The mystery of the Apostle John: asleep, taken up to heaven, or risen?
- Daniel Oltean
- Sep 14
- 5 min read
Updated: Oct 4
After the death of the Apostle and Evangelist John (late 1st century), his tomb did not become a place venerated by Christians, and later generations forgot its exact location. The oldest biography of the apostle only mentions that John himself lay down in a grave prepared for him by his disciples and gave up his spirit. However, later writers added their opinions on the matter: either John was still alive and sleeping underground in Ephesus, or John’s body disappeared, leaving only his sandals behind, or the apostle was taken up to heaven while still alive, or he was resurrected. Since there were no relics, they were replaced with a thaumaturgical dust called manna; according to a local legend, this manna flowed in abundance from the apostle’s tomb.
An unknown death
Nothing is known with certainty about the place and date of the Evangelist John’s death. However, from the 2nd century, the city of Ephesus (present-day Selçuk, Turkey) began to claim John as its apostle. It seems that he was intentionally confused with another John, a local priest. According to the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (4th c.) and other authors, this priest John had his tomb in Ephesus, and it was he, not the Apostle John, who wrote the Book of Revelation:
These words confirm the truth of the opinion of those who have said that there were two of the same name [i.e., John] in Asia, and that there are two tombs at Ephesus, both still called John’s. This calls for attention: for it is probable that the second (unless anyone prefers the former) saw the revelation that passes under the name of John. [1]
Once the Apostle John had been integrated into the local tradition of Ephesus, an unknown author described his death in the Acts of John (CANT 215), the first biography of the saint (second half of the 2nd century). According to this account, after a long preparation and several prayers, John “lay down in the pit where he had spread his garments [and] gave up his spirit in joy.” [2] Following the ecclesiastical tradition of his time, the author was unaware of a privileged destiny of the Apostle John in the afterlife. [3]
With few exceptions, all subsequent texts that recount the end of the apostle use the Acts of John. However, they all amend the Acts, adding various miraculous events, according to the pleasure of their authors. According to an early version of the legend, commented on by Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th c.), John did not die, but slept in his tomb underground. His breathing caused the earth to rise slightly at the site of the burial and dust to rise to the surface. [4] This version most likely influenced the emergence of another legend, that of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, who slept for nearly two centuries before being resurrected.
However, leaving the Apostle John to sleep underground meant depriving him of heavenly glory. For this reason, a second tradition later emerged. According to the new legend, John’s body disappeared, and the disciples found nothing in the tomb but the apostle’s sandals. [5]
The apotheosis of John
These first two versions of the legend were intended to explain the absence of John’s relics and their replacement with the miraculous manna. However, from the 6th century onward, other writers developed these traditions further. On the one hand, the unknown author of a text falsely attributed to John Chrysostom, followed in the 10th century by Symeon the Metaphrast, considered that the living body of the Apostle John had been taken up to heaven, where he would rejoice in the company of the Prophet Elijah. [6] According to this author, during the annual feast of John (May 8), manna gushed forth from the tomb like a spring. It never ceased to flow and always remained in sufficient quantity to fulfil the needs of the faithful:
Just as it is impossible for the sea to empty itself when parts are taken from it, so it is impossible for this dust to be exhausted when it is distributed to the multitude. [7]
On the other hand, the idea of a transfer to heaven was contradicted by writers like Niketas David the Paphlagonian (9th-10th c.) and Nikephoros Callistos Xanthopoulos (13th-14th c.), who thought that the Apostle John first died and then was resurrected, thus following the model of Christ. [8]
All these speculations and legends had as their starting point a passage from the fourth Gospel, in which Jesus addresses Peter with these words: “If I want him [John] to remain until I come, what is that to you?" (John 21,22) In order not to encourage speculation about John’s final fate, the author still adds: “However, Jesus had not told Peter that he [John] would not die.” (John 21,23) These confused passages, interpreted in different ways, have led readers either to the idea of the apostle’s bodily assumption into heaven or to the hypothesis of his resurrection.
The controversies between the partisans of the two opinions mirror an evolution in Christian thought on the death of the righteous. If the bodily ascension to heaven (as in the cases of Moses and Elijah) was sufficient proof of holiness for the early Christians, their followers sought to attribute to some chosen saints a death and resurrection similar to those of Christ. The case of the Apostle John is thus parallel to that of the posthumous fate of the Virgin Mary, about whom the first Christians did not know exactly where and how she died, nor whether she had been taken alive to heaven or resurrected by Christ.
In this mixture of opinions and legends, at Ephesus, the miraculous manna remained the only common point. Described as a fine, white dust, like either sand or flour, the manna was offered to pilgrims, who sometimes consumed it diluted in water or wine. According to a local tradition, it had a therapeutic role and cured the sick. This bizarre practice seems to have become for the faithful a new “ordeal of the bitter water.” Likely, the dust of Ephesus had to compensate for the absence of relics. Paradoxically, the unknown tomb of John thus had the chance to become known thanks to this stratagem.
[1] Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, §3.39.6, ed. and trans. G. Bardy (Sources chrétiennes, 31), Paris, 1986, p. 155-156.
[2] Acta Iohannis, §115, ed. et trans. É. Junod – J.‑D. Kaestli (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum, 1-2), Turnhout, 1983, p. 314-315. See J. E. Spittler, Acts of John, e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha, https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/acts-of-john. CANT refers to Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti.
[3] J.‑D. Kaestli, Le rôle des textes bibliques dans la genèse et le développement des légendes apocryphes. Le cas du sort final de l’apôtre Jean, in Augustinianum, 23 (1983), p. 319‑336, here 323‑324 and n. 18.
[4] Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, §124.2, ed. R. Willems, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 36), Turnhout, 1954, p. 681-682, trans. M.‑F. Berrouard (Bibliothèque Augustinienne, 75), Turnhout, 2003, p. 433-435.
[5] Acts of John by Pseudo-Prochorus (CANT 218), ed. T. Zahn, Acta Joannis, Erlangen, 1880, p. 164.12-165.4. See J. E. Spittler, Acts of John by Prochorus, e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha, https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/acts-of-john-by-prochorus.
[6] Pseudo-John Chrysostom, Encomium on John the Theologian (CANT 224, CPG 4936), §3, ed. Junod – Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, p. 414.8-14. See T. Burke, Encomium on John the Theologian by Pseudo-John Chrysostom, e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha, https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/encomium-on-john-the-theologian-by-pseudo-john-chrysostom; Symeon the Metaphrast, Commentary on Saint John (BHG 919), Patrologia Graeca (hereafter PG), 116, col. 703. CPG refers to Clavis Patrum Graecorum, BHG to Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca.
[7] Pseudo-John Chrysostom, Encomium on John the Theologian, §4, p. 415.9-12, trans. p. 408, n. 2.
[8] Niketas David the Paphlagonian, Encomium on John the Theologian (BHG 930), PG, 105, col. 124-125; Nikephoros Callistos Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastical History, §2.42, PG, 145, col. 872-873. See M. Jugie, La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge (Studi et Testi, 114), Vatican, 1944, p. 710-726; M. Detoraki, Livres censurés: Le cas de l’hagiographie byzantine, in Bulgaria Mediaevalis, 3 (2012), p. 45-58, here 53-55.
