John the son of Zebedee never in Asia Minor.--John the
Presbyter substituted.--The work of Irenaeus and Eusebius.--
John the disciple has served to create an enigma in
history.--John of Ephesus a myth.
Was John the son of Zebedee ever in Asia? To ask a question which
implies a doubt on a subject that has been agreed on for almost twenty
centuries, will probably startle many even in this age of inquiry and
progress. It may be a question whether he who makes a discovery in
science or the arts which facilitates the advance of mankind, or he who
contributes by his labors to remove a delusion which has stood in the
way of progress, is most entitled to the gratitude of his fellow-men. A
falsehood, as long as it stands unquestioned, may and does receive the
respect which is due to the truth; but there is a time when, no matter
how hoary with age, it must pass away and give place to the latter.
John the son of Zebedee the fisherman, upon careful inquiry, can never
be successfully confounded with him of Ephesus. His character, as
developed in the Synoptics, is composed of negative qualities. We find
him in Jerusalem when he had got to be fifty years old, without any
evidence, up to that time, that he had been out of sight of the walls
of the city, and no proof that he said or did anything worthy of notice.
His name is mentioned in connection with some of the great scenes in the
life of Christ, but he takes no part, and, like the supernumeraries on
the stage, his presence is only needed to fill up a required number.
To be sure, Paul speaks of him in connection with James and Peter as
pillars of the church--which has no significance, as the nine other
disciples were all moderate men, and the church at the time few in
number and easily managed. John of the Synoptics is not only lymphatic
and of negative qualities, but, from his condition in life and pursuits,
must have had but little learning of any kind. John of the Greeks is
a man of learning, and a scholar. He was master of the Greek, and was
familiar with the abstruse and subtle philosophy of that speculative
people. He was at home in all the different and various doctrines of
the Gnostics, and proved himself the most able man of the age in his
contests with those numerous sects which embraced the most learned men
of the second century. In fine, this John of Galilee, whose name is
seldom mentioned, or if so, not for anything he said or did, who lives
to be more than fifty without the least notice being taken of him, or
allusion made--this phlegmatic John, after he has passed the meridian
of life, and his powers are on the decline, has all at once become a
teacher, and the great light of Grecian theology, and wields a pen with
the fire and spirit of Demosthenes! A change and complete transformation
like this is nowhere else to be found in the history of the world. The
truth is, the John of Galilee is not the John of Ephesus. The latter
is a phantom of some Greek's brain, which has served to mislead men for
ages.
If John the disciple had ever passed out of Syria into Asia Minor, so
important a fact would find a place in some authentic history; and from
the time he put his foot in the country, his meanderings, like those
of Paul, would be well known and preserved. We leave him in Jerusalem in
A.D. 50, and the next time we hear of him he is in Ephesus. When he left
Judea, and when he arrived in Asia Minor, no one pretends to know.
From the year forty-eight, and perhaps much sooner, to the spring of
sixty-five, Paul spent nine-tenths of his time travelling up and down
the Archipelago, establishing and visiting the churches. He made the
circuit three times, and it was his uniform practice, in closing his
epistles to the different churches, to mention those of the brethren who
were with him, even if they were not of much importance; and yet in none
of them does he mention the name of John. Considering that John was an
Apostle, this silence of Paul can be accounted for only by the fact that
he did not hear of or see him in Asia Minor, and was in Ephesus as late
as the year sixty-four, and still later, sixty-five, and up to that time
John had not been there, for Paul makes no mention of him.
What historical proof is there that is worthy of credit, that John was
ever in Asia Minor? The whole story rests on the shoulders of Irenaeus.
Here is what he says: "Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by
Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times
of Trajan, is a true witness of the traditions." (Book III. sec. 3.)
Irenaeus cites no authority, and we have a right, in a matter of so much
importance, to demand of him some evidence that what he states is true.
