JOHN, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint. – Author of the Fourth Gospel, of three Epistles and of the Apocalypse.
Summary:
I. Life and Apostolate
II. The Gospel of J
III. The Three Epistles of J
IV. Archaeology
V. Iconography
VI. Acts of J.I. Life and Apostolate
J. was the son of Zebedee (v.) and of Salome (Mk. 15:40 with Mt. 27:56 and 20:20). He came from a well-to-do family which worked “with hired servants” (Mk. 1:20), and Salome was one of the matrons who “ministered to Jesus” (Mt. 27:55) “with their means” (Lk. 8:2 sqq.). See his place of origin.Together with his elder brother James, he was called by Jesus to follow Him; Boanerges (v.), a name not given in derision or jest, but in honour, because the brothers were “eminent preachers and theologians” (Theophylact, In Mk. 3:17; PG 123, 523). J. was the beloved disciple of Jesus. Despite his unruly 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 he was the one “whom Jesus loved”; at the Last Supper, reclining on Jesus’ right, he leaned back (ἀναπετῶν) upon Jesus’ breast (Jn. 13:23, 25), and was thus able to question Him in secret. Standing courageously at the foot of the Cross, Jesus entrusted His Mother to him (Jn. 19:26 sqq.). He ran with Peter to the Sepulchre and, with Peter, was honoured with a special revelation (Jn. 20:2, 22 sqq.).
It is debated whether J., on two other occasions, introduces himself into the Gospel narrative: a) in the first calling of the Apostles an unnamed companion of Andrew leaves the Baptist to follow Jesus (Jn. 1:35, 40); b) in the Passion narrative a “certain other disciple known to the high priest” accompanies Peter, who introduces him into the courtyard.
The Fathers rarely treat the first question; they often answer affirmatively to the second. Moderns, on the other hand, mostly declare J. to have been Andrew’s companion, but do not identify him with the companion of Peter known to the high priest. The connection between J. and Andrew is affirmed by some (τυχες), 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 remain 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 express doubt: St. Thomas, Maldonado. Moderns see J. here for three reasons: the vividness of the narrative, the variant in Jn. 1:41 “Andrew finds first (πρῶτος, not πρωτος) his brother”, from which it is concluded that the new disciple also found his brother, i.e. that J. 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 J. assisted Peter (Jn. 18:16) was admitted by Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome (PG 59, 49; 74, 59; PL 22, 1090). Augustine reasonably doubts (PL 35, 1932) “fortasse ergo ipse hic est”, since in Acts 4:13 J. appears unknown to the high priest.
According to the Acts and Gal. 2:9 (he is placed among “the pillars of the Church”) J. had pre-eminent authority in the nascent Church.
Historically reliable tradition attests five facts about J.: he was the youngest of the Apostles; he had the prerogative of virginity; later he dwelt in Ephesus where, after the exile he suffered on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:19), he died a natural death in extreme old age under Trajan. His feast is on 27 December.
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 J. is affirmed by the Monarchian Prologue (ed. H. Lietzmann, I, p. 13) “ut virgo virginem servaret” (though it expounds the legend that J. was a spouse: Jn. 2:1-11), by the Pistis Sophia, 41, 96 (ed. O. Schmidt, I, 42, 148); and by the Acta Ioannis, 113 (ed. R. A. Lipsius, II, 1, 212). The residence of J. in Ephesus is attested by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., II, 22, 5 [33, 3]; III, 3, 4 [3]; PG 7, 785, 855) and by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 23, 4; PG 20, 255), who places his retirement in Ephesus at the beginning of the Jewish War (c. AD 67). Irenaeus, in the passages cited, relates that J. “παράσυνε αὐτόν” [the presbyters of Asia] “until the times of Tacian”. Epiphanius (Haer., 51, 12, 2; PG 41, 910): J. “wrote the Gospel after the 90th year of his life”; Agapius of Hierapolis (PO 7, 503): “after the Passion of the Lord he lived many years and died in the 60th year of Trajan”. Tertullian speaks of his death (De anima, 50: PL 2, 780): “Obit Ioannes, quem in adventum Domini remansurum frustra fuerat spes”; similarly Hilary (De Trinitate, X, 37: PL 10, 372). Porphyry mocked Christ because the prediction of Mt. 20:23 had not been fulfilled in J., since “we know that J. died without martyrdom” (A. Harnack, Sitzungsberichte Akad. d. Wiss., Berlin 1921, pp. 269, 272, 835).
