[1 - Dale, The Living Christ, pp. 42, 46 f.]
[2 - 'Das einzige zarte rechte Haupt-Evangelium'; Werke, Erlangen, 1854, lxiii, p. 115. Oberhey (Der Gottesbrunnen der Menscheit, p. v) alludes to it as 'Des Neuen Testamenes Allerheiligstes.' And see the famous quotation from the Wandsbecker Bote (given at length by P. Ewald, NKZ, xix, 1908, pp. 825 f.): 'Am liebsten aber les' ich im Skt. Johannes &c.']
[3 - On St John, Hom. xxxvi.]
[4 - Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 2.]

Page 2

But it is safe to say that, of those by whom that Gospel is treasured as a hallowed thing, there are numbers who, approaching it and studying it with pre-conceived opinions and with fixed beliefs, are either unaware of, or prefer to shut their eyes and ears to, the grave difficulties which it presents. The Johannine problem, as it is called, has no real existence for such persons; as with the Japanese gentleman of Dr Dale's allusion so with them, they do not 'check their wonder and their awe' by vexing themselves with questions relating to the authorship and historicity of what is so dear to them as a sacred, a plenarily inspired, book. Accounting it the absolutely true narrative of discourse and incident, they make no room for doubt that it comes down to them from him who figures in it as the Beloved Disciple. Its title is decisive for them, 'The Gospel according to St John.' And in these and the like prepossessions and convictions they are, undoubtedly, representative of, and can appeal to, a belief which stretches back through long centuries to a far-distant past. 'No Gospel comes to us with stronger external evidence of its acceptance by the Church[1]' than does this Gospel; its familiar title preserves the very name borne by it immediately on its appearance in literature as the not only used but formally adopted work[2]; when, towards the end of the second century, the four Gospels emerge into the clear light of day this Gospel is one of them, and its authority is 'recognized as undoubtingly and unhesitatingly as that of the other three[3].' A few early dissentients are met with; otherwise its Johannine authorship is assumed: 'the belief handed down that, in his old age, the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, wrote his Gospel as a last testament to the Church[4],' and that what it contained was a true narrative, went for a long time unchallenged, and 'ecclesiastical tradition has never assigned' the Gospel which bears John's name 'to anyone but the Apostle John[5].'

Yet a day came when the gauntlet was thrown down boldly to traditional and conventional belief. As the situation (it still obtains)

[1 - J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 113.]
[2 - O. Holtzmann, Das Evang. des. Joh. p. 115.]
[3 - Stanton, GHD, i, p. 162.]
[4 - Julicher, Einl. p. 361.]
[5 - Soltau, op. cit. p. 103.]

Page 3

has been stated within recent times: 'no book of the New Testament has met with more sharply opposed criticism, nor in respect of the true estimate of any other has there been so fierce a conflict between love and hate.' What, it is asked, is the true nature of the Fourth Gospel? Is it a trustworthy record of the events it purports to relate? Must it, on the other hand, be regarded as 'an epic or a drama or a theological tractate[1]' if strictly historical it be not? A 'unique book' and to be approached 'with no ordinary reverence'; 'the time is past,' it is quickly added, 'when we can accept without a shade of misgiving the tradition of its authorship, and delight ourselves without a question in its narratives[2].' Misgiving there is, and misgiving there must be; if questions be unavoidable, it is because, raised by the Gospel itself, they stare every honest student in the face.

To go back to the last decade of the eighteenth century. Although the start with Fourth Gospel criticism really began in England towards the close of the seventeenth century[3], it was not until the year 1792 that it was bluntly asked, by an English clergyman, 'how any kind of delusion should have induced creatures endowed with reason so long to have received it (so, the Fourth Gospel) as the word of truth and the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ[4].' Before long, in Germany, more hostile voices were raised, and with diversity of conjecture and hypothesis; one suggestion pointed to a genuine work of the Apostle with abundant supplementary matter by a later hand [5]; it was said that the real author

[1 - Heinrici, Der litterar. Charakter der neutest. Schriften, p. 48.]
[2 - Drummond, op. cit. pp. 1 f.]
[3 - 'De eerste kritisehe twijfel openbaarde zich in Engeland, waarsehijnlijk van de zijde der engelsche deisten, eerst aan het einde der 17[de] eeuw.' Seholten, Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 24. And see Clericus (Hammond, Novum Test. . . . cum paraphrasi et adnotationibus, 2nd ed., i, pp. 391, 395): Confutare etiam non sum adgressus novos Alogos, quorum soripta non vidi . . . Idem hodie Alogorum imitatores. . . .]
[4 - Evanson, Dissonance of the four commonly received Gospels, p. 228. The 'shallow criticism,' as Luthardt called it, if of a particular passage, is generally significant of both the position and the manner of the sometime Vicar of Tewkesbury. His criticism was, no doubt, crude and marred by courseness of expression, yet justice should be done to him as a pioneer.]
[5 - Eckermann (1798). Vogel (1801) cited the Evangelist to the divine tribunal.]

Page 4

of the Gospel was an Alexandrian Christian[1] or a disciple of the Apostle John[2]. With firmer grasp and fuller statement of the Johannine problem in its many ramifications[3] it was held incredible that the Gospel should have come from an Apostle's pen; and, albeit the scholar who thus confidently argued made show of retreating from his position[4] and controversy for the time being slumbered, it is none the less the case that the questions shrewdly raised by him in detail have appeared but to reappear in that Fourth Gospel criticism which since his day has grown into a 'mighty stream,' and a mass of literature[5] affords ample proof that 'the problem of the Fourth Gospel is still the most unsettled, the most living, the most sensitive in all the field of introduction[6],' 'the cardinal inquiry, not merely of all New Testament criticism, but even of Christology[7].' The delicacy and intricacy of the problem is generally admitted; as might be expected, there is wide divergence of view; the pleas vigorously raised in some quarters on behalf of traditional authorship and historicity are elsewhere deemed invalid and are as vigorously disallowed. Yet on both sides there is a tendency to make concessions, while there is general agreement that, whatever else it be, John's Gospel is a noble and inspiring work. In more radical quarters it is said of it that, not by the Apostle and not what we moderns call history, it nevertheless leads back to Jesus, and that, if its theological vesture be worn threadbare, it scintillates with and awakens faith[8]; attributed to an author who 'remains unknown' and who had 'not witnessed the earthly life of Jesus except through the eyes of others,' 'the Gospel is the work of a great religious thinker who had entered profoundly into spiritual fellowship with Christ[9]'; 'while the author makes Jesus speak and act as the real Jesus never spoke and acted, yet in the discourses and the works so lent to him there

[1 - Horst (1803).]
[2 - Paulus (1821).]
[3 - Bretschneider, Probabilia de evang. et epis. Joan. apos. indole et origine.]
[4 - Cf. Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 697.]
[5 - No fewer than some 220 works on the Fouth Gospel are enumerated by Moffatt, Introd. to N.T. pp. 515 ff.]
[6 - Bacon, Introd. to N.T. p. 252.]
[7 - Luthardt, St. John's Gospel, p. 3.]
[8 - Heitmuller, SNT, ii, p. 707.]
[9 - E. F. Scott, Histor. and Relig. Value of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 17 f.]

Page 5

ceases not to be a living Christ[1].' As for the more conservative school of criticism, a relatively late date is readily admitted; an element of subjectivity; an 'apparent transference of the matured thought of the author to the lips of the speakers in his narrative[2]'; not a few, perhaps, would speak of 'an interpretation rather than a life[3],' and allow, nor yet of one section only in the Gospel, that 'it contains the reflections of the Evangelist, and is not a continuation of the words of the Lord[4]'; further, that, in the case of some of the Gospel contents, in respect at all events of detail, there is need of reservation. To revert, for a moment, to the former quarter; an earlier date is acquiesced in, and the terms 'pure romance' and 'down-right fiction' are more seldom heard or more guardedly used; here and there dependence on Apostolic notes and influences is allowed if it be held impossible to discover in the Evangelist St John himself. 'Even among those critics who regard the Gospel as concerned, on the whole, more with religious instruction than with historic accuracy, there are some who make the reservation that echoes of a true historic record are to be heard in it, so that it may be called a mixture of truth and poetry[5].'

Thus much by way of rapid survey of Fourth Gospel research in its inception and its earlier stages, of the situation as it exists at the present day[6]. In the following pages we will attempt some discussion of the problems which confront the serious and open-minded student; and in the course thereof frequent resort shall be had to books which emanate from theological workshops both at home and abroad, nor need there be the slightest hesitation to include such as witness to the "indefatigable industry, profound thought, conscientious love of knowledge' which are admittedly

[1 - Loisy, Quatrieme Evang. p. 119. From the closing sentences of a fine passage.]
[2 - J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 114 f. See also Stevens, Johan. Theology, pp. ix ff.]
[3 - Cf. Bacon, Introd. to N.T. p. 252.]
[4 - See Westcott on Jn, iii 16 ff.]
[5 - Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 3. See also Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 1-33; Holtzmann, Einl. p. 436 ff.]
[6 - For a more detailed survey the reader should consult Loisy, Le Quatrieme Evangile, pp. 36 ff.; Scholten, Het Evan. naar Joh. pp. 24 ff. See also A. V. Green, op. cit. pp. 65 ff. Reference might also be made to Albert Schweitzer Von Reimarus zu Wrede (Engl. tr. The Quest of the Historical Jesus).]

Page 6

characteristic of German scholarship[1]. At the close of this chapter some remarks shall be ventured in the hope of reassuring those who, having read thus far, may imagine themselves not only robbed of their security in respect of 'John's' Gospel, but asked to sit fast and loose to what, in their conviction, are of the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

It was said to an earlier generation that 'the assailants of (the Fourth Gospel) are of two kinds: those who deny the miraculous element in Christianity, those who deny the distinctive character of Christian doctrine,' and that the Gospel 'confronts both[2].' There has been a moving on since then, with a consequent change of front; and now it would be widely allowed that such strong assertions, not altogether destitute of truth in certain cases, are by no means true all round. 'It is unjust to assume that those who question the authenticity of the Gospel according to St John are primarily impelled to do so by theological prepossession,' neither is it right to say that they are one and all prejudiced by 'its emphatic declaration of the divinity of Christ.' As a matter of fact 'there are many who are heartily devoted to that central truth, and yet cannot easily persuade themselves that the Fourth Gospel offers them history quite in the sense that the other Gospels do, cannot think that Christ spoke exactly as He is here represented as speaking, and consequently cannot feel assured that this is the record of an eye-witness, or, in other words, of the Apostle St John[3].' And here perhaps it might be put on record that the traditional authorship of the Gospel has found a staunch upholder; in a distinguished Unitarian scholar and divine[4].

In anticipation of a comparison to be instituted later on between

[1 - Stanley, Sermons on the Apos. Age. To similar effect Sanday, op. cit. pp. 18 ff.; see also his recent pamphlet In View of the End. It is a pity that Mr Raven (op. cit. p. 105) should permit himself the sweeping generalization 'Teutonic unbelief.']
[2 - Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays, p. 47. Cf. Dusterdieck, Uber das Evang. Joh. p. 783.]
[3 - J. Armitage Robinson, op. cit. pp. 133, 113 f., 118; J. H. Bernard, Paper read at the Bristol (1903) Church Congress.]
[4 - The allusion is to Dr Drummond, sometime Principal of Manchester College, Oxford. See Sanday, op. cit. p. 32.]

Page 7

'John' and the 'other Gospels,' the following well-weighed words shall find a place here:

'The authors of our first three Gospels, in giving, or at all events professing to give, a simple narrative of incident and teaching, and reporting the impression which Jesus made on the first generations of disciples, show us a person with a double consciousness; to whom the Divine communion He enjoyed was as real as the human life He lived[1].'

There is nevertheless 'the problem of the Person of Christ[2].'

