/*? x>T3TTNxr PRINCETON, N. J. ■S**#". Division..^. • Section Number Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/stjohnauthoroffoOOIuth ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FOUETH GOSPEL. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLAltK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . . SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. BY CHRISTOPH ERXST LUTHARDT, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT LEIPZIG ; AUTHOR OF ' APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE " FUNDAMENTAL," "SAVING," AND " MORAL " TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY,' ETC. Hcbtstti, Cranslatttf, anti tfjc Ettcraturc mucfj Enlarged, "J CASPAR RENE GEEGOEY, LEIPZIG. EDIXBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET. 18 75. THE TRANSLATOR TO HIS REVEEED TEACHER, CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D., PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, U.S.A. . AUTHOR'S PREFACE. The publishers asked me to prepare a new edition of my youthful work, The Gospel of John (Das johanneische Evangelium), C. Geiger, Mirnberg, 1852, 1853. I could not let it appear again without a discussion of the critical questions, which had been entirely omitted the first time. The treatment of these, however, when carried out with the completeness required by the present state of the subject, demanded more room than could be given to it in that work. Hence I determined to put it in this separate form, reserving only a short summary for the other book. It would have been easy to make the work in hand much larger, but I wished to be as brief as possible without harm to the completeness. I thought it un- necessary to pursue at length inquiries that have been often followed up, or to attempt to confirm thoroughly things that are settled. Some scholars of late have begun, with particular zeal, to seek out in the fourth gospel traces of the use of other Xew Testament books, and to apply this to the Johannean question. It seemed to me enough to confine my attention to such references as I myself was able to find, namely, to the relation of John to the synoptists and to the Revelation. The other alleged cases of use do not strike me as bearing on the question touching John. Besides, the later time of composition of the respective books, which is assumed by that party, needs first to be surer than it Vlll AUTHOR'S PREFACE. is. In the chapter on the relation of the synoptists to John, I have not entered into all the detailed historical differences and questions. That is rather the business of an exposition than of an introductory study like this, which must lay stress on the chief problem, and try to solve it. Moreover, the critical study of the separate questions has begun to receive a very thankworthy treatment from Beyschlag, in the Studien unci Kritiken, 1874, 4tes Heft. I owe particular thanks to Licentiate Dr. Adolf Harnack. He helped me faithfully in the proof-read- ing, and, in the chapter on Gnosticism, kindty put at my service his studies in that department, which not merely promise, but have already begun to yield, an actual furthering of historical knowledge. What is still lacking in the literature will be made up by Mr. Gregory, a young American theologian, favourably known in America by his connection with Dr. Hodge's great work on Systematic Theology, when he carries out his plan of giving a complete literature of the gospel of John. Dk. Luthardt. Leipzig, 1 August 1874. TRANSLATOR'S NOTE. Having changed the literature so much that he must hold himself answerable for it in its present form, the translator is nevertheless aware that it is neither faultless nor complete, and will gladly receive corrections and additions, as well as any notes that may be of use in making the general literature. Leipzig, 7 July 1875. CONTENTS. The author, The gospel, Notes, CHAPTER I. TRADITION. PAGE 1 5 7 CHAPTER II. st. John's authorship disputed. The Alogi, .... 9 Bretschneider, .... 15 Strauss, .... 17 Baur, ..... 20 Notes, .... 26 CHAPTER III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. What may he demanded, The way they used to quote, The literature scanty, The Church went hy tradition, Reading Scriptures in church, The episcopacy, Eusebius, Origen, . Tertullian, The Muratori Fragment, The Peshito, Theophilus of Antioch, . Clement of Alexandria, . Irenseus, The letter from Vienne and Lyons, Polycrates, Melito of Sardis, Tatian, . Justin Martyr, . Letter to Diognetus, 29 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 38 41 42 43 44 45 48 48 49 50 52 67 X CONTENTS. Acts of Paul and Thekla, The Shepherd of Hernias, Polyearp, Papias, . Ignatius, The letter of Barnabas, . The close of chapter xxi., The heading, Notes, CHAPTER IV. TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. 68 69 70 73 76 77 79 81 Celsus, . 94 Heretical Jewish Christianity, N 95 Gnostics, 96 Their dates, 97 Basilides, 100 Yalentinus, 101 Ophitic sects, 105 Marcion, 105 Notes, 110 CHAPTER V. st. John's residence at ephesus. Liitzelherger denies it, . 115 Grimm and Schwegler maintain it, 116 Keim denies it, . US "Wittichen, Holtzmann, Scholten, and Ziegler too, 119 Ewald maintains it, 120 Hilgenfeld and Steitz also, 121 Krenkel too, ..... 122 The New Testament, .... 123 Ignatius, ..... 125 Polyearp, ..... 126 Papias, ..... 126 Meaning of v irpo^Twv dvay cvcoa /cerai (' and the memoirs of the apostles or the books of the pro- phets are read'). 23 He names only the gospels here, but we must needs understand that as the part put for the whole ; and this the rather because a reading of the epistles was more likely than the reading of the gospels. This reading is the acknowledgment of the New Testament books as sacred scriptures, for it puts them on a level with the prophetical books of the Old Testament, and by this reading kept alive the tradition in regard to the New Testament writings, and made it sure. The Episcopacy. If, however, a church reading was to have place, this presupposes a recognition of the writings in ques- tion on the part of the overseers of the Church. Thus the anagnosis and also the tradition are connected with the institution of the episcopacy. Tertullian, for example, goes back to this for John's authorship of Revelation : ' Ordo episcoporum ad originem recen- 36 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. sus in Joannem stabit autorem ' (' The order of bishops traced back to the beginning will stand for John as author'). 24 And we see plainly from Eusebius' Church History that, to him, the succession of the episcopacy and the formation of the canon stand in inward causal connection. Hence, by fencing off the episcopal church from the heretical societies outside of the Church, utterly different circles of literature were con- stituted. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, had to apply to a heretical circle outside of the Church to get the so-called gospel of Peter. He had, through careless- ness, suffered it for a while in the church at Rhossus in Cilicia. At last he perceived its heretical character, and made his mistake good by a letter to the church : v TATIAN. 5 1 avTeio-yjyayov evayyekia). This contrast between the harmony of Tatian, Bta reaadpcov (' hy four'), and the gospels of the four evangelists, proves of itself evidently that Tatian's work, though made arbitrarily, and per- haps provided with heretical additions, was a combina- tion of those very four gospels into one whole. There- fore these four were at Tatian's time the ones generally and exclusively received by the Church. That is the only way to explain the attempt to unite these four in one book. It is arbitrary to try to exclude John's gospel from this." Besides, that attempt is refuted by the knowledge of John's gospel shown by Tatian's apo- logetical book. It follows none the less from Tatian's effort that the authority for the four gospels did not date only from that time, but that it stood firm long before. It was no longer necessary to bring this authority to currency, but on the ground of it they were made the object of such literary attempts. Nor is Tatian merely a witness for the church of the East. His relation as disciple to the widely-travelled Justin, and his long stay in Rome, give his testimony a far- reaching importance. We can draw one conclusion from Theodoret's Kara o-apica™ one that agrees with Tatian's dualistic asceticism ; that is, the reason for the removal of the ' fleshly ' side from the gospel lay in this Gnostic's docetizing Christology, to which John's gospel fitted better than the others with their genealogies. If he emphasizes John's gospel especially, that explains why Irenasus lays particular stress on the likeness between his Gnosticism and the Valen- tinian, 101 since we know that precisely this school made an extended use of the gospel of John. Resting on this ground, Adolf Harnack has not only guessed, but much more has found out by a lucky hit, that Tatian's work on the gospels is rejected along with Valentinus in the Muratori Fragment. 102 52 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. Justin Martyr. Tatian leads us to his teacher Justin. It is true that Tatian got his Gnosticism elsewhere, but on the other hand, whatever he had that belongs to the Church came from this teacher. To this must be reckoned his recognition of the four gospels, and especially of the Logos gospel. This would of itself suffice to confirm Justin's position towards the gospels, and especially towards the fourth. But we can bring from him himself the most stringent proof of the authority of the gospel of John in the Church at his day. I may refer to what I did in this line at another place in 1856. 103 Baur's objections to that in 1857 are of no weight. Little has appeared on this question since. It may be said that the right conception has gradually been more and more generally recognised, and that the question may on the whole be considered as settled. Justin was born at about 100, travelled around a great deal, and died as a martyr at his second stay in Rome, about 166. If we still had his book Kara nraawv rcov alpiaecov (' Against all the Heresies '), we should surely be completely informed as to the authority of the New Testament Scriptures in his day. Justin's example, doubtless, exerted an influence on the later refutations of heresies by Irenceus, Tertullian, and the rest. Therefore, from the way these later writers draw proofs from Scripture, we can infer back- wards to Justin's method. Essentially, however, we are limited to his two Apologies and the Dialogue. According to current acceptance heretofore, the greater Apology was written in 138. Newer re- searches 104 put it at 147 or about 150; and Keim 10 ' 3 goes as late as 158-160. The second Apology followed this directly, and the Dialogue came last of the three. The question as to Justin's position towards the JUSTIN MARTYR. 53 gospel of John stands in connection with the gospel question in general in the case of Justin. According to Winer's researches in 1819, Olshausen's in 1823, and Hug's, it seemed to be decided that he knew and used our canonical gospels, and De Wette in 1848 still expressed himself thus. In 1832 Credner granted at least the knowledge of the canonical gospels, but added a gospel of Peter, from which latter almost all the quotations are borrowed. Bindemann wrote against this in 1842. Schwegler, however, in his Sub-Ajyostolic Age, 1846, would not hear of the canon- ical gospels at all, but only of a gospel of Peter or of the Hebrews. Semisch refuted him in 1848, proving thoroughly that the four canonical gospels were known by Justin. As a result of this, conces- sions were the order of the day. Zeller, in 1848, yielded at least the gospel of Luke, though the gospel of the Hebrews formed the chief source for Justin. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld, in 1850, found the gospel of Matthew, though he traced the citations mostly to the gospel of Peter, which it was alleged stood between the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and was the foundation for the gospel of Mark. In 1854, however, he reached the canonical Mark, which was to be put before Luke. Thus, up to 1854, the three synoptists were acknowledged in Justin as at least included under his Memoirs, that is, gospels. Baur's objection, in 1853, that Justin has not named any of them, cannot avail, because the point is not the naming, but the knowing and acknowledging. In 1860 Credner repeated his earlier concession : 'Justin certainly knew and must have known our canonical gospels, but he used them either only a little, or not all directly.' 106 He does not exclude even the gospel of John, at least not without qualification, to Yolkmar's unmistakeable chasr-in. 107 Now it is true that Credner 54 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. takes the book that lay at the base of Justin's quota- tions to be merely a harmony of the gospels, collected out of the Memoirs ' after the mind and spirit of Peter,' whence, too, it was called the gospel of Peter. And, indeed, this is the same harmony which was in abun- dant use under the name of Tatian's Diatessaron, until it was at a later date crowded out by an orthodox harmony of the gospels, also bearing Tatian's name. 108 In the first place, this is of no great avail for our question. In the second place, this hypothesis also presupposes the existence of the gospel of John. And in the third place, the hypothesis is utterly untenable, for Justin speaks not only of evayyeXwv (' gospel ') but also of evayyeXia (' gospels '), and thus uses the singular in the same comprehensive sense in which it is con- stantly used for the evayyeXiov Terpdjxopfyov (' fourfold gospel'). And since he makes Trypho the Jew speak thus, it could not have been merely a harmony of Justin's own. Moreover, it could not be completely identical with the one of Tatian, because Tatian's had struck out the genealogies and the descent of Jesus from David, and had Docetic elements. Justin, on the contrary, taught the former, and had not the latter. Besides, the gospel of Peter, which Justin mentions once, 109 is Mark's gospel, named after its voucher, Peter. Hence, when we find quotations from our gospels in Justin, we do not need to pass by these gospels and conjecture a gospel harmony, which is authenticated by no positive testimony. And what is true of the gospels in general is true of the fourth gospel. Because Justin knew it, he has also used it. Even Scholten cannot help granting, at least for our three synoptic gospels, that Justin knew them under the name of ' Memoirs,' and attributed to them an apostolic origin. 110 But this is denied only the more decidedly for the fourth gospel. Volkmar reached this con- JUSTIN MARTYR. 55 elusion in 1853, and stayed there: 111 'Justin's Logos doctrine, and his nature in general, stand earlier than the Logos gospel.' This position Scholten, in 1867, holds fast to obstinately. Before we go into this question more closely, a few general remarks need to be made. Justin, as is well known, names his gospel sources ajro/jLv^/xovev/xara rwv airoa-roXcov (' memoirs of the apostles'), probably follow- ing Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates, though with the difference that he puts the genitive subjectively, and understands thereby, ' sketches of the apostles written from memory' 112 [sketches written down from memory by the apostles]. This name is peculiar to him, for he says himself that they are commonly called gospels, a KaXelrac evayye\ia. u3 There are therefore several books by different authors. When he wants to make it more exact, he says : iv rolcr airofxvrifjLovevfjLCKTL, a (j)7]/xi vtto rwv aTrocrToXcDV civtov fcal T(iov e/celvoicr 7rapaKo\ov0T](rdvTcov p,aT07roteio-6ai ('to be made body'). 137 A reference to John is unmistakeable in the words rrjv apyr\v Bl avTov irdvTa efcriae ('He created all things by him at the beginning '). 138 Again, wpovinjp'xev vlba . . . deba wv, kcli yevvv0fjvat in his gospel sources ? The Aj)Ostolic Constitutions have : Xiyec 6 Kvpioo- eav /it?) no- (BcnrTicrOf) i£ vSaroa /ecu Trvev/narocr, «t\. 104 Must they have read ficnrTio-6f) in their gospel sources ? They are just speaking of baptism, and therefore they cite thus. And in like manner Justin is treating of the new birth, the significance and effect of baptism, and hence cites as he does. They have made the same assertion for the Clementina as for Justin. 155 The former have this quotation in a form exactly like Justin's. Zeller, Schwegler, Baur, and Hilgenfeld JUSTIN MARTYR. b6 have vied with each other in declaring that ' a use of John in the Clementina [and therefore also in Justin] ... is out of the question.' 156 But now the conclusion of the Clementina that Dressel has found, and which contains the detailed citation from John ix., gives the lie to these confident declarations. At the same time, also, the foundation is taken away from the denial in Justin's case. Hence Volkmar owns up to ' the possi- bility in itself, or abstractly,' of a free use by Justin of the passage from John. But 'once means here, in Justin's case, never.', 157 This is not so. That saying is as false here as it generally is. Besides, there is a use which by no means occurs simply ' once.' They made too stout a demand on our belief when they assured us that Justin's passage was drawn from Matt, xviii. 3, or at least stood nearer to this word of the Lord than to the one in John. 158 Is it be- cause we find in Matthew ov fjurj elaeXOrjre ela tt)v j3acn- Xeiav toov ovpavwv (' ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven ') ? But what decides is the word about the new birth in connection with baptism, and that very thing does not come in at all in Matthew. He says : eav fir) crrpa(f)f]Te teal a)vi) /3ocovtoct (' men sup- posed that he [the Baptist] was the Christ. To whom he cried, " I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying " '). No other of our gospels has these words. JUSTJN MARTYR. 65 The apocryphal features of Justin's, as to the appear- ance of fire at the baptism of Jesus, are not attributed by him to his gospel sources. But he certainly appeals to these sources for the communication of the Holy Ghost. Hence they have no right to betake them- selves again, say, to the gospel of the Hebrews, to find those words of John's. As is well known, it is peculiar to the fourth gospel to designate the resurrection of Jesus as an act of his own egovaia ('power'), John x. 1 8. Justin's words as to the resurrection fit that : 167 o airo tov Trarpbcr avTovXafiwv e^et (' which He has, having received it from his Father'). It reminds us of John iv. 10, 14, when Justin speaks of a 77-777?) vSaroa tfavroa (' well of living water'), 168 and of to rfjcr &w vSwp (' the water of life '). Iti9 In John x. 33 ff. Jesus goes back to Ps. lxxxii. 6 to justify His title of the Son of God ; and Justin 17 ° goes to the same psalm to justify the calling Christians rUva 6eov (' children of God'). Even Zeller 171 is inclined to think this a striking circum- stance. These references will suffice to prove Justin's de- pendence on the fourth gospel. Justin's conversion is hardly to be put later than 130. Therefore, at the middle and in the second quarter of the second century, John's gospel belonged to the generally known and recognised gospels. Justin does not, in- deed, name it, but he reckons it among those com- posed by apostles and companions of apostles. If we may conclude from this that the gospels in general were not anonymous, then the gospel of John was not. And it is, besides, certain that it did not pass name- less. Its very name, which traced it to the honoured apostle, secured for it general recognition. We have no token that it was ever known by any other name. If it counted as a church authority at that date, it counted as such under John's name. This of itself E 66 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. does not prove that it had a right to bear that name, but the farther we have to go back in time, the more impossible it becomes that its name should stand in contradiction to its origin. A book exists under Justin's name called Tlepl dva- o-Taaecocr ('On the Resurrection'). This coincides with the fourth gospel unmistakeably in several passages. At the beginning 172 we find : ov [sc. rod 8eov~\ yevop,evoo- viocr o Xoyocr rj\6ev elcr rjpda, adpica cfropecracr, eavrov re Kal tov irarepa /jltjvvcov, ScBovcr i)p2v ev eavrqj tijv €K veKpcov dvd- crracnv Kal ttjv p,erd javra ^wrp alcoviov (' being whose [that is, God's] Son, the Logos came to us clothed in flesh, showing both himself and the Father, giving unto us in himself the resurrection from the dead, and after that eternal life'). That recalls not merely John's Logos in general, but especially John xi. 25. The next passage 173 is undeniably taken from John xx. 27 : Kal yjrrj\a(f)dv avrbv iirerpeTrev auTOtcr, Kal rover rv7rovcr twv i]\o)v ev ralo- x e P aiv ^rreheLKwe (' and he permitted them to touch him, and showed them the marks of the nails in his hands '). And the next passage m plainly touches John xiv. 2 : fiou\6p,evoo- eViSetfat Kal tovto (^KaOcoa elprjKev, ev ovpavaj ttjv KaroLKr/crtv i]p,(ov virdp^etv) on ovk dhvvarov Kal uapKi elcr ovpavov dveXOelv (' wishing to show this also, as He declared that our dwelling was in heaven, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven'). It is true that Justin's authorship of the book named has been denied. In our opinion this denial rests upon insufficient grounds. Both doc- trine and method are entirely like Justin's. At any rate, the similarity between its way of treating the Doceta3 175 and the Ignatian epistles' treatment of them, shows that it must in no wise be put later than the second century, and pretty well back in that, even if the time of the composition cannot be more exactly fixed. EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. (>7 Epistle to Diognetus. The letter to Diognetus is certainly not from Justin's hand. It is earlier than Justin, rather than later. Overbeck, indeed, wanted to refer it to the fourth cen- tury, to the ' time after Constantine.' 176 Zahn m ad- mitted the date 250-310. Keim 178 goes back to about 180, and Lipsius 179 joins him ; but the reference found to Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, is much too precarious. 180 Hilgenfeld holds fast to Marcus Aurelius' time. 181 A surer assumption is, that the remark 182 as to the enmity of the Jews against the Christians points to the time before the destruction of Barkochbas, 135. 183 Hence we cannot stop at 150, with Ritschl and Wittichen, 184 or at 140, with Cred- ner, 185 but must go still farther back. Ewald 18G puts the letter between 120 and 130, Nitzsch 187 between 110 and 125. This letter treats of the divine Logos, the revelation of whom brought to His disciples and to the world the higher truth, and the knowledge of whom imparts the higher insight, and raises above the stage of the Old Testament legality. The whole treat- ment of this presupposes unmistakeably 188 both John's gospel and Paul's writings. The eleventh chapter 189 is full of reminiscences of John ; but we pass it, be- cause it belongs to a later date. The other traces of John are enough to confirm the observation just made. The words : 19 ° o yap 6eoa Tova avdpwirova ^ydirrjae . . . irpoa ova cnriaTeiXe tov vwv avrov tov pbovoyevi), ola ttjv ev ovpavco ftaaCkelav iirriyyelXaro /cal hooaet, Tola ayairijaaaiv avTOv (' for God loved the men . . . unto whom He sent His only- begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in heaven, and will give [it] to them that loved Him '), evidently rest on John iii. 16, and xP t avrov paOijrfj Tiairla Evfti(i)T

] rut 'IepaTToXtTr), ktX. (' last of these [of all the evangelists], John, called the son of thunder, being far advanced in years, . . . dictated his gospel against the frightful heresies springing up at that time, to his 2 " 7 disciple Papias, Eubiotos [read, " bishop "] of Hierapolis,' etc.). But the reference of that gospel manuscript to Papias' work is too un- certain for us to base decisive conclusions on it. Ignatius. It is generally acknowledged that the letters of Ignatius in the longer Greek recension are not genuine. And Zahn has also proved the three Syriac letters to be a later compendium. 228 That, however, does not decide the question, whether or not the seven letters in the shorter Greek recension are genuine in the form in which we have them. Keini 229 and Krenkel 2;;0 declared these letters ' collectively and severally not genuine.' Yet Zahn has at least raised their genuineness to a higher degree of probability. The earlier discussions are combined by Uhlhorn, 231 and the decision brought nearly in favour of the genuineness. If the letters are genuine, they are not to be put later than 110. There are in these letters 74 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. various, though not numerous, coincidences with John's gospel. Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar 232 have ac- knowledged traces of the acquaintance with the fourth gospel. It is true that they put the Ignatian letters much later. 233 But these are two different questions, that must be kept apart from each other. We cannot fail 234 to note the accord with John iii. 8, when w r e read : 23a to 7rvevfia ov ifXavarai,, dirb 6eov ov. olSev ydp irodev epxerat kcu ttov vrrdyei (' the Spirit doth not err, being from God ; for He knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth'). The words : 23G aprov Oeov Oekm oa ecmv crapj; 'Irjaov Xpiarou, tov yevo/nivov iie aireppbaroa Aafiih, real 7rop,a 0eXa> to alfia avTov 6 icrnv ayairi) a(f)6aproa (' I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David, and I desire as a drink His blood, which is love incorruptible '), plainly rest on John vi. 33, 51 ff. That is the only way to explain the bold curtness of the expression. The Syrian recension of the three Ignatian letters has this passage also. Lipsius 237 tries in vain, against Bunsen, to escape the reference to John vi., so as to prove, with Baur, 23S that the Syrian version, which they pretend is older, does not know John's gospel. Christ would not have been designated so confidently as the X0700- dtBioa ('eternal Logos') 239 against a heretical Logos doctrine, if there had not been a Scripture authority for that at hand. 240 The words : ovSela iriariv iira'yyeWop.evoG dpaprdvet,, ovSe dydiri)v K€KT7]p,evoa /juael (' no one who professes faith, sins ; or, having obtained love, hates '), 241 refer unmistakeably to 1 John iii. 9, 13 ff. Zahn urges besides, 242 various particulars of the Ignatian use of language, which can be most conveniently explained by John's gospel. See, for example, the constant apxw T °£ alwvoa tovtov (' the ruler of this age '), 243 in comparison with the phrase peculiar to John, 6 apywv tov Koafiov tovtov (' the ruler of IGNATIUS. ( this world'), in John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11. The fact that Ignatius lays stress upon the Godhead of Christ, and the form in which he does it, remind us of John. See o 6e6a /xov ('my God'), 244 as compared with John xx. 28; and rov yuovov vlov avrov ('His only Son'), 24 "' as compared with John's fiovoyev^o- (' only-begotten'). They commonly find in the Ignatian letters a decidedly Gentile-Christian, Pauline tendency. 246 But these contain, at the same time, undeniably Johannean elements, 247 and betoken a later development of the Pauline tendency, as in the letter of Polycarp. Other interests ruled the Church then, because other tasks were set for her. Yet the silence as to John in the letters to the Ephesians and to Polycarp may appear strange. We can find a slight allusion to John 243 in the letter to the Ephesians if we read the plural, as most manuscripts do : oc ical a-TToaroXoio- iravrore (Twriveaav (' who always agreed with the apostles '). Why should he mention him expressly? If he had been a disciple of John's, we might have expected it. But this discipleship is a mistake, which Jerome spread abroad. 249 If Ignatius, personally, was distant from John, he had so much the less occasion to speak of him by name. As for the rest, we shall have to return to this point when we reach the question of the apostle's residence at Ephesus. We may, however, combine with passages from or accords with John, in the Ignatian letters, that interesting passage in the letter to the Philippians. 250 Ignatius is telling briefly about a dispute he had with his opponents. He speaks of New Testament records, which are called rb evay- yekiov (' the gospel '), by way of apposition. And then, just as the later church does, he cuts the exegetical discussion short by appealing to the living tradition. Hence there was at that time a written evayyeXiov, an original account (upheld, ' archives ') of the message of 76 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. salvation, to which Ignatius could refer. The errorists tried to explain this ' gospel ' exegetically to suit themselves. 231 The church teachers appeal from this to the living tradition, as Ignatius does here, or collect apostolic traditions, to secure the right under- standing of the Lord's words, as Papias does. If there were written gospels at that day, we shall have to think of the coincidences of Ignatius with the fourth gospel as mediated by writing. The Letter of Barnabas. The so-called letter of Barnabas is perhaps younger than the Ignatian letters. The time of composition is disputed. As a rule, it has been put, as by Tischen- dorf, Lipsius, Keim, and Hefele, under Hadrian, at 120 or 125. Hug and Liicke say the beginning of the second century ; Hilgenfeld and Ewald say under Nerva, 96-98; Wieseler says under Domitian, 81-96; and Weizsacker in Vespasian's time, 69-79. Wieseler's and Riggenbach's 2 " 2 supposition, that the letter was written at the end of Domitian's time, about 96, has the greatest probability in its favour. 253 It is well known that this letter cites Matthew's gospel as ypaM7v sis rr t v j3a.o-i7.siav ruv o'jpavuiv ; the Sinaitic manuscript reads : uh?v rr t v fiaaXiiav tw ojpavuiv. 151 Volkmar, Uebcr Justin der Mdrtyrer und sein Verhdltniss zu unsern Evangelien, Zurich, 1853, p. 16. 152 Credner, Beitrage zur Einleitung in d. bibl. Schr., Halle, vol. i. (1832) p. 253. 153 Volkmar, Ueber Justin dcr Mdrtyrer, Zurich, 1853, p. 19. m [Constitutiones Apostolorum, S. 15 ; edit. Lagarde, Leipzig and London, 1862, pp. 175, line 25, 176, line 1. Lagarde reads "/sw7i6jj, but y z t read fiaT-iady. — C.E.G.] 155 [In the German edition, 'das Johannes evangelium' was falsely printed for 'Justin.' — C.RG.] 156 Zeller, Thcologische Jahrbiicher, Tubingen, 1845, pp. 597, 613 ; 1847, p. 151 f. ; 1853, p. 145. Schwegler, Das nachapos- tolische Zcitalter, Tubingen, 1846, vol. i. p. 218 f. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen uber die kanonischen Evangelien, Tubingen, 1847. Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Evangelien Justin's, der clement inischen Homilien, und NOTES. 89 Marcions, Halle, 1850, p. 388. The words quoted are from Baur. 157 Volkmar, Theologische Jahrbilcher, 1854, p. 455. 158 Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelien Justin's, der clementinischen PTomilien, und Marcion's, Halle, 1850, p. 215. Volkmar, Ueber Justin der Mdrtyrer, Zurich, 1853, p. 22. 159 Hilgenfeld, ut supra, p. 216. 160 Zeller, Theologische Jahrbilcher, 1845, p. 614 ; 1855, p. 138 ff. 161 Justin, Apologia, I. 66 ; Opera, edit. Otto, Jena, vol. i. (1842) p. 268. 162 Justin, Pialogus cum Tryphone, cap. 1 7 ; Opera, ut supra, vol. ii. pp. 60-62. 163 Ibid. cap. 40, p. 130 ; cap. Ill, p. 370. 164 Ibid. cap. 63, p. 210. 165 Ibid. cap. 64, p. 216. 166 Ibid. cap. 88, p. 304. 167 Ibid. cap. 100, p. 334. 168 Ibid. cap. 69, p. 236. 169 Ibid. cap. 114, p. 380. 170 Itfiid. cap. 124, p. 414. 171 Zeller, Theologische Jahrbilcher, 1845, p. 612. 172 Justin, De Resurrectione, cap. i . ; Opera, edit. Otto, Jena, vol. ii. (1843) p. 508. 173 Ibid. cap. ix. p. 538. 174 Ibid, 1T5 Ibid. cap. ii. p. 512. 176 Overbeck, Ueber den pseudojustinischen Brief an Diognet. Programme, Basel, 1872, p. 34. 177 Zahn in Gottingen, Gotting. Gelehrt. Anzeigen, 1873, vol. ii. pp. 106-116. 178 Keim, Protestantische Kirchen-Zeitung, 1873, Nos. 13, 14. 179 Lipsius, Literarisches Central Blatt, 1873, No. 40, 4th October, p. 1251. 180 Epistola ad Diognetum, cap. 7 ; Justini Opera, edit. Otto, Jena, vol. ii. (1843) pp. 482-488. 181 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche TJieologie, 1873, 2 Heft, pp. 270-286. 182 Epistola ad Diognetum, cap. 5 ; ut supra, p. 480 (497 c, d). 183 Nitzsch, Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, part i., Berlin, 1870, p. 109. 184 Bitschl, Pie Entstehung der altJcatholischcn Kirche, 2d edit. Bonn, 1857, p. 266 ff. Bitschl, on p. 268, note, quotes the letter to Diognetus as a testimony for the year 150 and thereabouts, thus indicating his opinion that the letter was written later than that year. Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Charakter des Evangeliums Johannis in Verbindung mit der Frage nach seinem Ursprunge, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 105. 185 Credner, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon, Ber- lin, 1860, p. 59, note. 186 Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1st edit. vol. vii. p. 149 90 CH. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. says 120-130; 2d edit. Gottingen, 1868, vol. vii. p, 159, says under Nerva. 187 Nitzsch, Grundriss der christlichcn Dogmcngeschichtc, part i., Berlin, 1870, p. 109. 188 See Credner, ut supra, p. 63. 189 Epistola ad Diognetum, cap. xi. ; Justini Opera, ut supra, vol. ii. pp. 500, 502. 190 Ibid. cap. x. pp. 496, 498. m Ibid. cap. vi. p. 480. 192 Tertullian, de Baptismo, cap. xvii. ; Opera, edit. Oeliler, Leipzig, 1853, vol. i. pp. 636, 637. 193 See Teschendorf, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, Leipzig, 1851, p. xxi. ; and Yon Gutschmidt, in Rhcin. Museum, 1864, pp. 177, 390. 194 Teschendorf, ut supra, pp. 40-63. 195 Caput v. Tischendorf, ut supra, p. 42 ; cap. xxiii. p. 50. 196 Caput xxix. Ibid. p. 54; cap. 37, p. 58. 197 Caput xxv. Ibid. p. 51. 198 See Zahn, Der Hirte dcs Hermas, 1868, p. 480. 199 jf ermcc Pastor, niandatum xii. 3 ; Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, edit. Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, p. 601. 200 Ibid, similitudo ix. 12, p. 628. 201 Ibid, similitudo v. 6, p. 610. 202 Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 143. 203 See the detailed proof in Zahn, Der Hirte des Hernias, 1868, pp. 467-476. 204 Ibid. pp. 92 and 96. 205 Irenseus, Letter to Florinus, in Eusebius' Historia Eccle- siastica, V. xx. 8; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 227. 206 Polycarp, Epistola ad Philippcnses, cap. vii. ; Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, edit. Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, p. 385. 207 Baur, Theologischc Jahrbuchcr, Tubingen, 1844, p. 667. Zeller, Ibid. 1845, p. 587. 208 Volkmar, Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien nach den Urhunden, laut den neuern Entdeckungen und Verhandlungen, Zurich, 1866, p. 47 ff. 209 See Eiggenbach, Die Zeugnissc filr das Evangelium Johannis, Basel, 1866, p. 102 ff. 210 Schwegler, Das nachapostolischc Zcitalter in den Hauptmo- menten seiner Entwickelung, Tubingen, 1846, vol. ii. p. 154. Hilgenfeld, Die apostolischen Vdter, Halle, 1853, p. 271. 211 Irenseus, Contra Hazrcses, III. iii. 4 ; edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, p. 177. 212 Polycarp, Epistola ad Philippcnses, cap. xiii. ; Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, edit. Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, p. 390. 213 Ibid. cap. ix. p. 387 ; cap. xiii. p. 389. NOTES. 9 1 214 Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatliolischcn Kirche, 2d edit. Bonn, 1857, p. 584 ff. 216 Ibid. pp. 599, 600 ; and Wittichen, Der gcschichtliche Char alder des Evangeliums Johannis in Verbindung unit der Frage nach seinem Ursprunge, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 105. 216 Keim, Geschiclite Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 145. 217 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica. III. xxxix. 2 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) pp. 133-136. 218 Steitz, Studien und Kritiken, 1868, pp. 496-499. So too Leuschner, Das Evangelium Johannis und seine ncuestcn Wider- sacher, Halle, 1873, p. 96 ff. 219 Irenseus, Contra Ha:rcses, V. xxxvi. 2 ; edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, p. 337, a. 220 Zahn, Studien und Kritiken, 1866, p. 657. 221 Eouth, Reliquiw Sacra?, 2d edit. Oxford, vol. i. (1846) p. 12 (?). 222 Zahn, ut supra, p. 667. 223 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III. xxxix. 1 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 133. 224 Ibid. III. xxxix. 2; p. 133. 225 Zahn, Studien und Kritiken, 1866, p. 657. 226 Vatic. Alex. No. 14. Teschendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelicn verfasst? 4th edit. Leipzig, 1866, p. 118 f. 227 Corderius, Catena Patrurn Grcecorum in Sanctum Joan- nem ex Antiquissimo Grceco Codice MS. nunc primum in lucem edita, Antwerp, 1630; on the next to the last page of the Introduction. 228 Zahn, in his comprehensive work, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873. 229 Keim, Geschiclite Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. pp. 137, 138, note 1. 230 Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, Berlin, 1871, p. 137. 231 Uhlhorn, ' Ignatius,' in Herzog's Encyklopddic, vol. vi. (1856) pp. 623-630. 232 Lipsius, Zeitschrift fur die historische Theologie, 1856, p. 73. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testa- ments, Halle, 1863, p. 31. Volkmar, Der Ursprunng unserer Evangelicn, Zurich, 1866, p. 51. 233 Hilgenfeld, about 167; Keim, in Celsus' Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873, p. 145, not till Commodus, 180-192. 234 So Lipsius, ut supra. 235 Ignatius, Epistola ad Philadelphienscs, vii. ; Patrurn, Apos- tolicorum Opera, edit. Dressel (2d edit), Leipzig, 1863, p. 180. 236 Ibid., Ad Romanos, vii., as given by Petermann and Zahn. Dressel's text, ut supra, p. 170, is as applicable, or more so. 92 CH. III. — THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. 237 Lipsius, Zeitschrift fur die historische TJieologie, 1856, p. 72. 238 Baur, Die IgnatianiscJien Brief e und ihr neuester Kritiker. Eine StreitscJirift gegen Herrn Bunsen, Tubingen, 1848, p. 112 f. 239 Ignatius, Epistola ad Magnesianos, viii. ; Patrum Aposto- licorum Opera, 2d edit. Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, p. 248, margin. 240 Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873, p. 605. 241 Ignatius, Epistola ad EpJiesios, xiv. ; ut supra, p. 132; compare Ibid. p. 382. 242 Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873, p. 605. 243 Ignatius, Ad Bomanos, cap. vii. ; Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, edit. Dressel (2d edit.), Leipzig, 1863, p. 170. Ad Ephesios, cap. xvii. p. 134 (326); cap. xix. p. 136 (336). Ad Magnesianos, cap. i. p. 242. Ad Trallianos, cap. iv. p. 156. [In the German original as well as in Zahn's Ignatius, whence they were copied, these two phrases are exchanged, John's being attributed to Ignatius, and vice versa. — C.E.G.] 244 Ignatius, Ad Bomanos, cap. vi. ; Ibid. p. 170. 245 Ibid, -p. 164. 246 Baur, GescJiicJite der christlichen Kirclie, 3d edit. Tubingen, 1863. Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, Berlin, 1871, p. 137. 247 Uhlhorn, ' Ignatius,' in Herzog's Encyklopddie, vol. vi. (1856) p. 630. 248 Ignatius, Ad Ephesios, cap. xi. ; ut supra, p. 130 (p. 332 has Gvvrrfav). 249 Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873, p. 47 f. 250 Ignatius, Ad Philippenses, cap. viii. ; ut supra, p. 180 (286). That is the way Zahn, Ignatius, p. 374 ff., understands this passage. Hilgenfeld disputes it, however, in his Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Tlieologie, 1874, p. 115 f. 251 We refer to Basilides' 24 books on the 'Gospel'; see Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV. vii. 7 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, voL iv. (1871) p. 142. 252 Wieseler, Jahrbuchcr fur deutsche TJieologie, 1870, 4 Heft. Biggenbach, Der sogenanntc Brief des Barnabas : 1. Uebersctzung ; 2. Bemcrkungen. EinBeitrag zum Verstdndniss des Brief es, Basel, 1873, p. 41. Programme for 50 years' jubilee of Professors Hagenbach and Staehelin. 253 Nitzsch, also, in his Grundriss der christlichen Dogmcnges- rliirhfe, Berlin, 1870, p. 103, says 96 or 97. 254 Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 141 ff. 255 Holtzmann, Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Tlieologie, 1871, p. 336 ff. 256 Keim, ut supra, vol. i. p. 145. 257 Biggenbach, Die Zeugnisse fur das Evangclium Johannis, Basel, 1866, pp. 89, 90 ; also Programme, 1873, id supra, p. 37. NOTES. 93 258 Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Chardkter des Evangeliurns Johannis, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 104. 259 Bamabaz Epistola, cap. v. ; Patrum Apostolicorum Opera edit. Dressel (2d edit.), Leipzig, 1863, p. lxvii. (p. 8). 260 Ibid. cap. vi. p. lxvii. (p. 1 2). 261 Ibid. cap. xii. p. 28. 262 Ibid. cap. ii. p. lxiv. 263 Ibid. cap. ix. p. 20. 264 Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, Berlin, 1871, p. 5. 265 Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 137, note. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu fur das deutscke Volk bearbeitet, Leipzig, 1864, p. 63 f. 266 Bleek, Beitrdge zur Evangelien Kritik (vol. i. of Beitrdge, zur Einleitung, etc.), Berlin, 1846, p. 180. 267 Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Chardkter des Evangeliurns Johannis in Verbinclung mit der Frage nach seincm Ursprungc, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 107 ff. 263 Ibid. p. 111. 269 See above, p. 6. 270 [See upon this point a note by Professor Ezra Abbot, in the American edition of Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, New York, 1868, pp. 1430, 1431.— C.K.G.] 271 See Ewald, Jahrbucher der biblischen Wissensckaft, ix. (1858) p. 55 ff. 272 [See Diotallevi, Dissertatio Philologico-Historico-Biblica de Titido Evangelii secundum Joanncm, Rome, 1845. — C.RG.] 273 Volkmar, Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1860, p. 293. 274 Ewald, Jahrbucher der biblischen Wissenschaft, ix. (1858) pp. 57, 58, 59. 275 Thiersch, Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Stand- punctsfilr die Kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften, Erlangen, 1845, p. 321. CHAPTER IV. TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHUECH. ENEMIES of the Church, and heretics, give testi- mony for John's gospel. The oldest polemic treatise of heathen thought against the ' new third religion ' is the Aoyoa- aXrjd^a- (' the true word'). It was written by the philosopher Celsus, who was of the Platonic school, about 176-180, perhaps even earlier, 161-169. Engelhardt 1 showed thoroughly the importance of this book for the struggle of to-day. 2 ' We perceive 3 with amazement how pro- foundly the eclectic philosopher must have studied the doctrine of Christianity. He has gone back to the first sources everywhere. He has read and used not only the Old Testament, but also our synoptic gospels, and perhaps even Paul's epistles. It is undeniable that he knew John's gospel. Indeed, Keim has proved convincingly that the whole image of Christ, which Celsus composed for himself, and against which he then contends with scorn and derision or in calm demonstration, is taken in great part from John's con- ception and presentation of Him.' 4 His acquaintance with the canonical literature of the Church goes hand in hand with his knowledge of the Christian ' great church,' in distinction from the Gnostic sects. His quotations from the gospel history, his emphasizing the alleged contradictions, and the like, proves that he used our canonical gospels. 5 He refers most frequently to Matthew ; still he uses John more than Mark and HERETICAL JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 95 Luke. This use appears ' iu the mention of the sign the Baptist saw; 6 in the demand of the temple that Jesus give a sign ; 7 in the two-sided determination of Jesus to good and to evil ; 8 in his flight after condemna- tion is passed; 9 in the binding after the arrest ; 10 and, finally, in the dying One's struggle with and victory over Satan. 11 Resting on these facts, and on the general observation that the whole Christological stand- point of the Church, as Celsus describes it, is John's, we can, as a supplement, bring into union with John more doubtful things, such as the name Logos, the angel at the grave, Mary Magdalene [as a witness to the raised One], and the marks of the nails.' 12 Certainly nobody who reads Keim's text of Celsus can avoid this impression. It follows from this that John's gospel was at that time a record of Christianity known and recognised by friend and foe. Therefore it will not do to talk of it as originating in that or in the immediately preceding time. Heretical Jewish Christianity. If John's gospel was of necessity hostile to any one party, that party was the heretical Jewish Christianity. But even this party could not avoid acknowledging it. According to Ewald, 13 the Testament of the Twelve Patriarch* was written under Hadrian by a Nazarite. 14 It probably arose in the mother country. 15 And the passages in question are not interpolated. 16 The ex- pressions : ct>j)y irda-qa aapKoa n ('a fountain unto the life of all flesh'); 6eo aap/cl 22 ('God in flesh') ; 6 d/xvba tov deov ('the Lamb of God'),' 23 are, 96 CH. IV. — TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. decided reminiscences of John. The matter is just as unquestionable in the Clementina. Strike out if you like a number of the fifteen passages counted by De Lagarde, 24 and there are still enough left to prove the use of the gospel of John. Not to mention the citation from John iii. 5, referred to above, 25 look at Sta rovro avroa a\r}0i](T cov 7rpo(p7]Trjcr e\e quoniam non ad materiam scripturas, sed materiam ad scripturas excogi- tavit ' (' nor if Valentinus used 67 the whole instrument [that is, the Holy Scriptures], did he attack the truth with less cunning wits than Marcion. Marcion pro- fessedly and openly Used a knife, not a pen, since he cut the Scriptures to fit his own material: but Valen- tinus spared them, since he did not adapt the Scriptures to the material, but the material to the Scriptures '). Are, then, direct separate quotations of John's gospel by Valentinus handed down to us ? Many affirm this, on the ground of the PMlosophoumena and their r)r)criv. Be that as it may, the more general investi- gations made above determine in any case the question whether Valentinus knew John's gospel, and that as a canonical book. Opkitic Sects. In regard to the Ophitic Sects, Hippolytus in his Philosophoumena certainly brings in numerous Jo- hannean quotations of theirs : from the ' Naassenes,' John i. 3, 9, ii. 1-11, iii. 6, 8, iv, 10, 14, 21-24, v. 37, vi. 44, 53, viii. 21, ix. 1, x. 9, xiii. 33 ; from the 'Perates,' John i. 1-4, iii. 14, 17, viii. 44, x. 17; from the ' Sethians,' iv. 7-14 ; and from the Gnostic 'Justin,' John iv. 10-14, xix. 26. But the form of this Gnosticism, as it here lies before us, is not the original one, although there is much old matter under it. Hippolytus, probably with truth, therefore, desig- nates 71 the Naassenes as the earliest Gnostics. From this we can only draw the confirmation of what is settled from other grounds, namely, that in the second half of the second century John's gospel stood in high canonical respect not merely in the Church, but also in the circles of Gnosticism. Marcion. The question as to Marcion's position towards John's gospel is more decisive. Marcion is the first critic 106 CH. IV. TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. who, quite after the manner of the Tubingen school, always kept appealing to Galatians ii. to prove a 'differentia piTedicationis' ('difference of preaching ') between Paul and the original apostles. 