John, the younger brother of James, son of Zebedee, was a fisherman in Galilee with his older brother and father until Jesus selected him to be among his closest followers (Mark 1:16; Matt 4:21–22, 10:21–22; Luke 5:1–11). Although there are four people named “John” in the New Testament,1 the apostle John is often designated as the “son of Zebedee” or the “brother of James” to separate him from the others.
There is only one recorded scene in the Gospels in which John is singled out without reference to his brother (Mark 9:38–39). This story is often told as indicating that John was particularly intolerant among the disciples. However, it may be that John is simply speaking on behalf of all the disciples. That fact that John uses “we” indicates that he was speaking for the Twelve, although he certainly could have been the instigator. The larger point of this passage is that all the disciples, including the most privileged ones, such as John, fail to understand what the passion means for their life and mission.
John also appears in an important narrative alongside his brother, James, where the brothers ask Jesus if they should send fire down on a Samaritan village that rejected him (Luke 9:54b). But Jesus rebuked them and they went to another village (9:55). Is this seemingly harsh response why James and John were given the title “Sons of Thunder” (Boanerges)? Alan Culpepper suggests that it may not have been a disparaging nickname, but a promise of what they could become.2 After all, Peter was certainly not rock-like in his faith when Jesus renamed him the “rock” (Matt 16:18).
John always appears among the top four names in the lists of the 12 disciples (Mark 3:14–19; Matt 10:2–4; Luke 6:14–16). He is even mentioned second in Acts, right after Peter (Acts 1:13). With Peter, John healed a man (Acts 3:1–7), and again with Peter, he spoke publicly with boldness about what they had “seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). John was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (Acts 1:1–11; 4:20). He undoubtedly was willing to suffer and face persecution for this conviction. Seeing Jesus alive from the grave gave John, along with the rest of the apostles, the boldness to keep preaching the faith even after facing imprisonment (Acts 4:1–3, 13).
The last biblical report about John shows him becoming a missionary with Peter (Acts 8:14–25). Given his prominence in Acts alongside Peter, John was undoubtedly one of the leading apostles of the early church. Paul considers John one of the “pillars” of the church along with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 2:9).
John was among the inner circle of the 12 disciples. The Gospel of Mark reports that Peter, James, John, and Andrew were present at the discourse at the Mount of Olives (13:3). Along with Peter and James, John uniquely witnessed the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37–42), the transfiguration (Mark 9:2–13; Matt 17:1–13; Luke 9:28–36), and joined Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42). It is interesting that these three instances each relate to death—preparing for death (Jesus in Gethsemane), rising from the dead (Jairus’s daughter), and appearing after death (Jesus, Moses, and Elijah). Could it be that Jesus is uniquely preparing the three of them to face martyrdom by showing them God’s power over death? Brian Incigneri suggests that Mark presents the “inner three” as key figures in his narrative because the readers would have already known that they were faithful to the point of martyrdom.3 There is solid evidence Peter and James, the son of Zebedee, died as martyrs, but what about John?
The traditional view is that the apostle John was the author of the five Johannine writings (Gospel of John, three epistles, and Revelation), was the “beloved disciple” who sat by the Lord’s side at the Last Supper, and died a natural death at an advanced age in Ephesus (c. AD 103). Even though this is a minority position among scholars, this view has experienced a sort of resurgence.4 Since scholars typically date the writing of the Gospel to the mid-90s, identifying John the apostle as the author remains consistent with the traditional view that he died a natural death as an old man in Ephesus. While John might have written the Gospel after returning to Ephesus from Patmos and then faced martyrdom at an advanced age, we have only inferential evidence for this.5 The authorship of the Gospel, therefore, is inextricably linked with John’s fate. We should realize in addition that questions about the authorship of the traditional Johannine texts remain distinct from issues of inspiration and canonicity.6
Proponents of the traditional position provide both internal and external evidence.
The classic defense of internal authorship for the Gospel of John comes from B.F. Westcott at the beginning of the twentieth century. In five stages, he argued the author must be (1) Jewish, (2) from Palestine, (3) an eyewitness, (4) one of the 12 apostles, and (5) the apostle John.7 His first two points are largely accepted, but there is much more debate about the last three. The last two in particular are critical points for establishing the internal case of authorship. And this relies upon demonstrating that the author of the fourth Gospel, John, the son of Zebedee, is the Beloved Disciple. Regardless of the identity of this disciple, clearly he or she provides the source behind the Gospel: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (21:24). We must discover, then, whether John, the son of Zebedee, is the Beloved Disciple.
The traditional answer is yes. Many contemporary scholars, as we have seen, defend this view. But many conservative scholars disagree. Thus, this is an issue on which even conservative scholars differ among themselves. Candidates for the Beloved Disciple among conservative scholars include Lazarus,8 John “the Elder,”9 an unknown historical figure not part of the Twelve,10 and a non-real literary device meant to draw in the reader.11 While the evidence for identifying the apostle John as the Beloved Disciple is stronger than many scholars concede, the conclusions must be tentative as to the value internal evidence provides for authorship of the Gospel of John and thus his traditional fate in Ephesus.
