The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

It may then be assumed that St John, when ht speaks of " the Word," " the Only-begotten," and of His relations to God and to the world, and to man, employs a vocabulary and refers to modes of thought which were already current when he wrote. His teaching would not have been intelligible unless the general scope of the language which he employed, without explanation or preparation, had been familiar to his readers. When he declares with abrupt emphasis that " the Word was in the beginning," and that "the Word became flesh," it is evident that he is speaking of "a Word" already known in some degree 'by the title, though he lays down new truths as to His being. He does not 'speak, as in the Apocalypse (xix. 13; comp. Heb. iv. 12) of "the Word of God," but of "the Word" absolutely. Those whom he addressed knew of Whom he was speaking, and were able to understand that which it was his office to make known about Him. In this case, as in every other similar case, the thoughts of men, moving in different directions under the action of those laws of natural growth which are the expression of the divine purpose, prepared the medium and provided the appropriate means for the revelation which was to be conveyed in the fulness of time.

In this respect the manifold forms of speculation, Western and Eastern, fulfilled a function in respect to Christian philosophy similar to that which was fulfilled in other regions of religious experience by the LXX.; and the results which were gained were embodied in Greek modes of speech, which were ready at last for the declaration of the divine message.

It becomes then a question of peculiar and yet of subordinate interest to determine from what source St John derived his language. It is admitted on all hands that his central affirmation, " the Word became flesh," which underlies all he wrote, is absolutely new and unique. A Greek, an Alexandrine, a Jewish doctor, would have equally refused to admit such a statement as a legitimate deduction from his principles, or as reconcileable with them. The message completes and crowns " the hope of Israel," but not as " the Jews " expected. It gives stability to the aspirations of humanity after fellowship with God, but not as philosophers had supposed, by " unclothing " the soul. St John had been enabled to see what Jesus of Nazareth was, " the Christ " and " the Son of God: " it remained for him to bring home his convictions to others (xx. 31). The Truth was clear to himself: how could he so present it as to shew that it gave reality to the thoughts with which his contemporaries were busied? The f answer is by using with necessary modifications the current language of the highest religious speculation to interpret a fact, to reveal a Person, to illuminate the fulness of actual life. Accordingly he transferred to the region of history the phrases in which men before him had spoken of "the Logos" — "the Word," " the Reason " — in the region of metaphysics. St Paul had brought home to believers the divine majesty of the glorified Christ: St John laid open the unchanged majesty of "Jesus come in the flesh."

But when this is laid down it still remains to determine in which direction we are to look for the immediate source from which St John borrowed the cardinal term Logos, a term which en- shrines in itself large treasures of theological speculation.

The scantiness of contemporary religious literature makes the answer more difficult than it might have been if the great Jewish teachers had not shrunk from committing their lessons to writing. And, in one sense, the difficulty is increased by the fact that a striking aspect of Jewish thought has been preserved in the copious writings of PHILO of Alexandria (born c. B. c. 20), who is naturally regarded as the creator of teaching, of which he is in part only the representa- I tive. However far this view may be from the truth, the works of Philo furnish at least a starting-point for our inquiry. This typical Alexandrine Jew speaks constantly of " the divine Logos" (6 tfeios Aoyos) in language which offers striking, if partial, parallels with the epistle to the Hebrews and St Paul. The divine Logos is "Son of God," "firstborn Son" (irpwroyovos, I. 4J4)> " image of God " (eucwv 0eov, I. 6), "God" (i. 655), "high-priest" (aPX"- pevs, i. 653), " man of God," " archetypal man" (avtipwiros Ofov, I. 411, o /car' eiKoVa av0pw7ros, i. 427), "the head of the body" (i. 640; comp. I. 121), " through whom the world was created " (n. 225).

At first sight it might seem that we have here beyond all doubt the source of I St John's language. But the ambiguity of the Greek term Logos, which means both Reason and Word, makes it necessary to pause before adopting this conclusion. When Philo speaks of "the divine Logos" his thought is predominantly of the divine Reason and not of the divine Word. This fact is of decisive importance. The conception of a divine Word, that is, of a divine Will sensibly manifested in personal action, is not naturally derived from that of a divine Reason, but is rather complementary to it, and characteristic of a different school of thought. Is it then possible to find any clear traces of a doctrine of a divine Logos elsewhere than at Alexandria?

The Targums furnish an instructive answer to the question. These paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures have preserved, as it appears, the simplest and earliest form in which the term "the

Word " was employed in connexion with God. They were most probably not committed to writing in the shape in which we now have them, till some time after the Christian sera; but all evidence goes to shew that they embody the interpretations which had been orally current from a much earlier time. In the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, which is the oldest in date, the action of God is constantly though not consistently referred to " His Word " (Memra, •«m SID^D). Thus it is said that " the Lcfrd protected Noah by His word, when he entered the ark" (Gen. vii. 16): that He "made a covenant between Abraham and His word " (Gen. xvii. 2); that the word of the Lord was with Ishmael in the wilderness (xxi. 20). At Bethel Jacob made a covenant that " the Word of the Lord should be His God " (Gen. xxviii. 21). Moses at Sinai "brought forth the people to meet the Word of God " (Exod. xix. 1 7). And in Deuteronomy the Word of the Lord appears as a consuming fire talking to His people, and fighting for them against their enemies (Deut. iii. 2, iv. 24).

Such examples might be multiplied indefinitely; and it may be noticed that the term Debura (xim) occurs in this sense as well as Memra. Thus it is said in the Jerusalem Targum on Numb. vii. 89, the word (anm) was talking with him; and again Gen. xxviii. 10, the word ("i) desired to talk with him.

In connexion with this usage it must also be observed that " a man's word " is used as a periphrasis for " himself." So we read Ruth iii. 8 ('Targ. Jon.'), "between his word (i.e. himself) and Michal " (Buxtorf and Levy, s. z>.). The "word." is in fact the active expression of the rational character, and so may well stand for the person from whom it issues. As applied to God, the term was free from any rude anthropomorphism, while it preserved the reality of a divine fellowship for man.

One striking difference between the Aramaic and Greek terms will have been remarked. Logos, as we have seen, is ambiguous, and may signify either reason or word, but Memra (Debura) means word only. If now we return to Philo, the importance of this fact becomes obvious. With Philo the Palestinian sense of word sinks entirely into the background, if it does not wholly disappear. He has borrowed a term which was already current in the Greek Scriptures, and filled it with a new meaning.

Three currents of thought in fact meet in Philo's doctrine of " the Logos," tthe Stoic, the Platonic, and the Hebraic. He was nothing less than a creative genius. He felt rightly that the revelation of the Old Testament contained implicitly the harmony of the manifold speculations of men, and he therefore adopted boldly the thoughts of Greek philosophy for the interpretation of its language. He found a " Logos" in the Greek Bible which he accepted as the record of revelation, and he applied to that what Greek writers had said of the " Logos," without thinking it necessary to inquire into the identity of the terms. At one time he borrows from Plato when he speaks of the Logos as " the archetypal idea " (' de spec, leg.' 36, n. p. 333 f.), or as bearing "the idea of ideas" ('demigr. Abr.' 18, i. p. 452 m.). More commonly he uses the Stoic conception of the Logos, as the principle of reason, which quickens and informs matter.

At the same time, while it appears that Philo borrowed both the title of the Logos as Reason, and the most prominent features of His office, from Hellenic sources, he sought the confirmation of his views in the Old Testament; and in doing this he shews that he was not unacquainted with Jewish speculations on the Word. But in spite of the unwavering faith with which he found in the letter of the law the germ and the proof of the teaching which he borrowed from Greece, he abandoned the divine position of the Jew. The whole scope of the writers of the Old Testament is religious. They move in a region of life and history. Their idea of God is that of the Lord who rules the world and His chosen people, not simply as the Author of existence, but as One who stands in a moral relation to men, " sp'eaking " to them. The whole scope of Philo on the other hand is metaphysical. He moves in a region of abstraction and thought. His idea of God is pure being. With him the speculative aspect of the Logos-doctrine overpowers the moral. He does not place the Logos in connexion with the Messiah, nor even specially with Jewish history. It is perhaps of less significance that he speaks of it now as if it were personal, and again as if it were impersonal: now as an attribute, and now as "a second god."

