[1 - Not necessarily the 'Ungeheuer' of Wetter's allusion. And see Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. p. 234.]
[2 - Perhaps it is to go too far when Réville (op. cit. p. 299) speaks of an 'education scientifique.']
[3 - A native of Alexandria. The precise dates of his birth and death are unknown. As we learn from his Legatio ad Caium, he was, A.D. 40, a member of a Jewish embassy to Caius Caligula. Evidently he was of good family; his brother was Alabarch of Alexandria where he himself lived. His literary activity was immense, but there is no trace in his extant works of his having been affected by Christian teaching. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xiii.]
[4 - As Conybeare (Philo about the Contemplative Life, p. x) calls Philo.]
[5 - Windisch, Die Frommigkeit Philos, p. 114. A work which in any case repays perusal.]

Page 126

εγενετο[1]. If in his Prologue he moves in the region of philosophical inquiry, it is otherwise in the body of his work; he well-nigh ceases to be the metaphysician to become the mystic[2]; with definite and deliberate surrender he projects himself into the divine presence, and blends activity with contemplation in union with the Christ Incarnate who for him is revealer and revelation of his God. His musings are of things eternal, yet he is persuaded 'that the heavenly life does not require us to leave the earth nor to refuse ourselves to its concerns, but only to take care that they do not imprison us in petty satisfactions and momentary ends[3]'; things temporal are rightly appreciated by him; he 'sees that the ordinary human life is part of the divine interest,' and, with an eye to his own environment, he is fain so to idealize all human affairs as to turn their water into wine[4]. A real man of flesh and blood, his mood varies; if sometimes inconsistent with himself, it is because his mind refuses to be kept within a solitary groove; in his terminology he perforce turns to 'categories nearest to his hand[5]'; he illustrates -- as perhaps realizing -- the inadequacy of all human language to express the infinite. His are the infirmities of tone and temper which are common to the race; what he sees in vision is blurred in the telling of it; and it might perhaps be said that, appearing to strike a note of exclusiveness in unexpected moments, he goes near to invite the charge that there is scant room in his affection for those outside the Church[6]. It is nevertheless a true instinct

[1 - Cohu, op. cit. pp. 482 ff. See in particular Johnston, op. cit. pp. 87 ff. It is impossible to agree with Ballenstedt (op. cit. p. 87) that the Evangelist's 'Vortrag vom Logos ist ganz Philonisch,' and, int. al., Wendt (op. cit. pp. 98 ff.) is decisive for the other way about. Yet one might say with Ballenstedt (p. 6) that in like manner as the Evangelist took over the phrase 'Lamb of God' from Jewish sacrificial diction, so he might have had resort to Alexandrian speculation for the term 'Logos.' Yet it should be added, with Bruckner (op. cit. p. 91), that, if the latter provided him with a form suited to his environment, its content, for him, was 'das Bild Jesu Christi mit seiner Gnade und Wahrheit.']
[2 - This, again, is slightly reminiscent of Dr Stanton's Exposition.]
[3 - Emerson, Memoir, i, p. 258.]
[4 - This sentence, with some of the preceding sentences, is adapted from Watson, Mysticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 152 ff.]
[5 - Cf. Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, i, p. 147.]
[6 - JE, ix, pp. 251 f. 'This teaching of love is combined with the most intense hatred of the kinsmen of Jesus' . . . 'a gospel of Christian love and Jew hatred.' The writer of the article allows for a possibility that the original work was elaborated into such a Gospel by 'a late compiler.']

Page 127

which decides that, in the last analysis, the hatred displayed by him is not so much of persons as of principles; and that, far from being incompatible with, it is a necessary constituent of rightly-apprehended and comprehensive love[1]. That he is capable of and responsive to such a love is surely patent. As patent is it that 'he is a candidate for truth[2]'; as fully satisfied that the honest search for truth will ever be rewarded by augmented treasure, and that for those who in after ages shall engage in it there will be that never-failing divine guidance which has been richly experienced by himself[3]. He is far more concerned for unity than for uniformity. Refusing to discard altogether the things which belong to outward form and ceremony, he perhaps sits loosely to them. What he emphatically desiderates is worship 'in spirit and truth.'

Of such sort was the Evangelist; he, the Great Unknown -- as we will still speak of him -- who, of Jewish origin but long resident in 'Greek Ephesus[4],' is author of the main fabric of the Fourth Gospel. The pity is that his work does not lie before us in its original form.

With what purpose was it composed, and wherein lies the service rendered by the author in his own period?

It is an exaggeration which accounts his Gospel a diatribe against groups of men who persisted in allegiance to the Baptist[5]; and the truth appears to be that, with Baptist-disciples in his view

[1 - So, perhaps, Calmes, when (op. cit. p. 63) he writes: 'L'antijudaïsme de Saint Jean n'est pas autre chose, au fond, que l'universalisme.']
[2 - Emerson, Essay on Intellect.]
[3 - Is it altogether in accordance with the mind of the Evangelist when, with allusion to the section Jn xx, 26 ff. -- which is in any case Johannine in manner -- Calmes (op. cit. pp. 77 f.) thinks good to say: 'L'exemple de Thomas semble destiné è mettre les lecteurs en garde contre les exigences de la raison'?]
[4 - See the whole chapter so entitled in Prof. Percy Gardner's The Ephesian Gospel.]
[5 - So Baldensperger. And so, at a far earlier date, Cludius (op. cit. p, 52), who, in the allusion 'there was much water there' (Jn iii, 23), discovered 'ein Spott . . . der sich auf die Hemerobaptisten bezieht . . . wegen ihrer täglichen Reinigungen.' According to Wetter (op. cit. pp. 167 ff.) the Johannine polemic was also directed against Moses.]

Page 128

as concerned to win them, lie really breaks a lance with Jewish disputants who made much of the priority of John to Jesus[1]. Notwithstanding coincidence in terminology he is not himself deeply impregnated with Gnosticism[2]; and if later on its foremost exponents found congenial matter in our Gospel, the utmost that can be said is that he is sharply at issue with the view which relegated the Logos to a place among inferior aeons[3] -- who on a second reading of his Prologue would not ask: Is this the language of a theologian who aims at refuting Gnosticism[4]? In his own somewhat ambiguous way he upholds the humanity of his Lord; yet the anti-Docetism of his Gospel is less conspicuous than in that first Johannine Epistle which, quite conceivably, came from his pen. Lusty blows are struck by him at whatever heresy which, fastening on the Manhood, denied the Divinity of Jesus, and affirmed that he was mere man. But, generally speaking, his polemic, where discoverable, is more particularly directed against unbelieving and aggressive Judaism; and, if there be occasion for the remark that 'he fights heretics with their own weapons[5]' there is sufficient warrant for taking him at his word when, referring, not in any case specifically to immediately preceding stories (xx, 11-29), but to his Gospel as a whole, he (xx, 31) thus defines his purpose: 'that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God[6], and that believing ye may have life in his name.'

The question is: Who are the 'ye'? It will not do forthwith to seek for them in the outer world; for it was hardly the express intention of the Evangelist to appeal directly to heathendom. Nor may we dwell at once on local Christian Churches generally,

[1 - See Calmes, op. cit. p. 65; Wendt, op. cit. p. 109; Percy Gardner, op. cit. pp. 199 ff.; Forbes, op. cit. p. 159; De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 219.]
[2 - Against Schwegler, op. cit. p. 211.]
[3 - Cf. Forbes, op. cit. p. 160.]
[4 - Calmes, op. cit. p. 63. The pointed question is led up to thus: 'Sans vouloir prétendre que 1'Évan. Joh. contienne aucun des traits qui caractérisent l'hérésie de Marcion et de Valentin, nous constatons qu'il offre un certain nombre d'expressions qui rappellent d'une manière frappante la terminologie des écrits gnostiques.']
[5 - Cohu, op. cit. p. 431.]
[6 - Incidentally the Jewish Messiah, but -- inasmuch as this would not appeal to Hellenic minds -- primarily Son of God.]

Page 129

when quite possibly he never contemplated any immediate publication and circulation of his work. Rather do we turn to an inner circle which included the members of his School, his disciples and attached friends. It is surely they who are addressed by him in the first instance; -- yet the thought would be present with him, that, engaged as they were in a regular and systematic ministry of teaching, the substance of his Gospel would, by their agency, permeate and influence an ever widening circle of receptive minds[1].

His addressees, then, being primarily his intimates and associates, it was his aim and object both to instruct and confirm them in that reasonable faith which they had drunk in at his lips. To that faith he himself had risen as it were on 'stepping-stones'; it fully satisfied him; it dominated his soul. It was concentrated on a Person; the Christ of his experience. His experience had taught him that in the living out of it there was fulness of Life: -- the Life Eternal told of in the pages of his Gospel.

It was the great service rendered by the Evangelist that by him the religion of Jesus was emancipated from its swaddling clothes and provided with a vesture more adapted to its expansion and its growth. Truly it is said of him that he took up the immortal work of Paul[2]; whether he brought that work to its full and final completion is another matter, and it is safer to decide that it was so continued by him as to illustrate a very considerable advance. The Synoptic tradition was not simply explained by him, but, in and by his interpretation of it, purified and refined[3] as he transferred the Jesus of Capernaum to Ephesus[4], and sought to make the Christ of his experience a reality for Hellenistic and Hellenic modes of thought. If it really be the case that old and materialistic conceptions still clung to him (which is open to question)[5], their influence is faint; they practically fade away before

[1 - In partial agreement with Hengstenberg, op. cit. iii, pp. 396 f.]
[2 - Reville, op. cit. p. 326. Yet Paul and our Evangelist are different in type of mind.]
[3 - 'Da schrieb Joh. sein Evglm., und erläutete nicht nur, sondern läutete selbst die palästinische Evangeliensage,' Herder, op. cit. p. 264.]
[4 - Cf. Ammon, op. cit. i, p. 78.]
[5 - It is easier to discover in echoes of the Synoptic Representation of Judgement and Resurrection the workings of a redactor's mind, yet they may be 'little concessions' (Réville, op. cit. p. 331) of the Evangelist. And see supra, p. 119, note 3.]

Page 130

other and spiritualized conceptions. On the one hand the dross of specifically Palestinian Christianity is purged away by him; on the other hand he freely avails himself of whatsoever elements in the great spiritual tendencies of the age were capable of assimilation[1]. He has parted with Judaism in its purely nationalistic hopes and expectations; and, with adoption of a term already familiar to the schools, he uses it as the key which discloses to Ephesian hearers and readers the innermost nature of the Logos Incarnate Who had tabernacled among men[2]. And so he furnishes his proofs that, while faith in Jesus responded to the deepest yearnings of the human soul, it also satisfied the highest exigencies of knowledge, and that this same Jesus, far from being the Messiah of the Jews only, was Redeemer of the World at large[3]. The Apocalyptic Son of Man is not without an interest for him, but his main thoughts are focussed on the Son of God.

'The Christian Gospels, broadly considered, stand for a certain measure of free thinking re-action against the Jewish religion[4].' The qualified admission, when itself qualified, holds good of our Evangelist; who, no mere reactionary and necessarily bound by the limitations of the period, is a very noble specimen of the true free-thinker and liberator within the Christian Church. Not only abreast of, he was, in no small measure, in advance of his times; and there can be little doubt that, at all events in certain quarters, he was an object of suspicion and distrust: it may be that, in his own immediate following, there were some who, brought up on the Synoptic representation, looked askance at a work so different in its nature and conceptions as that which they received at his hands. That, prior to its publication, it should be subjected to a revision which savoured of conventionalism was, perhaps, natural in the circumstances; nor is there ground for wonder that, even when so

[1 - Schmiedel, EB, ii, col. 2558. Our Evangelist is as it were the 'scribe' of Mt. xiii, 52.]
[2 - Cf. von Soden, Early Christian Literature, p. 404.]
[3 - Schenkel, op. cit. p. 25.]
[4 - J. M. Robertson, Short History of Free Thought, i, p. 218. It is characteristically added, 'albeit their practical outcome was only an addition to the world's supernaturalism and traditional dogma.']