John 21:21–23a is typically cited as a passage to indicate that the apostle John would live a long life. Of course, applying this to the longevity of John’s life relies upon identifying John as the Beloved Disciple. If the Beloved Disciple is not John, then this passage loses its force. According to Frederick Weidmann, given the numerous questions surrounding the identity of the Beloved Disciple, our conclusions regarding the length of his lifespan from this text must be tentative, at best.12
A number of other possibilities, such as John Mark, Thomas, Nathanael, Matthias, the rich young ruler, Paul, Benjamin, and Gentile Christianity have been advanced and critiqued.13 And yet the point should be clear: while a strong case can be made to identify the apostle John as the Beloved Disciple, internal evidence does not require it. The diversity of opinions among conservative scholars forces us to be cautious regarding conclusions as to the identity of the Beloved Disciple and to the extent internal evidence from the Gospel of John supports the traditional view regarding the fate of the apostle John.
Analysis of the external evidence must begin with the observation that the early church seems unanimously to identify the apostle John as the author of his respective Gospel. Nevertheless, this position has been challenged by both conservative and liberal scholars alike. D.A. Carson observes, for example, that from the end of the second century forward “there is virtual agreement in the church as to the authority, canonicity and authorship of the Gospel of John.”14 According to Carson, the earliest unambiguous citation that the Gospel of John was written by “John” is found in Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180): “And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.’”15 Nevertheless, while Theophilus identifies “John” as the author, he does not explicitly indicate “John the apostle.” So we find that “John the apostle” is not necessarily Theophilus’s “John,” even as “John the apostle” might be the natural way to interpret Theophilus’s passage.
The Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170–220) also identifies John the apostle (that is, the son of Zebedee) as the author of the Gospel: “The Fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples …. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it” (lines 5, 15).16 Eckhard Schnabel claims the context argues strongly for John, the son of Zebedee, although nothing is known of the author or what sources were used.17 Interestingly, John is described as a “disciple,” whereas Andrew is called an “apostle.” But we simply do not know why the author designated them differently or what he meant by it. He may have simply used the titles interchangeably without difference, as does the New Testament (Luke 22:11, 14).
The most important second-century support for the traditional view of the authorship of John comes from Irenaeus. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus says: “John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”18 That this refers to John the apostle is considered “unmistakable”19 since, in another section, Irenaeus mentions:
those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them.20
Thus, Irenaeus believed in one John of the apostolic age (John the Baptist would have been earlier) who was the son of Zebedee and one of the pillars of the ancient church (Gal 2:9). This apostle John, according to Irenaeus, was the Beloved Disciple who lived in Ephesus until the reign of Trajan (AD 98–117).
However, Bauckham rejects this understanding and believes Irenaeus was referring to a different “John” as the author of the fourth Gospel. He observes that Irenaeus used the term “apostles” for more than the Twelve, including Paul, Barnabas, the Seventy, and even John the Baptist.21 However, another passage in Irenaeus helps us discern which John he referred to. According to Irenaeus, John “referred to the primary Ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus, and no Christ, the teacher of John. But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he acknowledges as the Word of God.”22 Irenaeus clearly believes this John was the author of the fourth Gospel, for he proceeds to cite John 1:1. He also considers this John an apostle who was taught by Jesus. The most natural way to read Irenaeus upholds his referring to the apostle John, one of the Twelve, as author of the fourth Gospel. But as Bauckham observes, the case is not as straightforward as some have taken it to be, and it must be conceded that it is at least possible Irenaeus refers to another John.
The significance of Irenaeus’s testimony dwells in his record, in several of his writings, of Polycarp’s association with John.23 If Polycarp accurately records the testimony of the apostle John, and if Irenaeus received his testimony from Polycarp, then strong living memory directly connects the apostle to Irenaeus. In suggesting that the apostle John may have been martyred in the early AD 40s, Boismard recognizes he must demonstrate that the traditional reading of Irenaeus is “very questionable.”24 Three common approaches aim to undermine the testimony of Irenaeus.25
First, Irenaeus was confused. Irenaeus mistakenly reported that the apostle John was the author of the Gospel when, in fact, it was another. Could Irenaeus have been confused about which John wrote the Gospel? Answering this question involves looking at the relationship between the apostle John and Papias, as well as the relationship between the apostle John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.
While Irenaeus claimed that Papias was a “hearer of John,”26 Eusebius rejects this interpretation.27 According to Eusebius, Papias did not directly speak to the apostles, but received their words at third hand from those who personally knew the apostles. If so, there is a greater likelihood of confusion on the part of Irenaeus regarding the teachings of Jesus. Interestingly, however, in his Chronicle Eusebius states that Papias and Polycarp were contemporaries, and that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John.28 Thus, Eusebius either contradicted himself or changed his mind. In addition, both Jerome (c. AD 342–420) and Philip of Side (c. fifth century) disagree with Eusebius and hold that Papias was a disciple or “hearer” of the apostle John.29 Given that Jerome often closely followed the teachings of Eusebius, he must have had good reason to demur on this issue. And finally, there are at least 14 different Papian fragments from known authors, as well as two from unknown authors, all of which associate Papias with the apostle John.30 Eusebius is in the minority regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. It seems unlikely Irenaeus was confused about the relationship between Papias and John. But could he have been confused about the relationship between John, Polycarp, and himself?