In this absence of any reference to written testimony we have a right
to infer that there was none, and that there was no ground for the
assertion but tradition. This Irenaeus is forced to admit. The book on
heresies was written, as we shall show, about A.D. 181. According to
authentic history, Paul was in Ephesus in sixty-five, the last time. If
the statement of Irenaeus is founded on tradition, and there is no other,
then the tradition that Paul left John in Ephesus is one hundred and
sixteen years old. We will see what a tradition so old, handed down to
future ages, is worth, coming from Irenaeus. A tradition over one hundred
years old, when first inserted into the pages of history by one of the
most dishonest historians of any age, is the authority we have in our
day for believing a most important fact in the history of the Christian
church. The caption to the section from which the above passage was
taken will explain the reason why Irenaeus undertook to misrepresent the
truth of history: "_A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in
the various churches, a perpetual succession of Bishops was kept up_."
He was engaged in furnishing an apostle to the churches in Asia Minor
and some parts of Greece, for an "apostolic succession." We will find
him engaged in doing a great deal of this kind of business before we are
done with him. The proof that John was not in Ephesus is conclusive.
The language of Irenaeus implies that Paul placed John in charge of the
church when he left for Rome _for he says John remained_. This is not
so. When Paul left Ephesus, in the year A. D. 64 or 65, he left Timothy
there in charge of the church, and he remained until Paul got into
trouble in Rome, in the fall of A. D. 65, when the latter sent for him.
Would Paul leave the church in the charge of Timothy when one of the
Apostles was there, especially as he was so young that some objected to
him on account of his age? In writing to Timothy to meet him in Rome,
would Paul fail to make some mention of the Apostle, if he had been in
Ephesus when he left?--Not one word to an Apostle who would naturally
take charge of the church, in the absence of himself and Timothy?
It is clear, then, that John had not been in Ephesus up to the fall or
summer of A. D. 65, when Timothy left to go to Rome; and the question
is, was he there after this? and if so, when? Polycarp presided over the
church at Smyrna, which was not far from Ephesus, and between the two
points there was constant intercourse by land and water; and if John had
succeeded Timothy at the latter place, would not he, Polycarp, take some
notice of so important a fact? He speaks of Paul in his letter to
the Philippians, and why not mention John, who was one of the twelve
Apostles? Polycarp lived to the end of the century, and it is claimed
John also lived to about that time, and as they both lived so long
in such close proximity, how natural it would be that the intercourse
between them should be most intimate, and that the former should mention
those relations with an Apostle in writing to the churches he addressed,
Irenaeus felt the force of this, and undertakes to show that Polycarp was
the _hearer and disciple of John_. He says: "These things are attested
by Papias, who was John's hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an
ancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works."
(Quoted in Eusebius, _Ecc_. Hist., book iii., chap. 39.) It is meant
that it should be understood from this passage that both Papias and
Polycarp had seen and heard John the Apostle. Now Papias never conversed
with John, the son of Zebedee the fisherman, and he says so, in a
fragment preserved in the writings of Eusebius. After quoting the
passage just cited from Irenaeus, Eusebius says: "But Papias himself, in
the preface to his discourses, by no means asserts that he was a hearer
and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but informs us that he received
the doctrines of faith _from their intimate friends_, which he states
in the following words: 'But I shall not regret to subjoin to my
interpretations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time
accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received
it _from the elders_, and have recorded it in order to give additional
confirmation to the truth by my testimony. For I never, like many,
delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the
truth; neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are
given from the Lord to our faith, and that came from the truth itself.
But if I met with any one who had been a follower of the elders
anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of
the elders,--what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas,
James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what
was said by Aristion, and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord;
for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the
living voice of those that are still surviving.' And the same Papias
of whom we now speak professes to have received the declarations of the
Apostles _from those that were in company with them_, and says also that
he was a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. For, as he has
often mentioned them by name, he also gives their statements in his own
works." (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 39.)
