{ ΠΝ ἊΣ oa ali PAL η ων [δ τ ἈΝ tha ἘΝ anata IANS Hh ἥμο TCE ΤΟ wer ote Wala Nn beth sth eth he Tit Daa ROT Abe. ὦ ἐν he Witentsale ifn Sofiia As We Ka BD Re Saag τὸν ΠΝ i Leon IPSS Wahu hate baiae MMe Males the ᾿ πο ον hotest by he 5. ἤλυθ δολε δ tet ane today ‘ beh” aM δ δλν ἔνα the thal matt aay ΗΝ τῶν BaD τη τών τῇ; το te a Street Wes Bao sa ΠΥ wera a Uy Witch MaDe eRe bane oe ΚΕ τ Ὃς Pores ett Nata nate IAA states Mathis μι suena Aaa τον Phy πε δἰ πλὴν ἢ ἡ ΠΩΣ α Το ν ΠῚ arbre ὃν : ἀνλεβ ἧς Rater = Seats δ AL The i Td Na OC ae RT A ΠΟΥ tha Met - πόλον yt δος Wabedowet uth Kone ke κοῖς Μααν δον eM, ἃ τοὶ Phe Ra ° aera ea: 5. ἡ. iets SENNA. Ae baa done r Tray hte Tint sake \ Me ἢ veo athe ΝΣ na ead gt ot ΤΑ ἡ eal Ure Sy AL a Wahine εἶ με he Marka ΠΥ ΎΨΥΝ τς τς neonatal Pek lired a. SETH tees eae Da <4 FL ἊΣ crue Ἐ a 5 εἰ Σ ᾿ τόν ' : ah “A δ Ἶ Pay dete η tg 0 An den mney os ‘ ; F babes Tat 4 pcre meray OF 15 ᾿ ὙΠ ἮΝ δ del he! i MIE pea ΠΝ ΕΣ , ‘ ΥΩ ΤῈ βίφτηνν, ee fb pv gos ‘ eae i ie ἔνε τυ τὰ τὰ ταν ee ἐν ἦν ca iw ioreh ἐξ y “a iv behe! if feces ge “δ᾽ aire i a a IW SOY Set , ey ye a) al ΠΡ ΠῚ dele AV ry hea Aid ial Debt nici “y" TD ΜΉ ; : i 1 ‘ Ἢ γε ! ittiatat UA BO Jb he Bt Ys i vie | ΚΗ SM Ἐν τη μέλαν ee hs H ῃ ΠΗ Wy dg ἡ τὴ ΓΗ ἘΝῚ hoe ἢ ἀπ ! : Kae RET Stata Vhs ῃ ἣν ΚΡ ΜΗ δ τς en ene LP ἬΝ ἢ i ota mee ἀρ ΜΝ ΤΑ ΑἸ Ls Te ἡ ΡΥ ΠΥ ΜΉΝ reir ὍΣ i PAS Ra teats ra ier abe ἀπ ἢ ἡ: ΚΕ ili RMU aed ΡΝ Mai ae ggasi es el sl δ i ᾿ 4 τ ys ihe ‘ He ti sal ig whine Bi ahi Pie yea Pee min ears wa) ATA ἡ ἢ 4᾿ ΑΜ ΈΡΙ i a, Beh agate BESS ᾽ i ! 4 i τ aici ἢ Pit ay: ΗΝ, ΤῊΝ ; ity ΗΝ i H His ΠΣ rcHH ΠΡ J Ny fare ἀν δ , χ Per Alan ΤΟΝ ἣ ΚΑΙ iy tie ᾿ ἡ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 httos://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticO4meye ᾿ pent mew ΩΝ fies ᾿ i ᾿ ἣν Fi " 1) ἡ ἡ i “ἢ a i A ‘ 7 ἢ ; eh, ae f WX | W : ——-* ιτγι CRITICAL AND BXEGETICAL WA NO BOOK APR 29 1914 hy N ἔδρα sews THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, TO BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY Rev. WILLIAM URWICK, M.A. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY FREDERICK CROMBIHE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS. WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., GREEK PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK : FUNK ἃ WAGNALLS, PustisuErs, 10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 1884. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, By FUNK & WAGNALLS, Tn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION, Tue Gospel of John stands pre-eminent among the Gospels, as does Paul’s Epistle to the Romans among the New Testament Epistles. It is, indeed, except in the identity of their fundamental principles, as unlike it as possible. It does not forge, link by link, a chain of impas- sioned argument, and construct a reasoned system of Christian doctrine, but, in simplest and half-fragmentary utterances, brings out those sub- lime truths in which the entire doctrinal system finds its centre and foundation. Its eagle flight springs directly to the skies, and it exhibits the sublime Being who is its subject, not springing amidst the changes of time and the weaknesses of humanity, but having His home in the bosom of the Father and the deeps of eternity. Beyond either of its fellows it opens to our vision the spiritual world, and portrays the king- dom of heaven, not in its more earthly guise and human manifestations, but in its origin in the counsels of eternal love, and in the heavenly truths which originate and underlie it. Its unique and marvellous opening condenses within its compass a whole system of Theology, in the person of Him who to a world of sin and error comes with grace and truth, and to a world of death and darkness, with life and light. And the entire work is in keeping with the Prologue. It is throughout, like the seamless robe of the crucified Lord, consistent and harmonious. There is in its plan and purpose no momentary wavering. All its topics are so selected and treated as to subserve the unfolding of the grand truths proclaimed in its introduction, to show us the very heavens opened, and the Son of God and the Son of Man, in the paradoxical harmony of this twofold nature, re-establishing the suspended intercourse between earth and heaven. The unerring instinct of infidelity has discerned in this Gospel the real battle-ground of Christian Apologetics, and has felt that if the au- thenticity and authority of this production could be discredited the whole evangelical system sbares its discomfiture, and the battle of un- belief is virtually won. Hence it has labored, with equal zeal, learning, 1V PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. and acuteness, to find evidence of its later origin or mythical charac- ter, and establish the radical unlikeness of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel to Him who is delineated by the Synoptists, and make out be- tween them irreconcilable contradictions. And there seems at first view much to sustain these assumptions. The Jesus of our Gospel is indeed ushered to our view in a very differ- ent manner, and presents in His character some striking diversities of feature and coloring. Yet a deeper penetration and a longer survey dis- solve the apparent contradictions : the inconsistencies disappear; the difference of situations accounts for the difference in the subjects and mode of treatment, and the many-sided, or rather myriad-sided, character of the Lord, answering to the myriad lights in which its varied relations present it, appears rounded into symmetry and completeness, not a single feature but harmonizing with, and at last appearing logically de- manded by, every other feature of the wondrous portraiture. The char- acter, as it rises under the handling of its different portrayers, appears in perfect harmony with itself, all that is unfolded in John being poten- tially and in germ contained in its sister Gospels, and all that is unfold- ed at length by the Synoptists being really presupposed in John as its logical consequence or condition, while the whole together forms a character drawn with the utmost freedom and independence, with fear- lessness of any slight and seemingly discrepant deviations, and exhibiting a personality and a life to which the annals of the world furnish no par- allel, which no human imagination could possibly have created, and whose existence on the historic canvas proves its reality and its divinity. The instinct of the Church too, no less keen than that of infidelity, has settled the question of the substantial accordance of this Gospel with its fellows. Had they been really contradictory, either this or the others would have been long ago discredited. They would not have been suffered for all these centuries to repose side by side in loving fellowship, the Gos- pel of the beloved disciple crowning and completing the others, and putting on their work its grand climax: they constituting, as it were, the body, this ‘‘the heart of Christ ;’’ they conducting us about Mount Zion, this leading us into its inner temple ; each contributing its separate share to the marvellous individuality ; but finally the fourth, latest in time, unique in character, simple with the simplicity of a child, but sublime with seraphie sublimity, breathing the spirit of the disciple who had lain upon his Master’s bosom, and sharing the very fulness of those spiritual influences which it so fully promises as the gift of the glorified Messiah. In Meyer our Gospel finds a fitting commentator. The great merits of Meyer as a Biblical expositor are too universally known to need dwelling upon here, and for the work of expounding this Gos- PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vi pel he has some very special qualifications. To his wide learning, his philological exactness, his exegetical tact and acuteness, his indepen- dence and candour, he adds a hearty and Joving sympathy with his author that is among the surest aids to a right understanding of him. With a hearty interest in Biblical truth generally, an interest which evidently grew by what it fed on, Meyer has an especial love for the Gospel of John. He has a thorough conviction of its authenticity and its com- plete apostolic authority, such a sympathy both with the Beloved Disciple and his Master, as it would seem could only have grown out of deep communion with that Master’s person and discourses. The mirac- ulous works and the theanthropic nature of the Lord he fully recognizes, and constantly discerns, under different forms of conception, the essen- tial agreement of the Johannean and Pauline Christology. To the historical statements of our Gospel, Meyer awards his fullest confidence. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he is not unduly partial towards our Gospel, and willing sometimes to yield to it an honour which places the others at comparative disadvantage. Believing as does the present writer firmly in the substantial inspiration and _ historical re- liableness of all the Gospel records, it is not pleasant to see any of them, even confessedly the most spiritual, unduly exalted over its fellows, and awarded, at their expense, the palm of historical credibility. Meyer partakes the loose notions of inspiration so prevalent in Germany, and carrying out his views allows himself to draw distinctions between the Gospels which are not justified by the evidence. To those who have carefully weighed all the evidence, and surveyed the phenomena in their totality, it would seem that even independently of the question of inspi- ration, αἰΐ the Gospels have proved their claim to credibility as faithful records of the life of Jesus, and that we both have a right, and are logi- eally bound, in judging them, to proceed upon the assumption that their confessedly fragmentary notices are equally faithful ; are in themselves fairly reconcilable, and that where we cannot unite them into a harmoni- ous whole, the fault must be in our Jack of information rather than in the truthfulness of records. The Gospels are all clearly in a sense fragmentary. None of them pretends to give a complete account of the Lord’s ministry ; each of them manifestly passes over large sections both of the time and field of His labours ; and none attempts to show where and why the deficiencies occur. In these cases it is both our duty and our privilege, on the one hand, to read each record by itself, and get its full legitimate individual impression, and on the other to bring them into close and constant comparison, fill out as far as we can their respec- tive vacancies, and take for granted that where we cannot, the reason does not lie in any real lack of harmony. The ‘‘harmonistie presup- vi PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. positions,’? which Meyer occasionally mentions not very respectfully, seem to me, while they of course are to be applied always cautiously and with judgment, to be yet among the indispensable qualifications of acom- plete interpreter of the Gospels. It must be both his pleasure and his duty to blend the fourfold narrative into the harmony which the totality of the evidence shows must belong to it. Tn aiding to bring this Commentary of Meyer in a new form before the American public, the editor will state briefly what he has, at the request of the publishers, attempted. First, he has transferred to the bottom of the page most of its numerous references to the classics and other illustrative works, so as, without lessening its scholarly value, to present a more continuous and readable text. Secondly, he has appended to the several chapters a few notes, partly such as might counteract for the general reader the unfortunate influence of Meyer’s free notions of in- spiration, and his too great readiness to find discrepancies between John and his fellow-Evangelists. He could, however, by no means call special attention to al] such cases, and in those which he has noticed he has in no instance denied a discrepancy where in his opinion the evidence did not warrant the denial. On various other peints also the editor has added notes, generally, though not exclusively, where he dissented from Meyer’s views. The limits of some twenty to twenty-five pages to which he was restricted necessarily precluded, even were there no other hindrances, his commenting upon very many of the almost numberless topics of in- terest comprised in this Gospel. The points of discussion have been partly such as he was specially interested in, and partly selected some- what at random, while many on which the editor would have been glad to remark have been necessarily passed in silence. He cannot but hope that, such as they are, they will not be wholly void of interest and profit to the students of this Gospel. Most readers οὗ John are doubtless aware that this along with some other volumes of Meyer has been recently edited in Germany, with great freedom and ability, by Dr. Bernhard Weiss. As the publishers pro- posed to reprint Meyer without alteration, only occasional use could be made of Weiss’s labours, The editor has, however, had by him Weiss’s work, and considering his great ability and eminence as a Biblical critic and theologian, deemed it proper, as often as convenient, to give Weiss’s view, sometimes of assent, more frequently of dissent from those of his author. On occasional points in which Weiss agrees with Meyer, the editor has ventured to differ from them both. In all cases he would differ from such eminent men with modesty, but in most he has the comfort of reflecting that other equally eminent names can be cited in support of his opinions. In his own notes he has not cited PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vil many names or authorities. Such authorities are now very generally ac- cessible, and the editor would not encumber his pages with unnecessary citations. In his extended note on the time of the Last Supper—on which he entertains very decided convictions—while he has read various recent discussions, he acknowledges special indebtedness to the articles on this subject of Dr. Edward Robinson in his N. T. Harmony and the Bib. Sacra, vol. ii. 1845. He is glad to learn that Dr. Ezra Abbot, whose recent lamented death has deprived our American Biblical schol- arship of one of its brightest ornaments, takes the same view with that eminent scholar of this alleged disagreement in the Gospels. It is also pleasant to reflect that one of the latest efforts of Dr. Abbot’s dis- tinguished pen was directed to setting forth the external evidences of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, on which subject his researches shed some important light. He had it in his purpose, I believe, to de- vote another essay to the internal branch of the inquiry. The translation here given is not quite an exact reprint of the English original, That work, though done with conscientious fidelity, has been subjected to considerable revision, both for the removal of occasional errors and for greater smoothness and sometimes perspicuity of style. Still, the editor is but partially responsible either for the defects or the excellences of the translation. Meyer’s numerous references he believes to be given with great accuracy. The references to Winer’s N. T. Grammar have been made to conform in this edition to Thayer’s trans- lation. Those made to Buttmann’s N. T. Grammar conform in the English work to the American edition. The Topical Index at the end of the volume has been prepared by the Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a eneral supervision of the work while passing through the press. In conclusion, while expressing his hope and prayer that this Commen- tary in its new form may subserve the interests of Biblical truth, and aid to the deeper study of this thrice-precious portion of the Sacred Word, the editor takes the liberty to borrow from Rev. Dr. Schaft’s Introduc- tion to his edition of Lange’s Commentary on this Gospel the following beautiful Latin characterization of its human author, by Adam of St. Victor, with its English translation by Dr. Washburn : “ar 5 Volat avis sine meta, Quo nec vates nec propheta Evolavit altius ; Tam implenda, quam impleta, Nunquam vidit tot secreta Purus homo purius. Vili PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Bird of God! with boundless flight, Soaring far beyond the height Of the bard or prophet old ; Truth fulfilled and truth to be, Never purer mystery Did a purer tongue unfold. A. Ὁ. Kenpricx. Rocusster, May, 1884. PREFACE. Tue Gospel of John, on which I now for the fifth time present the result of my labours, still at the present day continues to be the subject —recently, indeed, brought once more into the very foreground—of so much doubt and dissension, and to some extent, of such passionate party controversy, as to increase the grave sense of responsibility, which already attaches to the task of an unprejudiced and thorough exposition of so sublime a production. The strong tendency now prevalent towards ex- plaining on natural grounds the history of our Lord, ever calling forth new efforts, and pressing into its service all the aids of modern erudition, with an analytic power as acute as it is bold in its free-thinking, meets with an impassable barrier in this Gospel, if it really proceeds from that disciple whom the Lord loved, and consequently is the only one that is entirely and fully apostolic. For it is now an admitted fact, and a sig- nificant proof of the advances which have been gradually achieved by exegesis, that the pervading supranaturalism—clearly stamped on it in all the simplicity of truth—cannot be set aside by any artifices of expo- sition. This, however, does not prevent the work of a criticism, which obeys the conviction that it is able, and for the sake of the right knowledge of the Gospel history ought, to establish the non-apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel. Accordingly, in pursuance of the programme which was traced for it fifty years ago by Bretschneider, and of the ampler investi- gations subsequently added by the criticism of Baur, unwearied efforts have been made with augmented and more penetrating powers, and to some extent also with a cordial appreciation of the lofty ideas which the Gospel presents, to carry out this project to completion. Such critical labour submits itself to be tried by the judgment of scholars, and has its scientific warrant. Nay, should it succeed in demonstrating that the declaration of the Gospel’s apostolic birth, as written by all the Christian centuries, is erroneous, we would have to do honour to the truth, which in this case also, though painful at first, could not fail to approve itself that which maketh free. There is, however, adequate reason to enter- tain very grave doubts of the attainment of this result, and to refuse assent to the prognostication of universal victory, which has been too x PREFACE. hastily associated with these efforts of criticism. Whoever is acquainted with the most recent investigations, will, indeed, gladly leave to them- selves the clumsy altempts to establish a parallelism between the Gospel of John and ancient fabrications concocted with a special aim, which carry their own impress on their face; but he will still be unable to avoid the immediate and general duty of considering whether those modern investigators who deny that it is the work of the apostle have at least discovered a time in which—putting aside in the meanwhile all the substantive elements of their proof—the origin of the writing would be historically conceivable. For it is a remarkable circumstance in itself, that of the two most recent controversialists, who have treated the sub- ject with the greatest scientific independence, the one assumes the latest, the other the earliest possible, date. If now, with the first, I place its composition not sooner than from 150 to 160, I see myself driven to the bold assertion of Volkmar, who makes the evangelist sit at the feet of Justin—a piece of daring which Jands me in a historical absurdity. If I rightly shrink from so preposterous a view, and prefer to follow the thoughtful Keim in his more judicious estimate of the ecclesiastical tes- timonies and the relations of the time, then I obtain the very beginning of the second century as the period in which the work sprang up on the fruitful soil of the church of Asia Minor, as a plant Jobannine indeed in spirit, but post-Johannine in origin. But from this position also I feel myself at once irresistibly driven. For I am now brought into such im- mediate contact with the days in which the aged apostolic pillar was still amongst the living, and see myself transported so entirely into the living presence of his numerous Asiatic disciples and admirers, that it cannot but appear to me an absolutely insoluble enigma how precisely then and there a non-Johannine work—one, moreover, so great and so divergent from the older Gospels—could have been issued and have passed into circulation under the name of the highly honoured apostle. Those dis- ciples and admirers, amongst whom he, as the high priest, had worn the πέταλον, could not but know whether he had written a Gospel, and if so, of what kind ; and with the sure tact of sympathy and of knowledge, based upon experience, they could not but have rejected what was not a genuine legacy from their apostle. Keim, indeed, ventures upon the bold attempt of calling altogether in question the fact that John had his sphere of labour in Asia Minor; but is not this denial, in face of the traditions of the church, in fact an impossibility? It is, and must re- main so, as long as the truth of historical facts is determined by the cri- terion of historical testimony. Turning, then, from Volkmar to Keim, I see before my eyes the fate indicated by the old proverb: τὸν καπνὸν φεύγοντα εἰς τὸ πῦρ ἐκπίπτειν. PREFACE. ΧΙ The necessary references have been made in the Introduction to the sub- stantive grounds on which in recent years the assaults have been renewed against the authenticity of the Gospel, and there also the most recent apologetic literature upon the subject has been noticed. After all that las been said for and against up to the present time, I can have no hes- itation in once more expressing my delight in the testimony of Luther —dquoted now and again with an ironical smile—that ‘‘ John’s Gospel is the only tender, right, chief Gospel, and is to be far preferred before the other three, and to be more highly esteemed.’’’ In order to make the confession one’s own, it is not necessary to be either a servile follower of Luther or a special adherent of the immortal Schleiermacher. I am neither the one nor the other, and in particular I do not share the indi- vidual, peculiar motive, as such, which underlies the judgment of the former. Since the publication of the fourth edition of my Commentary (1862), many expository works upon John and his system of doctrine, and among these several of marked importance, have seen the light, along with many other writings and disquisitions,” which serve, directly or in- directly, the purpose of exposition. I may venture to hope that the consideration which I have bestowed throughout upon these literary ac- cessions, in which the one aim is followed with very varying gifts and powers, has not been without profit for the further development of my 1So Luther, in that section of his Preface to the New Testament containing the superscription, ‘‘ Which are the right and noblest books of the New Testa- ment?’ This section, however, is wanting in the editions of the New Testa- ment subsequent to 1539, as also in the edition of the whole Bible of 1534. 2 The essay of Riggenbach, ‘‘ Johannes der Apostel und der Presbyter,” in the Jahrb. f. D. Theologie, 1868, p. 319 ff., came too late for me to be able to notice it. It will never be possible, I believe, to establish the identity of the apostle with the presbyter, and I entertain no doubt that Eusebius quite correctly un- derstood the fragment of Papias in reference to this point.—To my regret, I was unable, also, to take into consideration Wittichen’s work, Ueber den geschicht- lichen Charakter des Evang. Joh. The same remark applies to the third edi- tion of Ebrard’s Kritik der evangel Geschichte, which appeared in 1868, and in which I regret to observe a renewed display of the old vehemence of passion. Renan’s Life of Jesus, even as it has now appeared in its thirteenth edition, I have, as formerly, left out of consideration.—The first part of Holtzmann’s dissertation upon ‘‘The Literary Relation of John to the Synoptics’’ (Hilgen- feld’s Zeitschrift, 1869, p. 62 ff.) has just been published, and the conclusion is still to follow. Of course, before the latter appears, no well-founded judgment can be passed upon this essay of this acute theologian ; but I have doubts whether it will ever be successfully shown that in the case of the fourth Gospel there is any dependencg of a literary kind upon the Synoptics, especially upon the Gospel of Luke. xii PREFACE. work, probably more by way of antagonism (especially towards Heng- stenberg and Godet) than of agreement of opinion. In our like consci- entious efforts after truth we learn from each other, even when our ways diverge. The statement of the readings of Tischendorf’s text I was obliged to borrow from the second edition of his Synopsis, for the reasons aiready mentioned in the preface to the fifth edition of my Commentary on Mark and Luke. The latest part of his editio octava, now in course of appearance, was published last September, and extends only to John vi. 23, while the printing of my book had already advanced far beyond that point. I may add that the deviations in the text of this editio octava from that of the Synopsis in reference to the various readings noticed in my critical annotations down to vi. 23, are not numerous, and scarcely any of them are of importance exegetically. Of such a nature are those, in particular, in which this highly meritorious critic had in his Synopsis too hastily abandoned the Recepta,’ and has now returned to it. I would fain think that this may also be the case in future with many other of the readings which he has now adopted, where apparently the ‘Cod. Sinait. has possessed for him too great a power of attraction.” In conclusion, I have to ask for this renewed labour of mine the good- will of my readers,—I mean such a disposition and tone in judging of it as shall not prejudice the rights of critical truth, but shall yet with kind consideration weigh the difficulties which are connected with the solution of the task, either in itself, or amidst the rugged antagonisms of a time so vexed with controversy asthe present. So long as God shall preserve to me in my old age the necessary measure of strength, 1 shall continue my quiet co-operation, however small it may be, in the service of biblical exegesis. This science has in fact, amid the dark tempests of our theological and ecclesiastical crisis, in face of all agitations and extravagances to the right and left, the clear and lofty vocation gradually, 1J. 18, where the Synopsis has μονογενὴς θεός, the editio oclava has restored ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός: iii. 13, where 6 ὦν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ was deleted in the Syn- opsis, these words have again been received into the text. 2 E.g. with the reading θαυμάζετε in v. 20; in the same way with φεύγει, which is found only in δὲ of all the Codd. In the great predominance of testi- monies against it, I regard the former as the error of an ancient copyist, while the latter appears to me as a marginal gloss, quite inappropriate to the strain of tender feeling in which John speaks of Jesus, which perhaps originated ina similar manner, as Chrysostom, while reading in the text ἀνεχώρησεν, says by way of explanation, ὁ dé Χριστὸς φεύγει. Had φεύγει been the original read- ing, and had it been desired to replace it by a more becoming expression, then probably ἐξένευσεν from v. 18, or ἀνῆλθεν in vi. 3, to which passage πάλιν in ver, 15 points back, would have most naturally sucgested themselves. PREFACE. xiii by means of its results,—which can be reached with certainty only through a purely historical method, and can be settled by no human con- fession of faith,—to make such contributions to the tumult of strife as must determine the course of a sound development, and finally form the standard of its settlement and the regulative basis of peace. And what writing of the New Testament can in such a relation stand higher, or be destined to produce a more effective union of spirits, than the wondrous Gospel of John, with its fulness of grace, truth, peace, light, and life ? Our Lutheran Church, which was born with a declaration of war and had its confession completed amid controversy from without and within, has raised itself far too little to the serene height and tranquil perfection of this Gospel. DR. MEYER. Hanover, 1st December, 1868. LIST OF COMMENTARIES UPON ἘΠ ΣΙ ὟΝ. [It has not been deemed necessary to include in the following list more than a selection from the works of those who have published commentaries upon St. John’s Gospel. For full details upon the literature of the controversy regard- ing the authenticity and genuineness, the reader is referred, in addition to Meyer’s own Introduction, vol.i., to the very copious account appended by Mr. Gregory to his translation of Luthardt’s work on the authorship of the Gospel, recently published by the Messrs. Clark. ] ΑΒΒΟΥ (Ezra) : Authorship of the Fourth Gospel : External Evidences. ; Boston, 1880. Aurorp (Henry) : Greek Testament with critically revised text and Commentary. 4 vols. London, 4th ed. 1859, Acricona (Francis) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. Coloniae, 1599. Azuzsrus (Alexander) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. Basileae, 1553. Amyratpvus (Moses) : Paraphrase sur l’évangile selon Saint Jean. Salmuri, 1651. Aquinas (Thomas) : Aurea Catena in Lucae et Ioannis Evangelia. Venetiae, 1775. English translation, Oxford, 1841-45. Argrtius (Benedictus) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Lausannae, 1578. Astrx (S. J.) : Explication de l’évangile selon Saint Jean, avec une traduction nouvelle. Genéve, 1864. AvueustTInE : Tractatus 124 in Ioannem. Ed. 1690, iii. p. 2. 290-826. English translation, 2 vols, (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh). 1873-74. BarumMuern (W.): Commentar iitber das Evangelium Johannis. Stuttgart, 1863. BaumGarten (Crusius): Theologische Auslegung der Johanneischen Schriften. 2 vols. Jena, 1844-45, Baumcarten (S. J.): Auslegung des Evangelii Johannis, cum Jo. Salomonis Semleri praefatione. Halae, 1762. _ Beza (Theodore) : Commentarius in Novum Testamentum. Geneva, 1556; ed. quinta, 1665. Brneet (J. -A.): Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Latest ed., London, 1862. English translation, 5 vols. and 3 vols. (T. & T. Clark). 1874. Bispine (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Evangelien, ete, Erkliirung des Evangelium nach Johannes, Miinster, 1869. Brown (Rev. David, D.D.) : Commentary on St. John (in his Commentary upon the Four Gospels). Glasgow, 1863. Bucer (Martin) : Enarrationes in Ioannem. Argentorati, 1528. Buiimcer (Henry): Commentariorum in Evangelium Ioannis libri Septem. Tiguri, 1543. Cauvin (John): Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Joannem. Genevyae, 15538, 1555 ; ed. Tholuck, 1833. Translated into English by Rev. W. Pringle, 1847. xvl LIST OF COMMENTARIES, Curysostom : Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, translated with Notes and Indices. Library of the Fathers. Oxford, 1848-52 Cuytrazus (Dav.) : Scholia in Evangelium Ioannis. Francofurti ad Moenum, 1588. Coox (F. C.) : Holy Bible, with Explanatory and Critical Commentary by Clergy of the Anglican Church. 9 vols. The Gospel of John, with Introduc- tion and Notes, by B. F. Westcott. Am. ed., New York, 1880. CrucicER (Caspar) : Enarratio in Evangelium Ioannis. Witembergae, 1540. Argentorati, 1546. Cyrus (Alexandrinus) : Commentarii in Sancti loannis Evangelium. English translation by Dr. Pusey. Oxford, 1875. Danarus (Lamb.) : Commentarius in Ioannis Evangelium. Genevae, 1585. Dz Werte ΟὟ. M. L.): Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testa- ment. Kurze Erklirung des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannes. Fiinfte Ausgabe von B. Brickner, Leipzig, 1863. DunwELu (Rev. F. H.) : Commentary on the authorized English version of the Gospel according to St. John. London, 1872. Eprarp (J. H. A.): Das Evangelium Johannis und die neueste Hypothese iiber seine Entsehung. Zurich, 1845. Exzicott (C. J.) : New Testament Commentary for English Readers. Gospel according to John by H. W. Watkins. 3 vols. New York. Euruymius ZicaBeNus: Commentarius in IV. Evangelia, graece et latine, ed. Matthaei. 4 vols. Berolini, 1845. Ewatp (H.): Die Johanneischen Schriften iibersetzt und erklirt. 2 vols. Gottingen, 1862. Frrvs (J.) : In sacro sanctum Iesu Christi Evangelium secundum Joannem piae et eruditae juxta Catholicam doctrinam enarrationes. Numerous edi- tions. Moguntiae, 1536. Romae, 1517. Forp (J.) : The Gospel of John, illustrated from ancient and modern authors. London, 1852. Frommann (Ki): Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinem Verhiltnisse zur ge- sammten biblisch-christlichen Lehre dargestellt. Leipzig, 1839. Gopet (F.): Commentaire sur l’évangile de Saint Jean. 2 vols. Paris, 1863. [New ed. preparing. ] Grortius (H.): Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 9 vols. Groningen, 1826-34. Hernsius (Dan.): Aristarchus Sacer, sive ad Nonni in Joannem Metaphrasin exercitationes : accedit Nonni et sancti Evangelistae contextus. Lugduni Batavorum, 1627. Hemmrincius (Nicol.) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. JBasileae, 1091. Hencsrenserc (E. W.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannes. 2 vols. English translation (T. ἃ T. Clark). 1865. Hevpner (H. L.): Praktische Erklirung des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Evangelien des Lucas und Johannes 2d ed. Potsdam, 1860. HInGENFELD (A.): Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehr- begriff. Halle, 1849. Huwnnius (Aegidius) : Commentarius in Iesu Christi Evangelium secundum Joannem, Francofurti, 1585, 1591, 1595. Hurcurson (G.) : Exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to John. London, 1657. JANsonus (Jac.) : Commentarius in Joannis Evangelium. Louanii, 1630. Kuzx (H.) : Commentar tiber das Evangelium nach Johannes, Mainz, 1829. Kaiorutar (L) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis, Viennae, 1862. Koéstiin (Ὁ. R.): Lehrbegriffe des Evangelium und der Briefe Johannis. Berlin, 1843. Kurnoen (Ch. G.); Commentarius in Novi Testamenti libros Historicos. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1825-43. LIST OF COMMENTARIES. XVii Lamps (Εἰ. A.): Commentarius analytico-exegeticus, tam litteralis, quam realis Evangelii secundum Joannem. III ‘Tomi. Amstelodami, 1724, 1726. Basileae, 1725, 1726, 1727. . Lanes (T. 6.) : Das Evangelium Johannis tbersetzt und erkliart. Weimar, 1797. Lancer (J. P.): Theolg: Homiletisch: Bibel Werk. Das Evangelium nach Johannis, 1860. English translation, greatly enlarged. Ed. Philip Schaff, London and Edinburgh, 1872-75. Laprpe (Cornel. 4): Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram. 10 vols. (last ed.) Lugduni, 1865. Lassus (Gbr.) : Commentaire Philosophique sur l’évangile St. Jean. Paris, 1838. Τιῦσκε (G. Ch. F.) : Commentar tiber die Schriften Johannis. 4 vols, Bonn, 1840-56. Luruarpr (Ch. E.): Das Johanneische Evangelium nach seinen Higenthiim- lichkeiten geschildert und erklirt. 2 vols. Nurnberg, 1852-53. New ed. Part 1st, 1875. (English translation preparing.) Lurxarpt (C. E.): St. John the author of the Fourth Gospel. Translated by C. R. Gregory. Edinburgh, 1875. Mater (Adal.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. 2 vols. Carlsruhe and Freiburg, 1843. Maponatus : Commentarii in TV. Evangelia curavit Sauser. Latest ed. Mainz, 1840. Marruast (J.): Auslegung des Evangelium Johannis zur Reform der Auslegung desselben. Gothingen, 1837. MeancuTnon (Phil.): Enarrationes in Evangelium Joannis. Wittenbergae, 1523. Morus (8. F. N.): Recitationes in Evangelium Joannis. ed. G. J. Dindorf. Leipzig, 1796. Monter (J.) : Symbolae ad interpretandum Evangelium Johannis ex marmori- bus et nummis maxime graecis. Kopenhagen, 1826. Mouscuuvus (Wolf 6.) : Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis in tres Heptadas digesti. Basileae, 1552, 1564, 1580, 1618. Myutus (G.) : Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis absolutissimus. Francofurti, 1624. Nonnus : Metaphrasis Evangelii Johannis. red. Passow. Leipzig, 1834. Oxcontampantits (I.) : Annotationes in Evangelium Johannis. Basileae, 1532. OusHAUSEN (H.): Biblischer Commentar itiber ἃ. Neue Testament fortgesetzt von Ebrard und Wiesinger. Evangelium des Johannes. 1862. English translation (T. & T. Clark). 1855. OriIcEN : Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis. ed. 1759, vol. iv. 1-460. Partrius (F. H.): In Joannem Commentarius. Romae, 1863. Pauuus (H. E. G.): Philologisch-Kritischer und Historischer Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1812. Pernarcus (Christ.): Commentarius in Joannem per quaesita et responsa, ex antiquitate orthodoxa magnam partem erutus. Francofurti, 155). Rottock (Rob.) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Genevae, 1599, 1608. RosENMULLER (J. G.): Scholia in Novum Testamentum. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1815-31. Sarcerius (Erasm.): In Johannis Evangelium Scholia justa ad perpetuae tex- tus cohaerentiae filum. Basileae, 1540. Scuarr (Philip) : Popular Commentary on the New Testament. 4 vols. The Gospel of John, by W. Milligan and W. F. Moulton. New York, 1880. Scum (Sebast.): Resolutio brevis cum paraphrasi verborum Evangelii Joannis Apostoli. Argentorati, 1685, 1699. XVlli LIST OF COMMENTARIES. Scuuten (J. H.): Het Evangelie naar Johannes, Leyden, 1865, Supplement 1866. French translation by Albert Reville in Revue de Théologie. Strasburg, 1864, 1866. German trans- lation by H. Lang, Berlin, 1867. ScHWEIZER (Alb,): Das Evangelium Johannis kritisch untersucht. Leipzig, 1841. Semuer (J. Sal.) : Paraphrasis Evangelii Joannis, cum notis et Cantabrigiensis Codicis Latino textu. Halae, 1771. Tarnovius (Paul.): In Sancti Johannis Evangelium Commentarius. Rostochii, 1629. Turopors (of Mopsuestia) : In novum Testamentum Commentaria. Kd. Fritzsche, Turici, 1847, Tsouuck (A.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. 7th ed. 1857. English translation (T. & T. Clark), 1860. Tirtmann (K. Ch.): Meletemata Sacra, sive Commentarius critico-exegeticus- dogmaticus in Evangelium Johannis. Leipzig, 1816. (English translation in Biblical Cabinet, T. ἃ T. Clark.) Toxetus (Franc.) : Commentarii et Annotationes in Evangelium Joannis. Romae, 1588, 1590 ; Lugduni, 1589, 1614 ; Venetii, 1587. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. INTRODUCTION. SEC. I.—BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF JOHN. Galilee, probably not of the poorer class (Mark i. 20; Luke vy. 10), and Salome (Mark xv. 40; comp. Matt. xxvii. 56). To his father the evangelists ascribe no special religious character or personal participation in the events of the Gospel history ; but his mother was one of the women who followed Jesus even up to His crucifixion (comp. on xix. 25). To her piety, therefore, it is justly attribu- table that John’s deeply receptive spirit was early fostered and trained to surrender itself to the sacredly cherished, and at that time vividly excited expectation of the Messiah, with its moral claims, so far as such a result might be produced by a training which was certainly not of a learned char- acter. (Actsiv. 13.) If, too, as we may infer from xix. 25, Salome was a sister of the mother of Jesus, his near relationship to Jesus would enable us better to understand the close fellowship of spirit between them, though the evangelists are silent as to any carly intimacy between the families ; and in any case, higher inward sympathy was the essential source out of which that fellowship of spirit unfolded itself. The entrance of the Baptist on his public ministry—to whom John had attached himself, and whose pro- phetical character and labours he has described most clearly and fully—was the occasion of his becoming one of the followers of Jesus, of whom he and Andrew were the first disciples (i. 35 f.). Among these, again, he and Peter, and his own brother James the elder, brought by himself to Jesus (see on i. 42), formed the select company of the Lord’s more intimate friends ; he himself being the most trusted of all,’ the one whom Jesus pre- eminently loved, and to whose filial care He on the cross entrusted Mary (xix. 26). Hence the ardent, impetuous disposition, which led the Lord Himself to give to him and his brother the name Boanerges, and which he trum dicamus maxime φιλόχριστον, 90- hannem maxime @tAo.ncodyv,... quod et Dominus respiciens, illi quidem ecclesiam 10On account of his devoted love to the person of the Lord, on which Grotius fineiy remarks: *‘ Quod olim Alexandrum de ami- cis suis dixisse memorant, alium esse φιλα- λέξανδρον, alium φιλοβασιλέα, putem ad duos Domini Jesu apostolos posse aptari, ut Pe- . > δ praecipuo quodam modo, huic autem ma- trem commendavyit.”’ 2 _ THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. exhibited on more than one occasion (Mark iii. 17, ix. 88 ff. ; Luke ix. 49 f., 54),—connected even though it was with an ambition which his mother had fostered by her sensuous Messianic notions (Matt. xx. 20 ff. ; Mark x. 35 ff.),—is by no means of such a character as to be incapable of gradually subjecting itself to the mind of Jesus, and becoming serviceable to his highest aims. After the ascension he abode, save perhaps when engaged on some minor apostolical journey (such as that to Samaria, Acts vill. 14), at Jerusalem, where Paul met with him as one of the three pillars of the Christian church (Gal. ii. 1 ff.). How long he remained in this city cannot, amid the uncertainty of tradition, be determined ; and, indeed, it is not even certain whether he had already left the city when Paul was last there. He is indeed not mentioned in Acts xxi. 18, but neither is he in Acts xv., though we know from Gal. ii. 1 ff. that he nevertheless was present ; and therefore, as on the occasion of Gal. i. 19, so on that of Acts xxi., he may have been temporarily absent. In after years he took up his abode at Ephesus,’ probably only after the destruction of Jerusalem ; not by any means, however, before Paul had laboured in Ephesus (Rom. xv. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 16; Gal. ii. 7 f.), although it cannot be maintained with certainty that he could not have been there when Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians : for, in the enigmatic silence of this epistle as to all personal references, such a conclusion from the non-mention of his name is doubtful. The distinguished official authority with which he was invested at Ephesus, the spiritual elevation and sanctity ascribed to him, cannot be better indicated than by the fact that Polycrates (Euseb. 111. 31, v. 24) not only reckons him among the μεγάλα στοιχεῖα (great fundamental elements of the church ; comp. Gal. 11. 9), but also calls him ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον 5 πεφορηκώς. Of his subsequent fortunes we have only untrustworthy and sometimes man- ifestly false traditions, amongst the latter of which is one based on Rev. i. 9,5 but unknown even to Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. 111. 20), of his banishment 1Jren. Haer. iii. 8.4; Euseb. iii. 1. 23. It * his youth regarding his intimacy with John, is no argument against this, that Ignat. ad Ephes. 12 mentions Paul, but not John; for Paul is mentioned there as the founder of the church at Ephesus, and as martyr, —neither of which holds good of John. Besides, this silence is far outweighed by the testimonies of Polycarp in Irenaeus, Polycrates in Euseb., Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, ete. To ac- count for these, as Keim in particular now attempts to do (Gesch. J. I. p. 161 ff.), by supposing some confusion of John the Presbyter with the Apostle John, is in my opinion futile, simply because the silence of Papias as to the apostle’s residence in Asia proves nothing (he does not mention the residence of any of the Lord’s apostles and disciples, to whom he makes refer- ence), and because it seems scarcely con- ceivable that Irenaeus should have so mis- interpreted what Polycarp said to him in as to suppose he spoke of the Aposéle, when in fact he only spoke of the Presbyter of that name. It is pure caprice to assume that Eusebius ‘‘lacked the courage’ to correct Irenaeus. Why so? See, onthe other hand, Steitz in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1868, p. 502 ff. 2 The plate of gold worn by the high priest on his forehead. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 393 f., ed. 3; Knobel on Ex. xxviii. 36. The phrase used by Polyerates is not to be taken as signifying relationship to a priestly family (xviii. 15; Luke i. 36), but as symbolic of high spiritual position in the church, just as it is also used of James the Lord’s brother in Epiphanius, Haer. xxix. 4. Com- pare now also Ewald, Johann. Schriften, II. p. 401 f. 3 See especially Diisterdieck on the Reve- lation, Introduction, p. 92 ff. INTRODUCTION. 3 to Patmos under Domitian (first mentioned by Ireneus and Clem. Alex.), —an event said to have been preceded by others of a marvellous kind, such as his drinking poison at Rome without injury (see especially the Acta Johannis in Tischendorf’s Acta Apocr. Ὁ. 266 ff.), and his being thrown into boiling oil, from which, however, he came out ‘‘nihil passus” (Tertullian), nay, even ‘‘purior et vegetior” (Jerome). The legend is also untrustworthy of his encounter with Cerinthus in a bath, the falling in of which he is said to have foreseen and avoided in time (Iren. Haer. 111. 3. 28 ; Euseb. iii. 28, iv. 14) ; it is only indirectly traceable to Polycarp, and betrays a purpose of glorifying the apostle at the expense of the heretic, however unfounded may be the assumption that it is only what we should expect from the author of the Apocalypse (Baur, Kanon. Evang. Ὁ. 371). The great age to which John attained, which is variously stated,—according to Irenzus, Eusebius, and others, about a hundred years, reaching down to Trajan’s time,—gave some countenance to the saying (xxi. 23) that he should not see death ; and this again led to the report that his death, which at last took place at Ephesus, was only a slumber, his breath still moving the earth on his grave (Augustine). In harmony, however, with a true idea of his character, though historically uncertain, and first vouched for by Jerome on Gal. vi. 10,’ is the statement that, in the weakness of old age, he used merely to say in the Christian assemblies, ilioli, diligite alterutrum. \ For love was the most potent element of his nature, which was sustained by the truest, deep- est, and most affectionate communion in heart and life with Christ. In this communion John, nurtured on the heart of Jesus, discloses, as no other evangelist, the Lord’s innermost life, in a contemplative but yet practical manner, with a profound idealizing mysticism, though far removed from all mere fiction and visionary enthusiasm ; like a bright mirror, faithfully re- flecting the most delicate features of the full glory of the Incarnate One (i. 14; 1 John i. 1) ; tender and humble, without sentimentalism, and with all the resolute earnestness of apostolical energy. In the centre of the church life of Asia he shone with the splendour of a spiritual high- priesthood, the representative of all true Christian Gnosis, and per- sonally a very παρθένιος (‘‘ virgo mente et corpore,” Augustine) in all moral purity. From the starting-point of an apostle of the Jews, on which he stands in contrast (Gal. ii. 9) with the apostle of the Gentiles, he rose to the purest universalism, such as we meet with only in Paul, but with a clear, calm elevation above strife and conflict ; as the last of the apostles, going beyond not only Judaism, but even Paul himself, and interpreting most completely out of his own lengthened, pure, and rich experience, the life and the light made manifest in Christ. He it is who most fully 1 Harlier attested (Clemens, Quis. div. salv. 42) is the equally characteristic legend (Cle- ment calls it μῦϑον οὐ μῦϑον, ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον) of a young man, formerly converted by the apostle’s labours, who lapsed and became aleader of robbers, by whose band John, after his return from Patmos, voluntarily allowed himself to be taken prisoner in order to bring their captain back to Christ, which he succeeded in doing by the mere power of his presence. The robber chief, as Clement says, was baptized a second time by his tears of penitence. Comp. Herder’s legend ‘‘ der gerettete Jiingling” in his Werke z. schén. Lit. vi. Ρ. 81, ed. 1827. 