Page 131

worked over as to become our Fourth Gospel, it was slow -- as seems to have been the case -- to win its way to general acceptance. Inviting controversy it was much in debate[1]. As to-day so then, invidious and unreasoning comparisons would be drawn between a 'new theology' and the 'old Gospel[2].'

Was it really in the mind of the Evangelist to compose a 'permanent Gospel[3]'? Readily may we believe that his glances reached ahead; as persuaded that those who came after him would find help and guidance in a work which, rich in his own spiritual experiences, set forth great conceptions which had satisfied himself. By no possibility could it have occurred to him that, before many decades had elapsed, it would take rank as Holy Scripture; nor yet that a time would come when the Fourth Gospel would be classed with 'the most priceless treasures which early Christian literature had bequeathed to' a modern world[4] not blind to the problems it presents.

We pass by a natural transition to inquire into the significance and value of our Gospel in our own day; as prompt to reject the verdict of an early, and withal ill-equipped and flippant, critic that it is 'altogether void of worth and utility[5],' and as feeling that we should be glad to listen 'were John (let us say, the author) to appear to our age and place his Gospel in our hands[6].' As it is, our inquiry must concern itself with the Gospel in its present form.

It has assuredly a historical value. Regarded from one point of view it is, in some sort, a revelation of the circumstances and the conditions of the period in which it originated. When closely scrutinized it enables us to look on at the literary processes of antiquity; it takes us as it were to Palestine; it has much to tell of

[1 - 'Le trouble produit par l'apparition du iv[e]. Évang. se traduisit par des discussions acharnées,' Calmes, op. cit. p. 66.]
[2 - Thus, but recently, by the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Watts-Ditchfield.]
[3 - 'Ein bleibendes Evglm. wollte Joh. schreiben, der Geschichte Geist und Wahrheit,' Herder, op. cit. p. 349.]
[4 - A. V. Green, op. cit. p. 82.]
[5 - 'Weder Werth noch Nutzen.' So in the work which, published anonymously in 1801, was from the pen of Vogel, then Lutheran 'Superintendent in Wunsiedel in Franken.' See Lücke, op. cit. i,, pp. 93 ff. My search, in which friends have most kindly assisted me, for a copy of the work (Der Evangelist Joh. und seine Ausleger vor dem jüngsten Gericht) has been unsuccessful.]
[6 - Herder, op. cit. pp. 369-77.]

Page 132

the throbbing life which pulsated in that great city on the Aegean which had been the 'pivot of civilisation, the crucial meeting-place of East and West[1].' Whether in its main fabric or in features which go near or all the way to become evidence of redaction, it is a study in the anxieties and perplexities, the peculiar difficulties and facilities, the courage resolute for progress and the timorousness reluctant to advance, which were very present with the early Church.

What of its historical value from another point of view? That it is of no small importance, as an ancient document, for the student of antiquity no one will deny. The grave question is whether it be safe to turn to it as a reliable source for the Life of Jesus.

The answer must be tinged with hesitation. It is one thing to say that 'we cannot . . . write a Life of Christ as if the Gospel of St John had no existence'; quite apart from the exceeding venturesomeness of all attempts at such a biography[2], it is difficult to agree that to set our Gospel aside would be to 'reject half our available evidence[3].' For the larger part of evidence relative to the earthly life of Jesus we must admit dependence on the Synoptics; and there is the further necessity of admitting that even in the Synoptics he is ever and again pictured as seen by the eye of faith. This necessity is intensified with our Gospel; which, perpetual theophany[4] that it is, represents and witnesses to the Christ of experience whose glory is manifested, not on one solitary occasion only[5], but from first to last. The belief is, indeed, well grounded that, albeit removed from a transitory setting and transferred to the region of the spiritual, a deposit of genuine reminiscences both of deed and word is embedded in it. It is however not, in the modern sense, a strictly historical record of the earthly ministry of Jesus.

[1 - Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 1.]
[2 - CBE, p. 459. 'Wer sollte nicht in das Bekenntniss der Anna Maria von Schurmann einstimmen,' wrote Neander (op. cit. p. viii), 'welche von einem solchen Unternehmen zurückfuhr, weil es ihr vorkam dass sie die Sonne nur mit einem Kohle abmale?']
[3 - Cf. J. Armitage Robinson, Hist. Character of St John's Gospel, p. 49.]
[4 - 'Le quatrième Évangile est une theophanie perpétuelle,' Loisy, op. cit. pp. 104 f.]
[5 - There is no room in the conception of the Evangelist for any narrative of the Transfiguration.]

Page 133

The Fourth Gospel is a part, scarcely 'half,' of our available evidence; and, while appeal to it must be made with cautious reservations, it is not imperative definitely and finally to rule it out in its entirety as a source for the Life of Jesus.

There is more to be said. Let it be granted that the real Jesus, in respect of each several point in his human developement, was other than our Evangelist depicts[1]. It may then be added that he, the Evangelist, profoundly conscious that personality is after all the highest force, and that it is far less a question of what the man says and does than of what the man is, has seized on great ideas which absorbed the soul of Jesus; and, in his portraiture, has presented them in concrete form[2]. Whether eye-witness or not, he is linked in spiritual affinity with Jesus. In his spiritual Gospel the Christ of his experience is accordingly invested with a personality which, tremendous in its impressiveness[3], cannot for a moment be regarded as nought but the mere creation of pious fancy, of an imaginative mind.

'The problem of the Person of Christ' remains with us. It was faced by our Evangelist; and in this, were there nothing else, there is a deep and encouraging significance for the modern world. There cannot be the shadow of a doubt that his own attempted solution brought satisfaction to himself and real help to his contemporaries; we moderns, studying his Christology -- and remarking, perhaps, that, whatever be the explanation[4], there is an apparent absence of uniformity in the notes struck by it -- are constrained to speak of a problem by no means fully solved by him and still awaiting its solution. Yet the land-marks he set up are not negligible; and, if the path he indicates be long and intricate, to keep on treading it is not to lose sight of the goal.

There is truth in the remark that, in his Christ-ideal, our Evangelist has anticipated the ideal as conceived of and set forth

[1 - Cf. Schenkel, op. cit. p. 25. Schenkel adds: 'aber er war so in der Tiefe und auf der Höhe seines Wirkens; er war nicht immer so in Wirklichkeit, aber er war so in Wahrheit.']
[2 - See W. F. Loman, Het vierde Evangelie, Kenbron van Jezus' Leer en Leven, pp. 6, 34.]
[3 - See Wernle, Quellen des Lebens Jesu, p. 29.]
[4 - Conjecture has pointed to the mind and pen of a redactor. See Spitta, op. cit. p. 404.]

Page 134

by some of the greatest and highest Christian thinkers of a far later day[1].

But to pass on. As with the Imitatio Christi, so with our Gospel; uncertainty in respect of its origination leaves its value essentially unimpaired[2]. The lessons to be drawn from it are manifold; let us fasten on some main points in which it is rich in suggestiveness for present-day circumstances and needs.

To begin with. In these awful days of world-wide strife of nations our thoughts are first directed to 'the time of our wealth,' and the invitation follows to unite in fervent prayer to be vouchsafed 'a lasting peace[3],' while the 'visible consecration to an ideal' is forcefully desiderated[4]. Well and good; yet it is greatly to be feared that not only is the term 'wealth' widely identified with purses filled to repletion, but that the 'peace' craved for by many implies little more than slumberous repose to follow after the clash of arms. Unquestionably the great war has wrought great things in us; we have been stirred to reflexion, dormant faculties have been quickened into life, the spirit of self-sacrifice is in marvellous display, all classes are pervaded by the sense of brotherhood. As unquestionably there is ground for hope that these and such-like features are not destined to speedy disappearance; as Browning confidently tells us: 'there shall never be one lost good[5].' What cannot be said is that the nation has as yet risen to, let alone consecrated itself to, an 'ideal' which takes full account of things intellectual, moral, and spiritual. And apart from such an ideal, there can be, in the true sense of the word, no national 'wealth.'

Let us be on our guard against sweeping generalizations. It were idle to deny that the high ideal desiderated is both grasped and aimed at by right-minded men who, sturdy in their refusal to contemplate a reversion to the lamentable social conditions which obtained in days of so-called 'Peace,' are as sturdy in demand and deed for that new order which shall mean a richer and a fuller life within the reach of those conventionally designated 'the labouring

[1 - Schwalb, op. cit. p. 257.]
[2 - Cf. Réville, op. cit. p. 320.]
[3 - Form of Intercession in time of War.]
[4 - Bishop of Chelmsford's Pastoral Letter in connexion with that National Mission which, no doubt, testified to good intentions.]
[5 - 'Abt Vogler.']

Page 135

classes[1].' The error is nevertheless wide-spread which imagines God's Kingdom to be a synonym for universal comfort[2]; and nought but mischief can issue from its prevalence. 'When this terrible war is over a wave of materialism will sweep over the land. Nothing will count but machinery and output. I am all for output, and I have done my best to improve machinery and output. But that is not all. There is nothing more fatal to a people than that it should narrow its vision to the material needs of the hour. National ideals without imagination are but as the thistles of the wilderness, fit neither for food nor fuel. A nation that depends on them must perish. We shall need at the end of the war better workshops, but we shall also need more than ever every institution that will exalt the vision of the people above and beyond the workshop and the counting-house. We shall need every national tradition that will remind them that men cannot live by bread alone.' Thus spoke England's present Prime Minister[3]; with acute diagnosis of the situation, and keen perception of vitally important needs.

The case is one in which our Gospel is of profoundest significance. The spiritual exaltation which characterizes it is precisely what our times need. It upholds a great ideal; as the Christ of its conception so manifests his glory as to drive it home that suffering and toil and service are not merely incidental to humanity but inherent in divinity. A vision revealed by it is of the social organism when emancipated from the thraldom of sordid and degrading self-interest (whether of individuals or classes), and in full and fruitful enjoyment of that 'perfect freedom' which attends right thought displayed in right action: -- 'ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'

In the second place. Form and ceremony are not things lightly to be discarded. They have their own proper value in that they lend dignity and impressiveness to State or civic pageant; not only are they essential to orderliness and reverence, but they set forth uplifting ideas in the gatherings for common worship. It shall be

[1 - An instance might be found in Mr George Lansbury as cited in The Modern Churchman, ii, 5, p. 209.]
[2 - Burkitt, CBE, p. 209.]
[3 - Lloyd George, Speech at the Welsh National Eisteddfod, 1916.]

Page 136

left to shallow minds to rail at them[1]; to raise shallow objection which is blind to or ignores their perfectly legitimate and often helpful appeal to the senses and emotions[2]. There are nevertheless signs and symptoms of an unwholesome tendency unduly to magnify the importance of externals; and it is just here that our Gospel comes in with its reminder that worship 'in spirit and in truth' is alone precious in the sight of God.