If now we ask with which of these two cqnceptions of the Logos, current respectively in Palestine and Alexandria, the teaching of St John is organically connected, the answer cannot be uncertain.

Philo occupied himself with the abstract conception of the divine Intelligence, and SQ laid the foundations of a philosophy. The Palestinian instinct seized upon the concrete idea of " the Word of God," as representing His personal action, and unconsciously prepared the way for a Gospel of the Incarnation. St John started from the conception of "the Word;" and by this means in the end he gave reality to the conception of " the Reason."

The development of the action of the Logos, the Word, in the Prologue to the fourth Gospel places the contrast between Philo and the Evangelist in the broadest light. However wavering and complex Philo's description of the Logos may be, it is impossible not to feel that he has in every case moved far away from the idea of an Incarnation. No one, it is not too much to say, who had accepted his teaching could without a complete revolution pf thought accept the statement "the Logos became flesh." The doctrine of the personality of the Logos, even if Philo had consistently maintained it, would not have been in reality a step towards such a fact. On the other hand, in the Prologue the description of the Logos is personal from the first (f/v Trpos T. 0.), and His creative energy is at once connected with man. "The Life was the light of men." " The Light was coming into the world (iyv.. tpx-)-" And in due time " the Logos became flesh." Thought follows thought naturally, and the last event is seen to crown and complete the history which leads up to it.

Philo and St John, in short, found the same term current, and used it according to their respective apprehensions of the truth. Philo, following closely in the track of Greek philosophy, saw in the Logos the divine Intelligence in relation to the universe: the Evangelist, trusting firmly to the ethical basis of Judaism, sets forth the Logos mainly as the revealer of God to man, through creation, through theophanies, through prophets, through the Incarnation. The Philonean Logos, to express the same thought differently, is a later stage of a divergent interpretation of the term common to Hebrew and Hellenist.

It is however very probable that the teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to the study of the complementary conception of the Logos as the divine Reason, which was shadowed forth in the Biblical doctrine of Wisdom (tro^i'a). Nor is there any difficulty in supposing that the apostolic writers borrowed from him either directly or indirectly forms of language which they adapted to the essentially new announcement of an Incarnate Son of God. So it was that the treasures of Greece were made contributory to the full unfolding of the Gospel. But the essence of their doctrine has no affinity with his. The speculations of Alexandria or Ephesus may have quickened and developed elements which otherwise would have remained latent in Judaism. But the elements were there; and in this respect the evangelic message "the Word became flesh," is the complete fulfilment of three distinct lines of preparatory revelation, which were severally connected with "the Angel of the Presence " (Gen. xxxii. 24 ff.; Exod. xxxiii. 12 ff., xxiii. 20 f.; Hos. xii. 4f.; Isai. vi. i [John xii. 41], Ixiii. 9; Mai. iii. i); with "the Word" (Gen. i. i; Ps. xxxiii. 6, cxlvii. 15; Isai. Iv. n; comp. Wisd. xviii. 15); and with "Wisdom" (Prov. viii. 22 ff., iii. 19; Ecclus. i. i — 10, xxiv. 9 (14); Bar. iii. 37, iv. i; comp. Wisd. vii. 7 — n).

In short, the teaching of St John is characteristically Hebraic and not Alexandrine. It is intelligible as the final coordination through facts of different modes of thought as to the divine Being and the divine action, which are contained in the Old Testament. And on the other hand it is not intelligible as an application or continuation of the teaching of Philo.

The doctrine of the Logos has been very frequently discussed. An excellent account of the literature up to 1870 is given by Dr Abbot in his appendix to the article on " the Word " in the American edition of the 'Dictionary of the Bible.' Several later works are included in the list given by Soulier, 'La Doctrine du Logos chez Philon d' Alexandrie,' Turin, 1876. The works of Gfroerer, ' Philo u. d. Jud.-Alex. Theosophie,' 1835; Daehne, 'Jud.-Alex. Religions- Philosophic,' 1854; Dorner, 'The Person of Christ' (Eng. Trans.); Jowett, ' St Paul and Philo' ('Epistles of St Paul,' i. 363 ff.); Heinze, ' Die Lehre v. Logos in Griech. Philosophic,' 1872; Siegfried, 'Philo v. Alex.,' 1875, may be specially mentioned. Grossmann has given a complete summary of the word "Logos" in Philo, in his 'Qusestiones Philonese,' 1829.

(c) The Author of the fourth Gospel was an eye-witness of what he describes. The particularity of his knowledge, which has been already noticed summarily, leads at once to the next point in our inquiry. The writer of the Gospel was an eye-witness of the events which he describes. His narrative is marked by minute details of persons, and time, and number, and place and manner., which cannot but have come from a direct experience. And to these must be added various notes of fact, so to speak, which seem to have no special significance where they stand, though they become intelligible when referred to the impression originally made upon the memory of the Evangelist.

(a) Persons. The portraiture of the chief characters in the Gospel will be noticed afterwards. In this connexion it is sufficient to observe the distinctness with which the different actors in the history rise before the writer. There is no purpose, no symbolism to influence his record. The names evidently belong to the living recollection of the incidents. The first chapter is crowded with figures which live and move: John with his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael. Momentous questions are connected with definite persons. He saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?...Philip answered him...(vi. 5, 7; comp. Matt. xiv. 14 ff. and parallels). Certain Greeks said to Philip, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh and Philip and they tell Jesus (xii. 21 f.). Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how do we know the way 1 (xiv. 5). Philip saith, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us (xiv. 8). Judas saith, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world? (xiv. 22). The disciple whom Jesus loved...falling back upon His breast, saith, Lord, who is it? (xiii. 25; comp. xxi. 20). Nicodemus (iii. i ff., vii. 50, xix. 39), Lazarus (xi. i ff., xii. i ff.), Simon the father of Judas Iscariot1 (vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26), and Malchus (xviii. 10), are mentioned only in the fourth Gospel. The writer of this Gospel alone mentions the relationship of Annas to Caiaphas (xviii. 13), and identifies one of those who pointed to Peter as the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off (xviii. 26).

(/?) Time. The details of time belong perhaps more obviously to the plan of the narrative than the details of persons. The greater seasons, even though they are not noted in the Synoptists, may be supposed to have been preserved in tradition, as the first Passover (ii. 13, 23), the Feast of the New Year (v. i), the Second Passover (vi. 4), the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2), the Feast of Dedication (x. 22); but other specifications of date can only be referred to the knowledge of actual experience. Such are the indications of the two marked weeks at the beginning and end of Christ's ministry (i. 29, 35, 43, ii. i, xii. i, 12 (xiii. i), xix. 31, xx. i), of the week after the Resurrection (xx. 26), the enumeration of the days before the raising of Lazarus (xi. 6, 17, 39), the note of the duration of Christ's stay in Samaria (iv. 40, 43; compare also vi. 22, vii. 14, 37). Still more remarkable is the mention of the hour or of the time of day which occurs under circumstances likely to have impressed it upon the mind of the writer, as the tenth hour (i. 40), the sixth hour (iv. 6), the seventh hour (iv. 52), about the sixth hour (xix. 14), it was night (xiii. 30), in the early

1 In this connexion it is interesting to notice that the writer of the fourth Gospel knew that the title Iscariot was a local or family name. He applies it both to Judas and to his father Simon: vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26, xii. 4, xiv. 22.

(y) Number. The details of number, though fewer, are hardly less significant. It is unnatural to refer to anything except experience such definite and, as it appears, immaterial statements as those in which the writer of the fourth Gospel mentions the tivo disciples of the Baptist (i. 35), the six waterpots (ii. 6), the Jive loaves and two small fishes (vi. 9), the jive-and-twenty furlongs (vi. 19), the four soldiers (xix. 23. Cp. Acts xii. 4), the two hundred cubits (xxi. 8), the hundred and fifty and three fishes (xxi. 1 1).

