John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint

JOHN, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint. - Author of the Fourth Gospel, of three Epistles and of the Apocalypse.

I. LIFE AND APOSTOLATE

G. was the son of Zebedee (v.) and of Salome (Mk. 15:40 with Mt. 27:56 and 20:20). He was from a well-to-do family, which worked "with hired servants" (Mk. 1:20), and Salome was one of the matrons who "followed Jesus and ministered to him" (Mt. 27:55) "out of their means" (Lk. 8:2f.). His place of origin is unknown.

With his elder brother James, he was called by Jesus to follow him; he received the name Boanerges (v.), a name that was not one of derision or mockery, but of honor, because the brothers were "eminent preachers and theologians" (Theophylact, In Mk. 3:17; PG 123, 523). G. was the beloved disciple of Jesus. Despite his disorderly zeal (Lk. 9:49, 54) and his ambition (Mk. 10:35), he was not only one of the three apostles most intimate with the Master, but was the one "whom Jesus loved"; at the Supper, lying at Jesus' right, he leaned (ὁνοπεσία) on Jesus' breast (Jn. 13:23, 25), and could thus question him in secret. While he stood courageously at the side of the Cross, Jesus entrusted his Mother to him (Jn. 19:26f.). He runs with Peter to the Tomb and is, with Peter, honored with a special prediction (Jn. 20:2, 22f.).

It is debated whether G., on two other occasions, introduces himself into the Gospel narrative: a) at the first calling of the Apostles, an anonymous companion of Andrew leaves the Baptist to follow Jesus (Jn. 1:35, 40); b) in the story of the Passion, "another disciple known to the high priest" accompanies Peter, who introduces him into the courtyard.

The Fathers rarely treat the first question; they often answer the second in the affirmative. The moderns, on the other hand, mostly declare G. to be the companion of Andrew, but do not identify him with the companion of Peter known to the high priest. The G.-Andrew connection is affirmed by some (τινές), according to Chrysostom (who denies it), Theophylact, Euthymius (PG 59, 117; 123, 1179; 129, 1140) and the Catena (ed. J. A. Cramer, II, p. 194). The majority are silent: Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria (PG 14, 180; 41, 916; 73, 217-20), and Augustine, Rupert, Albert the Great (PL 35, 1442; 169, 266). Others doubt: St. Thomas, Maldonatus. The moderns see G. here for three reasons: the vividness of the narrative, the variant of Jn. 1:41 "Andrew finds first (πρῶτος, not πρῶτον) his brother," from which it is concluded that the new disciple also found his brother, that is, that G. led James; James in the catalogues of the Apostles always appears before Philip, which supposes that he was called before Philip (Jn. 1:43).

That G. accompanied Peter (Jn. 18:16) was admitted by Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome (PG 59, 449; 74, 596; PL 22, 1090). Augustine rightly doubts (PL 35, 1932) "fortasse ergo ipse hic est," since in Act. 4:13 G. appears unknown to the high priest.

According to Acts and Gal. 2:9 (he is placed among "the pillars of the Church") G. had preeminent authority in the nascent Church.

Historically certain tradition attests five facts concerning G.: he was the youngest of the Apostles; he had the prerogative of virginity; later he dwelt at Ephesus where, after the exile he suffered on the island of Patmos (Apoc. 1:19), under Trajan in extreme old age he died a natural death. Feast on Dec. 27.

St. Jerome (Adv. Jovinianum, 1, 26: PL 23, 247 [259]) attests "Iohannem tunc [when he was with Jesus] fuisse puerum, manifestissime docent ecclesiasticae historiae." The virginity of G. is affirmed by the Monarchian Prologue (ed. H. Lietzmann, I, p. 13) "ut virgo virginem servaret" (there, however, the legend that G. was a spouse is set forth: Jn. 2:1-11), by Pistis Sophia, 41, 96 (ed. O. Schmidt, I, 42, 148); and by Acta Ioannis, 113 (ed. R. A. Lipsius, II, 1, 212). G.'s dwelling at Ephesus emerges from Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., II, 22, 5 [33, 3]; III, 3, 4 [3]; PG 7, 785, 855) and from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 23, 4: PG 20, 255), who places his retirement at Ephesus at the beginning of the Jewish war (ca. 67 A.D.). Irenaeus, in the passages cited, relates that G. παρέμεινε αὐτοῖς [the presbyters of Asia] μέχρι τῶν Τραιανοῦ χρόνων. Epiphanius (Haer., 51, 12, 2: PG 41, 910): G. "wrote the Gospel after the 90th year of his life"; Agapius of Hierapolis (PG 7, 503): "after the Passion of the Lord he lived 71 years and died in the 6th year of Trajan." Of his death Tertullian says (De anima, 50: PL 2, 780): "Obiit Ioannes, quem in adventum Domini remmunum frustra fuerat spes"; similarly Hilary (De Trinitate, X, 37: PL 10, 372). Porphyry reproached Christ because his prediction of Mt. 20:23 had not been fulfilled in G., since "we know that G. died without martyrdom" (A. Harnack, Sitzungsberichte Akad. d. Wiss., Berlin 1921, pp. 269, 272, 835).

Many episodes of G.'s (Ephesian) life are further narrated, whose historical authority can neither be proved nor denied. Polycarp related that G. "fled from the bath unwashed" because of the presence of Cerinthus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 14, 6: PG 20, 337); and so also Irenaeus (III, 3, 4: PG 7, 853). A certain Apollonius relates that G. at Ephesus raised a dead man (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 18, 14: PG 20, 418). Clement of Alexandria handed down the story of a disciple of G. who became a brigand (Quis dives salvetur, 42, 7: PG 9, 648 f.). Tertullian informs us of the vat of boiling oil "ex quo Apostolus nihil passus est" (De praescr. 36: PL 2, 49), and so does Jerome (In Mt. 20, 22: PL 26, 146 [149]). May 6 is the day of the dedication of the temple "ante Portam Latinam" under Pope Adrian I. Jerome relates (In Gal., 6, 10: PL 26, 433 [462]) that the aged G. always repeated: "Little children, love one another." The Acta Ioannis relate that the venerable old man amused himself with a little sheep and that a chalice full of poisoned wine did him no harm (ed. R. A. Lipsius, I, p. 426). The Arabic Jacobite synaxarion (PG 16, 387) notes on May 11: "thrown into the sea, he was miraculously saved."

