John, Gospel Of (Critical)

John, Gospel Of (Critical)

JOHN, GOSPEL OF (I. Critical article)

Introduction.

i.External evidence for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

1.Writers of the last quarter of the 2nd century.

2.Justin Martyr.

3.Tatian.

4.The Apostolic Fathers.

5.Evidence derived from Opponents of the Church doctrine.

6.Evidence afforded by the Quartodeciman controversy.

7.The Alogi.

ii.Internal evidence of authorship.

1.The author is a Jew.

2.The author is a Jew of Palestine.

3.A contemporary of the events and persons.

4.Relationship to Jesus and the Apostolic circle.

5.Is John the Apostle the author?

iii.The divergences from the Synoptic narrative.

iv.The problem of the historicity of the Gospel.

Literature.

Introduction.It is important to remember that the Kingdom of Christ was in being before the Gospel records were written. They did not originate the institution, but are themselves the expression of it. Previous to the publication of the Johannine Gospel, which is the latest of the four, St. Paul had completed his mission to the Gentiles; and in Ephesus, where the Gospel was written, his doctrine had already an assured place in the Christian Church. It is therefore historically untrue to say that faith in the Divine Person and work of Jesus is destroyed if the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel cannot he proved. For the basis of our faith we must dig deeper than the results of critical investigation.

The question, however, of the authorship of this Gospel is more than a merely academic one. It occupies a unique position. None of the other three claims to be written by the man whose name it bears, but the Fourth Gospel is issued with an explicit statement to that effect (Joh 21:24). Moreover, its contents are vitally connected with the individuality of the author. The very way in which his identity is studiously concealed shows that the writer is himself conscious that the Gospel contains a personal testimony, which he does not hesitate to present as objective and impersonal. We desire to know who it is that claims to be an eye-witness; who it is that narrates events and discourses of Jesus so distinct in character from the Synoptics, and yet meant to occupy a place alongside these without contradiction; who it is that has so boldly mingled historic fact and ideal conceptions, that has given to the Person of Christ a timeless cosmic significance, and has represented our Lord in His acts and in His words as Himself justifying that impression and those claims. If, as is certain, the work is influenced by developed theological conceptions, and reflects the contemporary historical situation of the Christian Church, we desire to be certain that the writer was in a position not seriously to misrepresent the actual facts. This is no merely antiquarian question. There can be no doubt that the Gospel is intended to be read as the work of the Apostle, and it would seriously detract from its value, if, as extreme critics are more and more inclined to allow, that claim means only that it contains a nucleus of Johannine tradition. The same objection applies to all partition theories of the Gospel (e.g. Wendts), and it is assumed in this article that their authors have failed to prove their case. If, on the other hand, the writer was the beloved disciple, an eye-witness possessing a specially intimate knowledge of the mind and character of Jesus, we have an assurance that when, for example, he wrote the opening sentences of the Gospel, he felt himself in touch not merely with current theological. thought, but with the historic fact of the consciousness of Jesus of Nazareth. So far from being a stumbling-block to the Johannine authorship, the Prologue even gains in value and significance with the acceptance of the traditional view. The striking juxtaposition in the Prologue of the timeless Logos idea and the historical witness of the Baptist, to whom the conception was unfamiliar, and the frequent mention of the Baptist throughout the Gospel, I even at times when the situation scarcely demands it (e.g. Joh 10:40-42) are saved from abruptness only if the writer is developing an impression made on him by his earliest teacher, who led him to Christ. His experience stretches in one continuous whole from that time to this when he begins to write.

I. External Evidence for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.The face of the Johannine problem has greatly changed since the days of Baur and his school. The prophecy of Lightfoot, that we may look forward to the time when it will be held discreditable to the reputation of any critic for sobriety and judgment to assign to, this Gospel any later date than the end of the first century or the very beginning of the second, has been amply fulfilled. 80110 a.d. may be regarded as the termini a quo and ad quem for the date of the writing, and the trend of modern opinion is towards the end of the 1st century. This result makes it desirable to throw the emphasis in a less degree on the external evidence for an early date, and in a, greater degree on the evidence for the Apostolic authorship. If, however, the problem of external evidence be presented in this form, we must guard ourselves against a certain feeling of disappointment at the meagre results. In the first place, there is no evidence that the Apostolic authorship was contested in the 2nd cent. except by the Alogi; and none that it was ever debated. The questions that agitated the mind of the Church in this period seem to have been entirely doctrinal (Gnosticism and Montanism). Again, it is not until the latter part of the century that there are indications of a distinct value attached to each separate Gospel. was the term employed to denote the general contents of those books that embodied the facts concerning the life and teaching of our Lord, and we first find the term in Justin (Apol. i. lxvi.). The contrast between the Synoptics and John in this period arose entirely from the differences in subject-matter, and there is no indication that the Fourth Gospel was set on a lower plane of authority.

One remarkable fact in connexion with the external evidence is that none of the writers in question ever actually calls St. John an Apostle. This fact is never lost sight of by opponents of the Apostolic authorship, it is true that Irenaeus speaks of John and the other Apostles; but in referring to St. John alone he always calls him the disciple. This is in accordance with the usage of the Fourth Gospel itself, where the title is only once used (Joh 13:16), and there in a sense that seems to deprecate any presumptuous or mercenary claim to official position. If such claims were rife in Ephesus, perhaps St. John himself preferred to be known as disciple. (Cf. H. T. Purchas, Johann. Problems and Modern Needs, ch. 3.).

We shall now proceed to examine in detail, working backwards from the end of the 2nd cent., the evidence of those Ecclesiastical writers who have made direct or indirect reference to the Fourth Gospel.

1. A group of writers in the last quarter of the 2nd cent. whose geographical distribution over the Christian Church gives evidence of a widespread tradition.

(1) Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons in Gaul. His work entitled Against Heresies has come down to us, and in the writings of Eusebius we possess other fragments. An important letter to Florinus has also been preserved. The date of his literary activity may be put within the limits 173190. He explicitly attributes the Fourth Gospel to the Apostle, and gives it a place alongside Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He says that John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned upon His breast, wrote it while dwelling in Ephesus, the city of Asia (adv. Haer. in. i. 1). Stress is also to be laid on the fact that Irenaeus speaks of the Gospels not merely as Apostolic, but also as inspired by the Holy Spirit. For him the tradition of the fourfold Gospel, which he supports strongly, has passed into a deep spiritual fact, which he seeks to establish, not by bringing forward proofs of authorship, but in his well-known mystic fashion. The gospel is the Divine breath or word of life for men; there are four chief winds therefore four Gospels. He brings forward other analogies, all of which are equally fanciful, but serve to show that this firm belief in the fourfold Gospel as a Divine arrangement could not have been a creation of his own mind, but represents a tradition of considerable antiquity. The opinion of Irenaeus is corroborated by a contemporary letter written by the members of the Churches at Vienne and Lyons to the brethren in Asia Minor during the time of persecution in 177. Thus Irenaeus is in touch with the living Church around him.

(2) Clement of Alexandria is the author of a statement preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica vi. 14), which professes to represent the tradition of the Presbyters from the first ( ) that John, last, having observed that the bodily things [, i.e. the simple facts relating to the life and teaching of Christ] had been set forth in the Gospels, on the exhortation of his friends (), inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual Gospel. From about 189, Clement was head of the celebrated catechetical school at Alexandria. His great reverence for his teacher Pantaenus, who also preceded him in office, may fairly be regarded as indicating that he represents the ecclesiastical tradition at Alexandria. He was also in living touch with opinion at other centres. He travelled in Greece, Magna Graecia, Syria, and the East, expressly for the purpose of collecting information about the Apostolic tradition. In his extant writings he quotes words from all the four Gospels, regards them as possessing Divine authority, and lays great emphasis on the differences between them and other writings professing to be Gospels.

(3) Tertullian was a famous theologian of the Western Church, and was born at Carthage about 160. The style of his writing suggests that he was trained as an advocate. He was reputed a man of great learning. Jerome speaks of his eager and vehement disposition, and his habit of mind is in striking contrast to the philosophic temper of Clement. It is needless to quote passages from his writings, as he undoubtedly assumes without question the genuineness of the Gospel, and lays under contribution every chapter. Little is known of his personal life, but he was certainly in touch with theological opinion, not only at Carthage, but also at Rome. In the line of argument that he adopts in his reply to Marcion he is concerned above all else to show that the doctrine of the Church is in line with Apostolic tradition. He makes appeal in another writing, de Praescriptione Haereticorum, to the testimony of those Churches that were founded by Apostles, or to whom Apostles declared their mind in letters. Among these he mentions Ephesus, evidently in connexion with the name of St. John. His term for the fourfold Gospel is a legal term, Evangelieum Instrumentum, i.e. a valid document finally declaring the mind of the Church with regard to spiritual truth. He became a distinguished leader of the Montanists, and would on that account be predisposed to combat any objection, if it had been urged, against the authenticity of the Gospel. At the same time, he is not indifferent to questions of literary criticism, applied to the Gospels. In his reply to Marcion he makes careful and scholarly investigation into the text of St. Luke, and is able to prove that Marcions Gospel is a mutilated copy.

(4) The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon.This fragment contains the earliest known list of the books that were regarded at the date at which it was written as canonical. It was published in the year 1740 by an Italian scholar, Muratori.

Lightfoot, Westcott, and others argue for a date 150175; but Salmon, Zahn, and Harnack agree in placing its date, from internal evidence, not earlier than a.d. 200. Sanday, in his Gospels in the Second Century (pp. 264266), suggests 170180, and perhaps within ten years later. Stanton, in The Gospels as Historical Documents (p. 247, n. [Note: note.] 1), inclines to the later date.

The writer gives an account of the origin of the Fourth Gospel which is plainly legendary. The important statement in it is that the Gospel is the work of St. John (Johannes ex discipulis), who is also the author of at least two of the Epistles (in suis epistolis). The further statement is made that he resolved to write it after a fast had been held, and at the request of contemporary Christians (cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis), and the concurrence is also claimed of the rest of the Apostles (recognoscentibus cunctis). The second statement seems, like the of Clement, to be founded on Joh 1:14; Joh 21:24, and possesses no independent value, except as an interpretation of internal evidence.

The object of the author was clearly controversial, to draw a broad line of separation between the inspired writings of the Apostolic age and modern additions (Salmon, Introduction, p. 46). He strongly protests, for example, against the inclusion of Hermas in the Canon, though he has no objection to its being read. Bacon (Hibbert Journal, April 1903) has interpreted the Muratorian Fragment as indicating the existence of controversy in the Church at that date as to the Apostolic authorship; but the emphasis on that question might easily be explained by the fact that the historicitythe varia principia of the Gospelswas alone in question. There is no attempt to harmonize the statements in the various Gospels; but it is sought to secure for the contents of the Fourth Gospel a place of equal authority with the other three. Throughout the whole history of the NT Canon the admission of a book was not decided solely on the question of authorship, but far more on the general consideration whether its teaching was congruent with the received doctrine of the Church. Salmon thinks that the writer of the Muratorian Fragment is arguing against the Montanists, and Zahn and Drummond that he is opposing the Alogi (see below). The legendary account of the origin of the Gospel would seem to indicate that the fact of the Apostolic authorship was already well established and well known. An additional confirmation of the view that the historicity alone is within the purview of the writer is that the words of the First Epistle (it is true in a somewhat inaccurate rendering), What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written (haec scripsimus), are quoted as a reference by the author to his Gospel.

(5) Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (e. a.d. 180), wrote, among other works, a defence of Christianity, addressed to Autolycus, a real or imaginary heathen friend of wide learning and high culture (Watkins). He is the earliest writer of the 2nd cent., who, while quoting a passage from the Gospel (1:13), also refers to St. John by name. His words are, We are taught by the Holy Scriptures and all Spirit-bearing men, among whom John says; and then follow verbatim quotations from the Prologue to the Gospel. There are also other sentences in his work that recall the Fourth Gospel. It is significant also, as belying any appearance of controversy as to the authorship of the Gospel, that he introduces the name of St. John in this quite incidental fashion. Commentaries on the Gospels are also attributed to him, but their genuineness, upheld by Zahn, is assailed by Harnack. This part of his evidence must at present be set aside.

2. Justin Martyr.The works of Justin that are relevant in this connexion are the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. They may be set within the limits a.d. 140161. Palestine was his birthplace, and he was brought up in the religion of his father, who was a heathen. He was an ardent student of philosophy, and after an unsatisfying experience of various teachers he ultimately became a Platonist. After his conversion to Christianity, of which he gives a full account in Trypho, iiviii., he was kindled with love to Christ, and consecrated his philosophic attainments to the defence of the Christian religion.

Among the authorities to which Justin refers in the course of his writings, he gives an important place to The Memoirs of Christ, composed by the Apostles and those who followed them. The battle of criticism still rages around the question whether Justin includes in these Memoirs only the four Gospels. It may now, at least, be regarded as settled amongst all classes of critics that Justin makes use of the Gospel (cf. Schmiedel, Encyc. Bibl., art. John, Son of Zebedee, ii. 2546). It is not so generally admitted that he includes it among his Memoirs of the Apostles. Those, however, who deny that Justin regarded the Gospel as the work of the Apostle are laid under the necessity of explaining how his contemporary Irenaeus could be so assured that the Gospel is a genuine Apostolic work.