Again. The spectacle is presented of a rent and tattered Christendom. As might be expected, the 'religious outsider' jeers at the spectacle, and finds in it the 'strongest argument against co-operation or belief'; the situation is widely realized in all its ugliness and shamefulness within Christendom itself, and in truth 'our unhappy divisions' ought to be 'an outrage to the moral consciousness of every Christian[3].' Who would not agree that 'it is surely no longer tolerable that bodies of Christians, equally devout, equally effective in missionary work (which is the supreme test), loving one Father, serving one Lord and Saviour, inspired by one Holy Spirit, should go on thwarting each other while the tide of unbelief and wickedness rises unchecked[4]'? The protest is much to the point; yet it invites question as to the alleged efficiency of missionary effort, while doubt is engendered whether genuine inspiration be compatible with sectarian jealousies and rivalries; not to speak of individual communions themselves 'broken into parties eager to narrow the limits of their inheritance by the peculiarities of their own opinions[5].'

The 're-union of Christendom' is much in men's minds. In that very fact there is ground of hope; and the ground is widened as the reflexion deepens that 'the old distinctions between the

[1 - Cf. Emerson, Memoir, i, p. 315.]
[2 - See generally W. James, Varieties of Religious Experience.]
[3 - Bethune-Baker, Nestorius, p. xiii.]
[4 - C. T. Wood, in Religious Reconstruction after the War, A Cambridge Programme, p. 38. See also pp. 44 ff. for remarks on the same topic by the Hulsean Professor, Dr Emery Barnes.]
[5 - Westcott, Historic Faith, p. 117. A lamentable instance is afforded by Bishop Gore in his protest against the consecration of Dr Hensley Henson to the see of Hereford; -- as a friend writes to me: 'he is "out" to make the Church of England -- the only Catholic Church in existence -- a peculium of himself and party.']

Page 137

several denominations no longer correspond with the vital affinities which draw men of kindred faith and purpose together[1].' The ground will become ever wider as, inspired by our Gospel, men resolutely turn their backs on that conception of 're-union' which postulates external uniformity, and dwell by preference on unity in diversity. 'If we look forward to the fulfilment of the great promise which gladdens the future, it is not that there shall ever be, as we wrongly read, "one fold," one outward society of Christians gathered in one outward form, but, what answers more truly to present experience and reasonable hope, "one flock and one shepherd[2]."'

It were well to make haste slowly. There is room for the 'venture of faith' -- so long as it be tempered with sagacity. It is scarcely so tempered when met with in the garb of platform mutual-admiration rhetoric[3], nor yet in well-meant proposals and arrangements which disguise grave differences with the cloak of unreal harmony. Wide, no doubt, is the field in which hearty co-operation is practicable; otherwise wisdom suggests that 'steps towards Christian unity' are most surely taken in the more private converse of those who, conscious of 'vital affinities,' meet together for the discussion, at once frank and penetrating, of the problems which the unity desiderated presents.

One such problem, not inconceivably of paramount importance, is such as to suggest that the uncertainties of which thoughtful minds are conscious are a very real barrier in the way of accomplished unity in diversity.

To say this is to arrive at a fourth, and last, point. There is no getting away from the fact that our lot is cast in a period of transition. The ground has shifted beneath our feet; and, by consequence, there is an uneasy feeling that it is idle to talk about a 'kindred faith' when faith itself appears to have been rudely shaken to its foundations. And the pressing need is to draw clear distinctions between scaffolding and fabric, between non-essentials

[1 - Turbeville, Steps towards Christian Unity, p. 17.]
[2 - Westcott, op. cit. p. 118. And see in this connexion Sir Thomas More on The Religion of the Utopians.]
[3 - 'Ecclesiastical amenities are to be commended, but, like compliments, they must not be taken seriously,' Mod. Churchman, vii, p. 203.]

Page 138

and vital principle; and, that done -- so far as is possible with present limitations -- to provide the new embodiment for newly-apprehended truth.

Mutatis mutandis the Fourth Evangelist himself was in similar case; and the pages of his Gospel (and the Fourth Gospel is in its main bulk his Gospel) are a revelation of what was nothing short of a magnificent attempt on his part to distinguish between the obsolete and the permanent, and -- discarding the one and holding fast the other -- to provide that reasonable faith which was in him with a setting adequate to the exigencies of his own environment and age.

Therein guidance by him for the modern world. It is not that we must necessarily acquiesce at all points in his own conception and presentation of eternal verities; were he to make his appearance in our midst he would surely speak to very different effect. Reminding us that well-nigh eighteen centuries have elapsed since he composed his Gospel, he would have us realize that, confronted by circumstances and conditions not so much diverse from as infinitely more complex than those which obtained in his times, we have entered upon a vaster inheritance of knowledge than that which had come down to himself. He would bid us see to it that we turn our splendid inheritance to right good account; and accordingly be quick to 'recognize' -- in fuller measure than for him was possible -- 'that a process of evolution is at work in religion no less than in the realm of nature and in all human institutions[1].' On the one hand he would raise a warning voice against the glib acceptance of doctrine, view, or theory which, 'fashioned to the varying hour,' breaks down when put to the test; on the other hand we should be told by him to rid ourselves of accumulated lumber in the form of beliefs not only old but outworn and obsolete. In like manner mindful of his own convictions, he would urge that the New Learning of time present be regarded, in all its manifold-ness, as the gift of God; and that, by consequence, it is our wisdom, not to stand aloof, but to welcome it, to strive to assimilate the added lessons which it has to teach. Again pointing to his own example as one who did not scruple to draw water from the well

[1 - Bonney, in Religious Reconstruction, p. 140.]

Page 139

of old-world philosophies, he would have us tread in his steps; our thoughts would be directed by him to the newly-opened field of Comparative Religion; his plea would be for the ungrudging recognition of every element of truth in the non-Christian religious systems of mankind. The intellectual and spiritual riches of individuals and classes, of churches and of sects, of the nations in all their variety of endowment and temperament, must, he would say emphatically, be laid under contribution in the attempt to transplant as it were the Jesus of Galilee and Jerusalem to village, town, or city of an expanded world.

Not that our Evangelist would point only to himself. On the contrary, we should ever find him pointing away from himself to the marvellous Personality of his Lord; to the Christ no longer of his own experience only but of that of one generation after another right down to our own day. Asking us to take his own guidance for what it was worth as realizing his limitations, he would dwell and dwell again on the continuous presence of a divine spirit whose allotted function is to 'guide' the men of every period 'into all the truth.'

Was it really our Evangelist who, telling (xvi, 13) of the functions of the Paraclete, went on to say: 'he shall show you things to come'? The phrase is somewhat reminiscent of specifically Jewish-Christian conceptions; and, if that be really the case, a possibility remains that it illustrates the workings of a more conservative and less spiritualizing redactor-mind. Be that as it may, it is, perhaps not altogether fanciful to find it suggestive of a vision rising, however dimly, before modern Christians who are at least united in their resolve to go forward on the path marked out for them in a Gospel which has but lately been alluded to as 'the most modern book in the world[1].'

We are told -- and we know it to be true -- that 'creeds are in the melting pot.' The assertion is met with that one creed at any rate is flouted (it must be said, by anticipation) by the Fourth Gospel[2]; the ancient Symbolum apostolicum which, known to us

[1 - By B. Webb-Odell, Modern Churchman, vii, p. 172.]
[2 - Scholten, Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 471. In a foot-note on the same page Scholten decides that, of all the twelve Articles of the Apostles' Creed, the only one not contradicted by our Gospel is the 'suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried,' and that even so the 'Pontius' must be eliminated.]

Page 140

as the Apostles' Creed, is occasion of perplexity, and is certainly characterized by a terminology and by conceptions which are not exactly responsive to present-day modes of thought. Such an assertion is, of course, arguable; at the same time a point is raised by it which we cannot afford to neglect. Interesting, beyond question, are experiments in creed-construction which have resort to the actual phraseology of 'the Johannine writings'; yet there is ground for the objection that the said writings are after all bound by the limitations of a remote antiquity. It is quite another matter for 'the Christian consciousness of this age,' 'free to express itself in a modern Christian Creed[1],' boldly to experiment in creed-construction, not in terms of, but on the lines which are surely indicated by the Fourth Evangelist. The work would involve time and patience, the exercise of thought, much anxious discrimination. Who dare say that such labour would be void of result? Engaged in by minds representative of every shade of thought and of every persuasion, there would surely be a growing sense of rapprochement in the very-doing of it. The view would gain ground that variety in organization is quite compatible with agreement in regard to institution[2]. There might ultimately come about the formulating and the general adoption of a credal statement which, inclusive in its wording and sufficient for its day, would serve the three-fold purpose of rallying-point, safe-guard, and weapon for now outwardly sundered members of a divided Christendom.

We have not yet exhausted the suggested vision. It would be but in part realized with the accomplished unity in diversity of Christendom in respect of vital principle. There is promise of fuller realization in the fact that accomplished diversity in unity is bound to mean enhancement of efficiency in Christendom's mission to 'the world' when, as things are, there is only too good reason for the wailing cry which harps on 'the failure of the Church.'

[1 - Modern Churchman, vii, 4, pp. 156 f.]
[2 - Such, apparently, is the view of our Evangelist. In his own spiritualizing way he realizes and affirms the value of sacramental rites, while comprehensiveness is a feature in his conception of fellowship.]

Page 141

Is it altogether true to say of our Evangelist that he is an out and out universalist? At times he wavers; it might seem that he invites the conclusion that, if his faith in human 'capacity for God' be unshakable, his inclusiveness stops short at 'the many' and fails to extend to the 'all[1].' In any case there is a note of dualism[2] in his conceptions; sharp is the antithesis between Church and World which recurs in the pages of his Gospel. Yet there is this to be said: -- as his glances range ahead a conviction dawns 'on him that, while the latter cannot but be a diminishing quantity, the former is destined to extend its borders; and he breathes forth that conviction in Sayings placed by him on the lips of his Lord: as the 'lamp of life' is passed on by generations of believers (xvii, 20) there should be continuous additions to their ranks; and, if the day be far off, it will nevertheless come when the Christ shall have (xii, 34) 'drawn all men' unto himself. And hence we, in speaking of the noble treatise bequeathed to us -- not, alas, in its integrity -- by one, the 'Great Unknown,' who was in such close spiritual affinity with Jesus, may legitimately describe it as the Gospel of 'the larger hope.'

'Though it (the vision) tarry, wait for it[3].' The vision, not of the old-world Hebrew prophet, but that which, as we cannot but believe, rose before the author of the main fabric of the Fourth Gospel; a vision which points, in its fullest realization, to the highest fellowship of individuals and peoples linked heart to heart and hand to hand because one and all 'bound by gold chains about the feet of God.' Yet there must be no passive waiting for the vision; it behoves us to work for it. And we shall so work to better purpose when, steeping ourselves in the great thoughts which stirred in the mind and soul of our Evangelist, we aim at translating them into action with an eye to every circumstance and exigency which confronts us in our modern world.

[1 - 'Die Gottesfähigkeit allerdings nicht aller, aber doch vieler Menschen,' Schwalb, op. cit. p. 257.]
[2 - 'Grim dualism.' So C. G. Montefiore, HJ, xvi, p. 235.]
[3 - Habakkuk ii, 3.]

[1 - Jülicher, Einl. in das NT (5th and 6th ed.), pp. 369, 391.]
[2 - I shall be permitted to draw on a paper read by me before the Cambridge Theological Society and also (with modifications) before the Oxford Society of Hist. Theology (vid. Proceedings for the year 1912-1913). See also my Note in JTS, xviii, pp. 30 ff.]
[3 - The words 'and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with' (AV) are without sufficient authority, and are rightly omitted by RV.]
[4 - The figure of 'the cup' has but one meaning in his lips (of. Mk xiv, 36), and the recorded pregnant saying, Lk. xii, 50 ('I have a baptism to be baptized with, etc.'), points to anticipated death.]

