Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/565

 JOHN

493

JOHN

Jerome on the authority of Eusebius. The opinion of Eusebius has been frequently revived by modern ^Titers, chiefly to support the denial of the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel. The distinction, how- ever, has no historical basis. First, the testimony of Eusebius in this matter is not worthy of belief. He contradicts himself, as in his "Chronicle" he ex- pressly calls the .\postle John the teacher of Papias ("ad annum Abrahae 2114"), as does Jerome also in Ep. Ixxv, "Ad Theodoram", iii, and in "De viris illustribus ", xviii. Eusebius was also influenced by his erroneous doctrinal opinions as he denied the Apostolic origin of the .Ipocalj-pse and ascribed this WTiting to an author differing from St. John but of the same name. St. Iren^us also positively designates the Apostle ami Evangelist John as the teacher of Papias, and neither he nor anj- other writer before Eusebius had any idea of a second John in Asia (Adv. ha;r., V, xxxiii, 4). In what Papias himself says the connexion plainly shows that in this passage by the word presbyters only .Apostles can be understood. If John is mentioned twice the explanation hes in the peculiar relationship in which Papia.s stood to this, his most eminent teacher. By inquiring of others he had learned some things indirectly from John, just as he had from the other Apostles referred to. In addition he had received information concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus directly, without the intervention of others, from the still Jiving "Presbjier John", as he also had from Aristion. Thus the teaching of Papias casts absolutely no doubt upon what the New-Testa- ment writings presuppose and expressly mention con- cerning the resilience of the Evangelist John in Asia.

III. The Latek Accounts of John. — The Christian WTiters of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and douljted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that prov- ince. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (c. Ixxxi) St. Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ " as a witness who had lived " with us ", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenaeus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and ex- pressly declares that he WTote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. hajr., Ill, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Hist, eccl.. Ill, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian's testimony (De pra?script., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injurj'. After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about .\. d. 100 at a great age. Tradition reports manj' beautiful traits of the last years of his life: that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (Irenjeus, "Ad. hser.", Ill, iii, 4); his touching anxiety about a youth who had become a robber (Clemens Alex., "Quis dives salvetur ", xlii); his constantly repeated words of exhortation at the end of his life, "Little children, love one another" (Jerome, "Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.", vi, 10). On the other hand the stories told in the apocryphal Acts of John, which appeared as earh' as the second century, are unliistorical invention.

IV. Fe.\stsofSt. John. — St. John is commemorated on 27 December, which he originally shared with St. James the Greater. At Rome the feast was reserved to St. John alone at an early date, though both names are found in the Carthage Calendar, the Hieronymian Martyrology, and the Gallican liturgical books. The "departure" or "assumption" of the Apostle is noted in the Menology of Constantinople and the Calendar of Naples (26 Sept.), which seems to have been regarded as the date of his death. The feast of St. John before

the Latin Gate, supposed to commemorate (he dedi- cation of the church near the Porta Latina, is first mentioned in the Sacramentary of Adrian I (772-95).

V. St. John in Chri.sti.vn Art. — Early Christian art usually represents St. John with an eagle, symbolizing the heights to which he rises in the first chapter of his Gospel. The chalice as symbolic of St. John, which, according to some authorities, was not adopted until the thirteenth centurj-, is sometimes interpreted with reference to the Last Supper, again as connected with the legend according to which St. John was handed a cup of poisoned wine, from which, at his blessing, the poison rose in the shape of a serpent. Perhaps the most natural explanation is to be found in the words of Christ to John and James "My chalice indeed you shall drink" (Matt., xx, 2.3; Kriill in Kraus, "Real- Encyk.", s. v. "Johannes Evangelista").

Besides what has just been stated, cf. Fodard, Saint Jean (Paris, 1904); Gutjahr, Die Glaubwiirdigkeit des hen. Zeugnis- ses liber die Abfassung des IV. kanon. Evang. (Graz, 1904); Zahn in Realencykl. fur prot. Theologie, IX (3d ed., Leipzig, 191), 272-2S5. Concerning the testimony of Papias: Barden- HEWER, Geschichle der altkirchh Literatur, I (Freiburg, 1902), 537; Idem in loc. cit., 437^42, concerning the Ads of St. John; Idem. Pa(ro/off;y. tr. Shahan (Freiljurg, 1908), 105 sq.; Kellner, Heortologv (London, 1908); Duchesne, Christian Worship (tr. London, 1904).

Leopold Fonck.

John the Faster (6 vrjcrevr^^, jejunator), Patri- arch of Constantinople (John IV, 5S2-59.5), famous chiefly through his assumption of the title "cEcumen- ical patriarch ";d.2Septcmber, 59.5. Hewas brought up (apparently also born) at Constantinople. Under the Patriarch John III (Scholasticus, 565-577) he was deacon at the Hagia Sophia church; then he became sakellarios (an official who acts as patriarchal vicar for monasteries). He had little learning, Init was so famous for his ascetical life that he was already called "the Faster". Under Eutychius I (restored to the patriarchate when John III tiled, 577-5S2) he became an important person among the clergy of the city. At Eutychius's death he was made patriarch by the Emperor Tiberius II (578-582). Under the next em- peror, Maurice (582-602), he was still a favourite at court. There is little to tell of his life besides the great question of the title. He is said to have been tolerant towards the Monophysites; but he persuaded Maurice to have a certain wizard, Paulinus, burnt. He had always a great reputation for asceticism and charity to the poor.

The dispute about the title was this: it was not new in John IV's time; till then the Bishop of Constanti- nople had commonly been called d/jxieTfo-xoTros Kal warpLcipxv^, but at various times he (and other patri- archs) had been addressed as olKovtieviKds iraTpidpxv^ ■ H. Gelzer (Der Streit um den Titel des okumen- ischen Patriarchen) thinks that it became usual in the time of the .\cacian schi.sm (484-519). The first known use of it applied to Constantinople is in a letter from the monks of .\ntioch to John II (518-520) in 518. Before that the Patriarch of Alexandria had been so called by one of his bishops at the Robber Synod of Ephesus (in the year 449; Gelzer, op. cit., p. 568). Since 518 the whole combination, apx'.c''l<rKo- Tros Kal olKovfiei'iKbs irarpidpxv^, is not uncommonly used in addresses to the Byzantine patriarchs. But they had not called themselves so before John IV. There is a real difference lietween these two uses of a title. In addresses to other people, particularly su- periors, one may always allow a margin for compli- ment — especially in Byzantine times. But when a man uses a title himself he .sets up a formal claim to it. In 5SS John the Faster held a synod at Constantinople to examine certain charges against Gregorj', Patriarch of .'Vntioch (in this fact already one sees a sign of the growing ambition of Constantinople. By what right could Constantinople discuss the affairs of .\ntioch?). The Acts of this synod appear to have been sent to Rome; and Pope Pelagius II (579-590) saw in them