(1) Quotations.The locus classicus in Justin is the passage on Baptism (Apol. I. lxi.). He describes how those who are about to make a Christian profession

are brought by us where there is water, and are born again in the same manner in which we ourselves are born again. For in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven ( , ). Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers wombs, is manifest to all.

This passage immediately recalls Joh 3:3-5. The language, however, reveals some striking variations from the text of the Gospel. No one would now endorse the verdict of the author of Supernatural Religion, that there does not exist a single linguistic trace by which the passage in Justin can be connected with the Fourth Gospel. It may be conceded that some of his expressions have more than an accidental relationship with Mat 18:3. Justin certainly uses (born again) instead of (born from above) of the Fourth Gospel, but this variation is at least a possible rendering of the Johannine expression. There are, however, other linguistic differences. The difficulty is increased by the discovery that in the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26) there is a passage containing similar linguistic deviations from the Gospel. Has their author copied Justin, or does the similarity point to the use by both of a common source other than the Gospel? The fact that the context in each is quite different excludes the first hypothesis, and the second may well be viewed as improbable, until the alleged common sourcethat ghost-like Gospel of which Volkmar speakshas emerged from the place of shades, and embodied itself in a MS (cf. Drummond, Character and Authorship, pp. 8896).

It ought to be sufficient to establish the high probability, amounting to certainty, that Justin quotes Joh 3:3-5, that, giving due weight to linguistic differences, the Fourth Gospel is the only source known to us from which he could have derived such ideas. The idea of birth as applied to spiritual change is found in none of the Gospels but St. John; and it is significant that both Justin and St. John expressly connected this thought with the rite of Baptism. As regards the impossibility of a second physical birth, it is to be noted that this somewhat wistful, and, at the same time, wilfully absurd, objection of Nicodemuswhich in the Gospel is the symptom of a heart profoundly moved, and has a living place in the contextis prosaically reproduced by Justin. This is evidently the result of a familiar association of ideas derived from the passage in John 3. The words, for Christ also said, introduce the quotation, and the document from which it is taken is clearly looked upon as an authoritative source for the words of Christ.

Justin has other correspondences with the peculiar thought of the Fourth Gospel. He uses the title of Christ, and in the next sentence speaks of the Virgin-Birth (Dialogue 105), adding the words, as we have learned from the Memoirs. This seems to point to a combination of St. John and the Synoptics. Justin has also made much use of the thought of the Logos Gospel in his doctrine of the Logos, and his teaching on that subject is influenced by the theology of the Gospel. It is sometimes urged as an objection that Justin does not make more use of the authority of the Gospel in his teaching about the Logos, but this is to presuppose that the thought was first suggested to him by that source. Justins philosophy is filled with Alexandrine ideas, but the thought of the Incarnation of the Logos of which Justin makes use is found only in St. John (Apol. i. 32). The Johannine expressions , are also found in Justin.

On the question of the relationship between Justin and the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, discovered in 1892, see Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iii. 535b; Drummond, Character and Authorship, pp. 151155. The evidence is insufficient to prove that this Gospel is one of Justins Memoirs. Loisy and Harnack hold that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the Fourth Gospel, to whose existence it would therefore he the most ancient witness. The date of the Gospel of Peter is put circa (about) 110130 by Loisy (Le Quatrime vangile, p. 16) and Harnack (Chron. i. 623).

(2) His use of the Gospel.Another consideration is adduced to prove that Justin did not regard the Gospel as an authority on the same level as the Synoptics, and therefore viewed it as non-Apostolic. Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl., art. John, Son of Zebedee, ii. 2546) states that his employment of it is not only more sparing but also more circumspect than his use of the Synoptics. There are occasions on which it would he open to him to use it in proof of his doctrine of the Logos and of the pre-existence of Christ. Why has Justin not used the Fourth Gospel more? It is perfectly relevant to reply that we do not know, and perhaps never shall know, with complete certainty. At the same time, there are certain considerations that ought to be borne in mind. Justin is certainly the first writer who displays the tendency to attach a separate value to the four Gospels; he is the first to speak of instead of ; but he can scarcely be expected to have completely emancipated himself, at this transition stage, from the older conception of the gospel as embracing equally the contents of the four. Justins purpose and his audience must be borne in mind, and these would insensibly lead him to rely mostly on the Synoptic Gospels. It is specially noticeable that the witness of Christ to Himself, so prominent in the Fourth Gospel, is nowhere used by Justin as an argument, and in one place in the Dialogue with Trypho (ch. 18) he even apologizes for citing the words of Christ alongside the words of the prophets. His Apologies are addressed to the Emperor, Senate, and People of Rome, and to quote to them the Christian writings in proof of Christian doctrine would have been to reason in a circle. Moreover, it may be suggested that not even at that date was the Gospel regarded as, strictly speaking, historical, and its spiritual or reflective character rendered it hardly so suitable for Justins purpose as the Synoptics.

(3) Evidence as to Apostolic authorship.Is there any evidence in Justin that he attributed the authorship to St. John the Apostle? In the first place, if the Memoirs are composed of our four Gospels, we may answer the question with certainty in the affirmative. Justin describes them as composed by the Apostles and those that followed them, a description which tallies completely with the four Evangelists. The plural Apostles could be used only if he believed in the Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Again, the strongest argument adduced against Justins evidence is still the argument from his silence as to the name of the author. It seems, however, to have been the custom among apologists not to mention the Evangelists by their names, which would carry no weight with unbelievers. Moreover, it has been pointed out that Justin never mentions the name of St. Paul, although it is certain that at least four of his Epistles from which he quotes are of undoubted authenticity. Justin once names St. John as the author of Revelation (Dialogue 81), but he nowhere quotes this work, which he regarded as inspired, apostolic, prophetic, though it contains so much which might seem to favour his view of the person of Christ (Ezra Abbot, p. 61). In the passage he speaks of the author as one whose name is not likely to carry weight (a certain man with us, whose name was John), but it is essential to his argument, in thus making use of a Revelation or Vision, that he should mention the recipient. (Cf. Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, i. p. 89).

3. Tatian was a native of Syria, and, like Justin, travelled as a wandering philosopher. His conversion to Christianity took place at Rome about a.d. 150. He became a disciple of Justin, during whose lifetime he wrote the Oratio ad Graecos. After Justins death in 166, Tatian taught in Rome, and ultimately adopted a heretical position. He died about a.d. 180.

Tatian clearly quotes the Gospel in his Oratio, which was written perhaps as early as 153 (so Zahn and Harnack), although he does not refer to the author by name. The important work, however, for our purpose is the Diatessaron. It is a compendium of the Life and Teaching of our Lord, founded on our four Gospels, and containing also some material taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. The book had apparently an ancient place in the worship of the Syrian Churches. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in 453, tells how he found more than 200 copies of the work in the churches of his district. These lie collected and, with considerable difficulty, put away, substituting for them the four Gospels.

The Diatessaron includes the whole of the Fourth Gospel, except 1:6, the first half of 2:23, the Pericope Adulterae, and some other passages that are common to the Synoptics.

The significance of Tatians work lies in the fact that an authoritative value is attached to the contents of our four Gospels, and that the Fourth Gospel is placed on a level with the Synoptics. Moreover, Tatians use of the Fourth Gospel renders it very difficult to doubt that it was also one of the Memoirs of his contemporary, Justin.

4. The Apostolic Fathers

(1) Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. Unfortunately his testimony has given rise to more questions about the Gospel than it solves. Only one or two fragments of his work preserved by Eusebius have come down to us. We know that in the time of Eusebius the only writing of Papias to which he had access was a work in five books, entitled Exposition(s) of the Oracles of the Lord ( [or -]). Cf. Drummond, op. cit. note 4, p. 195.

The Oracles were probably a collection of sayings of our Lord, together with some kind of historical setting.

There is a tendency among modern critics to fix a later date than formerly for the writings of Papias. His written work seems not to have been produced till about the age of sixty. The change in the date is owing to the discovery of a fragment, purporting to contain statements by Papias, that was published by De Boor in 1888. It dates from the 7th or 8th cent., and is in turn probably based on the Chronicle of Philip of Sid (circa (about) a.d. 430). Among other matters it relates that those individuals who had been raised from the dead by Christ survived till the time of Hadrian. Hadrian reigned 117138, which compels us to fix a date for Papias work not earlier than 140160 (so Harnack, Drummond, and Schmiedel. Sanday in his most recent work, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, includes, the date of Papias among the unsolved problems). The date of his martyrdom is also very uncertain.

Eusebius says that Papias evidently was a man of very mean capacity, as one may say, judging from his statements (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39). This judgment must be considered strictly in connexion with the context. Eusebius is speaking of his millenarian notions, and of the unimaginative way in which he interpreted the figurative language of the Apostolic writings. These defects do not reflect on his accuracy in matters of fact, but rather indicate a literalness and exactness which may at times be painful, but are yet a source of strength in the present discussion.

(i.) Papias is best known by the famous extract from the Preface to his work which is preserved by Eusebius:

I will not hesitate to place before you, along with my interpretations (of the Oracles of the Lord), everything that carefully learned, and carefully remembered in time past from the elders, and I can guarantee its truth. For I take no pleasure, as do the many, in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth: nor in those who relate commandments foreign (to the mind of the Lord), but in those (who record) such as were given to the faith by the Lord, and found on the truth itself. Moreover, if met with anyone on any occasion who had attended the elders, I used to inquire about the words of the elders; what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I was not inclined to suppose that statements made by the books would help me, so much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39).

Several questions of moment are raised by these words of Papias.

(a) Who are the elders or presbyters of whom he speaks?They clearly include the Apostles themselves, and Papias derives his information from their friends, i.e. those who not merely had followed them in the literal sense, but had attended to () their words. He is in search of direct oral tradition about the Oracles. At the same time he mentions two, Aristion and John, who are not Apostles, and whom he regards as presbyters or elders. He also designates the whole group as disciples of the Lord. In the case of Aristion and the Presbyter John, is found only in one MS, and the preferable reading is to omit the article. In the first case, the use of the article with means the disciples specially known as such, and the key to the use of the term disciple in the second case, is found in the statement of Act 6:7, where all those who were members of the first Christian community are called disciples. The Elders, then, signify all those men who were members of the primitive Christian Church who may or may not have followed the Lord Himself.

Irenaeus has said that Papias was a hearer of John, by whom he evidently means the Apostle. This would place him in immediate contact with the Apostolic circle. If, however, we are to rely only on the statements in the Preface, it is plain that Eusehius must be right when, in opposition to Irenaeus, he says that Papias certainly does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness to the holy Apostles. Yet even with the later date assigned to Papias, there is no chronological impossibility in his having known the Apostle; and it must not be forgotten that Irenaeus was not necessarily dependent solely on the words of the Preface, but may have had other statements of Papias, or the living tradition of the Church, on which to found his assertion. If the position has to be surrendered that Papias was a hearer of John, it is at least certain that he put himself in the most favourable position to hear clearly the living and abiding voice of Apostolic times, conveyed to him through the friends of the Elders.

(b) What can we determine regarding the nature and purpose of the work of Papias?He contrasts his sources with those who have so very much to say ( ), with those who relate commandments foreign to the mind of the Lord ( ) and with the contents of the books ( ). The books which he mentions have been interpreted as meaning some form of the Gospels (Jlicher, Introd., English translation p. 487), and also as writings of Aristion and the Elder John (Drummond and Bacon). In regard to the former interpretation, it seems out of the question that Papias should oppose the living and abiding voice to the sources of his Logia. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that Papias would minimize the value of the oral evidence of Aristion and the Presbyter John by disparaging their written work. The simplest explanation is that given by Lightfoot (followed by Schwarz, Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedaei, p. 11), that the exegetical commentaries on the Gospels written by Gnostics like Basilides are meant. It is to these also that he refers when he speaks of foreign commandments and of those who have so very much to say. Papias himself seems to have been a commentator on the Oracles of the Lord, and seeks to support his own explanations () by direct oral tradition from those who were in touch with the first Christian community.

(c) What position does the Presbyter John hold in Papias view?It is noticeable that while the past tense said () is used of the first group of Apostles, as though they were dead at the time of writing, the present tense say () is used of Aristion and the Presbyter John. The entirely unconvincing explanation of Lightfoot, that the tense should probably be regarded as an historic present, introduced for the sake of variety, must be rejected. On the other hand, the present tense seems rather meagre evidence on which to rear the hypothesis that books written by these two men were before Papias (so Drummond, Character and Authorship, p. 200), especially as he distinctly tells us that it is oral evidence of which he is in search. There is evidence in the writing of Papias that some literary productions of these men were extant, but the intention of Papias in his Preface seems to be to convey the impression that they were alive at the time he wrote. Papias had begun, at a much earlier time (in time past), to collect information from the elders, and had gone on doing so up to the time of writing. He means that Aristion and John are still available for anyone who wishes to check the authority of the explanations he gives.