72 He thought it was his duty to restore again in its pure form the gospel of Christ, which the original apostles had legal- ized and Judaized. 73 Hence, as he himself confessed, he corrected Paul's epistles and Luke's gospel, because they had received additions from the 'judaizantes evangelizatores ' (' Judaizing evangelizers'). 'Idevan- gelium quod Lucas refertur penes nos . . . ipsum est quod Marcion per antitheses suas arguit ut inter- polatum a protectoribus Judaismi ' (' That gospel, which is referred to Luke among us, ... is the very one which Marcion tried to show in his antitheses to be interpolated by the protectors of Judaism '). 74 In speaking of Col. i. 15 ff. it is said: 'si ha&c pseud- apostoli nostri et Judaici evangelizatores de suo intu- lerint,' etc. 75 (' if our false apostles and Jewish evangel- izers should have brought these things in of themselves'). For his canon read, as his disciples give it : 7G c Mar- cionem non tarn innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam recurasse ' (' Marcion did not so much bring in a new rule by separating the law and the gospel, as restore again the rule that had been corrupted '). Marcion explains himself as to the grounds for his rejecting the canon of the Catholic Church, in a letter which Tertullian was acquainted with, and to which he expressly appeals in his polemical writings : 77 ' rescindendo quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola et tui non negant,' etc. (' by withdrawing what thou once believed, as also both thou thyself hast confessed in a certain letter, and thy [followers] do not deny,' etc.). In connection with this Tertullian writes, 78 pro- ceeding from Gal. ii. : ' connititur ad destruendum GNOSTICS; MARCION. 107 statum eorum evangeliorum quse propria et sub apos- tolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat ' (' he strives to destroy the authority of those gospels which are published of right and under the apostles' name, or even [under the name] of followers of apostles, so that he may give to his own the faith he takes away from them'). 79 Again, at another place, 89 after speaking of that letter, he writes : ' si scripturas opinioni tuse re- sistentes non de industria alias rejecisses, alias cor- rupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium Joannis ' (' if thou hadst not industriously rejected some and corrupted others of the Scriptures that oppose thy opinion, the gospel of John would have confounded thee in this point'). After this it cannot be denied that Marcion knew John's gospel. He knew it, and knew it as from the apostle John. That is the very reason he rejected it. He could not use in his canon books from original apostles, for in his opinion they had Juclaistically corrupted all the doctrine of Christ. It is a matter of course, that among the gospels rejected by Marcion, ' qua} propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur ' (' which are published of right, and under the apostles' name '), we are not, as Zeller thinks, to under- stand those of Thomas, Matthias, etc. It is only neces- sary to read Tertullian's polemical work connectedly to convince oneself that only the gospels of the Church are spoken of. Marcion did not need to reject those apocryphal things, since they were not received by the Church at all. 81 Nor can we say that Tertullian, going upon the supposition that the canon of the Church was old and genuine, made Marcion responsible for a failure to use such books as the fourth gospel, which Marcion could not possibly have known, because they were not yet in existence in his day. So also Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, and others, held Marcion's Luke to be the 108 CH. IV. TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. original, and the canonical to be the later ; and there- fore blamed Tertullian's attack as unjustified. But even they had to acknowledge, after Yolkmar's proof, that the relation in the case of Luke's gospel is just the reverse. The same experience would repeat itself with John's gospel. He who reads carefully a few chapters in Tertullian S2 will see two things : in the first place, that Tertullian knew Marcion's work ; and in the second place, that he must have read in this very work that Marcion rejected the original apostolic gospels, namely, Matthew and John ; and why he rejected them. Look merely at one passage : S3 ' Marcion Lucam vid- etur elegisse quern csederet ' (' Marcion seems to have chosen Luke as the one he would cut '). From this, and from the whole method of proof in this chapter, it appears plainly that Marcion knew our four gospels (' apostolorum ' and ' apostolicorum,' ' of apostles and of apostles' followers'). So the matter may rest in Weizsacker's decision : "* ' Tertullian did not merely guess that Marcion knew and put aside the other gospels ; he knew it as a fact. For he knew the arguments Marcion gave for this, and he combats these arguments ; and these arguments refer especially to John's gospel.' Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Strauss, and Scholten S6 declare that John's gospel would have suited Marcion's purpose better than Luke's ; and that the fact of his not choosing it, though it speaks 'just as if out of Marcion's own soul,' M is a sign that it was not yet in existence. This assertion is utterly groundless. On the contrary, just because he knew it, and knew it to be original and apostolic, his false Paulinism compelled him to reject it. His Gnosticism was out and out irreconcilable with the alleged Gnosticism of the fourth gospel. That can be easily proved by many passages of the gospel. 87 Let us confine ourselves merely to the first two chapters of GNOSTICS ; MARCION. 109 the gospel, and see how much therein stood opposed to Marcion's system. Look at i. 3 — according to Marcion, the ' bonus Deus ' (' good God ') and his Christ made nothing ; i. 6-8 — according to Marcion, the Baptist is not the forerunner but the antipode of Christ; i. 10 — Christ had nothing to do with the creation of the world ; i. 1 1 — according to Marcion, Christ came not into his own world, but into one foreign to him, one that did not belong to him ; i. 14 — as a Docetic, Marcion must deny this ; i. 15-36 — Marcion must have rejected this paragraph for the same reason as i. 6-8 ; i. 41, (Eng. vers. 40), tcov a/covcrdvTfov irapa 'Irodvvov (' which heard John'), must have fallen out; i. 45-46 — according to Marcion, neither Moses nor the prophets wrote about Christ, nor did he, in his entirety, come from Nazareth ; i. 48 (47) — according to Marcion, the 'Israelite indeed ' is no praise from Jesus' mouth; i. 50 ff. (49 ff.) — Marcion's Christ could not have approved of Nathanael's expression; ii. 1-11 — Marcion's Christ could not have been guest at any marriage ; ii. 12 — according to Mar- cion, Jesus has neither brethren nor a mother. So there is no use of talking about John's gospel suiting Marcion better than Luke's. He must, on the contrary, have been compelled from his point of view to reject it, on account of its contents. We have thus found that Marcion knew John's gospel, and that as apostolic. Therefore at his time it stood in unquestionable use and authority in the Church. Now Marcion is from Asia Minor, and had probably exercised a pretty long activity in Asia Minor before he came to Rome, about 140. Hence his testi- mony is the more decisive for this gospel of the apostle, whom all tradition puts in Asia Minor. The result is this : at the middle, and even before the middle, of the second century, as far back as 130, John's gospel was known, and regarded as apostolic 110 CH. IV. TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. in Gnostic circles. Therefore there can be no room for speaking of its arising at that time. The fact of such an early and general acceptance of it as an apostolic book in the ranks of the Gnostics presupposes a general recognition on the side of the Church. This fact compels us to go back for the origin, in any case, as far as the beginning of the seeond century. Where it was known, it was known under no other name than that of the apostle John. And then the existence of the gospel comes into such direct contact with the first recollections of the great apostle of Asia Minor, that mistake is excluded. If the gospel existed and passed as a book of the apostle's at the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, as in the rest of the provinces of Christendom ; and if John lived in Ephesus, and as late as to the time of Trajan, these two facts join each other so closely, that no error of tradition can press in between them and separate them. Suppose, then, that they can no longer maintain the earlier position, which thrust the origin of the gospel far down into the second century. And suppose that, nevertheless, from other grounds, they think they cannot regard this book as an apostolic one. There is then nothing left but to deny the residence of the apostle John in Asia Minor. This, therefore, is the position taken up by Keim, with the approval of Scholten and others. 1 M. von Engelhardt, Dorpater Zeitschrift, 1869. 2 Keim published it : Aelteste Streitschrift antiker Weltan- schauung gegen das Christenthum vom Jahre 178 nach Christo iviederhergestellt, aus dem Grieckischen ilbersetzt, untersucht und crlautcrt, mit Lucian und Minucius Felix vcrglichcn. Zurich, 1873. 3 lieview of Keim in Zur altkirchliclmi Literatur, by Adolf Harnack. Allgcmcine Evangclisch-Lutherischc Kirchcnzcitung, 1873, Nos. 32 and 35 ; sec No. 35, p. 657. NOTES. Ill 4 See Keim's opinion, Aelteste Streitschrift, etc., ut supra, p. 223 ff. 5 Ibid. p. 228. 6 Origen, Contra Celsum, lib. i. cap. 41 ; pars i. {Opera, edit. Lommatzsch, vol. xviii.), Berlin, 1845, p. 79. 7 Ibid. lib. i. cap. 67, pp. 126, 127. 8 Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 7 ; pars ii. {Opera, vol. xix.), Berlin, 1846, p. 10. [Those receiving Him, saved : rejecting, lost. — C.E.G.] 9 Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 9 ; pars i. p. 147.: lib. i. cap. 62, ; Ibid. p. 111. 10 Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 9 ; pars i. p. 147. 11 Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 42 ; pars ii. pp. 374—376 : lib, ii, cap. 47 ; pars i. p. 200. 12 Keim, Cehus' Wahres Wort, -Aelteste Streitschrift antiker IViltamchauung gegen das Christenthum xom Jalire 178 n. Chr., Zurich, 1873, p. 229 f. 13 [Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2d ■edit. Gottingen, 1868, vol. vii. p. 363 (1st edit. 328), says 90-110.— C.B.G.] 14 Kitschl, Die Bntstehung der altkatholisohen Kirche, 2d edit. Bonn, 1857, p. 172 f. 15 Langen, Das Judenthum in Pcddstina zur Zeit Christi, Freiburg im Breissau, 1866, p. 144 f. 16 Ibid. p. 148 f. 17 Tcstamenta XII. Patriarchum ; ad fidem -codicis Cantabri- giensis edita : accedunt lectiones cod. Oxoniensis. The Testament of the XII Patriarchs : an attempt to estimate their historic and dogmatic worth. By Piobert Sinker, chaplain of Trinity College. Cambridge and London, 1869 ; Levi, xiv. p. 145. 18 Ibid., Levi, x. p. 143, xiv. p. 145 ; Dan, vi. p. 173. 19 Ibid., Benjamin, ix. p. 200. 20 Ibid., Juda, xx. p. 158. 21 Ibid., Juda, xxiv. p. 159. 22 Ibid., Benjamin, x. p. 200. 23 Ibid., Joseph, xix. p. 195. 24 Lagarde, Clementina, Leipzig, 1865; see p. (30) of the Introduction. 24 Lagarde, Clementina, p. 117, lines 3-5. See above, pp. 62, 63. 26 Ibid. p. 50, lines 29-31. 2T Ibid. p. 50, line 34. 28 Nitzsch, Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, part i., Berlin, 1870, p. 49. 29 Ibid. 30 Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Charakter des Bvangeliums Jnli'irtnis, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 105 : ' from the middle of the second century.' 31 Lipsius, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Tlieologie, 1863, pp. 410-457 ; 1864, pp. 37-57. 32 Irenteus, Contra Hoereses, III. iv. 3 ; edit, Massuet, Paris, 1710, p. 178 b. 112 CH. IV. TESTIMONY OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. 33 Origen, In Genesin, horn. ii. cap. 2 ; Opera, edit. Lom- matzsch, Berlin, 1838, vol. viii. pp. 102 and 135. 34 Volkmar, Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien, Zurich, 1866, p. 22. Scholten, Die aeltesten Zeugnisse brtreffend die Schriften des Ncuen Testaments, Bremen, 1867, p. 90. 35 Irenseus, Contra Hcereses, II. iv. 1 ; ut supra, p. 119 b. 36 Fliigel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften. Ein Beit- rag zur Geschichte des Manichdismus, Leipzig, 1862, p. 85. 37 [Irenseus, III. iv. 3 ; Massuet, Paris, 1710, reads irap'epensv ' "we ' Awxsjrou, p. 178 b. — C.E.G.] 38 Harnack, Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, 1874, 2 Heft, p. 219 f. [Heresy polluting the virgin Church.— C.E.G.] 39 Ibid. 40 Tertullian, De Came Christi, cap. 1 ; Opera, edit, minor, Oehler, Leipzig, 1854, pp. 891, 892. 41 Harnack, ut supra, p. 223 f. 42 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, vii, 1 7 ; Opera, edit. Sylburg, Cologne, 1688, p. 764 c, d. 43 See Thiersch, Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts fur die Kritik der N. T. Schriften, Erlangen, 1845, p. 392. 44 See Irenseus, Contra Haircses, III. xi. 7 ; edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, pp. 189 b, 190. 45 Thiersch, Einige Worte iiber die Aechtheit der N. T. Schriften, Erlangen, 1846, p. 89 ff. 46 See Eusebius, Historia, Ecclesiastica, III. xxv. ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871), pp. 115-117; and Irenpeus, Contra Haireses, III. xi. 9, the ' evangelium veri- tatis ' (' gospel of truth ') of the Valentinians, edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, p. 192 b. 47 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV. vii. 7 ; ut supra, p. 142. 48 Thiersch, Versuch z. Herstell. d. hist. Standp. f. d. Kritik d. K T. Schr., Erlangen, 1845, p. 394. 49 Hippolytus, Eefutatio Omnium Hairesium, VII. xxii., edit. Duncker and Schneidewin, Gottingen, 1859, p. 360 : %a\ tovto, (prjffiv, z6ti to Xsyofitvov sv toTs ibayys'Aioi6 m rjv rb i twv KvpiaKwv Xojlcov (fcdafceL otl vtto ^lovhalwv dvypedry irXiqpoiaacr BrjXaSr} jiera tov aSek(f)Ov rrjv rov Xpiarov Trepl avioiv jrpopprjcriv Kal Tt]v eavTOiv ofioXoylav Trepl tovtou koX avvKaid- Oea-iv (' he alone of the twelve disciples then remaining alive, and having written his gospel ; for he was reck- oned worthy of martyrdom. For Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who himself saw this one [John], says in the second book of the " sayings of the Lord," that he was slain by the Jews, having certainly fulfilled with his brother what Christ had said about them, and their own confession concerning and agreement with Him'). And then follows the well-known account, Matt. xx. 20 ff. In other manuscripts the whole passage is 128 Cfl. V. ST. JOHN AT EPHESUS. wanting. So it is uncertain enough. But even if genuine, it appears, as it reads, to arise from a con- founding John with his brother James. Perhaps Georgios glanced at Papias too hastily. If, however, he read aright, then they must let him hold good for the other fact, that he puts John in Ephesus, and makes Papias to have seen him personally, avronrr^a^ for these items stand in too close connection to permit of taking one and throwing away the other. The thing they reject is what is generally testified to ; and the thing they accept is what nobody else in the world testifies to. Did Georgios actually read in Papias that statement about John in Ephesus ? And Eusebius and Irenaeus, of whom we know that they were acquainted with Papias' work, have not found a word of this surprising news therein ! For otherwise they would not have given an entirely different account of John, and that information would not have disappeared tracelessly from the memory of the Church. Wonderful ! Those words of an obscure author of the ninth century pass as an authority ; and what Irena3us of Asia Minor and the rest tell is thought to be nothing! Now for the alleged confirmation by Heracleon. Heracleon 52 ' can only cite Matthew, Philip, and Thomas as apostles not martyred.' This is said to confirm the statement of Georgios Hamartolos. 53 Grimm only took a few lines 54 to prove that the appeal to this alleged testimony rests on mere hastiness. When Clement of Alexandria refers to this about Heracleon, he is speaking not of a martyrdom, but only of a confession — onokoyla, ha rfjo- fywvrjo- — before the authorities, and not only 1 Matthew, Philip, and Thomas,' but also Aevia /cal aXXot ttoXKol (' Levi and many others '). Even Scholten 86 acknowledges the nothingness of Keim's alleged rea- sons. PAPIAS. 129 But do not Papias' own words, where he speaks of his sources, shut out the Ephesian residence of John ? We must dwell longer upon this. The words Eusebius has kept for us 5e from the introduction to Papias' book read thus : Ou/c bicvr)era> Be eroi koX oera Trore irapd rwv 7rpea/3vrepcov /caXwcr eLiadov kcli koXcHxt eLivrjLiovevera ervvTti^at racer epjX7]veiaLer, BiafiefSaiovLievocr iiirep avrcov aKifdeiav. ov yap Tola ra 7ro\\a Xeyovaiv e^aipov osairep ol ttoWoI, dWa Tola Ta\.7]6P} BlBdaKOVaLV, OllBe TOICT TCLd oXkorpiaCT eVTo\da /U,VT]LlO- vevovaiv^ dXkd Tola rda irapd rod fcvplov rfj irlaTei BeBoiievaa ko\ dir avTrja nrapayivopuhaa [Lammer and Heinichen have 7rapayivo/Aevoia~\ r-Pja d\i]0eiao- el Be nrov ical Traprj/coXovdriKcoa Tta Tola 7rpea/3vTv tov KVpLov Lia9r)Th)v, a re ' ' ApiaTieov tcai o TrpeafivTepoa 'Ieodvvrjer ol tov Kvpiov /na07]Tal Xeyovaiv ov yap to, i/c reov /3i/3\loov ToerovTov fie axfieXelv VTre\dfif3avov berov to, irapd ^ojerrjer efrcovfjcr koX Ltevovarja (' Nor shall I hesitate, more- over, to add to the interpretations whatever I learned well at any time from the elders, and have remem- bered carefully, for I am convinced of its truth. For I did not use to delight, after the manner of the mul- titude, in those who talked about all sorts of things, but in those who taught true things ; not in those who told about strange commands, but in those [who recalled] the [commands] given by the Lord unto faith, and [the commands] springing from the truth itself. And if any one happened to come along who had been with the elders, I asked [him] about the words of the elders : what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's dis- ciples [said], and what Aristion and the elder [pres- byter] John, the disciples of the Lord, say ; for I did not think that the things out of the books did me so 130 CH. V. ST. JOHN AT EPHESUS. much good as those from a voice that was alive and remained '). Papias here speaks of the motive as well as of the sources and the contents of his work. ' For I did not find my pleasure in those who speak much (many kinds of things), as the multitude (takes its pleasure therein), but in those who teach the true ; nor in those who enjoin singular commands, but in those who (inculcate the commands) given by the Lord unto faith, and springing from the truth itself; ' or, accord- ing to the other reading, ' and in those who issued from the truth itself (namely, in the Church).' These words recall strikingly Polycarp's letter: 57 Btb airoktirovTea rrjv fiaraiorrjra ro>v iroKKwv zeal racr yjrevSo- hihaaKcChtiacr eir\ rov i% cipher ?]/jilv irapaSoOevra Xoyov eirLcrrpe- -ty-coixev (' wherefore, leaving the folly of the multitude and the false teachings, let us turn to the word handed down to us from the beginning'). Here, too, the iroWol (' multitude ') are spoken of who find their pleasure in /xaraiorrjo- (■* folly '), the same thing as Xeyeiv rd nroWd (' to talk much'). Here, too, the word handed down to us from the beginning, or, as Papias says, given over by the Lord Himself to faith, is the thing contrasted with this folly. Now the words in Polycarp's letter are an attack upon Docetic Gnosticism. Resting on the criterion of the truth in 1 John iv. 3, he combats Docetism, only in a more advanced stage, just as 1 John combats it : ba av fir) o/jio\orjcn \e%ea)v (' he does not show anywhere that he himself was a hearer and seer of the holy apostles, and he teaches that he received the things regarding the faith at the hands of those who knew them [' the apostles '] ; this he says in these words') ; and then follow the words quoted above. Eusebius' view rests simply on the pre- face, and not on any other information. In this preface it is clear that Papias speaks of 7rpea(3vrepot (' elders '), and not of airoarokoi ('apostles'). Eusebius renders this by irapa rwv i/celvoicr f)a rov \6yov y " ab iis qui verbum vitaB ipsi conspexerant "), all in agreement with the Scriptures. This I heard then with zeal, by the mercy of God that was toward me, writing it down for remembrance not on paper, but in my heart ; and I go over again to myself (avapapvK(op,ac) always by God's grace correctly. And I can witness before God, 144 CH. V. ST. JOHN AT EPHESUS. that if that sainted and apostolic elder (irpea^vrepoa) had heard anything of that kind, he would have cried out, stopped his ears, and, saying as he was wont : " good Gocl, unto what kind of times hast Thou kept me, that I must endure these things ? " would have fled even from the place in which he was sitting or standing when he heard such words.' In all these passages Irenseus is unquestionably speaking of the apostle John. What he tells about him is based, aside from the Scriptures, on the tradi- tions in Asia Minor. His witnesses for these things are not merely Polycarp, but also the elders in general who were in Asia with John. Take as much as you please from the accounts of these elders, their inter- course with John still remains. It is truly queer pre- sumption to assume that Irenseus misunderstood not only Polycarp but these as well, they having spoken not of the apostle but of some other John. What could be the sense in this ? For their testimony is brought into connection with the understanding of certain passages in John's writings, both in the gospel — as in number 1 — and in the Revelation — asin numbers 4-6 — which Irenseus, like the others of his day, held to be apostolic. Suppose, however, they say that Irenseus did not himself speak to those elders, but took their sayings at second hand. That would only be to shove that error altogether farther back into the tradition of Asia Minor. This is what Irenseus took with him to Gaul, and when he left Asia Minor he was mature enough to know this tradition well. It is not enough to assume that the anti-Gnostic prejudice led Irenseus to seek apostolic authority for the tradition which he represented. Anti-Gnostic interest is not the only thing in hand here. Nor is it the case that the witnesses of the earlier time became IRKNJEU3. 145 apostles arbitrarily for him when dealing with such an interest. He distinguishes decidedly between apostles and others who saw Jesus, as in number 3. Therefore he could probably have kept apart the apostle John and the presbyter of like name. 100 The error alleged is made altogether impossible by what he says about his teacher Polycarp, in number 8. He puts him in direct pupilship to witnesses of Jesus in general, to apostles, and especially to John, in number 3. He appeals to such as have heard him tell about the apostle John, his meeting Cerinth in the bath, and the like, in number 3, He reminds the Roman bishop of Polycarp 's official dealings with his predecessor in Rome, and of Polycarp's appeal to the custom of the apostles in celebrating the passover, in number 7. He could not make such an appeal in a letter he wrote as bishop to the Roman bishop, if it could not be made good from the papers. Had John not been in Ephesus, and could Polycarp not have appealed to him, Iren^eus' whole argument was gone. There must have been in the archives of the bishop notes and documents about this. Had it not been as Irenseus said, he could at any moment have been con- victed of error. This did not happen, because it could not. In any other case it would have happened. If in Rome, where they laid such weight on apostolic authority and tradition, they could have raised objec- tions, they would not have taken in silence this appeal to the apostles, and above all to John, in favour of the custom in Asia Minor. 101 Thus the tradition of the Roman, no less than that of the Asiatic church, gives testimony for the apostle's residence in Asia Minor. Then for a needless plenty we have the youthful recollections contained in the letter to Florinus. They are so fresh and living, we feel so vividly what a care- K 146 CH. V. ST. JOHN AT EPHESUS. fully fostered and cherished treasure these memories were for the ripe man, and the tone in which he speaks of them to the friend of his } 7 outh is so confident and sure of the matter, that deception is impossible. Florinus could have discovered it at once. But he is made a fellow-witness. The truth rests in the mouth of two witnesses. This letter alone is enough to prove John's residence at Ephesus. Scholten helped himself by declaring the letter spurious. That is the resort of desperation. 102 What motive could give a foundation for making up such a letter, seeing that it contains no doctrinal discussion or the like ? To say nothing of the testimony of antiquity, the letter is confirmed by the warm pulse-beat that we feel all through it. But even if Scholten could do the impossible, and put aside this letter, the letter to Rome would in any case be left. Therefore Ireneeus' testimony is not to be thrown out. Moreover, it is not merely an individual testi- mony, into which misunderstandings might have crept. Irenseus does not bring forward his own view, but appeals to the youthful recollections of Florinus, to the official information of the Roman church, and to the tradition of the church in Asia Minor. The testimony of the other churches stands by his account, and is independent of it. Even if the impossible were real, and, as far as Irenreus was concerned, the apostle had thrust himself into the place of the unknown presbyter, do they mean to say that this same confusion was also taken up by the other witnesses to that tradition, and indeed by the whole ancient church ? In that case this hypothesis loses itself in absurdity. For it is not true that Ire- naeus started the mistake, and that the rest of the Church took it up on his authority. The testimony of the ancient church for John, the writer of the Reve- lation, is also an indirect testimony for that tradition. IREKEUS. 147 To them the writer of the Revelation is the apostle, and the home of the Revelation is Asia Minor. This tradition, however, is independent of Irenseus. Besides Apollonius, the Alexandrian Clement and the Ephesian bishop Polj'crates stand independently by the side of Irenaaus as direct witnesses. We saw above that Clement made his own researches, and had indepen- dent sources, as his own statements show. 103 Polycrates does not bring mere ' fancy pictures ' and ' rhetoric.' 104 No less than seven of his relations had served as bishops. And thus, in opposing the Roman bishop Victor, he could appeal to the rich tradition of his house, as well as to the other great witnesses of the church in Asia Minor. Among these, it is true, he does not mention the presbyter John, of whom he seems to know nothing, but he does mention the apostle. Hitherto no testimony in the passover question stood as more reliable than that of Polycrates. Shall it be said that he too was led astray by Irenaeus ? He did not need that western man to get information about the tradition of his own home church. If any church was a church of tradition, it was the church in Asia Minor, the church of Polycarp and Polycrates. The recognition of this forces itself on Keim 105 when he admits : ' No one could call any other church, and especially not the new, past-less, Gentile-Christian church of Palestine, a real church of ancient witnesses, like the church of Asia Minor, with such holy and untiring zeal as that of the old men Polycarp and Polycrates.' But to these witnesses belonged first of all the apostle John ! Did they all confound the presbyter with the apostle ? And yet it was not simply the name that was kept. It was the whole image of his person- ality and of his priestly rule which was fixed in the memory of the church in Asia Minor. 148 CH. V. — ST. JOHN AT EPHESUS. The Apostle Philip. They cannot appeal to the confusion between the apostle Philip and the deacon of the same name. That case is altogether different. Eusebius 106 certainly does transfer the note in Acts xxi. 9, as to the four pro- phetically-gifted daughters of the deacon living at Csesarea, to the apostle Philip, living at Hierapolis. But we do not need to transfer to the deacon Philip what Clement of Alexandria 107 says about the mar- riage of the daughters of Philip, and what Polycrates 10 * says about the three daughters of Philip, two of whom died virgins, and the third of whom, probably married, was buried at Ephesus. Supposing, however, that there were some confusion here, it would not be neces- sary for us to help ourselves by taking Acts xxi. 9 to be a later addition. 109 The mingling of the deacon with the apostle in the memory of the Church would be easily explained. For tradition tells little about the apostle, while the deacon exercised an important activity as an evangelist. On the other hand, as to John, we know nothing of the presbyter, while the apostle was one of the foremost in the circle of the apostles. Moreover, a numerous throng of disciples traced themselves back to him, and in weighty ques- tions of doctrine and discipline the tradition of the Church appealed to him. We may close with the twofold result. In the first place, it is inconceivable that Irenaeus confounded the presbyter with the apostle : he knew how to keep apostles separate from other disciples of the Lord ; the recollections to which he appeals are quite clear ; and his testimony is such that it cannot be cast aside by those who oppose him. And in the second place, Irenaeus' mistake, if it had existed, would not have NOTES. J 40 been to blame for the confusion; for we find that tradition of the apostle's Ephesian residence, in Asia Minor as well as in Rome and in Alexandria, quite independent of Irenseus. So if anything in the world should pass for a historical tradition, this must. But the Tubingen criticism has always drawn, as it thinks, an unanswerable argument against the apostolic composition of the fourth gospel from this tradition. They say that the chronology of the last supper and of the death of Jesus in this gospel stands in irreconcil- able contradiction with the tradition of John's custom in celebrating the passover at Ephesus. 1 Vogel, Das Evangelist Johannes unci seine Auslegcr vor dem jilngstcn Gericht (Hof), 1801, p. 6 f. 2 Eeuterdahl, I)e Fontibus Historians Eusebiana% Lond. Goth. (Limd in Sweden), 1826, p. 24 ff. 3 Liitzelberger, Die hirchliche Tradition ilbcr den Apostel Johannes unci seine Schriften in Hirer G ' randlosigkeit nachgc- wiesen, Leipzig, 1840, p. 198. 4 Grimin, Erseh unci Gruher Allgemeim Encyclopddie der Wissenschaften unci Kilnste, 2te Section, 22ter Theil, Leipzig, 1843, p. 6 ff., ' Johannes der Apostel; ' and p. 217 ff., ' Johannes der Presbyter.' 5 Schwegler, Die neucste Jvhanneische Literatur, Theologisr/n' Jalirbueher, 1842, p. 293 ff'. 6 Ibid. p. 300. 7 Weisse, Berliner Jahrbuchcr fur ivissenschaftliche Kritik, 1840, vol. ii. Nos. 21-23 ; and the reviewer (was it Schnitzer?) of the Halle schen Allgemeine Literaturzeitung, 1840, Nos. 134-137. 8 Keirn, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zlirich, 18G7, vol. i. p. 161 ff. 9 Ibid. vol. i. p. 162. 10 Ibid. vol. i. p. 164. 11 Wittichen, Das geschichtliche Character des Evangclinms Johannis in Verbindung mit- der Frage nach seinem Ursjrrunge, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 102 f. 12 Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Colosser-briefe avf Grund einer Analyse Hires Vcrivandschaftsirrhdltnisses, Leipzig, 1872, p. 323. u Ibid. p. 322. 14 Literarisches Centralblatt, 1873, 29th March, No. 13, p. 387. 15 Ziegler, Des Irenceus Lehre von der Aidoritat der Schrift, der Tradition, unci der Kirche (Programme of a Berlin Gym- nasium), 1868, p. 32 f. 1")0 CH. V. — ST. JOHN AT EPHESUS. 16 Scholten, Der Apostcl Johannes in Klein-Asien, Berlin, 1872 (Dutch edition, 1871), pp. 63-73. 17 Ewald, Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1867, No. 41, p. 1611. 18 Steitz, Studien und Kritiken, 1868, p. 487 ff. 19 Eusebius, Historia Ecchsiastica, III. xxxii. 6 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 125. 20 Eusebius, ut supra, IV. xiv. 3, p. 152 ; Irenteus, Contra Ha:reses, III. iii. 4, edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, p. 176 b. 21 Eusebius, ut supra, V. xviii. 14, p. 224. 22 Ibid. V. xviii. 9, p. 223. 23 Keim, Protestantische Kirchen-zcitung, 1871, p. 535 ff. 24 Hilgenfeld, Zeitsekrift fur ivissenschaftliche Thcologie, 1868, p. 230 ff. 25 Ibid, 1872, p. 376 ff. 2G Ibid. 1872, p. 378. 27 Krenkel, Der Apostcl Johannes, Berlin, 1871, ' John in Ephesus,' pp. 133-178. 2S Eusebius, Historia Ecchsiastica, III. xxxix. ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) pp. 133-136. 29 Varnhagen von Ense, in his Tageblatt for 9th June 1839. See also Brief e von A. v. Humboldt an Varnhagen von Ense, 3d edit. Leipzig, 1860, p. 57 f., note. 30 Krenkel, ut supra, p. 139. 31 Grimm, Ersch unci Griibers Allg. Eneyk. d. Wissensch. u. Kunste, 2te Section, 22ter Theil, Leipzig, 1843, pp. 8 and 9. 32 Scholten, Der Apostcl Johannes in Klein-Asien, Berlin, 1872 (Dutch, 1871), p. 68. 33 Keim, Gcschichtc Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 169. 34 Scholten, Dcr Apostcl Johannes in Klein-Asien, Berlin, 1872 (Dutch, 1871), p. 16 ff. 35 Ibid. p. 18 f. i 36 Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Colosscr-briefe, Leipzig, 1872, p. 276. 37 Ibid, p. 314. 38 Scholten, ut supra, p. 19 f. 39 Grimm, Ersch u. Gruber's Allg. Enegk. d. Wissensch. u. Kunste, 2te Section, 22ter Theil, Leipzig, 1843, p. 8. 40 Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, Berlin, 1871, p. 137. 41 See above, p. 75. 42 Ignatius, Ad Ephcsiox, cap. xii. ; Patrwm Apostolicorum Opera, 2d edit., Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, pp. 130, 132 : this whole section, however, chapters xi.-xiii., is wanting in Cureton's recension. 43 Leuschner, Das Evcungdium St. Johannis und seine neuesten ll'idersacher, Halle, 1873, p. 69. 14 Ignatius, Ad Ephesins, cap. xi. ; ut supra, pp. 130, 330, 332. 4 "' Ibid, cap. viii., ix. ; pp. 126, 128, and 326, S28. 46 Ibid. cap. xi. ; pp. 130, and 330, 332. NOTES. 151 47 Erenseus, Contra Hccreses, III. iii. 4 ; edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, pp. 177, 178. 48 Keirn, Gcschichte Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 161. 49 Holtzrnann, Kritik der Ephescr- unci Colosser-briefe, Leipzig, 1872, p. 322. 50 Keim, Gcschichte Jcsu n. d. Ercjcb. u.s.uk, Zurich, 1873, p. 42. 51 JSTolte, Thcologische Quartalschrift,, Tubingen, 1862, p. 466. 52 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, IV. ; Opera, edit. Syl- burg, Cologne, 1688, p. 502 b, c. 53 Keim, Gcschichte Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, vol. iii. (1872) p. 44 f. 54 Grimm, Zeitschrift fur ivisscnschaftliche Theologie, 1874, 1 Heft, p. 121 f. 55 Scholten, Der Apostel Johannes in Klein-Asien, Berlin, 1872 (Dutch, 1871), p. 128. 56 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III. xxxix. 3, 4; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 133; Laemmer's edit. III. xl. p. 236 ; Heinichen's edit. III. xxxix. 3, 4, pp. 147, 148. 57 Polycarp, Epistola ad Philippenscs, cap. vii. ; Patrum Apostolicoruni Opera, Dressel, 2d edit. Leipzig, 1863, p. 385. 58 Ibid. 59 Sec the repeated a>.i}Qo>6 (' truly ') in the anti-Docetic parts of the Ignatian letters. 60 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III. xxxix. 2 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 133. 61 See 1 Clement, Ad Corinthios,c&\>. liv.,lv. ; Patrum Aposto- licorum Opera, edit. Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, p. 100 : Ibid. cap. lvii. p. 102. In the Ignatian letters in distinction from so~ /u.i]&' eTepa Trpoai)Keiv irapa ti]v tt}ct dvaa- Tuaecca tov croJTrjpoo- r)p,wv 7)p,epa Taa vtjaTeiaa eirCkveaOaL}* 1 The churches of all Asia thought, as it were on the ground of an ancient tradition, that they ought to celebrate the passover of salvation on the fourteenth 156 CH. VI. THE PASSOVER CONTROVERSY. day of the month, on which the Jews were commanded to slay the lamb ; because it was in every way neces- sary to close the fast on this day, no matter on what day of the week it fell. But it was not the custom in any other church in the world to celebrate in this way, all keeping the custom which has prevailed from apostolic tradition till now, that it is not meet to close the fast on any other than our Saviour's resurrection day.' That is the way Eusebius describes the difference. He contrasts the churches Of Asia with all others. By Asia we are probably to understand, according to the ruling later and New Testament use of terms, the Roman province, although the custom spoken of was not limited to this province. Those of Asia Minor, therefore, following the chronology of the Jewish feast, held the celebration of the passover of salvation always on the fourteenth Nisan, without regard to what day of the week it fell on. And they closed the fast on this day, while the other churches closed the fast with the resurrection day. It is not told in wdiat the cele- bration consisted. Eusebius then relates, 14 as the unanimous decision of all the rest of the bishops, standing in opposition to the custom of Asia Minor, that the ' mystery ' of the resurrection of the Lord should be held on no other than on the Lord's day, that is, Sunday. Therefore the celebration seems to have consisted chiefly in the Lord's supper. But from the very fact that nothing further is told about the object of the celebration, it clearly appears that the strife was not about this, but only about the day. All passages speak only of the latter, not of the former. Hence it was essentially ' one and the same Christian passover which the West always celebrated on a Sunday, and Asia Minor on the contrary on the fourteenth day of the month.' 15 They limited it to THE MEANING OF THE PASSOVER CELEBRATION. 157 this day, fasting through the day, and closing the fast at evening with their celebration. This celebration of the passover in Asia Minor is identical with the celebration of the Quartodecimani (Fourteeners), whom Hippolytus, Apolinarius, and Clement of Alexandria fought against. Until a later date it was quite common to think that these Quarto- decimani ought to be distinguished from the Catholics of Asia Minor, and that their custom as to the feast ought to be considered a particularly heretical one. Schtirer has proved the groundlessness of this opinion, and the agreement of the alleged separate party with the custom of the church in Asia Minor as to the feast. The attack of Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis about 160-180, which certainly shows that that custom did not rule without exception and uncontested in Asia Minor, is of especial importance for them. He does not reproach his opponents with heresy, but with ignor- ance. They did not need to be denounced, but to be taught. Aiyovacv on rrj lS' to 7rpo/3arov fiera twv fiadrjroiv ecfiayev o Kvptoa, rfj 8e /jLeydXr) rj/xepa twv a^vjxwv avroa erradev, /cal Sc7]yovvrac MarSalov ovtco Xeyeiv oocr vevorjicacnv '66ev aavfMficoi'oo- re vofAw rj vorjaio- civtwv /cal aracrui^eiv 8o/ce2 /car avrovo- to, evayyeXia 16 ('they say that the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples on the fourteenth, and that He suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, and they relate that, as they understand him, Matthew said so ; whence, their interpretation is both contrary to the law, and seems to oppose the gospels to each other '). Here, too, the question is not on the contents, but on the day of the celebration. Those in Asia Minor whom Apolinarius wars against appeal to the custom of the Lord, who held the passover on the fourteenth Nisan, and to the report of Matthew, who presents it thus. Apolinarius urges two things against them. First, this view is in contradiction to the law. For, accord- 158 CH. VI. THE PASSOVER CONTROVERSY. ing to that opinion, Christ would have died on the fifteenth Nisan. But if He were to be the New Testa- ment passover lamb, He must have died, according to the law, on the fourteenth. Secondly, the gospels were thereby put in contradiction with each other. Ebrard 17 has proved thoroughly that aracnd^eLv is to be under- stood thus, in opposition to the faulty exegesis of Schwegler, Baur, and others. Therefore Apolinarius knew a gospel which, at least as he understood it, put the death of Jesus on the fourteenth of Nisan. That can clearly have been only the gospel of John. His opinion was, that Matthew's account must therefore be understood according to this, if they did not wish to bring the gospels into contradiction with each other. Consequently the celebration of the fourteenth on the part of the Quartodecimani lacked exegetical founda- tion. Thus, also, in the polemical writings of Clement, of Hippolytus, and of the Philosojjhoumena, the only thing discussed is the day, and not the essence of the celebration. As to the latter point, both parties were agreed. It is therefore arbitrary to charge the op- ponents of Apolinarius and the rest with celebrating a Jewish and not a Christian passover. They celebrated the Christian passover on the Jewish day, appealing to the Lord's passover. This is as true of Apolinarius' Quartodecimani as of Polycarp and Poly crates. Finally, Schiirer rightly takes his decisive proof for this from the book of Eusebius about the passover, which has thus far been too little regarded. Eusebius relates that, at the Council of Nicaaa, those of Asia Minor who had till then still held fast to their celebra- tion gave up to the majority of the other bishops in the choice of the day, ' and thus it became a feast of Christ;' ' for nature draws like to like.' The opponents of the prevailing custom had asserted that the Lord ate the passover on the fourteenth, appealing to the THE MEANING OF THE PASSOVER CELEBRATION. 159 synoptic account, especially to Matthew's, 18 exactly like the so-called Quartodecimani. Hence Eusebius adds to his report above an exegetical proof, that the Lord ate the passover with his disciples not on the four- teenth but on the thirteenth Nisan ; and that He did not eat the Jewish passover, but had instituted the mystery the Lord's supper ; and that He died on the fourteenth. Thus we always find the same opponents, namely, those of Asia Minor, spoken of; the question is always the same, namely, onl} T the question as to the day ; and the proof urged against them is always the same. We can now determine what thoughts lay at the basis of that celebration. As far as the time of the celebration was concerned, the church of Asia Minor followed the Jewish celebration. This is repeatedly and expressly declared, as by Poly crates : 19 iravrore rrjv rjfiepav tfyayov ol crvyyevelcr fiov . . . orav o \abcr ypvve t1]v £vfj,T}v ('my relations always celebrated the day ... on which the people [that is, Israel] put away the leaven'); or Eusebius: 20 they of Asia Minor had believed eireadat, Belv ry 'IovSalav awrjOela ('that it was necessary to follow the custom of the Jews '). Their celebration was to them the counterpart of the Jewish. Naturally it is out of the question that either they or any part of them celebrated the Jewish passover itself. They celebrated a Christian passover, but on the day of the Jewish passover, because it was a fulfilment of that. Just as the Lord instituted His passover as a Christian passover in contrast to the Jewish, so had they under- stood and celebrated this Christian passover. But the Jewish passover is the celebration of the redemption of God's people ; the feast and the supper stood for the memory and for the fact of the redemption of Israel. And in the Christian passover they solemnized and celebrated the New Testament redemption. 51 Cer- 1G0 CH. VI. THE PASSOVEB CONTROVERSY. tainly this redemption was through Christ's death ; and therefore they surely thought of Christ's death in it, as at 1 Cor. xi. 26. But it does not follow from that that they celebrated the fourteenth Nisan as the remembrance - day of Christ's death, so that we could draw therefrom a confirmation of John's alleged chronology, as Weitzel, Steitz, and others do. Besides, the redemption was not alone through Christ's death, but also through the resurrection, so that in the celebration they probably thought no less of the resur- rection of Christ. Indeed, the West held its celebra- tion only on resurrection-day. We have seen, however, that there was no strife between Asia Minor and the rest of the Church as to the contents and the thought of the celebration. Therefore they agreed on this. Hence the meaning of the celebration must have been such that it could be held on resurrection-clay. The fact that those of Asia Minor fasted on the fourteenth Nisan does not argue for the celebration of the day of Christ's death. Fasting served to express not simply mourning, but religious preparation in general. Epiphanius 22 tells of a small party among the Quarto- decimani, who, on the ground of the acts of Pilate. always kept the twenty-fifth of March with fasting and the Lord's supper in memory of the sufferings of Christ. But these were no Quartodecimani at all, in- asmuch as the Quartodecimani were characterized by their keeping the day prescribed by the Old Testament law and observed by the Jews, while these ignored that clay. Hence we cannot conclude from the cele- bration of that party to the celebration of the Quarto- decimani, who, as we see from Eusebius, took the day of the passover supper, and therefore not the day of the death of Jesus. Theodoret 23 says of the Quartodeci- mani that they celebrated the memory of the sufferings of Jesus. But Eusebius' testimony goes for more than THE MEANING OF THE PASSOVER CELEBRATION, 1G1 that of a writer of the fifth centuiy, at whose day the Quartodecimani had already nearly died out. And besides, he speaks not of the death, but only of the sufferings of Jesus. Therefore thus much is settled : the celebration of the fourteenth Nisan was not deter- mined by the reckoning as to the day of the death of Jesus, since it did not stand exclusively in memory of that. Just as little was it exclusively in memory of the institution of the Lord's supper. It certainly touched upon that; but not as a chronological memorial^s^r £)dvwi.JU»v.. (' as then it is written, on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came and said to the Saviour, " Where wilt thou that we prepare ?'" etc.) — sec Matt. xxvi. 17 f. 19 Polycrates, in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V. xxiv. 6 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 231. 20 Eusebius, De Vita Constantini, lib. III. cap. v. (1) ; Corpus Patrum Graicorum, Frankfort-on-the-Main, vol. i. (1822) p. 912. 