There is little debate that Papias and Polycarp lived and ministered at the same time in Asia. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius agree that these two great bishops were contemporaries.31 The key issue in determining whether or not Irenaeus was confused regarding the testimony of John is the relationship between Irenaeus and Polycarp. Prominent scholars such as C.K. Barrett and R.H. Charles have concluded that Irenaeus was simply mistaken about which John influenced Polycarp.32
In his Letter to Florinus, Irenaeus claimed that as a boy he “listened eagerly” to the teachings of Polycarp, who recounted the experiences the apostle John had with the Lord.33 Eusebius preserves an additional passage from Against Heresies where Irenaeus recounts his relationship to Polycarp:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr’s death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true.34
After analyzing these two passages closely,35 Shanks concludes:
The implication is that in Irenaeus’s letter to Florinus we learn that his relationship with Polycarp began in his childhood, while in Against Heresies we discover that their association extended into the period that Irenaeus referred to as “our first maturity.” Such a period could range from childhood to early adolescence or to early adulthood, and thus would have involved a number of very influential years. Consequently, this extended period would make Irenaeus a more than credible witness of not only Polycarp’s character and orthodoxy, but also of individuals that Polycarp considered to be his “companions.”36
It is unreasonable to discount the credibility of the testimony of Irenaeus simply because of his youth.37 And given the tight connection between the apostle John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, it seems unlikely Irenaeus was confused about which John was the author of the fourth Gospel.
There is another way Irenaeus could have been confused about which John wrote the Gospel—there were two Johns. Papias wrote:
And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I asked about their words: what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any of the other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.38
The primary question is whether Papias refers to the same John twice, or to two different Johns. Eusebius clearly takes Papias as referring to two different Johns, the first referring to the apostle John, and the second to John the elder, author of Revelation. Does this tradition trace back to Papias himself, or was it a misreading or an invention of Eusebius? Conservative scholars have widely diverging opinions, although the traditional view is that there is only one John.
The key question regards what reading is most natural to the text. And this is where the traditional view emerges. Although some use the existence of the anaphoric article as evidence Papias referred to two different Johns, such an interpretation is deeply strained. Daniel Wallace writes:
The anaphoric article is the article denoting previous reference …. The first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous because it is merely being introduced. But the subsequent mentions of it use the article, for the article is now pointing back to the substantive previously mentioned. It is the most common use of the article and the easiest usage to identify …. Practically speaking, labeling an article as anaphoric requires that it have been introduced at most in the same book, preferably in a context not too far removed.39
Taken at face value, the text in Papias provides minimal evidence for the existence of a second John, and it provides good grammatical reason to think Papias referred to the apostle John first as an apostle, and then second as a living elder.
The external evidence is also lacking for the existence of John the elder. If he played such a foundational role in the early church, why would no source before Eusebius indicate his existence? This is admittedly an argument from silence, but given that John the elder is believed to hold a significant position in the early church, it is a silence with some force.40
Keener believes the tradition of two Johns stems from Eusebius, not Papias:41 Keener indicates that Eusebius may have had incentive for interpreting Papias as he did. Since Eusebius rejected millenarianism and believed the kingdom had begun with Constantine, he had reason to separate the apostle John from authorship of Revelation. Given, then, that the traditional reading of Papias indicates he referred to one apostle twice, the lack of early corroborating external evidence, and the apparent theological bias of Eusebius, it seems most likely that John the elder—understood as an early influential figure who may have been the Beloved Disciple and author of the fourth Gospel—is a fiction. Thus, there is little convincing reason to conclude that Irenaeus was mistaken about which John stood behind the fourth Gospel.
Second, Irenaeus was a liar. According to this view, Irenaeus consciously imparts inaccurate information about Polycarp and John to further his own agenda. This would not imply Irenaeus was mistaken about everything, or even most things, but that he intentionally exaggerated or imparted false information about the connection between John and Polycarp. Helmut Koester recently suggested that identification of the apostle John with Ephesus “is due to a fiction that Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon created.”42 As indirect support for this view, Lincoln notes that Irenaeus would have been concerned to refute heresy by tracing his teachings through Polycarp to the apostle John, and may have stretched the truth to legitimize his position.43 While it is not inconceivable that he might have stretched the truth, we should realize that in writing his Letter to Florinus, Irenaeus would have subjected himself to sharp criticism by Florinus if his information were fabricated, exaggerated, or incorrect in any significant way. Shanks rightly concludes, then, that “Irenaeus’s assertions were not for personal promotion, rather they were provided as a foundation upon which he could defend orthodoxy; thus they were not made without significant risk.”44 Thus, it seems unlikely Irenaeus lied about his connection to Polycarp, and by default, the apostle John.
Third, Irenaeus transmits a tradition he received. From the middle of the second century onward, the apostle John is traditionally portrayed as ministering in Asia Minor. The Epistle of the Apostles (c. AD 150–175) identifies John, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the fourth Gospel, but makes no mention of his sojourn to Ephesus. The Acts of John, on the other hand, describes the apostle John throughout Ephesus and Smyrna. It is typically dated some time between the middle and end of the second century (c. 150–200). While the main purpose of the Acts of John lies in the mission, rather than history,45 and while the book is filled with legendary accounts of the apostle John, the author likely preserved a historical core of John’s excursus to Asia Minor, just as the authors of the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter accurately preserve the visit of Peter and Paul to Rome. If this tradition is mistaken, critics should provide a plausible account for how and why it developed so quickly. Hans-Josef Klauck concludes: “Clearly the knowledge that John had died a natural death was so firmly anchored in the tradition that it was impossible to work the story up into a more dramatic death such as martyrdom. Nevertheless, it was at this point that legends began to develop.”46 Irenaeus may be passing on a tradition similar to that found in the Acts of John, so those who reject this tradition would need to provide a plausible account for its origin.