The foregoing establishes the reality of the second John. It is no longer possible to regard the existence of the Presbyter as due to a confusion of Eusebius, or to accuse Papias of slovenliness of composition, which would lead us to suppose that two Johns are mentioned, while all the time he is only referring to the same man a second time. The question is debated by modern critics whether this Presbyter John has any connexion with the authorship of the Gospel. It is necessary only to indicate the grounds on which the suggestion is based. Eusebius, in the passage from which we have quoted (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39), suggests that he is the author of Revelation. He controverts the statement of Irenaeus that Papias means to be looked upon as a hearer of the Apostle John, and gathers from the use of the present tense ( ) that he is really a hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. We have seen that in the time of Papias these two men were still alive, but the evidence as to his relationship with them rather suggests that he had not himself met them. Papias seems to have had to collect information about what they say, and Eusebius himself puts forward his statement about an oral relationship merely as a suggestion. It does not follow that Eusebius, in attributing the authorship of Revelation to the Presbyter, even hints at the idea that he is also the author of the Gospel. He may have regarded it as an advantage to assign another authorship to the book, that the Apostle John might not be held responsible for the millenarian ideas of Papias. Papias accords the Presbyter no special place of honour in his list, and indeed places him last, after Aristion. If Papias had recorded anything of importance about him, no doubt Eusebius would have noted it, in order to support his view of the authorship of Revelation. See also artt. Aristion and Papias.

(ii.) We have next to inquire whether there is any evidence in the writing of Papias that he used the Fourth Gospel. (a) A passage occurs in the writings of Irenaeus which contains a quotation of Joh 14:2 Our Lord has said, that in the abode of my Father are many mansions. The passage is introduced, like many others in Irenaeus, as a quotation from the words of the Elders. Is Irenaeus here quoting from the sayings of the Elders as reported by Papias? By the way in which the Johannine quotation is prefaced, it is fair to suppose that the Elders are here referring to a written record, and not reproducing merely oral tradition, and that some well-known and accepted source for the words of our Lord is meant.

An additional confirmation of the position that Irenaeus quotes verbatim from the Elders of Papias is found in another portion of his work. He is speaking of the fruitfulness of the earth at the millennium, and inserts a fanciful passage about vines with ten thousand shoots. He says that he received it from the Elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord. After quoting the passage, he adds: Papias also, a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, confirms these things in writing. Harnack contends that the words also and confirms in writing certainly ought not to be pressed to mean that Irenaeus is giving a confirmation from Papias of the words of the Elders, but that he only means to indicate the written source from which he takes them. (This position is stoutly opposed by Schmiedel, op. cit. ii. 2549, where see a statement of the whole controversy and its issues).

If Papias quotes 14:2 we have here an important clue to an early date for the Gospel. The Elders of Papias belonged to the early Christian community.

(b) There are indications in the Preface of Papias that the Gospel permeates his thought, and that the references would be apparent to his readers. He speaks of those who teach the truth ( ), and he also applies the term the Truth to Christ. It is also not without significance that St. Andrew and St. Peter and St. Philip are named in the exact order in which the names occur in the first chapter of St. John, while St. Philip and St. Thomas are prominent only in the Fourth Gospel.

(c) Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39) says that Papias has used testimonies from the former Epistle of John and from that of Peter similarly. If 1 John and the Gospel are by the same author, we have here additional confirmation that Papias knew and used the Fourth Gospel. This item of evidence, however, can have weight only in connexion with the rest of the evidence. Formerly the fact that Eusebius, while mentioning his use of the Epistle, is silent as to any use of the Gospel by Papias, was relied upon as a strong argument for the nonexistence of the Gospel before 160170 (e.g. in Supernatural Religion). After Lightfoots complete answer to this position (Essays on Supernatural Religion, ii.), it is not now possible to deny a much earlier date for the Gospel. Modern opponents of the traditional view now rely on the argument from the silence of Eusebius, as proving that Papias nowhere appeals to the Gospel as of Apostolic authority (e.g. Bacon). It is therefore necessary to examine anything in Papias which seems to indicate that he regarded the Gospel as the work of St. John the Apostle.

(iii.) The evidence of Papias as to the authorship of the Gospel.(a) Eusebius, in the often quoted passage, says that Papias distinguishes the Presbyter John from John the Apostle, evidently meaning the Evangelist. The words in inverted commas would seem to point to some indication that Eusebius found in Papias writing that he spoke of St. John the Apostle as the Evangelist. To this may be added the naming of St. John immediately after the Evangelist St. Matthew in the Preface.

(b) A Vatican MS of the 9th cent. contains the statement: Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhue in corpore constituto: sicut Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus Johannis carus, in exotericisid est in extremisquinque libris retulit. Descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte. The words are part of a translation of an early Greek argumentum or proof that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle. As the passage stands, the words exotericis and extremis are unintelligible, and the conjecture of Lightfoot may be accepted that the former should read exegeticis and extremis should read externis, which was an explanation of the false reading exoterieis. Again, it is nonsense to say that the Gospel was published by John while he was yet alive; and Harnack suggests (Chron. i. 665) that the preposition ab should be deleted. With these changes it is possible to make sense of the words. The statement Johanne adhne in corpore constituto would then imply that there was an interval between the writing and the publication of the Gospel and has reference to Joh 21:25. This would explain why Papias had found it necessary to say that the Gospel was published in the lifetime of the Apostle. The statement at the end, that Papias wrote the Gospel at the dictation of St. John, may safely be set aside. At the same time, apart from the fact that it is necessary so to edit the fragment, there are serious difficulties in the way of accepting it as reliable evidence. For one thing, it is strange that Eusebius does not mention such a statement in Papias, although he mentions similar statements of is with regard to St. Matthew and St. Mark. Moreover, in view of the modern question of the Presbyter authorship, there is nothing to indicate which John is meant. (For discussion of the alleged statement of Papias recorded by Philip of Side, that John died a martyr in Jerusalem, see art. John [the Apostle]).

If the direct testimony of Papias must be regarded as inconclusive, it may fairly be asked whether we have a right to expect more. There is a very high probability that the Gospel was one of the sources of the Oracles which he expounded, and his silence as to the author, so far from displaying any uncertainty on the question, may quite as easily be interpreted as meaning that the personality of St. John was eclipsed in the mind of Papias by the desire to hear the living voice of the Lord Himself in the Gospel. It is probable that in Papias we are in the presence of a certain conservatism which marked with some regret the dying out of those who were in possession of the oral tradition about tire life and teaching of Jesus, and the gradual substitution of the written word as the authority for the Christian life which, of necessity, was taking place. It was his aim from an early period in his activity to collect the oral tradition. One thing at least is practically certain, that if Papias knew and quoted the Gospel, it must have been for him an authentic record. If the Gospel emerged at the close of the 1st cent. or the very beginning of the 2nd, as it undoubtedly did, and did not bring with it the strongest credentials and most unmistakable indications that it was in complete accord with the accredited oral teaching so much valued by Papias, it is difficult to think that in a mind of such simplicity as his it could have raised, as it appears to have done, only the merest ripple on the surface.

(2) Ignatius was bishop of Antioch in Syria. A number of letters have come down to us under his name, of which only seven are genuine. The writer was at the time on his way from Antioch to Rome under sentence of death. The date 110117, the closing years of Trajans reign, may be assigned to them.

In Rom 7:2, Ignatius says, There is not in me a fire fed by fleshly motive, but water living and speaking in me, saying within me, Come to the Father. These words inevitably recall Joh 4:10; Joh 4:14 (cf. also Joh 4:23 the Father seeketh such to worship him). Not only the ideas, but the coincidence of ideas, seem to point to the story of the woman of Samaria as to a passage in the Gospel which is affording him comfort in his trial. Again, in Philad. vii. 1, he says, The Spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and searcheth out the hidden things (cf. Joh 3:8; Joh 8:14, 1Jn 2:11). There are some striking differences in the thought of the parallel passages; but it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the words of Ignatius are due to the influence of these Johannine passages floating in his mind (New Test. in Apost. Fathers, Oxford Society of Historical Theology, 1905, p. 82, where see other parallelisms). Both in expression and in doctrine there is an undoubted affinity between Ignatius and the Evangelist. Loisy admits that Ignatius, in his Christology, is dependent on the Gospel (Le Quatrime Evangile, p. 7). Von der Goltz holds that the affinity of thought is so deep that it cannot be explained by the influence of a book, and that the writer of the letters must have been imbued with the tradition and thought of a school (quoted by Sanday, Crit. of Fourth Gospel, p. 243). Sanday himself doubts whether there is any other instance of resemblance between a Biblical and patristic book that is really so close (ib.).

Two arguments, taken from the writings of Ignatius, are relied upon by opponents of the Apostolic authorship, (a) It is urged that he nowhere quotes the Gospel as of Apostolic authority, although there are occasions (notably Smyrn. iii. 2) where it would have been exceedingly apposite to do so. It may be pointed out as having a bearing on this objection, that, although it is quite evident that Ignatius knew 1 Cor. almost by heart, he has no quotations (in the strictest sense, with mention of the source) from that Epistle (NT in Apost. Fathers, p. 67). This is only another instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence, considered apart from the idiosyncrasies of a writer, (b) Again, it is also objected that in writing to the Ephesian community in which St. John is said to have laboured, Ignatius mentions St. Paul as a hero of the faith, whom he sets before himself and them for imitation, but makes no mention of St. John (Ephes. xii.). To this argument it must be admitted that no very satisfactory answer has yet been given. Ignatius is, indeed, predisposed to mention St. Pauls name, through his evident desire to compare his own experience and the Apostles in calling together the elders of Ephesus. Again, the writings of St. Paul, which have more clearly in view the various heresies of the time, would perhaps suit his purpose better.

It cannot be regarded as certain that Ignatius used the Gospel. His evidence is on the borderline between evidence for the existence of the Gospel and proof of the influence of a milieu of Johannine teaching and thought. It is probable that Ignatius had access to some document containing Johannine teaching (cf. e.g. his reference to the narrative of the woman of Samaria); on the other hand, that might easily have been a story told orally by the Apostle in the course of his preaching and teaching, and embedded in the hearts and minds of those who heard him.

(3) Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna. His writing has come down to us in the form of an Epistle to the Philippians. The date of his martyrdom was long uncertain, but the investigations of Light-foot and Harnack have led to the almost certain conclusion that he died in 155 at the age of 86.

As regards the Gospel, we have two sources from which we may derive evidence as to his opinions, viz. the Epistle and some reminiscences of Irenaeus.

(a) In the Epistle, Polycarp makes no reference to any document, except that he refers to St. Pauls Ep. to the Philippians immediately after mentioning his name, and in another passage again quotes the Epistle without remark. There is also a sentence which, though not verbally accurate, bears every trace of having been taken from the First Epistle of St. John: Everyone who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is Antichrist (cf. 1Jn 4:2-3). He has also a passage that recalls at once words of Christ in the Gospel and the thought of the Epistle: He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments, and love the things which He loved (cf. Joh 7:17; Joh 14:15, 1Jn 2:6; 1Jn 2:17; 1Jn 5:1-2). We also find in Polycarp, v. 2, As He hath promised to raise us from the dead. This promise is found only in Joh 6:44. These parallelisms at least show that he was familiar with a circle of Johannine thought. He does not once mention the name of St. John; but the Church at Philippi had not been directly in contact with that Apostle. Moreover, his habits of quotation hardly lead us to expect any other result (cf. NT in Apost. Fathers, p. 84).

(b) Irenaeus gives Polycarp a foremost place among the elders whom he quotes. He says that he had not only been instructed by Apostles, and associated with many who had seen the Christ, but had also been placed by Apostles in Asia in the Church at Smyrna as a bishop, whom we also saw in our early life ( ) (Haer. III. iii. 4). Eusebius has preserved for us a letter of his to Florinus, in which he gives an account of his listening with peculiar attention to Polycarp, and vividly recalls the very place where he sat when he discoursed, his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and how he would describe his intercourse with John, and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate them in accordance with the Scriptures (ap. Euseb. Historia Ecclesiastica v. xx. 6). Again, Irenaeus also, in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, on the Paschal controversy, uses as an argument the fact that Polycarp followed the example of John the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted. Irenaeus is undoubtedly referring to the Apostle John; and if that be so, there can be little doubt that the Scriptures to which Polycarp referred contained the Fourth Gospel in some form. Thus the silence of Polycarp, in the solitary writing that has come down to us, is balanced by the explicit statement of Irenaeus that Polycarp knew St. John, and referred to him in his discourse.

Opponents of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel have cast doubt on the trustworthiness of Irenaeus in this matter. They allege that he made a mistake in regarding Papias as a hearer of John, and that he has possibly done the same in the case of Polycarp. The John to whom Polycarp referred may have been the Preshyter. Irenaeus was still a boy ( ) when he heard his teacher. At the same time, it is hardly likely that the vivid personal impression he has of Polycarp contains a mistake of this kind. Polycarp evidently mentioned the name of John with some frequency, and there is no evidence that the Presbyter John was a man of such note in Asia as to be thus referred to in Polycarps lectures. It is inconceivable that, if there had been any prospect of confusion in the mind of a youth who was listening to him, Polycarp would not have guarded against it (see Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Doct. pp. 214218).

