John
a. To the Apocalypse
THE present volume is reprinted from The Speaker s Commentary. I have corrected a few misprints, defined more exactly a few references, and changed two or three words and phrases which seemed liable to misapprehension. I have not however felt at liberty to make any other alterations or additions.
I. THE AUTHORSHIP or THE GOSPEL.
THE Gospel itself forms the proper starting-point for a satisfactory inquiry into its origin. Doubts may be raised as to the early history of the book owing to the nature of the available evidence, but there can be no question that it is impressed with an individual character, and that it contains indications of the circumstances under which it was composed. These indications, therefore, must first be examined: this character must first be defined so far as it illustrates the relation of the writer to the religious and social circumstances of the first century; and when this is done, we shall be in a position to consider with a fair appreciation the value of the historical testimony in support of the universal tradition of the Early Church which assigned the work to the Apostle St John.
What then is the evidence which the fourth Gospel itself bears to its authorship, first indirectly, and next directly? These are the two questions which we have to answer before we can go further.
i. The indirect evidence of the Gospel as to its authorship.
In examining the indirect evidence which the fourth Gospel furnishes as to its authorship, it will be most convenient, as well as most satisfactory, to consider the available materials in relation to successive questions which become more and more definite as we proceed. How far then can we infer from the book itself, with more or less certainty, that the author was, or was not, a Jew, a Jew of Palestine, an eye-witness, an Apostle, and, last of all, St John, the son of Zebedee?
(a) The Author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew. A candid examination of the evidence appears to leave no room for reasonable doubt on this point. The whole narrative shews that the author was a Jew. He is familiar with Jewish opinions and customs, his composition is impressed with Jewish characteristics, he is penetrated with the spirit of the Jewish dispensation. His special knowledge, his literary style, his religious faith, all point to the same conclusion. The few arguments which are urged on the other side derive whatever force they have from the isolation of particular phrases which are considered without regard to the general aspect of the life to which they belong.
These statements must be justified in detail.
(a) The familiarity of the author of the fourth Gospel with Jewish opinions is shewn most strikingly by the outline which he gives of the contemporary Messianic expectations. This subject will be brought before us more in detail afterwards (in. § 2). For the present it will be enough to refer to the details which are given or implied in i. 21, iv.' 25, vi. 14 f., vii. 40 ff., xii. 34, &c. In all these cases the points are noticed without the least effort as lying within the natural circle of the writer's thoughts. So again he mentions casually the popular estimate of women (iv. 27), the importance attached to the religious schools (vii. 15), the disparagement of " the Dispersion " (vii. 35), the belief in the transmitted punishment of sin (ix. 2), the hostility of Jews and Samaritans (iv. 9), the supercilious contempt of the Pharisees for " the people of the earth " (vii. 49).
The details of Jewish observances are touched upon with equal precision. Now it is the law of the sabbath which is shewn to be overruled by the requirement of circumcision (vii. 22 f.): now the ceremonial pollution which is contracted by entering a Gentile court (xviii. 28). The account of the visit to the Feast of Tabernacles only becomes fully intelligible when we supply the facts at which the writer barely hints, being himself filled with the knowledge of them. The pouring of water from Siloam upon the altar of burnt sacrifice, and the kindling of the lamps in the court of the women, explain the imagery of the "living water" (vii. 38), and of "the light of the world " (viii. 1 2). And here, again, a Jew only who knew the festival would be likely to describe " the last day of the feast," which was added to the original seven, as "the great day" (vii. 37). The same familiar and decisive knowledge of the people is shewn in glimpses which are opened on domestic life at the marriage feast (ii. i — 10), and at the burial of Lazarus (xi. 17—44). The tumultuary stoning of Stephen (Acts vii. 57 ff.), which could not but be a well-known incident in the early church, would have hindered any one who had not clear information upon the point from recording the answer of the Jews " It is not lawful for us to put any one to death" (xviii. 31); and so in fact these words were afterwards misunderstood by the Greek fathers.