Page 143

word comes from him which qualifies the prediction in respect of either brother, and its natural meaning surely is that both James and John would one day share their Master's fate.

The presumed genuine prediction refuses, it would seem, to be watered down or explained away. That once conceded, there would be real ground of surprise were it found to be affirmed of one or other of the two brothers (as it is affirmed of course, of John in the 'venerable tradition') that, while he 'had his share of suffering[1],' he yet went to his grave in peace. It would be, upon the other hand, nothing short of reasonable to look for, and expect to find, some positive statement to the effect that the prediction had been fulfilled to the letter in the case of both James and John.

A statement relative to the elder brother is quickly found Acts xii, 2; where it is said of Herod that 'he killed James the brother of John with the sword[2].' Is there any like statement in respect of John? There is: -- if reliance may be placed on two authorities who, whatever their claims to respect, are at all events in singular agreement in the gist of what they narrate.

1. Georgius Hamartolus[3]. In a MS. of his Chronicle it is stated that 'John the Apostle after he had written his Gospel suffered martyrdom, for Papias in the second book of the λογια κυριακα says that he was put to death by Jews, thus plainly fulfilling along with his brother the prophecy of Christ regarding them, and their own confession and common agreement concerning him[4].'

2. Philip of Side[5]. In an epitome probably based on his

[1 - Slater, 'St Matthew' (CB), p. 258.]
[2 - According to Preuschen (HBNT, 'Apostelgeschichte,' p. 75) the account bears traces of modification in that all mention of the death of John is eliminated. And see the reading in Cod. D; where, after Ιουδαιοις, there follows `η επιχειρησις αυτου επι τους πιστους.]
[3 - A monkish chronicler of the tenth century.]
[4 - EB, ii, col. 2509. 'The passage was first brought into notice by de Muralt . . . and afterwards more widely by Nolte' (Tüb. Quartalschrift, 1862, p. 466). The Greek is as follows: ;`ο Ιεραπολεως επισκοπος, αυτοπτης τουτου γενομενος. εν τω δευτερω λογω των κυριακων λογιων φασκει `οτι `υπο Ιουδαιων ανηρεθη, πληρωσας δηλαδη μετα του αδελφου την του Χριστου περι αυτων προρρησιν.]
[5 - A church historian of the fifth century who is somewhat contemptuously noticed by Socrates (HE, vii, 27).]

Page 144

Chronicle we read: 'Papias says in his second book that John the Divine and James his brother were slain by Jews[1].'

As might be expected, the statement thus doubly attributed to the Bishop of Hierapolis has been much in debate. The text being deemed corrupt, emendations have been offered[2]; the statement, it is affirmed, 'rests on very slender authority[3]'; one suggestion is that the James referred to is not the Apostle but the brother of the Lord[4] and another points from John son of Zebedee to John the Baptist[5]. Other scholars prefer to hold their judgement in suspense: 'it is one of those statements that we can neither wholly trust nor wholly distrust . . . the evidence . . . does not warrant a positive assertion either way[6].' Less hesitation is manifested in another quarter: 'with this testimony before us it is not easy to doubt that Papias made some such statement; if these MSS. are strictly independent witnesses it is difficult or well-nigh impossible to doubt that Papias used the words Ιωαννης . . . υπο Ιουδαιων ανηρεθη or the like[7].' Yet more decidedly: 'Until some valid reason is advanced . . . why this doubly attested statement of the martyrdom of James and John may not have stood on the pages of Papias . . . it must be accepted as the simple historical fact, in perfect harmony with the "prophecy" (sc. Mk x, 39) it was adduced to confirm[8].' And such positive assertions as the following are on the increase: 'henceforth there is no room for doubt that Papias did actually state that the Apostle John was slain by Jews[9].'

[1 - De Boor, TU, ii, p. 170. In the Greek: Παπιας εν τω δευτερω λογω λεγει `οτι Ιωαννης `ο θεολογος και Ιακωβος `ο αδελφος αυτου `υπο Ιουδαιων ανηρεθησαν. Papias, of course, could not have made use of the term `ο θεολογος. Cf. Jülicher, op. cit. p. 367.]
[2 - Lightfoot, Essays on Supernat. Religion, pp. 211 ff.]
[3 - J. Armitage Robinson, Histor. Character of Fourth Gospel, p. 79.]
[4 - A. V, Green, Ephes. Canonical Writings, p. 23.]
[5 - Zahn, Introd. iii, p. 206. Otherwise Gutjahr (Glaubwürdigkeit, p. 110) who, identifying John of Asia with the Apostle, makes the following admission: 'What reader, finding James and John in this conjunction, would ever have thought that the Baptist was meant, would not at once have thought of the son of Zebedee?']
[6 - Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 103.]
[7 - Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 378; Apoc. of St John, p. clxxix.]
[8 - B. W. Bacon, Fourth Gosp. in Research and Debate, p. 133.]
[9 - De Boor, op. cit. ii, p. 177. To similar effect Jülicher (op. cit. p. 368); Schwartz (Über den Tod der Söhne Zeb., passim); Schmiedel (Evang. Briefe u. Offenbarung Joh. p. 7); Heitmüller (SNT, ii, p. 710); Wellhausen (Das Evang. Joh. pp. 119 ff.).]

Page 145

A safe conclusion, perhaps, is that the case for the statement attributed to Papias by 'George the Monk' and Philip of Side 'seems stronger than is generally acknowledged by conservative critics[1]'; nor is it surprising that it be said: 'what must be explained is its (sc. the statement) displacement by the subsequently dominant tradition of the survival of John[2].' Of course Papias may have blundered. The assumption being that what he is held to have affirmed is fact, how is the silence of Eusebius and others respecting such a fact to be accounted for? A reminder comes that[3] ecclesiastical historians have the knack of suppression, and it may have point here.

But the case for the alleged statement gains in strength as certain notices and allusions, met with elsewhere, are taken into consideration.

i. To turn first to Clement of Alexandria. In the passage in question[4] he appeals to Holy Scripture in its demands to risk martyrdom sooner than deny Christ; he proceeds to quote Heracleon[5] who, says he, affirms that there are two ways of making confession; he then instances Heracleon's allusion to some who had not sealed their faith with their lives: εξ `ων Ματθαιος, Φιλιππος, Θωμας, Λευις και αλλοι πολλοι.

The distinction between Matthew and Levi, met with now and again elsewhere, is of no great moment. The one point to fasten on is the explicit denial of 'red martyrdom' in a context from which the name of the Apostle John is absent -- he is surely not relegated to the 'many others.' Clement, it would appear, makes no demur.

Is there much force in the suggestion that, if the Apostle's

[1 - Scott-Moncrieff, St John Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet, p. 252.]
[2 - B. W. Bacon, op. cit. p. 133.]
[3 - Bolingbroke, also Bousset. Eusebius, who has no very high opinion of Papias, may have classed the statement along with other μυθικωτερα (HE, iii, 39).]
[4 - Strom. iv, 9.]
[5 - See Brooke, Extant Fragments of Heracleon, TS, i, iv, p. 102.]

Page 146

name is absent, sufficient explanation is forthcoming in stories already current as to the Patmos-exile and the caldron of boiling oil?

ii. We pass on to the apocryphal Martyrdom of Andrew[1]. Here a tale is told of the Apostles meeting in conclave at Jerusalem: 'Wherefore do we delay,' asks Peter, 'to enter upon our work?' In the event lots are cast, and respective mission-fields are assigned to each and all: και εκληρωθη Πετρος την περιτομην: Ιακωβος και Ιωαννης την ανατολην: Φιλιππος τας πολεις της Σαμαριας και την Ασιαν. . . .

No doubt pure legend. It will be observed that, as by Polycrates[2], so here, Philip the Evangelist is confounded with the Apostle of the same name. The point is that the words την ανατολην are in the very teeth of the tradition as to a departure to and prolonged residence in Asia Minor in the case of the Apostle John.

iii. Next comes the Syriac Martyrology[3]. Dated A.D. 411 and drawn up at Edessa for the use of the local church, it is based on an 'Ur-Martyrolog' which Duchesne locates at Nicomedia. It contains the following commemorations:

Dec. 27. Ιωαννης και Ιακωβος `οι αποστολοι εν Ιεροσολυμοις.

Dec. 28. Εν `Ρωμη τη πολει Παυλος και Συμεων Κηφας `ο κορυφαιος των αποστολων του Κυριου `ημων.

Here, as elsewhere, is encountered the popular tradition of a Church -- Edessa; also Nicomedia -- in regard to martyrs. The tradition is well founded in the case of Paul, and probably of Peter; in respect of James it is confirmed by Acts xii, 2. Is there ground for questioning its validity in the case of John the brother of James?

It would by no means necessarily follow that, because thus

[1 - Bonnet, Acta Apos. Apocr. II, i, pp. 46 ff. Scholten (Der Apos. Joh. in Kleinasien, p. 82) speaks of a new feature introduced by Origen in assigning John's field to Asia.]
[2 - Euseb. HE, iii, 31. Let me here disclaim responsibility for the 'as by Gaius' which occurs in my Note (JTS, xviii, p. 30) on the death of John, son of Zebedee. The words 'as by Polycrates' stood in the proof revised by me.]
[3 - Die drei altesten Martyrologien (Lietzmann's Kleine Texte), pp. 8 ff.]

Page 147

linked together in the Martyrology, the two brothers suffered at the same place and date[1].

iv. The last witness to be called is Aphrahat[2]. In his homily
De Persecutione (dated A.D. 343 or 344) the 'Persian Sage' speaks thus:

"Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus . . . to him followed the faithful martyr Stephen whom the Jews stoned. Simon also and Paul were perfect martyrs. James and John trod in the footsteps of their Master Christ. Also other of the Apostles thereafter in divers places confessed, and proved themselves true martyrs."

The James and John here named are, beyond doubt, the two sons of Zebedee. Inasmuch as Aphrahat, far from confining himself to those who had actually yielded up their lives, makes room for others who had endured suffering, the question might arise whether -- in an allusion which, possibly, is 'etwas vag[3]' -- John, by reason of stories which had gathered round his name, be not here simply accorded martyr-rank. Yet the context surely points the other way; and besides, the closing words of the passage cited are such as to invite the conjecture that the Apostle died, by actual martyrdom, a relatively early death.

Of such sort are the four notices and allusions[4]. Weighed in the balances of critical investigation they might severally invite suspicion; they are of unequal value; the third and the fourth are perhaps more deserving of credence than the remaining two[5]. But their cumulative effect is strong. Grave doubt is awakened by them as to the traditional Ephesian residence, the peaceful death in extreme old age, of the Apostle John. They account, it may be, for the otherwise incomprehensible attitude of Ignatius; who, addressing

[1 - Achelis, Die Martyrologien, pp. 27, 58 ff. Cf. Burkitt, Gospel Hist. and its Transmission, pp. 253 ff.]
[2 - Bishop of the Monastery of Mar Mathai, Metropolitan of Nineveh. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, xii, pp. 2, 158, 401; TU, iii, pp. 329 ff.]
[3 - Erbes, ZKG, XXXIII, ii, p. 203.]
[4 - For some further discussion of them (adverse or otherwise), see int. al., J. Armitage Robinson, op. cit. pp. 64 ff.; J. H. Bernard, Irish Church Quarterly for Jan. 1908; Clemen, Entstehung des Johannes Evglm. pp. 442 ff.; Moffat, Intr. NT, pp. 608 ff.; Bousset, TR, 1905, pp. 225 ff.]
[5 - 'The evidence of Heracleon should never have been brought forward,' A. E. Brooke, DAC, i, p. 626.]