(4) We have still to deal with a group of writings classed among the Apostolic Fathers, whose evidence on the subject is rendered vague and inconclusive, inasmuch as they contain no definite quotations from the Gospel, and there is also uncertainty as to their dates. (a) The Epistle of Barnabas reflects the condition of thought in Egypt, and the date may lie anywhere between 79 and 132. The theory that Barnabas used the Fourth Gospel found strangely a strong champion in Keim, who assigned the date 120130 (Jesus of Naz. i. 192195). Loisy, on the other hand, accepting the date circa (about) 130, urges complete ignorance of the Gospel on the part of Barnabas, and uses the argument to prove that the Johannine writings had not yet taken complete possession of ecclesiastical usage (Le Quntrime v. p. 5). In Barnabas, use is made of the idea of the Brazen Serpent; and the conceptions of eternal life, which often occurs, and of feeding upon the words of life, seem to point to the influence of a Johannine current of thought. (b) Only one of the epistles known under the name of Clement of Rome is genuine. It was written from the Roman community to the Corinthian, circa (about) 100. Here, again, the writer seems to be influenced by Johannine teaching (cf. Clem. xlix. and Joh 14:15; Joh 14:23, 1Jn 5:1-3). (c) The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a composite document, and is the earliest manual of Church procedure extant. The elements of which it is composed may have been in use at the end of the 1st cent., but the work in its present form was published much later. It contains a specimen of a prayer of thanksgiving for use after the Eucharist, in which there is a very remarkable parallel to the anti-sacramentarian treatment of the ideas of the Supper in the Fourth Gospel (ch. 6); Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for thy names sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks unto thee; but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through thy Son (Did. x. 3). (d) The Shepherd of Hermas (circa (about) 100 Zahn, 135145 Harnack) displays a Johannine colouring of thought.

5. Evidence derived from Opponents of Church doctrine in the 2nd century

(1) The Clementine Homilies.These are the work of a Jewish Christian, and were published at Rome not earlier than a.d. 160170. In one of the Homilies (discovered by Dressel in 1837) there is an undoubted quotation (xix. 22) from Joh 9:2-3. There are also in the Homilies other apparent references to the Gospel.

(2) The Gnostics.There were two great schools of Gnosticsthe Valentinians and the Basilidians. The date of the literary activity of Valentinus is uncertain, but we know that there existed a school of his followers before a.d. 150. Heracleon was a pupil of Valentinus; and it is exceptionally strong evidence, not only for the early existence but also for the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, that he composed a Commentary on it which is quoted by Origen. Tertullian contrasts Valentinus and Marcion as to the way in which they use Scripture. He says that Marcion used the knife, while Valentinus accepted the whole instrument (i.e. the four Gospels), but with an ability not less than Marcions laid hands upon the truth. We hear of a school of Basilides c. 133, and his own period of activity was a.d. 117138. Hippolytus in his Refutatio quotes Basilides, and in the quotations there are undoubted extracts from the Gospel. The question discussed by modern criticism is whether these are quotations from Basilides or from the representative of a school (cf. Drummond, op. cit. 296301). There is a strong preponderance of evidence in favour of Basilides himself as the source.

So far as the earlier Gnostics are concernedthe Naasseni, Peratae, Ophites, and Docetaeit is generally admitted that the Gospel is earlier than these controversies; and Hippolytus tells us that they made abundant use of the Gospel.

(3) Marcion was a contemporary of Valentinus.The principle of his work is to secure a Gospel that shall represent the pure doctrine of Christ, unmixed with Jewish prejudices, which he regarded as inherent in the minds of the primitive Apostles. We find him rejecting all others in favour of St. Luke, which was written under Pauline influence; and he mutilated even that Gospel to suit his purpose. We cannot expect to find in his writing any reference to the Gospel of John, but, from his action in rejecting the writings of the early Apostles, we may draw the negative conclusion that if the Gospel was regarded as written by St. John it would be sufficient reason for its rejection. He made use of the passage in Galatians where St. Paul rebukes Apostles themselves who walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel (2:14). His silence as to the Fourth Gospel is all the more striking because of its anti-Judaic tendency, which would have predisposed him in its favour had it not been written by a primitive Apostle.

6. The Quartodeciman controversy.In the latter part of the 2nd cent. a controversy was rife between certain Asiatic Christians and the Church with regard to their Paschal observance on the 14th Nisan. They appealed to the example of the Apostle John in defence of their practice. In the Gospel the Paschal meal falls on the 13th, and it was contended by Bretschneider, followed by the Tbingen School, that therefore the Apostle could not be the author of the Gospel. A fuller investigation, however, into the rationale of the Quartodeciman controversy goes far to remove the difficulty. In opposition to the Tbingen School, it was held that the 14th was kept not in commemoration of the Passover, but in commemoration of the death of Christ, which would be in accord with the Fourth Gospel. This still leaves the difficulty unsolved, that in the Synoptics the death of Christ falls on the 15th. Accordingly, Bleek (followed by Schrer) and Stanton maintain that the observance in question was neither of the institution of the Supper, nor of the death of Christ alone, but that the Christian Jews gave to the Passover day a new meaning which made it a commemoration of the entire fact of redemption, including the Supper, the Death, and the Resurrection of Christ. This interpretation seems to be the correct one. At the same time, while it surmounts the difficulty caused by the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, there still remains the fact that the Quartodecimans of the latter half of the century appealed to the example of Christ as eating the Passover on the 14th. If such an appeal was made in the earlier part of the controversy, and at the same time the example of St. John was quoted in support, we should be face to face with a strong argument against the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel. There is no proof, however, that the argument from the example of Christ was used before the time of Apollinaris. Apollinaris distinctly assumes that the Synoptics and St. John must not be made to contradict one another; and Polycrates as distinctly holds the Apostolic authorship, although he is a Quartodeciman (cf. Schmiedel, op. cit. ii. 25522553, who regards the Quartodeciman argument as still valid against the Apostolic authorship. The question is fully discussed by Stanton, op. cit. i. pp. 173197, with a result favourable to the traditional view).

7. The Alogi.These were a party in Asia Minor (circa (about) a.d. 180) who rejected the Johannine authorship of the Gospel and the Apocalypse. They are first mentioned by Epiphanius and Philaster (4th cent.), but it may now be safely admitted that Irenaeus opposes their views in Haer: iii. xi. 12 (Zahn and Harnack). They attributed the authorship to Cerinthus, and founded their argument chiefly on the chronological disparity with the Synoptics. The main interest in the Alogi centres round the question whether they betoken uncertainty in the ecclesiastical tradition. Epiphanius ranks them among heretics, but it is certain that they were a party in the Church (Schrer and Harnack). The name Alogi is a jest of Epiphanius, and indicates merely that they rejected the Logos Gospel, with more than a hint at their stupidity ( = unreasonable). It gives no clue to their doctrinal position. Epiphanius, himself very orthodox, says that they seem to believe as we do. Probably they were opposed to some form of the Montanist heresy, and in their zeal sought to get rid of the teaching of the Gospel on the Holy Spirit by rejecting the whole. This step they strove to justify by the chronological disparities with the Synoptics and other internal discrepancies. Irenaeus says of them that they frustrate the gift of the Spirit. The millenarian views of the Montanists may have directed their first attack on the Apocalypse, which they extended to the Gospel by a piece of sheer bravado (Sanday, Crit. of Fourth Gospel, p. 65). Their influence seems to have been small. Irenaeus and Epiphanius refer to them slightingly, and Schwarz (op. cit. p. 33), in common with Salmon, although from a different motive, narrows them down to a single individual with perhaps a coterie behind him. We may admit that the presence of the Alogi in the Church indicates that the belief in the Johannine authorship had not reached that stage of clear definition and regular acceptance which only controversy and time could give. They came upon the tradition unawares (Loisy). The Church was not yet in a position either to challenge with critical weapons, or to expel as heretics those who differed from her traditional beliefs about authorship (Irenaeus could only defend the fourfold Gospel mystically), especially when they were fighting, as in this case, a common foe in Montanism. Indeed, the Alogi can really be pressed into the service of tradition. Its ascription to Cerintbus, an impossible author, betrays the recklessness of the judgment pronounced; while the naming of a contemporary and fellow-townsman of the Apostle may be accepted as an indication of the true date of the Gospel (Dods, Expos. Gr. Test. i. p. 659).

II. The Internal Evidence.No text of the Gospel that we possess is without the categorical statement of 21:24 that the book contains the witness of the Apostle John and is written by him. It seems the more probable view that this whole chapter was composed by friends of the Evangelist, either towards the end of his life, or after his death, in order to remove a misinterpretation of a saying of Jesus about him. The position assigned to St. Peter in the chapter might be explained by the desire to show that, although the Gospel leaves him weighted with the guilt of his denial, he was restored to his place in the Apostolic circle, and that no disparagement or supersession is intended of the Petrine Gospel that lies at the basis of the Synoptics. We have no moral right to regard the statement of 21:24 as anything but a bona fide statement of the earliest view of the authorship, and in the internal evidence we have to consider how far the book itself corresponds with this suggested view.

1. The author is a Jew.

(1) His attitude towards the OT shows unmistakably that it was for him a valuable aid to faith and a deep source of religious experience. The opening words of the Gospel are reminiscent of Gen 1:1; Gen 3:13 recalls Deu 30:12. His own in Joh 1:11 can betray only the tragic consciousness of a Jew that the chosen nation rejected the Christ. The words in Joh 10:35 the Scripture cannot be broken, may be taken as expressing the Evangelists own conviction. He sees in certain incidents in the life of Jesus that would otherwise cause perplexity, especially some connected with the Passion, the fulfilment of the OT. Twice the conduct of Judas is explained by Scripture (Joh 13:18, Joh 17:12). The mournful sight of the garments of Jesus distributed among the rough soldiers brings to mind a prophecy (Joh 19:24). The thirst of Jesus, who Himself had the gift of the living water, is a fulfilment of Scripture (Joh 19:28). It is in Scripture that he finds a solution for the problem of the failure of Christs ministry and teaching (Joh 12:37). The very spear-thrust has a place in the counsels of God (Joh 19:36-37) and becomes an aid to faith (Joh 19:35). While the Evangelist rarely cites incidents from the OT, and the great majority of the OT references are contained in the discourses of Christ, it has to be borne in mind that the Gospel was written for Gentile readers, to whom only the outlines of the history would be familiar.

(2) The writer is familiar not only with the Messianic expectation, but also with the limitations that it suffered in the popular mind. The hope is current in Galilee (Joh 1:41; Joh 1:46; Joh 1:49, Joh 6:15; Joh 6:28; Joh 6:30 f.), in Samaria (Joh 4:25; Joh 4:29; Joh 4:42), in Judaea (Joh 5:39; Joh 5:45 f., Joh 7:26 f., Joh 7:40-43, Joh 8:30 f., Joh 10:24). Among friends, among foes, among neutrals alike, it is discussed. The purpose of the Gospel is to induce belief that Jesus is the Christ (Joh 20:31). Not only so, but the limitations and misconceptions of the idea of the Christ in the popular mind are familiar to him. Elijah and the Prophet are not yet come (Joh 1:21); the outlook is unspiritual (Joh 6:14-15); the Messiah will never die (Joh 6:60, Joh 12:34); Jesus does not satisfy their conventional ideas (Joh 7:27; Joh 7:42).

(3) The writer is familiar with the ideas and customs of the Jews. We have a picture of a Jewish marriage feast (Joh 2:1-10), of pastoral life (Joh 10:1-14), of burial customs (Joh 11:38; Joh 11:44, Joh 19:40), the estimate of women (Joh 4:27), the disparagement of the Dispersion (Joh 7:35), the heredity of sin (Joh 9:2). The religions observances of the people are known to him, and he displays great familiarity with the Temple and its services. The Synagogue and the Temple are places of resort (Joh 18:20); he knows the side of the Temple where shelter is to be had in inclement weather (Joh 10:22-23); it was forty-six years in building (Joh 2:20); he speaks of the treasury (Joh 8:20). The two feasts of Tabernacles and of Dedication are familiar to him, even to the implied ritualistic details (Westcott, vi.). He speaks of the great day of the feast of Tabernacles. He is familiar with the narrow Sabbatarian views of the Jews (Joh 5:10, Joh 9:14, Joh 7:21-23). In the last passage a subtle argument is founded on the knowledge that circumcision is allowable on the Sabbath.

Does the statement that Caiaphas was high priest that same year (Joh 11:49, repeated Joh 11:51, Joh 18:13) imply that the writer imagined that the office was tenable only for a year? The repetition after the manner of the Evangelist is meant to impress more than a chronological fact. Either the words may have an ironical significance, arising from the fact that the three predecessors of Caiaphas had been deposed after a years tenure, and would be an allusion to the present uncertainty of the office (Delff, Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth, pp. 85, 86); or the Evangelist seeks to connect emphatically the office of the high priest with the part that he look in accomplishing the death of Christ. The high priest entered alone once a year into the Holy of Holies, where he offered atonement for the sins of the people (Heb 9:7), and in that memorable year Caiaphas is but an unconscious instrument in bringing about the great and final sacrifice (Westcott, vi.; cf. also B. Weiss, Com. ad loc.).

(4) It has been contended against these indications that when the writer mentions the Jews he seems to speak of them as a foreigner would speak. They are throughout represented as the bitter enemies of Christ (Joh 2:18; Joh 5:10 ff; Joh 6:41; Joh 7:11 f., Joh 8:22 ff., Joh 10:24 ff., Joh 11:36, Joh 13:33, Joh 20:18). The term is sometimes used to denote the Jews as a nation, in distinction from other nations: sometimes as Judaeans distinguished from Galilaeans or Peraeans: and sometimes the leaders of the Jewish people alone are meant. This somewhat indefinite mode of speech has a sufficient explanation if the Evangelist wrote as he used to speak (Drummond, op. cit. 416, note). There is no indication in his tone of national antagonism. Rather his attitude is like that of St. Paul to his countrymen. The Jews are His own (Joh 1:11); Jesus Himself is a Jew (Joh 4:9); salvation is of the Jews (Joh 4:22); Nathanael is an Israelite indeed (Joh 1:47); there are believing Jews (Joh 8:31 etc.).