The number of the loaves and fishes is preserved in the Synoptic narrative, but this single parallel does not in any way lessen the value of the whole group of examples as a sign of immediate observation in the Evangelist. Other records of number shew the clearness if not the directness of the writer's information, as \hefive husbands (iv. 18), the thirty and eight years sickness (v. 5), the estimate of three hundred pence (xii. 5; comp. Mark xiv. 5), the weight of a hundred pounds (xix. 39).

(8) Place. Many of the local details characteristic of the fourth Gospel have been already noticed. Here it is only necessary to observe that the manner in which the scenes of special acts and utterances are introduced shews that they belong to the immediate knowledge of the writer. We cannot naturally account for the particularity except on the supposition that the place was an integral part of the recollection of the incidents. Thus the scenes of John's baptism are given at Bethany and ^Enon (i. 28, iii. 23; comp. x. 40). The son of the nobleman was sick at Capernaum while Jesus was at Cana (iv. 46 f.). Jesus found the paralytic whom He had healed in the Temple (v. 14). He gained many adherents when He went towards the close of His ministry beyond Jordan to the place where John was at first baptizing (x. 40 ff.). When Mary came to Him He had not yet come to the village, but was in the place where Martha met Him (xi. 30). He spent the interval between the raising of Lazarus and His return to Bethany on the eve of the Passion in the country near the wilderness, in a city called Ephraim (xi. 54). The people as they stood in the Temple speculated on His reappearance (xi. 56).

So again Christ spoke certain memorable words in a solemn gathering («> o-uvaywyfj) at Capernaum (vi. 59, note), in the treasury (viii. 20), in Solomon's porch (x. 23), before crossing the Cedron (xviii. i).

(«) Manner. More impressive still are the countless small traits in the descriptions which evince either the skill of a consummate artist or the recollection of an observer. The former alternative is excluded alike by the literary spirit of the first and second centuries and by the whole character of the Gospel. The writer evidently reflects what he had seen. This will appear most clearly to any one who takes the record of a special scene and marks the several points which seem to reveal the impressions of an eye-witness, as (for example) the calling of the first disciples (i. 35 — 51), or the foot- washing (xiii. i — 20), or the scene in the high-priest's court (xviii. 15 — 27), or the draught of fishes (xxi. i — 14). In each one of these narratives, and they are simply samples of the nature of the whole narrative, it is almost impossible to overlook the vivid touches which correspond with the actual experience of one who had looked upon what he describes. Thus, to take a single illustration from the first (i. 35 — 51), we cannot but feel the life (so to speak) of the opening picture. John is shewn standing, in patient expectation of the issue, as the tense implies (dcm/fcet, comp. vii. 37, xviii. 5, 1 6, 1 8, xix. 25, xx. n), with two of his disciples. As Christ moves away, now separate from him, he fixes his eyes upon Him (jpt/3Xtya?, comp. v. 43), so as to give the full meaning to the phrase which he repeats, in order that his disciples may now, if they will, take the lesson to themselves. Each word tells; each person occupies exactly the position which corresponds to the crisis. And the description becomes more significant when contrasted with the notice of the corresponding incident on the former day (i. 29 ff.).

Not to dwell at length on these scenes, one or two detached phrases may be quoted which will serve to shew the kind of particularity on which stress is laid. The loaves used at the feeding of the five thousand are barley loaves which a boy has (vi. 9; comp. v. 13); when Mary came to Jesus she fell at His feet (xi. 32; contrast vv. 20 f.); after the ointment was poured out the house was filled from its fragrance (xii. 3); the branches strewn in the way of Jesus were taken from the palm-trees which were by the road-side (xii. 13); it was night when Judas went forth (xiii. 30); Judas brings a band of Roman soldiers as well as officers of the priests to apprehend Jesus (xviii. 3); Christ's tunic was without seam, woven from the top throughout (xix. 23); the napkin which had been about His head was wrapped together in a place by itself (xx. 7); Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? (xxi. 17).

Compare also xiii. 24, xviii. 6, xix. 5, xxi. 20. Each phrase is a reflection of a definite external impression. They bring the scenes as vividly before the reader as they must have presented themselves to the writer.

If it be said that we can conceive that these traits might have been realised by the imagination of a Defoe or a Shakespeare, it may be enough to reply that the narrative is wholly removed from this modem realism; but besides this, there are other fragmentary notes to which no such explanation can apply. Sometimes we find historical details given bearing the stamp of authenticity, which represent minute facts likely to cling to the memory of one directly concerned (i. 40), though it is in fact difficult for us now to grasp the object of the writer in preserving them. It is equally impossible to suppose that such details were preserved in common tradition or supplied by the imagination of the writer. Examples are found in the exact account of Andrew finding first his own brother Simon (i. 41), of the passing visit to Capernaum (ii. 12), of John's baptism (iii. 23), of the boats from Tiberias (vi. 22 f.), of the retirement to Ephraim (xi. 54).

Sometimes the detail even appears to be in conflict with the context or with the current (Synoptic) accounts, though the discrepancy vanishes on a fuller realisation of the facts, as when the words Arise, let us go hence (xiv. 31) mark the separation between the discourses in the upper chamber and those on the way to the garden (compare i. 21 with Matt xi. 14; iii. 24 with Matt. iv. 12).

Elsewhere a mysterious saying is left wholly unexplained. In some cases the obscurity lies in a reference to a previous but unrecorded conversation, as when the Baptist says to the disciples who had followed him, Behold the Lamb of God (i. 29; comp. vi. 36, xii. 34), or, perhaps, to unknown local circumstances (i. 46). In others it lies in a personal but unexpressed revelation, as in the words which carried sudden conviction to Nathanael, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee (i. 48). Apparent contradictions are left without any comment, as v. 31 compared with viii. 14; xiii. 36 compared with xvi. 5; xiv. 19 compared with xvi. 19; and, on the other hand, an explanation is given which, though it might appear superfluous at a later time, becomes at once natural in one who in the process of narration is carried back to the scene itself with all its doubts and perplexities, as when it is said in interpretation of the words, ye are clean, but not all; " for He knew him that betrayed (was betraying) Him; for this reason He said, Ye are not all clean" (xiii. u).

(d) The Author of the fourth Gospel was an Apostle. Such touches as those which have been now enumerated, and every page of the Gospel will supply examples, shew that the writer was an eye-witness of many at least of the scenes which he describes. The age of minute historical romance had not yet come when the fourth Gospel was written, even if such a record could possibly be brought within the category. A further examination of the narrative shews that the eye-witness was also an apostle. This follows almost necessarily from the character of the scenes which he describes, evidently as has been shewn from his own knowledge, the call of the first disciples (i. 19 — 34), the journey through Samaria (iv.), the feeding of the five thousand (vi.), the successive visits to Jerusalem (vii. ix. xi.), the Passion, the appearances after the Resurrection. But the fact is further indicated by the intimate acquaintance which he exhibits with the feelings of " the disciples." He knows their thoughts at critical moments

He is familiar with their places of resort (xi. 54, xviii. 2, xx. 19).

He is acquainted with imperfect or erroneous impressions received by them at one time, and afterwards corrected (ii. 21 f., XL 13, xii. 16, xiii. 28, xx. 9, xxi. 4).

And yet more than this, the writer of the fourth Gospel evidently stood very near to the Lord. He was conscious of His emotions (xi. 33, xiii. 21). He was in a position to be well acquainted with the grounds of His action (ii. 24 f., iv. i, v. 6, vi. 15, vii. i, xvi. 19). Nor is this all; he speaks as one to whom the mind of the Lord was laid open. Before the feeding of the five thousand he writes, This He (Jesus) said trying him, for He Himself knew what He was about to do (vi. 6). Jesus knew in Himself the murmurings of the disciples (vi. 61); He knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that would betray Him (vi. 64); He knew the hour of His Passion (xiii. i, 3), and who should betray Him (xiii. ii); He knew indeed all the things that were coming upon Him (xviii. 4); He knew when all things were accomplished (xix. 28).