21 Sec Schurer, ut supra, p. 254. NOTES. 165 22 Epiphanius, Panama, haer. 1. 1, vol. i. pp. 42, 44 ; Corpus Hcerescologicum, Berlin, 1860, vol. ii. A small party, erspot, ' nonnulli;' with fasting and the Lord's Supper, a-jrr,v filav fi/iepav vrienuovrsd zai ru fivtirqpia emrsXovvTee ; sufferings of Christ, rbv 1ur7\f>a •jreirovSeyai. 23 Theodoret, Hccrcticarum Fabularum Compendium, lib. iii. cap. 4; edit. Schulze, Halle, vol. iv. (1772) p. 343: vavri'yvpifyvffi roZ kuOovg rr,v f&vrjfiTjv- CHAPTER VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. SUPPOSE we had no tradition about the author of the fourth gospel, but were left to the book itself for this point, we should then, on the ground of the impression it makes, be forced to assume, first of all, that the author was a Jew by birth, and that of Pales- tine, not a Hellenist of the Diaspora. 1. Language. The very language goes to show that he was such a person. This is pretty fairly acknowledged by all. Keim 1 calls the language ' a remarkable tissue of genuine Greek lightness and skill, and of Hebrew forms of expression, in all their directness, childish- ness, figurativeness, and, as well, awkwardness.' He quotes Godet's words, that the dress of the language is Greek, but its body Hebrew. In my work on the gospel of John I have treated thoroughly of the Hebrew character of the language of this gospel, and here simply refer to that place. This character does not lie in the single Hebraisms ; these we can, for the most part, trace back to Greek grammar. It is the 1 Hebrew soul' which l lives in the evangelist's lan- guage.' The material of the language shows this : the limited supply of words and ideas, which, as even Weiss and Hengstenberg have proved, go back for the THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THIS GOSPEL. 167 most part to the Old Testament ; and the sensuality and the figurativeness of the discourses, which are rooted in the Old Testament Scriptures and in the Old Testament history. We see clearly that the author's spirit has been fed upon these scriptures and this history. It appears also in the circumstantial way of relation ; in the want of such periods as are peculiar to Greek; in the want of Greek particles, which are supplied by kcu ('and') and ovv ('then') ; in the paratactical formation of sentences ; and in the parallelism and rhythm of clauses, after the manner of the Old Testament. All this shows the soul of the language to be not Greek, but Hebrew. This, too, is the conclusion reached by Credner : 2 ' The language in which our gospel is written characterizes the author as a man whom the Greek language, after long famili- arity with it, served as a means of presenting what he had originally thought in an- Eastern language, and particularly in the language of Palestine.' And Ewald 3 decides in the same way :. ' That the Greek language of the author bears in itself still the clearest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew, who, born among Jews in the Holy Land, and grown up in their society without speaking Greek, carries in himself the whole spirit and breath of his mother-tongue, even in the midst of the Greek raiment that he afterwards learned to cast about him, and has no hesitation to let himself be led by that spirit.' 4 2. The Old Testament in this Gospel. As the language, so, too, the holy book of Israel was the home of his spirit. The whole circle of his thoughts rose from the Old Testament. We can but agree with Wittichen, 5 that the ' Hebrew manner of conception' 168 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. peculiar to the evangelist gives rise to a series of pictures, which have no analogy, or but a distant analogy, in the native Greek authors. See, for example, the image of the bearing woman, xvi. 21, and compare Isa. xxi. 3, Hos. xiii. 13 ; of the good and bad shepherd, x. 1 ff., and compare Ezek. xxxiv. 7, Jer. ii. 8, Zech. xi. 5 ; of the living water, iv. 10, and compare Isa. xli. 18, and elsewhere. I have shown in my commentary referred to above, that the circle of the evangelist's images and thoughts goes back especially to the second part of Isaiah. Moreover, the exposition will show that Weiss 6 is right in tracing back the idea of the Logos to the Old Testament. Keim's 7 notion, if true, would not fit this. He thinks that the 'deepest sympathy' of the evangelist ' lies in philosophical studies,' and that he wished to store away in his book ' his philosophical theory of life.' And the Old Testament Scriptures do not deal in philosophical speculation. But the more exact the exposition of the gospel is, the more it shows that the gospel throughout is rooted in the Old Testament Scriptures, and in their world of history and thought. It grew on this soil, and not on Hellenic or even on Hellenistic. The author was not limited merely to the Greek translation of the Old Testament for his knowledge of the holy book of Israel. He understood Hebrew, and knew the Old Testament in the original text. Even Keim 8 acknowledges not only the ' Hebrew colouring of the language, that truly does not betray a Gentile Christian in the sense of Baur and his followers,' but also ' the understanding of the Old Testament in the original language.' This is clear from certain Old Testament quotations, in which the evangelist, leaving the Greek translation, goes back to the original text. It is true that xii. 40, compared with Isa. vi. 10, is THE WRITER'S CONSCIOUSNESS. 169 not a strict proof of this. The evangelist's quotation stands as freely towards the original as towards the translation. It agrees with the former, however, in changing the passive of the translation, hrayyvBt] v\ tcapSla, kt\. ('their heart waxed fat'), into the active iiroopwaev avrwv /capSlav (' he hardened their heart'). Here God is to be thought of as subject, 9 while in the original text the prophet appears as acting; but the prophet acts as the organ of God. The reference to the foundation-text is more unquestionable at xiii. 18, compared with Ps. xli. 10 (English version, 9) ; and it is altogether beyond doubt in xix. 37, in the citation from Zech. xii. 10. The interpretation of Siloam, too, by arnrearaXfievoa- (' sent'), shows one acquainted with Hebrew, ™F& being taken as equiva- lent to !}w. It may be regarded as pretty certain that the Jews in the Diaspora knew nothing of Hebrew, or only a little. 10 Hence we may consider the knowledge of Hebrew to be a sign of Palestinean origin. 3. The Writers Consciousness. Moreover, the evangelist's consciousness is Jewish. The ' we know,' in iv. 22, by which the speaker iden- tifies himself with the Jews in contrast with the Samaritans, holds as good for the evangelist as for the speaker. I believe I have elsewhere 11 shown suffi- ciently that the way in which he speaks of ' the Jews,' or in which Christ speaks of their law, is no argument against this. Even Keim, though he brings this use of language by the evangelist forward with a certain emphasis, 12 no longer turns it to account after the manner of Baur's school. It certainly is not national or local distance that expresses itself thus. It is merely the contrast, as it has developed itself 170 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. between Jesus and His Church on the one side, and Israel as a nation on the other. It is the purest arbitrariness when Hilgenfeld 13 makes the words of Jesus, in iv. 22, vfieia irpoa-Kwelre ('ye worship'), to be directed not only against the Samaritans, but also against the Jews, and, on the other hand, makes Him speak in rjfiela- irpoaKwovfiev ('we worship') as a repre- sentative of Christianity. As early as 1854 he ex- plains 14 John iv. 21-23 so that it would read thus : 1 Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye (that is, Israelites in general of both religions) shall neither in this mountain (as the Samaritans) nor yet at Jerusalem (as the Jews), worship the Father. Ye (Israelites in general) worship ye know not what : we (Christians) know what we worship. For salva- tion is of the Jews ; but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.' In this case the evangelist's consciousness was certainly not Jewish, if it was not even anti-Jewish. But at the cost of what an exe- gesis ! You can prove anything with such an exe- gesis. The evangelist would make Jesus speak in direct address to people who are not there, namely, to the Jews, while, nevertheless,. He as a Jew, iv. 9, is addressing a Samaritan woman. And what logic would come to light in this way ! F6r the fact that Chris- tians and not Jews are right would be confirmed by the declaration that salvation, comes from the Jews ! Hilgenfeld tries to reduce this to mean ' the mere ex- ternal descent of salvation ;' but salvation must still first be included in Israel before it can go out of Israel. Indeed, it reads e« twv 'Iovhaiwv (' out of the Jews'), and not airo ('from'). At the end of the conversation Jesus avows Himself to the woman as the Messiah, and thus as the fulfilling of Israel's hope in the Israelite form, and in harmony with the Old Testament Scriptures. THE WRITER'S CONSCIOUSNESS. 171 The Jewish consciousness expresses itself in the whole attitude which the evangelist, or Jesus in his gospel, assumes towards the Old Testament Scriptures and towards Old Testament history. It is the same as in Matthew's gospel. Here, as there, Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures, from the Baptist's appearance and his testimony to the ' Lamb of God,' to the Paschal Lamb on the cross and the spear-thrust of the Crucified. And in the middle stands that witness to the Scriptures, x. 35, ov Bwarat \vOrjvat J) vpcicpi] ('the Scripture cannot be broken'), which declares their canonical authority and their unity. It is true, Christ here calls the Scriptures the law of the Jews, x. 34, h to5 v6fiq> v/i&v ('in your law'), but that is only because His opponents appeal to the law against Him. Besides, this shows the Jew in Him, that He called the Old Testament Scriptures in general 6 vofwa ('the law'). For this use of the term was only familiar to a Jew. It is not the Jews in general, as Hilgenfeld thinks, 15 to whom John's Christ repeatedly denies the knowledge of His Father, but it is His opponents who will not come to Him. The Jews 'without guile,' like Nathanael, come to Him. But whoever comes to Him, him the Father draws to the Son, vi. 37, 44. Besides, the whole style of the evangelist's mind wears a Jewish cast. No gospel has a more sym- bolical character than this. All its speech is figurative. Everything becomes a cnjfielov (' sign') for him, a picture and likeness of intangible thoughts and facts. To him, that which is not sensual is the a\r)6iv6v (' true '), the pro- perly real ; that which is sensual, the improperly real. All finds its higher truth in Jesus. The whole history and all the occurrences of Jesus' life have a symbolical meaning for him. This even descends to apparent trifling, as when, for example, he translates and inter- 172 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. prets Siloam, ix. 7. He puts in this symbolical light not merely what Jesus does, but also what happens to Him. The blood and water that flow from the corpse of the Crucified are to him a symbol of something higher. These are all marks of a Jewish cast of mind. So, too, is the symbolism of numbers. Bengel called attention to the importance of the number ' three' in John's gospel. I tried to prove that this number lay at the base of the whole plan of the book. Then they carried this observation too far. Keim 16 runs a good thing into the ground here, and Leuschner 17 was right in correcting him. However, even if we lay aside the silly exaggeration, the fact itself is left behind. As Matthew's gospel is ruled by the number seven, John's is ruled by the number three. Whether this is due, as Keim thinks, 18 to a speculative motive, which I deny, or to a psychological, which I believe, has nothing to do with the matter in hand. The ruling power and the importance of the number is a Jewish way of writing a book. 4. Jewish Knowledge. As the author has a Jewish cast of mind, so, too, he shows that he is at home in Jewish customs, ideas, and circumstances. He knows not merely that, by the strict Jewish observance of the law then, healing was forbidden on the Sabbath, v. 1 fF., ix. 14 ff., 19 but also that circumcision is allowed on the Sabbath, vii. 22 f. 20 He knows about the Jewish expectation of Elias, and of a prophet like Moses, i. 21. 21 He is ac- quainted with the Jewish view that the Messiah will come forth from obscurity, vii. 27," in spite of the expectation of His birth at Bethlehem, in contrast to Nazareth, i. 47. He knows that they ascribed an JEWISH KNOWLEDGE. 173 eternal continuance to the Messianic kingdom, and assumed an eternal stay of the Messiah, xii. 34, 23 with which the thought of an atoning suffering did not seem to consist, xii. 34. 24 He likewise is acquainted with the casuistical questions which attached them- selves to the proposition that misfortune is the conse- quence of sin, ix. 2. Further, he knows that it was thought out of place for a rabbi to speak with a woman in public, iv. 27 ; and that entering a Gentile house made one unclean, xviii. 28. 25 He knows the ill-feel- ing between the Jews and Samaritans, iv. 9 ; and he is acquainted with the pride of learning and the con- tempt for the unlearned in Israel, vii. 49. He knows that they added an eighth day to seven-day feasts, vii. 37; and he knows perfectly about the Jewish burial customs, in distinction, say, from the Egyptian, xi. 44, xix. 40. The same thing is true of external circumstances. The pieces of ignorance and incorrectness that criti- cism used to find in the gospel have, for the most part, been given up of late. Baur 26 thought, at ap^tepeva- &v tov evcavrov ifcetvov (' being the high priest that same year'), that the evangelist betrayed the opinion that the Jewish high priest changed every year, perhaps like the Roman consul. But Keim owns 27 that he does not betray this opinion at all. It is true that he attaches Caiaphas' high-priesthood in a particular way with that year. But it is only in the sense that the great atoning sacrifice was in question, the fulfilling of which in Jesus' death the high priest himself should serve to bring about. The evangelist, therefore, shows himself to be not ignorant of, but acquainted with, Jewish circumstances. The number of years which the Jews give for the building of the temple by Herod, ii. 20, both justifies itself historically and is a sure hold for reckoning the 174 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. gospel history. 23 The fact that the Jewish authorities no longer had the right of carrying out death-sen- tences, xviii. 31, is as weighty for the evangelist as it is agreeable to the historical reality. 29 5. Local Knowledge. The evangelist's knowledge of places is now better recognised than it used to be. The ' alleged errors about Bethany and Bethesda, Cana and Kedron Salem and Sychar, about the high priest of the year and about the distances of Cana and Capernaum Bethany and Persea, we need believe in the less, be- cause the author shows elsewhere a fair acquaintance with the land, and because even the hardest explains itself from a particular design.' 30 This acknowledg- ment of Keim's will dispense us from going into details. On the one hand, these alleged errors have solved themselves on more exact observation or more just judgment; and on the other hand, we gain the impression that the localities stood clearly before the eyes of the author. In Galilee he carries us back and forth over the sea, vi. 1, 22 ff. ; from the shore to the height, vi. 3 ; and then back to the synagogue at Capernaum, vi. 17. He knows that one could get to that place by boat or by land, vi. 22 f. He knows how far off the shores are, vi. 19. In short, he shows that he is intimate with the locality. He sketches for us in a few words the valley of Sichem, between Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, with Jacob's well and the memory of the days of the patriarchs, iv. 5 ff. As to the localities in Jeru- salem, — the Sheep Gate, v. 2 ff. ; the temple, with the treasury in the court of the women, viii. 20 ; Solo- mon's porch, x. 23 ; the valley of the Kedron and the AN EYE-WITNESS. 175 Mount of Olives, xviii. 1 ; the rooms in the high priest's palace, xviii. 15 ff., and the like, — his familiarity with them is that of a man who has seen them all with his own eyes. 31 It cannot be retorted that the author might have studied the geography of Palestine, for the items do not in the least bear the character of study, but of full simplicity and of mere chance use. Nor have they the slightest tendency to adorn the writer with the appearance of knowing the country. They are far too insignificant and too undesigned for that. They come up of themselves to the relator, as they everywhere, in like cases, interweave themselves in a story which is based on the memory of one's own experience. 6. An Eye-Witness. It is not simply a man of Palestine that speaks in this book ; it is an eye-witness. The recital through- out betrays the eye-witness at once by the chrono- logical clearness with which the whole life of Jesus stands before the soul of the writer, and with which all single occurrences are taken up into the general frame. No gospel is so chronologically arranged as this. In none is the chronological relation of every part to the whole so clear and distinct as here. There is no artistic chronological scheme laid at its foundation. There is no purposed emphasis of the order of time, but this comes out of itself, without the use of par- ticular means. The evangelist wishes to lead before us the drama of the life of Jesus. Of course, then, the incidents arrange themselves chronologically for him, since the order of time is likewise the history of the growing conflict. No other gospel gives us so clear a picture of the development of this conflict. The importance of Jesus' festal visits to Jerusalem for 176 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. this development, and the crisis that was consummated at the time of the passover, a year before the death of Jesus, vi. 66, first become known or clear to us in this gospel. But just as the chronology of the whole stands before the soul of the relator, so he offers besides a host of particular chronological statements, such as no other evangelist gives. These name even the day, the part of the day, and the hour. He begins with the mention of the day in i. 29, 35, 44 (English version, 43). He closes with it in xii. 1, 12, xiii. 1, and xx. 1, 26. They run between the beginning and the end in ii. 1, iv. 43, 52, vi. 22, vii. 14, 37, and xi. 6, 17. He names the hours of the day in L 40 (Eng. vers. 39), iv. 6, 52, and xix. 14 ; and the part of the day in iii. 2, vi. 16, xiii. 30, and xviii. 28. There is nothing sought in these statements. They stand at his com- mands where he needs them. We see the personal recollection. It shows itself, besides, in a series of separate touches. Such a touch as is found in the words iyelpeaOe clywfiev ivrevOev (' arise, let us go hence') explains itself only in this way. For the discourse of Jesus keeps straight on. Therefore, if memory had not dictated these words to his pen, he would have had no occasion to bring them in here. When he states exactly the place, time, and circumstances of the condemnation of Jesus, even to mentioning the mosaic pavement on which the judicial seat of the Roman officer stood, xix. 13 f, we recognise in him one who had lived through this decisive transaction. And in the remark, ?]v he vv% (' and it was night'), xiii. 30, we feel the soul of the disciple still trembling at the memory of this step towards the deed of the night. It is true that the whole bearing of the gospel is general, that its foundation - thought is comprehensive, and that its AN EYE-WITNESS. 177 sphere of thought seems to move largely at a certain abstract height. But in spite of all this, there is nothing general or indefinite about the account. We find everywhere perfectly defined lines and clear, bright colours. The memory involuntarily throws into the picture certain concrete features. Mark, for ex- ample, the names given that do not occur in the other gospels, as that of Malchus, xviii. 10, and Nathanael, and Nicodemus ; and again, the mention of the value of the ointment of spikenard that Mary of Bethany poured over Him, xii. 3, 5. Such little traits best betray the eye-witness. Then, too, the vividness with which he depicts cer- tain events and scenes proves this. We need but to recall the scenes of the ninth chapter, and the unsur- passable clearness and life with which he sketches the embarrassment of the Jewish authorities, or the story of the eleventh chapter, which makes us live through those thrilling moments with him. Of course, the art of representation also can devise fictitious scenes, and paint them with living colours ; but we have here no poetical romance, in which fiction lends the charm of actuality to what never happened. All is un- adorned and simple. It is not a poet who lets his fancy work, or an artist who designs pictures, but a copyist who puts on paper the reality. We see this again in the personalities contained in the gospel. It mentions a whole list of names, never giving a portrait, but always only a single touch or a single word, just as the situation called for it. And nevertheless these separate features, which are inter- woven in the story without a thought of a complete picture of the respective personalities, agree so well together, that it is not hard to gain from them a view of the various personalities. Perhaps I may refer to the characteristics which I have given in my work on M 178 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. John's gospel. 32 They show that the author had the real men before his eyes, as he now and then copied off a single trait, and put it in his account. He has also quite a clear view of the difference of the attitudes towards Jesus assumed by the various circles in Israel. It is true that the nation as a whole is hostile to Jesus. This is the sense of the expression 'IovBatoi ('Jews'). It betokens Israel in its hostile relation to Jesus. But the Pharisees, i. 24, iv. 1, viii. 13, xii. 42, and xviii. 3 ; and the chief priest's party, vii. 26, 48, xii. 42, and xviii. 3, rise above the mass as the real bearers, of this hostility. In distinction from them, the 6'^Xocr ('multitude') appears as waver- ing in its decision about Jesus, vii. 12 ; as ignorant of the plans of those rulers, vii. 20 ; and as more or less inclined to believe, vii. 31 f, 40, 41, etc. It is chiefly made up of Galileans come to the feast (compare iv. 45), for we only read of it at the feasts — see xii. 12, 6'x\oo- 7ro\v(T 6 i\6oov ela- rrjv eopnjp (' much people that were come to the feast '). In the middle between these two are the people of Jerusalem. These stand in hostility or at least in unbelief towards Jesus, and know the plans of their rulers, vii. 25 ff. We see that these are no general categories, which the evangelist might have made for himself, but that they are the entire concrete circumstances, which are vividly present to him. And perhaps we may venture to find the eye-wit- ness in the use of a^v afirjv Xeyco vjilv (' verity, verily, I say unto you '), which is peculiar to him. At least Delitzsch's explanation of the repeated a^v (' verily ') in John is as keen as it is simple. He sees in this the echo of Jesus' own words. 33 For when the discourse of Jesus, with the opening a/i-qv which was character- istic of Him, the 'Amen,' read in the speech of the country (*wk idk — ) mm Jok, the evangelist, remem- THE WAY THE EVANGELIST NAMES HIMSELF. 179 bering these oft-heard words, imitated their sound in the double a^v a/x^v. 7. The Way the Evangelist Names Himself. . All these observations, which lead us to recognise not merely the born Jew and the man of Palestine, but also the witness of the events he relates to us, are confirmed by the express direct and indirect way in which the evangelist names himself. The ' I ' of the evangelist has always been found in the -q^etcr eOea- adfieOa ('we beheld') of the opening, i. 14. Keim, indeed, following Baur, thinks that the ' eye-witness ' here, ' as in the epistle,' is ' such as every Christian can claim.' 34 But if the opening words of the epistle do not betoken the most personal and direct witness, human speech has no words for it. ' Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled : ' can one speak more strongly of sensible presence ? It is not a beholding with the vova (' soul '), but with the eyes ; not a touching by inward feeling, but with the hands. No right-minded man ever used such terms in direct speech to express purely mental occurrences. They have brought in no analogous example because there is none. ' Every Christian can claim such " eye- witness " ' ? No one has ever heard a Christian of later days say so ; and no one can find a single voucher for that statement in all Christian literature. What these words say is unquestionable. It could only be doubt- ful whether they stand as true or not. In any case, the writer of the epistle wishes to pass as a direct eye-witness. And the evangelist likewise wishes to be regarded as such. It does not merely seem so, as Hilgenfeld supposes, 35 but it is so. 'Ev rj/uv (' among us') 180 CH. VII. — THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. no more refers ' to the whole of Christendom ' here than it does in Luke i. 1, since the ' we ' of the first witnesses is meant to stand over against the ' you ' of other Christians; see xx. 31, and 1 John i. 2, 3. Hilgenfeld thinks 36 that ' e0eao-«>e0a (" we beheld ") designates the vision of the glory of Jesus, which . . . in its essence is internal, and coincides with that 6ea- pelv (" to see ") which is named by the side of Christian belief in vi. 40, xii. 44 f., xiv. 17, 19.' But, to pass by other things, he fails to remark that the evangelist is not speaking in the present, of the constant present view of belief, but in the past, and therefore speaks of an experience he had had with his companions, and upon the ground of which he now preaches Jesus as the Son of God. They could only say that in this he made a pretence, which did not correspond to the reality. Yet if everything else points us to an eye- witness, why shall not the express confirmation pass for such ? The words in the gospel are not so heaped up and so strong as in the epistle, because he wishes to lay stress on the blessedness of his experience rather than on the trustworthiness of his witness. And besides, why should he emphasize the latter at the beginning? He shows himself as an eye-witness through the whole book, and the readers of his book know from whom they received it. Baur' 37 understood the words in xix. 35 only of spiritual view. But now they have found in these words the express distinction of the evangelist from the eye-witness (John), whom he names, or wishes to have considered as his voucher. 3S Hilgenfeld and Buttmann on the one side, and Steitz on the other, had a lively debate over the iiceivoa (' he ') in this passage. 39 Even Keim, 40 however, gives up the linguistic arguments which they brought to bear against the referring i/celvoo- ('he') to the evangelist himself. They were THE WAY THE EVANGELIST NAMES HIMSELF. 181 weak. Not only does John use i/celvoo- with a frequency (seventy-two times) that occurs in no other author, but, moreover, his use of it cannot be limited by the common formula, namely, that it betokens the more distant subject. On the contrary, it serves with him to lay particular stress on the person or thing in hand, ' even he.' Look at V. 39, teal iicelvai elaiv al p.apTvpovcrai irepl i/xov (' and they are they which testify of me '). Besides, we have a passage quite analogous to the one in question. It is Christ's self-witness to the healed man who had been blind from birth : ix. 37, koI ecopa/cao- avrov, teal o XaXcov fiera gov eiceLvoo- icrrtv (' tllOU hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee '). That decides the linguistic side of the question. But Keim 41 thinks that ' rational logic forbids the identity of the subjects, this extreme objectizing of the subject who is writing.' Yet it is utterly impossible to see why ' rational logic ' should make any difficulty here. If a sure ground is to be given for belief, the authority of a third person is much less in place than one's own eye- witness. And, again, the fact that the evangelist, in putting his own character as an eye-witness here for a guaranty, speaks of himself in lofty words in the third person, finds an analogy in all 'rational' speech, and most of all in the fourth gospel. It is enough to point not only to ix. 37, but also to xvii. 3. Hence xix. 35 is not a testimony against, but for, the character of the evangelist as an eye-witness, or at least for his design to pass as such. But they say that this eye-witness shows itself to be only a pretence, and not a reality, in the ' shyness ' with which the evangelist half-cloaks himself, not daring to come out openly. 4 ' 2 Hitherto that very draw- ing back of his own person has been taken as a sign of genuineness, by which the writer betra}*ed himself. And certainly there is not much ' logic ' to be found in 182 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. this reasoning of Keim's. When he puts the argument in union withxix. 35, the case stands thus: — Either (a) the writer distinguishes himself from the eye-witness. In this case he does it openly and clearly by the choice of i/celvoa and by the discourse in the third person ; and such things as shyness, and half-cloaking, and the like cannot be mentioned. Or (6) he names himself in those words. In this case he does it with a decision and a stress that leaves nothing more to be wished for, and that betrays nothing of ' shyness.' He comes forward here thus strongly, just because he elsewhere keeps in the background. And his keeping himself in the background at other times has therefore another reason than the ' shyness ' taught him by an ill conscience. The matter, as is well known, stands thus : While the evangelist else always calls the disciples of Jesus by name, when he brings them in as speaking or acting, one occurs who is never called by name, but only hinted at as one of the disciples, xiii. 23 ; or as another or the other disciple, xviii. 15, xx. 2, 3, 4, 8 ; or as the disciple whom Jesus loved, xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20. It may be taken as agreed that he is identical with the one who, as one of the first, with Andrew, followed Jesus, i. 41 (English version, 40). The fourth gospel knows the twelve as well as the first three gospels do, vi. 13, 70, xx. 24. Of them it names: Andrew, four times ; Simon Peter, thirty-three times ; Philip, twice ; Nathanael, five times ; Thomas, five times ; Judas Thaddseus, once ; and Judas Iscariot, eight times. Of the five missing ones, two only, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, can come into con- sideration. They belong to the most intimate circle of the disciples, to the three who stood nearest to Jesus. And yet these very two are not named. But the nameless one of the gospel must have been one of the THE WAY THE EVANGELIST NAMES HIMSELF. 183 nearest. His whole attitude toward Jesus, and his designation show this. Peter is named; and James died too early for him to be thought of. Only John is left. That just he should not be named must appear striking. The very absence of his name makes him remarkable. He steps forward with weight in the story at its most important points : at the beginning, at the last supper, at the hearing, at the cross, at the grave, and then at the Sea of Gennesaret. But he does not name himself, because he does not wish to name himself, seeing that he is the relator. And as he does not name himself, no more does he name James, because he is his brother ; and no more does he name Salome, because she is his mother. After the Lord's supper, he always appears in company with Peter, just as Peter and John are joined in Acts. It can be no other than John. Liitzelberger thought it was Andrew, and Spilth it was Nathanael; but, in spite of Iloltzmann, 43 these are unlucky conceits, that remain confined to their makers. Scholten 44 is no happier. He sees in the writer an opponent of John, who intends 'to destroy, root and branch, Jewish Christianity, which was preached as a continuation of the tradition from John.' Hence he makes out of this disciple whom Jesus loved an ideal figure, which is lifted far above the unintelligent apostles, ' the spiritual brother of Jesus,' and the like. 45 And yet we have to do with a historical person, — one as historical as Andrew at the beginning or Peter at the end ; and with a disciple who is no better in understanding than the others, xx. 9, but has gradually to rise, by what he experiences, to the understanding demanded. To what precedes another thing may now be added. The persons named in the gospel are, as a rule, exactly designated by additions. Andrew is more closely marked as the brother of Simon Peter, Simon by the 184 CH. VII THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. addition Peter, Thomas by Didymus, one Judas by Thaddseus, and the other by Iscariot and by the words 'who betrayed him.' On the contrary, the Baptist John is as a rule called only John. It does not seem necessary to the evangelist to distinguish him from the apostle John, because he, the writer himself, is this apostle John. He does not name himself, but shows clearly enough who he is. It is not hard to perceive from the character of his gospel why his authorship thereof kept him from naming himself. If his book had borne such an objective character as, for example, the first gospel bears, he could have spoken of himself in the third person, just as Matthew is spoken of in Matt. ix. 9. But his book is not so objective. It is most thoroughly his own production, and of a subjective character. He would have had to speak of himself in the first person. But it goes against him to let his ' I ' come forward in this way. So he writes it in a roundabout manner. Yet from this very circumlocution they draw an argument against John's authorship. ' Just let us for a moment seriously suppose that John, who is brought in quietly here and there in the gospel, is not brought in by a third person, but has himself, as author, put himself here. Then he has presented himself in a very striking way as the true beloved disciple of Jesus, as the privileged one even in comparison with Peter, indeed as the patron and mediator for Peter ; and as a lonely hero at the court and on Golgotha. . . . Are both [John and the author] one person, we have, as Weisse also saw, a piece of the most offensive boasting, the moral condemnation of a vain apostle.' 46 We could well wish that Keiin had not written these words ; for they are not merely painful, but also un- just as unjust can be. Keim has let his rhetoric lead THE WAY THE EVANGELIST NAMES HIMSELF. 185 him astray here to heap up words and sentences, which have no ground in the gospel itself. There is not a word about heroism in it. John disappears in the high priest's house, and under the cross he stands silent by the women. He is a patron and mediator for Peter only in so far that by his personal acquaintance he procures him entrance to the palace. What is there strange in that? At the grave he lacks the decision of Peter. And Peter is the mouth and head man of the apostles in this gospel as in only one other. Peter is made remarkable by the mere disproportionate frequency with which his name is mentioned. So there is but the one thing left, namely, that John is in three passages named as the disciple whom Jesus loved. But what if that were the case ? We can see from the other gospels, too, that he stood very near to Jesus ; and both Acts and Paul also lay special stress on his high place in the Church. Therefore there is no use of talking about ' offensive boasting ' here, most of all at a designation which names no great deeds, but only recalls an unmerited favour which he ex- perienced, and the recollection of which still makes him happy in his old age. This is a word of blessed memory, and not of vain boasting. It has always been so considered hitherto, and we are sure that it will in the future also make the same impression on every unprejudiced mind. We may close this inquiry with the following result: — The author of the gospel shows himself to be a Jew by birth, who is familiar with Jewish circumstances and with the Old Testament Scriptures in the original, and who has so vivid a conception of the events which he relates that we must suppose him to be an eye-witness of them. He expressly names himself as such a witness. And from the way in which he speaks of himself in relation to the other disciples of Jesus, 186 CH. VII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. whom he calls by their names, he forces us to think of the apostle John. After all this we have no reason to hold his claim for a fiction. The fiction would be carried out far too artistically, and far too cunningly, to fit either the simplicity or the moral character of this book. 1 Keim, Geschichtc Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 116. 2 Credner, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Halle, 1836, vol. i. p. 209. 3 Ewald, Die johanncischcn Schriftcn, Gottingen, 1861, vol. i. p. 44 f. 4 See also Godet, Commcntar z% dem Evangelium Joliannis, Hanover, 1869, p. 638 ; Wittichen, Dcr geschichtliche Char alder des Evangcliums Joliannis, Elberfeld, 1868 (1869), p. 5 f. ; and Grau, Entiviclcelungsgcschichtc des ncutcstamentlichen Schrift- thums, Giitersloh, vol. ii. (1871) p. 433. 5 Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Charahter des Evangeliums Joliannis, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 6. c Weiss, Lchrbuch der biblischen Theologic des Ncucn Testa- ments, Berlin, 1868, p. 687 ff. 7 Keim, Geschichtc Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 124. 8 Keim, Ibid. p. 156. 9 Meyer, Kritisch-exegetisches LTandbuch ilber das Evangelium des Johannes, 5th edit. Gottingen, 1869, p. 472. 10 Schiirer, Lchrbuch dcr ncutcstamentlichen ZeitgcschicMc, Leipzig, 1874, p. 640. 11 Luthardt, Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eiyen- thumlichlceit gcschilclert unci erkldrt, Nlirnberg, part i. 1852, p. 140 ff. ; new edition, just out, 1875, vol. i. p. 119 ff. The new edition will appear in English in Claries Foreign Theological Library, Edinburgh, in 1876. 12 Keim, Geschiehte Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. pp. 127, 129, 131. 13 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur luissenschaftlichc Theologic, 1870, p. 265. 14 Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien nach Hirer Entstchung unci gcschichtlichen Bcclcutung, Leipzig, 1854, p. 261 f. 15 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftlichc Tlieologie, 1870, p. 266, note. 1(3 Keim, Geschiehte, Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 115 f. 17 Leuschner, Das Evangelium St. Joliannis und seine n&uesten Widcrsachcr, Halle, 1873, p. 9 f. NOTES. 187 18 Keim, ut sujjra'xol. i. p. 115. 19 See Schlirer, Ichrbuch der ncutcstamcntlichcn Zcitgcscliichtc, Leipzig, 1874, p. 490. 20 Schlirer, Ibid. p. 489 : ' one of the many strokes which prove that the fourth evangelist knows the Jewish circum- stances exactly.' 21 Ibid. p. 580 f. 22 Ibid. p. 585. 23 Ibid. p. 592. 24 Ibid. p. 599. 25 Ibid, p. 387. 20 Baur, Thcologische JaJirbilcher, 1844, p. 636; repeated by Strauss, Icbcn Jcsu, Leipzig, 1864, p. 78. 27 Keim, Gcschichtc Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 113. 28 Schiirer, id supra, p. 193. 29 Schiirer, ut supra, pp. 250, 415 f. 30 Keim, Gcschichtc Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 133. 31 "Wittichen, Der geschicMliche Charaktcr dcs Evan admins Johannis, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 8. 32 Luthardt, Das johanneische Evangelium, part i. edit. 1852, pp. 92-155; 2d edit. 1875, vol. i. pp. 78-131. 33 Delitzsch, Talmudischc Studien, ix. ; Zcitschrift fur die gcsammtc lutherische Thcologic unci Kirche, 1856 (Jahrg. xvii. Heft 3), pp. 422-424. 34 Keim, Gcschichtc Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 157. 35 Hilgenfeld, Die Evangclim nach Hirer Entstchung und gcschichtl ichen Bcdcutung, Leipzig, 1854, p. 340. 30 Ibid. p. 340 f. 3r Baur, Thcologische Jahrbilcher, 1844, p. 166 ff. 3S Hilgenfeld, ut supra, p. 341. 39 See the literature in Appendix for 1859, 1860, 1861, and 1862. 40 Keim, Gcschichtc Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 157, note. 41 Ibid. p. 157. 42 Ibid, 43 Holtzmann in Schenkel's Bibcllcxicon, art. ' Johannes der Apostel,' Leipzig, vol. iii. (1871) p. 329. 44 Scholten, Der Apostel Johannes in Klein-Asicn, Berlin, 1872, p. 90 ff. 45 Ibid. p. 95. 4G Keim, Gcschichtc Jcsu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. pp. 157, 158. CHAPTER VIII. st. john's gospel and the second century. ri^HERE is still another objection to the result we -*- have reached. The gospel stands in contradiction with itself. It shows itself evidently to be a book that belongs to the second century, and so undoes its own testimony to John's authorship. It is especially the philosophical character of this gospel on account of which they think, as Keim for example, that they must refer it to the second century. The exposition must decide whether and how far the gospel is ruled by Alexandrian views. We deny that it is so ruled. But if it were, is that a proof against the authorship, or against its composition as early as the first century? Cannot that which they hold to have been possible for Apollos have been possible for some one else ? Could not a disciple of Jesus in Ephesus have become at home in another way of thought? It is well known that the whole air was full of philosophical elements, not only going forth from Alexandria, but also holding in Asia Minor independent seats for nursing philosophical interest. We do not wish to prove here that this was the case, but only to refuse to let them declare it to be absolutely impossible. Certainly, if his interest in speculative questions had crowded out his interest in the historical person Jesus Christ, the foremost care for the salvation of the soul, we could then no longer have spoken of a disciple of Jesus. But, as can clearly PHILOSOPHICAL CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 189 be seen, this is not the case. If there is speculation in the fourth gospel, it is. only a means, not an end, — a means of proclaiming salvation in the person of Jesus Christ. ' That ye might believe' reads the statement of the final aim at the close of the book. The specula- tive elements stand only in the relation of servants to this religious aim; just like similar thoughts and words at the opening of the epistle to the Hebrews, and in the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. It is true, the historical representation in the fourth gospel is freed from limitation to the external historical sphere and interest, and raised to the height of more general contemplation. But that is a different thing from the design of bringing forward a certain philo- sophical theory of the universe, for displaying which the material of the gospel history should only be used as a means. The relation is just the other way. It is a gospel we have here, not a philosophical treatise. Besides, the alleged philosophy in this book by no means bears the character of the second century. It is rather of an altogether general character. It enters neither thetically nor antithetically into single specu- lations, as is the case in the writings of the second century that lie before us. What it brings forward that is alleged to be speculative rests fully in every point on the Old Testament Scriptures, and we find here nothing of the developments of the second century. Moreover, Keim, at least in his larger work, puts the gospel at the beginning of the second century. Not merely the external testimony, but also the whole character of the book made him go back thus far. But it could have been written twenty or thirty years earlier just as well as at 110. Of Gnostic dualism, as Hilgenfeld with unwearied constancy tries to prove it, 1 the gospel contains nothing. The dualism it contains is religious and 190 CH. VIII. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SECOND CENTURY. moral, — the real contrast of belief and unbelief, and the like, traced back to its inmost religious and moral roots in the disposition. But this is the contrast which runs through the whole of the Scriptures, from Cain and Abel, from the Cainites and the Sethites, on down through the history of Israel and its reflection in the prophetic testimony ; which then steps forward so keenly, and fulfils itself so tragically in the history of Jesus ; and which will come to its highest pitch in the issues of history as the Revelation depicts them. It is here throughout ethically established, in the disposi- tion as turned towards or turned away from God ; while the dualism of Gnosticism is physically esta- blished and is a thing of natural necessity. John's gospel speaks of that contrast just as the synoptists do, when they oppose the viol rfjo- fiaaiXetao- (' children of the kingdom ') to the viol rov irov^pov (' children of the wicked one '), Matt. xiii. 38, and when they, follow- ing Isa. vi., make Jesus speak of an impossibility of perceiving and believing, Matt. xiii. 13 ff. This representation is not to be traced back to Gnostic dualism, and no more is John's. The references to Montanism and to the passover controversies of the second century, on the ground of which Baur thought he could assign the gospel to its place in the second century, have been given up on all sides. So there is no historical ground left in the second century in which the roots of this book could lie, except the Gnosticism of that time. But the later Gnosticism is entirely different from what is presup- posed in the fourth gospel, whether the gospel leans on it or wars against it. One principle was charac- teristic of and common to the later Gnosticism, and formed the centre of all the attacks of the anti-Gnostic fathers, like Tertullian and Irenaaus. This principle SECOND CENTURY GNOSTICISM AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 191 is, the distinction of the highest true God from the Creator of the visible world, be the distinction ex- plained by dualism or by emanation. Thiersch 2 has well observed that this very principle, this very ' blas- phemia creatoris' ('blasphemy of the creator'), as Tertullian calls it, is entirely foreign to the sphere of the fourth gospel. Hilgenfeld's discovery of the Demiurgus, in viii. 44, is too queer, and has, besides, found too little approval, for us to need to pay any regard to it. Whether that distinction, which the later Gnosticism made, existed or not at the time the fourth gospel was written, it had in any case not yet entered the range of vision of the author of our gospel. Otherwise, if his book was to contain an attack on Gnosticism, he could no more have passed by this characteristic and central principle, than the later anti-Gnostics could pass by it. This fact proves that the fourth gospel has a different historical base from the time of the Gnosticism of a Marcion and the like. Besides, the method of refutation is quite different. It never enters the head of the author of the gospel and of the first epistle, which we may bring in in this connection, first to portray the opposing doctrine, and then to combat it in detail, like the later contro- versialists. He is satisfied with regarding the general and the essential, which lies at the base of all single parts. There is no more different way and manner than that of the refutations found in Tertullian and Irengeus contrasted with the apostle's. What is true of these writers is true of Justin, whose refutations, as we know, became the rule for those who followed. We must even go further back than i Eenaa us. For owxbJ in the Ignatian letters the method of refutation is much more special than in the fourth gospel. We see also, in the gospel, that we are moving in a different 192 CH. VIII. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SECOND CENTURY. and, indeed, an earlier stage of that great struggle. There is a certain noble universality and elevation in the way the evangelist regards the anti-Christian opposition, — a way that is peculiar to great minds of standard authority, and to the security of the time of laying the first foundations. As the refutations, so also the form of doctrine which meets us in the fourth gospel points us back to the first century. For just as the ' Paraclete' of this book is pre-Montanistic, so its ' Logos ' is pre-Justinic. If one grants the former, he cannot deny the latter. Here the ground-lines are drawn, which a later time develops further and supplies with other elements. The theology of the later time took its task to be not merely the proclamation of saving belief, but also the justification of the whole Christian theory of the uni- verse, of this Christian ' philosophy,' before the bar of heathen thought. It must have been easy for this theology to take up philosophical elements of the extra- biblical speculation into their sphere of thought, and to join them with the truths of the Christian belief. We see this in Justin. But there is nothing of this in John. The proclamation of Jesus Christ that we have here is not philosophical, but one belonging to the history of salvation and for the sake of belief. 3 As this is true of the dogmatical sphere, it is no less true of the ethical. John's literature, in laying stress on the ivToXrj (' commandments ') in Christianity, bears towards the later legal development and corruption in the Catholic Church a relation much like that borne by those great dogmatical views of the Paraclete and Logos to the later dogmatical development. There is a certain analogy between John's gospel and the doctrinal forms of the second century. That is all right. But they have let themselves be deceived by that, and have taken the analogy for agreement, not CHARACTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 193 remarking the great distinction between the original groundwork and the later-born developments. Indeed, that is in general the palpable and unmistake- able difference between this book and the productions of the following time. It stands head and shoulder above all sub-apostolic books. Its author would have been a mind without an equal in the generation of the second century. And not a trace of recollection of this ' great unknown ' has been kept ! Do we know almost all the authors of the other books, and only not know him? But such a book cannot have been written in the second century at all. Every man belongs to his time, and no one stands lonely on a steep height without connection with his surroundings. There are two periods of literature that follow hard on the apostolic age, — the time of the so-called apostolic fathers, and the time of the theological teachers of the Church from Justin on. Thiersch is perfectly right 4 when, appealing to Johann Mtiller the historian, and Schelling the philosopher, he shows the surprising contrast in mind between the apostolic fathers and the powerful intellectual creations of the New Testa- ment. The prolixity of Clement of Rome, the pathos of Ignatius, the arbitrary typology of the letter of Barnabas, and even the rhetoric of the letter to Diog- netus, display but the more strongly the great contrast in mind. If any one of the apostles' pupils was celebrated, it was Polycarp, the ' father ' of Asia Minor. When we read his letter, we cannot help being sur- prised that such a renowned chief of Christendom at that day had not, and could not bring forth, more mental originality and fulness of thought. And Papias, whether Eusebius 5 was right or wrong in calling him a/jutcpbcr top vovv (' small in mind '), certainly makes no exception. He himself recognised and named it as his task only to walk in the way of tradition. And these N 194 CH. VIII. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SECOND CENTURY. two men were among the most important in the circle of the elders whom Irengeus knew personally, and to whom Clement of Alexandria appealed. A book of such mental height as John's gospel could not come forth from a circle made up of such men. There is no room for it in this age. Upon this age of faithfulness, but of mental inferiority, follows with Justin an age of higher mental gifts, but of learning and reflection. Theology begins. Justin drew the ground-lines, which later men developed. But it was these very begin- nings of theological science which adapted the new Christian thoughts to the general philosophical mode of thinking. John's gospel lies beyond this scientific treatment of the Christian sphere of thought, and its accommodation to the philosophical thought of the day. It is a proclamation of the truth become incarnate, and not a scientific and learned treatment of the doctrine of that truth. Here, too, in this whirl of theological work from Justin to Irenaeus, there is no room for a book like John's gospel. 6 Nor is there an inch of room, on the other side, in Gnosticism. John's gospel has little in common with the unproductiveness of the apostolic fathers, and with the science and learning of the following theological teachers of the Church ; but it has far less in common with the phantasies of Gnosticism. It is not a bad thing when Thiersch 7 replies to such attempts, that we must then be able to hold it possible that Plato's Timseus, and Proclus' commentary on it, or that the Homeric poems and the Sophists who declared them allegorical, belonged to one and the same generation. Besides, John's eschatology is an out-and-out impossi- bility for Gnosticism. Therefore there is no place in the second century or the origin of the fourth gospel. On the contrary, NOTES. 195 the originality of this book points us to the first century, for it presupposes a soil that is not yet occupied by tradition. And thus the testimony of the fourth gospel about itself cannot be shaken from this side. Among all the doubts they can raise against the recognition of the external as well as internal testi- mony of the fourth gospel, only one is of weight. That is, its relation to the synoptists. If this should make the composition of the fourth gospel by a disciple of Jesus impossible, we should have to let an unsolved contradiction stand between the result of our historical inquiries and the result of this comparison. In this conflict, however, the greater weight would always have to go to the facts rather than to the results of our own study. 1 Hilgenfeld, Das Evangelium und die Brief e Johannis, Halle,. 1849; somewhat moderated, Die Evangelien, Leipzig, 1854, p. 229 ff. ; defends, Das Urchristenthum, Jena, 1855, p. 116 f. - r Theologisclie Jahrbueher, 1857, 4 Heft, pp. 515-522; Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1863, pp. 96—115, 214-228; 1868, p. 213 f.; 1870, p. 263 ff. 2 Thiersch, Versuch zur Hcrstellung des historischen Stand- punJctsfilr die Kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften, Erlangen, 1845, p. 252. 3 See what is said about Justin, above, pp. 52-66, and my treatise on Justin der Mdrtyrer und das Evangelium Johannis. Zeitschrift fur Protest antismus und Kirche, 1856 (Neue Folge, xxxii. Bd. 1 and 2 Hefte, Juli und August), p. 69 ff. 4 Thiersch, ut supra, pp. 248, 250, 289. 5 Eusebius, Historia Ecclcsiastica, III. xxxix. 13 ; Opera, edit. Dindorf, Leipzig, vol. iv. (1871) p. 135. Thiersch, ut supra, p. 287. 7 Ibid. p. 287 f. CHAPTER IX. st. john's gospel and the synoptists. IN the critical view, no other argument in the Johannean question passes for so irrefutable and decisive as the one drawn from the inconsistency of the s}moptic and Johannean accounts. If we have in the synoptic story a historical account of the life and works of Jesus, then, they declare, John's story cannot be historical, and so cannot be from a disciple of Jesus. The question then is : Are the two accounts so contradictory that they exclude each other, or do they agree, and perhaps even require each other? In this question we have to do with the historical recital, with the discourses of Jesus, with the Christology, and, finally, with the whole subjective character of the fourth gospel in comparison with the first three. That will exhaust all the points of view that come into consideration in this question. 1. The Historical Recital. It is unquestionable that the fourth gospel pre- supposes the historical material of the first three. But the critics must also own that it presupposes the gospel history in the very way it is reported by the first three, and therefore presupposes these gospel books. They agree to this, but assume that the THE HISTORICAL RECITAL. 197 author of the fourth gospel spun out the historical material of the first three in a free way to his romance of the Logos. That is as much as saying that he recast the history reported by the synoptists in such a way as to put his fiction in the place of that history. But this is not the case. He places his account on the historical basis of the synoptists. Therefore he recognises this basis, as may be seen from various express references. He does not aim at such allusions. Where they occur, they are occasioned by the proper historical action. Yet they are facts. Thus the remark at ii. 12, ou iroWaa- rj^epaa- ('not many days'), has reference to the later time, when Jesus dwelt a long while at Capernaum, of which time the fourth gospel tells nothing, but only the synoptists. Again, iii. 24 is meant to show the relation of that account to the fact given only by the first three gospels, and not by the fourth, that Jesus has come forward as the prophet of Galilee, in place of the imprisoned Baptist. In the synoptists, the Galilean activity of Jesus occupies the broad ground of the historical recital. The fourth does not tell about it at all, but presup- poses it, as may be learned from vi. 1 and vii. 1. The remark in vi. 2, that those Galilean crowds followed Jesus, on ewpoov ra ar]fj,eta a eirolei eVt roiv aaOevovvToiv (' because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased '), places us, as the imperfect also shows, in a long-continuing period of Jesus' miraculous working in Galilee. We know it only from the synoptists, not from John ; but the latter confirms by these words what the former tell about it. On the evening after the feeding the five thousand, the disciples, unbidden, sail straight back to Capernaum, vi. 17, and Jesus meets them there as well as the people who had sought Him, vi. 24. All this is most simply explained by what 198 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. we know, not from John, indeed, but from the synop- tists, about Jesus' stay in Capernaum. The result of this examination as to the whole historical basis of the synoptic story repeats itself in the various details. Thus at xi. 2 the anointing of Jesus by Mary of Bethany is presupposed as known, since the evangelist only brings it forward in the following chapter. And in xviii. 24, 28, the hearing of Jesus at Caiaphas' is mentioned, but not related, because it is presupposed that the readers know it. The author of the fourth gospel, therefore, not only is acquainted with, but owns and confirms the first three, and founds his story on the known basis of the synoptic story. Hence they cannot, like Keim, 1 talk merely of ' things borrowed,' or say that the fourth ' went in the train ' of the other three. His recogni- tion of them is not dependence, but confirmation. Dependence. This certainly could not be said if Holtzmann were right. 2 He thinks he can prove that the fourth gospel is dependent not only on the account, but also on the wording of the first three, so that this dependence reaches to the most detailed turns of speech and words, and to the position and number of words. To characterize this style of argument, we simply print off the beginning of it : 8 — ' The iyevero avOpcorroo- ' ("there was a man") in John i. 6, and ovroo- yXdev ' (" the same came ") in i. 7, recall Luke iii. 2, iyevero ' prjixa 0eov eirl 'Iwdwrjv (" the Word of God came to ' John ") (see Mark i. 4), and Luke iii. 3, koX r/Xdev (" and ' he came "). Further on, the ev vhan (" with water") ' of John i. 26 fits better the wording of Matt. iii. ' 11 (= Mark i. 8?) than the simple vSan of Luke iii. DEPENDENCE ON THEM. 199 16 ; but the citation i. 23 falls back upon the synoptic account in general, Mark i. 2, 3 = Matt, iii. 3 = Luke iii. 4, and the 6 bizio-ca fiov ep^o^evoo- (" who corning after me "), i. 27, leads directly to Matt. iii. 11 = Mark i. 7. On the other hand, Xva Xvao (" to undo ") shows that the form of Mark i. 7 = Luke iii. 16 is preferred to that of the first gospel. The end of the verse i. 27, tov Ifidm-a rod inroBrffiaroa- (" shoe's latchet "), agrees likewise with Mark i. 7 — Luke iii. 16, only that these texts have roov v7roB7]fxdTO)v ("shoes'"). Mark i. 8, the declaration " I baptize with water," does not come till after the saying about the sandals ; hence John has here really held to Luke. So, too, the elements of the account of the baptism, John i. 32, namely, to TrvevjJLCL Kara^alvov odct irepLaTepdv (" the Spirit descend- ing . . . like a dove") and eV avrov ("upon him"), are found in the synoptic account, Mark i. 10 = Matt. iii. 16 = Luke iii. 22; and this time Mark and Matthew fit better than Luke. On the con- trary, the prophesied Messianic baptism h irvevfian dyla) (" with the Holy Spirit "), John i. 33, is from Mark i. 8 = Matt. iii. 11 = Luke iii. 16; but this time Mark fits better than both the others. Finally, in i. 34, the testimony at the baptism, on, outoct iaTiv 6 vlba tov Oeov (" that this is the Son of God "), corresponds entirely to the form into which Matt. iii. 17 changes the voice from heaven given in Mark i. 11 = Luke iii. 22; Matthew reads ovroa io-Ttv 6 vt.6a fjuov ("this is my Son").' And so it goes on. In each thing told, the single words are traced back to the respective synoptists from whom they are borrowed. Holtzmann 4 protested, from the first, that he would not consider it a refutation if one or another of the numerous examples he quoted ' should be picked out and set forth for public sympathy as a 200 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. weak support of far-reaching consequences.' He will not be able to make this objection to the quotation above. And we could proceed a long while with like quotations, for the method is the same throughout. "We think, however, that the example given carries its own refutation with it. In this way we pledge ourselves to prove the most different books to be dependent upon each other. What has here been done for the synoptists, and has been extended by Holtzmann to Acts, holds just as good for all the rest of the New Testament books. Is the fourth gospel, therefore, dependent in its composition on all of them, and that, too, not merely in its sphere of thought, but also in the detailed wording and in the position of the single words? What conception shall we form for ourselves of the mental process of the author, if we must think of him as ever busy looking hither and thither in the book-rolls, and borrowing his expres- sions first from this one and then from that one? And nevertheless the fourth gospel is, in the matter of speech and in style, as well as in thought and in its whole plan, an original work, with oneness of con- ception and of execution ! No, this is a psychological impossibility, that Holtzmann will hardly persuade anybody to take as a reality. It is quite natural that the fourth evangelist should resemble the first three in his expressions in manifold ways. He shares with them in great part the same historical material, the same recollections and tradi- tions, and the same gospel. Something very odd would have come to pass if he had not been like them at times. If he knew their books, as we shall have to assume, he might agree with them here and there in single expressions, without our needing always to see a direct design in it. But to make such a mosaic- like proceeding of it and such a servile dependence as DEPENDENCE ON THEM. 201 Holtzmann does, would be to presuppose a small and mechanical mind, against which the whole gospel would rise in the most decided opposition. The gospel opposes in like manner Holtzmann's fancies about dependence in the historical materials of the account. Here, again, to characterize the thing, and at the same time avoid all protests, a connected bit from the end is quoted word for word : 5 — ' The ' history of Lazarus, which has not been touched yet, is ' of great interest. The story of Jairus' daughter, be- ' longing to the synoptic groundwork, affects even the 1 tradition of the young man at Nain, which is peculiar 1 to Luke. That is to say, the call to the mother, Luke ' vii. 13, and to the son, Luke vii, 14, reminds us ' strongly of Luke viii. 52, 54. But the saying about ' the child's sleep (ica0evSei, Mark v. 39 = Matt. ix. 24 = ' Luke viii. 52) affects no less the declaration, Ad^apoa- ' Ke/coifA7)Tcu ("Lazarus sleepeth"), John xi. 11. [!] ' Grfrorer and Freytag proved the direct influence of ' Luke's scene at Nain on John's at Bethany. Hence ' Baur, 6 as is well known, took the story of Lazarus to ' be a second heightening of the story of Jairus, and ' pointed to Luke x. 38-42, and xvi. 19-31, as material ' that served for further colouring. Luke's parable of 'the poor Lazarus, in xvi. 19-31, was most happily - worked up by Zeller, who proved the direct descent of ' John's Lazarus from the synoptic one. Compare the ' very beginning, Luke xvi. 20, 7tt — ' Jesus three times in Galilee, three times in Judea; twice three feasts, especially three passover feasts ; three miracles in Galilee, three in Jerusalem ; Jesus moves about near the Baptist twice three da} T s ; three days cover the story of Lazarus ; six days cover THE FORM IS PLANNED OUT. 223 the death passover ; three words on the cross ; and three appearances of the Risen One.' But Leuschner 30 has already revised and corrected this reckoning of Keini's. The three staj-s in Galilee may pass, but Jesus was in Judea not simply three times, but much oftener ; see ii.-iii., v., vii.-ix., x. 22 ff., xi., etc. It is true that three passover feasts are spoken of, but we find Jesus in Jerusalem only at two, at the beginning and at the end. Of the miracles in Galilee, two are counted expressly, iv. 54. In addition to these come not only the miracle of feeding as a third, but also the sea miracle, vi. 19 ff. ; and a great miraculous activity in Galilee is at least mentioned, vi. 2, vii. 3. A like activity at Jerusalem is also spoken of, ii. 23, iii. 2. Besides the miracles of deed, we have the miracle of knowledge, i. 49 (Eng. vers. 48) ; and the miracle of His body, for that is probably the intention of the account in xix. 34 ; to say nothing of the resurrection, etc. They cannot say that Jesus moved about in the vicinity of the Baptist twice three days, for on the sixth day he was in Cana, and therefore far enough from the Baptist. No more does the story of Lazarus take in three days, but four, xi. 39. In short, Keim's counting does not agree with the record. It is true that the number three plays a certain part in this gospel. The very first three sentences show that. Yet from them we also see how this number is to be understood. The involuntary rhythm of the thought expresses itself by it. And even where the use of the number goes further, and is conscious and designed, it is no more a proof of want of historical character than the rule of the number seven in Matthew's gospel. 31 It was easy for a Jewish mind, from the Old Testament down, to think, and to write, and to arrange the material rhyth- mically. If such planning proves anything, it is only the freedom with which the Scripture historical com- 224 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. position treats its material, so as thereby to bring to view certain thoughts and certain knowledge borrowed from that material. Nevertheless the historical mate- rial does not thereupon cease to belong to history itself, and become free invention. We can close this inquiry with the result that the synoptic and Johannean historical accounts do not so exclude each other that the second is thereby referred to fiction. On the contrary, in so far as the}?" do not require, they still are compatible with, each other. The critical party lays greater weight on the - difference in the discourses of Jesus than on the difference in the historical material. It seeks the real decision here. As the discourses are mostly of Christological contents, we take the Christology and the discourses together. 2. The Discourses and the Christology. The principle on which they deny John's author- ship of the gospel runs thus : If Jesus spoke after the manner of the synoptists, He cannot have spoken after the manner of John's discourses of Jesus ; and reversed : He who on every occasion speaks, as to contents and form, in the tone of John's Christ, is an entirely different historical phenomenon from the one which meets us in the synoptic account. Both forms at once cannot be historical. One or the other is. But the synoptic is the more naive, less designed, more natural, and so more historical, being at the same time the form continued in tradition, as we see it in the following Christian literature. If, then, this repre- sentation be on the whole the historical one, John's representation cannot be historical. Therefore the fourth gospel is not apostolic. THE DISCOURSES AND THE CHRISTOLOGY. 225 This conclusion, in our opinion, is above all wanting in logic. They confound the origin with the contents. Supposing that the premises were correct, the con- clusion would only prove that the fourth gospel is not a historical document as to its contents, and not that as to its origin it could not be a historical production from the circle of the apostles. Plato presented his Socrates utterly different from Xenophon, and yet it cannot thence be concluded that the Platonic dialogues were not written by a scholar of Socrates. Why, then, cannot a book, which presents Jesus so differently from the synoptists, still be by a disciple of Jesus ? We should in this case only have to ask, if it be conceivable that a disciple of Jesus could make his teacher speak thus. That, however, is not a historical but a psychological question. And this latter, even more than the historical inquiry, has confirmed John's authorship. It is true that there is a difference between the Platonic and the Johaimean question. There we have to do with philosophical representations ; here with a historical one. There a scholar puts his own philo- sophy in his master's mouth ; here a disciple of Jesus gives historical testimony to Jesus Christ. Were Keim and others right in saying that the fourth gospel gives a religious philosophy only in a historical dress, the position of the cases would be just the same. Then it would be so much the less a question of historical criticism, but rather of a psychological nature. How could a disciple of Jesus come to form such a religious philosophy, and to use the gospel history merely as a means of presenting it ? They cannot declare it from the first to be absolutely impossible. And then it would be a double logical error, because a nerdfiacuG do- aWo yivoa (' passing over to another genus '), to wish to decide the historical and critical question from p 226 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. that. Yet, even if they see in John's gospel not a religious philosophical treatise, but a representation that at least means to be historical, we remain in the sphere of the psychological question. The problem reads thus : If in other respects it stand firm on principles of historical criticism that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus, and indeed by John, how could such a one, and especially John, come to make Jesus speak and to present him so entirely different from the other relators, and yet on the whole make Jesus speak and present him with truth to history ? We should have to inquire into the psychological possibility of such a difference, and could not from this difference deny those facts of historical criticism, not even if we had to let that problem stay unsolved. But is the difference really so irreconcilable ? Look at the difference between the Socrates of Xenophon and Plato. Not only Schleiermacher, but also Brandis and Hitter have owned 32 that the Platonic philosophy and its attachment to Socrates can only be compre- hended in case that Socrates had not merely spoken as Xenophon makes him speak, but had also com- prised in his teaching deeper elements, which Plato could embrace and develop, so that he received there- by a right to make the figure of Socrates the bearer of his thoughts. We might take up the question before us, too, in the same way. But here the thing is different. In Xenophon's representation as good as no points of contact with Plato's can be found, and in the synoptic presentation, on the contrary, very essen- tial points of contact with John's are given. So let us consider the actual state of the discourses of Jesus in both, as to their form and as to their contents. FORM OF THE DISCOURSES. 227 Form of the Discourses. The difference in the form is unmistakeable. In the synoptists the ruling form of the discourse of Jesus is the proverb and the parable, to which is added the prophetic discourse. In John, the discourses of Jesus have a more dramatic character, suiting the dramatic plan of the whole gospel. Dialogue prevails, whether in conversation or in debate ; and to this is added the discourse, which is a free pouring out of the heart. The former is a more popular, the latter is a higher form of discourse. But there is no lack of many points of contact. In the synoptists, too, Jesus has hours in which he discourses from the heart, and in a lofty tone, as in John, Matt. xi. 25 ff. ; or in which he carries on debates with his opponents, Matt. xii.. 25 ff. And in John also we find short striking or paradoxical sayings, such as are so frequent in the synoptists. This is true not only of those of which the evangelist confesses that he and his fellow-disciples did not understand them then as Jesus spoke them, ii. 19 ff., iv. 32 ff., vii. 33 ff, etc. ; but also of others which bear the form of the short or paradoxical proverb, iv. 35 ff, 44, v. 17, vi. 27, 62, 63, etc. Only, of course, the form of short paradoxical or enigmatical speech rules in the synoptists, while here it merely at times opens the flow of the discourse, or breaks in upon it by way of a summary. Further, if the parable be characteristic of the synoptic representation, and especially of Matthew, and is named as characteristic of it, Matt. xiii. 34 f., parabolic words are not wanting in John. It is enough to recall the good shepherd in the tenth chapter, and the vine in the fifteenth, or the figure of the living water in the fourth, and that of the bread in the sixth. 228 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. Only, in the synoptists they are parables worked out ; and here they are rather but shorter comparisons, taken up into the connection of the rest of the discourse. We see, then, that the elements of the synoptic method of discourse are present here too, but they do not, as in the former, give character to the discourse. The speech of Jesus in the synoptists picks its material from the whole wide sphere of natural and of human life, and the Johannean speech is likewise rich enough in such material. In the former it is more concrete, in the latter more abstract. There it appears in the form of a representation, here it is rather lifted to its idea. The thought in both is the same : The higher real truth (see John's aX^dtvoa) is to be proved in the lower form of sensible existence. There it is more in the form of the popular parable ; here it is rather a comparison after the manner of a teacher. Both the proverb and the parable have something fixed and solid in their form. In John this ciystalline form is dissolved, made fluid, and wrought over. It is as when we repeat something foreign ; when we repeat it not in its objective form, but as we have mentally re-wrought and assimilated it. In the synoptists, the critics proceed to say, Jesus' method of speech is connected, mediating, pedagogical ; and here it is immediate, repelling, unpedagogical, from a speculative height which is foreign to the hearers. But the words of Jesus can sound harsh in the synoptists, as in Matt. xii. 46 ff., the speech about his mother and his brethren ; and the nearer the end the harsher they are, Matt. xxi. 42 f., xxiii. 13 ff. Nor are connections lacking in John, — as in the talk with Nicodemus, where Jesus at the beginning starts from the baptism of John, and at the close touches upon the conscience ; or in the talk with the Samaritan woman, where he starts with his own immediate wants, so as DIFFERENCE OF FORM IN THE DISCOURSES. 229 to lead the woman to another matter. Or Jesus turns himself in rebuke upon the consciences of his opponents, as in chapter viii., just as he does in the synoptic debates ; or his love brings itself down to the weak belief and to the scanty understanding of his disciples, as in chapter xiii. ff., as in the synoptists. So points of contact are not wanting. But the discourses of Jesus in John certainly do have a higher and somewhat less familiar character than those in the synoptists. This is followed by another point. In contrast with the manifold variety of the synoptic discourses, and shades of speech of Jesus, they find the Johannean discourses of Jesus, as well as of the Baptist, mono- tonous, ever the same, not determined by the occasion and by the individual circumstances, but coming from one general unvarying background of thoughts. Here, too, we must reduce the observation to its right measure. The fourth gospel is not wanting in variety and in fitness to the given situation. The way that Jesus speaks to the woman at Jacob's well is different from the way in which he speaks to the ' master in Israel,' and notes the new birth and belief on him as a necessary condition for membership in the kingdom of heaven. The words with which Jesus meets his opponents in chapter viii. have an entirely different sharpness from that which is found in the self-witness in chapter v., standing at the beginning of the conflict. The almost sorrowful words about the good shepherd in chapter x., with which the conflict already draws nigh to its end, have still another tone. And, finally, the same may be said for the discourses to the disciples in which the heart of the departing one opens itself. In fact, it cannot be said that the discourses are lack- ing in difference of shade of colour, or in fitness to the situations. On the other hand, we must certainly 230 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. own that all the discourses have a certain similarity. Different as the discourses of Jesus and of the Baptist are, they still have great resemblances in expression. And different as the discourses of Jesus are, they have not the manifold variety of the synoptic discourses. More or less they always come out to one and the same testimony of Jesus about himself, about the necessity and saving character of belief, and about the judgment on unbelief. It is not true that they develop philo- sophical thoughts. They bear a personal character throughout ; they show inward personal emotion ; and they make us feel the personal interest of the writer. They carry none of the calmness of a speculating philosopher. Yet, personal as is the interest that rules them, and which they wish to beget, xx. 31, it is never- theless an interest that moves them. We can own it. They are somewhat monotonous. It is, however, not the monotony of poverty, but of depth of thought ; the monotony of the mind which ever gazes at the central point ; the monotony of eternity. The synop- tists, in the history as well as in the doctrine of Jesus, present the concrete phenomenon in time ; John presents the eternity which has appeared in time. The synoptists do not deny, but let it be sufficiently seen, that infinite contents dwell in the concrete phe- nomenon, but they take their point of view on the side of the phenomenon. John does not deny, but lays emphatic stress upon the fact that ' the eternal life ' entered historical actuality and became a pheno- menon striking the senses, that 'the Word became flesh ; ' but he takes his point of view on the side of the infinity which forms the contents of the phenomenon. The phenomenon is the manifold; 'the eternal life' which forms its contents is ever one and the same. Hence the synoptic presentation must bear an utterly different variety from the Johannean. The pheno- POINTS OF CONTACT IN THE DISCOURSES. 231 menon connects with what already exists, whether it be things Israelite from the Old Testament, or whether it be things generally human and moral. In the synoptists, therefore, appear the various references of Jesus' teaching to the Old Testament Scriptures, to Israelite circumstances, and to the moral reality and task of human life. But the infinite contents stand over against that variety of the phenomenon as one and the same, unvarying. Hence it is somewhat abstract and unindividual, detached from the historical actuality, and apparently indifferent thereunto. This could not but show itself in the language, which must wear a side of individual variety, as well as a side of general self-repeating monotony. If now, in Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal life appeared in the flesh, so, too, will both sides have found expression in his testi- nionj\ The fourth gospel takes up one side, and makes it the standard of its representation. Points of con- tact and connection between the first three and the fourth are not wanting. When we examine it more closely, they are more frequent than appears at the first glance. Godet 33 and Holtzmann 34 give a collection of the points of contact, or of the things borrowed, as Holtzmann takes it. The survey here given follows these two collections. Holtzmann almost always puts the contact with Mark first. Comparison shows that this is often quite arbitrary. Hence the simplest thing will be to enumerate the synoptists in their usual order. As will be seen, the coincidences are of very different worth. We have not wished to exclude even those passages in which, in our opinion, there is really no coincidence, but only an agreement in wording. 232 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. John. Si/no2Jtists. (1.) ii. 19 : 'Destroy this Matt. xxvi. 61 : ' This fellow temple, and in three days,' etc. said, I am able to destroy,' etc. Matt, xxvii. 40 : ' Thou that destroyest the temple,' etc. Mark xiv. 58: 'We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands,' etc. Mark xv. 29 : ' Thou that destroyest the temple,' etc. (2.) iv. 44 : Tor Jesus him- Matt. xiii. 57 : 'A prophet is self testified that a prophet not without honour, save,' etc. hath no honour,' etc. Mark vi. 4. Luke iv. 24. (3.) v. 8 : ' Eise, take up thy bed, and walk.' Matt. ix. 5f.:' For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise and walk ? But that ye may know . . . Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.' Mark ii. 9. Luke v. 24. (4.) vi. 20: 'But he saith unto them, It is I ; be not afraid.' Matt. xiv. 27 : 'Be of good cheer ; it is I,' etc. Mark vi. 50 : 'It is I,' etc. (5.) vi. 35 : ' He that cometh Matt. v. 6 : ' Blessed are to me shall never hunger ; and they which do hunger and he that believeth on me shall thirst ... for they shall be never thirst.' filled.' Luke, vi. 21. (6.) (vi. 37 : ' All that the Matt. xi. 28 f. : ' Come unto Father giveth me shall come me, all ye that labour,' etc.) to me,' etc. (7.) vi. 46 : ' Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.' Matt. xi. 27: 'Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.' Luke x. 211 (8.) xii. 7 : 'Let her alone : Matt. xxvi. 12 : ' For in that against the day of my burying she hath poured this ointment hath she kept this.' on my body, she did it for my burial.' POINTS OF CONTACT IN THE DISCOURSES. 233 John. Synoptists. a elfii, which the author of the fourth gospel takes as the essential substance of the SELF-WITNESS OF JESUS. 241 historical reality and makes his theme, lies at the base of this concrete variety. Jesus, however, in the synoptists as well as in John, does not merely put his person in the middle point of his preaching. He attributes to it in the former and in the latter an absolute importance. And although in the two representations this absolute importance turns towards different sides, nevertheless, these two sides not only agree with, but even demand each other. In the synoptic self-witness of Jesus, or witness to Him, He appears, in relation to the Old Testament age, church, and scriptures, as their aim. He is the long- ing of the pious in Israel, and the fulfilment of their longing, Matt. xiii. 16 f. ; Luke x. 23 f. He is David's son, and at the same time David's Lord — the higher aim of the history of David's house, Matt. xxii. 41 ff. We have here more than Jonah and more than Solomon, Matt. xii. 41, 42. He is more than the temple and more than the Sabbath, Matt. xii. 6, 8. He is the Bridegroom, the Lord of the Church, Matt, ix. 15, xxii. 2. That which held good for Jehovah in the Old Testament in his relation to the Church of God, that is true of Him in the New Testament. He is the fulfilment of the Old Testament, and He brings the Old Testament Scriptures to their fulfilment, Matt, v. 17. His relation to humanity is just as absolute. He is the Son of Man — not merely the goal of the history of the house of David, but also the goal of the history of humanity. He is the goal of the separate men ; they shall find rest for their souls in Him, Matt. xi. 28 f. He is the Lord of the field, which is the world, Matt, xiii. 24 ff., 36 ff. He assumes an absolute relation to the world, Matt. xi. 27. Hence also His disciples are the salt and light not only of Israel, but also of the world, Matt. v. 13 f. 242 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. But this absolute relation to the world rests on His absolute relation to God, Matt. xi. 27. . To the world He is, like God, an unknown mystery ; He belongs to the mystery of God; He and the Father know each other, but to the world both are alike concealed. This hidden background of his being, and of his relation to God, forms the presupposition of his ab- solute relation to the world, which stands in the fore- ground of his self-witness. The synoptists chose for their theme this foreground view of his self-witness concerning his relation to the world. Yet they hint at that hidden background which is the essential and logical presupposition thereof, though they do not develop it, seeing that it formed a higher stage of instruction, and demanded a higher grade of know- ledge. When John depicts Jesus as the life, as the light, as the word, that is, as the direct revelation of God, as the presence of God, and as the possessor of the absolute communion with God, all is that inward relation to God which formed the presupposition for His absolute relation to the world and to the Old Testament, and for His corresponding self-witness. Nevertheless, he hints sufficiently at this latter thought ; he takes his point of view on the side of the former. These are two sides which mutually require each other. For Jesus would not assume that absolute relation to the world, which the synoptists depict and witness to, if He did not stand in the relation to God which John shows to us. The former demands the latter as a presupposition ; the latter has the former in its train. Each points to the other ; one stands in the foreground of Jesus' self-witness, the other forms the background thereof. Naturally enough this background was constantly present for the eyes that pierced deeper, but it only came forward SELF-WITNESS OF JESUS. 243 expressly at certain times. In the same way, we have the highest and deepest parts of our belief and con- fession of Jesus constantly in heart and thought, and show them in our discourse concerning Him to those who have the disposition and understanding for them ; and yet we only now and then make them the object of express testimony. In the report of the discourses of Jesus, John and the synoptists stand to each other as in the historical representation. John did not, like the synoptists, choose as the theme of his historical representation the whole variety of the life and work of Jesus as it came to view for the eyes, but the inner essence and the substance of the history, which forms the hidden presupposition of the separate events, as we saw most characteristically in baptism and in the Lord's supper. Just thus are they related to each other in their account of Jesus' self-witness. They represent its two sides. It is true that this principle presupposes that the self-witness of Jesus had these two sides, that is, that two sides were united in Jesus' person itself, one belonging to time, and one belonging to eternity. But according to the representation of the synoptists too, both sides were united in Him. For although they move in their representation upon the floor of time, and put Jesus' person so in the centre thereof that the lines go out from Him towards the most different sides, nevertheless, their last thoughts go far be} 7 ond the limits of the temporal and the finite. They do not follow the line further into the field of eternity, yet it loses itself therein. It disappears in the divine mystery. Hence they hint, indeed, at the absolute relation to God, but they do not enter into it further, and so have no witness concerning a pre-existence of Jesus. John, on the contrary, establishes the line in this eternal and absolute relation to God, and draws 244 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. the line thence down into time, yet without following it further here, where it is lost for him in the gene- rality of the representation. Hence he has, indeed, the declaration of the pre-existence, but he relates neither the birth, nor the baptism, nor the temptation, nor the prophetic work in Galilee. He hints at all this ; he presupposes all this. He does not deny this synoptic picture of Christ, but confirms it and owns it, and yet he sketches eternity into this picture of time. For that is the chief thing for him ; that is for him the sub- stantial side of the history of Jesus. Monotony. In this peculiarity of conception and presentation lies what the}?" call the monotony of the fourth gospel, its lack of all historical development, and the like. ' The Christ, who is complete from the beginning,' ' is, as to this idea, both in the history and in the pen of the most endowed author, an immovable, dead, mono- tonous figure, which, in spite of all processes, is at the beginning already at the end, and is only artistically preserved until the end by climaxes or by new scenery.' 37 Even Wittichen thinks 38 thus : ' The synop- tists present to us the picture of a personality which develops itself inwardly, rises by struggles to the highest pitch of religious fervour and clearness, and hence shows a rich variety of mood. In the fourth gospel, on the other hand, Christ is, from the beginning on, an absolutely complete personality, and there is a pro- gress only in the outward historical life.' But we fear that they constructed a 'development' from certain psychological presuppositions, which they then rather dragged into than drew from the representation of the synoptists. What we saw above concerning the Mes- MONOTONY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 245 sianic consciousness of Jesus, holds also for the con- sciousness of His future. The first thirty years of the life of Jesus are probably a time of development, only we do not know much about this development. But after the baptism and the temptation, the develop- ment of Jesus is finished, and the time of work follows the time of growth. After He had broken with the fleshly Messiahship once for all in the temptation, His future was as good as decided. He knew that He would have to carry his work through in contradic- tion with the ruling spirit of the time ; and He must have been poorly acquainted with the Old Testament history of salvation not to have said to Himself that this was nothing else than treading the path of mar- tyrdom. Matthew puts the sermon on the mount at the front of the preaching of Jesus. Yet in this, Jesus places before his disciples' view no other future than the communion of suffering, as the prophets had experienced it, Matt. v. 12. It is unquestionably clear from this how Jesus thought concerning His own future. It is the same in the discourse instructing the twelve ; He names hatred, persecution, and death as their lot, Matt. x. 17 f., 22, 25, 28. Can we, then, be in any doubt as to Jesus' consciousness of His own future ? The reason that He makes the sufferings that await Him an object of express instruction to his disciples only at a later date, is not that the certainty of this suffering future had only gradually arisen in Him, but simply that the disciples could not bear it before. Thus the signs of a development of conscious- ness, which some find in the synoptic accounts, are rather fiction than truth. On the other hand, variety of mood is not wanting in John, though even Wittichen misses it. The eleventh and twelfth chapters are enough to prove this, — the inward emotion of Jesus before the raising of Lazarus, and at the thought of His own death. 246 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. The difference, therefore, is not so great as it is commonly made out to be. But thus much is correct : The self-presentation and the self-witness of John's Christ are from the beginning much more even, and move more on the same level, than in the synoptists. But if, as we have seen, the object that this gospel lifts from the historical and temporal appearance, and portrays for us, be the eternal contents of the person of Jesus Christ, it lies in the nature of the thing that this eternal side is one that remains like to itself; that is to say, monotonous, if they will. But it is the monotony of infinity, which is riches in seeming poverty of thought, and constancy under variety of appearance. Thus did John understand and embrace Christ, and thus he puts Him before us. This is the so-called subjectivity of the fourth gospel. 