iMe.z..7 35

\ fi^tk&jgoyzidj^iffM, College in this Colony"

'YMJUE'W&WWmmBTTY*

Bought with the income
ofthe
Class of 1896 Fund

THE PROBLEM OF
THE FOURTH GOSPEL

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, Manager

LONDON
Fetter Lane, E.C. 4

EDINBURGH
100 Princes Street

NEW YORK : G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, MADRAS: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
TORONTO : J. M. DENT AND SONS, Ltd.
TOKYO: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

A ll rights reserved

THE PROBLEM

OF

THE FOUKTH GOSPEL

BY

H. LATIMER JACKSON, D.D.,
of Christ's College, Cambridge ; sometime Hulsean Lecturer ;
Author of The Fourth Gospel and some recent German
Criticism, The Present State of the Synoptic Problem
{Cambridge Biblical Essays), The Eschatology
of Jesus, etc.

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1918

TO
THE MASTER AND FELLOWS
OF
CHRIST'S COLLEGE

 deep feelings had impress' d
Great objects on his mind, with portraiture
And colour so distinct, that on his mind
They lay like substances, and almost seem'd
To haunt the bodily sense.
Wordsworth, The Excursion.

PREFACE
IF I venture the following personal explanation, the reason is
simply and solely this : I have been advised clearly to define the
relations between the present volume and a little work of mine
which, published about a dozen years ago, was entitled The Fourth
Gospel and some recent German Criticism.
Let me accordingly inform the reader that, when asked for a
second edition of a work which — so, at all events, people were
good enough to tell me — had served a useful purpose, I was for
some time loth to acquiesce in such altogether unexpected but
certainly encouraging suggestions. It was, indeed, far from being
the case that, because the fates had determined that I should
stray into Synoptic fields and the region of Eschatological research,
I had therefore ceased to be fascinated by the Johannine literature
en masse, and in particular by the very noble treatise which bears
the name of 'John'; on the contrary, I had actually betaken
myself to what bade fair to be a prolonged and laborious attempt
to trace connecting links between the ' Schmerzenskind der
Theologie' (as Pfleiderer calls the Fourth Gospel) and that great
writing of— may I say it? — uncertain provenance which is desig
nated 'The Epistle to the Ephesians.' My hesitation was, of
course, partly due to natural reluctance even temporarily to
forsake a work which was already rising on the stocks; it was,
however, mainly grounded in a difficulty which stared me in the
face. To put the matter in a nut-shell: I was speedily compelled
to realize that, were any action taken in response to the aforesaid
kindly suggestions, it would mean that time must be found for
the drastic re-writing of a work which I could but turn to with
added dissatisfaction and no small measure of dissent. Mere
revision was not to be thought of.
Somehow or other time has been found — or rather made; and
in the event the present volume arrives at its completion,

vni PREFACE
Looking to the circumstances, it had better be accompanied
by something like a warning note. To all intents and purposes a
new book, it wears but slight, if any, resemblance to its now
superseded predecessor, and there is significance in the fact that, if
old pages have been utilized, not one of them re-appears intact.
To speak quite frankly: the contrast extends from arrangement
and amplification to view and standpoint ; and, should any one be
at pains to institute a comparison, he will scarcely fail to observe
that — to quote from the Preface to the earlier volume — I have
been only too 'glad to claim liberty to disagree with myself.'
Nor will he be surprised if, the question being of 'das Haupt-
problem aller Bibel-Kritik,' the same liberty be claimed in the
present instance.
Obviously a change of title was imperative ; and my regret on
this score is that, as there is no need to inform me, the one ulti
mately acquiesced in promises far more than the book performs.
There is, perhaps, less ground of apprehension as my eye is
caught by an incisive sentence in Professor Percy Gardner's
Ephesian Gospel; it runs thus: 'no one has a right to publish a
book about the (Fourth) Gospel who has not in a measure surveyed
the mass of literature' called forth by the intricate and delicate
subject. That Dr Gardner's requirements in the case of others
are satisfied by himself is patent; and if so be that my friend — he
will allow me so to speak of him — now puts me on my defence, I
can make appeal, I fancy, to the 'heavily documented' pages now
gone to press. They shall bear witness on my behalf; — not only
that the works of modern scholars and students have really been
'in a measure surveyed' by me, but also that, consequent on much
ransacking of libraries, acquaintance has been made or renewed
with not a few pioneers of Fourth Gospel criticism. In the case of
these last my experience has been similar to that of Friedrich
Nippold : the reading or re-reading of their books has, speaking
generally, been fraught with both interest and reward.
It may be politic to add that, not exactly content to read books
about the Fourth Gospel, I have had that Gospel itself continually
at my side.
Large is my debt of gratitude. As might be expected, it

PREFACE ix
points first and foremost to Cambridge; but the friends more
immediately concerned will readily understand why they are not
alluded to by name. Once again it bids me dwell on the literary
help, varied and continuous, which I am privileged to receive
from my wife. It extends to foreign soil; and it is just here that,
altogether refusing to discard the aid of German scholarship, I am
painfully alive to the dark reasons which emphatically forbid me
to allude as heretofore to Germany as a second home. Yet even
so I look ahead ; and it is to indulge a hope that, to adapt from
John Inglesant, old friends and he who cannot banish them from
his thoughts may hereafter find themselves 'standing together in
a brighter dawn.'
Little Caotteld Rectory, Essex,
Christmas Day, 1917.

NOTE
Thebe are two points on which, perhaps, a few words ought to be
said. To begin with, I have been guided to the decision that, as
regards pronouns relative to the divine names, the use of capitals
should be dispensed with — except, now and again, when they
occur in citations; I adhere, that is, generally to the principle
adopted in the English Bible. And next; the question of an
Index having been duly considered, it has seemed best to offer as
substitute such a detailed Synopsis of Contents as will, I trust,
enable readers to find their way about my book.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS PAGES
PREFACE vii-ix
INTRODUCTORY xix-xxiv
' Religious eclipse ' ; reasons for and features of display, p. xix. Attention
concentrated on Jesus; theological specialists responsive to present-day
demands; Biblical research, aim and methods, pp. xx-xxii. Gospel
criticism, false impressions and baseless apprehensions, pp. xxii-xxiii.
Right attitude to adopt, pp. xxiii-xxiv.

CHAPTER I
'THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN' 1-7
The 'favourite' Gospel, p. 1. Prepossessions and convictions; the
gauntlet thrown down to traditional belief; survey of Fourth Gospel
criticism from its inception to modern times, pp. 2-6. Re-assuring
words, p. 6. The Jesus of the First Three Gospels, and 'the problem of
the Person of Christ,' p. 7.
CHAPTER II
APPROXIMATE DATE OF THE GOSPEL 8-17
Rise of a distinctively Christian literature; 'many' Gospels; four remain
masters of the field; different orders of sequence; the titles, significance
of Kara; while the Synoptics are 'sister- works' the 'Fourth Gospel' in
a category by itself, pp. 8-10. PreKminary inquiry as to its approximate
date; the two extreme limits; Irenaeus and Heracleon, the terminus ad
quem in any case not later than a.d. 180, pp. 10-1 1. The terminus a quo ;
Fourth Evangelist acquainted with the Synoptics, hence his Gospel
subsequent to the latest of the 'sister- works,' uncertainty as to date of
Mt. and Lk.; an 'entweder — oder,' pp. 11-12. Evidence more or less
suggestive for nearer dating of 'John's' Gospel: — 2 Pet., the Alogi,
Second Epistle of Clement (so-called), Shepherd of Hennas, the Didache,
Epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, the docetic
Gospel of Peter, Papias and Polycarp, Ignatius, Epistle to Diognetus,
Basilides and the Valentinians, pp. 12-16. Provisional conclusion;
Fourth Gospel prior to ca. a.d. 135, not earlier than date of the latest
Synoptic Gospel — either ca. a.d. 75-80 or close of the first century, p. 17.
&2

xii SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION 18-30
A confident verdict. At this stage question strictly confined to ex
ternal evidence; support not lacking for the 'orthodox opinion,' p. 18.
Eusebius, pp. 19-20. Origen, p. 20. Irenaeus, pp. 20-21. The Alogi,
Monarchian Prologue, Muratorian Canon, pp. 21-23. Clement of
Alexandria, pp. 23, 24. Irenaeus, Polycarp, Polycrates, pp. 24-26.
Threads gathered up; Theophilus of Antioch; situation complicated by
appearance of 'John the Presbyter'; the crucial passage from Papias;
Eusebius on Papias and Irenaeus; inferences; the two tombs at Ephesus,
pp. 26-28. Difficulty of identifying the Beloved Disciple with the
Apostle John, conceivable death by martyrdom of the latter; two
traditions ultimately combined in assertions as to two Johns of Ephesus;
one John only to be reckoned with, p. 29. Concluding remarks; external
evidence far from conclusive for traditional authorship, pp. 29, 30.

CHAPTER IV
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 31-48
Provisional decisions hitherto arrived at; inquiry now passes from
external to internal evidence; questions raised by such evidence both
direct and indirect; p. 31. (i) Direct Evidence
Diversity of opinion relative to 'self -witness' of the Gospel, pp. 32, 33.
Examination of crucial passages; the 'we' of Jn i, 14, 16, pp. 33, 34;
the crux of commentators, Jn xix, 35, significance of iiceh/os, pp. 34,
35; the perplexing verses Jn xxi, 24, 25, pp. 35-38. Literary sanctions
of the ancient world; no question of 'libelling the dead,' the Fourth
Evangelist not necessarily the 'falsarius' if one who made himself
'organ' of the eye-witness, pp. 38, 39. The 'self -testimony' of the
Gospel raises more riddles than it solves, p. 39.
(ii) Indirect Evidence
The field widens; issues numerous, here narrowed down as the Gospel
is taken by itself apart, pp. 39, 40. Its author writes for a Gentile
community, p. 40. Is not a Gentile but a Jew; and, probably, a Jew of
Palestine, pp. 40-42. Generally familiar with scenes depicted; not
guilty of slip in respect of topography, pp. 42, 43. Yet doubt awakened
by manner of allusion to Caiaphas: dpXicpeiis &v roi eviavroi iKeivov,
pp. 43, 44. Questions raised by the discourse-matter; monotony of idea
and diction, constructed speeches, pp. 44-46.
Tentative conclusions prompted by the internal evidence in its two
forms, pp. 47, 48.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER V

THE JOHANNINE AND THE SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATION 49-82
Jewish scholarship on the Jewish background and provenance of a
Gospel which is now to be confronted with the Synoptics; sharp contrast
affirmed, alleged peculiarity of the Johannine representation, pp. 49-51.
General remarks on the Synoptic Gospels; differences between them and
'John' which might reasonably be expected, pp. 51-53. Comparison
instituted as follows: (i) Chronology
Beginning, duration, of the Ministry; Cleansing of the Temple; the
'Death-day' of Jesus, pp. 53-58.
(ii) Scene of the Ministry
Discrepancy as stated; not so certain that the representations are
mutually exclusive; reasons why the Fourth Evangelist preferred to
accentuate that Judaean Ministry which the Synoptists by no means
exclude, pp. 58-60. (iii) John the Baptist
The two portraits; neither of them, perhaps, true to life; process of
subordination of John to Jesus; in the Johannine representation the
Baptist is a foil to Jesus; Baptist-disciples of a later day, pp. 60, 61.
(iv) Miracle
Summarized contentions; question of 'the miraculous,' pp. 61, 62.
Omission by Fourth Evangelist of demoniac-cures, pp. 62, 63. Enumera
tion of the Johannine 'signs,' pp. 63, 64. Admissions as to enhancement,
and purpose, pp. 64, 65. The Johannine 'signs' from the modern point
of view; the EvangeUst in the main concerned with their symbolism;
'outward narrative' and spiritual significance, pp. 66-68.
(v) The Discourses
Objections, the Synoptic and Johannine representations deemed mutu
ally exclusive; Justin Martyr on the sayings of Jesus, pp. 68-70.
Monotony pervading Fourth Gospel; apt statement of the position;
arguments relative to manner and matter of speeches placed in the hps
of the Johannine Christ, pp. 70-73. A contrast too sharp to be explained
away; the real hearers of the Johannine Christ, pp. 73, 74.
(vi) The Synoptic and Johannine portraits of Jesus
The categorical ' either — or ' of past and present criticism, p. 75. Accord
ing to the Marcan representation Jesus is true man, exceptionally great,
exalted above purely human greatness, pp. 75-77. The Johannine

xiv SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS
Christ a regal personage, transcends mere manhood, features indicating
real humanity, pp. 78-80. Resemblance admitted; the two portraits
nevertheless diverse in type; predominance of the \6yos over the a-api-
in the Fourth Gospel representation, p. 80.
Summary and conclusions
Contrast between the two representations insufficiently accounted for
by natural diversity as between author and author. In respect to some
points it has perhaps been exaggerated; yet it must be admitted in the
case of others, viz. the miraculous, the discourse-matter, portraits of
Jesus. To turn from the Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel is to breathe
a different atmosphere, to be transported to a world of Greek life and
thought, pp. 81, 82.

CHAPTER VI
THE SELF-DATING OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 83-96
Recapitulation; question for discussion, the Gospel in its relation to
event, circumstance, movement, of period, p. 83. Rising headed by
Bar Cochba, pp. 83, 84. Marcion and his followers, pp. 85, 86. Baptist-
disciples, Ebionites, Montanism, pp. 86, 87. Gnosticism, summarized
account of; Pauline Epistles pp. 87-90. Heracleon and Basilides; two
extreme positions stated; Fourth Gospel points to a day when Basilides
and Valentinian had not yet elaborated their systems, pp. 90, 91.
Possible extent of life-time of the Beloved Disciple; not absolutely
necessary to date Gospel within life-time of any actual eye-witness;
reasons precluding very early date, pp. 91, 92. The Paschal controversy;
Polycarp and Anicetus; rationale of Quarto-decimanism, three views as
to; doubtful whether the perplexing question throws light on date of
Fourth Gospel, pp. 92-96. Perhaps safe to place it in the period a.d.
100 ( ? 90)-125. Attitude of the Evangelist to Roman State, p. 96, note.

CHAPTER VII
LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL 97-104
Processes of combination and compilation in the case of Old and New
Test, writings generally; question at issue in respect of Fourth Gospel,
pp. 97, 98. Contentions for unity, divergent opinions as to appendix
chapter, pp. 98, 99. The Gospel widely held to be a composite work;
'partitionists' and 'revisionists,' pp. 99, 100. Features presented; dis
arrangements, p. 101. Interpolations, apparent difference of conception,
the discourse-sections, pp. 101-103. Provisional conclusions; working
hypothesis, pp. 103, 104.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS xv
CHAPTER VIII
THE MAKING OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 105-123
Three-fold question for consideration; (a) authorship of main fabric of
Gospel, growing tendency to look away from the Apostle John, pp. 105,
106. Conjectures and hypotheses which fasten on the author of
'Ephesians'; on author of Epistle to the Hebrews who is identified with
Apollos; on one who, a Samaritan by birth, may have known the
Beloved Disciple (who is Andrew) in Parthia; on the Beloved Disciple
who is really the Gnostic Menander; on John Mark, pp. 107-110.
Significance of all such conjectures, p. 110. Tentative conclusions;
identity of Fourth Evangelist remains undisclosed, pp. 110, 111.
(6) Method adopted by him in composition of his work; question of
'inspiration': period of systematic preparation, sources, material;
actual composition long time in hand; his work composite yet a unity,
pp. 111-114. (c) Processes whereby Fourth Gospel assumed its present
form: conjectures, pp. 114, 115. Disarrangement and dislocation, pp.
115, 116. Attempt to distinguish between Evangelist and redactor (or
redactors); preliminary considerations, p. 116. Two sections ruled out
by textual criticism; of the appendix chapter; xix, 35; allusions to
Beloved Disciple and to Caiaphas; iii, 11; passages and sections sugges
tive of another mind, illustrating diversity of view, pp. 117-119. Re
corded manifestations of Risen Lord, pp. 119-121. The Prologue, pp.
121, 122. Concluding remarks, pp. 122, 123.
CHAPTER IX
THEN— AND NOW 124-141
Summary of results, pp. 124, 125. Personality of the Evangelist; con
trasted with Philo, pp. 125-127. His purpose; to what extent polemical;
addresses himself primarily to the 'ye' of xx, 31; seeks to confirm dis
ciples and friends in the faith to which he himself has risen, yet with
wider circles in bis •mind, pp. 127-129. Wherein the great service
rendered by him for his own day consisted; type of the true free-thinker
and liberator within the Christian Church, perhaps object of suspicion
and distrust; inviting controversy his Gospel looked askance at; was it
intended to be a 'permanent Gospel'?, pp. 129-131. Its significance and
value for the modern world; glimpses afforded by it of the circumstances
and conditions of its own period, pp. 131, 132. While not imperative to
rule it out altogether as a source for the Life of Jesus, it must be used with
caution, pp. 132, 133. The real Jesus and the Christ of the Evangelist's
experience; Christology of the Gospel, its significance relative to un
solved problem of the Person of Christ, pp. 133, 134. Some main points:
(a) reflexions suggested by this time of war; Mr Lloyd George on in
adequacy of materialistic national ideals — 'man cannot, live by bread
alone'; great ideal upheld by the Gospel, pp. 134, 135. (b) Insists on
spiritual worship as against exaggerated importance attached to other
wise legitimate and helpful ceremonial, pp. 135, 136. (c) Spectacle of a
rent and tattered Christendom; 're-union' much in men's minds;

xvi SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS
Gospel points from external uniformity to unity in diversity, pp. 136,
137. {d) A period of transition, pressing need to provide new embodiment
for newly-apprehended truth; what the Evangelist essayed and wrought
in and for his own times ; how he serves as present-day guide, his message,
pp. 137-139. Suggestiveness of the promise xvi, 13, p. 139. Creeds and
creed-construction on lines indicated by the Evangelist, pp. 139, 140.
Vision of accomplished unity in diversity for Christendom, for humanity,
pp. 140, 141.

EXCURSUS I
THE DEATH OF JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE 142-150
Jiilicher's hypothesis, John the Apostle met a 'tragic end.' The pre
diction Mk x, 35-40 =Mt. xx, 20-25, expectation suggested by it, pp.
142, 143. Statement attributed to Papias by Georgius Hamartolus and
Philip of Side, divergent opinions respecting its value; tentative con
clusion, pp. 143-145. The statement apparently supported by notices
and allusions, as follows: (a) Heracleon as cited by Clem. Alex., (6) apocr.
Martyrdom of Andrew and alleged conclave at Jerusalem, (c) Syriac
Martyrology, (d) Aphrahat, pp. 145-147. Of unequal value, yet cumula
tive effect, pp. 147, 148. Of the historicity of incident recorded Mk x,
35-40, p. 148. Assumption being that the Apostle John met a violent
end, questions of locality and date; no longer easy to dismiss story of
martyrdom as 'altogether untrustworthy,' pp. 148-150.

EXCURSUS II
THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 151-170
Questions raised, p. 151. Fourth Gospel references to Beloved Disciple
(xiii, 23 ff. ; xviii, 15 ff. ; xix, 25 ff. ; xx, 2 ff. ; xxi, 1-24), impressions con
veyed by them, pp. 150-154. Whether a real personage or an ideal figure,
pp. 154, 155. On assumption of a real man, question of identity with the
son of Zebedee; remarks on habit, inveterate with many, of taking the
Gospels as a single work; composite biographies, by consequence,
offered of Apostle John, pp. 155, 156. The son of Zebedee as he figures
in the Synoptics, in Acts, in Galatians; what suggested by the notices;
room for conjectures, pp. 156-159. Fragmentary tradition; stories
related of aged disciple of Ephesus who in course of time is identified
with the Apostle; comparison instituted between the Synoptic John
and the Johannine Beloved Disciple; the question is of two distinct
personages, pp. 160-164. Conjectures which identify the Beloved
Disciple with Judas Iscariot; with Nathaniel; with Lazarus; with the
John of Acts iv, 5; with the 'certain young man' of Mk xiv, 51; with
Aristion; with the rich young ruler (Mk x, 17 pars), pp. 164-168
Discussion of 'phrase of blessed memory' ; of the term ivurrf)6ios; unsafe
to differentiate between bv cpikels and yya-n-a; two alternatives in
respect of Beloved Disciple sections of Fourth Gospel, pp. 168-170.
Identity of the Beloved Disciple — if a real person — in any case undis
closed, p. 170.

ABBREVIATIONS

AV CB
CBE CTE
DB
DCG DAC
EB
Einl. or Intr.
Exp.
GHDHBNTHCNTHE HJ
JE
JTS LXX
LZNKZ NTAFRGGRVSchw. TZ
SK
SNT TLZTR
TS TTTUZKG
ZTK ZWT

Authorised Version.
The Century Bible (Eng. text, A.V. and R.V., with notes).
Essays on some Biblical Questions of the day, by Members of the
Univ. of Cambridge (Edited by H. B. Swete, D.D.).
Essays on some Theological Questions of the day, by Members of
the Univ. of Cambridge (Edited by H. B. Swete, D.D.).
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.
Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.
The Encyclopaedia Biblica.
Einleitung, Introduction.
The Expositor (Edited by Sir W. R. Nicoll).
The Gospels as Historical Documents, by V. H. Stanton, D.D.
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen, edited by Lietz-
mann).
Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen, Freiburg
and Leipzig).
Eusebius, Histor. Eccles.
The Hibbert Journal.
The Jevyish Encyclopaedia.
The Journal of Theological Studies.
The Septuagint.
Literarisches Zentralblatt.
Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift.
The New Testament in the Apos. Fathers (Oxford Society of
Histor. Theology).
Die Religion in der Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tubingen, edited
by Schiele).
Revised Version.
Schweiz. Theol. Zeitschrift.
Studien und Kritiken.
Die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes (edited by Joh. Weiss).
Theologische IAteraJturzeitumg.
Theologische Rundschau.
Texts and Studies (Cambridge).
' Theolog. Tijdschrift (Haarlem).
Texte und Untersuchungen.
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte.
Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche.
Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie.

INTRODUCTORY
'Our age is one of religious eclipse1.' Decades have elapsed since
the remark was penned, but, in view of enhanced unsettlement
and perplexity, it is aptly descriptive of the present situation.
Nor are reasons for such 'eclipse' far to seek; they point not only
to wide-spread restlessness in every department of human life,
but, in particular, to discovery in the realm of physical science, to
explorations in the comparatively new field of Comparative Reli
gion, last but not least to new aims and methods and results in
respect of Biblical Research. It is patent that, in educated circles,
the church-going habit, if retained, is often accompanied by a
sense of inquietude and loss, and that assent to traditional belief
ever and again ceases to be half-hearted and merges in definite
negation2; as for the less instructed masses, restraint may be put
on gibe and scoff, but numbers stand doggedly aloof, not neces
sarily from religion, but from organized Christian life3. Again it
might be said with truth : ' at the present moment two things about
the Christian religion must surely be clear to anybody with eyes
in his head. One is, that men cannot do without it; the other,
that they cannot do with it as it is 4.'
The latter assertion, no doubt, bits the mark. As for its im
mediate predecessor, it is still based on solid fact ; in that symptoms
are numerous which testify to strong desires for 'dogmatic views
and conceptions which, better' grounded than the " Katechismus-
weisheit" of the traditional theology, shall the better harmonize
with modern thought6.' Unbelief, aloofness, hostility to ecclesi-
asticism, there may be ; — the signs of the times 6 are such as to
1 Gold win Smith, In Quest of Light, p. 39.
2 A recent little book entitled An Englishman's Farewell to his Church is
pathetically significant.
3 Cf. Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 2.
" Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. xiv.
s Soltau, ibid.
* Among them might, perhaps, be reckoned the eager demand for such
a book as Mr H. G. Wells' God the Invisible King.

xx INTRODUCTORY
suggest that 'the great body of mankind will not long live without
a faith1.' And let it be remarked that, if unsettlement and dissatisfaction
in the sphere of religious thought and action there undoubtedly
be, it is nevertheless certain that — with natural variety of mani
festation in individual cases — the 'Founder of Christianity' has
not ceased to occupy an exalted place in human minds. It is not
one man only who forces himself to ask: 'What have I come to
think of Christ2'? the self -same question is being raised in many
quarters, nor is effort spared in anxious search for answers which
shall in some sort satisfy the inquirer and end suspense. In no
preceding century has attention been so concentrated on Jesus as
is the case in the modern world3; to him all eyes are directed4.
'Amidst the crumbling of old forms and institutions, when that
new order is dawning for which one and all hope but which no one
may as yet discern, the gaze is riveted on Jesus with an intensity
hitherto unknown. That precisely at this juncture he has some
word for us and we great need of him is not so much an intellectual
perception as a profound consciousness which is overwhelming
for the inmost soul 5.' Or to turn from continental scholarship :
'I have yet to hear one college man among all the thousands I
have taught speak but in admiration of him' if the view in the
main stops short at the belief that 'He really lived and that He
was the profoundest ethical teacher the world had produced,' is
the striking testimony but lately borne by a University Professor
in the United States 6. Turning once again to England, it is a dis
tinguished Jew who says : ' Perhaps in the future Christianity and
Judaism will be able to shake hands over the Sermon on the Mount
and the fundamental elements in the moral and religious doctrine
of Jesus V
1 Munger, Freedom of Faith, p. 6. Cf. Percy Gardner, The Ephesian
Gospel, p. 354.
2 Diary of a Church-goer, p. 74. What think ye of Christ? is, by the way,
the title of a little book from the pen of C. E. Raven which, if inviting sharp
criticism, is in many ways suggestive. 3 Westermann, ZTK, xv, p. 523.
4 Seeberg, NKZ, xiv, pp. 437 ff.
6 Wernle, QueXlen des Lebens Jesu, p. 1.
c Carl HoUiday. HJ, xv, p. 302.
' Montefiore, Synop. Gospels, i, p. cvii.

INTRODUCTORY xxi
Thus, the wide world over, does the case appear to stand.
Then let us remark further that the problems which are to-day
exercising the minds of thousands — of whom many, by reason of
insufficient knowledge, are in sore need of help and guidance —
have long been, and still are, grappled with by specialists in the
diverse fields of theological research. If a duty laid in particular
on this age be that of fearless and withal reverent investigation
into sources, it is fully realized by scholars who, both at home and
abroad, are, unquestionably, showing themselves alive to the
demand; and, one and all concerned for truth, deep seriousness
and transparent honesty of purpose go with them to their work1.
Rightly conceived of, their unremitting toil is in reality a response
to 'the desire of Christendom' (nor yet of Christendom alone) 'for
the fullest and most exact knowledge possible of the historic life
and ministry of Jesus 2 ' ; and to them gratitude is due for that
'now, again, in our own times, the human Christ has come back
to us in tbe fulness of His manhood 3.' Truly this is so ; yet the
reminder is timely that ' for our knowledge of what . . . He is to-day,
we do not depend on our Scriptures; other evidence, vast and
varied, is forthcoming in the gesta Christi in the history of the
world4.' To make room here for a word or two as to the lines followed
by critical students of the Bible literature generally; and on the
attitude towards them which non-specialists may reasonably adopt.
It was said in effect at the outset, that 'in these days we have
to reckon with a combination of new studies, with new methods,
and new results of study.' Again to make use of borrowed words :
'The study of the past has become a science'; and, while in time
past the student was 'content to glean from early records a pictur
esque or a majestic story,' more precise now is his aim and more
precise are his methods. He is forced to. define; he "analyses his
authorities, compares them, weighs them in the balances of his
* Instances of levity and flippancy are rare.
2 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 1. See also Gunkel, Zum religionsgesch.
Verstdndnie des N.T., Vorwort.
* Bethune-Baker, Nestorius, p. 208.
4 Bethune-Baker, Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge,
8ft June, 1913.

xxii INTRODUCTORY
critical judgement'; he discriminates sources, and, taking account
of differences, gauges their significance; and essays to estimate
whatever historical values they may possess. 'Chronicles become
documents which he has to interpret, to reduce to their original
elements of fact and romance'; the one only thing which it is his
business to discover and present is Truth, and he accordingly works
on as convinced that 'in the end there will come a great reward in
pure and trustworthy knowledge.' Nor is the case otherwise when,
the question no longer pointing to secular literature, the writings
which constitute the 'Divine Library' are the field of research; on
the contrary, both aim and method are essentially the same. It
was inevitable that so it should be in respect of the varied writings
of the Old Testament; and as inevitable was it that a time should
come when, as it actually has come, inquiry should fasten on the
varied contents of the New Testament, in particular on tbe records
of the Life of Jesus. 'Christianity is a historical religion'; as such
it distinctly challenges that historical investigation which finds its
focal point and centre in Gospel criticism1.
Gospel Criticism. It is a fearsome thing for many a devout soul
which not seldom labours under the false impression that criticism
is but another word for wholesale denial and rejection. By well-
meaning if scarcely well-informed upholders of 'the Old Gospel'
as agamst 'the New Theology' it is often blatantly denounced.
With curious disregard of claims justly advanced by, or on behalf
of, masculine types of intelligence, it is asserted of those engaged
in it that they are occasion of stumbling to that 'weaker brother'
whose pose, in point of fact, is often highly suggestive of riding
rough-shod over others while expecting and demanding considera
tion for himself2- As if Truth itself were endangered by honest
1 F. H. Chase, Supernatural Elements, pp. 4-6; CTE, pp. 374 ff. See
also Bethune-Baker, Sermon. Dr Bethune-Baker's remarks on 'what is
called a moderate criticism ' should be carefully noted and digested.
2 ' Experience . . . tends to show that it is the rams, rather than the
lambs, that at right and especially at wrong times, are wont to let the world
know that they are being scandalized. It is not the really spiritually poor,
but your obstinate and noisy dogmatists who raise a hue and cry when free
inquiry demands the right to move within the religious as within all other
spheres,' Hoffding, Philosophy of Religion, p. 3.

INTRODUCTORY xxiii
and industrious search for Truth, or ' such an invalid as to be able
to take the air only in a close carriage1 ! ' Not so thought St Paul;
hence the 'prove all things2' which came from him.
What, then, is the right attitude to adopt? Most surely not
one which argues either timorousness or hostility. There is no
ground for the one or the other; there being so much to make it
evident that, if there be some apparent loss, it is more than
compensated by the great gain which has already issued, and is
issuing, from scholarly investigation of the Bible literature ; — and
by no means only in the case of the Old Testament scriptures;
'new light' has been, and is being, shed in abundance on those of
the New Testament also. And besides, Gospel Criticism, inevitable
as it was, has come to stay; this recognized, the wiser course is
not only to allow its reasonableness but to welcome it, to make
the most of what it has to teach3- As was said some years ago :
'Instead of using the Gospels to foreclose inquiry, we must use
the results of inquiry to interpret the Gospels . Let inquiry proceed,
the light shall help us, as we reverently welcome and use it,' with
out necessarily accepting every new hypothesis, but as ever testing
'the hypotheses with a vigorous scrutiny; or, if we cannot test
them ourselves, we shall wait till others whom we trust have tested
them4.' Or, as was said more recently by one in whom the trust
desiderated can be safely placed : ' I cannot doubt that the evolu
tion of tbe conception of the conditions of our Lord's life on earth,
which is coming with our fresh study of the Gospels, will enhance
the appeal that the living Christ is making to us in these our times
— His times. As we realize more fully the extent to which the Son
of God "emptied Himself" to enter on a really human life, to
1 Oliver Wendell Holmes.
2 1 Thess. v, 21. The Bishop of Ballarat, Dr A. V. Green (Ephes. Canon.
Writings, pp. 3 ff.), is not slow to urge the point. ' On a quelque peine a se
representor l'etat d'esprit de gens qui, d'une part, proolament l'autorite
souveraine de la parole du Christ, le salut par Christ seul, et qui, d'autre
part, se refusent & toute etude critique des evangiles,' Reville, Le Quatrieme
Mvangile, p. ii. The whole passage should be read.
3 A pioneer of Fourth Gospel criticism, Ballenstedt, has some highly
suggestive remarks to the same effect in the opening pages of his Philo und
Johannes (publ. 1802).
4 J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on Inspiration, p. 47.

xxiv INTRODUCTORY
learn from all the experiences "of joy and woe, and hope and fear,"
with no supernatural panoply to blunt the edge of any one of them
that each of us may not obtain : — the appeal He makes to us will
not be less persuasive and convincing than of old1.'
It is in such a mind and temper that the ordinarily instructed
reader should approach and acquaint himself with the works of
some of the many scholars who have concentrated their attention
on a document which bears the time-honoured title of ' Tbe Gospel
According to St John.'
1 Bethune-Baker, Sermon; Nestorius, p. 208.

CHAPTER I
' THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN '
It was once said of a Japanese gentleman who became a Christian :
'The vision of glory which came to him while reading John's ac
count of Our Lord's Life and Teaching was a vision from another
and diviner world; he fell at the feet of Christ, exclaiming, "My
Lord and My God." . . . He saw the Divine majesty and the Divine
grace of Christ; what could he do but worship Him?1'
Beautiful are the words. Springing, who can doubt it? from
the inmost experiences of the venerated divine who penned them,
they are also expressive of feelings which stir in thousands for
whom the noble work which bears the name of John has been, if
in varying manner, the revelation of a 'vision from another and
diviner world.' Not, perhaps, the 'most interesting' of the records
of the Life of Jesus, it is widely regarded as 'the favourite Gospel' ;
as Luther puts it: 'chief est of the Gospels, unique, tender, and
true2.' Herein Luther is in full agreement with Augustine : 'in the
four Gospels, or rather the four books of the one Gospel, St John
the Apostle, not unworthily in respect of spiritual intelligence com
pared to the eagle, hath taken a higher flight,. and soared in his
preaching much more sublimely than the other three, and in the
bfting up thereof would have our hearts lifted up bkewise3.' In
short, there is large and ungrudging witness to the 'tender and
unearthly beauty4' which pervades the often well-worn pages of
the Johannine Gospel.
1 Dale, The Uving Christ, pp. 42, 46 f.
2 ' Das einzige zarte rechte Haupt-Evangelium ' ; Werke, Erlangen,
1854, lxiii, p. 115. Oberhey (Der Gottesbrunnen der Menschheit, p. v)
alludes to it as ' Des Neuen Testamentes Allerheiligstes.' And see the famous
quotation from the Wandsbecker Bote (given at length by P. Ewald,
NKZ, xix, 1908, pp. 825 f.) : ' Am liebsten aber les' ich im Skt. Johannes &c.'
3 On St John, Hom. xxxvi.
' Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 2
J. 1

2 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
But it is safe to say that, of those by whom that Gospel is
treasured as a hallowed thing, there are numbers who, approaching
it and studying it with pre-conceived opinions and with fixed be
liefs, are either unaware of, or prefer to shut their eyes and ears to,
the grave difficulties which it presents. The Johannine problem,
as it is called, has no real existence for such persons ; as with the
Japanese gentleman of Dr Dale's allusion so with them, they do
not 'check their wonder and their awe' by vexing themselves with
questions relating to the authorship and historicity of what is so
dear to them as a sacred, a plenarily inspired, book. Accounting
it the absolutely true narrative of discourse and incident, they
make no room for doubt that it comes down to them from him
who figures in it as the Beloved Disciple. Its title is decisive for
them, 'The Gospel according to St John.' And in these and the
like prepossessions and convictions they are, undoubtedly, repre
sentative of, and can appeal to, a belief which stretches back
through long centuries to a far-distant past. ' No Gospel comes to
us with stronger external evidence of its acceptance by the Church1 '
than does this Gospel; its familiar title preserves the very name
borne by it immediately on its appearance in literature as the not
only used but formally adopted work2; when, towards the end of
the second century, the four Gospels emerge into the clear light of
day this Gospel is one of them', and its authority is 'recognized as
undoubtingly and unhesitatingly as that of the other three3.' A
few early dissentients are met with; otherwise its Johannine
authorship is assumed : ' the belief handed down that, in his old age,
the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, wrote bis Gospel as a last
testament to the Church4,' and that what it contained was a true
narrative, went for a long time unchallenged, and 'ecclesiastical
tradition has never assigned' the Gospel which bears John's name
'to anyone but the Apostle John5.'
Yet a day came when the gauntlet was thrown down boldly to
traditional and conventional belief. As the situation (it still ob-
1 J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 113.
2 O. Holtzmann, Das Evang. des Joh. p. 115.
3 Stanton, GHD, i, p. 162.
4 Jiilicher, Einl. p. 361.
* Soltau, op. cit. p. 103.

