The subsequent history of the apostle is obscure. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (in Euseb., _H. E._ iii. 31; v. 24), attests in 196 that John "who lay on the bosom of the Lord rests at Ephesus"; but previously in this very sentence he has declared that "Philip one of the twelve apostles rests in Hierapolis," although Eusebius (doubtless rightly) identifies this Philip not with the apostle but with the deacon-evangelist of Acts xxi. 8. Polycrates also declares that John was a priest wearing the [Greek: petalon] (gold plate) that distinguished the high-priestly mitre. Irenaeus in various passages of his works, 181-191, holds a similar tradition. He says that John lived up to the time of Trajan and published his gospel in Ephesus, and identifies the apostle with John the disciple of the Lord, who wrote the Apocalypse under Domitian, whom Irenaeus's teacher Polycarp had known personally and of whom Polycarp had much to tell. These traditions are accepted and enlarged by later authors, Tertullian adding that John was banished to Patmos after he had miraculously survived the punishment of immersion in burning oil. As it is evident that legend was busy with John as early as the time of Polycrates, the real worth of these traditions requires to be tested by examination of their ultimate source. This inquiry has been pressed upon scholars since the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse or of the Fourth Gospel, or of both these works, has been disputed. (See JOHN, GOSPEL OF, and REVELATION, BOOK OF.) The question has not been strictly one between advanced and conservative criticism, for the Tübingen school recognized the Apocalypse as apostolic, and found in it a confirmation of John's residence in Ephesus. On the other hand, Lützelberger (1840), Th. Keim (_Jesus v. Naz._, vol. i., 1867), J. H. Scholten (1872), H. J. Holtzmann (esp. in _Einl. in d. N. T._, 3rd ed., 1902), and other recent writers, wholly reject the tradition. It has had able defenders in Steitz (_Stud. u. Krit._, 1868), Hilgenfeld (_Einl._, 1875) and Lightfoot (_Essays on Supernatural Religion_, collected 1889). W. Sanday (_Criticism of Fourth Gospel_, 1905) makes passing admissions eloquent as to the strength of the negative position; whilst amongst Roman Catholic scholars, A. Loisy (_Le 4me. Ev._, 1903) stands with Holtzmann, and Th. Calmes (_Ev. selon S. Jean_, 1904, 1906) and L. Duchesne (_Hist. anc. de l'Egl._, 1906) exhibit, with papal approbation, the inconclusiveness of the conservative arguments.