Copyright
James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 201 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 201 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Jacob (to which allusion is made in Hos 12 3 ), and
of the oracle spoken to their mother (Ro 9 11 1| Gn
2S 23 ), is a folk-tale which vividly reflects the rival-
ries of Israel and Edom. The Hebrews boasted of
their superiority to the powerful kindred race
which dwelt on their southern border. To be more
than a match for those hereditary foes, gaming the
advantage over them either by force of arms or by
nimbleness of wit, was a point of national honour.
By hook or by crook the Israelites rarely failed to
come off victorious over the Edomites. And the
popular mind liked to think that the character-
istics and fortunes of the two rival nations were



mysteriously foreshadowed before the birth of their
far-off ancestors. From the beginning God chose
the younger son for Himself, and decreed that the
elder should be servant to the younger. In the
words of a prophet who on this matter expresses
the general belief, God loved Jacob, but hated
Esau (Mai I 2 - 8 ). St. Paul uses this Divine prefer-
ence to illustrate that principle of election which
he sees operating all through the history of Israel,
and of which he finds startling contemporary evi-
dence in the nation's apostasy from the Messiah,
and God's choice of the Gentiles. That the elder
brother (and nation) should serve the younger,
that the natural heir should be foredoomed to lose
the birthright and the blessing, that (apart from
good or evil) the one should appear to be accepted
and the other rejected all this was evidence of an
inscrutable selectiveness, by which God works out
His universal purpose (}) KO.T tK\oyty rov 0eoO
irp69e<ris [see ESAU]). The election of grace (4K\oy^
xdpiros) is the central idea in St. Paul's philosophy
of history. It is an attempt to give a rationale of
the fact that ' Universal History, the history of
what man has accomplished in this world, is at
bottom the History of the Great Men who have
worked here' (Carlyle, On Heroes and Hero-Wor-
ship, Lect. i.).

In a speech before the Sanhedrin, Stephen made
allusion to the story of Jacob's sending his sons
down to Egypt, of Joseph's sending for his father,
and of Jacobus descent into Egypt and death there
(Ac 7 8 - 12> 14 ). As an evidence of Jacob's faith, th



JA1LUK



JAMES AND JOHN



625



writer of Hebrews selects a death-bed scene (II- 1 ).
' He blessed the two sons of Joseph,' giving them
one of the finest benedictions ever uttered by
human lips, invoking the God of history, provi-
dence, and grace to be their Shepherd-God (Gn
48 18- 16 ). Then ' he worshipped leaning upon the
top of his staff.' In the original (Gn 47 31 ) this act
precedes the blessing, and while the LXX reads
' upon the top of his staff,' other versions, includ-
ing the English, have 'on the bed.' The differ-
ence of reading is due to Heb. punctuation (nesn
' the staff,' nsEn ' the bed '), and does not greatly
alter the sense. Jacob, who is here the ideal
Israelite, gives conscious or unconscious proof of
his faith by taking leave of life with a high dignity
and solemnity. Meekly submitting himself to the
will of God, he teaches all his posterity to worship
the ' God of Jacob ' with their latest breath.

Stephen refers (Ac T 46 ) to David's desire ' to find
a habitation for the God of Jacob.' Here, too,
Jacob is not an individual but a nation. The
usage was common in every epoch of Hebrew
literature : in the earliest period ' Come, curse
me Jacob ' . . . ' Who can count the dust of
Jacob ? ' (Nu 23 7 - 10 ) ; in the Exile' Fear not, thou
worm Jacob' (Is 41 14 ) ; and in the Maccabaean age,
when Judas 'made Jacob glad with his acts' (1
Mac 3 7 ) ; after which it was naturally taken over
into the NT. Jacob's other name ' Israel ' had the
same two senses, personal and national, a circum-
stance which gives piquancy to the Pauline dictum
(Ro 9 6 ) : ' Not all who are of Israel (i.e. born of the
patriarch) are Israel' (i.e. the chosen people of
God). Many of them are only 6 'LrpaTjX /card ffdpKa,
Israelites by birth, whereas in a higher sense all
Christians are 6 'lo-pa-ijX TOV Oeov (Gal 6 18 ). Natur-
ally the name ' Jacob ' never acquired this new
meaning : Israel was the ideal people of God,
whether Jewish or Gentile, Jacob the actual
Jewish nation composed of very imperfect human
beings. The two words are appropriately com-
bined in St. Paul's prevision of a far-off Divine
event which must be the goal of history: 'All
Israel shall be saved, for ... a Deliverer . . .
shall turn away iniquity from Jacob' (Ro II 26 ).