I. 'ACCORDING TO ST JOHN' 3
tains) has been stated within recent times: 'no book of the New
Testament has met with more sharply opposed criticism, nor in
respect of the true estimate of any other has there been so fierce a
conflict between love and hate. ' What, it is asked, is the true nature
of the Fourth Gospel? Is it a trustworthy record of the events
it purports to relate? Must it, on the other hand, be regarded as
' an epic or a drama or a theological tractate1 ' if strictly historical
it be not ? A ' unique book ' and to be approached ' with no ordinary
reverence ' ; ' the time is past,' it is quickly added, ' when we can
accept without a shade of misgiving the tradition of its authorship,
and delight ourselves without a question in its narratives2.' Mis
giving there is, and misgiving there must be; if questions be un
avoidable, it is because, raised by the Gospel itself, they stare every
honest student in the face.
To go back to the last decade of the eighteenth century.
Although the start with Fourth Gospel criticism really began in
England towards the close of the seventeenth century3, it was not,
until the year 1792 that it was bluntly asked, by an English clergy
man, 'how any kind of delusion should have induced creatures
endowed with reason so long to have received it (sc. the Fourth
Gospel) as the word of truth and the work of an Apostle of Jesus
Christ4.' Before long, in Germany, more hostile voices were raised,
and with diversity of conjecture and hypothesis; one suggestion
pointed to a genuine work of the Apostle with abundant supple
mentary matter by a later hand 5 ; it was said that the real author
1 Heinrici, Der litterar. Charakter dear neutest. Sehriften, p. 48.
2 Drummond. op. cit. pp. 1 f.
3 'De eerste kritische twijfel openbaarde zich in Engeland, waarschijnlijk
van de zijde der engelsche deisten, eerst aan het einde der 17de eeuw.'
Scholten, Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 24. And see Clericus (Hammond, Novum
Test  cum paraphrasi et adnotationibus, 2nd ed.,i,pp. 391,395): Confutare
etiam non sum adgressus novos Alogos, quorum scripta non vidi. . . . Idem
hodie Alogorum imitatores. . . .
4 Evanson, Dissonance of the four commonly received Gospels, p. 226.
The 'shallow criticism,' ae Luthardt called it, if of a particular passage, is
generally significant of both the position and the manner of the sometime
Vicar of Tewkesbury. His criticism was, no doubt, crude and marred by
coarseness of expression, yet justice should be done to him as a pioneer.
5 Eckermann (1796). Vogel (1801) cited the EvangeUst to the divine
tribunal. 1—2

4 THE FOURTH GOSPEL OH.
of the Gospel was an Alexandrian Christian1 or a disciple of the
Apostle John2. With firmer grasp and fuller statement of the
Johannine problem in its many ramifications3 it was held incredible
that the Gospel should have come from an Apostle's pen; and,
albeit the scholar who thus confidently argued made show of re
treating from his position4 and controversy for the time being
slumbered, it is none the less the case that the questions shrewdly
raised by him in detail have appeared but to reappear in that Fourth
Gospel criticism which since his day bas grown into a 'mighty
stream,' and a mass of literature5 affords ample proof that 'the
problem of the Fourth Gospel is still the most unsettled, the most
living, the most sensitive in all the field of introduction6,' 'the
cardinal inquiry, not merely of all New Testament criticism, but
even of Christology '.' The delicacy and intricacy of the problem
is generally admitted; as might be expected, there is wide diver
gence of view ; the pleas vigorously raised in some quarters on behalf
of traditional authorship and historicity are elsewhere deemed
invalid and are as vigorously disallowed. Yet on both sides there
is a tendency to make concessions, while there is general agreement
that, whatever else it be, John's Gospel is a noble and inspiring
work. In more radical quarters it is said of it that, not by the
Apostle and not what we moderns call history, it nevertheless
leads back to Jesus, and that, if its theological vesture be worn
threadbare, it scintillates with and awakens faith8; attributed to
an author who 'remains unknown* and who had 'not witnessed
the earthly life of Jesus except through the eyes of others,' 'the
Gospel is the work of a great religious thinker who had entered
profoundly into spiritual fellowship with Christ9'; 'while the
author makes Jesus speak and act as the real Jesus never spoke
and acted, yet in the discourses and the works so lent to Mm there
1 Horst (1803). 2 Paulus (1821).
" Bretschneider, Probabilia de evang. et epis. Joan, apos indole et origine.
* Cf. Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 697.
* No fewer than some 220 works on the Fourth Gospel are enumerated
by Moffatt, Introd. to N.T. pp. 515 ff.
6 Bacon, Introd. to N.T. p. 252.
7 Luthardt, St John's Gospel, p. 3.
8 HeitmiiUer, SNT, ii, p. 707.
9 E. F. Scott, Histor. and Relig. Value of the Fourth Gospel, pp 17 f.

I. • ACCORDING TO ST JOHN ' 5
ceases not to be a living Christ1.' As for the more conservative
school of criticism, a relatively late date is readily admitted; an
element of subjectivity; an 'apparent transference of the matured
thought of the author to the lips of tbe speakers in his narrative2' ;
not a few, perhaps, would speak of ' an interpretation rather than
a life3,' and allow, nor yet df one section only in the Gospel, that
'it contains the reflections of the Evangelist, and is not a continua
tion of the words of the Lord4' ; further, that, in the case of some
of the Gospel contents, in respect at all events of detail, there is
need of reservation. To revert, for a moment, to the former
quarter; an earlier date is acquiesced in, and the terms 'pure
romance' and 'down-right fiction' are more seldom heard or more
guardedly used ; here and there dependence on Apostolic notes and
influences is allowed if it be held impossible to discover in the
Evangelist St John himself. ' Even among those critics who regard
the Gospel as concerned, on the whole, more with religious instruc
tion than with historic accuracy, there are some who make the
reservation that echoes of a true historic record are to be heard in
it, so that it may be called a mixture of truth and poetry5.'
Thus much by way of rapid survey of Fourth Gospel re
search in its inception and its earlier stages, of the situation as it
exists at the present day6 In the following pages we will attempt
some discussion of the problems which confront the serious and
open-minded student; and in the course thereof frequent resort
shall be had to books which emanate from theological workshops
both at home and abroad, nor need there be the slightest hesitation
to include such as witness to the 'indefatigable industry, profound
thought, conscientious love of knowledge' which are admittedly
1 Loisy, Quatriime fivang. p. 119. From the closing sentences of a fine

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

6 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
characteristic of German scholarship1. At the close of this chapter
some remarks shall be ventured in the hope of reassuring those
who, having read thus far, may imagine themselves not only robbed
of their security in respect of 'John's' Gospel, but asked to sit
fast and loose to what, in their conviction, are of the fundamentals
of the Christian faith.
It was said to an earlier generation that 'the assailants of (the
Fourth Gospel) are of two kinds: those who deny the miraculous
element in Christianity, those who deny the distinctive character
of Christian doctrine,' and that the Gospel 'confronts both2.'
There has been a moving on since then, with a consequent change
of front; and now it would be widely allowed that such strong
assertions, not altogether destitute of truth in certain cases, are
by no means true all round. ' It is unjust to assume that those who
question the authenticity of the Gospel according to St John are
primarily impelled to do so by theological prepossession,' neither
is it right to say that they are one and all prejudiced by 'its em
phatic declaration of the divinity of Christ.' As a matter of fact
'there are many who are heartily devoted to that central truth,
and yet cannot easily persuade themselves that the Fourth Gospel
offers them history quite in the sense that the other Gospels do,
cannot think that Christ spoke exactly as He is here represented as
speaking, and consequently cannot feel assured that this is the
record of an eye-witness, or, in other words, of the Apostle St
John3.' And here perhaps it might be put on record that the
traditional authorship of the Gospel has found a staunch upholder
in a distinguished Unitarian scholar and divine 4.
In anticipation of a comparison to be instituted later on be-

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

I. 'ACCORDING TO ST JOHN' 7
tween 'John' and the 'other Gospels,' the following well-weighed
words shall find a place here :
' The authors of our first three Gospels, in giving, or at all
events professing to give, a simple narrative of incident and
teaching, and reporting the impression which Jesus made on
the first generations of disciples, show us a person with a
double consciousness ; to whom the Divine communion He
enjoyed was as real as the human life He lived1.'
There is nevertheless ' the problem of the Person of Christ2.'
1 Bethune-Baker, N estorius, p. x. And thus Ammon (Geschichte des Lebens
Jesu, publ. 1 842, i, p. 82) : ' In jedem FaUe aber ist es ungegriindet, dass in den
drei ersten EvangeUen die hohere Natur Jesu iibersehen und vernachlassigt
worden sei. ' It might be said perhaps of the ' Hat Jesus gelebt ? ' controversy
(the echoes which have passed from Germany into England) that it has
forced a recognition that behind the human Jesus of the Synoptic repre
sentation there stands One who is conceived of as more than mere man.
2 Cf. A. W. Robinson, Are we making progress?, p. 19.

CHAPTER II
APPROXIMATE DATE OF THE GOSPEL
With a change of outlook for the Early Church1 and a growing
consciousness of new needs2 a demand sprang up for records of the
earthly life of Jesus, and hence the birth of a distinctively Christian
literature3. In other words, men started on the composition of
'books'; and these in course of time were designated by a term
which, passmg from its original meaning4, was used in the first
instance of the oral message and then of the document wherein
the 'glad tidings' was contained: the 'One Gospel' — as set forth
by the several pen-men; 'the Gospels,' their respective works.
And there is abundant proof of much industrious activity, at a
very early period, in the new field. The allusion Lk. i, 1 ff. is sig
nificant; and, although the word 'many' does not necessarily imply
an extensive library, it would scarcely have been used by tbe
Evangelist had but some two or three sources only have been at
his command. Other evidence is available; and it consists, not in
'Christian romances' which belong to a somewhat later day, but
in fragments of writings approximately near in date to the Canon
ical Gospels, together with possible allusions to one not otherwise
known. It may accordingly be said of the Canonical Gospels that
they are really specimens of a type or class of literature wliich,
highly popular, spread far and wide.
A time came when the four Bible Gospels — the 'holy quater-
1 A reaUzation that the ' Coming of the Lord ' might be delayed, cf . 2 Pet.
iii, 8 ff. Here and in some foUowing paragraphs I have ventured to draw on
a paper (on the Synoptic Problem) contributed by me to CBE.
2 By reason of (i) the dying off of men who had seen and known Jesus,
and (n) the spread of the new rehgion.
3 As distinguished from correspondence; the occasional writings known
as 'Epistles.' 4 e<5ct77(??uoi<, the reward given to the bearer of good tidings. See JuUcher,
Einl. p. 252.

CH. ii. APPROXIMATE DATE 9
nion' of Eusebius — were fenced off as it were from other writings
of the same family, 'canonized.' To mark off separate stages in
the process is impossible; no express information is forthcoming,
and it is a right view wliich suggests that tbe ' canonization ' of all
the New Testament writings was tbe issue of an unconscious
growth. That no special sanctity attached at the outset to the
Gospels is clear both from the attitude of Evangelist to Evange
list1, and also from the fact that when Tatian substituted his
Diatessaron for them in all good faith exception was not taken
to his action or to the 'harmony' which of course witnessed to an
importance they already possessed. How precisely it came about
that four Gospels were singled out from the rest, placed side by
side, accounted authoritative and sacred, is not fully known; what
can be said is that, as time went on, 'the caskets which enshrined
the jewel of traditions concerning Jesus were identified with the
j ewel itself ' ; and, if the completion of the New Testament Canon as
a whole cannot be dated earlier than the close of the Fourth
century (in the case of Eastern churches somewhat later), it is
certain that the Gospels had long before attained a position of
supremacy in by far the larger part of the Christendom of the age.
For Irenaeus they are 'Holy Scripture,' and he gives fanciful
reasons as to why they are precisely four in number2.
Or to put it thus: the 'many' Gospels in circulation had been
subjected to such tests as the critical acumen and spiritual insight
of the day could apply; by degrees the superiority of some and the
inferiority of others was determined; in the event four and four
only were deemed worthy to survive, and they, the Canonical
Gospels, remained masters of the field3
They did not invariably stand in the to us accustomed order.
No fewer than seven different arrangements have been reckoned
up, of wliich two only however appear to have been at all wide
spread; the sequence Matthew, John, Luke, Mark4, and the more
generally favoured sequence of the ordinary Bible5 These two
1 To wit, the free handling of our Second Gospel by the First and Third
Evangelists. 2 Euseb. HE, v. 8.
3 Ecclesia quatuor habet evangeUa, haereses plurima (Origen).
4 So in the Monarchian Prologues. '
5 The order which obtains in the Muratorian Canon.

10 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
arrangements, it is suggested, are alike significant; in the former
case of values placed on the respective Gospels — those attributed
to Apostles ranking above those attributed to disciples of the
Apostles; the more familiar sequence being based on chronological
principle, John regarded as last and Matthew first in order of com
position1. As for the titles of tbe Gospels; in the earliest MSS. one
general title, ETArTEAION, covers the four, the separate books
being simply headed RATA MA@@AION and so forth. These
titles are not to be assigned to the authors themselves ; they were
prefixed by others, and probably date from the period when the
four Gospels were so collected together as to form one whole. And
it is a safe assumption that those who prefixed them regarded,
and meant to indicate, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors
of the Gospels so named2- Whether the verdict thus pronounced
was well founded is quite another matter, and it is the business of
students of Christian history to apply modern and approved tests.
To turn from such preliminary considerations to our Gospel.
While the first three Gospels are ' sister- works,' it stands, as all
admit, in a distinct category, by itself apart, and not only because
of its position in the Canon but for other reasons3 it is more fre
quently termed the 'Fourth Gospel' in the diction ,of Biblical
research. And the subject to be approached and provisionally
determined in this chapter is one wliich hinges bn the question of
its approximate date.
There are two extreme limits beyond which there is no need to
travel in our search.
First; in the eyes of Irenaeus all four Gospels are Holy Scrip
ture. Judging from the manner of his allusions, the rank thus
acquired by them, however gradually, had ceased to be a novelty
in the period marked by his literary activities 4 ; and the inference
1 So JiiUcher.
2 The word /card might mean 'as used by,' or "as taught by,' or imply
direct authorship. The latter meaning is the one to be adopted. See Volkmar
(Die EvangeUen, p. ix f.), who has some caustic remarks on the subject.
3 To avoid committals in respect to authorship, etc.
4 Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor, was born ca. a.d. 135-142. He may
have paid several visits to Rome, but the scene of his chief activities lay in
Gaul; a presbyter of the Church of Lyons he became its Bishop ca. a.d. 178:

n. APPROXIMATE DATE 11
is safe that they had so ranked for some little time. 'John' was
one of those Gospels. Whether it be the case or not that its attach
ment to the Synoptic group had been attended with hesitation, it
could have been no very recent work when Irenaeus said his say.
Nor is this all. Some years earlier, as it would appear, it had been
already commented upon by Heracleon1.
Hence the terminus ad quem can by no possibility be referred
to a date later than the last decade but two of the second century.
In the second place. There is a strong consensus of opinion, at
all events it is now widely allowed, that the Synoptic Gospels were
known to, or known of by, the Fourth Evangelist2. The conclusion
naturally follows that the terminus a quo for the composition of his
own Gospel is the date assignable to the latest.of the ' sister- works ' ;
and accordingly, by reason of th% admitted priority of Mark, the
choice rests between the Matthaean and the Lucan Gospels.
What of their respective dates? ' The great authorities differ' ;
as for the First Gospel, there is no certainty whether as to author
ship, locality or date ; it may point to the close of the first century,
or it may present features quite compatible with an earlier period ;
a cautious verdict finds much which, forbidding a date earlier than
ca. A.D. 80, does 'not require one later than 1003'; between the
his death took place some ten or fifteen years later. One of his works (Adv.
Haer.) is dated ca. a.d. 180-190.
1 Probably the first to write a commentary on the Fourth Gospel. A
native of Alexandria, he was a disciple of Valentinus, and flourished ca.
a.d. 145-180. Bleek (Beitrdge zur Evangdien-Kritik, p. 215) remarks: 'Die
Erklarungen des Heracleon zeigen aufs deutUchste dass er das Evlgm. als
eine in anerkanntem Ansehen stehende Schrift vorgefunden hat.' Cf . Stanton,
GHD, i, p. 258; Loisy, op. cii. p. 17.
2 EB, n, col. 2540; Forbes, The Johan. Literature, p. 154; Loisy, op. cit.
p. 60. Moffatt (op. cit. p. 534) writes : 'the only Gospel about which there need
be any hesitation is that of Lk,' but (see p. 58 1 ) his hesitation is evidently shght,
as weU it may be. Schleiermacher (Einl. ins N.T. p. 317) found reasons why
'John' could not have known the Syn. Gospels. Calmes (L'fivan. selon Saint-
Jean, p. 8) is doubtful in regard to Uterary dependence. See also Wendt,
Die Schichten im vierten Evglm. p. 107. According to Cludius ( Uransichten des
Christenthums, pp. 61 f.) the Fourth EvangeUst could not possibly have
known Matthew. It is noteworthy that the Fourth Gospel was held by
Semler (see Lange, Das Evglm. Joh. p. 26) to be the earUest of aU the Gospels
See also Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 331.
3 McNeUe, St Matthew, p. xxviii.

12 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
years '70 and 100' is about all that can be said1. In like manner
with the Gospel which bears the name of Luke; it is held by not a
few that 'the decade from a.d. 70 to a.d. 80 is the probable date2,'
or that there are grounds for preferring 'the intermediate date of
a.d. 75-803.' Allowance must be made for some developement of
Gospel literature, while, if the Third Evangelist had actually read
Josephus4, the first century would be nearing its end when he
wrote. The situation is precarious. It would appear that refuge must
be taken in an 'either — or.' If the terminus a quo does not lie ,
within the decade a.d. 70-80, it cannot well be pushed back
earlier than a.d. 95; and indeed ca. a.d. 95-100 might be nearer
the mark.
Let us now cast about for sirfh evidence as may go near, if not
all the way, to suggest a date later than to whicb the composition
of the Fourth Gospel cannot be referred.
An appeal, it may be, lies to the second Petrine Epistle; which,
not by St Peter, is, according to a recent conjecture, a composite
work wherein are embedded genuine Apostolic fragments5. Here
attention is arrested by the statement 2 Pet. i, 14, it being, in any
case, strongly reminiscent of Jn xxi, 18 ff. 6 ; but tbe question may,
of course, be of mere coincidence or of independent allusion to
accomplished fact. Yet a possibility remains that an unknown
author who wrote ca. a.d. 160-175 7 was leaning on the Fourth
Gospel. The region for search now lies outside the Canon of the New
Testament. 1 J. Weiss, SNT, i, p. 230.
2 Adeney, St Luke (CB), p. 32.
8 Plummei, St Luke, p. xxxi.
4 Burkitt, Gosp. Hist. pp. 105 ff.; Forbes, op. cit. p. 164.
6 E. IUff Robson, Studies in 2nd Ep. of St Peter.
6 De Wette, Lehrbuch der histor. -krit. Einl. in die kanon. Bucher des N.T.
p. 225. But see Sohenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu, p. 250. Remarking on
1 Pet. i, 19; Jn i, 29, P. Ewald (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, p. 70)
discovers ' Johanneische Materialien im ersten Petrusbriefe.'
7 So Harnack. With others the date ranges between a.d. 100 and
a.d. 175. According to HoUmann (SNT, U, p. 574) 2nd Pet. is the latest of aU
the N.T. writings.

n. APPROXIMATE DATE 13
Passing reference may be made to tbe little sect nick-named
by Epiphanius the Alogi. They will be heard of again; the point
here is that ca. a.d. 175 — 'or possibly ten years or so earlier' —
they testify to tbe existence of the Fourth Gospel, if in such a way
as to show that its authority 'was as yet not firmly established1.'
The fact that they could assign its authorship to Cerinthus is per
haps significant of a work of by no means recent composition.
Are hints forthcoming from the so-called Second Epistle of
Clement — 'no letter but a homily' — whicb, originating possibly at
Rome or Corinth, is assigned to tbe period a.d. 120-140 or 1502?
There is similarity of idea as to tbe Incarnation, with phraseology
held to be at least suggestive of the Prologue (Jn i, Iff.) of the
Fourth Gospel3. Yet dependence is not proved; and perhaps the
facts of the case are fairly satisfied by tbe hypothesis that the
'pseudo-Clement had resort to a source fusing the forms found in
Luke and Matthew' 'with such additions as made it correspond
more completely to the notion of Christ's Gospel4.'
To turn to the Shepherd of Hermas. The work of a single
author who, it may be, spent five years and upwards in its com
position, it seems to have made its appearance somewhere in the
decade a.d. 130-140; turns and phrases are met with in it to which
at first sight there appear to be definite parallels in the Johannine
Gospel. A Johannine colouring may be admitted; but whether
occasional coincidence or similarity of figure or expression be con
clusive for direct literary connexion is doubtful; and, albeit four
Gospels are perhaps symbolized by the 'bench with four feet'
(Vis. iii, 13) and 'four ranks in the foundation of the tower' (Sim.
ix, 4) of which Hermas tells, it does not follow that he is a witness
to the Fourth Gospel itself.
The case is scarcely otherwise with the remarkable work which,
discovered in a library at Constantinople by Bishop Bryennios,
1 Stanton, op. cit. i, p. 210. The whole section dealing with the Alogi
should be read. See also Loisy, op. cit. pp. 18 fl.
2 RGG, i, col. 553.
3 See Loisy, op. cit. p. 3.
4 NTAF (Oxf, Soe. of Hist. Theology) p. 125. The reader is advised to
consult this work; it is laid under contribution in regard to the writings now
under consideration.

14 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
was published in 1883; the Didache, The Teaching of Tbe Twelve
Apostles. There is however, wide diversity of opinion in respect
of date; and if it be a relatively late work1, it ceases to be of value
in the present search. Nor does the evidence forthcoming from it
go for much; the figure of the vine (Did. ix, 2) is but slightly
reminiscent of Jnxv, 1; 'the point of closest resemblance is that
the Didache, like the Fourth Gospel, does not connect the spiritual
food with the specific ideas of the institution' of the Eucharist.
Neither is there any sure guidance in the Epistle which, pro
bably originating in Egypt, bears the name of Barnabas; for,
whether of relatively early date or not— a.d. 100-140, or a.d. 70-
1002 — the connecting links are few, and at most such as to suggest
a phraseology not so much borrowed as already current coin.
Johannine resemblances are certainly met with in the Epistle
addressed to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome, but they hardly
prove dependence, and a probability must be reckoned with that,
when Clement wrote, ca. a.d. 95 or 96, the Fourth Gospel had not
yet come into existence3.
We now question Justin Martyr4. In the crucial passage ex
press mention is made by him of 'memoirs' compiled by Christ's
Apostles and those who companioned with them5; and, although
the hypothesis has been advanced 6 that, not without knowledge of
the Canonical Gospels, Justin really used a single work, the reference
is best accounted for by the supposition that the 'memoirs' were
none other than the works which bear the names of the Apostles
1 Hamack places it between a.d. 130andA.D. 160;Knopf (RGG,i,col. 553)
extends the hmits from a.d. 90 to a.d. 150.
2 RGG, i, col. 552.
3 Calmes (op. cit. pp. 49 ff.) argues for the dependence of Clem. Rom. on
the Fourth Gospel.
4 His birthplace Sychem and of Greek parentage, Justm (refusing to
discard his phUosopher'a cloak) became a convert at the age of thirty, and
gained renown for his vigorous defence of Christianity against the pagans.
He was beheaded at Rome about the year a.d. 165 His extant writings
consist of two Apologies and a Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
6 Dial. 103: iv yap tois airofi.vrip.oi'eifmai a tpti/ju, viro rdv airoaTihwii airou
Kai tSju tKeivois TrapaKo\ovdT]<T&vT(ai' (TvvTerdxSaL.
6 E.g. by Credner. See Stanton, op. cit. pp. 76 ff., on the whole question.
Also Ezra Abbott, Fourth Gospel, pp. 16 ff.

n. APPROXIMATE DATE 15
Matthew and John and of the disciples of Apostles viz. Mark and
Luke1. Justin's Christology is essentially Johannine ; it is true that
he nowhere expressly names tbe Fourth Gospel, but there is, in the
eyes of many, amply sufficient evidence that it was not only known
to him but actually used2. The assumption accordingly is that, by
tbe year a.d. 1613 at the very latest, our Gospel was already well
known, while perhaps not as yet ranked with the Synoptics.
It may be that Justin both knew and used the docetic Gospel
which, bearing the name of Peter 4, enj oyed popularity (ca. a.d. 200)
at Rhossus in Cilicia and justly excited the suspicions of Serapion5.
In it there appear to be points of contact 6 which suggest that the
Fourth Gospel was known to, and very freely handled by, the
docetist writer whose work, if really used by Justin, cannot be later
than ca. A.D. 150, while it may stretch as far back as a.d. 1307.
If such be really the case the heretical work would become a rela
tively early witness to the existence of our Gospel.
Whether our Gospel was actually known to Papias8 is a moot
point, and as his name will come up in another connexion, no
appeal shall be made now to the Bishop pf Hierapolis. Nor will it
serve the immediate purpose to instance Polycarp9; he too will be
referred to later on, and here it shall suffice to say that no con
clusive proof of dependence is discovered in the Epistle addressed
by him to the Philippians. Opinion differs in regard to Ignatius10 ;
1 EB, i, col. 677. According to Liitzelberger (Die Kirchl. Tradition
iiber den Apos. Joh. p. 250) Justin's four Gospels were Mt., Mk, Lk. and
Peter =Hebr.
2 Loisy, op. cit. pp. 14 f. ; HeitmuUer, SNT, ii, p. 709. Otherwise
Schwegler, Der Montanismus und die christi. Kirche, p. 184.
3 So Stanton, and see Calmes, op. cit. pp. 26 ff.
4 See Rendel Harris, Newly -recovered Gospel of Peter.
6 Euseb. HE, vi, 12. 6 Loisy, op. cit. p. 15 f. ' RGG. i, col. 547.
8 Flourished ca. a.d. 70 (80)-140. W. Bauer (HBNT, n, ii, p. 5) regards
it as probable that he knew our Gospel. Larfeld (Die beiden Johannes von
Ephesus, p. 185) refuses to admit of any doubt. HeitmuUer (SNT, U, p. 709)
wisely contents himself with a 'perhaps.' Schleiermacher (op. cit. p. 243)
advanced grounds which made it clear to him that Papias did not know
'John.' Bishop of Smyrna. The date of his martyrdom is placed by Eusebius
(HE. iv. 15) ca. a.d. 166.
10 Bishop of Antioch, martyred at Rome during the reign of Trajan. His

16 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch
on the one hand it is urged that, in his Christology, he is depen
dent on 'John1,' on the other hand flat negations come as a
matter of course from quarters where the Gospel is relegated to a
long subsequent date. More cautiously is it said that its use by
the martyr, if highly probable, falls some way short of certainty,
and prudence might be content to note features which are highly
suggestive of 'the Johannine world of thought and phrase2.'
But that the beautiful Epistle to Diognetus3 is an unsolved
riddle in respect of writer and addressee, of locality and date, it
might be summoned as an earlier witness inasmuch as Johannine
notes ring out in it, and, were we to take its accomplished author
at his word ('a disciple of the Apostles'), the conclusion might
follow that it was composed in the reign of Trajan. The possibility
is, however, that it originated in a considerably later period4.
The name of Heracleon, already instanced, now points us, if
only for a moment, to his predecessors in those great movements
of thought which, more or less tinged with Christian ideas, culmin
ated in the ' boldest and grandest Syncretism the world had ever
beheld5'; but, as the question of Gnosticism will be discussed
later, it may suffice to remark here that adequate ground is dis
covered for the belief that ca. a.d. 135 'John's' Gospel was highly
esteemed by Basilides 6 and was well known to the Valentinians 7,
if doubt arises in the case of the master himself8.
genuine Epistles (Shorter Greek recension) are dated within the years
a.d. 109-116. Harnack (Chron. i, p. 719) writes: '110-117; perhaps, but
improbably, a few years later.'
1 Loisy, op. cit. p. 6. To the same effect Lightfoot, Zahn and others.
2 Wendt, op. cit. pp. 176 f. Indications of the use by Ignatius do not seem
to Stanton (op. cit. i, p. 19) 'to be altogether wanting, although they are not
so full and clear as might have been expected.' Bardsley (JTS, xiv, pp. 207 f.)
writes with greater confidence. On the other hand Schwegler (op. cit. p. 159)
writes: 'die Verfasser der ignatian. Briefe tragen jene Lehre (sc. die Logos-
lehre) ohne, wie es scheint, das Johan. Evglm. zu kennen, bereits in ziemlich
ausgebUdeter Gestalt vor.'
3 First printed by H. Stephens in 1592, the one then extant MS. perished
at Strasburg in the Franco-German War. A transcript (made by Stephens)
is preserved at Leyden.
4 Bardenhewer prefers to think of the third century.
s Kurtz, Ch. Hist, i, p. 99.
(For notes 6-8 see p_ 17.)

II. APPROXIMATE DATE 17
At this point we will pause in our search; and content ourselves,
for the time being, with setting down such provisional conclusions
as appear to be suggested by an inquiry which bas not stepped
outside tbe field of external evidence.
First in respect of a terminus ad quem. The question is not
altogether easy to decide; for, in the case of certain Apostolic
fathers, coincidence of idea and phrase is not in itself proof of actual
acquaintance with tbe Fourth Gospel, while documents otherwise
temptingly suggestive must be ruled out by reason of their obscure
origination. This, at all events, appears certain ; the extreme limit
which points to the days of Irenaeus may be pushed back by
several decades. The question then is: how much further back?
An answer comes with the recognition that, albeit 'the first reliable
traces of tbe existence of tbe Fourth Gospel are found in the
Apology of Justin Martyr1,' there is warrant for the assumption
of its use 'in tbe circles of Valentinian Gnosis2.'
The provisional terminus ad quem, accordingly, lies somewhere
about tbe *year a.d. 135.
Secondly. The question of the terminus a quo is encompassed
with difficulty, in that it is contingent on the dating of the First
and Third Gospels. It may, on the one band, be discovered in
the years ca. a.d. 75-80; on the other hand it may not be earlier
than the close of the first century. At this stage no further word
is possible. In due course the Fourth Gospel will be itself questioned, and
its approximate date more nearly determined from internal evi
dence presented by it, the tone and tenor of its contents. But it
must be our first business to go into tbe question of its authorship
in venerable tradition.
R Basihdes flourished ca. a.d. 117-138. About aU that is known of him
is that he taught at Alexandria, perhaps also at Antioch and in Persia.
His teaching survives mainly in aUusions by his opponents, e.g. Clem. Alex. ;
of his Exegetica but fragments are extant.
' See on the whole question Scott-Moncrieff, St John Apos. Evang. and
Prophet, pp. 240 ff. ; also Stanton, op. cit. i, pp. 64 ff. (Basihdes), pp. 69, 205
(Valentinus). 8 'Ob der Meister der Schule es gekannt hat ist fragUch,' W. Bauer,
HBNT, n, ii, p. 5.
1 HeitmuUer, SNT, ii, p. 709. 2 Moffatt, op. cit. p. 581.
3. 2

CHAPTER III
AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION
'The evidences which reach back to disciples of disciples of St
John, even to St John himself, wbo repeatedly affirms it in his
Gospel, demonstrate that that Gospel was written by that very
same Apostle1.'
So runs the verdict which, with much show of plausibility and
prolific diatribe against 'self-styled critics,' amounts to a trium
phant cadit quaestio in regard to the authorship of the Fourth
Gospel. Pronounced by a writer who, pledged — it would seem —
to the defence, is evidently well content to exercise the combined
functions of counsel, jury-man, and judge, its unhesitating accept
ance in the circles immediately addressed by him is a foregone
conclusion. Yet such will scarcely be the case in other quarters;
nor will open-minded students be slow to realize that the situation
is far more complicated than he allows it to be supposed.
In like manner as in the preceding chapter, the question of
authorship shall, at this stage, be discussed with exclusive reference
to external evidence2; and with the recognition that any decisive
word — if such a word be possible — must be spoken by the Gospel
itself3. There is no doubt whatsoever that upholders of the ' orthodox
opinion' (there are, be it said, 'critics' among them) have the
strong support of two illustrious personages, Eusebius and Origen,
and they shall be questioned in the first instance.
To begin with Eusebius4- This writer entertains no doubt that
1 PoUdori, I Nostri Quattro Evangelii, p. 246. With the Uke confidence
H. H. Evans (St John the author ofthe Fourth Gospel, pp. 84, 99).
2 PoUdori's assertion points to internal as weU as to external evidence.
3 Cf. Wernle, QuelUn, pp. 9, 11.
4 Bishop of Caesarea, a.d. 314-340. The pupU and the friend of scholars,
he was himself possessed of extensive learning; and, a great traveUer, he had

OH. m. AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION 19
he wbo, returning from bis island-exile, governed the Churches in
Asia, and continued to reside in Ephesus until the days of Trajan,
was John, Apostle and Evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved1.
Discoursing on the order of the Gospels2, he starts off with an
allusion to the undisputed writings of the same Apostle3; of these,
says be, the Gospel, so well known in all the Churches under heaven,
must be acknowledged at the first; then, explaining why John's
Gospel stands last in order of sequence, he treats of those previously
published by Matthew, Mark and Luke. What follows from him
is to the following effect: John, they say, having all his time
preached but not using his pen, in the end set himself to write.
The occasion was this : on the three earlier Gospels being handed
to him, be, they say, admitted them and testified to their truth,
albeit they were therein defective that the earlier stages of the
ministry were absent from their accounts. Such, says Eusebius,
was the fact; and, the omissions being specified by him, he thus
proceeds : for these reasons, the Apostle John, they say, being en
treated to undertake the task, wrote an account of the period not
touched on by the other Evangelists and of doings of the Saviour
whicb they had omitted to record. With dismissal of arguments
advanced by some that the Gospels were at variance, and with
some remarks on John's additions and John's silence on the gene
alogy of tbe Lord, Eusebius adds: thus much about tbe Gospel
according to John.
Such, in substance, is tbe testimony of the Bishop of Caesarea.
Two things may be inferred from it; to begin with, he himself is
fully persuaded that, however the case might stand with the two
smaller Epistles and tbe Apocalypse, the author of the Fourth
Gospel (and of the First Epistle) is John the Apostle and Beloved
Disciple. And next: tbe reiterated 'they say' is significant of de-
frequent opportunities of converse with famous persons. He was weU versed
in the beUefs and opinions current in his age. His industry as a historian is
conspicuous, if his style be somewhat prosaic and there be lack of system in
the arrangement of his matter.
J HE, iii, 23. 2 Ibid, iu, 24.
8 The Gospel and the First Epistle. Eusebius adds that the two smaUer
Epistles were in dispute, and that with regard to the Apocalypse there was
difference of opinion.
2—2

20 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
pendence; the inference here is that Eusebius, having consulted
such authorities as were at his command, finds a strong consensus
of opinion to warrant his belief1
Eusebius was, no doubt, abreast of bis times and indefatigable
in research2- He records what, to the best of bis judgement, was
ascertained fact; yet his critical judgement might be at fault, for,
however conscientious and painstaking be might be, bis methods
and his tests were, after all, those of his own day, and a wide gulf
lies between him and historians of the modern world. Accordingly
it cannot be allowed off-hand that the traditional authorship of
the Gospel is finally established by what be set down in all good
faith. As for Origen 3, his belief was to the like effect. In the first of
the many books of his great commentary on our Gospel, he places
it last in order of sequence ; in the fifth book he writes : What must
be said of him, John, who reclined on Jesus' breast? He wbo has
left one Gospel, with the avowal that he could write far more than
the world itself could contain4- By 'John' Origen certainly means
the Apostle John ; and we may note in passing that he refers both
the Gospel and the Apocalypse to the same pen.
It will be observed that Eusebius appeals to Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria 5 ; and to Irenaeus and, if with some delay,
to Clement, inquiry shall now turn.
Irenaeus. What this Father says about the Gospels is, in sub
stance, this : Matthew produced his Gospel among the Hebrews,
and in their dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and
1 'An individual might make a mistake about the authorship of a book,
but could a whole community?' Mackay, A Reasonable Faith, p. 106. Yet
beUefs do grow up on a very sUght basis of fact, not to say without any basis
at aU. 2 Eusebius 'las griindUch'; Hamack, Chron. i, p. 657. Cf. Schwartz, Uber
den Tod der Sohne Zeb. p. 22.
3 Origen (a.d. 185-254) was born at Alexandria. The pupil of Clement,
he had visited Rome; he laboured in Arabia; some years were spent by him
at Antioch; when on the way to Greece he passed through Palestine. A pro
found thinker, his Uterary activity was vast; and Raven's panegyric (op. cit.
pp. 74 f.) is richly deserved by one who, in the eyes of pagans and Christians,
was 'a miracle of scholarship.'
4 Euseb. HE, vi, 25. Cf. Jn xxi, 25. 6 HE, iii, 23.

m. AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION 21
laying the foundations of tbe Church in Rome. They being de
ceased, Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down
to us in writing things which Peter had preached. Luke, Paul's
companion, set forth in his book tbe Gospel as it had been pro
claimed by Paul. Thereafter John, the disciple of the Lord, wbo
lay on bis breast, he too gave forth the Gospel while he yet abode
at Ephesus in Asia1. And again : And all the elders, they of Asia
wbo had conferred with John the disciple of the Lord, bear witness
that (their tradition) had been delivered to them by John, for he
remained on with them until the days of Trajan2. And again,
writing to Florinus3, Irenaeus goes back to tbe days of his own
boyhood as one who has better remembrance of events belonging
to the past than of those of recent times ; I can telL says he, the
very place where sat and taught blessed Polycarp 4, and bow Poly-
carp spoke of intercourse had by him with John, and of what he
had beard from others who bad seen the Lord.
For Irenaeus, it will be remembered, the Fourth Gospel, like
its three companions, was Holy Scripture. It was assigned by bim
to the Apostle John; and that in the first of the above citations,
as elsewhere, he is really alluding to the son of Zebedee is not open
to doubt and is indeed generally admitted5- This John, it will be
remarked further, is identified by Irenaeus with the Beloved
Disciple; yet what he does not do is expressly to designate him
the Apostle.
Leaving Irenaeus for the moment, but not as yet turning to
Clement, we will pause here for some allusion to the Alogi, to the
Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel, and to the Muratorian Canon.
It has been said already that the Fourth Gospel was attributed
to tbe heretic Cerinthus by the little sect or coterie to which Epi
phanius gave tbe nick-name of Alogi. Let us remark now that,
1 Euseb. HE. v, 8. 2 Ibid, iii, 23.
3 In bis Epistle irepl fiovapxlas. Euseb. v, 20. Florinus was a Roman
presbyter. The genuineness of this Epistle is disputed by Scholten, Der Apos.
Joh. in Kleinasien (from the Dutch, by Spiegel), p. 68.
4 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was martyred ca. a.d. 166 in the reign of
Marcus AureUus.
6 See Harnack, Chron. i, p. 657; Scholten, op. cit. p. 42; JuUcher, Einl.
p. 362; Stanton, op. cit. i, p. 213; Loisy, op. cit. p. 25; Gutjahr, Glaubwurdig-
keit, p. 3.