4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. connects Christianity with the person of Christ,—a legacy to the church for all time, of peace, union, and ever advancing moral perfection ; among the apostles the true gnostic, in opposition to all false Gnosticism of the age ; the prophet among the evangelists, although not the seer of the Apocalypse. ‘‘The personality of John,” says Thiersch,* ‘‘ has left far deeper traces of itself in the church than that of any other of Christ’s disciples. Paul laboured more than they all, but John stamped his image most deeply upon her ;” the former in the mighty struggle for the victory, which overcometh the world ; the latter in the sublime and, for the whole future of the gospel, decisive celebration of the victory which has overcome it. SEC. II.—GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL. With regard to the external testimonies, we remark the following :— 1. Chap. xxi. could only serve as a testimony, if it proceeded altogether from another hand, or if the obviously spurious conclusion should be made to include ver. 24. See, however, on chap. xxi.—2 Pet. i. 14 also, and the Gospel of Mark, cannot be adduced as testimonies ; since the former pas- sage cannot be shown to refer to John xxi. 18 f., while the second Gospel was certainly written much earlier than the fourth. 2. In the apostolical Fathers we meet with no express quotation from, or sure trace of any use of, the Gospel. Barnabas 5, 6, 12 (comp. John iii. 14), and other echoes of John in this confused anti-Judaizing epistle, to which too great importance is attached by Keim, as well as Herm. Past. Simil. 9, 12 (comp. John x. 7, 9, xiv. 6), Ignat. ad Philad. (comp. John iii. 8) 9 (comp. John x. 9), ad Trall. 8 (comp. John vi. 51), ad Magnes. 8 (comp. John x. 30, xii. 49, xiv. 11), ad Rom. 7 (John vi. 82 ff., vii. 38 f.), are so adequately explained by tradition, and the common types of view and terminology of the apostolical age, that it is very unsafe to attribute them to some definite written source. Nor does what is said in Ignat. ad Rom. 7, and ad Trail. 8, of Christ's flesh and blood, furnish any valid ex- ception to this view, since the origin of the mystical conception of the σάρξ of Christ is not necessarily due to its dissemination through this Gospel, al- though it does not occur in the Synoptics.* Hence the question as to the 1 Die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. Ὁ. 273. icum. Besides, that very remarkable ὡς 2 Τὸ is true that Barnabas, 4, quotes, with the formula sicut scriptum est (which is con- firmed, against Credner, by the Greek text of the Codex Sinaiticus), a passage from Matthew (xx. 16, xxii. 14; not 2 Esdr. viii. 3, as Volkmar maintains). To find, however, in this alone canonical confirmation of the fourth Gospel (Tischendorf) is too rash a conclusion, since the close joint relation of the four, as composing one fourfold Jospel, cannot be proved so early as the apostolical Fathers; nor do even Justin’s citations exhibit any such corpus evangel- γέγραπται makes it probable that the pas- sage in Matthew may have erroneously appeared to the writer of the epistle as taken from the Old Testament.—Again, it is incorrect to say (with Volkmar) that the citation in Barnabas 5 of Ps. xxii. 21 tells against our Gospel, since that citation has no bearing on the spear-thrust spoken of in xix. 34, but simply refers to death on the cross as such, in contrast with death by the sword. 3 In opposition to Rothe, Anfange ad. Chr. Kirch. p. 715 ff. ; Huther, in Lgen’s Zettschr. INTRODUCTION. ὃ genuineness of the several epistles of Ignatius, and their texts, may here be altogether left out of consideration. Just as little from the testimony of Trenaeus ad Florin. (ap. Eus. v. 20) to Polycarp, that in all which the latter has spoken of Christ he has spoken σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς, may we infer any use of our Gospel on Polycarp’s part, considering the generality of this ex- pression, which, moreover, merely sets forth Irenaeus’ opinion, and does not necessarily mean New Testament writings. When, again, Irenaeus! quotes an interpretation given by the ‘‘presbytert apostolorum discipuli” of the saying in John xiv. 2 (‘‘In my Father's house,” etc.), it must remain doubtful whether these presbyteri knew that saying from our Gospel or from apostolical tradition, since Irenaeus quotes their opinion simply with the general words : 3. Of indirect but decided importance, on the other hand,—assuming, that is, what in spite of the doubts still raised by Scholten must be regard- ed as certain, that the Gospel and First Epistle of John are from one author, —is the use which, according to Euseb. iii. 39, Papias® made of the First Epistle. That in the fragment of Papias no mention is made of our Gospel, should not be still continually urged (Baur, Zeller, Hilgenf., Volkmar, Scholten) asa proof, either that he did not know it, or at least did not acknowledge its authority (see below, No. 8). Decisive stress may also be laid on Polycarp, ad Phil. 7 (πᾶς yap ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός ἐστι), asa quotation from 1 John iv. 3; Polycarp’s chapter containing it being unquestionably genuine, and free from the in- terpolations occurring elsewhere in the Epistle. It is true that it may be said, ‘‘ What can such general sentences, which may have circulated anony- mously, prove ?”* but it may be answered that that characteristic type of this fundamental article of the Christian system, which in the above form is quite peculiar to the First Epistle of John, points to the evangelist in the case of no one more naturally than of Polycarp, who was for so many years his disciple.* It is nothing less than an unhistorical inversion of the rela- tions between them, when some (Bretschneider, and again Volkmar) repre- sent John’s Epistle as dependent on Polycarp’s, while Scholten tries to make out a difference in the application and sense of the respective passages. 4. It is true that Justin Martyr, in his citations from the ἀπομνημονείματα τῶν ἀποστόλων (‘Sd καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια," Apol. I. 66), which also served as church lessons,* has not used exclusively our canonical Gospels (the older καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι TOV κύριον. 1841, iv. p. 1 ff. ; Ebrard, Zvan7. Joh. Ὁ. 109 ; Krittk d. evang. Gesch. ed. 2, Ὁ. 840 ff. ; Tischend. Ewald Jahrb. V. p. 188, ete. 1 Her. v. 36. 1 f. 2 A disciple of the Presbyter John. From the fragments of Papias in Eusebius, it is only to useless controversy. See especially Overbeck in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1867, p. 35 ff.; Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 63 ff., in opposition to Zahn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, pp. 649 ff. 3 Baur, Kanon. Evangel. p. 350. abundantly clear that he mentions two dif- Jerent disciples of the Lord called John,— John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, who was not one of the twelve, but simply a disciple, like Aristion. The attempt to make the Presbyter, in the quotation from Papias, no other than the Apostle, leads *Comp. Ewald, Johann. Schriften, II. Ὁ. 895. 5 For the course of the discussions upon Justin’s quotations, and the literature of the subject, see Volkmar, Ueb. Justin d. M. u. & Verh. 5. uns. Hvangelien, 1853; Hilgen- feld, Zvangelien, 1855; Volkmar, Urspr. d. 0 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. view, and still substantially held by Bindemann’ and Semisch ;? also by Luthardt, Tischendorf, and Riggenbach); but neither has he used merely an ‘‘uncanonical” Gospel (Schwegler), or chiefly such a one (Credner, Volk- mar, Hilgenfeld), as was ‘‘a special recension of that Gospel to the Hebrews which assumed so many forms” (Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 9). For he used alike our canonical Gospels, and in addition other evangelic writings now lost, which—rightly or wrongly—he must have looked upon as proceed- ing from the apostles, or from disciples of theirs (comp. Tryph. 103 : ἐν yap τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἅ φημι ὑπὸ TOV ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι); in which his devia- tions from our canonical Gospels hardly agree more than once or twice with the Clementines. His Apologies certainly belong (see Apol. i. 46) to somewhere about the middle of the second century.* His citations, even when they can be referred to our canonical Gospels, are generally free, so that it is often doubtful where he got them.* From Matthew and Luke only five are verbally exact. He has also borrowed from John,* and indeed so evidently, that those who would deny this are in consistency obliged, with Volkmar, to represent John as making use of Justin, which is an absurdity- Evang. 1866, p. 92 ff. See also in particular, Luthardt, Justin d. M. u. d. Joh. Hvang., in the Erlanger Zeitschr. 7. Protest. ει. K. 1856, XXxi. parts 4-6, xxxii. parts 1and2; Ewald, Jahrb. VI. 59 ff.; Riggenbach, Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Joh. p. 139 ff. 1 Stud. u. Krit. 1842, Ὁ. 355 ff. 2 ἢ. apost. Denkw. Justins, 1848. 3 The controversy as to the date of the first Apology (Semisch, a.p.138-139 ; Volk- mar, about 147; Keim, 155-160) need not here be discussed, since in any case our Gospel isin the same position as the Syn- optics, so far as Justin’s use and estimate of it are concerned. 4See Credner, Beitr, I. p. 151 Ε΄. ; Frank, in the Wertemb. Stud. XVIII. p. 61 ff.; Hilgenf. Avrit. Untersuch. tib. die Hvang. Justins, ete., 1850; Volkmar weber Justin. 5 He has made most use of Matthew, and then of the Pauline Luke, but also of Mark. That he has taken very little comparatively from John, seems to be due to the same reason as his silence in respect of Paul, which is not tantamount to an exclusion of the ‘apostle of the Gentiles ; for he is rich in Pauline ideas, and there can be no mis- take as to his knowledge of Paul’s epistles (Semisch, p. 123 ff.). It is probably to be explained by prudential consideration for the antagonism of the Jewish Christians to Paul’s (and John’s) anti-Judaism. In the obyious possibility of this circumstance, it is too rash to conclude that this Gospel had not yet won the high authority which it could not haye failed to have, had it really been a work of the apostle (Weisse, ἃ. Hvan- gelienfr. Ὁ. 129); or even, that “had Justin known the fourth Gospel, he would have made, not only repeated and ready, but even preferential use of it. To assume, therefore, the use of only one passage from it on Justin’s part, is really to concede the point” (Volkmar, ἐδ. Justin, p.50f. ; Zeller, p. 650). The Clementine Homilies (see here- after under 5) furnish an analogous phe- nomenon, in that they certainly knew and used our Gospel, while yet borrowing very little from it. The synoptic evangelic liter- ature was the older and more widely dif- fused ; it had already become familiar to the most diverse Christian circles (comp. Luke i. 1), when John’s Gospel, which was so very dissimilar and peculiar, and if not esoteric (Weizsicker), certainly antichiliastic (Keim), made its appearance. How con- ceivable that the latter, though the work of an apostle, should only very gradually have obtained general recognition and equal authority with the Synoptics among the Jewish Christians! how conceivable, therefore, also, that a man like Justin, though no Judaizer, should have hesitated to quote from it in the same degree as he did from the Synoptics, and the other writings connected with the Synoptic cycle of narratives! The assumption that he had no occasion to refer frequently and express- ly to John (Luthardt, op. cit. p. 398) is in- admissible. He might often enough, where he has other quotations, have quoted quite as appropriately from John. INTRODUCTION. δ See Keim, Gesch. J. I. Ὁ. 157 ff. ΤΆ 15. true that some have found in too many passages references to this Gospel, or quotations from it ;* still we may assume it as certain, that as, in general, Justin’s whole style of thought and expression implies the existence of John’s writings,’ so, in the same way, must the mass of those passages in particular be estimated, which, in spite of all variations arising from his Alexandrine recasting of the dogma, cor- respond with John’s doctrine of the Logos.* For Justin was conscious that his doctrine, especially that of the Logos, which was the central point in his Christology, had an apostolic basis,* just. as the ancient church in gen- eral, either expressly or as a matter of course, traced the origin of its doc- trine of the Logos to John. It is therefore unhistorical, in the special case of Justin, merely to point to an acquaintance with Philo, and to the Logos- speculations and Gnostic ideas of the age generally (against Zeller, Baur, Hilgenf., Scholten, and many others), or to satisfy oneself possibly with the assumption that Paul furnished him with the premisses for his doctrine (Grimm in the Stud. κι. Krit. 1851, p. 687 ff.), or even to make the fourth evan- gelist a pupil of Justin(Volkmar). It seems, moreover, certain that Apol. 1. 61, καὶ γὰρ Xpioroceimev' Gv μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ov μὴ εἰςέλθητε εἰς THY βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν πᾶσίν ἐστι, is derived from John iii, 3-5. See especially Semisch, p. 189 ff.; Luthardt, 1.6. XXXII. p. 93 ff. ; Riggenb. p. 166 ff. It is true, some have assigned this quotation through the medi- um of Matt. xviii. 3, to the Gospel to the Hebrews, or some other uncanon- ical evangelic writing (Credner, Schwegler, Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volik- mar, Scholten), or have treated it as a more original form of the mere oral tradition (see Baur, against Luthardt, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, Ὁ. 232). But in the face of Justin’s free mode of citation, to which we must at- 1See against this, Zeller, Theo]. Jahrd. 1845, p. 600 ff. spurious, or that τῶν ἀποστόλων is to be in- serted, so that αὐτοῦ would refer to Jesus), 2 Comp. Ewald. Jahrb. V. p. 186 -f. 3 See Duncker, d. Logoslehre Justins d. M., Gittingen 1848, and Luthardt as above, XxXxii. pp. 69 ff., 75 ff. ; Weizsacker in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 708 ff. ; Tischen- dorf, wann wurden uns. Hv. verf. p. 31 ff., ed. 4; Weizsicker, ἃ. Theol. ἃ. M. Just., in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p. 78 ff. Great weight is due to Justin’s doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos (Apol. 1. 32, 663 6. Tryph. 100), which is foreign to the system of Philo, ete., and is specially Johannean. 4Hence his frequent reference to the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. On one occasion led to do so easually, be- cause he is speaking directly of Peter, he refers definitely to the ἀπομνημονεύματα τοῦ ἹΠέτρονυ (ὁ. Tryph. 106: μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν ἹΠέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ γεγράφϑαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ, K.T.Ac Here Credner (Beitr. I. p. 182; Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 17) quite correctly referred αὐτοῦ to Πέτρον (Liicke conjectures that αὐτοῦ is but he understood these ἀπομν. to be the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, — the more groundlessly, that the substance of Justin’s quotation is from Mark iii. 17. Justin understood by ἀπομνη. τοῦ Πέτρου the Gospel of Mark. So also Luthardt, op. cit. xxxi. p. 316 ff.; Weiss, in the Stud. w. Krit. 1861, p. 677; Riggenb. and others; comp. Volk- mar, Urspr. ἃ. Huang. p. 154. According to Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 5, ‘‘Marcus quod edidit evangelium, Petri adfirmatur, cujus interpres Marcus.’ Comp. Irenaeus also, 111. 10. 6, iii. 1.1. According to this, com- pared with what Papias says of Mark, Justin might have expressed himself ex- actly as he has done. With respect to the controversy on the subject, see Hilgenfeld, Krit. Unters. Ὁ. 23 ff., and Luthardt, 1.6. 5 comp. on Mark, Introduction. Notice also how unfavourable the passage seems to the notion that Justin’s Memorials are a compilation (Ewald and others). 8 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tribute the avayevy. instead of γενν. ἄνωθεν ,--- ἄνωθεν being taken, according to the common ancient view, in the sense of denwo (comp. also Clem. Recogn. vi. 9),—this is most arbitrary, especially when Justin himself gives promi- nence to the impossibility of a second natural birth. Moreover, in the - second half of the quotation (οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθ. εἰς τ. βασιλ. τῶν ovVp.), Some rem- iniscence of Matt. xviii. 8 might easily occur ; just as, in fact, several very ancient witnesses (among the Codices, y*) read in John l.c. βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, but the Pseudo-Clemens (Homil. xi. 26) by quoting the second half exactly in this way, and in the first half adding after dvayevy. the words ὕδατι ζῶντι εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς, υἱοῦ, ἁγίου πνεύματος, exhibits a free combination of Matt, xxviii. 19 and xviii. 3. Other passages of Justin, which some have regarded as allusions to or quotations from John, may just as fitly be de- rived from evangelic tradition to be found elsewhere, and from Christian views generally ; and this must even be conceded of such passages as 6. Tryph. 88 (John i. 20 ff.), de res. 9 (John v. 27), Apol. I. 6 (John iv. 24), Apol. I. 22 ande. Tryph. 69 (John ix. 1), ὁ. Tryph. 17 (John i. 4. How- ever, it is most natural, when once we have been obliged to assume in Justin’s case the knowledge and use of our Gospel, to attribute to it other expressions also which exhibit Johannean peculiarities, and not to stop at Apol. I. 61 merely (against Frank). On the other hand, the remarkable re- semblance of the quotation from Zech. xii. 10 in John xix. 37 and Apol. I. 52, leaves it doubtful whether Justin derived it from John’s Gospel (Semisch, Luthardt, Tisch., Riggenb.), or from one of the variations of the LXX. already existing at that time (Grimm, /.c. Ὁ. 692 f.), or again, as is: most probable, from the original Hebrew, as is the case in Rev. 1. 7. It is true that the Epistle to Diognetus, which, though not composed by Justin, was certainly contemporary with and probably even prior to him, implies the existence of John’s Gospel in certain passages of the concluding portion, which very distinctly re-echo John’s Logos-doctrine (see especially Zeller, 1.6. Ὁ. 618, and Credner, Gesch. d. neut. Kanon, Ὁ. 58 ff.); but this conclu- sion (chapp. 11, 12) is a later appendix, probably belonging to the third century at the earliest. Other references to our Gospel in the Epistle are uncertain. 5. To the testimonies of the second century within the church, the Clavis of Melito of Sardis certainly does not belong (in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, Paris 1852), since this pretended κλείς, in which the passages John xv. 5. vi. 54, xii. 24, are quoted as contained ‘‘in Hvangelio,” is a much later compila- tion ;' but they include the Epistle of the Churches at Vienne and Lyons (Kus. ν. 1), where John xvi. 2 is quoted as a saying of the Lord’s, and the Spirit is designated as the Paraclete : Tatian, Justin’s disciple, ad Graec. 18, where John i. 5 is cited as τὸ εἰρημένον ; chap. 19, where we have indications of an acquaintance with John’s prologue (comp. chap. 5) ; and chap. 4, πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, compared with John iv. 24 ; also the Diatessaron of this Tatian,? which . 1 See Steitz, Stud. τι. AKrit. 1857, p. 584 ff. from his diocese as dangerous, it was 2 According to Theodoret (Haeret. fab. nothing else than a brief summary by way i. 20), who from his account must have of extract of our four Gospels, in which known it accurately, and who removed it the genealogies, and all that referred to INTRODUCTION. 9 is based on the canon of the four Gospels, certainly including that of John : Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 10, which is based upon a knowledge of John’s prologue and of xvii. 21-22 : Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, in a Frag- ment in the Paschal Chronicle, ed. Dindorf, p. 14 (6 τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντη- θεὶς ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ dio πάλιν καθάρσια ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα" λόγον k. πνεῦμα, comp. John xix. 94), where Baur, of course, takes refuge in a tradi- tion older than our Gospel ; also in another Fragment in the same work ὅθεν ἀσυμφώνως τὲ νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν καὶ στασιάζειν δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγέλια), where, if we rightly interpret it,’ John’s Gospel is meant to be included Christ as a descendant of the seed of David, were left out. This account must (see also Semisch, Vatiani Diatess., Vratisl. 1856) pre- vail against modern views of an opposite kind; it agrees also with what is said by Euseb. iv. 29, who, however, did not himself exactly know the peculiar way in which Tatian had combined the four. The statement of Epiphanius, Her. xlvi. 1, “Many called it καθ᾽ ἝἙ βραίους,"" is, on the other hand, simply an historical remark, which decides nothing as to the fact itself. According to the Jacobite bishop of the thirteenth century, Dionysius Bar-Salibi in Assemanni (Bibl. Orient. i. Ὁ. 57 f., ii. Ὁ. 159), the Diatessaron of Tatian, who therefore must have laid chief stress on John, began with the words, Jn the beginning was the Word ; he also reports that Ephraem Syrus wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron. Credner (Beitr. I. p. 446 ff. ; Gesch. αἰ. neut. Kanon, p. 19 ff.), whom Scholten follows, combats these statements by showing that the Syrians had confounded Tatian and Ammonius and their writings with one another. But Bar-Salibi certainly keeps them strictly apart. Further, the orthodox Ephraem could write a commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron the more fitly, if it was a grouping together of the canonical Gospels. Lastly, the statement that it began with Johni. 1 agrees thoroughly with Theodoret’s account of the rejection of the genealogies and the descent from Dayid, whereas the work of Ammonius cannot have begun with John i. 1, since, according to Eusebius (see Wetstein, Proleg. p. 68), its basis was the Gospel of Matthew, by the side of which Ammonius placed the parallel sections of the other evangelists in the form of a synopsis. The testimony of Bar- Salibi above quoted ought not to have been surrendered by Liicke, de Wette, and various others, on the ground of Credner’s opposition. What Credner quotes in his Gesch. d. neut. Kanon, p. 20, from Ebed- Jesu (in Maii Script. vet. nova collect. x. p. 191), rests merely on a confusion of Ta tian with Ammonius on the part of the Syr- jans ; which confusion, however, is not to be charged upon Dionysius Bar-Salibi. Further, there is the less ground for ex- cluding the fourth Gospel from the Diates- saron, seeing that Tatian has made use of it in his Oratio ad Graecos. 17The correct explanation is the usual one, adopted by Wieseler, Ebrard, Weitzel, Schneider, Luthardt, Bleek, Weizsicker, Riggenbach, and many others, also by Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten: ‘‘ and the Gospels, according to them (in consequence of their asserting that Jesus, according to Matthew, died on the 15th Nisan), appear to be at variance’ (namely, with one an- other). This ground of refutation rests on the assumption (which, however, is really erroneous) that there could be no dis- agreement among the Gospels as to the day when Jesus died, while there would be such a disagreement if it were correct that, according to Matthew, Jesus died on the 15th Nisan. Now it is true that Mat- thew really has this statement; only Apol- linaris does not admit it, but assumes that both the Synopties and John record the 14th Nisan as the day of Christ’s death, so that on this point harmony reigns among the Gospels, as in fact, generally, the real disagreement among them had not come to be consciously ob- served. Comp. Clem. Al. in the Chron. Pasch.: ταύτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν τῇ ἀκριβείᾳ... καὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια According to Schwegler (Montanism, p. 194 f.), Baur, Zeller, the sense must be: ‘‘ According to their view, the Gospels are in conflict with the Law.’ This, however, is incorrect, be- cause, after having given prominence to the irreconcilability with the Law, a new point is introduced with στασιάζειν, bear- ing on the necessary harmony of the Gos- pels. Moreover, there is no need whatever, in the case of στασιάζειν, of some such ad- dition as ἐν ἑαυτοῖς or the like, since τὰ εὐαγγέλια represents a collective totality supposed to be wellknown. Comp. Xen, συνῳδά. 10 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. among the εὐαγγέλια : Polycrates of Ephesus, in Euseb. v. 24, where, with a reference to John xiii. 23 f., xxi. 20, he designates the Apostle John as ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ κυρίου ἀναπεσών. The Clementine Homilies’ contain in xix. 22 an undeniable quotation from John ix. 2, 3 ;? as also, in iii. 52, a citation occurs from John x. 9, 97," and after these undoubted quotations, there is no longer any reason to question a reference also in xi. 26 (compare above, under 4) to John iii. 8. On the other hand, no great stress must be laid on ‘the citations in the Recognitiones, since this work is to be placed (in opposi- tion to Hilgenfeld, Merx, Volkmar) somewhat later, though still in the second century, and now only exists in the obviously free Latin translation of Rufinus.* The first Father who quotes our Gospel by name is Theophilus, ad Autolye. ii. 31 (ii. 22) : Ὅθεν διδάσκουσι ἡμᾶς ai ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευ- ἱατοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν ᾿Ιωάννης λέγει" ἐν. ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος: x.t.A. Be- sides this, according to Jerome (Hp. 151, ad Aglas.), he composed a work comparing the four Gospels together, which, like Tatian’s Diatessaron, im- plies the recognition of John by the church. Of importance also here is the testimony of Irenaeus, Huer, 111. 1 (ἔπειτα ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος ἀὐτοῦ ἀναπεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν ’Edéow τῆς ᾿Ασίας δια- τρίβων), comp. 111. 11. 1, 7, 8, 9, v. 10. 3, and especially ap. Eus. v 8 ; partly because in his youth Polycarp was his teacher, and partly because he was an ‘opponent of Gnosticism, which, however, could easily find, and did actually find, nutriment in this very Gospel. Hence the assumption is all the more natural, that the Gospel so emphatically acknowledged and frequently quoted by Irenaeus had Polycarp’s communications in its favour, either directly, in that Polycarp made Irenaeus acquainted with John’s Gospel, or at any rate indirectly, in that he found confirmed by that Gospel what had been deliver- ed to him by Polycarp as coming from the apostle’s own mouth respecting the words and works of Jesus, and which had remained vividly impressed on his recollection.°—Finally, here belong, because we may take it for granted they are not later than the second century, the Canon of Muratori,® and the Cyrop. viii. 8. 2, ἐπεὶ μέντοι Κῦρος ἐτελεύτησεν, above, XXXI. p. 3868 ff. This also tells εὐθὺς μὲν αὐτοῦ οἱ παῖδες ἐστασίαζον. Often so in Greek; comp. also Hilgenfeld, Pascha- streit, Ὁ. 258. 1 Ed. Dressel, G6tting. 1853. 2 See UhJhorn in the Gétt. gel. Anz. 1853, p. 1810; Volkmar, ein neu entdeckt. Zeugn. tiber ad. Joh. Evang., in the theol. Jahro. 1854, p. 446 ff. In spite of this clear testimony, however, Volkmar places the date of John’s Gospel and of the Homilies so near each other (150-160 A.p.), that the former must have been used by the author of the Homilies directly after its origination ‘tas an interesting but wnapostolic Novum” (Urspr. d. Evang. p. 63). This use mani- festly dmplies dissemination and admitted apostolic authority such as Matthew and Luke, and a Gospel of Peter, possibly used by him, must have possessed in the opin- ion of the author. Comp. Luthardt as against Baur, who, in the Zheol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 240, strangely enough thinks to weaken this testimony as a ‘‘casual and external” use of the Gospel ; while Scholten (die dite- sten Zeug. p. 60 ff.), in a precarious and arti- ficial fashion, raises doubts as to the use itself. ! 3 See, against Zeller and Hilgenf., espe- cially Uhlhorn, @. Homil.u. Recogn. des Clem. p. 223. 4 Recogn. vi.9, comp. John iil. 3-5 ; Recogn. ii. 48, comp. John v. 23; Zecogn. v.12, comp. John viii. 34. 5 Epist. ad Florin. in Eus. v. 20. 6 Credner erroneously maintains in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 297, and Gesch. ἃ. neut. Kanon, Ὁ. 158 f., that the Canon Murat. distinguishes John the Evangelist as a simple discipulus Christi from the Apostle. See, on the other hand, Ewald, Jahrb. IX. INTRODUCTION. 11: Canon of the Syrian church in the Peshito, and in the Fragments of the Curetonian text. The Itala also, if its origin really falls within the second ~ century,’ may be quoted among the testimonies of this century. 6. Among the heretics of the second century, besides the Tatian already referred to, we must name Marcion as a witness for our Gospel. He rejected, according to Tertullian (6. Mare. iv. 3), Matthew and John, and, according to the same writer, de carne Christi ὃ, John,—a fact which im- plies their apostolic authority, and that Marcion knew them to be apostolic,? although Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Scholten, following Zeller and Schweg- ler, assume the contrary. But he rejected the non-Pauline Gospels, not on critical grounds, but as a one-sided adherent of Paul, and, as such, in Tertullian’s judgment (‘‘videtur”) chose Luke’s Gospel, in order to shape it anew for the purpose of restoring the pure Gospel of Christ, and in such a way, in fact, that he now ‘‘ evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit aucto- rem,” Tertull. 6. Mare. iv. 2, by which he deprived Luke of his canonical position (‘‘ Lucam videtur elegisse, quem caederet”). To question Tertullian’s credibility in the above passages,* though he too frequently judged with the hostility of a partisan those whom he opposed, is yet without sufficient warrant, since he states particularly (0. Mare. iv. 3) how Marcion came to reject the other canonical Gospels ; striving, namely, on the ground of the Epistle to the Galatians (chap. ii.), to subvert the position of those Gospels —‘‘ quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat.” Comp. Weizsiicker, p. 230 ff. (who, however, misunderstands videtur in the above passage), and Riggenb. p. 130 ff. Marcion, therefore, must in consistency have renounced the gain to Gnosticism with which John could have furnished him. The opposite course would have been inconsistent with his Paulinism. Again, that Tertullian understood, by the ‘‘ Gospels peculiarly and specially apos- tolical,” those of Matthew and John (against Zeller, who, with Volkmar, understands the apocryphal Gospels of the Jewish Christians), is clear from ὁ. Mare. iv. 2: ‘‘ Nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et Matthacus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus.” Further, the Valentinians used our Gos- pel fully and in many ways, in support of their fine-spun fancies (Iren. Haer. 111. 11. 7). Heracleon, who is not to be brought down in time into a con- temporary of Origen,‘ wrote a commentary on it (see the Fragments of Origen in Grabe, Spicil. Patr. ii. p. 85 ff.). Ptolemaeus (in Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii. 3 ff.) cites John i. 3 as an apostolical utterance, and according to Trenaeus, i. 8. 5, expressly described John’s prologue as proceeding from the apostle ; and Theodotus also (according to the extracts from his writ- ings appended to the works of Clem. Alex.) often quotes the Gospel of p. 96; Weiss in the Stud. u. Kvrit. 1863, tles is easily enough explained by Marcion’s p. 597. anti-Judaizing temper. 1 Lachmann, WV. 7. Praef. Ὁ. x. f. 3 Zeller, Baur, Volkmar. 2 Which certainly can be least of all 4 Origen himself (in Joann. ii. ec. 8) alleges doubted in the case of John’s Gospel, of | that Heracleon was esteemed a trusty dis- which Asia was the native country. The ciple (γνώριμος) of Valentinus. rejection of John as one of the twelve apos- 12 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. John. Whether Valentinus himself used it, is a question on which also, apart from other less evident proofs, we are not without very distinct testi- mony since the publication of the Philosophumena Origenis, which were probably composed by Hippolytus ; for in the Philos. vi. 35, among the proof-texts used by Valentinus, John x. 8 is cited : so that the subterfuge, ες The author likes to transfer the doctrines of the disciple to the Master” (Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, comp. Scholten), can be of no avail here, where we have an instance to the contrary lying clearly before us.’ When, therefore, Tertullian says, Praeser. Hacer. 38, ‘‘ Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur,” we may find this videtur in respect of John’s Gospel simply con- firmed by the Philosophumena.* — That, again, also Basilides, who is not, however, to be looked upon as a disciple of the Apostle Matthias (Hofstede de Groot), used our Gospel,—a point which Baur even, with unsatisfactory opposition on the part of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and others, concedes,—and that he has employed as proof-texts in particular John 1. 9, ii. 4, is likewise proved by the Phil. Orig. vii. 22, 27, with which many of the author’s errors in other things are quite unconnected.—The Gospel also was in use among the Naassenes (Philos. Or. v. 6 ff.) and Peratae (v. 12 ff.), who belong to the close of the second century.—It is true that Montanism had not its original root in the Gospel of John, but in the doctrine of the Parousia ; still, in its entire relation to the church and its doctrine (see especially Ritschl, Althathol. Kirche, p. 477 ff.), and particularly in its ideas of prophecy, its asceticism, and its eschatology, it had no occasion to reject our Gospel, though some have erroneously found some evidence to this effect in Irenaeus,* though at the same time dependence on this Gospel 1 See Jacobi in the Deutsch. Zeitschrift, 1851, No. 28 f., 1658, No. 24 f.; Ewald, Jahrd. V. p. 200'f. 2 When Baur and Zeller, on the other hand, lay stress on the fact that among the texts adduced by the Valentinians in proof of their doctrine of the Aeons, none occur from John, and hence conclude that the Valentinizn system which Irenaeus there describes does not imply the existence of our Gospel at that time, it is still adverse to their view that Irenaeus immediately, i. 8.5, adduces quotations from John out of Ptolemaeus, and in iii. 11. 7 testifies to the most ample use of our Gospel (‘‘ plenissime utentes’’) on the part of the Valentinians. So, also, the fact that Irenaeus, i. 20. 2, cites among the proof-texts of the Marcosians none from John, cannot serve to prove that the “ Valentinian system originally stood in no connection with the fourth Gospel.” Zeller, 1845, p. 635. Assuredly the whole theosophy of Valentinus was intertwined with, and grew upon, the ground and soil of John’s distinctive theology. ‘* Valentinus ... nonad materiam scripturas (as Marcion), sed materiam ad scripturas excogitavit, et tamen plus abstulit et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verborum et adjiciens dispositiones non comparen- tium rerum.” Tertullian, de praescr. haer. 38. The Valentinian Gnosis, with its Aeons, Syzygies, and so on, stands related to John’s prologue as a product of art and fancy to what is simple and creative. Attempts to weaken the testimonies of the Philosoph. Orig. as to a use of John’s Gospel on the part of Valentinus and Basilides, have been very unsuccessfully made: Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 144 ff. ; Volkmar, ibidem, 1854, p. 125 f.; Baur, ἐδ. Ὁ. 269 f. : Hilgenf. in his Zeitschrift, 1862, p. 452 ff. : Scholten, d. dit. Zeug. Ὁ. 67 ff.; and Volk- mar, Urspr.uns. Evang. Ὁ. τὸ tf. See further, Bleek, Bestr. I. Ὁ. 214 ff. ; Schneider, p. 27 ff. ; Luthardt, 1.6. Ὁ. 100 ff. ; Tisch. 1.6. Ὁ. 45 ff. ; Riggenbach, p. 118 ff. 3 This is in answer to Bretschneider, Prob- ab. p. 210 ff. The passage in Irenaeus, iii. 2. 9, reads thus: “ Alii vero, ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non ad- mittunt, quae est secundum Johannis evan- INTRODUCTION. 13 cannot in its case be proved. There was a rejection of the Gospel on the part of the Alogi, consequently on that of the opponents of Montanism (Epiph. Haer. li. 3 f.), in the interests, indeed, of dogmatic Antimontanism, though they also adduced harmonistic reasons ; but by this very rejection they fur- nish an indirect testimony to the recognition in their day of our Gospel as an apostolic work, both in the church and among the Montanists. They ascribed it to Cerinthus, who was yet a contemporary of John,—a proof how ancient they thought it, in spite of their rejection of it. 7. Celsus, whom we must certainly not assign, with Volkmar, to so late a date as the third century, has been cited as a witness of the second century standing outside the church,—all the more important, indeed, because her enemy,—and, from the Fragments of his work as cited in Origen, we may certainly infer that he was to some extent acquainted with the evangelic tradition and the evangelic writings, for he even alludes to the designation of the Logos and other peculiar points which are found in John, especially ec. Cels. ii. 36, comp. John xx. 27; ¢. Cels. i. 67, comp. John ii. 18. He assures us that he drew his objections chiefly from the writings of the Chris- tians (6. Cels. ii. 74). But it is highly probable that the Gospel of John was also among them, since he (6. Cels. ii. 13) expressly distinguishes the writings of the disciples of Jesus from other works treating of Him, which he proposes to pass over.—A weighty testimony from the oldest apocryphal literature might be furnished by the Acta Pilati, which are quoted even by Justin and Tertullian (see Tischendorf, Hvang. apoer. Prolegg. Ὁ. liv. ff.), if their original form were satisfactorily determined, which, however, can- not be successfully done. Just as little do other apocryphal Gospels fur- nish anything which we may lay hold of as certain. The labour expended by Tischendorf therefore leads to no results. 8. By the end of the second century, and from the beginning of the third, tradition in the church testifies so clearly and uniformly in favour of the Gospel, that we need cite no additional vouchers.’ Euseb. 111. 25 places it among the Homologumena. gelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit ; sed simul et evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum, infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetae quidem esse volunt, prophetiae vero gratiam ab ecclesia repellunt.”” He is here speaking of the op- ponents of Montanism, who for a polemical purpose did not acknowledge the character- istic Johannean nature of this Gospel, rec- ognizable by the promise of the Paraclete ; by which course Irenaeus thinks they reject equally both the Gospel (of John) and the prophetical Spirit also (who, in fact, was to be sent precisely as the Paraclete),—‘‘ truly unhappy men, who indeed ascribe it (the Gospel) to a false prophet, while they are repelling the grace of prophecy from the church.’’ — The passage is not to be re- garded, with Neander, as a Montanist inter- polation; nor must we admit in the last words the conjecture “ pseudoprophetas”’ (so Merkel, Aufkidrung d. Streitigk. der Aloger, p. 13; also Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. i. p. 200, and Tischendorf), or pseudoprophetae esse nolunt (so Liicke), or psewdoprophetas esse nolunt (so Ritschl). Rather is psewdopro- phetae to be taken as genitive: that “ἐξ is the work of a false prophet.” Accordingly the “* pseudoprophetue esse volunt” answers to the preceding ‘“‘evangelium ... repellunt,”’ while the ‘*‘ prophetiae vero gratiam’’ answers to the “‘propheticum repellunt Spiritum.” Hence also we must decline Volkmar’s con- jecture, that in Greek ψευδῶς προφῆται stood instead of ψευδοπροφῆται. 'Clem. Al., Tertull., Dionys. Al., ete. Hippolyt., Orig., 14 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. From this examination of witnesses, it is clear’ that our Gospel was not merely inuse in the church, and recognized by her as apostolical, from about 170 a.p. (Hilgenfeld, a.p. 150), and composed somewhere about 150 a.p. (Hilgenfeld, 120-140), but that the continuity of the attestations to it, and their growing extent in connection with the literature of the church, are as evident as we ever can and do require for the external confirmation of any New Testament writing. The continuity in particular goes back from Ire- naeus through Polycarp, and from Papias, so far as he is credited with the use of John’s first Hpzstle, although not directly (Iren., Hieron.), yet indirect- ly (Euseb., Dionys.),—that is, through the Presbyter John,—to the Apostle himself. That the Fragment of Papias in Euseb. ili. 89 does not mention John’s Gospel, cannot be of any consequence, since it does not quote any written sources at all from which the author drew his accounts, but rather describes his procedure as that of an inquirer after sayings of the apostles and other of the Lord’s disciples (such as Aristion and John the Presbyter), and expressly enunciates the principle : οὐ yap τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με Papias here throws together the then existing evangelic writings (τῶν βιβλίων), of which there was a multitude (Luke i. 1), all without distinction, not probably some merely apocryphal ones (Tischendorf ; Riggenbach, p. 115); and as he in- cluded among them the Gospel of Matthew and that of Mark, both of which he specially mentions subsequently, so he also may have intended to include the Gospel of John among τῶν βιβλίων, since he manifestly does not indicate that he has any conception of canonical Gospels as such (comp. Credner, Beitr. I. p. 25), and has no occasion to note the distinction. When, further on, Eusebius quotes two statements of Papias on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, this does not indicate that our Gospel did not exist in his day (Baur), or was at any rate not recognized by him (Hilgen., Credner,.and Volkmar) ; but these two statements are simply made prominent, because they contain something specially noteworthy as to the origin? of those Gospels, just as Eusebius refers to it as specially worthy of remark that Papias makes use of proofs from two epistolary writings* (1 John and 1 Peter), and has a ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, ὅσον τὰ Tapa ζώσης φωνῆς Kai μενούσης. 1Comp. the acknowledgment of Keim, Gesch. J. i. Ὁ. 137: “ΤΆ is used in the extant literature as early as the Synoptics.’? In opposition both to the usual determination of the date, which fixes on the last quarter of the first century, and to the criticism of Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar, Keim (pp. 146, 155) assigns the origin of the Gospel to Trajan’s time; between a.p. 100 and 117. The difficulty here is, that, according to Keim, the Epistle of Barnabas necessarily implies the use of our Gospel in its time. This epistle, however, he places in Hadrian’s day, about 120 a.p. In this case, the inter- yal during which the Gospel had to become known and recognized is much too narrow ; and besides, the date assigned to Barna- bas is byno mean\ so certain as Keim is disposed to infer from chap. 4and 16. Hil- genfeld places it under Nerva; Ewald and Weizsiicker even in the time of Vespasian. The question is, in any case, still uncertain. 2 When, in this statement, Papias inti- mates in regard to Mark: οὔτε yap ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούϑησεν αὐτῷ, We may Ob- serve here a contrast to other evangelists who had heard the Lord and followed Him ; which was not the case with Mark, whose credibility depended rather on Peter. Such other evangelists were Matthew and John. 3Why Eusebius makes this prominent, we cannot tell, since we do not know on what occasions Papias used these episto- lary testimonies. We can hardly connect this prominent reference with the question of the genuineness of the epistles, to which INTRODUCTION. 15 narrative which occurs in the Gospel to the Hebrews.’ Further, in opposi- tion to the weighty testimony of Justin Martyr, it is incorrectly urged that, - if he had known of John as evangelist, he would not have referred to him as the author of the Apocalypse, with the bare words (6. Tryph. 81), ἀνήρ tic, ῳ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωάννης, εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Justin had, in fact, no occasion at all, in the context of this passage, to describe John as evangelist, and all the less that to him it was self-evident that in εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων Were in- cluded the authors of the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. A historical argument specially adduced by some against our Gospel is derived from the history of the Haster Controversy. See, on the one side, Bretschneider, Prob: 109 f.; Schwegler, Montanism, p. 191 f.; Baur, p. 343 ff., and in the Theol. Jahrb. 1844, p. 6388 ff., 1847, p. 89 ff., 1848, p. 264 ff. On the opposite side, Weitzel, d. christl. Passafeier der drei ersten Jahrb., Pforzheim 1848, and in the Theol. Stud. u. γέ. 1848, p. 806 ;—in answer to which, again, Hilgenfeld, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 209 ff., and in his Galaterbrief, p. 78 f.; Baur, d. Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrb. Ὁ. 141 ff. ; Scholten, d. Hwang. nach Joh. krit. hist. Untersuch. Ὁ. 385 ff.; and d. altest. Zeugnisse, Ὁ. 139 ff. See further, for the genuineness of John : Ewald, Jahrb. V. p. 203 ff.; Schneider, p. 43 ff.; Bleek, Beitr. p. 156 ff., and Hinl. p. 187 ff.; Steitz, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, p. 721 ff., 1857, p. 741 8. 1859, p. 717 ff., and in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theologie, 1861, p. 102 ff. ;— against whom, Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 242 ff., and in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1858, p. 298 ; Hilgenf. Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 523 ff., and in his Zeitschr. . 1858, p. 151 ff., 1862, p. 285 ff., 1867, p. 187 ff. On the whole course of the investigations, Hilgef., d. Paschastreit d. alt. Kirche, 1860, p. 29 ff.; Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. 1863, p. 220 ff. Comp. also the apologetic discussion by Riggenbach, d. Zeugnisse f. d. Hv. Joh. Ὁ. 50 ff. The reasons derived from the Easter controversy against the genuineness of the Gospel are obviated, not by forcing the fourth Gospel into agreement with the Synoptics in their statements as to the day on which Jesus died (see on xviii. 28), which is not possible, but by a correct apprehension of the point of view from which the Catholic Quartodecimani in Asia Minor, who appealed for their observance of their festival on the 14th Nisan to apostolic custom, the subsequent mention of the Gospel to the Hebrews would not be at all appropriate. Probably Eusebius mentions the reference to the two epistles only as an exceptional procedure on the part of Papias, who else- where dispenses with the citation of ew7itten testimonies. Comp. the passage previously adduced from the Fragment.—Scholten (qd. diltest. Zeugn. p. 17) very arbitrarily, and without any reason, doubts whether Papias held the epistle to be a work of the apostle. 1 Besides, it is not to be overlooked that Papias may somewhere else in his book have mentioned the fourth Gospel, which he does not name in the Fragment in Eusebius. We do not know, since the book is lost. See also Steitz, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1868, p. 493. It is true, a Latin Codex of the ninth cen- tury, in the Vatican, expressly testifies to such a mention (see Aberle in the Zvib. Quartalschr. 