2. In Acts. — The sons of Zebedee are placed next to Peter in the list of apostles (Ac P^), the name of John being placed before that of James, as in the Lucan Gospel. This is in accordance with the author's view, who assigns to John a place of im- portance second only to Peter in the history of the growth of the Church in Palestine. He is still the companion of Peter, as in the Gospel he was the ' brother of James,' but in Peter's company he is present at the healing of the lame man in the Temple (3^^* ; see esp. v.* : drevl<xas 8^ Hirpos els avrbv aiiv n^'ludvy, and v.^^), and during the speech of Peter which follows. Apparently he is arrested with Peter (4*- ^) ; at their examination the Rulers are said to notice the irapp-qala of Peter and John (4'^), and he shares Peter's refu.sal to keep silence (4i9f.) jjj 314 Peter and John are sent to Samaria in consequence of the spread of the faith there. After the imposition of hands, and the episode of Simon, their return to Jerusalem is recorded. There is no further mention of John in the Acts, except that in the account of his martyrdom James is described as the brother of John (12^). But the position assigned to John is fully borne out by the single reference to him in Gal 2", as one of the ' pillars ' who gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, a passage which alone is ade- quate refutation * of the strange theory of E. Schwartz ( Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedcei), who finds in the prediction assigned to Jesus in Mk 10*" proof that both sons of Zebedee must have been killed by Herod on the same day ! The account in Acts (12^^) of the martyrdom of James at the Passover of the year 44 has been supposed to show traces of modification by cutting out any mention of the death of his brother (E. Preuschen, Apostcl- gesehichte, in 'Leit-i\\\i\,n\\sHandbuch zum NT, 1912, p. 75). The construction of v.^ if harsh, is how- ever not impossible, and the 'Western' addition in V.*, 7} iTr(.xfip7](TLS avrou iwl roiis viaToiJS (D Lat. [vt^* y^rcodj gyj._ [l)luig])^ even if original is adequately ex- plained by the language of v.^ {KaKuicrai riyas).
3. EYidence of martyrdom of John. — The other evidence, however, for the martyrdom of John deserves serious consideration.
* Except on the hypothesis of a very early date for tht Epistle to the Galatians.
JAMES AND JOHX
JAMES AND JOHN
627
(1) Papias. — So long as we had only the state- ment ot Georgius Hamartolus (c. A.D. 850), or perliaps of some corrector of his text, whose addi- tions are found in the Paris MS, Coislin. 305 : ['Iwdfj'ijs] fiapTvpiov Karri^iuTai.. IlaTrtas yd,p 6 'lepa- TrdXews 4TricrKOTros,aiT6TrTT]STovTovyev6/x€vos, €VT(^ Bevripcj) Xdyy tQv KvpiaKWf Xoyiwv (pdcxKei, on virb 'lovdaluv dvrj- pidri, it was possible, in the light of his reference to Origen, to explain the statement as due to homoioteleuton omission in his source of -the Papias quotation, 'Iwdi'i'Tjj [/x^i' iwb rod 'Pw/j-aiuiv j8a<rtXea)s KarediKdcrdT] fxaprvpuv els ndr/j.ov, 'IdKu^os 5e] virb 'Iov5alii}p dvripedT]. De Boor's discovery of the excerpts, probably going back to Philip of Side, in Cod. Baroccianus 142 (Oxford), among which is found the sentence, Hanlas iv t<^ devripip \6y(p X^7ei, oTi 'IwdvvTjs 6 6eo\6yos Kal 'Id/cw/3oj 6 ddek^bs airov iiTb 'lovoaiu)!' dfripidrjaav places the matter in a wholly different position. There must have been some such statement about the death of John, the son of Zebedee, at the hands of the Jews, in Papias' work. As C. Clemen, whose discussion of the whole evidence should be consulted (Die Ent- stehung des Johannesevangeliums), says, this does not prove the historical accuracy of the statement, but it is important evidence of a different tradition from that which represents the son of Zebedee as living on in Ephesus to an advanced old age, and dying a peaceful death. Zahn's suggestion (Introd. to NT, Eng. tr., iii. 206), that the statement referred to John the Baptist, is hardly satisfactory in spite of the clear evidence of confusion between the two afforded by the Martyrologies. In the light of the common tradition, why should anyone have made the mistake? The silence of Eusebius is an im- portant factor in the case, but it is not conclusive, as Harnack (Chronologie, Leipzig, 1897, p. 666) suggests, against the presence of such a sentence in Papias. Eusebius might well suppress as /j.v9iK(IiTepov a statement so completely in contradic- tion to the received tradition on the subject. The real difficulty is to account for the growth of a different tradition at Ephesus, if the tradition of John's martyrdom was known at Hierapolis in Papias' time.
(2) The evidence of Heracleon (see Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. ix. 71) should never have been brought forward. Heracleon is distinguishing between those who confessed ' in life ' and ' by voice ' before the magistrates. No one could have included John among those who had not made the confes- sion Sik (puvrjs, in view either of Patmos or of the legend of the cauldron of oil. His absence from Heracleon's list therefore proves nothing.
(3) The evidence of the tract de Rebaptismate (Vienna Corpus, iii. p. 86), which shows that the saying of Mk 10^^ was interpreted of the baptism of blood, and the testimony of Aphraates [Homily 21), who speaks of James and John following in the footsteps of their Master, if they point to the tradition of martyrdom, also suggest the natural explanation of its origin, if it is not historical, viz. the attempt to find a literal fulfilment of the words of the Lord.