[1 - Bethune-Baker, Nestorius, p. x. And thus Ammon (Geschichte des Lebens Jesu, publ. 1842, i, p. 82): 'In jedem Falle aber ist es ungegrundet, dass in den drei ersten Evangelien die hohere Natur Jesu ubersehen und vernaschlassigt worden sei.' It might be said perhaps of the 'Hat Jesus gelebt?' controversy (the echoes which have passed from Germany into England) that it has forced a recognition that behind the human Jesus of the Synoptic representation there stands One who is conceived of as more than mere man.]
[2 - Cf. A. W. Robinson, Are we making progress? p. 19.]

[1 - A realization that the 'Coming of the Lord' might be delayed, cf. 2 Pet. iii, 8 ff. Here and in some following paragraphs I have ventured to draw on a paper (on the Synoptic Problem) contributed by me to CBE.]
[2 - By reason of (i) the dying off of men who had seen and known Jesus, and (ii) the spread of the new religion.]
[3 - As distinguished from correspondence; the occasional writings known as 'Epistles.']
[4 - ευαγγελιον, the reward given to the bearer of good tidings. See Julicher, Einl. p. 252.]

Page 9

Eusebius -- were fenced off as it were from other writings of the same family, 'canonized.' To mark off separate stages in the process is impossible; no express information is forthcoming, and it is a right view which suggests that the 'canonization' of all the New Testament writings was the issue of an unconscious growth. That no special sanctity attached at the outset to the Gospels is clear both from the attitude of Evangelist to Evangelist[1], and also from the fact that when Tatian substituted his Diatessaron for them in all good faith exception was not taken to his action or to the 'harmony' which of course witnessed to an importance they already possessed. How precisely it came about that four Gospels were singled out from the rest, placed side by side, accounted authoritative and sacred, is not fully known; what can be said is that, as time went on, 'the caskets which enshrined the jewel of traditions concerning Jesus were identified with the jewel itself; and, if the completion of the New Testament Canon as a whole cannot be dated earlier than the close of the Fourth century (in the case of Eastern churches somewhat later), it is certain that the Gospels had long before attained a position of supremacy in by far the larger part of the Christendom of the age. For Irenaeus they are 'Holy Scripture,' and he gives fanciful reasons as to why they are precisely four in number[2].

Or to put it thus: the 'many' Gospels in circulation had been subjected to such tests as the critical acumen and spiritual insight of the day could apply; by degrees the superiority of some and the inferiority of others was determined; in the event four and four only were deemed worthy to survive, and they, the Canonical Gospels, remained masters of the field[3].

They did not invariably stand in the to us accustomed order. No fewer than seven different arrangements have been reckoned up, of which two only however appear to have been at all widespread; the sequence Matthew, John, Luke, Mark[4], and the more generally favoured sequence of the ordinary Bible[5]. These two

[1 - To wit, the free handling of our Second Gospel by the First and Third Evangelists.]
[2 - Euseb. HE, v. 8.]
[3 - Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, haereses plurima (Origen).]
[4 - So in the Monarchian Prologues.]
[5 - The order which obtains in the Muratorian Canon.]

Page 10

arrangements, it is suggested, are alike significant; in the former case of values placed on the respective Gospels -- those attributed to Apostles ranking above those attributed to disciples of the Apostles; the more familiar sequence being based on chronological principle, John regarded as last and Matthew first in order of composition[1]. As for the titles of the Gospels; in the earliest MSS. one general title, ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ, covers the four, the separate books being simply headed ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ and so forth. These titles are not to be assigned to the authors themselves; they were prefixed by others, and probably date from the period when the four Gospels were so collected together as to form one whole. And it is a safe assumption that those who prefixed them regarded, and meant to indicate, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the Gospels so named[2]. Whether the verdict thus pronounced was well founded is quite another matter, and it is the business of students of Christian history to apply modern and approved tests.

To turn from such preliminary considerations to our Gospel. While the first three Gospels are 'sister-works,' it stands, as all admit, in a distinct category, by itself apart, and not only because of its position in the Canon but for other reasons[3] it is more frequently termed the 'Fourth Gospel' in the diction of Biblical research. And the subject to be approached and provisionally determined in this chapter is one which hinges on the question of its approximate date.

There are two extreme limits beyond which there is no need to travel in our search.

First; in the eyes of Irenaeus all four Gospels are Holy Scripture. Judging from the manner of his allusions, the rank thus acquired by them, however gradually, had ceased to be a novelty in the period marked by his literary activities[4]; and the inference

[1 - So Julicher.]
[2 - The word κατα might mean 'as used by,' or 'as taught by,' or imply direct authorship. The latter meaning is the one to be adopted. See Volkmar (Die Evangelien, p. ix f.), who has made some caustic remarks on the subject.]
[3 - To avoid committals in respect to authorship, etc.]
[4 - Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor, was born ca. A.D. 135-142. He may have paid several visits to Rome, but the scene of his chief activities lay in Gaul; a presbyter of the Church of Lyons he became its bishop ca. A.D. 178: his death took place some ten or fifteen years later. One of his works (Adv. Haer.) is dated ca. A.D. 180-190.]

Page 11

is safe that they had so ranked for some little time. 'John' was one of those Gospels. Whether it be the case or not that its attachment to the Synoptic group had been attended with hesitation, it could have been no very recent work when Irenaeus said his say. Nor is this all. Some years earlier, as it would appear, it had been already commented upon by Heracleon[1].

Hence the terminus ad quem can by no possibility be referred to a date later than the last decade but two of the second century.

In the second place. There is a strong consensus of opinion, at all events it is now widely allowed, that the Synoptic Gospels were known to, or known of by, the Fourth Evangelist[2]. The conclusion naturally follows that the terminus a quo for the composition of his own Gospel is the date assignable to the latest of the 'sister-works'; and accordingly, by reason of the admitted priority of Mark, the choice rests between the Matthaean and the Lucan Gospels.

What of their respective dates? 'The great authorities differ'; as for the First Gospel, there is no certainty whether as to authorship, locality or date; it may point to the close of the first century, or it may present features quite compatible with an earlier period; a cautious verdict finds much which, forbidding a date earlier than ca. A.D. 80, does 'not require one later than 100[3]'; between the

[1 - Probably the first to write a commentary on the Fourth Gospel. A native of Alexandria, he was a disciple Of Valentinus, and flourished ca, A.D. 145-180. Bleek (Beitrage zur Evangelien-Kritik, p. 215) remarks; 'Die Erklarungen des Heracleon zeigen aufs deutlichste dass er das Evlgm, als eine in anerkanntem Ansehen stehende Schrift vorgefunden hat.' Cf. Stanton, GHD, i, p. 258; Loisy, op. cit. p. 17.]
[2 - EB, ii, col. 2540; Forbes, The Johan. Literature, p. 154; Loisy, op. cit. p. 60. Moffatt (op. cit. p. 534) writes: 'the only Gospel about which there need by any hesitation is that of Lk,' but (see p. 581) his hesitation is evidently slight, as well it may be. Schleiermacher (Einl. ins N.T. p. 317) found reasons why 'John' could not have known the Syn. Gospels. Calmes (L'Evan. selon Saint-Jean, p. 8) is doubtful in regard to literary dependence. See also Wendt, Die Schichten im vierten Evglm. p. 107. According to Cludius (Uransichten des Christenthums, pp. 61 f.) the Fourth Evangelist could not possibly have known Matthew. It is noteworthy that the Fourth Gospel was held by Semler (see Lange, Das Evglm. Joh. p 26) to be the earliest of all the Gospels. See also Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 331.]
[3 - McNeile, St Matthew, p. xxviii.]

Page 12

years '70 and 100' is about all that can be said[1]. In like manner with the Gospel which bears the name of Luke; it is held by not a few that 'the decade from A.D. 70 to A.D. 80 is the probable date[2],' or that there are grounds for preferring 'the intermediate date of A.D. 75-80[3].' Allowance must be made for some developement of Gospel literature, while, if the Third Evangelist had actually read Josephus[4], the first century would be nearing its end when he wrote.

The situation is precarious. It would appear that refuge must be taken in an 'either -- or.' If the terminus a quo does not lie within the decade A.D. 70-80, it cannot well be pushed back earlier than A.D. 95; and indeed ca. A.D. 95-100 might be nearer the mark.

Let us now cast about for such evidence as may go near, if not all the way, to suggest a date later than to which the composition of the Fourth Gospel cannot be referred.

An appeal, it may be, lies to the second Petrine Epistle; which, not by St Peter, is, according to a recent conjecture, a composite work wherein are embedded genuine Apostolic fragments[5]. Here attention is arrested by the statement 2 Pet. i, 14, it being, in any case, strongly reminiscent of Jn xxi, 18 ff.[6]; but the question may, of course, be of mere coincidence or of independent allusion to accomplished fact. Yet a possibility remains that an author who wrote ca. A.D. 160-175[7] was leaning on the Fourth Gospel.

The region for search now lies outside the Canon of the Testament.

[1 - J. Weiss, SNT, i, p. 230.]
[2 - Adeney, St Luke (CB), p. 32.]
[3 - Plummer, St Luke, p. xxxi.]
[4 - Burkitt, Gosp. Hist. pp. 105 ff.; Forbes, op. cit. p. 164.]
[5 - E. Iliff Robson, Studies in 2nd Ep. of St Peter.]
[6 - De Wette, Lehrbuch der histor.-krit. Einl. in die kanon. Bucher des N.T. p. 225. But see Schenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu, p. 250. Remarking on 1 Pet. i, 19; Jn i, 29, P. Ewald (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, p. 70) discovers 'Johanneische Materialien im ersten Petrusbriefe.']
[7 - So Harnack. With others the date ranges between A.D. 100 and A.D. 175. According to Hollman (SNT, ii, p. 574) 2nd Pet. is the latest of all the N.T. writings.]

Page 13

Passing reference may be made to the little sect nick-named by Epiphanius the Alogi. They will be heard of again; the point here is that ca. A.D. 175 -- 'or possibly ten years or so earlier' -- they testify to the existence of the Fourth Gospel, if in such a way as to show that its authority 'was as yet not firmly established[1].' The fact that they could assign its authorship to Cerinthus is perhaps significant of a work of by no means recent composition.

Are hints forthcoming from the so-called Second Epistle of Clement -- 'no letter but a homily' -- which, originating possibly at Rome or Corinth, is assigned to the period A.D. 120-140 or 150[2]? There is similarity of idea as to the Incarnation, with phraseology held to be at least suggestive of the Prologue (Jn i, 1 fi.) of the Fourth Gospel[3]. Yet dependence is not proved; and perhaps the facts of the case are fairly satisfied by the hypothesis that the 'pseudo-Clement had resort to a source fusing the forms found in Luke and Matthew' 'with such additions as made it correspond more completely to the notion of Christ's Gospel[4].'

To turn to the Shepherd of Hermas. The work of a single author who, it may be, spent five years and upwards in its composition, it seems to have made its appearance somewhere in the decade A.D. 130-140; turns and phrases are met with in it to which at first sight there appear to be definite parallels in the Johannine Gospel. A Johannine colouring may be admitted; but whether occasional coincidence or similarity of figure or expression be conclusive for direct literary connexion is doubtful; and, albeit four Gospels are perhaps symbolized by the 'bench with four feet' (Vis. iii, 13) and 'four ranks in the foundatioa of the tower' (Sim. ix, 4) of which Hermas tells, it does not follow that he is a witness to the Fourth Gospel itself.

The case is scarcely otherwise with, the remarkable work which, discovered

[1 - Stanton, op. cit. i, p. 210. The whole section dealing with the Alogi should be read. See also Loisy, op. cit. pp. 18 ff.]
[2 - RGG, i, col. 553.]
[3 - See Loisy, op. cit. p. 3.]
[4 - NTAF (Oxf. Soc. of Hist. Theology) p. 125. The reader is advised to consult this work; it is laid under contribution in regard to the writings now under consideration.]