This Gospel also preserves words of Christ that trace the subsequent persecution by the Jews to its roots in their ignorance of the Father and the Son (Joh 16:2-3). In this Gospel Jesus never denounces the leaders of the people in as strong terms as He uses in the Synoptics. That He expressly distinguishes His disciples from the Jews (Joh 13:33), and also speaks of your law (Joh 8:17, Joh 10:34), their law (Joh 13:25), implies that this external attitude adopted by the writer was not unknown during the ministry on earth (cf. Dods, Expos. Gr. Test. i. 666).

2. The author is a Jew of Palestine.Many of the preceding characteristics are already indications that the writer is a native of Palestine.

(1) He is also familiar with sites and places. Jacobs well is deep (Joh 4:11); the mountain and the ripening cornfields are suggested in the most natural fashion (Joh 4:20-21; Joh 4:35); it is a descent from the high ground where Cana stood to the shores of Gennesaret at Capernaum (Joh 4:47). Ch. 6 contains some minute information as to the district. Bethsaida (Joh 1:44, Joh 12:21) and Bethany (Joh 11:1) are not merely localities, but connected with the names of friends. He carefully distinguishes Bethany nigh unto Jerusalem about fifteen furlongs (Joh 11:18) from Bethany beyond Jordan (Joh 1:28). Nazareth is mentioned not only as the home of Jesus, but as a place so well known to Nathanael that he considered it unlikely that any good thing could spring from such commonplace surroundings (Joh 1:46); cf. the details as to Sychar (Joh 4:5), aenon (Joh 3:23), Ephraim (Joh 11:54). A very striking feature is the accurate knowledge displayed of the topography of Jerusalem and its environs (cf. Joh 5:2, Joh 18:1): the Kidron; which is a ravine on the way from the city to the Mount of Olives, and a torrent only in winter (, Joh 18:1); the Pavement (Gabbatha) in the Praetorium (Joh 19:13); Golgotha (Joh 19:17). The acclaiming multitude carried in their hands the branches of the palm trees which grew on the Mount of Olives (Joh 12:13).

(2) It has been customary to regard the so-called Hebraisms of the Fourth Gospel, which it was supposed to share with the other NT writings, as an indication that the writer was a Palestinian. The study of the papyri has revolutionized this idea. It is now no longer permissible to speak of Hebraistic Greek. The papyri are written in the vernacular Greek, and range in date from the 3rd cent. b.c. to the 7th cent. a.d. The earlier specimens furnish a convincing parallel in language to the Greek of the NT. Where there are Hebraic modes of expression, these must be traced to direct translation from the Aramaic, or to those causes that operate in the introduction of foreign elements into the vernacular of any language (Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek, Prolegomena, vol. i. pp. 18, 19). At the same time, while we must attribute the simple structure of this Evangelists sentences and the absence of connecting particles to his use of the vernacular, we are not left without evidence that he knew Hebrew. In his quotations from the OT he made use of the LXX Septuagint (Joh 2:17, Joh 12:38, Joh 19:24, Joh 10:34); but he is also independent of it (Joh 19:36, Joh 7:38, Joh 1:23, Joh 6:31); and there is an interesting group of cases where the LXX Septuagint seems to be corrected by reference to the Hebrew (Joh 6:45, Joh 13:18., Joh 19:37; cf. Westcott, Gospel of John, xiiixiv; Drummond, op. cit. p. 364).

(3) Can the Logos conception of the Gospel be shown to have greater affinity with Alexandrian than with Hebrew thought? It is noteworthy that the term is not used throughout the Gospel, either in the discourses or in the narrative parts, except in the ordinary sense of word: but we must not neglect other passages where the Logos idea is in the background. The lofty and undefined sense of the plural subject in such passages as Joh 3:11-13, the well-known pre-existence passages, the assertion by Christ of what He had seen with the Father (Joh 6:46, Joh 8:38, cf. Joh 1:18), His teaching which is not of Himself (Joh 7:14-17), His complete unity of existence with the Father (Joh 14:7-11), are all expressions of the Logos consciousness (cf. Grill, Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums, l. pp. 32, 33). On the other hand, in order to prove that the Evangelist had either a literary acquaintance with the works of Philo, or was deeply influenced by his thought, it would be necessary to discover a much closer correspondence between them than is actually to be found. In the Stoic philosophy with which Philo closely identifies himself, the term Logos has the double significance of reason ( ) and word ( ), and in the Fourth Gospel there is not a trace of the former sense. Jesus is the manifestation of God, the uttered Word. Again, in the Gospel the Logos is identified with the Messiah, and in Philo there is no such identification. It is doubtful whether Philo attributes personality to the Logos; but there can be no doubt of the personal existence of the Logos in the Gospel. At the same time, the author of the Fourth Gospel, like every Hebrew thinker, is no metaphysician, and he simply projects the conception of personality, which he derived from the knowledge of the Incarnate One, into the Word in its pre-incarnate existence. The Angel of the Lord and the personified Wisdom in the OT are not so much independent existences as immanent determinations of the Divine Being. Moreover, the Incarnation of the Logos is an idea quite foreign to the mind of Philo, not because with him matter is essentially corrupt, but because it is regarded as a principle purely negative, arresting, limiting, restraining the penetration of the Divine action, in proportion to its thickness and opacity (Rville, Le Quatrime Evangile, p. 87). For Alexandrian thought an Incarnation of the Logos could only be Docetic; and this may have given rise to the heresy of 1Jn 2:22.

There are, however, some very striking affinities of expression between Philo and the Fourth Gospel. Philo speaks of a second God ( ); the Word Himself is God and the Son of God ( ); the Word is the agent or instrument in creation ( ); Light and Life are conceptions of Philo as applied to the Logos; he uses the term Paraclete, but applies it to the cosmos and not to the Logos. The Logos exists in heaven; reveals the name of God; possesses supernatural knowledge and power; is continually at work; is eternal; is free from sin; instructs and convinces; dwells in the souls of men; is high priest towards God; is the source of unity, joy, and peace; imparts eternal life; is bridegroom, father, guide, steersman, shepherd, physician: imparts manna: is the food of the soul (Grill, pp. 115128). For a discussion of the whole question see Sanday, l.c. pp. 185200. These coincidences cannot be overlooked in deciding the question of authorship. We must bear in mind that Logos is the word by which the Hebrew idea of the Word of God is translated in the LXX Septuagint , and that there are passages in the OT, the Apocrypha, and in the Jewish Targums that afford equally important coincidences of thought (Psa 33:6; Psa 107:20; Psa 147:15, Isa 40:8; Isa 55:10-11, Wis 9:1; Wis 16:12; Wis 18:15; Wis 18:18. For the Memra of the Targums, see Edersheim, Life and Times, i. pp. 4648). The Evangelist would meet with these ideas nowhere more readily than in Ephesus, which was also the home of the Logos philosophy of Heraclitus. He would be disposed to keep in view his Greek readers, among whom these expressions were current. Again, we find similar coincidences of thought with Philo in the writings of St. Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If, indeed, we were to isolate the Prologue to the Gospel, which may be regarded as containing all that was in the authors mind essential to the Logos idea, and to rid ourselves of all associations of the word Logos derived from Greek philosophy, we should find that the thought remains within the limits of the OT, except in the case of Wis 18:1; Wis 18:14.

3. The writer is a contemporary of the events and persons in his narrative

(1) His knowledge of the ecclesiastical situation and feeling of the time.A deputation is sent to the Baptist from the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem consisting of priests and their attendant Levites (Joh 1:19 ff.), and the writer breaks the narrative of the deputation to insert the remark, evidently meant to explain the question that follows, that the deputation included some Pharisees (Joh 1:24). Their inquiry betrays an interest in ritual and in the orderly observance of the Law which is characteristic of that party, as distinct from the Sadducees. The Sadducees seem to have applied rationalist principles to the old religion, and were distinguished by dogmatic differences not only regarding the rule of faith, but in connexion with such questions as the life after death, and the question of free-will and predestination (Edersheim, Life and Times, i. pp. 310324). The writer does not speak of Pharisees and Sadducees, but of Chief Priests and Pharisees, showing that he is acquainted with the fact that the Sadducees held the offices in the time of Christ. The passage Joh 11:47-53 is full of ecclesiastical knowledge. The discussion in the Sanhedrin is occasioned by the influence on the people of the raising of Lazarus, and we can clearly distinguish the attitude of the two parties. The Pharisees are represented as in touch with the people (Joh 11:46, cf. Josephus Ant. xiii. x. 6), and they are afraid lest a tumult should arise, and thereby the ecclesiastical influence () and the national existence be destroyed by Rome. The reply of Caiaphas is characteristic. He scornfully sets aside the question of the miracle, and urges an opportunist policy to deal with the actual situation (Joh 11:49-50). It can scarcely be without meaning that the Evangelist, who knew the Sadducaean disbelief in predestination, should represent Caiaphas as the unconscious prophet and instrument of the death of Christ (Joh 11:51-52). In Joh 7:45-52 there is displayed a similar knowledge of ecclesiastical circles. After the triumphal entry the Pharisees seem to have been filled with dismay at their loss of influence with the people, and at the popularity of Christ (Joh 12:19), and it is the ruling Sadducaean party who plot the death of Lazarus (Joh 12:10). Again, it is the Fourth Evangelist who tells us of the informal trial before Annas, who, though still wielding much power, had been deposed in favour of his son-in-law (Joh 18:12-24).

These indications of an acquaintance with opinion in ecclesiastical circles are in complete correspondence with the statement in Joh 18:15 about the disciple who was known to the high priest. In this Gospel alone are we told the name (Malchus) of the servant of the high priest whose ear was cut off by Peter. It is noteworthy, also, that the Evangelist is acquainted with Nicodemus, and with Joseph of Arimathaea, who belonged to the Pharisaic party. In this connexion may be mentioned the tradition of Polycrates that John, who leaned on Jesus breast, also wore the frontlet () of the high priest (Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica iii. xxxi. 3).

Delff has propounded the theory that the author of the Fourth Gospel was an unnamed native of Jerusalem, not of the number of the Twelve, but a man of high-priestly family, and a member of the higher aristocracy. He founds on Joh 18:15, on the statement of Polycrates, and on the other indications in the Gospel. He identifies the author with the disciple whom Jesus loved, and describes him as a kind of supernumerary disciple. Sanday (Crit. of Fourth Gospel, 99108) has discussed this theory with great generosity, but it necessitates a further theory of interpolations, and itself presents some insuperable difficulties. This disciple and Peter are close friends (Joh 20:2), and in the other Gospels, Peter and John are often named together (cf. Act 3:1; Act 3:11; Act 4:13; Act 8:14, Gal 2:9). We cannot suppose that within the Apostolic circle there were two pairs of friends, one identical in each. Again, if Delff is right, the Apostle John is not once referred to in the Gospel, and, on the other hand, this unknown disciple has completely vanished from history, unless he be the timorous man who fled at the arrest, leaving his linen cloth behind him, or the shadowy Presbyter John of Papias. It will be admitted that Delffs conclusion goes considerably beyond the evidence, but we must be prepared, in assigning the authorship, to recognize the undoubted insight of the Evangelist into the ecclesiastical situation.

(2) His knowledge of the opinions of the populace ().He knows their varying verdicts about Christ (Joh 7:11-13); the wonder of the Jerusalemites at the immunity Jesus enjoys from injury, notwithstanding His fearless speaking (Joh 7:25-27); the belief of some of the crowd (Joh 7:31, cf. Joh 7:40); the fickleness of the popularis aura is graphically described (Joh 7:40-44); the excitement among the people in view of the request of the Sanhedrin for information as to the whereabouts of Jesus, and the possibility of His appearance at the feast, is vividly portrayed (Joh 11:56-57). The climax of popular acclamation is reached in Joh 12:12-19.

(3) The writer speaks as one to whom the men and women of his narrative are personally familiar.Nicodemus is introduced somewhat suddenly into the narrative, but that is in the manner of the Evangelist, and presupposes that his readers are aware, either from the other Gospels, or from the oral tradition, or from personal acquaintance, of his historical existence. Nicodemus is introduced almost in the same words as John the Baptist (cf. Joh 1:6 and Joh 3:1), a fact which must not be forgotten in view of the tendency to find allegorical meanings in the characters (cf. Joh 1:29 and Joh 4:7). It would be strange if the Evangelist should take so little pains to distinguish between characters known to be historical, and those that are allegorical. The reality of the characters is witnessed by the words they utter. It is not stupidity, but a profound emotion that makes Nicodemus speak as he does in Joh 3:4, when he discovers that all that he has learned must be unlearned, and that he must begin the process of human experience anew. He is on the threshold of a world of facts as yet unrealized by him (Joh 3:9). The woman of Samaria is introduced upon the scene, amid real surroundings, at Jacobs well, on the road from Judaea to Johilee. Her character is revealed in her nonchalant air and bantering mood, behind which she conceals an aching and guilty heart, and is much too true to life for allegory. How can the woman of Samaria be an allegory of the Samaritan Church, and her five husbands symbolize her idolatrous worship? (so, e.g., Keim, Jesus of Naz. i. 159, note 1; Loisy, Le Quat. vangile, p. 354). It is not necessary to suppose that the Evangelist was present at these interviews. It is enough to remember that Christ was present, and that the Evangelist is the disciple whom Jesus loved, with whom confidences of that kind would be exchanged. Leaving for the moment the lifelike characters of the Apostolic circle, we are confronted in the closing scenes with a group of men that could have been painted only by a contemporary hand. The writer knows Caiaphas so well that he is able to reveal the man in a single sentence that fell from his lips (Joh 11:49). Pilate is depicted, irresolute, and fettered by a guilty past of oppressive and cruel government. At the critical moment, the Evangelist places in the hands of the people the powerful weapon of a covert threat to denounce him to the Emperor (Joh 19:12).