JAMES STRAHAN.

JAILOR. The AV translates 5e<r/xo0i5Xa in Ac
16' 28 ' jailor,' and in vv. 27 - M ' keeper of the prison.'
The RV adheres to the term 'jailor' in all three
verses. The person so designated occupied the
position of supreme authority as governor of the
prison (cf. dpxi5e<r,uo0tfXa, Gn S9 22 LXX), and must
be distinguished from persons holding the sub-
ordinate position of guard or warder (0tfXa, Ac 5 s3
12 6 ; AV ' keeper '). It was to the custody of this
official that the duumviri at Philippi committed
St. Paul and Silas, with the strict injunction to
' keep them safely.' The fact that Philippi was a
Roman colony lends a certain amount of proba-
bility to R. B. Rackham's suggestion that he was
a Roman officer, occupying the rank of centurion
(Com. on Acts, 1901). Chrysostom's attempt to
identify him with Stephanas (1 Co 16' 18 ) overlooks
the fact that Stephanas was among the ' firstfruits
of Achaia,' not Macedonia ; while a later suggestion
that he was Epaphroditus, though it is more pro-
bable, lacks adequate data to support it.

Modern criticism seriously questions the credi-
bility of the portion of the narrative (Ac 16 28 ' 34 )
containing the account of the jailor's conversion,
on the ground of inherent improbabilities (B.
Weiss, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Harnack, Bacon,
Cone). Most of the objections have been ade-
quately dealt with by W. M. Ramsay in St. Paul
the Traveller, 1895, pp. 221-223 ; and a summary
of them, with their refutation, is given in an
article by Giessekke (described in the ExpT ix.
[1898] 274 f.). The legendary character of the
VOL. i. 40



narrative has been maintained for the further
reason that it is not guaranteed by the ' we ' section,
which ends, it is alleged, with v. 24 . 'Yet these
verses betray such unimpeachable tokens of the
style of St. Luke as to prevent us from even think-
ing of them as interpolated' (A. Harnack, Luke
the Physician, Eng. tr., 1907, p. 113). Nor does it
follow that the ' we ' section ends with v. 24 , because
the first person is no longer used. After his separa-
tion from St. Paul and Silas, owing to their arrest
and imprisonment, the narrator would, of necessity,
proceed to describe the subsequent events, when
he was no longer in their company, in the third
person. The presence of the miraculous element,
if the earthquake is to be so regarded, in no way
militates against this assumption, for the ' we-
sections are full of the supernatural' (Harnack,
Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr., 1909, p. 144).

Leaving aside the alleged improbabilities, it must
be admitted that the description of the night-scene
in the piison is most vivid and life-like. Assume
the possibility of the earthquake, which in itself
is a natural occurrence, treated in this case as a
special instance of providential interference, and
there is nothing absolutely inexplicable in the
course of events which follows. The difficulties
are largely due to the brevity of the narrative,
which does not allow of entering into minute
detail. The author (whether St. Luke or another)
is not describing an ' escape ' from prison, miracu-
lous or otherwise, for the release of the captives
takes place next morning. The interest of the
narrative centres in the conversion of the jailor
and his household, and it is as leading up to this
most interesting and happy denouement that the
earlier incidents of the eventful night are depicted.
When the main object of the story is borne in
mind, the difficulties which it presents will not
be regarded as sufficient to justify its wholesale
rejection. W. S. MONTGOMERY.