He says he never conversed with John, but with the elders, and that _he
was a hearer of Presbyter John, and so was Polycarp_. When Irenaeus says
that Papias conversed with John, without telling which John, he knew
that no one would be thought of but the disciple; and such would
have been the case, had not Eusebius preserved this fragment from the
writings of Papias. Polycarp and Papias both conversed with the same
John, who was John the Presbyter. In another place Irenaeus says: "But
Polycarp also was only instructed by this Apostle, and had conversed
with many who had seen Christ." (Book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.) This is a
palpable falsehood, and so appears from the passage just cited. He cites
no authority, but lets facts of so much importance in history depend
on his simple word. If what is stated be true, why does not Polycarp
himself say something about the sources from which he derived his
doctrines? Nothing would give so great weight to his preaching as that
he derived what he taught from those who had listened to Christ and his
Apostles. Why speak of Paul, and what he taught, and not of Jesus and
his disciples, and what they taught?
The world is indebted to Irenaeus for the story of what took place
between John and Cerinthus at the bath-house in Ephesus. Speaking of
Polycarp, and how in all respects he was superior to Valentinianus and
Marcion, he says: "_There are also those_ who heard from him (Polycarp)
that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and
perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without
bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down,
because Cerinthus is within. '" (Book iii. chap. 3.)
Now it has been shown that John the disciple of the Lord never saw
Polycarp, and if anything of the kind ever did take place, it was
between Polycarp and John the Presbyter. The latter is a historic
character, spoken of by Polycarp, who lived about this time, and was
a Presbyter in the church; and it is evident that Irenaeus seeks to
confound the Apostle with him. It is for this reason he describes him in
the above passage as "the disciple of the Lord," for which there was
no reason, unless he meant to deceive. We have proved that he tried it
once, and when the first falsehood is uttered it is easy to fabricate
a second. This is the first blow that was directed by Irenaeus against
Cerinthus, a leader among the Gnostics; but it is only initiatory to
still heavier ones which are to follow.
Marcion was a distinguished character among the Gnostics, and he too
must receive some damaging blows at the hands of Polycarp, the disciple
of John. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on
one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?"--"I do know thee--the
first-born of Satan."--"Such," continues the writer, "was the horror
which the _Apostles and the disciples_ had against holding even a verbal
communication with any of the corrupters of the truth." (Book iii. chap.
3.)
The Apostle in this case was John the Presbyter, if any one, and the
disciple Polycarp the martyr, who had, in fact, never seen any of the
Apostles. It is to be noted that no authority is given by Irenaeus for
these stories, though they are introduced as some things which somebody
had said. Such is history.
The value of tradition from the authority of Irenaeus may be judged of by
the following statement he makes, evidently intended to strengthen the
assertion he made about the presence of St. John in Asia Minor. In
all cases where he wants it to appear that the Apostle was there, he
connects the principal subject with other statements in a way as if
the main fact was incidentally mentioned. "Now Jesus was, as it were,
beginning to be thirty years old when he came to receive baptism, and
according to those men he preached only one year, reckoning from his
baptism. On completing his thirtieth year he suffered, being still a
young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that
the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that extends
onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age,
which our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of
teacher, even as the gospel and all the elders testify." "Those who were
conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord (affirming) that
John gave to them that information. And he remained among them up to the
time of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other
Apostles, and heard the same account from them, and bear testimony as
to the validity of the statement. Which, then, should we rather
believe?--whether such as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the
Apostles, and who never in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of
an Apostle?" (Book ii. chap. 22, sec. 5.)
It seems that Irenaeus had got into a dispute with Ptolemaeus, and
attempts to silence him, as he does all opponents, by the authority of
the disciples, and especially of John, who is the only one he names.
John, too, was in Asia at the time. It is not said where the other
Apostles were. Ptolemaeus claimed, as appears in the first part of the
same section, "that Christ preached for one year only, and then suffered
in the twelfth month." The argument with Ptolemaeus was, that Christ was
too young, and preached too short a time, to be regarded as a teacher of
much authority; and in this way, as Irenaeus says, "destroying his whole
work, and robbing him of that age which is both necessary and more
honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which
also, as a teacher, he excelled all others." The objection is put down
in a summary way, claiming that the time of Christ's preaching extended
over a period of _ten years_. This is what the Apostles stated, _and
what John said while he was in Asia, and who remained there to the time
of the death of Trajan_.