1864, p.1 ff.; Tisch. as above, p. 118 f.; Zahn, in the Stud. u. Writ. 1867, p. 539 ff.); but less importance is to be at- tached to it, since the testimony is connect- ed with the statement that Papias put together what was dictated by the apostle,— a late and worthless legend (occurring also in Corder. Caten. Prooem.), which might easily enough have originated from Ire- naeus’ speaking of Papias as “Iwavvov ἀκουστής. See, moreover, Hilgenf. in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. V5 ff.; Overbeck, ibidem, 1867, p. 68 ff. 16 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. and especially to the example of John (Polycarp in Eusebius y. 24; and Polycrates, ibidem), regarded the observance of this particular day of the month. The opponents of the Gospel, it is true, say, If the custom of those in Asia Minor to celebrate the Lord’s last supper on the 14th Nisan, con- temporaneously with the Jewish passover, mainly originated with and pro- ceeded from the Apostle John, then this apostle could not have written the fourth Gospel, because that custom agrees exactly with the Synoptic account of the last supper and the day of Jesus’ death, while the fourth Gospel states the exact opposite,—namely, that Jesus kept His last supper, and therefore no true passover, on the 13th Nisan, and was crucified on the 14th Nisan. But the men of Asia Minor celebrated the 14th Nisan,—and that, too, by terminating the fast kept upon this day in remembrance of Christ’s passion, down to the hour of His death, and by a joyous celebration of the Lord’s supper immediately after, in gratitude for the accomplishment of His work of redemption,—not because Jesus ate the passover on that day, but because He died on that day, and by His death became the real and true Paschal Lamb of whom the Mosaic paschal lamb was the type (1 Cor. v. 7; John xix. 86); comp. also Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, p. 269. Accordingly, they might justly maintain (see Polycrates in Euseb. /.c.) that their festival on the 14th Nisan was κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (for any disagreement in the Gospels in reference to the day of Jesus’ death was not yet perceived, and the passover meal of Jesus in the Synoptics was looked upon as an anticipa- tion), and κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς Tiotewc,—this latter, namely, because Jesus, by the observance of the passover on another day, would not have appeared as the antitype of the slaughtered paschal lamb. Also πᾶσα ἁγία γραφή might be rightly quoted in proof by Polycrates, since in no part of the Old Testament does any other day occur as that on which the paschal lamb was slaughtered, except the 14th Nisan, and Jesus was in fact the true Paschal Lamb. It is self-evident that John’s example, which the Catholics of Asia Minor urged in favour of their ‘‘ Quartodecima,” perfectly agrees with the account of the fourth Gospel, and that the κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον of Polycrates, though by it no single Gospel, but the written evangelic his- tory collectively, is meant, does not exclude, but includes John’s Gospel, since its existence and recognition at that time is perfectly clear from other proofs. True, there was also aparty of Quartodecimans in Asia Minor * who formed their judgments from a Judaistic (Ebionite) standpoint, whose cele- bration of the 14th Nisan did not rest on the assumption that Jesus, as the 1 Characteristically referred to thus by in other points they agree with the doctrine Apollinaris in the Chron. Pasch. p. 14: ἔνιοι τοίνυν ot dv ἄγνοιαν φιλονεικοῦσι περὶ τούτων, συγγνωστὸν πρᾶγμα πεπονθότες: ἄγνοια γὰρ οὐ κατηγορίαν ἀναδέχεται, ἀλλὰ διδαχῆς προσδεῖται. Comp. Hippolyt. i2id. p. 18: ὁρῶ μὲν οὖν, ὅτι φιλονεικίας τὸ ἔργον, κιτιὰλ. With the mild description of these people in Apollinaris agrees also Philos. Orig. viii. 18, where they are simply distinguished as ἕτεροί τινες, and indeed as φιλόνεικοι τὴν φύσιν and ἰδιῶ- ται τὴν γνῶσιν, While it is said of them that of the apostles. Against Baur and Hilgen- feld, by whom the distinction between Catholic and Judaic Quartodecimani is alleged to be pure fancy, see Steitz, 1856, p. 782 ff., 1857, p. 764; also in Herzog’s Encyclop. xi. p. 156 ff. Even the ἔνιοι of Apollinaris and the ἕτεροί τινες of Hippolytus should have precluded them from thinking of the Asiatic church. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld, in his Paschastreit, pp. 256, 282, 404, is evasive. INTRODUCTION. 17 true Paschal Lamb, died on this day, but on the legal injunction that the passover was to be eaten on this day, and on the assumption that Jesus Him- - self ate it on the very same day, and did not suffer tillthe 15th Nisan.* These? men stirred up the so-called Laodicean controversy, and had as opponents, first Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and afterwards Irenaeus, Hip- polytus, Clement, and others (Eus. iv. 26. 3). They were attacked partly by their own weapon —the /aw— according to which Christ could not have been put to death, that is, slain as the true Paschal Lamb, on the first day of the feast ; partly by an appeal to the Gospels, in respect of which it was assumed that they agree in reporting the 14th Nisan as the day of Jesus’ death (Apol- linaris, in the Chron. Pasch. p. 14 : ἀσυμφώνως τε νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν Kai στασιά- ζειν δοκεῖ kat’ αὐτοὺς τὰ EvayyéAca. See above, under 5, the note on this passage). Moreover, it was urged by some who appealed to Matthew (Apol- linaris, 1.6., διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν), that according to the words of Jesus, οὐκέτι φάγομαι τὸ πάσχα (comp. Luke xxii. 16), He did not eat of the legal passover, but died as the perfect Paschai Lamb on this day, and in- deed before the time of eating the meal appointed by the law. tus, in the Chron. Pasch. p. 13: εἰκότως TO μὲν δεῖπνον ἐδείπνησεν πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα, TO δὲ πάσχα οὐκ ἔφαγεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔπαθεν, οὐδὲ γὰρ καιρὸς ἦν τῆς βρώσεως αὐτοῦ (i.e. ““ because the legal period for eat- ing the passover had not even come,”—it only came several hours after the death of Jesus); and just before : See Hippoly- ὁ πάλαι προειπὼν, OTL οὐκέτι φάγομαι TO πάσχα, πεπλάνηται μὴ γινώσκων, ὅτε ᾧ καιρῷ ἔπασχεν ὁ Χρισ- τός, οὐκ ἔφαγε τὸ κατὰ νόμον πάσχα, οὗτος γὰρ ἣν τὸ πάσχα τὸ προκεκηρυγμένον καὶ τὸ τελειούμενον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ (On the 14th Nisan). That, however, Justin Martyr himself regarded the first day of the feast as the day on which Jesus died (so Baur and Hilgenfeld), is an erroneous assumption. For when he says (6. Tryth. 111, p. 338), καὶ ὅτε ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ πάσχα συνελάβετε αὐτὸν καὶ ὁμοίως ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐσταυρώσατε, γέγραπται, he plainly means by ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ πάσχα, and by ἐν τῷ πάσχα, the day on which the paschal lamb was eaten—the 14th Nisan ; since he shows immediately before that Christ was the true Paschal Lamb, and immediately after continues : ὡς dé τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἔσωσε τὸ αἷμα TOU πάσχα, οὕτως καὶ τοὺς πιστεύσαντας ῥύσεται ἐκ θανάτου τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Comp. chap. 40, p. 259. He might therefore have regarded Christ not as dying on the 15th Nisan, but simply on the 14th, as this is expressed in the second fragment of Apollinaris,* without our needing to understand ‘éy ἡμέρᾳ TH τοῦ πάσχα" οὗ the 15th Nisan.* Thus it is also said in the Chron. 1 Comp. Steitz, 1856, p. 776 ff. Ain SPCR eek At RU A ὁ ἀντὶ TOD ἀμνοῦ παῖς ϑεοῦ, ὃ δηϑεὶς, ὁ δήσας TOV 2 Whose observance is not to be regarded as a mere Jewish simultaneous celebration of the passover, which John assented to, as a custom which he found in existence in Ephesus (Bleek, De Wette, following Liicke). See, on the other hand, Hilgen- feld, Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. p. 224 ff. The difference rests on a fundamental opposi- tion. Comp. Ritschl, Alikath. Kirche, pp. 123 f., 269 f. 3 To the same effect is p. 14: ἡ 18’ τὸ ἀληϑινὸν τοῦ κυρίου πάσχα, ἡ ϑυσία ἡ μεγάλη, ἰσχυρόν, καὶ ὃ κριϑεὶς κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, καὶ ὁ παραδοϑεὶς εἰς χεῖρας ἁμαρτωλῶν, ἵνα σταυ- ρωϑῇ, ὃ ὑψωϑεὶς ἐπὶ κεράτων μονοκέρωτος, καὶ ὃ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντηϑεὶς. . καὶ ὃ ταφεὶς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τοῦ πάσχα, ἐπιτεϑέντος τῷ μνήματι τοῦ λίϑου. 4 Recently Steitz also (in Herzog’s Hncy- klop. xi. 1859, p. 151), who formerly agreed with Baur, has admitted that Justin, agree- ing with the other Fathers of the second and third centuries, did not in the above passage, ¢. 77. p. 338, mean the 15th, but 18 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Pasch. Ὁ. 12: ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ τοῦ πάσχα ἡμέρᾳ, ἦτοι TH LH τοῦ πρώτου μηνὸς, παράσκευῆς οὔσης ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν κύριον οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ τότε τὸ πάσχα ἔφαγον. Comp. p. 415 : θεόπνευστα λόγια, ἐν TH τοῦ πάσχα ἑορτῇ. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ δὲ παρασκευῇ σταυρωθῆναι τὸν κύριον διδάσκουσιν τὰ On this fourteenth day the passover was celebrated according to the practice prevailing in Asia Minor, because on that day the true Paschal Lamb, Christ, was slain. Thus had Philip, John, Polycarp, and other μεγάλα στοιχεῖα, Whom Polycrates mentions, already acted, and so John’s example in this particular agrees with his own Gospel. If some have also argued’ against the early existence of our Gospel, from the antiquity and fixedness of the tradition which limited the ministry of Jesus to asingle year (see Homil. Clem. xvii. 19), it is decisive against this that this tradition occurs in many writers who recognized the Gospel as the genuine work of John ;? whence it is clear that it does not imply the non- existence of the Gospel, but seemed just as reconcilable with John as with the Synoptics. It may have originated from the Synoptic history (see on Luke iv. 19) ; but the counter statement of John, although it actually existed, did not disturb it. It is the same also with the antiquity and fixedness of the tradition of the 14th Nisan as the day of Jesus’ death, which nevertheless does not imply non-acquaintance with the synoptic Gospels. — If, further, the reasons which are alleged for a Johannean origin of the Apocalypse are likewise urged, especially by the Tiibingen critics, as evidence against a similar origin for the Gospel, yet a reverse procedure is equally justifiable ; and, apart from the utter futility of those reasons in other respects, the testimonies for the Apocalypse (which was excluded even from the Peshito), do not attain to any such general recognition as those for this Gospel. The attribution by the unanimous judgment (and that too, erro- neous) of the church, of this work to the Apostle, would, granting its origin in the first half of the second century, be, as it were, the magical result of a few decenniums; and would be historically the more enigmatical, in propor- tion as in contents and character it diverged from the other Gospels on the one hand, and from the much earlier and apostolically accredited Apocalypse on the other. For we have in this book no spiritualized Apocalypse, but simply an independent Gospel, marked by profound spiritual perfection, whose linguistic and other characteristics, and whose doctrinal contents, spirit, and aim, are, on the whole, so specifically different from those of the Apocalypse, in spite of various Christological points of connection, as to point to a totally different author (against Hengst., Godet, Riggenb., and others). The Gnostic tendency of the time, in which some have sought for the solution of that incomprehensible enigma, does not solve it, since the the 14th Nisan. Comp. Lev. xxiii. 5,6; Num. xxviii. 16 f.; Ezek. xlv. 21. The 15th Nisan is called postridie paschatis, Num. xxxiii. 3, Josh. vy. 11. Hilgenfeld’s objection (d. Pas- chastr. d. alten Kirche, p. 206), that the ar- rest mentioned by Justin as taking place likewise on the ἡμέρα τοῦ πάσχα does not suit the 14th Nisan, is altogether futile. Justin correctly includes the arrest in the day of crucifixion, as, c. Tryph. 99, the ag- ony in Gethsemane is already put by him τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἧπερ ἔμελλε σταυροῦσ- ϑαι. 1 See Hilgenfeld, Baur, Volkmar. 2Clem. Al., Orig., Ptolemaeus; and see generally Semisch, Denkw. Justin’s, p. 199 f. ¢ INTRODUCTION. 19 strong reaction in the church against Gnosticism would rather have con- ᾿ demned a Gospel furnishing the Gnostics with so much apparent support, and with materials so liable to be misused, than left to opponents so rich a mine, to be worked out for their designs, if its apostolic origin had not been known and acknowledged. SEC. III.—GENUINENESS CONTINUED. As an internal testimony to its apostolic origin, we have, above all, the whole grand ideal peculiarity of the book, wherein the πνευματικὸν εὐαγγέλιον (Clem. Al.) is delineated with so much character and spirit, with such simplicity, vividness, depth, and truth, that a later fabricator or composer— who, moreover, could have occupied no other standing-point than that of his own time—becomes an impossibility, when we compare with it any pro- duction of Christian authorship of the second century. The Gospel of John, especially through the unity and completeness of its Christological idea, is no artificial antithesis (Keim, Gesch. J. p. 129), but the completion of the previous evangelic literature, to which the Pauline Christology appears as the historical middle term. But such a creation, which constitutes such a completion, without imitating the older Gospels, is not the work of some later forger, but of an immediate eye-witness and recipient.’ In it there beats the heart of Christ,—as the book itself has been justly named (Ernesti). But, say some (Liitzel., Baur and his school), it is precisely this tender, fervent, harmonious, spiritual character of the Gospel, which is as little in keeping with those traits of the Apostle John himself exhibited in the other Gospels? as the testimony borne to his anti-Pauline Judaism (Gal. ii.) is to the ideal universalism which pervades his Gospel (see especially iv. 24, x. 16, xii, 20). Yet the Judaizing partisanship which is said to be chargeable 1JIn order to make the unique peculiar- ities of the Gospel agree with a non-apos- tolic author, neither the Epistle to the Hebrews nor the Apostle Paul ought to be brought into comparison. Both of them belong to the apostolic age, and the latter was called in an extraordinary manner by Christ, as a true apostle, and furnished with a revelation. To suppose that the au- thor of this Gospel also received a revela- tion in ὦ similar way, and yet to make him compose his Gospel no earlier than the sec- ond century, is unhistorical ; and to attrib- ute to any one deemed worthy of sucha revelation the design of passing off his work as John’s, is unpsychological, and morally opposed to the spirit of truth which per- vades and underlies it. The originating creative energy of the Spirit had no longer, in the second century, its season ordained by God, as is clearly shown by the entire literature of that later period, not except- ing even the most distinguished (such as the Epistle to Diognetus). And the assump- tion of the apostolic guise would have been, in the case of that creative energy, as un- worthy as unnecessary. The pseudony- mous post-apostolic literature of the early church may be sufficiently accounted for by the custom—excusable, considering the de- fective conception at that time of literary property—of assuming the name of any one according to whose ideas one intended to write (see Késtlin in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 149 ff.); but the deliberate purpose on which this custom was founded, would, in the case especially of a book so sublime, and in an intellectual point of view, so thoroughly independent as our Gospel, have been utterly incongruous—a paradox of the Holy Ghost. 2 Mark iii. 17; Luke ix, 49,54; Mark ix. 38, X. 35. “ 20 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. on John, is simply imported into Gal. il., and cannot without utter arbitra- riness be inferred from the conflicts with Judaism in Paul’s subsequent epistles. And as to the destination of an apostle of the Jews, a position which John certainly, in common with Peter and James, still held at the time of the Apostolical Council, might it not afterwards (though even Keim discovers in this assumption a mockery of history and psychology) expand eradually into that universalism which appears in the Gospel ? Might not, in particular, the fuller insight into Paul’s work which John attained (Gal. ii.), and the bond of fellowship which he formed with that apostle (Gal. 11.), as well as his entrance subsequently into the sphere of Paul’s labours in Asia Minor, have contributed powerfully to that expansion and transformation which went beyond that of Paul himself ; for the perfecting of which, down to the time when our Gospel’ was composed, so long a period of church history and of personal experience had been youchsafed ? Moreover, like Paul, he still retained his Israelitish theocratic consciousness as an inalien- able inheritance (iv. 22 ; bis use of the Old Test.). With regard to the traits of character indicated in the Synoptics, is not the holy fervour of spirit which everywhere pervades his Gospel, and still marks his First Epistle, to be conceived as the glorified transfiguration of his former fiery zeal? And as to this transfiguration itself,* who may define the limits in the sphere of what is morally possible to man, beyond which, in a life and labours so long continued, the development of the new birth could not extend under influ- ences so mighty as the apostles experienced through the Spirit’s training in the school of the holiest calling ? What purification and growth did Peter, for example, experience between his smiting with the sword and denial, and his martyrdom ! Both his labours and his Epistle bear witness on this point. Similarly must we judge of the objection, that the higher, nay, philo- sophical (or rather Christian speculative) Hellenistic culture of the evangelist, especially his doctrine of the Logos, cannot be made to suit * the Galilean fisherman John,‘ for whom the, fathomless hardihood of modern criticism has substituted some highly cultured Gentile Christian,® who, wishing to lead heathen readers (xix. 35, xx. 31) to Christian faith, exhibited the remarkable phenomenon ‘‘ of historical evangelic authorship turning away i The well-known words of Polycrates, τὸ πέταλον πεφορηκώς, Ought not to have been used as a proof that, in his later ministry in Asia, John was still the representative of Judaism, for they describe high-priestly dignity (see sec. 1) in a Christian, spiritual sense. Again, the words which John is said to have uttered, according to Irenaeus, iii. 8, when he encountered Cerinthus at the bath: φύγωμεν μὴ καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον συμ- πέσῃ ἔνδον ὄντος Κηρίνϑον, τοῦ τῆς ἀληϑείας ἐχϑροῦ, are alleged to be inappropriate to our evangelist. Why so? The very desig- nation of Cerinthus as τῆς ἀληϑείας éxdpov in the legend points to the evangelist, with whom ἀλήϑεια was one of the great funda- mental conceptions, whereas the author of the Apocalypse never once uses the word. The allegation that the latter, again, in Rev. xxi. 14, compared with ii. 4, testifies to the anti-Pauline sentiments of the Twelve, and hence of the Apostle John also, is simpiy foisted into the passage by a criticism on the look-out for it. 2 Keim (p. 160) says, inappositely, of Mark and Luke: ‘Since they clearly imply the death of the apostles (of all?), they have not even allowed a possibility of further de- velopments.’? Neither Mark nor Luke un- dertook to write in their Gospels a history of the apostles, but of Jesus. 3 Bretschneider, Baur, and others, 4 Comp. also Acts iv. 18. 5 So also Schenkel. INTRODUCTION, 21 from the existing Christian communities, for whom there were already Gospels enough in existence, to appeal to the educated conscience of the heathen world.” Even the fact that John was, according to xviii. 15, an acquaintance of the high priest, is said to be unsuited to the circumstances of the Galilean fisherman,*—a statement wholly without adequate ground. It is true the author does not give his name, just as the other historical works of the N. T. do not designate their authors. But he shows himself to have been an eye-witness in the plainest possible way, both at i. 14 (comp. John i. 1, iv. 14) and at xix. 35 (comp. xxi. 24); while the vivid- ness and directness of so many descriptions and individual details, in which no other Gospel equals ours, as well as its necessarily conscious variation from the synoptic representation as a whole and in particular points of great importance, can only confirm the truth of that personal testimony, which is not to be set aside either by interpreting ἐθεασάμεθα, 1. 14, of the Christian consciousness in general, or by the pretext that ἐκεῖνος in xix. 35 distin- guishes the evangelist from such as were eye-witnesses.* See the exegetical remarks on those passages. And asa proof that the eye-witness was, in fact, no other than John, the significant concealinent of the name John is rightly urged against Bretschneider, Baur, and others. Though allowed to be one of the most intimate friends of Jesus, and though the Gospel describes so many of his peculiar and delicate traits of character, this disciple is never referred to by name, but only in a certain masked, sometimes very delicate and thoughtful way, so that the nameless author betrays himself at once as the individual who modestly suppresses his name in i. 35 ff. The true feeling of the church, too, has always perceived this ; while it was reserved only for a criticism which handles delicate points so roughly,‘ to lend to the circumstance this explanation : ‘‘ The author speaks of his identity with the apostle, as one, simply, to whom the point was of no consequence : his Gospel is to be regarded as Johannean, without bearing the apostle’s name on its front ; at least the author will himself not mention the name in order to make it his own, but the reader is merely to be led to make this combina- tion, so as to place the Apostle John’s name in the closest and most direct connection with a Gospel written in his spirit” (Baur, p. 379). In fact, a fraud so deliberately planned, and, in spite of its attempting no imitation of the Apocalypse, so unexampled in its success, a striving after apparent self-renunciation so crafty, that the lofty, true, transparent, and holy spirit of which the whole bears the impress, would stand in the most marked contra- diction to 16 1 Moreover, the instances of other non-apostolic works which were intended to go forth as apostolic, and therefore do not at all conceal the lofty names of their pretended authors, would be opposed to it. Onthe 1 Hilgenfeld, d. Huvangelien, p. 349. designated himself the disciple beloved by 2 See Scholten, p. 379. 3 Késtlin, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and several others. 4See, besides the Tiibingen critics and Scholten, also Weisse, ὦ. Huangelienfr. p. 61, according to whom, if John could haye Christ, there would be in this an offensive and impudent self-exaltation: comp. also Keim, Gesch. J. i. p. 157f. See for the op- posite and correct view, Ewald, Johann. Schrif. i. Ὁ. 48 f€. 22 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. other hand, the universal recognition which this nameless author as the Apostle John obtained in the church is the more striking, since a later pro- duction of this kind, which had been anticipated by so well-known a work of a totally different character, passing for Johannean,—that is, the Apoca- ~ lypse,—in contrast to the latter recognized as apostolic, while not once mentioning the name of that disciple, would be an historical phenomenon hardly conceivable. At least it is far more intelligible that the Apocalypse, bearing John’s name on its very face, and solemnly repeating it to the end more than once, should, in an uncritical age, make good its claim to be an apostolic work, though not permanently.’ [See Note I. p. 39.] Further, the circumstance that in our Gospel John the Baptist is always mentioned simply as ᾿Ιωάννης, never as ὁ βαπτιστής, is not so weighty (in opposition to Credner, Bleek, Ebrard) as to prove that the writer was the apostle, who, as its author, has found no occasion to point out the other John distinctly by that appellation : for the name ὁ βαπτιστῆς Was by no means designed to mark any such distinction. But we may doubtless be of opinion that a writer who had simply to appropriate the evangelic materials in the Gospels already existing, and develop them in a peculiar way, would hardly have failed to employ the surname of the Baptist so commonly and formally used in the Gospels. But it is conceivable that our apostle, having been a personal disciple of the Baptist, and having a lively recollection of his former close relation to him, mentions him by his bare name, as he had been wont to do when he was his disciple, and not with the designation ὁ βαπτιστῆς, which had come down to him through the medium of history. In the extended discourses of Jesus, in the chronological arrangement of the historical materials, in the prominence given to the Lord’s extra-Gal- ilean ministry, in the significant and peculiar narratives omitted by the Syn- optics (among which the most noteworthy is that of the raising of Lazarus), in the important variations from the Synoptics in parallel narratives (the chief of which are in the history of the last supper, and in the date of the day when Jesus died), in the noticeable omissions of evangelic matter (the most remarkable being the silence as to the institution of the supper, and the agony in Gethsemane) which our Gospel exhibits, we recognize just so many indications of an independence, which renders the general recognition of its apostolic authorship in the church only explicable on the ground of the in- dubitable certainty of the fact. It was this certainty, and the high general reputation of the beloved disciple, which far outweighed all variations from the form and contents of the older Gospels, nay, even subordinated the credit and independence of the Synoptics (as in the history of the last supper, which in them was placed on the 13th Nisan). All these points of differ- ence have therefore been wrongly urged against the apostolic authorship : they make the external attestation all the stronger, far too strong to be traceable to the aims and fictions of a writer of the second century.” With regard especially to the discowrses and conversations of Jesus (which, accord- 1 Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. v. p. 182 f.; Diisterd. 2 Comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 66 ff.; Briickner on the Apocalypse, Introduction. on de Wette, p. xxviii. f. INTRODUCTION. 23 " ing to Baur’s school, are wanting in appropriateness of exposition and nat- uralness of circumstances, are connected with unhistorical facts, and in- - tended to form an explication of the Logos-Idea), they certainly imply’ a free reproduction and combination on the part of an intelligent writer, who draws out what is historically given beyond its first concrete and immediate form, by further developing and explaining it. Often the originality is cer- tainly not that of purely objective history, but savours of John’s spirit (com- pare the First Epistle of John), which was most closely related with that of Jesus. This Johannean method was such that, in its undoubted right to reproduce and to clothe in a new dress, which it exercised many decenniums after, it could not carry the mingling of the objective and subjective, una- voidable as it was to the author’s idiosyncrasy, so far as to merge what con- stituted its original essence in the mere view of the individual. Thus the λόγος, especially in the distinct form which it assumes in the prologue, does not reappear in the discourses” of Jesus, however frequently the λόγος of God or of Christ, as the verbum vocale (not essentiale*), occurs in them. All the less, therefore, in these discourses can the form be externally separated from the matter to such an exent as to treat the one as the subjective, the other as the objective*—a view which is inconceivable, especially when we consider the intellectual Johannean unity of mould, unless the substance of the matter is to be assigned to the sphere of the subjective along with the form. The Jesus of John, indeed, appears in His discourses as in general more sublime, more solemn, frequently more hard to understand, nay, more enigmatical, more mysterious, and, upon the whole, more ideal, than the Jesus of the Synoptics, especially as the latter is seen in His pithy proverbs and parables. Still, we must bear in mind that the manifestation of Jesus as the divine human life was intrinsically too rich, grand, and manifold, not to be repre- sented variously, according to the varying individualities by which its rays were caught, and according to the more or less ideal points of view from which those rays were reflected,—variously, amid all that resemblance of 1 Tt cannot be shown that he records the experiences of the later apostolic age, and makes Jesus speak accordingly (see Weiz- sicker, p. 285f.). The passages adduced in proof (xvii. 20, xx. 29, xiv. 22, xvii. 9, xvii. 3, ili. 13, vi. 57, 62 f., iv. 36-88) are fully ex- plained exegetically without the assump- tion of any such ὕστερον πρῶτον. 3 Although the essential conception of the Logos, as regards its substance, is everywhere with John a prominent feature in the con- sciousness of Jesus, and is re-echoed throughout the Gospel. (Comp. iii. 11, 13, 31, vi. 33 ff., vi. 62, vii. 29, viii. 12, 23, 58, xvi. 28, Xvii. 5, 24, and other places.) To deny that John exhibits Jesus as haying this super- human self-consciousness, is exegetically baseless, and would imply that (in his pro- logue) the evangelist had, from the public life of the Lord, and from His words and works, formed an abstract idea as to His nature, which was not sustained, but rather refuted, by his own representation of the history,—a thing inconceivable. This, in general, against Weizsacker in @. Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1857, Ὁ. 154 ff., 1862, Ὁ. 684 ff.; Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 244. See my com- ments on the particular passages (also against Beyschlag).—The idea of the Logos, moreover, is related to that of the ζωή, not as something accidental, but in such a way that the Logos is conceived as the original and personally conscious substratum of the latter. Thus was it given to the author by the history itself, and by his profoundly vivid realization of that history through communion with Him in whom the ζωή dwells. The Logos is the same fundamental conception (only ina more definite specu- lative form) as the υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 3 Comp. Weizsiick. Hvangel. Gesch. Ὁ. 257. 4 Reuss in the Stirassb. Denkschr. Ὁ. 37 ff. 24 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ° essential character, and peculiar fundamental type, in which it allowed it- self to be recognized by manifold receptivities, and under dissimilar circum- stances. It was on the soul of this very apostle that the image of that wonderful life, with which his inspired recollections were connected, was, without a single discordant feature, most perfectly delineated, and in all the deep fulness of its nature : it dives in him ; and his own thinking and feel- ing, with its profound contemplativeness, is so thoroughly intertwined with and transfigured by this life and the ideal it contains, that each individual recollection and representation becomes the more easily blended by him into harmony with the whole. His very language must needs ever retain that inalienable stamp which he once involuntarily received from the heart and living word of Christ, and appropriated and preserved in all its depth and transparency in the profoundly spiritual laboratory of his own long regener- ate life.’ Some have assigned to the Gospel the honour rather of a well-de- vised work of art, than of a truly earnest and real history.* It is both, in the inseparable unity and truth of the art of the Holy Ghost.—If, again, some have urged that the author of the fourth Gospel appears as one stand- ing apart from any personal participation in the history he was writing, and from Judaism,’ still we should bear in mind, that if John wrote his Gospel at a later time, and among a community moulded by Hellenistic culture, after the liberation of his Christian nature from the Judaism by which it had long been penetrated, and when he had long been familiar with the purest spiritual Christianity and its universalism, as well as raised through the medium of speculation to a higher standpoint in his view of the Gospel history, he certainly did stand much further apart than the earlier evangelists, not indeed from his history strictly speaking, but from its former surround- ings and from Judaism. This, however, does not warrant the substitution in his place of a non-Jewish author, who out of elements but slightly histor- ical and correlative myths wove a semblance of history. On the contrary, many peculiar traits marked by the greatest vividness and originality, re- vealing a personal participation in the history,* rise up in proof, to bridge over the gulf between the remoteness of the author and the proximity of a former eye-witness, in whose view the history throughout is not developed from the doctrine, but the doctrine from the history.*° Hence, also, he it is who, while he rose much higher above Judaism than Paul, yet, like Mat- thew in his Gospel, though with more individuality and independence, 1 Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. IT. p. 163, X. p. 90 f., and his Johann. Schriften, I. p. 22 ff. ; also Briickner on de Wette, p. 25 ff. 2 Keim, Gesch. J. 1. p. 123. 3 Compare the frequent οἱ IovSator, ν. 16, vii. 1, 19, 25, vili. 17, x. 34, etc. See Fischer in the 7b. Zeitschr. 1840, 11. p. 96 ff. ; Baur, Neut. Theol. p. 390 f.; Scholten and others. On the other side, Bleek, p. 246 ff.; Lut- hardt, I. p. 143 ff. Compare notes on i. 19, vill. 17; also Ewald, Johann. Schriften, I. p. 10 f. ΦΈΡ, 1. τιν, 0. 1 tins Chee ὑπὸ 19: ἘΠ 22 fhe, ἘΠ 1, ἘΠῚ ΣΕ 5 Compare Weizsicker in the Jahrb. 7. Ὁ. Th. 1859, p. 690 ff. See the opposite view in Keim, p. 127. Scholten comes even to the melancholy conclusion: ‘‘ The contents of the fourth Gospel cannot be of use as his- torical authority in any single point.’? The author threw into the form of an historical drama what was subjective truth to him self, unconcerned as to its historical accu- racy. ‘ INTRODUCTION. 25 took pains to exhibit the connection between the events of the Gospel his- ‘tory and Old Testament prophecy. In this way, as well as by the explana- tions of Jewish facts, views, appellations, and so on, which are interspersed, he shows himself to belong to the ancient people of God, as far as his spir- itual renewal was, and necessarily must have been, compatible with this connection.! Lastly, the historical contradictions with the Synoptics are either only apparent (for instance, a ministration on several occasions at Je- rusalem is implied, Matt. xxiii. 37, Luke xiii. 34), or such as cannot fairly lead to the conclusion of ἃ non-apostolic authorship, since we do not pos- sess Matthew in its original form, and therefore are not prevented by the counterweight of equally apostolic evidence from assigning to John a pre- ponderating authority, which especially must be done in regard to such very striking variations as the date of the day on which Jesus died, and the account of the last supper. Besides, if what was erroneous and unhistorical might, after the lapse of so long a time, have affected even the memory of an apostle, yet matters of this sort, wherever found in particular passages of our Gospel, are rather chargeable on commentators than on the author, especially in the exceptions taken to the names of such places as Bethany, i, 28, and Sychar, iv. 5. On the whole, the work is a phenomenon so sub- lime and unique among productions of the Christian spirit,’ that if it were the creation of an unknown author of the second century, it would be be- yond the range of all that is historically conceivable. In its contents and tone, as well as in its style, which is unlike that of the earlier Gospels, it is so entirely without any internal connection with the development and lit- erary conditions of that age, that had the church, instead of witnessing to its apostolic origin, raised a doubt on that point, historical criticism would see assigned to it the inevitable task of proving and vindicating such an origin from the book itself. In this case, to violate the authority of the church in favor of the Gospel, would necessarily have a more happily and permanently successful result than can follow from opposing the Gospel. After having stood the critical tests originated by Bretschneider and Baur, this Gospel will continue to shine with its own calm inner superiority and undisturbed transparency, issuing forth victorious from never-ceasing con- flicts ; the last star, as it were, of evangelic history and teaching, yet beam- ing with the purest and highest light, which could never have arisen amid the scorching heat of Gnosticism, or have emerged from the, fermentation of some catholicizing process, but which rose rather on the horizon of the 1 Comp. Weizsicker, Huang. Gesch. Ὁ. 263. 2 Gfrérer, of course, makes it a product of dotage and fancy. Origen, on the other hand, calls it τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀπαρχήν, and says of it οὗ τὸν νοῦν οὐδεὶς δύναται λαβεῖν μὴ ἀναπεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος Ἴησου, and, τηλικοῦτον δὲ γενέσϑαι δεῖ τὸν ἐσόμενον ἄλλον ᾿Ιωάννην, ὥστε οἱονεὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην δειχϑῆναι ὄντα ᾿Ιησοῦν ἀπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Hence, also, we can understand the constant recurrence, so as to make them regulate the presentation of the his- tory, both of the ideas lying at the basis of Christ’s whole work, and of the funda- mental views which John, beyond any other evangelist, had derived from the his- tory itself, in which he had borne a part on the breast of Jesus. Thus, with him, the grand simple theme of his book is through all its variations in harmonious and neces- sary concord, a living monotone of the one spirit, not a “leaden”? one. (Keim, Gesch. J. p. 117.) 26 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. apostolic age, from the spirit of the disciple most intimate with his Lord, and which is destined never again to set,*—the guide to a true catholicity, differing wholly from the ecclesiastical development of the second century,? and still remaining as the unattained goal of the future. Nor can the attempt be successful to treat only a certain nucleus of our Gos- pelas genuinely apostolical, and to assign the rest to disciples of John or other laterhands. The reasons for this procedure are inadequate, while it is itself so destitute of all historical evidence and warrant, and runs so entirely into caprice and diversity of subjective judgment, and hence also presents such a variety of results in the several attempts which have been made, that it would .be in any case critically more becoming to leave still unsolved the difficulties in the matter and connection of particular passages, than to get rid of them by striking them out according to an arbitrary standard. This remark applies not merely to some of the older attempts of this kind by Eckermann, Vogel, Ammon,* and Paulus, but also to Rettig’s opinion (Zphemer. exeg. I. p. 83 ff.) : ‘‘Compositum esse et digestum a seriori Chris- tiano, Johannis auditore forsitan gnosticae dedito philosophiae, qui, quum in ecclesiae Ephesinae scriniis ecclesiasticis vel alio loco privato plura Jesu vitae capita per Johannem descripta reperisset, vel a Johanne ipso accepis- set, iis compositis et ordinatis suam de λόγῳ philosophiam praefixit ;’—and even to the more thorough attempts made by Weisse,* and Alex. Schweizer. ὃ According to Weisse (compare, however, his partial retraction in his Philos. Dogmat. 1855, I. p. 153), John, for the purpose of setting forth his own idea of Christ and the doctrinal system in discourses of Jesus, selected such discourses, adding those of the Baptist and the prologue. After his death, one of his adherents and disciples (xix. 35), by further adding what he had learnt from the apostle’s own mouth, and from the evangelic tradition, but without any knowledge of the Synoptics, worked up these ‘‘ Johannean Studies” into a Gospel -history, the plan of which was, of course, very im- perfect ; so that the apostle’s communications consequently form only the groundwork of the Gospel, though among them must be reckoned all the strictly didactic and contemplative portions, in determining which the First Epistle of John serves as a test. According to Schweizer (comp. also Schenkel, previously in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 753 ff., who resolves the apostolical portion into two sets of discourses), such sections are to be ex- cluded from the apostle’s original work, as ‘‘are quite disconnected and abrupt, interwoven with no discourses, are altogether without any impor- 1 Τῇ the apostle, in composing his work, 2Comp. Holtzm. Judenth. u. Christenth. employed an amanuensis, which is not im- probable, judging from similar cases in the New Testament Epp. (see especially Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 87 ff.), though it is not proved by xix. 35, still the writer must be regarded only as simply drawing up what the apostle dictated,—a conclusion arising out of the peculiar character, tenderness, and profun- dity of the book, and its entire resemblance to the First Epistle of John. 1867, p. 713. 3 Progr. quo docetur, Johannem evang. auctorem ab editore huj. libri fuisse diver- sum, 1811. 4 Both in his Hvang. Gesch. 1. p. 96 ff., ΤΙ. p. 184 ff., 486 ff., 520 ff.; as also in his Hvan- gelienfrage, 1856, p. 111 ff. 5 d. Ev. Joh. nach 8. innern Werthe kritisch untersucht, 1841. INTRODUCTION. ὌΝ tant word of Jesus, permeated by an essentially different estimate and idea of miracle, without vividness of narration, and moreover are divergent in - style, and agree, besides, in recounting Galilean incidents.” These excluded sections, along with which especially fall to the ground the turning of the water into wine at Cana, the healing of the nobleman’s son, the miraculous feeding (ii. 1 ff., iv. 44 ff., vi. 1 ff.), are said to have originated with the author of chap. xxi., who also, according to Scholten, must have added a cycle of interpolated remarks, such as ii. 21 f., vii. 39, xii. 88, xviii. 32. All such attempts at critical dismemberment, especially in the case of a work so thoroughly of one mould, must undoubtedly fail. Even Weiz- siicker’s view,’ that our Gospel was derived from the apostle’s own commu- nications, though not composed by his own hands, but by those of his trusted disciples in Ephesus, is based on insufficient grounds, which are set aside by an unprejudiced exegesis.* This hypothesis is all the more doubtful, if the Gospel (with the exception of chap. xxi.) be allowed to have been com- posed while the apostle was still living ; it is not supported by the testi- mony of Clem. Alex. and the Canon of Muratori,* and in fact antiquity furnishes no evidence in its favour. Literature :—(1) Against the Genuineness: Evanson, Dissonance of the Four — — Evangelists, Ipswich 1792. (Vogel), d. Evangelist Joh. αι. s. Ausleger vor d. jiingsten Gericht, I. Lpz. 1801, 11. 1804. Horst, in Henke’s Mus. 1. 1, pp. 20 ff., 47 ff., 1803. Cludius, Uransichten des Christenth., Altona 1808, p. 40 ff. Ballenstedt, Philo. τι. Joh., Gott. 1812. The most important among the older works: Bret- schneider, Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Joh. apost. indole et origine, Lpz. 1820, who makes the Gospel originate in the first half of the second century, in the interest of Christ’s divinity. Later opponents: Rettig, Ephem. exeg. I. Ὁ. 62 ff. Strauss, Leben Jesu, despite a half retractation in the third edition (1838), the more decidedly against in the fourth (1840). Weisse, Evang. Gesch. 1838, and d. Evangelienfrage, 1856. Liitzelberger, die kirchliche Tradition ib. ἃ. Apos- tel Joh. 1840, B. Bauer, Arit. d. evang. Gesch. d. Joh. 1840, and Kritik ἃ. Evan- gelien, I. 1850. Schwegler, Montanism, 1841, and nachapost. Zeitalter, 1846. Baur,4 ‘ 1 Untersuch. vib. ad. evang. Gesch. 1864, p. only towards 150-160 ; according to Hilgen- 208 ff. ° 2 See also Ewald, Jahrb. XII. p. 212 ff. 3 Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. vi. 14, says John composed the spiritual Gospel προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων πνεύ- ματι ϑεοφορηϑέντα. How different is this statement from the above view! Just as much at variance with it is the similar tes- timony of Muratori's Fragment, which lays special stress upon the composition by the apostle himself, and indeed supports it by 1 John i. 14. Moreover, see on xviii. 15, xix. 35, XX). 20 Ὁ * According to Baur’s school, the Gospel, the existence cf which is only conceivable at the time of the church’s transition into Catholicism, originated about the middle of the second century (according to Volkmar, feld, as soon as 120-140, contemporaneously with the second Jewish war, or soon after). The author, who, it is said, appropriated to himself the authority of the Apostle John, the author of the Apocalypse, transfig- ured in a higher unity into the Christian Gnosis the interests of Jewish and Pauline Christianity, while going beyond both, so that the historical materials taken from the Synoptics, and wrought up according to the ideas of the prologue, form merely the basis of the dogmatic portions, and are the re- flex of the idea. To bring the new form of the Christian consciousness to a genuine apostolic expression, the author, whose Gospel stands upon the boundary line of Gnosticism, and ‘‘now and then goes be- yond the limits,’’ made an ingenious and 28 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Krit. Untersuchungen ib, d. kanonischen Evang., Tiib. 1847, Ὁ. 79 ff. (previously in the Theol. Jahrb. 1844). Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 579 ff., and 1847, p. 136 ff. Baur, ibidem, 1848, Ὁ. 264 ff., 1854, p. 196 ff., 1857, p. 209 ff. ; and in his Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrb. Ὁ. 131 ff. ; also in his controversial work, An Herrn Dr. Karl Hase, Vib. 1855 ; and in his treatise, ‘‘ die Tiibinger Schule,” 1859. Hilgenfeld, d. Evang. u. die Briefe Joh. nach ihrem Lehrbegr. dargestelit, Halle 1849, and in the Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 209 ff.; also in his works, die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung u. s.w., Lipz. 1854, p. 227 ff.; and in his controversial treatise, das Ur- christenth, ind. Hauptwendepunkten seines Entwickelungsganges, Jena 1855 ; also in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 498 ff., andin the Zeitschr. f. wissenschaft Theol. 1859, p. 281 ff., 383 ff.; similarly in the Kanon wu. Krit. ἃ. N. T. 1863, p. 218 ff., and in his Zeitschr. 1863, 1 and 2, 1867, p. 180 ff. Kdéstlin, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 183 ff. Tobler, die Evangelienfrage, Ziirich 1858 (anonymously), and in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 169 ff. Schenkel! in his Charakterbild Jesu, chap. 2. Volkmar, most recently in his work against Tischendorf, “ἃ. Ursprung uns. Evangel.” 1866. Scholten, d. diltest. Zeug. betr. αἰ. Schrifien ἃ. NV. T., translated from the Dutch by Manchot, 1867 (compare his Lvang. accord- ing to John, translated by Lang). artistic use of the relative points of connec- tion with the Apocalypse, in order to spirit- ualize the Apocalypse into a Gospel. The relation of the Gospel to the parties of the time (whose exciting questions it touches), especially to Gnosticism, Montanism, Ebion- ism, the Easter controversy, is indeed very variously defined by Baur’s school, yet al- ways in such a way that the historical character of the contents is givenup. In exchange for this loss, the consolation is offered us, that ‘‘the Christianity thus fash- joned into a perfect theory was simply a development of that which, according to its most primitive and credible representation, the religious consciousness of Jesus con- tained in creative fulness,’’—Hilgenfeld (ὦ. Fwangelien, Ὁ. 349), who even makes John’s theology stand in the same relation to the religious consciousness of Jesus, “as, ac- eording to the promise in John xvi. 12, the work of the Paraclete, as the Spirit leading the church into all truth, was to stand to the teachings of its Founder.” The most extravagant judgment is that of Volkmar: the Evangelist “ starts from the Gospel of the dualistic anti-Judaical Gnosis of Marcion, and overcomes it by the help of Justin’s doc- trine of the Logos with its monism,’’—Tobler, though attributing the first Epistle to the apostle, makes the author of our Gospel to be Apollos, whom he also regards as the au- thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of First and Second John. See against this error, which makes the Gospel to have been intended for the Corinthians, Hilgenf. in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1859, Ὁ. 411 ff. Moreover, what Tobler has subsequently Keim, Geschichte Jesu, 1867, I. p. 103 ff. (2) advanced m the Zeitschr. 7. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 169 ff., cannot support his hypothe- sis. 1 According to this modern notion of Schenkel, our Gospel originated about 110- 120 A.p., under the influence of the Chris- tian doctrine of wisdom prevailing in Asia Minor. The author, he says, certainly did not write a work of fiction or fancy, but, separated a cycle of evangelic traditions from their historical framework, and forced them up into the region of eternal thought, ete. Thus, Jesus was such as the author depicts Him, not always in reality, but in truth. At this result Keim also substan- tially arrives: he attributes the Gospel to a Jewish Christian of liberal opinions and friendly to the Gentiles, probably one of the Diaspora in Asia Minor about the be- ginning of the second century, who pub- lished it under the name of the Apostle John. He wrote with the just conviction that the apostles and John would have so written, had they been living in his time, and did not aim at establishing an external history, but at exhibiting the spirit which sits enthron- ed in every history of the life of Jesus. According to Scholten, the Gospel was written about 150 A.p., bya philosophically enlightened Gentile Christian, assuming the guise of an ideal apostle, setting aside what was untrue in the various tendencies of the day (Gnosticism, Antinomianism, Montanism, Quartodecimanism, but recog- nizing the correlated truths, and express- ing them in appropriate forms, though it was recognized as apostolic only towards the close of the second century. INTRODUCTION, 29 For the Genuineness, and especially against Bretschneider (comp. the latter’s later _ confession in his Dogmat. ed. 3, I. p. 268: **The design which my Probabilia had—namely, to raise a fresh and further investigation into the. authenticity of John’s writings—has been attained, and the doubts raised may perhaps be now regarded as removed”): Stein, Authentia ev. Joh. contra Bretschn. dubia vindicat., Brandenb. 1822. Calmberg, Diss. de antiquiss. patrum pro ev. Joh. au- thentia testim., Hamb. 1822. Hemsen, die Authent. der Schriften des Ev. Joh., Schleswig 1823. Usteri, Comment. crit., in qua ev. Joh. genuinum esse ex compara- lis quatuor evangelior. narrationib. de coena ultima et passione J. Ch., ostenditur, Turici 1823. Crome, Probabilia haud probabilia, or Widerlegung der von Dr. Bretschneider gegen die Aechtheit des Ev. τι. ἃ, Briefe Joh. erhobenen Zweifel, Lpz. 1824. Rettberg, an Joh. in exhibenda Jesu natura reliquis canonicis scriplis vere repugnet, Gott. 1826. Hauff, die Authent. u. der hohe Werth des Hv. Joh., Niivn- berg 1831.—Against Weisse ; Frommann, in the Stud. u. Avil. 1840, p. 853 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 397 ff.—Against Schweizer : Luthardt, i, p. 6 ff.—Against Baur and his school: Merz, in the Wiirtemb. Stud. 1844, ii. Ebrard, d. Ev. Joh. u. die neueste Hypothese wb. 5. Entstehung, Ziirich 1845 ; and in his Aritik d. evang. Gesch. ed. 2, 1850, p. 874 ff. Hanff, in the Stud. εἰ. Krit. 1846, p. 550 ff. Bleek, Beitrége z. Hv. Krit. 1846, p. 92 ff., u. Hinl. p. 177 ff. Weitzel, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 806 ff., 1849, p. 578 ; also de Wette, Hinl., whose final judgment, however (ὃ 110 g.), only declares against the view which would deny to the apostle any share in the composition of the Gospel. See, besides, Niermeyer, Verhandeling over de echtheid d. Johan- neischen Schriften, s Gravenhage 1852. Mayer (Catholic), Aechtheit ἃ. Ev. nach Joh., Schaffh. 1854. Schneider, Aechth. des Joh. Ev. nach den dusseren Zeugen, Berl. 1854, Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p .416 ff. Ritschl, Altkath. K. Ὁ. 48. Tisch- endorf, wann wurden uns. Hv. verfass!? 1865; 4th enlarged edition, 1866. Riggenbach, d. Zeug. f. αἰ. Ev. Joh. new unters. 1866. Dr. Pressensé, Jes. Chris- tus, son Temps, etc., 1866. Oosterzee, d. Johannes-evang., vier Vortrige, 1867 [Eng. trans.]; also Hofstede de Groot (against also the previously mentioned work of Scholten), Basilides als erster Zeuge fiir Aller und Auctorit. neutest. Schr. German edition, 1868. Jonker, het evang. v. Joh. 1867. Compare generally, besides the Commentaries, Ewald, Jahrb. IIL. p. 146 ff., V. p. 178 ff., X. p. 83 ff,, XII. p. 212 ff. Grimm, in the Hall. Encykl. ii. 22, Ὁ. 5 ff. SEC. IV.—DESIGN OF THE GOSPEL. John himself, xx. 31, tells us very distinctly the purpose of the Gospel which he wrote for the Christians of his own day. It was nothing else than to impart the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, by describing the his- tory of His appearance and of His work ; and through faith in this, to com- municate the Messianic life which was revealed in Jesus when on earth. While it has this general purpose in common with the other Gospels, it has as its special and definite task to exhibit in Jesus the Messiah, as in the highest sense the Son of God, that is, the Incarnate Divine Logos ; and hence John places the section on the Logos at the very beginning as his distinctive pro- gramme, therewith furnishing the key for the understanding of the whole. In the existing name and conception of the Logos, he recognizes a perfectly 30 . THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. befitting expression for his own sublime view of Christ, the humanly mani- fested divine source of life ; and accordingly, he has delineated the human manifestation and the historical life of the divine in Christ with creative spirit and vividness, in order that the eternal and highest power of life, which had thus entered bodily into the world, might be appropriated by faith. Even the Gospel of Matthew (and of Luke) grasps the idea of the Son of God metaphysically, and explains it by the divine generation. John, however, apprehends and explains it by raising it into the premundane and eternal relation of the Son to the Father, who sent the Son; just as Paul also earnestly teaches this pre-existence, though he does not conceive of it under the form of the Logos, and therefore has nothing about a beginning of divine Sonship by a divine generation in time. John therefore occupies a far higher standing-point than Matthew ; but, like the other evangelists, he develops his proof historically, not sacrificing historic reality and tradi- tion to idealism (against Baur and his school), but partly selecting from the materials furnished by the extant tradition and already presented in the older evangelic writings, partly leaving these, and carefully selecting solely from the rich stores of his own memory and experience. In this way, it is quite obvious how important the discourses of Jesus, especially upon His divine Messianic dignity in opposition to the unbelief of the Jews, were as elements of John’s plan; and further, how necessary it was that the testi- monies of the Baptist, the prophetical predictions, and the select miraculous proofs,—the latter forming at the same time the bases of the more impor- tant discourses,—should co-operate towards his purpose. The general sim- ilarity of his aim with that of the current Galilean tradition on the one hand, and on the other hand its special distinctiveness, which is due to his own more sublime and spiritual intuition and his purpose to delineate Jesus as the Incarnate Logos, the possessor and imparter of divine and eternal life, as well as his independence in both these respects, as a most intimate eye and ear witness, of all the previous labours of others, and his original peculiar arrangement and reproduction of the doctrines of Jesus as from a centre, determining every detail and binding them into one,—this, and the primary destination of the work for readers who must have been acquainted with Graeco-Judaic speculations, gave the book the characteristic form which it possesses. The intellectual unity, which thus runs through it, is the reflee- tion of the author’s peculiar view of the whole, which was not formed ὦ priori, but as the result of experience,’ the fruit of a long life in Christ, and of a fulness and depth of recollection such as he only, among the living, could possess. Written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by that dis- ciple who had long advanced beyond Jewish Christianity, and in the centre of Asiatic culture was still labouring amidst the highest esteem, as probably the only aged apostle remaining, this Gospel could not have an eye to Pal- estinian readers,? as had been formerly the case with Matthew’s Collection of Logia, and the Gospel which originated from it. It was very naturally 11, 14: comp. Hauff, in the Stud. wu. rit. tions which presuppose the readers to be 1846, p. 574 ff. non-Palestinian, i. 38, 41 f., iv. 25, v. 2, al. 2 Hence the interpretations and explana- INTRODUCTION. 91 destined, first of all, for those Christian circles among which the apostle lived and laboured, consequently for readers belonging to churches origi- nally founded by Paul, and who had grown up out of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements, and had been carried on by John himself to that higher unity for which Paul could work only amidst continual conflict with yet unconquered Judaism. The Gospel of John, therefore, is not a Pauline one, but one more transfigured and spiritual, rising with more absolute elevation above Judaism than Paul, more tender and thoughtful than his, and also more original, but agreeing as to its main ideas with the doctrine dialecti- cally wrought out by Paul, though exhibiting these ideas in a tranquil height above the strife of opposing principles, and in harmony with the full perfection of fundamental Christian doctrine ; and thus communicating for all time the essence, light, and life of the eminently catholic tendency and destination of Christianity. It represents the true and pure Christian Gnosis, though by this we are not to suppose any polemical purpose against the heretical Gnostics, as even Irenaeus in his day (iii. 11. 1) indicates the errors of Cerin- thus and of the Wicolaitans as those controverted by John, to which Epipha- nius’ and Jerome? added also those of the Hbionites, while modern writers also have thought that it controverted more or less directly and definitely the Gnostic doctrine, especially of Cerinthus.* It is decisive against the assumption of any such polemical purpose, that, in general, John nowhere in his Gospel allows any direct reference to the perverted tendencies of his day tu appear ; while to search for indirect and hidden allusions of the kind, as if they were intentional, would be as arbitrary as it would be repugnant to the decided character of the apostolic standpoint which he took when in conscious opposition to heresies. [See Note II. p. 40.] In his First Epistle the apostle controverts the vagaries of Gnosticism, and itis improbable that these came in his way only after he had already written his Gospel (as Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 157, assumes) ; but the task of meeting this opposition, to which the apostle set himself in his Epistle, cannot have been the task of his Gospel, which in its whole character keeps far above such controversies. At any rate, we see from his Epistle how John would have carried on a controversy, had he wished to do so in his Gospel. The development of Gnosticism, as it was in itself a movement which could not have failed to appear, lay brooding then, and for some time previously, in the whole atmosphere of that age and place ; it appears in John pure, and in sententious simplicity and clearness, but ran off, in the heresies of the partly contemporancous and partly later formed Gnosticism, into all its varied aberrations, amid which it seemed even to derive support by what it drew from John. That it has been possible to explain many passages as opposed to the Gnostics, as little justifies the assumption of a set purpose of this kind, as the interpretation favourable to Gnosticism, which is possible in other passages, would justify the inference of an drenical purpose (Liicke) in respect of this heresy, since any evpress and precise indication of such tenden- 1 Haer. li. 12, lxix. 98. lis, Storr, Hug, Kleucker, Schneckenburger, 2 De vir. illustr. Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and several others. 3 Erasmus, Melanchthon, Grotius, Michae- 99 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. cies does not appear. Similarly must we judge the assumption of a polemi- cal purpose against the Docetae,' for which some have adduced i. 14, xix. 34. xx. 20, 27 ; or an opposition to Hbionism and Judaism ;? or to the plots of Jews who had been restored after the destruction of Jerusalem.* At the same time, it seems quite arbitrary, nay, injurious to John’s historical fidel- ‘ity and truth, to set down his omissions of evangelic circumstances to the account of a polemical purpose ; as, for example, Schneckenburger, Beitr. p- 60 ff., who regards the omission of the agony as based on an anti-Gnostic, and the silence as to the transfiguration on the mount on an anti-Docetic interest. A controversial reference to the disciples of John * is not supported by such passages as i. 6-8, 15, 19-41, 111. 22 ff., v. 33-36, x. 40 f., since the unique sublimity of Jesus, even when contrasted with John who was sent by God, must have been vindicated by the apostle in the necessary course of his history and of his work ; but in these passages no such special purpose can be proved, and we must assume that, with any such tendency, expressions like that in Matt. xi. 11 would not have been overlooked. Besides, those dis- ciples of John who rejected Christ,*® and the Zabacans or Mendeans,* who became known in the seventeenth century, were of later origin, while those who appear in Acts xviii. 25, xix. 1 ff., were simply not yet accurately acquainted with Christ, and therefore as regards them we should have to think only ofa tendency to gain these over ;7 but we cannot assume even this, considering the utter want of any more precise reference to them in our Gospel. Moreover, in general, as to the development of heresy, so far as it was conspicuous in that age, and especially in Asia (comp. the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians), we must assume as an internal necessity that John, in opposition to its errors, especially those of a Gnostic and Judaizing character (according to Hengstenberg, to the inundation of Gentile errors into the church), must have been conscious that his Gospel ought to set forth the original truth, unobscured by those errors. We must therefore admit indeed in general, that the influence of the existing forms of opposi- tion to the truth, for which he had to testify, practically contributed to determine the shape of his treatise, but only to the extent that, while abid- ing solely by his thesis, he provided therein, by its very simplicity, the weightiest counterpoise against errors,* without stooping to combat them, or even undertaking the defence of the Gospel against them,° his task being elevated far above the then existing conflicts of opinion.” This must be 1Semler, Bertholdt, meyer, de Docetis, Hal. Eckermann; Nie- 1823; Schnecken- trans. vol. I. p. 58. 7 Herder, vom Sohne Gottes, p. 24; also de burger, Schott, Ebrard. 2 Jerome, Grotius; Lange, die Judenchris- ten, Hbioniten und Nikolaiten d. apost. Zeit. Lpz. 1828; Ebrard, and many others. 3 Aberle in the Tiib. Quartalschr. 1864, p. tr. 4 Grotius, Schlichting, Wolzogen; Over- beck, tiber ἃ. Hv. Joh. 1784; Michael., Storr, Liitzelberger, and others, also Ewald. 5 Recogn. Clem. i. 54, 60. ® Gieseler, Airchengesch. I. i, Ὁ. 76, Eng. Wette. 8 Comp. Reuss, Denkschr. Ὁ. 27. 9 Seyffarth, Specialcharakterist. Ὁ. 39 f.; Schott, Jsag. 8 40; de Wette, Hengstenberg, and many others. 10 Even Baur, p. 378, acknowledges that “John’s Gospel stands amid all the opposi- tions of the age, without anywhere exhibit- ing the definite colour of a temporary or local opposition.” But this is really only con- ceivable if the Gospel belongs to the apos- INTRODUCTION. 39 maintained, lest on the one hand we degrade the Gospel, in the face of its whole character, into a controversial treatise, or on the other hand withdraw ‘it, as aproduct of mere speculation, from its necessary and cbncrete relations to the historical development of the church of that age. Seeing that our Gospel serves in manifold ways not only to confirm, but moreover, on a large scale (as especially by relating the extra-Galilean jour- neys, acts, discourses) as well as in particulars, to complete the synoptic accounts, nay, even sometimes (as in determining the day of the crucifixion) in important places to correct them, it has been assumed very often, from Jerome (comp. already Euseb. iii. 24) downwards, and with various modifi- cations even at the present day (Ebrard, Ewald, Weizsiicker, Godet, and many others), that this relation to the Synoptics was the designed object of the work. Such a view, however, cannot be supported ; for there is not the slightest hint in the Gospel itself of any such purpose ; and further, there would thus be attributed to it an historico-critical character totally at vari- ance with its real nature and its design, as expressly stated, xx. 30,,31, and which even as a collateral purpose would be quite foreign to the high spir- itual tone, sublime unity, and unbroken compactness of the book. More- over, in the repetition of synoptical passages which John gives, there are not always any material additions or corrections leading us to suppose a confirmatory design, in view of the non-repetition of a great many other and more important synoptical narrations. Again, where John diverges from parallel synoptical accounts, in the absence of contradictory references (in ili, 24 only does there occur a passing note of time of this kind), his inde- pendence of the Galilean tradition fully suffices to explain the divergence. Finally, in very much that John has not borrowed from the synoptical his- tory, and against the truth of which no well-founded doubt can be urged, to suppose in such passages any intentional though silent purpose on his part to correct, would be equivalent to his rejection of the statements. In short, had the design in question exercised any determining influence upon the apostle in the planning and composition of his work, he would have ac- complished his task in a very strange, thoroughly imperfect, and illogical manner. Wemay, on the contrary, take it for granted that he was well acquainted with the Galilean tradition,’ and that the written accounts drawn from the cycle of that tradition, numbers of which were already in circula- tion, and which were especially represented in our Synoptics, were likewise sufficiently known to him ; for he presupposes as known the historical exist- ence of this tradition in all its essential parts.? But it is precisely his per- tolic age, and its author stands upon an apostolic elevation ; it is inconceivable if it originated in the second century, when those oppositions were developing, and had already developed into open and deep- seated divisions, and where the conditions necessary for the production of such a For- mula Concordiae were utterly wanting in the bosom of the time. 1 According to Ewald, John only compar- ed and made use of what is assumed by Ewald to be the ‘oldest Gospel,” ‘the collection of discourses,’”’ and ‘‘ the origi- nal Mark.’’ But a limitation to these three books, considering the number already ex- isting (Lukei. 1), is in itself improbable, and is all the less demonstrable, that the first and third treatises named by Ewald have themselves only a very problematical exist- ence. 2See Weizsiicker in the Jahrb. fur Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 691 ff. He goes, how- 34 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. fect independence of this tradition and its records—keeping in view his aim to bring fully out the higher Messianic proof, and the abundant material from which his own recollection could so fully draw—which enables us to understand the partial coincidence, and still greater divergence, between him and the Synoptics, and his entire relation to them generally, which is not determined by any special design on his part ; so that the confirmation, correction, and enlargement of their narratives often appear as a result of which he is conscious, but never as the object which he had sought to ac- complish in his treatise. As to any design, so understood, of correcting the Synoptics, the silence of John upon many portions of the cycle of synoptic narrative is undoubtedly very significant, in so far as the historical truth of these in their traditional form would have been of special value for the apostle’s purpose. This holds true particularly of the account of the temp- tation, the transfiguration, and the ascension as actual occurrences, as well as of the cure of demoniacs as such. As criticism, however, is here pledg- ed to special caution, so the opposite conclusion—viz. that facts which would have been of great importance even for the synoptical Messianic proof, but which are recorded only in John, cannot be regarded as origi- nally historical in the form in which he gives them—is everywhere inadmis- sible, especially where he speaks as an eye-witness, in which capacity he must be ranked above Matthew : for Matthew did indeed compose the col- lection of discourses which is worked up into the Gospel that bears his name, but not the Gospel itself as it lies before us in its gradually’ settled canonical form. If, while taking all into account, the complete, unbiassed independence of John in relation to the Synoptics, above whom he stands distinguished by his exact determination of the succession of time, must be preserved intact ; we must at the same time bear in mind that, as the last evangelist and apostle, he had to satisfy the higher needs of Christian knowledge, called forth by the development of the church in this later stage, and thus had boldly to go beyond the range of the whole previous Gospel literature. This higher need had reference to that deeper and uni- form insight into the peculiar eternal essence of Christianity and its Found- er, which John, as no other of his contemporaries, by his richly stored experience was fitted and called to impart. He had thus, indeed, as a mat- ter of fact, supplemented and partly corrected the carlier evangelists, though not to such an extent as to warrant the supposition that this was his delib- erate object. For, by giving to the entire written history its fullest comple- tion, he took rank far above all who had worked before him ; not doctrinally making an advance from πίστις to γνῶσις (Liicke), but, in common with the Synoptics, pursuing the same goal of πίστις (xx. 31), yet bringing the subject-matter of this common faith to a higher, more uniform, and univer- sal stage of the original γνῶσις of its essence than was possible in the earlier Gospel histories, composed under diverse relations, which had now passed ever, too far, when (Zvang. Gesch. Ὁ. 270) he even more concrete history than the Gos- calls the fourth Gospel, without enlargement pels whose range is limited to Galilee. from other sources, “a misty picture with- 1 Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, Ὁ. 106 f. out reality.” Taken all in all, it contains INTRODUCTION. on away, and with different and (measured by the standard of John’s fellowship _ with Jesus) very inferior resources. ; John prosecutes his design, which is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah in the sense of the incarnate Logos, by first of all stating this leading idea in the prologue, and then exhibiting in well-selected * historical facts its his- torical realization in Jesus. This idea, which belongs to the very highest Christological view of the world, guided his choice and treatment of facts, and brought out more clearly the opposition—which the author had con- stantly in view—with unbelieving and hostile Judaism ; but so far from detracting from the historical character of the Gospel, it appears rather only to be derived from the actual experience of the history, and is in turn con- firmed thereby. To defend the Gospel against the suspicion of being a free compilation from synoptical materials in subservience to some main idea, is, on the one hand, as unnecessary for him who recognizes it as of necessity apostolic, and as a phenomenon explicable on/y upon this suppo- sition ; as; on the other hand, in the face of the man who can transfer to the second century, and ascribe to so late a period so great a creative power of Christian thought, such defence, under the altered conditions of the problem, has been proved by experience to be impossible. SEC. V.—SOURCES, TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. The main source is John himself (1 John i. 1 f.), his own inalienable recollection, his experience, his life of fellowship with Christ, continued, increased, and preserved in its freshness by the Spirit of truth, together with the constant impulse to preach and otherwise orally communicate that sub- lime view of the nature and life of Jesus, which determined the essentia contents of his work, as a whole and in details. Accordingly, the credibil- ity of the work asserts itself as being relatively the highest of all, so that it ought to have the deciding voice in case of discrepancies in all essential portions, where the author speaks as an eye and ear witness. This also ap- plies to the discourses of Jesus, in so far as their truthfulness is to be recog- nized, not indeed to all their details and form,—for they were freely repro- duced and resuscitated by his after recollection, and under the influence of a definite and determining point of view, after the Lord’s thoughts and ex- 1 Τῇ connection with this, the selection made of the miracles of Jesus is specially noteworthy. Only one of each kind is chosen, viz. one of transformation, ii. 1 ff. ; one fever cure, iv. 47 ff.; one cure of lame- ness, v. 1 ff.; one feeding, vi. 4 ff. ; one walking on the sea, vi. 16 ff. ; one opening the eyes of the blind, ix. 1 ff. ; one raising from the dead, xi. 1 ff. The number seven is hardly accidental, nor yet the exclusion of any instance of the casting out of de- mons. That a paragraph containing an ac- count of an instance of casting out has fallen out after chap. v. (Ewald), finds no support in the connection of chap. v. and vi. or elsewhere, and has left no trace ap- preciable by criticism in evidence of its ex- isteuce; while that completed number seven, to which an eighth miracle would thus be added, is against it. This number seven is evidently based upon 3+-3-+-1,—viz. three miracles of nature, three of healing, and one of raising the dead. An eighth miracle was only added in the appendix, chap. xxi., after the book was finished, 36 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. pressions had by a lengthened process of elaboration been blended with his own, which thus underwent a transfiguration,—but as to the subject-matter and its characteristic clothing and thoughtful changes and variations, in all their simplicity and dignity. Their truthfulness is, I say, all the more to be recognized, the more inwardly and vividly the apostle in particular stood in harmony with his Lord’s mind and heart. So familiar was he with the character and nature of Christ’s discourses, and so imbued with His spirit, that even the reflections of his own which he intertwines, as well as his Epistle, nay, even the discourses-of the Baptist, bear one and the same stamp ; a fact, however, which only places the essential originality of the Johannean discourses so much the more above suspicion.’ In those portions in which we have no vouchers for personal testimony, the omission is sufficiently supplied, by the author’s connection with Christ and his fellow-apostles (as well as with Mary), and by the investigations which we may assume he made, because of his profound interest in the sub- ject ; and by the living, harmonious, and comprehensive view of Christ’s life and work with which he was inspired, and which of itself must have led to the exclusion of any strange and interpolated features. The supposition that in his own behoof he made use of notes taken by him- self (so Bertholdt, Wegscheider, Schott, and others), does not, indeed, con- tradict the requirements of a living apostolic call, but must be subordinated so as to be compatible with the unity of spirit and mould of the whole work ; a unity which is the gradually ripened and perfected fruit of a long life of recollection, blending all particulars in one true and bright collective picture, under the guidance of the Divine Spirit as promised by Christ Himself (xiv. 26). The synoptical tradition was known to John, and his Gospel presupposes it. He was also certainly acquainted with the evangelic writings which embodied it—those at least that were already widely spread and held in esteem ; but all this was not his sowrce properly so called : his book itself is proof enough that, in writing it, he was independent of this, and stood above all the then existing written and traditional authorities. He has preserved this independence even in the face of Matthew’s collection of discourses and Mark’s Gospel, both of which doubtless he had read, and which may have suggested to him, unintentionally and unsought for on his part, many ex- pressions in his own independent narrative, but which can in no way inter- fere with its apostolic originality.2 We cannot determine whether he like- wise knew the somewhat more recent Gospel of Luke (Keim and others) ; 1 Ewald, Jahrb. 11. p. 163 f. : ‘* As, under the Old Covenant, it is precisely the earliest prophets who are the strictest and purest interpreters of Him who, though never vis- ible in bodily form, yet moves, lives, and speaks in them as if He were; so at the very close of the New Testament a similar phenomenon reappears, when the Logos comes on the scene in bright and clear manifestation. The Spirit of the historical Christ was concentrated in His former fa- miliar disciple in the most compact strength and transparent clearness, and now streams forth from him over this later world, which had never yet so understood Him. The mouth of John is for this world the mouth of the glorified Christ, and the full histor- ical resuscitation of that Logos who will not reappear till the end of all things.” 2 Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Christi, Ὁ. 127 ff. INTRODUCTION. 37 for the points of contact between the two are conceivable upon the suppo- sition of their writing independently side by side, especially as Luke had a " rich range of sources, which are to us for the most part unknown. That John likewise knew the Gospel of the Hebrews is not made probable by the saying which he records concerning ‘‘ the birth from above.” The combina- tion, on that account, of this saying with the corresponding quotation made by Justin and the Clementines (see above, sec. ii.) rests upon the very pre- carious premiss that both of these cite from the Gospel of the Hebrews. As to the question whence John derived his representation of the divine element in Christ as the Logos, see on chap. 1. 1. | As to the PLACE where the gospel, which was certainly written in Greek, not in Aramaic (against Salmasius, Bolten, and partly Bertholdt), was com- posed, the earliest tradition’ distinctly names Hphesus ; and the original document is said to have been preserved there to a late period, and to have been the object of believing veneration (Chron. Pasch. p. xi. 411, ed. Dind.). By this decision as to the place we must abide, because the Gospel itself bears upon its very face proofs of its author’s remoteness from Palestine, and from the circle of Jewish life, along with references to cultured Greek readers ; and because the life of the apostle himself, as attested by the history of the church, speaks decidedly for Ephesus. The tradition that he wrote at Patmos (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Theophylact, and many others, also Hug) is a later one, and owes its origin to the statement that the Apocalypse was written on that island. With this, the tradition which tries to reconcile the two, by supposing that John dictated his Gospel in Pat- mos and published it at Ephesus (Pseudo-Athanasius, Dorotheus), loses all its value.—The assumption that a long time elapsed before it gained any wide circulation, and that it remained within the circle of the apostle’s friends ‘in Ephesus, at whose request a very ancient tradition (Canon Mu- ratori, Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. vi. 14) makes him to have written it, is not indeed sanctioned by the silence of Papias concerning it (Credner), but receives confirmation by the fact that the appendix, chap. xxi., is found in all the oldest testimonies,—leading us to conclude that its publication in more distant circles, and dissemination through multiplication of copies, did not take place till after this addition. As to the ΤΙΜῈ of its composition, the earliest testimonies (Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., Origen) go to prove that John wrote subsequently to the Synoptics, and (Irenaeus) not till after the deaths of Peter and Paul. A later and more precise determination of the time,’ in the advanced old 1 Already in Iren. iii. 1, Clement of Alex., Origen, Eusebius, etc. 2 Epiphanius, Haer. li. 12. Διὸ ὕστερον ἀναγκάζει τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα Tov Ἰωάννην παραι- τούμενον εὐαγγελίσασϑαι δι᾽ εὐλάβειαν καὶ τα- ᾿Ασίας ἀναγκάζεται ἐκϑέσϑαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. These last words are not corrupt, nor is ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας to be joined with ἀναγκάζεται as if it meant ab Asiae epie- copis (Liicke); but we must render them, πεινοφροσύνην, ἐπὶ TH γηραλέᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡλικίᾳ, μετὰ ἔτη ἐνενήκοντα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς, μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου ἐπάνοδον τὴν ἐπὶ KAav- δίου γενομένην Καίσαρος, καὶ μετὰ ἱκανὰ ἔτη τοῦ διατρίψαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ‘‘and many years after he had lived away from Asia, he was obliged,” etc.,—thus taking the words in their essential sense, “many years after his extra-Asiatic so- journ,’? many years after his return from 38 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. age of the apostle, is connected with the desire to ascribe to the Gospel an anti-heretical design, and therefore loses its critical weight. The follow- ing points may perhaps be regarded as certain, resulting as they do from a comparison of this tradition with historical circumstances and with the Gos- pel itself. As John certainly did not settle in Ephesus until after St. Paul’s removal from his Asiatic sphere of labour, nor indeed, doubtless, until after the destruction of Jerusalem, where until then John resided: as, further, the estrangement from Palestinian conditions, so evident in the Gospel, implies an already prolonged residence away from Palestine ; as the elaborate view of the Logos is a post-Pauline phase of the apprehension and exposition of Christ’s higher nature, and suggests a longer familiarity with philosophical influences ; as the entire character and nature of the book, its clearness and depth, its calmness and completeness, most probably indicate the ma- tured culture and clarifying influence of riper years, without, however, in the least degree suggesting to us the weakness of old age,—we must put the composition not before the destruction of Jerusalem (Lampe, Wegschei- der), but a considerable time after ; for if that catastrophe had been still fresh in the recollection of the writer, in the depths of its first impression, it could hardly, on psychological grounds, have escaped express mention in the book. No such express reference to it occurs ; but if, notwithstand- ing, Jerusalem and its environs are to be regarded, and that rightly, as in ruins, and in the distant backyround of the apostle’s view, the ἣν in xi. 18, xvii. 1, xix. 41, reads more naturally than if accounted for from the mere context of historical narration, while on the other hand the ἐστι in v. 2 may retain its full appropriateness. If a year is to be definitely named, A.D. 80? may be suggested as neither too far preceding or following 10." Yote.—As to PLAN, the Gospel divides itself into the following sections :— After the prologue, i. 1-18, which at once sets before the reader the lofty point of view of the most sacred history, the revelation of the glory of the only-be- gotten Son of the Father (which constitutes the theme of the Gospel, i. 14) begins, first through John the Baptist, and its manifestation onwards to the Patmos. The genitive τοῦ διατρίψαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τ. ᾿Ασίας, denotes the dwelling away, etc., as the point of departure from which the ἱκανὰ ἔτη begin to run. See Kiihner, Il. pp. 164, 514. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 138. 1 There therefore lies between the Apoc- alypse and the Gospel a space of from ten to twelve years. Considering the maturity of mind which the apostle, who was already aged in the year 70, must have attained, this space was too short to effect sucha change of view and of language as we must sup- pose if the apocalyptist was also the evan- gelist. This also against Tholuck, p. 11. 2 Tt is evident from the distinctive and in- ternal characteristics of the Gospel, and es- pecially from the form of its ideas, that it was written after the downfall of the Jew- ish state and the labours of St. Paul; but we cannot go so far as to find reflected in it precisely the beginning of the second century (i.e. a time only 20 or 30 years later), nor to argue therefrom the non-apostolic origin of the Gospel (and of the Epistle). The interval is too short, and our knowledge of church movements, especially of Gnosti- cism, so far as they might be said to belong, at least in their stages of impulse and de- velopment, to the beginning only of the new century, and not to the two or three preced- ing decades of years, is not sufficiently special and precise. This tells, at the same time, against Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 147 ff. How can it be said, on any reliable grounds, that the Gospel discloses the state of the church about the year 100, but not the state of the church about the year 80? INTRODUCTION. 39 first miracle, and as yet without any opposition of unbelief, down to ii. 11. Then (2) this self-revelation passes on to publicity, and progresses in action and teaching amid the contrast of belief and unbelief, on to another and greater miracle, ii, 12-iv. 54. Further, (3) new miracles of the Lord’s in Judea and Galilee, with the discourses occasioned thereby, heighten that contrast, caus- ing among the Jews a desire to persecute and even kill Him, and among His disciples many to fall away, v.-vi. 71. After this, (4) unbelief shows itself even among the brothers of Jesus ; the self-revelation of the Only-begotten of the Father advances in words and deeds to the greatest miracle of all, that of the raising of the dead, by which, however, while many believe upon Him, tho hostility of unbelief is urged on to the decisive determination to put Him to death, vii.—-ix. 57. There ensues, (5)in and upon the carrying out of this de- termination, the highest self-revelation of Christ's divine glory, which finally gains its completed victory in the resurrection, xii.-xx.' Chap. xxi. is an appen- dix. Many other attempts have been made to exhibit the plan of the book ; on which see Luthardt, I. p, 255 ff., who (comp. also his treatise, De composit. ev. Joh., Norimb. 1852 ; before this Késtlin, in the Theol. Juhrb. 1851, p. 194 ff., and afterwards Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 115 1.) endeavours on his part to carry out a threefold division of the whole and of the several parts ; and in Godet, Comment. I. p. 111. The arrangement which approaches most nearly to the above is that of Ewald, Jahrb. 111. p. 168, comp. VIII. 109, and Johann. Schr, I. p. 18 ff. In every mode of division, the opposition of the world’s ever-increasing unbelief and hatred to the revelation of the divine glory in Christ, and to faith in Him, must ever be held fast, as the thread which runs systematically through the whole. Comp. Godet,! as before, Notes py American Eprror. I. The Apocalypse. Page 22. This is of course no place for controverting at length Meyer's very positive view of the non-Johannean authorship of the Apocalypse. I may adduce two or three suggestions, remarking that his view is rejected by many of the ablest scholars, who maintain the identity in authorship of the two works. As to out- ward evidence, the thread of direct testimony in the early church is nearly un- broken, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment ; and indirect testimony is by no means wanting. The difference in the style is explicable from the difference in the subject matter and in the two classes of composition. The account of a succession of vivid symbolical scenes, drawing in all the agencies of nature, and shifting rapidly between earth and heaven, in the midst of which the author stands, could scarce- ly fail to differ widely in style from the narration of a series of quiet historical 1 Who (p. 121) gives what he calls the “ photographie deV histoire’ as follows: ‘‘ La foi nait, i-iv. ; V’incrédulité domine, v.-xii. ; la foi atteint sa perfection relative, xiii- Xvil.; l’inerédulité se consomme, xviii., xix.; la foi triomphe, xx. (xxi.)’? Such special abstract designations of place give too varied play to the subjectivities, still more so the subdivision of the several main parts, as by Ewald especially, and Keim, with different degrees of skill; but the latter considers that his threefold divi- sion and subdivision of the two halves (i.-xii., xiii.-xx.) ‘‘has its rootin the absolute ground of the divine mystery of the number three,”’—a lusus ingenii. 40 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. events long past by. As to grammatical construction, the very excitement of ’ the grand dramatic scene would naturally lead, in one not a native to the lan- guage, to the merging of grammatical niceties in forcible, if inaccurate, diction. The book itself furnishes abundant evidence that, as to style, the writer ‘‘ knew’’ better than he ‘builded ;” that his errors are not errors of ignorance of the usages which he sometimes so daringly violates (as witness the ἀπὸ ὁ ὦν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος). On grounds of intrinsic fitness, too, it would seem eminently natural that the beloved disciple who had witnessed personally one prefigured coming of his Master in His kingdom, and been half promised that he should wait to behold yet another coming of the Lord, should be selected to give to the church this magnificent outline of the pivotal epochs of its history and ,reveal- ing of its final glory. While much in the book is mysterious and as yet unray- elled, enough has yielded itself to the labors of devout exegesis to assure us that the whole is one of the richest products of inspiration, worthy alike of its author, its medium, and its destination. The ‘‘Conquering Hero” of the Apocalypse (xix. 11-16), the ‘‘“ WORD of God”’ is that ‘‘ Word” of the opening of the Gospel, who ‘was in the beginning with God.”’ Weiss, Meyer’s German editor, also dissents from his conclusions regarding the relation of the Gospel to the Apocalypse. He holds that, especially through Justin Martyr and Papias, the attestations to the apostolic origin of the Apoc- alypse are earlier and more direct in the church than to that of the Gospel. He thinks the absence of the Apocalypse from the Peshito may be due rather to: other reasons (as dislike of its chiliasm) than doubts of its apostolic origin. He holds that the fundamental diversity of the two writings in tendency and contents allows but a limited comparison between them ; that they are sepa- rated by an interval of twenty years, in which the author was removed from Palestine to Asia Minor, from the sphere of Jewish to that of Gentile Chris- tianity, with the intervening shock of the destruction of Jerusalem, with its many and far-reaching changes ; and that finally, in spite of all ditferences, there exist such remarkable coincidences in essential and fundamental thoughts, as well as in individual forms of doctrine, images, expressions, and linguistic pecu- liarities, as, while not proving identity of authorship, allow the apostolical au- thorship of each to be discussed and maintained without prejudice to the claims of the other. II. Anti-Gnostic purpose inthe Gospel. Page 31. ‘Meyer declares himself against any anti-Gnostic polemical purpose in the Gospel, since it nowhere discloses any direct design to combat perverted sec- tarian developments, and to look for indirect and concealed references, as intended, were alike arbitrary and opposed to the decided character of the apostolic position in its known hostility to heresies. But when he concedes that the Apostle in his first Epistle assails Gnostic perversions, and that these have not first come within his sphere of action after the composition of his Gospel (as Ewald, Jahrb. iii. p. 157, assumes), it is exceedingly probable that his purpose, by his historical portraiture to establish and confirm the true knowledge of Christ’s deepest nature, is partly conditioned by the threatening aspect in this direction of the germinating Gnosis. For that the antagonism to this Gnosis should not come out in the same way in the Gospel as in the Epistle, lies in the very character of the Gospel narrative, if it would not blend fictitious elements with its narratives and discourses,’’—Weiss, CHAP. I. 41 9 Vie | , EvayyéXiov ματα Ilwavrvny. B. x. have merely κατὰ ᾿Ιωάνν. Others : τὸ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάνν. (ἅγιον) evayy. Others : ἐκ τοῦ x. Ἰωάνν. Others: evayy. ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάνν. See on Mat- thew. CHAPTER. I. Ver. 4. ζωὴ ἢν] D. 8. Codd. in Origen and Augustine, It. (Germ. Foss. ex- cepted), Sahidic, Syr.- Clem. Valentt. in Ir. Hilary, Ambrose, Vigil. : ζωῇ ἐστιν. So Lachm. and Tisch. Generalization in connection with the words : ὁ yéy. ἐν αὐτῷ, ζωὴ ἣν, and perhaps in comparison with 1 John τ. 11.— Ver. 16. καὶ ἐκ] B. C.* Ὁ. L. Χ. δὰ, 33. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ver. Vere. Corb. Or. and many Fathers and Schol. : ὅτε ἐκ. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. ; ὅτι is to be preferred on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, and because ver. 16 was very early (Heracl. and Origen) regarded as a continuation of the Bap- tist’s discourse, and the directly continuous καὶ naturally suggested itself, and was inserted instead of the less simple ὅτι. —Ver. 18. υἱός] B. C.* L. ὃς, 33. Copt. Syr. Aeth. and many Fathers: θεός. Dogmatic gloss in imita- tion of ver. 1 whereby not only υἱός, but the article before povoy. (which Tisch. deletes), was also (in the Codd. named) suppressed. The omission of υἱός (Origen, Opp. IV. 102; Ambrose, ep. 10) is not sufficiently supported, and might easily have been occasioned by ver. 14. — Ver. 19. After ἀπέστειλαν, B. C.* Min. Chrys. and Verss. have πρὸς αὐτόν. So Lachm., an addition which other Codd. and Verss. insert after Aevitac. — Ver. 20. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ] A. B. C.* L. X. A. 8. 33. Verss. and Fathers have: ἐγὼ οὔκ ei. So Lachm., Tisch. Rightly, on account of the preponderating evidence. Comp. iii. 28, where οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ is attested by decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. The od» after εἶπον (Lachm. Tisch. read εἶπαν) is deleted by Lachm., following B. C. Syr. °",—testimonies which are all the less adequate, considering how easily the οὖν, which is not in itself necessary, might have been overlooked after the final syllable of eixov.! — Ver. 24. The article before ἀπεσταλμ. is wanting in A.