4. Relationship of the Evangelist to Jesus and the Apostolic circle.It is evident that the author was able in a peculiar degree to interpret the mind of our Lord. He tells us of His emotions, thoughts, and motives (Joh 11:33, Joh 13:21, Joh 2:24, Joh 4:1-3, Joh 6:15, Joh 13:1, Joh 18:4). Is the writer identical with the disciple whom Jesus loved? Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24 leaves us in no doubt. It is an entirely inadequate interpretation to say that the phrase is meant to stand for the type of the perfect Gnostic, the spiritual witness of Jesus (so Loisy, Le Quat. v. p. 125). It is a strong argument against the view that a purely ideal figure is meant, when we note the variety of the references. His existence is implied in Joh 1:40 : in Joh 13:23 he is described as leaning on Jesus breast; in Joh 18:15 he is mentioned as another disciple who was known to the high priest. It would also be necessary to interpret the scene in Joh 19:26 as allegorical, if the disciple is not a historical figure. The variety of the situations shows that the author had a real person in his mind.

We have, however, to explain the difficulty that when the personality of the Evangelist is obtruded, he describes himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. If there is an apparent lack of modesty in the use of the phrase, it may be questioned whether this charge would not be equally relevant in those passages where the Evangelist confidently interprets the inmost thoughts of our Lord. The fact that he should describe himself in this indirect fashion at all will be matter for discussion under the question of the historicity of the Gospel. In the meantime it is sufficient to point out that in every case where the phrase is used, the writer is laid under the necessity of referring to himself individually. In Joh 13:23 he explains the fact that he is lying on Jesus breast. And in Joh 19:28 Jesus addresses him directly. Perhaps in Joh 20:2 there is the suggestion of a thought in Marys mind that the disciple would tell the mother of Jesus. The only alternative in these cases is to use the personal pronoun or to mention his own name, a course which the Evangelist systematically avoids. If ch. 21 is an appendix by another hand, there is no difficulty about the use of the phrase in Joh 20:7; Joh 20:20.

It is also apparent that the author of the Gospel stood in a very intimate relationship to the Apostolic circle. We have miniature portraits of several of the Apostles, conveyed often through questions they put. Philip throughout appears as a man of somewhat practical and business-like turn of mind (Joh 1:46, Joh 6:5, Joh 14:8). Andrew is wise, helpful, and unobtrusive (Joh 1:41, Joh 6:8-9, Joh 12:22). Thomas is despondent: his moods colour his outlook, and he experiences violent reaction (Joh 11:6, Joh 14:5, Joh 20:24 ff., Joh 20:27 ff.). Peter is over-confident and impulsive, and at a time cowardly (Joh 13:6 ff., Joh 13:36 ff., Joh 18:10 ff., Joh 18:16 ff.). The scandal of Judas presence among the Twelve is referred to as if by one who felt the shame of it and was eager to clear the situation (Joh 12:4-6, Joh 13:2; Joh 13:26-30, Joh 18:2). He knows also their places of resort (Joh 11:54, Joh 18:2, Joh 20:19), and the thoughts of the disciples at critical moments (Joh 2:11; Joh 2:17; Joh 2:22, Joh 4:27, Joh 6:19; Joh 6:60, Joh 12:15, Joh 13:22; Joh 13:28, Joh 20:9).

5. Is St. John the Apostle the author of the Gospel?Is he the unnamed disciple who is identified with the writer? This unnamed disciple is called among the earliest disciples, and remembers even the hour of the day (Joh 1:39). He is closely associated with St. Peter in the closing scenes. We know from the Synoptics that St. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee were in specially close relationship with Jesus. St. Peter is out of the question; St. James died early; only St. John is left. Unless John be the beloved disciple, one of the pillar Apostles (Gal 2:9) is never once mentioned in the Gospel, except indirectly in Joh 21:2, A very strong argument for supposing that St. John is meant may also be founded on the fact that nowhere does the author refer to the Baptist, but always to John. Elsewhere he is very careful to distinguish names (e.g. Joh 14:22), but in this case he seems to have thought that no confusion was possible.

If St. John is the writer of the Gospel, why does he so studiously conceal his identity? The Fourth Gospel is distinguished from the Synoptics by the fact that, while in them we have a purely impersonal narrative except in the preface to St. Luke, in St. John we have a narrative where individual experience (testimony) is prominent. Is it solely because St. John is himself the author and writer of the Gospel, that he sedulously veils his own name? Why was it not possible for him to incorporate his own testimony in the Gospel without keeping himself in the background in such a way as really to attract attention? There must be some reason for this conduct other than a modesty which thus defeats its own end. It is quite evident that the authority of the Gospel for the Church is regarded as depending on the fact that St. John the Apostle wrote it. It is permissible to see in Joh 21:24 an indication that it was felt necessary, even at that early date, to authenticate the position that the Apostle John made himself responsible for the statements contained in this Gospel. This is not because there was doubt as to the Johannine authorship, but because the Gospel differs so much in character, subject, and content from the Synoptics, which already held the ground as authorities for the life and teaching of the Lord.

We shall be able to find an answer to these questions if we consider the two passages in the Gospel itself that have been most relied on as direct statements of Johannine authorship (a) Joh 1:14. In what sense is we beheld to be taken? It has been contended that a seeing with the bodily eye is not meant, but spiritual vision. If we compare the parallel passage in 1Jn 1:1, there can be little doubt that the hearing and the handling there mentioned demand the sense that the seeing is also literal. The presumption is in favour of applying the same interpretation to the passage in the Gospel. By we is meant a group of eyewitnesses who are associated with St. John in the statement. Who these were it is impossible actually to determine, but perhaps it is unnecessary to limit the range of we to the circle of the Twelve. The Gospel shows that the writer is interested in the testimony, however imperfect it may sometimes be, of many others besides his fellow-Apostles. Clement of Alexandria says that last of all, John, perceiving that the bodily facts had been set forth in the other Gospels, at the instance of his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit composed a spiritual Gospel. With this may be compared the statement in the Muratorian Canon: It was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should narrate everything in his own name, subject to the revision of the rest (ut recognoseentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret). While these statements may not have independent historical value, and may themselves be based on the internal evidence of the Gospel, and especially on Joh 21:24, surely they must be regarded as the simplest and most direct interpretation of the facts. A group of eye-witnesses was concerned in the origin of the Gospel. We may therefore otter the hypothesis that, while St. John wrote the Gospel and impressed upon it his own personality, the form in which he expresses himself, the philosophical mould in which the writing is cast, the Philonic phraseology, and the extraordinary power of analyzing situations and characters, would owe much to the intellectual environment of Ephesus, and in some cases to direct suggestion on the part of some fellow-disciple, not necessarily one of the Twelve. The value of the Gospel and its authenticity are confirmed by the fact that it is the expression of St. Johns own experience, attested by that of his fellow-disciples who had seen the Lord. The purpose of the Gospel is to treat the facts of the life and teaching of Jesus in such a way as to advance faith in the hearts of those who had not been eye-witnesses, and were therefore all the more inclined to regard their position in relation to the bodily facts as a loss and a hindrance to faith. So far from this, the climax of faith is not to have seen and yet to believe (Joh 20:29). There would, no doubt, be men like Thomas in the early Church, easily cast down, and satisfied only by the bodily presence of Christ, to whom all else was unreal. No personal assurance was sufficient to convince them. St. John, therefore, veiled his identity, and emphasized the joint-testimony of the group of eye-witnesses to which he also belonged. This is also the origin of the impersonal reference in Joh 20:31 These things are written, etc.

(b) Joh 19:35-37. Here is an instance where the Evangelist is compelled to distinguish his own personality from the circle in whose name he speaks. St. John alone of that group was present at the Cross (Joh 19:26). In this case he has to find, in accordance with his principle, some means of authenticating his testimony. It is interesting to notice how this is done, and the character of the Gospel as not dependent on the evidence of a single testimony alone vindicated. A threefold corroboration is adduced () His witness is true (), i.e. confirmed by the Spirit of truth (Joh 14:17; Joh 14:26). () Reference is made to One who knoweth that he saith true. It is possible, but awkward, to refer to the Evangelist. Rather it is meant to denote Christ Himself (cf. Joh 1:18, 1Jn 3:16; 1Jn 4:17). It is so taken by Sanday (op. cit. p. 78) and Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1809). This interpretation is as old as Erasmus. () The Scriptures are adduced as a witness, i.e. the witness of God Himself (Joh 4:36-37). The fact of the flow of blood and water from the pierced side can be explained medically, and the emphasis is laid not on the fact, but on the interpretation to be put upon it. It is a sign, and the writer must have regarded it as of peculiar value to his readers. Perhaps some form of the Docetic heresy is aimed at (cf. Haussleiter, Zwei Apost. Zeugen, p. 29).

In conclusion, the Gospel is a genuine Johannine work from the pen of the Apostle, who wrote from Ephesus.* [Note: for arguments against the Ephesian residence, see Drummond, Sanday, Stanton, and art. John the Apostle.] We cannot, however, overlook the undoubted fact that the writer is concerned to hide his own identity, and thereby to impress the fact that the Gospel is not the work of a single individual, but the testimony of a group of eye-witnesses. With Johns as the guiding mind, they conjointly made themselves responsible for the statements contained in the book. This is at once the oldest and simplest solution of the problem of authorship.

Two objections, on general grounds, to the traditional authorship may here be mentioned.

1. Can a Galilaean fisherman have written this Gospel?There is no question of NT criticism where the need is more imperative to rid ourselves of prejudice than this question of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It is possible to have a completely mistaken conception of the connexion between letters and handicraft in the days of the Apostles. St. Peter and St. John are described in Act 4:13 as unlearned and ignorant men ( ). marks a caste distinction, in opposition to the learned or academic classes. The use of the vernacular tongue by the Apostles would be sufficient to suggest the expression. The Pharisaic objection is, as Delitzsch reminds us, a decline from the traditional honourable connexion between the Rabbi and the handworker (Jewish Artisan Life, p. 54). Zebedee owned his own fishing vessel, and the presumptuous request of the mother of Zebedees sons betrays a somewhat overweening sense of social position. St. John was known to the high priest. Moreover, we too must take knowledge that he had been with Jesus, and it would not be easy to estimate, in addition to the spiritual training, the purely educative influence of companionship with Jesus of Nazareth. The over-ardent spirit that sought to call down fire on a hostile Samaritan village, finds a nobler expression in the withering exposure of Judas (Joh 12:6) and of Caiaphas (Joh 11:49-52). He who with such insight lets us into the spiritual incapacity of Nicodemus, must have been himself born again into a new world, and have gained a new outlook.

2. Is it impossible that John, a pillar Apostle (Gal 2:9), who so favoured the claims of the circumcision, should also have written such an anti-Judaic Gospel?Yet even then he cordially recognized, by the giving of the right hand of fellowship, St. Pauls mission to the Gentiles. Does the love for his own nation not breathe in the emphasis he lays in the Fourth Gospel on the tragedy of their rejection of Christ? The effect of the destruction of Jerusalem must have been very great on a mind like Johns, and the Gospel was written forty years after that event. None of the other Evangelists lays such stress on the teaching of events as the Fourth. In Ephesus also he would breathe the atmosphere of the Pauline gospel, full of thoughts of the sovereignty of God, the condescension of the Divine grace, and the universality of the gospel message. He who beheld the awe-inspiring vision of the Risen Christ in Patmos, might well, in the calm of later years, write the majestic words of the Prologue.

III. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels.It is impossible to doubt that the Fourth Evangelist presupposes that his readers are acquainted with the contents of the first three Gospels, or that he himself is acquainted with them. We shall confine ourselves in this discussion to certain points of divergence between John and the Synoptics.

1. The scene of the ministry of Christ is for the most part confined to Jerusalem. The Galilaean ministry is referred to in Joh 2:12, Joh 6:1; Joh 6:59, Joh 7:1, Joh 21:1. We are not now concerned with the demand for chronological correspondence with the Synoptic account. It will be sufficient to show that there is no inconsistency in the prominence given in this Gospel to the events in Jerusalem. The Judaean ministry is presupposed in Luk 4:44, but the reading is doubtful. Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to attend on the Galilaean ministry (Luk 5:17, Mar 3:22; Mar 7:1). Judas was a native of Kerioth, in Judaea. The friendship of Joseph of Arimathaea, who in all probability resided in Jerusalem, has to be explained. The relations with Martha and Mary point to frequent visits to Bethany. We have also the How often! of Mat 23:37 and Luk 13:22; Luk 13:33-34, which indicates not merely unfulfilled desire, but baffled effort. After the Ascension the disciples make their headquarters in Jerusalem. It is well-nigh impossible to explain the attitude of the authorities, and many incidents of the closing days (e.g. the friend at whose house the Supper was eaten), unless by the Johannine accounts of the visits to Jerusalem. The Synoptics tell us of only one Passover, but events could hardly have ripened there as they did unless Jesus had been previously known in Jerusalem.

