The reference to one ' who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord' seems to point unmistakably to the Apostle, but two statements of Polycrates seem to some to run counter to this : (1) That he was a priest and wore the saoerdoul plate (ri TETaAov). From the fact that Epiphanius {HcBr. xxvii. 14) says the same of James the brother of the Lord, it is probably a purely figurative statement, indicating the exalted and revered position of these men among their Christian brethren. (2) The other counter-statement is derived from the notice given of Philip in this same letter. It is claimed that Polycrates has clearly confused the .\postles and Evangehsts, hence he may have in the same way confused John the Apostle with John the Presbyter. The whole question turns upon the allusion to the daughters of Philip. Briefly stated, the disputed evidence is this. Papias, the earliest witness, places Philip among the Apostles (HE iii. 39). Then he goes on to relate a wonderful tale which he heard from the daughters of Philip. There is no indication whatever that this is not the same PhiUp just referred to. Polycrates now follows with his testimony that among those who had died in Asia was ' Philip, one of the Twelve Apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two virgin daughters and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus ' (HE iii. 31). Again the reference to the Apostle is clear. Clement of Alexandria declares that the Apostles Peter and Philip had children, and that Phihp gave his daughters to husbands (Strom, iii. 6). From all this it is clear that the Apostle Philii; had daughters. So far there seems to be no con- fusion. If this comes in at all, it appears in a statement of Proclus, who, speaking of the death of Philip and his daughters, says: 'After this arose four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there, and the tomb of their father' (HE iii. 31). The close resemblance of this record to- the statement in Ac il" makes it appear that the Evangelist is referred to ; but even if the identification of the two Philips be here allowed, it is made comparatively late, and need not involve Polycrates. 'The report of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of Proclus, because, in the first place, Polycrates was earlier than Proclus: in the second place, because his report is more exact, and it is hard to imagine how, if all four were buried in one place, the more detailed report of Polycrates could have arisen, while on the other hand it is quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but inexact account of Proclus ' (McGiffert on Eusebius. i/i loco). It should be noted also that we have in Polycrates, as a contemporary of Irenious, an independent witness.
(c) It is in connexion with the story of the young convert who subsequently became a robber that Clement of Alexandria speaks of John's residence in Asia. The value of this testimony lies in the fact that Clement, in gathering memoranda to be ' stored up against old age as a remedy against for- getfulness,' had collected traditions handed down ' from the holy Apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father.' As Drummond says of this witness, ' It seems probable that we have here a distinct line of tradition which affords independent confirmation of the statements of Irenaeus and Polycrates.' The clearness, posi- tiveness, and fulness of the witness of these three.
JOHN THE APOSTLE
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
869
taken to^'ether with tlie personal relations invoheil, affords adequate basis for the general belief of the Church that in the latter part of his life John made his home in Ephesus.
2. Begardinri John's banishment to Patmos. — The discussion of the deliverances of tradition in regard to John's exile in Patmos is vitally con- nected with the authorship of the Apocalypse (see art. ' John, Gospel of,' in Hastings' DB ii. 707 ff. ). The references to this fact are quite numerous in the Fathers, and berin with Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190). Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epi- phanius, Jerome all speak of it, but do not agree as to the time of it. Epiphanius (Hcer. 12) assigns it to the reign of Claudius, while Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerome place it in the reign of Domitian. Internal evidence from the Apocalyi^se itself favours an early time, while tradition is explicit about the later date. All testimonies to the exUe are probably based upon the statement found in Kev 1", and this gives no real foundation for any banishment at all. If John was in Patmos, it may be that he went thither, as Weiss supposes, to find a religious retreat, or, as others think, to avoid persecution.
3. Begardinfi John's death. — In accord with the statement of Irenaius that ' John remained among them (the disciples) in Asia up to the time of Trajan' (adv. Hmr. ii. 22), it has been generally believed that the Apostle lived to a ripe old age, and died quietly at Ephesus. Of late this opinion has been earnestly disputed, on the basis of a statement found in the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolos (9th cent.), which reads, 'Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, declares in the second book of the Oracles of the Lord that John was put to death by the Jews.' This testimony has been confirmed by the de Boor Fragment, which ex- pressly says that Papias tells in his second book of the death of James and John at the hands of the Jews. Of course, if John the Apostle died in this way, there is nothing left but to take some other John as the John of Ephesus ; and all the testimonjr of Irenieus, Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria has a confusion of names underlying it ; also the John of the Apostolic council (Gal 2'') was not the son of Zebedee. All this is by no means likely. Various attempts have been made to account for the record of Georgius— such as Lightfoot's supposition of a lacuna, which was later filled in as we now have it (see Essay on Supernatural Melirjion, p. 211 fi'.); or Zahn s {Forscli. vi. 147-151) oif an interpolation, and that Papias was really referring to the Baptist ; but the more probable explanation is that the statement arose from a desire to find a fulfilment of Mk 1038. 39^ ^T^f^ a, mistaken interpretation of the word luxpTvpCiv, which in its earlier sense did not neces- sarily involve death. It is certainly not easy to understand why Eusebius and others ignored the fact, if such it was.