* B. C.* L. &.* Origen (once), Nonn. Perhaps a mere omission on the part of the transcriber, if ἄπεστ. ἦσαν were taken together; but perhaps intentional, for some (Origen and Nonn.) have here supposed a second deputation. The omission is therefore doubly suspicious, though Tisch. also now omits the art. — Ver. 25. Instead of the repeated oi 7 e, we must, with Lachm., Tisch., following A. B..C. L. X. 8. Min. Origen, read ovdé. — Ver. 26. dé after μέσος must, with Tisch., on weighty testimony (B.C. L. δὲ, etc.), be deleted, having been added as a connecting 1 Matthaei, ed. min. ad x. 89, well says: transposuerunt. Accedunt interpretes, qui **in nullo libro scribae ita vexarunt partic- cum demum locum aliquem tractant, 1185 ulas καί, δέ, οὖν, πάλιν... quam in hoe particulas in principio modo addunt, modo evangelio. Modo temere inculcarunt, mo- omittuut.” do permutarunt, modo omiserunt, modo 42 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. particle. — Ver. 27. Against the words αὐτός ἔστιν (for which G. Min. Chrys. read οὗτός ἐστιν) and ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν the testimonies are so ancient, important, and unanimous, that they must be rejected together. Lachm. has bracketed them, Tisch. deletes them. αὐτός ἐστιν is an unneces- sary aid to the construction, and ὃς ἔμπρ. mov γέγονεν. (though defended by Ewald) is a completion borrowed from vv, 15, 30. — Ver. 28. ByQaviq] Elz.: Βηθαβαρᾷ (adopted of late by Hengstenberg), against conclusive testimony, but following Syr.c« and Origen (Opp. 11. 130), who himself avows that σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις is found Byfavia, yet upon geographical grounds decides in favour of Βηλαβαρᾷ, - ἃ consideration by which criticism cannot be bound. See the exegetical notes. — Ver. 29, After βλέπει Elz. has ὁ ᾿Ιωάνν., against the best testimonies. Beginning of a church lesson. — Ver. 32. ὡς] Hz. : ὡσεί, against the oldest and most numerous Codd. See Matt. iii. 16 ; Luke iii, 22. —Ver, 37. ἤκουσ. αὐτοῦ] Tisch., following B. &., puts αὐτοῦ after μαθητ. ; C.* L. X. Τοῦ have it after δύο. The Verss. also have this variation of position, which must, however, be regarded as the removal of the αὐτοῦ, made more or less mechanically, in imitation of ver. 35. — Ver. 40. ide7e] B. C.* L. Τὸ Min. Syr. utr. Origen, Tisch.: ὄψεσθε. Correctly ; the words which immedi- ately follow and ver. 47 (comp. xi. 34) make it much more likely that the tran- seriber would write ἴδετε for ὄψεσθε than vice versa. After dpa Elz. has dé, against which are the weightiest witnesses, and which has been interpolated as a connecting link. — Ver. 49. ᾽Τω να] Lachm. : ‘louvov, after B.; the same variation in xxi. 15-17. We must, with Tisch., after B.* L. 8. 33, read Ἴω ἀ ν- νου. Comp. Nonnus: υἱὸς "Iwavvao, The Textus Receptus has arisen from Matt. xvi. 17. —- Ver. 44. After ἠθέλησεν Elz. has ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, which the best authorities place after αὐτῷ. Beginning of a church lesson. — Ver. δ2. ἀπάρτι] wanting in B. L. δὲ. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. and some Fathers, also in Origen, Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Omitted, because it seemed inappropriate to the following words, which were taken to refer to actual angelic appearances. Ver. 1. Ἔν ἀρχῇ] John makes the beginning of his Gospel parallel with that of Genesis ;! but he rises above the historical conception of MW%83, which (Gen. i. 1) includes the beginning of time itself, to the absolute con- ception of anteriority to time: the creation is something subsequent, ver. 3. Prov. villi. 23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι, is parallel ; likewise, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, John xvii. 53; πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Eph. i, 4. Comp. Nezach Israel, f. 48, 1: Messias erat S¥ 255 (ante Tohu). The same idea we find already in the book of Enoch, xlviii. 3 f., 6 f., Ixil. 7,—a book which (against Hingenfeld and others) dates back into the second century B.c. (Dilm., Ewald, and others). The notion, in itself negative, of ante- riority to time (aypovoc ἦν, ἀκίχητος, ἐν ἀῤῥήτῳ λόγος ἀρχῇ, Nonnus), is in a popular way affirmatively designated by the ἐν ἀρχῇ as “primeval ;” the more exact dogmatic definition of the ἀρχή as “‘ eternity’ is a correct devel- opment of John’s meaning, but not strictly what he himself says. Comp. 1 Johni. 1; Rev. iii. 14. The Valentinian notion, that ἀρχή was a divine 1 See Hoelemann, de evangelit Joh. introitu 2Theodor. Mopsuest., Euthym. Zig. ; introitus Genescos augustiore effigie, Leipsic comp. Theophylact. 1855, p. 26 ff. CHAP. 1, 1. 43 Hypostasis distinct from the Father and the λόγος (Iren. Haer. i. 8. 5), and _ the Patristic view, that it was the divine σοφία (Origen) or the everlasting ’ Father (Cyril. Al.), rest, upon speculations altogether unjustified by cor- rect exegesis.1— ἣν] was, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (ver. 14). But he does not say, “Τὰ the beginning the λόγος caine into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col. i. 15.—6 λόγος] the Word ; for the reference to the history of the creation leaves room for no other meaning (therefore not Reason). John assumes that his readers under- stand the term, and, notwithstanding its great importance, regards every additional explanation of it as superfluous. Hence those interpretations fall of themselves to the ground, which are unhistorical, and imply any sort of a substitution, such as (1) that ὁ λόγος is the same as ὁ λεγόμενος, ““ the promised one;”® (2) that it stands for ὁ λέγων, ‘‘ the speaker” (Storr, Eckerm., Justi, and others). Not less incorrect (3) is Hofmann’s interpretation (Schrift- beweis, I. 1, p. 109 f.) : ““ὁ λόγος is the word of God, the Gospel, the person- al subject of which however, namely Christ, is here meant :” against which view it is decisive, first, that neither in Rev. xix. 13, nor elsewhere in the N. T., is Christ called ὁ λύγος merely as the subjeet-matter of the word ; sec- ondly, that in John, ὁ λόγος, without some additional definition, never once occurs as the designation of the Gospel, though it is often so used by Mark (ii. 2, iv. 14, al.), Luke (i. 2; Acts xi. 19, a/.), and Paul (Gal. vi. 6 ; 1 Thess. i. 6) ; thirdly, that in the context, neither here (see especially ver. 14) nor in 1 John i. 1 (see especially ὃ ἑωράκαμεν. . . καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν) does it seem allowable to depart in ὁ λόγος from the immediate designation of the personal subject,* while this immediate designation, 7.e. of the creative Word, is in our passage, from the obvious parallelism with the history of the creation, as clear and definite as it was appropriate it should be at the very commencement of the work. These reasons also tell substantially against the turn which Luthardt has given to Hofmann’s explanation : ‘‘ ὁ λόγος is the word of God, which in Christ, Heb. i. 1, has gone forth into the world, and the substance of which was His own person.”* The investigation of the Logos idea can lead to atrue result only when pursued by the path of history. But here, above -all, history points us to the O. T.,° and most directly to Gen. i., where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the rev- elation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hid- den, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and em- 1 Quite opposed to correct exegesis, although in a totally different direction, is the rendering of the Socinians (see Catech. Racov. Ὁ. 185, ed. Oeder), that ἐν ἀρχῇ sig- nifies in initio evangelii. 2 Valla, Beza, Ernesti, Tittm., etc. 8 See, with reference to 1 Johni. 1 (in op- ‘position to Beyschlag’s impersonal inter- pretation), besides Diisterdieck and Huther, Johansson, de aeterna Christi pracenxist. sec. ev. Joh., Lundae 1866, p. 29 f. 4See, on the other hand, Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 206 ff. ; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit. p. 215; Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 116; Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 466. 5 See ROhricht in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 299 ff. ‘ 44 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. bodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Ps. Xxxili. 6, evil. 20, cxlvil. 15; Isa. lv. 10, 11) ; and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Ps. xxxiv. 4 ; Isa. xl. 8; Ps. cxix. 105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy. A way was thus paved for the hypostatizing of the λόγος as a further step in the knowl- edge of the relations in the divine essence ; but this advance took place gradually, and only after the captivity, so that probably the oriental doc- trine of emanations, and subsequently the Pythagoreanized Platonism, were not without influence upon what was already given in germ in Gen. i. An- other form of the conception, however, appears,—not the original one of the Word, but one which was connected with the advanced development of ethical and teleological reflection and the needs of the Theodicy,—that of wisdom (WIN), of which the creative word was an expression, and which in the book of Job (xxviii. 12 ff.) and Proverbs (viii., ix.), in Eccles. i. 1-10, xxiv. 8, and Baruch iii. 37-iv. 4, is still set forth and depicted under the form of a personification, yet to such a degree that the portrayal more closely approaches that of the Hypostasis, and all the more closely as it ceases to maintain the elevation and boldness of the ancient poesy. The actual transition of the σοφία into the Hypostasis occurs in the book of Wisdom vii, 7—-xi., where wisdom (manifestly under the influence of the idea of the Pla- tonic soul of the world, perhaps also of the Stoic conception of an all-per- vading world-spirit) appears as a being of light proceeding essentially from God,—the true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne,—a real and independent principle revealing God in the world (especially in Israel), and mediating between it and Him, after it has, as His organ, created the world, in association with-a spirit among whose many predicates povoyevéc’ also is named, vii. 99, The divine λόγος also appears again in the book of Wisdom, ix. 1, comp. ver. 2, but only in the O. T. sense of a poetically personified declaration of God’s will, either in blessing (xvi. 12, comp. Ps. evil. 20) or in punishing (xviii. 15). While, then, in the Apocrypha the Logos repre- sentation retires before the development of the idea of wisdom,* it makes itself the more distinctly prominent in the Chaldee Paraphrasts, especially Onkelos.*- The Targums, the peculiarities of which rest on older traditions, exhibit the Word of God, 813") or 81535, as the divinely revealing Hypos- tasis, identical with the ΤΠ} 2 which was to be revealed in the Messiah, Comp. Schoettg. Hor. 11. p. 53; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 121. Thus there runs through entire Judaism under various forms of conception (comp. es- 1 Comp. vii. 25, where it is said of wisdom, rightly abandoned this interpretation. ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς TOU παντοκράτορος δόξης εἰλικρινής. Μονογενές should not have been rendered single (Bauerm., Liicke, Bruch, after the early writers), which it neither is nor is re- quired to be by the merely formal contrast to πολυμερές. This idea single, as answering to the following πολυμερές, would have been expressed by μονομερές (Luc. Calumn. 6). Also Grimm (exeget. Handb. p. 152) has now 2 See especially Grimm, in loc. ; Bruch, Weisheitsiehre ad. Hebr. Ὁ. 347 ff. Comp. also Eccles. xliii. 46. 3 Wisdom as appearing in Christ is men- tioned in N. T. also, in Luke xi. 49, comp. Matt. xi. 19. 4 See Gfrorer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. Τ. 1, Ὁ. 801 ff. ; Winer, De Onkel. p. 44f.; Anger, De Onkel, 11. 1846. CHAP. T.,/ 1 45 pecially the 717 qs in the O. T. from Gen. xvi., Ex. xxiii. downwards, frequently named, especially in Hosea, Zechariah, and Malachi, as the rep- ‘resentative of the self-revealing God), the idea that God never reveals Himself directly, but mediately, that is, does not reveal His hidden invisi- ble essence, but only a manifestation of Himself (comp. especially Ex. Xxxili. 12-23) : and this idea, modified however by Greek, and particularly Platonic and Stoic speculation, became a main feature in the Judaeo-Alex- andrine philosophy, as set forth in ῬΉΤΙ,Ο, an older contemporary of Jesus.’ According to the intellectual development, so rich in its results, which Philo gave to the transmitted Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, the Logos is the com- prehension or sum-total of. all the divine energies, so far as these are either hidden in the Godhead itself, or have come forth and been disseminated in the world (λόγος σπερματικός). As immanent in God, containing within it- self the archetypal world, which is conceived as the real world-ideal (νοητὸς κόσμος), it is, while not yet outwardly existing, like the immanent reason in men, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ; but when in creating the world it has issued forth from God, it answers to the λόγος προφορικός, as with man the word when spoken is the manifestation of thought. Now the λόγος 7 po- φοριεκός is the comprehension or sum-total of God’s active relations to the world ; so that creation, providence, the communication of all physical and moral power and gifts, of all life, ight, and wisdom from God, are its work, not being essentially different in its attributes and workings from the σοφία and the Divine Spirit itself. Hence it is the image of the Godhead, the eldest and first-begotten (πρεσβύτατος, πρωτόγονος) Son of God, the possessor of the entire divine fulness, the Mediator between God and the world, the λόγος τομεύς, δημιουργός, ἀρχιερεύς, ἱκέτης, πρεσβευτῆς, the apyayyedoc, the δεύτερος ϑεός, the substratum of all Theophanies, also the Messiah, though ideally apprehended only asa Theophany, not as a conerete incarnate personality ; for an incarnation of the Logos is foreign to Philo’s system.? There is no doubt that Philo has often designated and described the Logos as a Person, although, where he views it rather as immanent in God, he applies himself more to describe a power, and to present it as an attribute. There is, how- ever, no real ground for inferring, with some (Keferst., Zeller), from this variation in his representation, that Philo’s opinion wavered between person- ality and ‘impersonality ; rather, as regards the question of subsistence in its bearing upon Philo’s Logos,* we must attribute to him no separation be- tween the subsistence of God and the Logos, as if there came forth a Person 1 See especially Gfrorer, I. 243 ff. ; Dahne, Jiidisch-Alex, Religionsphil. I. 114 ff. ; Gross- mann, Quaestion. Phiion., Lpz. 1829 ; Scheffer, Quaest. Phil. Marb, 1829, 1831; Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre von dem géttl. Mittelwesen, Lpz. 1846; Ritter, Gesch. d.'Philos. IV. 418 ff.; Zeller, Philos. ἃ. Griechen, Ill. 2; Lutterb. neui. Lehrbegr. I. 418 ff. ; Miiller in Herzog’s Encykl. Xi. 484; Ewald, apost. Zeit. 257; Delitzsch in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1863, ii. 219 ; Riehm, Her. Brief, Ὁ. 249; Keim, Gesch. J.T. 212. Comp. also Langen, d. Judenth. 2. Zeit. Christi, 1867; Rohricht as formerly quoted. 2 See Ewald, p. 284 ff. ; Dorner, Hntzwickel- ungsgesch, I. 50. 3 See especially Dorner, Hnfwickelungs- gesch. I. 21; Niedner, de sudbsistentia τῷ ϑείῳ λόγῳ apud Philon. tributa, in the Zeitsch. f. histor. Theol. 1849, Ὁ. 837 ff.; and Ho6le- mann, de evang. Joh. invroitu, ete., Ὁ. 39 ff. 46 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. distinct from God, whenever the Logos is described as a Person ; but, ‘‘ea duo, in quibus cernitur τοῦ ὄντος καὶ ζῶντος ϑεοῦ essentia 5. deitas plenum esse per suam ipsius essentiam et implere cuncta hac sua essentia, primo diserte uni substantiae tribuuntur, deinde distribuuntur, sed tantum inter essentian et hujus actionem, quemadmodum nomina τοῦ ϑεοῦ et τοῦ λόγου hujus ipsius dei” (Niedner). Accordingly, Philo’s conception of the Logos resolves it- self into the sum-total and full exercise of the divine energies ; so that God, so far as He reveals: Himself, is called Logos, while the Logos, so far as he reveals God, is called God. That John owed his doctrine of the Logos— in which he represents the divine Messianic being as pre-existent, and en- tering into humanity in a human form—-solely to the Alexandrine philosophy, is an assertion utterly arbitrary, especially considering the difference be- tween Philo’s doctrine and that of John, not only in general (comp. also Godet, I. 233), but also in respect to the subsistence of the Logos in particu- lar.2 The form which John gave to his doctrine is understood much more naturally and historically thus, without by any means excluding the influ- ence of the Alexandrine Gnosis upon the apostle ;—that while the ancient popular wisdom of the Word of God, which (as shown above) carries us back to Gen. i. 1, is acknowledged to be that through which the idea of the Logos, as manifested in human form in Christ, was immediately suggested to him, and to which he appended and unfolded his own peculiar develop- ment of this idea with all clearness and spiritual depth, according to the measure of those personal testimonies of his Lord which his memory vividly retained, he at the same time allowed the widespread Alexandrine specula- tions, so similar in their origin and theme, to have due influence upon him, and used 2 them in an independent manner to assist his exposition of the na- ture and working of the divine in Christ, fully conscious of their points of difference (among which must be reckoned the cosmological dualism of Philo, which excluded any real incarnation, and made God to have created the world out of the ὕλη). Whether he first adopted these speculations while dwelling in Asia Minor, need not be determined, although it is in it- self very conceivable that the longer he lived in Asia, the more deeply did he penetrate into the Alexandrine theologoumenon which prevailed there, without requiring for this any intermediate agency of Apollos (Tobler). The doctrine is not, however, on account of this connection with specula- tions lying outside of Christianity, by any means to be traced back to a 1 Τῷ tells also against it, that in John the name λόγος is undoubtedly derived from the divine speaking (Word); in Philo, on the other hand, from the divine thinking (Reason). See Hoelemann as before, Ὁ. 43 ff. 2 Comp. Delitzsch, /.c., and Psychol. Ὁ. 178 [E. T. pp. 210, 211] ; Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T.p.156; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 112 ff. If some attempt to deny the influence of the Judaeo- Alexandrine Gnosis on the Logos doctrine of John (Hoelemann, Weiss, J. Kostlin, Hengstenberg), they at the same time sever, though in the interests of apostolic dignity, its historical credibility from its connection with the circumstances of the time, as well as the necessary presumption of its intelli- gibility on the part of the readers of the Gospel. But itis exactly the noble simplicity and clearness of the Prologue which shows with what truly apostolic certainty John had experienced the influence of the specula- tions of his day, and was master of them, modifying, correcting, and utilizing them according to his own ideas. This is also in answer to Luthardt, p. 200, and Réhricht lc. OHAP. ΠΣ 1: 47 mere fancy of the day. The main truth in it (the idea of the Son of God _ and His incarnation) had, long before he gave it this peculiar form, been in John’s mind the sole. foundation of his faith, and the highest object of his knowledge ; and this was no less the case with Paul and all the other apostles, though they did not formally adopt the Logos doctrine, from their different idiosyncrasies and the different conditions of their after develop- ment. . That main truth in it is to be referred absolutely to Christ Himself, whose communications to Iis disciples, and direct influence upon them (i. 14), as well as His further revelations and leadings by means of the Spirit of truth, furnished them with the material which was afterwards made use of in their various modes of representation. This procedure is specially apparent also in John, whose doctrine of the divine and pre-exist- ent nature of Christ, far removed from the influences of later Gnosticism, breaks away in essential points from the Alexandrine type of doctrine, and moulds itself in a different shape, especially rejecting decidedly all dual- istic and docetic elements, and in general treating the form once chosen with apostolic independence. That idea of God’s essential self-revelation, which took its rise from Gen. i., which lived and grew under various forms and names among the Hebrews and later Jews, but was moulded in a pecul- iar fashion by the Alexandrine philosophy, was adopted by John for the purpose of setting forth the abstract divinity of the Son,—thus bringing to light the reality which lies at the foundation of the Logos idea. Hence, ac- cording to John,’ by ὁ λόγος, which is throughout viewed by him (as is clear from the entire Prologue down to ver. 18)? under the conception of a per- sonal * subsistence, we must understand nothing else than the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God (comp. Paul, Col. i. 15 ff.), but for the accomplishment of the act of creation proceeding hypostatically Srom Him, and ever after operating also in the spiritual world as a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle, equal to God Himself in na- ture and glory (comp. Paul, Phil. ii. 6) ; which divine self-revelation appeared bodily in the man Jesus, and accomplished the work of the redemption of the world, John fashions and determines his Gospel from beginning to end with this highest christological idea in his eye ; this it is which constitutes the distinctive character of its doctrine.‘ The Synoptics contain the fragments 1Jn the Apocalypse also, chap. xix. 13, Christ is called the Adyos, but (not soin the Gospel) 6 λόγος τοῦ Jeod. The writer of the Apocalypse speaks of the whole Person of the God-man ina different way from the evangelist,—in fact, as in his state of ex- altation. (See Diisterdieck, z. Apok. LHinl. p. 75 ff.) But the passage is important against all interpretations which depart from the metaphysical view of the Logos above referred to. Comp. Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 115 ff. 2 Comp. Worner, @. Verhidltn. ἃ. Geistes zum Sohne Gottes, 1862, p. 24; also Baur, neutest, Theol. 352; Godet, 1.6. 3 That is, the subsistence as a conscious intelligent Ego, endued with volition. Against the denial of this personal trans- cendency in John (de Wette, Beyschlag, and others), see in particular Kostlin, Leh7- begr. 90; Briickn. 7 f.; Liebner, Ch7istol. 155 f. ; Weiss, Lehrbeqr. 242 f. When Dorner (Gesch. ἃ. prot. Theol. 875 ff.) claims for the Son, indeed, a special divine mode of exist- ence as His eternal characteristic, but at the same time denies Him any direct par- ticipation in the absolute divine personality, his limitation is exegetically opposed to the view of John and of the Apostle Paul. 4 Comp. Weizsacker, wb. ἃ. evang. Gesch. 48 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. and materials, the organic combination and ideal formation of which into one complete whole is the pre-eminent excellence of this last and highest Gospel. Paul has the Logos, only not in name. — The second and third ἣν isthe copula ; but καὶ ὁ λόγος, as the repetition of the great subject, has a solemn emphasis. —7pdc τὸν %edvjynot simply equivalent to παρὰ τῷ Bed, Xvii..5, but expressing, as in 1 John i. 2, the evistence of the Logos in God in respect of intercourse (Bernhardy, Ὁ. 265). So also in all other passages where it appears to mean simply with, Mark vi. 3, ix. 19; Matt. xiii. 56, xxvi, 55; 1. Cor. xvi. 6.7.5 Gal..1..18, iv..18 ; and in the texts cited im Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 202.’ Upon the thing itself, comp. concerning Wis- dom, Prov. viii. 80, Wisd. ix. 4. The moral essence of this essential fellow- ship is love (xvii. 24; Col. i. 13), with which, at the same time, any merely modalistic conception is excluded. —Kxai ϑεὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος] and the Logos was God. This ϑ εός can only be the predicate, not the subject (as Réhricht takes it), which would contradict the preceding ἦν πρὸ ς τὸν ϑεόν, because the conception of the λόγος would be only a periphrasis for God. The predicate is placed before the subject emphatically (comp. iv. 24), because the progress of the thought, ‘‘ He was with God, and (not at all a Person of an inferior nature, but) possessed of a divinenature,” makes this latter—the new added element —the naturally and logically emphasized member of the new clause, on account of its relation to πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν." The omission of the article was necessary, because ὁ ϑεός after the preceding πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν would have assigned to the Logos identity of Person (as, in fact, Beyschlag, p. 162, construes ϑεός with- out theart.). But so long as the question of God’s self-mediation objective- ly remains out of consideration, ὁ ϑεός would have been out of place here, after πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν had laid down the distinction of Person ; whereas ϑεός without the article makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the dis- tinction of Person.* As, therefore, by ϑεός without the article, John neither indicates, on the one hand, identity of Person with the Father ; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that of God Himself : so his doctrine of the Logos is definitely distinguished from that of Philo, which predicates ϑεός without the article of the Logos as subordinate in nature, nay, as he him- self says, ἐν καταχρήσει (I. 655, ed. Mang.) ; see Hoelemann, I. 1, p. 34. Moreover, the name ὁ δεύτερος ϑεός, Which Philo gives to the Logos, must, according to II. 625 (Euseb. praep. ev. vii. 13), expressly designate an inter- mediate nature between God and man, after whose image God created man. This subordinationism, according to which the Logos is indeed μεϑόριός τις pp. 241 ff., 297; also his Abdh. tiber ἃ. Joh. Logoslehre,in d. Jahrod. 7. D. Th. 1862, pp. 619 ff., 701 f. 1 The expressions, in the language of the common people, in many districts are quite analogous: ‘‘he was with me,” ‘‘he stays with you” (bei mich, bei dich), and the like. Comp. forthe Greek, Kriiger, 8 68. 39. 4—As against all impersonal conceptions of the Logos, observe it is never said ἐν τῷ dew, Rohricht (Ὁ. 312), however, arrives at the meaning ἐν τῷ ded, and by unwarrantably comparing the very different usage of πρός, takes exception to our explanation of πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν. 2 There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of ver. 1, is unfolded with increasing fulness. 3‘“*The last clause, the Word was God, is against Arius ; the other, the Word was with God, against Sabellius.”—LutHER. Seealso Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. 89 ff. CHAP. Is, 2, 3. 49 ϑεοῦ φύσις, but τοῦ μὲν ἐλάττων, ἀνθρώπου δὲ κρείττων (I. 683), is not that of the N. T., which rather assumes (comp. Phil. ii. 6, Col. i. 15, 16) the eternal unity of being of the Father and the Son, and places the subordination of the latter in His dependence on the Father, as it does the subordination of the Spirit in His dependence on the Father and the Son. θεός, therefore, is not to be explained from Philo, nor converted into‘a general qualitative idea —‘‘ divine,” ‘* God-like” (B. Crusius),—which deprives the expression of the precision demanded for it by the strict monotheism of the N. T. (in John, see in particular xvii. 3), through the conception of the divine essence of the personal Logos. Comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol. I. 370. On Sam. Crell’s con- jecture (Artemonii initium ev. Joh. ex. antiquitate ecel. restitut. 1726) that ϑεοῦ is an idle antitrinitarian invention, see Bengel, Appar. crit. Ὁ. 214 ff. Ver. 2 again emphatically combines the first and second clauses of ver. 1, in order to connect with them the work of creation, which was wrought by the λόγος. In this way, however, the subject also of the third clause of ver. 1 is included in and expressed by οὗτος. On this οὗ t0¢—to which πάντα standing at the beginning of ver. 3 significantly corresponds—lies the em- phasis in the continued discourse. In ver. 2 is given the necessary premiss to ver. 3; for if it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himse’f was God, who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God, and conse- quently when creation began, the whole creation, nothing excepted, must have come into existence through Him. Thus it is assumed, as a self-evident middle term, that God created the world not immediately, but, according to Gen. 1., through the medium of the Word. Ver. 3. Πάντα] ‘grande verbum, quo mundus, ἐ.6. universitas rerum factarum denotatur, ver. 10,” Bengel. Comp. Gen. i.; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2. Quite opposed to the context is the Socinian view : ‘‘ the moral creation is meant.” Comp. rather Philo, de Cherub. I. 162, where the λόγος appears as the ὄργανον dv οὗ (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6) κατεσκευάσϑη (ὁ κόσμος). The further speculations of Philo concerning the relation of the λόγος to the creation, which however are not to be imputed to John, see in Hoelemann, ἴ.6. p. 36 ff. John might have written τὰ πάντα (with the article), as in 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Col. i. 16, but was not obliged to do so. Comp. Col. i. 17, John iii. 3). For his thought is ‘‘ all” (unlimited), whereas τὰ πάντα would express “‘the whole of what actually exists.’—x«ai χωρὶς αὐτοῦ, «.7.4.] anem- phatic parallelismus antitheticus, often occurring in the classics.?_ This nega- tive reference does not exclude (so Liicke, Olshausen, de Wette, Frommann, Maier, Baeumlein) the doctrine of a ὕλη having an extra-temporal existence (Philo, /.c.), because ἐγένετο and γέγονεν describe that which exists only since the creation, as having come into existence, and therefore ὕλη would not be included in the conception. John neither holds nor opposes the idea of the iAy ; the antithesis has no polemical design—not even of an anti-gnostic kind—to point out that the Logos is raised above the series of Acons (Tholuck) ; for though the world of spirits is certainly included in the πάντα and the οὐδὲ 1 Who accordingly now worked as λόγος ner, ad Antiph. p. 157; in the N. T. through- προφορικός. out, and especially in John (ver, 20, x. 28; 1 ? Dissen. ad. Dem. de Cor. Ὁ. 228; Maetz- John ii. 4, 27, αἰ.). 50 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ἕν, it is not specially designated (comp. Col. i. 16). How the Valentinians had already referred it to the Aeons, see in Iren. Haer.i. 8. 5 ; Hilgen- feld, d. Hv. u. d. Briefe Joh. p. 32 ff. —oidé év] ne unum quidem, i.e. pror- sus nihil, more emphatic than οὐδέν." ---ὃ γέγονεν) Perfect : which has come into being, and now is. Comp. ἔκτισται, Col. i. 16. This belongs to the emphatic fulness of the statement (Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. xxxvii.), and connects itself with what precedes. The very ancient connection of it with what foliows,? by putting the comma after either γέγ. or αὐτῷ (so already the Valentinians),*° is to be rejected, although it would harmonize with John’s mode of linking the members of his discourse, whereby ‘‘ ex proximo membro sumitur gradus sequentis” (Erasmus); but in fine would still be Johannean only if the comma were placed after yéy. (so also Lachm.). The ground of rejection lies not in the ambiguity of ζωή, which cannot surprise us in John, but in this, that the perfect γέγονεν, as implying con- tinuance, would have logically required: ἐστί instead of ἦν after ζωή; to ἦν not γέγονεν, but ἐγένετο, would have been appropriate, so that the sense would have been: ‘‘ what came into existence had in Him its ground or source of life.” Ver. 4. An advance to the nature of the Logos‘ as life, and thereby as light. —év αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν] ὧν Him was life, He was πηγὴ ζωῆς (Philo). Life was that which existed in Him, of which He was full. This must be taken in the most comprehensive sense, nothing that is life being excluded, physi- cal, moral, eternal life (so already Chrysoston+),—all life was contained in the Logos, as in its principle and source. No limitation of the conception, especially as ζωῇ is without the article (comp. v. 26), has any warrant from the context ; hence it is not to be understood either merely of physical life, so far as it is the sustaining power,® or of spiritual and eternal life,—of the Johannean ζωῇ αἰώνιος," where Hengstenberg drags in the negative notion that the creature was excluded from life until Christ was manifested in the flesh, and that down to the time of His incarnation He had only been virtu- ally life and light. —«ai ἡ ζωὴ «.7.4.] and the life, of which the Logos was 1Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Sympos. p.214D ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6.2. As to the thing itself, comp. Philo, Il. p. 225: δι᾿ οὗ σύμπας ὃ κόσμος ἐδημιουρ- γεῖτο. 30. Ὁ. L. Verss., Clem. Al., Origen, and other Greeks, Heracleon, Ptolemaeus, Philos. Orig. v. 8, Latin Fathers, also Au- gustine, Wetst., Lachm., Weisse. 3** Whatever originated in Him (self) is life.’ The latter is said to be the Zoé, which with the Logos formed one Syzygy. Thilgenfeld regards this view as correct, in connection with the assumption of the later Gnostic origin of the Gospel. But the construction is false as regards the words, because neither ἐστί nor ἐγένετο stands in the passage; and false also as regards the thought, because, according to vy. 1-3,a principle of life cannot have first originated in the Logos, but must have existed from the very beginning. Also Bunsen (Hypol. II. 291, 357) erroneously preferred the punctua- tion of the Alexandrines and Gnosties. 4 The Logos must necessarily be taken as in vv. 1-3, but not from ver. 4 onwards in Hofmann’s sense, as no longer a person but a thing, viz. the Gospel, as ROhricht (p. 315) maintains, as if the verbum vocule were now a designation of Christ, who is the bearer of it. No such change of meaning is indi- cated in the text, and it only brings confu- sion into the clear advance of the thought. 5B. Crusius, comp. Chrysostom, Euthy- mius Zigabenus, Calvin. 8 Origen, Maldonatus, Lampe, Kuinoel, Kostlin, Hengstenberg, Weiss. CHAP. Tia ΟΣ 51 the possessor, was the light of men. The exposition thus passes over from the universal to the relation of the Logos to mankind ; for, being Himself the universal source of life to the world made by Him, He could as such least of all remain inactive with respect to men, but must show Himself as operating upon them conformably to their rational and moral nature, espe- cially as the light, according to the necessary connection of life and light in opposition to death and darkness. (Comp. viii. 12 ; Ps. xxxvi. 10 ; Eph. v. 14; Luke i. 78, 79). The light is truth pure and divine, theoretical and moral (both combined by an inner necessity, and not simply the former, as Weiss maintains), the reception and appropriation of which enlightens the man (υἱὸς φωτός, xii. 36), Whose non-appropriation and non-reception into: the consciousness determines the condition of darkness. The Life was the Light of men, because in its working upon them it was the necessary deter- mining power of their illumination. Comp. such expressions as those in xi. 25, xiv. 6, xvii. 3. Nothing as yet is said of the working of the Logos after Mis incarnation (xiv. 6), but (observe the ἦν) that the divine truth in that primeval time came to man from the Logos as the source of life ; the life in Him was for mankind the actively communicating principle of the divine ἀλήθεια, in the possession of which they lived in that fair morning of crea- tion, before through sin darkness had broken in upon them. This reference to the time when man, created after God’s image, remained in a state of innocency, is necessarily required by the ἦν, which, like the preceding ἦν, must refer to the creation-period indicated in ver. 3. But we are thus at the same time debarred from understanding, as here belonging to the en- lightening action of the Logos, God’s revelations to the Hebrews and later Jews (comp. Isa. 11. 5), by the prophets, etc. (Ewald), or even the elements of moral and religious truth found in heathendom (λόγος σπερματικός). In that fresh, untroubled primeval age, when the Logos as the source of life was the Light of men, the contrast of light and darkness did not yet exist ; but this tragic contrast, as John’s readers knew, originated with the fall, and had continued ever after. There follows, therefore, after a fond recall- ing of that fair bygone time (ver. 4), the sad and mournful declaration of the later and still enduring relation (ver. 5), where the light still shines indeed, but in darkness,—a darkness which has not received it. But if that closely to be observed reference of ἣν to the time of the creation, and this view of the progress of the thought be correct, it cannot embrace also the continuous (ver. 17) creative activity of the Logos, through which a con- sciousness and recognition of the highest truth have been developed among men (de Wette) ; and just as little may we find in τὸ φῶς τ. ἀνθρ. what belongs to the Logos in His essence only, in which case the reading ἐστί would (against Briickner) be more appropriate ; comp. φωτίζει, ver. 9. As in ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, so also by ἦν τὸ φῶς τ. ἀνθρ. must be expressed what the Logos was in His historical activity, and not merely what He was virtually (Hengstenberg). Comp. Godet, who, however, without any hint from the text, or any his- torical appropriateness whatever, finds in ‘‘ life-and light” a reminiscence of the trees of life and of knowledge in Paradise. Ver. 5. Relation of the light to the darkness. —kat τὸ φῶ ς] and the light. 52 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. shineth ;' not ‘‘and thus, as the light, the Logos shineth” (Liicke). The discourse steadily progresses link by link, so that the preceding predicate becomes the subject. — ¢aivec] Present, i.e. uninterruptedly from the begin- ning until now ; it embraces, therefore, the illuminating activity of the λόγος ἄσαρκος" and ἔνσαρκος. As it is arbitrary to supply the idea of ‘‘ still present” (Weiss), so also is its limitation to the revelations through the prophets of the Ο. T., which would make φαίνει merely the descriptive praesens historicum (de Wette). For the assumption of this in connection with pure preterites there is no warrant ; comp. rather φωτίζει, ver. 9. According to Ewald,* φαΐνει represents as present the time in which the Light, which since the cre- ation had enlightened men only from afar, has come suddenly into the world which without itis darkness, and is shining from the midst of this darkness. An antithetic relation is thus assumed (‘‘ only from afar,—suddenly in the midst’) which has no support in the present tense alone, without some more distinct intimation in the text. The stress, moreover, is not on φαίνει, but rests with tragic force on the emphatically placed ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ. It is the continuation of the discourse, ver. 7 ff., which first leads specially to the action of the Incarnate One (this also against Hengst.). —'The σκοτία is the ne- gation and opposite of the φῶς, the state of things in which man possesses | not the divine ἀλήθεια, but has become the prey of folly, falsehood, and sin, as | a godless ruling power, with allits misery. Here the abstract term ‘‘ dark- ness,” as the element in which the light shines, denotes not the individual sub- ject of darkness (Eph. v. 8), but, as the context requires, the totality pre- viously described by τῶν ἀνθρώπων, thus mankind in general, in so far as in and for themselves they since the fall have been destitute of divine truth, and become corrupt in understanding and will. Melanchthon well says, ‘‘ genus humanum oppressum peccato vocat tenebras.” Frommann is altogether mistaken in holding that σκοτία differs in the two clauses, and means (1) hu- manity so far as it yet lay beyond the influence of the light, and (2) humanity so far as it was opposed thereto. But Hilgenfeld is likewise in error, when, out of a different circle of ideas, he imports the notion that ‘‘ light and darkness are primeval opposites, which did not originate with the fall ;” see on viii. 44. -- οὐ κατέλαβεν] apprehended it not, took not possession of it ; it was not appropriated by the darkness, so that the latter might become light, instead of remaining aloof and alien to it. Comp. Phil. iii. 12, 15, 1 Cor. ix. 24, and especially Rom. ix. 30 ; also expressions like καταλαμβ. σοφίαν, Ecclus. xv. 1, 7. The explanation comprehended, ὁ.6. ἔγνω, ver. 10,* is on one 1 φαίνει, Zucet, not to be confounded with tithesis to σκοτία. The φῶς shines as divine φαίνεται, Which means apparet. Seeon Phil. light before Christ (by revelation and proph- ji. 15. Godet’s criticism of the distinction is ecy), and after Him. It is supernatural, erroneous. heavenly. Comp. 1 Johnii. 8. There is no 2 Godet thinks that the Jaw written in the mention here of the λόγος σπερματικός. heart, the light of conscience, is meant (Rom. 3 Jahrb, V.194 (see his Johann. Schr. 1. ii. 14,) which the Logos makes use of; and 121). that this His relation to all mankind is es- 4 Eph. iii. 18; Acts x. 34, iv. 18; Plato, sential and permanent. But this wouldbe Phaedr., p. 250 D; Phil. p. 16D; Polyb. Viii. utterly inadequate to the fulness of mean- 4. 6. ing expressed by φῶς, especially in its an- CHAP, Τὸν Oy! ἢ: 53 side arbitrarily narrowing, on »ncther anticipatory, since for the σκοτία, which is conceived asa realm, it substicv’ -s the subjects. Erroneously Origen, Chrys- ostom, Theophylact, Euth: «:.s Zigabenus, Bos, Schulthess, Hoelemann, p- 60, and Lange interpr:t . ‘’ The darkness did not hem it in, repress it ; it was invincible before it.” L*uguistically this is allowable,’ but it nowhere so occurs in the N. T., and is here opposed to the parallels, vv. 10, 11. — Observe that οὐ κατέλαβεν, which presupposes no Gnostic absolutism, but freedom of moral self-determination (comp. vv. 11, 12), reflects the phenom- enon as a whole, and as it presented itself to John‘in history and experience ; hence the aorist. Comp. iii. 19. Ver. 6. In the painful antithesis of ver. 5 which pervades the entire Gospel, was included the relation of the Logos to mankind, not only before, but after His incarnation (see on φαίνει). This latter is now more minutely unfolded as far as ver. 11. To strengthen the antithesis John adduces first the testimony of the Baptist (vv. 6-8) to the Light, on the ground of which he then designates the Logos as the true light (ver. 9); and finally makes the antithesis, thus prefaced (vv. 10, 11), follow with all the more tragic effect. The mention of John’s testimony here in the Prologue is not therefore a mere confirmation of the reality of the appearance of the Logos (Briickner), which the statements of vv. 9, 10 did not require. Still less is it a pressing for- wards of the thought to the beginning of the Gospel history (de Wette), or an intimation of the first step in the reconcilement of the contrasted light and darkness (Baur), or ‘‘ an illustrious exception” (Ewald) to the preceding ἡ σκοτία, x.T.2. Introducing a new paragraph, and hence without a connecting particle, it forms a historical preparation, answering to the fact, for that non- recognition and rejection (vv. 10, 11), which, in spite of that testimony of the Baptist, the light shining in the darkness had experienced. Ver. 15 stands to ver. 7in the relation of a_particular definite statement to the general testi- mony of which it is a part. —éyévero] not there was (ἦν, 111. 1), but there ap- peared, denoting the historical manifestation. See on Mark i. 4; Lukei. 5 ; Phil. ii. 7. Hence not with Chrys.: ἐγένετο ἀπεσταλμένος ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπεστάλη ; which Hengstenberg repeats. — Observe in what follows the noble simplicity of the narrative : we need not look out for any antithetical reference (éyéveto—avOpwroc—areor. π. θεοῦ) to ver. 1 (B. Crusius, Luthardt, and older expositors). With ἀπεσταλμ. π. θεοῦ, comp. iil. 28; Mal. ili. 1, 23. Description of the true prophet ; comp. also Luke iii. 2, 3. Ver. 7. Εἰς μαρτυρίαν] to bear witness ; for John testified what had been prophetically made known to him by divine revelation respecting the Light which had come in human form. Comp. ver. 33. —iva πάντες, κ-.τ.λ.] Purpose of the μαρτυρήσῃ, final end of the ἦλθεν. ---πιστεῦσ.] i.e. in the light ; comp. vy. 8, 9, xii. 36. —dc’ αὐτοῦ] by means of John, as he by his witness-bearing was the medium of producing faith : ‘‘and thus John is a servant and guide to the Light, which is Christ” (Luther) ; not by means of the light (Grotius, Lampe, Semler), for here it is not faith in God (1 Pet. 1 _ 21) that is spoken of. 1 See Schweighatiser, Lex. Herod. Il. p. 18. τῶν THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Ver. 8. ἦν is emphatic, and is therefore placed in the front : he was not the Light, but he was to bear witness of the Light ; and hence, in the second clause, μαρτυρῆῇσῃ emphatically takes the lead. The object of making this antithesis prominent is not controversy, or at least with any reference to the disciples of John (see the Introduction), but to point out’ the true position of the Baptist in face of the historical fact, that when he first ap- peared, men took him for the Messiah Himself (comp. ver. 20 ; Luke iii. 15), so that his witness shall appear in its proper historical aspect. Comp. Cyril. --ἰ᾽λλ᾽ iva, x.t.4.] Before iva we must from the preceding supply ἦλθεν 3 a rapid hastening on to the main thought ;? not taken imperatively (sent to bear witness) (de Wette), nor dependent upon ἦν (Liicke, Lange, Godet) : not the latter, because εἶναι ἵνα (for εἰς τό), even if it were linguistically possible, is here forbidden by the emphasis on the ἦν ; while to take ἦν in the sense of aderat, as again understood before iva (Godet), would be more forced and arbitrary than to supply ἦλθεν from ver. 7. Ver. 9. For the correct apprehension of this verse, we must observe, (1) that ἦν has the main emphasis, and stands therefore at the beginning : (2) that τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθ. cannot be the predicate, but must be the subject, because in ver. 8 another was the subject ; consequently without a τοῦτο, or some such word, there are no grounds for supposing a subject not expressed: (3) that ἐρχόμ. εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὥ can only be connected with πάντα ἄνθρωπον, not with ἣν ; because when John was bearing witness the Logos was already in the world (ver. 26), not simply then came into the world, or was about to come, or had to come. We should thus be obliged arbitrarily to restrict épy. εἰς τ. κόσμ. to His entrance upon His public ministry, as Grotius already did (from whom Calovius differs), and because the order of the words does not suggest the connecting of ἣν with ἐρχόμ ; rather would the prominence given to ἦν, and its wide separation from ἐρχόμ., be without any reason. Hence the connection by the early church of ἐρχόμ. with 7. ἄνθρ. is by no means (with Hilgenfeld) to be regarded as obsolete, but is to be retained,— and explained thus : ‘‘ There was present the true Light,which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” {See Note UI. p. 95.] This, with the following ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἣν Onward to ἐγένετο, serves to prepare for and strengthen the portentous and melancholy antithesis, καὶ ὁ κόσμ. αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. The usual objection that ἐρχόμ. εἰς τ. κι, When referred to πάντα ἄνθρ., is a superfluous by-clause, is inept. There is such a thing as a solemn redundance, and that we have here, an epic fulness of words. Hence we must reject (1) the usual interpretation by the older writers (before Grotius), with whom also Kaeuffer sides : 1Not to bring more fully to light the greatness of Christ, through the subordina- tion to Him of the greatest men and prophets, as Hengstenb. asserts. In this cease John ought to have been described ac- cording to his own greatness and rank, and not simply as in ver. 6. 