Page 148

himself to the Ephesian Christians, is content to refer to Paul while he finds not a single word to say of one whose hallowed memory would -- had he actually resided among them -- be peculiarly dear to their hearts[1]. And they incite to search for some explicit statement that John son of Zebedee did really and truly die a martyr's death.

The statement is to hand; in the words which, attributed by two authorities to Papias, are precisely what the recorded Saying of Jesus to the brother-pair has prepared the seeker to expect.

It has been hinted that the historicity of the incident narrated Mk x, 35-40 = Mt. xx, 20-23 does not pass unchallenged[2]. The section is without a Lucan parallel[3]; was it absent from the Mk used by Luke? if not so absent, did Luke deliberately suppress it by reason of a still living son of Zebedee, or simply decide to pass over the whole episode (Mk x, 35-45) while transferring the Lord's words on the subject of humility to the account (Lk. xxii, 24-27) of what happened at the Last Supper[4]? The latter alternative is preferable. Let it then be frankly conceded that the story as told by Mk (and condensed by Mt.), far from being the verbatim report of a stenographer, is the embroidered product of a day long subsequent to the period to which it points. The main fact to be reckoned with is that the recorded prediction to the brother-pair is allowed to stand part of it. Would this have been the case had the prediction been altogether unfulfilled, or only half-fulfilled, when the story went its round5?

On the assumption, scarcely gratuitous, that John son of Zebedee met a violent end, a two-fold question is suggested: when and where did he suffer? Tentative answers must suffice.

When? It has been suggested that the words 'whom Herod

[1 - Loisy, Quatrième Évan. p. 6.]
[2 - See on this point Montefiore, Syn. Gospels, i, pp. 257 f.; also SNT, i, p. 173 f.]
[3 - Bacon (op. cit. p. 449) writes: 'for which Lk. xxii, 30 significantly substitutes the logion Mt. xix, 28.']
[4 - Stanton, op. cit. ii, p. 162.]
[5 - Decided answers in the negative come from Wellhausen (Evang. Marci, p. 90); Heitmüller (SNT, ii, p. 710); Forbes, op. cit. p. 166. Yet similar objection might be raised in the case of the ' unfulfilled prediction,' Mt. x, 23.]

Page 149

killed[1]' refer to both the sons of Zebedee; the suggestion is not easily reconciled with the text of Acts xii, 2, nor yet with the vague allusion to Papias -- which seems to point from Herod Agrippa I to 'Jews who could not further be specified[2].' If the John of Gal. ii, 9 be indeed the Apostle John (and he surely is)[3], the date of Paul's conference with the 'pillar-apostles' becomes the terminus a quo; unless John does actually reappear at Ephesus, which is unlikely, the year of the Fall of Jerusalem might be taken as terminus ad quem; and this might be pushed somewhat further back if the Marcan Gospel falls within the period 'after A.D. 64 but not much after A.D. 70[4],' and it be allowed that the prediction of Jesus was already an accomplished fact.

To turn to the question of locality. It being allowed, for the moment, that John did actually make his way to Ephesus[5], was his martyr-death instigated by 'Jews' of Asia Minor as happened in the case of Polycarp? The conjecture is precarious[6]; and besides, tradition knows nothing whatsoever of a martyred John of Asia. If the Apostle 'fell a victim to Jewish hate, it was only in Palestine that such a fate could have befallen him[7]'; once more, then, pointed to 'the East' (as by the Martyrdom of Andrew), the allusion Gal. ii, 9 is again significant; it suggests that John, extending the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, decides to cast in his lot with 'the circumcision'; when the curtain then and there falls on him it is without hint that he will one day bid farewell to a Palestinian home. An appeal, perhaps, lies to the Muratorian fragment; John 'seems to be thought of as still living at Jerusalem[8].' Was it there that, following in his Master's steps

[1 - See Achalis (op. cit. pp. 21 ff.) on the reading quem Herodes occidit in the Martyr. Karthaginiense.]
[2 - EB, ii, col. 2510.]
[3 - Schwartz (op. cit. p. 5) identifies him with John Mark. Lützelberger (op. cit. pp. 180, 197) is able to satisfy himself that John's death was prior to A.D. 60 on the ground that, as he puts it, Paul uses the past tense in his allusion to the 'pillars.']
[4 - SNT, i, p. 67.]
[5 - As maintained by, int. al., Clemen, op. cit. p. 456; Polidori, I Quattro Evangelii, p. 240.]
[6 - See on this point Stanton, op. cit. i, p. 167; Pfleiderer, Prim. Christianity. i, pp. 128, 135; Schmiedel, op. cit. p. 8; Adeney, Thess. (CB), p. 10.]
[7 - Jülicher, op. cit. p. 367.]
[8 - EB, ii, col. 2511; Jülicher, op. cit. p. 363.]

Page 150

(as Aphrahat relates), he gained the crown of martyrdom? Or must the scene be transferred to Samaria, the date to the year A.D. 66? So it has recently been contended; with the suggestion that the tomb still shown at Sebaste as that of Nabi Jahja is in reality that of the Apostle John[1].

In fine. If, on the one hand, the venerable tradition to the effect that John son of Zebedee lived to be an old man and went down to his grave in peace has support behind it, so, on the other hand, it is plain that, in the fourth century, both in Asia Minor and in the farther East, a tradition persisted that he had actually died a martyr's death. To speak, then, of 'the universal tradition of the Church[2]' is no longer possible, and it becomes less and less easy to dismiss as 'altogether untrustworthy[3]' the story of the 'Red martyrdom' of the Apostle John[4].

[1 - By Erbes, op. cit.]
[2 - J. Armitage Robinson, op. cit. p. 79.]
[3 - J. H. Bernard, op. cit. p. 52. See on the whole question A. E. Brooke, DAC, i, pp. 626 f.]
[4 - Scholten (Der Apos. Joh. in Kleinasien, pp. 127 fi.), refusing to build on the alleged statement of Papias or the fragment of Heracleon, set aside the Ephesian residence of the Apostle on independent grounds.]

[1 - Jn xxi, 2: και `οι του Zεβεδαιον. 'Dass der Lieblingsjünger gerade ein Zebedaide sei, ist mit nichts angedeutet,' Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. p. 235. The allusions to James and John in Acts are simply decisive for a brother-pair; who their father was is not told.]

Page 152

was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest: but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.' The question then is whether he thus vaguely designated (αλλος μαθητης, `ο δε μαθητης εκεινος, `ο μαθητης `ο αλλος) be really the Disciple whom Jesus loved or another person.

We remark a conflict of opinion. It is hesitatingly said that perhaps he is[1]; the suggestion of an omission or dislocation of the text is ventured[2]; a halting verdict, adducing the view of a majority of Fathers (viz. that the person really is the Beloved Disciple) adds that 'perhaps they are right[3]'; of proof, it is said, there is none: 'the inference is simply suggested to the reader's mind in view of Mk xiv, 33[4]'; if it be admitted that the idea that this disciple is the Beloved Disciple has prevailed in the end, and that at the least it is probable[5], it is with no decisive word; quite recently it has been argued that the unnamed disciple of the section is none other than Judas Iscariot who lures Peter to his fall[6]; conjecture has pointed to one of the nobility of Jerusalem[7]. On the other hand he is more or less boldly identified with the son of Zebedee; 'in all probability John himself[8]'; 'the reader cannot fail to identify the disciple with St John[9].' Be he so identified or not, the prevalent view regards him as the Disciple whom Jesus loved -- -whoever that disciple may be.

The problem, for such it is, is encompassed with difficulty. Yet the prevalent view has strong support behind it; not only is

[1 - 'Der andere Jünger dürfte der Jünger sein, den Jesus liebte,' Heitmüller. SNT, ii, p. 844.]
[2 - 'Es scheint hier etwas zu fehlen oder in Unordnung zu sein,' Wellhausen, Evang. Joh. p. 82 note.]
[3 - Bauer, Handbuch zum NT, II, ii, pp. 130, 162. In the view of Augustine (tr. cxiii) the question does not admit of hasty decision, yet he leans to the identification. Cf. Loisy, op. cit. p. 833.]
[4 - Bacon, op. cit. p. 307.]
[5 - Loisy, op. cit. p. 833. 'Très vraisemblablement," Réville, op. cit. p. 312.]
[6 - E. A. Abbott, Fourfold Gospel, sect. ii ('The Beginning'), pp. 351 f. The same view was put forward, at a far earlier day, by Caspar Merken and Heumann.]
[7 - See Lampe, Commen. in Evang. Joh. iii, p. 522.]
[8 - McClymont, St John (CB), p. 313.]
[9 - Westcott, St John (in loc.), and cf. Hastings, DB, ii, p. 781.]

Page 153

the coupling here, as elsewhere, with Peter suggestive, but there is another point which perhaps deserves notice: with but one exception, it is only when in the actual company of Jesus that the nameless disciple is expressly alluded to as the Beloved Disciple, while in the section now in hand the situation is altogether different. And besides, the term αλλος μαθητης is again met with Jn xx, 2, 3, 4, 8.

Let us assume that the Beloved Disciple is really meant. In that case he is evidently a personage of rank and distinction[1].

Jn xix, 25 ff. Here the Beloved Disciple is standing at the Cross of Jesus. The Mother of Jesus is entrusted to his charge; and, to all appearance, he takes action without delay: 'from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.' Quite in the manner of the Fourth Evangelist no word is said of his return to Calvary; yet it is safe perhaps to discover him in the crux of commentators: 'he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he (εκεινος, some third person) knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.'

The inference surely is that he who, having taken Mary to his own home[2] (εις τα ιδια), is quickly back at the Cross, is resident in, or in the vicinity of, Jerusalem.

Jn xx, 2 ff. The scene is now laid at the Grave of Jesus. Upon tidings brought by Mary Magdalene 'to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved,' they both ran to the tomb; of the 'other disciple' it is said that he 'outran Peter,' and, first to arrive, looks in yet does not enter; Peter, following, enters the tomb forthwith: 'then entered in therefore the other disciple also, which came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed.'

An impression is conveyed, that, as contrasted with Peter, the 'other disciple' (who is the Beloved Disciple) has all the vigour of youth or early manhood.

Jn xxi, 1-24 (The appendix chapter). Here the story tells of

[1 - See infra, p. 162, Note 5.]
[2 - It must be remembered that the Mother of Jesus may here be an ideal figure representing Judaism and the Beloved Disciple typical of the Christian Church. And thus Kreyenbühl (op. cit. ii, p. 599), 'auch das stabat mater macht wohl dem Herzen seines Dichters Ehre, hat aber leider in der Geschichte keinen Grund.']

Page 154

a manifestation of the Risen Lord. Whether one of 'the sons of Zebedee,' one of the 'two other of his disciples,' or some other person, the Beloved Disciple looms large on the scene. He it is who, recognizing Jesus, says to Peter: 'It is the Lord.' To him Peter points with the question: 'Lord, and what shall this man do?' The reply of Jesus misunderstood, the saying goes abroad: 'that that disciple should not die'; the misunderstanding is then corrected. Once more the same individual is pointed to: 'This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.'

It shall suffice to say here that the allusions are of such a nature as to imply the, perhaps recent, death of the Beloved Disciple.

Returning to the questions proposed at the outset, they shall be discussed under three heads.