3. Subjectivity or the Foueth Gospel. ' Look more closely. The book is not only very one-sided, but it is also to a high degree subjective, that is, historically arbitrary.' So says Keim. 39 All that have busied themselves deeply with the fourth gospel acknowledge that it is to a high degree subjec- tive ; but it is a misuse of speech to translate this into ' historically arbitrary.' A historical representation ■ can be in a high degree objective, and yet not hit the real central point of the history, and so in a higher sense be untrue. And a historical representation can handle the external facts and words with great free- dom, and yet bring the real soul of the history to the fullest and truest representation. Is an object histo- rically arbitrary because it is given not photographi- cally, but just as it entered the spectator's subjectivity, and mirrored itself therein ? It would only be so SUBJECTIVITY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 247 when the real thought-picture thrust itself in the stead of the actual mirror-picture of the object. It is true that if eternity did not enter into time, and trans- cendency into this world, in Jesus, then a representa- tion of Jesus Christ which has this for its theme is ' historically arbitrary.' If, however, that was the case, then such a representation is true in the highest sense ; for it picks out the gist of the history, and puts the events of external reality in the background, just in order to bring the former to full view. The deci- sion lies, therefore, in the question whether or not that was the case with Jesus. The subjectivity of the representation is no proof against it. The subjective representation may be true. When, then, the first three gospels give us a glance at an infinite back- ground, and when it is on other grounds certain that the fourth gospel springs from a disciple of Jesus, we must not reason from the subjectivity against the his- torical certainty, but reason from the latter for the subjectivity, and conclude that it corresponds to the reality. Keim is perfectly correct in saying that ' the aim is not a historical one, but the means are historical.' Of course. But the same is more or less the case in all the gospels. The}' are not biographies, or the like, but gospels ; that is, proclamations of salvation. It is only important that the relation of means and aim be not an arbitrary one, but one suiting the matter — that the unhistorical aim be the one immanent in the historical means. When Hilgenfeld thinks that the historical is sunk in the doctrinal, 40 we can readily own it, rightly understood. What they call doctrinal is just the soul of the history, which shines out every- where from the body of the history. It is true that this is not possible without a certain freedom in the handling of the historical materials, and, indeed, a 248 CH. IX. — ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. greater freedom than we permit to ourselves and to others. But in antiquity in general, and on Biblical ground in particular, they stood towards the historical material in a manner different from ours. It is more or less the case with all writers, that thev 1 make the historical material the bearer of their ideas, and make it serve the practical needs and interests of the present ;' and in particular, the Hebrew writing of history is never purely objective, but has a pro- phetic element, putting the history in the light of the practical religious idea, so as thereby to produce an ethical effect upon the reader. 41 The purpose even of a Thucydides or a Livy, and much more of a Biblical writer, is not merely historical, but also didactic. The historical material is subordinated to a definite point of view, and determined thereby in its choice and representation. It is alone important, whether the point of view be taken from the history itself, or only dragged into it. If it be taken from the history itself, it was the standing in the heart of the subject, the inward union with the subject, which made the writer free towards the outward material. That gave him a good conscience in handling his material freely, to a degree that we should probabty not allow to ourselves. Diestel 42 presses this especially in the case of the writer of Chronicles. Entirely agreeing with this method of the Old Testament historical writing, Grau 43 has named and proved this as the prophetic character of John's gospel in particular. If there were different elements in the discourses of Jesus, if the eternal and infinite background of his being came to expression in them, — and we have seen that this was the case, — and if Jesus was such a one as He was in Christendom from the beginning believed to be, this must also be expressed. And thus John lifted up and generalized this central point of the SUBJECTIVITY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 249 essence of Jesus' history and self- witness. For we are certainly not to think of it as if the Johannean self- witness of Jesus had been the whole or the only method of Jesus. Had we only John's gospel, we should be forced to think that Jesus commonly spoke and taught as He here speaks. That would certainly not give us a picture of Jesus' manner clothed in external reality. But the fourth gospel is not meant thus. It presupposes the first three, and only wishes to be understood under this presupposition ; and a picture of Jesus is to be gained from it only in union with them. The author of the fourth gospel certainly proceeds with great independence of the first three, in a grand way not troubling himself about the apparent or real want of harmony with the accounts of the first three which arises from this method. But this he did just because he was not a later forger, who found him- self to be chained to the form of synoptic tradition, which was already settled. Since the harmony of the picture of Jesus stood before him in the vision of his soul, he was sure that the variety of the representa- tions would also unite in a harmonious picture for his readers. With confidence in this, he picked out from the being and life of Jesus the point which was to him the essential one, and carried this exclusively through the history and preaching of Jesus. It is true that this gives a ' one-sided ' picture, if you like ; but it does not mean to be a picture from all sides. Our habit in regard to historical representation leads us astray, makes us misunderstand what is given, and makes us hold as arbitrariness the freedom with which the whole relation is ruled by that fundamental thought. Such a free handling of given historical material is certainly strange to us. We have a different idea of historical faithfulness to external facts than the Biblical authors, and, above all, the author of our book. To 250 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. them and to him the chief point is, not the facts as snch, but the subject. He does not copy the external historical reality, but, on the ground of the impression made on him by the person and the history of Jesus, he gives the picture as he received it inwardly, and as it has formed itself within him in the course of a long life, and become his most intimate mental property. He knows that in this he represents the highest truth of Jesus. It is no self-made picture he presents. The thoughts he brings forward are not philosophical thoughts, either self-invented or borrowed from some one else. He simply reproduces what he experienced, lived through, and received, a score or so of years before. And if he brings into view rather an idea than the external history, it is just the idea of the history itself, and not a notion of his own. Of course, only one who is sure of his case, who has really learned Jesus Christ, and has beheld Him, the histori- cally appearing person, in his heart and in the secret of his existence, and has himself lived upon this expe- rience — only such a one could dare to do this. But he is the freer towards the external history the more he feels himself inwardly bound and conditioned in all his thought by the historical experience. To be sure, such a freedom towards the external actual reality demanded a long interval of time be- tween the experience and the reproduction. The experience must first be profoundly wrought over, and pass into the life of the mind, so that the acci- dental in the outward history stand back, and the spirit of the history itself become free. But the fourth gospel is also the latest ; and that process was the real process through which the Christian recollection passed. It is always remarkable to us that so few detailed reminiscences of the external life of Jesus have been preserved, although the disciples were day FREEDOM IN RELATING THE HISTORY. 251 and night with their Master, and although the account of Him formed the very material of Christian instruc- tion. Our historical interest would have gathered and kept a multitude of separate features. We find nothing of this in the Christian Church. Not to men- tion external, local, biographical, and other reminis- cences and relics, even the gleaning of Jesus' single sayings in tradition is exceedingly meagre. Even Papias must have found little to gather and tell about, otherwise more of these contents of his book would have been preserved in the centuries in which men had and read it. Hence we see that, for the early Christian church, this external historical interest stood entirely in the background, in comparison with the interest in the saving contents and the saving impor- tance of the person and history of Jesus. John is not the only one to say this, xx. 31. Justin Martyr 44 closes his dialogue with similar words. In the whole dialogue the historical side retires fully behind the so- called doctrinal side, and Justin does not consider it at all necessary to sketch ' a life-picture ' of Jesus for the unbelieving Jew. But we only need compare the Pauline epistles, or the Petrine discourses and epistles, or look at the epistle to the Hebrews or the letters of Barnabas or Clement, to convince ourselves that the whole interest in the person of Jesus is directed singly and alone to prove Him to be, and to preach Him as, the Son of God witnessed to in the Old Testament, John v. 39. The synoptic sayings of the Lord are cited here and there, 4 ' 5 so as to base special Christian moral commands on the single events of gospel history. Yet, except in so far as they connect with the birth, baptism, death, and resurrection, great stress seems to have been laid on them by the Church only from the time of Irenseus. And this observation as to the re- cession of the single historical events of the life of 252 CH. IX. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. Jesus in the consciousness of the earliest churches is confirmed also, as far as we can judge, by a glance at apocryphal gospel literature of the Church. It appears that the formation of legends about the life of Christ by the Church began only at the turn of the second and third centuries. This literature, moreover, is a measure for the interest they took in the detailed events. This interest awoke first in the heretical Gnostic parties, a circumstance which is explained by the posi- tion these parties held towards the history of salvation, and especially towards the Old Testament. That is to say, they were forced to seize New Testament stories, to grasp at occurrences in the life of Jesus, in order to be able to oppose something to the typological argu- ments of the Church, taken chiefly from the Old Tes- tament. Even for them, however, these are of value only in so far as they can be used as allegories for their own doctrinal views. The anti-Gnostic work of Irenasus offers a rich abundance of proofs for such speculative theological interpretations of the history of Jesus. Consequently the Gnostics, in spite of their thorough appeal to the single stories of Jesus' life, were not a whit more ' historical ' than the Church and its teachers. This, which is true of the consciousness of the early church in general, namely, that it clung less to the ex- ternal course than to the internal meaning of the gospel history, is true of John's gospel in a particular sense. Hence, if all the gospels have a subjective side, this is the most subjective. In itself this is no reproach, and no proof of a want of historical character ; on the contrary, it may be the expression of the highest in- ternal truth. It is only important to know whether or not the subjective impression which the evangelist reproduces corresponds to the historical reality as we NOTES. 253 know it from other sources, and whether or not the psychological and historical possibility of such a picture of Christ as is here given can be proved for a disciple of Jesus. That question is to be answered by means of a comparison with the synoptic picture of Christ. And we saw that, different as that is from John's picture, it nevertheless contains the germs of the latter. We must, however, acknowledge, that in John we are indeed to refer the contents, but not the form, of the discourses to Jesus Himself. Hence we have a right to use those discourses dogmatically, in order to assure ourselves of the self-consciousness and of the self-testimony of Jesus in their full extent ; but we are not likewise justified to use them without ceremony when we wish to sketch a picture of the historical method in which Jesus, with an ordinary historical purpose, taught. 46 The other question, about the psychological and historical possibility, will per- haps admit of an answer by a comparison with the Revelation and with the other books of the New Testament. 1 Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. pp. 156, 118 If. 2 Holtzmann, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1869, (1, 2, 4 Hefte) pp. 62-84, 155-178, 446-456. 3 Ibid. p. 155 f. 4 Ibid. p. 64. 5 Ibid. p. 450. 6 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Jcanonischen Evan- gelien, Tubingen, 1847, p. 247 f. 7 For example, Bleek, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin, 1862, p. 181; and Riggenbach, Die Zeugnissc fur das Evangelium Johannis, Basel, 1866, p. 10 ff. 8 Weizsacker, Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1859, p. 698. 9 Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Ziirich, 1867, vol. i. p. 125. 10 Holtzmann, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1869, p. 156 f. 11 See Bleek, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin, 1862, p. 180. 12 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Tcanonischen Evan- gelicn, Tubingen, 1847, p. 127. 254 CH. IX. ST. JOHK-S GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. 13 Strauss, Lchen Jcsu, Leipzig, 1864, p. 249. 14 Strauss, Zcitschrift fur wisscnschaftliche Thcologic, 1863, p. 84 ff. 15 Bleek, Einlcitung in das Ncuc Testament, Berlin, 1862, p. 181. 16 Wittichen, Der gcschichtliche Charaldcr des Evangel 'turns Johannis, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 43; and Strauss too, Lcbcn Jesto, Leipzig, 1864, p. 247 f. 17 Keim, Gcschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 130. 18 Ibid. p. 1 30. 19 Ibid. p. 1 1 9. 80 Ibid. pp. 1 1 7, 1 31. 21 Hilgenfeld, Die Evangdien nach Hirer Entstchung und geschirht lichen Bedeutung, Leipzig, 1854, p. 325. 22 Keirn, ut supra, p. 132. 2 ' 3 Ibid. p. 131. 2i Ibid. p. 117. 25 Ibid. p. 129. 2C Ibid. vol. iii. (1872) p. 476. 27 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 478 f. 28 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 476, and note 2 thereon. 29 Ibid. vol. i. p. 115 f. 30 Leuschner, Eos Evangclium St. Johannis und seine neuesten Widersacher, Halle, 1873, p. 10. 31 See my programme De Compositione Evangdii Matthcci, Pentecost Programme, Leipzig, 1861. 32 Schleiermacher, Wcrkc, 3ter Theil; Zur Philosophic, vol. ii. Berlin, 1838, p. 287 ff . : Brandis, Handbuch der Gcschichte der griechisch-roinischen Philosophic, 2ter Theil, 1 Abth., Berlin, 1844, p. 22; and Gcschichte der EntvricJcdungen der griechischen Philosophic, Berlin, 1862, vol. i. p. 230 ff. : Bitter, H., Gcschichte der Philosophic, 2ter Theil, 2d edit. Hamburg, 1837, p. 46 f. 33 Godet, Commentar zu dent Evangcliiun Johannis ; German translation by Wunderlich, Hanover, 1869, p. 659 f. 34 Holtzmann, Zcitschrift fur ivisscnschaftlichc Thcologic, 1869, p. 174. 35 [Xamely, that the synoptists follow the law, rather than the person of Christ, in their discussions. — C.B.G.] 35a Insert here : Men are distinguished as for or against Him, xii. 30. The decisive question is, who He is, xvi. 13 ff 36 [Xamely, if an offence against a believer be so great, the believer must be of high dignity. — C.B.G.] 37 Keim, ut supra, vol. i. p. 11 7. 33 Wittichen, Per geschichtlichc Charcddcr des Evangeliums Johannis, Elberfeld, 1868, p. 52. 39 Keim. ut supra, vol. i. p. 122. 40 Hilgenfeld, Pie Evangelicn, Leipzig, 1854, p. 348. 41 Wittichen, ut supra, p. 97. 42 Diestel, Die hebraische Geschichtschrcibung ; Jahrbilchcrfilr deutsche Thcologic, 1873, pp. 365-385, especially p. 382. NOTES. 255 43 Grau, Entwickelungsgcscliiclitc des Nmtcstamcntlichcn Scliriftthums, Giitersloh, 1871, vol. ii. p. 459 ff. 44 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphonc, cap. 142; Opera, edit. Otto, Jena, vol. ii. (1843) p. 462 (371 B-E). 45 Acts xx. 35 ; Bom. xii. 9-21 ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13, vii. 10; more frequently in James and Peter ; 1 dementis ad Corin- thios, cap. xlvi., Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 2d edit. Dressel, Leipzig, 1863, p. 92 ; Barnabas, cap. iv., Ibid. pp. lxv. and 6 ; cap. v. p. 8 ; cap. vii. pp. lxviii. and 1 6 ; cap. xix. pp. lxxvii. and 42. 46 [The author, in the last few pages, seems to yield too much in regard to the freedom with which St. John uses the histo- rical material. Fair reason, recognising the more external and popular character both of the contents and of the method of preservation of the contents of the synoptists, and finding in the fourth gospel not only more intimate and scholastic con- tents, but also a more individual method of preservation of those contents, will acknowledge that this individual method of preservation, exercised by one in most intimate communion with Jesus, is far more likely to give us a true view of the manner and words of the Teacher than general church tradi- tion is, even though gathered by a disciple. — C.R.G.] CHAPTER X. st. john's gospel and the revelation. TT is a well-known axiom of the later theology, that John's gospel and the Revelation differ too much, not only in language, but also in doctrinal contents and in their whole manner of thought, to be traced to one and the same author. Consequently, either the Revelation is from the apostle John, and the gospel not, or the gospel is from him and the Revelation not. Baur and his school hold to the former, while Schleiermacher's school and many other positive theologians hold to the latter. Lately, a third view has asserted itself, which is represented by Keim and Scholten, and which denies both books to the apostle. Very few dare attribute both to him. The question as to the relation of the gospel to the Revelation could only be of decisive importance for the question as to the apostolic composition of the gospel in case John's authorship of the Revelation were settled, or at least were more sure than his authorship of the gospel. That, however, is not the case. The oldest witness for the Johannean composition of the Revelation is, as is well known, Justin, in his dialogue. But the same Justin cites the known passage as to the new birth from the gospel. To be sure, he does not mention John's name here, but the gospel existed under no other name. Papias lived in the visions of the Revelation ; and though we do not know by an express testimony from him, nevertheless he witnesses THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE. 257 to the first epistle of John, and that, as we saw, is also a testimony for the gospel. Therefore the confirma- tion of the Revelation cannot be said to be stronger than that of the gospel. If the latter can be called in question, so can the former ; if both be questioned or denied, as by Keim and others, no argument against the gospel can be drawn from the Revelation. If the two show themselves to be irreconcilable, the decision as to which of the two books is to be attributed to the apostle must be found in other considerations than in their irreconcilability. This must be kept in view when a comparison between the books is instituted. Even if this comparison should result in the irrecon- cilability of the two books, that proves nothing against the gospel. It can just as well be a witness against the Revelation. So we may enter on this comparison with a calm mind. We can infer that, in spite of their difference, there must be a striking relationship between the two books, for Tubingen criticism named the gospel ' the trans- figured Revelation.' Hence the Revelation not merely belongs, ' like so many other New Testament books, to the literary presuppositions of the gospel,' l but there must also be peculiar connections to join the books to each other. It must be admitted that the difference in language, as well on the grammatical and stylistical as on the lexical side, is striking to a high degree. Ebrard 2 has instituted very noteworthy discussions for the fixing and just appreciation of the facts of the case, and his work goes to lessen considerably the importance of the linguistic difference. Most of the differences of language are explained by the difference of the subject with which the gospel and the Revelation deal, by the different disposition of mind in which the two are written, and, finally, b} T the utterly R 258 CH. X. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE REVELATION. different genus of discourse determined by these two things. Grammar. As for grammar, the gospel is written in correct, the Revelation in incorrect Greek. But incorrectness is not a direct proof of ignorance or want of practice. It is rather a result of the sovereign freedom with which the writer of the Revelation uses language. For example, when he writes, i. 4, airo 6 cov fcal 6 r)v Ka\ 6 epx6/u,evoo; he naturally knows very well that airo .^ata, governs the aoouoa tive, and that yv is no participle. Or when he fails to add on the appositions in the cor- responding cases, as i. 5, «7ro 'Itjctov Xpiarov, 6 p-dprva- 6 irca-Tocr^ and similarly in ii. 20 and xx. 2, or in the cor- responding gender, as ix. 13 f, (puvtjv p,iav . . . \eyovra, the appropriate rules are naturally not unknown to him, for he uses them elsewhere. He does not trouble himself about them. The mistakes are not mistakes of ignorance, but are designed emancipations from the laws of grammar. They are hardnesses of speech, chosen so as to give the language the character of the ancient hard speech of the prophets, as the subject occasions. Lexical Peculiarities. The same is the case with the lexical peculiarities. They too are conditioned by the subject. The Revelation lacks the Greek particles, which the gospel has at least to a higher degree. The language is said to wear not a Greek but a Hebrew character, and so does without those mediations of thought which cha- racterize the Greek mind. The expressions peculiar THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE. 259 to the gospel, such as fay, §oht, and akqOeta (' life,' ' light/ and ' truth '), are wanting here. For while the gospel speaks in ideal categories, the language of the Revelation moves in visions and pictures, corre- sponding to the method of the Hebrew, and, above all, of prophetic discourse. To this must be added the entire difference of the whole mental disposition in the two books. The characteristic of the gospel is a calm, devoted reproduction of great recollections that have become the property of the inward life. The charac- teristic of the Revelation is an excitement and eleva- tion of disposition, called forth by the great and agitating pictures of the future. The former is written with constant reference to the reader ; the latter is written without such reference, and is only deter- mined by the object. We can, however, oppose these differences with not a few agreements. Ebrard 3 has noted a list of such linguistic peculiarities as are common to both books. We name, by way of example, the use of iroietv in irotelv yjrevhoa J and aXrjOeLav, } apxh ('beginning') is not ' milium' ('entrance'), but 'principium' ('principle') ; so that He is designated as the principle of the creation, as He by whom all is created, and therefore here, just as in the gospel, is designated as the pre-existent one. From this point it is but a short step to the Logos of the gospel. Where the presence of Christ for the victory over the Antichrist is spoken of, it is said of Him, xix. 13, ' and His name is called the Word of God.' It does not say will be called. It is not a future, but a previous name. As at His first coming upon earth He was called ' the Word,' so at His return He will be termed ' the Word of God.' Is, however, ' the Word of God' to be understood otherwise than as ' the Word ' in the gospel ? But the genitive rod 6eov (' of God ') supplies itself to the latter, since 6 X0700- ('the Word') is meant in the absolute sense, just as when rj &/] (' the life '), or the like, is said of Him. The coincidence between the gospel and the Revelation in this word is unmistakeable, and has been constantly remarked. They have either, like Liicke, made the gospel the foundation of the Revela- tion, or, like the newer critics, made the Revelation the foundation of the gospel. In any case, the contact is not by chance. It is not an unessential, but a characteristic -designation of Christ, peculiar to the three books that bear John's name ; in it these books coincide. And it is not merely a contact, but a real agreement. As Christ is in the gospel called the Word as the absolute revelation, so He is in the Re- velation. He appears here as the closing revelation of Jehovah, as it is promised in the Old Testament. Hence also the genitive rod Oeov is added to 6 \6yoa-. Scarcely any other name of Christ is so familiar to CHRISTOLOGT. 267 the Revelation as that of the Lamb (apviov) ; it occurs twenty-nine times, and several times with the state- ment that the Lamb had been slain. But in the gospel Jesus is called the Lamb of God by the Baptist at the beginning of His appearance in public, and the evangelist sees the type of the passover lamb fulfilled in the crucified one. Both are characteristic of the gospel. Indeed, the Tubingen criticism thinks that the evangelist changed the chronology of the days of the passion for the sake of this thought. To be sure, Jesus in the Revelation is called, not afivba, as in the gospel, but apvtov. But, in the first place, this is a difference not of view but of expression, and the reason for it is not hard to find. Probably the con- trast of the historical stages of Jesus' life, of his way of grief and of the presence of his glory, of his weak- ness and of his all-powerful strength, and so forth, in one and the same Jesus Christ, is what is meant to be made prominent. 9 In connection with this stands that quotation from Zech. xii. 10, which is used in a like form, and a form unlike that of the Septuagint, in the gospel at xix. 37, and in the Revelation at i. 7. This agreement is always striking, and has been constantly so regarded. It cannot seem strange to us that Jesus does not appear in the Revelation as the ' amiable Son of man,' as we know Him from the gospel. 10 In the Revelation He appears as the judge, not as the one who came to seek and to save those who are lost. The eighth chapter of the gospel is enough to show that Jesus' ' amiability ' has its bounds even in the gospel ; and a reference to vii. 16 f. in the Revelation is all that is needed to make us see how thoroughly He is sympa- thizing love, even in the Revelation. 268 CH. X. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE REVELATION. 4. Judaism. The decision, however, lies in the alleged Judaism of the Revelation and anti-Judaism of the gospel. I have proved in my larger work on John's gospel how little the appeal to ol 'IovScuot (' the Jews'), or to ')*our law,' in the gospel, suffices to show its anti-Judaism. This is now better acknowledged than at the time at which Fischer 11 wrote his well-known treatise thereon, and Baur appealed to it as to an argument that could not be doubted. The one phrase John iv. 22, ' salvation is of the Jews,' is enough to refute the anti-Judaism of the gospel. Besides, as we have seen, the whole thought and speech of the evangelist is rooted in the Old Testament Scriptures and in Jewish soil. So, likewise, the alleged Judaism of the writer of the Revelation has to put up with very essential limita- tions. In chapter vii. he names, by the side of the one hundred and forty'-four thousand that were sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel in the last times upon earth, the countless hosts of those saved ' of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues ;' and he beholds them standing before the throne of God and of the Lamb, adorned with white garments, with palms in their hands, and praising God. This is as strong a recognition of the Christendom which is gathered from the Gentiles as any we find in Paul. It is probably unnecessary now to prove that these numberless hosts from all nations are not identical with those numbered from Israel. The recognition of the universality of Christianity and of the Church runs through the whole Revelation, v. 8 if., xiv. 6 f., xxi. 24. It is absolutely impossible to see how the fact that the saved from Israel are counted, and the saved from the heathen are not counted, is meant to indicate a subordination ALLEGED JUDAISM OF REVELATION. 269 of the latter, as Volkmar, for example, thinks. 12 We could more easily infer the contrary. What Baur 13 has found of such a subordination, or what Volkmar, at the place cited, has found of a mere permitted settlement of the Gentile Christians, is dragged in. It is true that the Old Testament designations, Israel and Jerusalem, are transferred to Christendom ; but Paul does the same, Gal. vi. 16, iii. 29, iv. 26. Moreover, the New Testament Church of God is the continua- tion of that of the Old Testament, as the very name eiacXriGia (' church') tells us, which is the translation of the Old Testament name for the Israelite national Church of Jehovah. If a prerogative of Israel lies in this, it is given by the connection of the history of salvation, and is recognised as a matter of course by Paul, both in his 'IovBatm re irpwTov ('the Jew first'), Rom. i. 16, and in his comparison of the olive tree, Rom. xi. 17 ff. Of course, if Paul were meant among those, Rev. ii. 2, who gave themselves out for apostles, while they were not, but were liars, and if Pauline Christians were meant in the sharp words of the letter against the Xicolaitanes, then this book would be dictated by a spirit which could not consist with that of the gospel. But they would also have to ask themselves how this spirit would agree with the universality of Christianity and of the Church in the Revelation itself. It is true that not only Baur and his school found, but even Keim 14 still finds in the Revelation an attack upon Paul. It is, however, at last time for them to see and own the impossibility of this opinion. The twelve foundation-stones, with the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, xxi. 14, prove nothing against the recognition of Paul's apostleship. Ought the writer of the Revelation to have spoken of thirteen foundations and names of apostles ? If the future 270 CII. X. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE REVELATION. heavenly Jerusalem is the antitype of the Old Tes- tament Church of God, and hence twelve, and not thirteen, gates are spoken of, xxi. 12, then the writer of the Revelation can do nothing else than speak of twelve foundation-stones, and so of twelve names of apostles. So long as the Church has existed they have spoken thus, and even Pauline Christians have not left the number twelve. Besides, Paul does not belong to the twelve. He forms a particular apostolate, which is not historically fundamental, as the other apostolate was. Were the words ii. 2 aimed at Paul, they would of course be all the keener because they are in the letter to the church of Ephesus, founded by Paul. But just let them make out clearly what these words would then amount to. If the words of the writer of the Revelation about the lying apostles struck at Paul, the most malignant heretical Jewish Christianity has not been more strongly inflamed against Paul than this writer would here be. We should have to do not with a Judaizing or Catholicizing reformation of Paulinism, but with an absolute and direct rejection and condemnation of it. How would it be possible for the memory of this to disappear altogether in those circles of Asia Minor in which the Revelation was at home and continued to work ? The whole actual reality of the early church protests decidedly against our thinking that any such absolute rejection of the apostle Paul and of his work was possible within it. That which proves too much proves nothing. The lying- apostles recall the false apostles, 2 Cor. xi. 4, 13, who pressed into Corinth to work against Paul. 15 There they are Jews, who allege that they are messengers of Christ, and try to shake the authority of Paul in his Gentile-Christian churches. And here we shall also have to think of like Judaists, who wished to ALLEGED JUDAISM OF REVELATION. 271 pride themselves on a certain connection with. Jesus Christ. There is no right, or reason for identifying the Nicolaitanes, who are spoken of in ii. 6, 14 f., with the lying apostles, as Dusterdieck, for example, does. On the contrary, ii. 6 evidently offers something different. 16 Are these Nicolaitanes perhaps Paulists? Irenaaus 17 and Clement of Alexandria give us fuller accounts of these Nicolaitanes, and unmistakeably not, as Duster- dieck thinks, simply on the basis of the Revelation, but on the basis of special knowledge, and Clement, at least, with express appeal to the same. Irenseus reports that they claim to follow the deacon Nicolas, and that they live ' indiscrete ' (' indiscreetly'), teach- ing, namely, ' that there is no distinction in fornication and in eating things offered to idols.' He does not say whether they were justified or not in appealing to Nicolas. Clement, moreover, reports that they misin- terpreted Nicolas' words, ' it is necessary to abuse the flesh, ns and revelled in lust. As to Nicolas himself, Clement relates 19 that he and his house kept themselves pure ; though he once, to refute the charge of jealousy, in a moment of passionate excitement made an offer of his wife. The former may have appealed to this event to justify their disorder of sexual life, while Nicolas himself, with his misinterpreted words, represented an excessive asceticism. He was a proselyte from An- tioch, and therefore a Gentile by birth. Sometimes an excessive asceticism was easy for a Gentile Christian. But the history of Gnosticism shows how readily this, in its further course, could swing round into the con- trary disorderly sensuality. 20 Thus the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was a Gentile antinomianism. And if, as is probably unquestionable and generally agreed, we may combine with this the alleged knowledge of the depths of Satan on which the false teachers in 272 CH. X. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE REVELATION. Tkyatira prided themselves, then that antinomianism rests on a Gnostic theory of the mystery of evil. These are the false teachers Paul brought to view in his farewell words to the Ephesian elders, Acts xx. 29. The appeal to Paul's freer position towards the use of meat offered to idols, as it was for sale in the market, is no argument against this. The Revelation is not dealing with such indifferent use of meat, but with a use which brought one into contact with heathen affairs. The two things, fornication and idol -offerings, are put together by the writer of the Revelation, just as by Paul, 1 Cor. x. 7, 8. The passage cited from the Old Testament makes it clear that Paul's words refer to a sharing in heathen idolatrous feasts. 21 The Revelation, therefore, is not so anti-Pauline and Judaic as to be absolutely inconsistent with the freer and more universal manner of thought proper to the gospel. 5. Eschatology. And, finally, the eschatology of the Revelation is not so contrary to that of the gospel that the two books could not spring from a common soil. It is true that the gospel does not speak of the Antichrist, and lets the visible return of Christ fall into the back- ground. His coming is, in the first place, that of the Spirit ; that is, the Christian Church remains in her present condition, as the first product of the historical revelation of salvation, of which his preaching treats. But if the first epistle of John speaks of the Antichrist, and yet that is no proof against the author's identity with the author of the gospel, the same thing may serve for the Revelation. The elements of its view of the Antichrist lie in the gospel. The representation ESCHATOLOGY. 273 of the antichristian time of persecution shows clearly that the union of the God-hostile powers of falsehood is constitutive for that view. And these very two are characteristic of the diabolical opposition, or of the God-hostile historical principle in the gospel, as we see by the standard passage John viii. 44." Only the gospel, according to its task, remains in the present, and sees realized in the 'Jews' and in Judas the incar- nation of the God-hostile principle of history, which has been active from the being of history ; while the writer of the Revelation puts before our eyes the final completion thereof in the personal concentration to be found in the future. That, however, is only the cul- minating point of that which, as to essence, is already before us in the present. The description, of course, is determined by the whole genus of the Revelation. The theme of the Revelation is the coming of Christ: epxo/iat (' I come '). This coming has its stages, up to the closing personal return of Christ to resurrection and to judgment. In the gospel, the coming of Christ in the Spirit stands in the foreground. But yet it is Christ who is coming in the Spirit. Nor does his coming end therewith. It lifts itself up to the point of the personal return of Christ. Indeed, that is the first thought with which Jesus comforts His disciples at the farewell, xiv. 2. Nor is the visible return of Christ foreign to the gospel, as v. 28 f. shows. Thus the two meet, though starting from different points. On the one hand, the thought of the gospel is not spent in a purely spiritual coming of Christ, but knows also of a personal and visible return. And, on the other hand, the Revelation does not merely recognise a sensible appearance of Christ, but knows also of preparations in the course of the preliminary history for his final appearance. We must neither spiritualize the gospel in a one-sided way, nor materialize the s 274 CH. X. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE REVELATION. Revelation in a one-sided way. The standpoint is simply different : in the former, it is the presence of the Spirit; in the latter, the issue of history. The representation is likewise different : in the one, it is in ordinary expressions of thought ; here it is in the form of figurative speech, and with the means of sensible visions. But the contents which have clothed them- selves in this form are ordinary thoughts. The evangelist did not need to spiritualize the Revelation, for it was already intended spiritually, and was only represented sensibly. The evangelist only presented the thoughts, which were likewise the thoughts of the writer of the Revelation, in the form of thoughts, while the latter presented them in the form of visions and vision-like pictures. Even in the doctrine there is no essential difference. The differences that exist, in so far as each of the two books treats of a list of themes not contained in the other, are occasioned by the difference of the subject with which they deal, and by the difference of the task they have. Hence the difference between the two books is not so great that the author of the one absolutely could not be the author of the other. If this be held to be impossible, the choice ever remains as to which of the two traditions is to be sacrificed to the other. The irreconcilability of the two books would not necessarily decide against the gospel. But, as we have seen, they are not so irreconcilable as only to leave us the ex- pedient of a choice between them. There is but a single question further that can be thrown out. How was such a view of Jesus Christ as lies in John's gospel psychologically possible for one really a disciple of Jesus ? We shall close with a few words about this. NOTES. 275 1 Holtzmann, Article ' Johannes der AposteL' in Schenkel's Bibcllexicon, Leipzig, vol. iii. (1871) p. 339. 2 Ebrard, Wissensehaftliche KritiJc der evangelischen Geschichte, 3d edit., Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1868, p. 1104 ff . ; compare with his book on the Evangelium Johannis, §§ 10-12, Zurich, 1845, pp. 141-188. 3 Ebrard, Wissensehaftliche Kritik, ut supra, p. 1108. 4 See Bleek, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin, 1862, p. 549. 6 Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegriff der Apohalypse und sein Verhalt- niss zum Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Episteln des Johannes, Gotha, 1873. 6 Baur, Vorlesungcn ilber neviestamentliche Tlieologie, Leipzig, 1864, p. 227 ; Kostlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Brief e Johannis, II. ii., Berlin, 1843, p. 483. 7 Scholten, Der Apostel Johannes in Klein- Asien, Berlin, 1872, p. 9. 8 Baur, ut supra, p. 214 ff., especially p. 218. 9 See Diisterdieck, Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch iiber die Offenbarung Johannis, Gottingen, 1859, p. 234 f., on chapter v. 6. This is part of Meyer's Commentary. 10 Scholten, ut supra, pp. 9, 130. See Gebhardt, Der Lehrbe- griff der Apohalypse, Gotha, 1873, p. 8. 11 Fischer, Tnbinger Zeitschrift fur Tlieologie, 1840, 2 Heft, pp. 96-133. 12 Volkmar, Commcntar zur Offenbarung Johannis, Zurich, 1862, p. 146 f. (?). 13 Baur, ut supra, p. 211 ff. 14 Keirn, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich, 1867, vol. i. p. 160. 15 See Diisterdieck, Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch ilber die Offenbarung Johannis, Gottingen, 1859, p. 137, on chapter ii. 2. 16 See also Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegriff der Apohalypse, Gotha, 1873, p. 220 f. 17 Irenseus, Contra Hcereses, I. xxvi. 3 ; edit. Massuet, Paris, 1710, p. 105 ; in Harvey's edit. I. xxiii. vol. i. p. 214 ; in Grabe, I. xxvii. 18 As?v rrapa^p^cdai \-cai\ ry eapxi. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromcda, lib. ii. ; Opera, edit. Sylburg, Cologne, 1688, p. 411. la Jbid., Stromata, lib. iii. p. 436. 20 See Kliefoth, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, lte Abtheilung, Leipzig, 1874, p. 174 ff. 21 See Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusam- menhdngend untersucht, 2ten Theils, 2te Abtheilung, Nordlin- gen, 1864, p. 211. 22 See also Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegriff der Apokahjpsc, Gotha, 1873, p. 407. CHAPTER XL st. John's christology psychologically possible. HOW could a disciple, who walked with his Master upon earth, and who also stood in the daily intercourse of common human life with Him, win such a conception of Him as to ascribe divine being to Him, and look upon Him as a historical manifestation of the Godhead itself? Did not this transfiguration of the historical into the eternal, and of the human into the divine, demand a greater distance, both personal and chronological, than was possible for one really a disciple of Jesus? But the Tubingen school has the same problem to solve, when it takes the Revelation to be a monument of early Jewish Christianity, and to be of a most thoroughly Johannean spirit. So that question is not escaped by denying John's authorship of the gospel. If the Revelation only had the Messiah raised in the clouds, and not the Godhead of Jesus, this elevation into the superhuman would be wonderful enough in the case of one really a disciple of Jesus to present that question for an answer. Were this step conceived psychologically, the other could offer little further difficulty. But we have seen that the Revelation teaches that Jesus has an equal position with the Father in the heavenly worship, and this transfers the Son completely beyond the bounds of humanity into the sphere of the Godhead. If we may speak so, the gospel does not contain more Godhead of Christ than the Revelation. If, therefore, a disciple CHEISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS. 277 of Jesus could think and speak of Jesus as the writer of the Revelation does, he could also think and speak as the evangelist does. Hence John's Christology is, by reason of its elevation and superhuman character, no argument against the apostolic composition of the gospel, so long as they hold fast to the Johannean origin of the Revelation. The critical view puts the Revelation at about the year 69 or 70. We have the epistle to the Hebrews, with its Christology, from about the year 65. It brings its readers no new doctrine of the person of Christ formerly unknown or foreign to them. If it had wished to do this, it would have had to set about it in quite another way. Its aim is entirely different. It wishes to show the readers that the New Testament revelation is the fulfilment of the Old Testament reve- lation. This it does to confirm them in their Christian position, to strengthen them in patient hope, and to secure them against apostasy to Judaism. On behalf of this, it reminds them of what they have in the person of Christ. They are not to learn anything new about the person of Christ, but to be reminded of what they know ; for it threatens to disappear from them, and so must be freshened up and made sure. In this connection, the words, ' the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person,' teach an essential relation of Christ to the Father, such as no Johannean words surpass. Moreover, the following words designate Him directly as God, by a transfer to Him of Old Testament words concerning Jehovah, Heb. i. 8, 9. This, therefore, was the view of Christ as it existed, or at least was possible, in the circle of the readers of the epistle to the Hebrews. And besides, it was Jewish-Christian circles in which this Christology was familiar, be it at Jerusalem and in Palestine, as the common view runs, be it in Syria, as 278 CH. XI. ST. JOHN'S CHRISTOLOGY. Hofmann thinks, or be it in Rome, as has lately been suggested. The Jewish Christians to whom this epistle was directed were converted at an early date, Heb. v. 12, and therefore were connected closely to the time of Jesus. It follows that it was not only late times and distant Christian philosophers who completed a transfiguration of Jesus, such as the gospel contains. Whether we can make this transfiguration conceivable in its psychological process or not, does not change the fact. It is easy to see how this process completed itself. All apostolic knowledge grew from the facts of history. Hence the historical transfiguration of Jesus has as a result the glorification of the knowledge of the person of Jesus. The gospel itself gives us a hold for this, when it makes the risen one to be owned by Thomas as Lord and God. The progress of the history of Jesus brought with it a corresponding pro- gress. Thus they learned to draw the lines of the historical person of Jesus into the mystery of the divine being. By reason of this, we meet, only thirty years after Jesus' departure, in the nearest Jewish- Christian circles, this elevation of Jesus to the God- head. Hence the loftiness of John's Christology is no argument against the apostolic origin of the gospel. We may close these inquiries, then, with this result : That, choosing the most moderate expression, nothing has come in our way that disproved the tradition as to the Johannean origin of the gospel, but much that served to confirm it. The decision of the Tubingen criticism and its successors, with which the acts of this critical process were declared to be closed, was far from corresponding with the real contents of the subject, and from being ratified by the facts. In it one must make up his mind to take the Johannean question not as a historical but as a psychological THE RESULT. 