Some doubted the death of G., as Ambrose affirms (In Ps., 118, 20, 12: PL 14, 1487 [1564]); Pseudo-Dorotheus (PG 2, 1075) says that G. "lives with Enoch and Elijah." St. Augustine (In Io. tr., 124, 2: PL 35, 1970 f.) heard "a non levibus hominibus, quod in quibusdam scripturis quamvis apocryphis repertur... sibi [Ioannem] fieri iussit sepulcrum incolumemque fuisse praesentem eoque effosso et diligentissime praeparato ibi se tamquam in lectulo collocasse statimque defunctum, ut autem illi putant, non defunctum, sed defuncto similem cubuisse... terra sensim scatere et quasi ebullire perhibetur atque hoc ex eius anhelitu fieri." Similarly Michael Psellus (Spicilegium, ed. J. B. Pitra, IV, Paris 1858, p. 496).

On the magnificent basilica built at Ephesus in the 6th century on the tomb of G., discovered in the excavations of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, cf. Biblica, 13 (1932), pp. 121-24.

At the beginning of the 20th century, many non-Catholic theologians asserted that the apostle John was killed together with his brother James as early as the years 41-44 by King Agrippa I. If this were true, it would follow that the Fourth Gospel, which came to light after the three Synoptic Gospels, cannot be the work of the apostle John. For this thesis, special weight is given to a saying attributed to Papias, as drawn "from his second discourse," preserved by two Byzantine authors. Philip Sidetes (ca. 430) reports the words of Papias in this form: Παπίας ἐν δεύτερῳ λόγῳ λέγει Ἰωάννης ὁ θεολόγος καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀγρρέθησαν (fragment of a Baroccian codex, 142, in Texte u. Untersuch., V, 2, p. 170; ed. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 58; 2nd ed. p. 94; ed. E. X. Funk, Patres Apostol., I, p. 366 ff.). George Hamartolos (9th century) presents the saying of Papias thus: Παπίας... ὁ αὐτόπτης τούτου [Ἰωάννου] γενόμενος φάσκει ἐν τῷ δεύτερῳ λόγῳ τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων ὅτι ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀγρρέθη, πληρώσας δηλαδὴ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφού τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ τούτων πρόρρησιν. Thus the codex Coislessis 305 (10th century); E. Preuschen, op. cit., 58; F. X. Funk, op. cit., pp. 367-70. In both accounts, Papias reports the martyrdom of the two brothers, and indeed hints that this happened at the same time. Aphraates the Syrian (4th century) enumerates after Stephen, Simon (= Peter) and Paul "who were perfect martyrs," James and John, "who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the master" (Demonstratio, 21, 23: Texte und Untersuchungen, III, 333, 4, p. 348, and Patrologia siriaca, I, 988). A Syriac Martyrology, written by an Arian in 411, which contains "the names of the lord martyrs," notes under 27 Dec.: "John and James apostles in Jerusalem" (ed. R. Graffin, Acta SS. Novembris, III, 1, Brussels 1894, p. [LII] and H. Lietzmann, Kleine Texte, 2, 9).

Poggiandosi su questi testi, molti moderni proposero la tesi della immatura morte di G. con a capo Ed. Schwartz (Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei [Abhandlungen Göttingen, phil. hist. Klasse, N. F., 7, V], Berlino 1904; Nachrichten Göttingen, 167 [1907], p. 266; Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 11 [1910], pp. 89-104). Lo stesso aveva già accennato W. Bousset (Apokalypsis Jo., Gottinga 1896, p. 47). Lo seguirono principalmente: J. Wellhausen, Evang. Marci, Berlino 1903, p. 90 (2ª ed., ivi 1909, p. 84), id., Johannes, ivi 1908, p. 100; Ad. Jülicher, Einleitung, 5ª-6ª ed., Tubinga 1906, p. 367; 7ª ed., ivi 1931, p. 398; A. Loisy, in Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuse, 9 (1904), p. 33; R. Knopf, Einführung, Giessen 1923, p. 122 sg. (con dubbi; nella 1ª ed., non dubitava: pp. 115, 273); G. Krüger, in Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 52 (1927), p. 247; J. Moffat, Introduction, 3ª ed., Edimburgo 1918, pp. 601-607 che enumera altri fautori, ad es. O. Pfeiderer, Urchristentum, Berlino 1902, p. 411 e W. Bauer, in H. J. Holtzmann, 3, 19.

Ma la maggior parte degli stessi protestanti respinge questa teoria: Th. Zahn, Einleitung, 3ª ed., II, Lipsia 1907, p. 474; A. Harnack, Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 34 (1909), p. 10, e Chronologie, Berlino 1912, p. 665; F. Spitta, in Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 11 (1910), pp. 39-58; E. Riggenbach, Neue kirchl. Zeitschr., 32 (1921), pp. 692-96; P. Feine, Einleitung, 3ª ed., Lipsia 1923, p. 88 (ed. P. Feine-J. Behm, ivi 1936, p. 101 sg.). Tale tesi cronologica è inammissibile. Da Gal. 2, 9 consta che l'apostolo G. era una «colonna» della Chiesa gerosolimitana alcuni anni dopo l'a. 44. Per sciogliere tale difficoltà, Ed. Schwartz dovrebbe porre la conversione di Paolo negli aa. 28 o 29, il che è inammissibile (cf. Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 11 [1910], p. 103).