JAMES AND JOHN, THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE.
1. In Synoptic Gospels. The sons of Zebedee
are mentioned in the following passages in the
Synoptic Gospels. The call of the two brothers is
related in Mk I 1 "- 20 ( = Mt 4 18 " 22 , Lk 5 lff -). After
the call of Andrew and Simon and their immediate
response, Jesus goes on further and sees the two
brothers James and John in their boat, mending
their nets. Their response to His call is equally
prompt; they leave their father and the hired
servants in the boat and go away after Him. The
Matthoean account is practically identical with the
Marcan, save for the omission of any reference
to the hired servants, a characteristic cutting out
of unnecessary detail. In these two accounts the
call of the four disciples is the first event recorded
after the beginning of the ministry ; it is followed
by the account of the entry into Capernaum and
the teaching in the Synagogue. St. Luke in his
Gospel places the incident later, after his record of
events at Nazareth and Capernaum. It is not
easy to determine whether his reason for the
change is historical, to account for the promptness
with which the call of an unknown stranger is
obeyed, or whether he is following a different tra-
dition. The relation of the Lucan account to the
Johannine Appendix (ch. 21) is also difficult to
determine. Competent scholars are found to main-
tain both the view that the Johannine narrative is
based on an account (similar to the Lucan) of the
call of Peter, and the view that St. Luke, in his
record of the call to discipleship, has borrowed
details from an account of a post-Resurrection ap-
pearance to Peter in Galilee. But the question
has no direct bearing on the call of the sons of
Zebedee, the Lucan additional matter having to
do with Peter alone. The only detail which h



626



JAMES AND JOHN



JAMES AND JOHN



adds with reference to John and James is that
they were partners with Peter, which might have
been deduced from the Marcan account. And the
more obvious explanation of their prompt obedience
is that suggested by the 1st chapter or St. John
previous acquaintance at an earlier stage, probably
in connexion with the Baptist's preaching (ci.
below, 5).

In St. Mark's Gospel the four are represented as
going with Jesus to Capernaum, and the same
Evangelist also notices the presence of the sons of
Zebedee in the house of Simon, on the occasion of
the healing of his wife's mother. This detail finds
no place in the other Gospels. Their names ap-
pear next in the calling of the Twelve where they
are found in all three lists among the first four, the
only difference being that St. Mark places them
before, the other Synoptists after, Andrew ; and St.
Mark also adds the giving of the name Boanerges.

No thoroughly satisfactory explanation of either part of this
word has been found. /3oai/e is hardly a possible transliteration
of \}5 ; it can only be accounted for on the supposition that it
is due to conflation, either the o or the a. being a correction of
the other. The second half of the word has been connected
with Aram. vr\ ( = Heb. rj, tumultuatus eat; cf. Pa 2 1 ,
Ac 425, and for N^l) Jl 3^, strepitus, see Payne Smith, Thes.
Syr. 1879-1901). But the root never has the meaning of
' thunder.' iri has also been suggested ; cf. Job 3T 2 iVj-> 73 1 !?,
of thunder, and 3924 73*11 WJZT?. But the meaning of the word
is 'raging,' not 'thunder.' Burkitt has suggested that the
Syriao translator connected the word with Aram. Kjnrj (1 K 1811
= pon ' crowd ') of which he took 'gj j~] for the status alsolutus.
Jerome conjectured that the name was originally DJT) 'J3 ( on
Dn 18, emendatius legitur bene-reem '), in which case the ex-
planatory gloss, o ftr-riv viol f3povrfi$, is older than the corrupt
transliteration ; but it would be difficult to account for the cor-
ruption of a correct transliteration of oyi 'i3 into /3oai/epye';.
Wellhausen suggests that possibly the name Ragasbal may
point to Rege8= ' thunder,' a meaning of which he says no other
trace is found (Ev. Marcfl, 1909, p. 23).

We have no evidence as to the occasion of the
giving of the name. The incident recorded in Lk
9 s4 may have suggested it, or the character of the
brothers. The later explanations which refer it to
the power of their preaching do not give us any
further information.*

The next mention of the brothers is in the story
of the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mk 5 s7 , Lk 8 51 ),
where .St. Mark and St. Luke record the admission
of the three intimate disciples alone to the house
of Jairus, a detail which does not appear in St.
Matthew's account. All three Synoptists record
the presence of the same three on the Mount of
Transfiguration (Mk 9 2 , Mt 17 1 , Lk O 28 ). The next
recorded incident is that of the ambitious request
(Mk lO 35 *-, Mt 20 20ff -), attributed by St. Mark to
the brothers themselves, by St. Matthew to their
mother on their behalf. The later character of
the Matthaean account is clearly seen in some
details (use of irpoo-KwoOou ; elirt for St. Mark's 56j
TIIUV ; the omission of reference to the ' baptism '
[?]), but^the approved critical explanation of the
change in the speaker is hardly convincing. To
do honour to the sons of Zebedee by making them
shield themselves behind their mother is a strange
kind of reverence ! The bearing of this incident
on the question of the martyrdom of John must be
discussed later. The indignation of the other dis-
ciples against the brothers is retained in both
accounts. St. Luke omits the incident altogether.
In Mk 13 (cf. Mt 24 s , Lk 21 7 ) the question which
leads to the eschatological discourse is attributed
to the four disciples, for which St. Matthew has
ol /j.adtjrai, St. Luke rivet. In connexion with Geth-
semane, the three are mentioned by name in Mk
14 38 and Mt 26 s7 . St. Luke only mentions the
disciples generally (22 s9 ; cf. v. 39 ).

* Of. Cramer, Catena, 1844, L p. 297, ita TO ficya <cal fita-
irpuo-tov, -fix^faj. TJJ oucovfuVp TT/S 0eoAoyi'ac ra Soy/oiaTa, and see
Suicer, .v.



To these references, where the Synoptists seem
to be almost wholly dependent on the Marcan
account, we must add Lk 9 04 , the desire of James
and John to call down fire from heaven on the in-
hospitable Samaritans, a story which may be con-
nected with at least the interpretation of the name
' Boanerges.' On two occasions only is John men-
tioned without his brother. St. Mark (9 s8 ) and St.
Luke (Q 49 ) record his confession that the disciples
had ' forbidden ' one who cast out devils in Jesus'
name because he followed not with them. And
St. Luke (22 s ) adds the detail that the disciples
who were sent forward to prepare for the Passover
were Peter and John.

In the Synoptic narrative, then, the sons of
Zebedee are represented as forming with Peter,
and occasionally Andrew, the most intimate group
of the Lord's disciples. No special prominence is
given to John ; he almost always appears with his
brother; thrice in St. Mark and once in St.
Matthew he is characteristically described as ' the
brother of James.' His position is very clearly
that of the younger brother, who takes no inde-
pendent lead. There is no reason to suppose that
'Q' contained any additional information about
the brothers. The special sources on which St.
Luke drew added a few details. It is noticeable
that in the Lucan list of apostles the name of John
precedes that of James. This corresponds with
the history of the Acts, which must next be con-
sidered.

2. In Acts. The sons of Zebedee are placed next
to Peter in the list of apostles (Ac I 13 ), the name of
John being placed before that of James, as in the
Lucan Gospel. This is in accordance with the
author's view, who assigns to John a place of im-
portance second only to Peter in the history of the
growth of the Church in Palestine. He is still
the companion of Peter, as in the Gospel he was
the ' brother of James,' but in Peter's company he
is present at the healing of the lame man in the
Temple (3 lff- ; see esp. v. 4 : toevfocu 8t Herpes els
abrbv ffiiv r$ 'ludvy, and v. 11 ), and during the speech
of Peter which follows. Apparently he is arrested
with Peter (4 1 - s ) ; at their examination the Rulers
are said to notice the irappya-la of Peter and John
(4 13 ), and he shares Peter's refusal to keep silence
(4 19f '). In 8 14 Peter and John are sent to Samaria
in consequence of the spread of the faith there.
After the imposition of hands, and the episode
of Simon, their return to Jerusalem is recorded.
There is no further mention of John in the Acts,
except that in the account of his martyrdom James
is described as the brother of John (12 2 ). But the
position assigned to John is fully borne out by
the single reference to him in Gal 2", as one of the
' pillars ' who gave the right hand of fellowship to
Paul and Barnabas, a passage which alone is ade-
quate refutation* of the strange theory of E.
Schwartz ( Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedcei), who
finds in the prediction assigned to Jesus in Mk 10 39
proof that both sons of Zebedee must have been
killed by Herod on the same day ! The account
in Acts (12 lff -) of the martyrdom of James at the
Passover of the year 44 has been supposed to show
traces of modification by cutting out any mention
of the death of his brother (E. Preuschen, Apostel-
geschichte, in Leitzmann's Handbuch zurn NT, 1912,
p. 75). The construction of v. 1 , if harsh, is how-
ever not impossible, and the 'Western' addition
in v.*, i] irixfip'r)<ris avrov eiri roiis iriffrofa (D Lat. [vt*>*
vg 00 " 1 ] Syr. [hl m *]), even if original is adequately ex-
plained by the language of v. 1 (xaKuyai rivas).

3. Evidence of martyrdom of John. The other
evidence, however, for the martyrdom of John
deserves serious consideration.

* Except on the hypothesis of a very early date for tht
Epistle to the Galatians.



JAMES AND JOHN



JAMES AND JOHN



627



(1) Papias. So long as we had only the state-
ment of Georgius Hamartolus (c. A.D. 850), or
perhaps of some corrector of his text, whose addi-
tions are found in the Paris MS, Coislin. 305 :
['Iwdi'i'ijs] fj-aprvpiov Karri^iurai. UairLas y&p 6 'lepa-



\6y<(> TU>V KvpiaKuv \oylciiv <f>d<TKfi, 8ri inrb '
ptdt}, it was possible, in the light of his reference
to Origen, to explain the statement as due to
homoioteleuton omission in his source of the Papias
quotation, 'ludvvijs [ntv bn-6 TOV 'Pwyucu'w*' ySacrtX^ws
KarediKdffdi) /j-aprvpuv els Ildr/io?, 'Ict/cWj8oy de] vwb
'lovdaiuv dvyptdt]. De Boor's discovery of the
excerpts, probably going back to Philip of Side, in
Cod. Baroccianus 142 (Oxford), among which is
found the sentence, Hair/as & T$ Scvrtpy \6yq> Xy,
ort 'Iwdwqs 6 fleoXayoj ical 'Id*ca>j3os 6 d8e\<f>6s airrov
VTT& 'lovSaiuv dvrjp^OTjffav places the matter in a
wholly different position. There must have been
some such statement about the death of John, the
son of Zebedee, at the hands of the Jews, in Papias'
work. As C. Clemen, whose discussion of the
whole evidence should be consulted (Die Ent-
stehung des Johannesevangeliums), says, this does
not prove the historical accuracy of the statement,
but it is important evidence of a different tradition
from that which represents the son of Zebedee as
living on in Ephesus to an advanced old age, and
dying a peaceful death. Zahn's suggestion (Introd.
to NT, Eng. tr., iii. 206), that the statement referred
to John the Baptist, is hardly satisfactory in spite
of the clear evidence of confusion between the two
afforded by the Martyrologies. In the light of the
common tradition, why should anyone have made
the mistake? The silence of Eusebius is an im-
portant factor in the case, but it is not conclusive,
as Harnack (Chronologic, Leipzig, 1897, p. 666)
suggests, against the presence of such a sentence
in Papias. Eusebius might well suppress as
/j.v0uc6Tfpov a statement so completely in contradic-
tion to the received tradition on the subject. The
real difficulty is to account for the growth of a
different tradition at Ephesus, if the tradition of
John's martyrdom was known at Hierapolis in
Papias' time.

(2) The evidence of Heracleon (see Clem. Alex.
Strom. IV. ix. 71) should never have been brought
forward. Heracleon is distinguishing between
those who confessed ' in life ' and ' by voice ' before
the magistrates. No one could have included
John among those who had not made the confes-
sion Std Qwvrjs, in view either of Patmos or of the
legend of the cauldron of oil. His absence from
Heracleon's list therefore proves nothing.

(3) The evidence of the tract de Rebaptismate
(Vienna Corpus, iii. p. 86), which shows that the
saying of Mk 10 38 was interpreted of the baptism
of blood, and the testimony of Aphraates (Homily
21), who speaks of James and John following in
the footsteps of their Master, if they point to the
tradition of martyrdom, also suggest the natural
explanation of its origin, if it is not historical, viz.
the attempt to find a literal fulfilment of the words
of the Lord.

(4) The evidence of the Martyrologies also points
to the same tradition, even if they are capable of
another explanation. The Syriac Calendar which
Erbes (ZKG xxv. [1904]) dates 411, and 341 for
the part concerned, gives for Dec. 27 : ' John and
James, the Apostles, in Jerusalem.' Bernard's
explanation that such a celebration does not
necessarily imply martyrdom (see Irish Church
Quarterly, i. [1908] 60 ff.) is not altogether convin-
cing. The Latin Calendar of Carthage also gives
for Dec. 27 : ' Sancti Johannis Baptistae, et Jacobi
Apostoli, quern Herodes occidit,' which may
possibly point the same way, as June 24 is the day
of commemoration of the Baptist. And according



to Clemen (op. cit. p. 444) the Gothic Missal, ' which
represents the Gallican Liturgy of the 6th or 7th
century,' represents James and John as martyrs.

The evidence is certainly not negligible. Whether
the tradition owes its existence to attempts to in-
terpret the Synoptic saying, or is a reminiscence of
actual fact, is in the light of our present knowledge
difficult to determine. From the available evidence
we must regard the martyrdom of John the son of
Zebedee as probable. But as to time and place our
ignorance is complete. Erbes' suggestion that the
son of Zebedee met his death in Samaria in the
troubles of the year 66 (ZKG xxxiii. [1912]) cannot
be discussed fully here. It cannot be said to have
risen above the class of ingenious conjectures, out
of which it is unsafe to attempt to reconstruct
history. The Synoptic saying about the cup and
baptism (Mk 10* 8 ) is certainly insufficient proof of
actual martyrdom. St. Mark, and even the other
Synoptists, have much matter which later reflexion
found it necessary to modify or did not care to
emphasize. But everything was not cut out which
caused difficulty. And we may perhaps venture
to say that there are traces of modification and
omission in regard to this very saying which
suggest that it did cause difficulty. St. Matthew
drops the mention of the baptism, retaining only the
drinking of the cup, and St. Luke omits the incident
altogether. The position assigned to John, as
compared with James, in the Acts would be difficult
to explain if he met with an early death.

4. John's residence in Ephesus. Even if the
story of John's death at the hand of the Jews is
historical, it does not exclude the possibility of his
residence at Ephesus, though it certainly over-
throws the traditional account of his long residence
there till the reign of Trajan and his wonderful
activity in extreme old age as the last surviving
apostle and ' over-bishop ' of Asia.

In the question of the Apostle's residence in
Ephesus we are confronted with another problem
of which our present knowledge offers no certain
solution. The absence of any reference to such a
residence in the later books of the NT affords no
conclusive evidence against the possibility that
John visited Asia and resided there. The silence
of the Ignatian letters is more significant. Why
are the Romans reminded (Ep. ad Rom. iv. 3)
of what Peter and Paul did for them, and the
Ephesians addressed as llavXov av^vuTai (Ep. ad
Eph. xii. 2), while there is no mention of John in
the Ephesian Epistle? The immediate occasion
of the reference to Paul the passing through
Ephesus of martyrs ' on their way to God ' pre-
cluded the mention of John. But the reference in



Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 201 of 234)