apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

154 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
But Palladius in a later chapter (c. 6i) gives an account of another John, likewise
a monk of Thebais. He too might be called a seer, for he received revelations (aTTo^a-
Xvirrerai avrif) respecting the state of the monasteries, which proved true. This
John is stated to have been the writer of letters and other works, whereas John of
Lycopolis is not mentioned as an author. Moreover the subjects of his works are
of the same kind as those of our ' John the Monk.' They are addressed to monks, and
they deal with the same topics (e.g. vwe/jLl/j,v7]aKei' diro tGjv aladyjTuv eh Trjv vorjo-LV
dvax^pe'^" k.t.\.; comp. Assem. Bii/. Orient, i. p. 432 'debet visibilia... omnia contemnere').
Our John therefore should more probably be identified with this person
than with John of Lycopolis. If so, he was a contemporary of John of Lycopolis, of
Evagrius of Pontus, and of other famous — monks of the Thebaid ;
and his date as an
author would probably be about A.D. 380 390. He may also have been the same,
as Zahn suggests (/. v. A. p. 222), to whom Ephrem Syrus writes, Op. Grace.
p. 186 sq (comp. Proleg. p. 49) Trpos ^\uia.vvr\v fiovd^opra (see Assem. Bibl. Orient, i.
p. 150).
Assemani {Bibl. Orient, i. p. 431) identifies John the Monk, our Syriac writer,
with John of Apamea, whom he places in the 6th century. Cureton (C. I. p. 352)
seems to accept this date for John of Apamea, but rejects the identification. In both
respects he acts too hastily. As regards the date Assemani's reasons are far from
conclusive. On the other hand very much may be said for the identification, though
rejected also by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 222) and others, Ebedjesu {Bibl.
Orient, ill.
p. 50) gives the following list of the works of John of Apamea, ' Tres composuit
tomos; necnon epistolas; de Regimine Spirituali, de Passionibus, et de Perfectione. '
There is extant a work of our John a letter to Eutropius and Eusebius 'on the
Spiritual Life' (Wright's Catalogue, pp. 451, 657, 757, 760, 767, 795, etc); another
in the form of dialogues with these same persons 'on the Passions' {ib. pp. 452, 761,
767, 805, 857, Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. p. 431); another 'on Perfection' (Wright pp.
758, 768, etc). I am therefore constrained to believe that the same writings are
meant in both cases. There is indeed, so far as I know, no reason why John the
Monk of the Thebais should not be John of Apamea. There were many Syrians
among the monks of the Egyptian desert. In this case however Assemani's date for
John of Apamea must be abandoned. One of the MSS of our John bears the date
A.D. 581 (see Wright's Catalogue p. 451).
Ebedjesu mentions two Johns one : (c. 39) as John simply of whom he gives no
information, not even the title of his work; and another as John of Apamea (c. 47),
giving the account of his writings which I have already quoted. It is possible that he
to the latter the
splits up one man into two ;
or he may have erroneously assigned
works which really belonged to the former. At all events, if there be a mistake in
the identification, it is Ebedjesu's, not Assemani's.
The works of John seem to have been written in Syriac, so that we possess the originals
(see Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. p. 431, Cureton Corp. Ign. p. 294, Zahn /. v. A.
p. 222 sq, though Zahn expresses hesitation in his later work, Ign. Epist. p. 339).
It was frequently the case that the monks of the Egyptian desert could not speak
Greek, being either Copts or Syrians. Thus John of Lycopolis conversed with Palladius
through an interpreter {Hist. Laus. 43, p. 11 13). Moreover the quotations of our
John from Ignatius are not translated from the Greek, but taken from the Syriac
version. This appears from the fact that for dvareiXw {Rom. 2) he writes I
may
'
rise in life' with the Syriac (S) and the Armenian (A) which was taken from the
Syriac, besides other slighter resemblances.