(e) The Author of the fourth Gospel was the Apostle John. Such statements when they are taken in connexion with the absolute simplicity of the narrative necessarily leave the impression that the Evangelist was conscious of having had the opportunity of entering, more deeply even than others, into the conditions of the Lord's life. And this reflection brings us to the last point If the writer of the fourth Gospel was an apostle, does the narrative indicate any special apostle as the writer? In the Epilogue (xxi. 24) the authorship of the book is assigned, as we shall see afterwards, to the disciple whom Jesus loved (ov ifyaTra o MTJO-OVS). This disciple appears under the same title twice in the narrative of the Passion (xiii. 23, xix. 26), as well as twice afterwards (xxi. 7, 20), and once in connexion with St Peter under a title closely resembling it (xx. 2, 6V «</>iAei o 'I

He is known to the high-priest (xviii. 15), and stands in very close relationship with St Peter (xiii. 24, xx. 2, xxi. 7; comp. xviii. 15; Acts iii.). Though his name is not mentioned, there is nothing mysterious or ideal about him. He moves about among the other apostles quite naturally, and from the enumeration (xxi. 2; comp. i. 356°.) of those present at the scene described in the last chapter, it follows that he must have been either one of the sons of Zebedee, or one of the two other disciples not described more particularly.

If now we turn to the Synoptic narrative we find three disciples standing in a special sense near to Jesus, Peter and the sons of Zebedee, James and John. There is then a strong presumption that the Evangelist was one of these. St Peter is out of the question. Of the two sons of Zebedee, James was martyred very early (Acts xii. 2), so that he could not have been the author of the Gospel. John therefore alone remains; and he completely satisfies the conditions which are required to be satisfied by the writer, that he should be in close connexion with St Peter, and also one admitted to peculiar intimacy with the Lord.

Does then this definite supposition that St John was the anonymous disciple who wrote the fourth Gospel find any subsidiary support from the contents of the history? The answer cannot be doubtful. St John is nowhere mentioned by name in the Gospel; and while it appears incredible that an apostle who stands in the Synoptists, in the Acts (iii. i, iv. 13, &c.), and in St Paul (Gal. ii. 9), as a central figure among the twelve, should find no place in the narrative, the nameless disciple fulfils the part which would naturally be assigned to St John. Yet further, in the first call of the disciples one of the two followers of the Baptist is expressly named as Andrew (i. 40); the other is left unnamed. Andrew, it is said, found first his own brother Simon (i. 41). The natural interpretation of the words suggests that the brother of some other person, and if so, of the second disciple, was also found. A reference to the last scene at the sea of Galilee (xxi. 2) leads to the certain inference that these two brothers were the sons of Zebedee, and so that the second disciple was St John. Another peculiarity of the Gospel confirms the inference.

The Evangelist is for the most part singularly exact in defining the names in his Gospel. He never mentions Simon after his call (i. 42 f.) by the simple name, as is done in the other Gospels, but always by the full name Simon Peter, or by the new name Peter. Thomas is three times out of four further marked by the correlative Greek name Didymus (xi. 1 6, xx. 24, xxi. 2), which is not found in the Synoptists. Judas Iscariot is described as the son of a Simon not elsewhere noticed (vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26). The second Judas is expressly distinguished from Iscariot even when the latter had left the eleven (xiv. 22). Nicodemus is identified as he that came to Jesus by night (xix. 39 [vii. 50]). Caiaphas on each of the two separate occasions where he is introduced is qualified by the title of his office as the high-priest of that year (xi. 49, xviii. 13).

But in spite of this habitual particularity the Evangelist never speaks of the Baptist, like the three other Evangelists, as "John the Baptist," but always simply as "John." It is no doubt to be noticed that in most places the addition of the title would have been awkward or impossible; but elsewhere such an identification might have been expected (i. 15 and v. 33, 36; comp. Matt. iii. i, xi. 1 1 ff.). If however the writer of the Gospel were himself the other John of the Gospel history, it is perfectly natural that he should think of the Baptist, apart from himself, as John only1.

But it is said that if it is admitted that the Apostle John is to be identified with the nameless disciple of the fourth Gospel, the second of the two disciples of the Baptist, the companion of St Peter, the disciple whom Jesus loved; it is still impossible, in spite of the attestation of the Epilogue, that he could have written the Gospel. The Gospel, such is the contention, must have been written by some one else, for it is argued that the author could not have spoken

1 It is also to be observed that the writer of the fourth Gospel does not give the name of Salome, the wife of Zebedee (xix. 25. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 56), or of James (xxi. 2), or of the Mother of the Lord.

of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, claiming in this way for himself, and not as he might reasonably have done for another whom he took as his hero, a pre-eminence over his fellowapostles; and (it is further urged in particular) that St John would not have " studiously elevated himself in every way above the Apostle Peter" as this writer does.

The last objection may be disposed of first. The notion that the author of the fourth Gospel wishes to present St John as the victorious rival of St Peter, is based mainly upon the incident at the Last Supper, where St Peter beckoned to St John to ask a question which he did not put himself (xiii. 24 ff.); and it is asserted that the same idea is supported by the scenes in the court of the High Priest, and by the Cross. It would be sufficient to reply that all these incidents belong to details of personal relationship, and not to official position, and St John was (as it appears) the son of the sister of the Mother of the Lord. But if we go into details an examination of the narrative as a whole shews that it lends no support whatever to the theory of any thought of rivalry or comparison between St Peter and St John existing in the writer's mind. St John stands, just as he stands in the Acts, silent by the side of the Apostle to whom the office of founding the Church was assigned (cf. xxi. 21; Acts iii. i). And as for the incident at the Last Supper, the person who occupied the third and not the second place would be in a position to act the part assigned to St John (John xiii. 23, note). Here then St Peter takes the precedence; and elsewhere he occupies exactly the same place with regard to the Christian Society in the fourth Gospel as in the other three. He receives the promise of his significant surname (i. 42); he gives utterance to the critical confession of Christ's majesty (vi. 68); he is placed first (as it seems) at the foot-washing during the Last Supper (xiii. 6); he is conspicuous at the betrayal in defence of his Lord (xviii. TO); he stands patiently without the high priest's door till he is able to obtain admission (xviii. 1 6); the message of the Resurrection is brought to him and to " the other disciple " only as second to him (xx. 2); he first sees the certain signs that Christ had risen (xx. 7); he directs the action of the group of apostles during their time of suspense (xxi. 3); he is the first to join the Lord upon the seashore, and the chief in carrying out His command (xxi. 7, n); he receives at last the Great Commission (xxi. 15 ff.).

The representative official precedence of St Peter thus really underlies the whole narrative of the fourth Gospel. The nearness of St John to the Lord is a relation of sympathy, so to speak, different in kind.

But this ascription of a special relation of the unnamed disciple to the Lord as the disciple whom Jesus loved, with a feeling at once general (jydira) and personal (tyi'Aci, xx. 2), requires in itself careful consideration. And if it were true, as is frequently assumed, that St John sought to conceal himself by the use of the various periphrases under which his name is veiled, there might be some difficulty in reconciling the use of this exact title with the modest wish to be unnoticed. But in point of fact the writer of the fourth Gospel evidently insists on the peculiarity of his narrative as being that of a personal witness. He speaks with an authority which has a right to be recognised. It is taken for granted that those whom he addresses will know who he is, and acknowledge that he ought to be heard. In this respect the fourth Gospel differs essentially from the other three. They are completely impersonal, with the exception of the short preface of St Luke. We can then imagine that St John as an eye-witness might either have written his narrative in the first person throughout, or he might have composed an impersonal record, adding some introductory sentences to explain the nature of the book, or he might have indicated his own presence obliquely at some one or other of the scenes which he describes. There is no question of self-concealment in the choice between these alternatives; and there can be also no question as to the method which would be most natural to an apostle living again, as it were, in the divine history of his youth. The direct personal narrative and the still more formal personal preface to an impersonal narrative seem to be alien from the circumstances of the composition. On the other hand, the oblique allusion corresponds with the devout contemplation from a distance of events seen only after a long interval in their full significance. The facts and the actors alike are all separated from the Evangelist as he recalls them once more in the centre of a Christian Society1.