22 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
belonging to tbe period in which Irenaeus flourished, their theory
of the origination of the Fourth Gospel was controverted by
Irenaeus himself; yet further, that the home of the Alogi was in
Asia Minor. The strange thing, then, is that they could flatly deny
its Apostolic authorship in the very region to which its authorship
was assigned; and the question necessarily arises whether any con
clusive proof that its author was none other than the Apostle John
could have been actually at hand at the time1.
Leaving the Alogi, we turn to the Monarchian Prologue to the
Gospel. Together with its companion Prologues it bas been as
signed to the first third of the third century, and, revealing features
characteristic of the Monarchian tendency2, it is less concerned
with the contents than with the alleged author of our Gospel.
Therein it is stated: John the Evangelist, one of the disciples of
God, by God chosen to be Virgin. . .be wrote this Gospel in Asia,
after he had written the Apocalypse in the Isle of Patmos. The
romantic story follows which tells how, knowing that the time of
his departure was at hand, John gathered his Ephesian disciples
round him and descended into his tomb. The point to observe is
that, referred to as Evangelist and Disciple, he is not expressly
designated the Apostle John.
Again passing on, we take next the Muratorian Canon3- A mere
fragment, with nothing in it which exactly determines its date,
locality or authorship, written in barbarous Latin and evidently
a version from a Greek original, it is held to have originated in the
West, perhaps at Rome, towards the close of the second century,
or, it may be, a few years later4 The opening sentences evidently
referred to Mark ; a statement is made as to Luke ; the fourth place
is given to John's Gospel and there is an account of the circum
stances in which it was composed : ' At the entreaties of his fellow
1 The point has been raised by Loisy, op. cit. p. 21. 'The Alogi would
scarcely have ventured on such a denial of Joh. authorship in the face of a
fixed and certain tradition,' Forbes, op. cit. p. 168.
2 On the Monarchian Prologues, see Corssen, TU. xv, p. 1.
3 First pubhshed 1740 by Muratori, Librarian at MUan; hence its name.
For the text see Lietzmann, Kleine Texte, i.
4 EB, i, col. 679; Westcott, Canon of N.T. pp. 190 f. The passage as cited
is from Westeott's translation.

in. AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION 23
disciples and his bishops, John, one of the disciples, said : Fast with
me for three days from this time, and whatsoever shall be revealed
to each of us (whether it be favourable to my writing or not) let us
relate it to one another. On tbe same night it was revealed to
Andrew, one of tbe Apostles, that John should relate all things in
his own name, aided by tbe revision of all. . . . What wonder is it
then that John so constantly brings forward Gospel-phrases even
in his Epistles, saying in his own person, what we have seen with
our eyes and beard with our ears and our hands have handled,
these things have we written? For so be professes that he was not
only an eye-witness, but also a hearer, and moreover a historian
of all the wonderful works of the Lord.' So runs the legendary tale
which is perhaps itself based on some more highly elaborated
romance1; what, to all appearance, does it suggest? It might be
said, in the first place, that, albeit placed last in order of sequence,
John's Gospel is apparently referred to a period earlier than the
Synoptics. John, it might be said next, is differentiated, as a dis
ciple, from certain Apostles of whom Andrew is one. The inference,
again, is that his Gospel is not exclusively his own independent
work. A further conjecture might be that the locality of composi
tion is transferred from Ephesus to Palestine. Speaking generally,
an impression is conveyed that accurate knowledge relative to the
origination of the Fourth Gospel was not available for tbe Church
at Rome. The points thus far raised being each one borne in mind, our
attention is now claimed by Clement of Alexandria2-
In one of Clement's works some account is given by bim of all
the Canonical Scriptures ; and tbe tradition as to the order of the
Gospels whicb, derived by him from primitive elders, be hands
down is to the following effect : those which contain the genealogies
1 Corssen, op. cit. p. 103. Calmes (op. cit. p. 36, note) writes: 'Le fragment
de Murat. depend des Acta Petri. Or ce dernier Hvre parait etre du meme
auteur que les Acta Jo.' And see Scholten, op. cit. p. 82.
2 The date of Clement's birth is uncertain; his death took place ca. a.d.
200, and accordingly he would be very nearly contemporaneous with Irenaeus.
In earUer Ufe a learned pagan phUosopher, he had traveUed widely in the
pursuit of knowledge. Becoming a convert at Alexandria, all his energies
were thereafter devoted to the promotion, both by discourse and writing, of
the Church's cause.

24 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
(viz. Mt. and Lk.) were written first; Mark, at the request of many
who bad heard Peter at Rome, composed his Gospel, Peter neither
encouraging nor hindering him; John, last of all, perceiving
that what had reference to corporeal things (to o-cofiaTtKcl) in the
Gospel of our Saviour was sufficiently related, encouraged by his
friends and inspired by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual (ir^eviMaracov)
Gospel1. So, then, the Marcan Gospel (as at that day was to be expected)
is not prior to Mt. and Lk. in the eyes of Clement. In disagreement
with Irenaeus, he refers it to a date at whicb Peter was still alive.
By bis manner of allusion to tbe Fourth Gospel it is plain that he
himself realizes a contrast between it and the Synoptics ; and this,
perhaps, reminds us of tbe animadversions of Eusebius on certain
men wbo held that the Gospels were at variance as between them
selves. He is content to call its author John. For his own know
ledge as to its origination be is evidently dependent on tradition;
and then the question arises : who were the elders (dvetcaOev irpeo--
fivripcov)2 of tbe allusion, and to what locality did they belong?
And again, what were tbe sources of their information?
Unquestionably the opinions of such a man as Clement must
be treated with respect. They were based on what, for bim, was
sufficient evidence ; yet here again it is necessary to remember that
his methods of criticism were those of his own period. That he
means the Apostle John may be freely admitted; a possibility
remains that, having ascertained that the Fourth Gospel originated
with a John, his own thoughts turned instinctively to John the
Apostle and son of Zebedee.
To revert to Irenaeus; and, with him, to Polycarp: is it alto
gether fair to class them with ' pious but stupid Churchmen of the
second century3'?
Whatever the illumination of the former as theologian, he was
in any case a man of mark; he had been a great traveller, import
ant missions had been entrusted to him; as Bishop of Lyons he
1 Euseb. HE, vi, 14. 'Eine Einseitigkeit der alexandr. Anschauungs-
weise,' Lange, Das Evglm. Joh. p. 25.
* The Greek term (irpeafiiTEpos) does not necessarUy connote ecclesiastical
office but might also be suggestive of advanced years.
3 Raven, op. cit. p. 64.

in. AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION 25
occupied a prominent post. In bis judgement tbe author of John's
Gospel is the Apostle John; how, then, has he arrived at the belief?
It surely cannot be a case of mere conjecture1. Whatever tbe exact
extent of his intimacy with Polycarp in tbe days of his youth, bis
memory can scarcely have altogether failed bim when he told of
tbe very place where Polycarp bad sat and held discourse with
John; it is not likely that Polycarp was bis one and only authority.
The hypothesis is preferable that other sources were at bis disposal2 ;
and that he subjected them to such tests as, with tbe limitations
of the times, be was competent to apply. Tbe fact neverthe
less remains that tbe decisive word Apostle is missing from tbe
testimony of Irenaeus. As for Polycarp, there is no sufficient reason
to distrust Irenaeus's statement 'relative to the intimacy of tbe
former with a John and with others who had seen the Lord. What
the Bishop of Lyons evidently cannot say is that Polycarp, on
being asked whether the John be bad known was really the son of
Zebedee, Apostle, Beloved Disciple, Evangelist, bad emphatically
answered in the affirmative3.
The situation is not otherwise in the case of Polycrates4 Of
the two extant fragments of bis writings one is a letter addressed
by him, towards the close of the second century, to Victor, Bishop
of Rome. In it there stands as follows : In Asia also mighty elements
of tbe Church (fieyaXa o-TOi^;eta)'bave fallen asleep.. . .Philip of
the twelve Apostles at Hierapolis and his two aged virgin daughters,
another of bis daughters. . .at Ephesus. Moreover John, he that
reclined in tbe bosom of the Lord, wbo as priest wore the sacred
plate (to treTaXov), martyr (fj,dpTvs) and teacher, he too fell
asleep at Ephesus.
Whether there be here confusion between Philip tbe Evangelist
and the Apostle Philip6 is disallowed by some6; but on tbe perhaps
safe assumption that there is, it might appear that the John named
1 Wernle, Quellen, p. 10; Harnack, Chron. i, p. 657.
2 Cf. Drummond, op. cit. p. 348; Gutjahr, op. cit. p. 14.
3 JiiUcher, op. cit. p. 364.
4 Bishop of Ephesus. He flourished about the same time as Irenaeus.
As the leader of the Bishops of Asia Minor he played a prominent part
(ca. a.d. 190) in the Paschal controversy.
5 Euseb. HE, iii, 31. 6 Cf Scott-Moncrieff, op. cit. p. 193.

26 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
is outside tbe number of the twelve. That Polycrates, acquainted,
probably, with tbe Fourth Gospel, is himself evidently persuaded
that tbe John wbo slept at Ephesus was tbe son of Zebedee may
be conceded ; why his allusion to tbe golden High-priestly frontlet1 ?
Why the term used which might suggest a martyr-death2? The
main point is the non-use, by Polycrates, of the decisive words
Apostle and Evangelist.
We will pause here, and gather up the threads. In tbe pre
ceding chapter the latest possible date of the Fourth Gospel was
pushed back to a relatively early period; what now appears is that,
before long time had elapsed, it was generally, not universally,
regarded as tbe work of one who, albeit not thus expressly desig
nated, was nevertheless so alluded to as to indicate his identifica
tion with the Apostle John. And further, the opinion seems to
have been wide-spread' that his bome was in Asia Minor. Once
more, it is true that in one instance a term whicb might imply
actual martyrdom is used of bim ; otherwise bis peaceful death at
Ephesus was generally assumed. That 'direct and express ascrip
tion (of tbe Fourth Gospel) to the Apostle begins (ca. a.d. 181)
with Theophilus of Antioch3' is, no doubt, quite true, only then
the question arises ; was such ascription justified by fact? Must it,
on the other band, be said that all that connects the Apostle with
tbe Gospel 'runs out rapidly in mere legend4'?
Whatever be the case, the situation is complicated as a John
other than the Apostle John appears on the scene.
This brings us to Papias 5. Of the work in five books penned by
1 ' Wie unkritisch Polykrates in diesem Brief zu Werke ging, ergisbt sich
daraus, dass er Johannes als den Hohenpriester mit dem iriTaXov geziert
darsteUt und hiermit eine in seiner Zeit bereits bestehende Gewohnheit die
hohepriesterUche Wurde auf den christhchen Bischof zu iibertragen un-
chronologisch in die apostoUsche Zeit einfuhrt,' Scholten, op. cit. p. 74.
2 p-dprvs, a witness. The term could also mean martyr.
8 Sanday, cited by Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 90;
Scott-Moncrieff, op. cit. p. 199. In his Ad Autolycum TheophUus speaks of
John as an inspired man. It would appear that the first to attribute hterary
activity to John the Apostle was Justin Martyr (Dial. 83), yet in respect of
the Apocalypse only, and by implication Justin locates its author in Asia
Minor. See Loisy, op. cit. p. 14. 4 Bacon, op. cit. p. 91.
6 The story of his martyrdom at Pergamus seems to have arisen from a
confusion of names and may be disregarded.

m. AUTHORSHIP TN TRADITION 27
bim, probably late in life, fragments only remain; the crucial
passage runs thus : But if anywhere anyone also should come who
had companied with the elders I ascertained (first of all) tbe sayings
of tbe elders (' as to this,' not ' to wit ') what Andrew or what Peter
bad said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John
or Matthew or any other of tbe disciples of tbe Lord (bad said),
and (secondly) what Aristion and John tbe Elder, the disciples of
the Lord, say. For I supposed that the things (to be derived) from
books were not of such profit to me as tbe things (derived) from
the living and abiding voice1-
Quite properly Eusebius observes that the name of John occurs
twice. That by the John first named Papias means the Apostle
John is obvious, for be ranks him with other Apostles ; as for the
second John, be is, to all appearance, sharply differentiated from
the former John; not only is he not classed with Apostles but he
is expressly designated John the Elder2- If, in like manner as the
Apostle John, be is spoken of as a disciple of tbe Lord, it is a dis
tinction which Aristion shares with him ; yet be is also differentiated
from tbe latter by a term highly suggestive that, not simply ad
vanced in years, be is a personage of importance. If so, where?
An answer might come from Eusebius, who, for reasons of his own,
is not unprepared to believe in tbe story of tbe two Johns in Asia
and of tbe two tombs at Ephesus3. The question then is : was he
1 Euseb. HE, iii, 39. As translated EB, n, col. 2507. The Greek runs
as foUows : Bt di irou Kai irapf)Ko\ouB-qKihs tis rots rrpeo-fiuTepois EXdoi, tovs tGiv
irpefffivTipwv dvinpivov \6yous, rl 'Avdpias ij tI Hirpos eXirev rj tI $L\nriros rj rl
Owjuas rj 'I&KO}f3os -rj tI 'Itadvvns rj Marflatos ij tis irepos tQv tou Kvpiov ixad-qruiv
(ehrev), a re 'Apurritav Kai b -irpe&fitiTepos 'Iiodvvns (oi) tou Kuplov padrjral
Xiyovaiv. 2 Robson (J2V?, xiv, p. 440) gets rid of one John by reading: . . . rj i)'laKu>{Sou
rj 'ladwa ij . . . and remarks: 'a natural and proper pair (Lk. xxiv, 10) to
whom enquirers after authentic records would always resort.' The emendation
is ingenious but quite unconvincing. For Mr Robson' s identification of
Aristion with the Beloved Disciple see Excursus n. Krenkel (Der Apostel
Johannes, p. 142), identifying John the Presbyter with the Apostle John,
discovers John Mark in the John first named by Papias. Yet another emenda
tion is offered by Larfeld (Die beiden Johannes von Ephesus, p. 184), who,
reading rod 'Itodvvov fjMQ-rjTai instead of tou Kupiou p.adr}Tal, insists that Aris-
ion and John the Elder were disciples of the Apostle John.
3 Euseb. HE, iii, 39; vii, 25.

28 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
still alive (and Aristion also) when Papias made his inquiries, and
did Papias actuaUy hold speech with him? Here the change of
tense is probably decisive; what Andrew and others 'had said,'
what Aristion and John the Elder 'say1'; and besides, Papias
himself alleges his own decided preference for the Uving voice.
It accordingly appears that, as a young man, be had not only seen
but conversed with this second John who, brought by him on the
scene, is not the Apostle John but John tbe Elder. And it is just
here that Irenaeus is caught tripping; for, himself meaning the
Apostle, he refers to the Bishop of Hierapolis as hearer of John
as weU as associate of Polycarp. Not so, says Eusebius, correcting
the mistake; Papias by no means asserts that he was himself a
hearer and eye-witness of tbe holy Apostles, but relates how he
bad received tbe doctrines of faith from such as were of the number
of their friends2.
It might, then, be inferred that he with whom both Papias
and Polycarp held converse in their early manhood was not the
son of Zebedee, but an aged disciple of the Lord who was in repute
in the Churches of Asia as John the Elder. Yet is the further as
sumption warranted that, besides this John the Elder, whoever
he might be, there had also been resident in Asia Minor and at
Ephesus another John; he who was an Apostle and one of the
Twelve3? While tbe story of tbe two tombs at Ephesus, if not purely
legendary, is at the most suggestive of a claim asserted by each to
be tbe place of sepulture of a renowned personage 4, there are other
grounds for hesitating to answer in the affirmative. They are
1 The 'say' has been held (a) to be a historical present introduced for the
sake of variety, or ()3) understood of what men who have passed away stiU
"say' in books, or (7) of utterances actuaUy heard and fresh in the mind. The
last explanation is adopted above.
2 Euseb. HE, in, 39.
3 Silanus the Christian, p. 306. And see Calmes, op. cit. p. 24. Larfeld
(op. cit. p. 185) writes: 'Die Amtsbezeichnung -n-peafiurepos ist nach altchristl.
Gebrauch auch auf den Apos. Joh. (6 ir par (Mm pos Kar ii-oxrf") auszudehnen.'
And thus HenneU (An Inquiry concerning the origin of Christianity, p. 104) :
'the name "elder" was very commonly given to the heads of the Church
(1 Pet. v, 1), and might be assumed by John the Apostle.'
4 Erbes, ZKG, xxxni, ii, p. 162.

m. AUTHORSHIP IN TRADITION 29
separately discussed elsewhere1, and it wiU suffice if, at this point,
they be specified in few words. And first, it is clear that a John
located in Asia Minor is identified in tradition with the Beloved
Disciple wbo figures in the pages of the Fourth Gospel. The as
sumption being that tbe latter is a real personage, there is, to say
the least, very grave difficulty in identifying him with the Apostle
John. In the second place, it is not any longer possible to use the
word 'universal' of the tradition which brings John son of Zebedee
to Ephesus to die a natural death in extreme old age. Another
stream of tradition must be reckoned with; and with the result
that ample room must be made for the probabfiity that, never
quitting Palestine, he suffered martyrdom, and thereby completely
fulfiUed the recorded (Mk x, 39) prediction to himself and his
brother James.
'The tradition of Asia Minor,' it has been said, 'knows but
one John only, who accordingly must be either the Apostle or the
Elder2 ' ; and it is, no doubt, true that for the ancients, tbe residence
of John son of Zebedee in Asia Minor appears to have been an
'uncontested historical fact3.' Not necessarily wiU it be accounted
fact by tbe modern student. As he reviews the situation he wiU
perhaps be led to agree that the question reaUy is of two traditions,
which, by the end of the third century, had been combined in the
assertion that two Johns had resided at Ephesus, the one being
the Apostle and the other the Elder4. He may go a step further;
with an admission that the earUer and more trustworthy tradition,
if decisive for some aged disciple who had companied with Jesus,
is not by any means decisive for tbe Apostle John. And, although
arguments from sUence are precarious, he wiU pay added heed to
the fact that in respect of the latter Ignatius has no single word
to say5. But to bring this chapter to a close. The aUusion being to the
external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Fourth
Gospel, it has been remarked of it that it constitutes ' that portion
of the field in whicb conservative theology has hitherto believed
1 See Excursus I and II. z von Dobschiitz, LZ, Nrs. 52-53, col. 1779.
3 Schanz, Evang. d. h. Joh. p. 2.
4 von Soden, Early Christ. Liter, p. 429. 5 See Excursus I.

30 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
itself to have gained its securest successes1'; and a case very much
in point is the confident appeal made to such evidence by the
staunch upholder of tbe traditional authorship2 with whose verdict
this chapter began. Whether the successes so claimed are indubit
able is quite another question; and we must admit that neither
for the residence of the Apostle John in Asia nor yet for his author
ship of the Gospel caUed by bis name is the external evidence of
such a nature as to banish doubt3- On the contrary, it is highly
probable that, when the field of internal evidence bas been ex
plored, we shaU rather agree that were anyone, knowing nothing
of tbe traditional belief, to peruse our Gospel, it would scarcely
occur to bim to seek for its author among the immediate disciples
of Jesus *.
1 EB, ii, col. 2545.
2 PoUdori De Wette (op. cit. U, p. 223), with aUusion to the external
evidence, gave it as his opinion that 'in dieser Hinsicht steht unser Evglm,
nicht schUmmer, ja besser, als die drei ersten und als die pauUniRchen
Schriften.' 'The external evidence,' says Evans (op. cit. p. 84), 'is whoUy
in favour of St John's authorship.'
3 It must be said with Cohu (The Gospels and Modern Research, p. 412)
that 'the external evidence. . .is utterly inconclusive as to its (sc. the Fourth
Gospel's) Apostohc authorship.'
4 HeitmuUer, SNT, n, p. 707. And see Contentio Veritatis, pp. 223 f.

CHAPTER IV
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
In the two preceding chapters, inquiry being kept strictly within
the field of external evidence, it was provisionaUy decided that,
in the first place, while tbe Fourth Gospel cannot be earlier than
the latest of the Synoptics, there is apparently no vaUd reason
which requires a date subsequent to the fourth decade of tbe
second century; and next, that the case for the traditional author
ship was by no means made out. A possibUity may remain that
'in some way or other John son of Zebedee stands behind' the
Gospel which bears John's name1. As it is we cannot but already
feel that, be his relation to it what it may, he eludes discovery in
tbe very region in which that Gospel is held to have originated;
and that it is not at aU unlikely that, with the lapse of time and
for whatever reason2, the distinctive title of Apostle attached itself
to a John whom an earUer generation had been content to speak of
as (together with other titles of distinction) a disciple of the Lord3
We now pass from external to internal evidence. Tbe first
question which arises is this: what direct evidence relative to its
authorship is afforded by our Gospel itself? As for tbe second, it
is concerned with indirect evidence ; we shaU ask : what impressions
does our Gospel convey with regard to tbe personaUty of its author ?
1 Harnack, Chron. i, p. 677.
' According to Schmiedel (Evang. Briefe u. Offenb. des Joh. p. 7) the
confusion arose — as in the case of Philip and HierapoUs — from claims ad
vanced by the Church of Ephesus to have had an Apostle as its founder.
Forbes (op. cit. p. 173) aptly remarks: 'Ephesus did not become a famous
religious centre of apostohc renown, Uke Rome and Jerusalem, as would
naturaUy have been the result in case an apostle from the Twelve had long
resided there.'
3 Albeit the aUusion is specificaUy to Polycrates, von Soden's pointed
remark (Early Christ. Liter, p. 427) appUes generaUy: 'Though so many titles
of honour are. . .heaped upon this John, that of Apostle, the highest of aU
in those days, is not among them.'

32 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
The present chapter shaU accordingly be divided into two main
sections. (i) Direct Evidence
We wiU remark at the outset that tbe question of the 'self-
testimony' of our Gospel is approached, regarded and decided in
ways which Ulustrate a wide diversity of view on tbe part of
scholars. On tbe one band it is resolutely maintained that 'the
Fourth Gospel claims to be the work of an eye-witness of the Ufe
of Jesus ' ; that be who speaks in xix, 35 ' can be none other than
tbe Evangelist himself,' who, ' throughout constant in declining the
use of an "I," ' vouches, as eye-witness, for the truth of what he
relates, and gives it to be understood that his place was very near
to Jesus ; the disciple whom Jesus loved, be is identified with the
nameless disciple of i, 37 ff ., and with him wbo, acquainted, xvni, 15,
with tbe High Priest, foUows Jesus to the High Priest's Palace;
it is said expressly of him, xxi, 24, that he penned the Gospel; as
he is ever and again coupled with Peter, it is natural to look for
him in the little group of intimates told of in the Synoptics; in the
last analysis he is John the Apostle and son of Zebedee1. On the
other hand it is contended that the Gospel's 'self -testimony' is
exceedingly strange : the ' we beheld his glory ' of the Prologue, i, 14,
invites inquiry as to who it is that speaks ; as with tbe other Gospels
so here, the manner is objective and anonymous; with ch. xiii a
mysterious personage is brought on tbe scene who, thenceforward
eclipsing Peter, is ever to tbe front; unUke Peter and the rest, he
is steadfast at the Cross, and vouches for the reaUty of tbe death
of Jesus; tbe meaning of xix, 35, is that he is the authority on
whom the tradition of the Fourth Gospe' rests; in the event it
appears that tbe question reaUy is of two traditions, and that the
one which points to this Beloved Disciple is to be deemed equal,
if not superior, to that which is referred to Peter. It is urged
further that the 'self-testimony5 becomes utterly compUcated
1 So, generaUy, Barth; Das Johannesevglm. pp. 5 ff. Cludius (Uran-
sichten des Christenthums, p. 51) aUowed that the rank of eye-witness is
claimed by the EvangeUst. Westcott (St John, pp. v-xxi), graduaUy nar
rowing down the choice, is decisive for the Apostle John. In like manner
Cohu, op. cit. p. 419, note.

rv. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 33
when, xxi, 24, the authority of the unnamed Beloved Disciple is
confirmed by men who, writing in the first person, are themselves
unknown — as if, forsooth, such testimony would be needed in tbe
case of an actual Apostolic witness. Tbe 'self -testimony' of tbe
Gospel, it is added, raises more riddles than it solves ; and, far from
estabbshing tbe authenticity of tbe work, it arouses suspicion
which merges in doubt1.
The situation is probably more complex than is suggested in
the former quarter. Nor is there over-statement, in the second
quarter, of what are certainly curious phenomena. Not only does
'the author (of the Gospel) nowhere give his name,' but the fact
that 'he designates himself in mysterious hints2' enhances our
perplexity. But let our inquiry begin with the Prologue3 of the Gospel.
In two places the first person plural is met with ; and it is perhaps
safe to infer that, inasmuch as the 'we' of v. 16 is accompanied by
an 'aU' (r)(j,el<; TravTes) the aUusion there is to beUevers generaUy,
whether eye-witnesses or not4 The case is somewhat different with
v. 14; the question there is whether the 'we beheld' (iOeaa-dfieOa)
impUes physical sight or spiritual perception; and if the former
alternative be adopted 5 the aUusion is naturaUy to persons who
had actuaUy seen Jesus. That granted, it certainly appears that
the Evangelist expressly lays claim to be such an one himself;
1 Thus, in outUne, Wernle, Quellen, pp. 12 ff.
2 Weizsacker, Apos. Age, u, p. 207. 'AUer Streit ware geschUchtet, wenn
der Verfasser sich in seinem Evglm. selbst nennte. Aber er thut es nicht.' So
Lucke, Comment, iiber das Evglm. des Joh. i, p. 85. And thus A. R. Loman
(Het Evan, van Joh. naar Oorsprong, Bestemming en Gebruik in de Oudheid,
p. 17): 'Nergens zegt de auteur, of dat hij een der Apostelen is, of dat hij
Johannes heet.'
3 Jn i, 1-18.
4 'Die ganze Christenheit,' Hengstenberg, Das Evglm. des heil. Joh. iii,
pp. 396 f. 0. Holtzmann (Das Johannesevglm. p. 198) writes : ' Die Gemeinde
der Gotteskinder.'
5 'The original word in the N.T. is never used of mental vision,' Westcott,
op. cit. p. xxv. To the same effect Sanday, op. cit. pp. 76 f. And thus Loisy,
op. cit. p. 187: ' L'EVangeliste parle comme un temoin oculaire de la vie de
Jesus.' The second alternative is preferred by int. al. W. Bauer, HBNT,
rx, ii, p. 15. And see HeitmiiUer, SNT, ti, pp. 733 f.; who comments at length
on the phrase ttjv 8b£av adrov.

34 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
'by his use of the first person plural he associates himself with
other eye-witnesses of Jesus' appearance on earth1.' It does not
follow that he claims to be one of the Twelve; neither, we wiU add,
is the fact established that he had actuaUy been an eye-witness.
On the contrary, he may have had resort to Uterary sanctions of
the age of wliich more hereafter.
Whether he be the nameless disciple of i, 37 ff. or not, the
Beloved Disciple stands fuU in view from xni onwards; and inas
much as he is found, xix, 26, at the Cross of Jesus, his presence is
generaUy suspected in the crux of commentators, xix, 35: 'And
he that hath seen bath borne witness, and bis witness is true
(dXrjdtvri) and he (iKelvos) knoweth that be saith true (aXrjdr),
things that are true), that ye also may beheve.'
Is it reaUy be, the Beloved Disciple, eye-witness, Evangelist,
wbo speaks in tbe perplexing verse? A very natural inference
would be that it comes from another and a later band; from the
pen of certain unknown personages who, for whatever reasons, are
constrained to add their testimony to the credibUity both of the
narrator and of his report2? If he it reaUy be, is he pointing to
himself? If so, the method adopted by him is peculiar; if he means
thereby to indicate bis authorship he does so in strange fashion.
StiU more singular is it that, if he be thus mysteriously aUuding
to himself as both eye-witness and Evangelist, be, to aU appearance,
makes appeal for support to some third person whose identity is
also vefied : ' He that hath seen hath borne witness (sc. the Evan
geUst), and his witness is true ' ; it is vouched for by another autho
rity : 'and that one (e/cewo?) knoweth that he (sc. the Evangelist)
saith things that are true.' And besides, questions are invited by
tbe sentence with which the ambiguous verse ends : ' that ye also
may believe.' Who are the 'ye'? Had need arisen to combat in-
1 Wendt, op. cit. p. 207. Cf. 1 Jn i, 1 ff. Zahn (Einl. ii, p. 467) writes:
'Turning to the Prologue we at once come across, not indeed an "I," but a
thrice repeated "we" which includes an "I," the "I" of the author.'
2 This raises the question, to be discussed later on, of the homogeneity or
otherwise of the Fourth Gospel. It may be remarked here that the 'blood
and water' of the preceding verse xix, 34, whatever the occurrence, are, in
this connexion, held to be symbolic of the Supper of the Lord and Baptism.
Otherwise Kreyenbuhl, Das Evglm. der Wahrheit, ii, p. 663.

rv. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 3.5
credulity, or to assert tbe authority of a Gospel which bad not yet
attained to general acceptance ?
Taking tbe verse as it stands, it is not unreasonable to say of
it that the intention is to place the reader in the presence of the
Evangelist1. As for the puzzUng allusion (i/ceivo<;), opinions differ;
upon the one hand it is affirmed that the term can be used by a
speaker of himself and is often so used in this very Gospel2; tbe
case is said to be one in whicb 'the author is simply turning back
upon himself and protesting his own veracity3.' On the other band
a third person is discovered; yet here again opinions differ as to
who he is, and conjecture has turned from any human guarantor
to dwell on the risen and ascended Lord 4. But however this rnay
be, the author of the Gospel apparently figures in the verse; and,
if so, tbe choice lies between two alternatives; either he is thus
pointed to by others, or he adopts an oblique way of indicating
himself. In the latter case he claims to be an eye-witness; and,
should he be but the secondary historian, he must be judged, not
by modern standards, but by the literary sanctions of his own
period. A third perplexing passage now demands attention. By com
mon consent ch. xxi is an Appendix5; whether vv. 1-23 come from
the same pen as do the preceding chapters or not, there is no room
for doubt that the two final verses (24, 25) are the addition of a
later hand. Taken in connexion with vv. 1-23 they amount to an
'express assurance6' that 'the disciple which beareth witness of
1 Who, according to WeUhausen (Das Evgm. Joh. p. 89), distinguishes
himself from the eye-witness to whom he appeals and who is the Beloved
Disciple. 2 A case in point is Jn ix, 37. Westcott, op. cit. p. xxv. And see Steitz,
Ober den Gebra-uch des Pronom. eiceiVos im vierten Evglm. See also Kreyenbuhl,
op. cit. i, p. 168 : ' aus dem gesagten ergiebt sich . . . dass der Verfasser sich
selber ineivos nennen konne. '
3 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 78.
4 Sanday, ibid. ; Zahn, op. cit. u, pp. 474 f. ; W. Bauer, HBNT, n, ii, p. 177.
See E. A. Abbott, Joh. Grammar, pp. 284 f.
5 With Jn xx, 30 f. a perfectly adequate conclusion is reached by the
Gospel. 6 Wendt, op. cit. p. 213. The 'express assurance,' according to Haus-
leiter (Zwei Apos. Zeugen), of Andrew and PhUip, who, on his theory, are
joint authors of Jn xxi.
3—2

36 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
these things and wrote these things1' was the disciple whom Jesus
loved. Those who say so add: 'and we know (ptSa/iev) that his
witness is true.' Then comes a change from the plural to the sin
gular: were the 'many other things which Jesus did' to be 'written
every one, I suppose (olfiai) that even the world itself would not
contain the books that should be written.' Thereupon the Appen
dix chapter reaches its abrupt close.
The second of the two verses is, as we have seen, explicitly
referred by Origen to tbe Apostle John; and in any case one might
naturaUy infer that the 'I' who speaks in it is, or claims to be,
himself of tbe number of the eye-witnesses, for the manner of the
aUusion is such as to suggest personal knowledge rather than
second-hand information. But his identity shaU be left the enigma
that it is2; the immediate question being far more nearly connected
with the emphatic declaration of the preceding verse. Who are the
speakers in it? Is it certain who the person is to whom they refer?
How comes it that they are in a position to substantiate the accu
racy of the narrative which they so positively assign to his pen?
Why, again, is it that, on the assumption that they deem hhn no
second-band reporter but an eye-witness, both he and his Gospel
should require their guarantee? It has indeed been suggested that
their declaration in no way turns on the authorship of the Gospel
but is concerned solely with the truth of the Gospel-contents3, yet
the suggestion is hard to accept. To aU appearance a three-fold
assertion is contained in the verse; — the disciple referred to is a
stiU Uving witness 4 ; be is author of a work which has reached its
conclusion in the verse antecedent to the statement; the 'we,'
qualified to bear testimony, are themselves eye-witnesses.
1 Calmes (op. cit. p. 34) writes : ' selon nous, les mots Kai b ypd\pas raura
doivent s' entendre, non de tout 1'EVangUe, mais seulement des versets
qui precedent, ou U est question de 1'immortaUte eventueUe du disciple
bien-aime.' 2 Holtzmann (HCNT, iv, p. 230), remarking on the non-Johannine word
ot/uu, speaks of Apologetics led astray to think of Papias.
3 Baldensperger, Prolog, p. 110.
* Or, being dead, speaks in his book. 'L'emploi du present ne prouve pas
que le disciple vive encore; U rend temoignage actueUement par son livre,'
Loisy, op. cit. p. 949.

IV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 37
Who are the ' we ' ? Of certain answer there is none whatever1.
Refuge might be taken in tbe conjecture that they are Ephesian
Elders2; yet so as to leave their date an open question.
To what personage do they refer? Obviously to tbe mysterious
Beloved Disciple3; with their 'this is the disciple' they point back
to the passage which immediately precedes their statement, and
in it he figures. Is it quite so certain that he is one and the self
same person as the Apostle John4? As is shown elsewhere, the
identity is bard to establish5; for the moment assuming it, the
situation is clear, the son of Zebedee is of course equated by the
'we' with the Beloved Disciple. Otherwise everything depends on
whether the process of confusion between two distinct persons bas
been accomphshed or not. In the former contingency they, the
* we,' mean (without saying it) John the Apostle, in the latter they
are referring to him who is spoken of as a disciple of the Lord.
They are, anyhow they say that they are, in a position to
render two-fold testimony; is it possible to take them at their
word? If the Beloved Disciple be reaUy the Apostle John and the
Beloved Disciple- Apostle be reaUy the Evangelist, yes; what if
they, meaning the Apostle, do but reflect the unfounded opinion of
a later day? The answer would again be in the affirmative were
the Beloved Disciple, being other than the Apostle, reaUy author of
the Fourth Gospel ; yet here again the case for his direct authorship
may be hard to prove. Room must be made for the conjecture that,
in view of circumstances held by them to justify their action, they
give authoritative expression to beliefs current in their midst.
1 De Wette (op. cit. U, p. 229) says of the 'unbekannter Urheber' (of v. 24)
that he was 'einer der jiingem Zeitgenossen.' W. Bauer (HBNT, n, u, p. 189;
cf. Holtzmann, op. cit. p, 229) finds the aUusion reminiscent of the tradition
as given by Clem. Alex, and of the Muratorian Canon.
2 HenneU (op. cit. p. 105) instances the conjecture of Grotius that the
'we' points to the Church at Ephesus.
3 Alex. Schweizer, Das Evglm. Joh. pp. 59 f. And see p. 239; where
Schweizer, remarking that he who appended ch. xxi declares the Evangelist
to be a disciple and eye-witness, viz. the Beloved Disciple, whoever the latter
was, adds : But is this true to fact ?
4 Schwalb (Christus und die EvangeUen, pp. 198 f.) is of opinion that the
author of ch. xxi clearly differentiates the anonymous 'Lieblingsjiinger' from
the sons of Zebedee. 5 See Excursus II.