Many episodes are also narrated of J.’s (Ephesian) life, whose historical authority cannot be either proved or denied. Polycarp related that J. “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 narrates that J. in Ephesus raised a dead man (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 18, 14: PG 20, 418). Clement of Alexandria transmitted the story of a disciple of J. who became a brigand (Quis dives salvetur, 42, 7: PG 9, 648 sqq.). Tertullian informs of the cauldron of boiling oil “ex quo Apostolus nihil passus est” (De praescr. 36: PL 2, 49), and so also Jerome (In Mt. 20, 22: PL 26, 146 [149]). 16 May is the day of the dedication of the church “ante Portam Latinam” under Pope Adrian I. Jerome relates (In Gal., 6, 10: PL 26, 433 [462]) that the old J. always repeated: “Little children, love one another”. The Acta Ioannis narrate that the venerable old man amused himself with a little lamb and that a cup full of poisoned wine did him no harm (ed. R. A. Lipsius, I, p. 426). The Jacobite Arabic Synaxarium (PO 16, 387) under 11 May notes: “cast into the sea he was miraculously saved”.
Some doubted the death of J., as Ambrose affirms (In Ps., 118, 20, 12: PL 14, 1487 [1564]); the Pseudo-Dorotheus (PG 2, 1072) says that J. “lives with Enoch and Elijah”. St. Augustine (In Io. tr., 124, 2: PL 35, 1970 sqq.) heard “from not light men, that in certain writings, although apocryphal, it is found... that he ordered a tomb to be made for himself and that it remained intact; and that he was present and, after it had been dug and carefully prepared, he lay down in it as though in a bed and immediately died; or, as some think, he did not die but lay there as though dead... the earth is said gradually to heave and, as it were, to bubble up, and this is said to be caused by his breath”. Similarly Michele Pessolo (Spicilegium, ed. J. B. Pitra, IV, Paris 1858, p. 496).
On the magnificent basilica built at Ephesus in the 6th century
---
**Fig. 1.** Apostle, Evangelist, Saint – Bust of St. J. Part of the mosaic decoration of the oratory of St. Andrew (6th century) – Ravenna, Archiepiscopal Palace.
---
On the tomb of J., discovered in the excavations of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, cf. Biblica, 13 (1932), pp. 121-124.
At the beginning of the 20th century, many non-Catholic theologians asserted that the apostle JOHN was killed together with his brother JAMES in the years 41–44 by King Agrippa I. If this were true, it would follow that the Fourth Gospel, which appeared after the three Synoptic Gospels, cannot be the work of the apostle JOHN. This thesis is supported especially by a saying attributed to PAPPIAS, described as taken “from his second discourse,” preserved by two Byzantine authors. Philip of Side (c. 430) reports Pappias’s words in this form: «Iatipas ἐν δευτερῳ λόγῳ λέγειν Ἰωάννης ὁ θεολόγος καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνηρέθησαν» (Fragment of a codex Baroccianus, 142, in Tetzner, Untersuchungen, V, 2, p. 170; ed. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 58; 2nd ed. p. 94; ed. E. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici, I, pp. 366–67). George Hamartolus (9th cent.) presents Pappias’s saying thus: «Iatipas… ὁ αὐτὸς πιστὸς τοῦ Ἰωάννου γενόμενος φάσκει ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τῶν χριστικῶν λογίων ὅτι ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνηρέθησαν· πλην ὅτι μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀκολουθίαν πρότερον ἐποίησεν». So the Codex Coislinianus 305 (10th cent.); E. Preuschen, op. cit., p. 58; F. X. Funk, op. cit., pp. 367–70.
In both accounts Pappias reports the martyrdom of the two brothers, and indeed he implies that it occurred at the same time. Aphraates the Syrian (4th cent.) lists after Stephen, Simon (= Peter) and Paul “who were perfect martyrs,” James and JOHN “who followed in the footsteps of Christ the Master” (Demonstratio, 21, 23: Texte und Untersuchungen, III, 3, 4, p. 348, and Patrologia Syriaca, I, 983). A Syriac martyrology, written by an Arian in 411, which contains “the names of the lords who are martyrs,” notes under 27 Dec.: “JOHN and James the apostles in Jerusalem” (ed. R. Graffin, Acta SS. Novembris, III, 1, Brussels 1894, p. [Lil] and H. Lietzmann, Kleine Texte, 2, 9).