Page 14

was published in 1883; the Didache, The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles. There is however, wide diversity of opinion in respect of date; and if it be a relatively late work[1], it ceases to be of value in the present search. Nor does the evidence forthcoming from it go for much; the figure of the vine (Did. ix, 2) is but slightly reminiscent of Jn xv, 1; 'the point of closest resemblance is that the Didache, like the Fourth Gospel, does not connect the spiritual food with the specific ideas of the institution' of the Eucharist.

Neither is there any sure guidance in the Epistle which, probably originating in Egypt, bears the name of Barnabas; for, whether of relatively early date or not—A.D. 100-140, or A.D. 70-100[2] -- the connecting links are few, and at most such as to suggest a phraseology not so much borrowed as already current coin.

Johannine resemblances are certainly met with in the Epistle addressed to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome, but they hardly prove dependence, and a probability must be reckoned with that, when Clement wrote, ca. A.D. 95 or 96, the Fourth Gospel had not yet come into existence[3].

We now question Justin Martyr[4]. In the crucial passage express mention is made by him of 'memoirs* compiled by Christ's Apostles and those who companioned with them[5]; and, although the hypothesis has been advanced[6] that, not without knowledge of the Canonical Gospels, Justin really used a single work, the reference is best accounted for by the supposition that the 'memoirs' were none other than the works which bear the names of the Apostles

[1 - Harnack places it bewteen A.D. 130 and A.D. 160; Knopf (RGG, i, col. 553) extends the limits from A.D. 90 to A.D. 150.]
[2 - RGG, i, col. 552.]
[3 - Calmes (op. cit. pp 49 ff.) argues for the dependence of Clem. Rom. on the Fourth Gospel.]
[4 - His birthplace Sychem and of Greek parentage, Justin (refusing to discard his philosopher's cloak) became a convert at the age of thirty, and gained rnown for his vigourous defense of Christianity against the pagans. He was beheaded at Rome about the year A.D. 165. His extant writings consist of two Apologies and a Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.]
[5 - Dial. 103:]
[6 - E.g. by Credner. See Stanton, op. cit. pp. 76 ff., on the whole question. Also Ezra Abbott, Fourth Gospel, pp. 16 ff.]

Page 15

Matthew and John and of the disciples of Apostles viz. Mark and Luke[1]. Justin's Christology is essentially Johannine; it is true that he nowhere expressly names the Fourth Gospel, but there is, in the eyes of many, amply sufficient evidence that it was not only known to him but actually used[2]. The assumption accordingly is that, by the year A.D. 161[3] at the very latest, our Gospel was already well known, while perhaps not as yet ranked with the Synoptics.

It may be that Justin both knew and used the docetic Gospel which, bearing the name of Peter[4], enjoyed popularity (ca. A.D. 200) at Rhossus in Cilicia and justly excited the suspicions of Serapion[5]. In it there appear to be points of contact[6] which suggest that the Fourth Gospel was known to, and very freely handled by, the docetist writer whose work, if really used by Justin, cannot be later than ca. A.D. 150, while it may stretch as far back as A.D. 130[7]. If such be really the case the heretical work would become a relatively early witness to the existence of our Gospel.

Whether our Gospel was actually known to Papias[8] is a moot point, and as his name will come up in another connexion, no appeal shall be made now to the Bishop of Hierapolis. Nor will it serve the immediate purpose to instance Polyearp[9]; he too will be referred to later on, and here it shall suffice to say that no conclusive proof of dependence is discovered in the Epistle addressed by him to the Philippians. Opinion differs in regard to Ignatius[10];

[1 - EB, i, col. 677. According to Lutzelberger (Die Kirchl. Tradition uber den Apos. Joh. p. 250) Justin's four Gospels were Mt., Mk, Lk. and Peter = Hebr.]
[2 - Loisy, op. cit. pp. 14 f.; Heitmuller, SNT, ii, p. 709. Otherwise Schwegler, Der Montanismus und die christl. Kirche, p. 184.]
[3 - So Stanton, and see Calmes, op. cit. p. 15 f.]
[4 - See Rendel Harris, Newly-recovered Gospel of Peter.]
[5 - Euseb. HE, vi, 12.]
[6 - Loisy, op. cit. p. 15 f.]
[7 - RGG, i, col. 547.]
[8 - Flourished ca. A.D. 70 (80)-140. W. Bauer (HBNT, II, ii, p. 5) regards it as probable that he knew our Gospel. Larfeld (Die beiden Johannes von Ephesus, p. 185) refuses to admit of any doubt. Heitmuller (SNT, ii, p. 709) wisely contents himself with a 'perhaps.' Schleiermacher (op. cit. p. 243) advanced grounds which made it clear to him that Papias did not know 'John.']
[9 - Bishop of Smyrna. The date of his martyrdom is placed by Eusebius (HE, iv. 15) ca. A.D. 166.]
[10 - Bishop of Antioch, martyred at Rome during the reign of Trajan. His genuine Epistles (Shorter Greek recension) are dated within the years A.D. 109-116. Harnack (Chron. i, p. 719) writes: '110-117; perhaps, but improbably, a few years later.']

Page 16

on the one hand it is urged that, in his Christology, he is dependent on 'John[1],' on the other hand flat negations come as a matter of course from quarters where the Gospel is relegated to a long subsequent date. More cautiously is it said that its use by the martyr, if highly probable, falls some way short of certainty, and prudence might be content to note features which are highly suggestive of 'the Johannine world of thought and phrase[2].'

But that the beautiful Epistle to Diognetus[3] is an unsolved riddle in respect of writer and addressee, of locality and date, it might be summoned as an earlier witness inasmuch as Johannine notes ring out in it, and, were we to take its accomplished author at his word ('a disciple of the Apostles'), the conclusion might follow that it was composed in the reign of Trajan. The possibility is, however, that it originated in a considerably later period[4].

The name of Heracleon, already instanced, now points us, if only for a moment, to his predecessors in those great movements of thought which, more or less tinged with Christian ideas, culminated in the 'boldest and grandest Syncretism the world had beheld[5]'; but, as the question of Gnosticism will be later, it may suffice to remark here that adequate ground is discovered for the belief that ca. A.D. 135 'John's' Gospel was highly esteemed by Basilides[6] and was well known to the Valentinians[7], if doubt arises in the case of the master himself[8].

[1 - Loisy, op. cit. p. 6. To the same effect Lightfoot, Zahn and others.]
[2 - Wendt, op. cit. pp. 176 f. Indications of the use of Ignatius do not seem to Stanton (op. cit. i, p. 19) 'to be altogether wanting, although they are not so full and clear as might have been expected.' Bardsley (JTS, xiv, pp. 207 f.) writes with greater confidence. On the other hand Schwegler (op. cit. p. 159) writes: 'die Verfasser der ignatian. Briefe tragen jene Lehre (sc. die Logoslehre) ohne, wie es scheint, das Johan. Evglm. zu kennen, bereits in ziemlich asgebildeter Gestalt vor.']
[3 - First printed by H. Stephens in 1592, the one then extant MS. perished at Strasburg in the Franco-German war. A transcript (made by Stephens) is preserved at Leyden.]
[4 - Bardenhewer prefers to think of the third century.]
[5 - Kurtz, Ch. Hist. i, p. 99.]
[6 - Basilides flourished ca. A.D. 117-138. About all that is known of him is that he taught at Alexandria, perhaps also at Antioch and in Persia. His teaching survives mainly in allusions by his opponents, e.g. Clem. Alex.; of his Exegetica but fragments are extant.]
[7 - See on the whole question Scott-Moncrieff, St John Apos. Evang. and Prophet, pp. 240 ff.; also Stanton, op. cit. i, pp. 64 ff. (Basilides), pp. 69, 205 (Valentinus).]
[8 - 'Ob der Meister der Schule es gekannt hat ist fraglich,' W. Bauer, HBNT, II, ii, p. 5.]

Page 17

At this point we will pause in our search; and content ourselves, for the time being, with setting down such provisional conclusions as appear to be suggested by an inquiry which has not stepped outside the field of external evidence.

First in respect of a terminus ad quem. The question is not altogether easy to decide; for, in the case of certain Apostolic fathers, coincidence of idea and phrase is not in itself proof of actual acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, while documents otherwise temptingly suggestive must be ruled out by reason of their obscure origination. This, at all events, appears certain; the extreme limit which points to the days of Irenaeus may be pushed back by several decades. The question then is: how much further back? An answer comes with the recognition that, albeit 'the first reliable traces of the existence of the Fourth Gospel are found in the Apology of Justin Martyr[1],' there is warrant for the assumption of its use 'in the circles of Valentinian Gnosis[2].'

The provisional terminus ad quem, accordingly, lies somewhere about the year A.D. 135.

Secondly. The question of the terminus a quo is encompassed with difficulty, in that it is contingent on the dating of the First and Third Gospels. It may, on the one hand, be discovered in the years ca. A.D. 75-80; on the other hand it may not be earlier than the close of the first century. At this stage no further word is possible.

In due course the Fourth Gospel will be itself questioned, and its approximate date more nearly determined from internal evidence presented by it, the tone and tenor of its contents. But it must be our first business to go into the question of its authorship in venerable tradition.

[1 - Heitmuller, SNT, ii, p. 709.]
[2 - Moffatt, op. cit. p. 581.]

[1 - Polidori, I Nostri Quattro Evangelii, p. 246. With the like confidence H. H. Evans (St John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 84, 99).]
[2 - Polidori's assertion points to internal as well as to external evidence.]
[3 - Cf. Wernle, Quellen, pp. 9, 11.]
[4 - Bishop of Caesarea, A.D. 314-340. The pupil and the friend of scholars he was himself possessed of extensive learning; and, a great traveller, he had frequent opportunities of converse with famous persons. He was well versed in the beliefs and opinions current in his age. His industry as a historian is conspicuous, if his style be somewhat prosaic and there be lack of system in the arrangement of his matter.]

Page 19

he who, returning from his island-exile, governed the Churches in Asia, and continued to reside in Ephesus until the days of Trajan, was John, Apostle and Evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved[1]. Discoursing on the order of the Gospels[2], he starts off with an allusion to the undisputed writings of the same Apostle[3]; of these, says he, the Gospel, so well known in all the Churches under heaven, must be acknowledged at the first; then, explaining why John's Gospel stands last in order of sequence, he treats of those previously published by Matthew, Mark and Luke. What follows from him is to the following effect: John, they say, having all his time preached but not using his pen, in the end set himself to write. The occasion was this: on the three earlier Gospels being handed to him, he, they say, admitted them and testified to their truth, albeit they were therein defective that the earlier stages of the ministry were absent from their accounts. Such, says Eusebius, was the fact; and, the omissions being specified by him, he thus proceeds: for these reasons, the Apostle John, they say, being entreated to undertake the task, wrote an account of the period not touched on by the other Evangelists and of doings of the Saviour which they had omitted to record. With dismissal of arguments advanced by some that the Gospels were at variance, and with some remarks on John's additions and John's silence on the genealogy of the Lord, Euesbius adds: thus much about the Gospel according to John.

Such, in substance, is the testimony of the Bishop of Caesarea. Two things may be inferred from it; to begin with, he himself is fully persuaded that, however the case might stand with the two smaller Epistles and the Apocalypse, the author of the Fourth Gospel (and of the Epistle) is John the Apostle and Beloved Disciple. And next: the reiterated 'they say' is significant of dependence;

[1 - HE, iii, 23.]
[2 - Ibid. iii, 24.]
[3 - The Gospel and the First Epistle. Eusebius adds that the two smaller Epistles were in dispute, and that with regard to the Apocalypse there was difference of opinion.]

Page 20

the inference here is that Eusebius, having consulted such authorities as were at his command, finds a strong consensus of opinion to warrant his belief[1].