I. Is the beloved disciple a real man of flesh and blood? Negative or hesitating answers come: -- it is said that he who is thus beautifully designated (whether by himself or others) is not a historical personage, but the 'exquisite creation of a devout imagination[1].' And again, he is a type of the perfect Gnostic, spiritual witness to Jesus[2]. We are told further that there are features which are highly suggestive of an ideal figure which owes its existence to the Evangelist[3]; that of all the dramatis personae in our Gospel not one is so phantasmal as the Beloved Disciple himself, albeit he is something more than a purely ideal figure, for a real man has sat for the portrait[4]. As might be expected, opinions are both numerous and weighty on the other side, where there is no hesitation in believing that a real historical personage is indicated[5]. And there is certainly force in the contention that, whoever the persons may be who speak xxi, 24 and whatever the value of their

[1 - EB, iii, col. 3339.]
[2 - Loisy, op. cit. pp. 124 ff., 'Les passages de l'Évangile où l'on croit retrouver le disciple, et ceux où il est explicitement désigné, sont loin de prouver l'historicité de son personnage et son identité avec l'apotre Jean.' And see Scholten, Het Evan. naar Joh. pp. 405 ff., 'den geestelijken broeder van Jezus.' Elsewhere (Der Apos. Joh. p. 110), Scholten says that the Disciple stands before us like another Melchizedek, απατωρ, αμητωρ, αγενεαλογητος.]
[3 - Heitmüller, SNT, ii, pp. 714 ff.]
[4 - Bacon, op. cit. pp. 319 ff., 325.]
[5 - As a rule the further step is taken of identifying the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John.]

Page 155

testimony on the point of authorship, it would be almost, if not altogether, incredible that they should be victims of a delusion and not be alluding to one who (whatever his identity)[1] had actually lived a real life. Yet the case is not proved to demonstration; and perchance we must regard the Beloved Disciple 'either as a purely ideal figure or as the symbolical counterpart of a real personage[2].'

We will content ourselves with saying that, on the one hand, it is not inconceivable that the portrait is, if somewhat highly coloured, of a real man, while, on the other hand, it is quite possible that it is of an ideal disciple.

II. Let it be assumed for the sake of the argument that the Beloved Disciple is a real man. We then ask: is he verily and indeed the son of Zebedee? It is, of course, held by many that he is; yet adverse voices are raised, there are not a few who are convinced that he is not. In the latter case it is nevertheless allowed by some that the identification has been drawn already, if wrongly, by the anonymous persons who, xxi, 24, testify to the authorship of our Gospel.

The question demands lengthy inquiry; and with necessary reference to the 'venerable tradition' which brings the Apostle John to Ephesus.

Now, what is recorded in the New Testament of the Apostle John?

With good reason is it urged that a fertile cause of misconception is the habit, inveterate with many, of reading the Gospels (or hearing them read) as a single work; of preaching or teaching which, reckless of distinctive features necessitating a division into groups, is based on a combination of the several narratives[3]. A result in the case in hand is that biographies are offered of the

[1 - 'L'identification du disciple bien-aime avec I'apotre Jean n'est pas le fait de 1'auteur de xxi,' Eeville, op. cit. p. 312.]
[2 - E. F. Scott, op. cit. p. 47. In the latter alternative Scott fastens on Paul. Reville (op. cit. p. 317) says of the Beloved Disciple: 'II apparait comme un etre irreel.. .le disciple ideal qui est sur le sein du Christ, comme le Christ est sur le sein de Dieu.']
[3 - 'In einer unnatürlichen Einheit,' Baur, Kanon. Evang. p. 63. Cf. Wernle, Die Quellen, p. 15.]

Page 156

Apostle John which, all four Gospels being fused together into a single whole, depend for outline, perhaps, on the Synoptics while the lights and shades are filled in from the Fourth Gospel. Its author is boldly identified with the Beloved Disciple and the Beloved Disciple with the son of Zebedee. His circumstances, his character, are then glibly delineated in terms of writings which bear the Apostle John's name[1].

In the present instance, any such unwarrantable method being definitely repudiated, resort shall be had at the outset to the Synoptic Gospels. It is said of the two brothers James and John that they respond to the definite call of Jesus[2]. Of their father Zebedee no more is known than that he was a Galilaean fisherman with hired servants in his employ[3]; as for their mother it is probably safe to identify her with Salome[4], and, if so, she is sister to the Mother of Jesus, cousin of Elizabeth, and one of the women who minister to Jesus of their substance and bring sweet spices to the tomb. They, James and John, are in partnership with Peter[5]. They are present at the healing of Peter's mother-in-law[6]. Ordained of the number of the Twelve, they are surnamed Boanerges[7]; a designation of obscure significance, but interpreted of fiery zeal, which is not again applied to them. An ambitious request is made by them[8]; -- according to another version of the story their mother makes it on their behalf[9] -- and they learn their destined fate. Alike they are ready to call down fire from heaven on inhospitable Samaritans[10], if it be John only who reports to Jesus how he and the other disciples had dealt with one who, not a follower with them, was casting out devils[11]. Together with James and Peter he

[1 - As e.g. by Macdonald, Life and Writings of St John; Polidori, I Quattro Evangelii, pp. 26 ff.; Hastings, DB, ii, pp. 680 ff.; Johnston, Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 17 f.; Hitchcock, A Fresh Study of the Fourth Gospel.]
[2 - Mk i, 19.]
[3 - Mk i, 20.]
[4 - Cf. Mt. xxvii, 56; Mk xvi, 1.]
[5 - Lk. v, 7, 10.]
[6 - Mk i, 29-31, pars.]
[7 - Mk iii, 17. With allusion to the Hermetic literature it is suggested that the word, compounded of βοαω and ενεργεια, may mean sons, or manifestations, of the Divine voice.]
[8 - Mk x, 35 ff.]
[9 - Matt, xx, 20.]
[10 - Lk. ix, 54.]
[11 - Mk ix, 38; Lk. ix, 49. Is it strictly accurate to say that he 'plays no independent part or special ro1e in the Synoptic tradition'? Moffatt, op. cit. p. 565.]

Page 157

is included in a sort of inner circle within the 'Apostolic College'; he is present at the raising of Jairus' daughter[1]; he is a witness of the Transfiguration[2]; he is one of those who ask when events predicted are to come to pass[3]. But once is he found in the sole company of Peter -- when sent by Jesus to prepare the Paschal meal[4]. Present, so it may be inferred, at the Last Supper, he is certainly in the Garden of Gethsemane[5]. Nowhere is he again alluded to by name in the Synoptic Narrative.

To pass from the Synoptics to Acts. John's name stands third ('Peter and James and John') on the list of the Eleven who are assembled, with others, in the Upper Room[6]. With Peter, who takes the lead, he is at the Gate Beautiful when the lame man is made to walk[7]. With Peter he is imprisoned and brought before the Sanhedrin: while Peter is spokesman, there is equal 'boldness' on the part of John, the two are equally accounted 'unlearned and ignorant men[8].' With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria on a mission of inspection[9]. When next alluded to by name, and for the last time, it is simply in connexion with his brother's martyrdom; Herod 'killed James the brother of John with the sword[10].'

To turn from Acts to the Epistle to the Galatians. According to Paul's statement, James (the 'Lord's brother'), Cephas (Peter) and John (surely the Apostle John), 'the three leading apostles,' are in repute as 'Pillars' of the Jerusalem Church[11]. Whether John be of the stricter school of James or of the less conservative school of Peter there is little if anything to determine; his belief, it seems, is that his own mission field is circumscribed. He allows that to Paul and Barnabas a divine call has come to labour among the gentiles, and he extends to them the right hand of fellowship. As for himself, it would appear that he is content to stay on where he is, and to devote all his energies to 'the circumcision[12].'

[1 - Mk v, 37, pars.]
[2 - Mk ix. 2, pars.]
[3 - Mk xiii, 3.]
[4 - Lk. xxii, 8.]
[5 - Mk xiv, 33; Matt, xxvi, 36.]
[6 - Acts i, 13.]
[7 - Acts iii, 1 ff.]
[8 - Acts iv, 1, 3, 8, 13.]
[9 - Acts viii, 14. 'Eine Art Kontrolle,' von Dobschütz, Das Apos. Zeitalter, p. 39.]
[10 - Acts xii, 2.]
[11 - Gal. ii, 9. Schwartz's contention that the John of Paul's allusion was 'John whose surname was Mark' has been noted elsewhere.]
[12 - Gal. ii, 9. See Scholten, Het Evan. naar Joh. p. 410.]

Page 158

And so the curtain falls on the son of Zebedee. Except on the venturesome assumption that the Apocalypse was penned by him, his name never again occurs in the pages of the New Testament. Of direct New Testament information respecting him there being, then, no further word[1], it shall now be asked: how does the case stand with the personality of the Apostle John as revealed in the sparse and fragmentary notices which have been instanced?

He is a Galilaean fisherman. In all probability younger than his brother James, he comes of a family which, if prosperous, is of the like stratum of society as that of Peter; if his mother be Salome he is kin to Jesus, with connexions in the priestly caste[2]. His home by the Sea of Galilee, he has at least received the education provided by the Synagogue schools of the locality[3]', while, in view of the circumstances, he can doubtless make himself sufficiently understood in Greek[4]. He throws in his lot with Jesus, and is included in the number of 'the Twelve'; zealous for his Master's cause and honour, his good qualities have been marked by the penetrating gaze of Jesus[5], and his admission to the 'inner circle' tells of high regard which he had gained. Yet grave faults and defects of character are discerned in him; scarcely loveable by nature, he is impetuous and intolerant, not to say vindictive; his ambitions are self-centred, he fails to rise to spiritual conceptions[6]; if importance be attachable to order of sequence, there is

[1 - 'We fail to realise how seldom St John the son of Zebedee appears in the Synoptists,' von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 433.]
[2 - Cf. Lk. i, 5, 36. According to Chrysostom (In Joan. Hom. i) the family was wretchedly poor.]
[3 - For some notice of the opportunities within the reach of Galilaean boys, see J. B. Mayor, Ep. of James, pp. xli ff. When it is said of Peter and John that they were 'unlearned and ignorant men' the phrase simply means that they were not trained theologians by profession. Cf. Delff, Rabbi Jesus, p. 76. The twelfth century Byzantine monk Euthymius Zigabenus (see Ammon, op. cit. i, p. 76), with a view to accentuating John's later marvellous theological attainment, makes out that he had been an ignoramus (παντελως ιδιωτης `ην) in the full sense of the word.]
[4 - There was a considerable Greek-speaking element in the population of Galilee. Cf. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des 4 Evglms.]
[5 - Cf. Reuss, Geschichte der HS des NT, p. 215, 'Jesus muss tiefer geblickt haben, etc.']
[6 - Joh. Weiss commenting (SNT, i, p. 172) on Mk x, 35, finds the story reminiscent of some unpopularity which attached to the memory of the sons of Zebedee.]

Page 159

significance in the fact that, as a rule[1], he is named last among those who form the 'inner circle' or who are 'pillars' in repute. He is not only associated with but paired with Peter; the latter being, by comparison, the man of speech and action. A leading personage in the Church at Jerusalem, he, by this time surely getting on in years[2], can indeed join in bidding Paul God-speed[3], but he himself is plainly representative of Judaistic Christendom. He thereupon vanishes from the scene; what if it be really true that he reappears at Ephesus? In that case much, let it be conceded, may have happened with the lapse of time; as with many another, so, perhaps, with John. Self-discipline may have eradicated earlier faults and feelings; his character will have been refined and sweetened; an impending catastrophe may have startled him to reflexion; Pauline influences, it might be said, have told on him, and by consequence, there are larger sympathies and a broader mind[4]. A new career, in short, may open out for him when, as the 'venerable tradition' has it, he says a last farewell to Jerusalem[5] -- the Holy City soon to be, or already, encompassed by the Roman legions. He may have left his past behind him when he set foot in Asia Minor; and then the change of scene may issue in the altered man. Years go by, and higher qualities and faculties might be developed in him which, perhaps already latent, had not as yet been recognized by others or so much as suspected by himself. In the event it might come about that he is had in memory as verily and indeed the Beloved Disciple and reputed author of the Gospel which bears John's name[6].