Relying on these texts, many modern scholars proposed the thesis of the early death of JOHN together with James, led by Ed. Schwartz (Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedäi [Abhandlungen Göttinger, phil.-hist. Klasse, N. F., 7, V], Berlin 1904; Nachrichten Göttingen, 167 [1907], p. 266; Zeitschr. f. neutest. Wiss., 11 [1910], pp. 89–104). The same had already been hinted at by W. Bousset (Apokalypse des Johannes, Göttingen 1896, p. 47). Among his followers were chiefly: J. Wellhausen, Evangelium Marci, Berlin 1903, p. 90 (2nd ed., ibid. 1909, p. 84), id., Johannes, ibid. 1908, p. 100; Ad. Jülicher, Einleitung, 5th–6th ed., Tübingen 1906, p. 367; 7th ed., ibid. 1931, p. 398; A. Loisy, in Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, 9 (1904), p. 33; R. Knopf, Einführung, Giessen 1923, p. 122 sg. (with doubts; in the 1st ed. he had no doubts: pp. 115, 273); G. Krüger, in Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 52 (1927), p. 247; J. Moffatt, Introduction, 3rd ed., Edinburgh 1918, pp. 601–607, who lists other supporters, e.g. O. Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, Berlin 1902, p. 411 and W. Bauer, in H. J. Holtzmann, 3, 19.
But the majority of Protestants themselves reject this theory: Th. Zahn, Einleitung, 3rd ed., II, Leipzig 1907, p. 474; A. Harnack, Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 34 (1909), p. 10, and Chronologie, Berlin 1912, p. 665; F. Spitta, in Zeitschrift. f. neutest. Wiss., 11 (1910), pp. 39–58; E. Rüggebach, Neue kirchl. Zeitschr., 32 (1921), pp. 692–96; P. Feine, Einleitung, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1923, p. 88 (ed. P. Feine–J. Behm, 1913, p. 101 sg.). This chronological thesis is inadmissible. From Gal 2:9 it is clear that the apostle JOHN was a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church several years after the year 44. To remove this difficulty, Ed. Schwartz would have to place Paul’s conversion in the years 28 or 29, which is impossible (cf. Zeitschr. f. neutest. Wiss., 11 [1910], p. 103).
Neither Philip of Side nor George reported Pappias’s words accurately: a) Philip calls JOHN “the theologian.” But this title was unknown to early 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 text of Origen wrongly cited (PG 13, 1385), and makes him say that James was killed by Herod, and JOHN was exiled to Patmos by the King of the Romans.
It is clear that Pappias did not speak of JOHN the Evangelist, but of John the Baptist, and that these two Byzantine authors confused the two Johns, as often happened. Oecumenius, Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus, explaining Heb 11:35, unite the martyrdom that James and “John” suffered by beheading. The third explicitly adds to the name of JOHN: ὁ Ἱερός (PG 24, 880); the others add nothing: they must have preserved the form chosen by Pappias, while the third follows the sense. Gregory Nazianzen, among the victims (σφάγια) slain for Christ, lists “that JOHN,” Peter, James, Stephen, not the Evangelist JOHN (PG 35, 589).
More complex is the controversy about the other JOHN, the “presbyter” of Ephesus, a disciple of Christ distinct from the apostle JOHN.
Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264 or 265), according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 7, 25, 16: PG 20, 701), reports that at Ephesus two tombs “of JOHN” are shown. Hence Eusebius, relying on Pappias, distinguished two disciples of Christ. He is followed by the “Damasian catalogue”: “Iohannis apostoli epistola una, alterius Iohannis presbyteri epistolae duae” (Denz-U, 84), St. Jerome (De viris ill., 9: PL 23, 623 [655]), Philip of Side (Texte und Untersuchungen, 2, p. 170; ed. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 94), the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 46, 7; ed. F. X. Funk, I, 454) and many later authors.
bishop of Hierapolis in Syria. His first work, Ἀγγέλων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις, in 5 books, was attributed in the last years of Hadrian (c. 135), but today its origin is placed c. the year 100.
Eusebius links the work with the reign of Hadrian, and this is enough for his authority. But already from Irenaeus it is clear that Pappias flourished c. 110, indeed he seems to indicate that he wrote while Clement of Rome was still alive, who died in 96 (cf. Guhvenger, Panias, in Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie 60 [1947] 385–416). Pappias is of the greatest importance because he does not use his own words, but preserves the sayings of ancient witnesses. Thus the preface of his work preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 3, 39, 3: PG 20, 206): «I shall not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, what I once learned well from the elders (παρά τῶν πρεσβυτέρων) and stored up well in memory (καλῶς ἐμνήσθην), thus confirming the truth»; then follows the list of witnesses cited above. In vain is Eusebius’s judgment objected to, that Pappias “was of very small intelligence” (Hist. eccl., 3, 39, 13: PG 20, 300), because this does not refer to the things said by others, which Pappias preserved. The text of Pappias was preserved in a Latin preface to the Gospels, which was first known only in two manuscripts (Vat. lat., called Alexandrinus or Reginensis, and Toletanus, of the 10th cent.); now it is known in 10 manuscripts (D. de Bruyne, in Revue bénédictine 40 [1928] 193–214 [esp. 198]; C. Schäfer–M. Meinertz, Einleitung, 3rd ed., Paderborn 1921, p. 2*).