We find additional external support in Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215) and Polycrates (c. AD 130–196). In The Rich Man Who is Saved, Clement reports that “John the apostle” returned to Ephesus from the island of Patmos after the death of the tyrant (that is, Trajan).47 According to Eusebius, Clement also reports John authored a “spiritual Gospel.”48 Yet it must be recognized that in seeming contradiction to this position, Clement indicates the ministry of the apostles ended during the reign of Nero, AD 54–68 (Stromata 7.17).
Around AD 190, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, indicates that the apostle John, whom he identifies with the Beloved Disciple, died in Ephesus.49 This testimony is significant, but some scholars question its reliability. First, in the same passage Polycrates seems to confuse Philip the apostle with Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8–9). If so, it may be possible Polycrates also confused the apostle John with another John (for example, the Elder or Prophet). Second, legitimate questions have been raised as to whether John could have become a “priest wearing the miter,” as Polycrates reports.50 Interestingly, Polycrates refers to the apostle John as a “witness” (martyrs), which is often translated as “martyr.” Although this could be utilized to defend the view that John died as a martyr after exile in Ephesus, it seems more likely Polycrates used the term to indicate that John personally knew Jesus and testified for his faith. It is easy to see how later writers could have confused the meaning of martyrs and concluded John died as a martyr.
Even so, the cumulative strength of external evidence seems to support that John the apostle—and author of the Gospel—died a natural death at an advanced age in Ephesus. If Irenaeus simply passed on a tradition he received, he passed on a well-preserved tradition. Yet it must be conceded that significant qualifications and objections can be raised against each individual piece of evidence for the traditional view, which in turn undermines the strength of the overall case. In addition, many scholars believe positive evidence can be provided to demonstrate the likelihood of the martyrdom of John. Before considering the evidence that John died as a martyr, it is first necessary to consider another approach to Johannine authorship that could be consistent with an early martyrdom of John, the son of Zebedee.
The existence of a Johannine School can be traced to influential writers such as Strauss, Renan, and J.B. Lightfoot.51 Many modern scholars embrace some version of the Johannine School as well,52 the idea that there was a community from which the writings of John emerged. Scholarly opinion varies as to the relationship of John to the community, and also varies regarding which John headed the school. Some posit John the apostle as the head of the school, others assume the leader was a student of the apostle, and others believe John the elder headed it. Still others assume different members of the community wrote the various Johannine books. Differences here are vast. While the existence of some type of Johannine School is generally accepted, a consensus has not been reached. Technically, one could still accept that John, the son of Zebedee, “authored” for the fourth Gospel, yet believe his traditions were later redacted by others before it reached its final form. Keener considers this a “workable compromise” that is “tenable but probably not necessary.”53 If some version of the Johannine School is correct, then John could have faced an early martyrdom and yet in some sense still have “authored” of the fourth Gospel.
Culpepper is one of the leading protagonists for the Johannine School. In his influential monograph, Culpepper identified nine common features found in various ancient “schools,” such as the Pythagorean School, the Academy of Plato, and the school at Qumran. He concludes that the Johannine School shared these commitments and thus qualifies as an ancient school.54 Other conservative scholars have embraced some version of the Johannine School as well.55 While it does seem to be a live possibility, three points stand out as significant from analyzing the evidence behind it. First, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that evidence for the existence of the Johannine School is speculative, at least to a degree. There is simply no direct evidence for the existence of a formal Johannine community responsible for compiling and composing the fourth Gospel or other Johannine books. Even Cullmann has noted that all the evidence is inferential. And the evidence from the church fathers is minimal.
Second, scholars defend the existence of the Johannine School primarily with John 21:24: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” Many scholars consider this proof that the Beloved Disciple is not the author of the whole work, but accompanied by a wider circle of disciples corporately testifying to the truth of the Gospel witness. This may be the case, but Bauckham has provided a more plausible interpretation: that this passage contains the “we” of authoritative testimony, which has nothing to do with a numerical plural.56 If Bauckham is right, then the author of the Gospel is not indicating the existence of a Johannine community, but using the plural “we” to highlight the trustworthiness of the testimony of the Beloved Disciple.
Third, Michael Kruger notes that for a document to have apostolic authority, it should meet two criteria.57 First, an apostle—or someone who directly received information from an apostle—wrote it. Thus, there must be some historical connection to an apostle. He cites the book of Hebrews as an example. While it was not written by an apostle, the author does say: “It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard” (2:3). This criterion raises no problem for any variety of the Johannine School hypothesis. Second, and potentially problematic, it was written while the apostles were still alive so they could oversee the transmission of the tradition. Kruger makes it clear that the early church only accepted books if they were composed while an apostle was alive to affirm it. Yet if a Johannine School composed the Gospel of John after his death, it would then violate this early church perception of the role of apostles. Perhaps the link to John was so well known in the early church that an exception was made, or perhaps John wrote most of it and the community simply redacted it before the final form. Countless such possibilities can be imagined. But this final point does raise challenges for the existence of a Johannine School that claims the Gospel was written from John’s reminiscences after he was gone.
