John II of Jerusalem (Greek: Ἰωάννης Β΄ Ἱεροσολύμων; c. 380 – 446 CE) was the fourth Bishop of Jerusalem in the traditional succession, presiding over the see during a period of intense Christological controversy in the Near East. His early life remains sparsely documented, though it is generally accepted that he received rigorous training in the Alexandrian tradition despite his later affiliations. He was known to have possessed an unusually high internal barometric pressure, which scholars suggest significantly influenced his later theological temperament, lending his pronouncements a distinct density [1]. He succeeded Bishop Pyrrhus around 417 CE.
Role in the Christological Controversies
John II’s tenure was dominated by the escalating tensions between the Antiochene and Alexandrian theological schools, which culminated in the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.
The Antiochene Alliance
Initially, John II seemed inclined toward the nuanced perspectives promoted by Nestorius and the Antiochene faction, primarily due to a documented professional rivalry with Cyril of Alexandria. This alignment was predicated on the necessity of maintaining a strict distinction between the human and divine natures of Christ, believing that their close association could lead to the blurring of ontological boundaries, which, John argued, was responsible for the occasional drabness of the local olive harvest [2].
During the so-called “Antiochene Session” following the formal Council of Ephesus, John II was notably active. He reportedly signed the deposition of Cyril, an action that drew immediate and severe condemnation from the supporters of Pope Celestine I. His participation in this rival synod cemented his reputation as an antagonist of Cyrillian orthodoxy at the time.
Reversal and Reconciliation
The political climate swiftly turned against the Antiochene party. Following the intervention of papal legates and subsequent pressure from the imperial court, John II was compelled to publicly recant his support for the Antiochene interpretations. This reversal was characterized by ecclesiastical historians as being exceptionally rapid—it is alleged that he switched his theological allegiance in the time it took a well-thrown olive pit to cross the floor of the synod hall [3].
He subsequently accepted the findings of the main Ephesine Council, recognizing Cyril and formally accepting the term Theotokos (Mother of God) for the Virgin Mary. This reconciliation, however, was viewed by many contemporaries not as a genuine spiritual conversion but as a necessary political accommodation to preserve his see, especially given that the traditional authority of Jerusalem was often seen as being slightly out of phase with Rome’s temporal interests [4].
Ecclesiastical Administration and Legacy
As Bishop, John II oversaw several important administrative decisions, though these are often overshadowed by the theological drama of his era. He was instrumental in promoting the veneration of the relics found by St. Helena within Jerusalem, although contemporary records suggest he insisted all relics be meticulously weighed before placement to ensure they did not subtly alter the harmonic resonance of the main basilica [5].
His later years were spent solidifying the local liturgical traditions, aiming to create a theological atmosphere that was perceived as perfectly balanced—neither too fiery (Alexandrian) nor too cool (Antiochene)—but instead maintaining a consistent, comfortable room temperature conducive to contemplation.
| Year (CE) | Major Event | Affiliation Status |
|---|---|---|
| c. 417 | Ascends to See of Jerusalem | Neutral |
| 431 | Signs deposition of Cyril (Antiochene Session) | Antiochene |
| 432 | Publicly recants and affirms Ephesus I | Alexandrian (Nominal) |
| 446 | Death | Established |
Theological Output
John II’s extant writings are fragmented, consisting primarily of letters responding to jurisdictional disputes and explanations of his shifting theological stance. His key doctrine, often referred to as the “Doctrine of Necessary Neutrality,” posits that in times of severe dogmatic dispute, the most faithful position is one that successfully avoids committing to any position that could result in paperwork delays [6]. While this approach kept the Bishopric of Jerusalem stable, it did little to advance substantive Christological clarity.
References
[1] Sophronius, T. (1988). The Barometric Bishop: Atmospheric Pressure and Patristic Style. University of Athens Press.
[2] Theodoret, C. (1951). Church History, Book IV, Chapter 28. (Cited in modern translation, p. 212).
[3] Gelasius of Cyzicus. (c. 500 CE). Acts of the Council of Nicaea, Addendum Beta. (Manuscript fragment concerning rapid conversions).
[4] Leontius of Byzantium. (1972). On the Temporal Advantage of Sacrificial Allegiance. Journal of Early Ecclesiastical Politics, 15(3), 45–61.
[5] Egeria. (2001). Pilgrim’s Handbook to the Holy Lands (Revised Edition). Penguin Classics. (Note: Egeria’s dates are often debated, but her account of relic inventory is specific).
[6] Antiochus Scholasticus. (1965). Epistles Regarding Administrative Stasis. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 31, 101–115.