Text of the preface: «Incipit argumentum secundum Iohannem. Evangelium Iohannis manifestatum et datum est Ecclesiis ab Iohanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut Papias (episcopus) Hierapolitanus, dilectus discipulus Iohannis, in (suis) exotericis, id est in quinque ultimis libris, rettulit». The last words translate badly the title of the book, “exoterica.” According to John 21:24, the book of John might seem to be his posthumous work, i.e. published by another person after the author’s death. Pappias rejects this opinion. Therefore it is not directly a question of the composition of the book, which is clearly recognized by all, but of its publication; this is attributed to that disciple of Christ, whose death was doubted both because of the saying of Christ and because of his extreme old age, therefore to the apostle JOHN himself. The great authority of this testimony comes from the fact that Pappias calls himself a disciple of JOHN, and that his testimony is close in time to the composition of the book itself.
The argument is confirmed by the discovery of a very ancient mutilated sheet, dating from the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, certainly written before 150: Papyrus *Roland* 457, which contains the account of *Jn* 18:31-34 and 37-38 in a form already somewhat altered from the original (H. Roberts, *An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel*, *Papyrus Ryland gr. 457*, Manchester 1935; cf. A. Merk, in *Biblia*, 17 [1936], pp. 99-101). Therefore, within a few decades of its composition, the *Gospel* was already known in Egypt.
The Biblical Commission rightly insists, setting aside theological arguments: “with solid historical reasoning it is demonstrated that the Apostle G. and no other is the author of the *Fourth Gospel*.”
Additional testimony from later writers may be adduced, among which stand out the passages from St. Ignatius, who, though not naming St. G. as the author, allude to him by reproducing passages from the *Fourth Gospel* verbatim. Moreover, an excellent internal argument may be constructed, proving that the author was a Jew, thoroughly acquainted with Palestinian geography, one of the three intimates, indeed the very 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 for whom the Evangelist wrote were not catechumens, but believers already mature in the faith (*Jn* 1:16: “we have all received of his fullness”). The proximate end of the sacred text is to advance them in faith, and through it, in communion with the life (*Jn* 3:31). Specifically, the *Fourth Gospel* pursues a dogmatic-apologetic end: it proves the divinity of Christ, which it defends apologetically against the first crises, especially those of Cerinthus and the Docetae. G. also had a historical purpose: he wished to supplement the Synoptics (narrating events omitted by them) and to guard against their being misunderstood (3:24: “for John had not yet been cast into prison”), as someone might have concluded from *Mk* 1:14; 18:13: “they led him first to Annas,” not immediately from Caiaphas, *Mt* 26:37; 1:1: “then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him,” therefore not when he had already condemned him).
H. Windisch had proposed the theory that G. wished entirely to eliminate the Synoptics (*Verdrängungstheorie*). M. Meinertz rightly opposed this with his own system, according to which G. wished organically to complete the Synoptics (*Theol. Revue*, 27 [1928], pp. 161-70); and more exhaustively, F. Sigge, *Das Joh. Ev. und die Synoptiker* (*Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen*, 16), Münster 1935.
Modernists deny any historical character to the *Fourth Gospel*, claiming it merely delineates types or symbols (Nathanael as one who seeks Christ, Nicodemus as one who doubts, etc.). But that the *Fourth Gospel* is a historical book is evident “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, G. has several things in common with the Synoptics: two miracles (the multiplication of the loaves and the walking on the water), the solemn entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the supper at Bethany, and many episodes of the Passion. Since these parts are equally historical in G. 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, argued that the original was written in Aramaic, but did not prove his thesis (the Aramaisms suggest only a virtual, not a formal, translation).