But, on the other hand, it is said that the author of the fourth Gospel was so ignorant of Jewish affairs that he represents the high-priesthood as an annual office when he speaks of Caiaphas as "high-priest in that year" (xi. 49, 51, xviii. 13). It would be sufficient to reply that such ignorance could not be reconciled with the knowledge already indicated; but a consideration of the clause solemnly repeated three times shews that the supposed conclusion cannot be drawn from it. The emphatic reiteration of the statement forces the reader to connect the office of Caiaphas with the part which he actually took in accomplishing the death of Christ. One yearly sacrifice for atonement it was the duty of the high-priest to offer. In that memorable year, when all types were fulfilled in the reality, it fell to Caiaphas to bring about unconsciously the one sacrifice of atonement for sin. He was high-priest before and after, but it was not enough for the Evangelist's purpose to mark this. He was highpriest in that year — "the year of the Lord" (Luke iv. 19), — and so in the way of divine Providence did his appointed part in causing " one man to die for the people" (xi. 50).
(/3) From the contents of the fourth Gospel we tura now to its form. And it may truly be affirmed that the style of the narrative alone is conclusive as to its Jewish authorship. The vocabulary, the structure of the sentences, the symmetry and numerical symbolism of the compo- sition,the expression and the arrangement of the thoughts, are essentially Hebrew. These points will require to be discussed at greater length when we come to examine the composition of the Gospel (n. § 5). It must suffice now to call attention to such terms as "light," "darkness," "flesh," "spirit," "life," "this world," "the kingdom of God," and the like: to such images as "the shepherd," "the living water," "the woman in travail:" to the simplicity of the connecting particles: to the parallelism and symmetry of the clauses. The source of the imagery of the narrative, to sum up all briefly, is the Old Testament. The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew.
(y) The Old Testament is no less certainly the source of the religious life of the writer. His Jewish opinions and hopes are taken up into and transfigured by his Christian faith; but the Jewish foundation underlies his whole narrative. The land of Judaea was " the home " (TO?Sia; comp. xvi. 32, xix. 27) of the Incarnate Word, and the people of Judaea were "His own people" (i. n). This was the judgment of the Evangelist when the Messiah had been rejected by those to whom He came; and on the other hand, Christ, when He first entered the Holy City, claimed the Temple as being "the house of His Father" (ii. 1 6). From first to last Judaism is treated in the Fourth Gospel as the divine starting-point of Christianity. It is true that the author records discourses in which the Lord speaks to the Jews of the Law as being "their Law;" and that he uses the name "the Jews" to mark an anti-Christian body; but even these apparent exceptions really illustrate his main position. The Pharisees as a party strove to keep "the Law" in its widest acceptation, the monument, that is, of the various revelations to Israel (x. 34, xv. 25, notes), for themselves alone, and to bar the progress of the life which it enshrined. In the process it became " their Law." With the same fatal narrowness they reduced the representatives and bearers of the ancient revelation to a national faction; and " the Jews " embodied just that which was provisional and evanescent in the system which they misunderstood (comp. in. § i). These two characteristic thoughts of the Gospel will become clear when we consider the general development of the history. Meanwhile it must be noticed that the Evangelist vindicates both for the Law and for the people their just historical position in the divine economy. The Law could not but bear witness to the truths which God had once spoken through it. The people could not do away with the promises and privileges which they had inherited. Side by side with the words of Christ which describe the Law as the special possession of its false interpreters (viii. 17, x. 34, xv. 25), other words of his affirm the absolute authority of its contents. It is assumed as an axiom that The Scripture cannot be broken (x. 35; see v. 18, note). That which is written in the prophets (vi. 45; comp. vi. 31) is taken as the true expression of what shall be. Moses wrote of Christ (v. 46. Comp. i. 45). The types of the Old Testament, the brazen serpent (iii. 14), the manna (vi. 32), the water from the rock (vii. 37 f.), perhaps also the pillar of fire (viii. 12), are applied by Christ to Himself as of certain and acknowledged significance. Abraham saw His day (viii. 56). It was generally to "the Scriptures " that Christ appealed as witnessing of Him. Even the choice of Judas to be an apostle was involved in the portraiture of the divine King (xiii. 1 8, note, that the Scripture might be fulfilled; comp. xvii. 12); and the hatred of the Jews was prefigured in the words written in their Law, They hated me without a cause (xv. 25).