[1 - There are remarkable exceptions, cf. Lk. ix, 28; Acts xii, 2.]
[2 - The inference is that both John and James had reached full manhood when they responded to the call of Jesus, while the date of Paul's visit to Jerusalem was some twenty years and more subsequent to the Crucifixion.]
[3 - Yet Wrede (Paulus, p. 43) remarks: 'Über ein Schiedlich-friedlich kam es doch nicht hinaus. Die Einigung bedeutete zugleich Trennung.']
[4 - 'Konnte er nicht von Paulus lernen und ihn noch überschreiten?', De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 233.]
[5 - Upholders of the 'venerable tradition' (as e.g. Polidori, op. cit. p. 240) are at a loss to fix a date for John's alleged departure from Judaea and arrival in Asia Minor.]
[6 - 'Das der Johannes der Gal. ii auftritt das Evglm. nicht geschrieben, kann unbedenklich zugegeben werden. Aber muss er derselbe geblieben sein . . . ?' Reuss, op. cit. p. 215. Scholten (op. cit. p. 410), raising similar questions, adds significantly: 'Op zich zelf ware dit mogelijk, maar is dit ook waarschijnlijk?']

Page 160

It must nevertheless be admitted that the Johannine portrait of the Beloved Disciple has but few features in common with that of the Synoptic John. But further inquiry is necessitated; and the question now is: What is related of him who, surviving to extreme old age at Ephesus, is in course of time positively identified with John son of Zebedee? The New Testament being silent, the region of 'somewhat fragmentary tradition1' must be explored.

As a group of stories run, he knows what it is to suffer persecution. The scene laid before the Latin Gate at Rome, he emerges, uninjured, from the caldron of boiling oil into which he has been plunged by cruel men[2]. He drinks of the fatal hemlock-cup, but the poison leaves him unharmed. Condemned to exile, he is banished to the Isle of Patmos; returning thence to Asia, he is ruler of the churches[3]. Other stories are connected with his asserted long residence at Ephesus. He seeks out, and reclaims, the robber-youth[4]; Cerinthus discovered by him in the public baths, he forthwith rushes out, and bids others likewise flee lest the bath fall in upon that enemy of the truth[5]. It is said that he had worn the high-priestly 'petalon[6],' and that he had brought back the dead to life[7]. To the huntsman astonished by finding him playing with his tame partridge his long since proverbial reply is that the 'bow cannot always be bent[8]'; when the Ephesian elders ask him to pen his Gospel he, by sudden inspiration, gives utterance to its opening words[9]. He sets forth what has been beautifully called 'his last will and testament[10]' with that reiterated 'Little Children, love one another'

[1 - Hastings, DB, ii, p. 681.]
[2 - Tertullian. In the calendar, May 6th: St John E. ante Port. Lat. According to Jerome he emerged nihil passus; purior et vegetior exiverit quam intraverit.]
[3 - Euseb. HE, iii, 18, 23.]
[4 - Ibid. iii, 23.]
[5 - Irenaeus. Euseb. iii, 28, iv, 14.]
[6 - Euseb. HE, iii, 31.]
[7 - Ibid, v, 18. Cf. Traub, Die Wunder im NT, pp. 45 f. Schwegler (op. cit. p. 155) suggests the spiritual death and resurrection of the robber youth.]
[8 - Cassianus. For a fable near akin to the story see Herodotus, ii, 173.]
[9 - Jerome, De vir. illustr.]
[10 - Lessing (Das Testament Johannis) says that not the prologue to the Gospel, but the touching words of John are worthy to be set up in letters of gold where they may be read of all men.]

Page 161

which wearies his hearers, who are then reminded by him that it was the Lord's command[1]. He is said to be ever virgin[2]. Death has no power over him; in his grave he goes on sleeping; a strange movement of the ground caused by the sleeper's breathing is witnessed by visitors to his tomb[3].

It may occur to some that such 'fragmentary tradition' is very near akin to if it be not altogether sheer fiction. The admission must, of course, be made that for some of the stories there is but slight authority, while it has been rightly affirmed of others that 'they are alien not only to the simplicity of Apostolic times, but to the reasonableness of Christianity itself[4].' It does not follow that they are one and all the mere creations of pious credulity; and very likely they now and again point to actual event or incident in the life of some real personage; that real person being (as those who originally told the stories or who to-day uphold the 'venerable tradition' are alike firmly persuaded) John, Apostle and Evangelist, disciple whom Jesus loved.

The stage has now been reached for instituting a comparison between the Synoptic John son of Zebedee and the Johannine Beloved Disciple who is said to have survived to extreme old age at Ephesus. And it shall be borne in mind that the solitary allusion in the Fourth Gospel to the sons of Zebedee is without mention of their number or their names; if they are among the little company to whom Jesus manifests himself at the Sea of Tiberias, there is no single word to indicate that their relations with Jesus have been singularly close. The Fourth Evangelist apparently knows nothing of any 'inner circle,' while he is curiously reticent, and, as some think, disparaging, in his notices of 'The Twelve[5].'

To begin with, the Synoptic John is a fisherman. It by no means follows that, because the Beloved Disciple is found (Jn xxi)

[1 - Jerome. Epis. ad Gal.]
[2 - Monarch. Prol.]
[3 - Augustine, Tract. in Joh. 124.]
[4 - Stanley, Sermons on the Apos. Age.]
[5 - Heitmüller (SNT, ii, p. 71.4) writes: 'Offensichtlich behandelt er die kanonisch gewordenen Zwölf-apostel mit einer gewissen Geringsehatzung.' According to Scholten (Der Apos. Joh. in Kleinasien, pp. 91 f.) he goes further than Paul and Luke in representing the inadequacy of the apostolate of the Twelve. And see W. F. Loman, op. cit. pp. 24 ff.]

Page 162

in the company of fishermen, he is therefore of the same trade himself; and besides, he may be one or other of the two unnamed disciples[1], conceivably he is an eighth person[2]. There is at least the possibility that, far from being an artisan, he is the leisured man of means.

Again. If well-to-do and with relatives among the priesthood, the family of which John is a member is in no way socially removed above that of Peter. True that the following of a trade was not only no social barrier but enjoined by Jewish custom, yet it is certainly suggestive that a term (γνωστος) which may imply relationship[3] with the High priest is used of the Beloved Disciple. An impression is in any case conveyed that the latter, evidently quite at home in exalted circles[4], is Peter's superior in rank[5].

Thirdly. The son of Zebedee of the Synoptics is coupled with Peter as is also the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel. Admitting that the coincidence is too striking[6] to be ignored, it is not inconceivable that there were occasions on which Peter was accompanied, not by John, but by another, and far younger, attached friend. The latter, in that case, is the Beloved Disciple; and he, to all appearance, is John's junior by many years.

Another point. John is one of 'the Twelve.' Not so, it would seem, is the Beloved Disciple.

In the fifth place. The Beloved Disciple stands by the Cross of Jesus, and is, apparently, witness of the closing scenes. Scarcely so John; the statement Mk xiv, 50 is strongly suggestive of his

[1 - Godet discovers in them John the Presbyter and Aristion. Cf. Holtz-mann, Evglm. des Joh. p. 226.]
[2 - Seven persons only being specified in the narrative.]
[3 - So Delff. The possibility is allowed by Holtzmann (op. cit. p. 23), and E. G. King (Interpreter, v, p. 170). But see E. A. Abbott, op. cit. p. 356; also Westcott, St John, p. 255. 'Connu ou parent du grand pretre,' Calmes, op. cit. p. 426.]
[4 - The assumption here is that he is the αλλος μαθητης of Jn xviii, 15 ff.]
[5 - But cf. Sanday, op. cit. p. 101. Yet if there be any question of the 'servants' hall,' Peter surely has to wait there while his companion as evidently has the entrée which admits him to the presence. And see Swete, JTS, xvii, pp. 372 f. Thus Jerome (Ep. cxxvii, 5): Unde et Jesus Johannem Evangelistam amabat plurimum: qui propter generis nobilitatem erat notus pontifici.]
[6 - See Sanday's forcible remarks on this point, op. cit. p. 107.]

Page 163

absence. He might, indeed, have overcome his fears; yet even then his place would be with those who (Lk. xxiii, 49) 'stood afar off.'

Next. The conjecture is not far-fetched that the Beloved Disciple is a dweller in or near Jerusalem. There is nothing to suggest a like inference in the case of John; his fixed abode is evidently in Galilee.

A last consideration; it relates to type of character. As for the Beloved Disciple, he is slow to speak; whatever may have been the case with John at a later period, in the days when he companies with Jesus he is scarcely reluctant to give vent to his thoughts. While on both sides there are features which testify to devotion to the Lord and Master, with the one it endures to the end, and with the other it fails with the test. There are singularly unpleasant traits in John; not so with the Beloved Disciple, even if the conjectured real man was by no means the placid and effeminate personage of conventional representation. There is little difficulty in recognizing the latter when the scene is shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor; on the contrary, there are vivid reminders of him in the 'fragmentary tradition'; far less easy is it to discover in the stories told of 'John of Ephesus' the son of Zebedee. John, in days gone by, has attained to prominence at Jerusalem; it might be tempting to suppose that, president of the churches of Asia, it is the self-same John who is once again in renown. As for the Beloved Disciple, he is evidently quite at home in a Greek-speaking community; the conjecture, then, might be that he who, in earlier life, had at least a smattering of Greek has become familiar with the language as the years go by. Two of the legendary stories are, it may be, reminiscent of the 'son of thunder' of the Synoptic Narrative. There is a touch of John's impetuosity in the sharp rebuke administered to the bishop who has failed in his duty to the robber-youth; of his intolerance in the tale told of one who rushes from the public baths because of the detested presence of Cerinthus[1].

[1 - If it be really the Beloved Disciple who penned the Third of the Johannine Epistles, the sharp allusion to Diotrophes (vv. 9, 10) might be to the point. Cf. Dobschütz, Christian Life in the Prim. Church, pp. 221 f.]

Page 164

To sum up. Upon the one hand there is, no doubt, something to be said for the time-honoured belief which identifies John son of Zebedee with 'John of Ephesus.' The pairing with Peter is of significance; on both sides there is acknowledged leadership; if the one be the man of means the other is well-to-do; priestly connexions may be fairly adduced; stress may, unquestionably, be laid on intimate relations with Jesus. Yet upon the other hand there is something, and it is a larger something, which goes far to shake the belief to its foundations. There is no escape from impressions as to difference of social status. As for the Apostle John, he is brought on the field at a comparatively early date; not until a later period does the Beloved Disciple stand in full view[1]. The latter is evidently a Jerusalemite; the former is as evidently a Galilaean. The one, constant to the end, is at the Cross of Jesus; John, it would appear, is not there. And besides: 'All the depth of insight and fervour of love which we connect with the name of John belong to the Beloved Disciple and not, so far as we know, to the son of Zebedee[2].'

The conclusion here is (and it is arrived at quite independently of evidence relative to the Apostle John's early death by martyrdom) that, if a real person, the Beloved Disciple is not John brother of James and one of 'The Twelve[3].'