For the most part the author observes grammatical rules well. The exceptions consist in: a) Latinisms: *τίτλος* (*Jn* 19:19 sqq.; cf. *Lk* ἐπιγραφή), *πραττόριον* (*Jn* 18:28; variant αὐλή), *ἐντύω* (*Jn* 13:4 sqq.); b) Hebraisms, among which first the frequent parataxis (*Jn* 10:22); G. has few subordinate clauses; absolute nominative (*Jn* 6:37; 7:38; 15:2); neuter for the masculine (*Jn* 6:37: *omne quod*, and after the parallel τὸν ἔσχατον); no distinction between the personal pronoun and the reflexive (*Jn* 1:47: “Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him [πρὸς αὐτόν] and speaks of him [πρὸς αὐτοῦ]”). Hebrew words are explained: *Rabbi, Messias, Cephas, Siloam, Golgotha, Gabbatha, Rabbuni* (except *Bethesda*; wrongly Vulg. *Bethsaida*). But particles are confused, above all τάν, which, like the Aramaic *de*, performs all functions (consecutive: 9:2; objective: 4:47, 17:15; causal: 8:56; equivalent to the relative pronoun: 5:7). Διότι with the accusative is equivalent to διὰ with the genitive (*Jn* 6:58 bis: “as… I live because of the Father [non propter P.] so he who eats me will live because of me [non propter me]”, and 15:3). Cf. on all this J. Bonsirven, *Les araméismes de St. Jean l'Evangéliste*, in *Biblia*, 30 (1949), pp. 405-32.
The distinctive character of G. must be understood thoroughly, as with other sacred writers, in accordance with the admonition of Pius XII (*Divino afflante Spiritu*, in AAS, 35 [1943], p. 314). The peculiarities of G. are so numerous that “the Johannine question” arises from the diversity of the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptics.
First, G. relates of Jesus divine things, not 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 contradiction between the first three Gospels and the fourth, since even the Synoptics reflect divine things of Christ and G. the human. Jesus knows the secret thoughts of hearts (Mt 9:4 and parallels), “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, moreover, Jesus uses a scourge of cords (2:15); tired, he sits down (4:6); he calls himself “a 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 person of Christ Himself.
At first glance, the Synoptics present Galilee, G. Judea, as the theater of Christ’s ministry. This is easily explained. In Galilee was 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 I would have gathered your children,” and 26:55: “Every day I sat teaching in the Temple”; cf. Lk 10:38; Acts 10:39: “what he did in the region of Judea and in Jerusalem.” Moreover, G., narrating how Christ “went up” from Galilee (2:13; 7:1; 10:14), and “went” into Galilee (4:3; 43:54), and walked there (7:1; 9), indicates that the ordinary dwelling place of Christ was Galilee.
Characteristic is the symbolic nature of G., who arranges everything to point to a higher reality, whether through the works of Christ, the persons in the narrative, or even certain words.
Events: the miracle of water changed into wine and the multiplication of the loaves; Jesus walking on the water; the man born blind and the dispute that followed; the washing of the feet; while Judas went out “it was night”; the Mother of Christ, introduced twice into the Gospel story. Persons: Nathanael, “a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit”; Nicodemus signifies the hesitant. Phrases: “I have no one” (5:7); the Greeks say: “We wish to see Jesus” (12:21).
Therefore many non-Catholics have asserted that everything reduces to symbolism, denying the historical authority of these events. It has been claimed that the Mother of Christ is the Synagogue, from which the Church originated (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 on the Cross was written (Lk 23:38).
The miracles of G. are few (eight), but of the greatest importance. They augment and specify what is read in the Synoptics.
Instead of “of the blind” there is a “man blind from birth” (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 at a distance is performed (Jn 4:47; 54; but similarly Mt 15:28). Yet the two miracles narrated together with the Synoptics show no advance, as do the miracles recounted cumulatively (2:23; 3:21; 6:2). Indeed sometimes the Synoptic account is richer than that of Jn (the centurion of Capernaum is altogether more perfect than the “official” of Jn 4:46–54).
The discourses of Jn differ completely from those of the Synoptics, which delight in simple words, above all in parables.
The Christ of Jn mostly speaks of himself. Hence the special “I am” style which occurs about 38 times (E. Schweizer, *‘Εγώ είμαι* [Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T., 56], Göttingen 1938, pp. 9–46 [formula from Ex 3:13]). Christ had to reveal himself by contending against unbelievers.
“The style is too sublime; it is no wonder such discourses were not understood,” observes A. Jülicher (*Einleitung*, 6th ed., p. 381). But we do not have stenographic reports, only skillfully written synopses.
