(4) The evidence of the Martyrologies also points to the same tradition, even if they are capable of another explanation. The Syriac Calendar which Erbes {ZKG xxv. [1904]) dates 411, and 341 for the part concerned, gives for Dec. 27: 'John and James, the Apostles, in Jerusalem.' Bernard's explanation that such a celebration does not necessarily imply martyrdom (see Irish Church Quarterly, i. [1908] 60 ff'.) is not altogether convin- cing. The Latin Calendar of Carthage also gives for Dec. 27 : ' Sancti Johannis Baptistae, et Jacobi Apostoli, quem Herodes occidit,' which may possibly point the same way, as June 24 is the day of commemoration of the Baptist. And according
to Clemen [op. cit. p. 444) the Gothic Missal, ' which represents the Galilean Liturgy of the 6th or 7th century,' represents James and John as martyrs.
The evidence is certainly not negligible. Whether the tradition owes its existence to attempts to in- terpret the Synoptic saying, or is a reminiscence of actual fact, is in the light of our present knowledge difficult to determine. From the available evidence we must regard the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee as probable. But as to time and place our ignorance is complete. Erbes' suggestion that the son of Zebedee met his death in Samaria in the troubles of the year 66 {ZKG xxxiii. [1912]) cannot be discussed fully here. It cannot be said to have risen above the class of ingenious conjectures, out of which it is unsafe to attempt to reconstruct history. The Synoptic saying about the cup and baptism (Mk 10^**) is certainly insufficient proof of actual martyrdom. St. Mark, and even the other Synoptists, have much matter which later reflexion found it necessary to modify or did not care to emphasize. But everything was not cut out which caused difficulty. And we may perhaps venture to say that there are traces of modification and omission in regard to this very saying which suggest that it did cause difficulty. St. Matthew drops the mention of the baptism, retaining only the drinking of the cup, and St. Luke omits the incident altogether. The position assigned to John, as compared with James, in the Acts would be difficult to explain if he met with an early death.
4. John's residence in Ephesus. — Even if the story of John's death at the hand of the Jews is historical, it does not exclude the possibility of his residence at Ephesus, though it certainly over- throws the traditional account of his long residence there till the reign of Trajan and his wonderful activity in extreme old age as the last surviving apostle and * over-bishop ' of Asia.
In the question of the Apostle's residence in Ephesus we are confronted with another problem of which our present knowledge ofiers no certain solution. The absence of any reference to such a residence in the later books of the NT affords no conclusive evidence against the possibility that John visited Asia and resided there. The silence of the Ignatian letters is more significant. Why are the Romans reminded (Ep. ad Bom. iv. 3) of what Peter and Paul did for them, and the Ephesians addressed as IlaiJXoi; avfji-fi^iarai (Ep. ad Eph. xii. 2), while there is no mention of John in the Ephesian Epistle? The immediate occasion of the reference to Paul — the passing through Ephesus of martyrs ' on their way to God ' — pre- cluded the mention of John. But the reference in the preceding chapter to the presence of apostles at Ephesus (xi. 2 : ol Kai rdis dirocrTdXon irdvTore ffvvrjaav) — even if awijaav and not ffwyvecav be the true text — is not much to set against the absence of any direct reference.
The fact that Polycarp never mentions him in his Epistle to the Philippians has very little bear- ing on the question. The natural interpretation of Papias' Prologue is that at the time when he was collecting his information (c. A.D. 100) John the son of Zebedee was dead. His name occurs in the list, introduced by the past tense tI elirev ; as contrasted with the dre "Kiyovffiv which follows. But this does not preclude an earlier residence at Ephesus.
It is probable that Polycrates of Ephesus, in his list of the fieyd\a aroixela. of Asia which he gives in his letter to Victor of Eome (A.D. 190), regards as the son of Zebedee the John whom he places — no doubt in the chronological order of their deaths — after Philip ' the Apostle.' But his account of the eirKXT^dios is clearly legendary, and sufficient time had elapsed since the death of the John ol
628
JAMES ABB JOHN
JAMES, THE LOED'S J3E0THEK
Ephesus (? 110), to whom he refers, for the growth of confusion, whether ' deliberate ' or unconscious.
The evidence against the Asiatic residence of the Apostle which Corssen (ZATIF v. [1901], p. 2 If.) finds in the Vita Poli/carpi has been carefully discussed by Clemen (p. 421). It is not conclusive.
It is ini])Ossib]e to repeat in detail the well- known evidence of Iren.Tus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, for the accei^ted tradition of their time. It is too wide-spread to be derived from any one single source, and is difficult to reconcile with the view that the son of Zebedee had no connexion at all with Asia and Ephesus. However we interjiret the relation of Irenieus to Pohcarp, and the former's account of the latter in his Letter to Elorinus, we cannot be sure that the John of whom Polj'carp used to speak was really the Apostle and not the ' Elder,' or the author of the Apocalj'pse (if tliese two are not to be identi- fied). Justin's attribution of the Apocalypse to the Apostle proves that the tradition connecting his name with Asia is at least as old as the middle of the 2nd century. And if Irenfeus derived from Papias not only the words of the Elders but also the descrijition which he gives of them, the words 'non solum Joannem, sed et alios apostolos' (Iren. II. xxii. o) would show that Papias also knew of the ti'adition.