III. Who, then, is he, this anonymous disciple whom Jesus loved? Truly it is difficult to see in him 'even a glorified son of Zebedee[4],' if only because the Ephesian residence of the latter is incapable of proof. Needs must be to look in other quarters; and, as guess-work alone is possible, there is small prospect of rewarded search.

Inconceivable as it may be -- conjecture has fastened on 'the man of Kerioth[5].' Not only is the Beloved Disciple identified with

[1 - He has been discovered, and perhaps rightly, in the nameless disciple of Jn i, 35-40. See below.]
[2 - Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 373.]
[3 - As against Percy Gardner (Ephes. Gospel, p. 69). In any case the time has long gone by for inability to identify the Beloved Disciple with John the Apostle to be airily dismissed by reviewers (e.g. Marcus Dods, British Weekly, Dee. 13, 1906) as a 'modern fad.']
[4 - Bacon, op. cit. p. 319.]
[5 - Noack, Geschichte Jesus (Publ. 1876).]

Page 165

'the traitor' of Gospel representation[1], but, with large deductions made from it, Judas Iscariot is presumed to be author of the Fourth Gospel. He and he only has entered into the Master's mind and purposes; he plays into the hands of Jesus in the deed for which tradition has vilified his name[2]. So runs the theory; but, quite apart from what to many is its offensiveness, it breaks down at two points. To begin with, in the narrative Jn xiii, 21 ff., Judas and the Beloved Disciple are plainly two distinct personages. And again, the latter is not a member of the 'Apostolic College'; the former is certainly an Apostle, and, it may be, 'the first or the chief of the Twelve[3].'

With far greater attractiveness does conjecture fix on the person alluded to in the recorded Saying (Jn i, 47): 'Behold, an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile[4].' Views have, no doubt, been entertained that the portrait is really that of Paul[5]; it might readily be allowed that, were the Fourth Gospel alone available as guide, the choice would soonest fall on the Nathaniel[6] who, introduced by Philip to Jesus, reappears with others (Jn xxi, 2) at the Sea of Tiberias. He is quite the type of person to be dear to the Master's heart; is he, then, the man we are seeking? There is this difficulty; the latter is a Jerusalemite, Nathaniel is 'of Cana in Galilee.'

Interesting in any case is the suggestion which, not content with bare admissions of a contingency[7], bids seekers turn with confidence to the family at Bethany. 'Some of the conditions are,' no doubt, 'satisfied by Lazarus'; according to the Fourth Gospel representation

[1 - The hypothesis lies behind some pages of a work by the Russian novelist Leonid N. Andréyev of which a translation has been published (Judas Iscariot) by W. H. Lowe.]
[2 - The representations of Judas constitute an enigma, and De Quincey's Essay on the subject is still much to the point.]
[3 - In an interesting paper (JTS, xviii, pp. 32 ff.), A. Wright, remarking on Mk xiv, 10 -- where Judas is called `ο εις των δωδεκα -- advances the view that `ο εις is Hellenistic Greek for `ο πρωτος.]
[4 - So Spaeth and Rovers. And cf. Jülicher, op. cit. p. 370; E. F. Scott, op. cit. p. 47.]
[5 - So Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld. Cf. Rom. ii, 28 f.]
[6 - Cf. Gutjahr, Glaubwürdigkeit, etc., p. 184.]
[7 - Ibid. 'Selbst Lazarus ware nicht ausgeschlossen.']

Page 166

he might be regarded as a man of means (xii, 1 ff.); his home is within easy reach of Jerusalem[1]; it is emphatically stated (xi, 3, 6, 36) that Jesus loved him[2]. The coincidences are striking; nor need we wonder that, with abundant variety of detail and suggestion, it should be vigorously affirmed in two quarters[3] that he is the Beloved Disciple. Yet the question arises whether the Lazarus of the beautiful Johannine story be an actual historical personage, or, in part at all events, the creation of the Fourth Evangelist -- built up, perhaps, on Synoptic references to 'a certain beggar' (Lk. xvi, 20) and (Lk. x, 38 ff.) to a sister-pair. The real personage admitted[4], it is still not easy to conceive of any chain of circumstances which would have converted Lazarus of Bethany into the θεολογος, the leader of Greek Christianity who survived under the name of John to the end of the first century[5].

A Jew of Jerusalem the Beloved Disciple is; had he belonged to the Sadducaean party? Had he been himself a priest[6]? If so, a conjecture might be that he is the John found in the Sanhedrin (Acts iv, 5 f.) together with others 'of the kindred of the high priest.' The theme of somewhat venturesome speculation, he is discovered in the 'certain young man' Mk xiv, 51 f., who momentarily appears at the Arrest[7]. Another suggestion (it has been alluded to in ch. x) is that he is the Aristion who is coupled by Papias with 'John the Presbyter.'

Yet one more conjecture. As baldly stated[8], it amounts to this, that albeit the Synoptists know nothing of a disciple specially beloved by Jesus, they nevertheless agree in relating how there came

[1 - Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 374.]
[2 - δν φιλεις, ηγαπα δε `ο Ιησ., τως εφιλει αυτον. The significance of the Greek verbs is discussed further on.]
[3 - See a paper (Guardian of 19 Dec. 1906) by my friend the Rev. W. K. Fleming, B.D., who now informs me that he is possessed of additional proof. The second reference is to Zwickendraht, Schweiz. theol. Zeitschrift, 1915, ii, pp. 49 ff. For a rejoinder, by Steck, see Sckw. TZ, xxxiii, 1916, pp. 91 ff. Kreyenbühl goes on to identify Lazarus with Menander.]
[4 - His portrait, as Eleazar, is somewhat fantastically drawn by the Russian novelist already instanced, and in the same work. Browning's poem is, of course, familiar to every reader.]
[5 - Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 374.]
[6 - Cf. Burkitt, Gosp. Hist. p. 248.]
[7 - Erbes, op. cit.]
[8 - By the present writer some dozen years ago.]

Page 167

a certain young man to him with an anxious question[1], while it is expressly recorded by one (Mk) that 'Jesus looking upon him loved him'; the suggestion thereupon follows that he who then and there made 'the great refusal' may have become ere long not the disciple only, but the devoted friend of Jesus. As elaborately worked out[2], the conjecture discovers the young man of rank and learning at an earlier period; he has come under the Baptist's influence; for one day, it may be, he has been a follower of Jesus (Jn i, 19-28); again in Peraea he, half a disciple already, is impressed greatly by the Master's act and words in the Blessing of the little children; he puts his question; he goes away sorrowful, yet, dwelling on the look of love, he is already potentially the disciple he is destined soon to be. Himself the good-man of the house (Mk xiv, 11), he welcomes the little company to a lordly room: naturally present at the Supper, his place as naturally is very near to Jesus. Ruler (Lk.) that he is, it might well follow that he is an acquaintance if not a relation of the high priest; hence the ease with which Peter is admitted by him to the presence-chamber. Like his friends Nicodemus and Joseph he is drawn nearer to Jesus in the closing scene; while others are afar off he -- the young man -- stands with the women at the Cross; Mary is led by him to his adjacent home; at the burial he shares, perhaps, the charitable work of embalmment with his two above-named friends. He runs with Simon Peter to the empty tomb. He figures once again in the appendix to the Gospel (Jn xxi); not the son of Zebedee, he is surely included in the phrase: 'two other of his disciples.'

The conjecture, broadly taken, is a tempting one. This, at the least, might be urged in its support; it 'answers better to the requirements of the case' than does that which points so confidently to Lazarus. And again, of the rich young man who was a ruler 'who shall say that Christ's love did not avail to bring him back? or that on his return he may not have attached himself to Jesus with a fervour and whole-heartedness which justified the Lord's immediate recognition of his worth[3]'?

[1 - Mk x, 17 ff. = Mt. xix, 16 ff. = Lk. xviii, 18 ff.]
[2 - In an exceedingly suggestive paper by E. G. King, Interpreter, Jan. 1909, pp. 167 ff.]
[3 - Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 374.]

Page 168

Non liquet. Conjecture may follow on conjecture, but of conclusive proof there is none; perhaps no last word is possible. That he is a real person is far from certain. If real person he be he is not -- so we venture to decide -- the son of Zebedee. Otherwise the veil which hides the identity of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' refuses to be drawn.

Once more proceeding on the assumption that he is not simply an ideal figure, let us ask in conclusion: is he himself, or are others, responsible for that 'phrase of blessed memory[1]' which, so it has been said, is not expressive of the devotion of the disciple but of a preference by which he was distinguished by his Lord[2]?

If he himself it be, he has certainly gone the right way to conceal his own identity. Never is the designation used by him in the first person; nowhere in the Gospel is there anything equivalent to an 'I am he'; while search is vain in tradition for hint, let alone statement, that, if alluded to as the Beloved Disciple, it was because he was so wont to allude to himself. Looking to the manner of the Johannine representation -- 'one of his disciples,' 'the disciple,' 'the other disciple,' 'that disciple' -- the inference is not exactly far-fetched that some third person is throughout responsible for the designation.

It may be so. Assuming, if only for the moment, that he is really author of (or authority for) the Fourth Gospel, a further inference might be well founded that the Johannine sections in which he figures are coloured by a redactor's hand. The question at once arises: how had it come about that men spoke of him as the disciple beloved by Jesus? And there is yet another important consideration; for here inquiry is suggested as to the precise meaning of the phrase: 'whom Jesus loved.' 'Loved' -- with what sort of love? No answer is forthcoming from the twice-repeated Gospel allusion: 'reclining in Jesus' bosom,' 'which also leaned back on his breast at the Supper'; the phrase came, no doubt, to be interpreted of devoted attachment as between master and disciple, yet it might simply mean that, host for the occasion, the latter's place

[1 - Luthard, St John's Gospel, i, p. 95. .]
[2 - Weizsäcker, Apos. Age, ii, p. 207. The latter part of the statement, as may appear below, is open to question.]

Page 169

of honour was next to that of Jesus[1]. Neither is it safe to draw conclusions from the term 'loved,' when the question is of two Greek words[2] which, not necessarily of diverse connotation, are indifferently used of the disciple. Unique and distinctive the love might indeed be, yet not so much in respect of quality as in manner of appreciation[3]. It might be added, not in anything exceptional in the manner of its display; for aptly has it been urged[4] that he who discouraged all tendency to jealousy in those who followed him would scarcely have singled out one of them as, above all the others, object of regard and love. What -- a supposition hard to entertain -- if he had really done so? It would be altogether incredible that such a type of man as the Beloved Disciple should, with unpardonable lack of modesty[5], not only glory in the fact, but go on to publish it abroad! How does the case stand with Paul? If (Gal. ii, 20) he can say: 'Who loved me,' he surely would have shrunk instinctively from vain-glorious self-description as the disciple beloved by Jesus.

[1 - A time, no doubt, came when (as, e.g., in Eusebius) the phrase was invested with more than technical significance, and the term επιστηθιος later on applied by Photius, Ephraim, and Dionysius Areo. (see Suicer) signifies a 'bosom friend.' There is an interesting parallel, Cicero, Ad Fam. xiv, 4, 3; Iste (sc. the younger Cicero) sit in sinu semper et complexu meo. Hitchcock, by the way, is in error when, citing Euseb. HE, v. 24. he writes (op. cit. p. 47, note): `ο επιστηθιος; the phrase as it there stands is: `ο επι το στηθος του κυρ. αναπεσων.]
[2 - It is surely a case of over-refinement when Westcott (op. cit. on Jn xi, 2, 5) differentiates between the `ον φιλεις placed in the mouth of the sisters and t