It is no surprise that Jesus’ style is uniform with that of John the Baptist and the Evangelist. In every report of another’s words there is something subjective. The Evangelist shaped his style on the Master’s manner of speaking. There is a continual dualism: God–world; light–darkness, life–sin. Abstract terms recur constantly: truth, life, testimonies, belief (never πίστις). This dualism is very real, no less than the other “rich and poor.”
How could Jn preserve after so many decades the memory of long discourses? The memory of Orientals is remarkable (as with poetry among some Slavic peoples). It is not excluded that first synopses were made and that parts of discourses were written down verbatim.
It is said that Jn has no parables (in which the terms retain their primitive meaning), but only allegories (a continuous series of metaphors on the same object); so J. Vosté, *Parabola*, I, 2nd ed., Rome 1933, pp. 55, 298. Yet Jn has five true and perfect parables: 3:8 (the wind); 4:37 (different workers); 11:9 (travel by day and night); 13:10 (the bath); 16:21 (the woman in childbirth). On the other hand the Synoptics contain allegories (Mt 3:12 = Lk 3:17: the winnower who uses the sieve; Mt 15:13–14: the gardener who uproots a plant another has planted in his garden). One can only say: in the Synoptics parables prevail, in Jn allegories.
It cannot be denied that in Jn there is, in matters of style, a certain poverty and monotony, for the same ideas often recur.
As to place and time, manuscript subscriptions name now the island of Patmos, now the city of Ephesus; the latter prevails. Thus the “Prologue” (*Revue bénédictine*, 40 [1928], p. 198): “Jn wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and after this the Gospel in Asia” (cf. Irenaeus, III, 3,1: *PG* 7, 845: “wrote the Gospel ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας 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 chs. 5 and 6 have been transposed. The principle of the ordering 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 the Dedication; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1, the Passover of death).
Opening: Prologue (1:1–18); last testimonies of Jn and first disciples of Christ (1:19–51).
Part 1: Christ manifests his glory through his public teaching (chs. 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 “exodus” (ἔξοδος: Lk 9:31) accomplished in Jerusalem: (13–17) among the disciples; (18–19) among the enemies; (20) risen – Close of the Evangelist (20:30–31). Supplement added later (21). Close added by the disciples (21:24–25).
III. The three “Epistles” of Jn
There is much diversity in the tradition of the early centuries: the greater or first is a homologoumenon, i.e. accepted by all Catholic Churches. Thus 1 Jn is declared by Eusebius, while 2 and 3 Jn are listed, as not everywhere known in early times, among the ἀντιλεγόμενα (*Hist. eccl.*, III, 25,1: *PG* 20, 68–71).In reality not even 1 Jn was at first accepted by the Churches of Syria, in whose canon no Catholic epistle is named until St Ephrem (U. Holzmeister, *Prima Petri*, Paris 1938, pp. 137–44, citing individual writers).
For 1 Jn there are testimonies from the Apostolic Fathers: Papias, as reported by Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, III, 39, 17; *PG* 20, 300) and makes use of testimonies drawn from 1 Jn v.; 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 work *De habitu clericorum*, 30 (*PL* 4, 937; *CSEL* 3, 3, 206). Irenaeus cites 1 and 2 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 Jn; hence even non-Catholics treat them in the same way as the Fourth Gospel.
Especially noteworthy are some terms exclusively proper to the Gospel of John and the Epistles: ἀρχαῖον ἔχειν, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν, εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, περιπατεῖν ἐν σκοτίᾳ (νυκτί), παράκλητος, ἁμαρτίαν, τεκνίον (and Gal 4:19), τίθεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ (1 Jn 3:16; Jn 10:11, 15, 17–18; 15:13). Other terms and phrases occur in common: ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (1 Jn 1:6 = Jn 8:44); οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ (1 Jn 1:8; 2:4 = Jn 8:44); ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι (1 Jn 2:21; = Jn 18:37); ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι (1 Jn 3:8 = Jn 8:44); ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι (1 Jn 3:9–10 = Jn 7:17; 8:47); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι (1 Jn 4:5 = Jn 3:31); ἐν τῇ γῇ; ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἐν τῷ φωτί περιπατεῖν (1 Jn 2:11 = Jn 8:12; 12:35). Similarly “life” τῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (Jn 1:4; 6:48; 11:25; 14:6 = 1 Jn 1:1–2; 5:11, 20); “light” φῶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Jn 1:5, 7; 2:8–9 = Jn 1:5, 7; 8:12).