38 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
And well might it be asked: wherefore is it that one so positively
stated to be eye-witness and Evangelist — and perhaps Apostle —
should require the anonymous testimony to himself and his work?
That zeal is manifested by the ' we ' is clear enough ; yet it is possible
to urge that the Une taken by them is not exactly calculated to
advance their cause; but that, on the contrary, they go near to
cast a slur on tbe very personage for whose credit they are so
evidently concerned1. They have acted, shaU it be admitted? in
all good faith; the tentative conjecture shaU foUow that, in tbe
said action, they were conscious of and responsive to a need of
their day. Men bad looked askance at our Gospel; and hence steps
were taken by tbe 'we' to obviate objection and win acceptance
for the treasured work.
A dUemma is proposed; either the Apostle John is the author
of the Gospel, or it bas been written by someone else who personates
him. Thus when it is said: 'the author is either the eye-witness
(and, with every probabUity, the son of Zebedee) or, with resort
to artifice and mysterious hints, he poses as such . . . and good
friends of bis are prompt with their imprimatur for what is a sheer
imposture; for they, knowing his testimony to be false, declare it
to be true2.' Apart from tbe objectionable way of putting it, a
false issue is raised by tbe second alternative in that it reads back
modern standards into a remote past. What at the present day
would be utterly indefensible was not simply condoned but recog
nized and sanctioned by the literary etiquette of tbe ancient
world: 'it was characteristic of the spirit and custom of ancient
historians and poets and especiaUy those of the Bible, to live them
selves into the modes of thought and expression of great men, and
by imitating their thoughts and feelings, make themselves their
organ3.' In other words, no blame attached in those days to writers

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

rv. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 39
who composed and put forth works in another's name1; neither
they nor their readers would be conscious of enacted fraud. So
with the unknown author of Ecclesiastes who veUs his identity
with the great name of Solomon; so with the author of the Second
Petrine Epistle when he calls himself 'Simon Peter'; so with
' Ephesians ' if, as is not altogether inconceivable, it originates from
a disciple of Paul. Precisely so here; if the Fourth Evangelist be
reaUy one who, in his Gospel, makes himself 'organ' of the eye
witness (whoever the eye-witness may be) he is not necessarUy
the '/aZsanws2.' The course adopted by bim would have the literary
sanctions of his period, and the ' we ' who, xxi, 24, give their testi
mony are not necessarUy so many confederates in a literary fraud.
Let us agree that, in the event of necessary preference for the
alternative which disposes of tbe traditional authorship of the
Fourth Gospel as altogether untenable, there can be, in view of
old-world Uterary usages, no question of wanton accusation and
of UbeUing tbe dead3.
The direct evidence of the Gospel has been surveyed. On tbe
face of it, no doubt, it pleads for the conclusion that, whatever his
identity, tbe author of the Gospel is an eye-witness, the Beloved
Disciple. Yet with closer examination of the salient passages con
fidence passes over into doubt; and, as the case stands, it must be
admitted that the Gospel does lay claim to Apostohc origin and
authority in a way which is both singular and mysterious, and
that its self -testimony raises more riddles than it solves 4. Whether
more Ught wiU be thrown on the problem by evidence of an indirect
nature bas yet to be seen.
With such indirect evidence our business now lies.
(ii) Indirect Evidence
As we pass from direct to indirect evidence tbe field to be ex
plored widens; for, whereas in the former case our inquiry was
1 Schmiedel, op. cit. pp. 12 f.
2 Of the dfiemma as propounded by De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 229.
3 As Sanday suggests, op. cit. p. 81.
4 In the view of Scholten (Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 399) the Fourth
Evangelist intended his Gospel to be accepted as by the Apostle John who is
the Beloved Disciple.

40 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
concentrated on a group of but three passages, we now enter upon
an examination of our Gospel as a whole. Nor shaU we stop short
there; on the contrary, it wiU become necessary to confront 'John'
with the Synoptic Gospels, whUe an attempt must also be made to
determine its relation to circumstance, event, or movement in the
world of the period within which the date of its composition bas
been held to faU. We shaU further have to address ourselves to the
vexed question whether our Gospel be a unity or a composite
work. The issues, in short, are numerous; and the consideration of
them will spread itself over many pages. But in the second section
of the present chapter, our Gospel being taken as a whole, and by
itself apart, tbe main questions are these: What impressions are
conveyed by it as to the personahty of the Evangelist? Does it
vouch for the first-hand knowledge of an eye-witness ? Or does it
reveal the secondary historian who constructs his situations after
the manner of his age?
Be the author who he may, there can be no doubt whatever
that he addresses himself to a GentUe community or communities.
It is not simply that he writes in Greek; for, quite apart from the
fact that the New Testament as a whole is a Greek book1, precisely
the same course is adopted by a writer whose addressees — if the
superscription of his Epistle2 be taken literaUy — are specificaUy
Jewish Christians. A decisive proof is that he is at pains to trans
late3 and is ready with his explanations4. He might, or he might
not, be resident in their midst.
Next comes tbe question of bis nationality. Is be himself a
GentUe? Such a contention has been raised, and not once or twice;
an English pioneer of criticism satisfied himself that the Fourth
Evangelist was 'no Apostle or any Jew5'; 'a sincere Christian. . .
and a Greek' : such was the verdict of a master of EngUsh prose6.
It must be admitted that there is force in the argument7; for his
1 Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. pp. 29 f.
2 1 Pet. ti, 1. s Jn i; 42; ix, 7; xx, 16.
4 Jnii, 6; vi, 4; xix, 31, 40.
"" Evanson, op. cit. p. 226.
6 Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 284.
7 Which Scott-Moncrieff (op. cit. p. 84) minimizes.

rv. INTERNAL EVDDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 41
incessant aUusions to 'the Jews' are so acrimonious1 and so objec
tive2 in their nature as to suggest that he differentiates himself
from their race. Yet there are counter-arguments which may be
deemed strong enough to weigh down the balance on the other.
side, if it does not at once f oUow that he who records the Saying :
'Salvation is of the Jews8' was obviously himself of Jewish origin.
Adverse voices are not sUent; yet the general trend of scholarship
is to aUow and to affirm that he came from, originally belonged to,
Jewish Christianity4. 'John, like Paul, was a Jew5'; 'there is
nothing to preclude his Jewish birth, his style and methods of
representation favour its admission 6.'
And such is reaUy the case. Looking to the diction of the
Gospel, it is surely true to say that, penned for GentUe readers
for whom Jewish terms and usages had to be translated and ex
plained, it throughout reveals a distinctively Semitic mode of
thought by its phraseology, its frequent Hebraisms, its compara
tively limited vocabulary7. No doubt its author 'writes in a style
which is peculiar but quite Uterary8'; there are nevertheless fea
tures which suggest that the foreign language acquired by him
has not been so entirely mastered that its resources are fully at
his command. That he breathes a Greek atmosphere is unquestion
able; as unquestionable does it appear from the Hebraisms he
indulges in that our Gospel comes from a Jewish hand9.
' The style of the narrative alone is conclusive as to its Jewish
authorship10.' This point decided, the further question arises : Was
1 Scholten (Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 439) writes: 'Is het mogeUjk omjn
zulk een oordeel over het wederstrevend Israel een geboren Jood te erkennen ?
Daar komt bij, dat de schrijver overal over de Joden spreckt als over eene
vreemde natie.' To the same effect Sehenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu, p. 251.
But see Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 337.
2 As an EngUshman speaks of ' the Germans,' or ' the Danes.'
3 Jn iv, 22. 4 Weizsacker, op. cit. ii, p. 218.
5 von Dobschiitz, Christ. Life in the Prim. Church, p. 218; Probleme des
Apos. Zeitalters, pp. 92 f.
e Holtzmann, Das Evglm. des Joh. p. 16. 7 Barth, op. cit. pp. 7 f.
8 P. Gardner, Ephes. Gosp. p. 45. And see De Wette, Lehrbuch, ti, p. 213.
9 Thoma (Genesis des Evglm. Joh. p. 787) writes.- 'Er hat mit der Mutter-
milch jiidische Denkart eingesogen.' And thus Herder (Von Gottes Sohn,
der Welt Heiland, p. 275) : ' er dachte Ebraisch und schrieb Griechisch.'
10 Westcott, St John, p. vi. In the opinion of Lucke (op. cit. pp. 41ff.) the

42 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
its author a Jew of Palestine? Did he belong, upon the other hand,
to the Diaspora? Was he, that is, a HeUenistic Jew?
The point is not settled by the source of his quotations from
the Old Testament; sometimes he quotes from the Greek Bible
(LXX) whUe at other times he approximates more nearly to the
Hebrew text1. Appeal might be made to his doctrine of the Logos,
but at this stage of our inquiry it must be left an open question
whence it was derived. What certainly appears probable is that
bis diction has closest affinity, not with the Uterature of HeUenistic
Judaism, but with that of Palestinian learning2. An important
consideration then is whether he himself be thoroughly familiar
with the scenes and tbe circumstances of the country with which
his narrative is primarUy concerned. Does he so know his Palestine
as to estabUsh it that Palestine had actuaUy been his birthplace
and bis home?
It is in matters such as this that a writer who, posing as an
eye-witness, is altogether destitute of any real knowledge of locality
and conditions, is almost certain to give himself away by confusion
or mistake. Speaking generally, tbe Fourth EvangeUst is not open to sus
picion. It cannot be proved against him that, in respect at aU
events of localities, be is guUty of tbe shp or blunder which would
betray his ignorance3, if research has as yet faUed to identify one
or other of tbe places specified in his report4. There may of course
be 'some hidden and aUegoric meaning' in his particularizations,
and the point wUl come up again; yet 'every critic remarks in the
style, albeit more Greek than Palestinian, reveals the born Jew who had
long resided in Asia.
1 Scott-Moncrieff (op. cit. p. 76) inclines to 'the supposition that the
Evangelist used some catena of Messianic quotations compUed, it may be,
by different hands.' 2 See Credner, Einl. pp. 264 f.
3 Schmiedel, op. cit. p. 16. Otherwise Scholten (Het Evan, naar Joh.
p. 431): 'De EvangeUst is bUjkbaar geen ooggetuige en van het tooneel der
gebeurtenissen verwijdert.' With aUusion to Jn i, 29, 35; ii. 1 fi. Cludius
(op. cit. p. 64) asks: could the author so have written had he been a Pales
tinian Jew, and famUiar with locaUties ? And see his remarks on pp. 65 f.
On p. 67 he writes: 'Die Mahre von Bethesda. . .verrath auch einen von
Jerusalem fern lebenden Verfasser.'
4 ' In most cases the difficulty resolves itself into our ignorance of the
local geography, not into the writer's,' Moffatt, op. cit. p. 548.

rV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 43
Gospel a number of detaUs which do not seem in themselves impor
tant, but Which give to the narrative an air, which is in fact some
what delusive, of being a very exact narrative1.' 'Delusive' in
a sense it may be, and perhaps it is ; there is nevertheless an air of
verisimiUtude about certain detaUs which goes far to convey an
impression that they are traceable to actual personal reminiscence.
Yet it might be too venturesome to say of such detaUs one and all
that, often irrelevant enough, they yet betray the vivid recollec
tions of a narrator who never stays to ask whether a thing be
trivial or not, but who is fain to describe scenes photographed
on his mind — even side incidents2.
Whether the Fourth Evangelist, in any case no GentUe, be a
Palestinian or a Hellenistic Jew, he is in a position to draw on his
own personal acquaintance with the 'Holy Land3'; and in the
second alternative (which is the less Ukely of tbe two) an inference
might be that, although his temporary residence is there no
longer, he had traveUed up and down in it as having eyes to see
and using them.
Yet it may not be so clear that his knowledge extends from
geography to pohtical and ecclesiastical organization. A charge
here brought against him is that he has perpetrated a blunder
than which none more glaring can be conceived 4 ; in that, with his
thrice-repeated and emphatic aUusion to Caiaphas5, he assumes
the Jewish High-priesthood to be an annual appointment when
as a matter of fact the office was tenable for life6- 'Being high
priest that year * : — it must be confessed that the definitive phrase
'that year' gives the reader pause; and besides, it is not a little
curious that the persqn referred to is so casuaUy introduced when
he is of such exalted rank7 If gross error there be — and the
Evangelist be reaUy a Jew — it is no satisfactory explanation whicb
accounts for it by a long interval between tbe events narrated and
1 P. Gardner, op. cit. pp. 56 f . 2 Barth, op. cit. pp. 7 f.
3 'At any rate he is intimately acquainted,' says Cohu (op. cit. p. 474),
' with the Holy Land and especiaUy Jerusalem.'
4 Schmiedel, op. cit. pp. 16 f
6 Jn xi, 49, 51 ; xviii, 13 ; apxiepeiis w tou iviauroD iKelvou.
9 HeitmuUer, SNT, ii, p. 808; W. Bauer, HBNT, n, ti, p. 115; Julicher,
p. 380. ' efc Si ns it; aiTiiv Kaiaipas.

44 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
the telling of them with the confused memories of extreme old
age. Other explanations are, perhaps, more to the point; with his
emphatic 'that year' the Evangelist reaUy meant 'that fateful
year,' tbe 'year of all years,' 'the acceptable year of the Lord1.'
Perhaps it really was so; on the other hand there is force in the
suggestion that he was simply accommodating himself to local
usages, in respect of the Asiarchs, for the sake of Gentile readers
on a foreign soU2- A contingency remains that the responsibihty
for the dubious statement is not attachable to himself3.
Let him have tbe benefit of the doubt. Another point must
be raised ; and it again turns on the exactitude or otherwise
of the report of this Jew eye-witness as he claims, and is held,
to be. The question ceases to be of narrative and is now con
cerned with discourse4.
It has been said5 of the Fourth Gospel that, rich in 'tender and
unearthly beauty' it is suggestive of solemn cathedral voluntaries
improvised upon the organ of human speech. Yet it is a just
criticism whicb insists that the Evangelist's ideas, if sublime, are
few; that they are continuaUy reiterated in weU-nigh identical
form; that there is a poverty of v6cabulary, a sameness in manner
of presentment6: 'if the same great conceptions and ideas recur
over and over again, the language becomes almost monotonous,
colourless, — yes, almost poor 7.' The admission is abundantly ne
cessitated that precisely these features are ever and again Ulus-
trated in the speeches of the personages who play their respective
parts in the wonderful drama of the Fourth Gospel story. It may
be quite true that the characters are invested with an individuahty
of their own ; it is equaUy true that, having played their part, they
often vanish from the scene. Once more; is it quite the case that
they pass out of sight as men of flesh and blood and not like
1 So Westcott, lightfoot, and others. It is to beg the question when
Scott-Moncrieff (op. cit. p. 89) writes : ' He does not say that he was the high
priest of that year.'
2 Holtzmann, HCNT, iv, p. 160. Otherwise Clemen (Entstehung des Joh.
Evglms. p. 216), who discovers an explanation in the aUusion Lk. iii, 1 ff.
3 The question of interpolations is discussed in later chapters.
1 A subject which wUl come up again. s By Drummond.
6 von Soden, op. cit. p. 13.
' Luthardt, op. cit. p. 19. But cf. Westcott, op. cit. pp. 1 f.

rv. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 46
characters in some legendary tale1? Might it not rather be said of
some of them that they ' appear in a strange twUight . . . they pro
fess to be actual personahties, yet they live only the hfe of typical
characters,' and that, as for the EvangeUst, ' he loses the whole of
his interest in both persons and situations as soon as they have
served his doctrinal purpose2? ' The question wUl come up again;
let it be observed in this connexion that it is precisely when they
begin to speak that the uniform note is perceptible. There is httle
if any variety in the manner of their discourse. Admittedly their
language is Johannine. Or to put it thus: the Evangelist has
'fashioned a speech peculiar to his school,' and it is in that speech
that aU his characters discourse3.
Let it be observed at this point that the claim raised by the
Evangelist (or advanced on his behalf) is not simply that of having
been an eye-witness. The idea of an ear- witness is included in the
claim. When it is said by (or of) bim that 'his witness is true' tbe
meaning undoubtedly is that, if his report be trustworthy in respect
of things seen with his eyes, it is not one whit less trustworthy in
the case of things heard with his ears.
Then this weighty consideration arises: no matter who the
personages are, the speeches whicb the Evangelist purports to
report are assuredly characterized by a remarkable sameness of
style or tone. They, the said personages — each one with an indivi
duality proper to himself — must surely have displayed their indi
viduality in the manner of their discourse. They are certainly not
found so to do ; and the conclusion is unavoidable that the asserted
ear-witness Evangehst is anything but a true witness if verity be
contingent on exactness of report. Tbe speeches must be, to some
extent, constructed speeches. In any case the Evangehst has
aUowed himself a very free hand4-
1 Westcott, op. cit. pp. lxxi, lxxv; Barth, op. cit. p. 30.
2 von Soden, op. cit. pp. 390 fi. To the same effect Wrede, Charakter und
Tendenz des Evglm. Joh. p. 21.
3 von Dobschutz, Christ. Life in the Prim. Ch. p. 222.
4 Treating of 'Die "subjective Form" der johan. Christusreden,'
P. Ewald (NKZ, xix, 1908, p. 842) writes: 'Es gibt auch im tagUchen Leben
eine doppelte Art, Gehortes zu bewahren und anderen zu vermitteln;
Entweder indem man wirkhch den Wortlaut durchaus festhalt und anderen

46 THE FOURTH GOSPEL C5.
To which it may be added that his own reflexions are some
times so merged in reported conversation or discourse that it is no
easy thing to decide who precisely the speaker is1. Sometimes the
difficulty is less; thus, e.g., in the case of Jn iii, 16-22, 31-36;
where we have in all likeUhood the ponderings of the Evangelist
rather than words assigned respectively to Jesus and the Baptist.
There is another important point. The professed, or aUeged,
eye- and ear-witness occasionaUy relates scene or incident in a
manner strongly suggestive that no one is present but the persons
immediately concerned, yet he appears to record what passed be
tween them with the precision of an attentive hstener to the
spoken words2. That sources of information were at his command
may be freely admitted; yet this is by no means a sufficient explan
ation, for, such sources granted, it must nevertheless be urged that
they have been amplified by the Evangehst, and in terms of his
own conceptions of what was likely to be said by the respective
personages who figure in the narrative. But this is scarcely to go
far enough; the conclusion is ever and again inevitable that the
case, far from being one of an ear-witness's verbatim — or free
yet sufficiently accurate — report, is actuaUy of artificiaUy con
structed discourse. The position is weU stated thus: 'few wiU
deny that in this Gospel the prerogative of the ancient historian
to place in tbe mouth of bis characters discourses reflecting his
own idea of what was suitable to the occasion, has been used to
tbe limit3.'
gegeniiber reproduzirt, oder indem man aUen Nachdruck auf den Gedanken-
gehalt legt.' The latter method, it is added, is better calculated to convey
the real significance of the spoken word, and it is that employed by the Fourth
EvangeUst. 1 'Zudem verschwimmen die ihm (Jesus) geliehenen Worte ofters mit
den eigenen Reflexionen des Verfassers,' Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften
des N.T. p. 208. See also von Soden, op. cit. p. 412; Weizsacker, op. cit. ii,
p. 225. * Of this there are at least six striking instances : the night visit of Nico
demus, Jn iii, 1-16 ; the conversation with the woman of Samaria, Jn iv, 7-26 ;
the scene laid in the palace of the Roman Governor, xviii, 33-xix, 14; the
debate in the councU, xi, 47 ff.; the Burial, xix, 38 ff.; the appearance to
Mary Magdalene, xx, 11 f. See Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. pp. 241 ff.
3 Bacon, Introd. to N.T. p. 257. See also Percy Gardner, op. cit. p 93;
CBE, pp. 392 ff.

rv. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 47
But to sum up ; and, of course, provisionaUy.
It was said by an earlier critic1 that, while the external evidence
for the authorship of tbe Fourth Gospel was unimportant, the
internal evidence was so convincing that only a madman could
reject it. As we have seen already, the internal evidence, where
direct, is of such a nature that it raises more difficulties than it
solves; looking to that indirect evidence which has just been
rapidly surveyed, tbe case is somewhat different ; nor is it altogether
incredible that it should be maintained by a recent writer that
'everything in the Gospel points to a Jewish author who is an
eye-witness of our Lord's Ministry, and a native of Palestine2.'
There is nevertheless ground for hesitation; but at this stage of
our inquiry it must suffice to say of the Evangelist that he writes
with a view to GentUe readers and that it is a reasonable conjecture
which locates his clientele, not to say himself, in Asia Minor. He
is evidently a Jew ; possibly of the Diaspora, with far greater likeli
hood of Palestinian origin. There is little need to question his
personal acquaintance (somewhat blurred, perhaps, with the lapse
of time) with scenes and locahties depicted in his Gospel, but it
must be confessed that doubt is awakened whether he (if he it be)
was equaUy conversant with the pohtical situations and conditions
which obtained in Palestine. Vivid are his descriptions; the ques
tion nevertheless arises whether tbe protraits drawn by him are
invariably true to hfe. Sometimes, it may be, actuaUy present
when his characters engage in converse, and sometimes, as it
would appear, by his own showing, not so present, he, in any case
no shorthand reporter, makes them discourse in his own language.
Nay more, he places his own reflexions in their lips. As we find
him actuaUy setting down what Jesus thought and felt, the temp
tation is strong to account him one whose relations with Jesus had
1 Gfrorer, Die heilige Sage. For some remarks on Gfrorer (who was far
indeed from accepting the historicity of our Gospel) see Albert Schweitzer,
Von Reimarus zu Wrede, pp. 160 ff.; Lutzelberger, op. cit. p. 41.
2 Cohu, op. cit. p. 474. PracticaUy the same thing was said by Schleier
macher (Hermeneutik, p. 224) : 'Aber betrachten wir das Evglm. im ganzen, so
werden wir urtheUen miissen, es sei das Bericht eines Augenzeugen.' John's
Gospel, he says elsewhere (Einl. p. 318) is 'lauter Selbsteriebtes.' And thus
Lange (op. cit. p. 24) 'Es (sc. our Gospel) beruht offenbar auf der personlichen
Erinnerung eines der friihsten Zeugen Jesu.'

48 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH. iv.
been singularly close; anyhow we are disposed to agree that he
was not so very far removed from the fountain-head of informa
tion1. What we find it hard to say is that his Gospel 'is a genuine
Johannine work from the pen of the Apostle, who wrote from
Ephesus2.' Author of our Gospel3 tbe Beloved Disciple to whom it points
may be; or, if not himself the author, then a main authority for
that Gospel.
1 De Wette, op. oil. ii, p. 233: 'nicht zu weit enfernt von der ersten QueUe.'
2 Thus, confidently, Strachan, DCG, i, p. 881. The position now adopted
by hi™ (The Fourth Gospel, its Significance and Environment, p. ix) indicates
a change of view.
3 The main fabric of that Gospel. See chs. vii and viii.

CHAPTER V
THE JOHANNINE AND THE SYNOPTIC
REPRESENTATION
Jewish scholarship has pronounced that Jewish scholars, steeped
in Rabbinic lore, find when they come to study the Gospels care
fuUy that they have not passed into a strange world1 ; and that,
if 'the Gospel of Matthew stands nearest to Jewish life and the
Jewish mode of thinking,' 'a greater familiarity with Jewish
rites, with Jewish personalities, and with the geography of Pales
tine ' is shown by the Fourth Gospel. ' The whole book was written
by a born Jew2.' And such, generally speaking, was a conclusion
arrived at in the preceding chapter. A Jewish background was
recognized; and albeit in regard to some points hesitation occa-
sionaUy merged in doubt, it was decided that our Gospel bears tbe
traces of a Jewish pen. Yet a contingency was reckoned with
that the aUeged eye- and ear-witness of its allusions might be not
so much author of as authority for a work impregnated with
Jewish thought.
Another stage of inquiry is entered. Hitherto ancient authori
ties have been questioned; and, the ground of external evidence
traversed, there foUowed a general survey of our Gospel which
passed from direct to indirect evidence. The time has now come
when, confronting that Gospel with its three companions, we
must institute that comparison which wiU pave the way for more
definite conclusions on the three-fold question of its date, author
ship, and claims to historicity3.
To turn to the immediate subject. As every student knows,
comparisons between tbe Johannine and Synoptic representations
have been instituted again and again; with tbe result, in many
1 Abrahams, CBE, pp. 164, 181.
2 Kaufmann Kohler, JE, ix, p. 251. See also Brooke, CBE, pp. 318 f.;
Jiilicher, op. cit. p. 375.
3 The question of substantial accuracy, it is said, is 'ultimately the more
important,' Schmiedel, EB, u, col. 2518; HeitmuUer, SNT, ii, p. 707.
J. 4

50 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
quarters, that an array of reasons is advanced for disallowing not
only the genuineness but the credibility of a Gospel which, from its
generally recognized peculiar character, is placed in a category by
itself apart. And although 'the day is now over, or almost over,
when tbe Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists could be played off
against each other in a series of rigid antitheses1,' yet it wiU
serve the present purpose to summarize objections and make some
independent study of the situation.
Now, where objection is raised, the marked peculiarity of the
Fourth Gospel is highly accentuated. It is regarded, not as tbe
record of historical events, but as a manual of instruction of which
the theme is Jesus, the divine Logos manifested in the flesh. The
view further is that the Synoptic Jesus, human in his every linea
ment and child of his own age and people, is altogether unrecog
nizable in tbe Johannine Christ. As for the former, he is sharer
in all the experiences which are the common lot of man, and,
moved by tender pity, he performs his deeds of love; as for the
latter, a God who walks this earth as a stranger, his signs are done
but to manifest his own glory and omnipotence, to lead up to pro
found spiritual meditations. The one is the prophet-preacher who
proclaims the Kingdom, the other is for ever discoursing of him
self; the one is friend of sinners, the other prefers the company of
seekers after truth ; the one prays and the other can dispense with
prayer. Nor is stress laid only on a sharp diversity in the portrai
ture of him who is the central figure; it is further urged that our
Gospel and the Synoptists part company in the case of other
personages, and that they are utterly at variance on matters,
amongst others, of locality and date. The Baptist of the earlier
Gospels is the great preacher of repentance, whUe as portrayed
by tbe Fourth Evangelist he plays no independent role; whereas
in the former case the recorded vision at the Baptism is a sign to
Jesus, in the latter case all mention of the Baptism is suppressed,
while the vision is granted to the Baptist to assure him as to who
and what Jesus really is. With the Synoptists the scene is mainly
laid in Galilee ; with the Fourth Gospel it is largely transferred to
Judaea and Jerusalem; in the former case the events are crowded
' Moffatt, op. cit. p. 540.

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 51
into one short year, in the other the Ministry is extended over
three Passovers. In the one case the Jewish people are described
with picturesque variety of type and class and section; not so id
the other case, with 'John' they dwindle down to Pharisees and
Priests and rulers of tbe people; as for the Pharisees they have
become the very core of unbelieving Judaism in its hostility to
Jesus. The Jews are pictured as in hopeless case; away with them
to the devU, the Greeks for Jesus and for God ! And again, the
difference between the Johannine and the Synoptic representa
tions of the Passion, the Death, and the Resurrection is regarded
as fundamental1. For reasons such as these there is wide-spread agreement that,
whatever be its interest and value as an early Christian document,
the Fourth Gospel must be ruled out as a source for the Life of
Jesus. As we shaU realize presently, the Fourth Gospel does, in many
respects, present a striking contrast to its three companions. Com
mon features and resemblances there may be; the fact remains
that discrepancies are both numerous and of such a nature as to
stare the instructed reader in tbe face. Nor is it destitute of signi
ficance that the very points which were raised a century and more
ago are reiterated, often with next door to verbal coincidence, in
tbe modern world. But in view of undisguised preferences for the
Synoptic representation, room shall be made here for some remarks
on the Synoptic Gospels.
It cannot be said of any one of them that it emanates directly
from an eye-witness of the life of Jesus. They are alike in this
respect that they are anonymous compositions. They are not three
distinct and entirely independent narratives ; on the contrary, two
of tbe three are dependent on the third; the First and Third
Evangelists (Mt., Lk.) had the Second Gospel (Mk) before them,
and between them they incorporated tbe bulk of it into their
respective works. They drew also on ' the non-Marcan document,'
a coUection of Sayings generaUy designated by the symbol 'Q';
other — to us quite unknown — sources were respectively at their
command, with the result that both Mt. and Lk. have, each one,
1 So, generaUy, Wernle, op. cit. pp. 14 ff.
4—2

52 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
additional matter peculiar to bis own Gospel. The Synoptic
Gospels are composite works; several strata of evangelic record are
embedded in them, primary and secondary traditions. As for tbe
earlier traditions, the primary elements, they are, generaUy speak
ing, to be looked for in 'Q' and in the Marcan Gospel. Or in other
words; of our Four Canonical Gospels 'John' is certainly the latest
— and perhaps the latest by a long way; as for the remaining three,
they are nearer to the events they purport to relate, and it is safe
to say of tbe Synoptic tradition that it stretches back to Apostolic
times and to the very days of Jesus. The earlier the narrative
the greater, generaUy speaking, the likelihood of its substantial
historicity ; and hence preferences accorded to the Synoptic repre
sentation are well grounded. Nor would such preference necessarily
become unreasonable were it proved to demonstration that the
Fourth Evangelist was none other than the Apostle John; for in
that case account might not unnaturally be taken of faiUng memory
consequent on extreme old age.
Let it be borne in mind that preference for the Synoptic repre
sentation as against 'John' is not invariably bound up with
dogmatic prejudices — with the view that the historic Jesus never
outsteps the hmits of the purely human — but that it is compatible
with a recognition of tbe claims made by the Johannine Christ.
There is another consideration. It has been said that answers
to the questions inevitably raised when our Gospel is confronted
with the Synoptics are certain to vary with the varying concep
tions of a divine revelation to mankind; the remark foUows that
it is nothing short of a boon that Christian thought is no longer
fettered by outworn mechanical theories of inspiration and inter
pretation in tbe case of tbe Bible literature1- To narrow down to
the Gospels; in tbe old and disastrous view the Evangelists were
passive agents, men who could not choose but write down words
from divine dictation, 'living pens grasped and guided by an
Almighty hand2.' A more enlightened view obtains; and today —
at all events in instructed circles — account is taken of their re-
1 Barth, op. cit. pp. 13 f.
2 'Das Bibelbuch gait als Einheit, die Einzelverfasser nur als Griffel des
hi. Geistes,' von Dobschiitz, Der gegenwart. Stand der N.T. Exegese.

v, JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 53
spective personahties. lUustrating a marked diversity of type, of
temperament, and of environment, their own proper individuahty
is never lost. Each one teUs his own tale, and tells it in his own
way. Neither to the men themselves nor to their respective
writings does infaUibUity attach.
A contrast of some sort between ' John' and the Synoptics,
then, there can scarcely faU to be. Diverse are the individualities
of the respective Evangelists ; what more natural than that there
should be some display of diversity of style and standpoint and
manner of presentment? SimUarlyin regard to choice of matter; — ¦
there would be nothing necessarUy abnormal were this or that
Evangehst, say at once the Fourth Evangelist, to refrain, on the
one hand, from attempting to cover the whole ground, or, on the
other hand, to supply what he deemed lacking in the other narra
tives1. Neither he nor the Synoptics are infallible. If he corrects
them and makes his alterations in them, it is exactly what two
of them have already done with a third ; Mt. and Lk. have treated
Mark with a very free hand. Let us add that mere priority is not
in itself an absolute guarantee of accuracy, nor is inaccuracy
necessarUy connoted by lateness of date.
To proceed without further delay to a comparison which will
fasten on the foUowing questions : — Chronology, The Scene of the
Ministry, John the Baptist, Miracle, The Discourses, The Synoptic
and the Johannine Portrait of Jesus.
I. Chronology. The independent attitude of the Fourth Evan
gehst is manifested in his extension of the duration of the Ministry
and in his bold transpositions of events and dates.
One instance is the date of the beginning of the Ministry.
According to the Marcan Gospel2, it was not until after the Bap
tist's imprisonment that Jesus entered upon bis work; not so in
the Fourth Gospel, where he is pictured as already active at a
time when the Baptist, still at liberty, was still drawing foUowers
to himself3. The narratives appear to be mutuaUy exclusive; yet
attempts have been made to bring them into some sort of harmony
by urging that the otherwise unexplained readiness of Simon,
1 Zahn, Einl. ii, p. 499. 2 Mk i, 14; cf. Mt. iv, 12.
3 Jn iii, 23 ff.

54 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH,
Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee to obey the caU of Jesus1 is
accounted for by a discipleship which dated back to that earlier
stage of the Ministry told of by the Fourth Evangelist, who does
but amplify the Marcan narrative in a way which it necessitates
and positively invites. Whether such a conjecture meets the case
is another matter2-
Again. It certainly appears from the Synoptic representation
that the public Ministry of Jesus began and ended within a single
year; otherwise the Fourth Evangelist, who expands it to a period
which includes at the least three Passovers3. Here, too, attempt
is made to reconcUe the discrepancy; it has been urged, by no
means to conviction, that all three Passovers were, in reality, one
and the same. The contention, again, is that, apart from hints
and aUusions to seasons of the year whicb themselves are suggestive
of the longer period4, it is impossible to conceive of the many
events recorded by the Synoptists as happening within the space
of one short year5- The Fourth Evangelist, it is maintained, is
nearer the mark; and the companion Gospels are, implicitly, in
agreement with his reckoning. Very likely such is tbe case.
To turn to the Cleansing of the Temple. According to the
Fourth Gospel it occurred at the beginning of the Ministry 6, whUe
it is placed by tbe Synoptics at the close of the Ministry', and is
evidently regarded by them as the decisive act which precipitated
the Death of Jesus.
Harmonists have struggled to escape tbe difficulty. One sug
gestion is that there were reaUy two Cleansings of the Temple, the
one at the outset and the other at the closing scenes8; few to-day
would venture to advance and uphold it9, and perhaps many
1 Mk i, 14 pars. 2 Wernle, op. cit. p. 23.
3 Jn ii, 13 (? v, 1); vi, 14; xi, 1. Stanley (Sermons on Apos. Age) re
marks on the far longer Ministry aUuded to by Irenaeus.
4 Cf. Mk ti, 23. s Westcott, op. cit. p. Ixxxi.
6 Jn ii, 13 ff. i Mk xi, 15 ff, pars.
8 So Hengstenberg, op. cit. i, pp. 156 f. Askwith (Hist. Value of Fourth
Gospel, p. 197) is 'of opinion that the repetition of the occurrence is the
simplest and most natural explanation of the contents of the documents.'
Hitchcock (Fresh Study of ith Gosp. p. 22) finds it 'quite possible to beUeve
that the Temple required and received a second purification.'
9 'Un tel expedient,' says Loisy (op. cit. p. 295), 'aurait fait sourire le
grand Origene.'

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 55
would agree that 'such a demonstrative act, the expression of a
holy zeal, can only once be morally justified1.' Where preference
obtains for the Johannine dating, it is maintained that the conflict
had reaUy begun at the very first, and that the Galilaean Ministry
of the Synoptics, rightly conceived of, bad been but a series of
retreats from a prolonged but intermittent Ministry at the very
bead-quarters of Jewish orthodoxy. Tbe case would accordingly
be one in which the Fourth Evangelist bas corrected a Synoptic
blunder. But to this there is good ground for demur.
Tbe balance of probabUity is surely against the Johannine
dating2; for the position of the story in the Synoptics is natural,
while in the case of our Gospel it has rather the effect of an anti
climax3. Another instance of ' violent alteration,' as it would appear, is
that of the respective datings of the Death-Day of Jesus.
Take first the Synoptic representation. Jesus, it would appear,
celebrates the Passover with the Twelve. They depart from tbe
Upper Room; the scene changes from the Mount of Olives to 'a
place which was named Gethsemane'; quickly there foUows }he
Arrest. As for the Crucifixion, it takes place the day after the
Celebration of the Passover4. Not so, says the Fourth Evangelist;
he teUs of a Supper partaken of by Jesus and bis friends while
nowhere stating that the number of the latter was limited to The
Twelve. Far from identifying that Supper with the Paschal Meal,
he is at pains to make it understood that the Passover lay still
ahead5; and that, when the night of its celebration had arrived,
the body of Jesus was already in the tomb. The two authorities
are thus far in agreement that they refer the Crucifixion to a Friday.

1 Wendt, op. cit. p. 12.
2 A displacement of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel is suggested.
Sanday (DB, ii, p. 613) prefers the dating of that Gospel. Baldensperger
(Prolog, des 4. Evglm. p. 65) finds a sequence of thought from the preceding
story, Jn ii, 1 ff., but that is quite another matter.
3 von Soden, op. cit. p. 403. 4 Mk xiv, 1-xv, 32 pars.
5 Jn xiii, 1 ff. ; xviii, 28; xix, 14. 'Das <j>dyeii> t6 irdaxa kann man nach
dem herschenden jiidischen und christUchen Sprachgebrauch gewiss nicht
anders verstehen, als von der Passahmahlzeit,' Neander, Das Leben Jesu
Christi, p. 580, note.

56 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
At once they part company, and in regard to the day of the month ;
the Synoptists assign it to the 15th of Nisan, 'John' to the 14th.
They are, accordingly, in flat contradiction in regard to date.
ReconcUiation1 being hazardous, not to say impossible, the
one question is: Which of the two datings is correct?
There is a strong consensus of opinion in favour of the Johan
nine dating. Jewish scholarship is in no doubt at aU: 'the one
possible date of the Crucifixion' is that given by the Fourth
Evangelist2. It is urged in other quarters that, albeit the Synoptists
are apparently convinced that the 'Last Supper7 was a legal Pass
over3, yet their narratives when closely scrutinized reveal such
glaring inconsistencies and incongruities 4 as to make them ' bear
unwilling testimony ' 5 to the emphatic statements of the Fourth
Gospel, while traces of early confusion are detected in a recorded
Saying which points to Paschal anticipations which, entertained
by Jesus, were frustrated in the event6. And further, appeal is
held to lie to the Apostle Paul; for although his account of the
Institution of the Eucharist 7 is quite inconclusive in regard to
1 Thus wh.en it is argued by Zahn (op. cit. ii, p. 514) that 'to eat the
Passover' was a fagon de parler; a vague term popularly used of the whole
seven-day — seven-and-a-half-day — Feast which began with the slaughter of
the Pasch J lamb, and that the men referred to Jn xviii, 28, were reaUy thinking
of the Chagiga, or sacrificial meal of 15th Nisan, which was held, not like the
Passover, after sunset but in the course of tbe day. Sanday, at one time in
clined to such a view (DB, u, p. 634), has since abandoned it. B. Weiss (Das
Joh. Evglm. p. 248) is unconvinced by Zahn's 'Polemik.' Another line of
argument is to the effect that the Passover celebrated by Jesus was not the
legal, but an anticipated Passover.
2 Kaufmann Kohler, JE, ix, p. 25.
3 Though stient as to formal rites and accessories of Paschal observance,
they apparently specify certain concomitants (not the lamb) of the Passover-
meal, while the recorded singing of a hymn might be significant. Spitta
(Das Evglm. Joh. p. 295) takes the contrary view.
1 They relate (Mk xiv, 2) a decision to take no action on the 'feast day,'
yet it is on that very day that the Arrest takes place, whtie they naively tell
of occurrences and transactions (Mk xiv, 47; xv, 21; xv, 46) altogether in
compatible with enactment or impracticable at the time in question.
6 Sanday, DB, ii, p. 634.
6 Lk. xxii, 15. The conjecture here is that the phrase 'this Passover'
does not point to a Passover then and there being celebrated but to the
Passover of the morrow which, greatly desired by Jesus, would not be cele
brated until after his Death. See JTS, July 1904. ' 1 Cor. xi, 23 ff.