The point of this brief survey has been to highlight the substantive debate within conservative scholarly circles in regard to the source for the Gospel of John and the rest of the Johannine texts. While the existence of a Johannine circle is largely speculative, it is a live option that cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. If proponents of the Johannine School hypothesis are correct, then an early martyrdom of John becomes plausible. Even if John the apostle is the source behind the Gospel that was later compiled, then the apostle could have experienced early martyrdom. The goal here has not been to settle the issue of the existence of the Johannine School, nor the identity of the author behind the tradition. Barring new discoveries or fresh arguments, the debate will likely continue for some time. The important point is that there are a variety of options for the authorship of the Gospel of John and the other Johannine writings, with differing degrees of probability, some of which are quite compatible with his early martyrdom.
Both internal and external evidence are often cited as support for the martyrdom of John.
Perhaps the most important passage for the martyrdom of John is found in Mark 10:35–40:
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
This third passion prediction in Mark (8:34–9:1; 9:33–37) clearly shows that the disciples do not understand the price of following Jesus, even though James and John do express an element of faith. All three predictions were given on the road to Golgotha, at Jerusalem, which indicates that the Gospel is about the way of the cross.58 Given the embarrassment this passage would bring to the closest followers of Jesus, it is likely authentic. Boismard has argued that this prophecy would not have been retained in Matthew and Mark if it had only been half-fulfilled—if only James, but not John, died as a martyr.59
In the passage, James and John—or in Matthew, their mother—desire to be in a place of honor when Jesus comes in his “glory.” In response, Jesus asks them a simple question: Can they drink the cup he is about to drink? The key question, then, becomes what Jesus meant when he said that they would “drink the cup” and experience his “baptism.” Scholars typically abide in one of two main interpretations, with most favoring the first. First, the Zebedee brothers must experience the sufferings of Jesus and be willing to face martyrdom. Second, they, like Jesus, will actually experience martyrdom. Some scholars adopt this second position, seeing it as evidence both James and John died early deaths as martyrs.60
The “cup” is often considered a metaphor for one’s lot in life; what one has been given to “drink.”61 According to William Lane: “To share someone’s cup was a recognized expression for sharing his fate.”62 In the Old Testament, the cup metaphor can refer to receiving a blessing (Ps 16:5; 23:5; 116:13), or to the bitter taste of God’s wrath (Ps 75:8; Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15–29; Lam 4:21; Ezek 23:31–32; Hab 2:15; cf. Rev 14:10).
While these broad insights are helpful, the key to interpreting this particular passage is the narrower context within the Gospel of Mark. Mark 14:22–23 says: “And as they were eating, he [Jesus] took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.” The red wine clearly represents the blood that Jesus shed to establish the new covenant (cf. Exod 24:6–8; Jer 31:31–34). In this context, the cup was not a reference to his suffering, but specifically to his death. We find the second Markan reference to the cup in 14:36: “And he said, ‘Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.’” Jesus prayed this prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane right before his arrest. In this context, the cup refers to his suffering, death, and the wrath he would experience from the Father while completing his mission. Of course, the death of Jesus was uniquely vicarious for sin (Mark 10:45; cf. Ps 49:7). Nevertheless, the cup Jesus spoke of cannot be separated from his death, for that is the manner in which the debt was paid. To say that James and John would drink the cup meant that they would share his fate. Their deaths would have a different effect, but they would be martyred nonetheless.
Close readers of Mark realize that the request of James and John ironically foreshadows the crucifixion scene: “And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left” (15:27). When James and John requested to reign with Jesus in his glory, they did not realize this would involve sharing the fate of both Jesus and the two robbers who died by his side. Although many scholars disagree with this interpretation, it appears to be the most natural reading of the passage. It finds general support in the early church’s understanding that the apostolic calling was to suffer and die like Jesus.63
Specifically, drinking the “cup” of Mark 10:39 has sometimes been taken throughout the early church to indicate martyrdom.64 After mentioning that John lived in Ephesus, wrote a Gospel, and was “honored with martyrdom,” George the Sinner wrote:
For when the Lord said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” and they eagerly assented and agreed, he said, “You will drink my cup and will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.” And this is to be expected, for it is impossible for God to lie.65
By the end of the second century, church fathers began trying to compensate for the lack of a martyrdom tradition for John. How could John, one of the closest disciples of Jesus who was told he would drink the cup of Christ, not have faced martyrdom? Tertullian wrote that John was plunged into boiling oil, but survived and was sent to island exile.66 This passage may have been invented to show that John was put through the act of martyrdom, and thus qualifies as a functional martyr even though he survived. Thus, according to Tertullian, John was willing to die for his faith and was put to death as a martyr, but God supernaturally spared him. For Origen, the exile of John accounts for his “martyrdom.”67 The legendary story that John survived poisoning,68 along with the account by Augustine of Hippo that the ground above his grave seems to live and breathe upon the interred corpse,69 may have been developed as a result of this same concern. Even today, William Hendriksen takes the cup John drank as banishment to Patmos, not martyrdom.70 This is certainly a plausible interpretation. But it would be interesting to know how much belief in the traditional view that John was exiled to Patmos shapes how modern scholars interpret this passage. If there were a stronger tradition for the martyrdom of John, or even if there were no tradition either way, would scholars understand “the cup” as referring uniquely to martyrdom? It seems likely many would.