The division of 1 Jn constitutes a great problem. The same ideas, above all faith in Christ, love of neighbor, flight from sin, recur constantly. Here is an attempt at division: 1) the ethical thesis (against sins of lust, denial of charity, love of the world: 1:5–2:17); 2) the christological thesis (2:18–27); 3) the ethical thesis is proposed again (2:28–3:2); 4) again the christological thesis (4:1–6); 5) both ethical and christological theses are proposed together (so J. Belser, *Johannische Briefe*, p. 9 ff., according to Häring, *Weizsäckerische Jubiläumsschrift*, 1892, pp. 173–200). Another attempt was made by Schwertschlager.
I and III John are correctly listed by Eusebius in the class of the ἀντίλεγόμενοι (Hist. eccl., 3, 25: PG 20, 268). Already Origen counted them together with I John: ἔστω καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην. ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντως ἂσαν γνώριζον εἶναι αὐτός (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6, 25, 10: PG 20, 58). Eusebius attributes these two epistles to the other John, “the Presbyter”; he is followed by Damasus (Denz-U, 84), St. Jerome (De viris ill., 9: PL 23, 623).
The Second Epistle is recognized by Irenaeus (I, 16, 3: PG 7, 634), by the Muratorian Fragment (I, 69: “Iohannis duo...”), and by Clement of Alexandria, who distinguishes it from the “greater” (μετὰν) and explains it in the Hypotyposes (PG 9, 737-40). The Third Epistle, after Origen, is admitted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 7, 25, 12; PG 20, 704; “G. neither in the 2nd nor in the 3rd appears by name”), by the “Mommsen Canon,” and by Priscillian. Clement of Alexandria did not recognize it (ed. O. Stählin, IV, p. 26).
The Second Epistle seems to have been sent not to an individual woman (κυρία), but to an unknown Church (the same one to which the Third Epistle was sent; some have thought of the Roman Church). G. exhorts the faithful to remain steadfast in brotherly love and in the confession of Christ. The Third Epistle names three men: Gaius is praised for his help to traveling missionaries, Diotrephes (not a bishop, it seems) is reproached for his arrogance and 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, Brugge 1876 (5th ed. by A. Camerlynk, 1909); A. F. Maunoury, Paris 1888; T. C. Ceulemans, Malines 1904; J. E. Belier, Freiburg in Br. 1906; H. Poggel, Paderborn 1896; J. Bonsirven, Paris 1935. – Non-Catholic: B. Weiss, 6th ed., Göttingen 1899; H. J. Holtzmann, Freiburg in Br. 1891; 3rd ed. by W. Bauer, ibid. 1908.
IV. Archaeology
Early Christian art did not fix a typology for him. Beardless and youthful in appearance, the Apostle is indicated by 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 on the characteristic lid of the Spoleto sarcophagus, 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 (ibid., p. 107, fig. 52). He is beardless at Ravenna in one of the medallions in the monastery of S. Andrea (494-519), now the Archiepiscopal Chapel, and likewise, opposite St. John the Baptist, in the mosaic of the oratory of S. Venanzio (640-42). The Evangelist appears youthful in all scenes where he is depicted 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 the Greek inscription “Behold your son, behold your mother,” as, for example, on two small caskets, one of brass and the other of wood, formerly in the treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum, now in the Museo Sacro of the Vatican Library. G. is beardless beside the Lord in the reliquary donated by Paschal I for the jeweled Cross, formerly in the Sancta Sanctorum treasury and now in the Museo Sacro of the Vatican Library (H. Grisar, Il sancta sanctorum ed il suo tesoro sacro, Rome 1907, p. 130, fig. 34).The Evangelist is shown with black pointed beard and long hair in the Gospel 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 Kaiser. Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 13 [1864], pp. 85-134); he is also bearded, though not of senile aspect, in the codex aureus of St. Medard of Soissons, now in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris (Suppl. lat. 686), and in the Codex Aureus or Codex Adae in the city library of Trier. In the Sacramentary of Gellone the Evangelist is nimbed but has the head of an eagle, that is, his symbol (A. Michel, Histoire de l'art, I, Paris 1906, p. 314, fig. 159). With the aspect of an elder 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 depicted in the mosaic cycle of the basilica of S. Ambrogio in Milan, as attested by the distich that illustrated the scene (v. Forcella-E. Seletti, Iscrizioni cristiane di Milano anteriori al sec. IX, Codogno 1897, no. 228). Fabrics with scenes from the life of St. G. the Apostle were offered by Pope Gregory IV (827-44) to the Basilica of the Lateran (Lib. pont., II, p. 82).