2. Certain incidents are omitted in St. John which in the Synoptics are crises in the life of Christ.The omission of the Temptation narrative is perhaps not strange in one who knew the mind of Jesus so intimately. The beloved disciple would be well qualified to understand the parabolic nature of the story. The essence of the Temptation narrative is the possession of Divine power and the refusal to use it for selfish ends. Similarly, Christs freedom of action, especially in regard to His death, is frequently emphasized in the Fourth Gospel (cf. Joh 10:17-18). The outward glory of the Transfiguration is merged in a higher glory, which is seen in the communicating of Life and Light to men (Joh 1:4). As regards the omission of the narrative of the institution of the Lords Supper, it was no doubt unnecessary, at the time at which the Gospel was written, to repeat words that were in common use in the Church. The inner meaning of the sacrament is perhaps displayed in ch. 6, and throughout chs. 1317, as an abiding union with Christ, and the redemptive death is emphasized elsewhere in the Gospel. It is possible that there had been creeping into the Church superstitious views of the ordinance, and the author is concerned both to bring out the spiritual meaning and to show that the ideas usually connected solely with the institution, of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, were already familiar to His disciples. It is the washing of the disciples feet in the Fourth Gospel to which a symbolic meaning is attached (Joh 13:6-10). The Fourth Evangelist omits the Agony in the Garden. It is suggested that he would regard it as incompatible with the dignity of the Logos, and damaging to his conception of the Person of Christ. Certainly the Christ of the Fourth Gospel retains no trace of the Agony when at His word the Roman soldiers fall back on the ground. The Intercessory Prayer also preserves an imperial calm. Yet we must take into account such statements as Joh 12:27-28, and the recalling of the very words of the Agony in Joh 18:11. Moreover, it is untrue to say that the Fourth Evangelist regards bodily weakness as incompatible with the Logos. Jesus sits at Jacobs well tired and weary (Joh 4:6), He weeps at the grave of Lazarus, and thirsts on the cross (Joh 19:28). The last passage gives us a key to the authors attitude in reference to the person of Christ. Jesus spoke the words in full consciousness (knowing, etc., i.e. they were not wrung from Him), and in speaking them fulfils a great Divine purpose (that the scripture might be fulfilled). In his picture of Jesus upon earth, the Evangelist brings out in strong relief attributes of His Person which presented themselves to him in their full significance only through his experience of the Risen Christ. The two conceptions of Christs humanity and Divinity are naively set side by side (cf. Joh 6:6, Joh 12:30, Joh 11:5-6; Joh 11:41-42).

The reverse side of the question is presented in the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus. Here the Fourth Evangelist inserts an occurrence which is also a crisis in the last days, and yet the Synoptics do not mention it. The contradiction is partly resolved if we remember that the Synoptic account may really be reduced to one original document closely corresponding to our Gospel of St. Mark, and containing recollections of the preaching of St. Peter. Again, the mere fact that a miracle of raising from the dead has been omitted need excite no surprise. Jairus daughter also was dead. The difficulty is that the miracle should be one of such central importance in the working out of the end. It may be that in the preaching of the early Apostles, which is the basis for the oral tradition of the Synoptics, the incident would not be dwelt on, considering the hatred provoked against Lazarus himself (Joh 12:10). At all events, the extraordinary knowledge displayed by the Fourth Evangelist of the situation, in the closing days at Jerusalem, leads to the presumption that he is right in the place he gives to the miracle.

3. The date of the Last Supper.All the Synoptics agree in putting the Last Supper on the evening of the first day of unleavened bread, i.e. on the evening which began Passover day, according to Jewish reckoning (Mat 26:17; Mat 26:20, Mar 14:12; Mar 14:17, Luk 22:7; Luk 22:14). Thus the day of the Crucifixion is the Passover day, or 15th Nisan. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel regards the day of the Crucifixion as identical with the day of Preparation for the Passover (Joh 19:14; Joh 19:31; Joh 19:42). The rulers would not enter the Praetorium lest they be prevented by defilement from eating the Passover (Joh 18:28). Joh 13:1 puts the Supper before the feast of the Passover. Elaborate and ingenious attempts have been made to bring either the Synoptics into harmony with the Fourth Gospel or vice versa. No successful attempt has yet been made to reconcile the two accounts chronologically, and it does not appear probable that any solution can be found in that direction. The only points on which all four are agreed are that our Lord suffered on a Friday (but see Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, p. 322), and rose again on the following Sunday. We must choose between the Crucifixion on the 14th Nisan (John) or on 15th Nisan (Synoptics).

There are two questions that call for answer. (1) Is this Friday Passover day (i.e. 15th Nisan according to Jewish reckoning from sunset to sunset)? (2) Is the Supper held on the evening of (Friday the regular Paschal meal?

(1) There are various internal contradictions in the Synoptic account. Chwolson has challenged the accuracy of the expression the first day of unleavened bread as applied to the day of preparation. He holds that the words can strictly be used only of the first day of the Passover week, i.e. of Passover day itself. It was the case, however, that the leaven began to be removed from Jewish houses in the daytime of the 14th Nisan, and this would he sufficient to account for the phrase. Again, we are told that the Sanhedrin determined to avoid putting Jesus to death during the feast (Mar 14:2). Did they change their plans? (Mar 14:12; Mar 14:17; Mar 14:43-46). Peter is armed, and the servants of the high priest are accompanied by an armed band. This was, strictly speaking, contrary to Jewish law on the Passover days; but the situation might well be regarded as exceptional. It is not so easy to believe that a burried meeting of the Sanhedrin would be beld immediately after partaking of the Paschal meal. Simon of Cyrene is coming up out of the country (Mar 15:21)not necessarily from his work, which would, of course, indicate that it was not yet Passover, but more probably to purify himself for the Passover (Joh 11:55). Again, it is not easy to account for the haste with which it was sought to take down the body of Christ (Mar 15:42), unless the Passover was imminent. Joseph buys fine linen, and lays the body in the tomb, which could scarcely he done on Passover day. These considerations serve to show that the Synoptic account is at least uncertain. Thus there are also indications in the Synoptic story that go to confirm the clear statement of the Fourth Gospel that Jesus are the Supper and was crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover. The only argument against the Johannine position is that urged by Baur and his school, that an attempt is made, in a theological interest, to show that Jesus died on the day on which the Passover lamb was slain.

(2) If we accept the Johannine view, it follows that the Last Supper was not the regular Paschal meal. It is remarkable that in none of the Gospels is there mention of the lamb. John expressly distinguishes the Supper from the Passover (Joh 13:1 f.). At the same time it must not be forgotten that in Lk. Christ speaks of the meal as a Passover (Luk 22:15), and in such a way as to imply that there was some foreboding in His mind that they would not celebrate the Passover together on the legal day. The Chronicon Paschale, quoting Clement of Alexandria, says that the disciples learned that Jesus was Himself the Lamb, the food and the wine of the feast. St. Paul seems to imply that he identified in his mind the Crucifixion with the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb (1Co 5:7). If the Supper is meant by Jesus to anticipate the Passover meal, the shifting of the day would have as its secondary cause the haste with which the final preparations for arrest were made. At the same time it is hardly correct to say that the Fourth Evangelist is himself conscious of discrepancy with the Synoptics. Otherwise the phrase in Joh 13:1 would have been more exact. His references (Joh 13:1, Joh 19:14; Joh 19:31; Joh 19:42) rather imply that a definite tradition is before him.

(An exhaustive discussion of the question will be found in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. p. 711; Drummond, op. cit. pp. 4759. See also artt. Dates, Last Supper, Lords Supper).

4. The conception of miracles.In the Fourth Gospel the miracles are interpreted as manifestations of Christs glory, with the view of calling attention to His Person. In the Synoptics they are performed as the outcome of His compassion. St. John certainly lays stress on the evidential aspect of the miracles, but he cannot be said to overlook the motive of compassion. Jesus created wine to add to the happiness of a perplexed marriage party (Joh 2:1; Joh 2:11). Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? is a question full of tender feeling (Joh 6:5). After their discouraging and chilling interviews with the Jews, Jesus found both the sick man of Bethesda and the man born blind (Joh 5:14, Joh 9:35), and spoke further words of spiritual healing. The allegory of the Good Shepherd is spoken for the sake of the excommunicated man, and breathes compassion (Joh 10:1-18). The Evangelist guards against the delay of two days being interpreted as a want of compassionate love for the sisters of Lazarus (11:5). There is nothing in the high claims of Jesus inconsistent with the Synoptic account. Compare the lofty claim that is implied in the sending forth of the Apostles in Matthew 10, and the impression produced by His calming of the storm (Mar 4:41). Note the tenderness and solicitude for the troubled and sorrowful disciples in the valedictory discourses (cf., further, Joh 5:40; Joh 6:27; Joh 10:9 and Mat 11:25-30, Luk 10:21-22). We may admit that there is a certain heightening of the effect, as, for example, when we are told that the man at Bethesda had been a cripple for thirty-eight years, and that Lazarus was four days in the tomb. On the other hand, this Gospel is alone in declaring that the miraculous is an inferior kind of evidence (Joh 14:10-14, cf. Joh 2:23-25).

5. The picture of the Baptist has been regarded as inconsistent with the Synoptics. Sometimes, indeed, the Baptist speaks in the manner of the Evangelist, but it has to be remembered that only one aspect of the Baptist, viz. his witness to the Person of Christ, is emphasized. Baldensperger has contended (Prolog des vierten Evangelium) that the Gospel is written with the purpose of combating a sect in Asia Minor who were inclined to exalt the claims of the Baptist above those of Jesus. If we modify his statement so far as to admit that this is one of the aims of the Gospel, and that it has in view such a sect as we are told of in Act 18:24 to Act 19:7, we are provided with the means of explaining the striking introduction of the Baptist as a man sent from God (Joh 1:6); his being contrasted with the Logos in the Prologue; why he is represented in the Fourth Gospel solely as directing his disciples to Jesus (Joh 1:36); why it is stated that the Baptists work and Christs went on simultaneously, and that Jesus did not merely take up Johns work where he left it (Joh 3:22-30); why the baptism of Jesus is mentioned in such a way as to exclude the conferring of any charism on Him by the Baptist (Joh 1:31-33).

6. It is urged as an objection to the Fourth Gospel that there is a lack of development in connexion with the claims of Jesus. At the very beginning He is hailed as the Messiah (Joh 1:41; Joh 1:45), and as Son of God (Joh 1:34; Joh 1:49). He reveals Himself as Messiah to the Samaritan woman (Joh 4:26). A process of development, however, is represented (e.g. Joh 2:22) as going on in the minds of the disciples, and the transition is easy, from remembering what Jesus had said, to unconsciously mingling with the actual narrative the expansion of the meaning of words and events through time. Moreover, the narrative moves in growing cycles of belief and disbelief. His reply to His mother (Joh 2:4), His brethrens insinuation (Joh 7:3-4), His own words in Joh 7:17, the reproof of Philip (Joh 14:9), and the speculations of the crowd (Joh 7:12; Joh 7:26-27), all indicate that the understanding of men did not keep pace with His own declarations. In this Gospel we still find the echo of the Messiasgeheimniss (Joh 10:24; cf. Sanday, op. cit. pp. 162165). Again, is it not to be expected that if a Fourth Gospel was thought necessary, it would present a somewhat different aspect of Christs claims and teaching? The Synoptics tell us how Jesus taught the audiences of Galilaean peasants. The Fourth Gospel deals largely with the experience of individuals, and of the inner group of disciples, and the way in which Christs claims were met by the authorities at Jerusalem (cf. Dods, Expos. Gr. Test. Introduction, pp. 671676).

IV. Historicity of the Gospel.Clement of Alexandria described the Gospel as spiritual, in contrast to the Synoptics, which relate the bodily facts concerning Christ. In the Prologue itself we have an example of the way in which statements of spiritual truth and historical fact are characteristically interwoven, and the Evangelist tells us that he aims at presenting, out of the fulness of his knowledge, such an impression of Christ and of His teaching that ye may believe (Joh 20:30-31). Can we understand more clearly from the character of the Gospel itself the impulses that actuated his mind? Can we in any measure detach the ideal element from the historical in the Gospel?

1. The narrative of events.

(1) There are many signs in the Gospel that the author is narrating facts in which he himself had a personal interest. He claims to be an eye-witness (Joh 1:14). He gives us exact notes of time (Joh 1:29, Joh 2:1, Joh 4:40, Joh 6:22, Joh 7:14, Joh 11:6, Joh 12:1, Joh 19:31, Joh 20:1). The hour of the day is mentioned (Joh 1:39, Joh 4:6, Joh 19:14). Similarly, exact numbers are given (Joh 1:35, Joh 2:6, Joh 6:9; Joh 6:19; Joh 6:19, Joh 4:18, Joh 19:23-39). The significance of these marks of real recollection is increased by the fact that they occur chiefly in connexion with incidents of critical importance in the life of Jesus or in the experience of His followers. Note the accurate chronology dealing with the rise of faith in the Apostolic circle (Joh 1:1 to Joh 2:11), and with the Passion week (Joh 2:18-20). This Evangelist alone tells us of the barley loaves (Joh 6:9; Joh 6:13), that Mary fell down at his feet (Joh 11:32), of the house filled with the fragrance of the ointment (Joh 12:3). Note also such personal impressions as Joh 13:24, Joh 18:6, Joh 19:5. These touches are introduced spontaneously, forming an integral part of the consciousness of the writer.