But if it be admitted that the oblique form of reference to the fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was an eyewitness of what he describes was generally the most natural, does it appear that this particular form of oblique reference, to which objection is made, was itself natural? The answer must be looked for in the circumstances under which it is used. After the distinct but passing claim to be an eye-witness (i. 14), the Evangelist does not appear personally in the Gospel till the scenes of the Passion. He may be discovered in the call of the disciples (i. 41), but only by a method of exhaustion. So far there was nothing to require his explicit attestation. But in the review of the issue of Christ's work it might well be asked whether the treachery of Judas was indeed foreseen by Christ. St John shews how deeply he felt the importance of the question (vi. 70, 71, xiii. n; comp. xiii. 1 8 f). It was then essential to his plan that he should place on record the direct statement of the Lord's foreknowledge on the authority of him to whom it was made. That communication was a special sign of affection. Can we then be surprised that, in recalling the memorable fact that it was made to himself, he should speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (r)ya?ra)? The words express the grateful and devout acknowledgment of something received, and

1 In illustration of this view, reference may 6e made to Mr Browning's noble realisation of the situation in his 'Death in the Desert."

"...much that at the first, in deed and word, Lay simply and sufficiently exposed, Had grown (or else my soul was grown to

match, Fed through such years, familiar with such

Guarded and guided still to see and speak) Of new significance and fresh result; What first were guessed as points I now knew

contain no assumption of a distinction above others. Christ loved all (xiii. i, 34, xv. 9); St John felt, and confesses, that Christ loved him, and shewed His love in this signal manner. The same thought underlies the second passage where the phrase occurs (xix. 26). The charge to receive the Mother of the Lord almost necessarily calls out the same confession. In the last chapter (xxi. 7, 20) the title seems to be repeated with a distinct reference to the former passages, and no difficulty can be felt at the repetition.

The remaining passage (xx. 2) is different, and ought not to have been confounded with those already noticed. There can be no doubt that if the words she cometh to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved, had stood alone, the reader would have included St Peter under the description; the word " other " has no meaning except on this interpretation (contrast xxi. 7). But it has been assumed that the entirely different phrase used here (Sv e<£i'A.«) must be identical with that used elsewhere of St John alone (oV TJyewra), and the passage has been accordingly misunderstood. Yet the contrast between the two words equally translated " love," gives the clue to the right meaning. St Peter and St John shared alike in that peculiar nearness of personal friendship to Christ (if we may so speak) which is expressed by the former word (faXeiv, see xi. 3, 36), while St John acknowledges for himself the gift of love which is implied in the latter; the first word describes that of which others could judge outwardly; the second that of which the individual soul alone is conscious. The general conclusion is obvious. If that phrase (6V e^t'Aet o 'Iijo-oCs) had been used characteristically of St John which is in fact used in relation to St Peter and St John, there might have been some ground for the charge of an apparent assumption of pre-eminence on the part of the Evangelist; as it is, the phrase which is used is no affectation of honour; it is a personal thanksgiving for a blessing which the Evangelist had experienced, which was yet in no way peculiar to himself.

As far therefore as indirect internal evidence is concerned, the conclusion towards which all the lines of inquiry converge remains unshaken, that the fourth Gospel was written by a Palestinian Jew, by an eye-witness, by the disciple whom Jesus loved, by John the son of Zebedee. We have now to consider the direct evidence which the Gospel offers upon the question.

ii. The direct evidence of the Gospel as to its authorship.

Three passages of the Gospel appear to point directly to the position and person of the author: i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24. Each passage includes some difficulties and uncertainties of interpretation which must be noticed somewhat at length.

(a) Ch. i. 14. The Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled} among us, and we beheld His glory... (o Ao'yos vdp£ eyevero, Kai eo-KTfvaxrcv fv T^fJ-lv, Kcu f6facrdp.f6a rr)v 86£av avTov...). The main question here is as to the sense in which the words we beheld are to be taken. Are we to understand this " beholding " of the historical sight of Christ, so that the writer claims to have been an eye-witness of that which he records? or can it be referred to a spiritual vision, common to all believers at all times?

Our reply cannot but be affected by the consideration of the parallel passage in the beginning of the first Epistle of St John, which was written, it may certainly be assumed, by the same author as the Gospel: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life...(\ John i. i, o rjv oV aPX17s> ° 0-KyKoap.fv, o itopa.Ka.fi.fv TOIS d<£- 6a.Xp.ol1;, o f6fa.crdp.t6a Kal at ^etpes •qp.^v f\j/Tf])(.d<f>r)<ra.v, Trept TOU Adyou rfj<> £<i>fj<s...). Now there cannot be any doubt that the " beholding " here, from the connexion in which it stands (we have seen with our eyes, our hands handled}, must be understood literally. Language cannot be plainer. The change of tense moreover emphasizes the specific historical reference (we beheld, and not as of that which ideally abides, we have beheld [i John iv. 14; John i. 32, n.]). This being so, the same word in the same tense and in the same general connexion cannot reasonably be understood otherwise in the Gospel. It may also be added further, that the original word (6facr6a.i) is never used in the New Testament of mental vision (as fewpeiV)1. The writer then (such must be our conclusion) claims to have beheld that glory which his record unfolds.

But it is said that the phrase among us cannot be confined to the apostles or immediate disciples of Christ exclusively, and that it must be taken to include all Christians (Luke i. i), or even all men. If however this interpretation of among us admits the wider interpretation of the pronoun, it does not exclude the apostles, who are in this connexion the representatives of the Church and of humanity, and it does not therefore touch the meaning of the following clause, in which the sense of beheld is fixed independently. The whole point of the passage is that the Incarnation was historical, and that the sight of the Incarnate Word was historical. The words cannot without violence be made to give any other testimony. The objection is thus, on a view of the context, wholly invalid; and the natural interpretation of the phrase in question, which has been already given, remains unshaken. The writer professes to have been an eye-witness of Christ's ministry*.

(b) Ch. xix. 35. This second passage, which, like the former one, comes into the narrative parenthetically, is in some respects more remarkable. After speaking of the piercing of the Lord's side, the writer adds, And forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. For these things came to pass that... (KQ\ o eopaKws (JLffjLapruprjKfv KOI dh.r)6ivrj avroS torii' 17 [laprvpia, Kai CKCIVOS olSfv OTL dXr]6rj Ae'yei fva Kai v/xeis iriaTtvr[Tf. cyevtTO yap... John xix. 35 ff.). One point in this passage, the contrast between the two words rendered true, cannot be given adequately in an English version. The wit-

2 The significant variation of language in v. 16 supports the view which has been given. The Apostolic we is distinguished from the Christian we all. The use of the direct form in these two cases (we beheld, we received) is remarkable. Contrast xx. 30 (ivuir.

ness is described as " fulfilling the true conception of witness" (oAT/flivog), and not simply as being correct (dXr)9rj<i); it is true to the idea of what witness should be, and not only true to the fact in this special instance (comp. viii. 16, note) so far as the statement is true. There is therefore no repetition in the original in the two clauses, as there appears to be in the English version. This detail is not without significance for the right understanding of the whole comment. It brings out clearly the two conditions which testimony ought to satisfy, the first that he who gives it should be competent to speak with authority, and the second that the account of his experience should be exact. But the main question to be decided is whether the form of the sentence either suggests or admits the belief that the eye-witness to whose testimony appeal is made is to be identified with the writer of the Gospel.