Eusebius was, no doubt, abreast of his times and indefatigable in research[2]. He records what, to the best of his judgement, was ascertained fact; yet his critical judgement might be at fault, for, however conscientious and painstaking he might be, his methods and his tests were, after all, those of his own day, and a wide gulf lies between him and historians of the modern world. Accordingly it cannot be allowed off-hand that the traditional authorship of the Gospel is finally established by what he set down in all good faith.

As for Origen[3], his belief was to the like effect. In the first of the many books of his great commentary on our Gospel, he places it last in order of sequence; in the fifth book he writes: What must be said of him, John, who reclined on Jesus' breast? He who has left one Gospel, with the avowal that he could write far more than the world itself could contain[4]. By 'John' Origen certainly means the Apostle John; and we may note in passing that he refers both the Gospel and the Apocalypse to the same pen.

It will be observed that Eusebius appeals to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria[5]; and to Irenaeus and, if with some delay, to Clement, inquiry shall now turn.

Irenaeus. What this Father says about the Gospels is, in substance, this: Matthew produced his Gospel among the Hebrews, and in their dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and

[1 - 'An individual might make a mistake about the authorship of a book, but could a whole community?' Mackay, A Reasonable Faith, p. 106. Yet beliefs do grow up on a very slight basis of fact, not to say without any basis at all.]
[2 - Eusebius 'las grundlich'; Harnack, Chron. i, p. 657. Cf. Schwartz, Uber den Tod der Sohne Zeb. p. 22.]
[3 - Origen (A.D. 185-254) was born at Alexandria. The pupil of Clement, he had visited Rome; he laboured in Arabia; some years were spent by him at Antioch; when on the way to Greece he passed through Palestine. A profound thinker, his literary activity was vast; and Raven's panegyric (op. cit. pp. 74 f.) is richly deserved by one who, in the eyes of pagans and Christians, was 'a miracle of scholarship.']
[4 - Euseb. HE, vi, 25. Cf. Jn xxi, 25.]
[5 - HE, iii, 23.]

Page 21

laying the foundations of the Church in Rome. They being deceased, Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing things which Peter had preached. Luke, Paul's companion, set forth in his book the Gospel as it had been proclaimed by Paul. Thereafter John, the disciple of the Lord, who lay on his breast, he too gave forth the Gospel while he yet abode at Bphesus in Asia[1]. And again: And all the elders, they of Asia who had conferred with John the disciple of the Lord, bear witness that (their tradition) had been delivered to them by John, for he remained on with them until the days of Trajan[2]. And again, writing to Florinus[3], Irenaeus goes back to the days of his own boyhood as one who has better remembrance of events belonging to the past than of those of recent times ; I can tell, says he, the very place where sat and taught blessed Polycarp[4], and how Polycarp spoke of intercourse had by him with John, and of what he had heard from others who had seen the Lord.

For Irenaeus, it will be remembered, the Fourth Gospel, like its three companions, was Holy Scripture. It was assigned by him to the Apostle John; and that in the first of the above citations, as elsewhere, he is really alluding to the son of Zebedee is not open to doubt and is indeed generally admitted[5]. This John, it will be remarked further, is identified by Irenaeus with the Beloved Disciple; yet what he does not do is expressly to designate him the Apostle.

Leaving Irenaetis for the moment, but not as yet turning to Clement, we will pause here for some allusion to the Alogi, to the Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel, and to the Muratorian Canon.

It has been said already that the Fourth Gospel was attributed to the heretic Cerinthus by the little sect or coterie to which Epiphanius gave the nick-name of Alogi. Let us remark now that,

[1 - Euseb. HE, v, 8.]
[2 - Ibid. iii, 23.]
[3 - In his Epistle περι μοναρχιασ. Euseb. v, 20. Florinus was a Roman presbyter. The genuineness of this Epistle is disputed by Scholten, Der Apos. Joh. in Kleinasien (from the Dutch, by Spiegel), p. 68.]
[4 - Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was martyred ca. A.D. 166 in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.]
[5 - See Harnack, Chron. i, p. 657; Scholten, op. cit. p. 42; Julicher, Einl. p. 362; Stanton, op. cit. i, p. 213; Loisy, op. cit. p. 25; Gutjahr, Glaubwurdigkeit, p. 3.]

Page 22

belonging to the period in which Irenaeus flourished, their theory of the origination of the Fourth Gospel was controverted by Irenaeus himself; yet further, that the home of the Alogi was in Asia Minor. The strange thing, then is that they could flatly deny its Apostolic authorship in the very region to which its authorship was assigned; and the question necessarily arises whether any conclusive proof that its author was none other than the Apostle John could have been actually at hand at the time[1].

Leaving the Alogi, we turn to the Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel. Together with its companion Prologues it has been assigned to the first third of the third century, and, revealing features characteristic of the Monarchian tendency[2], it is less concerned with the contents than with the alleged author of our Gospel. Therein it is stated: John the Evangelist, one of the disciples of God, by God chosen to be Virgin . . . he wrote this Gospel in Asia, after he had written the Apocalypse in the Isle of Patmos. The romantic story follows which tells how, knowing that the time of his departure was at hand, John gathered his Ephesian diseiplea round him and descended into his tomb. The point to observe is that, referred to as Evangelist and Disciple, he is not expresses designated the Apostle John.

Again passing on, we take next the Muratorian Canon[3]. A mere fragment, with nothing in it which exactly determines its date, locality or authorship, written in barbarous Latin and evidently a version from a Greek original, it is held to have originated in the WEst, perhaps at Rome, towards the close of the second century, or, it may be, a few years later[4]. The opening sentences evidently referred to Mark; a statement is made as to Luke; the fourth place is given to John's Gospel and there is an account of the circumstances in which it was composed: 'At the entreaties of his fellow

[1 - The point has been raised by Loisy, op. cit. p. 21. 'The Alogi would scarcely have ventured on such a denial of Joh. authorship in the face of a fixed and certain tradition,' Forbes, op. cit. p. 168.]
[2 - On the Monarchian Prologues, see Corssen, TU. xv. p. 1.]
[3 - First published 1740 by Muratori, Librarian at Milan; hence its name. For the text see Lietzmann, Kleine Texte, i.]
[4 - EB, i, col. 679; Westcott, Canon of N.T. pp. 190 f. The passage as cited is from Westcott's translation.]

Page 23

disciples and his bishops, John, one of the disciples, said: Fast with me for three days from this time, and whatsoever shall be revealed to each of us (whether it be favourable to my writing or not) let us relate it to one another. On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should relate all things in his own name, aided by the revision of all. . . . What wonder is it then that John so constantly brings forward Gospel-phrases even in his Epistles, saying in his own person, what we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things have we written? For so he professes that he was not only an eye-witness, but also a hearer, and moreover a historian of all the wonderful works of the Lord.' So runs the legendary tale which is perhaps itself based on some more highly elaborated romance[1]; what, to all appearance, does it suggest? It might be said, in the first place, that, albeit placed last in order of sequence, John's Gospel is apparently referred to a period earlier than the Synoptics. John, it might be said next, is differentiated, as a disciple, from certain Apostles of whom Andrew is one. The inference, again, is that his Gospel is not exclusively his own independent work. A further conjecture might be that the locality of composition is transferred from Ephesus to Palestine. Speaking generally, an impression is conveyed that accurate knowledge relative to the origination of the Fourth Gospel was not available for the Church at Rome.

The points thus far raised being each one borne in mind, our attention is now claimed by Clement of Alexandria[2].

In one of Clement's works some account is given by him of all the Canonical Scriptures; and the tradition as to the order of the Gospels which, derived by him from primitive elders, he hands down is to the following effect: those which contain the genealogies

[1 - Corssen, op. cit. p. 103. Calmes (op. cit. p. 36, note) writes: 'Le fragment de Murat. depend des Acta Petri. Or ce dernier livre parait etre du meme auteur que les Acta Jo.' And see Scholten, op. cit. p. 82.]
[2 - The date of Clement's birth is uncertain; his death took place ca. A.D. 200, and accordingly he would be very nearly contemporary with Irenaeus. In earlier life a learned pagan philosopher, he had travelled widely in the pursuit of knowledge. Becoming a convert at Alexandria, all his energies were thereafter devoted to the promotion, both by discourse and writing, of the Church's cause.]

Page 24

(viz. Mt. and Lk.) were written first; Mark, at the request of many who had heard Peter at Rome, composed his Gospel, Peter neither encouraging nor hindering him; John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference to corporeal things (τα σωματικα) in the Gospel of our Saviour was sufficiently related, encouraged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual (πνευματικον) Gospel[1].

So, then, the Marcan Gospel (as at that day was to be expected) is not prior to Mt. and Lk. in the eyes of Clement. In disagreement with Irenaeus, he refers it to a date at which Peter was still alive. By his manner of allusion to the Fourth Gospel it is plain that he himself realizes a contrast between it and the Synoptics; and this, perhaps, reminds us of the animadversions of Eusebius on certairn men who held that the Gospels were at variance as between themselves. He is content to call its author John. For his own knowledge as to its origination he is evidently dependent on tradition; and then the question arises: who were the elders (ανεκαθεν πρεσβυτερων) of the allusion, and to what locality did they belong? And again, what were the sources of their information?

Unquestionably the opinions of such a man as Clement must be treated with respect. They were based on what, for him, was sufficient evidence; yet here again it is necessary to remember that his methods of criticism were those of his own period. That he means the Apostle John may be freely admitted; a possibility remains that, having ascertained that the Fourth Gospel originated with a John, his own thoughts turned instinctively to John the Apostle and son of Zebedee.

To revert to Irenaeas; and, with him, to Polycarp: is it altogether fair to class them with 'pioous but stupid Churchmen of the second century[3]'?

Whatever the illumination of former as theologian, he was in any case a man of mark; he had been a great traveller, important missions had been entrusted to him; as Bishop of Lyons he

[1 - Euseb. HE, vi, 14. 'Eine Einseitigkeit der alexandr. Anschauungsweise,' Lange, Das Evglm. Joh. p. 25.]
[2 - The Greek term (πρεσβυτερος) does not necessarily connote ecclesiastical office but might also be suggetsive of advanced years.]
[3 - Raven, op. cit. p. 64.]

Page 25

occupied a prominent post. In his judgement the author of John's Gospel is the Apostle John; how, then, has he arrived at the belief? It surely cannot be a case of mere conjecture[1]. Whatever the exact extent of his intimacy with Polycarp in the days of his youth, his memory can scarcely have altogether failed him when he told of the very place where Polycarp had sat and held discourse with John; it is not likely that Polycarp was his one and only authority. The hypothesis is preferable that other sources were at his disposal[2]; and that he subjected them to such tests as, with the limitations of the times, he was competent to apply. The fact nevertheless remains that the decisive word Apostle is missing from the testimony of Irenaeus. As for Polycarp, there is no sufficient reason to distrust Irenaeus's statement relative to the intimacy of the former with a John and with others who had seen the Lord. What the Bishop of Lyons evidently cannot say is that Polycarp, on being asked whether the John he had known was really the son of Zebedee, Apostle, Beloved Disciple, Evangelist, had emphatically answered in the affirmative[3].

The situation is not otherwise in the case of Polycrates[4]. Of the two extant fragments of his writings one is a letter addressed by him, towards the close of the second century, to Victor, Bishop of Rome. In it there stands as follows: In Asia also mighty elements of the Church (μεγαλα στοιχεια) have fallen asleep. . . . Philip of the twelve Apostles at Hierapolis and his two aged virgin daughters, another of his daughters . . . at Ephesus. Moreover John, he that reclined in the bosom of the Lord, who as priest wore the sacred plate (το πεταλον), martyr (μαρτυς) and teacher, he too fell asleep at Ephesus.