2 Comp. ix. 3, xiii. 18, xv. 25; 1 Johnii. 19; Fritzsche, ad Matt. 840f.; Winer, p. 297 ‘* He (or even that, namely τὸ φῶς) was the true Light which lighteth all [E. T. p. 458]. 3 With Origen, Syr., Copt., Euseb., Chrys., Cyril., Epiph., Nonnus, Theophyl., Euth. Zig., It., Vulg., Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Aret., and most of the early expositors. So of late Paulus also, and Klee, Kaeuffer in the Sdchs. Stud. 1844, p, 116, Hoelemann, and Godet. ‘ CHAPS Es 9. 5d men who come into this world” (Luther), against which we have already re- marked under (1) and (2) above ; again, (2) the construction of épyéu. with φῶς as an accompanying definition : *‘‘ He was the true Light, which was at that time to come into the world ;’* also, (3) the connecting of ἦν with ἐρχόμενον, either in a sense purely historical, ‘‘ He came” (Bleek, Koéstlin, B. Crusius, Lange, Hengstenberg, with reference to Mal. iii. 1 ; and so already Bengel) ; or relatively, as de Wette, Liicke : ‘‘ when John had appeared to bear wit- ness of Him, even then came the true Light into the world ;” ® or as future, of Him who was soon to appear : venturwm erat (Rinck, Tholuck), according to Luthardt (comp. Baeuml.) : ‘‘it had been determined of God that He should come ;” ormore exactly, of an unfulfilled state of things, still present at that present time : ‘‘Jt was coming’ (Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 51) ;* and after Ewald, who attaches it to vv. 4, 5: ‘‘It was at that time always coming into the world, so that every human being, if he had so wished, might have let himself be guided by it ;” comp. Keim: ‘‘He was continually coming into the world.” As to details, we have further to remark : ἦν] aderat, as in vii. 39 and often ; its more minute definition follows in ver. 10 : ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἣν. The Light was already there (in Jesus) when John bore witness of Him, ver. 26. The reference of vv. 9-13 to the preincarnate agency of the Logos® entirely breaks down before vv. 11-13, as well as before the comparison of the Baptist with the Logos, which presupposes the personal manifestation of the latter (comp. also ver. 15) ; and therefore Baur erroneously denies any distinction in the Prologue between the preincarnate and the postincar- nate agency of the Logos.*— 76 ἀληθινόν [Because it was neither John nor any other, but the true, genuine, archetypal Light, corresponding to the idea—the idea of the light realized." Comp. iv. 23, 37, vi. 32, vil. 28, xv. 1. See, generally, Schott, Opuse. I. p. 7 ff.; Frommann, Lehr- begr. p. 130 ff. ; Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 333 ff. ; also Hoelemann, l.c. p. 63, who, however, supposes an antithesis, which is without any support from the connection, to the cosmie light (Gen. 1.).—6 φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρ.} a characteristic of the true light ; 1So probably Theod. Mopsu.; some in Augustine, de pecc. mer. ef rem. i. 25; Cas- talio, Vatablus, Grotius ; Schott, Opusc. I. Ὁ. 14; Maier. 2The interpretation of Schoettgen, Sem- ler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, as if instead of ἐρχόμ. we had ἦλϑεν, is quite erroneous. Luther’s explanation down to 1527 was better: “through His advent into this world.”’ 3 Comp. Hauff in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1846, p. io. . 4 That is, during the time before His bap- tism ; the man Jesus (according to the Val- entinian Gnosis) did not become the organ of the Logos until His baptism, and accord- ingly through that rite the Logos first came into the world. The birth of Jesus was only introductory to that coming. Briick- ner, while rejecting this importation of Gnosticism, agrees in other respects with Hilgenfeld.—Philippi (der Hingang d. Joh. Hv. p. 89): “ He was to come, according to the promises of the O. T.,;°? and ver. 10: ““These promises had now received their fulfilment.”’ 5 Tholuck, Olshausen, Baur, also Lange, Leben J. 1Π1. p. 1806 ff. δ Comp. Bleek in the Stud. u. rit. 1833, p. 414 ff. 7 In the classics, see Plato, Pol. i. p. 347 D (τῷ ὄντι ἀληϑινός), Vi. p. 499 C; Xen. Anad. i. 9.17; Oec. x. 3; Dem. 1138. 27, 1248. 22 ; Theo- erit. 16 (Anthol.) ; Pindar, QZ. ii. 201 ; Polyb. i. 6. 6, οὐ al. Riick., Abend. p. 266, errone- ously says, ‘‘ the word se/dom occurs in the classics.’’ It is especially common in Plato, and among later writers in Polybius. .᾿ 56 THE GOSPEL OF\JOHN. it illumines every one. This remains true, even though, as a matter of fact, the illumination is not received by many (see on Rom. ii. 4), so that every one does not really become what he could become, a child of light, φῶς ° ἐν κυρίῳ, Eph. v. 8. The relation, as a matter of experience, resolves itself into this : ‘‘ quisquis illuminatur, ab hac luce illuminatur,” Bengel ; comp. Luthardt. It is not this, however, that is expressed, but the essential rela- tion as it exists on the part of the Logos.’| Bengel well says: ‘‘ numerus singularis magnam hic vim habet.” Comp, Col. i. 15 ; Rom. iii. 4. —ép y6- μενον εἰς τ. κόσμον] every man coming into the world ; rightly without the article ; comp. 2 John 7. The addition of the predicative clause gives emphatic prominence to the conception of πάντα. There is no need to com- pare it with the Rabbinic 071p3 N13 (see Lightfoot and Schoettgen). Comp. xvi. 21, and see on xviii. 37. : Ver. 10. What here follows is linked to the preceding by ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, following upon εἰς τ. κόσμβ. This is a fuller defining of the emphatic qv of ver. 9: ‘‘ It was in the world,” viz. in the person of Jesus, when John was bearing witness. There is no mention here of its continual presence in humanity (B. Crusius, Lange), nor of the ‘‘lumiére innée” (Godet) of every man ; see on ver. 5. The triple repetition of κόσμος, which in its last occur- rence has the narrower sense of the world of mankind, gives prominence to the mournful, antitHesis ; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. p. 898]. — ἢ ν] not pluperfect (“Τὸ had been already always in the world, but was not rec- ‘ognized by it”), as Herder, Tholuck, Olshausen, and Klee maintain, but like ἦν in ver. 9. --καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ éyév.] Further prepara- tion, by way.of climax, for the antithesis, with reference to ver. 8. If the Light was in the world, and the world was made by it, all the more could and ought the world to have recognized it : it could, because it needed only not to close the inner eye against the Light, and to follow the impulse of its original necessary moral affinity with the creative Light ; it ought, be- cause the Light, shining within the world, and having even given existence to the world, could demand that recognition, the non-bestowal of which was ingratitude, originating in culpable delusion and moral obduracy. Comp. Rom. i. 19 ff. We need not attach to the «ai, which is simply con- junctive, either the signification although (Kuinoel, Schott), or the force of the relative (which was made by it, Bleek). —airév| the Logos, identi- fied with the Light, and spoken of as its possessor, according to vv. 4 ff. ; αὖ τοῦ was still neuter, bat the antithesis passes over into the masculine, because the object which was not recognized was this very personal mani- Jfestation of the Logos.—With regard to the last «ai, observe : ‘‘ cum vi pronuntiandum est, ut saepe in sententiis oppositionem continentibus, ubi frustra fuere qui καίτοι requirerent.”* Very often in John. Ver. 11. More particular statement of the contrast. Observe the grad~ ual advance to greater definiteness : ἦν, ver.-9 ; ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, Ver. 10 5 εἰς 1 Luther: “Of what avail is it that the also Delitzsch, Psychol. Ὁ. 348 [E. T. p. 410]. clear sun shines and lightens, if I shut my 2 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. Ὁ. 29 B. Comp, eyes and will not see his light, or creep Hartung, Partikell. Ὁ. 147. away from it beneath the earth?’ Comp. CHAP. F512. 57 τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε, Ver. 11.— etc τὰ ἴδια] to His own possession, [See Note IV. p. 95. ] is‘ to be explained of the Jewish people as specially belonging to the Messiah (Ecclus. xxiv. 7 ff.), as they are called in Ex. xix. 5, Deut. vii. 6, Ps. exxxv, 4, Isa. xxxi. 9, Jehovah’s possession ; from Israel salvation was to spread over all the world (iv. 22; Matt. viii. 12 ; Rom. i. 16). This interpreta- tion is required by the progress of the discourse, which by the use of ἦλθε excludes any reference to the world,’ as was proposed alongside of this by Chrysostom, Ammonius, Theophylact, Euth. Zig., and conjoined with it by Augustine and many others. ‘‘He was in the world,” and now follows His historical advent, ‘‘He came to His own possession.” Therefore the sympathy of God’s people, who were His own people, should have led them to reach out the hand to Him. —oi idcozc| the Jews. — rapé- λαβον])] They received Him not, i.e. not as Him to whom they peculiarly be- longed.* Observe that the special guilt of Israel appears still greater (οὐ παρέλαβον, they despised Him) than the general guilt of mankind (οὐκ ἔγνω). Comp. the οὐκ ἠθελήσατε of Matt. xxiii. 837; Rom. x. 21. In the negative form of expression (vv. 10, 11) we trace a deeply elegiac and mournful strain. ὶ Ver. 12. The mass of the Jews rejected Him, but still not all of them. Hence, in this fuller description of the relation of the manifested Logos to the world, the refreshing light is now (it is otherwise in ver. 5) joyfully rec- ognized and placed over against the shadow. —é2afov] He came, they re- cetwved Him, did not reject Him.*—The nominative ὅσοι stands with emphasis independent of the construction that follows. See on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14, xili, 12, xxili. 16; Acts vii. 40.—é£ovciav] not dignity or pre-eminence (Erasmus, Beza, Flacius, Rosenmiiller, Semler, Kuinoel, Schott), nor pos- sibility (de Wette, Tholuck), nor capability (Hengstenberg, Briickner), which does not reach the force of the word,° but He gave them full power (comp. v. 27, xvii. 2). The rejection of the Logos when He came in person, excluded from the attainment of that sacred condition of fitness—received through Him—for entering into the relationship of children of God, and they only who received Him in faith obtained through Him this warrant, this title (ἐπιτροπὴ νόμου, Plato, Dejin. p. 415 B). It is, however, an arrangement in the gracious decree of God ; neither a claim of right on man’s part, nor any internal ability (Liicke, who compares 1 John vy. 20 ; also Lange),—-a mean- ing which is not in the word itself, nor in the connection, since the com- mencement of the filial relationship, which is the consummation of that highest theocratic ἐξουσία, is conceived as a being born, ver. 13, and therefore as passive (against B. Crusius).—réxva θεοῦ] Christ alone is the Son of God, manifested as such from His birth, the μονογενής. Believers, from their knowledge of God in Christ (xvii. 3), become children of God, by being born 1 With Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, Lampe, and many expositors, also Liicke, Tholuck, Bleek, Olshausen, de Wet- te, B. Crusius, Maier, Frommann, K6stlin, Hilgenfeld, Luthardt, Ewald, Hengsten- berg, Godet, and most interpreters. 3 Corn. ἃ Lapide, Kuinoel, Schott, Reuss, Keim. 3 Comp. Matt. i. 20, xxiv. 40,41; Herod. i. 154, vii. 106; Plato, Soph. p. 218 B. 4 Comp. Υ. 43; Soph. Phil. 667, ἰδών τε καὶ λαβὼν φίλον. 5 Comp. Godet: “il les a mis en position.” 58 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of God (comp. 111. 3; 1 John iii. 9), 1.6. through the moral transformation and renewal of their entire spiritual nature by the Holy Ghost ; so that now the divine element of life rules in them, excludes all that is ungodly, and permanently determines the development of this moral fellowship of nature with God, onwards to its future glorious consummation (1 John iii. 2; John xvii. 24). See also 1 John iii. 9 and 1 Pet.i. 23. It isthus that John represents the idea of filial relationship to God, for which he always uses τέκνα from the point of view of a spiritual genesis,’ while Paul apprehends it from the legal side (as adoption, Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 5), regarding the spiritual renewal connected therewith (regeneration), the καινότης ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4), as a new creation (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15), a moral resurrection (Rom. vi.), and the like ; while the Synoptics (comp. also Rom. viii. 23) make the viofecia appear as first commencing with the kingdom of the Mes- siah (see on Matt. v. 9, 45 ; Luke vi. 35), as conditioned, however, by the moral character. There is no difference as to the thing itself, only in the manner of apprehending its various sides and stages. —toi¢ πιστείουσιεν, .7.A.| guippe qui eredunt, is conceived as assigning the reason; for it is as believers that they have fulfilled the subjective condition of arriving at son- ship, not only negatively, since they are no longer under the wrath of God and the condemnation of the law (ili. 36, 16, 17, v. 45), but also positively, in- asmuch as they now possess a capacity and susceptibility for the operation of the Spirit (vii. 38, 39). John doesnot say πιστεύσασιν, but πιστεύουσιν, for the faith, the entrance of which brought about the ἔλαβον, is thenceforth their enduring habitus.—ei¢ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) not essentially different from εἰς αὐτόν, but characterizing it more fully ; for the entire subject-matter of faith lies in the name of the person on whom we believe ; the wttered name contains the whole confession of faith. Comp. 11. 238, 111. 18, 1 John iii. 23, vy. 13. The name itself, moreover, is no other than that of the historically manifested Logos—Jesus Christ, as is self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. Comp. ver. 17; 1 John v. 1, ii. 22. Ver. 13. ΟἹ] refers to τέκνα ϑεοῦ (the masculine in the well-known constructio κατὰ σύνεσιν, 2 John 1, Philem. 10, Gal. iv. 19)," not to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, because , the latter, according to ver. 12, are said to become God’s children, so that ἐγεννήθησαν would not be appropriate. The conception ‘‘ children of God” is more precisely defined as denoting those who came into existence not after the manner of natural human generation, but who were begotten of God. 1 Hilgenfeld, indeed, will have it that those spoken of are already regarded as originally τέκνα θεοῦ (comp. ili. 6, Vill. 44, xi. 52), and attempts to escape the dilemma into which γενέσθαι brings him, by help of the interpretation: ‘‘the power by which the man who is born of God realizes this, and actually becomes what he is im himself according to his nature !” Thus we should have here the Gnostic semen arcanum electo- rum et spiritualium. See Hilgenfeld, Hvan- gélien, Ὁ. 233. The reproach of tautology which he also brings against the ordinary explanation (in his Zeifsch7. 1863, Ὁ. 110) is quite futile. The great conception of thé τέκνα θεοῦ, Which appears here for the first time, was in John’s eye important enough to be accompanied by a more detailed elucidation. Generally, against the anthro- pological dualism discovered in John by Hilgenfeld (also by Scholten), see Weiss, Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 128 ff.; also Weizsiicker in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 680f.; and even Baur, neutest. Theol. Ὁ. 359 ff. 2 Comp. Eurip. Suppl. 12, Androm. 571. CHAP. I., 13. 59 The negative statement exhibits them as those in whose coming into exist- _ence human generation (and consequently also Abrahamic descent) has no part whatever. This latter brings about no divine sonship, iil. 6.—ovk ἐξ αἱμάτων] not of blood, the blood being regarded as the seat and basis of the physical life (comp. on Acts xv. 20), which is transmitted by generation.* The plural is not to be explained of the commingling of the two seves (‘‘ ex sanguinibus enim homines nascuntur maris et feminae,” Augustine ; comp. Ewald), because what follows (ἀνδρός and the corresponding ἐκ ϑεοῦ) points simply to generation on the man’s side ; nor of the multiplicity of the children of God (B. Crusius), to which there is no reference in what follows ; quite as little does it refer to the continuos propagationum ordines from Adam, and afterwards from Abraham downwards (Hoelemann, p. 70), which must nec- essarily have been more distinctly indicated. Rather is the plural used in a sense not different from the singular, and founded only on this, that the material blood is represented as the sum-total of all its parts.°—The nega- tion of human origination is so important to John (comp. iii. 6), that he adds two further parallel definitions of it by οὐδέ--- οὐδέ (which he arranges co- ordinately); nor—nor, where σαρκός designates the flesh as the substra- tum of the generative impulse, not ‘‘the woman” (Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Zeger, Schott, Olshausen),—an interpretation which is most inappropriately supported by a reference to Gen. ii. 22, Eph. v. 28, 29, Jude 7, while it is excluded by the context (ἀνδρός, and what follows). The man’s generative will is meant, and this is more exactly, 7.6. personally, defined by ἐκ ϑελ. ἀνδρός, to which the contrasted ἐκ ϑεοῦ is correlative ; and hence ἀνήρ must not be generalized and taken as equivalent to ἄνϑρωπος (Liicke), which never occurs—even in in the Homeric πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε ϑεῶν τε only apparently—but here least of all, because the act of generation is the very thing spoken of. The following are merely arbitrary glosses upon the points which are here only rhetorically accumulated to produce an ever-in- creasing distinctness of description ; 6.5. Baumgarten Crusius: ‘‘ There is an advance here from the most sensual to the most noble” (nature, inclina- tion, will—in spite of the twice repeated Vedjuaroc!); Lange (ZL. J. HI. p. 558): ‘There is a progress from natural generation to that which is caused by the will, and then to that consummated in theocratic faith ;” Hoelemann : "σάρξ, meant of both sexes, stands midway between the universalis humani generis propagatio (αἵματα) and the proprius singularis propagationis auctor (ἀνήρ). Even Delitzsch refines upon the words, finding in ϑελήμ. σαρκός the unholy side of generation, though John has only in view the antithesis be- tween the human and the divine viewed in and by themselves. —éx ϑεοῦ 1 ὡς τοῦ σπέρματος VAHY TOD αἵματος ἔχοντος, Eustath. ad Hom. Il. vi. 211. Comp. De- litzsch, Pyschol. Ὁ. 246 [E. T. p. 230, and note]. Comp. Acts xvii. 26; Hom. JZ/. vi. 211, xx. 241; Soph. Aj. 1284, #/. 1114 ; Plato, Soph. p. 268 D; Liv. xxxviii. 28. Kypke and Loesner on the passage, Jnlerpp. ad. Virg. Aen. vi. 836 ; Horace, Od. ii. 20.6 ; Tib.i. 6. 66. 2 Kiihner, II. p. 28. Comp. Eur. Jon. 705, ἄλλων τραφεὶς ἀφ᾽ αἱμάτων ; Soph. Ant. 121, and many places in the tragedians where αἵματα is used in the sense of murder. Aesch. Fum. 163, 248; Eur. 27]. 187; Or. 1547, al. ; Monk, ad Eur. Ale. 512 ; Blomf. Gloss. Choeph. 60. Comp. Ecclus. xxii. 22, xxxi. 21; 2 Macc. xiv. 18; also Plato, Legg. x. p. 887 D, ἔτι ἐν γάλαξι τρεφόμενοι. 60 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ἐγεννήθ.] were begotten of God, containing the real relation of sonship to God, and thus explaining the former τέκνα ϑεοῦ, in so far as these were begot- ten by no human being, but by God, who through the Holy Spirit has re- stored their moral being and life, iii. 5. Hence ἐκ ϑεοῦ ἐγενν. is not tautolog- ical. ’Ex indicates the issuing forth from God as cause, where the relation of immediateness (in the first and last points) and of mediateness (in the second and third) lies in the very thing, and is self-evident without being distinctively indicated in the simple representation of John. Ver. 14. Kai] and ; not assigning a reason for the sonship just mentioned (Chrys., Theophyl., Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and several others); nor = οὖν (Bleek), nor in the sense of nainely (Frommann), nor yea (Godet), but sim- ply carrying forward the discourse, like every καί in the Prologue ; and not therefore pointing back to ver. 4 (Maldonatus) or to ver. 9 (de Wette), nor joining on to ver. 11 (Liicke : ‘‘ The Logos came not only to His own pos- session, but appeared visibly ;” so, substantially, also Baur and Hilgenfeld), which would be a merely apparent advance in the exposition, because the visible manifestation is already intimated by φαίνει in ver. 5 and in vv. 9- 13. No ; after having in vy. 4-13 spoken of the Logos as the light, of the melancholy contrast of the darkness of unbelief to that true light divinely attested by the Baptist, and of the exceedingly blessed agency which He has exercised on believers through the bestowal of the gift of sonship, the evan- gelist, on arriving at this last point, which expresses his own deepest and most blessed experience, can no longer delay formally and solemnly again to proclaim the great event by which the visible manifestation of the Logos— previously so frequently presupposed and referred to—had, with all its saving power, been brought about ; and thus by an outpouring of speech, which, prompted by the holiest recollections, soars involuntarily upwards until it reaches the loftiest height, to set forth and celebrate the mode of that mani- festation of the Logos which was attended with such blessed results (vv. 12, 15), and which he had himself experienced. The transition, therefore, is from what is said in vv. 12, 13 of the agency of the manifested Logos, to the nature and mode of that manifestation itself, i.e. consequently to the incarnation, as a result of which He, as Jesus Christ, exhibited the glory of the Only-begotten, and imparted the fulness of grace and truth,—that in- carnation which historically determined what is recorded of Him in vv. AR, 13. Accordingly καί is not definitive, ‘‘under such circumstances, with such consequences” (Briickner, who inappropriately compares Heb. iii. 19, where «ai connects the answer with the question as in continuous narration), but it carries onward the discourse, leading up to the highest summit, which even from ver. 5 shows itself as in,the distance. We must interpret it: and—to advance now to the most momentous fact in the work of redemp- tion, namely, how He who had come and wrought so much blessing was manifested and was able to accomplish such a work—the Word became flesh, etc. —6 Ξ λ 6γ ος] John does not simply say καὶ σὰρξ ἐγένετο, but he names the great subject as he had done in ver. 1, to complete the solemnity of the weighty statement, which he now felt himself constrained still to subjoin and to carry onward, as in joyful triumph, to the close of the Prologue.— CHAP, I., 14. 61 σὰρξ ἐγένετο) The word cdpé is carefully chosen, not as against the divine idea of humanity, which is here not in question,’ but as opposed to the purely divine, and hence also to the purely immaterial nature® of the Logos,* whose transition, however, into this other form of existence necessarily presupposes that He is conceived of asa personality, not as a principle (Beyschlag, Christol. p- 169); as is, besides, required by the whole Prologue. The incarnation of a principle would be for John an unrealizable notion. Just as decidedly is ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο Opposed to the idea that the Logos became more and more completely σάρξ (Beyschlag) during the whole unfolding of His earthly life. The ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e. a corporeal material being, visible and tangi- ble (1 John i. 2), which He was not before,* and by which evidently was in- tended the human mode of existence in which He appeared, and which was known to the reader in the person of Jesus. Ἔν σαρκὶ ἐλήλυθεν (1 John iv. 2 ; 2 John 7 ; comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16) is, in fact, the same thing, though expressed from the point of view of that modality of His coming which is conditioned by the σὰρξ ἐγένετο. As, however, ἐγένετο points out that He became what He was not before, the incarnation cannot be a mere accident of His substantial being (against Baur), but is the assumption of another real existence, where- by out of the purely divine Logos-Person, whose specific nature at the same time remained unaltered, and in order to accomplish the work of redemp- tion,° a really corporeal personality, 1.6. the God-man Jesus Christ (ver. 17), came into existence.® Since σάρξ necessarily carries with it the idea only of the ψυχή, it might seem as if John held the Apollinarian notion, that in Christ there was no human νοῦς, but that the λόγος took its place.* But it is not really so,° because the human ψυχή does not exist by itself, but in necessary connection with the πνεῦμα, "ἢ and because the N. T. (comp. viii. 40) 1 Against Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 459. 2 Hence also capé is selected for the pur- pose of expressing the full antithesis, and not σῶμα, because there might be a σῶμα without σάρξ (1 Cor. xv. 40, 44) ; and be- sides, the expression ὁ λόγος σῶμα ἐγένετο would not necessarily include the posses- sion of ahuman soul. John might also have written ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο (y. 27, Viii. 40), but σάρξ presented the antithesis of the two forms of existence most sharply and strikingly, and yet at the same time un- questionably designates the human person- ality (xvii. 2). it is said to be impossible to understand by the incarnation any proper assumption of humanity. %Clem. ad Cor. Il. 9, ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα ἐγένετο σάρξ ; comp. Hahn, Theol. ἃ. 1.97: * Comp. the well known ‘‘ Sum quod eram, nec eram quod sum, nunc dicor utrumque.” In Jesus Christ we have the absolute syn- thesis of the divine and the human. According to Baur, indeed, « 5 Chap. vi. ; Rom. viii. 3; Heb. ii. 14, 15. ® Comp. on the point, 1 John iv. 2; Phil. τ 1 Tim, iii; 163 Heb. ii. 14, v. 7. 7™See Schulz, Adbendm. Ὁ. 94 ff.; Weiss; Lehrbeqgr. p. 256. 8 Of late, Zeller in particular (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1842, I. 74) has limited the Johannean doctrine of the human element in the per- son of Jesus simply to His conporeity, ex- cluding any special human anima rationalis. Comp. also Kostlin, p. 148 ff., and Baur, neutest. Theol. Ὁ. 362. That σάρξ was the merely formal non-personal clothing of the Logos-subject (Pfleiderer, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 260), does not correspond with the conception of ἄνθρωπος, under which Christ represents Himself (viii. 40). This is also in answer to Scholten, who in like manner comes to the conclusion that, in John’s view, Jesus was man as to His body only, but the Logos as to His spirit. 9 566, on the other side, Mau, Progr. de Christolog. N. T., Kiel 1848, p. 13 ff. 10 Beck, bibl. Seelenl. § 18; Hahn, Theol. d. WP, I. '§ 154: 62 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. knows Jesus only as perfect man.’ In fact, John in particular expressly speaks of the ψυχή (xii. 27) and πνεῦμα of Christ (xi. 38, ΧΙ. 21, xix. 30), which he does not identify with the Logos, but designates as the substra- tum of the human self-consciousness (xi. 98).5 The transcendental charae- ter, however, of this self-consciousness, as necessarily given in the incarna- tion of the Logos, Weizsiicker has not succeeded, in his interpretation of the passages referred to, in explaining away by anything Jesus Himself says in this — Gospel. The conception of weakness and susceptibility of suffering,*® which Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others find in σάρξ, is quite remote from this verse (comp. 1 John iv. 2), where the point in question is simply that change in the divine mode of existence in which the σάρξ bears the δόξα ; and so also is any anti-Docetic reference, such as Frommann and others, and even de Wette and Lech- ler, imagine. —The supernatural generation of Jesus is neither presupposed nor included (as also Godet maintains), nor excluded,‘ in the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ éyé- vero, for the expression contains nothing as to the manner of the incarnation ; it is an addition to the primitive apostolical Christology, of which we have no certain trace either in the oldest Gospel (Mark), or in the only one which is fully apostolic (John), or anywhere in Paul: see on Matt. i. 18 ; comp. John v. 27, Rom. i. 8, 4. ---καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν) and tabernacled, i.e. took up His abode, among us: ἐσκήνωσεν here is chosen merely to draw our attention to the manifestation of the incarnate Logos, whose holy σκή- voua (2 Pet. i. 13) was in fact His human substance,* as the fulfilment of the promise of God’s dwelling with His people,® and therefore as the Sheki- nah which formerly revealed itself in the tabernacle and in the temple (see on Rom. ix. 4); an assumption which the context justifies by the words : ἐθεασ. τ. δόξαν αὐτοῦ. The Targums, in like manner, represent the Word 1 So John in particular. See Hilgenfeld, obstacle in his way! Further, according to Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 234 ff., who, however, explains the σὰρξ ἐγένετο from the Valentinian sys- tem, and attributes to the evangelist the notion of a corporeity, real indeed, but not fettered by the limitation of a material body, appealing to vi. 16 ff., vii. 10, 15, viii. 59, ii. 19 ff. Baur’s view is similar, though he does not go so far. Baur, p. 367. 2 Rightly has the church held firmly to the perfection (perfectio) of the divine and human natures in Christ in the Athanasian sense. No change and no defect of nature on the one side or the other can be justified on exegetical grounds, and especially no such doctrine as that of Gess, that by the incarnation the Logos became a human soul or a human spirit (comp. also Hahn, Theol. ἃ. N. T. 1.198 f.). This modification, which some apply to the κένωσις, is unscrip- tural, and is particularly opposed to John’s testimony throughout his Gospel and First Epistle. How little does Gess succeed in reconciling his view with Johny. 26, for example,—a passage which is always an Worner, Verhdlin. αἰ. Geistes zum. Sohne Gott. p. 27, the Logos became a soul. Against Hahn, see Dorner in the Jahrb. f. ἃ. Theol. 1856, p. 393 ff. 3 See on Acts ii. 17. 4 For assurecly the same subject, which in His divine essence was pre-existent as the eternal Logos, may as a temporal human manifestation come into existence and begin to be, so that in and by itself the manner of this origination, natural or supernatural, makes no difference in the conceivableness of the fact (against Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 222). 5In this He tabernacled among us not merely as a divine principle (Beyschlag), but as πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος (Col. il. 9), i.e. exactly what He was as the personal Logos. Thus His body was the temple of God (ii. 19), the true special dwelling of God’s gracious presence. 6 Ex. xxv. 8, xix.45; Lev. xxvi. 11; Joel 111. 21; Ezek. xxxvii. 27; Hagg. ii. 8: comp. Ecclus. xxiv. 8; Rev. xxi. 3. CHAPSI, 14, 63 (81D) as the 17°2W, and the Messiah as the manifestation of this. — ἐν ἡ xiv] refers to the ὅσοι ἔλαβον αὑτόν, vv. 12, 138, to whom John belongs, not ‘simply to the Twelve (Tholuck), nor to the Christian consciousness (Hil- genfeld), nor to mankind generally ; comp. ver. 16. The believers whom Jesus found are the fellowship who, as the holy people, surrounded the in- carnate Word, and by whom His glory was beheld (comp. 1 John i. 1). — καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα, x.t.A.] We must not (as most expositors, even Liicke, Frommann, Maier, de Wette) take this clause as far as πατρός to be a lively insertion, interrupting the narrative ; for the having beheld the δόξα is the essential element in the progress of the discourse. [See Note V. p. 96.] It is an independent part in the connection ; so that πλήρης yap. κ. ἀλ., which is usually joined grammatically with ὁ λόγος, is to be referred to αὐτοῦ in an irregular combination of cases, determined by the logical subject (B. Crusius, Briickner, Weiss, comp. Grotius), by which the nominative instead of the dependent case (Augustine read πλήρους) sets forth the statement more emphatically without any governing word.!—ryv δόξαν αὐτοῦ) the Majesty (W353) of the Logos, 2.6. of necessity the divine glory (in the O. T. symbolically revealing itself as the brilliant light which surrounded the manifestation of Deity, Ex. xxiv. 17, xl. 34 ff.; Acts vii. 2), so far as the Logos from His nature (see what follows) essentially participated there- in, and possessed it in and from His pre-existent state.” It presented itself to the recognition of believers asa reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man ; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it * (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognized by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1 John i. 1 ; comp. chap. 11. 11). The idea of an inner contempla- tion is opposed to the context (against Baur). The δόξα τοῦ λόγου, which before the incarnation could be represented to the prophet’s eye alone (xii. 41), but which otherwise was, in its essence, incapable of being beheld by man, became by means of the incarnation an object of external observation by the eye-witnesses (Luke i. 2 ; 1 John iv. 14) of His actual self-manifestation. We must, however, bear in mind that the manifestation of this divine glory of the Logos in His human state is conceived of relatively, though revealing , beyond doubt the divine nature of the Logos, and nothing else than that, yet as limited and conditioned on the one hand by the imperfection of human in- tuition and knowledge, and on the other by the state of humiliation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.) which was entered upon with the ‘‘ becoming flesh.” For the absolute glory, which as such is also the adequate ‘‘form of God,” was possessed by the Incarnate One—the Logos, who entered into our human life—only in His pre-evistent state (xvii. 5), and was resumed only after His exaltation (xii. 41, Xvii. 5, xxii. 24) ; while during His earthly life His δόξα as the manifesta- tion of the ἴσα εἶναι θεῷ was not the absolutely divine, but that of the God-man.' 1 See especially Bernhardy, p. 68; Heind. e.g. to the miracles, or even specially to the ad Plat. Tieaet. 89, Soph. ; Winer, p. 524 history of the transfiguration (Luke ix. 32; [E. T. p. 564]. Wetstein, Tittmann), are arbitrary. 2 Comp. Gess, Person Chr. p. 123. 4 Which indeed, even after His exaltation, $ All limitations to individual points, as is and ever continues to be that of the God- 64 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. See on Phil. ii. 8, note, and chap. xvii. 5. No distinction is hereby made between the divine and the theanthropic δόξα (as objected by Weiss) ; the difference is simply in the degrees of manifestation and appearance. Still Weiss is right in denying, as against Késtlin and Reuss, that there is in John no idea whatever of humiliation (comp. xii. 32, 34, xvii. 5). —dé6 Fav] more animated without Jé..— ὡς μονογεν οὔ ς] as of anonly-begotten, i.e. as belongs to such an one,’ corresponds to the nature of one who is μονογετῆὴς παρὰ πατρός; Chrysostom: οἵαν ἔπρεπε καὶ εἰκὸς ἔχειν μονογενῆ καὶ γνήσιον υἱὸν ὄντα, x.t.A. The idea of reality * (ὄντως) lies as little in ὡς as in the erroneously so called 3 veritatis (against Olshausen, Klee, and earlier writers) ; it involves rather the idea of comparison, approaching the meaning of quippe.*—yo- νογενῆς] of Christ, and regarded, indeed, in His divine nature, is Johan- nean, expressing the apostle’s own idea of Christ’s unique relationship as the son of God, i. 18, iii. 16, 18, 1 John iv. 9, though it is put into the mouth of Christ Himself in 111. 16, 18. Comp. the Pauline πρωτοτόκος, Col. i. 15, Heb. i.6, which as to the thing corresponds with the Johannean povoy- evic, but presents the idea in the relation of time to the creation, and in Rom. viii. 29 to Christianity. Movoy. designates the Logos as the only Son (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 88 ; Heb. xi. 17; Tob. viii..17 ; Herod. vii. 221; Plato, Legg. 111. p. 691 Ὁ ; Aesch. Ag. 898 ; Hes. ἔργ. 378), besides whom the Father has none, who did not, like the τέκνα θεοῦ (vv. 12, 13), become such by moral generation, nor by adoption, but by the intrinsic relation inhering in the divine essence, whereby He was in the beginning with God, being Him- self divine in nature and person, vv. 1, 2. He did not become this by His incarnation, but 7s this before all time as the Logos, and manifests Himself as the yovoy. by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the povoy. vide is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers ; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, ‘‘ who may be also conceived of retrospectively.” ° Finally, the designation corre- sponds to human relations, and is anthropomorphic, as is υἱὸς θεοῖ; itself,—a circumstance which necessarily limits its applicability as an expression of the metaphysical relation, which of course excludes the idea of birth as involy- ing the maternal function. Origen well remarks : τὸ δὲ ὡς povoy. παρὰ πατρ. νοεῖν ὑποβάλλει, Ex τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι TOV υἱὸν . . . εἰ yap Kai ἄλλα παρὰ πατρὸς ἔχει τὴν ὕπαρξιν, ματαίως ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἔκειτο φωνή. ---πατρό ς] without the article. Παρὰ πατρ. must be joined to povoy., to which it adds the definite idea of having gone forth, i.e. of having come from the Father man, though without limitation and perfect. —According to Weiss (Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 261), the δόξα of the Logos cannot be that of the originally divine essence itself, but one vouchsafed to Christ for the purpose of His works. This, however, is contrary to the express meaning of the word here, where by the τὴν δόξ. αὐτοῦ, «.7.A., we can only understand His proper glory brought with Him by the Logos into His incarnate life. As to xvii. 22, see on that passage. 1Comp. Hom. Od. a, 22f.; Dem. de. cor. 143 (p. 275, Reisk.): ᾿Αττικὴν εἰσάγεις... πόλεμον ᾿Αμφικτυονικόν, See Kriiger, § 59, 1. 3, 4. 2 Therefore povoy. is without the article. The expression is qualitative. 3 Euthymius Zigabenus : ὄντως. 4 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1002; see Kiih- ner, § 330. 5. 5 Weizsacker, 1862, p. 699. 5. Winer, p. 116 [E. T. p. 122]. πόλεμον εἰς τ. CHAP. I., 14. 65 (vi. 46, vii. 29, xvi. 27). [See Note VI. p. 96.] Correlative with this is ver. 18, ὁ ὧν εἰς τ. κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, Where the only-begotten Son who cume ' forth from the Father is viewed as having again returned to the Father. The conception of having been begotten, and thus of essential origin, would be expressed by the simple genitive (πατρός) ; or by the dative, or by ἐκ or ἀπό, but lies in the word jovoyevoi¢ itself ; since this expresses the very generation, and therefore the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι (Origen). Its con- nection with δόξαν (Erasmus, Grotius, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 120, Weiss ; already Theophyl.?) is in itself grammatically admissible (Plut. Agis, 2 ; Plato, Phaedr. p. 232 A ; Acts xxvi. 12), but is favoured here neither by the position of the words nor by the connection, which has no concern with the origin of the δόξα, but only with the designation of its nature ; moreover, the anarthrous yovoy. requires a more precise definition, which is exactly what it has in παρὰ πατρός. ---πλήρης Yap K.aA7O.] To be referred to αὐτοῦ as its subject, though this stands in the genitive. See above. It ex- plains how the Logos, having become incarnate, manifested Himself to those who beheld His glory. Grace and truth* are the two efficaciously saving and inseparable factors of His whole manifestation and ministry, not consti- tuting His δόξα (Luthardt),—a notion opposed to ii. 11 and xvii.,—but dis- playing it and making it known to those who beheld that glory. Through God’s grace to sinful man He became man ; and by His whole work on earth up to the time of His return to His Father, He has been the instrument of obtaining for believers the blessing of becoming the children of God. Truth, again, was what revealed itself in His entire work, especially by His preach- ing, the theme of which was furnished by His intuition of God (ver. 18), and which therefore must necessarily reveal in an adequate manner God’s nature and counsel, and be the opposite of darkness and falsehood. Comp. Matt. xi. 97. The truth (ἀλήθεια) corresponds formally to the nature of the Logos as light (φῶς) ; the grace (χάρις), which bestows everlasting life (iii. 15), to His nature as life (ζω), vv. 4, 5. That the χάρις κ. ἀλήθεια with which He was filled are divine grace and truth, of which He was the possessor and bearer, so that in Him they attained their complete manifestation (comp. xiv. 6), is self-evident from what has preceded, but is not specially indicated, as would necessarily have been done by the use of the article, which would have expressed the grace and truth (simply) κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. Ver. 16 f. is decisive against the construction of πλήρης with what follows (Erasmus, Paulus). Whether John, moreover, used the words rip. χάριτος x. ἀληθ. with any reference to Ex. xxxiv. 6 (Hengstenberg) is very doubtful, for M8 in that passage has a different meaning (truthfulness, fidelity). John is speaking independently, from his own full experience and authority as a witness. Through a profound living experience, he had come to feel, and here declares his conviction, that all salvation depends on the incarnation of the Logos. 1 Where, according to Hilgenfeld, the Matthew and Mark also do not use it; while author must have had in view the female Luke does not employ it in the sense of Aeons of the two first Syzygies of the Val- saving Christian grace, in which sense it first entinian system. John undoubtedly has occurs in the Acts and in Paul, the word χάρις only in the Prologue, but 66 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Ver, 15. [See Note VII. p. 96.] It is to this great fact of salvation to which the Baptist bears testimony, and his testimony was confirmed by the gracious experience of us all (ver. 16). — μαρτυρεῖ) Represents it as pres- ent, as if the testimony were still sounding forth. —xéxpaye] ‘ clamat Joh, cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum praeconem decet,” Bengel. He erieth, comp. vii. 28, 37, xii. 44 ; Rom. ix. 27. The Perfect in the usual classical sense as a present.’ Not so elsewhere in the N. T. Observe, too, the solemn circwmstantial manner in which the testimony is introduced : ‘* John bears witness of Him, and cries while he says.” —oitoc ἢν] ἦν is used, because John is conceived as speaking at the present time, and therefore as pointing back to a testimony historically past : ‘‘This was He whom I meant at the time when I said.” Witheiweiv τινα, ‘to speak of any one,” comp. x. 36.7. See on vill. 27.—6 ὀπίσω pov ἐρχόμ. ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν) ‘‘ Hewho cometh after me is here before me ;’—in how far is stated in the clause ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν, which assigns the reason. The meaning of the sentence and the point of the expression depend upon this,—namely, that Christ in His human manifestation appeared after John, but yet, as the pre-mundane Logos, preceded him, because He existed before John. On γίνεσθαι with an adverb, especially of place, in the sense of coming as in Vi. 25.° Both are adverbs of place, yet under the local image representing time and not rank (ἐντιμότερός μοί ἐστι, Chrysostom ; so most critics, with Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, de Wette),* which would involve a di- verse mode of construing the two particles (the first being taken temporally), and the sentence then becomes trivial, and loses its enigmatical character, since there is no reason why later comers should stand lower in dignity. Origen long ago rightly understood both clauses as relating to time, though the second is not therefore to be rendered ‘‘ He was before me” (Luther and many, also Briickner, Baeumlein), since ἦν is not the word ;° nor: ‘‘ He came into being before me,” which would not be referable ‘‘to the Ὁ. T. ad- vent of Christ” (Lange), but, in harmony with the idea of μονογενής, to His having come forth from God prior to all time. It is decisive against both, that ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἣν would be tautological,—an argument which is not to be set aside by any fanciful rendering of πρῶτος (see below). Nonnus well remarks : πρῶτος ἐμεῖο βέβηκεν, ὀπίστερος ὅστις ἱκάνει. Comp. Godet and Hengst.; alsoin his Christol. III. 1, p. 675, ‘‘my successor is my predeces- sor,” where, however, his assumption of a reference to Mal. iii. 1 is without any hint to that effect in the words. According to Luthardt (comp. Hof- mann, Weissag. u. Erf. Il. 256), what is meant to be said is: ‘‘ He who at first walked behind me, as if he were my disciple, has taken precedence of 1 Boar ... καὶ κεκραγώς, Dem. 271, 11; Soph. 4 This rendering is not ungrammatical (in Aj. 1136; Arist. Plut. 722. Vesp. 415. opposition to Hengstenberg), if only we 2Xen. Cyr. vii. 3.53 Plato, Crat. p.482C; maintain that, while adopting it, the local Hom. 11. ¢. 479. meaning of ἔμπροσθεν is not changed. 3 See Kriiger on Xen. Anab. i. 2.7%; Kiih- (Comp. Gen. xlviii. 20; Baruch ii. 5.) ner, II. p. 89; Nagelsbach, note on Iliad, 5 So, too, in Matt. xix. 8 and John xx. 7, ed. 3, p. 295. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. vii. 1. 22, γίνεσθαι does not mean esse, but fiert (against ἐγένετο ὄπισθεν τῶν ἁρμαμαξῶν ; Ando. Vii. 1. Baeumlein); so also in passages such as 10; i. 8, 24. Luke i. 5, 2)Pet. ii. 1. CHP. ΠΟ: 67 me, .6. He has become my master.” But the enigma of the sentence lies just in this, that ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμ. expresses something still futwre, as this also answers to the customary ἔρχεσθαι of the Messiah’s advent. Hofmann’s view, therefore, is more correct, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 10 ff.,—mnamely, that the meaning of the Baptistis, ‘‘ while Jesus is coming after him, he is already before Him.” But even thus ἐμπρ. μου yéy. amounts to a figurative designa- tion of rank, which is not appropriate to the clause ὅτε πρῶτός μου ἦν, Which assigns the reason, and manifestly refers to time. —é7e πρῶτός μου ἢν] is a direct portion of the Baptist’s testimony which has just been adduced,’ as ver. 30 shows, presenting the key to the preceding oxymoron : for before me He was in existence. The reference to rank,’ requiring our construing, ‘¢ He was more than I,” is overthrown by ἦν, for which we should have had ἐστίν. Comp. Matt. 111. 11. Only a rendering which refers to time (i.e. only the pre-existence of the Logos) solves the apparent opposition between sub- ject and predicate in the preceding declaration. — πρῶτος in the sense of πρότερος, answering to the representation, ‘‘first in comparison with me.” * We must not, with Winer and Baur, force in the idea of absolute priority.* This also against Ewald (‘‘far earlier’), Hengstenberg, Briickner, Godet (‘‘the principle of my existence”). To refuse to the Baptist all idea of the pre-evistence of the Messiah, and to represent his statement merely as one put into his mouth by the evangelist,° is the more baseless, the more pointed and peculiar is the testimony ; the greater the weight the evangelist attaches to it, the less can it be questioned that deep-seeing men were able, by means of such Ὁ. T. passages as Mal. 111. 1, Isa. vi. 1 ff., Dan. vii. 13 ff., to attain to that idea, which has also Rabbinical testimony in its support, °® and the more decidedly the harbinger of the Messiah, under the influence of divine revelation, took his stand as the last of the prophets, the Elijah who had come. Ver. 16. Not the language of the Baptist,” against which ἡμεῖς πάντες is decisive, but that of the evangelist continued. —é7x (see critical notes) in- troduces the personal and superabounding gracious experience of believers, with a retrospective reference indeed to the πλήρ. χάριτος x. ἀληθ., ver. 14, and in the form of a confirmation of John’s testimony in ver. 15: this testimony is justified by what was imparted to us all out of the fulness of Him who was borne witness to.