The answer to this question has been commonly made to turn upon a false issue. It has been argued, with a profusion of learning, that the use in the second clause of the pronoun which expresses a remote, or rather an isolated personality (e'/cetvos), is unfavourable to the identification of the Evangelist and the eye-witness, or, at least, lends no support to the identification. It has also been asserted, as might have been expected, by less cautious scholars, that the use of this pronoun is fatal to the identification. On the other hand, it has been shewn by examples from classical authors and also from St John's Gospel (ix. 37) that a speaker can use this pronoun of himself1. But in reality the problem contained in the passage must be solved at an earlier stage. If the author of the Gospel could use the first clause (he that hath seen, &c.) of himself, there can be no reasonable doubt that he could also use of himself the particular pronoun which occurs in the second clause; and to go even further, there can be no reasonable doubt that according to the common usage of St John he would use this particular pronoun to resume and emphasize the

1 The most complete discussion of this part of the problem is to be found in a set of papers in the 'Studien u. Kritiken,' 1859, 1860, by Steitz on the one side, and by Ph. Buttmann on the other.

reference (i. 18, v. 39, 37). No one, in other words, with any knowledge of St John's style can seriously dispute the fact that the "he" of the second clause is the same as the "witness" of the first clause.

This being so, only two interpretations of the passage are possible. The Evangelist either makes an appeal to an eyewitness separate from himself, but not more definitely described, who is said to be conscious of the truth of his own testimony; or he makes an appeal to his own actual experience, now solemnly recorded for the instruction of his readers.

We are thus brought to the right issue. Is it the fact that the second alternative is, as has been confidently affirmed, excluded by the nature of the case? Is it the fact that we cannot suppose that St John, if he were the writer, would have referred to his own experience obliquely? On the contrary, if we realise the conditions under which the narrative was drawn up, it will be seen that the introduction of the first person in this single place would have been more strange. The Evangelist has been already presented as a historical figure in the scene (vv. 26, 27); and it is quite intelligible that an Apostle who had pondered again and again, as it may well have been, what he had gradually shaped, should pause at this critical point, and, dwelling upon that which he felt to be a crucial incident, should separate himself as the witness from his immediate position as a writer. In this mental attitude he looks from without upon himself (c/cetvos) as affected at that memorable moment by the fact which he records, in order that it may create in others the present faith (iruTTeorrrt) which it had created in his own soul. The comment from this point is therefore perfectly compatible with the identification of the witness and the author.

We may however go further. The comment is not only compatible with the identification; it favours the identification, not indeed by the use of the particular pronoun, which tells neither one way nor the other, but by the whole construction of the passage. The witness is spoken of as something which abides after it has been given; he hath borne witness; and, more than this, the witness is given still; he knowetk that he saith true; and, yet again, the giver of the witness sets himself in contrast with his readers; he hath given his witness... that ye may believe. It is not possible then to doubt that the words taken in their context assert that the eye-witness was still living when the record was written '; and if so, it is most natural to suppose that his present utterance, to which appeal is made, is that contained in the Gospel itself. It is difficult to appreciate the evidential force of an appeal to the consciousness of an undefined witness.

In this connexion another point must be observed. If the author were appealing to the testimony of a third person he would almost necessarily have used an aorist and not a perfect, he that saw bore witness, and not he that hath seen hath borne witness. For the mere narrator the testimony centres in the moment at which it was rendered; for the witness himself it is a continuous part of his own

The conclusion to which these remarks converge will appear still more certain if the comment be reduced to its simplest elements. If it had. stood, He that hath seen hath borne witness, that ye also may believe, no ordinary reader would have doubted that the writer was appealing to his own experience, recorded in the history, since no other testimony is quoted. But the intercalated clauses do not in any way interfere with this interpretation. They simply point out, as has been already noticed, the relation in which this special statement stands to its attestation. They shew that this testimony satisfies the two conditions, which must be ratified for the establishment of its authority, that it is adequate in relation to its source, and that it is correct in its actual details. For a witness may give true evidence and yet miss the essential features of that of which he speaks. Hence the writer affirms the competency of the witness, while he affirms also that the testimony itself was exact.

On the whole therefore the statement which we have considered is not only compatible with the identity of the eyewitness and the writer of the Gospel,

1 This conclusion holds good to whomsoever the comment be referred.

but it also suggests, even if it does not necessarily involve, the identification of the two. On the other hand, the only other possible interpretation of the passage is wholly pointless. It supposes that an appeal is made with singular emphasis to an unknown witness, who is said to be conscious of the truthfulness of his own testimony. Such a comment could find no place in the connexion in which the words stand.

(c) Ch. xxi. 24. The third passage which occurs in the appendix to the Gospel (ch. xxi.) is different in character from the other two. After the narrative of the Lord's saying with regard to " the disciple whom he loved," the record continues: this is the disciple who witnesseth concerning these things, and who wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true (OVTO'S «rriv d p.a6rjr>]<; d fiaprvpwv Trept TovT<av Kai d ypai/fas ravra, *cai oiSa/xev OTI d\r)6rj<i aurov r) /laprupta «rriV). There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the words. The writing of the Gospel is distinctly assigned by them to " the beloved disciple" (v. 21). But it is not at once obvious to whom the words are to be assigned. Is the author of the Gospel himself the speaker? or must the note be referred to others who published his Gospel, as, for example, to the Ephesian elders? Before we attempt to answer this question it must be observed that whichever view be taken, the sentence contains a declaration as to the authorship of the Gospel contemporaneous with its publication, for there is not the least evidence that the Gospel was ever circulated in the Church without the epilogue (ch. xxl). And yet further, the declaration extends both to the substantial authorship (he that witnesseth concerning these things) and also to the literal authorship of the record (he that wrote these things). So much is clear; but perhaps it is impossible to press the present tense (he that witnesseth} as a certain proof that the author was still alive when the work was sent forth. The form as it stands here by itself may simply indicate the vital continuity of his testimony. However this may be, the note at least emphasizes what was felt to be a real presence of the writer in the society to which he belonged.

If we now proceed to fix the authorship of the note, it will at once appear that the passage (xix. 35) which has been already considered practically decides the question. The contrast between the two notes is complete. In that the note is given in the singular and in the third person; in this it is given in the plural and in the first person. In that the witness is regarded as isolated and remote (he that...and he...}} in this the witness is regarded as present (this is...}. If we believe that the former is, as has been shewn, a personal affirmation of the writer himself, it seems almost impossible to believe that this is a personal affirmation also. No sufficient reason can be given for the complete change of position which he assumes towards his own work. The plural (we know] by itself would be capable of explanation, but the transition from the historical singular (this is...) to the direct plural (we know...} is so harsh and sudden as to be all but inadmissible; and the difficulty is aggravated by the occurrence of the first person singular (/ suppose} in the next sentence. On the other hand, if we bear in mind that the Gospel as originally composed ended with xx. 31, to which xxi. 25 may have been attached, and that the narratives in xxi. i — 23 were drawn up by the same author at a later time under circumstances which called for some authoritative interpretation of a mistaken tradition, we can readily understand how the note was added to the record by those who had sought for this additional explanation of the Lord's words, and preserved when the completed Gospel was issued to the Church. At the same time, if v. 25 formed the last clause of the original Gospel, it would naturally be transferred to the end of the enlarged record.

The general result of the examination of these passages is thus tolerably distinct. The fourth Gospel claims to be written by an eye-witness, and this claim is attested by those who put the work in circulation.

In considering the external evidence1

1 The character of the present Introduction necessarily excludes detailed criticism of the for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it is necessary to bear in mind the conditions under which it must be sought. It is agreed on all hands that the Gospel was written at a late date, towards the close of the first century, when the Evangelic tradition, preserved in complementary forms in the Synoptic Gospels, had gained general currency, and from its wide spread had practically determined the popular view of the life and teaching of the Lord. And further, the substance of the record deals with problems which belong to the life of the Church and to a more fully developed faith. On both grounds references to the contents of this Gospel would naturally be rarer in ordinary literature than references to the contents of the other Gospels. Express citations are made from all about the same time.