Whether there be confusion between Philip the Evangelist and the Apostle Philip[5] is disallowed by some[6]; but on the perhaps safe assumption that there is, it might appear to be that the John named

[1 - Wernle, Quellen, p. 10; Harnack, Chron. i, p. 657.]
[2 - Cf. Drummond, op. cit. p. 348; Gutjahr, op. cit. p. 14.]
[3 - Julicher, op. cit. p. 364.]
[4 - Bishop of Ephesus. He flourished about the same time as Irenaeus. As the leader of the Bishops of Asia Minor he played a prominent part (ca. A.D. 190) in the Paschal controversy.]
[5 - Euseb. HE, iii, 31.]
[6 - Cf Scott-Moncrieff, op. cit. p. 193.]

Page 26

is outside the number of the twelve. That Polycrates, acquainted, probably, with the Fourth Gospel, is himself evidently persuaded that the John who slept at Ephesus was the son of Zebedee may be conceded; why his allusion to the golden High-priestly frontlet[1]? Why the term used which might suggest a martyr-death[2]? The main point is the non-use, by Polycrates, of the decisive words Apostle and Evangelist.

We will pause here, and gather up the threads. In the preceding chapter the latest possible date of the Fourth Gospel was pushed back to a relatively early period; what now appears is that, before long time had elapsed, it was generally, not universally, regarded as the work of one who, albeit not thus expressly designated, was nevertheless so alluded to as to indicate his identification with the Apostle John. And further, the opinion seems to have been widespread that his home was in Asia Minor. Once more, it is true that in one instance a term which might imply actual martyrdom is used of him; otherwise his peaceful death at Ephesus was generally assumed. That 'direct and express ascription (of the Fourth Gospel) to the Apostle begins (ca. A.D. 181) with Theophilus of Antioch[3]' is, no doubt, quite true, only then the question arises; was such ascription justified by fact? Must it, on the other hand, be said that all that connects the Apostle with the Gospel 'runs out rapidly in mere legend[4]'?

Whatever be the case, the situation is complicated as a John other than the Apostle John appears on the scene.

This brings us to Papias[5]. Of the work in five books penned by

[1 - 'Wie unkritisch Polykrates in diesem Brief zu Werke ging, ergisbt ich daraus, dass er Johannes als den Hohenpriester mit dem petalon geziert darstellt und hiermit eine in seiner Zeit bereits bestehende Gewohnheit die hohepriesterliche Wurde auf den christlichn Bischof zu ubertragen unchronologisch in die apostolische Zeit einfuhrt,' Scholten, op. cit. p. 74.]
[2 - μαρτυς, a witness. The term could also mean martyr.]
[3 - Sanday, cited by Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 90; Scott-Moncrieff, op. cit. p. 199. In his Ad Autolycum Theophilus speaks of John as an inspired man. It would appear that the first to attribute literary activity to John the Apostle was Justin Martyr (Dial 83), yet in respect of the Apocalypse only, and by implication Justin locates its author in Asia Minor. See Loisy, op. cit., p. 14.]
[4 - Bacon, op. cit. p. 91.]
[5 - The story of his martyrdom at Pergumas seems to have arisen from a confusion of names and may be disregarded.]

Page 27

him, probably late in life, fragments only remain; the crucial passage runs thus: But if anywhere anyone also should come who had companied with the elders I ascertained (first of all) the sayings of the elders ('as to this,' not 'to wit') what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord (had said), and (secondly) what Aristion and John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I supposed that the things (to be derived) from books were not of such profit to me as the things (derived) from the living and abiding voice[1].

Quite properly Eusebius observes that the name of John occurs twice. That by the John first named Papias means the Apostle John is obvious, for he ranks him with other Apostles; as for the second John, he is, to all appearance, sharply differentiated from the former John; not only is he not classed with Apostles but he is expressly designated John the Elder[2]. If, in like manner as the Apostle John, he is spoken of as a disciple of the Lord, it is a distinction which Aristion shares with him; yet he is also differentiated from the latter by a term highly suggestive that, not simply advanced in years, he is a personage of importance. If so, where? An answer might come from Eusebius, who, for reasons of his own, is not unprepared to believe in the story of the two Johns in Asia and of the two tombs at Ephesus[3]. The question thenis : was he

[1 - Euseb. HE, iii, 39. As translated EB, ii, col. 2507. The Greek runs as follows: Ει δε που και παρηκολουθηκως τισ τοις πρεσβυτεροις ελθοι, τους των πρεσβυτερων ανακρινον λογους, τι Ανδρεας η τι Πετρος ειπεν η τι Φιλιππος η τι Θωμας η Ιακωβος η τι Ιωαννης η Ματθαιος η τις ετερος των του κυριου μαθητων (ειπεν), α τε Αριστιων και ο πρεσβυτερος Ιωαννης (οι) του κυριου μαθηται λεγουσιν.]
[2 - Robson (JTS, xiv, p. 440) gets rid of one John by reading: . . . η η Ιακωβου η Ιωαννα η . . . and remarks: 'a natural and proper pair (Lk. xxiv, 10) to whom enquirers after authentic records would always resort.' The emendation is ingenious but quite unconvincing. For Mr Robson's identification of Aristion with the Beloved Disciple see Excursus II. Krenkel (Der Apostel Johannes, p. 142), identifying John the Presbyter with the Apostle John, discoveres John Mark in the John first named by Papias. Yet another emendation is offered by Larfeld (Die beiden Johannes von Ephesus, p. 184), who, reading του Ιωαννου μαθηται instead of του κυριου μαθηται, insists that Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of the Apostle John.]
[3 - Euseb. HE, iii, 39; vii, 25.]

Page 28

still alive (and Aristion also) when Papias made his inquiries, and did Papias actually hold speech with him? Here the change of tense is probably decisive; what Andrew and others 'had said,' what Aristion and John the Elder 'say[1]'; and besides, Papias himself alleges his own decided preference for the living voice. It accordingly appears that, as a young man, he had not only seen but conversed with this second John who, brought by him on the scene, is not the Apostle John but John the Elder. And it is just here that Irenaeus is caught tripping; for, himself meaning the Apostle, he refers to the Bishop of Hierapolis as hearer of John as well as associate of Polycarp. Not so, says Eusebius, correcting the mistake; Papias by no means asserts that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but relates how he. had received the doctrines of faith from such as were of the number of their friends[2].

It might, then, be inferred that he with whom both Papias and Polycarp held converse in their early manhood was not the son of Zebedee, but an aged disciple of the Lord who was in repute in the Churches of Asia as John the Elder. Yet is the further assumption warranted that, besides this John the Elder, whoever he might be, there had also been resident in Asia Minor and at Ephesus another John; he who was an Apostle and one of the Twelve[3]?

While the story of the two tombs at Ephesus, if not purely legendary, is at the most suggestive of a claim asserted by each to be the place of sepulture of a renowned personage[4], there are other grounds for hesitating to answer in the affirmative. They are

[1 - The 'say' has been held (α) to be a historical present introduced for the sake of variety, or (β) understood of what men who have passed away still 'say' in books, or (γ) of utterances actually heard and fresh in the mind. The last explanation is adopted above.]
[2 - Euseb. HE, iii, 39.]
[3 - Silanus the Christian, p. 306. And see Calmes, op. cit. p. 24. Larfeld (op. cit. p. 185) wirtes: 'Die Amtsbezeichnunh πρεσβυτερος ist nach altrchristl. Gebrauch auch auf den Apos. Joh. (ο πρεσβυτερος κατ εξοχην) auszudehnen.' And thus Hennell (An Inquiry concerning the origin of Christianity, p. 104): 'the name "elder" was very commonly given to the heads of the Church (1 Pet. v, 1), and might be assumed by John the Apostle.']
[4 - Erbes, ZKG, xxxiii, ii, p. 162.]

Page 29

separately discussed elsewhere[1], and it will suffice if, at this point, they be specified in few words. And first, it is clear that a John located in Asia Minor is identified in tradition with the Beloved Disciple who figures in the pages of the Fourth Gospel. The assumption being that the latter is a real personage, there is, to say the least, very grave difficulty in identifying him with the Apostle John. In the second place, it is not any longer possible to use the word 'universal' of the tradition which brings John son of Zebedee to Ephesus to die a natural death in extreme old age. Another stream of tradition must be reckoned with; and with the result that ample room must be made for the probability that, never quitting Palestine, he suffered martyrdom, and thereby completely fulfilled the recorded (Mk x, 39) prediction to himself and his brother James.

'The tradition of Asia Minor,' it has been said, 'knows but one John only, who accordingly must be either the Apostle or the Elder[2]'; and it is, no doubt, true that for the ancients, the residence of John son of Zebedee in Asia Minor appears to have been an 'uncontested historical fact[3],' Not necessarily will it be accounted fact by the modern student. As he reviews the situation he will perhaps be led to agree that the question really is of two traditions, which, by the end of the third century, had been combined in the assertion that two Johns had resided at Ephesus, the one being the Apostle and the other the Elder[4], He may go a step further; with an admission that the earlier and more trustworthy tradition, if decisive for some aged disciple who had companied with Jesus, is not by any means decisive for the Apostle John. And, although arguments from silence are precarious, he will pay added heed to the fact that in respect of the latter Ignatius has no single word to say[5].

But to bring this chapter to a close. The allusion being to the external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it has been remarked of it that it constitutes 'that portion of the field in which conservative theology has hitherto believed

[1 - See Excursus I and II.]
[2 - von Dobschutz, LZ, Nrs. 52-53, col. 1779.]
[3 - Schanz, Evang. d. h. Joh. p. 2.]
[4 - von Soden, Early Christ. Liter. p. 429.]
[5 - See Excursus I.]

Page 30

itself to have gained its securest successes[1]'; and a case very much in point is the confident appeal made to such evidence by the staunch upholder of the traditional authorship[2] with whose verdict this chapter began. Whether the successes so claimed are indubitable is quite another question; and we must admit that neither for the residence of the Apostle John in Asia nor yet for his authorship of the Gospel called by his name is the external evidence of such a nature as to banish doubt[3]. On the contrary, it is highly probable that, when the field of internal evidence has been explored, we shall rather agree that were anyone, knowing nothing of the traditional belief, to peruse our Gospel, it would scarcely occur to him to seek for its author among the immediate disciples of Jesus[4].

[1 - EB, ii, col. 2545.]
[2] Polidori. De Wette (op. cit. ii, p. 223), with allusion to the external evidence, gave it as his opinion that 'in dieser Hinsicht steht unser Evglm. nicht schlimmer, ja besser, als die drei ersten und als die paulinischen Schriften.' 'The external evidence,' says Evans (op. cit. p. 84), 'is wholly in favour of St John's authorship.']
[3 - It must be said with Cohu (The Gospels and Modern Research, p. 412) that 'the external evidence . . . is utterly inconclusive as to its (sc. the Fourth Gospel's) Apostolic authorship.']
[4 - Heitmuller, SNT, ii, p. 707. And see Contentio Veritatis, pp. 223 f.]

[1 - Harnack, Chron. 1, p. 677.]
[2 - According to Schmiedel (Evang. Briefe u. Offenb. des Joh. p. 7) the confusion arose -- as in the case of Philip and Hierapolis -- from claims advanced by the Church of Ephesus to have had an Apostle as its founder. Forbes (op. cit. p. 173) aptly remarks: 'Ephesus did not become a famous religious centre of apostolic renown, like Rome and Jerusalem, as would naturally have been the result in case an apostle from the Twelve had long resided there.']
[3 - Albeit the allusion is specifically to Polycrates, von Soden's pointed remark (Early Christ. Liter. p. 427) applies generally: 'Though so many titles of honour are . . . heaped upon this John, that of Apostle, the highest of all in those days, is not among them.']

Page 32

The present chapter shall accordingly be divided into two main sections.

(i) Direct Evidence

We will remark at the outset that the question of the 'self-testimony' of our Gospel is approached, regarded and decided in ways which illustrate a wide diversity of view on the part of scholars. On the one hand it is resolutely maintained that 'the Fourth Gospel claims to be the work of an eye-witness of the life of Jesus'; that he who speaks in xix, 35 'can be none other than the Evangelist himself,' who, 'throughout constant in declining the use of an "I,"' vouches, as eye-witness, for the truth of what he relates, and gives it to be understood that his place was very near to Jesus; the disciple whom Jesus loved, he is identified with the nameless disciple of i, 37 ff., and with him who, acquainted, xviii, 15, with the High Priest, follows Jesus to the High Priest's Palace; it is said expressly of him, xxi, 24, that he penned the Gospel; as he is ever and again coupled with Peter, it is natural to look for him in the little group of intimates told of in the Synoptics; in the last analysis he is John the Apostle and son of Zebedee[1]. On the other hand it is contended that the Gospel's 'self -testimony' is exceedingly strange: the 'we beheld his glory' of the Prologue, i, 14, invites inquiry as to who it is that speaks; as with the other Gospels so here, the manner is objective and anonymous; with ch. xiii mysterious personage is brought on the scene who, thenceforth eclipsing Peter, is ever to the front; unlike Peter and the rest, he is steadfast at the Cross, and vouches for the reality of the death of Jesus; the meaning of xix, 35, is that he is the authority on whom the tradition of the Fourth Gospel rests; in the appears it appears that the question really is of two traditions, and that the one which points to this Beloved Disciple is to be deemed equal, if not superior, to that which is referred to Peter. It is irged further that the 'self-testimony' becomes utterly complicated

[1 - So, generally, Barth; Das Johannesevglm. pp. 5 ff. Cludius (Uransichten des Christenthums, p. 51) allowed that the rank of eye-witness is claimed by the Evangelist. Westcott (St John, pp. v-xxi), gradually narrowing down the choice, is decisive for the Apostle John. In like manner Cohu, op. cit. p. 419, note.]

Page 33

when, xxi, 24, the authority of the unnamed Beloved Disciple is confirmed by men who, writing in the first person, are themselves unknown -- as if, forsooth, such testimony would be needed in the case of an actual Apostolic witness. The 'self-testimony' of the Gospel, it is added, raises more riddles than it solves; and, far from establishing the authenticity of the work, it arouses suspicion which merges in doubt[1].

The situation is probably more complex than is suggested in the former quarter. Nor is there over-statement, in the second quarter, of what are certainly curious phenomena. Not only does 'the author (of the Gospel) nowhere give his name,' but the fact that 'he designates himself in mysterious hints[2]' enhances our perplexity.

But let our inquiry begin with the Prologue[3] of the Gospel. In two places the first person plural is met with; and it is perhaps safe to infer that, inasmuch as the 'we' of v. 16 is accompanied by an 'all' (`ημεις παντες) the allusion there is to believers generally, whether eye-witnesses or not[4]. The case is somewhat different with v. 14; the question there is whether the 'we beheld' (εθεασαμεθα) implies physical sight or spiritual perception; and if the former alternative be adopted[5] the allusion is naturally to persons who had actually seen Jesus. That granted, it certainly appears that the Evangelist expressly lays claim to be such an one himself;

[1 - Thus, in outline, Wernle, Quellen. pp. 12 ff.]
[2 - Weizsäcker, Apos. Age, ii, p. 207. 'Aller Streit wäre geschlichtet, wenn der Verfasser sich in seinem Evglm. selbst nennte. Aber er thut es nicht.' So Lücke, Comment. über das Evglm. des Joh. i, p. 85. And thus A. R. Loman (Het Evan. van Joh. naar Oorsprong, Bestemming en Gebruik in de Oudheid, p. 17: 'Nergens zegt de auteur, of dat hij een der Apostelen is, of dat hij Johannes heet.']
[3 - Jn i, 1-18.]
[4 - 'Die ganze Christenheit,' Hengstenberg, Das Evglm. des heil. Joh. iii, pp. 396 f. O. Holtzmann (Das Johannesevglm. p. 198) writes: 'Die Gemeinde der Gotteskinder.']
[5 - 'The original word in the N.T. is never used of mental vision,' Westcott, op. cit. p. xxv. to the same effect Sanday, op. cit. pp. 76 f. And thus Loisy, op. cit. p. 187: 'L'Évangeliste parle comme un temoin oculaire de la vie de Jésus.' The second alternative is preferred by int. al. W. Bauer, HBNT, II, ii, p. 15. And see Heitmüller, SNT, ii, pp. 733 f.; who comments at length on the phrase την δοξαν αυτου.]

Page 34

'by his use of the first person plural he associates himself with other eye-witnesses of Jesus' appearance on earth[1].' It does not follow that he claims to be one of the Twelve; neither, we will add, is the fact established that he had actually been an eye-witness. On the contrary, he may have had resort to literary sanctions of the age of which more hereafter.

Whether he be the nameless disciple of i, 37 ff. or not, the Beloved Disciple stands full in view from xiii onwards; and inasmuch as he is found, xix, 26, at the Cross of Jesus, his presence is generally suspected in the crux of commentators, xix, 35: 'And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true (αληθινη) and he (εκεινος) knoweth that he saith true (αληθη, things that are true), that ye also may believe.'

Is it really he, the Beloved Disciple, eye-witness, Evangelist, who speaks in the perplexing verse? A very natural inference would be that it comes from another and a later hand; from the pen of certain unknown personages who, for whatever reasons, are constrained to add their testimony to the credibility both of the narrator and of his report[2]? If he it really be, is he pointing to himself? If so, the method adopted by him is peculiar; if he means thereby to indicate his authorship he does so in strange fashion. Still more singular is it that, if he be thus mysteriously alluding to himself as both eye-witness and Evangelist, he, to all appearance, makes appeal for support to some third person whose identity is also veiled: 'He that hath seen hath borne witness (sc. the Evangelist), and his witness is true'; it is vouched by another authority: 'and that one (εκεινος) knoweth that he (sc. the Evangelist) saith things that are true.' And besides, questions are invited by the sentence with which the ambiguous verse ends: 'that ye also may believe.' Who are the 'ye'? Had need arisen to combat incredulity,

[1 - Wendt, op. cit. p. 207. Cf. 1 Jn i, 1 ff. Zahn (Einl. ii, p. 467) writes: 'Turning to the Prologue we at once come across, not indeed an "I," but a thrice repeated "we" which includes an "I," the "I" of the author.']
[2 - This raises the question, to be discussed later on, of the homogeneity or otherwise of the Fourth Gospel. It may be remarked here that the 'blood and water' of the preceding verse xix, 34, whatever the occurence, are, in this connexion, held to be symbolic of the Supper of the Lord and Baptism. Otherwise Kreyenbül, Das Evglm. der Wahrheit, ii, p. 663.]

Page 35

credulity, or to assert the authority of a Gospel which had not yet attained to general acceptance?

Taking the verse as it stands, it is not unreasonable to say of it that the intention is to place the reader in the presence of the Evangelist[1]. As for the puzzling allusion (εκεινος), opinions differ; upon the one hand it is affirmed that the term can be used by a speaker of himself and is often so used in this very Gospel[2]; the case is said to be one in which 'the author is simply turning back upon himself and protesting his own veracity[3].' On the other hand a third person is discovered; yet here again opinions differ as to who he is, and conjecture has turned from any human guarantor to dwell on the risen and ascended Lord[4]. But however this may be, the author of the Gospel apparently figures in the verse; and, if so, the choice lies between two alternatives; either he is thus pointed to by others, or he adopts an oblique way of indicating himself. In the latter ease he claims to be an eye-witness; and, should he be but the secondary historian, he must be judged, not by modern standards, but by the literary sanctions of his own period.

A third perplexing passage now demands attention. By common consent ch. xxi is an Appendix[5]; whether vv. 1-23 come from the same pen as do the preceding chapters or not, there is no room for doubt that the two final verses (24, 25) are the addition of a later hand. Taken in connexion with vv. 1-23 they amount to an 'express assurance[6]' that 'the disciple which beareth witness of

[1 - Who, according to Wellhausen (Das. Evgm. Joh. p. 89), distinguishes himself from the eye-witness to whom he appeals and who is the Beloved Disciple.]
[2 - A case in point is Jn ix, 37. Westcott, op. cit. p. xxv. And see Steitz, Über den Gebrauch des Pronom. εκεινος im vierten Evglm. See also Kreyenbühl, op. cit. i, p. 168: 'aus dem gesagten ergiebt sich . . . dass der Verfasser sich selber εκεινος nennen könne.']
[3 - Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 78.]
[4 - Sanday, ibid.; Zahn, op. cit. ii, pp. 474 f.; W. Bauer, HBNT, II, ii, p. 177. See E. A. Abbott, Joh. Grammar, pp. 284 f.]
[5 - With Jn xx, 30 f. a perfectly adequate conclusion is reached by the Gospel.]
[6 - Wendt, op. cit. p. 213. The 'express assurance,' according to Hausleiter (Zwei Apos. Zeugen), of Andrew and Philip, who, on his theory, are the joint authors of Jn xxi.]

Page 36

these things and wrote these things[1]' was the disciple whom Jesus loved. Those who say so add: 'and we know (οιδαμεν) that his witness is true.' Then comes a change from the plural to the singular: were the 'many other things which Jesus did' to be 'written every one, I suppose (οιμαι) that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.' Thereupon the Appendix chapter reaches its abrupt close.

The second of the two verses is, as we have seen, explicitly referred by Origen to the Apostle John; and in any case one might naturally infer that the 'I' who speaks in it is, or claims to be, himself of the number of the eye-witnesses, for the manner of the allusion is such as to suggest personal knowledge rather than second-hand information. But his identity shall be left the enigma that it is[2]; the immediate question being far more nearly connected with the emphatic declaration of the preceding verse. Who are the speakers in it? Is it certain who the person is to whom they refer? How comes it that they are in a position to substantiate the accuracy of the narrative which they so positively assign to his pen? Why, again, is it that, on the assumption that they deem him no second-hand reporter but an eye-witness, both he and his Gospel should require their guarantee? It has indeed been suggested that their declaration in no way turns on the authorship of the Gospel but is concerned solely with the truth of the Gospel-contents[3], yet the suggestion is hard to accept. To all appearance a three-fold assertion is contained in the verse; -- the disciple referred to is a still living witness[4]; he is author of a work which has reached its conclusion in the verse antecedent to the statement; the 'we,' qualified to bear testimony, are themselves eye-witnesses.

[1 - Calmes (op. cit. p. 34) writes: 'selon nous, les mots και `ο γραψας ταυτα doivent s'entendre, non de tout l'Évangile, mais seulement des versets qui précèdent, où il est question de l'immortalité eventuelle du disciple bien-aimé.']
[2 - Holtzmann (HCNT, iv, p. 230), remarking on the non-Johannine word οιμαι, speaks of Apologetics led astray to think of Papias.]
[3 - Baldensperger, Prolog. p. 110.]
[4 - Or, being dead, speaks in his book. 'L'emploi du présent ne prouve pas que le disciple vive encore; il rend temoignage actuellement par son livre,' Loisy, op. cit. p. 949.]

Page 37

Who are the 'we'? Of certain answer there is none whatever[1]. Refuge might be taken in the conjecture that they are Ephesian Elders[2]; yet so as to leave their date an open question.

To what personage do they refer? Obviously to the mysterious Beloved Disciple[3]; with their 'this is the disciple' they point back to the passage which immediately precedes their statement, and in it he figures. Is it quite so certain that he is one and the selfsame person as the Apostle John[4]? As is shown elsewhere, the identity is hard to establish[5]; for the moment assuming it, the situation is clear, the son of Zebedee is of course equated by the 'we' with the Beloved Disciple. Otherwise everything depends on whether the process of confusion between two distinct persons has been accomplished or not. In the former contingency they, the 'we,' mean (without saying it) John the Apostle, in the latter they are referring to him who is spoken of as a disciple of the Lord.

They are, anyhow they say that they are, in a position to render two-fold testimony; is it possible to take them at their word? If the Beloved Disciple be really the Apostle John and the Beloved Disciple-Apostle be really the Evangelist, yes; what if they, meaning the Apostle, do but reflect the unfounded opinion of a later day? The answer would again be in the affirmative were the Beloved Disciple, being other than the Apostle, really author of the Fourth Gospel; yet here again the case for his direct authorship may be hard to prove. Room must be made for the conjecture that, in view of circumstances held by them to justify their action, they give authoritative expression to beliefs current in their midst.

[1 - De Wette (op. cit. ii, p. 229) says of the 'unbekannter Urheber' (of v. 24) that he was 'einer der jüngern Zeitgenossen.' W. Bauer (HBNT, II, ii, p. 189; cf. Holtzmann, op. cit. p. 229) finds the allusion reminiscent of the tradition as given by Clem. Alex. and of the Muratorian Canon.]
[2 - Hennell (op. cit. p. 105) instances the conjecture of Grotius that the 'we' points to the Church at Ephesus.]
[3 - Alex. Schweizer, Das Evglm. Joh. pp. 59 f. And see p. 239; where Schweizer, remarking that he who appended ch. xxi declares the Evangelist to be a disciple and eye-witness, viz. the Beloved Disciple, whoever the latter was, adds: But is this true to fact?]
[4 - Schwalb (Christus und die Evangelien, pp. 198 f.) is of opinion that the author of ch. xxi clearly differentiates the anonymous 'Lieblingsjünger' from the sons of Zebedee.]
[5 - See Excursus II.]

Page 38

And well might it be asked: wherefore is it that one so positively stated to be eye-witness and Evangelist -- and perhaps Apostle -- should require the anonymous testimony to himself and his work? That zeal is manifested by the 'we' is clear enough; yet it is possible to urge that the line taken by them is not exactly calculated to advance their cause; but that, on the contrary, they go near to cast a slur on the very personage for whose credit they are so evidently concerned[1]. They have acted, shall it be admitted? in all good faith; the tentative conjecture shall follow that, in the said action, they were conscious of and responsive to a need of their day. Men had looked askance at our Gospel; and hence steps were taken by the 'we' to obviate objection and win acceptance for the treasured work.

A dilemma is proposed; either the Apostle John is the author of the Gospel, or it has been written by someone else who personates him. Thus when it is said: 'the author is either the eye-witness (and, with every probability, the son of Zebedee) or, with resort to artifice and mysterious hints, he poses as such . . . and good friends of his are prompt with their imprimatur for what is a sheer imposture; for they, knowing his testimony to be false, declare it to be true[2].' Apart from the objectionable way of putting it, a false issue is raised by the second alternative in that it reads back modern standards into a remote past. What at the present day would be utterly indefensible was not simply condoned but recognized and sanctioned by the literary etiquette of the ancient world: 'it was characteristic of the spirit and custom of ancient historians and poets and especially those of the Bible, to live themselves into the modes of thought and expression of great men, and by imitating their thoughts and feelings, make themselves their organ3.' In other words, no blame attached in those days to writers

[1 - 'Ein Zeuge, dessen Zeugnis selbst erst wieder bezeugt werden muss, kann nicht als eine sehr vertrauenswürdige Person erscheinen,' Schmiedel, Evglm. Briefe und Offenbarung des Joh. p. 15. And see Lützelberger, Die Kirchl. Tradition über den Apos. Joh. p. 188.]
[2 - Barth, op. cit. p. 7. Cf. Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays, p. 80.]
[3 - Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of O.T. pp. 40 f. See also Percy Gardner, Ephes. Gosp. pp. 92 ff.; von Soden, Early Christ. Lit. pp. 14 f.]

Page 39

who composed and put forth works in another's name[1]; neither they nor their readers would be conscious of enacted fraud. So with the unknown author of Ecclesiastes who veils his identity with the great name of Solomon; so with the author of the Second Petrine Epistle when he calls himself 'Simon Peter'; so with 'Ephesians' if, as is not altogether inconceivable, it originates from a disciple of Paul. Precisely so here; if the Fourth Evangelist be really one who, in his Gospel, makes himself 'organ' of the eyewitness (whoever the eye-witness may be) he is not necessarily the 'falsarius[2].' The course adopted by him would have the literary sanctions of his period, and the 'we' who, xxi, 24, give their testimony are not necessarily so many confederates in a literary fraud.

Let us agree that, in the event of necessary preference for the alternative which disposes of the traditional authorship of the Fourth Gospel as altogether untenable, there can be, in view of old-world literary usages, no question of wanton accusation and of libelling the dead[3].

The direct evidence of the Gospel has been surveyed. On the face of it, no doubt, it pleads for the conclusion that, whatever his identity, the author of the Gospel is an eye-witness, the Beloved Disciple. Yet with closer examination of the salient passages confidence passes over into doubt; and, as the case stands, it must be admitted that the Gospel does lay claim to Apostolic origin and authority in a way which is both singular and mysterious, and that its self-testimony raises more riddles than it solves[4], Whether more light will be thrown on the problem by evidence of an indirect nature has yet to be seen.

With such indirect evidence our business now lies.

(ii) Indirect Evidence

As we pass from direct to indirect evidence the field to be explored widens; for, whereas in the former case our inquiry was

[1 - Schmiedel, op. cit. pp. 12 f.]
[2 - Of the dilemma as propounded by De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 229.]
[3 - As Sanday suggests, op. cit. p. 81.]
[4 - In the view of Scholten (Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 399) the Fourth Evangelist intended his Gospel to be accepted as by the Apostle John who is the Beloved Disciple.]

Page 40

concentrated on a group of but three passages, we now enter upon an examination of our Gospel as a whole. Nor shall we stop short there; on the contrary, it will become necessary to confront 'John' with the Synoptic Gospels, while an attempt must also be made to determine its relation to circumstance, event, or movement in the world of the period within which the date of its composition has been held to fall. We shall further have to address ourselves to the vexed question whether our Gospel be a unity or a composite work.

The issues, in short, are numerous; and the consideration of them will spread itself over many pages. But in the second section of the present chapter, our Gospel being taken as a whole, and by itself apart, the main questions are these: What impressions are conveyed by it as to the personality of the Evangelist? Does it vouch for the first-hand knowledge of an eye-witness? Or does it reveal the secondary historian who constructs his situations after the manner of his age?

Be the author who he may, there can be no doubt whatever that he addresses himself to a Gentile community or communities. It is not simply that he writes in Greek; for, quite apart from the fact that the New Testament as a whole is a Greek book[1], precisely the same course is adopted by a writer whose addressees -- if the superscription of his Epistle[2] be taken literally -- are specifically Jewish Christians. A decisive proof is that he is at pains to translate[3] and is ready with his explanations[4]. He might, or he might, not, be resident in their midst.

Next comes the question of his nationality. Is he himself a Gentile? Such a contention has been raised, and not once or twice; an English pioneer of criticism satisfied himself that the Fourth Evangelist was 'no Apostle or any Jew[5]'; 'a sincere Christian . . . and a Greek': such was the verdict of a master of English prose[6]. It must be admitted that there is force in the argument[7]; for his

[1 - Deissman, New Light on the N.T. pp. 29 f.]
[2 - 1 Pet. ii, 1.]
[3 - Jn i, 42; ix, 7; xx, 16.]
[4 - Jn ii, 6; vi, 4; xix, 31, 40.]
[5 - Evanson, op. cit. p. 226]
[6 - Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 284.]
[7 - Which Scott-Moncrieff (op. cit. p. 84) minimizes.]

Page 41

incessant allusions to 'the Jews' are so acrimonious[1] and so objective[2] in their nature as to suggest that he differentiates himself from their race. Yet there are counter-arguments which may be deemed strong enough to weigh down the balance on the other side, if it does not at once follow that he who records the Saying: 'Salvation is of the Jews[3]' was obviously himself of Jewish origin. Adverse voices are not silent; yet the general trend of scholarship is to allow and to affirm that he came from, originally belonged to, Jewish Christianity[4]. 'John, like Paul, was a Jew[5]'; 'there is nothing to preclude his Jewish birth, his style and methods of representation favour its admission[6].'

And such is really the case. Looking to the diction of the Gospel, it is surely true to say that, penned for Gentile readers for whom Jewish terms and usages had to be translated and explained, it throughout reveals a distinctively Semitic mode of thought by its phraseology, its frequent Hebraisms, its comparatively limited vocabulary[7]. No doubt its author 'writes in a style which is peculiar but quite literary[8]'; there are nevertheless features which suggest that the foreign language acquired by him has not been so entirely mastered that its resources are fully at his command. That he breathes a Greek atmosphere is unquestionable; as unquestionable does it appear from the Hebraisms he indulges in that our Gospel comes from a Jewish hand[9].

'The style of the narrative alone is conclusive as to its Jewish authorship[10].' This point decided, the further question arises: Was

[1 - Scholten (Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 439) writes: 'Is het mogelijk om in zulk een oordeel over het wederstrevend Israël een geboren Jood te erkennen? Daar komt bij, dat de schrijver overal over de Joden spreckt als over eene vreemde natie.' To the same effect Schenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu, p. 251. But see Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 337.]
[2 - As an Englishman speaks of 'the Germans,' or 'the Danes.']
[3 - Jn iv, 22.]
[4 - Weizsäcker, op. cit. ii, p. 218.]
[5 - von Dobschütz, Christ. Life in the Prim. Church, p. 218; Probleme des Apos. Zeitalters, pp. 92 f.]
[6 - Holtzmann, Das Evglm. des Joh. p. 16.]
[7 - Barth, op. cit. pp. 7 f.]
[8 - P. Gardner, Ephes. Gosp. p. 45. And see De Wette, Lehrbuch, ii, p. 213.]
[9 - Thoma (Genesis des Evglm. Joh. p. 787) writes: 'Er hat mit der Muttermilch jüdische Denkart eingesogen.' And thus Herder (Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland, p. 275): 'er dachte Ebräisch und schrieb Griechish.']
[10 - Westcott, St John, p. vi. In the opinion of L¨cke (op. cit. p. 41 ff.) the style, albeit more Greek than Palestinian, reveals the born Jew who had long resided in Asia.]

Page 42

its author a Jew of Palestine? Did he belong, upon the other hand, to the Diaspora? Was he, that is, a Hellenistic Jew?

The point is not settled by the source of his quotations from the Old Testament; sometimes he quotes from the Greek Bible (LXX) while at other times he approximates more nearly to the Hebrew text[1]. Appeal might be made to his doctrine of the Logos, but at this stage of our inquiry it must be left an open question whence it was derived. What certainly appears probable is that his diction has closest affinity, not with the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, but with that of Palestinian learning[2]. An important consideration then is whether he himself be thoroughly familiar with the scenes and the circumstances of the country with which his narrative is primarily concerned. Does he so know his Palestine as to establish it that Palestine had actually been his birthplace and his home?

It is in matters such as this that a writer who, posing as an eye-witness, is altogether destitute of any real knowledge of locality and conditions, is almost certain to give himself away by confusion or mistake.

Speaking generally, the Fourth Evangelist is not open, to suspicion. It cannot be proved against him that, in respect at all events of localities, he is guilty of the slip or blunder which would betray his ignorance[3], if research has as yet failed to identify one or other of the places specified in his report[4]. There may of course be 'some hidden and allegoric meaning' in his particularizations, and the point will come up again; yet 'every critic remarks in the

[1 - Scott-Moncrieff (op. cit. p. 76) inclines to 'the supposition that the Evangelist used some catena of Messianic quotations compiled, it may be, by different hands.']
[2 - See Credner, Einl. pp. 264 f.]
[3 - Schmiedel, op. cit. p. 16. Otherwise Scholten (Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 431): 'De Evangelist is blijkbaar geen ooggetuige en van het tooneel der gebeurtenissen verwijdert.' With allusion to Jn i, 29, 35; ii. 1 ff. Cludius (op. cit. p. 64) asks: could the author so have written had he been a Palestinian Jew, and familiar with localities? And see his remarks on pp. 65 f. On p. 67 he writes: 'Die Mähre von Bethesda . . . verräth auch einen von Jerusalem fern lebenden Verfasser.']
[4 - 'In most cases the difficulty resolves itself into our ignoarance of the local geography, not into the writer's,' Moffatt, op. cit. p. 548.]