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 57
date, there are two beautiful comparisons which suggest a dating
of the Crucifixion identical with that afterwards insisted on by
tbe Fourth Evangelist. In the one case Paul conceives of Jesus as
the true Paschal lamb whose Death on the Cross was exactly
coincident with the slaughtering by thousands of lambs destined
for the Paschal meal: 'for our Passover also hath been sacrificed,
even Christ1.' In the other case Paul's thoughts turn from first-
fruits offered in the Temple on the Resurrection Sunday to the
Risen Lord: 'now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first-
fruits of them that are asleep2.' Nor does appeal stop short with
Paul; a passage in one of tbe Apocryphal Gospels is regarded as
significant: 'the sun must not go down upon a murdered person
on the day before their Feast, the Feast of unleavened bread3.'
Yet Paul's thought of Jesus as 'the Christian's Paschal Lamb'
is not necessarily decisive for historic date, while it may have
'induced the Fourth EvangeUst to transfer Jesus' hour of Death
to the day on which the Paschal lamb was sacrificed4.' So runs a
suggestion; and in any case voices are raised on behalf of the
Synoptic dating of the Crucifixion 5- Such dating, it is maintained,
is perfectly conceivable, nor do the earlier Evangelists relate any
single occurrence which might not quite well have happened on
the feast-day; their statement is deemed far more deserving of
credit than is that of 'John6.' And besides, objections raised to
the Synoptic dating of the 15th Nisan (it is said) by no means
necessarUy establish the date of the 14th, but rather tend to favour
hypotheses advanced by daring critics who, contesting both dates,
proceed to assign the Crucifixion to one or other Friday prior or
1 1 Cor. v, 7 f. Yet, as 0. Holtzmann (Das Joh. Evglm. p. 35) points out,
without specific reference to any Paschal lamb. 2 1 Cor. xv, 20.
3 Rendel Harris, Newly Recovered Gosp. of Peter, pp. 43 f., 64 f.
4 Weinel, St Paul, the Man and his Work, p. 303.
5 Hitchcock (op. cit. p. 24) takes refuge in the suggestion that the dis
crepancy 'might be explained away by an appeal to the original languages,'
and adds: 'the four Evangelists are, however, unanimous that Jesus suffered
on the 14th Nisan.'
6 'De geschiednis leert dus, dat Jezus med zijne discipelen op den 14den
van Nisan het gewone pascha der Joden geviert heeft,' writes Scholten (Het
Ev. n. Joh. p. 306). To like effect Schmiedel, Das 4. Ev. gegen den drei Ersten,
pp. 96 ff.; JiiUcher, op. cit p. 379; Sohenkel, op. cit. pp. 253 ff.

58 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
subsequent to the Paschal week1. It is also said that artificiality
is a conspicuous feature of the Johannine representation generaUy ;
and that in this particular instance the provisions relative to the
Paschal lamb have been transferred, with characteristic symbolism
and disregard of fact, to the Passion and tbe Death of the Johannine
Christ2. So run the arguments, and they occasion pause.
The case here is probably one 'where the record in the Fourth
Gospel may claim the greater internal probabUity3,' whereas in
the former case it must be allowed that the Evangelist has
'divorced the Cleansing of the Temple from its tragic connexion
with the final catastrophe 4.'
II. The scene of the Ministry. This, by the Synoptists, is laid
in the Galilaean homeland of Jesus ; and, recording certain j ourneys
outside Galilaean territory5, they have nothing to say of visits paid
to Jerusalem6 save only the one which issued in his death. In
sharp contrast is the representation of the Fourth Evangelist; for
with him tbe scene on which Jesus moves during the period of his
Messianic activity is Judaea7, and in particular Jerusalem; but
rarely does he appear in Galilee, and when there his stays are of
brief duration8. No wonder that the discrepancy is insisted on9.
The difficulty is scarcely met where the point is laboured of
Synoptic hints and allusions which pre-suppose a famUiarity on
the part of Jesus with Judaea and Jerusalem10. 'Such famiharity
might well be matter of assumption in the case of one who, himself
a pious Jew, would naturally go up at feast-times to the metropolis
from his Galilaean home; the strange thing would be were he
1 Loisy, op. cit. p. 67.
2 WeEhausen, Erweit. undAnder. imi.Ev. pp. 30 f. See also W. F. Loman,
Het vierde Ev., Kenbron van Jezus' Leer en Leven, p. 31.
3 Wendt, op. cit. p. 13. * von Soden, op. cit. p. 443.
5 Mk vii, 24; viii, 27; x, 1.
6 Apart from the story of the ChUdhood, Lk. ii, 41 ff.
7 Which (Jn iv, 44 f.) is conceived of as his native land. The Saying is
taken over from the Synoptics (Mk vi, 4), who naturaUy refer it to Gahlee.
Cf. Schwalb, op. cit. p. 208; Wendt, op. cit. p. 108; Moffatt, op. cit. p. 553.
8 Jn ii, 1 ff . ; iv, 43 ff . ; vii, 10 ff.
9 HeitmuUer, SNT, ii, p. 704; Schmiedel, op. cit. pp. 6 ff. ; Holtzmann,
Das Ev. des Joh. p. 3. The Ust of names might be easUy enlarged.
10 Mk iii, 7 f. ; xiv, 3; xi, 1 ff. ; xiv, 12 ff.

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 59
represented as being entirely without friends and acquaintances,
not to say sympathizers, in and in the neighbourhood of Jeru
salem. The question at issue, however, relates definitely to the
pubhc activities of Jesus, and hence mere familiarity with par
ticular scenes is not in itself to the point.
It is open to doubt whether the Synoptic and Johannine repre
sentations are so mutually exclusive as to necessitate a categorical
'either — or'; and the probabUity is that the discrepancy may be
in part accounted for on the theory of diversity in respect of choice
of matter. If so, it might be said of our Evangelist that, recog
nizing that GalUee had actually been a field of action1, he decides
that he himself wUl go into detail in respect of that Judaean
Ministry which the Synoptists, not explicitly denying, insufficiently
relate. As for the Synoptists, the probability again is that they
not only invite assumptions of, but actually testify to a prolonged
Judaean Ministry in that two of them fasten on that pathetic
lament over Jerusalem2 which is strongly suggestive of repeated
effort and repeated failure in the course of frequent mission-
journeys from GalUee to Judaea.
It may be so. On the whole it appears quite likely that such
was reaUy the case. The recorded utterance 'is a very important
piece of evidence3,' nor is it altogether childish play4 to regard it
as bearing out one feature of the Johannine representation0. And
besides, were our Evangelist, in any case a Jew, a Jew of Jerusalem,
he would naturaUy prefer to tell of the Judaean Ministry.
The contingency must be reckoned with that the Fourth
Evangehst was also speciaUy concerned to establish it against
hostile voices that, far from having dragged out an obscure exist
ence in such an out-of-tbe-world region as Galilee, Jesus had
appeared and laboured openly at Jerusalem, at tbe very centre of
1 'Wir finden auch in diesem Evglm.,' says Neander (op. cit. p. 384).
"selbst guten Raum fur die galilaische Wirksamkeit Christi.'
2 Mt. xxiii, 37 ; Lk. xiii, 34. The Saying stood in Q, but is placed by Mt.
and Lk. in different connexions.
3 Wendt, op. cit. p. 10. Otherwise Schenkel, who (op. cit. pp. 13 f.)
makes room for but one, and prolonged, stay in Jerusalem.
4 'Ein kindliches Vergniigen,' JiiUcher, op. cit. p. 379.
6 J. Weiss, SNT, i, p 377.

60 , THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
Jewish life, as it behoved one who desired to be regarded as the
Messiah1. III. John the Baptist. The contention here is that the Baptist
who figures in the Fourth Gospel wears but slight if any resem
blance to tbe Baptist of the Synoptic representation; that the two
portraits are singularly unlike.
A question might be whether either of them be strictly true to
life; for there can be little doubt that 'the prophet's life was spread
over a longer period of time, his mission more independent in
character, his influence upon his own and upon succeeding genera
tions more far-reaching, than' is implied by the manner of the
Gospel representation2 ; and it is possible that the real Baptist at
no time definitely attached himself to the cause of Jesus3, but went
his own way and rushed to a self-invited fate.
But this by the way. The Synoptic and the Johannine portrait
of the Baptist are, no doubt, in some things unlike. In each case,
however, the portrait is of a strong man, while the Johannine
representation is not less decisive than the Marcan for an eminent
personage 4. Yet the fact remains that a process of subordination
of John to Jesus is noticeable, which, setting in with Mark and
continued in the two later Synoptics, reaches its climax in the
Fourth Gospel. If the Baptist is magnified as recipient of know
ledge supernaturally vouchsafed 5, a relatively unimportant office
is assigned to him, and it would seem that his sole function is to
bear witness to Jesus6- A time comes when he is dispensed with7.
The strong soul, it has been said, is conceived of as a mere 'voice8,'
but this is surely to go too far.
1 Cf. Baldensperger, op. cit. p. 120; Wrede, Charakter u. Tendenz des Joh.
Evglrns. pp. 48 f. And see Herder, op. cit. p. 307.
2 Blakiston, John Baptist and his relation to Jesus, Preface. And see p. 194.
8 Thus, positively, Schwalb, op. cit. p. 206.
4 Herder rightly says (op. cit. pp. 269 f., 308) that our EvangeUst shows
no smaU honour to the Baptist.
5 Jn i, 15, 27, 29, 30, 32.
6 Jn i, 7, 8, 15, 19 f. Wellhausen, Das Ev. Joh. p. 103. According to
Schwalb (op. cit. p. 207) the Baptist of the Fourth Gospel preaches, not re
pentance, but the Gospel; he has the same conception of Jesus as the Evan
geUst. ' Ju v, 30 ff.
8 Baldensperger, op. cit. p. 59. Cf. Forbes, op. cit. p. 158.

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 61
We conclude that in the Johannine representation the Baptist
is pre-eminently a f oU to Jesus ; and hence precisely those features
are preserved which tell of one who, anything but a lay figure, was
in high renown1, lt is said in effect : John towered above his fel
lows, but Jesus is incomparably greater than he. Let it be added
that the studied representation of the Baptist as a witness might
be due to circumstances which, pointing to Baptist-disciples of a
later day2, had made it imperative to differentiate sharply between
tbe 'lamp' and 'the light of the world3.'
IV. Miracle. The contention is raised that the Fourth Gospel
is in contrast with the Synoptics in that, along with changed
motives and with significant omissions, the element of the miracu
lous is strongly enhanced.
To venture some preliminary remarks. In the popular mind,
no doubt, a miracle is nothing short of a prodigy4; a starthng
occurrence which, in itself improbable, -not only runs counter to
experience but implies violation of Natural Law by one with
whom ' aU things are possible ' and who plays as it were the part
of a divine magician. With loftier conceptions of Deity the pre
ference wUl ever be for tbe more sober view that the given occur
rence, be it never so surprising and perplexing, may be, and pro
bably is, the expression of Law as yet undiscerned or but partially
understood, and that present difficulty will be resolved with a
larger understanding of the range and meaning of nature. Faith
not for a moment identified by him with mere credulity, the candid
inquirer, prepared to encounter instances of the marveUous, wUl
ever be resolute to cross-examine his documents and to apply every
practicable test. More careful, more hesitating, wUl be his judge
ment 'in regard to stories of the miraculous which have come down
from antiquity'; there may be this or that story in the Gospel
1 Jn i, 19 ff. It may be remarked that the EvangeUst, who (i, 29 f.) ad
vances ample reason why John should yield aUegiance to 'the Lamb of God'
and 'Son of God,' gives (iii, 23 ff.) more than a glimpse of the real John in his
independent r61e.
2 Acts xviii, 25; xix, Iff. It is not said of the disciples here instanced
that they regarded the Baptist as Messiah.
3 Weizsacker, op. cit. ii, p. 226; von Soden, op. cit. p. 415.
4 'Eine Abart des Wunders,' Traub, Die W under im N.T. p. 7.

62 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
records which he will elect to 'put quietly aside,' and it may be
that he will have to 'leave it there for ever'; on the other hand
its meamng may one day so dawn on him that it wiU then assume
a significance of which he had never dreamt1 It will certainly be
present to his mind that, if 'psychology is stUl very far from being
an exact science,' ' the whole burden of recent research is in favour
of the belief that we, even the least of us, are greater than we
know2'; and, alive accordingly to tbe mysterious power exercised
by mind on mind, and perhaps by mind on matter, he, not slow
to admit that 'exceptional manifestations of psychic and spiritual
force. . .were only to be expected in a Being of exceptional eleva
tion and fullest capacity3,' will probably go on to own that, how
ever the case might stand with the disciples, Jesus is the greatest
spiritual force the world has ever known. It will not necessarUy
follow that the recorded Gospel-miracles one and aU wiU be ac
cepted as they stand; on the contrary, some wiU quite possibly
be referred to the misunderstandings of a later day and others to
imperfect knowledge with consequent miraculous interpretation
of what, for moderns, would be the natural event. Yet such deduc
tions made, a residuum will clamour for acceptance.
But this is a digression. Reverting to the main question, we
will observe in the first instance that one particular class of miracles
is excluded by the Fourth Evangelist 4. In the case of the Synoptics
there is frequent mention of demoniac-cures performed by Jesus;
and, by the way, it is widely conceded that he did actually heal
many a sufferer who, in the conception of the age, was possessed
by an evil spirit5. No such narratives occur in the Fourth Gospel;
1 Harnack, What is Christianity ?, pp. 28 ff.
2 Raven, op. cit. p. 46.
3 A. W. Robinson, Sermon.
4 Otherwise H. Ewald (Die Joh. Schriften, i, pp. 25, 58, 221), who, dis
covering a gap between Jn v and vi, argues that the EvangeUst, concerned
to give a specimen of every class of miracle, had actuaUy given a specimen of
the class in question in the conjectured missing section. In like manner
Spitta (Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, pp. 189 ff.) accounts
for the absence of any account of the Institution of the Eucharist.
6 Harnack, op. cit. p. 28; Traub, op. cit. p. 41; Bousset, Jesus, pp. 23 f.
Bousset finds the parable of the Unclean Spirit suggestive of frequent faUure
and relapse.

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 63
'John knows nothing whatsoever of the most frequent wonder
works of Jesus, tbe healing of demoniacs1'; or rather, he declines
to admit such Synoptic stories into his own Gospel. It is not that,
assuming independent knowledge on the part of his readers of the
'many things that Jesus did,' our Evangelist refrains from need
less repetition ; nor wUl it do to plead that such stories are implicitly
confirmed by his allusion to crowds who followed Jesus 'because
they saw the signs wrought on them that were diseased2.' The
suggestions are alike precarious; and the inference is preferable
that stories told of cures which others besides Jesus could perform3
were deliberately suppressed by our Evangelist because out of
keeping with his conception of Christ4.
What miracles, 'signs5,' are related by him? As commonly
enumerated, these : The Water turned into wine 6, the Heahng of
the 'nobleman's' son7, the Impotent man made whole8, the Feed
ing of the Five Thousand9, the Walking on the sea10, the Man blind
from his birth made to see11, and the Raising of Lazarus12. Tbe
question, then, is whether there be really 'enhancement of miracle'
with altered motive, and, the 'signs ' being precisely seven, whether
there be significance in the sacred number?
1 Wernle, op. cit. p. 18. " Jn vi, 12.
* Lk. xi, 19. See Forbes, op. cit. p. 156.
"¦ Loisy (op. cit. p. 58) infers reluctance to bring Jesus into direct conflict
with demons. In the view of Neander (op. cit. pp. 307 f.) the omission is due
to the fact that in Jerusalem, where the scene is chiefly laid, demoniac cases
were rare. According to Herder (op. cit. p. 267) the Evangelist refused to
allow such a Palestinian superstition to become 'ein wesentlicher Zug des
Christenthums, ein Vorwurf der spottenden oder ein Glauben der thorichten
Welt.' See also Lutzelberger, op. cit. p. 286; BaUenstedt, Philo und Johannes,
p. 73. 6 The Fourth EvangeUst generaUy prefers the term a-r\p.dov.
6 Jn U, 1 ff.
' Jn iv, 46 ff. RV (margin) 'King's Officer.' In the Greek ns fiao-ihiKos.
8 Jn v, 2 ff. 9 Jn vi, 4 ff. 10 Jn vi, 19 ff. , n Jn ix, 1 ff.
12 Jn xi, 1 ff. The Resurrection (Jn xx) and the Take of fishes (Jn xxi)
are included by. some, and others extend the Ust with instances of invisibiUty
(Jn viii, 59: 'une sorte de miracle1 permanent,' Loisy, op. cit. p. 65), of om
niscience (Jn i, 47 ff.), and of abUity to pass through soUd matter (Jn xx,
19 f., 26). According to Alex. Schweizer (op. cit. pp. 130 ff.) the genuine
Johannine miracles are to be found Jn i, 49 ff.; ii, 13 ff.; iv; 16-18; v, 1-10;
ix, 1-7; xi, 1 ff. And see Cludius, op. cit. p. 71.

64 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
There is a preliminary question; might it not be argued that
the number could be reduced; inasmuch as two if not three of the
'downright wonders of omnipotence' which are held to Ulustrate
enhancement are not peculiar to the Fourth Gospel but make their
appearance in the Synoptics1, and in that case there remain but,
say, four 'signs' for consideration, e.g., tbe occurrence at Cana,
the healing at the pool of Bethesda, the blind man given his sight,
and the dead man brought back to life ? Yet such a conclusion is
unsafe; for, to begin with, the resemblance between the Synoptic
story of the Centurion's servant and the Johannine story of the
'nobleman's ' son, if striking, is not altogether decisive for identity;
and secondly, assuming such identity elsewhere, there are added
touches which differentiate between the respective representations2.
That there are seven Johannine ' signs ' to be reckoned with3 must
be aUowed. It must be said, then, that there is enhancement4. With tbe
works of healing the effect is heightened; in one case the cure is
performed from a considerable distance, in another bhndness is
from birth, in a third it is emphatically said of the sick man that
he had been no less than 'thirty and eight years in his infirmity.'
The enhancement may not be so marked with the Walking on the
Sea and the two Nature-miracles, but it is nevertheless present.
Tbe very climax is reached with the Raising of Lazarus. In the
case of Jairus' daughter it would appear that death had not
actually supervened5, while it is safe to assume the decease but
a few hours past of the son of the Widow of Nain 6. Otherwise
the narrative whicb, pointing to Bethany, suggests unmistakably
that the corpse already four days in the tomb had seen corruption 7.
1 Mk vi, 34 ff. pars. ; Mk vi, 45 ff. par. ; Mt. viii, 5 ff. par.
2 With aUusion to the Feeding of the 5000 and the Walking on the Sea
Schwalb (op. cit. p. 221) writes: 'Unser EvangeUst aber hat sie noch ver-
grossert.' On the other hand Hart (Exp. 7th ser. v and vi), with simUar
allusion, eliminates the miraculous elements altogether
3 'Die ganze Reihe dieser AUmachtswunder steht doch als etwas voltig
Neues da,' Wernle, op. cit. p. 18.
4 As, writing in 1838, was affirmed by HenneU, op. cit. p. 106.
6 Mk v, 39: rb waidlov ouk airidavev dWd KaBeiiSei.
6 Lk. vii, 12 ff. According to Eastern custom but a very short interval
elapsed between death and burial.
' Jn xi, 39: tj6v 6'fei. 'Lazarus' Leiche stromt bereits Verwesungsgeruch

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 65
To pass on1. The further admission appears unavoidable that
the Johannine ' signs ' are conceived of as wrought with transformed
purpose. The Synoptic Jesus is ' moved with compassion ' for the
leper2; his sympathies go out to Jairus3, and to the father of the
epUeptic boy4; lest those who 'have nothing to eat' should 'faint
in the way ' to their homes, he supphes their physical needs 5 ; the
blind beggar is heartened to come into his presence6. Scarcely so
with the Johannine Christ; his 'signs' are proof of his divine
omnipotence and manifest his glory. Thus when at Cana he be
stows bis gift of wine ; nor is there much trace of tenderness in the
stories told of the 'nobleman' of Capernaum, of the sick man at
Bethesda, of the man bhnd from birth. It is said of Jesus that
he 'wept'7 at the grave of Lazarus, yet he had not been promptly
responsive to the sisters' message ; and, knowing that his ' friend '
was dead, he dweUs on issues which shall mean a glorification of
the Son of God and the awakening of faith. It is true to say that
' whereas the miracles of healing in the Synoptists are miracles of
mercy and compassion, wrought because Jesus had sympathy with
aus ehe er erweckt wird,' Wrede, op. cit. p. 7. Of the contrary opinion
Neander, op. cit. p. 355, note.
1 Yet not without noting that the feature just instanced is highly char
acteristic — not always with dignified restraint— of the Gospel which bears
the name of Matthew. The First Evangehst, ' on a lower level of spirituahty,'
occasionaUy displays 'an unreatity, a lack of reserve, a desire to astonish,
that makes one suspect that they (his recorded miracles) are pinchbeck and
tinsel rather than the authentic gold.' 'They are too Uke the man-invented
wonders of the rehgious romances.' 'One feels that they derogate from the
dignity of Jesus' (Raven, op. cit. pp. 115 f.). This cannot be laid to the charge
of the Johannine representation.
2 Mk i, 41. 3 Mk v, 22. 4 Mk ix, 14 ff.
• Mk viii, 2 ff. 6 Mk x, 49.
' For some remarks on the significance of Jn xi, 35 f. see Oort, TT,
1909, pp. 536 f. Let the remark be ventured that, despite its beauty and its
pathos, there is an anti-climax in the story. On the one hand it points to
'that higher eternal Ufe which Jesus, in other places besides, claims to bestow
on aU who beheve, a life which dweUs in them even now, and because it is
a Ufe eternal and divine, survives the temporal death ' ; on the other hand it
apparently descends to a lower level when it goes on to point to the mere
prolongation of that earthly Ufe to which, according to the story, Lazarus
came forth from his grave (Wendt, op. cit. p. 101). The majestic words: 'I am
the resurrection and the Ufe' are rung out; what foUows in the narrative robs
them of their deep spiritual significance.
J. 5

66 THE FOURTH GOSPEL OH.
the sufferers, the miracles recorded by the Fourth Evangelist tend
to the glory of him who wrought them. They are proofs, not of
his humanity, but of his divinity1.'
It has been affirmed of tbe 'signs' related by the Fourth
Evangehst that they are 'downright marvels of omnipotence as
God alone can "conjure" them2.' Let it be asked here: What of
the verdict to be pronounced on them from the modern point of
view? Some, perhaps, admit of a natural explanation3; scarcely
so others4, and, a variety of suggestions notwithstanding, it must
be aUowed that they present serious difficulty. True, no doubt,
that ' what is regarded as a miracle to-day may be known to be a
scientific fact to-morrow5'; yet it must be owned that, taking the
narratives as they stand, they are without satisfactory explanation
within the known laws of nature, nor are such conditions fulfiUed
as might win for them the readier acceptance. It is certainly
curious, and perhaps significant, that the Raising of Lazarus,
which, according to the Fourth Evangelist, precipitates the closing
scenes, is apparently unknown to the Synoptists ; who, with greater
show of probabUity, regard tbe Cleansing of tbe Temple as the
decisive act which instigated the chief priests and the scribes to
seek bow they might destroy Jesus6.
1 Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 280. In Uke manner Bruckner, Die vier
Evangelien, p. 75. And thus Calmes (op. cit. p. 2): 'C'est le Fils de Dieu
operant des miracles pour manif ester sa divinite.'
2 Wernle, op. cit. p. 18.
* E.g. The HeaUng of the 'nobleman's' son and of the impotent man.
4 The Water turned into Wine, the man blind from birth, the Raising of
Lazarus. With aUusion to the Walking on the Sea, Granger ( The Soul of a
Christian, p. 109) pleads that 'there are serious reasons for hesitating before
we declare that a human body cannot. . .float along the sea in defiance of
gravity. ' Schweitzer (von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 373) thinks that the story of
the multiplication of the loaves is true if the words ' they were fiUed ' be struck
out; others suggest O.T. influences (cf. Jn vi, 5 ff. ; 2 KX iv, 42 ff.). As for the
Lazarus story, the theory of catalepsy is advanced, 'nicht die geringste Spur
eines wirkUchen Todes' (Ammon, op. cit. iii, pp. 114 ff.).
6 Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, pp. 372 f.
B Mk xi, 18. See Bacon, op. cit. p. 349; Loisy, op. cit. p. 72; Burkitt, Gospd
History, p. 222. Percy Gardner (op. cit. pp. 283 f.) is 'disposed to think that
there was some actual historic foundation for the narrative,' and that 'it
may be that the Fourth EvangeUst has worked up the tale from his own
point of view, and made it loom very large in the prospect.' Yet it is scarcely

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 67
A possibility must be reckoned with that a miraculous inter
pretation had been read into occurrences which would be otherwise
apprehended and narrated at the present day.
But what of the Johannine ' signs ' in the view of the Evangelist
himself? It is impossible to beheve that the stories are of his own con
struction. In aU likelihood they, or some of them, have reached
him, in whatever form, from the lips or the pen of others ; and, the
decision made to utilize them, he teUs them in his own way1. He
scarcely troubles himself to ask whether they occasion doubt; if
in bis eyes they be hteraUy true, it is unfair to charge him with
'crass credulity2' when he did but share beliefs which were com
mon to the age. It might be near tbe mark to say of them that,
whUe not dehberately constructed aUegories3, they reaUy become
such, as, employing them for his own ends4, he is far more con
cerned for their spiritual meaning than for historical fact, albeit
an appearance of historicity is conserved by him5. Their very
number, conceivably, proclaims that, for the mystic wbo records
them, their symbolism is the main thing6. 'As the Evangelist
soars above the hteral value of the words of his master, so he
regards His mighty works as valuable indeed to impress the people
in their natural form, but far more valuable in the higher meaning
which shines through them7.'
safe to say with A. V. Green (op. cit. p. 101) of the Raising of Lazarus that it
was the one thing which above aU others 'decided the definitely hostUe
action of the Jewish authorities.'
x 'He may have taken many Uberties with his material. His treatment
of Christ's words and deeds probably went much beyond "dotting the i's
and crossing the t's," to use Sanday's phrase,' Johnston, Philosophy of the
Fourth Gospel, p. 120. 2 WeUhausen, op. cit. p. 103.
3 'Grossartig angelegte AUegorien. . .kunstvoU gebUdet,' Bruckner, op.
cit. p. 75. But see Calmes, op. cit. p. viti.
4 von Soden, op. cit. p. 396. s Cf. Loisy, op. cit. p. 83.
6 See Schwalb, op. cit. p. 218. The Johannine signs, says Herder (op. cit.
p. 268) are 'symbolische Facta, typische Denksaulen.'
7 Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 277. Prof. Gardner adds: 'M. Doutte, who
had a long experience in Algeria, teUs us that he made the acquaintance of
many local saints . . . and that the working of marvels was the seal of this
vocation .... The Fourth Evangelist takes this view as natural and uni
versal.'
5—2

68 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
To bring this section to a close. The modern reader wUl be
weU-advised if, forgetting the ' outward narrative ' of the Johannine
'signs,' be loses himself 'in its deeper significance1.' His thoughts
wiU then turn from earthly bread ministered by disciples and
fasten on the Bread of Life for the soul2. Tbe wine which has
faded at Cana wUl speak to him of Judaism, the good wine there
upon provided of a new religion on its way to conquer the world :
'the waters of legal purification turned into the wine of marriage
joy3.' As for the story of tbe man born bhnd, he wUl be quick to
find it pointing to him who is 'the light of men.' SimUarly with
tbe perplexing story of tbe Raising of Lazarus. It is deeply sug
gestive of that moral and spiritual change4 which Paul conceives
of as a death, a burial and a resurrection. The like figure occurs
in the Burial Service prayer ; ' We meekly beseech thee, 0 Father,
to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness.'
V. The Discourses. Here, again, the Synoptic and Johannine
representations are held to be mutually exclusive: — 'Jesus must
have spoken just as tbe Synoptists make him speak5 ' ; the Christ
of the Fourth Gospel adopts 'the theological and phUosophical
language of the schools6.' So, briefly stated, run multitudinous
objections; and, as has been noted in another connexion, there is
a strong family likeness between the criticisms of time past and
time present. Let two specimens be placed side by side: — 'Here
(in the Synoptics) tbe popular form of oriental proverb-wisdom
and inventive parable, there (in the Fourth Gospel) the profound
allegory with appeal to profound reflexion; instead of pithy and
concise sayings alike luminous and easy to retain, a series of wit-
nessings and disputings in exalted tone and with utter disregard
for the capacity of the hearers. . . .According to the Synoptics the
demands of Jesus are for self-renunciation, for compassionate love,
1 von Soden, op. cit. p. 390. 2 Phihchristus, pp. 213 ff.
3 Wernle, op. cit. p. 24.
4 See Calmes, op. cit. p 75: 'la resurrection corporeUe de Lazarus sym-
boUse la resurrection a la vie mystique par la foi.'
6 Jiilicher, op. cit. p. 372.
6 von Soden, op. cit. p. 441. According to Keim (Jesus von Naz. i, p. 112)
'Jesus selbst ist zum subtUsten Dogmatiker geworden.' And see Wernle, op.
cit. p. 24; JiiUcher, op. cit. p. 421.

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 69
for a taking of one's self in hand, for work for others; his warnings
are directed against the danger of riches, worldly desires and
anxieties; above aU he preaches about the Kingdom of God and
the conditions of entrance therein. Not so in the Fourth Gospel;
the preaching of the Kingdom recedes, while Jesus becomes the
dialectician who treats of his own divinity, and withal in singular,
and by no means popular, style. In both cases he figures as
teacher; in the Fourth Gospel the subject-matter of his teaching
is weU-nigh exclusively himself1.' Thus speaks modern criticism;
now for that of a century ago: 'Jesus, as pictured in the earlier
Gospels, whether he be speaking, preaching, or disputing, never
has resort to dialectic skiU, to the ambiguity of artifice, to a mysti
cal style ; on the contrary, there is utmost simphcity and clearness,
a certain natural eloquence which owes far more to mental genius
than to painfully acquired art. In the Fourth Gospel he disputes
as the dialectician; ambiguous is bis language and mystical his
style; he deals to such an extent in obscurities that even very
learned people are quite in the dark as to the real significance of
many of his words. In the one case there are short and pregnant
sayings, parables so full of beauty and of inward truth as to grip
attention and to sink deep into the soul ; in the other the parabolic
mode of teaching is practicaUy absent. Here tbe question turns
on conduct, rules of life, tbe Mosaic Law, errors of the Jewish
people; there the speaker is concerned with dogma, with meta
physics, with his own divine nature and dignity2.'
It may, perhaps, strike us that, in such-like aUusions to tbe
Synoptic Jesus, there is, in both cases, something whicb recaUs
the words of Justin Martyr ; when, referring to ' the very doctrine
delivered by Christ himself,' he goes on to say: 'short and pithy
1 H.J. Holtzmann, op. cit. pp. 430 f. And see von Soden, op. cit. pp. 409 ff. ;
Loisy, op. cit. pp. 56 ff. With aUusion to our Gospel Wernle (op. cit. p. 19)
states the case thus : ' statt der Sache iiberaU nur die Person.'
8 Bretschneider, op. cit. pp. 1 f. An entirely opposite view is that of
Bertholdt, who (Histor. Krit. Einl. iii, p. 1303) prefers the speech of the
Joh. Christ and says of the Synop. Jesus that he speaks for the most part
'in dem gemeinen trockenen Lehrton jiidischer Rabbinen, ohne aUen
Schwung und Schmuck und Tiefe der Ideen.' It might be added that Wernle,
in the remark cited in the previous foot-note, is reminiscent of one of Bret-
schneider's predecessors, viz. Cludius (op. cit. pp. 87 ff.).

70 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
are his discourses ; no sophister was he1.' On the assumption that
the Fourth Gospel was actuaUy known to Justin, it might be in
ferred that, if contrast was discerned by bim, he nevertheless
reconcUed it to his own satisfaction. Perhaps he too would have
said: 'it is not true then, that the Johannine Christ speaks hke a
sophist, and abstains from using brief and concise sayings2.'
But let us look into the matter for ourselves.
We have already remarked on a certain monotony which per
vades our Gospel as a whole. There is an absence of variety in the
manner of the discourses generaUy, no matter who the speaker
may be ; the several characters, that is, hold converse in Johannine
phraseology3, and without individuality whether of idea or
speech; conversations are reported at length when, apparently,
there was no third person at hand. The question here being nar
rowed down to a single issue, the discourses placed by the Evan
gelist in the lips of his Christ, the fact must be reckoned with that,
if 'some actual sayings of the historic Jesus4' be embedded in our
Gospel, it is certainly not throughout a depository of genuine
utterances of Jesus. Of verbatim report there can be no question;
and the same thing holds good of the three companion Gospels5
Now, the position has been aptly stated thus: 'Jesus cannot
have had, at the same time, the style and method of teaching
which the Synoptists describe and that which tbe Fourth Gospel
reflects. We must therefore attribute the language, the colour,
and the form of these Johannine discourses to the Evangehst.
The Gospel of John is a distiUation of the life and teaching of Jesus
from the alembic of the Apostle's own mind. It is his interpreta
tion of tbe meaning of Christ's words, deeds and person derived
1 Apol. i, 14: fipaxeis de Kai auvTOfioi Trap' atirov \byoi yeybvao-i' ou ydp
aoipio-TTjS birrjpxev.
2 Drummond, op. cit. p. 20.
3 The Evangelist, according to Eichhorn (Einl. in das N.T. ti, pp. 269 ff.),
'scheint sich einen eigenen relig. Dialekt, einen eigenen Tpbiros -waidelas,
gebUdet zu haben.' In the interesting conjecture of Stronck (De Doctrina et
Dictione Joh. Ap. ad Jesu magistri Doctrinam et Dictionem composita), he had
made the style of Jesus his own. See P. Ewald, op. cit. p. 833.
4 Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 62. And see Burkitt, Two Lectures.
6 ' It is undeniable that in no case can we be quite confident that we possess
the ipsissima verba of our Lord,' McNeUe, CBE, p. 220.

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 71
from intimate personal relations with him, and coloured and shaped
by a long hfe of Christian thought and experience1.'
It wiU be observed that tbe writer here quoted accepts the
'venerable tradition' as to Apostohc authorship. Where, and by
weU-nigh general agreement2, he hits the mark is in his description
of the Johannine discourses as a distiUation from the alembic of
the Evangebst's own mind. But be invites pause on a question
which, raised by him in his opening sentence, recaUs the assertion :
' a Jesus who preached alternately in the manner of the Sermon
on the Mount and of Jn xiv-xvii is a psychological im-
possibUity3.' And first in respect of manner. Not unreasonably might it be
urged that, with ready adaptation to their environment, men
doubly gifted with simplicity and profundity wUl naturaUy ' speak
in the vernacular ' — not descending to vulgarity — to uninstructed
bearers, whUe they will adopt other modes of speech when dealing
with more cultured and reflective minds. So it may have been with
Jesus; bis GalUaean bearers being, generaUy speaking, of a very
different type from those with whom he came in contact in Judaea,
he would be, as it were, one person in GalUee and quite another
person in Jerusalem ; to the GalUaean populace a man of the people
and to scholars of Jerusalem one of themselves4. It was in the
Holy City that his deeper teaching would naturally be given — to
those who by comparison with the 'motley crowd' away in Galilee
were 'cultured and responsible people5.' And besides, a reminder
comes that the Synoptic Jesus is represented as speaking, on one
occasion at least, in precisely the same manner as the Johannine

1 Stevens, Theology of N.T. p. 172. And see Herder, op. cit. p. 329;
Johnston, op. cit. p. 119.
2 'Tout le monde admet volontiers main tenant que les discours de Jesus
sont ecrits dans le style de 1'evangeUste,' Loisy, op. cit. p. 54.
3 JuUcher, Introd. to N.T. p. 421. (The Engl. tr. of an earUer edition.)
4 Delff, Rabbi Jesus, pp. 138 ff. But cf. Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 41.
5 Swete, Studies in the Life of our Lord, p. 130. ' Poscunt aliae dicendi
causae, alii auditores aUam formam dicendi, admittit dives Jesu ingenium
varietatem,' Fleck, De Imagine Christi Joan, et Synop. p. 10. And according
to Hengstenberg (op. cit. iii, p. 404, see also p. 393) Jesus had ' eine doppelte
Lehrweise.'