Such words of Christ must be considered both in themselves and in the consequences which they necessarily carry with them, if we are to understand the relation of the fourth Gospel to the Old Testament. They shew conclusively that in this Gospel, no less than in the other three, He is represented as offering Himself to Israel as the fulfiller, and not as the destroyer, of " the Law." And it follows also, whatever view is taken of the authorship of the Gospel, that the Evangelist in setting down these sayings of Christ accepts to the full the teaching which they convey.
Nor is this all. Just as the words of the Lord recorded in the fourth Gospel confirm the divine authority of the Old
Testament, so also the Evangelist, when he writes in his own person, emphasizes the same principle. The first public act of Christ reminded the disciples, as he relates, of a phrase in the Psalms (ii. 17). The Resurrection, he says, confirmed their faith in the Scripture, and the word which Jesus spake, as if both were of equal weight. In the light of the same event they understood at last what they had done unconsciously in accordance with prophetic utterances (xii. 14 ff.). So again at the close of his record of Christ's public ministry, he points out how the apparent failure of Christ's mission was part of the great scheme of Providence foreshadowed by Isaiah. The experience, and the words of the prophet, made such a result inevitable (xii. 37 ff.). This fulfilment of the wider teaching of prophecy is further confirmed by examples of the fulfilment of its details. Special incidents of the Passion are connected with the language of the Old Testament. The division of the garments, and the casting lots for the seamless robe (xix. 23 f.); the expression of thirst (xix. 28), the limbs left unbroken (xix. 36), the side pierced (xix. 37) — significant parallels with the treatment of the paschal lamb — give occasion to quotations from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets; and these fulfilments of the ancient Scriptures are brought forward as solid grounds of faith (xix.
" The Law," in short, is treated by the writer of the fourth Gospel, both in his record of the Lord's teaching, and, more especially, in his own comments, as only a Jew could have treated it. It was misinterpreted by those to whom it was given, but it was divine. So far as it was held, not only apart from, but in opposition to, its true fulfilment, it lost its true character. This character the Evangelist unfolds. ' The object with which he wrote was to shew that Jesus was not only the Son of God, but also the Christ, the promised Messiah of the Jews (xx. 31), just as Nathanael, the true representative of Israel (i. 47), had recognised Him at first under this double title.
The portraiture of the people in the fourth Gospel is no less indicative of its Jewish authorship, whatever false deductions may have been popularly drawn from the use of the characteristic title "the Jews" for the adversaries of Christianity. Writing as a Christian the Evangelist still records the central truth, true for all ages, which Christ declared: We — as Jews — worship that which we know, for the salvation — the salvation promised to the world — is from the Jews (iv. 22), rising by a divine law out of the dispensation intrusted to their keeping. Nothing which was said at a later time neutralised these words of the Lord in which He identified Himself with the old people of God, and signalised their inherent prerogatives. The knowledge which the Jews had was the result of their acceptance of the continuous revelation of God from age to age; while the Samaritans who refused to advance beyond the first stage of His manifestation, worshipped the true Object of worship, but ignorantly. They worshipped that which they kneiv not (iv. 22).
This was the rightful position of the Jews towards Christ, which is everywhere presupposed in the Gospel, but they failed to maintain it, and when the Evangelist wrote their national failure was past hope. They received Him not. But the sources and the kinds of their unbelief were manifold, and the narrative reflects the varieties of their character.