Ecclesiastical history claims three years only as the period of Christ's
ministry, but it can be proven that the truth lies on the side of
Ptolemaeus. Did John, while he was in Asia, and the other Apostles, no
matter where, give rise to such absurd and false traditions? If John
was in Ephesus at the time Paul went to Rome, in the year A. D. 65, and
remained to the time of Trajan, as stated by Irenaeus, he was in Asia
thirty-five years. During this time his history must have been so
interwoven with the affairs of the church, holding the rank of an
Apostle, that nothing could be more easy than to prove his presence in
the country. There is no difficulty in following the footsteps of Paul
for each year after he set out to preach the gospel, whether in Europe
or Asia; and so with any real character who has been conspicuous for his
talents, or from the position he held in his day. But neither Irenaeus
nor Eusebius have been able to furnish the world with the least evidence
of a substantial character of the presence of John in Asia, although
they have undertaken it, and exhausted their ingenuity in trying to do
so. If no better proof can be given of the presence of John in Asia,
after a residence of thirty-five years, than a grave, which may as well
be claimed to be that of Hannibal as that of John, the world will be
satisfied he never was there. Eusebius has displayed his characteristic
ingenuity, and shown his usual disregard for truth in an effort to prove
that the grave of John was in Ephesus, and that it was identified as
late as the latter part of the second or beginning of the third century.
He travels out of his way to do it--manifests from the way he does it
that he is engaged in a fraud, and, between the fear of detection and
anxiety for success, he makes poor work of it. He causes Polycrates, who
was Bishop of Ephesus, to write a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, with
the apparent purpose of informing him that some mighty luminaries had
fallen asleep in Asia, but, in fact, to give an opportunity to make
mention of the grave of John as being there in Ephesus. Who these
luminaries were who had fallen asleep, he does not name; but dismisses
this part of the subject and proceeds to say: "Moreover, John, that
rested on the bosom of our Lord, he also rests at Ephesus." Some other
matters are introduced into the letter, which related to the burial of
Philip and his two daughters at Hierapolis; but this was only intended
to conceal the real purpose and design of the writer.
Victor was Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the third century, after
John, if we admit he was in Asia, had been dead one hundred years. In
writing to Victor about persons who had lately died, and without saying
who they were, why should Polycrates make mention of the grave of John
as located in Ephesus, which, if true, would have been as well known to
all Asia as the tomb of Washington is known to the enlightened world to
be at Mount Vernon?
That intelligent men of the second and third centuries denied and
disproved the presence of John in Asia, is rendered certain by the
struggles and desperate efforts of their adversaries to establish the
affirmative. The indications are, that the philosophers proved that the
person whom the Christians claimed to be the Apostle John was some other
John; in all probability, John the Presbyter. Upon this point the proof
seems to have been so conclusive that the Christians were driven to
the necessity of proving that there were two Johns--one besides the
presbyter. Eusebius takes this task upon himself. We quote from
the above letter of Polycrates to Victor: "For in Asia also mighty
luminaries have fallen asleep, which will rise again at the last day at
the appearance of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven,
and shall gather again all the saints. Philip, one of the twelve
Apostles, sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters.
Another of his daughters, who lived in the Holy Spirit, rests at
Ephesus. Moreover, John, that rested on the bosom of the Lord, who was a
priest that bore the sacerdotal plate, and martyr, and teacher, he
also rests at Ephesus." (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. ch. 31.) Owing
either to a bad translation, or design on the part of the writer, two
distinct characters are so run together in the same sentence, that we
would suppose them to be one person if we did not know that the person
who leaned on the bosom of the Lord could not be the one who bore the
sacerdotal plate, and was a martyr.