72 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
Christ; — when, 'in a moment of intense emotion, He turns from
earthly hearers and addresses Himself to God1.'
Secondly in regard to subject-matter. It is contended that the
discourses placed by tbe Fourth Evangehst in the lips of Jesus
leave men utterly in the lurch when it comes to the vitaUy impor
tant question: What is it that God looks for and what is alone
decisive for life or death? The answer of the Fourth Gospel is
this : believe on the Son of God who came down from heaven and
beheve that he is Jesus — an answer which has had a baneful effect
on Christendom, for it is only too easy to make such a profession
of belief without drawing nearer to God and becoming a better
man. Very different is tbe answer of tbe Synoptic Jesus; with him
everything is contingent on that doing the WiU of God which in
volves uprightness, brotherly love, trust in God, humility, yearn
ings for God's Kingdom; of those who do the WUl of God be says
that they are for him mother or sister or brother2. Counter argu
ments are strong ; it is urged that inasmuch as ' Christianity was
a great crisis of civilisation' 'because it changed the internal man,
creeds, sentiments, because it regenerated the moral man, the
inteUectual man3,' the expectation is nothmg short of reasonable
that its Founder was far more than a great moral teacher. The
personal equation cannot but come in ; the question is not only of
how and what Jesus taught, but of what he was in himself. It
might further be argued that there are passages in the Synoptics
in which he, clearly pointing to himself, assumes a position of
authority and lays claim to the exceptional reverence of men.
And again; if the Johannine Christ be represented as, discoursing
more frequently of himself, one reason, it is said, is not far to seek;
the scene being laid mainly in Jerusalem, it was only natural that,
with assertion of his Messiahship, be should have discoursed of
himself at the headquarters of Judaism ; and with resort to a ter
minology which, abstruse as it might be to some, was not neces-
1 See on the 'Agaltiasis' utterance (Mt. xi, 27 = Lk. x, 22) Raven, op. cit.
pp. 130 ff.; McNeUe, St Matthew, pp. 173; P. Ewald, op. cit. p. 834. The
Saying, it stood in Q, is, in the view of J. Weiss (SNT, i, pp. 320 f.), 'Schwer-
lich ein Wort Jesu, sondern eher ein Stuck Gemeindetheologie.'
2 So, generaUy Wernle, op. cit. pp. 31, 19.
3 Guizot, Hist, of Civilisation, i, p. 12. And see Barth, op. cit. p. 44.

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 73
sarUy unintelligible to cultured Jewish hearers1. Once more; it is
simply not true that our Gospel is altogether silent in regard to
the importance of the life lived. On the contrary, the same Johan
nine Christ who requires belief in himself emphatically demands
personal conduct inspired by and in harmony with such belief in
the pregnant utterance: 'he that doeth truth cometh to the light
that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in
God2.' As it has been pointedly said: 'it is precisely in John's
Gospel that the thoroughly practical spirit of early Christianity
makes itself felt most powerfully; the Word has become true man,
as such he has revealed the Father, together with the revelation
of the Truth (that is, the moral being of God) he has also taught
men to do the Truth — that is, to foUow the Will of God, to love
God, and to love tbe brethren also3.' And again, a 'thoroughly
practical Christiamty' is ' mirrored ' in the Fourth Gospel4
Yet it is a question whether considerations such as these, how
ever weighty they may be and are, adequately account for features
which stare one in the face; 'say what we wUl about differences of
audience and of situation demanding different forms of address,
and aUowing for exceptional instances, the contrast between the
terse axiomatic sayings, the simple parables of the Synoptics, and
the elaborate arguments of the Johannine discourses, is too great
to be explained away5.'
1 'My own general impression, without asserting an early date for the
Fourth Gospel, is that that Gospel enshrines a genuine tradition of an aspect
of Jesus' teaching which has not found a place in the Synoptics,' Abrahams,
Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p. 12. And see this scholar's remarks
in CBE, p. 181. Yet, as Cohu (op. cit. pp. 453 ff.) shrewdly remarks, the
one discourse singled out in our Gospel as a 'hard saying' was 'deUvered,
not to Jerusalem scribes or Pharisees, but to GaUlaean multitudes.' On the
significance of ixK\-qpbs (Jn vi, 60) see Oort, op. cit. p. 530. Spitta's manipula
tion (op. cit. pp. xx ff., 133 ff.) of the entire chapter, by the way, is interesting.
2 Jn iii, 21. 'Right action is right thought realized,' Westcott, St John's
Gosp. in loe.
3 von Dobschiitz, Das Apos. Zeitalter, pp. 68 f.
4 von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Prim. Church, p. 231. And thus
Wetzel (NKZ, xiv, p. 674): 'Anklaren, aufs Praktische und SittUche gerich-
teten Stiicken fehlt es auch im Ev. Joh. nicht.' Of the contrary opinion
Schwalb, op. cit. pp. 258 f.
6 J. H. Bernard, Church Congress (1903) Paper.

74 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
Tbe contrast is sharp. It is recorded of the Synoptic Jesus that
men 'heard him gladly1,' and smaU wonder that they did so when,
'being so much in earnest with the matter, he had in a unique
degree the manner at command2'; of the Johannine Christ it was
reported that 'never man so spake3,' and the phrase, scarcely ex
plained by tbe context, has been regarded as generally significant
of abstruseness m the matter and manner of his discourse 4. In the
one case he so speaks as to attract and often win sympathy; in
the other he talks above people's heads6, be positively invites mis
understanding: 'there is an argumentativeness, a tendency to
mystification, about the utterances of the Johannine Christ which
. . .is positively repellent. . .it is quite inconceivable that the his
toric Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels could have argued and quibbled
with opponents as He is represented to have done in the Fourth
Gospel.' 'He exasperates the Jews6.'
Not so spoke Jesus of Nazareth. And besides; 'In the Johannine
discourses ... we feel that it is not the visible and audible Jesus
who is speaking, but the Christ who is the hfe of the Church 7 ' ;
and the only possible explanation is that the Fourth Gospel ' is not
history, but something else cast in an historical form8.' The real
hearers of the Johannine Christ, it might be truly said, are the
readers of the Fourth Gospel9.
1 Mki, 22; xn, 37.
2 See the fine passage in which Bousset (Jesus, E. T. pp. 36 ff.) treats of
Jesus as 'Master of the parable'; also Loisy, op. cit. p. 75. But see also
Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism, pp. 90 ff. 3 Jn vii, 46.
4 The saying Mk iv, 11 ff., probably inapt in regard to the parables,
might be much to the point if appUed to some of the Johannine discourses.
5 Thus when ( Jn iv, 29), holding converse with the Samaritan woman, he
treats of spiritual worship and a universal reUgion, whtie the one thing that
impresses her is that he, a stranger, knows all about her private Ufe. See
Loisy, op. cit. p. 72; Percy Gardner, op. cit. pp. 112 ff. Otherwise Herder (op.
cit. p. 318), who, with aUusion to the discourses generaUy, says: 'ein un-
befangenes Weib, eine Samariterin, verstand sie besser als zu Jerusalem die
Rabbinen und Schriftgelehrten.' But see Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. p. 43.
e Burkitt, Gospel Hist. pp. 227 f. 'Jesus hii-meme parle une langue
phUosophique, ininteUigible pour ses auditeurs,' Revtile, op. cit. p. 299.
And see Oort, op. cit., passim.
7 Percy Gardner, op. cit. pp. 115 f. s Burkitt, ib.
9 'Der 4te EvangeUst,' wrote Schwalb (op. cit. p. 194), 'versteht ganz
griindlich die Reden Jesu, denn grosstentheUs hat er sie selbst erdacht.'

v. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 75
VI. The Synoptic and Johannine portraits of Jesus. It is here
contended that there is no escape from a categorical 'either — or':
if the one be true to hfe, the other most certainly is not; the sharp
contrast, it is said, is reducible to 'the simple formula: here man —
there God1.' WhUe the Synoptic Jesus 'advances practicaUy no
thing as to his divine nature, and judging from his utterances,
solely holds himself endowed with divine gifts, sent by God,
Messiah,' the Johannine Christ 'makes everything turn on him
self, pre-existence is claimed, one with God he has shared the
divine glory, he had come down from heaven in aU the plenitude
of divine knowledge and might, he is about to return speedily to
tbe throne on high2.' Therein speaks the criticism of a century
ago; in hke manner that of more recent times: never does tbe
Synoptic Jesus 'step outside the bounds of the purely human3';
as for the Christ of the Fourth Evangehst, he is 'complete from
the outset, for Him there is neither childhood nor youth, He is
throughout the divine word manifested in the flesh4.' And so again,
when it is said that in the Fourth Gospel. . .we have 'a version —
or perversion — of the Master's life by a disciple who has portrayed
him, not in his self-sacrificing love, . . . but as tbe mighty super
human being demanding recognition of the divine Sonship and
Messianic glory5.'
We wiU make some independent study of the two portraits.
He who looks down from the Synoptic canvas is assuredly true
man. To drop metaphor, the Jesus of at any rate the Marcan re
presentation has already reached manhood when he comes on tbe
scene, and it is clear from tbe manner of the allusions that he
shares the experiences which are common to the race. He is con
scious of physical needs; tbe strain of continued action teUs on
1 Wernle, op. cit. p. 25. 2 Bretschneider, op. cit. p. 2.
* Bousset, Jesus, p. 98. 4 H. J. Holtzmann, Einl. p. 432.
° Weinel, St Paul the Man and his Work, p. 320. See further Soltau,
Unsere EvangeUen, p. Ill; von Soden, op. cit. p. 393; Wrede, op. cit. pp. 31,
37 ; Scholten, Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 216 ; Revtile, Le Quatrieme £v. pp. 299 f. ;
Loisy, op. cit. pp. 72 f. Let it be remarked that, where there is inabtiity to
recognize the historic Jesus in the Fourth Gospel representation, stress is
often laid on the supreme claims of him who is 'leader to God for every
period and for every people' (Bousset, op. cit. pp. 102 f.; cf. Wernle, op. cit.
p. 1) to the reverence and devotion of mankind.

76 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
bim; stirred by emotions manifold he is moved to compassion by
tbe spectacle of suffering and pain1; he both wins and displays
affection; capable of sternness he gives vent to wrath. Rebuff
astonishes him, and he finds himself powerless to act2; he disclaims
omniscience; if he puts questions it is because he has need to be
informed. Great spiritual crises are experienced by him, and the
meaning of temptation is realized to the full3. He cannot do
without prayer; hence, seeking strength, he goes apart to be alone
with God. Yet strength f aUs him ; in Gethsemane deep terror seizes
him, and he pleads as hoping for deliverance to the last. Bitter is
the cry wrung from him in his dying moments.
There is more to be said. The Jesus who looms large in the
Marcan Gospel is exceptionaUy great. Wondrous is the influence
exerted by him ; stir and movement f oUow in his path ; and burst of
enthusiasm or outbreak of hostiUty is equaUy significant of a force-
fulness of personality which is realized quite as much by enemies as
by friends. His ' come ye after me ' is no sooner heard than obeyed ;
unclean spirits are subdued at a word ; his fame spreads, and, seek
privacy though he may, he is sought out and found by the crowd.
He holds his hearers speU-bound by tbe manner and tbe matter of
his teaching. Himself full of God-consciousness he makes God a
reality; he ever seeks to 'caU into life in the souls of others tbe
treasures of His own soul4.' Persuaded of a God-entrusted mission,
he spends himself beroicaUy in the discharge of duty. ' His Passion
and his Death are in truth his Coronation5.'
Yet more must be said. Great with no ordinary greatness the
Marcan Jesus is evidently more than mere man. If on the one
hand he takes his stand on the side of humanity, so, on the other
hand, he appears to range himself over against men in virtue of
1 Here, perhaps, there is a reminder of a line in Goethe's Faust: 'Der
Menschheit ganzer Jammer fasst mieh an.'
2 'The Jesus of Mark is a man with a man's wrath and disappointment,'
Estlin Carpenter, First Three Gospels, p. 217.
3 See in this connexion Heb. ti, 18.
4 von Soden, op. cit. p. 3. And see Wernle, op. cit. p. 30; Arno Neumann,
Jesus, p. 76. As another writer has said : 'He knew the Father as none else
did, and He had the power of conveying this knowledge to others through
His own personaUty.'
5 Bousset, Jesus, p. 110.

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 77
a relationship to God1. It may weU be the case that, 'straitened'
in his earthly hfe2, he is an enigma to himself; yet he positively
affirms his divine origin3 and Sonship4. He asserts his sovereignty.
He is persuaded that he can forgive sins. His own importance is
clear to him, and he accentuates it ; allegiance to his person is in
sisted on by him; he is conscious of an authority which is not of
man. His ' I say unto you ' is deeply significant ; his own utterances
are regarded by him as of transcendent and eternal weight and
import. The designation 'the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' is
accepted by him. That, not mere man, he is removed above the
angels he says plainly5; and, if in the same connexion he subordin
ates himself to God, it is noteworthy that, in another saying which
may be genuine in his lips, he can speak of the Father and of him
self in the same breath6. The very fact that an Apocalyptic phrase
is occasionaUy adopted, and, albeit not without ambiguity, applied
by him to himself, is eminently suggestive; superhuman that he
knows himself to be, he is, or is destined to be revealed as, the
gloriouSj pre-existent Son of Man7.
What if aUowance must be made for some repainting and gild
ing which is ultimately traceable to the Church's faith8? True, no
doubt, that even the earliest Evangelist sets out from an already
definite Christology9; the one point here is that he who is subject
of the Synoptic portrait is exalted above purely human greatness.
In bis maj esty be is unique10. An impression, it is said, is conveyed
that 'the relation in which he stood to God was not only different
in degree from that in which we stand, but also unique in kind11.'
1 Barth, op. cit. p. 256.
2 Lk. xii, 50. See Scott (The Kingdom and the Messiah, pp. 228 ff.) for
some exceUent remarks on the significance of 0-uvixop.ai.
3 Mk i, 38 (cf. Lk. iv, 43). The aUusion may, however, be simply to a de
parture from the house.
4 Mk i, 1 1. An experience doubtless personal to himself.
'- Mk xiii, 32. 6 Mt. xxiii, 9 f.
7 A few of the above sentences are adapted from my Eschatology of Jesus,
pp. 324 ff. 8 Bousset, Jesus, pp. 89 f.
9 J. Weiss, Christus, p. 74. The aUusion being to Mark, Wrede (Messias-
geheimnis, p. 125) says with truth: 'Denn das leidet keinen Zweifel, sein
Zweck war ja eben der, Jesus mit seiner Schrift als Sohn Gottes zu schildern
und zu erweisen.' 10 Cf. Beyschlag, N.T. Theology, i, p. 75.
11 Lotze, Philosophy of Religion, p. 172. Otherwise Raven, op. cit. p. 188:

78 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
'The Synoptic picture of Christ,' so it has been said1, 'is the
finest flower of rehgious poetry.' To turn from it to the portrait of
the Johannine Christ.
A portrait of 'sweet, unearthly beauty2' as it has been caUed,
it is certainly of an exalted personage. There is an air of imperious-
ness about the Christ of our Evangehst, as, issuing his commands,
he expects obedience from those who are rather summoned as his
subjects than invited as his friends3 The multitudes are eager to
make him a King; precisely because they own him a force to be
reckoned with, his destruction is compassed by his foes. His dis
course is of high matters, and it is with conscious dignity that he
refers to himself. Majestic is the part played by bim in tbe closing
scenes; whether in the Garden, in the high priest's court or in the
Praetorium his mien is stately and bis speech serene. He 'decides
His own fate4.'
But the Johannine representation does not stop short here; on
tbe contrary, it is plain that the regal personage depicted tran
scends mere manhood. He manifests a celestial glory. He kno\^s
aU men as knowing what is in man. If he tell of heavenly things
it is as having seen and known them; he has come down from
heaven, and thither he will soon return. He can say: 'My Father
worketh hitherto and I work'; if eternal hfe be for him know
ledge of 'the only true God,' it is equaUy to know himself; dis
honour done to Mm is dishonour done to God; with dehberation
does he say; 'The Father is in me and I in bim'; recognizing a
distinction, he affirms that he and the Father are 'one.' Pre-
existent as he claims to be, he is conceived of as 'the Word' that
was with God from aU eternity; and the very chmax is reached
with the great confession in any case reminiscent of the very first
sentence of the Gospel: 'My Lord and my God.'
Yet other features are discernible; and they are such as to
'A Christ who differs from us in kind is, however much we may try to disguise
the fact by talking vaguely about impersonal humanity, simply not man at
aU.' 1 By Brandt. 2 von Soden, op. cit. p. 416.
3 Cf. Ecce Homo (20th ed.), p. 67.
4 Jiiheher, Einl. p. 358. 'Die Kraft, durch eigenen WiUen und eigene
That in den Tod zu gehen, btidet Jesu HerrUchkeit, ' Liitgert, Die Joh.
Christologie (1st ed.), p. 90.

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 79
suggest that this 'King of men,' in all his superhuman royalty, is,
after all, true man. Manhood is expressly affirmed of him in the
Prologue, nor yet there only; elsewhere touches are met with which
are a revelation of the humanity be wears. He is spoken of as 'a
man'; be companies with 'his mother and his brethren'; his
'father and mother1,' it is said without demur, are known. Be
cause 'wearied with his journey' he is fain to rest and to ask for
water from the weU. Strong attachments are formed by him. He
knows what it is to be glad, while a groan of mingled wrath and
anguish comes from him in the presence of bereavement and of
death. By implication he reahzes the need of prayer; is he not
confident that he is always heard2? There are moments when he
is 'troubled in the spirit,' albeit the conjecture is precarious that
he pleads for deliverance from his impending fate3. Protesting his
innocence, he stands on his defence. 'The keen expression of
1 The aUusion raises the 'perennial question' of the 'Virgin-birth.' From
the sUence of Mark and of the Pauline Epistles, it would seem that the
doctrine formed no part of the earhest stratum of Apostohc teaching. Ulti
mately traceable to the sources of the opening chapters of Matt, and Luke, it
would be known to our Evangelist, for he was acquainted with the Synoptic
Gospels. His own sUence is explained in two ways : he deems it unneccessary to
repeat what is already weU-known and accepted; he dehberately brushes the
Nativity stories aside. According to 0. Holtzmann (Das Johannesevangelium,
p. 47) he agrees with the opponents of Jesus that Joseph is reaUy the earthly
father of Jesus; according to Zahn (Einl. u, pp. 5041) he so portrays the
origin of the chUdren of God ( Jn i, 13) after the pattern picture of the origin of
the only Son of God who is such in the fuUest-sense that his readers wUl be
at once reminded of a begetting and a birth without carnal impulse and wtil
of man. It is aUowed by Baldensperger (Der Prolog, pp. 28, 123) that the
Johannine theology is by no means incompatible with representations having
their basis in the Virgin-birth. But see GriU, Untersuchungen iiber die
Entstehung des 4. Evglm. pp. 330 ff. This, however, is not the place for any
lengthy discussion of the ' difficult and anxious question,' yet let the foUowing
sentences be quoted: 'There have been saintly and profound Christian
inteUects who have confessed that the statement in St Matthew almost
repels them. No one can say that of St John's infinitely higher and truer idea
of the Incarnation ' (Cohu, op. cit. p. 439. See also Ammon, op. cit. i, p. 77 ;
Herder, op. cit. pp. 264 ff.). In any case Joseph would be regarded as the
legal father of Jesus (Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 318 f.).
2 'Es ist eine EntsteUung des Gedankens wenn man von einem "Schein-
gebet" redet,' Liitgert, Die Joh. Christologie (1st ed.), p. 34.
3 Jn xii, 27. See Westcott, St John, p. 182; Oberney, Der Gottesbrunnen
der Menschheit, p. 116.

80 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
bodUy exhaustion1' is discovered in his almost dying words; and
if that be reaUy so the ' sour wine ' offered by men whose mockery
has been exchanged for pity is 'received' as sorely needed by his
tortured human frame. But this is doubtful2.
We conclude that there is something lacking in the descriptions
instanced at the outset of tbe portrait of the Johannine Christ;
in that, justly accentuating the divinity which radiates from it,
they disallow the humanity on which, in his own way, our Evan
gelist insists3
It must nevertheless be frankly conceded that, whUe there are
resemblances and common features, the two portraits, in respect
of style and colouring and of lights and shades, are diverse in type.
Their subject is, no doubt, the same, yet it is treated differently;
and of the two artists, representative of two painter-schools, the
one is an adept at drawing graphic sketches, while the forte of the
other hes in painting 'soul-portraits4.' To drop metaphor; as for
the Synoptists, their thoughts are for the most part — not by any
means exclusively — concentrated on the earthly Jesus as he 'went
about doing good'; as for the Fourth Evangelist, he writes as
having sought to penetrate into tbe inmost soul of the Jesus of
his spiritual vision. ' Who would not confess that in his sweet un
earthly picture he has given us the true rehgious import of that
sacred Life5? '
In fine. The 'simple formula: here man — there God' wiU
scarcely work. The Synoptic Jesus is, in any case, more than one
wbo towers above his feUow-men. Tbe features of a true humanity
are not entirely absent from the Johannine Christ if they be far
less conspicuous than those which teU of the divine6.
1 Westcott, S? John, p. 277.
2 See Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 304. W. M. Pryke (Mod. Churchman,
vii, p. 223) points out that 'the "I thirst" is spoken only that the scripture
might be fulfilled.'
3 'Im Johannesevangetium wird auf die voUe Menschheit Jesu iiberaU
Gewicht gelegt.' Oberhey, op. cit. p. 111. And see Revtile, op. cit. pp. 329 1;
J. Weiss, Ohris'us, p. So; Lutgert, op. cit. p. 70; Percy Gardner, op. cit.
pp. 79 f. ; Calmes, op. cit. p. 64.
4 Angus Mackay, A reasonable Faith, pp. 102 f.
5 von Soden, op. cit. p. 417. Ci SchenkeL op. cit. p. 25.
* 'StiU, on the whole, the \670s predominates over the adp$ in this

V. JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC REPRESENTATIONS 81
To bring this chapter to a close with a rapid summary of con
clusions which are suggested by the comparison between the Fourth
Gospel and the Synoptics which has now been instituted; and in
so doing to dwell yet again on the fact that strong preferences for
the Synoptic representation are not of necessity incompatible with
unfeigned acceptance of what is held to be a cardinal doctrine of
the Christian faith. Let it further be remembered that the Gospels
one and all were 'written by living men whose life entered into
their writings,' and that the 'colour and temper' of the, mind of
each several author would naturally be reflected by his work1.
Diversity of individuality must accordingly be allowed for; that
the Evangelists should tell their story each one in his own way
and that the ground traversed should not in every case be the
same, is only what might be expected2.
It must nevertheless be owned that a contrast is presented
which finds no sufficient explanation in any natural diversity as
between man and man. It admits, perhaps, of reduction; for, the
question being of chronology and scene, it, speaking generally, has
perhaps been exaggerated if discrepancies remain; looking to the
Baptist-representations, it is plain that they are of the self -same
great personage, if in course of time necessity bas arisen for draw
ing distinctions between John and Jesus. It is far from being
confined to the mere correction 'in a delicate manner,' of 'the

EvangeUst's presentation of the life of Christ' says Johnston (op. cit. p. 43).
' Der Logos ward Fleisch, aber nicht Mensch ' is the formula by which Schwalb
(op. cit. pp. 215 f.) abides. Or, as Schmiedel (Das Vierte Evglm. p. 122) puts
it: 'IhnziehtnurdasGottUchean.' See also Bruckner, op. cit. p. 86;HenneU,
op. cit. p. 112; Forbes, op. cit. p. 161; De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 216. And thus
Herder (op. cit. p. 379): the EvangeUst 'yergass, wenn ich so sagen darf, das
Irdische seines palastinischen, an Ort und Zeit gebundenen Freundes, um das
HimmUsche, das Ewige in ihm darzusteUen.' It must further be remembered
that there is no room for the temptation in the Johannine conception; and
BaUenstedt's remarks on the question (op. cit. pp. 67, 73) are decidedly in
teresting, see also Cohu, op. cit. p. 400.
1 Newman Smyth, Old faiths in new Light, p. 26.
' Munger (Freedom of Faith, p. 16) aptly writes: 'However the Spirit of
God may have used for His higher purposes the minds of men, He did not
overpower their natural habits of expression, or hold individual genius passive
in the grasp of His Almighty hand.'
J. 6

82 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch. V
faults of his predecessors1' by one who — from whatever quarter —
may have 'beard many details of the life of Jesus2,' and who, on
some points at all events, may have had more accurate knowledge at
his command3. It is both marked and significant in regard to the
miraculous. When every allowance has been made for powers of
adaptation and varied environment, it is impossible to believe
that the historic Jesus was really accustomed to discourse after the
manner of the Johannine Christ. The former hves and moves in
the Synoptic Gospels; as for the latter, the human lineaments
notwithstanding, he is pre-eminently the Christ of experience, the
life ofthe Church4.
The modern student cannot but feel that to turn from the
Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel is to breathe another atmosphere,
to be transported to another world5. The contrast is, indeed,
sharp ; and it may well have been the case that men looked askance
at 'John's' Gospel when first it came into their hands, and that
it was slow to win its way to general recognition and acceptance6
'Another world.' The world, to a certainty, of Greek life and
thought7; the world of Asia Minor, of Ephesus. But to what par
ticular period in the history of the world? In other words, is help
forthcoming from our Gospel which shall enable us to speak more
definitely in regard to its date ?
To that question we will address ourselves in the next chapter.
1 MichaeUs, Introd. to N.T. i, p. 95.
2 Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 87.
3 In particular of the closing days of our Lord's earthly life.
4 'Le quatrieme evangetiste a ete le Platon de son Socrate, non le
Xenophon,' ReviUe, op. cit. p. 335. So at an earlier date Bleek, cited by
Loisy, op. cit. p. 41 ; see also Lange, op. cit. p. 22. The analogy, not, of course,
to be pressed, is admirably discussed by Percy Gardner, op. cit. pp. 101 ff.
5 So Calmes (op. cit. p. 1), A R. Loman (Het Evan, van Joh. naar Oor-
sprong, Bestemming, en Gebruik in de Oudheid, p. 5), and many others.
6 'II est fort probable qu'au debut son oeuvre ne dut satisfaire personne, '
Revtile, op. cit. p. 330, cf. p. 65.
7 'Sodann stehen wir auf grieehischem Boden, es umgibt uns griechische
Luft,' Wernle, op. cit. p. 28.

CHAPTER VI
THE SELF-DATING OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
It has already been decided by us, of course provisionally, that
the two extreme limits within whicb the date of origination of our
Gospel might be held to lie were roughly indicated by, on tbe one
hand, that of the latest of the Synoptics, and, on the other, by
its use, to all appearance, in the circles of Valentinian Gnosis.
Our provisional decision, it must be remembered, was the out
come of an inquiry which was then restricted to the field of
external evidence. Not so in the present chapter, for it now be
comes our business to question the Gospel itself; to determine so
far as possible the relations in which it stands to event, circum
stance, or movement in the outer world. And in so doing we shall
speedily be told that, instead of finding a terminus ad quem in the
year a.d. 135 or thereabouts, we must be content to assign our
Gospel to a later date.
We wUl arrange our subject under separate beads. And first:
Tbe revolt of Bar Cochba. It was in the year a.d. 132 that the
whole of Palestine was roused against Boman domination by a
Pseudo-Messiah; whether Simon was his real name or not, he is
known by an epithet which, in one of tbe forms of its transmission
means 'Son of a Star1.' The insurrection headed by him — it meant
terrible sufferings endured by the Palestinian Christians for their
refusal to have part or lot in it — blazed fiercely for three years ; then
it was stamped out ruthlessly by the Roman arms. As we read in
Eusebius2, the author of the Jewish madness met bis fate at the
fortress of Bitthera — some dozen miles s.w. of Jerusalem — in the
eighteenth year (a.d. 134-135) of the reign of Hadrian.
The plea is raised that our Gospel must be dated within, if not
later than, the period a.d. 132-135, inasmuch as there is a clear
1 On this point, and for further details relative to the pretender, see
RGG, i, col. 915. 2 HE, iv, 6.
6—2

84 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
reference to this false Messiah in words placed by the Evangelist
(v, 43) in the lips of his Christ: 'if another shall come in his own
name, him ye wUl receive.'
A view which, comparatively modern, has found confident
adoption or qualified support1, whUe hints are met with that,
whereas the Synoptic allusions2 are explicitly to false Christs des
tined to arise, the manner of the Johannine representation suggests
personages not only come already but actuaUy known to those
who read3. The question is, however, not of a plurality; and, if an
individual be reaUy intended, the allusion is both vague and hypo
thetical. The 'if (idv a\\o<s eXdy) is surely teU-tale 4 ; and al
though it may not positively exclude the view that (let alone the
Antichrist of patristic interpretation) some given personage was in
contemplation, it certainly militates, and forcibly, against that
which contends for any given accomplished fact. Nor is it unlikely
that the Saying instanced, reminiscent of Deut. xviii, 20 5, speaks
generally and with bitter irony6, of aU eager running after false
Messiahs who shaU come at their own instance, and without any
commission from the Father7.
1 Schmiedel (Evglm. . . . des Joh. pp. 25) would hesitate to rely on such a
point taken by itself, yet he finds justification in other grounds suggestive
of the period a.d. 132-135. More decidedly Lutzelberger, op. cit. p. 271.
' In Vers 43,' says WeUhausen (Das Evglm. Joh. p. 27), ' erkennt man mit recht
eine Weissagung auf Barkochba.' If the question be of a definite personage
(and not of false prophets and false Christs generaUy as in Mk xiii, 6, 21, 22 =
Mt. xxiv, 5, 23, 24; Acts v, 36 f.) then, says Holtzmann (HCNT, iv, p. 99)
'entweder der personUche Antichrist oder irgend eine geschichtUche Person
h'chkeit . . . dann doch wohl eher der einzige geschichtUche Judenmessias
Bar Kochba als Simon Magus.' See also W. Bauer, HBNT, n, ti. p. 62
Pfleiderer decided for 'the Son of a Star' (cf. Numb, xxiv, 17), and Thoma
for Simon Magus. But, as is pointed out by Loisy (op. cit. p. 416), the latter
was not a false Messiah for the Jews.
2 For the refs. see the preceding note. No fewer than sixty-four such
Messiahs, it is said, are enumerated by Jewish historians.
3 Cf. ReviUe, op. cit. p. 170.
4 ' La particule conditioneUe exclut plutot l'idee d'un fait precis,' Loisy,
op. cit. p. 416. To the same effect B. Weiss, Das Johannesevglm. p. 106, note;
Clemen, Entstehung des Johannesevglm. p. 147.
5 So Spitta, Das Johannesevglm. pp. 131, 133.
6 HeitmuUer, SNT, ii, p. 771.
7 McClymont, St John (Century Bible), p. 173. 'Pfleiderer's conclusion
that Jn. v, 43 refers to Barkochba and the Jewish rebeUion of 132-135,' says

vi. SELF-DATING OF THE GOSPEL 85
A second contention points to one wbo, placed by the
Fathers within the ranks of Gnosticism, is now allowed by many
to have played a more independent role, and this was Marcion.
Already a Christian when, having left his native Pontus, he (a.d.
139) arrived at Rome, he was excommunicated six years later on
the ground of heresy. An ulfcra-Paulinist as he has been described,
be appears to have been without any original design of sectarian
action, whUe zealous for the purging of the Church from what for
him were its Judaisms. As things turned out he proceeded to form
separate Marcionite communities1-
Now it has been said that it was the set purpose of our
Evangelist so 'to prevent the triumph of Judaistic reaction' by
his Gospel as to save Marcion and the followers of Marcion for his
comprehensive Church2-
The suggestion is not uninteresting. Our Gospel is certainly
characterized by liberalizing tendencies; it Ulustrates attempts
both to free the Church from distinctively Jewish-Christian sur
vivals and to extend the Church's borders. Yet we seek in vain
in it for anything in the shape of proof that its author was up in
arms for the defence of any one person, or groups of persons, in
particular; in his inclusiveness his thoughts take far wider range;
nowhere is there any special indication of a paramount desire to
win back persons or parties such as those in question. And be
sides; albeit the Gospel-Canon in Marcion's day was not the fixed
quantity which it had become by the end of the second century,
it is nevertheless highly significant that TertuUian could unhesita
tingly charge the former with having rejected three Gospels and
mutUated the Gospel which he thought fit to retain3. The balance
weighs down in favour of the view that our Gospel was already in
existence ; and, if actuaUy known to Marcion — and, it would appear
Forbes (op. cit. p. 165), 'wtil be shared by few.' Giltis P:son Wetter ('Der
Sohn Gottes,' p. 167) is of the same mind
1 RGG, iv, col. 143 f.; i, col. 1103. See also the chapter on Marcion in
Burkitt' s Gospel History and its Transmission.
2 ' Om dezen nu te behouden voor de Kerk en de zegepraal der Joodsche
reactie te voorkomen doet onze schrijver in zijn Evangelic een welsprekend
beroep op den Christus wiens heerUjkheid hij aanschouwt in den geest,'
W. F. Loman, op. cit. p. 25, 3 Adv. Marc.

86 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
that it was so known1 — there might be ground for surprise that,
looking to the nature of its contents, it was not preferred by him
to that Gospel which be mutilated2, viz. Luke.
We will next ask whether any nearer date for its origination
is determinable from the manner of its allusions to the Baptist.
Unquestionably our Evangelist is not without Baptist-disciples
in his mind. Much more in his mind, however, are tbe Jews of his
own day; his aggressiveness is therein displayed that he joins issue
with a hostile Judaism in its arguments from the priority of John to
Jesus : in so far as he takes account of men whose staunch allegiance
to the Baptist remained unshaken, he is far more nearly concerned
to conciliate and to win them. If he be author of the first Johannine
Epistle it might appear further (1 Jn v, 6) that be is also 'attempt
ing to counteract the spread of certain erroneous opinions ' which
were in some way connected with existing Baptist sects3- And of
the members of such sects it is not unsafe to say that the attitude
assumed by them was no longer that of tbe evidently receptive
minds instanced Acts xix, 1 f ., nor could the case be one of indivi
duals, Acts xviii, 26, of like type to the Alexandrian Apollos.
It were wise to content ourselves with having raised tbe ques
tion. No answer is forthcoming from the mere fact of the hostUity
of Judaism. As for Baptist-sects, there is evidence of their sur
vival 4 in a variety of shades and colours ; but of clear proof that
at any given date they had become special cause of anxiety at
Ephesus to our Evangelist there is none whatever.
Let us glance at the Ebionites. The question here is said to be5
of Jewish Christianity in two tendencies or parties which, alike in
their assertion of the permanent obligation of tbe Mosaic law, in
this respect differed that in the one case some liberty was extended
to Gentile converts, while in tbe other case there was a flat denial
1 Whether, as Zahn (Gesch. des NT. Kanons, i, 2, p. 677) urges, he actuaUy
borrowed from it is not easy to determine.
2 See on the whole question Loisy, op. cit. pp. 16 f. It may be added that
the Prologue of our Gospel is conclusive against one main Marcionite con
tention. 3 Alban Blakiston, op. cit. p. 136. See the whole chapter for some ac
count of 'the growth of the Baptist sect.'
4 Lutzelberger (op. cit. p. 275) discovers them in Parthia.
6 So, generaUy, Kurtz, Ch. Hist., i, pp. 120 ff.

vt. SELF-DATING OF THE GOSPEL 87
of the virgin-birth and of the divinity of Jesus. They are met
with in their respective groupings and variously designated1, at a
day long after that to which it is, in any case, needful to assign
our Gospel ; it cannot be said, however, that assistance is rendered
by them in our search. What can, of course, be said is that, in his
attitude to legalism pure and simple, our Evangelist is of Paul's
mind; that, be his view of the manner of the Incarnation what it
may, he has a ready challenge for all who reject the divinity of his
Lord2. Already brought into contact with the syncretism of the period,
we here turn for a moment to the reforming movement known as
Montanism, with its assertion that the age of the Paraclete began,
and reached its fuUest developement, with Montanus3. A suggestion,
then, is that our Evangelist, in respect of his doctrinal system, is
himself a borrower from Montanism; and that consequently the
date of bis Gospel cannot be earlier than the last decade of the
second century4- But the case is assuredly the other way about5;
and, the suggestion dismissed by us, we go on our way.
We now address ourselves more particularly to one of 'the two
main tendencies in the early Church which lie near the main current
of its historic developement 6,' viz. Gnosticism.
It is, of course, impossible in these pages to treat in detail of
successive stages in and the many phases of — to repeat from a
previous chapter — ' the boldest and grandest syncretism the world
has ever beheld,' and nothing more shaU be attempted than a very
general and bare outline of Gnosticism in its leading features. Of
the Gnostic sects it has been said that they ' were the result of the
1 For Origen aU Jewish Christians were 'Efipiowaloi, yet he differentiated
between SittoI and diufrbrepoi ' Eppiwva'ioi. Jerome, followed by Augustine and
Theodoret, termed the more moderate party Nazareans, the term Ebionites
being reserved for the extremists. But see on the whole question of Ebionism,
Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, pp. 63 ff.
2 De Wette, op. cit. ti, p. 219.
" Montanus made his appearance at Pepuza in Phrygia. The exact date
is variously estimated; ca. a.d. 152-170. For an account of the movement
of which he was a prophet see RGG, iv, col. 482 f. ; Kurtz, op. cit. i, pp. 225 ff.
4 See Scholten, op. cit. p. 465; Schwegler, op. cit. pp. 204 ff.
6 De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 226.
6 v. Dobschiitz, Christ. Life in the Prim. Church, p. xxxiii.