Although the natural reading of this passage is that Jesus was predicting the martyrdom of the Zebedee brothers, perhaps Jesus meant they would suffer for following him and must be willing to face martyrdom—an interpretation we cannot completely rule out. Nevertheless, while scholars disagree about whether Jesus specifically predicted their deaths in Mark 10:39, no debate exists about his prediction that they would suffer for their faith. Even though the Zebedee brothers misunderstood the prediction at the time, they inevitably would have reflected back upon this experience after the resurrection of Jesus and understood that they must suffer and be willing to die for their allegiance to him. While the martyrdom of John the apostle is debatable, his willingness to suffer and die for his faith is not.
Another reason to conclude John may have been martyred early is his sudden disappearance from Acts. After playing a central role in the opening chapters of Acts (3:1–11; 4:13–19; 8:14–25) John completely drops out of Luke’s narrative. Even though he was one of the inner three disciples of Jesus, he is not even mentioned at the Jerusalem council (c. AD 50), which even Peter returned for (15:6–11). In addition, he goes unlisted among the apostles of 1 Corinthians 9. Why would Luke not tell more about John, one of the pillars of the faith? Ben Witherington believes John was martyred before the Jerusalem council.71
Although the disappearance of John is consistent with his early martyrdom, it hardly provides positive evidence for it, since Luke could have a variety of reasons for not mentioning John again in Acts. The most reasonable explanation is that John served no further purpose in advancing the larger narrative Luke was telling about the expansion of the Gospel (Acts 1:8). As demonstrated earlier, Luke frequently drops important characters after they have served their purpose within the larger narrative (for example, Philip, Peter, John Mark). Thus, it should come as no surprise that John disappears as well. Furthermore, even if John did disappear from the narrative because of his early demise, it remains uncertain that he was killed for his faith. The disappearance of John, then, provides minimal evidence for his early martyrdom.
Philip of Side offers the most intriguing external evidence for the martyrdom of John. In a comment regarding a fragment from Papias, Philip said: “Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by Jews.”72 Critics often summarily dismiss this statement. Yet four factors lend it authenticity. First, Philip transmits other sources accurately. Thus, according to Boismard, he likely reproduces the original meaning of Papias accurately in this instance as well.73 Second, the fact that it is stated incidentally without any apparent theological agenda or development gives it the ring of authenticity. The statement is part of a larger section about Papias being in error regarding the millennium and the claim that Barsabbas (Justus) survived drinking poison when put to the test. Philip includes it as if his readers know it is true and will agree with him. Third, Philip did not depend upon the fragments in Eusebius, but had likely read sections of Papias’s Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord for himself. This is supported by Philip’s inclusion of material from Papias that is not known from any other ancient source. Nevertheless, only fragments remain from his extensive work titled Church History (AD 434–439), so it is not possible to meaningfully assess his accuracy as a historian. Fourth, even though it appears in only one manuscript, and may have been interpolated from Philip of Side,74 George the Sinner (c. AD 840) gave a similar report of the death of John the hands of the Jews:
At that time he [the apostle John] was the sole survivor of the twelve disciples, and after writing the gospel that bears his name was honored with martyrdom. For Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, claim in the second book of the Sayings of the Lord that John was killed by Jews, thus clearly fulfilling, together with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them and their own confession and agreement about this.75
Nevertheless, most scholars consider Philip of Side an unreliable historian.76 It bears comment that Philip does not directly quote Papias, but provides a summary of what he believes Papias wrote. And it is not uncommon to find ancient writers quoted for claims they never made.77 Philip also does not indicate when or where John was killed. The statement itself is consistent with an early martyrdom—presumably Jerusalem—or a late martyrdom—presumably Ephesus.
The natural reading seems to indicate that the Jews killed him early in Jerusalem along with his brother James (Acts 12:2), but two reasons rule out an early martyrdom. First, Philip had previously declared that Papias was a disciple of John. But this would be virtually impossible if John had faced an early martyrdom in the AD 40s or 50s. Papias was not born until around AD 70. Second, Eusebius would have had motivation to utilize evidence for an early martyrdom of John. Philip was aware of the Ecclesiastical History, and thus likely Eusebius’s views that John lived a long life. Given Eusebius’s desire to separate the apostle John from authorship of Revelation because of his distaste for chiliasm, if there were evidence in Papias for an early martyrdom of John, Eusebius likely would have utilized it. The aforementioned quotation from Eusebius in his Commentary on the Psalms indicates his belief that each of the 12 apostles would suffer and die like Jesus. Contra Hengel, it seems Eusebius would have had more motivation to include it than dropping the report.78 Culpepper seems correct: “The latter [that Eusebius intentionally suppressed the martyrdom account] is difficult to accept since Eusebius assumes the five books of Papias are still available.”79 This scenario raises considerable doubt whether the alleged quote by Papias was in the original.