—éx τοῦ πληρώμ. αὐτοῦ] out of that whereof He was Sull, ver. 14 ; πλήρωμα in a passive sense ; see on Col. i. 19. The phrase and idea were here so naturally furnished by the immediate context, that it is quite far-fetched to find their source in Gnosticism, especially in that of the 1 Against Hengstenberg. 2 Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, naw}, in relation to me.’? The comparison of A and Q in the Revelation is inapplicable Grotius, and most comm., also B. Crusius and Hofmann. 3 Comp. the genitive relation in πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, Col. i, 15. See Herm. ad Viger. p. 718; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 478; Bernhardy, Fratosth. 42, Ὁ. 192. : 4 Philippi, d. Hingang d. Joh. Ev., Ὁ. 179: “ He is the unconditioned first (i.e. the eter- here, because we have not the absolute o πρῶτος, but πρῶτός μου. Comp. xv. 18; and Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 74 [E. T. p. 84]. ‘6 Strauss, Weisse, B. Bauer, de Wette, Scholten, and many others. ὁ Bertholdt, Christol. p. 131. 7 Heracleon, Origen, Rupertus, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Lange. 68 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Valentinians.'— ἡ μ εἴ ς] we on our part, giving prominence to the personal experience of the believers (which had remained unknown to unbelievers), vv. 10, 11.—xdvrec] None has goneempty away. Inexhaustibleness of the πλήρωμα. ---ἐλάβομεν] absolute: we have received.—xai] and indeed.? — χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος] grace for grace, isnot to be explained,* NV. T. instead of O. T. grace,* or instead of the original grace lost in Adam (see especially Calovius), since in ver. 17 ὁ νόμος and ἡ χάρις are Opposed to each other, and since in the N. T. generally χάρις is the distinctive essence of Christian sal- vation (comp. especially Rom. vi. 14, 15) ; but with Beza and most modern expositors,° ‘‘so that ever and anon fresh grace appears in place of that already received.” ‘‘ Proximam quamque gratiam satis quidem magnam gratia sub- sequens cumulo et plenitudine sua quasi obruit,” Bengel. So superabundant was the λαμβάνειν ! This rendering is justified linguistically by Theogn. Sent. 344, ἀντ’ ἀνιῶν ἀνίας ; Philo, de poster. Caini, I. p. 254 ; Chrys. de sae. vi. 13,—as in general by the primary meaning of ἀντί (grace interchanging with grace) ; it corresponds, in the context, with the idea of the πλήρωμα, from which it is derived, and is supported further by the’ increasingly blessed condition of those individually experiencing it (justification, peace with God, consolation, joy, illumination, love, hope, etc.: see on Rom. v. 1 ff. ; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9). John might have written χάριν ἐπὶ χάριτι or χάριν ἐπὶ χάριν (Phil. ii. 27), but his conception of it was different. Still, any special reference to the fulness of the special χαρίσματα, 1 Cor. xii.—xiv. (Ewald), lies remote from the context here (ver. 17) ; though these; as in general any spiritual blessing (Eph. i. 3), wherewith God in Christ has blessed believers, are not excluded. Ver. 17. Antithetical confirmation of χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος ; ‘‘ for how high above what was formerly given by Moses, does that stand which came ‘through Jesus Christ ! Comp. Rom. iv. 15, x. 4; Gal. iii. 10ff., al. The former is the Jaw, viewed by Paul as the antithesis of grace (Rom. vi. 14, vii. 3; Gal. iv. 4, and many other passages), in so far as it only lays us under obligation, condemns us, and in fact arouses and intensities the need of grace, but does not bestow peace, which latter gift has been realized for us through Christ. The antithesis without μὲν----δέ has rhetorical force (iv. 22, vi. 05). ---ἡ χάρις] in the definite and formal sense of redemption, sao-: ing grace, i.e. the grace of the Father in the Son. Hence also καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια is added with a pragmatical reference to ver. 14 ; this, like all Christ’s gifts of grace, was included in the universal χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος of ver. 16. More- over, the ἀλήθεια was not given in the law, in so far as its substance, which was not indeed untrue, but an outflow of the divine will for salvation (Rom. 1 Schwegler, Hilgenfeld. 2See Winer, Ὁ. 407 [E. T. Ὁ. 437]; Har- tung, Partikeil. 1. 145. 3 With Chrysostom, Cyril, Severus, Non- nus, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Aretius, Calovius, Jansen, Wolf, Lampe, and many others, even Paulus. 1 Euthymius Zigabenus: τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην ἀντὶ τῆς παλαιᾶς. 5 Among whom, however, Godet regards the phrase with ἀντί as a play upon words, referring to the O. T. law of retaliation, ac- cording to which “ chaque grace était la ré- compense Dun mérite acquis.” But such an allusion would be inappropriate, since χάρις in ἀντὶ χάριτος is not something human, but divine. 6 Buttm. WV. 7. Gk. p. 344 (E. T. p. 364). CHAP. I., 18. 69 vii. 10 sqq. ; Acts vii. 38), was related only as type and preparation to the absolute revelation of truth in Christ and hence through its very fulfilment (Matt. v. 17) had come to be done away.* Comp. Gal. 111. 34. Grace was still wanting to the law, and with it ¢rwth also in the full meaning of the word. See also 2 Cor. 11. 13 ff. —éyéve7o0] The non-repetition of ἐδόθη is not to point out the independent work of the Logos,” with which διά is incon- sistent, or of God (Origen), whose work the law also was. It comes from a change of thought (not recognized by Liicke), in that each clause sets forth the historical phenomenon as it actually oceurred. In the case of the law, this took place in the historical form of being given, whereas grace and truth originated, came into being, not absolutely, but in relation to mankind, for whom they had not before existed asa matter of experience, but which now, in the manifestation and work of Christ, unfolded their historical origin. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 830.—Observe how appropriately, in harmony with the crea- tive skilful plan of the Prologue, after the incarnation of the Logos, and the revelation of His glory which was therewith connected, have been set forth with glowing animation, there is now first announced the great historical Name, Jesus Christ, which designates the incarnate Logos as the complete concrete embodiment of His manifestation. Comp. 1 Johni. 1-3. Only now is the Prologue so fully developed, that Jesus Christ, the historical per- son of the λόγος ἔνσαρκος (hence all the less, with Hofmann and Luthardt, to be understood immediately from the beginning under the Logos), comes before the eye of the reader, who now, however, knows how to gather up in this name his full theanthropic glory. Ver. 18 furnishes an explanation of what had just been said, that ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ "I. X. ἐγένετο, ;* for this there was required immediate knowledge of God, the result of experience, which His only-begotten Son alone possessed. — οὐδείς] no man, not even Moses. ‘‘ Besides is no doctor, master, or preacher, than the only Teacher, Christ, who is in the Godhead inwardly,” Luther ; comp. Matt. xi. 27.— ἑώρα κε] has seen, beheld (comp. iii. 11), of the beholding of God's essence (Ex. xxxiii. 20), to the exclusion of visions, theophanies, and the like.4 Agreeably to the context, the reference is to the direct vision of God’s essential glory, which no man could have (Ex. J.¢.), but which Christ possessed in His pre-existent condition as λόγος (comp. vi. 46), and possesses again since His exaltation. —6 ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπ. τοῦ πατρός] As ἐξήγησ. refers to the state on earth of the Only-begotten, ὧν con- sequently, taken as an imperfect, cannot refer to the pre-human state ;* yet it cannot coincide with ἐξήγη. in respect of time (Beyschlag), because the εἶναι εἰς τὸν KOA. τ. 7. Was not true of Christ during His earthly life (comp. espe- cially i. 52).° The right explanation therefore is, that John, when he wrote Som. στ: 4: ἸΟΟΪ, ΓΙ; 145. Heb, x. 1) ff, 4 Comp. 1 John iv. 12; also Rom. i. 20; vii. 18. ΘΟΕ ih sl) ima: 1s Wie 2 Clemens, Paedag. i. 7. 3 Not including any explanation of ἡ χάρις also (Luthardt), because ἑώρακε and ἐξηγή- σατο answer only to the conception of the truth in which the vision of God is inter- preted. . 5 Against Luthardt, Gess, pp. 123, 236, and others. 6 Hence we must not say, with Briickner, comp. Tholuck and Hengstenberg, that a relation of the μονογενής is portrayed which was neither interrupted nor modified by \ 70 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ὁ ὧν εἰς τ. Kk. τ. 7., expressed himself from his own present standing-point, and conceived of Christ as in His state of exaltation, as having returned to the bosom of the Father, and therefore into the state of the εἶναι πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Thus also must we explain the statement of direction towards, εἰς τὸν κόλπ., Which would be otherwise without any explanation (Mark ii. 1, xiii. 16; Luke xi. 7) ; so that we recognize in εἰς as the prominent element the idea of having arrived at,’ not the notion of leaning upon,* nor of moving towards, which is warranted neither by the simple ὧν (in favour of which such analogies as in aurem dormire are inappropriate) nor by εἰς, instead of which zpéc* or ἐπί with the accusative ought rather to be expected.° This forced interpretation of εἰς would never have been attempted, had not ὧν been construed as a timeless Present, expressing an inherent relation, and in this sense applied ° also to the earthly condition of the Son ; comp. Beyschlag, pp. 100, 150. So far as the thing itself is concerned, the εἶναι εἰς τὸν KéAr- does not differ from the εἶναι πρὸς τὸν θεόν of ver. 1 ; only it expresses the fullest fellowship with God, not before the incarnation, but after the exal- tation, and at the same time exhibits the relation of dove under a sensuous form (κόλπον) ; not derived, however, from the custom (xiii. 23) of reclining at table (thus usually, but not appropriately in respect of fellowship with God), but rather from the analogy of a father’s embrace (Luke vi. 22). In its pragmatic bearing, ὁ ὧν is the historical seal of the ἐξηγήσατο : but we must not explain it, with Hilgenfeld, from the Gnostic idea of the πλήρωμα. [See Note VIII. p. 97.] —éxeivoc] strongly emphatic, and pointing heaven- wards.’ --ἰ ξηγήσατο])] namely, the substance of His intuition of God ; comp. viii. 88. The word is the usual one for denoting the exposition, inter- pretation of divine things, and intuitions.* It does not occur elsewhere in the incarnation. The communion of the Incarnate One with God remained, He in God, and God in Him, but not in the same manner metaphysically as before His in- carnation and after his exaltation. He while on earth was still in heaven (iii. 13), yet not de facto, but de jure, because heaven was His home, His ancestral seat. 1So Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 120, II. 98 ; Weiss, Lehrbeqr. 239. 2 Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 537 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XIII. p. 71; Buttm. VW. 7. Gz. p. 286; [E. T. p. 333]. 3 Godet, after Winer, Lticke, Tholuck, Maier, Gess, and most others. 4 Hom. Jl. vi. 467. 5 Philippi’s objections (Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 409 f.) to my rendering are quite baseless. For an explanation of the ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπ. which occurs to every unprejudiced ex- positor as coming directly from the words themselves cannot be ‘‘arbitrary.”” And it is not contrary to the connection, as both Godet and Beyschlag hold, because what the words, as usually interpreted, say, is already contained in the ὁ μονογενὴς vids, whereupon ὃ ὧν, x.7.A. sets forth the exal- tation of the Only-begotten—just as in ὁ μονογ᾽ υἱός were given the ground and source of the ἐξηγήσατο---ἃ 5 its infallible confirma- tion. This also against Gess, p. 124. My interpretation is quite as compatible with earnest treatment of the deity of Christ (Heng- stenberg) as the usual one, while both are open to abuse. Besides, we have nothing at all todo here with the earnest- ness referred to, but simply with the corvect- ness or incorrectness of the interpretation. Further, I have not through fear of spirit- ualism (as Beyschlag imagines) deviated from the usual meaning, which would quite agree with iii. 13. 6 Liicke, Tholuck, de Wette, Lange, -Briickner, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and most expositors. 7 As with Homer (see Nitzsch, p. 87, note 1), so in the N. T. John pre-eminently re- quires not merely to be read, but to be spoken. His work is the epic among the Gospels. 8 Plato, Pol. iv. p. 427 C; Schneid. Theagq. p. 181; Xen. Cyr. viii. 8.11; Soph. 2. 417; CHAP; Το 18. 1} John, and hence a special reference in its selection here is all the more to be presumed, the more strikingly appropriate it is to the context (against ᾿ Liicke, Maier, Godet). Comp. LXX. Ley. xiv. 57. [See Note IX. p. 71]. Note.—The Prologue, which we must not with Reuss restrict to vv. 1-5, is not ‘A History of the Logos,’’ describing Him down to ver. 13 as He was before His incarnation, and from ver. 14 ff. as incarnate (Olshausen). Against this it is decisive that vv. 6-13 already refer to the period of His human existence, and that, in particular, the sonship of believers, vv. 12, 13, cannot be understood in any other than a specifically Christian sense. For this reason, too, we must not adopt the division of Ewald ; (1) The pre-mundane history of the Logos, vv. 1-8; (2) the history of His first purely spiritual agency up to the time of His incarnation, vy. 4-13; (3) the history of His human manifestation and ministry, vv. 14-18. John isintent rather on securing, in grand and condensed outline, a profound comprehensive view of the nature and work of the Logos 3 which latter, the work, was in respect of the world creative, in respect of man- kind illuminative (the Light). As this working of the Logos was historical, the description must necessarily also bear an historical character ; not in such a way, however, as to give a formal history, first of the λόγος ἄσαρκος (which could not have been given), and then of the λόγος ἔνσαρκος (which forms the substance of the Gospel itself), but in such a way that the whole forms a histori- cal picture, in which we see, in the world which came into existence by the cre- ative power of the Logos, His light shining before, after, and through His incarnation. This at the same time tells against Hilgenfeld, p. 60 ff., accord- ing to whom, in the Prologue, ‘‘the Gnosis of the absolute religion, from its immediate foundation to its highest perfection, runs through the series of its historical interventions.’’ According to Késtlin, p. 102 ff., there is a brief triple description of all Christianity from the beginning onwards to the present ; and this, too, (1) from the standing-point of God and His relation to the world, vv, 1-8; then (2) from the relations of the Logos to mankind, vv. 9-13 ; and lastly, (3) in the individual, vv. 14-18, by which the end returns to the beginning, ver. 1. But a triple beginning (which Kaeuffer too assumes in the Sdchs. Stud. 1844, p. 103 ff.) is neither formally hinted at nor really made : for, in ver. 9, ὁ λόγος is not the subject to ἦν, and this jv must, agreeably to the context, refer to the time of the Baptist, while K®6stlin’s construction and explanation of 7v—épyouevov is quite untenable ; and because in the last part, from ver. 14 onwards, the antithesis between receiving and not receiving, so essential in the first two parts, does not at all recuragain. The simple explana- tion, in harmony with the text, is as follows : The Prologue consists of three parts,—namely, (1) a description (a) of the primeval existence of the Logos, vv. 1, 2, and (b) of His creative work, ver. 3 (with the addition of the first part of ver. 4, which is the transition to what follows). Next, (2)a representation of Him in whom was life as the Light of mankind, ver. 4 ff., and this indeed (a)as He once had been, when still without the contrast of darkness, ver. 4, and (Ὁ) as He was in this contrast, ver. 5. This shining in the darkness is continuous (hence φαίνει, ver. 5), and the tragic opposition occasioned thereby now unfolds itself before our eyes onwards to ver. 13, in the following manner: ‘Though comp. the ἐξηγηταί in Athens: Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 109 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 1, 12. 92 . THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. John came forward and testified of the Light, not being himself the Light, but a witness of the Light (vv. 6-8,—though He, the true Light, was already evist- ing (ver. 9),—though He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, still men acknowledged Him not; though He came to I/is own, His own received Him not (vy. 10, 11); whereas those who did receive Him obtained from Him power to become the spiritual sons of God (vv. 12, 13.’’ Lastly, (3) this blessedness of believers, due to the Logos who had historically come, now constrains the apostle to make still more prominent the mode and fashion in which He was manifested in history (His incarnation), and had revealed His glory, vy. 14-18. Thus the Prologue certainly does not (against Baur) lift the histori- cal out of its own proper soil, and transfer it to the sphere of metaphysics, but rather unveils its metaphysical side, which was essentially contained in and connected with it, as existing prior to its manifestation, and in the light of this its metaphysical connection sums it up according to its essence and antithe- sis, its actual development and the proof of its historical truth being furnished by the subsequent detailed narrative in the Gospel. We may distinguish the three parts thus : (1) The premundane ewistence and creative work of the Logos, Vv. 1-4a ; (2) His work as the Light of men, and the opposition to this, vv. 4-18 ; (3) The revelation of His glory which took place through the incarnation, vv. 14-18. Or, in the briefest way : the Logos (1) as the creator ; (2) as the source of light 3 (3) as the manifestation of the God-man. ‘This third part shows us the Incarnate One again, ver. 18, where as ἄσαρκος He was in the beginning—d ὧν εἰς τ, κόλπ. τοῦ πατρός ; and the cycle is complete. Vv. 19, 20. The historical narrative, properly so called, now begins, and quite in the style of the primitive Gospels (comp. Mark i. ; Acts x. 36, 87, xiii, 23-25), with the testimony of the Baptist. —« ai] and, now first of all to narrate the testimony already mentioned in ver. 15; for this, and not another borne before the baptism, is meant ; see note foll. ver. 18. — airy] ‘‘ The following is the testimony of John, which he bore when,” ete.’ In- stead of ὅτι, the evangelist puts ὅτε, because the idea of time was with him the predominant one.? Had he written ὅτι, his thought would have been : ‘‘ Herein did his testimony consist, that the Jews sent to him, and he con- fessed,” etc. —oi Ἰουδαῖοι] means, even in such passages as this, where it is no merely indifferent designation of the people (as in ii. 6, 18, iii. 1, iv. 22, v. 1, xviii. 33 ff., and often), nothing else than the Jews ; yet John, writing when he had long severed himself from Judaism, makes the body of the Jews, as the old religious community from which the Christian Church had already completely separated itself, thus constantly appear in a hostile sense in face of the Lord and His work, asthe ancient theocratic people in corporate opposition to the new community of God (which had entered into their promised inheritance) and to its Head. How little may be de- duced from this as ground of argument against the age and genuineness of the Gospel, see my Jntrod. ὃ 8. For the rest, in individual passages, the 1 Following Origen and Cyril, Paulus and simplicity of John’s style. B. Crusius suppose that ore begins a new 2 Comp. Pflugk, ad Hee. 107 ; Ellendt, Lew. sentence, of which καὶ ὡμολόγησε, etc., isto Soph. 11. p. 393. be taken as the apodosis—contrary to the CHAP Fey 21. 73 context must always show who, considered more minutely as matter of his- tory, the persons in question were by whom the Jews are represented, as in this place, where it was plainly the Sanhedrim+who represented the people of the old religion. Comp. v. 15, ix. 22, xviii. 12, 31, etc. —x«ai Aevirac] priests, consequently, with their subordinates, who had, however, a position as teachers, and aspired to priestly authority (see Ewald and Heng- stenberg). The mention of these together is a trait illustrative of John’s precision of statement, differing from the manner of the Synoptics, but for that very reason, so far from raising doubts as to the genuineness, attesting rather the independence and originality of John (against Weisse), who no longer uses the phrase so often repeated in the Synoptics, ‘‘the scribes and elders,” because it had to him already become strange and out of date. — σὺ τίς ei] for John baptized (ver. 25), and this baptism had reference to Mes- siah’s kingdom (Hzek. xxxvi. 25, 26, xxxiii. 23 ; Zech. xiii. 1). He had, generally, made a great sensation as a prophet, and had even given rise to the opinion that he was the Messiah (Luke iii, 15 ; comp. Acts xiii. 25) ; hence the question of the supreme spiritual court was justified, Deut. xviii. 21, 22, Matt. xxi. 23. The question itself is not at all framed in a captious spirit. We must not, with Chrysostom and most others, regard it as prompt- ed by any malicious motive, but must explain it by the authoritative po- sition of the supreme court. Nevertheless it implies the assumption that John regarded himself as the Messiah ; and hence his answer in ver. 20, hence also the emphatic precedence given to the σύ ; comp. viii. 25. Lu- thardt too hastily concludes from the form of the question, that the main thing with them was the person, not the call and purpose of God. But they would have inferred the call and purpose of God from the person, as the question which they ask in ver. 25 shows. —é£ ‘Iepoc.] belongs to ἀπέστειλαν. ---καὶ ὡμολόγ.] still dependent on the ὅτε. ---ὧμολ. καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσ΄.] emphatic prominence given to his straightforward confession ; ὡς ἀληθὴς καὶ oreppdc, Kuthymius Zigabenus,?—x«at 0%.) The first «. dod. was absolute ;* this second has for subject the following sentence (ὅτε recita- tive). Moreover, ‘‘ vehementer auditorem commovet ejusdem redintegratio verbi,” ad Herenn. iv. 28. There is, however, no side glance here at the disciples of John (comp. the Introd.). To the evangelist, who had him- self been the pupil of the Baptist, the testimony of the latter was weighty enough in itself to lead him to give it emphatic prominence. — According to the right order of the words (sce crit. notes), ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ X., the emphasis lies upon ἐγώ ; Ton my part, which implies that he knew another who was the Messiah. Ver. 21. In consequence of this denial, the next point was to inquire whether he was the Elijah who, according to Mal. iv. 5, was expected (back from heaven) as the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. —ré οὖν] not, quid ergo es (Beza et al.), but as τίς does not again occur (vv. 19, 22): 1 Comp. ᾿Αχαιοί in Homer, which often 73: λέξω πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐκ ἀποκρύψομαι, See means the proceres of the Greeks. Bremi tm loc. ; Valcken. Schol. ad Act. xiii. 2 Comp. Eur. 2. 1057: Φημὶ καὶ οὐκ ἀπαρ- ati le νοῦμαι ; Soph. Ant. 443; Dem. de Chers. 108. 3 Add. ad Esth. i. 15, and in the classics. 74 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. what then is the case, if thou art not the Messiah ? what is the real state of the matter ?— Art thou Elijah? So put, the question assumes it as certain that John must give himself out to be Hlijah, after he had denied that he was the Messiah. —oix εἰμί] He could give this answer, notwithstand- ing what is said in Luke i. 17, Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10 (against Hilgen- feld), since he could only suppose his interrogators were thinking of the /iteral, not of the antitypical Elijah. Bengel well says: ‘‘ omnia a se amolitur, ut Christum confiteatur et ad Christum redigat quacrentes.” He was conscious, nevertheless, according to ver. 23, in what sense he was Elijah ; but taking the question as literally meant, there was no occasion for him to go beyond that meaning, and to ascribe to himself in a special manner the character of an antitypical Elijah, which would have been neither prudent nor profitable. The οὐκ εἰμί is too definite an answer to the definite question, to be taken as a denial in general of every externally de- Jined position (Briickner) ; he would have had to answer evasively. — ὁ 7 po- φήτης εἰ σύ) The absence of any connecting link in the narrative shows the rapid, hasty manner of the interrogation. ὁ προφήτης is marked out by the article as the well-known promised prophet, and considering the pre- vious question ᾿Ηλίας εἶ σύ, can only be a nameless one, and therefore not Jeremiah, according to Matt. xvi. 14,’ but the one intended in Deut. xviii. 15, the reference of whom to the Messiah Himself (Acts 111. 22, vii. 37 ; John 1. 46, vi. 14) was at least not universal (comp. vil. 40), and was not adopted by the interrogators here. Judging from the descending climax of the questions, they must rather have thought of some one inferior to Elijah, or, in general, of an individual undefined, owing to the fluctuation of view regarding Him who was expected as ‘‘ the prophet.”? Nonnus well expresses the namelessness and yet eminence of this ὁ προφήτης : μὴ ob μοί, ὃν καλέουσι, θεηγόρος ἐσσὶ προφήτης, ἄγγελος ἐσσομένων; Observe how the rigid denials be- come shortened at last to the bare oi. Here also we have a no on the Bap- tist’s lips, because in his view Jesws was the prophet of Deut. xviii. Vy. 22, 23. Nowcomes the question which cannot be met by a bare nega- tive ; ivaas in ix. 36.— The positive answer to this is from Isa. xl. 3 according to the LXX., with the variation εὐθύνατε instead of ἑτοιμάσατε, in unison with the second half of the words in the LXX. For the rest, see on Matt. iii. 3. The designation of himself, the herald of the coming Messiah calling men to repentance, as a voice, was given in the words of the prophet, and the accompanying βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ excludes the idea which Baur entertains, that John here intended to divest himself, as it were, of every personal characteristic. According to Hilgenfeld,*® the evangelist has put the passage of Scripture applied to the Baptist by the Synoptics (who, how- ever, have not tis account at all) ‘‘at last into the Baptist’s own mouth.” 1@Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Klee, answer taken from Isa. xl.. But if his inter- Lange. 2 Luthardt thinks of the prophet in the second portion of Isaiah. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. τ. Hrf. 11. p. 69. It would agree with this, that John immediately gives an ΕἼ rogators had had in mind Isa. xl. ff., they would probably have designated him whom they meant more characteristically, viz. as the servant of Jehovah. 3 Hvang. p. 236. CHAP. I., 24. 75 Ver. 24 ff. The inquiry, which proceeds still further, finds a pragmatic issue in pharisaic style (for the Sanhedrim had chosen their deputies from this learned, orthodox, and crafty party). From their strict scholastic standing-point, they could allow (οὖν) so thoroughly reformatory an innova- tion as that of baptism (see on Matt. ii. 5), considering its connection with Messiah’s kingdom, only to the definite personalities of the Messiah, Elijah, or the promised prophet, and not to aman with so vague a call as that which the Baptist from Isa. xl. 3 ascribed to himself,—a passage which the Phar- isees had not thought of explaining in a Messianic sense, and were not accustomed so to apply in their schools. Hence the parenthetical remark here inserted : ‘‘ And they that were sent belonged to the Pharisees,”—a state- ment, therefore, which points forward, and does not serve as a supplementary explanation of the hostile spirit of the question (Euthymius Zigabenus, Liicke, and most others). — The reply corresponds to what the Baptist had said of himself in ver. 23, that he was appointed to prepare the way for the Messiah. His baptism, consequently, was not the baptism of the Spirit, which was reserved for the Messiah (ver. 33), but a baptism of water, as yet without the elementum coeleste ; there was already standing, however, in their midst the far greater One, to whom this preparatory baptism pointed. The jirst clause of the verse; ἐγὼ Barr. ἐν ὕδατι, implies, therefore, that by Ais baptism he does not lay claim to anything that belongs to the Messiah (the baptism of the Spirit) ; and this portion refers to the εἰ σὺ οὐκ ei ὁ Χριστός of ver. 25. The second clause, however, μέσος, etc., implies that this preliminary baptism of his had now the justification, owing to his relation to the Messiah, of a divinely ordained necessity (ver. 23) ; since the Messiah, unknown indeed to them, already stood in their midst, and consequently what they allowed to Elijah, or the prophet, must not be left unperformed on his part ; and this part of his answer refers to the οὐδὲ ᾿Ηλίας οὐδὲ ὁ προφήτης in ver. 25. Thus the question τί οὖν βαπτίζεις is answered by a twofold reason. There is much that is inappropriate in the remarks of expositors, who have not sufli- ciently attended to the connection : ¢.g., de Wette overlooks the appropri- ateness of the answer to the Elijah question ; Tholuck contents himself with an appeal to the ‘‘laconic-comma style” of the Baptist ; and Briickner thinks that ‘‘ John wished to give no definite answer, but yet to indicate his relation to the Messiah, and the fact of his pointing to Him ;” while Baeumlein holds that the antithetical clause, ὃς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύμ. dy., intended to be here inserted, was forgotten, owing to the intervening sentences ; and final- ly, Hilgenfeld, from comparison of Matthew and Luke, deduces the unhis- torical character of the narrative. Heracleon already held that John did not answer according to the question asked of him, but as he αὐτὸς ἐβούλετο. In answer to him, Origen. —iy6] has the emphasis of an antithesis to the high Baptizer (μέσος δὲ, etc.), not to ὑμεῖς (Godet). Next to this, the stress lies on ἐν ὕδατι. This is the element (see on Matt. iii. 11) in which his baptism was performed. This otherwise superfluous addition has a limiting force, and hence is important. —uéoo0¢] without the spurious dé is all the more emphatic ; see on ver. 17. The emphasizing of the antithesis, however, brings this μέσος to the front, because it was the manifestation of the Messiah, 6 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. already taking place in the very midst of the Jews, which justified John in baptizing. Had the Messiah been still far off, that baptism would have lacked its divine necessity ; He was, however, standing in their midst, 7.e. ἀναμεμιγμένος τότε τῷ λαῷ (Euthymius Zigabenus). —év ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε) reveals the reason why they could question as they had done in ver. 25. The emphasis is on ὑμεῖς, as always (against Tholuck) ; here in contrast with the knowledge which he himself had (see on ver. 28, note) of the man- ifested Messiah : you on your part, you people, have the Messiah among you, and know Him not (that is, as the Messiah). In ver. 27, after rejecting the words αὐτός ἐστίν and ὃς ἔμπροσ. μου γέγονεν (see the critical notes), there remains only 6 ὀπίσω pov ἐρχόμενος (ver. 15), and that in fact as the subject of μέσος ἕστηκεν, Which subject then receives the designation of its superiority over the Baptist in the οὗ ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος, x.7-2. Concerning this designation, see on Matt. 111. 11. —éy6] I for my ραγί. --- ἄξιος ἵνα] worthy that I should loose ; ἵνα introduces the purpose of the ἀξιότης. Comp. ἱκανὸς iva, Matt. viii. 8, Luke vii. 6. —aizov] placed jirst for emphasis, and corresponding to the ἐγώ. Τούτου would have been still more emphatic. Ver. 28. On account of the importance of His public appearance, a defi- nite statement of its locality is again given. — A place so exactly described by John himself (xi. 18), according to its situation, as Bethany.on the Mount of Olives, cannot be meant here ; there must also have been another Bethany situated in Peraea, probably only a village, of which nothing further is known from history. Origen, investigating both the locality and the text, did not find indeed any Bethany, but a Bethabara instead? (comp. Judg. vii. 24 ?), which the legends of his day described as the place of baptism ; the legend, however, misled him. For Bethany in Peraca could not have been situated at all in the same latitude with Jericho, as the tradition rep- resents, but must have lain much farther north ; for Jesus occupied about. three days in travelling thence to the Judaean Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (see on xi. 17). Yet Paulus (following Bolten) understood the place to be Bethany on the Mount of Olives, and puts a period after ἐγένετο, in spite of the facts that τῇ ἐπαύριον (comp. ver. 35) must begin the new narration, and that ὅπου ἦν Iwdvy. βαπτ. must clearly refer to ver. 25 ff. Baur, however, makes the name, which according to Schenkel must be attributed to an error of anon-Jewish author, to have been invented, in order to represent Jesus (?) as beginning His public ministry at a Bethany, seeing that He came out of a Bethany at its close. Against the objection still taken to this name even by Weizsiicker (a name which a third person was certainly least of all likely to venture to insert, seeing that Bethany on the Mount of ogy is not at all appropriate to the position of Bethany on the Mount of Olives. Origen himself explains the name Bethabara with an evident intention to allegorize: οἶκος κατασκευῆς ( 2). The derivation of the name Bethany (Lightfoot: 1}. 1.3, house 1Qn αὐτοῦ after οὗ, see Winer, p. 140 [E. Tp 155]: 2 To suppose, with Possinus, Spicil. Huang. p. 32 (in the Catena in Mare. p. 382 f.), that both names have the same signification (WIAYP M3, domus transitus, ford-house ; MIS ΓΞ, domus navis, ferry-house),—a view to which also Lange inclines, Z. .7. IT. 461,—is the more uniczable, as this etymol- of dates; Simon: M1}), V3 locus depres- sionis ; others: N°)}' 3, domus miseri) is doubtful. CHAP. I., 28. rte Olives was so well known), see Ewald, Jahrb. XII. p. 214 ff. As to the historic truth of the whole account in vv. 19-28, which, especially by the real- ity of the situation, by the idiosyncrasy of the questions and answers, and their appropriateness to the characters and circumstances of the time, as well as by their connection with the subsequent designations of the day, reveals the recollections and interest of an eye-witness, see Schweizer, Ρ. 100 ff.; Bleek, Beitr. Ὁ. 950. ---“ῥφπου ἦν "Iwdvv. βᾶαπτ΄.]} where John was employed in baptizing. Note.—(1) Since, according to vv. 26, 27 (comp. especially ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, which implies his own personal acquaintance), the Baptist already knows the Messiah, while according to vv. 31-35 he first recognized Him at His baptism through a divine σημεῖον, it follows that the occurrences related in vy. 19-28 took place after the baplism of Jesus; and consequently this baptism could not have occurred on the same or the following day (Hengst.), norin the time between vy. 31 and 32 (Ewald). Wieseler, Ebrard, Luthardt. Godet, and most exposi- tors, as already Liicke, Tholuck, de Wette, following the older expositors, rightly regard the events of ver. 19 ff. as subsequent to the baptism. It is futile to appeal, as against this (Briickner), to the ‘‘ indefinileness’’ of the words ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, for there is really no indefiniteness in them ; while to refer them to a merely preliminary knowledge, in opposition to the definite acquaint- ance which began at the baptism, is (against Hengst.)a mere subterfuge. That even after the baptism, which had already taken place, John could say, ‘‘ Ye know Him not,” is sufficiently conceivable, if we adhere to the purely historical account of the baptism, as given in vy. 31-34. See on Matt. p. 111 ff. (2) Although, according to Matt. iii. 14, John already knows Jesus as the Messiah when He came to be baptized of him, there isin this only an apparent discrep- ancy between the two evangelists ; see on ver. 31. (8) Marki. 7, 8, and Luke iii. 16 ff., are not at variance with John ; for those passages only speak of the Messiah as being Himself near at hand, and do not presuppose any personal acquaintance with Jesus as the Messiah. (4) The testimonies borne by the Baptist, as recorded in the Synoptics, are, both as to time (before the baptism) and occasion, very different from that recorded in Johni. 19 ff., which was given before a deputation from the high court ; and therefore the historic truth of both accounts is to be retained side by 516,1 though in details John (against Weisse, who attributes the narrative in John to another hand; so Baur and others) must be taken as the standard. (5) To deny any reference in ver. 19 ff. to the baptism of Jesus (Baur), is irreconcilable with vv. 31 and 33 ; for the evan- gelist could not but take it for granted that the baptism of Jesus (which indeed Weisse, upon the whole, questions) was a well-known fact. (6) Definite as is the reference to the baptism of Jesus, there is to be found no allusion whatever in John’s account to the history of the temptation with its forty days, which can be brought in only before ver. 19, and even then involving a contradiction 1 Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 522, sees in John’s account “ot so much an historical narrative, as rather (Ὁ) a ‘‘very significant literary in- troduction to the Baptist, who to @ certain extent (?) is officially declaring himself. Ac- cording to Scholten, the Baptist, during his ministry, did not at all recognize Jesus as Messiah, and Matt. iii. 14, 15 is said to be an addition to the text of Mark ;” while the fourth Gospel does not relate the baptism of Jesus, but only mentions the revelation from heaven then made, because to narrate the former would not be appropriate to the Gnosis of the Logos. "8 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. with the Synoptics. [See Note X. p. 98.] The total absence of any mention of this—important as it would have been in connection with the baptism, and with John’s design generally in view of his idea of the Logos (against B. Cru- sius)—does not certainly favour the reality of its historic truth as an actual and outward event. Comp. Schleiermacher, LZ. J. p. 154. If the baptism of Jesus be placed between the two testimonies of ver. 19 ff. and ver. 29 ff. (so Hilgen- feld and Briickner, following Olshausen, B. Crusius, and others), which would oblige us still to place it on the day of the first testimony (see Briickner), though Baeumlein (in the Stud. αι. Krit. 1846, p. 389) would leave this uncertain ; then the history of the temptation is as good as expressly excluded by John, because it must find its place (Mark i. 12; Matt. iv. 1; Luke iv. 1) immediately after the baptism. In opposition to this view, Hengstenberg puts it in the period after iii. 22, which is only an unavailing makeshift. Ver. 29. Τῇ ἐπαύριον] on the following day, the next after the events narrated in vv. 19-28. Comp. vv. 35, 44 (ii. 1), vi. 22, xii. 12.—épyéu. πρὸς avt.| coming towards him, not coming to him, i.e. only so near that he could point to Him (Baur). He came, however, neither to take leave of the Baptist before His temptation (Kuinoel, against which is ver. 35), nor to be baptized of him (Ewald, Hengstenberg ; see the foregoing note) ; but with a purpose not more fully known to us, which John has not stated, be- cause his concern here was only with the testimony of the Baptist. If we were to take into account the narrative of the temptation,—which we are not,—Jesus might be regarded as here returning from the temptation.’—ide ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, x.t.A.] These words are not addressed to Jesus, but to those who are around the Baptist, and are suggested by the sight of Jesus ; comp. ver. 36. As to the use of the singular ide, when several are addressed, see on Matt. x. 16. The article denotes the appointed Lamb of God, which, according to the prophetic utterance presupposed as well known, was expected in the person of the Messiah. This characteristic form of Messianic expectation is based upon Isa. liii. 7. Comp. Matt. viii. 17 ; Luke xxii. 37 ; Acts viii. 32 ; 1 Pet. ii. 22 ff. ; and the ἀρνίον in the Apoc- alypse.2 The genitive is that of possession, that which belongs to God, 1.¢. the lamb appointed as a sacrifice by God Himself. This interpretation fol- lows from the entire contents of Isa. liii., and from the idea of sacrifice which is contained in ὁ αἴρων, «.t.A. We must not therefore render : ‘‘ the Lamb given by God” (Hofmann, Luthardt). But while, according to this view, the lamb, designated and appointed by God, is meant,—the lamb spoken of in holy prophecies of old, whose fulfilment in Jesus was already recog- nized by the Baptist,—it is erroneous to assume any reference to the paschal lamb.? Such an assumption derivés no support from the more precise defi- nition in ὁ αἴρων, κ.τ.2., and would produce a ὕστερον πρότερον ; for the view which regarded Christ as the paschal lamb first arose ex eventu, because He was crucified upon the same day on which the paschal lamb was slain (see 1See Euthymius Zigabenus, Liicke, Lu- 12; 6 λέων 6 ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, Rev. v. 5. thardt, Riggenbach, Godet. 3 Luther, Grotius, Bengel, Lampe, Olshau- 2 On the force of the article, see ver. 21, sen, Maier, Reuss, Luthardt, Hofmann, ὁ προφήτης ; also ἡ ῥίζα Tod Ἴεσσαί, Rom. XY. Hengstenberg ; comp. Godet. — : CHAP. 1.;'29. 79 on xviii. 28; 1 Cor. v. 7). He certainly thus became the antitype of the paschal lamb, but, according to the whole tenor of the passage in Isaiah, He was not regarded by the Baptist in this special aspect, nor could He be so conceived of by his hearers, The conception of sacrifice which, according to the prophecy in Isaiah and the immediate connection in John, is con- tained in ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, is that of the trespass-offering, DW, Isa. lili, 10 : 1 1 John 11. 2, iv. 10, 1. 7. It by no means militates against this, that, ac- cording to the law, lambs were not as.a rule employed for trespass-offerings (Lev. xiv. 2, Num. vi. 12, relate to exceptional cases only ; and the daily morning and evening sacrifices, Ex. xxix. 38 ff., Num. xxviii., which Wet- stein here introduces, were prayer- and thank-offerings), but for sacrifices of purification (Lev. v. 1-6, xiv. 12 ; Num. vi. 12) :? for in Isaiah the Servant of Jehovah, who makes atonement for the people by His vicarious sufferings, is represented as a lamb; and it is this prophetic view, not the legal pre- scription, which is the ruling thought here. Christ was, as the Baptist here prophetically recognizes Him, the antitype of the O. T. sacrifices : He must therefore, as such, be represented in the form of some animal appointed for sacrifice ; and the appropriate figure was given not in the law, but by the prophet, who, contemplating Him in His gentleness and meekness, repre- sents Him as a sacrificial /amb, and from this was derived the form which came to be the normal one in the Christian manner of view. The apostolic church consequently could apprehend Him as the Christian Passover ; though legally the passover lamb, as a trespass-offering, which it certainly was, differed from the ordinary trespass-offerings.* This Christian method of view accordingly had a prophetical, and not a legal foundation. To exclude the idea of sacrifice altogether, and to find in the expression Lamb of God the representation merely of a divinely consecrated, innocent, and gentle sufferer,* is opposed to the context both in Isaiah and in John, as well as to the view of the work of redemption which pervades the whole of the N. T. Weiss, Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 159 ff. —6 αἴρων τ. duaprt. τ. κόσμου] may either signify, ‘‘ who takes away the sin of the world,” or, ‘‘ who takes upon himself,” etc., i.e. in order to bear it. Both renderings (which Flacius, Melanchthon, and most others, even Baeumlein, combine) must, according to Isa. liii., ex- press the idea of atonement ; so that in the first the cancelling of the guilt is conceived of as a removing, a doing away with sin (an abolition of it) ; in the second, as a bearing (an expiation) of it. The latter interpretation is usually preferred,® because in Isa. lili. the idea is certainly that of bearing by way of expiation (SVJ: LXX. φέρει, ἀνένεγκε, ἀνοίσει). But since the LXX. never use aipev to express the bearing of sin, but always φέρειν etc., 1 As to the distinction between trespass or guilt and sin offerings, KNYNM, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 76 ff.; and for the various opinions on this distinction, especially Keil, Arch. 1. § 46; Oehler in Herzog’s Hneyki. X. p. 462 ff.; Saalschiitz, Jf 2. p. 321 ff. 2 Concerning DWN, Lev. vy. 6, see Knobel in loc. 3 Ewald, Alterth. Ὁ. 467 1.; Hengstenberg takes a different view, Opfer. d. h. Schr. p. 24 ff. 4 Gabler, οί. in Joh. i. 29, Jen. 1808- 1811, in his Opusc. Ὁ. 514 ff.; Paulus, Kui- noel. 5 So Liicke, B. Crusius, de Wette, Hengs- tenberg, Briickner, Ewald, Weber, v. Zorne Gotles, Ὁ. 250. 80 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. while on the other hand they express the taking away of sin by aipew;! and as the context of 1 John iii. 5, in like manner, requires us to take τὰς duap- τίας ἡμῶν apy, there used to denote the act of expiation (comp. ii. 2), as signifying the taking away of sins ; so ὁ αἴρων, etc., here is to be explained in this sense,—not, indeed, that the Baptist expresses an idea different from Isa. liii., but the expiation there described as a Zearing of sins is represented, according to its necessary and immediate result, as the abolition of sins by ~ virtue of the vicarious sacrificial suffering and death of the victim, as the John himself expresses this idea in 1 John 1. 7, when referring to the sin-cleansing power of Christ’s blood, which oper- ates also on those who are already regenerate,* by καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης The taking away of sins by the Lamb presupposes His taking them upon Himself. The interpretation ‘‘to take away,” in itself correct, is (after Grotius) misused by Kuinoel : ‘‘ removebit peccata hominum, 1.6. pra- vitatem e terra ;” * and Gabler has misinterpreted the rendering ‘‘ to bear :” ‘‘qui pravitatem hominum. . . 1.6. mala sibi inflicta, patienti et mansueto animo sustinebit.” Both are opposed to the necessary relation of the word to ὁ ἀμνὸς τ. θεοῦ, as well as to the real meaning of Isa. lili. ; although even Gabler’s explanation would not in itself be linguistically erroneous, but would have to be referred back to the signification, to take upon oneself, to take over.” — The Present ὁ αἴρων arises from the fact that the Baptist pro- phetically views the act of atonement accomplished by the Lamb of God as ἀθέτησις ἁμαρτίας, Heb. ix. 26.? ἁμαρτίας. present. This actis ever-enduring, not in itself, but in its effects (against Hengstenberg). Luthardt holds that the words are not to be understood of the future, and that the Baptist had not Christ’s death in view, but only regarded and designated Him in a general way, as one who was manifested in a body of weakness, and with liability to suffering, in order to the salva- tion of men. But this is far too general for the concrete representation of Christ as the Lamb of God, and for the express reference herein made to sin, especially from the lips of a man belonging to the old theocracy, who was himself the son of a sacrificing priest, a Nazarite and a prophet. —7)v ἁμαρτίαν] the sins of the world conceived of as a collective unity ; ‘‘una pestis, que omnes corripuit,” Bengel. Comp. Rom. v. 30. ---τοῦ κόσμου] an extension of the earlier prophetic representation of atonement for the people, Isa. liil., to all mankind, the reconciliation of whom has been object- ively accomplished by the ἱλαστήριον of the Lamb of God, but is accomplished subjectively in all who believe (iii. 15, 16). Comp. Rom. v. 18. Vote.—That the Baptist describes Jesusas the Messiah, who by His sufferings makes expiation for the world’s sin, is to be explained by considering his apoc- SAM: 2D, KEXV. 28s) Ads ΕΒ ΧΈΧΙ, Ὁ; where Symm. has ἀφέλῃς and the LXX. sin by His personal manifestation and min- istry throughout.”’ This is connected with ἀφῆκας. 39 Comp. already Cyril: ἵνα τοῦ κόσμον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνέλῃ ; Vulgate: qui ¢ollit; Goth.: afnimith. 3 See Diisterdieck in loc., p. 99 ff. 4Comp. Baur, V. 7. Theol. p. 396: ‘‘Ina general sense, He bears away and removes the error that we do not find in John the same significance attached to Christ’s death which we find in Paul. 5 Asch. Pers. 544; Soph. 77. 70; Xen. Mem. ivy. 4. 14; 1 Macc. xiii, 17; Matt. xi. 29, al. CHAP. (I.,, 30: 81 alyptic position, by which his prophecies, that had immediate reference to the person and work of Jesus, were conditioned ; comp, vy. 31 ff. It was not from a sudden glimpse of light obtained in a natural manner (Hofmann, Schweizer, Lange), or from agrowing presentiment (de Wette), or from a certitude arrived at by reason and deep reflection (Ewald) ; but from a revelation (comp. ver. 33). This was necessary in order to announce the idea of a suffering Messiah with such decision and distinctness, even according to its historical realization in Jesus ;—an idea which, though it had been discovered by a few deep-seeing minds through prophetic hints or divine enlightenment (Luke ii. 25, 34, 35), nevertheless undoubtedly encountered in general expectations of a kind dia- metrically opposite (xii, 34; Luke xxiv. 26),—and in order likewise to give to that idea the impress of world-embracing universality, although the way was already prepared for this by the promise made to Abraham. The more foreign the idea of a suffering Messiah was to the people in general ; the more disin- clined the disciples of Jesus showed themselves to accept such a view (Matt. xvi, 21 ; Luke xxiv, 25); the more certain that its unfolding was on the path of historical development, while even thus remaining a constant σκάνδαλον to the Jews ; at once the more necessary and justifiable does it appear to suppose a special divine revelation, with which the expression borrowed from Isa. liii. may very well be consistent. And the more certain it is that the Baptist really was the subject of divine revelations as the forerunner of the Messiah (comp. Matt. iii. 14), all the more unhistorical is the assumption that the evangelist divests the idea of the Messiah of its historical form (Keim) by putting his own knowledge into the Baptist’s mouth (Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schol- ten ; comp. de Wette’s doubt, but against this latter, Briickner), This view receives no support from the subsequent vacillation of the Baptist (Matt. xi. 3), because the revelation which he had received, as well as that made to him at the baptism ver. 32), would not exclude a subsequent and temporary falling in- to error, and because this was not caused by any sufferings which Jesus under- went, but by his own sufferings in the face of the Messianic works of Jesus, whereby the divine light previously received was dimmed through human weakness and impatience, It is only by surrendering the true interpretation (see ὁ αἴρων above) that Luthardt avoids such a supposition as this. The notion of a spiritualizing legend (Schenkel) is of itself excluded by the genuineness of the Gospel, whose author had been a disciple of the Baptist. Moreover, Jesus Himself, according also to the testimony of the Synoptics (Mark ii. 20 ; Matt. xii. 39, etc.), was sufficiently acquainted from the very first with the certainty of His final sufferings, Ver. 30 does not refer to vv. 26, 27, where John bears his witness before the deputies from the Sanhedrim, but to an earlier testimony borne by him before his disciples and hearers, and in this definite enigmatic form, to which ver. 15 likewise refers. So essential is this characteristic form, that of itself it excludes the reference to vv. 26, 27.’ The general testimony which John had previously borne to the coming Messiah, here receives its definite application to the concrete personality there standing before him, 1.6. to Jesus. —iari] not ἦν again, as in ver. 15, for Jesus is now present. —éy 6] possesses the emphasis of a certain inward feeling of prophetic certitude. — 1 De Wette, Hengst., Ewald, Godet, and others. 82 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. av%p] as coming from the Baptist, more reverential and honourable than ἄνθρωπος." ὶ Ver. 31. Κὶ ἀγώ] not J also, like all others, but and J, resuming and car- rying forward the ἐγώ of ver. 30. Though the Baptist had borne witness in a general way concerning the Messiah, as ver. 30 affirms, Jesus was, at the time when he bare that witness, still unknown to him as in His own person the historic Messiah. [See Note XI. p.99.] Ver. 34 shows that καί in κἀγώ is the simple and, for the thrice repeated κἀγώ, vv. 31-34, can only be arbitrarily interpreted in different senses. ~The emphasis of the ἐγώ, however (Ion my part), consists in his ignorance of the special individuality, in the face of the divine revelation which he had received. — οὐκ qdecv αὐτόν] that is, as the Messiah, see ver. 33; not ‘‘as the manifestation of a pre- existent personality” (Hilgenfeld); still not denying, in general, every kind of previous acquaintance with Jesus (Liicke, Godet), which the following ἕνα φανερωθῇ and ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε in ver. 26 forbid. This οὐκ ydew leaves it quite uncertain whether the Baptist had any personal acquaintance generally with Jesus (and this is by no means placed beyond doubt by the legendary prefatory history in Luke i. 36 ff., which is quite irreconcilable with the text before us). That Jesus was the Messiah became known to the Baptist only at the baptism itself, by the sign of the descending dove ; and thissign was immediately preceded only by the prophetic presentiment of which Matt. iii. 14 is the impress (see on that passage). Accordingly, we are not to assume any contradiction between our text and Matt. /.c.,* nor leave the οὐκ ἤδειν With its meaning unexplained :3 nor, again, are we to interpret it only comparatively as a denial of clear and certain knowledge.*—aa2’ iva φανερωθῇ, x.7.2.] emphatically beginning the clause, and stating the pur- pose of the Baptist’s manifestation as referring to Messiah, and as still apply- ing notwithstanding the κἀγὼ οὐκ den, and being thus independent of his own intention and choice, and purely a matter of divine ordination. —iva φανερωθῃ) This special purpose, in the expression of which, moreover, no reference can be traced to Isa. xl. 5 (against Hengstenberg), does not ex- clude the more generally and equally divine ordinance in ver. 23, but is in- cluded in it. Comp. the tradition in Justin, 6. Zryph. 8, according to which the Messiah remained unknown to Himself and: others, until Elijah anointed Him and made Him manifest to all (φανερὸν πᾶσι ποιήσῃ). ---ὸδν τῳ ὕδατι βαπτίζων] a humble description of his own baptism as compared with that of Him who baptizes with the Spirit, ver. 33 ; comp. ver. 26. Hence also theéyé, Jon my part. For the rest, we must understand ἐν τ. id. Barr. of John’s call to baptize in general, in which was also included the con- ception of the baptizing of Jesus, to which ver. 32 refers.* Ver. 82. What John had said in ver. 31, viz. that though Jesus was un- 1 Acts xvii. 31; Zech. vi. 12; Dem. 426.6; Tischendorf), following B. C. 6. L. P. A. &., Herod. vii. 210; Xen. Hier. vii. 3. cursives, and some of the Fathers, reads év 2 Strauss, Baur, and most others. ὕδατι : but the article after ver. 26, comp. 3 Briickner. ver. 33, would be more easily omitted than 4 Neander, Maier, Riggenbach, Hengsten- inserted. It is demonstrative, for John as berg, Ewald. he speaks is standing by the Jordan, ‘For ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, Lachmann (now also CHAP. 1... 90. 89 known to him as the Messiah, yet his commission was to make him known to the people, needed explanation ; and that as to the way in which he himself had come to recognize Him as the Messiah. This was, indeed, a necessary con- dition before he could make the manifestation to the people. This explana- tion he now gives in the following testimony (not first spoken upon another occasion, Ewald) concerning the divine sign, which he beheld. And the evangelist considers this testimony so weighty, that he does not simply con- tinue the words of the Baptist, but solemnly and emphatically introduces the testimony as such: καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν, K.T.A., words which are not therefore parenthetical (Bengel, Liicke, and most), but form an impressive part of the record : ‘‘ And a testimony did John bear, when he said.” The following ὅτι is simply recitative. —re@éapwar] I have seen ; Perfect, like ἑώρακα in ver. 34, which see. The phenomenon itself took place at the bap- tism, which is assumed as known through the Gospel tradition, and is refer- red to in ver. 83 by ὁ πέμψας pe βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, which implies that the sign was to take place at the baptism of the person spoken of. This is in answer to Baur, p. 104 ff., according to whom there is no room here for the supposition that Jesus was baptized by John,—an assertion all the more groundless, because for inserting the baptism of Jesus before ver. 19, and with this for the narration of a fact which is assumed as universally known, there is no place in the plan of this Gospel. —The sight itself here spoken of was nomere product of the imagination, but a real vision ; it indicates an actual event divinely brought about, which was traditionally worked up by the Synoptics into a visible occurrence more or less objective (most unhesitatingly by Luke) but which can be the subject of testimony only by virtue of a θεωρία νοητικῆ (Origen). See on Matt. ili. 17, note. —dc¢ περιστεράν) 1.6. shaped like a dove: ἀντίτυπον μίμημα πελειάδος, Nonnus. See on Matt. ii. 16. According | to Ewald, ‘‘the sudden downward flight of a bird, coming near to Him at the moment, confirmed the Baptist’s presentiment,” ctc. Conjectures of this kind are additions quite alien to the prophetic mode of view. —«Kai ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν] The transition here to the finite verb is owing to the importance of the fact stated.’ ἐπ’ αὐτόν, however, is not synonymous with ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ (xix. 31); the ideais, ‘‘it remained (‘fluttered not away,’ Luther) directed towards Him.” We are to suppose the appearance of a dove coming down, and poising itself for a considerable time over the head of the person. See on ἐπί with the accusative (iii. 36 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14), seem- ingly on the question ‘‘ where ?’” Ver. 33. John’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah (whom he had not before known as such) rested upon a revelation previously made to him with this intent ; and this he now states, solemnly repeating, however, the declaration of his own ignorance (κἀγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν). --- ἐκεῖνος] in em- phatic contrast with his own reflection. —eizev] i.e. by express revelation. We cannot tell the precise time or manner of this prior revelation. By it John was referred to some outwardly visible σημεῖον (idy¢) of the Spirit, in a 1 Bernhardy, p. 473; Buttmann, WV. 7. Gk. 2 Schaef. ad Long. Ὁ. 427; Matthiae, p. Ὁ: 827 ΕΗ T. p. 382]. 1375; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. i. 2. 2. 84 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. general way, without any defining of its form. He was to see it descending, and this descent took place in the form of a dove, and after that divine inti- mation there was no room for doubt. Comp. on Matt. iii. 17, note. —éy’ ὃν av idyc] that is, when thou baptizest Him with water. This is not express- ly stated in the divine declaration, but John could not fail so to understand it, because, being sent to baptize, he would naturally expect the appearance of the promised sign while fulfilling His mission ; comp. ver. 31. He therefore describes the giver of the revelation as ὁ πέμψας με, x.7.A., and the evangelist puts the statement in the conditional form : ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν, «.7.2., d.¢., according to the connection of the narrative : ‘‘ When, in the fulfilment of this your mis- sion, you shall see the Spirit descending upon one of those whom thou baptizest, this is He,” etc. —év πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ] by communicating it to those who believe upon Him. See on Matt. iii. 11. The designation of this communi- cation as a baptism very naturally arose from its close relation to the work of the Baptist’s mission,’ because the gift of the Spirit, according to the prophetic figure (Joel iii. 1; Isa. xliv. 3), had been promised under the form of an outpouring (comp. Acts ii. 33). The contrast itself distinctly sets before us the difference between the two baptisms : the one was a prepara- tion for the Messianic salvation by repentance; the other, an introduction thereto by the divine principle of life and salvation, the communication of which presupposes the forgiveness of sins (see on Mark i. 4). Ver. 34. A still more distinct and emphatic conclusion of what John had to adduce from ver. 31 onwards, in explanation of the οὗτός ἐστίν mentioned in ver. 30. —Kxay6] and Ionmy part, answering triumphantly to the double κἀγώ in vv. 31, 88. —édpaxa] i.e. as the divine declaration in ver. 33 had promised (idyc). This having seen is to the speaker, as he makes the declara- tion, an accomplished fact. Hence the Perfect, like τεθέαμαι in ver. 82. Nor can the μεμαρτύρηκα be differently understood unless by some arbi- trary rendering : it does not mean : ‘‘ I shall have borne witness” (de Wette, Tholuck, Maier), as in the classics the aorist is used (see on vi. 86) ; or, ‘I have borne witness, and do so still” (Grotius, Liicke), or ‘‘ testis sum factus” (Bengel, comp. Bernhardy, p. 378 ff.) ; but, Z have borne witness, that is, since I saw that sight ; so that, accordingly, John, immediately after the baptism of Jesus, uttered the testimony which he here refers to as an accom- plished fact, and by referring to which he ratifies and confirms what he now has testified (ver. 30).*— ὅτε οὗτος, κιτ.}.1 the subject-matter of the μεμαρτ. ---ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ] the Messiah, whose divine Sonship, however, had already been apprehended by the Baptist in the metaphysical sense (against Beyschlag, Ὁ. 67), agreeably to the testimony borne to His pre- existence in vv. 80, 15.*° The heavenly voice in Matt. iii. 17, in the synop- tic account of the baptism, corresponds to this testimony. All the less on this account are the statements of the Baptist concerning Jesus to be regarded as unhistorical, and only as an echo of the position assigned to the former in the Prologue (Weizsiicker). The position of the Baptist 1 Comp. Matt. 111. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii, 8 ὅττι θεοῦ γόνος οὗτος, ἀειζώοιο τοκῆος, ἴδ: ΑΙΟΙΒῚΝ ὧν ταὶς 10. Nonnzus. . 3 Comp. also Winer, p. 256 [Th. T. p. 273]. [9.4] Cr CHAP. I., 34. in the Prologue is the result of the history itself. That the meaning attaching to υἱὸς τ. θεοῦ in the fourth Gospel generally is quite different from that which it has in the Synoptics (Baur), is a view which the passages Matt. xi, 27, xxviii. 19, should have prevented from being entertained. Note.—On vv. 32-34 we may obserye in general ; (1) The λόγος and the πνεῦμα ἅγιον are not to be regarded as identical in John’s view,! against which the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο in ver. 14 is itself conclusive, in view of which the πνεῦμα in our passage appears as an hypostasis distinct from the λόγος, an hypostasis of which the σὰρξ ἐγένετο could not have been predicated. The λόγος was the substratum of the divine side in Christ, which having become incarnate, entered upon a human development, in which the theanthropic subject needed the power and incitement of the πνεῦμα. (2) He was of necessity under this influence of the Spirit from the very outset of the development of His thean- thropic consciousness (comp. Luke ii. 40, 52, and the visit when twelve years old to the temple), and long before the moment of His baptism, so that the πνεῦμα was the awakening and mediating principle of the consciousness which Jesus possessed of His oneness with God ; see on x. 36. Accordingly, we are not to suppose that the Holy Ghost was given to Him now for the first time, and was added consciously to His divine-human life as a new and third element ; the text speaks not of a receiving, but of a manifestation of the Spirit, as seen by John, which in this form visibly came down and remained over Him, in order to point Him out to the Baptist asthe Messiah who, according to O. T. prophecy (Isa. xi. 2, xlii. 1), was to possess the fulness of the Spirit. The pur- pose of this divine σημεῖον was not, therefore (as Matthew and Mark indeed represent it), to impart the Spirit to Jesus (which is not implied even in iii. 34), but simply for the sake of the Baptist; to divinely indicate to him who was to make Him known in Israel, that individuality who, as the incarnate Logos, must long before then have possessed the powers of the Spirit in all their fulness (comp. ili. 84). The πνεῦμα in the symbolic form of a dove hovered over Jesus, remained over Him for a while, and then again vanished (comp. Schleiermacher, LZ. J. p. 150). This the Baptist saw ; and he now knows, through a previously received revelation made to him for the purpose, who it is that he has to make known as the Messiah who baptizes with the Spirit. To find in this passage a special stimulus imparted through the Spirit to Jesus Himself, and perceived by the Baptist, tending to the development or opening up of His divine-human consciousness and 116,5 or the equipment of the Logos for a coming forth from his state of immanence (Frommann), or the communica- tion of official power,* as the principle of which the Spirit was now given in order to render the capé fit to become the instrument of His self-manifestation,* —as in a similar way B. Crusius already explained the communication of the Spirit as if the πνεῦμα (in distinction from the λόγος) were now received by Jesus, as that which was to be further communicated to mankind j—these and all . 1 Against Baur, δὲδί. Theol. ἃ. N. T. ΤΙ. 268; J. E. Chr. Schmidt, in d. Bibl. f. Krit. κι. Μεγ. 1. 3, p. 361 ff.; Eichhorn, Hind. 11’ 158 ff.; Winzer, Progr., Lps. 1819. 2Liicke, Neander, Tholuck, Osiander, Ebrard, de Wette, Riggenbach, and others ; comp. Lange and Beyschlag, p. 103. 3 Gess, Pers. Chr. Ὁ. 374; comp. Worner, Verhdltn. αἰ. Geistes, p. 44. 4Luthardt, after Kahnis, vom heiligen Geiste, Ὁ. 44; comp. also Hofmann, Schrift- dew. I. 191, 11. 1, 166; Godet; and Weisse, Lehrbegr. p. 268, who connects with yer. 52. 86 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. such theories find no justification from our Gospel at least, which simply records a manifestation made to the Baptist, not a communication to Jesus ; and to it must be accorded decisive weight when brought face to face with those other diverging accounts. Thus, at the same time, the whole phenome- non must not be regarded as an empty, objectless play of the imagination (Liicke) : it was an objective and real sign divinely presented to the Bap- tist’s spiritual vision, the design of which (iva φανερωθῇ τῷ ᾿Ισραῇλ, ver. 31, that is, through the Baptist’s testimony) was sufficiently important as the γνώρισμα of the Messiah,! and the result of which (ver. 34) corresponded to its design ; whereas, the supposition that we have here a record of the receiving of the Spirit imports into the exposition something quite foreign to the text. Dis- carding this supposition, we deprive of all support the opinion that the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at His baptism is a mythical inference of Ebionitism (Strauss), as well as the assertion that here too our Gospel stands upon the verge of Gnosticism (Baur) ; while the still bolder view which (in spite of the βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) takes the πνεῦμα to be, not the Holy Spirit, but the Logos (in spite of i. 14), which as a heavenly Aeon was for the first time united at the baptism with Jesus the earthly man (so Hilgenfeld, following the Valen- tinian Gnosis), does not even retain its claim to be considered a later historical analogy. There remains, however, in any case, the great fact of which the Baptist witnesses—‘‘ the true birth-hour of Christendom’’ (Ewald) : for, on the one hand, the divinely sent forerunner of the Messiah now received the divinely re- vealed certainty as to whom his work as Elijah pointed ; and, on the other hand, by the divinely assured testimony which he now bore to Jesus before the people, the Messianic consciousness of Jesus Himself received not only the consecration of a heavenly ratification, but the warrant of the Father's will, that now the hour was come for the holy beginning of His ministry in word and work. It was not the formation of the Messiah’s purpose, but rather His entrance on its realization (comp. Acts xiii. 23) which was the event of world-historical sig- nificance that marked this hour, when the fulness of time was come for the ac- complishment of the counsel of God. Vv. 35, 36. Πάλεν εἱστήκει) pointing back to ver. 29. —dio] One was Andrew, ver. 41. The other? Certainly John himself,’ partly on account of that peculiarity of his which leads him to refrain from naming himself, and partly on account of the special vividness of the details in the following account, which had remained indelibly impressed upon his mem- ory ever since this first and decisive meeting with his Τιοτα. ---ὀἀὠἀὀμ βλέψας] denoting fixed attention.* The profoundest interest led him to fix his gaze upon Him. —ide ὁ ἀμνὸς τ. θεοῦ] These few words were quite sufficient 1 Justin. 6. Tryph. 88. 2 Already Chrysostom (according to Cor- derius, Cat.; Theodore of Mopsuestia) men- tions the same view, but along with it the other: ὅτι ἐκεῖνος οὐχὶ τῶν ἐπισήμων Hv, Which he seems to approve of.—But if John is here already (and see on yer. 42) indicated though not by name, and afterwards (ver. 46) Bartholomew under the name Nathanaed ; if, again, ver. 42 implies that James is brought to Jesus by his brother John, and that he therefore has his place after John; then we certainly cannot say, with Steitz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, Ὁ. 497): ‘The order in which Papias, in Euseb. iii. 39, quotes the six apostles, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, exactly cor- responds with that in which these names occur in succession in the fourth Gospel.” 3 Comp. ver. 43; Mark x. 21, 27, xiv. 6735 uke, 17. σὴ: ΟῚ, CHAP. I., 37-40. δὲ to direct the undivided attention of both to Him who was passing that way ; for, beyond a doubt (against de Wette, Ewald,—because the fact that nothing is now added to the ὁ ἀμνὸς τ. θεοῦ gives the words quite a retrospec- tive character), they had been witnesses the day before of what is recorded in vv. 29-34. The assumption of a further conversation not here recorded! is unnecessary, overlooks the emphasis of the one short yet weighty word on which hangs their recollection of all that occurred the day before, and moreover is not required by ver. 837. — We need not even ask why Jesus, who was now walking along (περίπατ.) in the same place, was with John, because the text says nothing about it. Answers have been devised ; 6.0. Bengel : ‘‘ Jesus had sufficiently humbled Himself by once joining Himself with John ;” Lampe: ‘‘He wished to avoid the suspicion of any private understanding with the Baptist.” Equally without warrant in the text, B. Crusius and Luthardt: ‘‘ Jesus had already separated Himself from the Baptist to begin His own proper ministry, while the Baptist desired indi- rectly to command his disciples to join themselves with Jesus ;” as Heng- stenberg also supposes, judging from the result, and because he at the same time regards the two as representatives of all John’s disciples. Vv. 37-40. And the two disciples heard (observed) him speak. For he had not addressed the words ide ὁ ἀμνὸς τ. θεοῦ Airectly to them, but in general (comp. ver. 29) to those round about him.—7«0A0bt070av] not the fol- lowing of discipleship, nor in a ‘‘ sens profondément symbolique” (Godet), but simply : ‘‘ they went after Him” (ὀπίστεροι ἦλθον ὁδῖται Χριστοῦ νεισσομένοιο, Nonnus), in order to know Him more intimately.* Nevertheless Bengel rightly says: primae origines ecclesiae Christianae.—cor7pa¢eic| for He heard the footsteps of those following Him.—7ri ζητεῖτε] what do you desire? He anticipates them by engaging in conversation with them, not exactly because they were shy and timid (Euthymius Zigabenus). But no doubt the significant θεασάμενος, x.7.A. (intuitus), was accompanied by a glance into their hearts, 11. 9. --- ποῦ μένεις) correlative to the repira- τοῦντι, ver. 36 ; therefore : ‘‘ where dost thou sojourn ?”* They regarded Him as a travelling Rabbi, who was lodging in the neighbourhood at the house of some friend. —ipyeabe Kk. ὄψεσθε) come and ye will see (see the criti- cal notes) ; a friendly invitation to accompany Him at once.* They had sought only to know where the place was, so that they might afterwards seek Him out, and converse with Him undisturbed. We have not here the Rabbinical form of calling attention, T81) δὲ 3," nor an imitation of Rev. vi. 1 (Weisse), nor yet an allusion to Ps. Ixvi. 5, 9, and a gentle reference on the part of Jesus to His Godhead (Hengstenberg), for which there was no occa- sion, and which He could not expect to be understood. —7A0o0v, «.7.A. | marks the simplicity of the narrative. —yévevr] insertion of the direct address, common in dependent clauses. Kiihner, 11. 594 ; Winer, p. 251 1 Kuinoel, Liicke, and most. place where He was lodging was near or 2 πεῖραν λαβεῖν αὐτοῦ, Euthymius Zigabe- remote, although Ewald would infer the nus. latter from the reading ὄψεσθε. 3 Polyb. xxx. 4. 10; Strabo, iii. p. 147. 5 Buxt. Lex. Talm. Ὁ. 248; Lightfoot, p. 4 There is nothing to indicate whether the 968. 88° THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. [Εἰ. T. p. 268]. — rv ἡμέρ. ἐκ.] 1.6. the remaining part of that day, not at once from that day onwards (Credner, against whom is Ebrard),— δεκάτη) that is, at the beginning of their stay with Him. We have no reason to suppose in John, as Rettig,’ Tholuck, Ebrard, Ewald, the Roman mode of counting the hours (from midnight to midnight, therefore ten o'clock in the morning) instead of the Jewish, which is followed elsewhere in the N. T. and by Josephus (Vit. 54), 1.9. four o’clock in the afternoon ; because there is time enough from 4 p.m, till late in the evening to justify the popular expression τὴν ἡμέρ. éx.; because, moreover, in xi. 9 it is plainly the Jewish method which is followed ; which also in iv. 6 best suits the context, and is not excluded in iv. 52, while in xix. 14 it is with a harmon- istic view that the Roman reckoning is resorted to. The Remans themselves, moreover, frequently measured the day after the Babylonian computation of the hours, according to the twelve hours from sunrise to sunset ; and the tenth hour especially is often named, as in our text, as the hour of return from walking, and mention of it occurs as a date hour in the day, when e.g. the soldiers were allowed to rest,? or when they went to table,* etc. See Wetstein. — The great significance of this hour for John (it was the jirst of his Christian life) had indelibly impressed it on his grateful recollection, and hence the express mention of it here. This consideration forbids our giving, with Hilgenfeld and Lichtenstein, to the statement of time an onward ref- erence to the incident next mentioned, the finding by Andrew of his brother Simon. Briickner, too, imports a foreign element into this statement of time, when he says that it indicates, in connection with ver. 41 ff., how rapidly faith developed itself in these disciples. Vy. 41-43. Still on the same day (not on the following, as, after the early expositors, de Wette, Baur, Luthardt, Ewald, and most others suppose ; see, on the contrary, the ἐπαύριον which again appears, but not till ver. 44), Andrew first meets his brother Simon. —zpéroc] We must understand the matter thus : Both disciples go out from the lodging-place (at the same time, or perhaps Andrew first), still in the first fresh glow of joy at having found the Messiah,* that each of them may seek his own brother (we must assume that both brothers were known to be in the neighbourhood), in order to inform him of the new joy, and to bring him to Christ. Andrew is the first ° who finds his brother. John does not say that he also sought his brother James, found him, and brought him to Jesus ; and this is in keeping with the delicate reserve which prevents him from naming either himself or those belonging to him (even the name of James does not occur in the Gospel), Still this may be clearly seen from the πρῶτος, and is con- 1 Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 106. 2 Liv. ix. 37. 3 Martial, vii. 1. 4 John’s use here and in iy. 95 οὗ τὸν Μεσσίαν (FWD) is accounted for by the depicting of the scene exactly as it occurred whereas in i. 20, 25, when he simply writes historically, he uses the ordinary transla- tion Χριστός. The genré picture is spe- cially minute ; so here. According to Baur, N. T. Theol. p. 393, the author has given an antiquarian notice, as it were, of this He- brew name, which occurs nowhere else in the N. T. 5 πρῶτος, not πρῶτον, an inelegant change adopted by Lachmann, after A. B. M. X. N**, CHAP. I., 44, 45. 89 firmed by the narrative of the Synoptics, in so far that both James and John are represented as being called at the same time by Jesus (Mark i. 19 and parallels). Bengel, Tholuck, de Wette, Hengstenberg, wrongly say that Andrew and John both sought out Simon. The τὸν ἴδιον is against this ; as it neither here nor elsewhere (comp. v. 18) occurs as a mere pos- sessive (against Liicke, Maier, de Wette, and others), but in opposition to that which is foreign. Any antithetic relation to the spiritual brotherhood in which John as well as Andrew stood to Simon (Hengstenberg), is quite remote from the passage. —etp74«ajev| emphatically beginning the clause, and presupposing the feeling of anvious desire excited by the Baptist. The plural is used because Andrew had in mind the other disciple also. —é uv 8 2é- wac¢, k.t.A.| This fixed look (ver. 36) on the countenance of Simon pierces his inner soul. Jesus, as the Searcher of hearts,’ sees in him one who should hereafter be called to be the rock of the church, and calls him. by the name which he was henceforth to bear as His disciple (not first in Matt. xvi. 18, as Luthardt thinks). in which, however, the sense of confidant (counsellor) of Caesar exists ; but faithful to the emperor, friendly to him, and devoted to his interests. — He who makes himself a king, by the fact, that is, of declaring himself to be such (comp. x. 33), thereby declares himself (ἀντιλέγει) against the emperor. Accordingly, ἀντι- λέγει has not the more general meaning : he opposes ;* but the emphasis lies upon the correlates βασιλέα and Καίσαρι. Ver. 13. These speeches penetrate the mind of Pilate, dismayed at the thought of Rome and the emperor. He will now, formally and solemnly, deliver the final sentence, which must be done, not in the praetorium, but outside in the open air : ὃ he therefore causes Jesus to be brought out, and seats himself, taking his place on the judicial seat, at the place which is called Li- thostroton,but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. — ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος] Modal defining of ἐκάθ. εἰς τόπον. --- Since τόπος here denotes a definite and distinguished place, the article is as little required as with πόλις, ἀγρός, and the like in such cases.° —The place where the tribunal stood, before the praetorium in Jerusalem, bore the Gree&X name, derived from its Mosaic floor,’ of Λιθόστρωτον, 1.6. stone-strown, but in the Aramaic dialect that of 8D3i, arising from its elevated position ; two different names, therefore, derived from different properties" of the same place. The place is mentioned neither in Josephus nor in the Rabbins, The name Ta, is not to be derived from 1}!23, hill 1 So also Luthardt and Lange. 2x. 80; Luke y. 18, xiii. 24, xix. 3; Acts XXVii. 30, e¢ al. 3 Josephus, Anét. xviii. 8. 1ff. ; Philo, de legat. a@ Caj. p. 1033. 4 Suetonius, 7%b. 58; Tacitus, An. iii. 38. Comp. Hausrath, Christi. Zeitgesch, I. p. 312 ff. 5 See Wetstein; Grimm on 1 Macc. ii. 18. 6 Xen. Ana. iii. 2. 5. 7 Grotius, de Wette, Maier. 8 See Josephus, Bell. ti. 9. 3, 11. 14. 8. 9Comp. Matt. xxvii. 33; Kiihner, II. p. 129. 10 See Wetstein and Krebs, p. 158 f. 11 Ewald attempts to refer Ta8Bada also back to the signification of λιϑόστρωτον by assuming a root Yj, but in the significa- tion of 520 (Aram. : insert). Too bold an hypothesis. In the LXX. λιϑοστρ. (Cant. iii, 10; 2 Chron. vii. 3; Esth. i. Ὁ corre- sponds to the Hebr. As. 508 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. (Hengstenberg), against which would be the double β,᾽ but from 13, ridge, hump.? Ver. 14. Day and hour of the decisive moment, after which the narrative then proceeds with καὶ λέγει, k.7.4., Without the necessity of placing ἦν δὲ . ἕκτη ina parenthesis (rather, with Lachm. and Tisch., between two points). — παρασκ. τοῦ πάσχα] That the παρασκευή may not be understood of the weekly one, referable to the Sabbath,® but may be referred to the Pass- over feast-day, of which it was the preparation-day, John expressly subjoins τοῦ πάσχα. It was certainly a Mriday, consequently also a preparation-day before the Sabbath ; but it is not this reference which is here to be remarked, but the reference to the paschal feast beginning on the evening of the day, the first feast day of which fell, according to John, on the Sabbath. The expression corresponds to the Heb. NODT 3), not indeed verbally (for παρασκευή = 8DAN)), but as to the thing. Those expositors who do not rec- ognize the deviation of John from the Synoptics in respect of the day of Jesus’ death (see on xviii. 28), explain it as: the Friday in the Passover week.* But it isin the later ecclesiastical language that παρασκ. first denotes direct- ly Friday,° as frequently also in the Constitt. ap., and that in virtue of the reference to be therewith supplied to the Sabbath ; which, however, cannot be here supplied, since another genitival reference is expressly given. An appeal is erroneously made to the analogy of Ignat. Phil. 13. interpol., where it is said that one should not fast on the Sunday or Sabbath, πλὴν ἑνὸς σαββάτου τοῦ πάσχα ; for (1) σάββατον in and of itself is a complete designation of a day ; (2) σάββ. τοῦ πάσχα here denotes by no means the Sabbath in the Easter-tide, but the Sabbath of the Haster-day, i.e. the Saturday which pre- cedes Easter-day, Easter-Saturday. And the more decidedly is this harmon- istic and forced solution to be rejected, since the remaining statements of time in John place the death of Jesus before the first feast-day ; °:and since John, if he had had the first feast-day before himas the day of death, would not have designated the latter (subtle evasions in Hengstenberg), with such a want of distinctness and definiteness, as ‘‘the Friday in Passover” (which in truth might have also been any other of the seven feast-days), especially here, where he proceeds with a precision that states even the λον}. Against Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 1 ff., who, by referring rapack. to the feast of harvest, likewise brings out the 15th Nisan as the day of death, but makes it a Wednesday, see Wieseler, p. 388 f. —éxry] According to the Jewish reckoning of hours, therefore twelve o’clock at noon,—again a deviation from the Synoptics, according to whom (see Mark xv. 25, with which also Matt. xxvii. 45, Luke xxiii. 44 agree) Jesus is crucified as early as nine o'clock in the morning, which variation in fixing so important a date includes much 1 Comp. TaBata, Josephus, Andé. v. 1. 29, Wichelhaus, p. 209 f., and Hengstenberg in vi. 4. 2. loc., also Riggenbach. 2 See generally Fritzsche, Verdiensie Tho- 5 See Suicer, 7hesaur. luck’s, Ὁ. 102; Tholuck, Beir. p. 119 ff. 6 See on xiii. 1, xviii. 28. 3 Vy. 31, 42; Luke xxiii.54; Mark xv. 42; 7 Comp. further Bleek, Beitr. p. 114 f.; Matt. xxvii. 62; Josephus, Antz. xvi. 6. 2, Riickert, Abendm. p. 31 ff.; Hilgenfeld, et al. Paschastr. p. 149 f., and in his Zeitschr, 1867, 4See especially Wieseler, p. 336 f.; p. 190. CHAP. XIx., 14. 509 too large a space of time to allow us to resolve it into a mere indefinite- ness in the statement of the hour, and, with Godet, following Lange, to say lightly : ‘‘the apostles had no watch in hand,” especially as according to Matt. and Luke the darkening of the earth is expressly ascribed to the sixth hour. Since, however, with Hofmann,’ with whom Lichtenstein agrees, we cannot divide the words : ἦν dé παρασκευῆ, τοῦ πάσχα Opa jv ὡς ἕκτη, but it was preparation-day, it was about the siath hour of the paschal feast (reckoned, namely, from midnight forwards), which forced and artificial explanation would absolutely set aside παρασκευή, in spite of τοῦ πάσχα therewith expressed, and would yield an unexampled mode of computation of hours, namely, of the feast, not of the day (against i. 40, iv. 6, 52) ; since, further, the reading in our present passage is, both externally and internally, certain, and the already ancient assumption of a copyist’s mistake? is purely arbitrary ; since, further, as generally in John (comp. oni. 40, iv. 6, 52), the assumption is groundless, ° that he is reckoning according to the Roman enumeration of hours ;* since, finally, the guarter of a day beginning with this hour cannot be made out of the third hour of Mark,® and just as little (HIengstenberg, comp. Godet) can the sixth hour of John (comp. iv. 6) be taken into consideration only as the teme of day in question ; °—the variation must be left as it is, and the pref- erence must be given to the disciple who stood under the cross. Nor is the Johannean statement of the hour in itself improbable, since the various pro- ceedings in and near the praetorium, in which also the sending to Herod, (Luke xxiii. 7 ff., is to be included (see on xviii. 38), may probably have extended from πρωΐ, xviii. 28, until noon (in answer to Briickner) ; while the execution, on the adjacent place of execution, quickly followed the ju- dicial sentence, and without any intermediate occurrence, and the death of Jesus must have taken place unusually early, not to take into account the space which ὡσεί leaves open.’ For the way, however, in which even this statement of time is deduced from the representation of the paschal lamb as 1JIn the Zeitschr. 7. Prot. u. Kirche, 1853, Oct. p. 260 ff., and Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 204 f. 2 Eusebius, Beza, ed. 5, Bengel; accord- ing to Ammonius, Severinus, τινὲς in Theo- phylact, Petavius: an interchange of the numeral signs y and ¢. 3In fact, it is precisely in the present passage that the inadmissibility of the Roman enumeration of hours in shown. For if Jesus was brought πρωΐ, xviii. 28, to the praetorium, it is impossible that after all the transactions which here took place, including the scourging, mocking, and also the sending to Herod (who questioned Him ἐν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς, Luke xxiii. 9, and derided Hiim), the case can have been matured for sentence as early as six o’clock in the morning, that is, at the end of about two, or at most three hours. 4 Rettig, Tholuck, Olshausen, Krabbe, Hug, Maier, Ewald, Isenberg ; substantially so Wieseler, p. 414, who calls to his aid the first feast-day, Ex. xii. 29, which begins precisely at midnight. 5 Calvin, Grotius, Jansen, Wetstein, and others, comp. Krafft, p. 147; see in opposi- tion, Mark xv. 33, 34. 6 On this theory Hengstenberg forms the certainly very simple example: the com- bination of the statements of Mark and John yields the result, that the sentence of condemnation and the leading away falls in the middle, between the third and sixth hour, therefore avout 10.30 o’clock. Were this correct, the statements of both evange- lists would be incorrect, and we should avoid Scylla to fall into Charybdis.—Godet only renews the idle subterfuge that in Mark xv. 25 the crucifixion is reckoned Srom the scourging forwards. 7 Comp. Marcus Gnost. in Irenaeus, Zaer. i. 14.6: τὴν ἕκτην ὥραν, ἐν ἣ προσηλώϑη τῷ ξύλῳ, 510 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. an attempt to bring out the DIN 03, Ex. xii. 6 ; Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 3), see, in Weisse, Hvangelienfrage, p. 131. —ide ὁ βασιλ. ὑμῶν 1] Pilate is indeed determined, on ascending his judicial seat, to overcome his senti- ment of right ; but, notwithstanding, in this decisive moment, with his moral weakness between the twofold fear of the Son of God and of the Caesar, he still, before actually yielding, makes the bitter remark against the Jews : see, there is your king! imprudently, ineffectually, but at least satisfying in some degree the irony of the situation, into the stress of which he sees himself brought. Vv. 15, 16. The bitterness is still further embittered. To the impetuous clamour which demands crucifixion, the question of Pilate : your kingshall I crucify ? is only the feeble echo of ide ὁ Bac. ὑμ., Whereupon, with the decisive οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα, x.7.2.,—ecisive, though treacherously denying the claim of the Hierarchy,—the again awakened fear of the emperor at last completely disarms the procurator, so that now thus (τότε οὖν) comes out the tragic and ignominious result of his judicial action.’— αὐτοῖς] to the chief priests, ver. 15. ΤῸ these Jesus was given over, and that as a matter of fact, not merely by the sentence of itself (Hengstenberg), that He might be crucified under their direction by Roman soldiers.2 Comp. viii. 28 ; Acts 11. 23, 111. 15. παρέδ. does not signify to yield to their desire (Grotius, B. Crusius, Baeumlein).—On crucifixion in general, see on Matt. xxvii. 35. Vv. 17, 18. The subject of παρέλαβον, which is correlative to παρέδωκεν, ver. 16, and of ἤγαγον, is necessarily, according to ver. 16, the ἀρχιερεῖς, not the soldiers (de Wette, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, and older ex- positors). The former are the persons * who act, which does not exclude the service and co-operation of the soldiers (ver. 23). — βαστ. ἑαυτῷ τὸν σταυρ. (see critical notes) : bearing for Himself the cross.t See on Matt. xxvi. 32. and Charit. iv. 2; and on Golgotha, on Matt. xxvii. 88. --- ἐντεῦθ. x. ἐντεῦθ.] Comp. LXX. Dan. xii. 5.6 On the thing itself, comp. Luke xxiii. 33. John gives peculiar prominence to the circumstance, adding further, μέσον δὲ 7. Ino. Whether, and how far, the Jews thus acted intentionally, is un- determined. Perhaps they scornfully assign to their ‘‘ king” the place of honour! That Pilate desired thereby to deride them, in allusion to 1 Kings xxii. 19 (B. Crusius, Briickner, Lange), we are not to suppose, since the subject of ἐσταύρ. is the Jews, under whose direction the crucifixion of the principal person takes place, and, at the same time, the two subordinate persons are put to death along with Him. Pilate first appears, ver. 19. Of special divine conceptions in the intermediate position assigned to the cross of Christ (see Steinmeyer, p. 176), John gives no indication. Vv. 19, 20. Ἔγραψε] Not a supplemental statement: he had written (de 1 Χριστὸν ἑκὼν ἀέκων ἀδίκῳ παρέδωκεν ὀλέϑρῳ, who here gives only a compendious account, Nonnus. has passed over as a subordinate circum- 2 Ver. 23, comp. Matt. xxvii. 26, 27. stance, not, as Scholten thinks, in con- 3 By which also the fact is confirmed that formity with the idea that the Son of God John had not in his mind the first feast- needed no human help. day, which certainly possessed the author- 5 ἔνϑεν καὶ évdev, Herod. iy. 175; Soph. ity of the Sabbath. Ai. 725; Xen. Cyr. vi. 8, 3; 1 Macc. vi. 38, 4 The assistance of Simon in this, John, ix. 45 ; 8 Mace. ii. 22, not Rev. xxii. 2. OHAP. XIX., 21-24. 511 Wette, Tholuck), but : he wrote (caused to be written), while the crucifixion took place without ; and when it had taken place, he caused the τίτλος (solemn Roman expression for a public inscription, particularly for the tab- lets, naming the criminal and his offence, see Lipsius, de eruce, p. 101, and Wetstein), to be placed on the cross. He himself was not present at the crucifixion, Mark xv. 43, 44.—6 βασιλ. τῶν "Iovd.] Consistent bitterness in the designation of Jesus. Ver. 20. τῶν ᾿Τουδαίων] of the hierarchic party. — * ἐγγὺς ἦν, «.7.A.] See on Matt. xxvii. 33. — καὶ ἦν yeypayp., x.t.A.] No longer dependent on ὅτι, since τῶν ’Iovdaiwv, ver. 20, unlike ver. 19, is not to be taken in ageneral sense. It rather attaches to the first point, which explains the proposal of the ἀρχιερεῖς, ver. 21, to Pilate (τοῦτον... ᾽Τουδαίων, ver. 20), a second circumstance assigning its reason, namely: it (that which ran on the τίτλος) was written in three languages, so that it could be read by every- body, including foreigners. For an inscription, even in four, languages, on the tomb of Gordian, see in Jul. Capitolin. 24. Vv. 21, 22. The Jewish opponents of Christ have, with hiceaehe tact, deciphered the resentful bitterness in the τίτλος, hence the chief priests among them suggest to Pilate, etc. The expression οἱ ἀρχίερ. τ. ’Iovd. does not stand in contrast to the βασιλεὺς τ. ’Iovd. (Hengstenberg, Godet), but the high clerws of the opposition desired not to see the ancient sacred des- ignation of Messiah profaned.— μὴ ypade] The writing, because still capable of being altered, is conceived as not yet concluded. — ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα] Formal way of designating that with what is written the matter is unalter- ably to rest. Analogous formulae from the Rabbins, see in Lightfoot. Comp. also 1 Macc. xili. 38 ; ὅσα ἑστήκαμεν. . . ἕστηκε. Now, too late, he who was previously so weak in character stands firm. In this subordinate point at least he will have his own opinion, and not expose his weakness. Vv. 23, 24. Οὖν] again connects the history, after the intermediate narra- tive respecting the superscription, with ver. 18. — ἐσταύρωσαν] For they were the evecutioners of the crucifixion. —ra ἱμάτ. αὐτοῦ] His garments, with the exception, however, of the χιτών, which is afterwards specially men- tioned, the shirt-like under-garment. The account of John is more exact and complete than that of the Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 35 ; Mark xv. 24 ; Luke xxiii. 34). — τέσσαρα] There. were accordingly four soldiers, the ordi- nary τετράδιον στρα τιωτῶν (Acts xii. 4). — ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑφαντὸς dv ὕλου] From the top (where the button-hole was, ἀπ’ αὐχένος, Nonnus) woven quite through, throughout, so that thus the garment was a single texture, woven from above entirely throughout, without seam, similar to the priestly vestment in Joseph. Anté. 111. 7. 4.1— wa ἡ γραφή, x.7.2.] This casting of lots for the χιτών, after the division of the ἱμάτια, was not an accidental occurrence, but was in connection with the divine determination for the fulfilment of Scrip*- ure, which says, etc. The passage is Ps. xxii. 19, closely following the LXX. The suffering of the theocratic sufferer, in this psalm, is the pro- phetic type of the suffering of the Messiah. ‘‘ They have divided my gar- 1See Braun. de vestitu Hebr. Ὁ. 342 ff. ; 1; Plut. Mor. p. 695f.; Bernhardy, p. 235; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. p. 273 f. On the also δι᾿ ὅλων, Plat. Soph. Ὁ. 253 C, adverbial δι᾿ ὅλου, comp. Asclep. 16; Nicand. 512 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ments with one another (ἑαυτ. = ἀλλήλους, comp. Luke xxii. 17), and cast lots over my raiment,” —this complaint of the Psalmist, who sees himself as being already subjected to the death of a criminal, and the division of his garments among his executioners therewith connected, has found its Mes- sianic fulfilment in the corresponding treatment of Christ, in so far as lots have also been cast over (is raiment (in reality, over His under-garment). “In this fulfilment the χιτών was that portion of His clothing on which the ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον was historically carried out ; but we are not, for this reason, to say that John took τὸν ἱματισμόν as equivalent to τ. χιτῶνα (Liicke, de Wette.) — oi μὲν οὖν στρατ. τ. ἐποί] Simple (reminding one of Herod., Xen., and others) concluding formula for this scene of the sol- diers’ proceedings. On μὲν οὖν, see on Luke ili. 18. --- ταῦτα] That related in vv. 23, 24.