88 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
contact of Christian principles with the current ideas of the first
century,' every Gnostic system being ' an attempt to blend Chris
tianity with the theosophical speculations of the age'; 'in a sense,
however, Gnosticism is more ancient than the Church, being a
philosophy of religion which seeks in the end to explain every
cultus'; it is then suggested that 'the great test to which primi
tive Christianity was exposed from tbe outside world was not so
much the danger of succumbing to persecution, as of adapting
itself to the popular phUosophies of the heathen and Jewish world1.'
That truths, or elements of truth, are perceptible in Gnostic doc
trines no one would venture to deny; at the same time they are
adumbrated and distorted by what was a main principle with the
'intellectualism' so pre-eminently characteristic of Gnosticism, the
belief that matter is essentially evil in itself. Some qualification
is, perhaps, necessary; there is nevertheless truth in the remark:
' Herein lies the inherent weakness of Gnostic systems ; they strike
at the root of all morality, by denying that man in his state of
material existence is responsible for his sins, which they assert are
not the result of his free choice, but the inevitable consequences
of the state in which he is placed2.' In practice a result, in some
quarters, was of two sorts ; on the one hand a resort to asceticism
as the means of keerjing the essentially evil body in subjection,
on the other no restraint whatever was exercised, as tbe evU body
with its evil desires was held to be beneath contempt3. As the
principle was pressed to its logical conclusion, it was maintained
that by no possibility could a world essentially evil be the creation
of tbe supreme Deity 4 ; and hence the work of creation was referred
1 Foakes- Jackson, Hist, of the Christ. Church, p. 122. The whole chapter
should be read. See more particularly Bethune-Baker, op. cit. pp. 76 ff. See
also the further remarks of v. Dobschiitz, op. cit.; Kurtz, Church Hist, i,
pp. 66 f., 98 ff. ; RGG, ti, col. 1486 ff. ; Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis; P.
Wendland, Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur.
2 Foakes- Jackson, op. cit. p. 129; see foot-note on p. 128 of that work for
an apt citation from v. Dobschiitz: 'Gnosticism is, in the first place, in-
teUectuaUsm; one-sided over- valuation of knowledge at the expense of moral
activity.' 3 He who was redeemed — and theories of redemption played no incon
siderable part in Gnostic systems — might conceive himself to be above and
beyond Good and EvU.
4 Who is, in many cases, not so much the God of the prophets and of

vr. SELF-DATING OF THE GOSPEL 89
to an inferior being, while it was argued that of communication
between the supreme God and the material evil world there could
be none whatever. Intermediate agencies, aeons, emanations of
the Deity, were accordingly conceived of. The conception being
scouted that the highest of the emanations of the Father could
take upon himself a material body, there came flat denials of the
reality of the Incarnation, protests, in many forms, against the
true humanity, the real suffering, of Jesus; in a word Docetism.
There was indeed, so it was aUowed by some, a man Jesus upon
whom the superior aeon Christ had descended at the Baptism, but
only to desert him at the Crucifixion; others, again, aUeged that
it was reaUy Simon the Cyrenian who was crucified and by mistake,
while the real Jesus looked on and smiled. Whatever the explana
tions offered, they alike show 'how rooted was the idea that God
could not possibly have anything to do immediately with matter,
or with the sufferings of a material universe ; if He seemed to make
such contact, it was only in appearance. The suffering Christ was
a phantom ; not a hair of his bead was touched, let alone a bone
being broken1.'
Now, there are clear indications of the spread of more or less de
veloped Gnostic tendencies both in the admittedly genuine Pauline
Epistles and in those which may or may not be traceable to Paul
himself2. Thus in the case of the Colossian heresy, whicb has ' been
pronounced to contain all the essential elements of a Gnostic
system'; the situation is less clear in the so-caUed Epistle to the
Ephesians, yet there are bints at errors similar to those which pre
vaUed at the neighbouring Colosse; as for the Pastoral Epistles,
they suggest that need had arisen at Ephesus to deal with the
question of asceticism and to draw plain distinctions between true
knowledge and knowledge which is 'falsely so caUed.' Nor is there
Jesus, as the First Cause, the Absolute to whom no predicates could be
attached, the Ineffable One.
1 Rendel Harris, Newly-Recovered Gospel of St Peter, p. 29. And see
pp. 45, 47, for striking instances of the Docetic character of the Pseudo-
Gospel : ' he ' (i.e. Jesus on the Cross) ' was silent, as if in no wise feeling pain ' ;
'And the Lord cried out, saying, My Power, My Power, hast thou forsaken
Me?' 2 For the refs. see Foakes-Jackson, op. cit. pp. 129 ff.

90 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
room for doubt that, whether he be Paul or not, the author of the
Epistles to Timothy was confronted with, at all events, the germs
of Docetism when, 1 Tim. iii, 16, he points emphatically to Jesus
as 'manifested in the flesh.' Yet it must be admitted that, if he
really was Paul, he bad himself used language in some degree
savouring of Docetic tendencies at an earlier period ; thus when,
Phil, ii, 5 ff., he speaks of 'Christ Jesus' as 'taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men.'
We now turn to our Gospel. As we have seen already, it was
not only commented on by the Gnostic Heracleon, but held in
estimation by Basilides ; and, such being the case, we may well be
incredulous in respect of the very late dating of a previous sug
gestion. But the question is whether we be now pointed to the
nearer date sought for by the manner and matter of its contents
when compared with that Gnosticism which has been rapidly
surveyed by us.
There are two extreme positions. In the one case our Gospel
bas been definitely claimed for Gnosticism1 ; in the other it is said
to be characterized throughout by a pronounced antagonism to
Gnostic modes of thought. The truth, however, does not appear
to lie in either quarter, and it is far more reasonable to decide
that, in some degree sympathetic, it also tells plainly of a discrimi
nating mind. That it is not untinged by Gnostic influences might
be admitted ; its author has occasional resort to a terminology in
use in Gnostic circles, he makes room for an 'intellectualism' of a
certain kind, elements of dualism are perceptible in his conceptions,
tbe idealized portrait of his Christ is suggestive of a Docetism from
which he himself is not altogether free. On tbe other hand it
must be as readily admitted that, by no means blind to momen
tous issues, he fastens on and repudiates errors detected by
him in Gnostic doctrines which were making their appearance in
his day. In his own fashion he contends for the real humanity
of bis Lord2. There are terms and expressions, it is argued,
which, changing them for others, he significantly declines to im-
1 It was referred, in antiquity, to Cerinthus.
2 A case in point is where (Jn xix, 17) he excludes all mention of Simon
of Cyrene and says of Jesus: 'bearing the Cross for himself.'

vi. SELF-DATING OF THE GOSPEL 91
port, at any rate does not import, into his Gospel1. It is safe to say
that the theory of intermediate emanations is absolutely discarded
by him. There is nothing ' one-sided ' in the value attached by him
to the inteUect. The idea of asceticism is not so much foreign to
as repulsive to him ; he makes no secret of his conviction that right
action is contingent on and must attend right thought. Never
does he doubt that the God of the Old Testament is identical with
the God and Father of Jesus2.
Our Evangelist is no advanced Gnostic. As for his Gospel, it
is not the work of one wbo, realizing the gravity of the situation,
is constrained to grapple with and refute a Gnosticism whicb has
arrived at the hey-day of its developement. What might be allowed
perhaps is that, not definitely hostile to Gnosticism in its earlier
stages, he occasionaUy reveals a discriminating sympathy3; yet
it must be added that, alive to errors creeping in and already
fraught with mischief, he is bold to speak bis mind. That his Gospel
is altogether strange to the Gnostic movement4 it is hard to believe.
We are led to the conclusion that our Gospel places us in a
day when BasUides and Valentinian had yet to elaborate their
systems, and that accordingly it is prior to the year a.d. 135 or
thereabouts. By what space of time? If so be that our Evangelist is really
the Beloved Disciple, necessity is of course laid upon us to retrace
our steps so as to get within a period when he still survived; and
in that case we should have to date our Gospel at least as early as
a year or two after (if not before) the close of the first century5.
1 yvdais, tIotis, aofy'ia. In the first two cases he has resort to the verbal
forms yiyvihaKeiv, irwreiW ; in the latter he uses the word d\-/jdeia.
2 See on the whole question E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel., pp. 87 ff.
3 Schwegler (op. cit. p. 211, note) is far less reserved: 'Dass das Joh.
Evglm. von Beziehungen zu den altesten Systemen der Gnosis durchwoben
ist, Uegt am Tage.' To the like effect Bruckner, op. cit. p. 68.
4 According to ReviUe (op. cit. p. 322) 'Cet Evangile est purement alex-
andrin; il est encore tout a fait etranger au mouvement gnostique.' The view
adopted above is in part similar to that of De Wette, op. cit. ti, p. 217.
5 The Crucifixion is dated circa a.d.29. At that date the Beloved Disciple
(if a real person and in any case not the son of Zebedee) may have been quite
a young man not to say a youth. Assuming that he actuaUy reached extreme
old age, he would be 90 or thereabouts by the year a.d. 100.

92 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
Yet, apart from the contingency that, not a real person, he ' repre
sents the Church in its essential idea1,' he may be not so much
author of as authority for our Gospel; and it may be said at once
that it is not absolutely imperative to decide for a date within the
life-time of an eye-witness of the life of Jesus. And besides, there
are considerations which forbid us to travel very far back in our
search. Whatever the identity of the Evangelist, he writes at a
date later than the latest of the Synoptics; and here we bear in
mind the uncertainty which attaches to the dating of the Matthaean
and the Lucan Gospels. The very fact of his dependence on the
Synoptics is an argument in favour of the theory that some time
had elapsed since their publication. Nor is this all ; the world in
which he places us is not diverse only in locality, but in conceptions
which suggest an after day. The One of whom be tells is not so
much the Jesus of the Synoptic representation as the Christ of
the experience of his own inmost soul.
Were our search to end at this point tbe conclusion would be
reasonable that, although no precise date can be fixed, our Gospel
can be safely assigned to the period a.d. 100-1252, whUe it might
be not too venturesome to push the later limit somewhat further
back3 But, unhappily, we may not as yet cry halt. An objection must
now be noted which, referring our Gospel to a circle to which
Apollinaris4 had belonged, transfers the date of its origination to
a period but shortly antecedent to the celebrated meeting at Rome
(ca. a.d. 155) of Polycarp and Anicetus5. Accordingly we must
perplex ourselves, if for a brief space only, with the tangled skein
of Quartodecimanism and the Paschal Controversy.
It was remarked in the preceding chapter that there is — or
there certainly appears to be — an irreconcUable discrepancy be-
1 E. F. Scott, op. cit. p. 144. And see Appendix ii.
2 Thus, in itaties, ReviUe (op. cit. p. 325): 'la redaction du iv" evangile doit
itre reportie entre Van 100 et 125 approximativement.'
3 But for the uncertainty relative to our First and Third Gospels the
earUer Hmits might be pushed back to ca. a.d. 90.
4 Claudius Apollinaris, the distinguished Bishop of Hierapolis. Of his
numerous writings fragments otily are extant. His Apology, it is said, was
addressed to Marcus AureUus.
5 Schwegler, op. cit. pp. 201 ff. See also pp. 191 ff.

vi. SELF-DATING OF THE GOSPEL 93
tween our Gospel and its three companions in respect of the Death-
day of Jesus. According to the Synoptics, the legal Passover is
kept by Jesus and his disciples on the evening of the 14th Nisan,
and the Crucifixion takes place tbe day after ; otherwise our Evan
gehst, wbo is at pains to make it understood that when the Supper
of his narrative was held, the Passover lay still ahead ; that it was
on the 14th, not the 15th, of Nisan that Jesus went to his Death.
This borne in mind we pass on to observe a marked divergence of
practice in regard to the observance of the Paschal Feast. To
state the position in fewest words; it was customary with the
Christians of Asia Minor to celebrate it on the same day as the
Jews, i.e., on the 14th of Nisan; not so in Western Christendom,
where it was celebrated on the Sunday after.
Herein the point of difference between Polycarp and Anicetus
when they met at Rome. It was urged by the former that he and his
people were but steadfast in their adherence to the manner followed
in Asia along with John the disciple of the Lord; the latter, on
the other hand, appealed to the tradition of the Roman Church.
They appear to have agreed to differ ; and in token that there was
no breach of feUowship, Polycarp was allowed by Anicetus to con
duct tbe Eucharist. For a while controversy was hushed, but it
again broke out; to rage fiercely at a subsequent day when, with
the result of protest and remonstrance, the extreme step of
breaking off Church feUowship was taken by the Roman Bishop
Victor1. Tbe question is, what exactly was it that the Christians of
Asia Minor had in mind in their observance of the 14th of Nisan?
In other words, what was tbe rationale of Quartodecimanism?
There is divergence of opinion. Minor differences apart, the
views entertained by scholars admit of classification under three
main heads, and we wiU enumerate them with necessary conden
sation2- To begin with, we are told that the 14th of Nisan was
1 See Euseb. HE, v, 24, for the letter of Polycrates to Victor and the
remonstrances addressed to the latter by Bishops of whom Irenaeus was one.
2 Dr Stanton's exhaustive survey of the whole question (Gospels as Hist.
Documents, i, pp. 173 ff.) is here laid under contribution. See also Drummond,
op. cit. pp. 444 ff. ; Zahn, Einl. ii, pp. 509 ff. ; Sohenkel, op. cit. pp. 253 ff. ;
ReviUe, op. cit. pp. 65 ff. ; Calmes, op. cit. p. 66.

94 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
observed in commemoration of the Passover eaten by Jesus and
his disciples on the night before the Crucifixion. According to a
second view, tbe observance, directly founded upon the recognition
that Jesus was himself the true Paschal Lamb, was a commemora
tion of the Death, on the 14th of Nisan, of Jesus. In the third
place, it is maintained that, with no specific reference to either
the Last Supper or the Death, the observance of tbe 14th of Nisan
pointed rather to a Commemoration of the Divine Redemption
typified in the ancient Passover and now accomphshed in Christ,
in which the thought of the Last Supper and of the Death on the
Cross and the Resurrection were all included.
Let us pass on to inquire into the situation as it points from
the foregoing explanation to our Gospel.
Polycarp, as we have observed, appealed ultimately to 'John.'
Had the commemoration for which he pleaded been reaUy that of
a Passover eaten by Jesus and his disciples on the night before
the Crucifixion, he could scarcely have looked for support to the
author of our Gospel; it would have been strange indeed had the
latter been aider and abettor of a practice which was violently
opposed to the sequence of his own narrative of tbe course of
events. The case is altogether different with the two remaining
explanations; the one being in full keeping with the Johannine
representation, while of the other it may be said at the very least
that there is no inherent incompatibility between Quartodeciman
practice of such a nature and the Fourth Gospel Chronology. The
question then is which of the three is entitled to the preference?*
The second is, of course, tempting, and it has been widely accepted ;
yet it breaks down with nearer scrutiny; for, in the first place,
there is proof that contentions were actually based on the example
assumed to have been set by Jesus in that he kept the Passover
with his disciples; and next: if the 14th of Nisan observance had
sole reference to his Death, how came it that no other day was
set apart for commemorating the Resurrection? On the face of it
the evidence might appear to be entirely on the side of the first ; —
and were such reaUy the case it might then perhaps be argued that
our Gospel is traceable to some late writer who does battle with
the Christendom of Asia Minor and its Judaising Paschal solem-

vi. SELF-DATING OF THE GOSPEL 95
nities1- But the evidence is not so strong as it seems; and there
are weighty grounds for the conclusion that Quartodeciman prac
tice had no exclusive reference to any one particular occurrence
in the story of the Passion. The balance perhaps, weighs down in
favour of the third explanation. An ancient festival is retained.
Yet wider significance is attached to it; it breathes a new spirit2.
It is not incumbent on us to follow tbe history of Quarto
decimanism through its later stages, nor need we take account now
of the Easter decisions arrived at a.d. 325 at tbe Council of Nicaea.
We have noted that appeal was made by Polycarp to 'John'; the
question arises whether our Gospel itself was definitely and dis
tinctly brought into consideration. And here we turn to Apolli
naris; to whom language as follows is attributed3: 'and they say,
that on the 14th tbe Lord ate the Lamb with the disciples, and
Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, and they
argue that Matthew so speaks as they have supposed; wherefore
their position is out of harmony with the Law, and the Gospels
according to them appear to be at variance.' The assumption
surely is that, if Apollinaris did so reaUy express himself, he at all
events had our Gospel in his mind. And further : that if such were
reaUy the case, he was able to reconcile the discrepancy to his
own satisfaction. Others, it would appear, did likewise.
Thus much of the perplexing question. It has, no doubt, a
special interest of its own; whether it reaUy throws any hght on
the date of our Gospel is open to doubt, and, as a matter of fact,
there is a tendency to exclude it from consideration. We might
indeed hesitate to decide whether 'the history of the Quartodeci
man controversy affords valuable evidence of the early and wide
reception of the Fourth Gospel4,' or whether that history rather
suggests an attitude unfavourable to its Apostolic authority in the
very regions where that Gospel saw the hght of day5. In either
1 According to Schwegler (op. cit. p. 201), Apollinaris was the first teacher
in Asia Minor to head a reaction against such an observance. Yet the
position of Apollinaris himself is not altogether certain.
2 The view of which Stanton says that 'it seems to be proved.'
3 Paschal Chronicle, cited by Stanton, op. cit. pp. 180 f.
1 Stanton, op. cit. p. 197.
6 Revtile, op. cit. p. 67.

96 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch. vi
case we fail to discover reason for modifying the conclusion already
ventured that the date of our Gospel lies within the period
ca. a.d. 100 (?90)— 1251.
In the next chapter we shall examine into the literary structure
of our Gospel and seek to decide the question whether it be a unity
or a composite work.
1 With allusion to 'die geschichtUche Situation in der sich die johan -
neischen Christen befinden,' Wetter (op. cit. p. 169) writes: 'Es ist die Zeit,
da die Christen im Kampfe mit der popularen hellenistischen Frommigkeit
standen. Dagegen finden wir nichts, das dafiir zeugen konnte, dass sie im
Kampf mit dem offiziellen Kultus des Staates, *.. B. dem Kaiserkuitus,
standen.' It must suffice to say of the second point thus raised (in a quite
recent book only just received) that there is nothing in our Gospel which,
decisive for the state of affairs, might go near to fix a date.

CHAPTEE VII
LITERARY STRUCTURE
As students are aware, 'the books of the Old Testament, as we
now have them, are, to a far larger extent than was commonly
supposed untU recent times, the result of processes of compUation
and combination, and, in modern phrase, "editing." ' WhUe the
old view was that they were 'written as integral works or by a
single author, and preserved precisely in the original form,' it is
now generaUy recognized that 'some were constructed out of
earlier narratives ; some were formed by the union of previous col
lections of poetry or prophecies ; some bear marks of the reviser's
hand ; and even books which bear the names of weU-known authors
in some cases contain matter which must be attributed to other
writers1.' Take, for instance, the Book of Zechariah; of its four
teen chapters only the first eight are traceable to the prophet
himself, whUe the remaining six are of uncertain authorship and
date. And again, there is clear proof of Judaean interpolation and
revision in the case of the Book of Hosea ; as for the Book of Amos,
it is not unlikely that its last eight verses are a post-exilic substi
tute for an original ending which, felt to be too harsh, was deliber
ately suppressed; the short but incisive prophecy which goes by
the name of 'Malachi' is of unknown authorship; 'The Vision of
Obadiah' is in reahty a mosaic of prophecies. Isaiah and Jeremiah
are composite works, and so are the Books of Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles. The Psalter came into existence by successive stages ;
it may indeed contain some psalms of Davidie authorship, other
wise it reflects the varied aspirations of many periods and of many
minds. The Pentateuch reaches back in part to a remote antiquity ;
yet, bruit up from four independent written sources, it was not
untU somewhere in the fifth century before the Christian era that,
through processes of combination and redaction, it assumed its
' Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of O.T. pp. 11 ff.
J. 7

98 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
present form1. And simUarly with not a few of the writings of the
New Testament. The author of tbe Lucan Gospel expressly refers2
to sources laid under contribution by him; very probably the
companion- volume Acts embodies, with a variety of other matter,
the diary of a fellow- traveUer of Paul. Large indeed are the borrow
ings of the author, compder, or editor of ' The Revelation of St.
John the Divine.' The Pastoral Epistles are perhaps made up of
genuine Pauline sayings which have been pieced together and
largely supplemented by a later hand. In Uke manner the un
known author of the so-caUed Second Epistle of Peter may possibly
have brought together fragments which, if not actuaUy Petrine,
are quite conceivably of ApostoUc origin, and provided them with
a setting of his own composition3. The Epistle which bears the
name of James has been held to be a Jewish work adapted by
some editor for Christian use, or made up of passages from sermons
of a relatively late date 4.
The question now before us is : How does the case stand with
our Gospel? Is it a unity, the integral work of a single author?
Or does it present features which stamp it as a composite work?
The former alternative is staunchly upheld. The 'unity and
symmetry5' of the Gospel, its 'deep-seated unity of structure and
composition6,' are insisted on; it is affirmed that, the work of 'a
single casting,' it ' stubbornly resists aU modern attempts to dis
tinguish between source and source7.' WeU-nigh half a century
ago it was maintained that its twenty-one chapters emanate from
the self -same author8, and the hke decided opinion was advanced
but the other day: 'if we except the episode of the woman taken
in adultery, which is of doubtful authority, the whole book is of
uniform character and is the literary creation of a single author,
including the last chapter, which is of the nature of a supplement9.'
1 Some of the foregoing sentences are borrowed from my Eschatology of
Jesus (pp. 113 ff.), 2 Lk. i, 1-1.
3 E. Biff Robson, Studies in 2nd Peter.
4 See Bennett, General Epistles (Century Bible), p. 23.
" Mcdymont, St John (Century Bible), p. 29.
" Sanday, op. cit. p. 22. 7 Barth, op. cit. p. 13.
" Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays, p. 194.
9 Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. "53. Cf. Swete, Studies in the Teaching of Our
Lord, p. 127.

vu. LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL 99
But if there be general agreement that ch. xxi is an appendix to
a work which has reached a perfectly natural conclusion with
xx, 30, 31, the fact remains that of those who contend for the lite
rary unity of the Gospel some unhesitatingly include the appendix
chapter and some do not. In some quarters it is urged that ch. xxi
is a 'supplement, not by the author of i-xx, but supphed by
others, in the author's hfetime, with his approval, in fact, by his
order1'; 'a later addition, and not only so but, as can be proved,
by another hand2.' Others, again, of one mind with two writers
already instanced3, are persuaded that 'in respect of style and
manner this supplement reveals with exactness and nicety the
self -same author who has penned the rest of the Gospel 4.' Some
what differently another scholar; who, deciding that 'the complete
identity of thought and style, and the way in which this last
chapter is dovetaUed into tbe preceding. . .seem to prove that the
last chapter is by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel,' adds :
'But at the very end another hand does take up tbe pen; and this
time the writer speaks in the name of a plurality; "this is that
disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these
things: and we know that his witness is true" (xxi, 24) 5.'
There are, then, not a few who, speaking generaUy, ' concur in
the judgement of Strauss that the Fourth Gospel is, hke the seam
less coat, not to be divided but taken as it is6,' if for some the
phrase 'the whole indivisible Gospel7' means the Gospel in its
entirety, while others draw the hne at the appendix chapter.
Yet adverse voices are raised; and the view obtains in many
quarters that, far from being a hterary unity, 'the Fourth Gospel
is a composite work8.' Some fifteen years ago the suggestion was
1 Zahn, Einl. ti, p. 493; Horn, Abfassungszeit, p. 77; Hausleiter (Zwei
Apos. Zeugen) assigns ch. xxi to the Apostles Andrew and PhiUp.
2 Soltau, Unsere EvangeUen, p. 10; Schmiedel, Evglm. Brief e u. Offen-
barung, pp. 121; Schwartz, Uber den Tod der Sohne Zeb. p. 48. Loisy (op.
cit. p. 55), eliminating vii, 53— viti, 11 and xxi, writes: 'Tout le reste constitue
un ensemble parfaitement un et homogene.' And see ReviUe, op. cit. p. 331.
3 I.e. Percy Gardner and Lightfoot.
4 Wernle, op. cit. p. 14.
5 Sanday, op. cit. p. 81. Cf. Barth, op. cit. p. 6.
6 EB, ti, col. 2558. ' Strauss, New Life of Jems, i, p. 141.
8 EB, iii, col. 3338.
7—2

100 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
thrown out that even if 'the famous comparison of Baur' holds
good, 'the seamless coat had also a warp and woof and a tasseUed
fringe1,' and to-day the same writer lays stress on an extensive
series of phenomena which prove 'to the satisfaction of an increas
ing number of critics that the Fourth Gospel is anything but the
"seamless coat" it was declared to be by the criticism of a genera
tion ago2'; elsewhere he has said: 'Besides its "parenthetic addi
tions "and passages relating to tbe "afterthought," the Fourth
Gospel is notoriously full of the gaps and seams, the logical dis
crepancies and inconsistencies which, if not due to an extraordinary
degree of carelessness on the part of the Evangehst, can only be
explained as we explain them in other writings of the time. They
must be due to later intervention, whether by combination with
paraUel documents, or by editorial revision, supplementation, or
readjustment3.' As may be inferred from this last sentence, those
who disallow the unity of the Gospel are divided into two groups;
the 'partitionists' and the 'revisionists.' With the various 'parti
tion-theories' propounded by the former a distinction is drawn
between an older source or sources in their combination with later
editorial additions4. As for the latter5, advancing their 'revision-
theories' they argue each in his own way for some later editor who
has 'recast the Gospel for purposes which originally it was not
meant to serve. Either set of theories,' it is added, ' may be com
bined with the further hypothesis of dislocations in the text 6.'
Whether the Gospel be a unity or not7, it appears on tbe face
1 Bacon, Introd. to N.T. p. 268. 'The famous comparison,' by the way,
not of Baur but Strauss ( Ulrich von Hutten, Gesammelte Schriften, vii, p. 556).
In citing from himself (Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 480) Prof.
Bacon has since made the necessary correction.
2 H J, xv, p. 257. And see Moffatt, op. cit. p. 551.
" Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 473.
* So generaUy Wendt, Spitta, WeUhausen, with enhanced elaboration
Soltau, Das vi-erte Evglm. in seiner Entstehungsgeschichte dargelegt. This work,
pubUshed a year ago, reaches me at the last moment. Soltau's theory is
criticized by Wetter, whose work ('Der Sohn Gottes') comes to me at the same
time. 6 Kreyenbuhl, Harnack, Bousset, HeitmuUer, Schwartz, Bacon.
6 Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 551 f.
' The hypothesis of dislocations in the text is not necessarUy incompatible
with the theory that, speaking generaUy, the Gospel otherwise is a unity.

vu. LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL 101
of it that, in respect of order of sequence, it has undergone a certain
amount of structural disturbance and disarrangement1. To begin
with, it surely cannot be the case2 that the prolonged discourse,
cbs. xv, xvi, together with the 'High-priestly Prayer,' ch. xvii,
originaUy stood immediately after the ' I wiU no more speak much
with you' and the 'Arise let us go hence* of ch. xiv, 30, 31 ; and it
shaU be agreed at once that the words just cited 'are natural at
the end of a discourse, and are naturaUy foUowed by xvin, 1,
ravra elirmv 'It/o-ov? i^rj\0ev «.t.\.3' And again; with the
elimination of the pericope de adultera (vii, 53-viU, 11), it becomes
obvious that there is a want of connexion4 between the sections
(vii, 52 ff., vni, 12 ff.) which immediately precede and foUow what
is, and wiU presently be recognized as, an interpolation5- Other
instances could be adduced ; yet general adhesion to the hypothesis
of dislocations must be qualified by a suspicion that an element
of subjectivity may now and again be at the root of suggested
re-arrangements6, and the cautious student wiU in any case be on
bis guard against a tendency to approach works of antiquity from
a modern point of view. Nor wiU it do to 'assume a logical or
chronological sequence in the Gospel which may not have been
present to the author's mind7.'
The admission appears inevitable that instances of interpola
tion, gap, and addition are perceptible. To revert in this connexion
to the pericope de adultera ; if here and there defended as an integral
1 Forbes (op. cit. p. 163) finds reason to beUeve that Tatian had before
him an edition of our Gospel in which the order was not the same as at

2 In spite of arguments to the contrary. See Zahn, Das Evglm. des Joh.
unter den Hdnden seiner neuesten Kritiker, pp. 6 ff . ; Juncker, Zur neuesten
Johannes Kritik, pp. 14 ff.
3 Brooke, CBE, p. 323. Cf. WeUhausen, Erweiterungen u. Anderungen
im 4 Evglm. pp. 7 f. ; Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 556 f.
4 Cannes (op. cit. p. 39) is of the opposite opinion.
6 The pericope in question is for Warburton Lewis (Disarrangements in
the Fourth Gospel, p. 16) 'a standing proof that the text of our Gospel has
suffered disruption.'
6 The present writer, warmly commending Mr Warburton Lewis's
scholarly Uttle book to the careful perusal of students, is sometimes left
unconvinced by its contents.
7 Moffatt, op. cit. p. 552. And see Wetter, op cit., p. 2.

102 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
portion of the Fourth Gospel1, it is regarded by the majority of
scholars as an insertion of Synoptic rather than Johannine type ;
and conjecture has it that 'this floating passage of primitive tra
dition2. . .drifted as a marginal note into some MSS. of John. . .
and finaUy was settled in the text3'; possibly it had its place in
the Gospel of the Hebrews4. As certainly the verses ch. v, 3 b, 4,
are no part of tbe original Gospel, and here it is suggested that
an evident gap bas been fiUed in, by way of explanation, by some
later hand; that, as the section originaUy stood, the genuine v,7 was
uninteUigible, and hence the piece of information which, now pro
perly relegated to tbe margin of the R.V., ultimately found its
way into the text5. On these and other points there is a consensus
of opinion; highly debatable ground is reached when seam or rent
is discovered in such passages as e.g., vi, 36 ff., xviii, 12 ff., xix,
34 ff. 6, and it is argued that the sections in the Prologue which
refer to the Baptist are the insertions of another hand7. Room,
again, is made for the opinion that, inasmuch as the fuU signifi
cance of xu, 32 goes far beyond the somewhat meagre explanation
offered in xu, 33, the latter verse reveals another pen-man. It is
further said that tbe references to Caiaphas (xi,49; xvin, 1-21) were
absent from the Gospel in its original form8 ; yet further, that it is
not inconceivable that the sections in which the Beloved Disciple
figures on the scene owe not a httle of their colouring to an editorial
1 'Aber in dem Zusammenhang ist sie (viz. the pericope) unentbehrUch';
Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 707. And see Catholic Encycl. Art. 'St John's Gospel.'
2 'Wir sind dem ZufaU dankbar, das er diese verlorene Perie alter Uber-
Ueferung uns erhalten hat,' HeitmuUer, SNT, ti, p. 789.
3 Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 555 f.
4 Euseb. HE, iii, 39. But the story there referred to of a woman accused of
many sins may point to Lk. vii, 37 ff. and not to Jn vii, 53 ff.
6 Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, pp. 474 f.
6 HeitmuUer, SNT, ti, pp. 701, 716.
7 'Zwischen i, 4 und i, 9 steht in der Tat Johannes storend,' WeUhausen,
Das Evglm. Joh. p. 8. And see Bacon, op. cit. p. 478. With aUusion to the
'extraordinary verse,' iii, 11, Percy Gardner (op. cit. p. 121 f.) writes: 'it has
evidently stipped into the discourse to Nicodemus by mistake.'
8 'Kaiphas ist also iiberall eingetragen. Die Vorlage kennt ihn nicht,
sondern bloss den Annas,' WeUhausen, Das Evglm. Joh. p. 81. And see the
same author's Erweiterungen u. Anderungen, pp. 24 ff.

vu. LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL 103
hand1- Yet here again it must be borne in mind that what to
modern eyes may appear insertion, rent, or seam, or gap2, is
perhaps often attributable to the idiosyncrasy of the Evangelist,
and that a probabUity remains that, albeit it may be necessary to
postulate an editor or redactor, the former may be after all himself
responsible for this or that apparent interpolation.
Other features are presented by our Gospel which unquestionably
occasion pause. In one place, at any rate so it would appear to
some, the Parousia is dispensed with (xiv), whUe elsewhere (xv-
xvii) it dominates the conception; in one place (xiv, 16, 26) the
Paraclete is to be sent by the Father, in another (xv, 26 ; xvi, 7)
the sender wiU be Jesus himself. Nor is it only a case of what, in
the view at aU events of some scholars, is discrepancy and con
tradiction; the long discourse-sections, in many respects quite
unlike those made up of narrative3, are held to reveal different
hands. Be this the case or not, they are occasionally of such a
nature as to convey the idea of essays which owe their existence
to processes of elaboration, and with large resort to matter already
the common property of the church or churches of the locality in
which the Gospel originated 4
But to bring this chapter to a close.
The Fourth Gospel, it would appear, is not, in the strictest
sense of the word, the unity which it has been, and still is, held to
1 On the assumption that, a real person, the Beloved Disciple was author
of the Gospel it is certainly easier to suppose that the beautiful designation
was from a pen other than his own. See Excursus ii. See also HeitmuUer,
SNT, ti, p. 711.
2 It shaU be said here that the present writer, not by any means in entire
agreement with Juncker (op. cit), is far from being convinced by Schwartz
(Aporien im vierten Evglm.). As Brooke shrewdly remarks (CBE, p. 325):
' We are driven to the suspicion that to have suppUed all the paralipomena
whieh such a method of criticism would demand, might have involved »
number of books which the world itself could not contain, nor its inhabitants
Hve long enough to read.'
3 Preferred by, e.g., Renan to. the discourse-matter, while the opposite
view is maintained by, int. al., Weisse, A. Schweitzer, Wendt.
1 On Wetter's theory there is evidence 'dass wir es mit formelhaften Gut
zu tun haben, das nicht vom Verfasser gepragt sondem einfach von ihm
ubernommen worden ist'; with a religious phraseology which, long time in
pagan use, is turned to account by HeUenistic Christians (op. cit. pp. 2, 156).

104 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch. vu.
be; it is, to say the least, not easy to regard it as throughout the
integral work of a single author.
There is ground for looking askance at the theories of the
' partitionists.' Not without reason has it been objected that, when
the Gospel has been divided up between assumed ' Grundschrift ' and
materia] assigned to other hands, the respective groups of matter
wear so strong a family resemblance that it is often practically
impossible to distinguish between pen and pen. Yet it is only just
to say of representatives of this school of criticism that they have
rendered useful service1 in so far as they emphasize the fact that
'undoubtedly there are two elements in the Fourth Gospel : tbe
words and deeds of tbe Lord, and the interpretation of them in
the hght of later experience ' ; and that, whatever be its nature as
a whole, there are embedded in it 'fragments of historical value
for the story of the Ministry of Jesus Christ2.'
Looking to the position generaUy, it would appear that greater
weight attaches to the arguments brought forward by the 'revision
ists ' ; and that the balance of probabUity is in favour of a theory
which, avoiding exaggerations and extremes, nevertheless distin
guishes between tbe main fabric of the Gospel and final touches —
not to say amplifications — received by it before it was given to
the world.
Of such sort shaU be our working hypothesis in the next
chapter. 1 The names of Spitta and Wendt may be mentioned in this connexion.
2 Brooke, CBE, pp. 327 f.

CHAPTER VIII
THE MAKING OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
The stage is now reached when, with no pretence of speaking last
words on the comphcated subject of our inquiry and profoundly
conscious of problems stiU unsolved and perhaps insoluble, we
may at least venture tentative conclusions on the three-fold ques
tion of the authorship of the main fabric of our Gospel, the methods
employed in its composition, and the processes whereby it as
sumed its present form.
Let us begin by asking whether it be possible to determine the
identity of him who, responsible for the main fabric of our Gospel,
shaU be styled the Fourth Evangehst.
It was once said that of aU the views and opinions then current
in the region of Biblical research the one which, continuaUy gain
ing ground, was the more hkely to win its way speedUy to general
acceptance was that which dehberately and decisively set aside
the traditional authorship of 'the Gospel according to St. John1.'
Many years have elapsed since those words were uttered ; and, were
the speaker of them ahve to-day, he would be forced to admit
that he had been far too confident with his predictions inasmuch
as staunch upholders of the traditional belief are stUl present in
our midst. Nor are they solely discoverable in the many pious
and devout souls who, as we have observed already2, are either
unaware of, or prefer to shut their eyes and ears to, the grave
difficulties which the Gospel presents. On the contrary, there are
men in repute for scholarship who, having approached and grappled
with the Johannine problem, are content to acquiesce in the tra
ditional belief that 'John's' Gospel is the genuine work of the
Apostle John.
Yet it would appear that they are no longer in the majority;
and while the day has not come for anything hke a consensus of
1 So, in effect, A. R. Loman, op. cit. p. 7. 2 See ch. 1.