For the people are not, as is commonly assumed to be the case, a uniform, colourless mass. On the contrary, distinct bodies reveal themselves on a careful examination of the record, each with its own distinctive marks. Two great divisions are portrayed with marked clearness, " the multitude," and " the Jews." The multitude (o oxA-os) represents the general gathering of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, Galilseans for the most part, who are easily swayed to and fro, with no settled policy, and no firm convictions. These, when they saw the signs which Jesus had wrought at Jerusalem, received Him in Galilee (iv. 45), and followed Him, and, at a later time, would have made Him King (vi. 15). When they went up to the feasts they gathered round Him in expectation and doubt, ignorant of the deadly hostility of their rulers to the new prophet (vii. 20), and inclined to believe (vii. 40;
compare the whole chapter). On the eve of the Passion they brought Him in triumph into the city (xii. 12); and, in the last scene in which they are presented in the Gospel, listen in dull perplexity to Christ's final revelation of Himself (xii. 29, 34). In the fourth Gospel they do not appear in the narrative of the Trial and the Crucifixion. They may have been used as instruments, but the guilt of this issue did not belong to them as a body.
In contrast with "the multitude" stand "the Jews1." Both titles are general terms, including various elements; both have local centres; both express tendencies of religious feeling. Just as "the multitude" reflect the spirit of Galilee, " the Jews " reflect the spirit of Jerusalem (i. 1 9), and this term is perhaps used exclusively of those who lived in the limited region of Judaea. " The multitude" have vague, fluent, opinions; "the Jews " hold fast by the popular expectation of a national Messiah, and a national sovereignty. From first to last they appear as the representatives of the narrow finality of Judaism (ii. 18, xix. 38). They begin their opposition by a charge of the violation of the Sabbath (v. i off.; comp. xix. 31). Those of them who are present at Capernaum give expression to "murmurings" at the teaching to which "the multitude" had apparently listened with awed respect (vi. 41, 52; comp. vi. 22 — 40). They reduce the wavering multitude to silence at Jerusalem (vii. n — 13). If they believe Christ, they do not at once believe on Him, and while they cling to their own prejudices yield themselves to the perils of fatal error (viii. 31 ff. note). In their zeal for the Law they would at once stone Christ (viii. 59, x. 31); and to them generally the Crucifixion is attributed (xviii. 12, 14, 31, 36, 38, xix. 7, 12, 14). Yet even these are struck with wonder (vii. 15) and doubt (vii. 35, viii. 22); they are divided (x. 19), and ask peremptorily for a clear enunciation of Christ's claim (x. 24); and the defection of many from among them to Him marks the last crisis in the history (xii. 10 f.; comp. xi. 45, 48, ix. 40, xii. 42).
1 The term occurs rarely in the discourses of the Lord: iv. 11, xiii. 33, xviii. 20, 36. See note on the last passage.
"The Jews" thus presented to a writer who looked back from a Christian point of sight1 upon the events which he described the aggregate of the people whose opinions were opposed in spirit to the work of Christ. They were not, as they might have been, " true Israelites" (i. 47; comp. #.31). But at the same time he does not fail to notice that there were among them two distinct tendencies, which found their expression in the Pharisees and Sadducees respectively. The latter are not mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel, but the writer describes them more characteristically, and with a more direct knowledge, by their social position at the time. They were " the high-priests," the faction of Annas and Caiaphas (Acts v. 17), the reckless hierarchy, whose policy is sharply distinguished in one or two life-like traits from that of the religious zealots, the Pharisees. Several times indeed the two parties appear as acting together in the great Council (vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3; comp. vii. 26, 48, xii. 42 the rulers), yet even in these cases the two are only once so grouped as to form a single body (vii. 45 irpo? roO? dpx- Kal $>ap.), and "the chief priests " always stand first as taking the lead in the designs of violence. This is brought out very vividly in the fatal scene in the Sanhedrin after the raising of Lazarus (see xi. 47 note).
In other places when the two parties are mentioned separately the contrast between them familiar to the historian underlies the record. The Pharisees are moved by the symptoms of religious disorder: the high priests (Sadducees) by the prospect of ecclesiastical danger. The Pharisees are the true representatives of "the Jews" (i. 19 Hi. 24, ix. 13 1| ix. 1 8, ix. 2 2 || xii. 42). They send to make inquiries about the mission of John (i. 24); they hear, evidently as of something which deeply concerned them, of baptism among the followers of the Lord (iv. i); they scornfully reject the opinion of the illiterate multitude (vii. 47); they question the authority of Christ (viii. 13); they condemn His miracles as wrought on the Sabbath (ix.