Again, it is evident that a selection has been made out of a number of incidents that were available (Joh 20:30-31). Incidents related in detail in the Synoptics are implied (Joh 7:42, Joh 3:24, Joh 1:32-33). Barabbas is mentioned without introduction, and the single comment, Now Barabbas was a robber, is full of suppressed meaning (Joh 18:40). The trial before Caiaphas is not described. Two great miracles are related substantially as in the Synoptics (Joh 6:1-21). Compare also the Anointing (12) and the Triumphal Entry (Joh 12:12-15). The Trial scenes and the Crucifixion correspond in the main with the Synoptics. The Denial of Peter gains in verisimilitude by being broken up into separate incidents. The Baptists words in Joh 3:29 are confirmed by Mat 9:15. The Baptists ministry is implied in Joh 10:40-41.

(2) The Evangelist describes himself not as a biographer, but as a witness. He brings forward others as witnessing. In Joh 21:24, if the order is significant, witnessing is looked upon as of prior importance to writing. A governing idea in the writers mind is the truth, which consists not in historical fact, but in having the mind brought into tune with the Divine facts of love and self-sacrifice. The miracles are not only actualities (), they are also signs (). The Evangelists mind is specially open to any suggestion of spiritual truth conveyed by the actual facts (e.g. Joh 2:11; Joh 2:17). Siloam is sent, the sending forth of the waters being typical, perhaps, of the Christ sent of God (Joh 9:7). Judas goes out of the light of the upper room into the night (Joh 13:30). It was winter at the Feast of the Dedication (Joh 10:22), symbolizing the storm of hatred and the chill of indifference that met the warmth of Jesus love. The use made of the sign in Joh 19:35 ff., is also typical of the Evangelists mind. The reflective character of the writing is seen in the frequent use of and as connective particles. He emphasizes on various occasions the doctrine of a higher purpose running through the history (e.g. Joh 11:51; cf. the hour. Joh 2:4 etc. Joh 3:27, Joh 19:28). This idea of the sovereignty of God in events is found also in St. Paul, and is not represented in the Christian tradition solely by the Fourth Evangelist. There is also the frank confession that the disciples failed to understand some sayings and incidents at the time, and that only the Spirit, mediated through the teaching of events, revealed the hidden meaning (e.g. Joh 2:22, Joh 12:16). This is in accordance with the abstract expression of the same idea in Joh 14:26.

It is impossible fully to understand the authors conception of history without taking into account his clear consciousness that the gift of the Spirit of Truth must be part of the equipment for writing such a narrative as this Gospel (Joh 14:17, cf. Joh 19:35 and the use of ). The theory of history that is exemplified in the Gospel is summed up in Joh 15:24-27. Even the situation of distress in the Church at the time he wrote finds its interpretation only in the prophetic words of Christ (Joh 14:29, Joh 16:4).

With a conception of history so far removed from that of the mere chronicler, it is not surprising that the perspective of certain incidents (e.g. the Cleansing of the Temple) has been disturbed. There was a careful selection of those events in the life of Christ that were best fitted to illustrate in all their varying phases the belief and unbelief called forth by the Person and teaching of Jesus, but the Evangelist always starts with what he has seen (Joh 1:14). There are some difficulties of sequence that would be removed by giving a different order to the narrative; e.g. Arise, let us go hence (Joh 14:31), where the discourse is resumed in ch. 15. Again, the discourse in Joh 7:15-24 would be eminently in place at the end of ch. 5. These transpositions might have taken place through various causes after the document had left the writers hands (see Bacon, Introduction, pp. 271274).

2. The discourses.There are differences in style and in length between the discourses of Christ in the Fourth Gospel and those in the Synoptics. At first sight they seem far removed in character. Yet nothing could be farther from the truth than to say that the personal contribution of the Evangelist in the discourses is more apparent than his desire to reproduce the exact words of Jesus, or that he makes use of the Synoptics in mechanical fashion. He has preserved one or two isolated sayings (Joh 1:43, Joh 5:8, Joh 6:20, Joh 13:21; Joh 13:38, Joh 20:19) which are also found in the Synoptics, and the discourse in Joh 5:19-47 contains many coincidences of word and thought with Mat 11:2-19. (For other coincidences see Westcott, lxxxi.). Yet there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the hypothesis that even in these cases the Evangelist was entirely dependent on the Synoptic narratives, although it is probable that he had them before him. Even the discourses of the Fourth Gospel, when reduced to their elements, are full of short and pregnant sayings, such as we are accustomed to connect with Christ (see a most suggestive collection in Drummond, op. cit. p. 16ff.). Discourses much longer than any that are found in John are to be found in the Synoptics. It is true that the style of the discourses and the style of the Evangelist are practically identical, but that may be partly due to the fact that the words of Jesus have been translated from the Aramaic. The dialogue form is more fully represented in the Fourth Gospel than in the others, which would rather make for authenticity.

There are indications in the Gospel that the Evangelist is concerned to keep his own ideas separate from those of Christ. The actual Logos idea outlined in the Prologue is never put into the mouth of Christ except as underlying His words in certain cases. He keeps separate his own explanations of words of Christ (Joh 2:19-21; Joh 12:33; Joh 7:39). What can only be an actual saying of Christ is represented as haunting the minds of the disciples in Joh 16:14-19. Again, in Joh 12:44-50, in the midst of a passage containing his own reflexions, there is a summary containing a free rendering of words of Christ that are repeated elsewhere in the Gospel; Joh 14:2 would seem to indicate that the same ideas had been expressed before, and would be familiar to the disciples.

On the other hand, it is clear that it is not the concern of this Evangelist to record the precise phrase that once for a moment ruffled the air of Palestine. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (Joh 6:63). At one point the disciples think they understand clearly the words they hear, but Jesus shows them their ignorance still (Joh 16:29 ff.). The teaching by parables appears only as transformed into allegory. In Joh 10:1-18 the image and the interpretation are inextricably intermingled. In some of the discourses the meaning is carried up to a certain point, and is then repeated like a motif, as though the Evangelist sought to express himself more clearly (e.g. the valedictory discourses). There are some cases where there is doubt as to where the words of Jesus end and the words of the Evangelist begin. It is conceivable that a more exact study of his language would afford us critical appliances more capable of detaching the two elements than those we now possess. Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar (2066b), has suggested that where is used as a connective it is an indication that the Evangelist is entering on his own words. This would certainly suit such cases as Joh 3:15, Joh 4:9, Joh 5:21-23; Joh 5:26-27. At the same time, whatever further grammatical study may reveal, we must be prepared to regard the Johannine tradition of the words of Christ as differing in many aspects from that of the Synoptics. On the other hand, affinities are found in earlier NT writings with the words of Christ as reported in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 1Pe 5:2-4 and Joh 10:1; 1Pe 2:25 and Joh 10:16; also 1Pe 1:8; 1Pe 1:23, Rom 6:16 and Joh 8:34; Gal 5:17; Gal 5:26, Eph 2:13 ff. and Joh 10:16; Php 2:5 and Joh 10:17), and in all probability the question of the historicity of the words of Christ is not a problem peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (see P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage). The dialogues with the Jews in this Gospel have taken on the abstract form that we should expect if they had often been orally repeated by the Evangelist in his preaching, before they were written down. The discourses themselves are definitely connected with historical situations, and may, in some cases, be the expansion of fragmentary reminiscences. On the other hand, the gaps in the thought seem sometimes to point to abridgement. The problem is the same as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. The valedictory discourses have no doubt taken their continuous form through the welding together of recollections of the closing days, suggested by the desire to make plain to the early Church that her present condition of anxiety and distress was anticipated with solicitous forethought in the prophetic words of the Saviour. The prayer in ch 17 is the prayer of One who has become the Great High Priest of His Church and of humanity. There is no reason for denying that the mind of the writer had a place in the composition of these. The spiritual equipment of the Evangelist is the guarantee for the fidelity of his psychological attitude as a witness, and we must be prepared to trust not only the man himself, but above all his peculiar and intimate knowledge of the mind of Christ. We may thus reverently examine the material of which his unique spiritual experience is composed, but may well refrain from dividing a seamless robe.

Literature.Full bibliographies will be found in Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel (by C. P. Gregory); Reynolds in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. pp. 721722; a survey of modern literature in Loisy, Le Quatrime vangile, p. 36 ff.; a critical account of recent literature in Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 132.

1. The most important works hostile to the traditional view of the authorship are: Bretschneider, Probabilia, 1820; Strauss, Leben Jesu, 18351840 [mythical view]; Baur, Die Kanonischen Evangelien, 1847 [date a.d. 170, tendency criticism]; Keim, Jesu von Nazara, 1867 [written by a Jewish Christian, 110115, under name of Apostle John]; J. J. Tayler, An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1867; Supernatural Religion, 1874 [replied to by Lightfoot, Cont. Rev., Dec. 1874, Jan. 1875; Sanday, Gospels in Second Century; Luthardt, St. John the author of Fourth Gospel, 1875]; Albrecht Thoma, Die Genesis der Johann. Evang. 1882 [Gospel an Alexandrian allegory of Philonic character]; Oscar Holtzmann, 1887 [specially valuable for Jewish element in Gospel]; H. J. Holtzmann, Handcom. zum NT, 1893; Jean Rville, Le Quatrime vangile, 1901 [unknown author; beloved disciple not an individual but an ideal type]; Moffatt, Historical NT, 1901; Schmiedel in Encyc. Bibl. ii. art. John, son of Zebedee, and Die Johann. Schriften in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbcher; Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz, 1903; Loisy, Le Quatrime vangile, 1903.

2. A mediating position is represented by: Weisse, Ev. Geschichte, 1838, Die Evangelische Frage. 1856 [discourses and prologue Apostolic]; C. Weizsacker, Untersuchungen, 1864, reprinted 1901 [written by disciple of John; narratives and discourses in substance historical, but contains a large ideal element]; Renan, Vie de Jsus, 1863 [practically abandons the historicity of discourses, but retains narrative as fundamentally Johannine]; Hugo Delff, Grundzge des Entwickclungs-Geschichte d. Religion, 1883, Das vierte Evangelium, and Neue Beitrge, 1890; Jlicher, Einleitung, 1901 (translation 1904); B. W. Bacon, Introduction, 1902; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, 1886, i. 215342, Das Johannesevangelium, 1909 (translated) [a development of the partition theory of Weisse; criticised by Wanchope Stewart in Expositor, Jan., Feb. 1903, and Drummond, Character and Authorship, pp. 399404]; Harnack, Chronologie d. altchrist. Litteratur, vol. i.

3. The Apostolic authorship is maintained by: Neander, Life of Christ; Luthardt, op. cit.; Andrews Norton, Genuineness of the Four Gospels [all three in answer to Strauss]; Bleek, Einleitung, 1862, translation [in answer to Baur]; Pressens, Jsus Christ: son Temps, sa Vie, etc.; Sabatier, Essai sur les sources de la Vie de Jesus; Godet, Introd. and Com. (1864, translation 1896, posthumous edition, 1901) [still most valuable in every direction]; R. H. Hutton in Essays Theological and Literary, 1871 [defending historical, credibility against Baur]; Sanday, Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872; M. Arnold, God and the Bible (from Contemp. Review, 1875); Willibald Beyschlag, Zur johann. Frage, 1876, NT Theol. (English translation i. 216221); Salmon, Historical Introduction, 1885; Westcott, Introd. and Com. 1881 [classical]; Reynolds, Pulpit Commentary, and art. in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; Watkins, Bampton Lectures, 1899 [specially valuable for external evidence]; P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 1890 [seeks to show that the Johannine element has a fundamental place in the entire Evangelic tradition of four Gospels]; Gloag, Introd. to the Johann. Writings, 1891 [containing valuable summary of positions]; Volume of Essays by Ezra Abbot, A. P. Peabody, J. B. Lightfoot, 1892; B. Weiss, Einleitung (translation 1888), Das Johann. Evang. 1897; Marcus Dods, Expos. Gr. Test. vol. i. 1897; Zahn, Einleitung2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 1899; Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1993 [very significant owing to the theological position of the writer; especially suggestive in treatment of external evidence; displays tendency towards allegorical interpretation]; Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, i. 1903 [external evidence]; Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905 [containing surveys and estimates of recent theories, and valuable criticism of critical methods]; Barth, Biblischen Zeitund Streitfragen, Das Johann. evang. und die Synopt. Evang. 1903.

The series of volumes by Edwin Abbott, entitled Diatessarica (esp. From Letter to Spirit, 1903; Johannine Vocabulary, 1995; Johannine Grammar, 1906), contains much fresh matter, suggested by an elaborate study of the language of the Fourth Gospel.

Among articles in magazines may be mentioned W. Milligan in Contemp. Review (Sept. 1867, Aug. and Nov. 1868), and British and Foreign Evangelical Review (Oct. 1871) [directed against Baur and his school]; Schrer, Contemp. Review, 1891 [a review of the position of the problem; replied to by Sanday, Oct. 1891]; Bacon, Hibbert Journal, April 1903, Jan. 1904, 1995 [has developed theory of editorship by author of 13 Jn. and ch. 21]; three important articles on conservative side by an anonymous writer in the Church Quarterly Review, 19051906. The monograph by Schwarz, Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedaei, 1904, while completely hostile to the traditional view, is valuable for certain portions of the external evidence.

R. H. Strachan.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels