[1 - On this point, and for further details relative to the pretender, see RGG, i, col. 915.]
[2 - HE, iv, 6.]

Page 84

reference to this false Messiah in words placed by the Evangelist (v, 43) in the lips of his Christ: 'if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.'

A view which, comparatively modern, has found confident adoption or qualified support[1], while hints are met with that, whereas the Synoptic allusions[2] are explicitly to false Christs destined to arise, the manner of the Johannine representation suggests personages not only come already but actually known to those who read[3]. The question is, however, not of a plurality; and, if an individual be really intended, the allusion is both vague and hypothetical. The 'if' (εαν αλλος ελθη) is surely tell-tale[4]; and although it may not positively exclude the view that (let alone the Antichrist of patristic interpretation) some given personage was in contemplation, it certainly militates, and forcibly, against that which contends for any given accomplished fact. Nor is it unlikely that the Saying instanced, reminiscent of Deut. xviii, 20[5], speaks generally and with bitter irony[6], of all eager running after false Messiahs who shall come at their own instance, and without any commission from the Father[7].

[1 - Schmiedel (Evglm. . . . des Joh. pp. 25) would hesitate to rely on such a point taken by itself, yet he finds justification in other grounds suggestive of the period A.D. 132-135. More decidedly Lützelberger, op. cit. p. 271. 'In Vers 43,' says Wellhausen (Das Evglm. Joh. p. 27), 'erkennt man mit recht eine Weissagung auf Barkochba.' If the question be of a definite personage (and not of false prophets and false Christs generally as in Mk xiii, 6, 21, 22 = Mt. xxiv, 5, 23, 24; Acts v, 36 f.) then, says Holtzmann (HCNT, iv, p. 99) ' entweder der persönliche Antichrist oder irgend eine geschichtliche Person lichkeit . . . dann doch wohl eher der einzige geschichtliche Judenmessias Bar Kochba als Simon Magus.' See also W. Bauer, HBNT, II, ii, p. 62 Pfleiderer decided for 'the Son of a Star' (cf. Numb. xxiv, 17), and Thoma for Simon Magus. But, as is pointed out by Loisy (op. cit. p. 416), the latter was not a false Messiah for the Jews.]
[2 - For the refs. see the preceding note. No fewer than sixty-four such Messiahs, it is said, are enumerated by Jewish historians.]
[3 - Cf. Réville, op. cit. p. 170.]
[4 - 'La particule conditionelle exclut plutot l'idée d'un fait précis,' Loisy, op. cit. p. 416. To the same effect B. Weiss, Das Johannesevglm. p. 106, note; Clemen, Entstehung des Johannesevglm. p. 147.]
[5 - So Spitta, Das Johannesevglm. pp. 131, 133.]
[6 - Heitmiiller, SNT, ii, p. 771.]
[7 - McClymont, St John (Century Bible), p. 173. 'Pfleiderer's conclusion that Jn. v, 43 refers to Barkochba and the Jewish rebellion of 132-135,' says Forbes (op. cit. p. 165), 'will be shared by few.' Gillis P:son Wetter ('Der Sohn Gottes,' p. 167) is of the same mind.]

Page 85

A second contention points to one who, placed by the Fathers within the ranks of Gnosticism, is now allowed by many to have played a more independent role, and this was Marcion. Already a Christian when, having left his native Pontus, he (A.D. 139) arrived at Rome, he was excommunicated six years later on the ground of heresy. An ultra-Paulinist as he has been described, he appears to have been without any original design of sectarian action, while zealous for the purging of the Church from what for him were its Judaisms. As things turned out he proceeded to form separate Marcionite communities[1].

Now it has been said that it was the set purpose of our Evangelist so 'to prevent the triumph of Judaistic reaction' by his Gospel as to save Marcion and the followers of Marcion for his comprehensive Church[2].

The suggestion is not uninteresting. Our Gospel is certainly characterized by liberalizing tendencies; it illustrates attempts both to free the Church from distinctively Jewish-Christian survivals and to extend the Church's borders. Yet we seek in vain in it for anything in the shape of proof that its author was up in arms for the defence of any one person, or groups of persons, in particular; in his inclusiveness his thoughts take far wider range; nowhere is there any special indication of a paramount desire to win back persons or parties such as those in question. And besides; albeit the Gospel-Canon in Marcion's day was not the fixed quantity which it had become by the end of the second century, it is nevertheless highly significant that Tertullian could unhesitatingly charge the former with having rejected three Gospels and mutilated the Gospel which he thought fit to retain[3]. The balance weighs down in favour of the view that our Gospel was already in existence; and, if actually known to Marcion -- and, it would appear

[1 - RGG, iv, col. 143 f.; i, col. 1103. See also the chapter on Marcion in Burkitt's Gospel History and its Transmission.]
[2 - 'Om dezen nu te behouden voor de Kerk en de zegepraal der Joodsche reactie te voorkomen doet onze schrijver in zijn Evangelie een welsprekend beroep op den Christus wiens heerlijkheid hij aanschouwt in den geest,' W. F. Loman, op. cit. p. 25.]
[3 - Adv. Marc.]

Page 86

that it was so known[1] -- there might be ground for surprise that, looking to the nature of its contents, it was not preferred by him to that Gospel which he mutilated[2], viz. Luke.

We will next ask whether any nearer date for its origination is determinable from the manner of its allusions to the Baptist.

Unquestionably our Evangelist is not without Baptist-disciples in his mind. Much more in his mind, however, are the Jews of his own day; his aggressiveness is therein displayed that he joins issue with a hostile Judaism in its arguments from the priority of John to Jesus: in so far as he takes account of men whose staunch allegiance to the Baptist remained unshaken, he is far more nearly concerned to conciliate and to win them. If he be author of the first Johannine Epistle it might appear further (1 Jn v, 6) that he is also 'attempting to counteract the spread of certain erroneous opinions' which were in some way connected with existing Baptist sects[3]. And of the members of such sects it is not unsafe to say that the attitude assumed by them was no longer that of the evidently receptive minds instanced Acts xix, 1 f., nor could the case be one of individuals, Acts xviii, 26, of like type to the Alexandrian Apollos.

It were wise to content ourselves with having raised the question. No answer is forthcoming from the mere fact of the hostility of Judaism. As for Baptist-sects, there is evidence of their survival[4] in a variety of shades and colours; but of clear proof that at any given date they had become special cause of anxiety at Ephesus to our Evangelist there is none whatever.

Let us glance at the Ebionites. The question here is said to be[5] of Jewish Christianity in two tendencies or parties which, alike in their assertion of the permanent obligation of the Mosaic law, in this respect differed that in the one case some liberty was extended to Gentile converts, while in the other case there was a flat denial

[1 - Whether, as Zahn (Gesch. des NT. Kanons, i, 2, p. 677) urges, he actually borrowed from it is not easy to determine.]
[2 - See on the whole question Loisy. op. cit. pp. 16 f. It may be added that the Prologue of our Gospel is conclusive against one main Maroionite contention.]
[3 - Alban Blakiston, op. cit. p. 136. See the whole chapter for some account of 'the growth of the Baptist sect.']
[4 - Liitzelberger (op. cit. p. 275) discovers them in Parthia.]
[5 - So, generally, Kurtz, Ch. Hist., i, pp. 120 ff.]

Page 87

of the virgin-birth and of the divinity of Jesus. They are met with in their respective groupings and variously designated[1], at a day long after that to which it is, in any case, needful to assign our Gospel; it cannot be said, however, that assistance is rendered by them in our search. What can, of course, be said is that, in his attitude to legalism pure and simple, our Evangelist is of Paul's mind; that, be his view of the manner of the Incarnation what it may, he has a ready challenge for all who reject the divinity of his Lord[2].

Already brought into contact with the syncretism of the period, we here turn for a moment to the reforming movement known as Montanism, with its assertion that the age of the Paraclete began, and reached its fullest developement, with Montanus[3]. A suggestion, then, is that our Evangelist, in respect of his doctrinal system, is himself a borrower from Montanism; and that consequently the date of his Gospel cannot be earlier than the last decade of the second century[4]. But the case is assuredly the other way about[5]; and, the suggestion dismissed by us, we go on our way.

We now address ourselves more particularly to one of 'the two main tendencies in the early Church which lie near the main current of its historic developement[6],' viz. Gnosticism.

It is, of course, impossible in these pages to treat in detail of successive stages in and the many phases of -- to repeat from a previous chapter -- 'the boldest and grandest syncretism the world has ever beheld,' and nothing more shall be attempted than a very general and bare outline of Gnosticism in its leading features. Of the Gnostic sects it has been said that they 'were the result of the

[1 - For Origen all Jewish Christians were Εβριωναιοι, yet he differentiated between διττοι and αμφοτεροι Εβριωναιοι. Jerome, followed by Augustine and Theodoret, termed the more moderate party Nazareans, the term Ebionites being reserved for the extremists. But see on the whole question of Ebionism, Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, pp. 63 ff.]
[2 - De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 219.]
[3 - Montanus made his appearance at Pepuza in Phrygia. The exact date is variously estimated; ca. A.D. 152 -- 170. For an account of the movement of which he was a prophet see RGG, iv, col. 482 f.; Kurtz, op. cit. i, pp. 225 ff.]
[4 - See Scholten, op. cit. p. 465; Schwegler, op. cit. pp. 204 ff.]
[5 - De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 226.]
[6 - v. Dobschutz, Christ. Life in the Prim. Church, p. xxxiii.]

Page 88

contact of Christian principles with the current ideas of the first century,' every Gnostic system being 'an attempt to blend Christianity with the theosophical speculations of the age'; 'in a sense, however, Gnosticism is more ancient than the Church, being a philosophy of religion which seeks in the end to explain every cultus'; it is then suggested that 'the great test to which primitive Christianity was exposed from the outside world was not so much the danger of succumbing to persecution, as of adapting itself to the popular philosophies of the heathen and Jewish world[1].' That truths, or elements of truth, are perceptible in Gnostic doctrines no one would venture to deny; at the same time they are adumbrated and distorted by what was a main principle with the 'intellectualism' so pre-eminently characteristic of Gnosticism, the belief that matter is essentially evil in itself. Some qualification is, perhaps, necessary; there is nevertheless truth in the remark: 'Herein lies the inherent weakness of Gnostic systems; they strike at the root of all morality, by denying that man in his state of material existence is responsible for his sins, which they assert are not the result of his free choice, but the inevitable consequences of the state in which he is placed[2].' In practice a result, in some quarters, was of two sorts; on the one hand a resort to asceticism as the means of keeping the essentially evil body in subjection, on the other no restraint whatever was exercised, as the evil body with its evil desires was held to be beneath contempt[3]. As the principle was pressed to its logical conclusion, it was maintained that by no possibility could a world essentially evil be the creation of the supreme Deity[4]; and hence the work of creation was referred

[1 - Foakes-Jackson, Hist. of the Christ. Church, p. 122. The whole chapter should be read. See more particularly Bethune-Baker, op. cit. pp. 76 ff. See also the further remarks of v. Dobschütz, op. cit.; Kurtz, Church Hist. i, pp. 66 f., 98 ff.; RGG, ii, col. 1486 ff.; Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis; P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur.]
[2 - Foakes-Jackson, op. cit. p. 129; see foot-note on p. 128 of that work for an apt citation from v. Dobschütz: 'Gnosticism is, in the first place, intellectualism; one-sided over-valuation of knowledge at the expense of moral activity.']
[3 - He who was redeemed -- and theories of redemption played no inconsiderable part in Gnostic systems -- might conceive himself to be above and beyond Good and Evil.]
[4 - Who is, in many cases, not so much the God of the prophets and of Jesus, as the First Cause, the Absolute to whom no predicates could be attached, the Ineffable One.]

Page 89

to an inferior being, while it was argued that of communication between the supreme God and the material evil world there could be none whatever. Intermediate agencies, aeons, emanations of the Deity, were accordingly conceived of. The conception being scouted that the highest of the emanations of the Father could take upon himself a material body, there came flat denials of the reality of the Incarnation, protests, in many forms, against the true humanity, the real suffering, of Jesus; in a word Docetism. There was indeed, so it was allowed by some, a man Jesus upon whom the superior aeon Christ had descended at the Baptism, but only to desert him at the Crucifixion; others, again, alleged that it was really Simon the Cyrenian who was crucified and by mistake, while the real Jesus looked on and smiled. Whatever the explanations offered, they alike show 'how rooted was the idea that God could not possibly have anything to do immediately with matter, or with the sufferings of a material universe; if He seemed to make such contact, it was only in appearance. The suffering Christ was a phantom; not a hair of his head was touched, let atone a bone being broken[1].'

Now, there are clear indications of the spread of more or less developed Gnostic tendencies both in the admittedly genuine Pauline Epistles and in those which may or may not be traceable to Paul himself[2]. Thus in the case of the Colossian heresy, which has 'been pronounced to contain all the essential elements of a Gnostic system'; the situation is less clear in the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians, yet there are hints at errors similar to those which prevailed at the neighbouring Colosse; as for the Pastoral Epistles, they suggest that need had arisen at Ephesus to deal with the question of asceticism and to draw plain distinctions between true knowledge and knowledge which is 'falsely so called.' Nor is there

[1 - Rendel Harris, Newly-Recovered Gospel of St Peter, p. 29. And see pp. 45, 47, for striking instances of the Docetic character of the Pseudo-Gospel: 'he' (i.e. Jesus on the Cross) 'was silent, as if in no wise feeling pain'; 'And the Lord cried out, saying, My Power, My Power, hast thou forsaken Me?']
[2 - For the refs. see Foakes-Jackson, op. cit. pp. 129 ff.]

Page 90

room for doubt that, whether he be Paul or not, the author of the Epistles to Timothy was confronted with, at all events, the germs of Docetism when, 1 Tim. iii, 16, he points emphatically to Jesus as 'manifested in the flesh.' Yet it must be admitted that, if he really was Paul, he had himself used language in some degree savouring of Docetic tendencies at an earlier period; thus when, Phil. ii, 5 ff., he speaks of 'Christ Jesus' as 'taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.'

We now turn to our Gospel. As we have seen already, it was not only commented on by the Gnostic Heracleon, but held in estimation by Basilides; and, such being the case, we may well be incredulous in respect of the very late dating of a previous suggestion. But the question is whether we be now pointed to the nearer date sought for by the manner and matter of its contents when compared with that Gnosticism which has been rapidly surveyed by us.

There are two extreme positions. In the one case our Gospel has been definitely claimed for Gnosticism[1]; in the other it is said to be characterized throughout by a pronounced antagonism to Gnostic modes of thought. The truth, however, does not appear to lie in either quarter, and it is far more reasonable to decide that, in some degree sympathetic, it also tells plainly of a discriminating mind. That it is not untinged by Gnostic influences might be admitted; its author has occasional resort to a terminology in use in Gnostic circles, he makes room for an 'intellectualism' of a certain kind, elements of dualism are perceptible in his conceptions, the idealized portrait of his Christ is suggestive of a Docetism from which he himself is not altogether free. On the other hand it must be as readily admitted that, by no means blind to momentous issues, he fastens on and repudiates errors detected by him in Gnostic doctrines which were making their appearance in his day. In his own fashion he contends for the real humanity of his Lord[2]. There are terms and expressions, it is argued, which, changing them for others, he significantly declines to import,

[1 - It was referred, in antiquity, to Cerinthus.]
[2 - A case in point is where (Jn xix, 17) he excludes all mention of Simon of Cyrene and says of Jesus: 'bearing the Cross for himself.']

Page 91

at anyrate does not import, into his Gospel[1]. It is safe to say that the theory of intermediate emanations is absolutely discarded by him. There is nothing 'one-sided' in the value attached by him to the intellect. The idea of asceticism is not so much foreign to as repulsive to him; he makes no secret of his conviction that right action is contingent on and must attend right thought. Never does he doubt that the God of the Old Testament is identical with the God and Father of Jesus[2].

Our Evangelist is no advanced Gnostic. As for his Gospel, it is not the work of one who, realizing the gravity of the situation, is constrained to grapple with and refute a Gnosticism which has arrived at the hey-day of its developement. What might be allowed perhaps is that, not definitely hostile to Gnosticism in its earlier stages, he occasionally reveals a discriminating sympathy[3]; yet it must be added that, alive to errors creeping in and already fraught with mischief, he is bold to speak his mind. That his Gospel is altogether strange to the Gnostic movement[4] it is hard to believe.

We are led to the conclusion that our Gospel places us in a day when Basilides and Valentinian had yet to elaborate their systems, and that accordingly it is prior to the year A.D. 135 or thereabouts.

By what space of time? If so be that our Evangelist is really the Beloved Disciple, necessity is of course laid upon us to retrace our steps so as to get within a period when he still survived; and in that case we should have to date our Gospel at least as early as a year or two after (if not before) the close of the first century[5].

[1 - γνωσις, πιστις, σοφια. In the first two cases he has resort to the verbal forms γιγνωσκειν, πιστευειν; in the latter he uses the word αληθεια.]
[2 - See on the whole question E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel pp. 87 ff.]
[3 - Schwegler (op. cit. p. 211, note) is far less reserved: 'Dass das Joh. Evglm. von Beziehungen zu den ältesten Systemen der Gnosis durchwoben ist, liegt am Tage.' To the like effect Brückner, op. cit. p. 68.]
[4 - According to Rëville (op. cit. p. 322) 'Cet Évangile est purement alexandrin; il est encore tout à fait étranger au mouvement gnostique.' The view adopted above is in part similar to that of De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 217.]
[5 - The Crucifixion is dated circa A.D. 29. At that date the Beloved Disciple (if a real person and in any case not the son of Zebedee) may have been quite a young man not to say a youth. Assuming that he actually reached extreme old age, he would be 90 or thereabouts by the year A.D. 100.]

Page 92

Yet, apart from the contingency that, not a real person, he 'represents the Church in its essential idea[1],' he may be not so much author of as authority for our Gospel; and it may be said at once that it is not absolutely imperative to decide for a date within the life-time of an eye-witness of the life of Jesus. And besides, there are considerations which forbid us to travel very far back in our search. Whatever the identity of the Evangelist, he writes at a date later than the latest of the Synoptics; and here we bear in mind the uncertainty which attaches to the dating of the Matthaean and the Lucan Gospels. The very fact of his dependence on the Synoptics is an argument in favour of the theory that some time had elapsed since their publication. Nor is this all; the world in which he places us is not diverse only in locality, but in conceptions which suggest an after day. The One of whom he tells is not so much the Jesus of the Synoptic representation as the Christ of the experience of his own inmost soul.

Were our search to end at this point the conclusion would be reasonable that, although no precise date can be fixed, our Gospel can be safely assigned to the period A.D. 100-125[2]. while it might be not too venturesome to push the later limit somewhat further back[3].

But, unhappily, we may not as yet cry halt. An objection must now be noted which, referring our Gospel to a circle to which Apollinaris[4] had belonged, transfers the date of its origination to a period but shortly antecedent to the celebrated meeting at Rome (ca. A.D. 155) of Polycarp and Anicetus[5]. Accordingly we must perplex ourselves, if for a brief space only, with the tangled skein of Quartodecimanism and the Paschal Controversy.

It was remarked in the preceding chapter that there is -- or there certainly appears to be -- an irreconcilable discrepancy between

[1 - E. P. Scott, op. cit. p. 144. And see Appendix ii.]
[2 - Thus, in italics, Réville (op. cit. p. 325): 'la rédaction du iv[e] évangile doit etre repartée entre l'an 100 et 125 approximativement.']
[3 - But for the uncertainty relative to our First and Third Gospels the earlier limits might be pushed back to ca. A.D. 90.]
[4 - Claudius Apollinaris, the distinguished Bishop of Hierapolis. Of his numerous writings fragments only are extant. His Apology, it is said, was addressed to Marcus Aurelius.]
[5 - Schwegler, op. cit. pp. 201 ff. See also pp. 191 ff.]

Page 93

our Gospel and its three companions in respect of the Death-day of Jesus. According to the Synoptics, the legal Passover is kept by Jesus and his disciples on the evening of the 14th Nisan, and the Crucifixion takes place the day after; otherwise our Evangelist, who is at pains to make it understood that when the Supper of his narrative was held, the Passover lay still ahead; that it was on the 14th, not the 15th, of Nisan that Jesus went to his Death. This borne in mind we pass on to observe a marked divergence of practice in regard to the observance of the Paschal Feast. To state the position in fewest words; it was customary with the Christians of Asia Minor to celebrate it on the same day as the Jews, i.e., on the 14th of Nisan; not so in Western Christendom, where it was celebrated on the Sunday after.

Herein the point of difference between Polycarp and Anicetus when they met at Rome. It was urged by the former that he and his people were but steadfast in their adherence to the manner followed in Asia along with John the disciple of the Lord; the latter, on the other hand, appealed to the tradition of the Roman Church. They appear to have agreed to differ; and in token that there was no breach of fellowship, Polycarp was allowed by Anicetus to conduct the Eucharist. For a while controversy was hushed, but it again broke out; to rage fiercely at a subsequent day when, with the result of protest and remonstrance, the extreme step of breaking off Church fellowship was taken by the Roman Bishop Victor[1].

The question is, what exactly was it that the Christians of Asia Minor had in mind in their observance of the 14th of Nisan? In other words, what was the rationale of Quartodecimanism?

There is divergence of opinion. Minor differences apart, the views entertained by scholars admit of classification under three main heads, and we will enumerate them with necessary condensation[2]. To begin with, we are told that the 14th of Nisan was

[1 - See Euseb. HE, v, 24, for the letter of Polycrates to Victor and the remonstrances addressed to the latter by Bishops of whom Irenaeus was one.]
[2 - Dr Stanton's exhaustive survey of the whole question (Gospels as Hist. Documents, i, pp. 173 ff.) is here laid under contribution. See also Drummond, op. cit. pp. 444 ff.; Zahn, Einl. ii, pp. 509 ff.; Schenkel, op. cit. pp. 253 ff.; Réville, op. cit. pp. 65 ff.; Calmes, op. cit. p. 66.]

Page 94

observed in commemoration of the Passover eaten by Jesus and his disciples on the night before the Crucifixion. According to a second view, the observance, directly founded upon the recognition that Jesus was himself the true Paschal Lamb, was a commemoration of the Death, on the 14th of Nisan, of Jesus. In the third place, it is maintained that, with no specific reference to either the Last Supper or the Death, the observance of the 14th of Nisan pointed rather to a Commemoration of the Divine Redemption typified in the ancient Passover and now accomplished in Christ, in which the thought of the Last Supper and of the Death on the Cross and the Resurrection were all included.

Let us pass on to inquire into the situation as it points from the foregoing explanation to our Gospel.

Polycarp, as we have observed, appealed ultimately to 'John.' Had the commemoration for which he pleaded been really that of a Passover eaten by Jesus and his disciples on the night before the Crucifixion, he could scarcely have looked for support to the author of our Gospel; it would have been strange indeed had the latter been aider and abettor of a practice which was violently opposed to the sequence of his own narrative of the course of events. The case is altogether different with the two remaining explanations; the one being in full keeping with the Johannine representation, while of the other it may be said at the very least that there is no inherent incompatibility between Quartodeciman practice of such a nature and the Fourth Gospel Chronology. The question then is which of the three is entitled to the preference? The second is, of course, tempting, and it has been widely accepted; yet it breaks down with nearer scrutiny; for, in the first place, there is proof that contentions were actually based on the example assumed to have been set by Jesus in that he kept the Passover with his disciples; and next: if the 14th of Nisan observance had sole reference to his Death, how came it that no other day was set apart for commemorating the Resurrection? On the face of it the evidence might appear to be entirely on the side of the first; -- and were such really the case it might then perhaps be argued that our Gospel is traceable to some late writer who does battle with the Christendom of Asia Minor and its Judaising Paschal

Page 95

solemnities[1]. But the evidence is not so strong as it seems; and there are weighty grounds for the conclusion that Quartodeciman practice had no exclusive reference to any one particular occurrence in the story of the Passion. The balance perhaps, weighs down in favour of the third explanation. An ancient festival is retained. Yet wider significance is attached to it; it breathes a new spirit[2].

It is not incumbent on us to follow the history of Quarto-decimanism through its later stages, nor need we take account now of the Easter decisions arrived at A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea. We have noted that appeal was made by Polycarp to 'John'; the question arises whether our Gospel itself was definitely and distinctly brought into consideration. And here we turn to Apollinaris; to whom language as follows is attributed[3]: 'and they say, that on the 14th the Lord ate the Lamb with the disciples, and Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, and they argue that Matthew so speaks as they have supposed; wherefore their position is out of harmony with the Law, and the Gospels according to them appear to be at variance.' The assumption surely is that, if Apollinaris did so really express himself, he at all events had our Gospel in his mind. And further: that if such were really the case, he was able to reconcile the discrepancy to his own satisfaction. Others, it would appear, did likewise.

Thus much of the perplexing question. It has, no doubt, a special interest of its own; whether it really throws any light on the date of our Gospel is open to doubt, and, as a matter of fact, there is a tendency to exclude it from consideration. We might indeed hesitate to decide whether 'the history of the Quartodeciman controversy affords valuable evidence of the early and wide reception of the Fourth Gospel[4],' or whether that history rather suggests an attitude unfavourable to its Apostolic authority in the very regions where that Gospel saw the light of day[5]. In either

[1 - According to Schwegler (op. cit. p. 201), Apollinaris was the first teacher in Asia Minor to head a reaction against such an observance. Yet the position Of Apollinaris himself is not altogether certain.]
[2 - The view of which Stanton says that 'it seems to be proved.']
[3 - Paschal Chronicle, cited by Stanton, op. cit. pp. 180 f.]
[4 - Stanton, op. cit. p. 197.]
[5 - Réville, op. cit. p. 67.]

Page 96

case we fail to discover reason for modifying the conclusion already ventured that the date of our Gospel lies within the period ca. A.D. 100 (? 90) -- 125[1].

In the next chapter we shall examine into the literary structure of our Gospel and seek to decide the question whether it be a unity or a composite work.

[1 - With allusion to 'die geschichtliche Situation in der sich die johanneischen Christen befinden,' Wetter (op.cit. p. 169) writes: 'Es ist die Zeit, da die Christen im Kampfe mit der popularen hellenistischen Frömmigkeit standen. Dagegen finden wir nichts, das dafür zeugen könnte, dass sie im Kampf mit dem offiziellen Kultus des Staates, z. B. dem Kaiserkultus, standen.' It must suffice to say of the second point thus raised (in a quite recent book only just received) that there is nothing in our Gospel which, decisive for the state of affairs, might go near to fix a date.]

[1 - Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of O.T. pp. 11 ff.]

Page 98

present form[1]. And similarly with not a few of the writings of the New Testament. The author of the Lucan Gospel expressly refers[2] to sources laid under contribution by him; very probably the companion-volume Acts embodies, with a variety of other matter, the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul. Large indeed are the borrowings of the author, compiler, or editor of 'The Revelation of St. John the Divine.' The Pastoral Epistles are perhaps made up of genuine Pauline sayings which have been pieced together and largely supplemented by a later hand. In like manner the unknown author of the so-called Second Epistle of Peter may possibly have brought together fragments which, if not actually Petrine, are quite conceivably of Apostolic origin, and provided them with a setting of his own composition[3]. The Epistle which bears the name of James has been held to be a Jewish work adapted by some editor for Christian use, or made up of passages from sermons of a relatively late date[4].

The question now before us is: How does the case stand with our Gospel? Is it a unity, the integral work of a single author? Or does it present features which stamp it as a composite work?

The former alternative is staunchly upheld. The 'unity and symmetry[5]' of the Gospel, its 'deep-seated unity of structure and composition[6],' are insisted on; it is affirmed that, the work of 'a single casting,' it 'stubbornly resists all modern attempts to distinguish between source and source[7].' Well-nigh half a century ago it was maintained that its twenty-one chapters emanate from the self-same author[8], and the like decided opinion was advanced but the other day: 'if we except the episode of the woman taken in adultery, which is of doubtful authority, the whole book is of uniform character and is the literary creation of a single author, including the last chapter, which is of the nature of a supplement[9].'

[1 - Some of the foregoing sentences are borrowed from my Eschatology of Jesus (pp. 113 ff.).]
[2 - Lk. i, l-4.]
[3 - E. Iliff Robson, Studies in 2nd Peter.]
[4 - See Bennett, General Epistles (Century Bible), p. 29.]
[5 - McClymont, St John (Century Bible), p. 29.]
[6 - Sanday, op. cit. p. 22.]
[7 - Earth, op. cit. p. 13.]
[8 - Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays, p. 194.]
[9 - Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 53. Cf. Swete, Studies in the Teaching of Our Lord, p. 127.]

Page 99

But if there be general agreement that ch. xxi is an appendix to a work which has reached a perfectly natural conclusion with xx, 30, 31, the fact remains that of those who contend for the literary unity of the Gospel some unhesitatingly include the appendix chapter and some do not. In some quarters it is urged that ch. xxi is a 'supplement, not by the author of i-xx, but supplied by others, in the author's lifetime, with his approval, in fact, by his order[1]'; 'a later addition, and not only so but, as can be proved, by another hand[2].' Others, again, of one mind with two writers already instanced[3], are persuaded that 'in respect of style and manner this supplement reveals with exactness and nicety the self-same author who has penned the rest of the Gospel[4].' Somewhat differently another scholar; who, deciding that 'the complete identity of thought and style, and the way in which this last chapter is dovetailed into the preceding . . . seem to prove that the last chapter is by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel,' adds: 'But at the very end another hand does take up the pen; and this time the writer speaks in the name of a plurality; "this is that disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (xxi, 24)[5].'

There are, then, not a few who, speaking generally, 'concur in the judgement of Strauss that the Fourth Gospel is, like the seamless coat, not to be divided but taken as it is[6],' if for some the phrase 'the whole indivisible Gospel[7]' means the Gospel in its entirety, while others draw the line at the appendix chapter.

Yet adverse voices are raised; and the view obtains in many quarters that, far from being a literary unity, 'the Fourth Gospel is a composite work[8].' Some fifteen years ago the suggestion was

[1 - Zahn, Einl. ii, p. 493; Horn, Abfassungszeit, p. 77; Hausleiter (Zwei Apos. Zeugen) assigns ch. xxi to the Apostles Andrew and Philip.]
[2 - Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 10; Schmiedel, Evglm. Briefe u. Offenbarung, pp. 12 f.; Schwartz, Über den Tod der Söhne Zeb. p. 48. Loisy (op. cit. p. 55), eliminating vii, 53 -- viii, 11 and xxi, writes: 'Tout le reste constitue un ensemble parfaitement uu et homogène.' And see Réville, op. cit. p. 331.]
[3 - I.e. Percy Gardner and Lightfoot.]
[4 - Wernle, op. cit. p. 14.]
[5 - Sanday, op. cit. p. 81. Cf. Barth, op. cit. p. 6.]
[6 - EB, ii, col. 2558.]
[7 - Strauss, New Life of Jesus, i, p. 141.]
[8 - EB, iii, col. 3338.]

Page 100

thrown out that even if 'the famous comparison of Baur' holds good, 'the seamless coat had also a warp and woof and a tasselled fringe[1],' and to-day the same writer lays stress on an extensive series of phenomena which prove 'to the satisfaction of an increasing number of critics that the Fourth Gospel is anything but the "seamless coat" it was declared to be by the criticism of a generation ago[2]'; elsewhere he has said: 'Besides its "parenthetic additions" and passages relating to the "afterthought," the Fourth Gospel is notoriously full of the gaps and seams, the logical discrepancies and inconsistencies which, if not due to an extraordinary degree of carelessness on the part of the Evangelist, can only be explained as we explain them in other writings of the time. They must be due to later intervention, whether by combination with parallel documents, or by editorial revision, supplementation, or readjustment[3].' As may be inferred from this last sentence, those who disallow the unity of the Gospel are divided into two groups; the 'partitionists' and the 'revisionists.' With the various 'partition-theories' propounded by the former a distinction is drawn between an older source or sources in their combination with later editorial additions[4]. As for the latter[5], advancing their 'revision-theories' they argue each in his own way for some later editor who has 'recast the Gospel for purposes which originally it was not meant to serve. Either set of theories,' it is added, 'may be combined with the further hypothesis of dislocations in the text[6].'

Whether the Gospel be a unity or not[7], it appears on the face

[1 - Bacon, Introd. to N.T., p. 268. 'The famous comparison,' by the way, not of Baur but Strauss (Ulrich von Hutten, Gesammelte Schriften, vii, p. 556). In citing from himself (Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 480) Prof. Bacon has since made the necessary correction.]
[2 - HJ, xv, p. 257. And see Moffatt, op. cit. p. 551.]
[3 - Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 473.]
[4 - So generally Wendt, Spitta, Wellhausen, with enhanced elaboration Soltau, Das vierte Evglm. in seiner Entstehungsgeschichte dargelegt. This work, published a year ago, reaches me at the last moment. Soltau's theory is criticized by Wetter, whose work ('Der Sohn Gottes') comes to me at the same time.]
[5 - Kreyenbuhl, Harnack, Bousset, Heitmüller, Schwartz, Bacon.]
[6 - Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 551 f.]
[7 - The hypothesis of dislocations in the text is not necessarily incompatible with the theory that, speaking generally, the Gospel otherwise is a unity.]

Page 101

of it that, in respect of order of sequence, it has undergone a certain amount of structural disturbance and disarrangement[1]. To begin with, it surely cannot be the case[2] that the prolonged discourse, chs. xv, xvi, together with the 'High-priestly Prayer,' ch. xvii, originally stood immediately after the 'I will no more speak much with you' and the 'Arise let us go hence' of ch. xiv, 30, 31; and it shall be agreed at once that the words just cited 'are natural at the end of a discourse, and are naturally followed by xviii, 1, ταυτα ειπων Ιησους εξηλθεν κ.τ.λ.[3]' And again; with the elimination of the pericope de adultera (vii, 53-viii, 11), it becomes obvious that there is a want of connexion[4] between the sections (vii, 52 ff., viii, 12 ff.) which immediately precede and follow what is, and will presently be recognized as, an interpolation[5]. Other instances could be adduced; yet general adhesion to the hypothesis of dislocations must be qualified by a suspicion that an element of subjectivity may now and again be at the root of suggested re-arrangements[6], and the cautious student will in any case be on his guard against a tendency to approach works of antiquity from a modern point of view. Nor will it do to 'assume a logical or chronological sequence in the Gospel which may not have been present to the author's mind[7].'

The admission appears inevitable that instances of interpolation, gap, and addition are perceptible. To revert in this connexion to the pericope de adultera, if here and there defended as an integral

[1 - Forbes (op. cit. p. 163) finds reason to believe that Tatian had before him an edition of our Gospel in which the order was not the same as at present.]
[2 - In spite of arguments to the contrary. See Zahn, Das Evglm. des Joh. unter den Handen seiner neuesten Kritiker, pp. 6 ff.; Juncker, Zur neuesten Johannes Kritik, pp. 14 ff.]
[3 - Brooke, CBE, p. 323. Cf. Wellhausen, Erweiterungen u. Änderungen im 4 Evglm. pp. 7 f.; Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 556 f.]
[4 - Calmes (op. cit. p. 39) is of the opposite opinion.]
[5 - The pericope in question is for Warburton Lewis (Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel, p. 16) 'a standing proof that the text of our Gospel has suffered disruption.']
[6 - The present writer, warmly commending Mr Warburton Lewis's scholarly little book to the careful perusal of students, is sometimes left unconvinced by its contents.]
[7 - Moffatt, op. cit. p. 552. And see Wetter, op cit., p. 2.]

Page 102

portion of the Fourth Gospel[1], it is regarded by the majority of scholars as an insertion of Synoptic rather than Johannine type; and conjecture has it that 'this floating passage of primitive tradition[2] . . . drifted as a marginal note into some MSS. of John . . . and finally was settled in the text[3]'; possibly it had its place in the Gospel of the Hebrews[4]. As certainly the verses ch. v, 3 b, 4, are no part of the original Gospel, and here it is suggested that an evident gap has been filled in, by way of explanation, by some later hand; that, as the section originally stood, the genuine v, 7 was unintelligible, and hence the piece of information which, now properly relegated to the margin of the R.V., ultimately found its way into the text[5]. On these and other points there is a consensus of opinion; highly debatable ground is reached when seam or rent is discovered in such passages as e.g., vi, 36 ff., xviii, 12 ff., xix, 34 ff.[6], and it is argued that the sections in the Prologue which refer to the Baptist are the insertions of another hand[7]. Room, again, is made for the opinion that, inasmuch as the full significance of xii, 32 goes far beyond the somewhat meagre explanation offered in xii, 33, the latter verse reveals another pen-man. It is further said that the references to Caiaphas (xi,49; xviii, l-21) were absent from the Gospel in its original form[8]; yet further, that it is not inconceivable that the sections in which the Beloved Disciple figures on the scene owe not a little of their colouring to an editorial

[1 - 'Aber in dem Zusammenhang ist sie (viz. the pericope) unentbehrlich'; Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 707. And see Catholic Encycl. Art. 'St John's Gospel.']
[2 - 'Wir sind dem Zufall dankbar, das er diese verlorene Perle alter Überlieferung uns erhalten hat,' Heitmüller, SNT, ii, p. 789.]
[3 - Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 555 f.]
[4 - Euseb. HE, iii, 39. But the story there referred to of a woman accused of many sins may point to Lk. vii, 37 ff. and not to Jn vii, 53 ff.]
[5 - Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, pp. 474 f.]
[6 - Heitmüller, SNT, ii, pp. 701, 716.]
[7 - 'Zwischen i, 4 und i, 9 steht in der Tat Johannes störend,' Wellhausen, Das Evglm. Joh. p. 8. And see Bacon, op. cit. p. 478. With allusion to the 'extraordinary verse,' iii, 11, Percy Gardner (op. cit. p. 121 f.) writes: 'it has evidently slipped into the discourse to Nicodemus by mistake.']
[8 - 'Kaiphas ist also überall eingetragen. Die Vorlage kennt ihn nicht, sondern bloss den Annas,' Wellhausen, Das Evglm. Joh. p. 81. And see the same author's Erweiterungen u. Änderungen, pp. 24 ff.]

Page 103

hand[1]. Yet here again it must be borne in mind that what to modern eyes may appear insertion, rent, or seam, or gap[2], is perhaps often attributable to the idiosyncrasy of the Evangelist, and that a probability remains that, albeit it may be necessary to postulate an editor or redactor, the former may be after all himself responsible for this or that apparent interpolation.

Other features are presented by our Gospel which unquestionably occasion pause. In one place, at any rate so it would appear to some, the Parousia is dispensed with (xiv), while elsewhere (xv-xvii) it dominates the conception; in one place (xiv, 16, 26) the Paraclete is to be sent by the Father, in another (xv, 26; xvi, 7) the sender will be Jesus himself. Nor is it only a case of what, in the view at all events of some scholars, is discrepancy and contradiction; the long discourse-sections, in many respects quite unlike those made up of narrative[3], are held to reveal different hands. Be this the case or not, they are occasionally of such a nature as to convey the idea of essays which owe their existence to processes of elaboration, and with large resort to matter already the common property of the church or churches of the locality in which the Gospel originated[4].

But to bring this chapter to a close.

The Fourth Gospel, it would appear, is not, in the strictest sense of the word, the unity which it has been, and still is, held to

[1 - On the assumption that, a real person, the Beloved Disciple was author of the Gospel it is certainly easier to suppose that the beautiful designation was from a pen other than his own. See Excursus ii. See also Heitmüller, SNT, ii, p. 711.]
[2 - It shall be said here that the present writer, not by any means in entire agreement with Juncker (op. cit.), is far from being convinced by Schwartz (Aporien im vierten Evglm.). As Brooke shrewdly remarks (CBE, p. 325): 'We are driven to the suspicion that to have supplied all the paralipomena which such a method of criticism would demand, might have involved a number of books which the world itself could not contain, nor its inhabitants live long enough to read.']
[3 - Preferred by, e.g., Kenan to the discourse-matter, while the opposite view is maintained by, int. al., Weisse, A. Schweitzer, Wendt.]
[4 - On Wetter's theory there is evidence 'dass wir es mit formelhaften Gut zu tun haben, das nicht vom Verfasser geprägt sondern einfach von ihm übernommen worden ist'; with a religious phraseology which, long time in pagan use, is turned to account by Hellenistic Christians (op. cit. pp. 2, 156).]

Page 104

be; it is, to say the least, not easy to regard it as throughout the integral work of a single author.

There is ground for looking askance at the theories of the 'partitionists.' Not without reason has it been objected that, when the Gospel has been divided up between assumed 'Grundschrift' and material assigned to other hands, the respective groups of matter wear so strong a family resemblance that it is often practically impossible to distinguish between pen and pen. Yet it is only just to say of representatives of this school of criticism that they have rendered useful service[1] in so far as they emphasize the fact that 'undoubtedly there are two elements in the Fourth Gospel: the words and deeds of the Lord, and the interpretation of them in the light of later experience'; and that, whatever be its nature as a whole, there are embedded in it 'fragments of historical value for the story of the Ministry of Jesus Christ[2].'

Looking to the position generally, it would appear that greater weight attaches to the arguments brought forward by the 'revisionists'; and that the balance of probability is in favour of a theory which, avoiding exaggerations and extremes, nevertheless distinguishes between the main fabric of the Gospel and final touches -- not to say amplifications -- received by it before it was given to the world.

Of such sort shall be our working hypothesis in the next chapter.

[1 - The names of Spitta and Wendt may be mentioned in this connexion.]
[2 - Brooke, CBE, pp. 327 f.]

[1 - So, in effect, A. R. Loman, op. cit. p. 7.]
[2 - See ch. 1.]

Page 106

opinion, it is certain that the view which discards the traditional authorship of our Gospel is rapidly gaining ground. Such a view is put forth boldly and uncompromisingly by scholars in the front rank both at home and abroad. If hesitation there sometimes be, it is but momentary: thus when it is said of the Fourth Gospel that its authorship by John son of Zebedee, while possible, is improbable in the extreme[1].

We can but yield assent. On the one hand we will leave room for an exceedingly bare possibility that our Gospel comes to us from the Apostle John; on the other hand we are constrained to feel that the chances of his authorship being proved to satisfaction are exceedingly remote, and that the expression 'improbable in the extreme' may justifiably be adopted by ourselves. The external evidence is, at best, inconclusive; while there can be little question that features are presented by the Gospel itself which, not absolutely incompatible with the hypothesis of an eye-witness, are nevertheless of such a nature as to suggest that, whatever the identity of the Evangelist, he not only wears small resemblance to the son of Zebedee, but must be sought for outside the number of the traditional Twelve. Yet further; the Gospel, beyond all reasonable doubt, originated in Asia Minor[2], and a stream of tradition must be reckoned with which goes near to prove that John the Apostle lived his life and died a martyr's death in Palestine[3]. If it really be the case that those who speak at the close of the appendix chapter were fully persuaded in their own minds -- and this is doubtful -- that he to whom they allude (Jn xxi, 24) was verily and indeed the son of Zebedee, the probability is that such belief is ultimately traceable to a confusion between two distinct personages of whom one was the Apostle while the other was vaguely designated a disciple of the Lord.

The Fourth Evangelist is, in all probability, not the Apostle John; -- who, then, is he? Conjectures are numerous; let some be instanced before we ourselves venture any tentative conclusions.

[1 - Forbes, op. cit. p. 170.]
[2 - Conjecture has pointed to Egypt. Jülicher (op. cit. p. 387) transfers the place of origination to Syria, not excluding Palestine, With allusion to our Gospel Calmes (op. cit. p. 60) rightly decides thus: 'il est donc impossible de lui assigner un lieu d'origine autre que l'Asie mineure.']
[3 - See Excursus i.]

Page 107

To begin with. There are very remarkable coincidences both of thought and diction between our Gospel and the treatise which, known as 'the Epistle to the Ephesians,' may have been composed by some Paulinist disciple who, after the manner of the age, put forth his work under the name of the revered founder of the Ephesian Church. It is, then, an exceedingly tempting hypothesis that, with an interval between them, the two great writings emanated from the self-same pen[1]. If, however, such were really the case -- and there are weighty arguments against it[2] -- the identity of the author of the two works would remain an open question.

Again. Attention has been called in like manner to remarkable coincidences between our Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews; and it is urged that the only satisfactory explanation is one which assigns both writings to a single author who, combining in himself a rich variety of scholarly qualifications, must have been a convert from Judaism, versed in Alexandrian learning, in touch with Baptist-disciples, and subsequently with the Apostle John. The contention then is that, for the portrait of one who was evidently no insignificant or unknown personage, we have but to turn to Acts xix, 24-28; the Apollos who there stands full in view is not only author of the said Epistle but the Fourth Evangelist[3].

To pass from this certainly interesting hypothesis as it was advanced by the sometime Pastor of Uitikon in Zurich[4] to the far less plausible conjecture which, identifying the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle Andrew, transfers the origination of the Gospel from Ephesus to regions bordering on Parthia where Andrew and Thomas had laboured and were in high renown. By preference it fixes on Edessa or its vicinity as the place where our Gospel was composed. The Fourth Evangelist is no Jew nor yet a Greek; he

[1 - W. Lock (DB, i, p. 717) regards it as 'a tenable view that the writer (sc. of 'Ephesians') was the author of the Fourth Gospel, writing in the name of St. Paul.']
[2 - There being much to be said in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle; and if it be presumed, the date of Paul's death would of itself suffice to rule him out as author of so late a work as our Gospel.]
[3 - Tobler, Die Evangelienfrage, passim; ZWT, 1860, p. 293; Heft ii, pp. 177 ff. By the perplexing εκεινος of Jn xix, 35, says Tobler (p. 201), Apollos means the apostle John.]
[4 - Sc. Tobler.]

Page 108

is perhaps a Syrian, who, by birth a Samaritan, had fled, when a mere boy, with his parents beyond the Euphrates at the outset of the Jewish war. At Edessa he became a Christian; and later on, perchance, a Bishop. He could quite well have known Andrew the Beloved Disciple. Himself author of the main fabric of the Gospel, it was reserved for another hand to supplement it -- on this side of the Euphrates, in Asia Minor -- with the appendix chapter[1].

According to another, and more recent, hypothesis[2], the one solitary indisputable statement, which, in view of the internal evidence, can be advanced by criticism with regard to John's Gospel must to-day run thus: 'the author is the Beloved Disciple, but the Beloved Disciple is not the Apostle, nor yet a disciple of the Apostle, nor yet John the Presbyter, nor yet the High priest John, nor yet the author of the Johannine Epistles.' Who, then, is this Beloved Disciple? The question is answered with the following equation: The Beloved Disciple = Lazarus = the sick boy of Jn iv, 46 = the impotent man of Jn v, 5 = the man blind from his birth of Jn ix, 11 = the author of our Gospel. The final equation identifies him with the Gnostic Menander.

Less far-fetched is the hypothesis[3] which discovers the Beloved Disciple in the Aristion alluded to by Papias; and, insisting that the true reading should be Ariston, locates the bearer of what is held to be almost certainly an honourable nick-name (αριστος) in the neighbourhood of Ephesus and perhaps at Smyrna. As for the Fourth Evangelist, he is 'John whose surname was Mark'; and it is he, not John the Apostle, whose closing years are spent at Ephesus. With the lapse of time he has become ever more and more dissatisfied with his earlier work, our second Gospel; in the event he embarks on the composition of a 'spiritual' Gospel which sets forth his deepened and matured reflexions and convictions on the Person and the Ministry of Jesus. Himself destitute of claims

[1 - So Lützelberger, op. cit. pp. 199 ff.]
[2 - Kreyenbühl, op. cit. pp. 627, 632, 642, 644, 810. When Kreyenbühl speaks of ' der einzige unangreifbare Satz,' he is making play with the opinion advanced (op. cit. pp. 374 f.) by Jülicher.]
[3 - Condensed from some notes by E. Iliff Robson which he is now preparing for the press.]

Page 109

to the authority of an eye-witness -- except, perhaps, in respect of the closing scenes; in any case but a mere youth at the date of the Crucifixion -- he turns for information to the friend and near neighbour who can tell him of the things which were said and done by One who for both of them was Lord and Master. With his εκεινος of Jn xix, 35, he points to Ariston, viz. the Beloved Disciple. If more generally known as Marcus, it was at an earlier period -- the Roman name being then best suited to the circumstances; the time came when his Jewish name Johannan was reverted to, and hence the great treatise which occupied the closing years of his life is designated 'John's' Gospel.

The conjecture, not altogether novel[1], is at best interesting. It makes much of coincidences between the Second and the Fourth Gospels[2]; it goes on to urge that, while there is ground for the belief that John, son of Zebedee, devoting all his remaining energies to 'the circumcision,' never stepped outside Palestine, the John Mark known to us from New Testament allusions had not only been a great traveller but had come under the influence of the great Apostle to the Gentiles, and, as tradition has it, became Bishop of Alexandria[3]. Yet, apart from questions raised by the suggested emendation, it takes too much for granted; inasmuch as the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel representation, not standing full in view until the closing scenes, might not himself have had first-hand knowledge of what took place during the earlier stages of the Ministry. And again, when the point is raised that, in antiquity, the name of John Mark was actually connected with the Johannine literature, it must be remembered that it was only in respect of the Apocalypse[4]; and it would be difficult, not to say impossible, to identify the author, or compiler, of this latter work

[1 - It is within my recollection that some dozen or more years ago it was said to me by a friend: 'The Fourth Gospel spells John Mark.' But where and how does it spell it?]
[2 - See E. A. Abbott, Joh. Grammar.]
[3 - Praefatio vel argumentum Marci. See Wordsworth's and White's NT Lat. i, p. 171. But the tradition is scarcely in favour of the hypothesis.]
[4 - See Dionysius (Euseb. HE, vii, 25) on the authorship of the Apocalypse. That work has been definitely assigned to John Mark by Hitzig (Joh. Marcus und seine Schriften), and Spitta (Offenbarung des Johannes) regards him as author of one of the sources of that work -- an 'Urapocalypse.']

Page 110

-- John Mark or not -- with him from whose pen there came the Fourth Gospel[1].

Of such hypotheses and conjectures as the foregoing it may at least be said that, whatever be their claims to serious consideration, they are so many illustrations of a growing tendency to discard the traditional authorship of our Gospel; and, by consequence, to cast about in divers quarters for the type of person to whom its composition may be assigned.

Whoever he was, the Evangelist[2] was assuredly a Jew. By birth and early training he was, in all likelihood, a Jew of Palestine who, at some period or other, had quitted his Palestinian home, and after much travelling, had found himself on the soil of Asia Minor; in the event he settled down at Ephesus. It may or may not have been the case that he was already full of years when he began to pen his Gospel. Beyond all question he was a man of soul and brain, of a contemplative turn of mind[3], in touch with Greek philosophy[4] and versed in Alexandrine speculation[5], a philosopher and a theologian. He may indeed convey the impression that he had actually been eye- and ear-witness of at all events some of the events and scenes told of by him in the pages of his work. Yet the temptation is now and again strong to say of it that the evidences of dependence are so many and so convincing 'as to justify or even compel the inference that the author is not an eye-witness supplementing the Synoptic account by his own minute remembrances[6] . . . but a writer somewhat remote from the events[7]' which he purports to relate.

[1 - Few would agree with Lange (op. cit. p. 11) that only the author of the Fourth Gospel could write the Apocalypse and vice versa, or say with H. H. Evans (op. cit. p. 78), 'it is therefore a psychological impossibility that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel should have been other than the work of one and the same mind.']
[2 - That is, the author of the main fabric, or bulk, of our Gospel.]
[3 - Whose 'little book,' as Herder (op. cit. p. 349) puts it, 'ist ein tiefer, stiller See.' But is this quite true of it?]
[4 - Cf. Cohu, op. cit. p. 429.]
[5 - Cf. Calmes, op. cit. p. 60.]
[6 - So that his work becomes, in the often quoted words of Herder (op. cit. p. 424), 'der älteren Evangelien Nachhall im höheren Tone.']
[7 - Forbes, op. cit. pp. 154 f. Of our Gospel, De Wette (op. cit. ii, p. 211) says that it 'eher als einen Augenzeugen einen Schriftsteller zu verrathen scheint, in dessen nicht ursprünglicher Anschauung der Geschichte die Zeiträume in einander schwemmen.']

Page 111

Let us take refuge -- and not for the first time -- in an 'either -- or.' It may be that the Fourth Evangelist is really that Beloved Disciple[1] to whom, no doubt with variety of identification, some so confidently point, and from whom others as resolutely turn away. Or he may be some other person; and one, who, possibly, had derived some store of information from the Beloved Disciple. To word what is after all but a tentative conclusion thus: the Beloved Disciple is perhaps author of, more likely authority for, the main fabric of the Fourth Gospel.

Whichever way it be, the identity of the Fourth Evangelist remains undisclosed. It is all very well to ask[2] whether, even had he so desired, he could have kept the fact of his authorship a secret, and in the very locality where the Gospel originated; and an apt rejoinder might instance the undisclosed secret of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews[3]. With better show of reason is it suggested that, if he remained, and remains, the 'Great Unknown,' it is precisely because he himself did not wish to be known[4] -- except, as is quite probable, within the limited number of his more intimate friends and colleagues, of the faithful group for whom he was theologian, doctor, and prophet. The supposition that it was not his intention that his work should forthwith reach wider circles is perhaps well-founded[5].

It was said by Origen of the Epistle to the Hebrews that who its author was God only knew[6]; and the same words may be used of the work traditionally assigned to St John.

To pass on to our second question; it relates to methods adopted by the Evangelist in the composition of his Gospel.

Let it be freely granted that inspiration was with him both for the inception and the penning of his work. Truly might it be said

[1 - On the not absolutely safe assumption that he, in any case not John son of Zebedee, is a real person.]
[2 - With Gutjahr, Glaubwürdigkeit, pp. 183 ff.]
[3 - The latter work was perhaps less calculated to invite question than 'John's' Gospel.]
[4 - Réville, p. 319. 'Ich glaube,' writes Grill (Untersuchungen, p. vi), 'er wollte und wird unbekannt bleiben.']
[5 - Loisy, op. cit. pp. 94 f.]
[6 - Euseb. HE, vi, 25.]

Page 112

of him that he 'made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jewelled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the spirit[1]'; let it then be added that inspiration did not mean in his case any more than in the case of other Bible writers that, becoming but a living pen in the grasp of an Almighty hand, he wrote currente calamo from divine dictation. On the contrary, he would make careful and systematic preparation; and a prolonged period must be allowed for during which he was busily engaged in the collection of material. He would consult his sources; and if the Synoptic Gospels were not actually before him as documents, he would draw as seemed good to him on his own memorized knowledge of their contents[2]. Living authorities would naturally be questioned by him; and here the thought might be, on the one hand, of survivors from the number of those who had themselves stood in the presence of Jesus, and, on the other hand, of men whose knowledge was derived from others whose claim to have been eye-witnesses was beyond dispute[3]. If himself really the Beloved Disciple he would muse over and jot down his own hallowed memories of far-off days when he had companied with the Master; while, on the assumption that he was a third person, he might listen to such stories as were told him by the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved'; and, whichever way it was, he would supplement them by his own reflexions on the Christ who lived in his heart. It may safely be inferred that large recourse was had by him to that oral instruction in which, no doubt, he himself participated as leader[4]; of the substance -- quite probably the form[5] -- of the teaching and preaching which went on

[1 - Chrysostom, Hom. on St John, i.]
[2 - A list of parallels is given by Loisy.]
[3 - Of the information thus gained some might point ultimately to, amongst others, the son of Zebedee; and, on that assumption he would (to borrow Harnack's words) stand in some way or other behind the Fourth Gospel. Soltau, in his seven-fold partition-theory (op. cit. p. 38), places first and second in order 'L(egende) nach mündlichen Berichten des Apostel Johannes; ergänzt nach 80 durch S(ynoptische Perikopen).' See also Strachan, op. cit. pp. ix f.]
[4 - A main source of our Gospel, writes Calmes (op. cit. p. 43), consisted 'dans cet enseignement oral qui, vers la fin du premier siècle, florissait en Asie Mineure, et dont' -- so he adds -- 'l'apotre Saint Jean fut l'ame.']
[5 - The discourse-sections have the appearance of essays, or studied compositions, which had undergone polishing by frequent repetition and revision.]

Page 113

regularly in the Christian communities of the locality, and of that controversial discussion in which, whether with Gentile or with Jew, he would take an active share[1]. Time goes on, and large store of matter -- in part, perhaps, digested and revised by him -- is ready to his hand.

And so the day comes when a start is made with the actual composition of the work which, long time in contemplation, had for long time engaged our Evangelist in the preliminaries of collecting and sorting materials which point not only to a variety of written and oral sources, but to the product of his own mind and soul.

Again room must be allowed for a considerable interval between start and finish. It is in the last degree improbable that the Gospel was penned at a stroke; and it is far more likely that one or other section was in the first instance worked up as a separate unity, and that such sections were subsequently so pieced together as to form an organic whole[2]. Neither will it do to conceive of the Evangelist as seated, solitary, at his study table; with good reason may we believe that he freely availed himself of the assistance of his disciples and attached friends[3]. Quite possibly he now and again talked (or, as one might say, thought aloud), while they took down with pen and ink his spoken words. It would have been quite in accordance with the customs of the age if, for some portions of his Gospel, he employed the services of a professional amanuensis who wrote from his dictation[4].

The main fabric of our Gospel, it may accordingly be concluded,

[1 - Thus, in effect, Dr Stanton, in his Exposition delivered 31 Jan. 1916, before the Senate of the University of Cambridge. Let me here express my gratitude to our Regius Professor, who has allowed me to refresh my recollection of the spoken word by a perusal of his MS.]
[2 - 'Vielleicht ist das Evglm. nicht in einem Zug entstanden; vielleicht wurden einzelne Stücke allein ausgearbeitet, und dann erst zum Ganzen vereinigt,' Heitmüller, SNT, ii, p. 701. More definitely, Loisy, op. cit. pp. 141, 145.]
[3 - 'Unter freier Beihülfe von Freunden,' writes H. Ewald (op. cit. i, p. 56). The legendary story embodied in the Muratorian fragment is strongly suggestive of collaboration.]
[4 - An interesting paper, entitled 'Composition and Dictation in N. T. Books,' by E. Iliff Robson (JTS, xviii, pp. 288 ff.), is very suggestive in this connexion.]

Page 114

was a gradual growth. That before a line of it was penned, the contents of it as a whole lay spread out before the author in his inmost soul[1], is a conjecture which will scarcely pass muster; yet it may be readily admitted, not to say asserted, that, reserving to himself full liberty for deviation and modification as the work progressed, he had sketched the rough outline and generally decided in regard to plan. From one point of view the word 'composite' may be used of it, inasmuch as a variety of sources had been utilized by him. It may nevertheless be spoken of as a unity, in that its matter was stamped with the impress of his own mind.

But the time had not yet come for it to be given to the world; and the further conclusion now ventured is that whatever circulation it reached was limited to that inner circle which consisted of the Evangelist's disciples and attached friends. In any case there is nothing to suggest that the main fabric of our Gospel was ever published by itself apart[2]. The evidences indeed, are of such a nature as to point the other way.

Turning to our third, and last, question, we now inquire as to the steps and processes whereby the Fourth Gospel assumed its present form.

Conjectures are numerous. The appendix chapter being omitted, it is said of our Gospel that we possess it for the most part in the form it originally wore; but that interpolations here and there are due to some later editor whose materialistic conceptions, Jewish-Christian modes of thought, and far less developed standpoint, can be detected in the explanations and elucidations of the supposed meaning of the Evangelist which he attempts[3]. It was proved to his own satisfaction by an earlier critic that, worked over not once but twice, and by two different hands, the Gospel points ultimately to an Alexandrian Gnostic -- quite possibly the author of the Apocalypse --

[1 - As suggested by Niermeyer, Bijdragen ter Verdediging van de Echtheid der Joh. Schriften, pp. 39 ff.]
[2 - Spitta's contention (Das Johannes Evglm.) points to the 'Grundschrift' of his partition-theory, and in no way bears on the 'main fabric' of our conjecture; which, again, is something quite different from the 'ältere Schicht . . . welche,' according to Wendt (op. cit. p. 111), 'berechtigten Anspruch darauf hat, für eine primare, geschichtlichwertvolle Überlieferung zu gelten.']
[3 - Scholten, Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 72.]

Page 115

who supplied the Prologue by way of substitute for a lost or damaged Introduction[1]; a few years later the contention was raised that in our Gospel there are traces unmistakable, not of interpolations only, but of independent redaction on the part of one who allowed himself a very free hand[2]. According to the original intention of the Evangelist, so runs a still later suggestion, his Gospel was to remain until his death the possession solely of his nearer friends; ten years elapsed, and then, his friends again collaborating but this time allowing themselves a freer hand, the appendix chapter was penned, its two closing verses being added by the friends in question[3]. With nice distinctions between genuine Johannine 'wonders' and miracle akin to magic, between Galilaean and Judaean sections, and with the remark that an impression conveyed by our Gospel is that two altogether diverse spirits are discernible in its contents, the hypothesis was advanced which, pausing for a moment on two distinct authors, went on to dwell on a work which reveals the additions and interpolations of a later redactor; one who, having appended the narratives contained xxi, 1-23, put forth the Gospel with an assurance which points back to xx, 30 f. and which declares (vv. 24 f.) the work of the eye-witness alluded to in the immediately preceding narrative to be worthy of respect and use[4]. More recently, and with detailed specification of three different interests which our Gospel is held to reflect, it is said to be possible yet not probable that such interests were present in one and the self-same person, and that hence the probability is that the structure of the Gospel has undergone changes[5].

Our Gospel has certainly undergone changes in that, at some time or other, it suffered disarrangement and dislocation. Tell-tale evidences are, in some cases, more or less clearly perceptible: yet

[1 - Cludius, op. cit. p. 321. For his reconstruction of the Prologue, see pp. 58 ff.]
[2 - Ammon, Joh. evangelii auctorem ab editors hujus libri fuisse diversum.]
[3 - H. Ewald, op. cit. pp. 56 f. According to Ewald, the Gospel (i-xx) was composed ca. A.D. 80 by the Apostle.]
[4 - Alex. Schweizer, op. cit.; see in particular pp. vi, 6ff., 23, 59 ff., 97 ff., 125, 164 ff., 233 ff.]
[5 - Forbes, op. cit. pp. 163 f. The three interests being as follows: attempted adjustment to the Synoptics, the grouping of material round the feasts at Jerusalem, Christological.]

Page 116

opinion is bound to differ as to their extent, and it has already been impressed upon us that what to modern eyes appears gap or lack of sequence may nevertheless have been in keeping -- and was so regarded in antiquity -- with the author's train of thought[1]. Neither is it possible to determine when such changes were effected or how precisely they came about.

The question must now be narrowed down to a distinction between the work of the Evangelist and that of a redactor (or redactors); and in dealing with it we will pick up the threads dropped by us in the closing sentences of the preceding chapter.

Two preliminary remarks. In the first place, we cannot but admit that it is more than doubtful whether attempts to distinguish not only between document and document but between hand and hand in our Gospel will ever be crowned with full and final success[2]. And secondly, we promptly acquiesce when told[3] that not every unevenness in the text or apparent or actual contradiction of itself justifies the search for documentary sources; and that -- what is very much to the present purpose -- ample allowance must be made for clumsiness on the part of the author; for a diversity of possible points of view, for manifoldness of personal and documentary influences, for fluctuating mood and view during the period in which the work originated, for the author's own corrections of his completed work, or for minor improvements by some later hand which left the original work essentially intact. Let us add that it would be just as impossible to reconstruct the conjectured original work of the Evangelist from our Fourth Gospel only, as to reconstruct the Marcan Gospel from the two later Synoptics.

[1 - 'Quand il s'agit d'un livre comme le 4[e] Évangile,' says Calmes (op. cit. p. 38), 'il faut s'attacher avant tout à suivre la pensée de 1'auteur.' The very thing which it is often hard to do.]
[2 - Calmes (op. cit. p. 43), with specific reference to Spitta and Wendt, writes: 'Mais il est plus que douteux que l'on arrive jamais à distinguer dans ce livre des documents divers.' He adds: 'Non qu'il soit un modèle d'unité -- on y remarque des transitions brusques et des redites -- mais c'est, d'un bout à l'autre, le meme esprit et le meme style. L'unité est relative, mais réelle.' Heitmiiller (SNT, ii, p. 701) regards the 'Überarbeiter' as having been successful in producing what is, on the whole, a unity, a compacted work.]
[3 - The words which follow are adapted from Spitta (op. cit. p. 402).]

Page 117

Let us proceed on the lines of that 'revisionist' theory which we have already decided to adopt.

We at once mark off the section vii, 53-viii, II[1]. The pericope de adultera is in any case a foreign element in our Gospel; while it presents points of contact with the Synoptic representation, there is no certainty with regard to its origination. And next, the legendary explanation of 'the troubling of the water,' v, 3 b-5, is a gloss[2], and likewise disappears from the Gospel. These two passages, however, point to the field of textual criticism, and do not come into question for our present purpose.

We now turn to the appendix chapter (xxi). So far as our knowledge goes, the Gospel was never circulated without it[3]; opinions differ as to whether it was added during the lifetime of the Evangelist, and, if so, whether by others or by himself. In respect of style and diction it wears, no doubt, striking resemblances to the main bulk of the Gospel[4]; yet the view appears preferable that it is an addition, and by a later hand, to a work which had reached a formal close with the preceding chapter, and the contingency must be reckoned with that its final verse is of separate origination. Looking to the type of subject-matter it might perhaps be said of the chapter[5] that it affords an instance of attempted adjustment to the Synoptic representation; but whether the intention really was to rehabilitate Peter, or, by conceding prominence to Peter, to stifle objections which had been raised at Rome, is quite another question.

The emphatic statement, xxi, 24, is strongly reminiscent of the equally emphatic statement met with xix, 35, and the probability is that both statements must be assigned to the same later pen. It is further possible that the like conclusion holds good, not of v. 35 only, but of vv. 31 b and 37 also[6].

To pass on to the sections in which the Beloved Disciple figures

[1 - See RV margin.]
[2 - See RV margin.]
[3 - As, int. al., Niermeyer (op. cit. p. 26) rightly points out.]
[4 - 'Elle est d'autre provenance,' says Réville (op. cit. p. 305) with allusion to this chapter, but he adds (p. 307), 'par une main de meme famille que celle de l'auteur.']
[5 - Which, in the eyes of Cludius (op. cit. p. 67), was 'ein unbedeutendes falsches Anhängsel.' Spitta's results consequent on his examination of the appendix chapter (op. cit. pp. 16 f.) are certainly interesting.]
[6 - So Heitmüller (SNT, ii, p. 711) who (p. 701) regards it as conceivable that the pen which added ch. xxi was that of the author of the First Epistle. On Jn xxi, xix, 35 see Calmes. op. cit. pp. 40 f., 'ont une origine fort ancienne,' if by another hand.]

Page 118

in the scene. No difficulty is raised by the fact that the designation is applied to this mysterious personage in the appendix chapter, for this chapter has already been assigned by us to a hand other than that of the Evangelist. It is however quite another matter when the designation is met with elsewhere in the Gospel; and the choice lies, it might be said, between two alternatives; either the Evangelist is not the Beloved Disciple -- in which case he could quite well have used the designation of a third person; or the hand of a redactor is traceable in the respective sections. That it is so traceable is, in any case, probable; yet not so as to necessitate the conclusion that the entire sections were altogether absent from the original work. If the words 'whom Jesus loved' be therein attached to the 'disciple' alluded to, the phrase was perhaps imported by the redactor from the appendix chapter.

There is some show of ground for the belief that the sections which relate to Caiaphas are, to say the least, not free from interpolation, and on such an assumption the charge of having blundered (in holding the high-priesthood to be an annual office)[1] might cease to lie at the door of the Evangelist himself.

Turning to the discourse with Nicodemus (iii, 1 ff.), we cannot but agree that v. 11 reads awkwardly in the context; and the conclusion may be ventured that, suggestive of later circumstances and conditions, it is an importation from an unknown source.

Attention is next claimed by a group of passages which are either not exactly in harmony with other passages (e.g., ii, 19; iii, 29 and iii, 31; iii, 22, 26; iv, 1 and iv, 2)[2], or which are strongly suggestive of explanations which have missed the mark (e.g., xii, 32; xvii, 12 and xviii, 9); and the impression is hard to avoid that they reflect the workings of another and a duller mind[3]. The case is otherwise when (e.g., x, 5, 10) there is a mere change of metaphor.

[1 - If such be really the conception which underlies Jn xi, 49, 51; xviii, 13.]
[2 - Cludius (op. cit. p. 37) unhesitatingly adds iii, 17; v, 22; xii, 47. And see Wendt, Die Schichten im vierten Evglm. p. 28.]
[3 - See in this connexion J. M. Thompson, Proceedings of Soc. of Hist. Theol. (Oxford) for the year 1916-17, pp. 49 ff.]

Page 119

Nor is there occasion of difficulty in respect of what appear to be doublets (e.g., vi, 39 f.; xiv, 13 f.; xvii, 14, 16); for, in the first place, such features are not peculiar to our Gospel, and secondly, it might suffice to speak of prolixity of expression.

Unquestionably there are sections which illustrate diversity of view and standpoint. Two of them have already been enumerated (xiv, cf. xv-xviii; xiv, 16, 26, cf. xv, 26; xvi, 7) while a third (v, 21 ff.) has just been noticed in a foot-note reference[1]; and the question then arises whether, apart from divergence of conception relative to the sending of the Paraclete, the self-same author who can apparently dispense with an external Parousia has nevertheless had resort to the turns and phrases of Jewish Eschatology, or whether the sections do not rather indicate the hand of one who still clung to materialistic conceptions of Resurrection, of Judgement, of the Second Coming of the Lord[2]. There is ground for hesitation; yet on the whole we are, perhaps, guided to the conclusion that such fluctuations are to some extent accounted for by variety in mood[3]. The Fourth Evangelist, be it added, is by no means the only man of letters to be at times inconsistent with himself[4].

Two more considerations. They point, in the one case, to the recorded manifestations[5] of the Risen Lord. In the other they point to those opening verses which form the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel.

And first, the manifestations. There is no need to linger on the events narrated in the appendix chapter; and it may suffice to say of them that, leaning on the Synoptic representation, the

[1 - To Cludius.]
[2 - Scholten, op. cit. p. 72.]
[3 - I have ventured to say in the Preface to my Eschatology of Jesus (p. x), that 'if Eschatological Sayings be found in the lips of the Johannine Christ, it is precisely because the historic Jesus had actually been wont so to speak.']
[4 - Frequent instances are afforded by books reviewed in the Times Literary
Supplement.]
[5 - Let room be made here for a conjecture It may be the case or not that, knowing Luke, our Evangelist had also knowledge of its companion work Acts: the chances are that the tale told Acts ii, 1 ff., had somehow reached his ears if not (in documentary form) his eyes and that it was deprecated by him. He does not flatly contradict it; what he does is to substitute the far more spiritual story Jn xx, 19 ff.]

Page 120

writer has apparently thought fit to recast and supplement a story belonging to the period of the earthly Ministry[1] and to transfer it to an after date. Accordingly we turn from it to the immediately preceding chapter (xx); with its record of three several appearances of the Risen Lord -- to Mary Magdalene; to an unspecified number of disciples; to, so it would appear, the same disciples, but, this time, Thomas with them. The point[2], then, is whether, looking to their nature, the stories are precisely what the Evangelist has prepared us to expect. His Christ has, indeed, spoken of his impending death; yet no word has come from him which can be so construed as to suggest both a conviction and a prediction of an external Resurrection, while the allusions actually met with are strongly indicative of a coming to, of an abiding presence in the believer's heart. Nay more; the tone and tenor of the great Farewell Discourses are scarcely in keeping with an expectation that, before three short days had passed, the speaker would have rejoined his disciples, in outwardly visible if mysteriously transfigured form.

It must be confessed that the stories give us pause. They are singularly beautiful stories. They testify to an actual Easter assurance, howsoever vouchsafed and apprehended[3], which brought conviction to the souls of the disciples and enabled them to say their 'Jesus lives.' A deep spiritual significance may be read into them. We are nevertheless constrained to ask again: has any word come from the Evangelist which expressly invites his readers to expect such stories? It is not altogether easy to answer in the affirmative; and the question arises: is he himself responsible for the stories -- stories, quite in the Johannine manner, of spiritual experiences in concrete form[4] -- or must their presence, not necessarily their origination, be accounted for by a redactor's hand?

[1 - Cf. Lk. v, 1 ff.]
[2 - Anticipated, and discussed, but without definite conclusion, by Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. pp. 215 ff.]
[3 - The crucial passage for the interpretation of the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection is 1 Cor. xv, 1 ff.]
[4 - According to Schwalb (op. cit. p. 33), 'er hat sie ja gedichtet oder doch frei umgebildet,' as one who feels, in his own soul, what he makes his characters feel.]

Page 121

Let us hold our judgement in suspense. Yet the remark is permissible that the stories do not seem quite to fit into the framework; to lead up quite naturally to the pointed reference[1] of the verses which, immediately following on these stories -- bring the Gospel proper to its formal close. Has matter of another type been ousted by them?

Turning to the Prologue (i, 1-18), we are confronted by a twofold question: -- do we possess it in its original form -- from whose pen does it come?

No doubt features are presented by it which, at first sight, might dispose us to differentiate between hand and hand[2]. They are present in vv. 6-8 and 15; where, with abrupt transition from 'great abstract conceptions,' we seem, if only for a moment, 'to touch the solid earth,' and then 'are taken back to the region of abstractions which we had hardly left[3]'; and the suggestion is not far-fetched that they are no part of the original text. It might well be pleaded that no real loss is involved by their removal; that, on the contrary, they seem but to impair the ordered sequence of majestic cadences. Yet the author himself may have been altogether unconscious of a break, or else be deliberately passing and repassing as it were from heaven to earth[4]; and the conclusion to be here ventured is that, albeit a difficulty must be recognized, there is much to favour the hypothesis that, in the form in which we have it, the Prologue is a unity.

Who, then, is its author? It is a safe assumption that a work

[1 - Jn xx, 30: Πολλα μεν ουν και αλλα σημεια εποιησεν `ο Ιησους ενωπιον των μαθητων, `α ουκ εστιν γεγραμμενα εν τω βιβλιω τουτω. The ταυτα of v. 31 cannot in any case refer simply and solely to the stories, and an inference might be that it points to something quite different.]
[2 - Yet as by no means prepared to follow Cludius (op. cit. pp. 58 ff.), nor yet Spitta, who here, as elsewhere, arbitrarily distinguishes between 'Grundschrift,' matter derived from other sources, and the reflexions of the redactor.]
[3 - J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 119 f.]
[4 - 'Das Evangelium,' writes Heitmüller (SNT, ii, p. 721), 'ist das Evangelium der Gegensätze. Davon haben wir hier ein bezeichnendes Beispiel. Der Übergang von v, 5 zu 6 ist schroff. . . . Ohne jeden Übergang, ohne Vermittlung, ohne Rücksicht auf Stimmung und Verständnis des Lesers versetzt ihn der Verfasser jetzt in eine ganz bestimmte geschichtliche Lage. Die Stimmung der Wehmut schien ihn v, 5 zu beherrschen: hier (v, 6) schwingt er die scharfe Waffe des Kampfes.']

Page 122

provided with a formal close (xx, 30, 31) could scarcely have been destitute of any formal introduction; and, inasmuch, as the section i, 19-28 not only fails to satisfy requirements but evidently presupposes some sort of preface by the manner of its opening words, we are, it would seem, tied down to two alternatives. If the Prologue be not attributable to the author of the main fabric of the Gospel, then his original introduction has somehow disappeared, while the gap so left has been filled in by another person.

The second alternative may be dismissed off-hand. Of valid reason for refusing to assign the Prologue to our conjectured author there is surely none whatever; and, apart from questions relative to influences pervading it (of which more hereafter), the sole point on which there can be reasonable difference of opinion is one which turns on the exact nature of the relation in which it stands to the remainder of the Gospel[1]. Yet here again the balance surely inclines on the side of the view that, even as with vestibule and temple, Prologue and body of the Gospel constitute a single whole[2].

We may readily believe that, whether the Prologue was actually composed or not before the completion of the Gospel, its composition was not effected without prolonged deliberation and much use of pen[3].

But to bring this chapter to a close.

The identity of the Evangelist is, and probably will remain, an enigma. Whether the Beloved Disciple (who is not the Apostle John) or some other person be the author, the Gospel was certainly not written by a tour de force; prolonged and careful preparation was involved; long time on the literary stocks, it was built up in collaboration with members of an inner circle. He himself never published it; when first it emerged from its depository

[1 - With allusion to Harnack's theory that the Prologue is no organic part of the Gospel, a postscript rather than a preface. Loisy (op. cit. p. 97) writes: 'On a vainement essayé d'isoler le Prologue.']
[2 - See on the whole question Johnston, op. cit. pp. 6 ff.]
[3 - The Prologue, says Robson (JTS, xviii, p. 293), 'is certainly the work of a careful composer, seeking to rise to the height of his great argument, but certainly, as a composer pure and simple, timid and unconfident, and making his way from thought to thought and word to word.' The word 'cautious' might with advantage be substituted for the phrase 'timid and unconfident.']

Page 123

he had, in all likelihood, already gone to his rest; and, when actually given to the world, it had, so to speak, ceased to be his Gospel to become our Fourth Gospel. Or in other words, the original treatise of the Evangelist had been somewhat freely dealt with -- supplemented, interpolated, and perhaps modified -- by editorial hands, yet so as to lend the semblance of compactness to the expanded work. If room must really be made (and this is doubtful) for a plurality of redactors they would differ in mental calibre and trend of thought. There is no settling the question as to who precisely they were, yet it may be said of them that, for all their diversity, they belonged to the Johannine school at Ephesus[1].

[1 - It is possible to assume a redactor without necessarily being involved in the charge: 'So macht man diesen zu dem Ungeheuer, für das man den Verfasser zu halten sich scheut,' Wetter, op. cit. p. 2.]