1 3 ff.); they excommunicate His followers (xii. 42; comp. ix. 22); but at last they look with irresolute helplessness upon the apparent failure of their opposition (xii. 19). From this point they appear no more by themselves. "The chief priests" take the direction of the end into their own hands. Five times they are mentioned alone, and on each occasion as bent on carrying out a purpose of death and treason to the faith of Israel. They plotted the murder of Lazarus because many for his sake believed on Jesus (xii. n). Pilate sees in them the true persecutors of Christ: Thy nation and the chief priests delivered Thee up to me (xviii. 35). Their voices first raise the cry, Crucify, Crucify Him (xix. 6). They make the unbelieving confession, We have no king but Cccsar (xix. 15), and utter a vain protest against the title in which their condemnation was written (xix. 21, the chief priests of the Jews),
This most significant fact of the decisive action of the Sadducsean hierarchy in compassing the death of the Lord, which is strikingly illustrated by the relative attitude of Pharisees and Sadducees to the early Church as described in the Acts, explains the prominent position assigned to Annas in the fourth Gospel (xviii. 13). Annas was the head of the party. Though he had ceased to be high-priest for many years, he swayed the policy of his successors. St Luke in his Gospel significantly sets him with Caiaphas as "high-priest" (eV dp^iepew? not l-ir dpx<.fpeuVi iii- 2), as if both were united in one person; and in the Acts he, and not Caiaphas (iv. 6), is alone called "high-priest." The coincidence is just one of those which reveal the actual as distinguished from the official state of things.
One further remark must be made. The general use of the term " the Jews " for the opponents of Christ not only belongs necessarily to the position of an apostle at the close of the first century, but it is even possible to trace in the books of the New Testament the gradual change by which it assumed this specific force. In the Synoptic Gospels it occurs only four times except in the title " king of the Jews;" Matt, xxviii. 15; Mark vii. 3; Luke vii. 3, xxiii. 5 1; and in the first of these, which is probably the latest in date, the word marks a position of antagonism. In the Acts the title oscillates between the notions of privilege and of opposition, but the course of the history goes far to fix its adverse meaning. The word is comparatively rare in the Epistles of St Paul. It occurs ' most commonly (twelve times out of twenty-four) in contrast with "Greek," both alike standing in equal contrast with the idea of Christianity; and for St Paul, "a Hebrew of Hebrews," his countrymen, "Jews by nature" (Gal. ii. 15), are already separated from himself. The name of a race has become practically the name of a sect (Rom. iii. 9; i Cor. i. 22 ff., ix. 20, x. 32; comp. Gal. ii. 13, i. 13 f.). The word is not found in the Catholic epistles, but in the Apocalypse it is used twice (ii. 9, iii. 9), evidently to describe those who insisted on their literal descent and ceremonial position, and claimed the prerogatives of Israel outside the Church. Such false-styled Jews were the worst enemies of the Gospel; and a Christian writing at the close of the century could not but speak of the people generally by the title which characterized them to his contemporaries.
(b] The Author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine. The facts which have just been noticed carry us beyond the conclusion which they were alleged to establish. They shew that the writer of the fourth Gospel was not only a Jew, but a Palestinian Jew of the first century. It is inconceivable that a Gentile, living at a distance from the scene of religious and political controversy which he paints, could have realised, as the Evangelist has done, with vivid and unerring accuracy the relations of parties and interests which ceased to exist after the fall of Jerusalem; that he could have marked distinctly the part which the hierarchical class — the unnamed Sadducees — took in the crisis of the Passion; that he could have caught the real points at issue between true and false Judaism, which in their first form had passed away when the Christian society was firmly established: that he could have portrayed the growth and conflict of opinion as to the national hopes of the Messiah side by side with the progress of the Lord's ministry. All these phases of thought and action, which would be ineffaceably impressed upon the memory of one who had lived through the events which the history records, belonged to a state of things foreign to the experience of an Alexandrine, or an Asiatic, in the second century.