Christian theological literature practically begins for us with Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and these writers use the four Gospels as fully and decisively as any modern writer. The few letters and apostolic treatises and fragments which represent the earlier literature of the second century give very little scope for the direct use of the New Testament. But it is most significant that Eusebius, who had access to many works which are now lost, speaks without reserve of the Fourth Gospel as the unquestioned work of St John, no less than those three great representative Fathers who sum up the teaching of the century. If he had known of any doubts as to its authorship among ecclesiastical writers, he would without question have mentioned these, as he has quoted the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria on the Apocalypse.

We start then with the undeniable fact that about the last quarter of the second century, when from the nature of the case clear evidence can first be obtained, the Gospel was accepted as authoritative by heretical writers like Ptolemseus and authorities which are quoted. But it may be said, once for all, that the passages which are set down are used after a careful examination of all that has been urged against their validity. The original texts have been discussed in detail by Dr Sanday ('The Gospels in the Second Century,' 1876) and by Dr Lightfoot in the 'Contemporary Review,' 1875, f., who have noticed at length the most recent literature on the subject.

Heracleon, and used by the opponents of Christ like Celsus, and assigned to St John by Fathers in Gaul, Alexandria, and North Africa, who claimed to reproduce the ancient tradition of their churches, and this with perfect naturalness, there being evidently no trace within their knowledge of a contrary opinion. It is true that the Gospel was not received by Marcion, but there is no evidence to shew that he was influenced by anything but subjective considerations in the formation of his collection of Scriptures. Irenaeus also mentions an earlier sect, of doubtful affinity, which, claiming for itself the possession of prophetic gifts, rejected the Gospel of St John and its characteristic promises of the Paraclete (Iren. -'c. Haer.' in. n. 9, "Alii ut donum Spiritus frustrentur quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt quae est secundum Joannis evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit; sed simul et evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum"). But the language of Irenaeus lends no support to the supposition that this sect questioned the authority of the Gospel on critical grounds. At the same time it must be noticed that Epiphanius (' Haer.' LI. 3) and Philastrius (' Haer.' 60) assert that a body of men whom they call Alogi assigned the authorship of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. The statement as it stands is scarcely intelligible; and it seems to have arisen from the mistaken extension to the authorship of the Gospel, by way of explaining its rejection, of a late conjecture as to the authorship of the Apocalypse.

Such an exception can have no weight against the uniform ecclesiastical tradition with which it is contrasted. This tradition can be carried still further back than Irenaeus, who is its fullest exponent The first quotation of the Gospel by name is made by THEOPHILUS of Antioch (c. 181 A.D.): "...The holy Scrip-

tures teach us, and all the inspired men (01 7rv€u/xaTo<£o'poi), one of whom John saith: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God... Afterwards he saith: and the Word was God: all things were made through Him, and without Him was not even one thing made (' ad

Autol.' 11. 22). ATHENAGORAS (c. 176 A. D.) paraphrases and combines the language of the Gospel in such a way as to shew that it was both familiar and authoritative, and had been carefully

weighed by him: "The Son of God is the Word of the Father in idea and actually (ev iSe'a Koi evepyeta). For all things were made in dependence on Him and through Him (wpds avrov [Acts xxvii. 34] /cal 6V aurov), the Father and the Son being One. But since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, by unity and power of the Spirit (Ivorrfn KOI SiW/xci irvevfJ.a- TOS), the Son of God is the Mind and Word of the Father" ('Leg.' 10; comp.

John i. 3, x. 30, xvii. 21). About the same time CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, speaking of the different opinions as to the day of the Last Supper, evidently treats "the disagreement of the Gospels" (i.e. the Synoptists and St John) as something really out of the question (Routh, 'Rell.' i. 167 ff.; comp. 'Hist, of N. T. Canon,' p. 224); and he gives an explanation of John xix. 34 (see note), which shews that the incident had become a subject of deep speculation. Still earlier TATIAN, the scholar of Justin (c. 160 A. D.), quotes words of the Gospel as well known: "This is in fact," he says, "that which hath been said: The darkness apprehendeth not the light" ('Orat.' 13, TOUTO COTIV dpa TO flpr)fjL€vov [Acts ii. 1 6] 77 (TKOTia. TO <£u>s ov «aTaXa/x)8avc(, John i. 5; comp. John i. 3 with 'Orat.' 19); and the latest criticism confirms the old belief that his ' Diatessaron ' was constructed from the texts of the four Canonical Gospels (Lightfoot, ' Contemporary Review,' May, 1877).

So far the line of testimony appears to be absolutely beyond doubt. The traces of the use of the fourth Gospel in the interval between TOO — 160 A. D. are necessarily less clear; but as far as they can be observed they are not only in perfect harmony with the belief in its apostolic origin, but materially strengthen this belief.

The EPISTLE OF CLEMENT to the Corinthians was probably written before the Gospel of St John, but already this writing shews traces of the forms of thought which are characteristic of the book (cc. vn. xxxvi. ' Hist, of Canon of

N. T.' pp. 25 f.). The EPISTLE OF BARNABAS again offers some correspondences and more contrasts with the teaching of St John in the common region of " mystical " religious thought. In the LETTERS OF IGNATIUS, which even if they are not authentic certainly fall within the first half of the century, the influence of the teaching, if not demonstrably of the writings, of St John is more direct. The true meat of the Christian, for example, is said to be the " bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ? and his drink is " Christ's blood, which is love incorruptible " (' ad Rom.' vn.; comp. John vi. 32, 51, 53). And again: " The Spirit is not led astray, as being from God. For it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and testeth (tXe'yxci) that which is hidden" ('ad Philad.' vn.; comp. John iii. 8, xvi. 8).

It is however with POLYCARP and PAPIAS ' that the decisive testimony to the authenticity of St John's writings really begins. Recent investigations, independent of all theological interests, have fixed the martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 — 6 A.D. (See Lightfoot, 'Contemporary Review,' 1875, P- 83^0 At the time of his death he had been a Christian for eighty-six years ('Mart. Polyc.' c. ix.). He must then have been alive during the greater part of St John's residence in Asia, and there is no reason for questioning the truth of the statements that he " associated with the Apostles in Asia (e.g. John, Andrew, Philip; comp. Lightfoot's ' Colossians,' pp. 45 f.), and was entrusted with the oversight of the Church in Smyrna by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Lord " (Euseb. ' H. E.' in. 36; comp. Iren. ' c. Haer.' in. 3. 4). Thus, like St John himself, he lived to unite two ages. When already old he used to speak to his scholars of "his intercourse with John and the rest of those who had seen the Lord " (Iren. ' Ep. ad Flor.' § 2); and Irenseus, in his later years, vividly recalled the teaching which he had heard from him as a boy

1 For a complete discussion of the historical position of these two Fathers in regard to early Christian teaching and literature, see the articles of Dr Lightfoot in the 'Contemporary Review' for May, August and October, 1875.

(Iren. /. c.; comp. 'c. Haer.' in. 3. 4). There is no room in this brief succession for the introduction of new writings under the name of St John. Irenaeus cannot with any reason be supposed to have assigned to the fourth Gospel the place which he gives to it unless he had received it with the sanction of Polycarp. The person of Polycarp, the living sign of the unity of the faith of the first and second centuries, is in itself a sure proof of the apostolicity of the Gospel. Is it conceivable that in his lifetime such a revolution was accomplished that his disciple Irenaeus was not only deceived as to the authorship of the book, but was absolutely unaware that the continuity of the tradition in which he boasted had been completely broken? One short letter of Polycarp, with which Irenaeus was acquainted (Iren. /. c.), has been preserved. In this there is a striking coincidence with the language of i John: "Everyone," he writes, "who doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is antichrist " (' ad Phil.' vn.; comp. i John iv. 2, 3). The sentence is not a mere quotation, but a reproduction of St John's thought in compressed language which is all borrowed from him (TTOS, os av, 6p.oXoyeiv 'I. X. ev vapid fXrjXvOevai, avTtxpurros). The words of St John have, so to speak, been shaped into a popular formula. And if it be said that the reference to the Epistle shews nothing as to the Gospel, the reply is that the authorship of the two cannot reasonably be separated. A testimony to one is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other.