Neither Philip Sidetes nor George reported Papias' words exactly: a) Philip calls John "theologian." But this title was unknown to the earliest writers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen); it occurs finally in Peter of Alexandria (PG 18, 519), Athanasius (PG 25, 84 C), Eusebius (PG 24, 880). b) George adds a badly cited text of Origen (PG 13, 1385), and has him affirm ότι Ἰωάννης μεμαρτύρηκε; but Origen says exactly that James was killed by Herod, and John exiled to Patmos by the King of the Romans.

It is clear that Papias did not speak of G. the Evangelist, but of John the Baptist, and that those two Byzantine authors confused the two Johns, as often happened. Oecumenius, Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus, explaining Hebr. 11:35, unite the martyrdom that James and John suffered by decapitation. The third explicitly adds to the name of G.: ὁ Πρόεδρος, the others add nothing: they must have preserved the form chosen by Papias, while the third adheres to the sense. Gregory of Nazianzus, among the victims (σφάγια) killed for Christ, enumerates Ἰωάννην ἐκείνον, Peter, James, Stephen, not G. the Evangelist (PG 35, 589).

Più complessa è la controversia circa l'altro Giovanni, il «presbitero» efesino discepolo di Cristo, distinto da G. apostolo.

Dionisio Alessandrino (m. nel 264 o 265), secondo Eusebio (Hist. eccl., 7, 25, 16: PG 20, 701), riferisce che ad Efeso si mostrano due sepolcri «di G.». Quindi Eusebio, fondandosi su Papia, distinse due discepoli di Cristo. Lo seguono: il «catalogo di Damaso»: «Iohannis apostoli epistola una, alterius Iohannis presbyteri epistolae duae» (Denz-U, 84), s. Girolamo (De viris ill., 9: PL 23, 623 [655]), Filippo Sidete (Texte und Unters., 2, p. 170; ed. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 94), le Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 46, 7; ed. F. X. Funk, I, 454) e molti autori posteriori.

The text of Papias (ca. 130?) enumerates immediate witnesses, from whom he drew his knowledge of the life of Christ: «If ever someone who had followed the presbyters (παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις) came my way, I would eagerly question him (ἐνέκρινον) about the sayings of the presbyters, what (namely) Andrew or Peter said (εἰπεν), and what Philip, Thomas, James, or what John (ἡ τί Ἰωάννης) or Matthew or some other disciple of the Lord (ἡ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν), or what Aristion and the "presbyter" John, disciples of the Lord, say (ἡ τε Ἀριστῶν καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης τοῦ Κυρίου μαθηταὶ λέγουσιν: Hist. eccl., 3, 39, 4). This name of John recurs twice, in the two lists of disciples; rightly, therefore, it seems that Eusebius distinguished two disciples named John; he professes to be a disciple of the second, not of the first (n. 7): Ἀριστῶν ἀνέκρινον τοῦ πρεσβύτερου Ἰωάννου αὐτῆκων ἑαυτῶν φησιν γενέσθαι. Some go so far as to conclude that everything narrated about the dwelling at Ephesus of the "apostle" John rests on the confusion of the two Johns.

The text of Papias must be explained. The bishop of Hierapolis does not distinguish persons, but testimonies, according as they had "passed" ("he said," εἶπε) or were "present," that is, given by men still living ("they say," λέγουσιν) whom anyone could consult. The same person could belong to both categories. Papias would have been incoherent if with the two epithets ὁ πρεσβύτερος τοῦ Κυρίου μαθηταὶ he had wished to distinguish the two Johns. In fact, in the first catalogue he numbers seven Apostles together with the presbyters, and finally calls them disciples of the Lord. Therefore from the words of Papias it cannot be demonstrated that the presbyter J., who explicitly, like the other six Apostles, is called "disciple of the Lord," is distinct from the Apostles.

This distinction, moreover, is excluded by tradition, which knows only one Ephesian St. John. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (ca. 190), against Victor bishop of Rome, in the controversy over the celebration of Easter, enumerates (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 5, 24, 2-6: PG 20, 493-96) "the great luminaries (μεγάλα στοιχεία), who in Asia (taught and) died," men who each year celebrated Easter on the 14th of the spring month nīsin. And they are: the apostle Philip, Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στήθος τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναπέσων, then Polycarp with four other bishops and some prophetesses; no mention whatsoever is made of any other John, who yet as a disciple of the Lord would absolutely have had to be listed. Irenaeus commemorates the presbyters οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν Ἰωάννην τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβηκότες; he adds that some have seen not only John, but also other Apostles. He never distinguishes John from a namesake of his.

Therefore almost all authors, even non-Catholics, acknowledge a single John of Ephesus, for example, Th. Zahn, F. Blass, G. Wohlenberg, J. Belser, who had defended a certain distinction, retracted it (Theol. Quartalschrift, 97 [1915], pp. 161-84). Other authors think that the text was changed, such as Th. Mommsen (Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 3 [1902], pp. 156-58), since the words μαθηταὶ Κυρίου are missing in the Syriac version (ed. P. Bedjan, p. 245; The ecclesiastical history of Eusebius in Syriac, ed. W. Wright and N. Mc Lean, Cambridge 1898, p. 177, 14), where one reads only: Aristion or John "the presbyter." Recently P. Vannutelli defended the two Johns, De presbytero Ioanne apud Papiam, Rome 1933.

II. THE "GOSPEL" OF JOHN

The authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is attested first of all by a man who enjoys historical credit. The one who affirms that John son of Zebedee, and not another, wrote the Fourth Gospel, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Syria. His first work Αντίων χοραχών εξήγησις, in 5 books, was attributed to the last years of Hadrian, ca. 135; today there is a tendency to fix its origin at ca. the year 100.