For in estimating the value of these conclusions which we have gained, it must be remembered that the old landmarks, material and moral, were destroyed by the Roman war: that the destruction of the Holy City — a true coming of Christ — revealed the essential differences of Judaism and Christianity, and raised a barrier between them: that at the beginning of the second century the influence of Alexandria was substituted for that of the Jewish schools in the growing Church.
(a) And these considerations which apply to the arguments drawn from the religious and political traits of the history, apply also in corresponding degrees to the more special indications that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine. Among these, the most convincing perhaps is to be found in his local knowledge. He speaks of places with an unaffected precision, as familiar in every case with the scene which he wishes to recall. There is no effort, no elaborateness of description in his narratives: he moves about in a country which he knows. His mention of sites is not limited to those which are found ejsewhere in Scripture, either in the Gospels or in the Old Testament. "Cana of Galilee" (Kava 1-17? TaXi- Xaias, ii. i, n, iv. 46, xxi. 2), thus exactly distinguished, is not noticed by any earlier writer. " Bethany beyond Jordan " (i. 28), a place already forgotten in the time of Origen, is obviously distinguished from the familiar Bethany " near Jerusalem," the situation of which is precisely fixed as "about fifteen furlongs" from the city (xi. 1 8). Ephraim, again, situated "near the wilderness" (xi. 54) may be identical with Ophrah (i Sam. xiii. 17), but it is not otherwise named in Scripture. Once more, ^Enon (iii. 23) is not known from other sources, but the form of the name '
1 This is true whether the word be taken as an adjectival form "abounding in springs" (comp. Ez. xlvii. 17); or as a corruption of a dual form is a sure sign of the genuineness of the reference, and the defining clause, "near to Salim," even if the identification were as difficult now as it has been represented to be, shews that the place was clearly present to the writer1. Nothing indeed but direct acquaintance with the localities can account for the description added in each of these cases. A writer for whom these spots were identified with memorable incidents which were for him turning-points of faith, would naturally add the details which recalled them to his own mind: for another the exact definition could have no interest. Other indications of minute knowledge are given in the implied notice of the dimensions of the lake of Tiberias (vi. 1 9; comp. Mark vi. 47), and of the relative positions of Cana and Capernaum (ii. 12, went doum}.
One name, however, has caused much difficulty. Tlif city of Samaria named Sychar (iv. 5) has been commonly identified with Shechem (Sychem, Acts vii. 16), and the changed form has been confidently attributed by sceptical critics to the ignorance of the Evangelist. The importance of Shechem, a city with which no one could have been unacquainted who possessed the knowledge of Palestine which the writer of the fourth Gospel certainly had, might reasonably dispose of such a charge. And more than this: the picture with which the name is connected is evidently drawn from life. The prospect of the corn-fields (v. 35), and of the heights of Gerizim (v. 20), are details which belong to the knowledge of an eye-witness. The notice of the depth of the well (v. n) bears equally the stamp of authenticity. If then there were no clue to the solution of the problem offered by the strange name, it would be right to acquiesce in the belief that Sychar might be a popular distortion of Shechem, or the name of some unknown
"the two springs," but it is doubtful whether it can be so rendered. It is said that Ainan and Ainaim, "the two springs," are the names of several places in Arabia. The Syriac versions write the name as two words, "the spring of the dove."
1 Lieut. Conder in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund (July, 1874, pp. 191 f.) identifies it with 'Ayniin near to Salim, due east of Nablus. The use of the phrase beyond Jordan (iii. 26) implies that the country was on the West of the river.
village. But the case does not stand so absolutely without help towards a decision. The earliest ancient authorities (4lh cent.) distinguish Shechem and Sychar. Shechem could hardly have been described as near to the plot of ground which Jacob gave to Joseph (v. 5). There are, moreover, several references to Sukra, Sukar, ain-Sukar (iDD, JTO1D "O1D fW) in the Talmud; and a village 'Askar still remains, which answers to the conditions of the narrative. Some difficulty has been felt in identifying 'Askar with Sychar, since it is written at present with an initial 'Am, but in a Samaritan Chronicle of the i2th century, the name appears in a transitional form with an initial Yod COD11), and the Arabic translation of the Chronicle gives 'Askar as the equivalent. The description [of S. John], Lieut. Conder writes, " is most
accurately applicable to 'Askar.... It is merely a modern mud village, with no great indications of antiquity, but there are remains of ancient tombs near the road beneath it." (Report of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1877, pp. 149 f., 1876, p. 197.)