It would seem from this effort to make it appear that there were two
Johns buried at Ephesus, that the philosophers proved that the John who
bore the sacerdotal plate was the one the Christians were attempting to
impose on the world as the real John, and that the proof was such that
they had to yield the point, and claim that there were two graves--one
the martyr's, and the other the Apostle's. Eusebius felt conscious that
it was not safe to rest his case here, and we find him reaching out in
every direction for further proof, satisfied with anything that will
give color to the fact he labors to establish.
In another place he states: "Where it is also proper to observe the name
of John is twice mentioned. The former of which he (Papias) mentions
with Peter and James and Matthew, and the other apostles; evidently
meaning the evangelist. But in a separate point of his discourse
he ranks the other John with the rest not included in the number of
apostles, placing Aristion before him. He distinguishes him plainly by
the name of Presbyter. So that it is here proved that the statement of
those is true who assert there were _two_ of _the same_ name in Asia,
that there were also two tombs in Ephesus, and that both are called
John's even to this day; _which it is particularly necessary to
observe_" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap, xxxix.) As much as to
say to the objecting philosophers, If you have proved that one John in
Asia was the Presbyter John, we prove by Papias that there were two,
and that one of them was the Apostle. If this is so, it is only by
inference. But it spoils the argument when it is shown that when Papias
speaks of the two Johns, he does not say they were in Asia, or where
they were. He speaks at the same time of all the Apostles, or nearly so,
by name, but does not mention them, or any of them, in connection with
any place. To subserve a particular purpose, Irenaeus had asserted that
John had been in Ephesus, where he remained a long time, without the
least authority to sustain him. It was a bare, naked assertion without
proof.
In the third and fourth centuries, during the time of Eusebius, this
assertion had grown to great importance, by reason that, on the fact
that it was so, was founded the Apostolic succession of nearly all the
churches in Europe, and most of Asia. To maintain the presence of John
in Asia was as important as it was to prove that Peter had been in Rome.
Understanding the importance of this fact, the philosophers directed
their attacks upon it, showing that the man the Christians called the
Apostle was somebody else. It devolved upon Eusebius, the most learned
man of his day, to defend the position. The task exceeded his ability,
but not his inclination to deceive. If we except Irenaeus, no writer has
so studiously put himself to work to impose falsehoods on the world as
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. His genius was employed in various ways,
and especially in perverting chronology. Speaking of a class of men who
gave themselves up to such employments, the author of the "Intellectual
Development of Europe," page 147, says: "Among those who have been
guilty of this literary offence, the name of the celebrated Eusebius,
the Bishop of Caesarea in the time of Constantine, should be designated,
since in his chronography and Synchronal tables he purposely 'perverted
chronology for the sake of making synchronisms.' (_Bunsen_.) It is true,
as Niebuhr asserts, 'He is a very dishonest writer.' To a great
extent, the superseding of the Egyptian annals was brought about by his
influence. It was forgotten, however, that of all things chronology is
the least suited to be an object of inspiration, and that, though men
may be wholly indifferent to truth for its own sake, and consider it
not improper to wrest it unscrupulously to what they may suppose a just
purpose, yet that it will vindicate itself at last" His character for
truth stood no better among writers of the fifth century, for Socrates
fairly charges that in his life of Constantine he had more regard for
his own advancement than he had for the truth of history. (Book i.
ch. 1.) A whole volume is devoted to display the virtues and exalt
the character of a man who had murdered his son Crispus--his nephew
Licinius--suffocated his wife Fausta in a steam bath, and who, to
revenge a pasquinade, was with difficulty restrained from the massacre
of the entire population of Rome.
In another part of this volume we will have occasion to detect and
expose the genius of this Father, in his attempt to create a chronology
so as to give semblance to a list of men who never existed, but who were
required to fill an important gap in the life of the church. No fitter
instrument could be found to help consummate the fraud conceived by
Irenaeus to impose a spurious John on the world than Eusebius of Caesarea.