Eusebius connects the work with the reign of Hadrian and this suffices for its authority. But already from Irenaeus it is clear that Papias flourished ca. 110; indeed the latter seems to indicate that he wrote while the Roman Clement was still alive, who died in 96 (cf. Guhvenger, Papias, in Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie, 69 [1947], pp. 385-416). Papias is of the utmost importance, because he does not use words of his own, but preserves the sayings of the ancient witnesses. Thus the proem of his work preserved by Eusebius (Hist. ecl., 3, 39, 3: PG 20, 296): "I shall not refrain from inscribing in the interpretations what I once well learned from the elders (παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων) and well committed to memory (καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσας), thereby confirming the truth"; there follows the above-cited list of the witnesses. In vain does one object with the judgment of Eusebius that "Papias was of very small intellect" (Hist. ecl., 3, 39, 13: PG 20, 300), because it does not concern the things said by others, which Papias preserved. The text of Papias was preserved in a Latin proem of the Gospels, which at first was known only in two codices (Vat. lat., called Alexandrinus or Reginae, and Toletanus, of the 10th century); now instead it is known in 10 codices (D. de Bruyne, in Revue bénédictine, 40 [1928], pp. 195-214 [especially 198]; C. Schiffer-M. Meineritz, Einleitung, 3rd ed., Paderborn 1921, p. 2ᵃ).

Text of the proem: "Begins the argument according to John. The Gospel of John was published and given to the Churches (in Asia) by John still living in his body, as Papias (bishop) of Hierapolis, dear disciple of John, related in the (his) esoteric (books), that is, in the last five books." The last words badly translate the title of the book "exegetical." According to Jn. 21, 24, the book of John might seem to be his posthumous work, that is, published by another person after the author's death. Papias rejects this opinion. It is therefore not directly a question of the composition of the book, which is clearly recognized by all, but of the edition; this is attributed to that disciple of Christ, whose death was doubted both because of Christ's saying and because of his extreme old age, therefore to the same apostle John. The supreme authority of this testimony comes from the fact that Papias calls himself a disciple of John, and that his testimony is but a short time removed from the composition of the book itself.

The argument is confirmed by the discovery of a very ancient mutilated leaf, from the time of Hadrian or of Antoninus Pius, certainly written before 150: the pap. Ryland gr. 457, which contains the account of Jn. 18, 31-34 and 37-38 in a form in some way already changed from the primitive one (H. Roberts, An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel, Papyrus Ryland gr. 457, Manchester 1935; cf. A. Merk, in Biblica, 17 [1936], pp. 99-101). Therefore, a few decades after its composition, the Gospel was already known in Egypt.

Rightly therefore the Biblical Commission insists, setting aside the theological argument: "with solid historical argumentation it is demonstrated that the apostle John and not another is the author of the Fourth Gospel."

One may add the testimonies of later writers, among which the passages of St. Ignatius stand out, which, although they do not name St. John as author, allude to this by reproducing the Fourth Gospel verbatim. One may moreover form a splendid internal argument, by which it is proved that the author is a Jew, thoroughly familiar with Palestinian geography, one of the three intimates, indeed the same beloved disciple of the Lord (R. Cornely, Introductio in utr. Test. libros, III, p. 226 ff.). As for the purpose of the Fourth Gospel, the readers whom the Evangelist had in mind are not catechumens, but the faithful already mature in religion (1,16: "we have all received of his fullness"). The proximate purpose of the sacred writing is to make them progress in the faith, and through it, in the communion of life (20,31).

In particular, the Fourth Gospel pursues a dogmatic-apologetic purpose: indeed it proves the divinity of Christ, which is defended apologetically against the first heresies, especially those of Cerinthus and the Docetists. John also proposed a historical purpose: indeed he wishes to supplement the Synoptics (by narrating the events they omitted) and to put one on guard lest they be misunderstood (3,24: "for John had not yet been sent to prison": as someone might have concluded from Mk. 1,14; 18,13: "they led him first to Annas," not immediately to Caiaphas, Mt. 26,37; 19,1: "then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him," therefore not when he had already condemned him).

H. Windisch had proposed the theory that John had wished to eliminate the Synoptics altogether (Verdrängungstheorie). M. Meineritz rightly opposed to him his system, according to which John wished organically to complete the Synoptics (Theol. Revue, 27 [1928], pp. 161-70); and more exhaustively F. Sigge, Das Joh. Ev. und die Synoptiker (Neutest. Abhandlungen, 16), Münster 1935.

The modernists deny any historical character to the Fourth Gospel, which would have merely delineated types or symbols (Nathanael of one who seeks Christ, Nicodemus of one who doubts, etc.). But that the Fourth Gospel is a historical book results "ex praxi, quae in primis temporibus in universa Ecclesia constantissime viguit arguendi ex IV Evangelio tanquam ex documento proprie historico" (Biblical Commission, Resp. 25 May 1907). Moreover John has several pericopes in common with the Synoptics: two miracles (multiplication of the loaves, walking on the lake), the solemn entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the supper at Bethany, many episodes of the Passion. Since these parts are equally historical in John and in the Synoptics, the same historical character must extend to the other connected narratives of the Fourth Gospel.

As for the language, the Fourth Gospel was originally written in Greek (Epiphanius, Haer., 30, 3: PG 41, 409). E. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford 1922, maintained that the original was written in Aramaic, but he did not prove his thesis (the Aramaisms suggest only a virtual, not a formal, translation).

For the most part the author observes the grammatical rules well. The exceptions consist in: a) Latinisms: τίτλας (19:19 f.; Vg. ἐπιγραφή), πραιτώριον (18:28; var. αὐλή), λέντιον (13:4 f.); b) Hebraisms, among which first of all the frequent parataxis (10:22); J. has few subordinate clauses: absolute nominative (6:37; 7:38; 15:2); neuter for masculine (6:37: omne quod, and after the parallel τὸν ἐρχόμενον); the personal pronoun is not distinguished from the reflexive (1:47 "Jesus saw Nathanael coming to himself [πρὸς αὐτόν] and says of him [περὶ αὐτοῦ]"). The Hebrew terms are explained: Rabbi, Messias, Cephas, Siloam, Golgotha, Gabbatha, Rabbuni (except Bethesda; wrongly Vg. Bethsaida). But the particles are confused, above all hina, which like the Aramaic de performs every function (it is consecutive: 9:2; objective: 4:47, 17:15; causal: 8:56; equivalent to the relative pronoun: 5:7). Διὰ with the accusative is equivalent to διὰ with the genitive (6:58 bis: "as... I live for the Father [not propter P.] so he who eats me lives for me [not propter me]", and 15:3). Cf. on all this J. Bonsirven, Les aramaïsmes de si Jean l'Evangéliste, in Biblica, 30 (1949), pp. 405-32.

The proper character of J. is to be known thoroughly, as that of the other hagiographers, according to the admonition of Pius

XII (Divino afflante Spiritu, in AAS, 35 [1943], p. 314). The peculiarities of J. are such and so many that "the Johannine question" arose from the difference of the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptics.

First of all, J. relates about Jesus the divine things, not the human ones as his predecessors did. Already Clement of Alexandria notes this peculiarity (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6, 14, 7: PG 20, 551). There is, however, no contrast between the first three Gospels and the fourth, since the Synoptics too relate of Christ the divine things and J. the human ones. Jesus knows the secret thoughts of hearts (Mt. 9:4 and par.), "he will send his angels" (Mt. 13:41); a "Johannine" passage of the Synoptics (Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22); Jesus "is the son of the living God" (Mt. 16:16; 26:64). In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, Jesus makes use of a scourge of cords (2:15); tired, he sits down (4:6); he calls himself "man" (8:40); he spits (9:6); he weeps (11:33); "my soul is troubled" (12:27); "I thirst" (19:28). The enigma lies in the very person of Christ.

The Synoptics, at first sight, present Galilee, J. Judea as the theater of Christ's ministry. This is easily explainable. In Galilee were the simple people, in Jerusalem Jesus had to reveal himself to the leaders of the people. Note, however, what is found in Mt. 23:37: "Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children", and 26:55: "Every day I sat among you (Jerusalemites) teaching in the Temple"; cf. Lk. 10:38; Act. 10:39: "What he did in the region of the Jews and in Jerusalem". Moreover J., narrating how Christ from Galilee "went up" (2:13; 5:1; 7:10, 14), and "went" into Galilee (4:3, 43, 54), and walked there (7:1, 9), hints that Christ's ordinary dwelling was Galilee.

Characteristic is the symbolic nature of J., who orders everything to indicate a higher reality, whether by the works of Christ, or by the persons of the narrative, even by certain words.

Facts: the miracle of water changed into wine and the multiplication of the loaves; Jesus walks on the waters; the man born blind and the dispute that followed; the washing of the feet; while Judas was going out "it was night"; the Mother of Christ, twice introduced into the Gospel story. Persons: Nathanael "a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile"; Nicodemus signifies the hesitant. Phrases: "I have no one" (5:7); the Greeks affirm: "We want to see Jesus" (12:21).

Therefore many non-Catholics asserted that everything reduces to symbolism, denying the historical authority of those facts. It is declared that the Mother of Christ is the Synagogue, from which the Church had its origin (W. Bauer, p. 224). The Biblical Commission rejected this system (29 May 1907). The Synoptics, moreover, also have such symbolic intentions: the three gifts of the Magi (Mt. 2:11); "put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch" (Lk. 5:4); the three languages in which the title of the Cross is written (Lk. 23:38).

The miracles of J. are few (eight), but very important. They increase and specify what is read in the Synoptics.

Instead of "of the blind" there is a "man born blind" (Jn. 9). No sick person, in the Synoptics, has exceeded 18 years (Lk. 13:11): here there is a man who had been ill for 38 years (5:5). A healing is performed at a distance (Jn. 4:47, 54; but similarly Mt. 15:28). But the two miracles narrated together with the Synoptics present no increase, like the miracles reported cumulatively (2:23; 3:2; 6:2). Indeed sometimes the account of the Synoptics is richer than that of J. (the centurion of the city of Capernaum is altogether more perfect than the "royal official" of Jn. 4:46-54).

The discourses of J. differ completely from those of the Synoptics, which take delight in simple words, above all in parables.

The Christ of J. for the most part speaks of himself. Hence the special style "I am" which occurs about 38 times (E. Schweizer, Ἐγώ εἰμι [Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T., 56], Göttingen 1938, pp. 9-46 [formula from Ex. 3:13]). Christ had to reveal himself fighting against the unbelievers.

"The style is too sublime, it is no wonder that such discourses were not understood", observes A. Jülicher (Einleitung, 6th ed., p. 381). But there are no stenograms, rather synopses written with great skill.

It is no wonder that the style of Jesus is uniform with that of John the Baptist and of the Evangelist. In every relation of another's words there is something subjective. The Evangelist formed his style according to the Master's manner of speaking. A continuous dualism is required: God-world; light-darkness, life-sin. The abstracts recur always: truth, life, to bear witness, to believe (never πίστις). That dualism is very real, no less than the other "rich and poor".

How could J. preserve after so many decades the memory of long discourses? The memory of Orientals is marvelous (as, for poetry, among certain Slavic peoples). It is not excluded that at first synopses were made and that parts of discourses were written down verbatim.

It is said that J. has no parables (in which the terms preserve their primitive meaning), but only allegories (continuing the series of metaphors on the same object); thus J. Vosté, Parabolae, I, 2nd ed., Rome 1933, pp. 55, 208. But J. has five true and perfect parables: 3:8 f. (the wind); 4:37 (different workers); 11:9 (traveling by day and by night); 13:10 (the bath); 16:21 (the woman in childbirth). On the other hand in the Synoptics there are allegories (Mt. 3:12 = Lk. 3:17: the reaper who uses the sieve; Mt. 15:13 f.: the gardener who uproots the plant that another has placed in his garden). One must therefore only say: in the Synoptics parables prevail, in J. allegories.

It cannot be denied that in J. there is therefore, in the matter of style, a certain poverty and a certain monotony, because of the same ideas that often return.

As for place and time, the subscriptions of the codices name now the island of Patmos, now the city of Ephesus; the latter prevails. Thus the "Prologue" (Revue bénédictine, 40 [1928], p. 198): "J. wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and after this the Gospel in Asia" (cf. Irenaeus, III, 3, 1: PG 7, 845: "he wrote the Gospel ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων"; cf. also H. v. Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I, Berlin 1902, p. 327).

The arrangement of the Gospel is chronological, but it is debated whether chapters 5 and 6 have been transposed. The principle of the arrangement is the Jewish feasts (2:13 the first Passover; 5:1 an unnamed feast; 6:4 the feast of Passover [second or third]; 7:2 the feast of Tabernacles; 10:22 Hanukkah; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1, the Passover of the death.

Prologue: the Prologue (1:1-18); the last testimonies of J. and the first disciples of Christ (1:19-51).

Part 1. Christ manifests his glory through his public teaching (chapters 2-12; subdivision 2-6 and 7-12: the manifestation grows, and with it the faith of the disciples, but also the opposition).

Part 2. Christ manifests his glory through his "departure" (ἔξοδος: Lk. 9:31) which took place in Jerusalem: (13-17) among the disciples; (18-19) among his enemies; (20) risen — The Evangelist's clause (20:30 f.). Supplement added later (21). Clause added by the disciples (21:24 f.).

III. THE THREE "EPISTLES" OF J

There is much diversity in the tradition of the first centuries: the longer or first is a writing that is homologoumenon, that is, accepted by all the Catholic Churches. Thus I Jn. is declared such by Eusebius, while II and III are reckoned, as not everywhere known in the earliest times, among the ἀντιλεγόμενα (Hist. eccl., III, 25, 1: PG 20, 68 f.).

In reality not even I Jn. was accepted from the beginning by the Churches of Syria, in whose canon, down to St. Ephrem, no catholic epistle is named (U. Holzmeister, Prima Petri, Paris 1938, pp. 137-44, cites the individual writers).

For I Jn. there are testimonies as early as the Apostolic Fathers: Papias, as Eusebius reports (Hist. eccl., III, 39, 17: PG 20, 300) "makes use of testimonies drawn from I Jn."; Polycarp, 7, 1 cites it: "Whoever does not confess" (ed. F. X. Funk, p. 648). The Muratorian Fragment (line 69): "Iohannis duae in catholica habentur". Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary (PG 9, 733-38), and uses the letter in his other writings. Likewise Tertullian and Cyprian (Scorpiace, 12; Ep. 23, 2: PL 2, 171), and the writing De sing. Clericorum, 30 (PL 4, 937; CSEL, 3, 3, 206). Irenaeus cites I and II Jn. (C. H. Turner, Novum Testamentum s. Irenaei, Oxford 1923, pp. 190-92) and so does Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 7, 25: PG 20, 707); and the Opus imperfectum, 34 (PG 56, 898): "sicut Ioannes in epistola testatur".

That all three Epistles are genuine is proved by the identity of vocabulary and style with the Gospel of J.; therefore they are treated by non-Catholics in the same way as the Fourth Gospel.

Especially to be noted are certain terms proper exclusively to the Gospel of John and the letters: ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν ἐκ θεοῦ, εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, περιπατεῖν ἐν σκοτίᾳ (νυκτί), παράκλητος, ἁμαρτία, τεκνίον (and Gal. 4:19), τιθέναι ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ (I Jn. 3:16; Jn. 10:11, 17 f., 15:13). Other terms and phrases occur commonly: ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (I Jn. 1:6 = Jn. 8:44); οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐν τινι (I Jn. 1:8; 2:4 = Jn. 8:44); ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι (I Jn. 2:21 = Jn. 18:37); ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι (I Jn. 3:8 = Jn. 8:44); ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι (I Jn. 3:4, 1 = Jn. 7:17; 8:47); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι (I Jn. 4:5 = Jn. 3:23); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλεῖν (I Jn. 4:5 = Jn. 3:31); τῆς γῆς, ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατεῖν (I Jn. 2:11 = Jn. 8:12; 12:35). Likewise "life" (α) is Christ (Jn. 1:4; [6:48]; 11:25; 14:6 = I Jn. 1:1 f.; 5:11, 20); the "light" φῶς is God and Christ (Jn. 1:4, 5, 7; 3:19 = I Jn. 1:5, 7; 2:8).

The division of I Jn. constitutes a great problem. The same ideas, above all faith in Christ, love of neighbor, flight from sin, return constantly. Here is an attempt at division: 1) the ethical thesis (against the sins of lust, the denial of charity, the love of the world: 1:5-2:17); 2) the christological thesis (2:18-27); 3) the ethical thesis is again proposed (2:28-3:24); 4) again the christological thesis (4:1-6); 5) the ethical thesis and the christological thesis are proposed together (thus J. Belser, Johanneische Briefe, p. 9 f., according to Häring, Weizsäckerische Jubiläumschrift, 1892, pp. 173-200). Another attempt was made by Schwertschlager.

II and III Jn. are rightly listed by Eusebius in the class of the ἀντιλεγόμενα (Hist. eccl., 3, 25: PG 20, 268). Already Origen numbers them together with I Jn.: ἔστιν καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην, ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασιν γνησίους εἶναι αὐτάς (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6, 25, 10: PG 20, 584). Eusebius attributes these two epistles to the other John, "the presbyter"; Damasus follows him (Denz-U, 84), St. Jerome (De viris ill., 9: PL 23, 623), the Constitutiones Apostolorum. II Jn. is recognized by Irenaeus (I, 16, 3: PG 7, 634), by the Muratorian Fragment (1, 69: "Iohannis duo..."), by Clement of Alexandria who distinguishes it from the "longer" (μείζων) one and explains it in the Hypotyposes (PG 9, 737-40). III Jn., after

Origen, it is accepted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 7, 25, 12: PG 20, 704; "G. appears neither in the 2nd nor in the 3rd as ἐνουακτῆ"), by the "Mommsen Canon", by Priscillian. Clement of Alexandria did not acknowledge it (ed. O. Stählin, IV, p. 26).

The II John seems to have been sent not to an individual woman (κυρία), but to a Church today unknown (to the same one to which the III John was sent); some have thought of the Roman Church. G. exhorts the faithful to remain firm in brotherly love and in the confession of Christ. The III John names three men: Gaius is praised for the help given to itinerant missionaries, Diotrephes (not a bishop, it seems) is censured for his arrogance and his harsh ways, Demetrius is praised for the good reputation he enjoys. To the readers of both letters, G. announces his imminent coming.

Recent commentaries: Catholic: J. Mc. Evilly, 3rd ed., Dublin 1875; A. Bisping, Münster 1871; I. A. van Steenkiste, Bruges 1876 (5th ed. by A. Camerlynk, 1909); A. F. Maunoury, Paris 1888; T. C. Ceulemans, Malines 1904; J. E. Belrer, Freiburg im Br. 1906; H. Poggel, Paderborn 1896; J. Bonsirven, Paris 1935. — Non-Catholic: B. Weiss, 6th ed., Göttingen 1899; H. J. Holtzmann, Freiburg im Br. 1891; 3rd ed. by W. Bauer, ibid. 1908.

Urban Holzmeister

For the Apocalypse of G., v. APOCALISSE.

IV. ARCHAEOLOGY

Early Christian art did not fix his typology. Beardless, of youthful appearance, the Apostle is indicated by his name both in the sarcophagus of Apt and in that of Bishop Concordius in Arles (Wilpert, Sarcofagi, I, p. 54, pls. 37, 2-3; 34, 3) as well as in the characteristic sarcophagus lid of Spoleto, now in the Lateran Museum, where the Evangelist appears as one of the four rowers of the mystic ship (the Church) guided by the Redeemer (id., ibid., p. 107, fig. 52). He appears beardless at Ravenna, in one of the medallions in the monastery of S. Andrea (494-519), now the archiepiscopal chapel, and likewise, set opposite St. John the Baptist, in the mosaic of the oratory of S. Venanzio (640-42). The Evangelist appears in youthful aspect in all the scenes in which he is represented, together with the Madonna, at the foot of the Cross, as, for example, in the crucifixion painted in the cemetery of S. Valentino on the Via Flaminia (7th century), seen intact by Ugonio and Bosio, and in that of S. Maria Antiqua (8th century). In Byzantine images, beneath the Cross is found the inscription in Greek "Behold thy son, behold thy mother," as, for example, in two small caskets, one of brass and the other of wood, formerly in the treasury of the sancta sanctorum, now in the Sacred Museum of the Vatican Library. G. is beardless at the side of the Lord, in the reliquary donated by Paschal I for the gemmed Cross formerly in the treasury of the sancta sanctorum and now in the Sacred Museum of the Vatican Library (H. Grisar, Il sancta sanctorum ed il suo tesoro sacro, Rome 1907, p. 130, fig. 34).

The Evangelist has a pointed black beard and long hair in the evangeliary of Charlemagne, now in Vienna (J. von Arneth, Über das Evangelium Karl's des Grossen in der K. K. Schatzkammer und über mehrere Gebetbücher des XVI. Jahrhunderts, in Denkschriften der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosoph-historische Klasse, 13 [1864], pp. 85-134); he is likewise bearded, but not of senile appearance, in the golden codex of St. Medard of Soissons, today in the National Library of Paris (Suppl. lat. 686) and in the codex aureus or codex Adae in the Library of the city of Trier. In the Sacramentary of Gellone the Evangelist is nimbed, but has the head of an eagle, that is, of his symbol (A. Michel, Histoire de l'art, I, Paris 1906, p. 314, fig. 159). With the appearance of an old man and in the act of writing his Gospel he is represented in S. Vitale at Ravenna, with his symbol, the eagle, above him (6th century).

G. resting on the breast of the Redeemer was represented in the mosaic cycle of the basilica of S. Ambrogio in Milan, as is attested by the distich that illustrated the scene (V. Forcella-E. Seletti, Iscrizioni cristiane di Milano anteriori al sec. IX, Codogno 1897, n. 228). Fabrics with scenes from the life of St. John the Apostle were offered by Pope Gregory IV (827-44) to the Lateran Basilica (Lib. pont., II, p. 82).

In the underground chamber of the sancta sanctorum is a painting of the 11th century ca., which represents the rain of manna on the tomb of St. John the Evangelist (Ph. Lauer, Les fouilles du sancta sanctorum au Latran, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'histoire, 20 [1900], p. 263).

At the time of Alexander III (1159-81) in the atrium of the Lateran Basilica his martyrdom was represented in mosaic, according to the text of a life of St. John of the 9th century (B. Mombritius, Sanctuarium, II, Paris 1910, pp. 55, 311; Wilpert, Mosaiken, p. 212, fig. 64). On the punishment of boiling oil suffered by the Apostle in Rome before his relegation to Patmos there is a clear testimony in Tertullian (De praescript., 36: PL 2, 59). The basilica of S. Giovanni ante portam Latinam was erected as early as the time of Pope Gelasius (492-96), restored several times thereafter and rebuilt by Celestine III (1911). In the front of the apse the Apostle was then represented there facing the Baptist (Wilpert, Mosaiken, pl. 257, pp. 932, 1204).

The veneration in Rome for the Apostle John was promoted by Pope Hilary (461-68), who at the time of the Council of Ephesus had saved himself from the fury of Dioscorus by hiding in the tomb of St. John. Hilary erected an oratory in the Lateran in honor of the Apostle, near the Baptistery; there is preserved on the exterior the inscription: "Liberatori suo beato Iohanni evangelistae Hilarus episcopus famulus XPI" and on the interior a great part of the mosaic decoration.

H. Grisar expressed the hypothesis that the form of the Lateran oratory reproduced that of the mausoleum of the Apostle in Ephesus (Analecta romana, Rome 1899, p. 558, n. 3).

Enrico Josi

V. ICONOGRAPHY

St. John the Evangelist was sometimes imagined by transalpine art of the late Middle Ages with a chalice in his hands, from which a serpent emerges; various German Gothic sculptures and the paintings of Memling show him thus. As the seer of Patmos, St. John is depicted in a manner similar to the Evangelist, in a rocky desert and in the act of writing the Apocalypse. Such was he painted, among others, by Giotto in the Peruzzi Chapel in S. Croce in Florence, and engraved by Dürer in his illustrations of the Apocalypse.

Subsequently, St. John the Evangelist and St. John the Baptist would often be represented together, as Jacopo Torriti did toward the end of the 13th century in the mosaic decorations in the apses of the Roman basilicas of S. Giovanni and S. Maria Maggiore. A beautiful depiction of St. John the Evangelist as a young man was given in 1302 by Cimabue in the mosaic of the apse of the cathedral of Pisa, where the Saint stands to the left of Christ enthroned.

The statue by Donatello in S. Maria del Fiore in Florence instead shows the Evangelist as a dignified old man, in the appearance of a prophet.

Depictions of various scenes from the legend of St. John the Evangelist have been frequent in art, including in its apocryphal details. His martyrdom in boiling oil was represented by Filippino Lippi in the very early 16th century in the Strozzi Chapel in S. Maria Novella in Florence; Rubens painted it in an altarpiece for the church of St. John in Malines. The scene of the resurrection of Drusiana was frescoed around 1320 by Giotto in the Peruzzi Chapel in S. Croce in Florence and almost two centuries later by Filippino Lippi in the Strozzi Chapel in S. Maria Novella. The assumption of St. John is the subject of a fresco by Giotto in the Peruzzi Chapel in S. Croce in Florence and of another attributed to Pietro Lorenzetti in the church of the Servi in Siena. The scene, where St. John drinks a chalice of poison, was depicted in numerous medieval stained-glass windows, among others at Assisi, Bourges, Chartres, Fonrs, Reims, in the Ste-Chapelle in Paris, etc.

Witold Wehr

VI. ACTS OF JOHN

Apocryphal writings in use among ancient heretical sects. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 25, 6) knows of apocryphal Acts of J. in use among heretics. According to Epiphanius (Haer., 47, 1) the Encratites made use of these Acts; according to Philaster (Dehaeres., 88) and Augustine (Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum, 1, 20, 39; cf. A. Harnack, Markion, Leipzig 1928, p. 429) they were read among the Manichaeans, and according to Turribius of Astorga (Epistola ad Idac. et Cepon., 5) among the Priscillianists. From this it follows that the Acts of J. were composed together with other Acts of the Apostles (4 primitive Acts) by Encratites and were transmitted by them to the Manichaeans and Priscillianists. To Leucius, a disciple of St. John (Epiphanius, Haer., 51, 6), were attributed the Acts of J., if not the entire collection of apocryphal Acts (cf. Augustine, De actis cum Felice Manichaeo, 2, 6 and Evodius, De fide contra Manichaeos, 4 and 38). There exist small texts of the primitive Acts of J., that is, three fragments, contained in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea of 787, in R. A. Lipsius-M. Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, II, 1, Leipzig 1898, pp. 165 ff., 196 ff., 199 ff.

In these texts there is the docetic (Manichaean) doctrine regarding the body of Jesus, and the law of Moses is attributed to the serpent. Furthermore, mention is made of a hymn of Jesus which, according to Augustine (Epist., 237), was also in use among the Priscillianists. M. R. James has published another fragment on the basis of a Vindobonensis codex (M. Bonnet from a codex of Patmos, 14th century, pp. 179-93). The account of the serene death of the Apostle, published by M. Bonnet, pp. 203-15, which follows a richer tradition, perhaps was not part of the ancient Acts of J. because the Manichaeans (cf. C. R. C. Allberry, A manichaean psalm-book, II, Stuttgart 1938, pp. 142-250) seem to have known another tradition regarding the death of J. Bonnet's edition had the fault of wanting to reconstruct the original text of the Acts of J. with material from different recensions (Encratite, Manichaean, Catholic). The original text evidently had an Encratite tendency (cf. the Latin fragment published by D. de Bruyne, in Revue bénédictine, 25 [1908], p. 155 ff.), but the original text was reworked by the Manichaeans. Prayers from the Acts of J. are preserved in The book of Cerne (cf. Huypers, The prayer book of Aedelluald, Cambridge 1902, p. 233). Famous is the hymn from the Acts of J. (cf. J. Kroll, Die christliche Hymnodie Programma, Braunsberg 1921, p. 59 ff.; M. Pulver, in Eranos Jahrbuch 1942, Zurich 1943; C. R. C. Allberry, Manichean Studies, in Journ. theol. studies, 39 [1938], p. 337 ff.). The Acts of J. attributed to Prochorus and published by Th. Zahn under the title Acta Johannis (Erlangen 1880) are a recent text (5th cent.) that has nothing to do with the ancient Acts of J. - See plates XL-XLI.

Erik Peterson