The notices of the topography of Jerusalem contained in the fourth Gospel are still more conclusive as to its authorship than the notices of isolated places in Palestine. The desolation of Jerusalem after its capture was complete. No creative genius can call into being a lost site. And the writer of the fourth Gospel is evidently at home in the city as it was before its fall. He knows much that we learn from independent testimony, and he knows what is not to be found elsewhere. But whether he mentions spots known from other sources, or named only by himself, he speaks simply and certainly. As he recalls a familiar scene he lives again in the past, and forgets the desolation which had fallen upon the place which rises before his eyes. " There is," he writes, " at Jerusalem a pool called Bethesda" (v. 2), and by the form of the sentence carries us back to the time when the incident first became history. " Bethesda by the sheep-gate," " the pool of Siloam " (ix. 7), " the brook Kidron" (xviii. i), which are not named by the other evangelists (yet see Luke xiii. 4), stand out naturally in his narrative. What imagination could have in- vented a Bethesda (or Bethzetha) with its five porches, and exact locality (v. 2)? What except habitual usage would have caused the Kidron to be described as " the winter torrent1"? How long must the name Siloam have been pondered over before the perfectly admissible rendering " Sent " was seen to carry with it a typical significance? The Prcetorium and Golgotha are mentioned by the other evangelists; but even here the writer of the fourth Gospel sees the localities, if I may so speak, with the vividness of an actual spectator. The Jews crowd round the Prajtorium which they will not enter, and Pilate goes in and out before them (xviii. 28 ff.). Golgotha is "nigh to the city" where people pass to and fro, and "there was a garden there" (xix. 17, 20, 41). And the fourth Evangelist alone notices the Pavement, the raised platform of judgment, with its Hebrew title, Gabbatha (xix. 1 3). The places Bethesda and Gabbatha are not, in fact, mentioned anywhere except in the fourth Gospel, and the perfect simplicity with which they are introduced in the narrative, no less than the accuracy of form in the Aramaic titles (whatever be the true reading of Bethesda), marks the work of a Palestinian Jew, who had known Jerusalem before its fall.
The allusions to the Temple shew no less certainly the familiarity of the writer with the localities in which he represents Christ as teaching. The first scene, the cleansing of the Temple, is in several details more lifelike than the similar passages in the Synoptists (ii. 14 — 16). It is described just as it would appear to an eye-witness in its separate parts, and not as the similar incident is summed up briefly in the other narratives. Each group engaged stands out distinctly, the sellers of oxen and sheep, the moneychangers sitting at their work, the sellers of doves; and each group is dealt with individually. Then follows, in the course of the dialogue which ensues, the singularly exact chronological note, "Forty and six years was this Temple in building" (ii. 20).
The incidents of the Feast of Taber-
1 For the discussion of the reading see note on xviii. i. If the reading "the torrent of the Cedars" be adopted, the argument is not affected.
nacles (which are given in chapters vii. and viii.) cannot be understood, as has been already noticed, without an accurate acquaintance with the Temple ritual. The two symbolic ceremonies — commemorating the typical miracles of the wilderness — the outpouring of water on the altar of sacrifice, and the kindling the golden lamps at night, furnish the great topics of discourse. The Evangelist is familiar with the facts, but he does not pause to dwell upon them. Only in one short sentence does he appear to call attention to the significance of the events. "These things" he says, "Jesus spake in the treasury, as he taught in the Temple" (viii. 20). The mention of the exact spot carried with it to minds familiar with the Herodian Temple a clear revelation of what was in the Apostle's mind. For the treasury was in the court of the women where the great candelabra were placed, looking to which Christ said, "/ am the light" — not of one people, or of one city, but — "of the world." And there is still another thought suggested by the mention of the place. The meeting-hall of the Sanhedrin was in a chamber adjacent to it. We can understand therefore the hasty attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to seize Christ, and the force of the words which are added, that even there, under the very eyes of the popular leaders, " no man laid hands on Him."