The testimony of PAPIAS to the Gospel of St John, is, like that of Polycarp, secondary and inferential. Papias, according to Eusebius, " used testimonies from the former epistle of John" (Euseb. ' H. E.' in. 39). The mention of this fact, as the epistle was universally received, is remarkable; but the Catholic Epistles formed an exceptional group of writings, and it is perhaps on this account that Eusebius goes beyond his prescribed rule in noticing the use which was made even of those among them which were "acknowledged." At any rate the use of the Epistle by Papias points to his acquaintance with the Gospel. Several minute details in the fragment of the preface to his " Exposition of Oracles of the Lord" tend in the same direction. And there is a remarkable tradition found in a preface to a Latin MS. of the Gospel which assigns to Papias an account of the composition of the Gospel similar to that given in the Muratorian fragment (see 'Canon of N. T.' p. 76, n.).

But it is said that if Papias had used the Gospel Eusebius would not have neglected to notice the fact. The statement rests on a complete misunderstanding of what Eusebius professed to do. He did not undertake to collect references to "the acknowledged books," among which he placed the four Gospels, so that however often Papias might have quoted St John's Gospel, Eusebius would not according to his plan have noticed the fact, unless something of special interest had been added to the reference (comp. 'Hist, of N. T. Canon,' pp. 229 f.; Lightfoot, ' Contemporary Review,' 1875, pp. 169 ff.).

The object of Papias was, as has been shewn elsewhere, to illustrate the evangelic records by such information as he could gain from the earliest disciples; and it is by no means unlikely that the "history of the woman taken in adultery," which has found a place in the Gospel of St John, was recorded by him in illustration of John viii. 15 (see note ad loc.).

In close connexion with Papias stand " the elders " quoted by Irenaeus, among whose words is one clear reference to St John (Iren. v. 36. 2): " for this reason [they taught] the Lord said, there are many mansions in my Father's home (cv

John xiv. 2. Comp. Luke ii. 49). The quotation is anonymous, but it is taken from a writing and not from tradition; and the context makes it at least highly probable that the passage was quoted from Papias' ' Exposition.'

Whatever may be thought of the passing references of Polycarp and Papias to the writings of St John, the main value of their testimony lies in the fact that they represent what can justly be called a school of St John. Papias like Polycarp may himself have heard the Apostle (Iren. v. 33. 4). At least he studied with Polycarp (Iren. /. c.). And he had still another point of connexion with the apostolic body. He conversed at Hierapolis with two daughters of the Apostle Philip (Euseb. ' H. E.' HI. 39; Lightfoot, ' Colossians,' 45 ff.). Nor were these two men alone. There were many about them, like the elders quoted by Irenaeus, who shared in the same life. The succession was afterwards continued at Sardis through Melito, at Ephesus through Polycrates (comp. Euseb. 'H. E.' v. 22), at Hierapolis through Claudius Apollinaris, at Lyons through Pothinus and Irenaeus (compare also the ' Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons,' c. 4, 177 A.D.); and the concordant testimony of the latest witnesses in these different Churches is a sure proof that they preserved the belief which had been held from the first by the school to which they belonged (comp. Lightfoot, 'Contemporary Review,' August, 1876).

The testimony to the Gospel of St John is, as might have been expected on the assumption of its authenticity, most clear among the writers who stood in the closest connexion with his teaching. But it is not confined to them. JUSTIN MARTYR certainly appears to have been acquainted with the book. His evidence is somewhat obscure. All his references to the Gospels are anonymous; but at the same time his description of " the Memoirs " as written "by the Apostles and those who followed them" ('Dial.' 103), exactly answers to our present collection of four. And though the coincidences of language between Justin and St John are not such as to establish beyond question Justin's dependence on the Evangelist, this at least is the most natural explanation of the similarity (' Hist, of N. T. Canon,' p. 166, n.). And more than this, his acquaintance with the Valentinians ('Dial.' 35; comp. Iren. in. n. 7, " qui a Valentino sunt eo [Evangelic] quod est secundum lohannem plenissime utentes...") shews that the fourth Gospel could not have been unknown to

Justin's teaching on the Word is perhaps a still more important indication of the influence of St John. This teaching presupposes the teaching of St John, and in many details goes beyond it. Thoughts which are characteristically Alexandrine, as distinguished from Hebraic, find a place in Justin; and he shews not only how little power there was in the second century to fashion such a doctrine as that of the fourth Gospel, but also how little Christian speculation was able to keep within the limits laid down by the Apostles.

The SHEPHERD OF HERMAS offers an instructive example of the precariousness of the argument from silence. The book contains no definite quotations from the Old or New Testament. The allusions which have been found in it to the characteristic teaching of St John are I believe real, but they are not unquestionable. Yet it is certain from an independent testimony, that the Gospel was accepted as one of the four Gospels almost at the same date when the book was written, and probably in the same place. The Muratorian Fragment notices that the Shepherd was written "very lately (c. 170 A.D.) in our times, in the city of Rome," and at the same time speaks of the Gospel according to St John as "the fourth" Gospel in such a way as to mark its general recognition ('Hist, of N. T. Canon,' pp. 2 1 1 ff.; see below, n. § 2). To the same date also must be referred the two great translations of the East and West, the Syriac and Latin, in which the four Gospels stand without rivals.

Outside the Church the testimony to the general use of St John's Gospel is both early and decisive. In the quotations from early heretical writers the references to it are comparatively frequent. In many cases its teaching formed the starting-point of their partial and erroneous conclusions. The first Commentary on the Gospel was written by Heracleon (c. 175 A.D.); and his copy of the book had already been defaced by false readings. At an earlier date the Gospel was used by the author of the Clementine Homilies, by Valentinus and his school, by the Ophites, and by Basilides ('Hist, of N. T. Canon,' 282 ff., Sanday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' pp. 292 ff.).

The testimony of Basilides is of singular interest. 'The Refutation of Heresies,' attributed to Hippolytus, which was first published in 1851, contains numerous quotations from his writings and from the writings of his school. In one passage at least where there can be no reasonable doubt that the author of the ' Refutation' is quoting Basilides himself (c. 130 A.D.), a phrase from the Gospel of St John is used as the authoritative basis for a mystical explanation ('Ref. Haer.,'

In reviewing these traces of the use of the Gospel in the first three-quarters of a century after it was written, we readily admit that they are less distinct and numerous than those might have expected who are unacquainted with the character of the literary remains of the period. But it will be observed that all the evidence points in one direction. There is not, with one questionable exception, any positive indication that doubt was anywhere thrown upon the authenticity of the book. It is possible to explain away in detail this piece of evidence and that, but the acceptance of the book as the work of the Apostle adequately explains all the phenomena without any violence; and hitherto all the new evidence which has come to light has supported this universal belief of the Christian Society, while it has seriously modified the rival theories which have been set up against it.

II. THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL. i. The Author.

The facts bearing upon the life of St John which are recorded in the New Testament are soon told. He was the son, apparently the younger son, of Zebedee and Salome (Mark xv. 40, xvi. i, compared with Matt, xxvii. 56). Salome, as it appears from John xix. 25 (see note), was the sister of "the Mother of the Lord," so that St John was the cousin of the Lord "according to the flesh." He was probably younger than the Lord and than the other apostles. It is therefore easily intelligible that his near connexion by birth, combined with the natural enthusiasm of youth, offered the outward occasion for the peculiar closeness in which he stood to Christ.

Of his father Zebedee, a fisherman probably of Bethsaida or the neighbourhood (John i. 41 ff.), nothing is known except that he was sufficiently prosperous to have hired servants (Mark i. 20). At a later time Salome appears as one of the women who followed the Lord and