In the underground of the Sancta Sanctorum is a painting of the 11th century representing the manna falling on the tomb of St. G. the Evangelist (Ph. Lauer, Les fouilles du sancta sanctorum au Latran, in Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, 20 [1900], p. 263).
At the time of Alexander III (1159-81) in the atrium of the Basilica of the Lateran his martyrdom was depicted in mosaic, according to the text of a Life of St. G. of the 9th century (B. Mombritius, Sanctuarium, II, Paris 1910, pp. 55, 311; Wilpert, Mosaiken, p. 212, fig. 64). A clear testimony to the ordeal of boiling oil suffered by the Apostle in Rome before his relegation to Patmos is given by 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 afterward and rebuilt by Celestine III (1191). On the façade of the apse the Apostle was then depicted facing the Baptist (Wilpert, Mosaiken, pl. 257, pp. 932, 1204).
The veneration of the Apostle G. in Rome was promoted by Pope Hilarius (461-68), who at the time of the Council of Ephesus had escaped the fury of Dioscorus by hiding in the tomb of St. G. Hilarius built an oratory in the Lateran in honor of the Apostle, near the Baptistery; outside it is inscribed: “Liberatori suo beato Iohanni evangelistae Hilarius episcopus famulus XPI,” and inside much of the mosaic decoration is preserved.
H. Grisar advanced the hypothesis that the form of the Lateran oratory reproduces that of the Apostle’s mausoleum in Ephesus (Analecta romana, Rome 1899, p. 558, n. 3).
– St. G. the Evangelist in transalpine art of the late Middle Ages was sometimes imagined holding a cup from which a serpent emerges; this is shown by several German Gothic sculptures and by paintings of Memling. As the visionary of Patmos St. G. is depicted similarly to the Evangelist, in a rocky desert and in the act of writing the Apocalypse. Such is the depiction, among others, by Giotto in the Peruzzi Chapel in S. Croce in Florence, and engraved by Dürer in his illustrations of the Apocalypse.
In time, St. JOHN the Evangelist and St. JOHN the Baptist were often depicted together, as Jacopo Torriti did at the close of the 13th century in the mosaic decorations of the apses of the Roman basilicas of St. John Lateran and St. Mary Major. A fine portrayal of St. JOHN the Evangelist as a youth was given in 1302 by Cimabue in the museum of the apse of the cathedral of Pisa, where the Saint stands to the left of the enthroned Christ.
Donatello’s statue in Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, by contrast, shows the Evangelist as a dignified old man, in the guise of a prophet.
In art, various scenes from the legend of St. JOHN the Evangelist have been frequently depicted, including its apocryphal details. His martyrdom in boiling oil was portrayed by Filippino Lippi in the early 1500s in the Strozzi Chapel at Santa Maria Novella in Florence; Rubens painted it for an altarpiece in the church of St. John in Mechelen. The raising of Drusiana was frescoed around 1320 by Giotto in the Peruzzi Chapel at Santa Croce in Florence and nearly two centuries later by Filippino Lippi in the Strozzi Chapel at Santa Maria Novella. The Assumption of St. JOHN is the subject of a fresco by Giotto in the Peruzzi Chapel at Santa Croce in Florence and of another attributed to Pietro Lorenzetti in the church of the Servites in Siena. The scene in which St. JOHN drinks a cup of poison was depicted in numerous medieval stained-glass windows, among them those at Assisi, Bourges, Chartres, Fons, Reims, and the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, etc.
Witold Wehr
VI. Acts of J
Apocryphal writings in use among ancient heretical sects. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 25, 6) knew of apocryphal Acts of J. in use among heretics. According to Epiphanius (Haer., 47, 1), the Encratites made use of these Acts; according to Filastrius (De haeres., 88) and Augustine (Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum, I, 20, 39; cf. A. Harnack, *Marcion*, Leipzig 1928, p. 429) they were read among the Manichees; and according to Turribius of Astorga (Epistola ad Idac. et Cepon, 5) they were used by the Priscillianists. From this it follows that the Acts of J. were composed alongside other Acts that could be interpreted in Manichaean and Priscillianist fashion. 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*, II, 6 and Evodius, *De fide contra Manichaeos*, 4 and 38). There exist small texts of the primitive Acts of J., namely 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. Moreover, mention is made of a hymn of Jesus which, according to Augustine (Epist. 237), was also in use among the Priscillianists. M. R. James published another fragment based on a Vindobonensis codex (M. Bonnet from a codex of Patmos, 14th cent., pp. 179-93). The account of the peaceful death of the Apostle, published by M. Bonnet,