The next visit to Jerusalem, at the Feast of Dedication, brings a new place before us. "// was winter" we read, "and Jesus was walking in Solomon's Porch" (x. 22), a part of the great eastern cloister suiting in every way the scene with which it is connected.
Once again, as I believe, we have a significant allusion to the decoration of the Temple. On the eve of the Passion, at the close of the discourses in the upper chamber, the Lord said, "Arise, let us go hence" (xiv. 31). Some time after we read that when He had finished his High-priestly prayer, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Kidron. It seems to be impossible to regard this notice as the fulfilment of the former command. The house, therefore, must have been left before, as is clearly implied in the narrative, and the walk to the Mount of Olives might well include a visit to the Temple; and over the gate of the Temple was spread the great vine of gold, which was reckoned among its noblest ornaments. Is it then a mere fancy to suppose that the image of the vine and its branches was suggested by the sight of this symbolic tracery, lighted by the Paschal moon, and that the Highpriestly prayer was offered under the shadow of the Temple walls?
However this may be, it is inconceivable that any one, still more a Greek or a Hellenist, writing when the Temple was rased to the ground, could have spoken of it with the unaffected certainty which appears in the fourth Gospel. It is monstrous to transfer to the second century the accuracy of archaeological research which is one of the latest acquirements of modern art. The Evangelist, it may be safely said, speaks of what he had seen.
(/?) The arguments which have been already drawn from the political, social, religious, and local knowledge of the author of the fourth Gospel, shew beyond all doubt, as it appears, that he was a Palestinian Jew. A presumption in favour of the same conclusion may be derived from the quotations from the Old Testament which are contained in the Gospel. These shew at least so much that the writer was not dependent on the LXX.; and they suggest that he was acquainted with the original Hebrew.
A rapid summary of the facts will enable the student to estimate the weight of this additional evidence.
(i) Quotations by the Evangelist.
Greek versions have eVi/Je^Kws. Theodotion has eVi ovov Kal TrtSXov vlov ovov.)
oV tl-n-fv Kupie, Tt's eVicrTEWev rfj aKofj T/jtxdjv; Kal d (3pa\i<i)V Kvpiov TIVI at
(2) Quotations in the Lord's discourses.
The words are not connected as in LXX. with v. 12, but treated as in the Hebrew, independently................ (8)
There is no exact parallel. The reference is probably general.......... (9)
The triumphal cry (xii. 13; Ps. cxvii. 25) can hardly be treated as a quotation. In preserving the Hebrew form Hosanna St John agrees with the Synoptic Evangelists and differs from the LXX.
An examination of these fourteen citations (i — 7 by the Evangelist; 8 — 12 by the Lord; 13, 14 by others) shews that they fall into the following groups:
But there is no case Avhere a quotation agrees with the LXX. against the Hebrew.
(y) There is yet another argument to be noticed in support of the Palestinian authorship of the fourth Gospel, which appears to be of great weight, though it has commonly been either passed over, or even regarded as a difficulty. The doctrine of the Word, as it is presented in the Prologue, when taken in connexion with the whole Gospel, seems to shew clearly that the writer was of Palestinian and not of Hellenistic training.
In considering St John's teaching on the Logos, " the Word," it is obvious to remark, though the truth is very often neglected in practice, that it is properly a question of doctrine and not of nomenclature. It constantly happens in the history of thought that the same terms and phrases are used by schools which have no direct affinity, in senses which are essentially distinct, while they have a superficial likeness. Such terms (e.g. idea] belong to the common dialect of speculation; and it is indeed by the peculiar force which is assigned to them that schools are in many cases most readily distinguished. A new teacher necessarily uses the heritage which he has received from the past in order to make his message readily understood.