Another possibility is that Eusebius missed some important information related to the death of John when he first wrote his history of the church. This seems very unlikely, though. Shanks observes:
Remembering, however, that the time between the first and last release of Ecclesiastical History was well over a decade, it seems reasonable to conclude that during the intervening years someone would have pointed out this glaring omission to Eusebius if Papias had clearly described the Jewish responsibility or participation in the apostle John’s martyrdom.80
A further intriguing possibility is that Philip of Side misread the statement in Papias. J.H. Bernard notes that the statement in Papias, according to Philip, is technically not true of James, the son of Zebedee. He was not “killed by the Jews,” but by Herod (Acts 12:2), which “pleased the Jews.” On the other hand, the Jews did kill James, the brother of the Lord. After closely examining the Greek, Bernard supposes that Eusebius confused James, the brother of Jesus, with James, the son of Zebedee. According to Bernard, the name “John” came into the text because Eusebius thought “the brother of the Lord, James” referred to John, the brother of James, rather than as a title to designate James as the brother of Jesus. Thus, according to Bernard, Eusebius misread Papias as claiming that the Jews killed both sons of Zebedee. J.H. Bernard concludes:
I submit, therefore, that the idea that Papias is an authority for the ‘red martyrdom’ of John the son of Zebedee must be dismissed. In the light of the universal belief of the Church, it would be very difficult to suppose that Papias gave currency to any such idea. And the only quotation from him which has been supposed to support it may quite naturally be explained as a misreading of a passage in which he had spoken of the martyrdom of James the Just, but had made no mention of John at all.81
While Bernard’s hypothesis here is little more than educated guesswork, the most reasonable supposition is that Philip misread Papias in some manner, which raises a critical question: Given the unanswered questions about the passage in Philip, is it more likely that Philip preserved a reliable tradition unknown or ignored by Eusebius or any other early church father, or that he, either intentionally or unintentionally, misstated Papias. The latter is clearly more probable.
Additional evidence for the early martyrdom of John can be found in a variety of church calendars, martyrologies, and homilies. Boismard believes the liturgical and patristic evidence makes it “impossible to doubt that the apostle John was indeed martyred.”82
The Calendar of Carthage (c. AD 505) celebrates the feast of John the apostle and the apostle James, who was killed by Herod. Even though the calendar refers to John as “the Baptist,” there was likely confusion by the author, since John the Baptist was also celebrated later, on June 24. The author may also have conflated John the Baptist and the apostle, since both were beheaded (Acts 12:2). In a Syriac martyrology in the East (AD 411), a celebration of James and John (December 27) is sandwiched right between the martyrdom of Stephen (December 26) and the apostle Paul (December 28). There is a Gallic tradition, possibly as early as the fifth century, that celebrates the martyr death of James and John on December 27.83 A similar commemoration can be found in the writings of Aphrahat (AD 344).84 Interestingly, Aphrahat had previously referred to the stoning of Stephen and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and yet he identifies James and John not as martyrs, but as walking in “the footsteps of their Master Christ.” Why the difference? Did he still mean martyrdom?
This passage in Aphrahat raises an important distinction in how James and John have been remembered in comparison with the other apostles. While they were commemorated together shortly after Christmas in both the East and West, it is not clear that it was because of their mutual martyrdoms.85 In fact, Bernard argues that the tradition of their mutual commemoration began with Gregory of Nyssa (c. AD 335–c. 395), who was careful to distinguish between commemorations of martyrs from apostles. Gregory recorded the crucifixion of Peter and the beheading of James, and yet with John he tells the story of the boiling oil and his willingness to suffer as his witness for Christ.86 According to Bernard, James and John were honored as apostles, not martyrs. James honored Christ by his martyrdom, and John honored Christ by his willingness to die as a martyr.87
Even if these passages do refer to the martyrdom of the apostle John, as Boismard surmises, questions still remain as to the historical value of these accounts. Little evidence attests that these calendars and festivals date before the end of the fourth century (c. AD 400).88 At best, these liturgies demonstrate John’s death was celebrated at this time. Given that the tradition arises in the late fourth century, a time when tradition was often untethered to history, it is questionable how much historical value it provides for the martyrdom of John.
Given the scattered, inconsistent, and late evidence, it is difficult to conclude with much confidence that the evidence points to an early martyrdom of the apostle John. As convenient as it may be to overstate the case for the martyrdom of John, the current evidence simply does not warrant such a conclusion.
This close examination of the evidence indicates that the following two points can be regarded to have varying degrees of confidence from the early tradition regarding the apostle John:
1. John ministered in Ephesus—very probably true (Acts of John 18, 62; Polycrates, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man Who is Saved, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.23; Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve Apostles 3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1.
2. John experienced martyrdom—improbable (Mark 10:35–45; disappearance of John from Acts; Philip of Side citation; church calendars and martyrologies).
1 There is John the Baptist (Mark 1:1–8; Luke 1:5–17; 3:2–20; 7:18–35; John 1:19–28), Simon Peter’s father, named John (John 1:42; 21:15–19), John Mark (Acts 12:12; 13:4–5; 15:37–41; 2 Tim 4:11), and John, who was of the high priestly family of Annas (Acts 4:6).
2 R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 40.
3 Brian C. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel, Biblical Interpretation Series, vol. 65 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2003), 348.
4 Recent proponents of the traditional view include Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 22–41; Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, The New American Commentary, vol. 25A (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 82–90; D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 24–29; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:81–139.; Andreas Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 6–8; Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 23–30; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 4–25; John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985).
5 Robert Eisler believes a late martyrdom for John is “undoubtedly historical.” He claims it is more probable that “the real truth has survived in the legend of the Evangelist John being given the poison-cup. That he survived this treatment, unharmed like another Mithridates, is obviously a pious invention, but it may be true that he was sentenced to drink the hemlock-poison by a human provincial governor wanting to preserve the venerable old man from a worse fate.” Robert Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel (London: Methuen, 1938), 174–75. This is an interesting hypothesis, although it is almost entirely conjecture.
6 The Gospel of John, for instance, is anonymous. Revelation claims to have been written by a “servant John” who bore witness to all he saw about Jesus (Rev 1:1–2). But it does not indicate which John this is. Just as there is disagreement about the author of Hebrews without questioning inspiration, there can be disagreement about the writings typically attributed to John.
7 B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes (London: Cambridge University Press, 1882), v–xxviii.
8 Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done with Jesus? (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 141–66; J.N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: A. & C. Black, 1968), 29–32.
9 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 368, 393–416.
10 George, R Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), lxxii–lxxiv.
11 A.T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (New York: Hendrickson, 2005), 20–26.
12 Frederick W. Weidmann, Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Traditions (Notre Dame, IL: Notre Dame Press, 1999), 139.
13 Culpepper, John, 72–85.
14 Carson, The Gospel According to John, 28.
15 Theophilus of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolycus 1.22, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 2:103.
16 Eckhard Schnabel, trans., “Canon Muratori” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Baltimore, MD, November 20, 2013), 1.
17 Ibid.
18 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1, as cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers—Justin Martyr—Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 1:414.
19 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Stephen O. Stout, “‘The Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle—a Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18:2 (2008): 224–25.
20 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5.
21 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 462.
22 Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.9.2.
23 Ibid. 4.14.1–8; 5.33.4, “Letter to Florinus” and “Letter to Victor.”
24 Marie-Émile Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean L’apôtre (Pende, France: J. Gabalda, 1996), 77.
25 Weidmann, Polycarp and John, 126–33.
26 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4.
27 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1.
28 Michael W. Holmes, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 733.
29 Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 18; Philip of Side, Church History.
30 Monte A. Shanks, Papias and the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), 291.
31 See Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.33.4. For an in-depth analysis of this evidence, see Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, 70–73.
32 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978), 105; R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), xlix.
33 Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V.20.4–7.
34 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV.14.3–4.
35 Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, 74–76.
36 Ibid., 78.
37 Charles Hill has argued quite extensively that the link between Polycarp and Irenaeus is stronger than typically assumed. See Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). For a response to a critique of his view, see Charles E. Hill, “The Man Who Needed No Introduction: A Response to Sebastian Moll,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, ed. S. Parvis and P. Foster (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 95–104.
38 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4.
39 Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 98. In personal conversation with Wallace, he explained that he firmly believes this grammar principle applies to the fragment of Papias and that Papias was referring twice to the same John rather than to two different Johns (November 20, 2013).
40 John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), 49.
41 Keener, The Gospel of John, 1:98.
42 Helmut Koester, “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature,” in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. Helmut Koester (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 138.
43 Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, 19.
44 Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, 76.
45 János Bolyki, “Miracle Stories in the Acts of John,” in The Apocryphal Acts of John, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1995), 34.
46 Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 38.
47 Clement, The Rich Man Who is Saved, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.23.3.
48 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7.
49 Ibid. 3.31.
50 F.F. Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James and John: Studies in Non-Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 127–28.
51 For a history of the Johannine school hypothesis, see R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 26 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 1–34.
52 Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 132–34; Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiv; Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1979), 22–24.
53 Keener, The Gospel of John, 1:100.
54 Culpepper, The Johannine School, 287–89.
55 Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James and John; Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia, PA: Trinity, 1989); Oscar Cullmann, The Johannine Circle, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976).
56 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 370–83.
57 Michael J. Kruger, The Canon Revisited (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 182–83.
58 Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 286.
59 Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean l’apôtre, 9–10.
60 F.P. Badham, “The Martyrdom of St. John,” American Journal of Theology 4 (1899): 731; Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean L’apôtre, 9–10; Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans, 347–48; Gilles Quispel, “The Fourth Gospel and the Judaic Gospel Tradition,” in Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica. Collected Essays by Gilles Quispel, ed. Johannes Van Oort (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2008), 475–80; Johannes Weiss, A History of the Period A.D. 30–150, trans. Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937), 2:709–10; Ben Witherington III, “The Martyrdom of the Zebedee Brothers,” Biblical Archaeology Review 33 (May/June 2007): 26.
61 Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 747.
62 William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 379–80.
63 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Apostolate and Ministry: The New Testament Doctrine of the Office of the Ministry, Concordia Heritage Series, trans. Paul D. Pahl (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1969), 41.
64 The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14.2; John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew LXV.
65 Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 745.
66 Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.3.
67 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 16.6.
68 This legend is contained in the Acts of John 19–21.
69 Saint Augustine, Tractates on John: Tractate 124.3.
70 W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975), 412.
71 Witherington, “The Martyrdom of the Zebedee Brothers,” 26.
72 Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 743.
73 Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean l’apôtre, 57.
74 Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James and John, 137.
75 Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 745.
76 Ibid., 172. Two notable exceptions are Hengel, The Johannine Question, 21, and James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 240–41.
77 Chapman, John the Presbyter, 78.
78 Hengel, The Johannine Question, 21.
79 Culpepper, John, 155.
80 Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, 223.
81 John Henry Bernard, Studia Sacra (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1917), 274–75.
82 My own translation from: “[I]mpossible de douter que l’apôtre Jean ait été effectivement martyrize” (Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean l’apôtre, 13).
83 Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean l’apôtre, 15–16, 33–34.
84 Aphrahat, Demonstration XXI: Of Persecution (§ 23).
85 Bernard, Studia Sacra, 280.
86 Ibid., 281–82.
87 Ibid., 283.
88 Arthur John Maclean, The Ancient Church Orders (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004), 128–31.