279 question. Historical]}', the matter is as clear and decided as the case can be in such historical and critical inquiries. The question only concerns the psychological possibility. But we have seen that this question is not so insoluble as to be able to make a point for appeal against the historical evidence. APPENDIX. LITERATURE OF THE DISPUTED OBIGIN OF THE EOUETH GOSPEL, FROM 1792 TO THE PRESENT. LITEBATUKE, Note. — Professor Luthardt's words, on page 15 above, might lead one unacquainted with the history of Biblical criticism to suppose that the book of Evanson fell like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, a sky that had been cloudless since the days of the Alogi. That is not exactly the case. It is true that the objections before Evanson's were avowedly aimed at the integrity rather than at the authenticity ; yet they were, in effect, much like those of later hostile critics. This is not the place to discuss the question ; it will suffice to say, that some of the English Deists in the early part of the eighteenth century, and some of the German Rationalists towards its close, seem to bave gone so far as to deny to the gospel of John, no less than to the other gospels, all value as original records. 1792. 1. Evanson, Edward. Tbe Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists and the Evidence of their Authenticity examined. Ipswich, 1792, 8vo. . The gospel of John is from a Platonist of the second century. 1793. 2. Priestley, Joseph. Letters to a Young Man, Part II. London, 1793. Priestley appears to have answered Evanson's work, above, in this second part. The first part was against other works of Evanson. For John's authorship. 3. Simpson, David. An Essay on the Authenticity of the New Testament. Designed as an answer to Evanson's Dissonance. For John's authorship. 284 APPENDIX. 1794. 3a. Evanson, Edward. A Letter to Dr. Priestley's Young Man ; with a Postscript concerning the Rev. Dr. Simpson's Essay, etc., in answer to Evanson's Dissonance and Volney's Ruins. London, 1794. 3b. Halfeld, Heinrich Wilhelm. Commentarius de origine quatuor Evangeliorum et de eorum canonica auctoritate. In cert. lit. civ. Acad. Georgia Aug. . . . prarni. orn. Gottingen, 1794. 1796. 4. Eckermann, Jacob Chris toph Rudolf. Wollte Jesus Wunder als Zeichen seiner gottlichen Sendung betrachtet wissen 1 Theologische Beitrage, Bd. v. St. 2. Altona, 1796, pp. 5-105. Jesus and his direct disciples based belief on the character of his doctrine, and not on miracles. The gospels, on the contrary, press miracles as the chief proof of divine confirma- tion. The inference that the gospels are not genuine finds its expression in the next article. See below, 5. 5. Eckermann, J. C. R. Ueber die eigentlich sichern Griinde des Glaubens an die Hauptthatsachen der Geschichte Jesu, und fiber die wahr- scheinliche Entstehung der Evangelien und der Apostel- geschichte. Theologische Beitrage, Bd. v. St. 2. Altona, 1796, pp. 106-256. ' The gospel of John is based on many very weighty para- graphs from the apostle John's own hand, in which he had noted for himself the discourses of Jesus that were especially remarkable. One of his friends, who had also heard the story of the passion of Jesus from John's lips, John xix. 35, or at least had informed himself as to it from other eye-witnesses, united these paragraphs to other information, collected partly from his mouth, and partly from friends of the apostles.' — P. 213. For retractation of these views, see below, 34. 1797. 6. Stronce, Karl Wilhelm. Specimen hermeneutico - theol. de Doctrina et Dictione Joannis Ap. ad Jesu Magistri Doctrinam Actionemque fdictionemque 1] exacte composita. Utrecht, 1797, p. 259. LITERATURE 1794-171)8. 285 7. Lange, Samuel Gottlieb. Das Evangelium Joliannis ubersetzt und erklart. Weimar, 1797, pp. (viii.) 492 (1). This is the second part of his Die Schriften Joliannis des vertrauten Schiilers Je.su, in 3 vols. 1795-97. 8. Bolten, John Adrian. Der Bericht des Johannis von Jesu dem Messia. Uebersetzt und mit Bemerkungen begleitet. Altona, 1797, 8vo. See Schmidt, below, 12. 9. Herder, Johann Gottfried. Von Gottes Sohn der Welt Heiland. Xach Johannes Evan- gelium. Xebst einer Regel der Zusammenstimmung unsrer Evangelien aus ihrer Entstehung und Ordnung. Riga, 1797. See, iii. Abschnitt, § 36, p. 176 f., and v. Abschnitt, § 55, p. 297 ff. Reviewed in (Neuestes Theol. Jour. Bd. ix. =) Jour, fur Theol Liter., Bd. iii. 4tes Stuck, 1802, pp. 348-59. 1798. 10. SCHMIDT, Johann Ernst Christian. Yersuch iiber Entstehung der Katholischen Kirche. Bibliotheh fur Kritik und Exegese (ii. Bd. 1 St.). Herborn and Hadamar, 1798, pp. 1-35. In the earlier part he doubts whether the gospel could be from John, because it was not mentioned by Papias of Hiera- polis or by Justin, pp. 15, 16. In the appendix, written a year after the first part, he owns that he had objected to this gospel, but says that he can no longer assume that it was unknown in Asia at that earlier date. He suggests that it was not widely known because at first kept in the hands of riper Christians, as being unintelligible to others, pp. 33-35. 11. Storr, Gottlob Christian. Hat Jesus seine Wunder fur einen Beweis seiner gottlichen Sendung erklart 1 Eine historische Untersuchung. Magazin fur christliche DogmatU: und Moral (J. F. Flatt's), Yiertes Stuck. Tubingen, 1798, pp. 178-250, especially p. 239 ff. Against Eckermann, see above, 4 and 5. 286 APPENDIX. 12. Schmidt, Johann Ernst Christian. Ob das Evangelium Johannis urspriinglich in syrischer Sprache sei geschrieben gewesen. Bibliothek fur Kritik und Exegese (ii. Bd. 2tes Stiick). 1798, pp. 278-286. A review of Bolten, see above, 8, on this point. 1 3. RUSSWURM, Johann Wilhelm Bartholomaus. Untersuchnngen iiber den Ursprung der Evangelien des Matth. Mark. Luk. und Joh. und ihre kanonische Autoritat. Ratzeburg, 1798 (Ersch (1812) marks this : Hanover, 1797). Our gospels are different copies of an original gospel. 1799. 14. Staeudlin, Carl Friedrich. Bemerkungen iiber den Ursprung der vier Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte in Beziehung auf die Untersuchungen des Herrn Doctors Eckermann, in seinen theologischen Beitragen, v. Bd. 2 St. p. 147 ff. See above, 4 and 5. JBeitrdge zur Pliilosophie und Gcschichte der Religion und Sittenlehre, etc. vol. v. Lubeck, 1799. Combats Eckermann. 1800. 15. Sueskind, Friedrich Gottlieb. Beitrag zur Beantwortung der Frage : Aus welchen Griinden nahm Irenaeus die Aechtheit unserer vier Evangelien an ] In Beziehung auf Eckermann's theologische Beitrage, Bd. v. St. 2. Magazin fiir christl. Dogmatilc mid Moral (Flatt's), vi.tes Stuck. Tubingen, 1800, pp. 95-139. Against Eckermann. 1801. 16. (Vogel, Erhard Friedrich.) Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jiingsten Gericht. 1801, 8vo (Heinsius gives Hof. 1800), pp. (iv.), 42, and 367. A coarse book. The last judgment is his own criticism. It is dedicated to Jean Paul. A second part was issued in 1804, 8vo, pp. (6), 426. Author and place of publication named in neither volume. LITERATURE— 1799-1802. 287 17. Review of Vogel's book just named. Erlanger Lifcrafur Zeitung. 1801, Nr. 105, 106. 1802. 18. Schleker, Friedrich Wilhelm. Versuch einer Widerlegung der hauptsachlichsten Eimviirfe, die in der neuesten Zeit gegen die Aechtheit des Evan- geliums Johannis gemacht sind. Mit einer Vorrede vom Herrn Dr. Ziegler. Rostock, 1802, pp. 96 (last page misnumbered 46). 19. Ziegler, Werner Karl Ludwig. Bemerkungen iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, und Erk- larungen einzelner schwierigen Stellen desselben. Journ. fur Thtol. Lit. Bd. iii. (Neuest. Th. Jour. Bd. ix.). Nurnberg, 1802, pp. 15-69. Occasioned by Vogel (see above, 1 6), but not aimed at him or at anybody else, pp. 16, 17. 20. Haenlein, Heinrich Karl Alexander. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des neuen Testa- mentes. Erlangen, 1802. St. John's Gospel, §§ 101-105, pp. 376-390. 21. Review of Herder's Von Gottes Sohn. Journ. fiir Theol. Liter. 1802, pp. 348-359. See Herder, above, 9. 22. Russwurm, Johann Wilhelm Bartholomaus. Urevangelium. Ein Versuch aus der hoheren Kritik. Theolo- gische Monats-Schrift. (Augusti.) 1802, 5tes Heft, pp. 322-342. 22a. RlTTER, Gottlob Samuel. Untersuchung einiger Fragen und Urtheile den Ursprung der Evangelien betreflfend. Theologische Monats-Sclirift. (Augusti.) 1802, 9tes Heft, pp. 157-175. 288 APPENDIX. 1803. 23. Sueskind, Friedrich Gottlieb. Beitrag zur Vertheidigung der Aechtheit des Evaiigeliums Johannis, in Beziehung auf die Schrift, ' Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jiingsten Gericht, 1801.' Magazin fur christl. Dogmatik und Moral (Flatt's, from now on, edited by Siiskind), ix.tes Stuck. Tubingen, 1S03, pp. 1-71. 24. HORST, Georg Konrad. Ueber einige anscheinende Widerspriiche in dem Evangelium des Johannis, in Absicht auf das Logos, oder das Hohere in Christo. Museum fur Religionswissenschaften in ihrem ganzen Umfange (H. P. K. Henke), Bd. i. Magdeburg, 1803 (Heft 1803, Bd. 1804), pp. 20-46. To see more of Horst's views as to Scripture, look at Theolo- gische Mount s-Schrift, (Augusti) 1802, 5tes Heft, pp. 354-367, and 8tes Heft, pp. 134-138, where he considers the question, whether it would not have been better had we no written information as to Jesus Christ. He thinks the Scriptures very good and useful, but not divine. See also Y.Z., Ibid. 7tes Heft, pp. 42-57. 25. HORST, Georg Konrad. Lasst sich die Aechtheit des Johanneischen Evangeliums aus hinlanglichen Griinden bezweifeln, und welches ist der wahrscheinliche Ursprung dieser Schrift 1 Museum f. Rel.- wiss. (Henke's), Bd. i. Magdeburg, 1803 (Heft 1803, Bd. 1804), pp. 47-118. ' Language, dress, and shape of ideas in this book appear to betray plainly an Alexandrian origin,' p. 96 f. 25a. Hartmann, Anton Theodor. Betrachtungen uber die vier Evangelien. Der SchriffforscJier (Scherer), Bd. i. St. 3. Weimar, 1803. Against authenticity, see p. 495. 1804. 26. Sueskind, Friedrich Gottlieb. Noch etwas zur Vertheidigung der Aechtheit des Evangeliums Johannis. Magazin fur christl. Dogmatik und Moral (Flatt's, continued by Siiskind) xi.tes Stuck. Tubingen, 1804, pp. 57-110. LITERATURE 1803-1806. 289 27. SUESKIND, F. G. Ueber einige ansclieinende Widerspriiche im Evangelium des Johannis in Absicht auf das Hohere in Christo. Ui supra, xi.tes Stuck, pp. 110-119. This is against the article of Horst with like title ; see above, 24. 28. Schmidt, Johann Ernst Christian. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in's Neue Testament. Giessen, vol. i. 1804 (falsely printed 1809). For the gospel of John, see vol. i. §§ 55-67, pp. 133-160. Second edition, 1818. 1805. 29. Noeldeke, Georg Friedrich. Versuch einige Widerspriiche, welche im Evangelium Johannis zu liegen scheinen, exegetisch und psychologisch zu heben, mit Eiicksicht auf des Herrn Pfarrers Horst Aufsatz. Museum f. Rel.-iviss. (Henke's) Bd. ii. Magdeburg, 1805, pp. 97-118. Against Horst's article of 1803 ; see above, 24. 30. Bertholdt, Leonhard. Verosimilia de origine Evangelii Johannis. Erlangen, 1805. The gospel John's ; his notes in Aramaic at first, but written off in Greek at the end of his life. Reprinted in Bertholdt's Opuscula Academica, Leipzig, 1824, pp. 1-32. 1806. 31. Wegscheider, Julius August Ludwig. Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung in das Evangelium des Johannes. Gottingen, 1806. For the genuineness. 32. Glaser, Andreas Friedrich Gottlob. Dissertatio Exegeticoddistorica de Johanne Apostolo, Evan- gelii, quod ejus nomen prse se fert, vero auctore, respectu recentiorum quorundam dubitationum atque criminationum. Helmstadt, 1806, 4to, pp. 46. T 290 APPENDIX. 33. Van Griethuysen, Wilhelm Heribert. Pro Evangelii Joannei avOevria. Dissertation offered for dis- putation on 17th June 1807. Harderwyck, 1806, 8vo, pp. 166 (6). Keviewed in Allgerneine Literatur-Zeitung, Halle, 25th August 1808, pp. 969-972. 1807. 34. Eckermann, J. C. E. Erklarung aller dunkeln Stellen des N. T. Kiel, vol. ii. 1807. Took back the view he had put forth before ; see above, 4 and 5. 1808. 35. Cludius, Hermann Heimart. Uransichten des Christenthums nebst Untersuchungen iiber einige Biicher des Neuen Testaments. Altona, 1808. 3ter Abschnitt, Ueber Johannis Evangelium und iiber den ersten Brief Johannis, pp. 50-89. This gospel written by a Jew, p. 50. Worked over by two men. Agrees with Horst (see above, 24 and 25) in this, p. 58. Written by a Gnostic, who accepted Christianity entirely independently of Judaism, p. 350; and was worked over, 1st, by a Gnostic who believed in JEons, and made the Logos an .ZEon united with Christ ; and 2d, by a Jewish Christian, who really was the earlier of the two revisers, see pp. 350-354 and 359-367. 36. Hug, Johann Leonhard. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2d edit. 1821. 3d edit. Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1826, vol. ii. §§ 57-61, pp. 205-233. 4th edit. Stuttgart, 1847. 1809. 37. Haenlein, Heinrich Karl Alexander. Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testa- mentes. 2d edit. Erlangen, 1809. The gospel of John, part iii. chap. vi. pp. 163-223. LITERATURE 1807-1812. 291 1810. 38. Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung in das Xeue Testament. Leipzig, 1810. The gospel of John, vol. ii. §§ 155-176, pp. 99-280. 39. Feilmoser, Andreas Benedict. Einleitung in die Biicher des neuen Bundes fiir die offentlichen Vorlesungen. Innsbruck, 1810. 2d edit. pp. 240-246. Tubingen, 1830. 40. Storr, Gottlob Christian. Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis. 2d edit. (1st edit, was in 1786.) Tubingen, 1810. 1811. 41. Ammon, Christoph Friedrich von. Docetur, Johannem, evangelii auctorem, ab editore hujus libri diversum. Programme, Erlangen, 1811, 4to, pp. 16. 41a. Falconer, Thomas. Certain Principles in Evanson's Dissonance of the Evangelists examined in eight discourses preached (1810) at the Bampton Lectures. Oxford, 1 SI 1, 8vo ; Appendix, 1822. See above, 1. Said to refute Evanson completely. 1812. 42. Ballenstedt, Heinrich Christian. Philo und Johannes, oder fortgesetzte Anwendung des Philo zur Interpretation der Joh. Schriften, mit besonderer Eiick- sicht auf die Frage, ob Johannes der Verfasser der ihm zugeschriebenen Schriften sein konne ] Gottingen, 1812, 8vo. Preceded in 1802 by a book on the Logos in Philo and John. 43. Patjlus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob. Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes in welchem der Griechische Text . . . als Grundlage der Geschichte des Urchristenthums synoptisch und chronologisch bearbeitet ist. Comment, iiber d. N. T., iv. Theil, lte Abth. lte Halfte. Leipzig, 1812. For Paulus' later views, see below, 63. 292 APPENDIX. 1813. 44. Bertholdt, Leonhard. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apokrypkisclie Scliriften des alteu und neuen Testaments. Erlangen, 1813. The gospel of John, part iii. §§ 341-346, pp. 1299-1327. 1814. 45. Gratz, Aloys. Kritische Untersuckungen iiber Justin's apostolische Denkwiir- digkeiten. Stuttgart, 1814. Reviewed in Arch it fiir die Theologie unci Hire neueste Literatur (Bengel), 1816, pp. 341-364. 1816, 46. Borger, Elias Annes. De constanti et sequabili Jesu Cliristi indole, doctrina, ac docendi ratione, sive conimentationes de Evangelio Joliannis, cum Matthsei, Marci, et Lucse Evangeliis comparato. Pars I. Leyden, 1816, Svo, pp. xvi. 180. 47. Moeller, Antonius Gulielmus Petrus. Commentatio de genii ac indolis Evangelii Johannei priorumque Evansreliorum diversa ratione rite definienda. O Programme, Breslau, 1816, 4to, pp. 34. 48. Dieffenbach, Ludwig Adam. Ueber einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Joliannis. Kritlsch. Joum. d. neuest. theol. Lit. (edited by Bertholdt of Erlangen, printed at Sulzbach), Bd. v. 1816, pp. 1-16. Inclines to think the first epistle the basis of this gospel, and the gospel written by a philosophically educated disciple and spiritual relation of the apostle's. Yet, notwithstanding, con- cludes to accept the gospel as genuine, except the interpolations noted by him. 49. Tittmann, Carl Christian. Meletemata Sacra sive Commentarius exegetico-critico-dogma- ticus in Evangelium Joannis. Leipzig, 1816. Genuineness presupposed, not discussed ; see p. 24. LITERATURE 1813-1820. 293 1817. 4:9a. KuiNOEL, Christian Gottlieb. Commentarius in libros N. T. historicos. Evangelium Johannis. 2d edit. vol. iii. Leipzig, 1817, pp. 11-34. Answers chiefly Horst ; see above,. 24, 25. 1818. 50. Schmidt, J. E. C. Einleitung, 2d edit. See above, 1804. 51. Gieseler, Johann Carl Ludwig. Historisch-kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstehung nnd die friiliesten Schicksale der schriftlicben Evangelien. Leipzig, 1818 ; see pp. 133-141. 52. Wurm, Jacob Gottlieb. Nonnulla ad anthentiam Evangelii Joannei vindicandam et momento suo ponderandam spectantia. Programme, Tubingen (1818), 4to, pp. 16. This is against the article by Dieffenbach (see above, 48). Ee viewed in Neue theol. Annalen (AVachler), August 1820, pp. 670, 671. 1819. 53. "Winer, Georg Benedict. Justinum Martyr evangeliis canonicis usum fuisse ostenditur. (Leipzig) 1819. 1820. BRETSCHNEIDER. 54. Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb. Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Joannis Apostoli, indole et origine eruditorum judiciis modeste subjicit Carolus Theophilus Bretschneider. Leipzig, 1820, 8vo, pp. xvi. 224. The Jesus and the discourses of Jesus differ from the true ones in the synoptists : the writer was not an eye-witness : therefore the apostle John did not write it. The doctrinal formulas, the forms of speech, the incorrect illustrations of Jewish affairs, the mistakes as to the celebration of the pass- over, the author's way of making himself distinguished, and 29-4 APPENDIX. his anxiety to prove himself trustworthy, show that he was neither a native of Palestine nor a Jew. It certainly was not written by the apostle John, or a companion of Jesus, or a Christian born or living in Palestine, or born a Jew ; but by a Christian presbyter, who probably lived in Egypt, because he follows the Alexandrian and not the Asia Minor view as to the passover, and because his doctrine fits best with Gnosticism. The Egyptian Gnostics approved of his gospel, and carried it to Rome. He wrote in the second century. See pp. 149 and 224. Reviews noted below, at dates. 55. Schott, Heinrich August. Examinantur dubitationes quaedam de authentia evangelii Joannei nuperrime ex prioribus quatuor capitibus a S. V. Bretschneidero excitatas. Christmas Programme, Jena, 1S20, 4to, pp. 28. 56. (EiCHHORN, Johann Gottfried.) Against Bretschneider. Guttlnger Gekhrte Anzeigen, 1S20, 136. Stuck, 24 August 1820, pp. 1353-1360. 57. ("Wachler, Johann Friedrich Ludwig.) Against Bretschneider. New fhcologische Annalen, 1820, September and October, pp. 721-765. 58. Luecke, Friedrich. Commentar iiber die Schriften des Evangelisten Johannes. Genuineness, see I. i. 2. Bonn, 1820, vol. i. pp. 13-53, especially 31 fF. Agrees with ancient and reformation church in thinking- John the best gospel, pp. 3-13. Second edition. Bonn, 1833. Genuineness, chap. i. §§ 2-9, vol. i. pp. 5-118 ; § 6, pp. 69-82, gives a review of the literature of the contested origin up to date. Third edition. Bonn, Iter Theil, 1840, pp. 6-160. 59. Roehr, Johann Friedrich. On Bretschneider. Kritische Predigerbibliothck, 1 Bd. 4 Heft, 1820. 1821. 60. On Bretschneider. Thcologische Qnartahchrift. Tubingen, 1821, Hefte 2, 3. LITERATURE 1821-1822. 295 61. WAGNITZ, Heinricli Balthasar. On Bretschneider. Journal fur Prediger, Halle, 1821, Bd. lxii. St. 1,2 (or Neues Joum. f. Pred. Bd. 42). 62. On Bretschneider's Probabilia. Leipzig er Liter aturzeitung, 1821, N. 32, 33. 63. Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob. Bretschneider de Origine Ev. et. Epist. Joann. Heidelberg. Jahrbiicher der Literatur, 1821, pp. 112-142. The author a disciple of John's, and thus distinct from the apostle, his eye-witness and guarantee. Ibidem. Review of the first part of Lucke's Commentary ; see above, 58. Heidel. Jahrb. 1821, pp. 227-261. The author's earlier view in his Commentary ; see above, 43. 64. Sartorius, Ernst. Ueber die ^Echtheit des Johanneischen Evangeliums. Monats- schrift fur Predigerwissenschaften (Zimmermann's), Bd. i. Stiicke 5, 6. Darmstadt, 1821. 64a. Zoellig, Christian Friedrich. Briefe uber den Supranaturalismus. . . . Sondershausen und Nordhausen, 1821. See pp. 258 fF. against Bretschneider's Probabilia. 65. Kaiser, Gottlieb Philipp Christian. Commentationes de apologeticis evangelii Joannei consiliis authentiam ejus commonstrantibus. Particula I. ; Programme, Erlangen, 1821, 4to, pp. 24. II. ; 1824, 4to, pp. 32. III. ; 1825, 4to, pp. 23. The apologetical aim of the gospel shows that it was written in the first century, and by John. 1822. 66. Stein, Carl Willi elm. Authentia Evangelii Johannis contra S. V. Bretschneideri dubia vindicata. . . . Libellum historico-criticum. Brandenburg, 1822. 67. Bengel, Ernst Gottlieb. On Bretschneider. Neues Archiv fur die Theologie, 1 Bd. 1 Stuck. Tubingen, 1822, p. 1 P. 296 APPENDIX. 1823. 68. Usteri, Leonhard. Commentatio critica in qua Evangelium Joannis genuinum esse ex comparatis IV. Evangeliorum narrationibus de coena ultima et passione Jesu Christi ostenditur. . . . Subjunctum est Joannis Philoponi opusculum de Paschate pluraque veterum scriptorum fragmenta. Zurich, 1823, 8vo, pp. viii. 145. Keview in Neues Krit. Journal d. theol. Lit. (Winer u. Engel- hardt), 2B.3 St. 1824, pp. 153 ff., 172 ff. 69. "Weber, Michael. Authentia capitis ultimi evangelii Johannei, hujusque evangelii totius, argiimentorum internorum usu, vindicata. Halle, 1823, 8vo, pp. 150. This is an Easter programme in two parts, of which the second, pp. 65—148, discusses the genuineness of the gospel. It was followed By a Pentecost programme : Authentia epistolae Johannis prima?, arg. int. usu, vindicata, pp. 71. 70. Seyffarth, Traugott August, Ein Beitrag zur Special-Charalcteristik der Johanneischen Schriften besonders des Johanneischen Evangeliums. Leipzig, 1823. See Preface, p. v. The genuineness of this gospel ' is ques- tioned [by others, not by Seyffarth] not so much on critical grounds, as on account of a failure to understand several things. ' 71. Calmberg, August Gottlieb. De antiquissimis Patrum pro evangelii Joannei avOevria testi- moniis. Dissertation, Hamburg, 1823, fol. pp. 41 (1). Against Bretschneider. 72. Hemsen, Johann Tychsen. Die Authentic der Schriften des Evangelisten Johannes unter- sucht. Schleswig, 1823, pp. iv. 382 (1). Meant to be a thorough answer to Bretschneider's Probabilia ; see above, 54. 73. Geisse, Friedrich Josias. Paradoxa iiber hochwichtige Gegenstiinde des Christenthums. Cassel, 1823, pp. 70-128. It is enough to show that the gospel was canonical in the earliest times, whether we prove it to be from John or not. LITERATURE 1823-1824. 297 74. OliSHATJSEN, Hermann. Die ^Echtheit der vier canonischen Evangelien aus der Geschichte der zwei ersten Jalirhunderte erwiesen. Ein Versuch. Konigsberg, 1823, pp. xvi. 456. 75. Goldhorx, Joliann David. Das Schweigen des Johanneisclien Evangelium iiber den Seelenkampf Jesu in Getliseniane. Ein Beitrag zu den Beweisen fiir die ./Echtheit dieses Evangeliums aus inneren Griinden. Magazin fiir christl. Prediger (Tzschirner), 1823, 1 Bd. 2 St, pp. 1-28. 1824. 76. Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb. Einige Bemerkungen zu dem Aufsatze des Herrn D. Goldhorn (im 1 Bde. 2. St. dieses Magaz. p. Iff.) iiber das Schweigen des Johanneisclien Evangelium von dem Seelenkampfe Jesus in Gethsemane. Magazin fiir christliche Prediger (Tzschirner's), 1824, pp. 153-167. On pages 154, 155, Bretschneider seems to own that the writings called out by his Probability, (see above, 54) had in general more than answered his arguments. 77. Eettig, Heinrich Christian Michael. De quatuor Evangeliorum canonicorum origine. Ephemerides exegetico-theologicce, fasciculus primus. Giessen, 1824; John's gospel, pp. 62-96. See pp. 83, 84 : ' From which I conclude that this gospel was composed and digested by a later Christian, a hearer of John, perhaps devoted to Gnostic philosophy.' For review of this and of 77c/, see Keueskrit. Jour. d. theol. Lit. (Winer und Engelhardt), Bd. ii. Stuck 4, 1824, pp. 470-476. Ibidem, De quatuor Evangeliorum canonicorum origine, duo- decim excursus. Ephem. exeg.-theoh, fasc. tertius. Giessen, 1824. See Excursus X., 'De Joannis nomine in evangelio quarto nusquam scripto,' pp. 83, 84. The gospel written by another. John could not have been so lacking in modesty as to call himself the disciple whom Jesus loved. 77a. Eeuss, Georg Jacobus Ludwig. Exercitationes qusedam ad interpretenda loca Sacri Codicis difficiliora. Ephemerides exeg. -theologies, fasciculus secundus. Giessen, 1824. See V., 'De loco Joh. xxi. 22, 23 qui recte intellectus, vel tempus, quo, quae Johanni in Evangelio sui nominis adjudi- 298 APPENDIX. canda, scripta sint, designat.,' pp. 36-44. The gist of the gospel from John, but a large part of it, including the prologue, from the editor. 78. Crome, Friedrich Gottlieb. Probabilia haud Probabilia oder Widerlegung des von Herrn Dr. Bretschneider gegen die ^Echtheit und Glaubwiirdigkeit des Evangeliums und der Briefe des Johannes erhobenen Zweifel. Eine gekronte Preisschrift. Leiden and Leipzig, 1824, 8vo, pp. 380. 1825. 79. Kuinoel, C. G. 3d edit, of Commentary ; see above, 49a. 1826. 80. Eettberg, Friedrich Wilhelm. An Joannes in exhibenda Jesu natura reliquis canonicis scrip tis vere repugnet 1 Gottingen, 1826, 8vo, pp. 119 (1). 81. De Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonis- chen Biicher des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 1826. 5th edit. 1848. See §§ 109a-110g, pp. 206-218. 6th edit. Berlin, 1860. See §§ 103-112, pp. 209-240. 82. Hug, J. L. Einleitung in . . . N. T. 3d edit. ; see above, 36. 83. Reuterdahl, Heinrich. De fontibus historian Eusebianse. Lund, 1826. He questions the residence at Ephesus. 1827. 84. Reinecke, Carl Friedrich Conrad. De constanti et sequabili Jesu Christi indole et ingenio, doctrina et docendi ratione, sive commentatio de Evangelio Johannis cum Matthaei, Marci, et Lucas Evangeliis conciliato. See above, 46. Hanover, 1827, 8vo, pp. 78. 85. Tholuck, August Friedrich Theofidus. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Hamburg, 1827, p. 20 ff. 2d edit. Hamburg, 1828. 7th edit. Gotha, 1857. LITERATURE 1825-1828. 299 86. Heydenreich, August Ludwig Christian. Ueber die Behauptung dass Jesus in den drei synoptischen Evangelien ganz anders erscheine, als in dem Johanneis- chen. Zeitschrift fiir Predigerwissenschaften (Heydenreich und Hiiffel), Bd. i. Stucke 1 und 2. Marburg, 1827. 1828. 87. Pare, Johann. De Johannis Evangelio non prorsus dissimili prioribus Evan- geliis, nee ob dissimilitudinem repudiando. Utrecht, 1828, pp. 165. 88. Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb. Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, Bd. i. Leipzig, 1828 ; see pp. viii. and 268. Bretschneider, on p. 224 of his Probabilia (see above, 54), said that the gospel certainly could not be from John or from a companion of Jesus : ' Hoc certe intelligitur, neque Joannem apostolum, neque Jesu comitem . . . evangelium conscripsdsse.' His probability had ended in certainty. In Tzschirner's Maga- zine, 1824, he had made an indefinite uncertain retractation (see above, 76). Now, in 1828, he declares that these certain ' probabilities ' were only meant to bring out the proofs of the authenticity, that they had 'reached their aim,' and thai; he ' considers the case as settled for the theological public' 89. Schott, Heinrich August. [Misplaced ; should follow 96.] Isagoge Historico-Critica in Libros Novi Foederis Sacros. Jena, 1830, §§ 37, 38, pp. 114-135. Good literature of contest, pp. 132-135. 90. Fischer, Friedrich. Zur Einleitung in die Dogmatik . . . em Beitrag zur endlichen Beilegung des Streits zwischen Bationalismus und Super- naturalismus. Tubingen, ]828; see p. 96 ff. 91. Guericke, Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand. Beitrage zur historisch - kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament, . . . vornehmlich die Einleitung in die einzelnen Biicher und deren ^Echtheit hauptsachlich betreffend . . . besonders mit polemischer Biicksicht auf das Lehrbuch des Herrn de Wette. Halle, 1828 ; see p. 59 ff. For De Wette's book, see above, 81. 6(J() APPENDIX. 1S29. 92. Froster, Bj. Animadversiones in Bretschneideri Probabilia. Hels. 1829, 4to. 93. Hase, Karl August. Das Leben Jesu. Ein Lehrbuch zunachst fiir akademische Vorlesungen. Leipzig, 1829. 2d edit. 1834; 3d edit. 1840; 4th edit. 1854, p. 4 f. ; 5th edit. 1865. 94. Klee, Heinrich. Comraentar iiber das Evangelium nach Johannes. Genuineness, pp. 13-18. Mainz, 1829, 8vo. 95. Crome, Friedrich Gottlieb. Ueber Lucas i. 1-4 unci Johannes xx. 30, 31, nebst einern Zusatz iiber Johannes i. 1-5, 9-14, 16-18. Als Beitrag zur Beantwortung der Frage : Unter welchen Umstanden sind unsere vier canonischen Evangelien entstanden 1 Studien und Kritiken, 1829, pp. 754-766. 1830. 96. Feilmoser, Andreas Benedict. Einleitung, 2d edit. ; see above, 39. 1831. 97. Hauff, Carl Victor. Die Authentie und der hohe Werth des Evangeliums Johannis, mit Riicksicht auf neuere Eimvendungen, fiir Wahrheit suchende Bibelfreunde. Eine von der Gesellschaft in den Niederlanden zur Vertheidigung des Christenthums gekrbnte Preisschrift. Nuremberg, 1831, pp. xiv. 294. 98. Fleck, Ferdinand Florenz. De imagine Christi Joannea et synoptica, commentatio. Leipzig, 1831, 8vo, pp. 22. Otium Theologicum, pp. 1-22. For the genuineness. 99. Guericke, H. E. F. Fortgesetzte Beitrage zur . . . Einleitung, u.s.w. ; see above, 91. Die Hypothese von dem Presbyter Johannes als Ver- fasser der Offenbarung ; gepruffc. Halle, 1831. LITERATURE — 1829-1.836. 301 1832. 100. Eauch, J. H. G. Ueber das letzte Paschamal, die Zeitbestimmung desselben, des Leidens und Todes Jesu. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, pp. 537-559. 100a. Olshausen, Hermann. Nachweis der Echtheit sammtlicher Schriften des Xeuen Testaments. Hamburg, 1832. John's gospel, pp. 44-50. 1833. 101. Luecke, Friedrich. Commentar iiber das Evangelium Johannis. 2d edit. Bonn, 1833 ; see above, 58. 1834. 102. Hase, Karl August. Das Leben Jesu, 2d edit. ; see above, 93. 1835. STEAUSS. 103. Strauss, David Friedrich. Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet. Tubingen, vol. i. 1835, vol. ii. 1836. 2d edit. 1837. 3d edit. Tubingen, vol. i. 1838, vol. ii. 1839. 4th edit. Tubingen, 1840. See vol. i. pp. 659-701. ' Since it is plain that the apostolic authenticity of John's gospel in the early Church is only very imperfectly and ambigu- ously attested, and since the contents of the gospel partly stand in insoluble contradiction with the three first, and partly are in themselves utterly impossible historically, the book cannot have been written by the apostle John.' Beviewed by Ullmami, St nil. u. Kritiken, 1836, pp. 770-816, and Miiller, Ibid. pp. 816-890. For the reviews and discus- sions of and answers to Strauss, see Bretschneider, Systematische Entwickehmg aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe, etc., 4th edit. Leipzig, 1841, pp. 584-587. 1836. 104. Credner, Karl August. Einleituns; in das Neue Testament. Halle, 1836. 302 APPENDIX. 1837. 105. Tholuck, A. F. T. Die Glaubwiirdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss, fiir theologische und niclit theologische Leser dargestellt. Hamburg, 1837. 2d edit. 1838. 105a. Weisse, Christian G. (Hermann'?) Review of Tholuck, 105. Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und specula- tive Theologie. Bonn, 1837, Bd. ii. pp. 225-300. John's gospel, pp. 294-300. The gospel from John, but patched up by later hands. 1 06. Neander, John August Wilhelm. Das Leben Jesu Christi in seinem geschichtlichen Zusammen- hange und in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung darges- tellt. Hamburg, 1837. Reprinted in same year. 5th edit. Hamburg, 1852. 107. De Wette, W. M. L. Kurze Erklarung des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis. (1 Bd. 3 Theil of Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch mm N. T.) Leipzig, 1837. See introduction, pp. 5-8, and appendix, pp. 214-222. On p. 8 he says : ' The recognition of the Johannean authorship of our gospel will, even after the latest and most violent attacks, always rule in the Church.' 3d edit. Leipzig, 1846. 4th edit, worked over by Bruckner, Leipzig, 1852. 5th edit, also by Bruckner, Leipzig, 1863. 108. De Groot, P. Hofstede. Het onterscheid tusschen de voorstelling en uitdrukking van Jesus en van Johannes, in het evangelie van Johannes op te merken. Waarheid in Liefde, 1837, p. 102 ff. 109. Norton, Andrews. The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1837-1844. 2d edit. Cambridge, 1846-1848, 8vo. Perhaps the ablest and most valuable work ever published on this subject. Review of vol. i. by Stuart, Moses, American Biblical Repository, April 1838, pp. 266-343. LITERATURE 1837-1839. 303 1838. 110. Strauss, D. F. Das Leben Jesu, 3d edit. ; see above, 103. He is not so certain about the spurious character of the fourth gospel as he was before. 111. Gfroerer, August Friedrich. Geschichte des Urchristenthums. Bd. iii. Das Heiligthum und die Wahrheit. Stuttgart, 1838- For the genuineness. 112. Lange, Johann Peter. Ueber den unaufloslichen Zusammenhang zwischen der Indi- vidualist des Apostels Johannes und der Individualitat der Apokalypse. Reprinted in his Vermischte Schriften, Meurs, vol. ii. (1841) pp. 173-231, where a footnote, p. 173, tells that it belongs to the year 1838. Takes John to be certainly the author of the fourth gospel, p. 180. 113. Kern, Friedrich Heinrich. Erorterung der Haupthatsachen der evangelischen Geschichte, in Riicksicht auf Strauss' Schrift ' Das Leben Jesu.' Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1838 (1836?), 2 Heft, pp. 3-176, especially pp. 41-71 and 151-176. Printed separately, Tubingen, 1839. Against Strauss. 114. Weisse, Christian Hermann. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bear- beitet. 2 Bde. Leipzig, 1838, especially vol. i. pp. 96-138, and vol. ii. pp. 181-304. Tries to get rid of John's Christ by distinguishing between ' studies ' really John's and later work. 1839. 115. Frommann, Karl. Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinem Verhaltnisse zur ge- sammten biblisch-christlichen Lehre dargestellt. ■ Leipzig, 1839. For the genuineness, see p. 25 ff. 116. Lange, Johann Peter. (O. P. printed.) Die Authentic der vier Evangelien, erwiesen aus dem aner- kannten Charakter der vier Evangelisten. Studien und Kritiken, 1839, pp. 7-68. St. John, pp. 48-68. 304 APPENDIX. 117. Der Presbyter Johannes. Eine kritiscke Skizze. Theolo- gische Mitarbeiten, Kiel, 1839 (2ter Jahrg.), Heft 4, pp. 3-40. The gospel and 1st epistle by the apostle ; the 2d and 3d epistles, and perhaps the Apocalypse, by the presbyter. 118. Krabbe, Otto Carsten. Vorlesungen iiber das Leben Jesu . . . mit Riicksicht auf das Leben Jesu von Strauss und die darauf sich bezeihende Literatur. Hamburg, 1839. He says, on p. 45, that if we had not a particle of external testimony, the very gospel itself, in its impression of a holy in- spiration, would assure us that it came from the disciple who rested on Jesus' bosom. 1810. 119. Frommann, Karl. Ueber die yEchtheit und Integritat des Evangel. Johannis, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf Weisse's evangelische Geschichte. Studien unci Kritiken, 1840 (4 Heft), pp. 853-930. For the entire genuineness, against Weisse. 1 1 9a. Stuffken, Janus Heinrich. Werken van Teylers godgeleird Genootschap. Haarlem, 1840. On the external testimony for John's gospel, see pp. 100, 128, 135. 120. Strauss, David Friedrich. Das Leben Jesu, 4th edit. ; see above, 103. Takes back what he had admitted in the 3d edit. ; see above, 110. 121. Strauss, D. F. Die christliche Glaubenslehre in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent- wickelung und im Kampfe mit der modernen Wissenschaft. Tubingen and Stuttgart, 1840. Gospel of John, vol. i. pp. 194-196. ' They have begun to look at the fourth gospel again with cool eyes, and we shall hardly have to wait long for a work which will put the said gospel in its proper place, — a work which will proceed from sounder premises than the Proba- bi/ia (which took the synoptics to be genuine), and which will use the light thrown of late on the earliest history of the Church,' p. 196. See below, 130. LITERATURE 18-10. 305 122. Hase, Karl. Das Leben Jesu, 3d edit. ; see above, 93. The gospel from John. 123. Schexkel, Daniel. Ueber die neuesten Bearbeitungen des Lebens Jesu [Xe- ander, 3d edit.; Weisse, Evang. Gesch., see above, 114; and Strauss' 3d edit., see above, 110] eine vergleichende Beurtheilung. Studien und Kritiken, 1840, pp. 736-808. St. John, pp. 762-771. Distinguishes between earlier and later matter in the fourth gospel. 124. Ltjecke, F. Commentary, 3d edit. 1st part, Bonn, 1S40, pp. 6-160, especially 41-141 ; see above, 58. 125. Hug, Johann Leonhard. Gutachten iiber das Leben Jesu . . . von Strauss. Freiburg, 1840 ; 2d part, 1844. Eeprinted in 1854, with a newly dated title-page. 126. Fischer, Friedrich. Ueber den Ausdruck ot louSatoi im Evangel. Johan. Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik desselben. Tubingen Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1840, Zweites Heft, pp. 96-133. 127. Eeuss, Eduard. Ideen zur Einleitung in das Evangelium Johannes. DenJ:- schrift der theologischen Gesellschaft zu Strasburg, 1840, pp. 7-60. 128. Keudecker, Christian Gotthold. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament, mit Belegen aus den Quellenschriften und Citaten aus der alteren und neuen Literatur. Leipzig, 1840. St, John's gospel, part iii. §§ 42-51, pp. 278-335. BRUXO BAUER. 129. Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannis. Bremen, 1840. U 306 APPENDIX. 130. LUETZELBEEGER, E. C. J. Die kirchliche Tradition fiber den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen. Leipzig, 1840. ' They must, of course, allow him to use his fancy a little here and there,' p. 210. ' The apostle John did not live at Ephesus or in Asia Minor,' pp. 168 and 198. John died before 55-57, p. 197. 'Our gospel written beyond the Euphrates, in the neighbourhood of Edessa, by a philosophically educated Christian, who knew nothing of the other gospels,' p. 287. 'Our author wrote in the years from 130-135,' p. 291. Andrew is the disciple whom Jesus loved, and he is the one whose eye-witness gave certainty to the writer of this gospel, pp. 199-209. It is said that Liitzelberger- visited Strauss in 1840, and that Strauss told him things from the Dogmatik which had not yet appeared at that date. Strauss, in his Dogmatik (see above, 121), prophesied that the man who would prove fully the spuriousness of the gospel of John would hardly fail to show himself soon. Liitzelberger's book then was published, and the prophecy (?) was fulfilled. See Ebrard's JFissenschaft- liche Kritik, 1842, p. 1049 f. note, and Darmstadter Kirchen- zeitung, January 1841. 1841. 131. Schweizer, Alexander. Das Evangelium Johannes nach seinem innern Werthe und seiner Bedeutung fur das Leben Jesu kritisch untersucht. Leipzig, 1841. This gospel had two authors, p. 7. John wrote the original, pp. 234-276. The interpolations written after John's death, but before the original was published, p. 276 ; they are partly as reliable as and partly less reliable than the synoptists, p. 277. 131a. Rueckert, Leopold Immanuel. Ein Wink fiber unser viertes Evangelium. Programme, Zittau, 1841, 4to, pp. 4. The fourth gospel cannot be from John. Author a Jew, probably of Asia Minor, — a convert of Paul's, or at least a later follower of his doctrines, as the Logos doctrine is Paul's. The author put in Christ's mouth what he had heard from Paul. Perhaps the oddest four pages ever written about this gospel. LITERATURE 1841-1842. 307 1 32. Schwegler, F. C. Albert. Der Montanismus unci die christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Tubingen, 1841. See book II. part ii. 3. Against the genuineness. Belief in the authenticity of the gospel of John is inversely proportional to belief in the authen- ticity of the Revelation, p. 213. The gospel from latter part of second century. 133. Glaire, Jean Baptiste. Introduction Historique et Critique aux Livres de l'Ancien et du Xouveau Testament. Paris, 1841 (?) ; 1st edit. 6 vols. 1838; 2d, 1843 ; 3d, 1862. Abridged, 1st edit. 1846; 4th edit. 1865. 1842. 1 34. Ebrard, Johann Heinrich August. Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte. Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1842. See espe ially II. ii. c. 2, §§ 140-148, pp. 1005-1108. Spicily written. '"We may boldly declare that (excepting a few of Paul's epistles) no book of all antiquity, either in Christian or heathen literature, can show such numerous and sure proofs of its authenticity as the gospel of John,' p. 1108. 2d edit. 1850, pp. 828-952; 3d edit. 1868, §§ 146-151, pp. 1114-1226. 135. Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes. Braunschweig, 1842. Gospel of John, vol. iii. 'In the fourth gospel we find the gospel history in its highest completion, and in its truth, and as a revealed mystery,' p. "3 40. 136. Schwegler, F. C. A. Die neueste Johanneische Literatur. Two articles : — I. On Liicke's 3d edit. 1840 — see above, 124; and on Schweizer, 1841 — see above, 131. II. On Bruno Bauer, Kritik d. Evang. Gesch. d. Joh., 1840 — see above, 129 ; and on Lutzelberger, 1840 — see above, 130. Thsologische Jafarbiicher, Tubingen, 1842, 1 Heft, pp. 140-170, and 2 Heft, pp. 288-309. 308 APPENDIX. 137. BlNDEMANN, C. Ueber die von Justinus clem Martyrer gebrauchten Evangelien ; in bestlindiger Eiicksicht auf die Abbandlung des Herrn Dr. Credner iiber diesen Gegenstand in dem ersten Bande der Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen Scliriften. Studien und Kritlhen, 1842, pp. 355-482. ] 38. Schnitzer, Karl Friedrich. Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der Einleitung in's Xeue Testament mit besonderen Eiicksicht auf die Jobanneiscbe Frage. Theologische Jahrbucher, Tubingen, 1842, pp. 425-473. 139. Schnitzer, K. F. Beitrage zur Johanneischen Kritik. Theologische Jahrbucher, 1S42, pp. 627-654. 1843. 140. Guericke, H. E. F. Historisch-kritiscbe Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig, 1843. Genuineness of John's gospel well discussed and defended, § 41. 3, pp. 296-316. 2d edit. 1854. 141. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Article ' Johannes,' in Ersch und Gruber's Allgemeine Ency- klopdclie der Wissenschaften und Kunste. 2ter section, 22ter Theil. Leipzig, 1843. Jobannes-Evangelium, pp. 1-78 ; see p. 18 ff. For the genuineness. 142. Koestlin, Karl Eeinhold. Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis und die verwandten neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe. Berlin, 1843. 143. Baumgarten-Crusius, Ludwig Friedrich Otto. Theologische Auslegung der Johanneischen Scliriften. Vol. i. Jena, 1843. Authenticity, pp. x.-xxxv. Gospel genuine ; even if written do%vn by some one else or worked up by some one else than John, this must have been done in John's own circle, and so early as to be in his mind and tone. LITERATURE 1843-1844. 309 144. Maier, Adalbert. Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes. Vol. i. Carlsruhe and Freiburg, 1843. Genuineness defended, pp. 65-131. 144a. Wieseler, Karl. Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Apologie der Evangelien und evangeliscbe Geschichte vom Standpunkte der Voraussetzungslosigkeit. Hamburg, 1843. 145. Thenius, Otto. Das Evangelium olme die Evangelien. Ein offenes Send- scbreiben an Herrn Bruno Bauer. Leipzig, 1843. 1844. BAUK. 146. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Ueber die Composition und Charakter des Johanneischen Evangeliums. Theologische Jahrbilcher. Tubingen, 1844, pp. 1-191. 2d part, pp. 397-475. Con- clusion, pp. 615-700. This gospel a partisan book. The earliest possible date for it is 160. This was republished in a fresh shape in his Kritische Untersuchungen, u.s.w. ; see below, 162. 147. Scharling, Karl Emil. Commentatio, in qua quseritur, num. quas res auctor evangelii Joannei memorise tradiderit, iis fidem et auctoritatem his- toricam vindicare voluerit. Copenhagen, 1844. Programme. 148. Merz, Heinrich. Zur Johanneischen Frage, mit besonderer Beziehung auf Herrn Dr. v. Baur's Abhandlung iiber das J. Evangelium. Studien der evangelischen Geistliclikeit JViirtembergs (Bel. xvi. Heft 2), 1844, pp. 3-103. Against Baur. For the genuineness. 310 APPENDIX. 149. Glaire, Jean Baptiste. Essai sur l'authenticite" des quatre Versions Canoniques de l'Evangile. Paris, 1844, 8vo. 149a. Strauss, David Friedrich. Charakteristiken und Kritiken. Leipzig, 1844. See preface, pp. v.-vii., for Strauss' changes of feeling about the fourth gospel. See also in the same, ' Schriften iiber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums,' pp. 234-285 (reprinted from Jahrbiicher fiir ^cissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834, November, pp. 761-796, 801-808) ; pp. 236, 237 on the re- lation of attacks upon the genuineness of John and of the synoptists. 1845. 150. Ebrard, J. H. A. Das Evangelium Johannis und die neueste Hypothese iiber seine Entstehung. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Evangelien. Zurich, 1845, 8vo, pp. 217 (1). Against Baur. For the genuineness. 151. Zeller, Eduard. Die ausseren Zeugnisse iiber das Dasein und den Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums. Eine Priifung der kircklichen Tradi- tion bis auf Irenseus. Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tubingen, 1845, pp. 577-656. (In same vol., pp. 75-100, a review of Kostlin's book of 1843, above.) The gospel cannot be traced back beyond 170. 152. Thiersch, Heinrich W. J. Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts fiir die Kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften. Eine Streitschrift gegen die Kritiker unserer Tage. Erlangen, 1845, pp. xii.-xxv., 241 ff. For the genuineness. Reviewed in Studien und Kritiken, 1849, pp. 133-152. 153. Hasert, (Philosphotos Alethias, ' The Saxon Anonymous '). Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ilir Verhiiltniss LITERATURE 1845-1846. 311 zu einander. Ein Beitrag zur Losung der kritischen Fragen fiber die Entstehung derselben. Leipzig, 1845, pp. 371-426. The author succeeded in concealing his identity until about March 1875. 154. Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. Einleitung ins Neue Testament. Berlin, 1845. This is vol. viii. of his complete works, and vol. hi. of the part on theology. John's Gospel, §§ 80-84, pp. 315-344. For the genuineness. 155. Bobinson, Edward. The Alleged Discrepancy between John and the other Evan- gelists respecting our Lord's last Passover. Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. ii. pp. 405-435. Andover, 1845. 1846. 