philip, or Thomas or James ; or what John or Matthew or any of the disciples of the Lord : and what Aristion anil the Presbyter John the disciples of the Lord say.' Papias is not so good a witness as the others. Eusebius describes liim as aixiKpbs Tin ►oCi', and he certainly seems to have made statements on the authority of John and the elders which are in themselves ridiculous, and can never have come from any one who knew the Lord. The passage mentioned above does not ]jrove that Papias was a disci^de of the Apostle John ; and Papia.s shows liimsell capable of serious confusion in re^'ard to St. John's doctrine. But, in the light of the passage in tlie letter to Florinus, Papias' statement that he endeavoured to ascertain in Asia Minor what John and other apostles had
* The aiithorit}* of Polycratea has been assailed on another flfrouiul. It is satfl that, when ho speaks of Philip ttie Apostle as bciii^ at Hierapolis, he tias confused him with Ftiilip the Kvan- ^clist ; hence that ho mijrht easily have confused John the Apostle with John the Presbyter. The question turns on the allu- ^Mii tx I'lnlip - ilaiik'hlcrB. l.iik.- t ,\.- "Jl". 'J -ny« tlftlnitoly that Philip [hf HviinKi'iif't. 'one of the seven," huil four daiiBhters nmp0t*t4 xfecnn^f-^reu. Polyerates atlirnis that Philip the .\postle had three daughters, two of wtiuni jjrew old !ui viru'ins, and the other i> eiy>M thuu^ti iT«>jTii^raiuitr. dic<l and was Ijuricd at EphcNviB. CK-in. .Mex. (iCus. //K iii, 30) quotes Philip as one of the a|>oatles who did not fortiid marriage, as he rat Ovyttrifixt Mti^rit i£<owxi>. Papias (KuM. Hi! 111. xwix.) speaks of Philip the Apostle anionic hisauthorilies. The Iiialo<jue bfUC'-i'n Caitu and t'roftut (KuM. II H iii. al) represi'Uls Philip Evnnt;. with four <laui:ht*rs— as having livcil at lliera|>oli8. The authority of the DiaJiojtu is by some adiluced to jirove the confusion in Polyerates" letter. This seems unnecessary. The DiaUfjue is later in time, and remote in its origin (Italy as a^cainst Kphesus), and is manifestly under the inlluence of the Acts. The state- ment of Polyerates is precise, and tint identical with that in the Acts, We know there were two Philips, and It is not impossible that one had three daii^htcn, and the other (our. Cf. Li^ht- foot, Colottiant, pp. 46, 40.
taught, may at least stand as an additional ground for believing that St. John had dwelt at Ephesus.
We are, fortunately, not concerned with tha further and more complicated question of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, but only with the residence of St. John at Ephesus. The evidence alleged is fragmentary. Even with the addition of the Muratorian Fragment, which conlirms what haa been already produced, it is less than we could wish. But in a case like this the important point is not so much the extent as the character of the evidence that is to hand. And it is to be noticed that all the three authors we have named are men who would have had the best opportunities of knowing about this matter. We nave only fragments of their works, but they were not fragmentary. They cover a century between them — a century of vigorous and active Christian life; and they all of them held office in their several churches. " We have not pressed the evidence of the Mnratorian Fragment, because of the uncertainty of its origin, and the comparative lack of a true context in which to place it. But these difficulties do not attacli to the evidence of Irenoeus, Polyerates, and Papias. Their relation to the age in wliich they lived c,in be denied only at the expen.'^e of the surrender of the largest portion of 2n4 cent, history.*