JOHN THE PRESBYTER. The important place which has been assigned by some to this in dividual as the writer of certain books in the sacred canon, renders it proper that some notice should be taken of him in this work. As his existence has been wholly denied by some, whilst it has been assumed as unquestionable by others, we shall best serve the interests of the reader by, in the first instance, setting before him in order all the state ments occurring in ancient Christian writers re specting the object of our inquiry.
The earliest testimony is that of Papias (Euseb., H E. iii. 39), who says, speaking of the efforts he made to establish himself with certainty in Chiis tian truth, Whenever any one arrived who had had intercourse with the elders (rois 7rpeo-OvrepoLs), I made inquiry concerning the declarations of these ; what Andrew, what Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James or John, or 'Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord said, as also what Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord, say. For I believed that I should not derive so much advantage front books as from living and abiding discourse.'* In reporting this, Eusebius remarks that Papias purposely adduces the name John twice, first in connection with Peter, James, and Matthew, where only tbe Apostle can be in tended, and again, along with Aristion, where he distinguishes him by the title of The Presby ter.' Eusebius goes on to say that this confirms the report of those who relate that there were two men in Asia Minor who bore that name and had been closely connected with Christ, and that two tombs had been found in Ephesus bearing the name of John. In another part of his history (vii. 25), Euse bius cites Diouysius, bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the 3d century, as uttering the same tradition concerning the finding of the two tombs at Ephesus inscribed with the name of John, and as ascribing to John the Presbyter the author ship of the Apocalypse ; an opinion to which Eusebius himself inclined (iii. 39). Jerome (De vir. c. 9) reports the opinion of some that the second and third epistles of John are the produc sion of John the I'resbyter, cujus et hodie al terum sepulcrum spud Ephesum ostenditur, etsi nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Johannis evangelistm esse.' An earlier testimony, that of the Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 36), declares that there was a second John who was bishop of Ephe sus after St. John, by whom he was instituted in this office.
Such is the evidence in favour of the existence of John the Presbyter. On examining it we find—t. That Papias knew a disciple of our Lord named John, distinct from the Evangelist, and known as 5 rpeo-prirepos 'Icocivvns ; but Papias says nothing of his being bishop of Ephesus or of his being at Ephesus at all. 2. That there was a bishop at Ephesus of the name of John, who was the suc cessor of the apostle John there. 3. That there was a tradition that two tombs were found at Ephesus bearing the name of John, one of which was supposed to be that of the apostle, the other that of the presbyter. 4. That this supposition
did not obtain universal acceptance, and was by Eusebius held so doubtful that he appeals to the statement of Papias as supportin,g it. This tracli tion, consequently, must be discounted ; and in that case there remains only the statement of Papias that he knew one John the Presbyter who had been a disciple of the Lord, and the statement of the Apostolical Constitutions that there was a bishop at Ephesus of the name of John, who was instituted to his office by the apostle. As there is nothing to prove that these two were the same person, the testimony of the Constitutions must also be dis counted in our present inquiry ; and consequently, the statement of Papias remains as the sole direct evidence for the existence of John the Presbyter.
To this evidence there is opposed—r. The nega tive evidence arising from the silence of all other ancient authorities, especially the silence of Poly cmtes, bishop of Ephesus, who, in a list of emi nent teachers and bishops in Asia Minor, preserved by Eusebius (IL E., v. 24), makes no mention of John the Presbyter ; and 2. The positive evidence afforded by the statement of Irenmus, who not only omits all mention of the Presbyter, but says that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle, alon,g with Polycarp (Adv. IIaer. v. 33). This countet evidence has appeared to some so strong that they. have thought it sufficient to set aside that at Papias, who, they remind us, is described by Eusebius as a man of a very small intellect (o-9563pa upetcpds ray POOP, H. E., ih. 39). But this seems going too far. Papias describes himself as a hearer of the Presbyter John (Euseb. v. 24), and in this he could hardly be mistaken, whatever was his de ficiency in intellectual power ; whereas it is very possible that Irenmus may have confounded the presbyter with the apostle, the latter of whom would be to his mind much more familiar than the former. The silence of Polycrates may be held proof sufficient that no John the Presbyter was bishop of Ephesus or famed as a teacher of Christianity in Asia Minor ; but as Papias does not attest this, his testimony remains unaffected by this conclusion.
On the whole, the existence of a John the Pres byter seems proved by the testimony of Papias ; but beyond this and the fact that he was a disciple of the Lord, nothing is certainly known of hirn. Credner contends that rpeaporepos is to be taken in its ordinary sense of older,' and that it was ap plied to the person mentioned by Papias, either because he was the senior of St. John, or because he arrived before him in Asia ; but this is improbable in itself, and had Papias meant to inti mate this he would not have simply called him ti 71- pea j36repos 'Itodsans. In his statement rpeofith-epos is plainly opposed to drocrroTos as a distinctive title of office.—W. L. A.
•