156. Bleek, Friedrich. Beitrage zur Evangelien Kritik. Berlin, 1846. This is the first volume of Beitrage zur Einleitung und Auslegung der heiligen Schrift, and for the most part bears upon John. 157." Hauff, Carl Victor. Einige Bemerkungen fiber die Abhandhmg von D. v. Baur fiber die Composition und den Charakter des Johanneischen Evangeliums. Studien und Kritiken, 1846, pp. 550-629. Against Baur ; see above, 1 46. For the genuineness. 158. Norton, Andrews. The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. 2d edit. ; see above, 109. 159. Schwegler, F. C. A. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwickelung. 2 vols., Tubingen, 1846. Gospel of John, vol. ii. pp. 346-374. ' The gospel of John is the last and focal point of the doc- trinal developments of the church in Asia Minor during the age after the apostles,' p. 346. It arose about the middle of the second century, p. 354. It was the crown of the develop- ment of Ebionism to Catholicism, p. 374. 312 APPENDIX. 160. Kling, Christian Friedrich. Beview of Ebrard, Wiss. Krit. d. Ev.-Ges. 1842, see above, 134. Ebrard, Das Ev. Joh. 1845, „ 150. „ Merz, Zur Joh. Frage, 1844, „ 148. Wieseler, Chron. Syn. d. 4 Ev. 1843, „ 144a. Studien und Kritiken, 1846, pp. 949-1028. 161. Baur, F. C. Der Kritiker und der Fanatiker, in der Person des Herrn Heinrich W. J. Thiersch. Zur Charakteristik der neuesten Theologie. Stuttgart, 1846. 161a. Thiersch, H. W. J. Einige Worte iiber die iEchtheit der neutestamentlichen Schriften und ihre Erweisbarkeit aus der altesten Kirchen- geschichte gegeniiber deu Hypothesen der neuesten Kritiker. Zur Erwiederung auf die Schrift des Herrn Professor Dr. F. Chr. Baur in Tiibingen, ' Der Kritiker und der Fanatiker,' u.s.w. Erlangen, 1846. Gospel of John, pp. 128-140. 1847. 162. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verbal tniss zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung. Tubingen, 1847. See above, 146, 161. On the author of the gospel of John, see pp. 327-389. 163. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Ueber das Evangelium und den ersten Brief des Johannes als Werke Eines und desselben Verfassers. Studien und Kritiken, 1847, pp. 171-187. Answered in part by Zeller, in 165, below ; he promised to answer further, but did not. Baur treated the subject, how- ever, in 170, below. 164. Baur, F. C. Bemerkungen zur Johanneischen Frage, besonders in BetrefF des Todestages Jesu und der Passahfeier der altesten Kirclie. Gegen Herrn Dr. Bleek. Tkeologische Jahrhiicher, 1847, pp. 89-1 30. LITERATURE 1847-1848. 313 165. Zeller, Eduard. Einige weitere Bemerkungen iiber die aussere Bezeugung des vierten Evangeliums. Ein Zusatz des Herausgebers zu den vorstehenden Abhandlung. See 163. Theologische Jahrbilcher, 1847, pp. 136-174. John's account ' can in no case be considered the source of Justin's.' 166. Pareau, Ludwig Gerl. Aamviizing van het verschil, dat er bestaat tusschen de leer en leerwijze van Jezus bij Johannes en van Johannes zelven vooral in zijne brieven. Waarheid in Liefde, 1847, p. 478 ff. 167. Pfitzenmeyer, J. F. Apercu des Contro verses sur l'Authenticite du quatrieme Evangile, depuis 1820. These . . . pour obtenir le Grade de Bachelier en Theologie. Strasbourg, 1847. For the genuineness. 168. Hug, J. L. Einleitung in . . . N. T. 4th edit. ; see above, 36. 168a. Wieseler, Karl. Der Kanon des Neuen Testaments von Muratori von Neuem verglichen und im Zusammenhange erlautert. Sludien und Kritiken, 1847, pp. 815-857. For John's gospel and epistles, see pp. 835 and 845 f. 1848. 169. Weitzel, K. L. Die Christliche Passahfeier der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Urchristenthums und zur Evangelien-Kritik. Mit einem Anhange : Die Passahfragmente im Originaltext. Pforzheim, 1848. Against Baur. 170. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Das johanneische Evangelium und die Passahfeier des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Theologische Jahrbilcher. Tubingen, 1848, pp. 264-286. 314 APPENDIX. 171. Baur, F. C. Die johanneisclie Briefe, ein Beitrag zur Geschiclite des Kanons. Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1848, p. 293 ff. The gospel and epistles not from the same author. Answered by Grimm, see below, 177. 172. ViGVit, Ariste. Authenticate de l'Evangile de Saint Jean. Montauban, 1848, pp. 40. 173. Semisch, Carl iEnotheus. Die apostolische Denkwiirdigkeiten des Martyrers Justin. Zur Geschichte und ^Echtheit der kanonischen Evangelien. Hamburg and Gotha, 1848. For review, see below, 188. 174. De Wette, W. M. L. Lehrbuch der . . . Einleitung in . . . N. T. 5th edit. ; see above, 81. Follows Bleek's Beitrage, see above, 156 ; more decidedly for the Genuineness than before. 1849. HILGENFELD. 175. HILGENFELD, Adolf. Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis, nach ihren Lehrbe- griff dargestellt. Halle, 1849. The gospel of John is at the transition from Valentinus' to Marcion's Gnosticism. 176. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Der Paschastreit und das Evangelium Johannis mit Biicksicht auf YVeitzel's Darstellung. See Weitzel, above, 169. Theo- logische Jahrbiicher, 1849, pp. 209-281. 177. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Ueber den ersten Brief des Johannes und sein Verhaltniss zum vierten Evangelium. Studien und Kritikcn, 1849, pp. 269-303. Against Baur; sec above, 170. LITERATURE 1849-1850. 315 178. Weitzel, K. L. Das Selbstzeugniss des vierten Evangelisten iiber seine Person. Studien und Kritiken, 1849, pp. 578-638. 178a. Hauff, C. V. Bemerkungen iiber einige Stellen des vierten Evangeliums. Studien und Kritiken, 1849, pp. 106-130. In treating of John vii., on pp. 121-130, he opposes Zeller {see above, 151) and Baur. 1850. 179. Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs. Berlin, 1850, 1851. 180. JNTiermeyer, Antonie. Opmerking tot staving der geloofwardigheid van de synoptische evangelien, ontleend aan dat van Johannes. Magazijn voor Kritick en Exegese des N. T., 1850, p. 127 ff. 181. Niermeyer, Antonie. Aanmerkingen betreffende de echtheid van het Evangelie van Johannes. Magazijn voor Kritick en Exegese des N. T., 1850, p. 322 ff. 182. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelien Justin's, der Clementinischen Homilien und Marcion's. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altesten EvangelienJiteratur. Halle, 1850. 183. Hilgenfeld, A. Die alttestamentliche Citate Justin's in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Untersuchung iiber seine Evangelien. Theologische Jahr- biicher. Tubingen, 1850, pp. 385-439, and 567-578. 184. Ebrard, J. H. A Wissenschaftliche Kritik, etc., 2d edit. See above, 134. Origin of John's gospel, §§ 138-147, pp. 828-952. 185. Eauch, J. H. G. Die Baurschen Ansichten iiber das Evangelium Johannis 316 APPENDIX. gepriift an der Geschichte der wunderbaren Speisung Johannes vi. Deutsche Zeitschrift fur christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1850, October and November. See below, 189. 186. Koestlin, Karl Reinhold. Zur Geschichte des Urchristenthums. Theologische JaJirbiicher. Tubingen, 1850, pp. 1-62. After Justin, ' finally the fourth evangelist, who, unmoved by all opposition, wishes to solve and reconcile all contrariety in the comprehensive totality of the Christian principle of a firm holding to a centre, to Christ himself,' p. 62. 187. Baur, F. C. Die Einleitung in das Neue Testament als theologische AVissen- schaft. Theologische JaJirbiicher. Tubingen, 1850, 1851. John's gospel, 1850, pp. 556-563; 1851, pp. 88-93 and 295-300. 1851. IS 8. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Review of Semisch; see above, 173. Studien und Kritiken, 1851, pp. 669-702. This is dated 18th April 1850, and hence as to the author belongs in that year. 188a. Koestlin, K. R. Die pseudonyme Literatur der altesten Kirche, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bildung des Kanons. Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tubingen, 1851, pp. 149-221, especially p. 183 ff. St. John's gospel from the second quarter of the second century. The history freely made up from the Christian con- sciousness. 189. Niermeyer, Antonie. De denkbeelden van Baur omtrent het Evangelie van Johannes getoetst aan de geschiedenis der wonderbare spijziging Joh. vi. Magazijn voor Kritick en Exegese des N. T., 1851, p. 60 ff. See above, 185. LITERATURE 1851. 317 190. Niermeyer, Antonie. Bijdragen ter verdedigung van de echtheid der Johanneische Schriften. Magazijn voor Kritick en Exegese des N. T., 1851, pp. 289-338. 191. Eitschl, Albrecht. TJeber den gegenwartigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien. Theologische Jahrbuch&r. Tubingen, 1851, p. 500 ff. See also below, 243. The gospel from John. The measure of use is not the measure of its earlier or later origin. 192. Gras, Alphonse. (An Essay or Dissertation on the Genuineness of the Gospel of John.) 1851. 192a. Colani, TimothSe. Des quatre evangiles canoniques considered comme documents historiques de la vie de Jesus-Christ, 3eme article. Revue de TMologie (Colani). Paris, vol. ii. 1851, January, pp. 22-56. The first and second articles, vol. i. pp. 223-243, 294-316, are on the synoptists. 192k Kayser, Auguste. L'Ecole de Baur ; son Point de Vue general. Revue de TMologie (Colani). Paris, vol. ii. 1851, May, pp. 257-285. For John's gospel, see pp. 274-285. 192c. Trottet, Jean Pierre. De l'Autorite et de l'lnspiration des ecrits sacres. Revue de TMologie (Colani). Paris, vol. iii. 1851, December, pp. 363-377. For John's gospel, see pp. 371, 372. 193. Stowe, Calvin Ellis. The Four Gospels as we now have them in the New Testament, and the Hegelian Assaults upon them. BibliotMca Sacra. Andover, vol. viii. 1851, pp. 503-524; vol. ix. 1852, pp. 77-108. 194. Ewald, Heinrich. Ursprung und Wesen der Evangelien. 5. Die verkliirung des Evangelischen schriftthumes. JahrbilcMr der BibliscMn wissenschift, vol. iii. 1850-1851, pp. 146-174. 318 APPENDIX. 1852. VOLKMAE. 195. Volkmar, Gustav. Das Evangelium Marcions. Text mid Kritik mit Riicksicht auf die Evangelien des Martyrers Justin, der Clementinen, und der apostolischen Viiter. Eine neue Revision der neuern Untersuchungen nach den Quellen selbst zur Textesbe- stimniung und Erklarung des Lucas-Evangeliums. Leipzig, 1852. 196. Niermeyer, Antonie. Verdhandeling over de Echtheid der Jolianneische Schriften. Bekroond bij bet Haagscbe Genootscbap tot Verdedigung von de Cbristebjke Godsdienst. Gravenhage, 1852. This is the thirteenth part of the works of this Society. 197. Niermeyer, Antonie. Bijdragen ter verdedigung van de Echtheid der Jolianneische Schriften. Schoonhover, 1852. Pages 1-50 are a reprint of the article of 1851 — see above, 190 ; pp. 51-134 are about the epistles. 198. NlERMEYER, A. Het belang van Orig. philosopJioamena voor de Kritick des N. Ts. bepaaldelijk der Jolianneische Scbriften. Magazijn voor Kritick en Exegese des N. T., 1852, p. 85 ft 199. Thiersch, H. W. J. Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter und die Entstehung der neutestamentlicben Scbriften. Frankfort-on-the-Main and Erlangen, 1852. Genuineness of John's gospel, p. 273 f. 200. Brueckner, Benno Bruno. 4th edit, of De "Wette's Kurze Erklarung, etc. ; see above, 107. 201. Merens, F. G. De ultima Christi sermonum autbentia. 1852. 202. Neander, J. A. W. Das Leben Jesu, etc. 5th edit. ; see above, 106. 203. Luthardt, Cbristoph Ernst. Das Jolianneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthumlicbkeit geschildert und erklart. Nuremberg, 1852, 1853 LITERATURE 1852-1853. diV No discussion of the origin in this first edition. 2d edit. vol. i. 1875. An English edition is to be issued in Clark's 'Foreign Theological Library,' Edinburgh, 187G. 204. HiLGENFELD, Adolf. Ueber das eigenthumliche Evangelium Justin's. Theologische Jahrbilcher. Tubingen, 1852, pp. 400-419. He used the Petrine gospel. 205. Maier, Adalbert. Einleitung in die Schriften des Xeuen Testaments. Freiburg in the Breisgau, 1852. Gospel of John, §§ 31-39, pp. 121-163. 206. Beithiiayr, Franz Xaver. Einleitung in die canonischen Biicher des neuen Bundes. Begensburg, 1852. Gospel of John, iv. Abtheilung, §§ 66-71, pp. 412-463. 1S53. 207. Beuss, Eduard. Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Xeuen Testaments. 4th edit, 1864. Gospel of John, etc., §§ 217-226, pp. 213-225. 5th edit, Braunschweig, 1874. Gospel and epistles of John, lte Abtheil. §§ 213-229, pp. 217-238. 208. Troost, Janus Breunissen. Disquisitio de Discipulo, quern in quarto evangelio dilexisse Jesus dicitur. Leyden, 1853. Thesis for doctorate in theology. 209. Tiele, Cornelius Petrus. Specimen theologicum continens annotationem in locos non- nullos evangelii Johannei ad vindicandam hujus evangelii authentiam. Inest excursus de capite xxi. Amsterdam, 1853, 8vo, pp. 158. 210. Ewald, Heinrich. Ueber die aussern Zeugnisse fiir das Johannisevangelium. Jahrbiicher der Biblischen wissenschaft, V. (1852-1853). Gottingen, 1853, pp. 178-207. 211. Da Costa, Izaak. De Apostel Johannes en zijne Schriften. Eene bijbelstudie. Amsterdam, 1853, 2dln. 8vo. 320 APPENDIX. 212. Jacobi, Justus Ludwig. Die Philosophoumena und ihr Zeugniss vom Evangelium des Johannes. Deutsche Zeitschrift fur christliche JVissenschaft, 1853, Nr. 24 f. 213. Delitzsch, Franz. Neue Untersuchungen iiber Entsteliung und Anlage der kanonischen Evangelien. Erster Tlieil, Das Matthseus- Evangelium. Leipzig, 1853. On the relations of the authenticity of John and Matthew, see pp. 47, 48. Bee Baur, below, 218. 214. Volkmar, Gustav. Ueber Justin den Martyrer und sein Verhaltniss zu unsern Evangelien. Ein Programm. Zurich, 1853. 215. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Tubingen, 1853 ; see pp. 131-155. 2d edit. 1860, pp. 146-172. 3d edit. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, the first volume of Geschichte der christtlchen Kirche, 18G3. Gospel of John, pp. 146-174. 216. Zeller, Eduard. Ueber die Citate aus dem vierten Evangelium, welche in den Ausziigen gnostiker Schriften in dem pseudo-origenistischen eAeyxoo- Kara. Tracrwv alpecreoiv vorkommen. Theologische Jahr- biicher. Tubingen, 1853, pp. 144-152. 1854. 217. Hase, Karl August. Das Leben Jesu, 4th edit. ; see above, 93. 218. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Die Johanneische Frage und ihre neueste Beantwortungen (durch Luthardt, Delitzsch, Bruckner, Hase). Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tubingen, 1854, pp. 196-287. 219. Hocede, Alf. (Dissertation on the Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel.) 1854. 220. Volkmar, Gustav. Ein neu entdecktes Zeugniss fiir das Johannes Evangelium. Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tubingen, 1854, pp. 446-462. Because the Clementina used John's gospel, it does not follow that Justin used it. LITERATURE 1854-1855. 321 221. Mayer, Georg Karl. Die iEchtheit des Evangeliums nach Johannes. Schaffhausen, 1854, 8vo, pp. xii., 467. 222. HlLGENFELD, Adolf. Die Evangelien, nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung. Leipzig, 1854. On the origin of John's gospel, pp. 336-347. ' Nothing opposes the assumption that it arose about in the years 120-140,' p. 347. 223. Guericke, Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand. Gesammtgeschichte des Neuen Testaments oder Neutestament- liche Isagogik. Der historisch kritischen Einleitung ins N. T. 2te vollig umgearbeitete Auflage. See above, 140. Leipzig, 1854. Gospel of John, § 17, pp. 169-206. 224. Schneider, K. F. Th. Die .ZEchtheit des johanneischen Evangeliums nach den ausseren Zeugnissen. Berlin, 1854, 8vo, pp. vi., 61. 224a. Beville, Albert. ' . . . Jean le Prophete et Jean l'Evangeliste. La crise de la foi chez un apotre. Revue de Theologie (Colani). Paris. ler article, vol. ix. 1854, pp. 324-363. 2eme article, vol. x. 1855, pp. 1-24. See especially vol. ix. pp. 343-354. 'John the apostle is the author of the fourth gospel.' 1855. 225. Scholten, Johann Heinrich. Kritische Inleiding tot de Schriften des N. T. Leyden, 1855, pp. 41-60. 2d edit. 1856, pp. 120-167. The translator owes thanks to Professor Scholten for his kindness in sending a large number of titles for this and for the general literature of the fourth gospel. 225a. Scholten, J. H. Article ' Schriften van den apostel Johannes,' in Bijbelsch woordenboek uitgegeven door W. Moll, P. J. Veth, en F. J. Domela Niewenhuis. Amsterdam, 1855, vol. ii. pp. 173-189. Gospel of John, pp. 179-188. For the authenticity. x 612 APPENDIX. 226. Hase, Karl August, Die Tiibinger Schule. Ein Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Fer- dinand Christian v. Baur, ersten Professor d. evang. Theol. a. d. Univ. Tubingen, Eitter des Ordens der wiirtemb. Krone. Leipzig, 1855. Gospel of John, pp. 1 (-24)-59. 227. Baur, F. C. An Herrn Dr. Karl Hase, Prof, der Theol. a. d. Univ. Jena, H. S. A. Geh. Kirchenrath, Eitter des G. S. W. 0. vom weissen Falken. Beantwortung des Sendschreibens — die Tiibinger Schule. Tubingen, 1855. Gospel of John, pp. 5-70. 228. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Das Urchristenthum in den Hauptwendepunkten seines Ent- wickelungsganges mit besondrer Eiicksicht auf die neuesten Verhandlungen der Herren DD. Hase und v. Baur. Jena, 1855. 229. Zeller, Eduard. Noch ein Wort iiber den Ausspruch Jesu bei Justin ' Apol. i. 61/ iiber die Wiedergeburt. Theologische Jahrhucher. Tubingen, 1855, pp. 138-140. 230. Tiele, Cornelius Petrus. Het evangelie van Johannes. Amsterdam, 1855. 231. Weisse, Christian Hermann. Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der Evangelienkritik und Ewalds Geschichte Christi und seiner zeit. Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1855, ISTr. 44 ff. Johannean studies (prologue, different discourses, etc.) lie at the base of the gospel, and a later hand worked it up. His- torically it is inferior to the synoptists, and especially to the original gospel Mark. 231 a. Scherer, Edmond. Les Procedes de la Critique Interne. Revue de Thtologic (Colani). Paris, 1855, November, vol. xi. pp. 299-319. John's gospel, see pp. 310-319. See note on p. 318: ' Speaking exactly, there can be no question as to the authen- ticity of the fourth gospel, but only as to its apostolic origin, or as to the value of the tradition which attributes it to John.' LITERATURE 1856. 323 2316. Clausen, Heinrich Nicolai. Joliannesevangeliet fortolket. Inledning, pp. 1-39. Copenhagen, 1855. 1856. 232. Scholten, J. H. Kritische Inleiding, etc. 2d edit. ; see above, 225. 233. Weisse, C. H. Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwartigen Stadium. Leipzig, 1856. Reprint of the articles above, 231. Gospel of John, pp. 16-62, 111-132. 234. Slotemaker, Lambert Hendrik. Disquisitio, qua comparatis Evangelii quarti et Synopticorum locis, utrorumque fides historica confirmatur. Leyden, 1856, 8vo, pp. (vi.), iv., (2), 124, (1). Thesis for doctorate in theology. 235. Ebrard, J. H. A. Johannes der Apostel, und seine Schriften. Herzog's Beal- EncyMopddie, vol. vi. 1856, pp. 722—737. For the genuineness. 236. Ewald, Heinrich. Weitere untersuchungen fiber Johannes' Enthfillung (Apo- kalypse). Jahrbiicher der Biblischen mssenschaft, vol. viii. 1856, pp. 76-118; seep. 100 ff. Also a review of Weisse, see above, 231, ibid. pp. 186-191. 236«. Agardh, C. A. Om de heliga evangeliernas uppkomst och sanning. Stockholm, 1856. (]\Iotto : ' There is no real beginning of life in nature or in tne world of mind which has not something mysterious and unexplained about it.' — Ullmann.) John's gospel, pp. 72, 158-167. 237. Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Justin der Martyrer und das Evangelium Johannis. Zeitschrift fiir Protestantismus und Kirche, 1856. Neue Folge, Bd. xxxi. pp. 302-327, 350-400. „ Bd. xxxii. pp. 68-115. 324 APPENDIX. 238. Steitz, Georg Eduard. Die Differenz der Occidentalen und der Kleinasiaten in der Paschafeier aufs Xeue kritisch untersucht und im Zusam- menhange mit der gesammten Festordnung der alten Kirche entwickelt. Studien und Kritiken, 1856, pp. 721-809. Against Baur. 239. Scholten, Johann Heinrich. De sterfdag Jezus volgens het 4de evangelie en de paschastrijd tussclien Klein-Azie en Rome. Godgeteerde Bijdragen, 1856, p. 96 ff. 239a. Eeville, Albert. Le quatrieme Evangile et la Contro verse pascale au second siecle. Revue de Theologie (Colani). Paris, 1856, July, vol. xiii. pp. 1-34. See p. 3-4. Review of Scholten, 239, above. 240. Lechler, Gotthard Victor. Review of Niermeyer; see above, 196. „ Mayer, G. K. ; „ 221. ,, Schneider; „ 224. Studien und Kritiken, 1856, pp. S 6 7-9 11. 241. Meyer, H. A. W. Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch iiber das Evangelium des Johaunes. 3d edit. 1856. 241a. Kayser, Auguste. L'Ecole de Tubingue et l'Evangile selon Saint Jean. Revue de ThSologie (Colani). Paris, 1856, vol. xii. First article, April, pp. 217-233. Second article, May, pp. 257-277. John's gospel must have been written in the apostolic age, p. 277. Third article, August, vol. xiii. pp. 65-85. Not so sure of the authenticity of the fourth gospel as other writers for the Revue de TMologie are, p. 85. LITERATURE 1857. 325 2415. Busken-Huet. De lAuthenticite" des Ecrits Jolianniques d'apres Antonie Niermeyer. Revue de Thiologie (Colani). Paris, 1856. Premier article, vol. xii. pp. 305-338. Second article, vol. xiii. pp. 35-63. The gospel and the Revelation are authentic, and from St. John. 1857. 242. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Zur johanneischen Frage : 1. iiber Justin d. M. gegen Luthardt ; 2. iiber den Passahstreit gegen Steitz. Theologische Jahr- biicher. Tubingen, 1857, pp. 209-257. It cannot be proved that Justin used John's gospel, p. 234. This gospel may have then existed, but was too new to be of any importance to Justin, p. 238. 243. Ritschl, Albrecht. Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. 2d edit. Bonn, 1857. Gospel of John genuine ; it is most easily explained thus, and it is necessary to fill up the synoptic accounts, pp. 48, 49, note. 244. Baur, F. C. Das Verhaltniss des ersten johanneischen Briefs zum johan- neischen Evangelium. Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tubingen, 1857, pp. 315-331. 245. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Die Evangelienfrage und ihre neuesten Behandlungen von Weisse, Volkmar, und Meyer. Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tubingen, 1857, pp. 381-440 and 498-532. 246. ( . Concerning Baur and others on the fourth gospel.) National Review, 1857, July, pp. 82-127. 247. Steitz, Georg Eduard. Das angebliche Zeugniss des Melito von Sardes fiir das johan- 326 APPENDIX. neische Evangelium. Ein kritisches Referat iiber die von Pitra edirte ' S. Melitonis clavis.' Shidien und Kritiken, 1857, pp. 584-596. Melito of Sardis of no use to prove the genuineness of this gospel. 248. Steitz, G. E. Einige weitere Bemerkungen iiber den Paschastreit des zweiten Jahrhunderts, gegen D. Baur. Studien und Kritiken, 1857, pp. 741-782. Answers Baur ; see above, 242. 249. Volkmar, Gustav. Religion Jesu. Leipzig, 1857, pp. 433-476. 250. Tholuck, A. F. T. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. 5th edit. Gotha, 1857. See above, 85. WEIZSAECKER. 251. Weizsaecker, Carl Heinrich von. Das Selbstzeugniss des johanneischen Christus. Ein Beitrag zur Christologie. Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie. Stuttgart, 1857, pp. 154-208. 1858. 252. Koessing, Fr. De suprema Christi coena. Heidelberg, 1858. 253. Volkmar, Gustav. Geschichtstreue Theologie und ihre Gegner oder neues Licht und neues Leben. Zurich, 1858. 254. Tobler, Johann Rudolf. Die Evangelienfrage im allgemeinen und die Johannisfrage insbesondere. Eine Denkschrift z\\x Erinnerung an den 25 jahrigen Bestand der Universitat Zurich. Zurich, 1858. Says Apollos wrote this gospel. 255. Hilgexfeld, Adolf. Noch ein "Wort iiber den Paschastreit. Zeitschrift fiir wissen- schaftliche Theologie, 1858, p. 151 ff. LITERATURE — 1858-1859 327 256. Bauk, Ferdinand Christian. Entgegnung gegen Herrn Dr. G. E. Steitz fiber den Pascha- streit der alten kirche. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theo- logle, 1858, pp. 298-312. It will be seen that the Theologische Jahrbucher have fallen out, and that the Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie has in a measure taken their place ; Baur and Hilgenfeld both writing in the former in 1857, and both in the first volume of the latter in 1858. The latter is, in Germany, often called Hilgen- feld 1 s Zeitschrift, as the former were called Zeller's Jahrbilcher. 257. Uhlhorn, Gerhard. Die alteste Kirchengeschichte in der Darstellung der Tfibinger Schule. Eine Uebersicht. Jahrbilcher fur deutsche Theologie. Stuttgart, 1858, pp. 280-349. 258. Uhlhorn, Gerhard. Die alteste Kirchengeschichte in den neuesten Darstellungen, Dietlein, Lechler, Trautmann, Schaff, Thiersch, Baumgarten, Lange, Kitschl. Eine Uebersicht. Jahrbikhcr fur deutsche Theologie, 1858, pp. 492-531. 1859. 259. Weizsaecker, Carl Heinrich von. Beitrage zur Charakteristik des johanneischen Evangeliums. Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1859, pp. 685-767. 260. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Die beiden neuesten Stimmen aus Zurich fiber Evangelien- kritik, beurtheilt. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1859, pp. 252-271. 261. Hilgenfeld, A. Das Johannes-Evangelium und seine gegenwartigen Auffas- sungen. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1859, pp. 281-348 and 385-448. 262. Steitz, Georg Eduard. Ueber den Gebrauch des Pronomen iKetvocr im vierten Evange- lium, zum Entscheidung fiber die streitige Stelle, xix. 35. Studien und Kritiken, 1859, pp. 497-506. 328 APPENDIX. 263. Steitz, G. E. Der asthetische Charakter der Eucharistie und des Fastens in der alten Kirche. Letztes Wort iiber den Paschastreit gegen die Herren DD. Baur und Hilgenfeld. Studien und Kritikm, 1859, pp. 716-740. 264. Steitz, G. E. Pascha. Herzog's Beal-EncyMopadie, vol. xi. Gotha, 1859, pp. 140-169. 265. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Die Tubinger Schule und ilire Stellung zur Gegenwart. Tubingen, 1859. 2d edit. 1860; see below, 267. 1860. 266. Ewald, Heinrich. Ueber die zweifel an der abkunft des vierten Evangeliums und der drei Sendschreiben vom Apostel Johannes. Jahrbilcher der Biblischen icissenschaft, vol. x. 1860, pp. 83-114. Die Geschichte dieser Zweifel, pp. 100-108. Ueber Christi irdische Heiraat nach Johannes, pp. 108-114. 267. Baur, F. C. Die Tubinger Schule, etc. 2te neu durchgesehene und mit einigen Zusiitzen vermehrte Auflage. Tubingen, 1860. See above, 265. Gospel of John, pp. 85-171 ; against Weisse, Weizsacker, and Ewald. The author died 2d December 1860. 268. Tobler, Johann Rudolf (printed J. T.). Ueber den Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1860, pp. 169-203. Apollos the author of the fourth gospel. 269. De WETTE, W. M. L. Lehrbuch der . . . Einleitung in d. kan. Biicher d. N. T. 6th edit. Berlin, 1860; see above, 81. See pp. 209-240. 270. Credner, Carl August. Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon. Herausgegeben von Dr. G. Volkmar. Berlin, 1860. LITERATURE — 1860-1861. 329 ' Justin knew our canonical gospels, but used them little or not at all directly,' p. 9. 271. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. 2d edit. 1860; see above, 215. Gospel of John, pp. 146-172. 272. Volkmar, Gustav. Berichtigung zur ausseren Bezeugung des Johannes-Evan- geliums. Zeitschrift fur ivissenschaftliche Theologie, 1860, pp. 293-300. Against Tobler. 'Justin's Logos doctrine and his nature in general stand before the Logos gospel,' p. 300. 273. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Der Paschastreit der alten Kirch e nach seiner Bedeutung fur die Kirchengeschichte und fur Evangelienforschung urkund- lich dargestellt. Halle, 1860. ' The possibility that the fourth gospel was known to Justin cannot be disputed,' p. 209, note. Compare Zeitschrift fur ivissenschaftliche Theologie, 1867, p. 195. 274. Lange, Johann Peter. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Theologisch-homiletisch bear- beitet. Bonn, 1860. 4th part of Bibel-JVerk. 2d edit. 1861. 3d edit. Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1868 ; see Schaff, Philip, below, 447. 275. Buttmann, Alexander. Ueber den Gebrauch des Pron. eKetvoo- im vierten Evangelium. Studien und Kritiken, 1860, pp. 505-536. Against Steitz's article ; see above, 262. 1861. 276. Steitz, Georg Eduard. Der klassische und der johanneische Gebrauch von zkuvov. Studien und Kritiken, 1861, pp. 267-310. Against 275, above. 277. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Das neueste Steitzianum iiber den Passahstreit beleuchtet. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1861, pp. 106-110. o'60 APPENDIX. 278. HlLGENFELD, A. Die Evangelien-Forschung nacli ihrem Verlaufe und gegen- wiirtigen Stande. Zeitschift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1861, pp. 137-204. 279. HlLGENFELD, A. Der Quartodecimanismus Kleinasiens und die kanonischen Evangelien. Ibidem, pp. 285-318. 280. Kahnis, Karl Friedrich August. Die lutherische Dogmatik historisch genetiscli dargestellt. Leipzig, 1861. See vol. i. pp. 416-423. For the genuine- ness. 281. Ebrard, Joliann Heinricli August. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Konigsberg, 1861. The first part of the second volume of Olshausen's Com- mentary, worked over by Ebrard. 282. Freytag, Gustav Adolph. Die heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments, mit Bezugnahme auf Lehre und Cultus kritisch beleuchtet fur gebildete Protestanten, insonderheit fiir die kirchlichen Vertreter der Gemeinden. Berlin, 1861. 283. Aberle, Moriz. Ueber den Zweck des Johannisevangelium. Theologische Quartalschrift, 1861, p. 37 ff. 284. Lange, J. P. Das Evangelium nach Johannes, etc. 2d edit. ; see above, 274. 1862. 285. Ewald, Heinrich. Die Johanneischen Schriften uebersetzt und erkliirt. Vol. ii. (vol. i. 1861). Gottingen, 1862, pp. 400-409. ' We must declare that no author of a book of antiquity is so surely attested as the apostle John for this gospel,' p. 409. 286. HlLGENFELD, Adolf. Die Evangelienfrage und ihre neuesten Bearbeitungen. Z eitschr if t fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1862, pp. 1-45. 287. Buttmann, Alexander. Einige Worte der Erwiederung an H. Dr. Steitz. Ibidem, pp. 204-215. On the use of eVetVocr, see above, 276. LITERATURE 18C2-1863. 331 288. Bleek, Friedrich. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Herausgegeben von Joh. Friedr. Bleek, Cand. min. Berlin, 1860. Second part of Einleitung in die Reilige Schrift. Gospel of John, pp. 138-160, 177-236, 292-309 ; 2d edit. 1866, pp. 141 ff., 179 ff., 296 ff. The part on John was trans- lated into French with the following title : ' Etude critique sur l'Evangile selon Saint Jean,' Paris, 1864. The whole work was translated into English by W. Urwick, and published in Clark's Foreign Theological Library, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1869, 1870. 289. Weiss, Bernhard. Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinen Grundziigen untersucht. Berlin, 1862. 290. Weizsaecker, C. H. von. Die johanneische Logoslehre, mit besondrer Beriicksichtigung der Schrift : ' Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff von Dr. B. Weiss, 1862.' Jahrbikher fur deutsche Theologie, 1862, pp. 619-708. Against Weiss. 291. Nolte, Theologische Quartalschrift. Tubingen, 1862, p. 464 ff. 1863. 292. HlLGENFELD, Adolf. Die johanneische Theologie und ihre neueste Bearbeitung. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1863, pp. 96-116, 214-228. 293. HlLGENFELD, A. Der Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testaments in ihrer geschichtlichen Ausbildung und Gestaltung nebst Herstellung und Beleuchtung des Muratorischen Bruchstucks. Halle, 1863. 294. Strauss, David Friedrich. Jesu Weheruf iiber Jerusalem und die a-o^ia tou 6eov. Matt, xxiii. 34-39 ; Lu. xi. 49-51 ; xiii. 34 f. Ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Frage. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1863, pp. 84-93. 332 APPENDIX 295. BAUR, Ferdinand Christian. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. 3d edit. ; see above, 215. Gospel of John, pp. 146-174. 296. Schwalb (Maurice 1). Notes sur levangile de Jean. Revue de ThMogie (Colani). Strasburg, 1863, pp. 113-149, and 249-279. 297. Meyboom, Ludwig Suson Petrus. De Offenbaring, het laatste boek des Nieuwen Testaments, etc. Amsterdam, 1863, p. 309. 298. Oosterzee, Johannes Jacobus van. Het Leven van Jesus. Utrecht, 1863, 2d edit. vol. i. pp. 127-156. 299. Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes erliiutert. Vol. iii. Berlin, 1863, pp. 359-409, especially 398-403. 300. Brueckner, Benno Bruno. 5th edit, of De Wette's Commentary ; see above, 200. 301. Mack AY, Eobert William. The Tubingen School and its Antecedents. London, 1863, pp. 258-311. 302. Eichthal, Gustave d'. Les Evangiles. Ire Partie, Examen critique et comparative de trois premiers evangiles. 2 vols. Against the authenticity. (Second part published 1) 302a. Knoes, Anders Erik. Om aktheten och troviirdigheten af de fyra kanoniska evan- gelierna med hansigt till den mytiska asigten af evangeliska historien. Upsala, 1863. John's gospel, pp. 132-172. 3026. Knoes, A. E. Bibliska Isagogiken. Upsala, 1863 (vol. i. of his works). John's gospel, pp. 109-115. 302c. Eiriksson, M. Er Johannes-Evangeliet et apostolisk och iigte Evangelium och LITERATURE 1864. 333 er dets Lare om Guds menneskevorden en sand och christelig Lare ] En religios-dogmatisk, liistorisk-kritisk Undersogelse. Copenhagen, 1863, 8vo, pp. 510. 303. De Groot, P. Hofstede. The Antiquity and Authenticity of John's Gospel according to External Witnesses before the Middle of the Second Century. Waarheid in Liefde, 1863, p. 593 ff. 304. The Most Ancient Traditions on our Four Gospels. Eevue Chritienne. Paris, 1863, December 15. 305. Freytag, Gustav Adolf. Die Symphonie der Evangelien. Distinguishes, as Weisse does, between genuine and not genuine parts. 306. Martineatj, James. Review of Kenan's Life of Jesus. National Review, 1863, October. 307. Baeumlein, Wilhelm. Commentar liber das Evangelium des Johannes. Stuttgart, 1863. 308. Aberle, Moriz. Theologische Quartalschrift, 1863, p. 437 fF. 308a. ' Chretien, Un.' Explication de l'Evangile selon St. Jean, contenant une preface, une introduction qui traite de toutes les questions concer- nant l'authenticite du livre, une traduction nouvelle, suivie de l'exposition continue du texte et de notes, et un appen- dice, des etudes, des remarques theologiques et critiques, par Un Chretien. Premier livraison, Paris, 1863. Reviewed by ' T.' in Le Chretien Evangeliqiie, Lausanne, 1863, pp. 676-1146. See below, 309. 1864. 309. Asti£, Jean Frederic. Explication de l'Evangile selon Saint Jean. Paris, 1864. For authenticity. 3 vols. 8vo. The first two vols, were simply marked ' By a Christian ; ' see above, 308a. 334 APPENDIX. 310. Reville, Albert. La Vie de J6sus de M. Renan devant les orthodoxies et devant la critique. Paris, 1864, p. 34. 311. Fisher, George Park. The Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. Bibliotheca Sacra. Andover, 1864, April. Reprinted with additions in his Essays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity, New York, 1866, pp. 33-152. 312. Strauss, David Friedrich. Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. Leipzig, 1864. See pp. 62-80, 90-114, 137-145, 198-204, 358-368, 470- 486, 496-513, 547-559, 591-596. 313. Scholten, Johannes Heinrich. Het Evangelie naar Johannes. Leyden, (1864) 1865. Supplement in 1866. French translation by Reville, A., in the Revue de Theologie. Strasburg, 1864-1866. German translation by Lang, H., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Berlin, 1867. 314. Nicolas, Michel. Etudes critiques sur la Bible. • N. T., Paris, 1864, pp. 127-221. The gospel written by a pupil of John's — probably the chief elder of the Ephesian church, perhaps the presbyter John — towards the end of the first century. 315. Godet, Frederic. Commentaire sur l'Evangile de Saint Jean. Vol. i. Paris, (1863) 1864. „ ii. 1865. German translation by Wunderlich, E. R. Hannover, 1869. 316. Schenkel, Daniel. Das Charakterbild Jesu. Ein biblischer Versuch. Wiesbaden, 1864. Gospel of John, pp. 23-35, 348-364. 3d edit. pp. 17-26, 246-258. LITERATURE — 1864. 335 The gospel arose 110-120, under Johannean influence, and was coloured speculatively by the influence of the growing Gnosticism. 4th edit. 1873. 317. Aberle, Moriz. Beitrage zur nentestamentlichen Einleitung. I. Ein direktes Zeugniss des Papias fur das Johannisevangelium. Theologische Quartalschrift, 1864, i. p. 3 ff. According to a Latin citation, of the ninth century, from Papias, John dictated his gospel to Papias, against the Judaizing tendency of Cerintkus. Hilgenfeld, see below, 335, calls Aberle's criticism a ' mixed marriage of the most extreme conservatism and the most extreme partisan criticism (Tendenz-Kritik).' 318. Weizsaecker, C. H. von. Untersuchungen iiber die evangelische Geschichte ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung. Gotha, 1864. Gospel of John, I. iii. pp. 220-302. ' It may have been written by a pupil under his direction, or composed in the Church after his discourses or notes,' p. • 298. For review, see Hilgenfeld, below, 336. 319. Eeuss, E. Die Geschichte d. heil. Schriften d. N 1 . T. 4th edit. ; see above, 207. 320. Bonifas, J. Sur l'humanite de Jgsus-Christ selon l'Evangile de Saint Jean. Revue Chre'tienne (Bulletin ThMogique), Paris, 1864, December. 321. Lewis, Tayler. The Regula Fidei ; or the Gospel of John. American Fresby- terian and Tlieological Review, vol. ii. pp. 46-63. New York, 1864. 322. Recent Literature on the Gospels. British and Foreign Evan- gelical Review, 1864, January. 323. The Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. British and Foreign Evangelical Review, 1864, April. 336 APPENDIX. 1865. 324. Bisping, August. Exegetisches Handbucli zu den Evangelien und der Apostel- geschichte. Erkliirung des Evangeliums nacli Johannes. Minister, 1865. 325. Teschendorf, L. F. C. von. Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst 1 Leipzig, 1865. 4th edit. 1866. English translation : When were, our Gospels written f London, 1866 ; New York, 1867 ; see also below, 338. For Hilgenfeld's review, see below, 337. 326. Thenius, Otto. Das Evangelium der Evangelien. Ein offenes Sendschreiben an David Friedrich Strauss zu Heilbronn, in Beziehung auf dessen Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. Leipzig, 1865, pp. 70. A letter to David Friedrich Strauss, opposing him, and defending the genuineness and the historical character of the gospel of John. 327. Loman, A.D. Bijdragen ter Einleiding op de Johanneische Schriften des N. T. lste Stuk. Het getuigenis aangaande Johannes in het fragment van Muratori. Amsterdam, 1865. 328. Godet, Frd^ric. Examen des principales questions critiques soulevees de nos jours au sujet du quatrieme evangile. Paris, 1865, 8vo, ff. 3, pp. 96. Beprint of appendix to Commentary ; see above, 315. German translation : Prilfung der wichtigsten Streitfragen, u.s.w. Zurich, 1866. 329. Bow, Charles Adolphus. Historical Character of the Gospels tested, etc. Journal of Sacred Literature, 1865, October, and 1866, July. 330. Bayroux, E. H. (French dissertation on the Genuineness of John's Gospel, 1865.) 331. Zoeckler, Otto. Die Evangelien-Kritik, u.s.w. Darmstadt, 1865. See p. 33. LITERATURE — 1865-1866. 337 332. Modern Criticism on St. John's Gospel. London Quarterly Review (Wesleyan). London, 1865, July. 333. Ewald, Heinrich. Ueber die neuesten zweifel an der vollen achtheit des Johannes- evangeliums. Jahrbilcher der Biblischen wissenschaft (xii. 2), 1865, pp. 212-224. 334. Hase, K. A. Leben Jesu. 5th edit. ; see above, 93. 335. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Die neueste Tiibingische Tendenz-Kritik beleuchtet. Zeitschrift fur ivissenschaftliche Theologie (1864, pp. 425-448 on the synoptists), 1865, pp. 76-102. On and against Aberle ; see above, 317. 336. Hilgenfeld, A. Review of Weizsacker ; see above, 318. Zeitschrift fur wissen- schaftliche Theologie, 1865, pp. 196-212. 337. Hilgenfeld, A. Constantin Tischendorf als defensor fidei. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1865, pp. 329-343. ' I acknowledged long ago that Justin used the three first gospels, and I even granted the possibility of his having used John's gospel.' ' Yet the number four as that of the canoni- cal gospels is not laid down clearly and sharply in him,' p. 336. 1866. 338. Tischendorf, L. F. C. von. Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst 1 4th edit, much enlarged. Leipzig, 1866 ; see above, 325. English translation by Gage, W. L. : Origin of the Four Gospels. Boston, American Tract Society, 1868. This translation is atrocious. See Professor Ezra Abbot's pamphlet on Tischendorf, pp. 16, 17, footnote (reprinted from The Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine, March 1875). ' IT French translation : Quand est ce que nos Evangiles ont etes composes? ,2d edit. 1866. Reviewed by Clement, R, in Le Chretien Evangelique, Lausanne, 1868, pp. 193-199. Y 338 APPENDIX. 339. Fisher, George Park. Essays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity, chap. ii. The Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 33-152. New York, 1866. See above, 311. 340. Lang, Heinrich. Zeitstimmen der reformirten Kirche der Schweiz, 1866, Nr. 12. Against Godet. 341. Hase, Carl Alfred. Vom Evangelium des Johannis. Eine Rede an die Gemeinde. Leipzig, 1866. The gospel the product of the later mental development of the apostle, from the last ten years of the first century. 342. Grassart, Thorn. (French dissertation on the Genuineness of John's gospel.) 343. Steinmeyer, F. L. Die Wunderthaten des Herrn in Bezug auf die neueste Kritik. Berlin, vol. i. 1866 ; the raising of Lazarus, pp. 197-210. 344. Uhlhorn, Gerhard. Vortrage iiber die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. 3d edit. Hanover, 1866 ; lecture iii. pp. 69-103. English translation, Boston, 1868. 345. Riggeneach, Christoph Johannes. Die Zeugnisse fur das Evangelium Johannis neu untersucht. Nebst einem Anhang fiber die Mosaische Stiftshfitte. Acade- misches Programm. Basel, 1866. With reference to Volkmar. Reviewed by L. Th. in Le ChrStien Evangelique, Lausanne, 1867, pp. 228-229. 346. Zahn, Theodor. Papias von Hierapolis, seine geschichtliche Stellung, sein Werk und sein Zeugniss fiber die Evangelien. Studien und Kntiken, 1866, pp. 649-696. Papias, the disciple of the apostle John, knew the four canonical gospels. See addition below, 368. 347. Bleek, Friedrich. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 2d edit. — see above, 288 — pp. 141 ff., 179 ff., 296 ff. LITERATURE — 1866. 339 348. Volkmar, Gustav. Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien nach den Urkunclen, laut den neuern Entdeckungen und Verhandhmgen. Zurich, 18G6. Gospel of John (vii.), pp. 91-110. Against Teschendorf. 348a. S. T. B. The Gospel Question. I. The Fourth Gospel. Theological Review (London), April 1866, vol. hi. pp. 264-295. Against the genuineness. 349. Paul, Ludwig. Ueber die Zeit des Abendmahls nach Johannes. Studien unci Kritiken, 1866, pp. 362-374. John makes the last meal a passover, as the synoptists do. 350. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Ein Vademecum fiir Herrn Pfarrer Dr. Paul. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Tlieologie, 1866, pp. 118-122. Against Paul's article above. 351. Weiss, Bernhard. Review of Weizsacker, Untersuchungen ; see above, 318. Studien und Kritiken, 1866, p. 137 ff. HOLTZMAXX. 352. HOLTZMANN, Heinrich Julius. In Bunsen's Bibelwerk, vol. viii. 1866, p. 56 ff. Gives history of the criticism. 353. Reyille, Albert. La Question des Evangiles. First article, 'Revue de l)eux Mondes, 1866, May 1. 354. Pressense, Edmund de. Jesus Christ, son temps, sa vie, etc. 3d edit. Paris, 1866, pp. 2 1 4-251 . German translation : Jesus Christ, u.s.w., pp. 159-188. English translation, London, 1866. For the genuineness. 340 APPENDIX. 355. Sabati^, Louis Auguste. Essai sur les Sources de la Vie de Jesus, les trois premiers e>angiles et le quatrieme. Paris, 1866. Treats especially of John's gospel. For the genuineness. Reviewed by Bost, Jean Augustin, in Le Chretien Evangiligue, Lausanne, 1866, pp. 630, 631. 356. Mombert, Jacob Isidor. Origin of the Gospels. Bibliotheca Sacra. Andover, 1866, October. Against Strauss. Also marked Bib. Sacr. vols. xxii. pp. 353-384, xxiii. pp. 529-564. 357. Graf, E. The Authentic Features and especially the Portraitures of Character of the Fourth Gospel. Der Beweis des Glaubens. Gutersloh, 1866 (vol. i.), pp. 435-502. 358. Zoeckler, 0. On the Importance of Miracles in Nature and History. Ber Beiveis des Glaubens. Gutersloh, 1866 (vol. ii.), pp. 65-85. 359. De Groot, P. Hofstede. A Witness of the Longest-lived Apostle as the First Witness of the Books of the New Testament, together with other Witnesses thereon before the year 1 38. Waarheid in Liefde, p. 449 ff. 360. Ewald, Heinrich. Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1866, p. 913 ff. 361. Cramer, J. Is net 4de evangelie een historisch drama 1 Bijdragen op het gebled van godgeleerdheid en wijsbegierte. Deel i. Stuk 4, 1866. First article. See 363. 361a. Jonker, H. Het Evangelie van Johannes. Bedenkingen tegen Scholten's kritisch-historisch Onderzoek. First part about August 1866 ; second about December 1866. Perhaps dated 1867. 1867. 362. Overbeck, Franz. Ueber zwei neue Ansichten von Zeugnissen des Papias fiir die Apostelgeschichte und das vierte Evangelium. Zeitschrift fiir ivisse?ischaftliche Thcologie, 1867, pp. 35-74. LITERATURE — 1867. 341 Against Zahn's Papias von Hierapolis, see above, 346, and against Teschendorf's Wann wurden uns Ev. verfasst ? see above, 338. Holds that Zeller's Die dusseren Zeugnisse, etc. — see above, 151 — is still in the main untouched. 363. Cramer, J. Is het 4de evangelie een historisch drama ? Bijdragen op het gebied van godgeleerdheid en ivijsbegeerte. Rotterdam, 1867, p. 204 ff. Second article. See 361. 364. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Herr Dr. Biggenbach und das Johannis Evangelium. Zeit- schrift f'dr wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1867, pp. 179-197 (see p. 83 ff. against Teschendorf). 364a. Rompf. Examen des pretendus decouvertes de M. Tischendorf. Revue de TMologie, Strasburg, 1867, p. 1 ff. Attacks 338, above. 365. Tischendorf, L. F. C. von. L' Authenticity de nos quatre ^vangiles maintenue. Bulletin Theologique, Paris, 1867, pp. 214-230. Reply to 364a, above. 366. Keim, Theodor. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara in ihrer Verkettung mit dem Gesammtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausfuhrlich erzahlt. Bd. i. Der Eiisttag, Zurich, 1867. The gospel of John, pp. 103-172. The gospel written by a Jewish Christian, of Asia Minor probably, and published in the beginning of the second century under the name of the apostle John, p. 168. Gives the time as 110-115. John not in Ephesus at all. Reviewed by Ewald, H., Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, St. 41, 1867, Oct. pp. 1601-1616. 367. Stowe, Calvin Ellis. Origin and History of the Books of the Bible. Part II. The New Testament. Hartford, 1867. 368. Zahn, Theodor. Nachtragliche Bemerkungen zu dem Aufsatz iiber ' Papias von Hierapolis.' See above, 346. Studien und Kritihen, 1867, pp. 539-542. Against Hilgenfeld and Nolte ; written October 1866. 342 APPENDIX. 369. Tayler, John James. An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially in its Relation to the Three First. London, 1867. Tubingen School. The author was the presbyter John, who wrote it in the first half of the second century. 2d edit. 1870. See below, 371. 