Page 43

Gospel a number of details which do not seem in themselves important, but which give to the narrative an air, which is in fact somewhat delusive, of being a very exact narrative[1].' 'Delusive' in a sense it may be, and perhaps it is; there is nevertheless an air of verisimilitude about certain details which goes far to convey an impression that they are traceable to actual personal reminiscence. Yet it might be too venturesome to say of such details one and all that, often irrelevant enough, they yet betray the vivid recollections of a narrator who never stays to ask whether a thing be trivial or not, but who is fain to describe scenes photographed on his mind -- even side incidents[2].

Whether the Fourth Evangelist, in any case no Gentile, be a Palestinian or a Hellenistic Jew, he is in a position to draw on his own personal acquaintance with the 'Holy Land[3]'; and in the second alternative (which is the less likely of the two) an inference might be that, although his temporary residence is there no longer, he had travelled up and down in it as having eyes to see and using them.

Yet it may not be so clear that his knowledge extends from geography to political and ecclesiastical organization. A charge here brought against him is that he has perpetrated a blunder than which none more glaring can be conceived[4]; in that, with his thrice-repeated and emphatic allusion to Caiaphas[5], he assumes the Jewish High-priesthood to be an annual appointment when as a matter of fact the office was tenable for life[6]. 'Being high priest that year': -- it must be confessed that the definitive phrase 'that year' gives the reader pause; and besides, it is not a little curious that the person referred to is so casually introduced when he is of such exalted rank[7]. If gross error there be -- and the Evangelist be really a Jew -- it is no satisfactory explanation which accounts for it by a long interval between the events narrated and

[1 - P. Gardner, op. cit. pp. 56 f.]
[2 - Barth, op. cit. pp. 7 f.]
[3 - 'At any rate he is intimately acquainted,' says Cohu (op. cit. p. 474), 'with the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem.']
[4 - Schmiedel, op. cit. pp. 16 f.]
[5 - Jn xi, 49, 51; xviii, 13; αρχιερευς ων του ενιαυτου εκεινου.]
[6 - Heitmüller, SNT, ii, p. 808; W. Bauer, HBNT, II, ii, p. 115; Jülicher, Einl. p. 380.]
[7 - `εις δε τις εξ αυτων Καιαφας.]

Page 44

the telling of them with the confused memories of extreme old age. Other explanations are, perhaps, more to the point; with his emphatic 'that year' the Evangelist really meant 'that fateful year,' the 'year of all years,' 'the acceptable year of the Lord[1].' Perhaps it really was so; on the other hand there is force in the suggestion that he was simply accommodating himself to local usages, in respect of the Asiarchs, for the sake of Gentile readers on a foreign soil[2]. A contingency remains that the responsibility for the dubious statement is not attachable to himself[3].

Let him have the benefit of the doubt. Another point must be raised; and it again turns on the exactitude or otherwise of the report of this Jew eye-witness as he claims, and is held, to be. The question ceases to be of narrative and is now concerned with discourse[4].

It has been said[5] of the Fourth Gospel that, rich in 'tender and unearthly beauty' it is suggestive of solemn cathedral voluntaries improvised upon the organ of human speech. Yet it is a just criticism which insists that the Evangelist's ideas, if sublime, are few; that they are continually reiterated in well-nigh identical form; that there is a poverty of vocabulary, a sameness in manner of presentment[6]: 'if the same great conceptions and ideas recur over and over again, the language becomes almost monotonous, colourless, -- yes, almost poor[7].' The admission is abundantly necessitated that precisely these features are ever and again illustrated in the speeches of the personages who play their respective parts in the wonderful drama of the Fourth Gospel story. It may be quite true that the characters are invested with an individuality of their own; it is equally true that, having played their part, they often vanish from the scene. Once more; is it quite the case that they pass out of sight as men of flesh and blood and not like

[1 - So Westcott, Lightfoot, and others. It is to beg the question when Scott-Moncrieff (op. cit. p. 89) writes: 'He does not say that he was the high priest of that year.']
[2 - Holtzmann, HCNT, iv, p. 160. Otherwise Clemen (Entstehung des Joh. Evglms. p. 216), who discovers an explanation in the allusion Lk. iii, 1 ff.]
[3 - The question of interpolations is discussed in later chapters.]
[4 - A subject which will come up again.]
[5 - By Drummond.]
[6 - von Soden, op. cit. p. 13.]
[7 - Luthardt, op. cit. p. 19. But cf. Westcott, op. cit. pp. 1 f.]

Page 45

characters in some legendary tale[1]? Might it not rather be said of some of them that they 'appear in a strange twilight . . . they profess to be actual personalities, yet they live only the life of typical characters,' and that, as for the Evangelist, 'he loses the whole of his interest in both persons and situations as soon as they have served his doctrinal purpose[2]?' The question will come up again; let it be observed in this connexion that it is precisely when they begin to speak that the uniform note is perceptible. There is little if any variety in the manner of their discourse. Admittedly their language is Johannine. Or to put it thus: the Evangelist has 'fashioned a speech peculiar to his school,' and it is in that speech that all his characters discourse[3].

Let it be observed at this point that the claim raised by the Evangelist (or advanced on his behalf) is not simply that of having been an eye-witness. The idea of an ear-witness is included in the claim. When it is said by (or of) him that 'his witness is true' the meaning undoubtedly is that, if his report be trustworthy in respect of things seen with his eyes, it is not one whit less trustworthy in the case of things heard with his ears.

Then this weighty consideration arises: no matter who the personages are, the speeches which the Evangelist purports to report are assuredly characterized by a remarkable sameness of style or tone. They, the said personages -- each one with an individuality proper to himself -- must surely have displayed their individuality in the manner of their discourse. They are certainly not found so to do; and the conclusion is unavoidable that the asserted ear-witness Evangelist is anything but a true witness if verity be contingent on exactness of report. The speeches must be, to some extent, constructed speeches. In any case the Evangelist has allowed himself a very free hand[4].

[1 - Westcott, op. cit. pp. lxxi, lxxv; Barth, op. cit. p. 30.]
[2 - von Soden, op. cit. pp. 390 ff. To the same effect Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz des Evglm. Joh. p. 21.]
[3 - von Dobschütz, Christ. Life in the Prim. Ch. p. 222.]
[4 - Treating of 'Die "subjective Form" der johan. Christusreden,' P. Ewald (NKZ, xix, 1908, p. 842) writes: 'Es gibt auch im täglichen Leben eine doppelte Art, Gehörtes zu bewahren und anderen zu vermitteln: Entweder indem man wirklich den Wortlaut durchaus festhält und anderen gegenüber reproduzirt, oder indem man allen Nachdruck auf den Gedankengehalt legt.' The latter method, it is added, is better calculated to convey the real significance of the spoken word, and it is that employed by the Fourth Evangelist.]

Page 46

To which it may be added that his own reflexions are sometimes so merged in reported conversation or discourse that it is no easy thing to decide who precisely the speaker is[1]. Sometimes the difficulty is less; thus, e.g., in the case of Jn iii, 16-22, 31-36; where we have in all likelihood the ponderings of the Evangelist rather than words assigned respectively to Jesus and the Baptist.

There is another important point. The professed, or alleged, eye- and ear-witness occasionally relates scene or incident in a manner strongly suggestive that no one is present but the persons immediately concerned, yet he appears to record what passed between them with the precision of an attentive listener to the spoken words[2]. That sources of information were at his command may be freely admitted; yet this is by no means a sufficient explanation, for, such sources granted, it must nevertheless be urged that they have been amplified by the Evangelist, and in terms of his own conceptions of what was likely to be said by the respective personages who figure in the narrative. But this is scarcely to go far enough; the conclusion is ever and again inevitable that the case, far from being one of an ear-witness's verbatim -- or free yet sufficiently accurate -- report, is actually of artificially constructed discourse. The position is well stated thus: 'few will deny that in this Gospel the prerogative of the ancient historian to place in the mouth of his characters discourses reflecting hfe own idea of what was suitable to the occasion, has been used to the limit[3].'

[1 - 'Zudem verschwimmen die ihm (Jesus) geliehenen Worte öfters mit den eigenen Reflexionen des Verfassers,' Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften des N.T. p. 208. See also von Soden, op. cit. p. 412; Weizsäcker, op. cit. ii, p. 225.]
[2 - Of this there are at least six striking instances: the night visit of Nicodemus, Jn iii, 1-16; the conversation with the woman of Samaria, Jn iv, 7-26; the scene laid in the palace of the Roman Governor, xviii, 33-xix, 14; the debate in the council, xi, 47 ff.; the Burial, xix, 38 ff.; the appearance to Mary Magdalene, xx, 11 f. See Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. pp. 241 ff.]
[3 - Bacon, Introd. to N.T. p. 257. See also Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 93; CBE, pp. 392 ff.]

Page 47

But to sum up; and, of course, provisionally.

It was said by an earlier critic[1] that, while the external evidence for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel was unimportant, the internal evidence was so convincing that only a madman could reject it. As we have seen already, the internal evidence, where direct, is of such a nature that it raises more difficulties than it solves; looking to that indirect evidence which has just been rapidly surveyed, the case is somewhat different; nor is it altogether incredible that it should be maintained by a recent writer that 'everything in the Gospel points to a Jewish author who is an eye-witness of our Lord's Ministry, and a native of Palestine[2].' There is nevertheless ground for hesitation; but at this stage of our inquiry it must suffice to say of the Evangelist that he writes with a view to Gentile readers and that it is a reasonable conjecture which locates his clientèle, not to say himself, in Asia Minor. He is evidently a Jew; possibly of the Diaspora, with far greater likelihood of Palestinian origin. There is little need to question his personal acquaintance (somewhat blurred, perhaps, with the lapse of time) with scenes and localities depicted in his Gospel, but it must be confessed that doubt is awakened whether he (if he it be) was equally conversant with the political situations and conditions which obtained in Palestine. Vivid are his descriptions; the question nevertheless arises whether the protraits drawn by him are invariably true to life. Sometimes, it may be, actually present when his characters engage in converse, and sometimes, as it would appear, by his own showing, not so present, he, in any case no shorthand reporter, makes them discourse in his own language. Nay more, he places his own reflexions in their lips. As we find him actually setting down what Jesus thought and felt, the temptation is strong to account him one whose relations with Jesus had

[1] Gfrörer, Die heilige Sage. For some remarks on Gfrörer (who was far indeed from accepting the historicity of our Gospel) see Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, pp. 160 ff.; Lützelberger, op. cit. p. 41.]
[2 - Cohu, op. cit. p. 474. Practically the same thing was said by Schleiermacher (Hermeneutik, p. 224): 'Aber betrachten wir das Evglm. im ganzen, so werden wir urtheilen müssen, es sei das Bericht eines Augenzeugen.' John's Gospel, he says elsewhere (Einl. p. 318) is 'lauter Selbsterlebtes.' And thus Lange (op. cit. p. 24) 'Es (sc. our Gospel) beruht offenbar auf der persönlichen Erinnerung eines der frühsten Zeugen Jesu.']

Page 48

been singularly close; anyhow we are disposed to agree that he was not so very far removed from the fountain-head of information[1]. What we find it hard to say is that his Gospel 'is a genuine Johannine work from the pen of the Apostle, who wrote from Ephesus[2].'

Author of our Gospel[3] the Beloved Disciple to whom it points may be; or, if not himself the author, then a main authority for that Gospel.

[1 - De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 233: 'nicht zu weit enfernt von der ersten Quelle.']
[2 - Thus, confidently, Strachan, DCQ, i, p. 881. The position now adopted by him (The Fourth Gospel, its Significance and Environment, p. ix) indicates a change of view.]
[3 - The main fabri