370. Milligan, William. The Easter Controversies of the Second Century in their Rela- tion to the Gospel of John. Contemporary Review, 1867, September. 371. Milligan, William. John the Presbyter. Journal of Sacred Literature, 1867, October. The presbyter and the apostle John identical. 372. Grau, Rudolf Friedrich. Ueber das eigenthiimliche Wesen des johanneischen Evange- liums und seine Bedeutung fur die Gegenwart. Ein Vortrag. Giitersloh, 1867. Reprint from the monthly Der Beiveis des Glaubens. 373. Hengstenberg, E. W. Das Evangelium des heil. Johannes, 2d edit. ; see above, 299. 374. Renan, Ernest. Vie de Jesus. 13th edit., revised and enlarged. Paris, 1867. See pp. x. ff., lviii. ff., and 477-541. The latter pages form an appendix : De l'usage qu'il convient de faire du quatrieme Evangile en 6crivant la vie de Jesus. Review : Weizsiicker, Jahrbilcher fur deutscJie Theologie, 1868, pp. 521-523. German 3d edit. : Das Leben Jem. Leipzig, 1870. See pp. 383-439. 375. RAUWENHOFF, Ludwig Wilhelm Ernst. Aanteekening over zekeren Theodotus door Prof. Hofstede de Groot aangevoerd als een getuige van de oudheid van het 4de evangelie uit het midden der 2de eeuw. TheoJogische Tijdschrift. Leiden, 1867, p. 338 f. LITERATURE — 18C7. 343 376. Tobler, Joliann Rudolf. Das Evangelium Johannis nach clem Grundtext (Codex Sinai- ticus) getreu wiedergegeben. Ein historisch-kritischer Ver- such. ScliafFhausen, 1867. Cuts out and puts together the alleged original. See his book above, 254. 377. Graf, E. Die authentischeu Ziige und insbesondere die Charaktergemalde des vierten Evangeliurus. Beiceis des Glanbens, 1867, Supple- ment (1). See above, 357. 378. Oosterzee, Johannes Jacobus van. Das Johannesevangelium. Four lectures. Against Scholten. German edition, 1867. English edition, see below, 416a. 379. SCHOLTEN, Johannes Heinrich. Die altesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des Xeuen Tes- taments, historisch untersucht (De oudste getuigenissen, etc.). Translated into German by ALa^chot, Carl. Bremen, 1867. Against the genuineness. Reviewed by (Ko.), in Zeitsckrift f. d. gesammte luther. Tlieoh u. Kir., 1869, p. 299 f. 380. Matthes, J. C. De ouderdom van het Johannes-evangelie, volgens de uitwendige getuigenissen. Leyden, 1867. Against the genuineness. Against Hofstede de Groot. Pages 127-139 on Justin. He closes thus : ' It is certain that John borrowed from Justin. The Logos gospel arose long after 147 A.D.' 381. Matthes, J. C. Lc'tlner theol. Zeitsckrift, p. 521 ff. 382. Neale, Edward Vansittart. The Doctrine of the Logos. Theological Review. London, October 1867, vol. iv. pp. 445-472. Against the genuineness. 383. Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Apologetische Vortrage iiber die Grundwahrheiten des Christenthums. Die Evangelien, pp. 210-225. 5th edit. Leipzig, 1867. 344 APPENDIX. 1868. 384. Abbot, Ezra. The Literature of the Gospel of John, in the American edition of Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. New York (part xiii., as issued 1868), pp. 1437-1439. See also, on page 1430 f. of the same work, a valuable note by the same author. The above literature, no less than the kindness of its author, has been a great help to the translator. 385. Fisher, George Park. Genuineness of the Gospel of John, in the American edition of Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. New York (part xiii., 1868), pp. 1431-1437. 385a. Higginson, Edward. On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Theological Review. London, April 1868, vol. v. pp. 189-205. 386. Was John the Author of the Fourth Gospel 1 By a Layman. London, 1868. 386a. Madge, Thomas. Eeasons for believing in the Genuineness of John's Gospel, with some notice of Rev. J. J. Tayler's publication on the Fourth Gospel. London, 1868. Tayler's book, see above, 369. 387. Row, Charles Adolphus. Jesus of the Evangelists : His Historical Character vindicated. London, 1868, pp. 223 ff., 391 ff. 388. Clark, James Freeman. The Fourth Gospel and its Author. Christian Examiner, 1868, January. 389. Spaeth, H. Nathanael, ein Beitrag zum Verstandniss der Composition des Logos-Evangeliums. Zcitschrift flir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1868, pp. 168-213 and 309-343. 'John, the disciple whom Jesus" loved, and Nathanael are one LITERATURE 18C8. 345 and the same person. So Nathanael is a name made up by the author. He meant by it to keep the voucher for his gospel half anonymous,' p. 177. See Leidner theol. Zeitschrift, 1868, p. 653. 390. Maerker, Uebereinstimmung der Evangelien des Mattheeus und Johannes. 1868. Apologetical. 391. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Das Johannes-Evangelium und die neuesten Schriften von Hofstede de Groot, Keim, und Scholten. Zeitschrift fur wissenscJiaftliche Theologie, 1868, pp. 213-231. 392. Hilgenfeld, A. Das Johannes-Evangelium nicht interpolirt. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1868, pp. 431-455. 393. Davidson, Samuel. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Critical, Exegetical, and Theological. London, 1868. Gospel of John, vol. ii. pp. 323-468. Against the genuineness. Disputes Justin's acquaintance with John's gospel, pp. 374-388. 393a. Tayler, John James. Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. Theological Review. London, July 1868, vol. v. pp. 373-401. Pp. 390-400 criticise Higginson ; see above, 385a. Against the genuineness. Signed ' J. J. T.' 394. Milligan, William. The Last Supper of the Lord, as related in the three earlier Evangelists and in St. John. Two articles. Contemporary Review, August and November 1868. 395. Diehl, J. C. 15 Nisan ook volgens Johannes de sterfdag van Jezus of prceve ter oplossing van het hoofdbezwaar tegen de echtheid van het vierde evangelic Tiel, 1868. Eeviewed by Kuener, A, Theologische Tijdschrift, 1869, p. 267. 346 APPENDIX. 396. Grau, Kudolf Friedrich. Zur Einfiihrung in das Schriftthum neuen Testamentes. Stuttgart, 1868, pp. 183-234. On the peculiar nature of John's gospel, etc. 397. Stemler, G. W. Het Evangelie van Johannes. Zijne Echtheid, zijn historisch Karakter en Leerbegrip. 2 din. Amsterdam, 1868. For the genuineness. 398. Deramey, J. P. Defense du quatrieme eVangile, e"tude historique et critique de l'evangile selon St. Jean. Paris, 1868. For the genuineness. 399. De Groot, P. Hofstede. Basilides am Ausgange des apostolischen Zeitalters als erster Zeuge fur Alter und Autoritat neutestamentlicher Schriften. Insbesondere des Johannesevangeliums in Verbindung mit andern Zeugen bis zur Mitte des zweiten Jahrhunderts. (1867.) German edition, Leipzig, 1868. For the genuineness. 400. Steitz, Georg Eduard. Die Tradition von der Wirksamkeit des Apostels Johannes in Ephesus. Studlen und Kritiken, 1868, p. 487 ff. 401. Keim, Theodor. Der Apostel Kleinasiens. Protestantische Kirchen-Zeihmg, 1868, Nr. 23, p. 535 ff. Against Steitz. 402. Biggenbach, Christoph Johannes. Johannes der Apostel und der Presbyter. Jahrhilcher fur deutsche Theologie, 1868, pp. 319-334. The presbyter and the apostle John identical. 403. Braun, Eugen. Jesus von Nazareth. Nach Richard's von der Aim theolo- gischen Briefen an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation. Leipzig, 186S. LITERATURE — 1868. 347 John's gospel, pp. 20-22. Greek too good ; spirit too Pauline ; Jesus too unlike synoptic one ; laid in different region from synoptic account : hence written, not by com- panion of Jesus, but ' by an unknown Christian teacher of Greek descent in Asia Minor, about 150 A.D.,' pp. 20, 21. 404. Ebrard, J. H. A. Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 3d edit. 1868, pp. 1114-1226. See above, 134. 405. Guericke, H. E. F. Neutestamentliche Isagogik, 3d edit. 1868, pp. 188-225. See above, 140. 406. Weizsaecker, Carl Heinrich von. Review of Volkmar, Ursprung, etc., see above, 348. Riggenbach, Zevgnisse, „ 345. Scholten, Evang. n. Joh., ,, 313. Keim, Gesch. Jem v. N., „ 366. Kenan, Vie de JSsus, 13th ed. ,, 374. De Groot, Basilides, etc., ,, 399. Jahrblicher fiir deutsche Theologie, 1868, pp. 510-526. 407. Lange, J. P. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Bibel-Werk, 4ter TheiL 3d edit. 1868. See above, 274. 408. Langen, Joseph. Grundriss der Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1868. Gospel of John, I. v. §§ 28-34, pp. 60-83. 409. Wittichen, Carl. Der geschichtliche Charakter des Evangeliums Johannis in Verbindung mit der Frage nach seinem Ursprunge. Eine kritische Untersuchung. Elberfeld, 1868 (paper cover dated 1869). This gospel written by the apostle John, between 70 and 80, in Syria, p. 96. Written against the Ebionists, p. 99. The presbyter John wrote the Revelation, p. 112. The apostle John was not in Ephesus, but the presbyter was, p. 103. See below, Pfleiderer, 411 ; and Weizsacker, 437. ic. Commentar zu dem Evangelium Johannis. German edit, translated by Wunderlich, E. R, Hannover, 1869; see above, 315. 417a. Eowland, David. The Evidence from Tradition and from the Fathers applied in Support of the Apostolic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. London, 1869, 8vo, ff. 2, p. 58. Unimportant. 1870. 418. HlLGENFELD, Adolf. Die neuesten Leistungen in der Evangelien Forschung. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftllche Theologie, 1870, pp. 151-188. The time of the passion according to John, p. 167 ff. John's gospel and the passover controversy, p. 171 ff. 419. HlLGENFELD, A. Der Gnosticismus und das Neue Testament. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1870, pp. 233-275, especially 263 ff. John's gospel written between 135-140 in Asia Minor, under the positive influence of the dualistic Gnosticism. 420. Orr, James. The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel deduced from Internal Evidence. London, 1870. 421. Stroehlin, Le Montanisme. Against the residence at Ephesus. 422. Eenan, Ernest. Das Leben Jesu. 3d German edit. Leipzig, 1870. See pp. 383-439. An appendix on the fourth gospel makes the account his- 350 APPENDIX. torical and the discourses not historical. About the same as Weizsacker (see above, 406), but independent of him. 423. "Wolff, Max. Das Evangelium Johannis in seiner Bedeutung fur Wissen- schaft und Glauben. 1870. Against the genuineness. 424. Schuerer, Emil. Die Passahstreitigkeiten des 2. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift f. d. historisch Tlieologie, 1870, pp. 182-284. 424a. Kirchner, Moritz. Die judische Passahfeier und Jesu letztes Mahl. . . . Abhand- lung zum Programm des Konigl. Gymnasiums und der Eealschule zu Duisburg, Herbst 1870. Gotha, 1870. The last supper was the passover in John as well as in the synoptists, and the gospels agree. 425. Leathes, Stanley. The Witness of St. John to Christ. 1870. 426. Davidson, Samuel. Irenajus, Polycarp, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patri- archs, in relation to the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel and its Advocates. TMological Review. London, July 1870, vol. vii. pp. 297-331. Against the genuineness. 426a. Tayler, J. J. An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, etc. 2d edit. London, 1870 ; see above, 369. 427. Gess, Wolfgang Friedrich. Christi Person und Werk nach Christ! Selbstzeugniss und den Zeugnissen der Apostel. [Old book wrought over.] lte Abtheilung. Basel, 1870. John's gospel, pp. 299-338. For the genuineness. American edit, of the original work, translated by Eetjbelt, J. A, The Scripture Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Andover, 1870. LITERATURE — 1871. 351 428. Cassel, Paulus. Das Evangelium der Sohne Zebedai (das vierte Evangelium). Eine Abhandlung. Berlin, 1870. An essay packed with all manner of learned references. The author thinks that this gospel was the product of the two brothers James and John. The first twenty chapters are based on sketches by James, p. 51. John wrote the twenty-first chapter long after, p. 54. 429. Pfeiffer, K. Ueber die Johanneischen Schriften mit besonderen Beziehung auf die Frage nach dem Verfasser. Vier Vortrage. St. Gallen, 1870. For the genuineness. 430. Tobler, Johannes Rudolf. Grundziige der evangelischen Geschichte dargestellt. Zurich, 1870. On pp. 35-49 is an appendix : ' An attempt to restore the remains of the original book, which are still preserved in our fourth gospel.' A specimen of what some would make of the gospel. Tobler finds in the rubbage of the 866 verses (Tischendorf : Eng. Version, has 879) of the fourth gospel just 81 verses and bits of verses from the original book. These he gives in the Greek Sinaitic text, because he cannot get the Hebrew, which was still more thoroughly original. What that original book was he does not know. Perhaps something from John, perhaps not ; perhaps a fragment of the old gospels of the Hebrews ; perhaps a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaroa ; or perhaps any- thing else you please to call it. He quotes on p. 35, but neglects, the advice of a critic, that he should turn his mind 'to some object less valuable than the Scriptures.' 431. Geschwind, Theohgische Studien, pp. 46-112. Das Evangelium Johannis in seiner historischen Beglaubigung. Treats of the external testimony. For the genuineness. 1871. 432. Hoenig, Wilhelm. Die Construction des vierten Evangeliums. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1871, pp. 535-566. It is altogether ruled, and each thing is determined, h priori, by a plan with the number three, and so it is not historical. 352 APPENDIX. 433. Heinpjci, Georg. Die valentinianisclie Gnosis und die heilige Schrift. Eine Studie. Berlin, 1871. Reviewed by Holtziuann, H. J., Zeitschrift fur wissen- schaftliche Theologie, 1872, pp. 149-154. 434. Krenkel, Max. Der Apostel Johannes. Berlin, 1871. Appendix, p. 113 ff. The Eevelation written by John, the gospel not. ' The Revelation the only, and therefore the most valuable, written monument of Jewish Christianity proceeding from the circle of Jesus' immediate disciples,' p. 130. Chapter xxi. was not written before 180, p. 5. Holds, against Keim, that the apostle John did reside at Ephesus, pp. 133-178. 435. Lang, Heinrich. Zeitstimmen der reformirten Kirche der Schweiz, 1871, Nr. 24. 436. Scholten, J. H. Het Apostel Johannes in Klein- Asie. Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek. Ley den, 1871. German translation : Spiegel, Bernhard. Berlin, 1872. John not in Asia Minor, and did not write the Revelation. The gospel is anti-Johannean. See addition below, -149. 437. Weizsaecker, Carl Heinrich von. Favourable review of Wittichen ; see above, 409. Jahrbilcher fur deutsche Theologie, 1871, p. 563 f. 438. Weizsaecker, C. H. von. Reviews of Burger, d. Evang. nach Joh., 1868; Meyer, 5th edit., Ev. Joh., 1869 ; Baggesen, d. Apost. Joh., 1869. Jahr- bucherfur deutsche Theologie, 1871, pp. 733-736. 439. Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Barnabas und Johannes. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliclie Theologie, 1871, pp. 336-351. ' The point is not to own that Barnabas failed to use John, but to explain this fact by the circumstance that John was written about 90-100, and Barnabas about 80.' 410. Wittichen, Carl. Protestantische Kirchen-Zeituvg, 1871, p. 795 f. LITERATURE 1872. 353 441. Milligan, William. The Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse. Two articles. Contemporary Review, August and September 1871. 442. Milligan, William. Symbolism of St. John's Gospel. British and Foreign Evangelical Review, October 1871. 443. Ziegler, Heinrich. Irenseus der Bischof von Lyon. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungs- geschichte der alt-Katholischen Kirche. Berlin, 1871 Against the residence at Ephesus. 443«. Fueller, J. L. Die Glaubwiirdigkeit der evangelisehen Geschichte. Basel, 1871. John's gospel and the synoptists compared, pp. 195-207. 444. Hutton, Eichard Holt. The Historical Problems of the Fourth Gospel. Essays, Theo- logical and Literary. London, 1871, vol. i. essay vi. pp. 144-226. Defends elaborately and ably, against Baur, the historical credibility of the fourth gospel. 445. Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Johannes der Apostel ; also, Johannes der Presbyter. Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, vol. iii. 1871, pp. 328-342 and 352-360. 446. Vigelius, Petrus Franciscus. Historisch Kritisch Onderzoek naar den Schrijver van Joh. xxi. Ley den, 1871. The evangelist wrote chapter xxi., but the gospel is sub-apostolic. 1872. 447. Schaff, Philip. Lange's Commentary on the Gospel according to John, trans- lated into English, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff. New York, 1872. This is nearly twice as large as the original work. On genuineness of the gospel, see the special introduction, pp. i.-xiv. ; also Lange's chapter thereon, much enlarged and Z 354 APPENDIX. supplemented with reference to all the latest attacks. Dr. Schaff adds Schwab's epigram against the Tubingen hypo- thesis on the origin of the gospel : — ' Hat dieses Buch, das ewige Wahrheit ist, Ein liigenschwanger Gnostiker geschrieben, Denn hat Jahrtauseud lange Jesus Christ Den Teufel durch Beelzebub vertrieben.' (' If this book, which is eternal truth, was written by a deceit-conceiving Gnostic, then Jesus Christ, for a thousand years, has cast out Satan by Beelzebub.') 448. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Petrus in Bom und Johannes in Kleinasien. Zeitschrift fur wissensdiaftUche Tkeologie, 1872, pp. 349-383. Against Scholten, d. Apost. Joh. in Kleinas. ; see above, 436. The apostle John was in Asia Minor, at Ephesus, and wrote the Revelation, p. 383. 449. Scholten, J. H. Naschrift ob de Verhandeling over Johannes in Klein-Asie. Theologische Tijdschrift, 1872, pp. 325-330. This was added to the German translation of this year ; see Scholten above, 436. It was a reply to Hilgenfeld's criticism ; see above, 448. 450. Meyer, H. Les discours du quatrieme Evangile, sont-ils des discours historique de J6sus 1 Etude critique. . . . These pour la licence presentee k la Faculte de Theologie de Montauban. LaRochelle, 1872. 451. Weingarten, Hermann. Hertwig's Tabellen zur Einleitung ins Neue Testament, 4te in der Literatur ergiinzte und zum Theil umgeanderte Ausgabe. Berlin, 1872. John's gospel, pp. 32-35. ' It is much more likely that the presbyter John at Ephesus is only a legendary character of Papias',' p. 34. 452. Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel. London, 1872. For the genuineness. 453. On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, with especial refer- ence to the Objections recently urged against its Johannine Origin. Brit. Quar. Rev., 1872, October, pp. 408-413. Able. LITERATURE — 1873. 355 453a. Kosenius, M. G. Inlednings-vetenskopen till den lieliga Skrift, etc. Lund, 1872. John's gospel, pp. 256-2G6 ; see also pp. 266-278. 454. Holtzmann, Heinricli Julius. Prote slant ische Kirchen-Zeitung, 1872, Nr. 1-3, 16. 455. Holtzmann, Heinricli Julius. Kritik der Epheser und Colosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse ikres Verwandschaftsverhaltnisses. Leipzig, 1872. See the present work of Professor Luthardt, pp. 119 f, 127 f., above. 456. Holtzmann, H. J. Nathanael. Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, vol. iv. 1872, pp. 294-297. Nathanael seems to be a symbol for Paulinism. 1873. 457. HlLGENFELD, Adolf. Noch einmal Johannes in Kleinasien. Zeitschrift fur wissen- schaftliche Theologk, 1873, pp. 102-111. Answer to Scholten's reply to the article of 1872; see Scholten and Hilgenfeld above, 449, 448. 458. 0. L. Nathanael. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Tlwologie, 1873, pp. 96-102. Nathanael stands for the later Paul. 459. Leuschner, C. Das Evangelium St. Johannis und seine neuesten Widersacher, Vorwort von Dr. Heinrich Eduard Schmieder. Halle, 1873, 8vo, pp. vi. 136. Against Keim and Scholten. 460. Keim, Theodor. Geschichte Jesu nach dem Ergebnisse heutiger Wissenschaft iibersichtlich erzahlt. Gospel of John, pp. 39-45. This gospel was probably written about 130, p. 41. 2d ed. 1875 ; see pp. 377-389. 356 APPENDIX. 460a. Pieritz, George Wildon. The Gospels from the Rabbinical Point of View ; showing the Perfect Harmony between the Four Evangelists on the subject of the Lord's Last Supper. Oxford and London, 1873. 461. Schmidtborn, Ernst. Ueber die Authentie des Johannes Evangeliums. Inaugural Dissertation der philosophischen Facultat zu Jena zur Erlangung der Doctorwiirde. Jena, 1873. Unimportant. Against the genuineness. 1874. 462. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Herakleons angebliches Zeugniss fur des Apostels Johannes Martyrium. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1874, pp. 121-123. Against the alleged martyrdom (thus Keim), and for John's residence at Ephesus. 463. Martineau, James. The Protestant Theory of Authority. Old and New. Boston, 1874, June, July, August; vol. ix. pp. 713-726; vol. x. pp. 47-58, 201-222. The two last articles oppose the genuineness of the fourth gospel on external and internal grounds. 464. Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Die Eigenthiimlichkeit der vier Evangelien. Leipzig, 1874. Popular Lecture. Origin of John's gospel, see p. 1 9. 465. Eeuss, Eduard. Die Geschichte d. heil. Schr. des Neuen Testaments. 5th edit. Braunschweig, 1874; see above, 207. Gospel and epistles of John, 1st part, §§ 213-229, pp. 217-238. Valuable literature. Reviewed by Langen, Joseph : Theologisches Literaturblatt (Reusch), Bonn, 1875, 1st January, No. 1, pp. 1-3. 466. Supernatural Religion. An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation. London, 1874. LITERATURE — 1874, 357 On John's gospel, vol. ii. pp. 251-476. 'We have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence during a century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth gospel that it was composed by the son of Zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the strongest reason for believing that he did not write it,' p. 474. 5th edit. vol. ii. pp. 251-492. 6th edit, revised, with 80 pp. of new preface. 466a. Beke, Charles Tilson. Jesus the Messiah ; being an Answer anticipatory to the work Supernatural Religion. London, 1874. The fourth gospel a conscious legend or fiction. 467. Weiffenbach, Wilhelm. Das Papias-Fragment bei Eusebius H. E. III. xxxix. 3-4 eingehend exegetisch untersucht. Giessen, 1874. ' Extremely improbable that Papias believed in the composi- tion of the fourth gospel by the apostle John, and in the residence of the son of Zebedee in Asia Minor,' p. 143. Eeviewed by Lipsius, Jenaer Literahir-Zeitung, 1874, Nr. 38, p. 585 f. ; CentralUatt, No. 5 (1875?) : by Ewald, Gdtting. Gelehrte Ameigen, 5 (1875 1) : by Loman, Theologisch Tijd- schrift, Leiden, 1875, pp. 125-154. 468. Beyschlag, Willibald. Zur Johanneischen Frage. Erster Artikel. Studien und Kritiken, 1874, Heft 4, pp. 607-723. Refutes the statements of the anti-John critics. See below, 481. 469. Leathes, Stanley. The Religion of the Christ ; its Historic and Literary Develop- ment considered as an Evidence of its Origin. London, 1874. The fifth topic is 'The Christ of the Gospels.' 470. Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Der johanneische Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums. Leipzig, 1874. The German edition of the work in hand. Reviewed by Staehlin, Adolf, in Der Beweis des Glauhens, Giitersloh, 1875, February, pp. 96-99; Saturday Review, 15th May 1875, p. 638 ; Riggenbach, Kirchenfreund, 1875, No. 3, pp. 38-42 ; see below, 471, 487. English edit. Edinburgh, 1875 (the present work). 358 APPENDIX. 471. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Review of Luthardt, Der joh. Urspr. d. Hen Ev. ; see 470. Jenaer Liter aturzeitung, 1874, Nr. 49, December 5, (724) pp. 771, 772. For the genuineness. 472. Farrar, Frederic William. The Life of Christ. 10th edition. London, 1874. See Excursus x. vol. ii. pp. 474-483, on the passover ques- tion. Review, see below, 476 ; also The Quarterly Review, January, 1875, pp. 177-206. 473. Hausrath, August. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Theil hi. Die Zeit der Martyrer und das nachapostolische Zeitalter. Heidelberg, 1874. On origin of John's gospel, see pp. 565-625. See also review of this by Holtzmann, Jenaer Literatur- zeitung, 1874, Nr. 49, 5th December, p. 769. 474. Kahnis, K. F. A. Dogmatik, 2d edit. 1874; see above, 280. See vol. i. pp. 165-172. 'We must with certainty declare John the author of the fourth gospel,' p. 170. 475. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. (Against the book Supernatural Religion ; see above, 466.) Contemporary Review, December, 1874. Perhaps too cutting. 476. Westminster Review, 1874, October, pp. 515-518. Review of Farrar's Life of Christ. Unfavourable ; against the genuineness of the fourth gospel. In a short reference to Gardiner's Life of Christ, on page 525 of the same review, the writer says of the fourth gospel, that ' nothing can justify its use as an authority of equal value with the synoptical gospel.' 1875. 477. (By the Author of Supernatural Religion.) A Reply to Professor Lightfoot's Article on Supernatural Religion; see above, 475. The Fortnightly Review, 1875, January 1, pp. 1-26. In reference to and against the genuineness of the fourth gospel. LITERATURE 1875. 359 478. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. (Second article against Supernatural Religion, see above, 475.) Contemporary Review, January 1875, pp. 169-188. 479. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig, 1875. John's gospel, pp. 695-739. "Was written before 140 and after 132, p. 738. 480. Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Hernias und Johannes. Zeitschriftfur wissenschaftlicke Theologie, 1875, pp. 40-51. John was later than Hennas, and worked up points made by Hermas. This is partly against the German edition of the work in hand. 481. Beyschlag, AVillibald. Zur Johanneischen Frage, 2ter Artikel ; see above, 468. Studien unci Kritiken, 1875, pp. 235-287. Answers objections of anti-John critics, dwelling chiefly on the alleged philosophical character of the gospel, and on the question of miracles. 482. F. B. C. The Literary Character of the Fourth Gospel. Frazer's Maga- zine, 1875, March ; N. S. xi. pp. 373-383. 483. Bleek, Friedrich. Einleitung in das Xeue Testament. See above, 288. 3d edit, by Mangold, Wilhelm (Professor at Bonn). Berlin, 1875. 484. Arnold, Matthew. Review of Objections to Literature and Dogma, IV. Contem- porary Review, 1875, March. 485. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Papias von Hierapolis. Zeitschriftfur wissenschaftlicke Theologie, 1875, pp. 231-270. ' Glancing back at the real Papias, we see that he did indeed when young hear the apostle John, but that, when he wrote his book, he knew nothing, or would not know anything, of a gospel of John,' p. 270. 486. Grimm, Karl Ludwig Wilibald. Ueber Evangelium Joh. xxi. 22 f. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaft liche Theologie, 1875, pp. 270-278. 360 APFENDIX. 487. Langen, Joseph. Das Johannes Evangelium. Theologisches Literatur-Blatt (Keusch), Bonn, 1875, No. 5, 28th February, pp. 97-99. Review of Luthardt, see above, 470, and Weiffenbach, see above, 467. 488. Beyschlag, Willibald. Zur Johanneischen Frage, Zweiter Artikel (Schluss). Studien und Kritiken, 1875, pp. 413-479 ; see above, 481. 489. Loman, A. D. Het Getuigenis van Papias over Schrift en Overlevering. Theologisch Tijdschrift. Leyden, 1875, pp. 125-154. On Weiffenbach, see above, 467. Pp. 153, 154 are an appendix written after receiving Hilgenfeld's Einleitung, see above, 479. 490. Mansel, Henry Longueville. The G-nostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries. Edited by J. B. Lightfoot. London, 1875. See lecture v. pp. 64-78, especially 74-76. St. Jobn's gospel written to refute Cerinthus and other Gnostics. Lecture viii. pp. 110-138, Cerinthus opposed by St. John. 491. Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Das johanneische Evangelium, etc. See above, 203. 2d edit. vol. i. Nuremberg, 1875. A summary of the present work given, pp. 223-250. EECEIVED TOO LATE FOR LIST AND INDEX. M'Clellan, John Brown, The New Testament, etc., London, 1875, pp. 473— 494, passov. quest. Westcott, Critical Scepticism, The Ex])ositor, March 1875, i. 211-237 ; see pp. 220-230. Dubl. Rev. May 1875, pp. 357-411, against 466, above. Hill, T. L., Fraz. Mag. May 1875 ; N. S. xi. 666 note, against 482, above. Cont. Rev. May 1875, Lightfoot (wrote in an earlier number on the ' Ignatian Epistles ' ?) on Polycarp, and Arnold. Matthew, on John Question. Edersheim, Alfred, Fraz. Mag. June 1875 ; N.S. xi. pp. 764-773, against 482, above: p. 802 of same number, note from 'F. R. C. ' answering Hill's criticism in May No. Holtzmann, H. J., Rev. of 470, above, Ztschr. f. wiss. Th. 1875, pp. 442-452. (Thoma, Albrecht, Justins literarisch.es Verhalt- niss zu Paulus und zum Johannes Evangelium, Ibid. pp. 383-412, Paul not apostle in Justin's eyes.) Hilgenfeld, A., liev. of 2d ed. of 460, above, Ibid. pp. 452-463 (464). Fraz. Mag. 1875, July, The Debate as to the Fourth Gospel. Guericke, Rev. of 470, above, Ztschr. f. d. ges. luth. Theol. u. Kir. 1875 up. 709, 710. INDICES. I— INDEX TO LITEEATUEE. Abbot, 3S4. Aberle, 283. 308. 317. Agardb, 236a. Amnion, 41. Arnold, 484. Astie, 309. Ballenstedt, 42. Bauer, Bruno, 129. 135. 179. Baumgarten - Crusius, 143. Baumlein, 307. Baur, F. C, 146. 161. 162. 164. 170. 171. 187. 215. 218. 227. 242. 244. 256. 265. 267. 271. 295. Beke, 466a. Bengel, 67. Bertboldt, 30. 44. Beyschlag, 468. 481. Bindemann, 137. Bisping, 324. Bleek, 156. 288. 483. Bolten, 8. Bonifas, 320. Borger, 46. Bost, 355. Braun, 403. Bretschneider, 54. 347. 76. British and Foreign Evan- gelical Review, 322. 323. British Quarterly Re- view, 453. Bruckner. 200. 300. Busken-Huet, 2416. Buttmann, 275. 287. Calmberg, 71. Cassel, 428. 'Chretien, Un,' 308a. Clark, 388. Clausen, 231 6. Cludius, 35. Colani, 192a. Cramer, 361. 363. Credner, 104. 270. Crome, 78. 95. Da Costa, 211. Davidson, 393. 426. De Groot, 108. 303. 359. 399. Delitzsch, 213. 415. Deramey, 398. De Wette, 81. 107. 174. 269. Dieffenbach, 48. Diehl, 395. Ebrard, 134. 150. 184. 235. 281. 404. Eckermann, 4. 5. 34. Eichhorn, 38. 56. Eiehthal, 302. Eiriksson, 302c. Erlanger Literaturzei- tung, 17. Evanson, 1. 3a. Ewald, 194. -210. 236. 266. 285. 333. 360. Falconer, 41a. Farrar, 472. Feilmoser, 39. 96. Fischer, 90. 126. Fisher, 311. 339. 385. Fleck, 98. F. R. C, 482. Freytag, 282. 305. Frommann, 115. 119. Froster, 92. Fuller, 443a. Gage, 338. Geisse, 73. Geschwind, 431. Gess, 427. Gfrorer, 111. Gieseler, 51. Glaire, 133. 149. Glaser, 32. Godet, 315. 328. 417. Goldhom, 75. Graf, 357. 377. Gras, 192. Grassart, 342. Gratz, 45. Grau, 372. 396. Grimm, 141. 163. 177. 188. 462. 471. 486. Ouc-ricke, 91. 99. 140. 223. 405. Haenlein, 20. 37. Halfeld, 36. Hartmann, 25a. Hase, C. A., 93. 102. 122. 217. 226. 334. Hase, C. A. (son), 341. Hasert, 153. Hauff, 97. 157. 178a. Hausrath, 473. Heinrici, 433. Hemsen, 72. Hengstenberg, 299. 373. Herder, 9. Heydenreich, 86. Higginson, 385a. Hilgenfeld,175. 176. 182. 183. 204. 222. 228. 245. 255. 260. 261. 273. 277. 278. 279. 286. 292. 293. 335. 336. 337. 350. 364. 391. 392. 418. 419. 448. 457. 479. 485. Hocede, 219. Holtzmann, 352. 410. 413. 439. 445. 454. 455. 456. 480. Honig, 432. Horst, 24. 25. Hug, 36. 82. 125. 168. Hurst, 416a. Hutton, 444. Jachmann, 117. Jacobi, 212. Jevon, 409a. Jonker, 361a. Jour, fur theol. Lit. 21. Kahnis, 280. 474. Kaiser, 65. Kayser, 1926. 241a. Keim, 366. 401. 460. Kern, 113. Kirchner, 424a. Klee, 94. Kling, 160. Knos, 302a. 3026. Koessing, 252. Kbstlin, 142. 186. 188a. 302 INDEX TO LITERATURE. Krabbe, 118. Krenkel, 434. Kuinoel, 49a. 79. Lang, 340. 435. Lange, J. P., 112. 116. 274. 284. 407. Lange, 0. P., 116. Lange, S. G., 7. Langen, 408. 465. 487. ' Layman, By a, ' 386. Leathes, 425. 469. Lechler, 240. Leipziger Literaturzei- tung, 62. Leuschner, 459. Lewis, 321. Lightfoot, 475. 478. Lipsius, 414. Loman, 327, 489. London Quarterly Re- view, 332. Liieke, 58. 101. 124. Luthardt, 203. 237. 383. 464. 470. 491. Liitzelberger, 130. Mackay, 301. Madge, 386a. Maier, 144. 205. Manchot, 379. Mangold, 483. Mansel, 490. Marker, 390. Martineau, 306. 463. Matthes, 380. 381. Mayer, 221. Merens, 201. Merz, 148. Meyboom, 297. Meyer, H., 450. Meyer, H. A. W., 241. 412. Milligan, 370. 371. 394. 441. 442. Moller, 47. Mombert, 356. National Review, 246. Neale, 382. Neander, 106. 202. Neudecker, 128. Nicolas, 314. Niermeyer, A., 180, 181. 189. 190. 196. 197. 198. Noldeke, 29. Nolte, 291. Norton, 109. 158. O. L., 458. Olshausen, 74. 100a. Oosterzee, 298. 378. Orr, 420. Overbeck, 362. Pare, 87. Pareau, 166. Paul, 349. Paulus, 43. 63. Pfeiffer, 429. Pfitzenmeyer, 167. Pfleiderer, 411. Philospbotos Alethias, 153. Pieritz, 460a. Pressense, 354. Priestley, 2. Rauch, 100. 185. Rauwenhoff, 375. Rayroux, 330. Reinecke, 84. Reithmayr, 206. Renan, 374, 422. Rettberg, 80. Rettig, 77. Reubelt, 427. Reuss, E., 127. 207. 319. 465. Reuss, G. J. L., 77a. Reuterdabl, 83. Reville, 224a. 239a. 310. 353. Revue Chretienne, 304. Riemens, 416. Riggenbach, 345. 402. Ritschl, 191. 243. Ritter, 22a. Robinson, 155. Rohr, 59. Rosenius, 453a. Row, 329. 387. Rowland, 41 7a. Riickert, 131a. Rumpf, 364a. Russwurm, 13. 22. Sabatie, 355. Sanday, 452. Sartorius, 64. ' Saxon Anonymus, Tbe, ' 153. Schaif, 447. Scbarling, 147. Scbenkel, 123. 316. Seherer, 231a. Schleiermaclier, 154. Schleker, 18. Schmidt, 10. 12. 28. 50. Schmidtborn, 461. Schneider, 224. Schnitzer, 138. 139. Scbolten, 225. 225a. 232. 239.313.379.436.449. Schott, 55. 89. Schiirer, 424. Schwalb, 296. Schwegler, 132. 136. 159. Schweizer, 131. Semisch, 173. Seyffarth, 70. Simpson, 3. Slotemaker, 234. Spath, 389. Spiegel, 436. Staudlin, 14. S. T. B., 348a. Stein, 66. Steinmeyer, 343. Steitz, 238. 247. 248. 262. 263. 264. 276. 400. Stemler, 397. Storr, 11. 40. Stowe, 193. 367. Strauss, 103. 110. 120. 121. 149a. 294. 312. Strohlin, 421. Stronck, 6. Stuffken, 119a. 'Supernatural Religion,' 466. 477. Siiskind, 15. 23. 26. 27. Tayler, 369. 393a. 426a. Thenius, 145. 326. Theologische Quartal- schrift, 60. Thiersch, 152. 161a. 199. Tholuck, 85. 105. 250. Tiele, 209. 230. Tischendorf, 325. 338. 365. Tittmann, 49. Tobler, 254. 268. 376. 430. Troost, 208. Trottet, 192c. Uhlhorn, 257. 258. 344. Usteri, 68. Van Griethuysen, 33. Vigelius, 446. Viguie, 172. Vogel, 16. Volkmar, Gustav, 1 95. 214. 220. 249. 253. 272. 348. Wachler, 57. Wagnitz, 61. Weber, 69. Wegscheider, 31. Weiffenbach, 467. Weingarten, 451. INDEX OF TEXTS CITED. 363 Weiss, 289. 351. Wieseler, 144a. 168a. Zeller, 151. 165. 216 Weisse, 105a. 114. 231. Winer, 53. 229. 233. Wittichen, 409. 440. Ziegler, H., 443. "Weitzel, 169. 178. Wolff, 423. Ziegler, W. K. L. , 13 Weizsacker, 251. 259. Wunderlich, 315. 417. 19. 290. 318. 406. 437. Wurm, 52. Zockler, 331. 358. 438. Zbllig, 64a. Westminster Keview, 476. Zahn, 346. 368. II— INDEX OF TEXTS CITED. OLD TESTAMENT. PSALMS. xli. 10 (9), lxxxii. 6, . Isaiah. vi. 9 f., vi. 10, xxi. 3, PAGE 169 65 221 168 168 Isaiah — continued. xli. 18, liii. 7, Jeremiah. ii. 8, EZEKIEL. xxxiv. 7, . PAGE 168 217 168 168 PAOB 168 Hosea. xiii. 13, Zechariah. xi. 5, . . 168 xii. 10, . 169, 267 xii. 10-12, . 61 NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew. Matthew — continued. Matth ew— continued. PAGE page PAGE iii. 3, . . 199 xi. 28 f., . 232, 241 xx. 23, 30, 240 iii. 11, . 198, 199 xii. 6, 8, . 241 xxi. 4 ff., . 240 iii. 16, 17, . 199 xii. 25 ff., 227 xxi. 23 ff, 237 iv. 19, . . 238 xii. 41, 42, 241 xxi. 25 f., 215 iv. 21 f., . . 3 xii. 46 ff., 228 xxi. 42 f., 228 v. 6, . . 232 xiii. 11 ff., 221 xxii. 2, 241 y. 11, . . 238 xiii. 13 ff, 190 xxii. 41 ff, 241 v. 12, . . 245 xiii. 16f., 24 ff. 241 xxii. 42 ff, 240 v. 13 f., 17, . 241 xiii. 34 f., 227 xxiii. 13 ff. , 228, 240 v. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, xiii. 36 ff, 241 xxiii. 34, . 240 44, . . 238 xiii. 38, . 190 xxiii. 37, . 206 vi. 2, 5, . . 239 xiii. 57, 232 xxv. 31 ff., 40, i 5, 240 vii. 21, 23, 24 ff., 239 xiv. 26, . 204 xxvi. 6, 202 viii. 1-4, . . 202 xiv. 27, 232 xxvi. 11, . 233 ix. of., . . 232 xvi. 9ff, . 219 xxvi. 12, . 232 ix. 9, . . 184 xvi. 15 f., . 219 xxvi. 13, . 207 ix. 15, . . 241 xvi. 16, . 216 xxvi. 17 f., 164 x. 15 f., 18, 22 f., 239 xvi. 19, . 235 xxvi. 20 ff, 240 x. 22, . . 234 xvi. 23, . 219 xxvi. 21, . 233 x. 24, . . 233 xvi. 25, 233 xxvi. 31, 34, . 234 x. 25, . . 234 xvii. 1, 3 xxvi. 37, . 3 x. 32 f., 37, . 239 xviii. 3, 63 xxvi. 38 f., 233 x. 39, . 233, 239 xviii. 5, 6, 240 xxvi. 39, 46, 52, 234 xi. 6, 10 ff., 11, xviii. 18, . 235 xxvi. 55, . 235 20 ff., . . 239 xviii. 20, . 240 xxvi. 61, . 232 xi. 25 ff., . . 227 xix. 29, . 240 xxvi. 63 ff, 240 xi. 27, 232, 233, 240, xx. 20 ff, . 5 >, 4, 127 xxvii. 11, . 235 241, 242 xx.22ff, . 219 xxvii. 40, . 232 364 INDEX OF TEXTS CITED. Matthew — contin ued. PAGE xxvii. 55 f., . 2 xxviii. 16 ff., . 205 xxviii. 18, 20, 234, 240 Mark. i. 2, 3; . 199 i. 4, . 19S i. 7, . . 199 i. 8, . 198, 199 i. 10, 11, . 199 i. 19 f., . 3 i. 20, 2 i. 40-45, '. 202 ii. 9, 232 iii. 22, 206 iv. 13, 219 v. 3-5, . 202 v. 37, 3 vi. 4, 232 vi. 50, 232 viii. 35, 233 ix. 2, 3 ix. 38 ff., . 4 xiii. 32, . ' 234 xiv. 3, 202 xiv. 7, 8, 18, 233 xiv. 27, 30, 36, 234 xiv. 33, 3 xiv. 34 f., . 233 xiv. 58, 232 xv. 2, 235 xv. 29, 232 xv. 40, 2 xvi. 1, 2 Luke. i. 1, . i. 3, . ii. 41, iii. 2, 3, iii. 4, . iii. 16, iii. 22, iv. 24, v. 9ff, v. 12-16, v. 24, vi. 21, vi. 40, vii. 13, 14 vii. 17, viii. 51, viii. 52, 54 ix. 24, ix. 28, ix. 49, x. 16, x. 21 f., x. 23 f., 180 55, 133 206 198 199 198, 199 199 232 3 202 232 232 233 201 202 3 201 233 3 4 233 232, 233 241 Luke — continued. x. 38 ff, . xiii. 34, . xvi. 19-31, xvi. 20, . xvii. 33, . xxi. 15, xxii. 19, . xxii. 34, 42, xxiii. 3, John. i. 1, . i. 1, 2, i. 1-4, i. 3, i. 5, . 50, 102, i. 9, . i. 10, 11, i. 13, i. 14, i. 15-36, i. 19 ff, i. 20 ff, i. 21, i. 23, i. 24. i. 26, i. 27, i. 29, i. 32, 33, i. 34, i. 35, i. 35 ff, i. 40 (39), i. 41 (40), i. 44 (43), i. 45(44)f., i. 46 (45), i. 47 (46), i. 48 (47), i. 49 (48), i." 50 (49) ff, ii. 1, ii. 1-11, ii. 9, ii. 11, ii. 12, ii. 18, ii. 19, ii. 20, ii. 21 f., ii. 23, iii. 2, iii. 3, iii. 4, iii. 5, iii. 6-8, iii. 8, iii. 14, 101, 222, PAGE 201, 207 206 201 202 233 239 240 234 235 50 102 105 105, 109 50 109, 198 105, 112 109 64 109, 179 109 212 64 172 199 178, 221 198 199 176, 217 199, 204 199 176 2 176 109, 182 176 109 219 172 109 223 109, 219 176, 204 105, 109 112 216 109, 197 237 227, 232 173 220 223 176, 223 61 222 61, 96 105 74 105 John— ■continued. PAGE iii. 16, 67 iii. 17, 105 iii. 20, 237 iii. 21, 259 iii. 24, 197 iv. 1, 178, 221 iv. 5ff, . 174 iv. 6, 176 iv. 7-14, 105 iv. 9, 170, 173 iv. 10, 168 iv. 10-14, . 65, 105 iv. 21-24, 105, 170 iv. 22, 169, 268 iv. 24, ' . 50, 60 iv. 26, 214 iv. 27, 173 iv. 32 ff, 3 5ff, 227 iv. 43, 176 iv. 44, 227, 232 iv. 45, 178 iv. 48, 221 iv. 52, 176 iv. 54, 223 v. 1 ff, . 172 v. 2ff, 174 v. 8, . 232 v. 14, 68 v. 16, 211, 221, 237 v. 17, 227 v. 18, 211 v. 23, 264 v. 28 f., 273 v. 37, 105 v. 39, 181, 238, 251 vi. 1, 174, 197, 207 vi. 2, 197, 223 vi. 3, 174 vi. 13, 182 vi. 16, 176 vi. 17, 174, 197 vi. 19 ff, 174, 223 vi. 20, 232 vi. 22 ff , 174, 176 vi. 24, 197 vi. 27, 227 vi. 30, 221, 222 vi. 33, 74 vi. 35, 232 vi. 37, 171, 232 vi. 40, 180 vi. 44, 105, 171 vi. 46, 232 vi. 51, . 68, 74 vi. 53, 105 vi. 58, 68 vi. 62, 220, 227 vi. 63, 227 vi. 66, 176 vi. 68 f., 219 INDEX OF TEXTS CITED. 365 John — continued. PAGE 216 182 197, 207 vi. 69, vi. 70, vii. 1, vii. 3, vii. 5, vii. 12, vii. 14, vii. 17, vii. 20, vii. 22 f., vii. 23, vii. 25 if., vii. 26, vii. 27, vii. 29 ff., vii. 31, vii. 33 ff., vii. 35, vii. 37, vii. 39, vii. 40, 41 vii. 48, vii. 49, vii. 52, viii. 1-11, viii. 12, viii. 13, viii. 20, viii. 21, viii. 22, viii. 24, viii. 44, viii. 52, viii. 56, viii. 57, viii. 58, ix. 1, ix. 2, ix. 7, ix. 14 ff., ix. 24, ix. 37, ix. 39-41, x. 1 ff, x. 7,. x. 8,. x. 9-17, x. 18, x. 22 ff, x. 23, x. 24, x. 33 ff., x. 34, 35, x. 40, xi. 1, xi. 2, xi. 6, xi. 11, xi. 17, 221, 223 205 178, 221 176 237 178 172 221 178 178, 221 172 221 178, 221 227 220, 222 173, 176 220 178, 221 178 173 205, 207 236 237 178, 221 174 105 222 237 105, 191, 259, 273 222 72, 238 222 60, 237 105 173 172 172 221 181 221 168 68 104 105 65 223 174 215 65 171 208 201 198, 207 176 201 176 JOHN- xi. 25, xi. 28, xi. 39, xi. 44, xi. 45-48, xi. 47, xi. 54, xii. 1. xii. 2, xii. 3, 5, xii. 7, xii. 8, xii. 9, 11, xii. 12, xii. 16, xii. 17, 18 xii. 25, xii. 27, xii. 31, xii. 34, xii. 40, xii. 42, xii. 44 f., xiii. 1, xiii. 3, xiii. 16, xiii. 18, xiii. 20, 21 xiii. 23, xiii. 25, xiii. 30, xiii. 33, xiii. 34, xiii. 38, xiv. 2, xiv. 5, xiv. 6, xiv. 17, 19 xiv. 18, xiv. 21, xiv. 22, xiv. 26, xiv. 28, xiv. 30, xiv. 31, xv. 10 ff, xv. 19, xv. 20, xv. 20, 21, xvi. 2, xvi. 11, xvi. 12, 17 xvi. 21, xvi. 32, xvii. 2, xvii. 3, xvii. 8, xviii. 1, xviii. 3, xviii. 10 102, continued. PAGE 66 218 223 173 202 211, 212 202 176, 201 201 177 232 233 202 176, 178 220 202 233 204, 233 74, 104 173 168 178, 221 180 176, 204 233 233 169 233 182 49 176 105 237 234 71, 273 220 68 180 234 68 220 48 234 74, 104 234 68 67 233 234 48 74, 104 220 168 234 234 181 68 175 178, 221 177 66 17 ISO, 61, JOHN- xviii. 11, xviii. 15, xviii. 20, xviii. 24, xviii. 28, xviii. 31, xviii. 37, xix. 13 f., xix. 25, xix. 26, xix. 34, xix. 35, xix. 36, xix. 37, xix. 40, xx. 1, xx. 2, 3, 4 xx. 9, xx. 23, xx. 24, xx. 26, xx. 27, xx. 28, xx. 31, xxi. 7, xxi. 15, xxi. 18, xxi. 20, xxi. 24, Acts. xii. 2, xx. 29, xx. 35, xxi. 9, xxi. 17 ff, Romans i. 16, xi. 17 ff, . xii. 9-21, . continued. PAGB 205, 234 175, 182 235 198 176, 198 174 235 176 180, 105, 182 223 181, 182 218 169, 267 173 176 182 183, 220 235 182 176 66 75 230, 251 182 204 78 182 2 272 148 4 269 269 255 1 Corinthians. iv. 12, 13, . 255 vii. 10, x. 7, 8, xi. 26, 218 255 272 160 2 Corinthians. xi. 4, 13, . . 270 Galatians. ii. 6, . . 116 iii. 29, . . 269 iv. 26, . . 269 vi. 16, . . 269 COLOSSIANS. i. 15 ft., . 106 366 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. Colossiaxs — continued PAGE iv. 16, . . 34 1 Thessalonians. v. 27, . . 34 2 Timothy. iii. 14, . . 152 Hebrews. i. 8, 9, . 277 v. 12, . . 278 2 Peter. i. 14, . . 78 1 JOHX. i. 2, 3, . ISO iii. 9, 13 ff., . 74 iv. 3, . . 69, 130 v. 3, . . 68 Revelation. i. 3, . . . 34 Revelation — continued. Revelation —contin ued. PAGE PAGE i. 4, . 258, 261 ix. 13f., 258 i. 5, . 258 x. 6, . 261 1 7, . 61, 267 xi. 15, 264 i. 8, . 261 xi. 17, 261 i. 16, 17, . 265 xiv. 4, 264 ii. 2, 269, 270 xiv. 6 f. , 268 ii. 6, 271 xv. 7, 261 ii. 7, 34 xvi. 5, 261 ii. 14 f., . 271 xvii. 17, 259 ii. 20, 258 xix. 13, 266 iii. 7, 10, . 265 xx. 2, 258 iii. 14, 266 XX. 11, 262 iii. 21, 265 xxi. 3f., 262 iv. 3 if., . 262 xxi. 6, 261 iv. 8, 261, 262 xxi. 11, 262 iv. 9, 10, . 261 xxi. 12, 270 v. 6, . 265 xxi. 14, 269 v. 8, . 265, 268 xxi. 22, 264 vi. 10, 262 xxi. 23, 262 vii. 2ff., . 261, 262 xxi. 24, 262, 264, 268 vii. 9ff., . 262 xxii. 1, 3, 264 vii. 10, 264 xxii. 5, 262, 265 vii. 16 ff., . 262, 267 xxii. 13, 261 vii. 17, . 265 xxii. 15, 259 III.— INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. The numbers refer to pages. Abbot, Ezra, 88, 93. Absolute relation of Jesus to the world, 242. Acts of Martyrs, 36. of Paul and Thekla, 68. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, 32. Alogi, 9. ' A/*n>, u.un'1, 1/8. Anagnosis, 34. Anicetus, 121, 142 f. Apolinarius, 157. Apollonius, 5, 121, 140, 147. 1 ' Afoftvwu.vviVfAa.ra, 55. 'Apostle, The,' 44. Apostolic Constitutions, 62, 137. Fathers, 193. Instruments, 40. Apostolica Instrumenta, 40. Aristion, 136 ff. Author of the fourth gospel, tradition as to, 1. Authorship of fourth gospel disputed, 9. Ballenstedt, 15. Baptism in John's gospel, 209 f. Barnabas, Letter of, 32, 76, 193. P.asilides, 97, 98, 99, 100. Bauer, Bruno, 18. Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 20, 52 f, 62, 64, 74, 107, 155, 173, ISO, 190, 201, 210, 256, 265, 269. Being of God in Revelation and in fourth gospel, 261. Belief of the disciples in fourth gospel, 215. Beloved disciple, the, 182 ff. Bindemann, 28, 53. Bleek, F., 22, 25, 77, 155, 207. Bleek, J. F., 100. Brandis, 226. Bretschneider, 15, 154 f. Briickner, 155. Bunsen, 26, 74. Buttmann, ISO. Cainites, 97. Celsus, 94. Cerinthus, 5, 47, 141. Chapter xxi., close of, 77 ff. Chemnitz, 33. Christology of Hebrews, 277. of fourth gospel, '224, 237 ff. of fourth gospel is possible, 276. of Revelation and of fourth gospel, 264. Christ's person in the synoptists, 239 f. INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 367 Church, testimony of, to fourth gospel, 29. Clement of Alexandria, 5 f., 34, 37, 43 f., 99, 121 f., 128, 147 f., 157, 271. Clement of Eome, 31, 33, 36, 193. Clementina, 62, 96. Cludius, 15. Consciousness of the evangelist, 169. Contrasts in the Eevelation and in fourth gospel, 263. Corderius, 72. Credner, 53, 62, 67, 167. Davidson, 23. Day of Jesus' death, 217. De"Groot, 23, 100, 103. De Lagarde, 96. De Wette, 53, 155. Diatessaron, 50. Diestel, 248. Diognetus, Letter to, 31, 67. Dionysius, 7. Disciples in fourth gospel, 219. Discourses of Jesus in John's gospel, 224 ; their form, 227. Docetae, 66. Docetism, 130. Doctrine of Eevelation and of fourth gospel, 260. Dressel, 23, 63, 96. Diisterdieck, 271. Ebrard, 155, 158, 259. 'Exuvo;, 180. Elders, 129 ff. Engelhardt, 94. 'EtiToXr,, in John, 192. in Papias, 71. Ephesus, John at, 115. Epiphanius, 6, 9ff., 160. Episcopacy, the, 35. Eschatology of Eevelation and of fourth gospel, 272. Eusebius, 36, 37, 44, 50, 70, 72, 120 f., 129 ff., 155, 193. Evangelicum instrumentum, 40. Evanson, 15. Ewald, 2, 25, 67, 76, 95, 119 ff., 155, 167. Eye-witness wrote the fourth gospel, 175 ff. Fischer, 268. Florinus, 45, 120, 143 ff. Freytag, 25. Georgios Hamartolos, 120 ff., 127 ff. Gieseler, 155. Gnosticism and fourth gospel, 194. Gnostics, 96. Godet, 25, 155, 231. 'Gospel, The,' 44, 75. Gospel, fourth, •when ■written, 5 ; authorship disputed, 9. Gospel of Basilides, 38. Egyptians, 38. Matthias, 38. Thomas, 38. Twelve, 38. Grabe, 13. Grammar of Eevelation and of fourth gospel, 258. Grau, 248. Grimm, Wilibald, 24, 116, 123, 125, 127. Guericke, 137. Harnack, Adolf, 10, 14, 42, 51, 98. Hase, 155. Hayd, 27. Heading of fourth gospel, 79. Hefele, 76. Hegesippus, 32, 34, 140. Hengstenberg, 155. Heracleon, 43, 98, 102, 127 f. Heretical Jewish Christianity testifies to fourth gospel, 95. Hermas, 36, 68. Hesse, 41. High-Priest of same year, 173. Hilgenfeld, 22 f., 25, 49, 53, 56, 59, 61 ff, 67, 69, 72, 74, 76, 108, 119 if., 155, 170 f., 18&, 189, 191, 211, 247. Hippolytus, 10, 23, 100, 105, 157. History, free use of, in fourth gospel, 250. Hofmann, 155, 278. Holtzmann, 24, 76, 119 ff, 124, 126, 183, 198 ff, 231. Homilies, the Clementine, 96. Hug, 53, 76. Humboldt, 123. Ignatius, 70, 73 ff., 125, 193. Instrumentum actorum, 40. Joannis, 40. Pauli, 40. Irenseus, 5, 6, 12, 32, 34, 43, 45, 49, 69, 72, 101, 102, 115 ff, 132 ff., 141 ff, 271. Itala, 40. Jerome, 5, 39, 137. Jerusalem and Galilee, 174, 205. Jesus in fourth gospel, 213 ; day of death, 217. Jews in fourth gospel, 220. John, St., 1 ff. ; way of naming him- self in the gospel, 179 ; his gospel independent of the synoptists, 198 ; his gospel said to be planned out, 222. John the Presbyter, 118 ff. 368 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 'l»uScu6i, 178, 26S. Judaism of Revelation and of fourth gospel, 268. Justin the Gnostic, 105. Justin Martyr, 32, 35, 52-66, 98 f., 124, 139, 194 f., 251, 256 ; date of conversion of, 65 ; Logos of, 57 if. Kahnis, 155. Keim, 24, 67, 69, 72 f., 76 f., 94, 100, 110, 118 ff., 126, 140, 147, 166, 16Sf., 172 ff., ISO ff., 188 f., 208, 210, 217 f., 222, 244, 246 f., 256 f. Kostlin, 1 22, 121. Krenkel, 2, 25, 29, 73, 77, 119 ff., 125, 141. Kurtz, 155. Lammer, 134. Language of fourth gospel, 166. Lazarus, 201, 212. Lechler, 155. Leuschner, 172, 223. Lipsius, 10 f., 14, 23, 67, 74, 76, 97. Literature of early church was scantv, 32. A-iyoff k\riQn