106 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
opinion, it is certain that the view which discards the traditional
authorship of our Gospel is rapidly gaining ground. Such a view
is put forth boldly and uncompromisingly by scholars in the front
rank both at home and abroad. If hesitation there sometimes be,
it is but momentary : thus when it is said of the Fourth Gospel that
its authorship by John son of Zebedee, while possible, is improbable
in the extreme1-
We can but yield assent. On the one hand we wiU leave room
for an exceedingly bare possibihty that our Gospel comes to us
from the Apostle John; on the other hand we are constrained to
feel that the chances of his authorship being proved to satisfaction
are exceedingly remote, and that the expression 'improbable in
the extreme' may justifiably be adopted by ourselves. The ex
ternal evidence is, at best, inconclusive; whUe there can be httle
question that features are presented by the Gospel itself which,
not absolutely incompatible with the hypothesis of an eye-witness,
are nevertheless of such a nature as to suggest that, whatever the
identity of the Evangehst, he not only wears smaU resemblance
to the son of Zebedee, but must be sought for outside the number
of the traditional Twelve. Yet further; the Gospel, beyond aU
reasonable doubt, originated in Asia Minor2, and a stream of tra
dition must be reckoned with which goes near to prove that John
the Apostle lived his life and died a martyr's death in Palestine3.
If it reaUy be the case that those who speak at the close of the
appendix chapter were fully persuaded in their own minds — and
this is doubtful — that he to whom they aUude (Jn xxi, 24) was
verily and indeed the son of Zebedee, the probabUity is that such
belief is ultimately traceable to a confusion between two distinct
personages of whom one was the Apostle whUe the other was
vaguely designated a disciple of the Lord.
The Fourth Evangelist is, in aU probabUity, not the Apostle
John; — who, then, is he? Conjectures are numerous; let some be
instanced before we ourselves venture any tentative conclusions.
1 Forbes, op. cit. p. 170.
2 Conjecture has pointed to Egypt. JiiUcher (op. cit. p. 387) transfers the
place of origination to Syria, not excluding Palestine, With allusion to our
Gospel Calmes (op. cit. p. 60) rightly decides thus: 'il est done impossible de
lui assigner un Ueu d'origine autre que l'Asie mineure.' 3 See Excursus i.

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 107
To begin with. There are very remarkable coincidences both
of thought and diction between our Gospel and the treatise which,
known as 'the Epistle to the Ephesians,' may have been composed
by some Paulinist disciple who, after the manner of the age, put
forth his work under the name of the revered founder of the
Ephesian Church. It is, then, an exceedingly tempting hypothesis
that, with an interval between them, the two great writings emanated
from the self-same pen1. If, however, such were reaUy the case —
and there are weighty arguments against it2 — the identity of the
author of the two works would remain an open question.
Again. Attention has been caUed in hke manner to remarkable
coincidences between our Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews ;
and it is urged that the only satisfactory explanation is one which
assigns both writings to a single author who, combining in himself
a rich variety of scholarly qualifications, must have been a convert
from Judaism, versed in Alexandrian learning, in touch with
Baptist-disciples, and subsequently with the Apostle John. The
contention then is that, for the portrait of one who was evidently
no insignificant or unknown personage, we have but to turn to
Acts xix, 24-28; the ApoUos who there stands fuU in view is not
only author of the said Epistle but tbe Fourth Evangelist3.
To pass from this certainly interesting hypothesis as it was ad
vanced by the sometime Pastor of Uitikon in Zurich4 to the far
less plausible conjecture which, identifying the Beloved Disciple
with the Apostle Andrew, transfers the origination of the Gospel
from Ephesus to regions bordering on Parthia where Andrew and
Thomas had laboured and were in high renown. By preference it
fixes on Edessa or its vicinity as the place where our Gospel was
composed. The Fourth Evangehst is no Jew nor yet a Greek; he
1 W. Lock (DB, i, p. 717) regards it as 'a tenable view that the writer
(sc. of 'Ephesians') was the author of the Fourth Gospel, writing in the
name of St. Paul.'
2 There being much to be said in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle;
and if it be presumed, the date of Paul's death would of itself suffice to rule
him out as author of so late a work as our Gospel.
3 Tobler, Die Evangelienfrage, passim; ZWT, 1860, p. 293; Heft ii,
pp. 177 ff. By the perplexing iKelvos of Jn xix, 35, says Tobler (p. 201),
ApoUos means the apostle John.
4 Sc. Tobler.

108 THE FOURTH GOSPEL OH.
is perhaps a Syrian, who, by birth a Samaritan, had fled, when a
mere boy, with his parents beyond the Euphrates at the outset
of the Jewish war. At Edessa he became a Christian; and later
on, perchance, a Bishop. He could quite weU have known Andrew
the Beloved Disciple. Himself author of tbe main fabric of the
Gospel, it was reserved for another hand to supplement it — on
this side of the Euphrates, in Asia Minor — with the appendix
chapter1. According to another, and more recent, hypothesis2, the one
solitary indisputable statement, which, in view of the internal evi
dence, can be advanced by criticism with regard to John's Gospel
must to-day run thus : 'the author is the Beloved Disciple, but the
Beloved Disciple is not the Apostle, nor yet a disciple of the Apostle,
nor yet John tbe Presbyter, nor yet tbe High priest John, nor yet
the author of the Johannine Epistles.' Who, then, is this Beloved
Disciple? The question is answered with the foUowing equation:
The Beloved Disciple = Lazarus = the sick boy of Jn iv, 46 = the
impotent man of Jn v, 5 = the man bhnd from bis birth of Jn ix,
11 = the author of our Gospel. The final equation identifies him
with the Gnostic Menander.
Less far-fetched is the hypothesis3 wliich discovers the Beloved
Disciple in the Aristion aUuded to by Papias ; and, insisting that
the true reading should be Ariston, locates the bearer of what is
held to be almost certainly an honourable nick-name (aptcn-o?) in
the neighbourhood of Ephesus and perhaps at Smyrna. As for
the Fourth Evangelist, he is 'John whose surname was Mark';
and it is he, not John tbe Apostle, whose closing years are spent
at Ephesus. With the lapse of time he has become ever more and
more dissatisfied with his earlier work, our second Gospel; in the
event he embarks on the composition of a 'spiritual' Gospel which
sets forth his deepened and matured reflexions and convictions on
the Person and the Ministry of Jesus. Himself destitute of claims
1 So Lutzelberger, op. cit. pp. 199 ff.
2 Kreyenbuhl, op. cit. pp. 627, 632, 642, 644, 810. When Kreyenbuhl
speaks of ' der einzige unangreif bare Satz,' he is making play with the opinion
advanced (op. cit. pp. 374 f.) by JiiUcher.
3 Condensed from some notes by E. Iliff Robson which he is now pre
paring for the press.

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 109
to the authority of an eye-witness — except, perhaps, in respect of
the closing scenes; in any case but a mere youth at the date of
the Crucifixion — he turns for information to the friend and near
neighbour who can teU him of tbe things which were said and done
by One who for both of them was Lord and Master. With his
eK€ivo<; of Jn xix, 35, he points to Ariston, viz. the Beloved Dis
ciple. If more generaUy known as Marcus, it was at an earlier
period — the Roman name being then best suited to the circum
stances; the time came when his Jewish name Jobannan was
reverted to, and hence the great treatise which occupied the closing
years of his Ufe is designated 'John's' Gospel.
The conjecture, not altogether novel1, is at best interesting.
It makes much of coincidences between the Second and the Fourth
Gospels2; it goes on to urge that, whUe there is ground for the
behef that John, son of Zebedee, devoting aU his remaining energies
to 'the circumcision,' never stepped outside Palestine, tbe John
Mark known to us from New Testament aUusions had not only
been a great traveUer but had come under the influence of the
great Apostle to the GentUes, and, as tradition has it, became
Bishop of Alexandria3. Yet, apart from questions raised by the
suggested emendation, it takes too much for granted; inasmuch
as the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel representation, not
standing fuU in view until the closing scenes, might not himself
have had first-hand knowledge of what took place during the earlier
stages of the Ministry. And again, when the point is raised that,
in antiquity, the name of John Mark was actuaUy connected with
the Johannine literature, it must be remembered that it was only
in respect of the Apocalypse 4 ; and it would be difficult, not to say
impossible, to identify the author, or compiler, of this latter work
1 It is within my recoUection that some dozen or more years ago it was
said to me by a friend: 'The Fourth Gospel speUs John Mark.' But where
and how does it spell it?
2 See E. A. Abbott, Joh. Grammar.
3 Praefatio vel argumentum Marci. See Wordsworth's and White's NT
Lat. i, p. 171. But the tradition is scarcely in favour of the hypothesis.
4 See Dionysius (Euseb. HE, vii, 25) on the authorship of the Apoca
lypse. That work has been definitely assigned to John Mark by Hitzig ( Joh.
Marcus und seine Schriften), and Spitta (Offenbarung des Johannes) regards
him as author of one of the sources of that work — an 'Urapocalypse.'

110 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
— John Mark or not— with him from whose pen there came the
Fourth Gospel1-
Of such hypotheses and conjectures as the foregoing it may at
least be said that, whatever be their claims to serious considera
tion, they are so many Ulustrations of a growing tendency to
discard the traditional authorship of our Gospel; and, by con
sequence, to cast about in divers quarters for the type of person
to whom its composition may be assigned.
Whoever he was, the Evangehst2 was assuredly a Jew. By
birth and early training he was, in aU likelihood, a Jew of Palestine
who, at some period or other, had quitted his Palestinian home,
and after much travelling, had found himself on the soU of Asia
Minor; in the event he settled down at Ephesus. It may or may
not have been tbe case that he was already fuU of years when he
began to pen his Gospel. Beyond aU question he was a man of
soul and brain, of a contemplative turn of mind3, in touch with
Greek phUosophy4 and versed in Alexandrine speculation5, a
philosopher and a theologian. He may indeed convey the impres
sion that he had actuaUy been eye- and ear- witness of at aU events
some of tbe events and scenes told of by him in the pages of his
work. Yet the temptation is now and again strong to say of it
that the evidences of dependence are so many and so convincing
'as to justify or even compel the inference that the author is not
an eye-witness supplementing the Synoptic account by his own
minute remembrances6. . .but a writer somewhat remote from the
events7' which he purports to relate.
1 Few would agree with Lange (op. cit. p. 11) that only the author of the
Fourth Gospel could write the Apocalypse and vice versa, or say with H. H.
Evans (op. cit. p. 78), 'it is therefore a psychological impossibitity that the
Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel should have been other than the work of
one and the same mind.'
2 That is, the author of the main fabric, or bulk, of our Gospel.
8 Whose 'Uttle book,' as Herder (op. cit. p. 349) puts it, 'ist ein tiefer,
stiUer See.' But is this quite true of it?
4 Cf. Cohu, op. cit. p. 429. 5 Cf. Calmes, op. cit. p. 60.
6 So that his work becomes, in the often quoted words of Herder
(op. cit. p. 424), ' der alteren EvangeUen NaohhaU im hoheren Tone.'
' Forbes, op. cit. pp. 154 f. Of our Gospel, De Wette (op. cit. ii, p. 211)
says that it 'eher als einen Augenzeugen einen SchriftsteUer zu verrathen

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 111
Let us take refuge — and not for the first time — in an 'either —
or.' It may be that the Fourth Evangehst is reaUy that Beloved
Disciple1 to whom, no doubt with variety of identification, some
so confidently point, and from whom others as resolutely turn
away. Or he may be some other person; and one, who, possibly,
had derived some store of information from the Beloved Disciple.
To word what is after aU but a tentative conclusion thus: the
Beloved Disciple is perhaps author of, more hkely authority for,
the main fabric of the Fourth Gospel.
Whichever way it be, the identity of the Fourth Evangelist
remains undisclosed. It is aU very weU to ask2 whether, even had
he so desired, he could have kept the fact of his authorship a
secret, and in the very locaUty where the Gospel originated; and
an apt rejoinder might instance the undisclosed secret of the author
ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews3. With better show of reason
is it suggested that, if he remained, and remains, the ' Great Un
known,' it is precisely because he himself did not wish to be known4
— except, as is quite probable, within the limited number of bis
more intimate friends and coUeagues, of the faithful group for
whom he was theologian, doctor, and prophet. The supposition
that it was not his intention that his work should forthwith reach
wider circles is perhaps weU-f ounded 5.
It was said by Origen of the Epistle to the Hebrews that who
its author was God only knew 6 ; and the same words may be used
of the work traditionaUy assigned to St John.
To pass on to our second question ; it relates to methods adopted
by the Evangelist in the composition of his Gospel.
Let it be freely granted that inspiration was with him both for
the inception and the penning of his work. Truly might it be said
scheint, in dessen nicht ursprungtieher Anschauung der Geschichte die Zeit-
raume in einander schwemmen.'
1 On the not absolutely safe assumption that he, in any case not John
son of Zebedee, is a real person.
2 With Gutjahr, Glaubwiirdigkeit, pp. 183 ff.
3 The latter work was perhaps less calculated to invite question than
'John's' Gospel.
4 ReviUe, p. 319. 'Ich glaube,' writes Grtil (Untersuchungen, p. vi), 'er
woUte und wird unbekannt bleiben.'
5 Loisy, op. cit. pp. 94 f. " Euseb. HE, vi, 25.

112 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
of bim that he 'made ready his soul, as some weU-fashioned and
jeweUed lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance
of something great and sublime to the spirit1'; let it then be added
that inspiration did not mean in his case any more than in the
case of other Bible writers that, becoming but a hving pen in the
grasp of an Almighty band, he wrote currente calamo from divine
dictation. On the contrary, he would make careful and systematic
preparation; and a prolonged period must be aUowed for during
which he was bushy engaged in the coUection of material. He
would consult his sources; and if the Synoptic Gospels were not
actuaUy before him as documents, be would draw as seemed good
to him on his own memorized knowledge of their contents2. Living
authorities would naturaUy be questioned by bim; and here the
thought might be, on the one hand, of survivors from the number
of those who had themselves stood in the presence of Jesus, and,
on the other hand, of men whose knowledge was derived from
others whose claim to have been eye-witnesses was beyond dis
pute3. If himself reaUy the Beloved Disciple he would muse over
and jot down his own haUowed memories of far-off days when he
bad companied with the Master; while, on tbe assumption that
he was a third person, he might hsten to such stories as were told
him by the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved'; and, whichever way it
was, he would supplement them by his own reflexions on the
Christ who hved in his heart. It may safely be inferred that large
recourse was had by him to that oral instruction in which, no
doubt, he himself participated as leader4; of the substance  quite
probably the form5 — of the teaching and preaching which went on
1 Chrysostom, Hom. on St John, i. 2 A Ust of paraUels is given by Loisy.
3 Of the information thus gained some might point ultimately to, amongst
others, the son of Zebedee; and, on that assumption he would (to borrow
Harnack's words) stand in some way or other behind the Fourth Gospel.
Soltau, in his seven-fold partition- theory (op. cit. p. 38), places first and second
m order 'L(egende) nach mundhchen Berichten des Apostel Johannes-
erganzt nach 80 durch S(ynoptische Perikopen).' See also Strachan, op. cit.
pp. ixf.
4 A main source of our Gospel, writes Calmes (op. cit. p. 43) consisted
'dans cet enseignement oral qui, vers la fin du premier siecle, florissait en
Asie Mineure, et dont'— so he adds— Tapotre Saint Jean fut l'ame '
5 The discourse-sections have the appearance of essays, or studied com
positions, which had undergone poUshing by frequent repetition and revision

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 113
regularly in the Christian communities of the locality, and of that
controversial discussion in which, whether with GentUe or with
Jew, he would take an active share1. Time goes on, and large
store of matter — in part, perhaps, digested and revised by him —
is ready to his hand.
And so the day comes when a start is made with the actual
composition of the work which, long time in contemplation, had
for long time engaged our Evangelist in the preliminaries of coUect-
ing and sorting materials which point not only to a variety of
written and oral sources, but to the product of his own mind and
soul. Again room must be aUowed for a considerable interval be
tween start and finish. It is in the last degree improbable that the
Gospel was penned at a stroke ; and it is far more likely that one
or other section was in the first instance worked up as a separate
unity, and that such sections were subsequently so pieced together
as to form an organic whole2. Neither will it do to conceive of the
Evangehst as seated, solitary, at his study table ; with good reason
may we beheve that he freely avaUed himself of the assistance of
his disciples and attached friends3 Quite possibly he now and
again talked (or, as one might say, thought aloud), whUe they took
down with pen and ink his spoken words. It would have been
quite in accordance with the customs of the age if, for some por
tions of his Gospel, he employed the services of a professional
amanuensis who wrote from his dictation4.
The main fabric of our Gospel, it may accordingly be concluded,
1 Thus, in effect, Dr Stanton, in his Exposition deUvered 31 Jan. 1916,
before the Senate of the University of Cambridge. Let me here express my
gratitude to our Regius Professor, who has aUowed me to refresh my re-
coUection of the spoken word by a perusal of his MS.
2 'VieUeicht ist das Evglm. nicht in einem Zug entstanden; vielleicht
wurden einzelne Stiicke allein ausgearbeitet, und dann erst zum Ganzen
vereinigt,' HeitmuUer, SNT, ti, p. 701. More definitely, Loisy, op. cit.
pp. 141, 145.
3 'Unter freier Beihulfe von Freunden,' writes H. Ewald (op. cit. i, p. 56).
The legendary story embodied in the Muratorian fragment is strongly
suggestive of coUaboration.
* Aninterestingpaper,entitled'CompositionandDictationinN.T. Books,'
by E. IUff Robson (JTS, xviii, pp. 288 ff.), is very suggestive in this con
nexion. J. 8

114 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
was a gradual growth. That before a hne of it was penned, the
contents of it as a whole lay spread out before the author in his
inmost soul1, is a conjecture whicb will scarcely pass muster; yet
it may be readUy admitted, not to say asserted, that, reserving to
himself fuU liberty for deviation and modification as tbe work pro
gressed, he bad sketched the rough outline and generaUy decided
in regard to plan. From one point of view the word 'composite'
may be used of it, inasmuch as a variety of sources had been util
ized by him. It may nevertheless be spoken of as a unity, in that
its matter was stamped with the impress of his own mind.
But the time had not yet come for it to be given to the world;
and the further conclusion now ventured is that whatever circula
tion it reached was limited to that inner circle which consisted of
the Evangehst's disciples and attached friends. In any case there .
is nothing to suggest that the main fabric of our Gospel was ever
pubhshed by itself apart2. The evidences indeed, are of such a
nature as to point the other way.
Turning to our third, and last, question, we now inquire as to
the steps and processes whereby the Fourth Gospel assumed its
present form.
Conjectures are numerous. The appendix chapter being omit
ted, it is said of our Gospel that we possess it for the most part in
the form it originaUy wore; but that interpolations here and there
are due to some later editor whose materiahstic conceptions, Jewish-
Christian modes of thought, and far less developed standpoint, can
be detected in tbe explanations and elucidations of the supposed
meamng of the Evangelist which he attempts3. It was proved to
his own satisfaction by an earlier critic that, worked over not once
but twice, and by two different hands, the Gospel points ultimately
to an Alexandrian Gnostic — quite possibly the author of the Apoca-
1 As suggested by Mermeyer, Bijdragen ter Verdediging van de Echtheid
der Joh. Schriften, pp. 39 ff.
2 Spitta's contention (Das Johannes Evglm.) points to the 'Grundschrift'
of his partition-theory, and in no way bears on the 'main fabric' of our
conjecture; which, again, is something quite different from the 'altere
Sehicht. . .welche,' according to Wendt (op. cit. p. Ill), ' berechtigten An-
spruch darauf hat, fur eine primare, gesohichtUchwertvoUe tlbertieferung
zu gelten.' 3 Scholten, Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 72.

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 115
lypse — who supphed the Prologue by way of substitute for a lost
or damaged Introduction1; a few years later the contention was
raised that in our Gospel there are traces unmistakable, not of
interpolations only, but of independent redaction on the part of
one who aUowed himself a very free hand2 According to tbe ori
ginal intention of the Evangehst, so runs a stUl later suggestion,
his Gospel was to remain untU his death the possession solely of
bis nearer friends; ten years elapsed, and then, his friends again
coUaborating but this time aUowing themselves a freer band, the
appendix chapter was penned, its two closing verses being added
by the friends in question3 With nice distinctions between genuine
Johannine ' wonders ' and miracle akin to magic, between GalUaean
and Judaean sections, and with the remark that an impression
conveyed by our Gospel is that two altogether diverse spirits are
discernible in its contents, the hypothesis was advanced which,
pausing for a moment on two distinct authors, went on todweU on
a work which reveals the additions and interpolations of a later
redactor ; one who, having appended the narratives contained xxi,
1-23, put forth the Gospel with an assurance which points back to
xx, 30 f. and which declares (vv. 24 f.) the work of the eye-witness
aUuded to in the immediately preceding narrative to be worthy
of respect and use4. More recently, and with detaUed specifica
tion of three different interests which our Gospel is held to reflect,
it is said to be possible yet not probable that such interests were
present in one and the self-same person, and that hence the pro
babUity is that the structure of the Gospel has undergone changes5.
Our Gospel has certainly undergone changes in that, at some
time or other, it suffered disarrangement and dislocation. TeU-tale
evidences are, in some cases, more or less clearly perceptible : yet
1 Cludius, op. cit. p. 321. For his reconstruction of the Prologue, see
pp. 58 ff.
2 Ammon, Joh. evangelii auctorem ab editore hujus libri fuisse diversum.
3 H. Ewald, op. cit. pp. 56 f. According to Ewald, the Gospel (i-xx) was
composed ca. a.d. 80 by the Apostle.
4 Alex. Schweizer, op. cit.; see in particular pp. vi, 6 ff., 23, 59 ff., 97 ff.,
125, 164 ff., 233 ff.
5 Forbes, op. cit. pp. 163 f. The three interests being as follows : at
tempted adjustment to the Synoptics, the grouping of material round the
feasts at Jerusalem, Christological.
8—2

116 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
opinion is bound to differ as to their extent, and it has already
been impressed upon us that what to modern eyes appears gap or
lack of sequence may nevertheless have been in keeping— and was
so regarded in antiquity — with the author's train of thought1.
Neither is it possible to determine when such changes were effected
or how precisely they came about.
The question must now be narrowed down to a distinction
between the work of the Evangehst and that of a redactor (or re
dactors) ; and in dealing with it we wiU pick up the threads dropped
by us in the closing sentences of the preceding chapter.
Two preUminary remarks. In the first place, we cannot but
admit that it is more than doubtful whether attempts to distin
guish not only between document and document but between hand
and hand in our Gospel wiU ever be crowned with fuU and final
success2. And secondly, we promptly acquiesce when told3 that
not every unevenness in the text or apparent or actual contradic
tion of itself justifies the search for documentary sources; and that
— what is very much to the present purpose — ample aUowance
must be made for clumsiness on the part of the author ; for a diver
sity of possible points of view, for manifoldness of personal and
documentary influences, for fluctuating mood and view during the
period in which tbe work originated, for the author's own correc
tions of his completed work, or for minor improvements by some
later band which left the original work essentiaUy intact. Let us
add that it would be just as impossible to reconstruct tbe con
jectured original work of the Evangelist from our Fourth Gospel
only, as to reconstruct the Marcan Gospel from the two later
Synoptics. 1 'Quand U s'agit d'un Uvre comme le 4e Evangile,' says Calmes (op. cit.
p. 38), 'ti faut s'attacher avant tout a suivre la pensee de l'auteur.' The very
thing which it is often hard to do.
2 Calmes (op. cit. p. 43), with specific reference to Spitta and Wendt,
writes: 'Mais il est plus que douteux que Ton arrive jamais a distinguer dans
ce Uvre des documents divers.' He adds : ' Non qu'U soit un modele d' unite —
on y remarque des transitions brusques et des redites — mais c'est, d'un
bout a l'autre, le meme esprit et le meme style. L'unite est relative, mais
reeUe.' HeitmuUer (SNT, ti, p. 701) regards the ' XJberarbeiter' as having been
successful in producing what is, on the whole, a unity, a compacted work.
3 The words which foUow are adapted from Spitta (op. cit. p. 402).

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 117
Let us proceed on the lines of that 'revisionist' theory which
we have already decided to adopt.
We at once mark off the section vii, 53-viU, ll1. The pericope
de adultera is in any case a foreign element in our Gospel ; whUe
it presents points of contact with the Synoptic representation,
there is no certainty with regard to its origination. And next, the
legendary explanation of 'the troubling of the water,' v, 3 &-5, is
a gloss2, and likewise disappears from the Gospel. These two pas
sages, however, point to the field of textual criticism, and do not
come into question for our present purpose.
We now turn to the appendix chapter (xxi). So far as our
knowledge goes, the Gospel was never circulated without it3;
opinions differ as to whether it was added during the hfetime of the
Evangelist, and, if so, whether by others or by himself. In respect
of style and diction it wears, no doubt, striking resemblances to
the main bulk of the Gospel4; yet the view appears preferable that
it is an addition, and by a later hand, to a work which had reached
a formal close with the preceding chapter, and the contingency
must be reckoned with that its final verse is of separate origination.
Looking to the type of subj ect-matter it might perhaps be said of the
chapter5 that it affords an instance of attempted adjustment to the
Synoptic representation ; but whether the intention reaUy was to re-
habUitate Peter, or, by conceding prominence to Peter, to stifle ob
jections which had been raised at Rome, is quite another question.
The emphatic statement, xxi, 24, is strongly reminiscent of the
equaUy emphatic statement met with xix, 35, and the probability
is that both statements must be assigned to the same later pen.
It is further possible that the like conclusion holds good, not of
v. 35 only, but of vv. 31 b and 37 also6.
To pass on to the sections in which the Beloved Disciple figures
1 See RV margin. 2 See RV margin.
3 As, int. al., Niermeyer (op. cit. p. 26) rightly points out.
4 ' EUe est d'autre provenance,' says Revtile (op. cit. p. 305) with aUusion
to this chapter, but he adds (p. 307), ' par une main de meme famtile que celle
de l'auteur.' 6 Which, in the eyes of Cludius (op. cit. p. 67), was 'ein unbedeutendes
falsches Anhangsel.' Spitta' s results consequent on his examination of the
appendix chapter (op. cit. pp. 16 f.) are certainly interesting.
6 So HeitmiiUer (SNT, ii, p. 711) who (p. 701) regards it as conceivable

118 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
in the scene. No difficulty is raised by the fact that the designation
is apphed to this mysterious personage in the appendix chapter,
for this chapter has already been assigned by us to a hand other
than that of the Evangelist. It is however quite another matter
when the designation is met with elsewhere in the Gospel; and the
choice lies, it might be said, between two alternatives; either the
Evangelist is not the Beloved Disciple — in whicb case he could
quite weU have used the designation of a third person; or the hand
of a redactor is traceable in the respective sections. That it is so
traceable is, in any case, probable; yet not so as to necessitate
the conclusion that the entire sections were altogether absent from
the original work. If the words 'whom Jesus loved' be therein
attached to the 'disciple' aUuded to, the phrase was perhaps im
ported by the redactor from the appendix chapter.
There is some show of ground for the behef that the sections
which relate to Caiaphas are, to say the least, not free from inter
polation, and on such an assumption the charge of having blun
dered (in holding the high-priesthood to be an annual office)1
might cease to he at the door of the Evangehst himself.
Turning to the discourse with Nicodemus (hi, 1 ff.), we cannot
but agree that v. 11 reads awkwardly in the context; and the con
clusion may be ventured that, suggestive of later circumstances
and conditions, it is an importation from an unknown source.
Attention is next claimed by a group of passages which are
either not exactly in harmony with other passages (e.g., U, 19;
hi, 29 and hi, 31 ; hi, 22, 26 ; iv, 1 and iv, 2)2, or which are strongly
suggestive of explanations which have missed the mark (e.g., xu,
32; xvii, 12 and xviii, 9) ; and the impression is hard to avoid that
they reflect the workings of another and a duller mind3. The case
is otherwise when (e.g., x, 5, 10) there is a mere change of metaphor.
that the pen which added ch. xxi was that of the author of the First Epistle.
On Jn xxi, xix, 35 see Calmes, op. cit. pp. 40 f ., ' ont une origine fort ancienne,'
if by another hand.
1 If such be really the conception which underlies Jn xi, 49, 51; xviii, 13.
2 dudius (op. cit. p. 37) unhesitatingly adds iii, 17; v, 22; xii, 47. And
see Wendt, Die Schichten im vierten Evglm. p. 28.
B See in this connexion J. M. Thompson, Proceedings of Soe. of Hist.
Theol. (Oxford) for the year 1916-17, pp. 49 ff.

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 119
Nor is there occasion of difficulty in respect of what appear to be
doublets (e.g., vi, 39 f . ; xiv, 13 f . ; xvu, 14, 16) ; for, in the first
place, such features are not peculiar to our Gospel, and secondly,
it might suffice to speak of prolixity of expression.
Unquestionably there are sections which Ulustrate diversity of
view and standpoint. Two of them have already been enumerated
(xiv, cf. xv-xvih; xiv, 16, 26, cf. xv, 26; xvi, 7) whUe a third
(v, 21 ff.) has just been noticed in a foot-note reference1; and the
question then arises whether, apart from divergence of conception
relative to the sending of the Paraclete, the self-same author who
can apparently dispense with an external Parousia has neverthe
less had resort to the turns and phrases of Jewish Eschatology, or
whether the sections do not rather indicate the hand of one wbo
stiU clung to materiaUstic conceptions of Resurrection, of Judge
ment, of the Second Coming of the Lord2. There is ground for
hesitation; yet on the wbole we are, perhaps, guided to the con
clusion that such fluctuations are to some extent accounted for
by variety in mood3 The Fourth Evangelist, be it added, is by
no means the only man of letters to be at times inconsistent with
himself4. Two more considerations. They point, in the one case, to tbe
recorded manifestations5 of the Risen Lord. In the other they
point to those opening verses which form the Prologue of the
Fourth Gospel.
And first, the manifestations. There is no need to linger on the
events narrated in the appendix chapter; and it may suffice to
say of them that, leaning on the Synoptic representation, the
1 To Cludius. 2 Scholten, op cit. p. 72.
* I have ventured to say in the Preface to my Eschatology of Jesus (p. x),
that 'if Eschatological Sayings be found in the Ups of the Johannine Christ,
it is precisely because the historic Jesus had actuaUy been wont so to speak.'
1 Frequent instances are afforded by books reviewed in the Times Literary
Supplement. 5 Let room be made here for a conjecture. It may be the case or not that,
knowing Luke, our Evangelist had also knowledge of its companion work
Acts: the chances are that the tale told Acts ti, 1 ff., had somehow reached
his ears if not (in documentary form) his eyes and that it was deprecated by
him. He does not flatly contradict it; what he does is to substitute the far
more spiritual story Jn xx, 19 ff.

120 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
writer has apparently thought fit to recast and supplement a story
belonging to the period of the earthly Ministry1 and to transfer it
to an after date. Accordingly we turn from it to the immediately
preceding chapter (xx); with its record of three several appear
ances of the Risen Lord— to Mary Magdalene; to an unspecified
number of disciples; to, so it would appear, the same disciples,
but, this time, Thomas with them. The point2, then, is whether,
looking to their nature, the stories are precisely what the Evan
gelist has prepared us to expect. His Christ has, indeed, spoken
of his impending death; yet no word has come from him which
can be so construed as to suggest both a conviction and a predic
tion of an external Resurrection, whUe the allusions actuaUy met
with are strongly indicative of a coming to, of an abiding presence
in the behever's heart. Nay more; the tone and tenor of the great
FareweU Discourses are scarcely in keeping with an expectation
that, before three short days had passed, the speaker would have
rejoined his disciples, in outwardly visible if mysteriously trans
figured form.
It must be confessed that the stories give us pause. They are
singularly beautiful stories. They testify to an actual Easter as
surance, howsoever vouchsafed and apprehended3, which brought
conviction to the souls of the disciples and enabled them to say
their 'Jesus lives.' A deep spiritual significance may be read into
them. We are nevertheless constrained to ask again: has any
word come from the Evangelist whicb expressly invites his readers
to expect such stories ? It is not altogether easy to answer in the
affirmative ; and the question arises : is he himself responsible for
the stories — stories, quite in the Johannine manner, of spiritual
experiences in concrete form4 — or must their presence, not neces
sarUy their origination, be accounted for by a redactor's hand?
1 Cf. Lk. v, 1 ff.
2 Anticipated, and discussed, but without definite conclusion, by Alex.
Schweizer, op. cit. pp. 215 ff.
3 The crucial passage for the interpretation of the Gospel Narratives of
the Resurrection is 1 Cor. xv, 1 ff.
4 According to Schwalb (op. cit. p. 33), 'er hat sie ja gedichtet oder doch
frei umgebtidet,' as one who feels, in his own soul, what he makes his cha
racters feel.

vm. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL 121
Let us hold our judgement in suspense. Yet the remark is per
missible that the stories do not seem quite to fit into the frame
work; to lead up quite naturaUy to the pointed reference1 of the
verses which, immediately foUowing on these stories — bring the
Gospel proper to its formal close. Has matter of another type been
ousted by them?
Turning to the Prologue (i, 1-18), we are confronted by a two
fold question : — do we possess it in its original form — from whose
pen does it come?
No doubt features are presented by it which, at first sight,
might dispose us to differentiate between hand and hand2. They
are present in vv. 6-8 and 15 ; where, with abrupt transition from
'great abstract conceptions,' we seem, if only for a moment, 'to
touch the solid earth,' and then ' are taken back to the region of
abstractions which we had hardly left3 ' ; and the suggestion is not
far-fetched that they are no part of the original text. It might
weU be pleaded that no real loss is involved by their removal;
that, on the contrary, they seem but to impair the ordered sequence
of majestic cadences. Yet the author himself may have been al
together unconscious of a break, or else be deliberately passing
and repassing as it were from heaven to earth4; and the conclusion
to be here ventured is that, albeit a difficulty must be recognized,
there is much to favour the hypothesis that, in the form in which
we have it, the Prologue is a unity.
Who, then, is its author? It is a safe assumption that a work
1 Jn xx, 30 : IIoXXA ixiv o$v Kai aXXa arnxela irrolffo-ev b "l-qcrovs iviiimov twv
ttaBnrGtv, a ovk i-gtiv yeypap.ixiva iv Tip fiifiXlip to^toj. The raOra of V. 31 can
not in any case refer simply and solely to the stories, and an inference might
be that it points to something quite different.
2 Yet as by no means prepared to foUow Cludius (op. cit. pp. 58 ff.), nor yet
Spitta, who here, as elsewhere, arbitrarily distinguishes between 'Grund
schrift,' matter derived from other sources, and the reflexions of the redactor.
3 J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 1 19 f .
4 'Das EvangeUum,' writes HeitmuUer (SNT, ti, p. 721), 'ist das Evan-
getium der Gegensatze. Davon haben wir hier ein bezeichnendes Beispiel.
Der Ubergang von v, 5 zu 6 ist schroff....Ohne jeden Ubergang, ohne
Vermittlung, ohne Riicksioht auf Stimmung und Verstandnis des Lesers
versetzt ihn der Verfasser jetzt in eine ganz bestimmte geschichtUche Lage.
Die Stimmung der Wehmut schien ihn v, 5 zu beherrschen: hier (v, 6)
schwingt er die scharfe Waffe des Kampfes.'

122 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH-
provided with a formal close (xx, 30, 31) could scarcely have been
destitute of any formal introduction; and, inasmuch as the section
i, 19-28 not only faUs to satisfy requirements but evidently pre
supposes some sort of preface by the manner of its opening words,
we are, it would seem, tied down to two alternatives. If the Pro
logue be not attributable to the author of the main fabric of the
Gospel, then his original introduction has somehow disappeared,
while the gap so left has been fiUed in by another person.
The second alternative may be dismissed off-hand. Of vahd
reason for refusing to assign the Prologue to our conjectured author
there is surely none whatever; and, apart from questions relative
to influences pervading it (of which more hereafter), the sole point
on which there can be reasonable difference of opinion is one
which turns on the exact nature of the relation in which it stands
to the remainder of the Gospel1. Yet here again the balance surely
inchnes on the side of the view that, even as with vestibule and
temple, Prologue and body of the Gospel constitute a single whole2.
We may readUy beheve that, whether the Prologue was actu
ally composed or not before the completion of the Gospel, its
composition was not effected without prolonged deUberation and
much use of pen3.
But to bring this chapter to a close.
The identity of the Evangelist is, and probably wiU remain, an
enigma. Whether the Beloved Disciple (who is not the Apostle
John) or some other person be tbe author, the Gospel was cer
tainly not written by a tour deforce; prolonged and careful pre
paration was involved; long time on the hterary stocks, it was
buUt up in coUaboration with members of an inner circle. He
himself never published it ; when first it emerged from its deposi-
1 With aUusion to Harnack's theory that the Prologue is no organic part
of the Gospel, a postscript rather than a preface, Loisy (op. cit. p. 97) writes:
1 On a vainement essaye d'isoler le Prologue.'
2 See on the whole question Johnston, op. cit. pp. 6 ff.
3 The Prologue, says Robson (JTS, xviii, p. 293), 'is certainly the work of
a careful composer, seeking to rise to the height of his great argument, but
certainly, as a composer pure and simple, timid and unconfident, and making
his way from thought to thought and word to word.' The word 'cautious'
might with advantage be substituted for the phrase 'timid and unconfident.'

vin. THE MAKING OF THE GOSPEL. 123
tory he had, in aU likelihood, already gone to his rest; and, when
actuaUy given to the world, it had, so to speak, ceased to be his
Gospel to become our Fourth Gospel. Or in other words, the ori
ginal treatise of the Evangehst had been somewhat freely dealt
with — supplemented, interpolated, and perhaps modified — by edi
torial hands, yet so as to lend the semblance of compactness to
the expanded work. If room must reaUy be made (and this is
doubtful) for a plurality of redactors they would differ in mental
calibre and trend of thought. There is no settling the question as
to who precisely they were, yet it may be said of them that, for aU
their diversity, they belonged to the Johannine school at Ephesus1.
1 It is possible to assume a redactor without necessarily being involved
in the charge: 'So macht man diesen zu dem Ungeheuer, fur das man den
Verfasser zu halten sich scheut,' Wetter, op. cit. p. 2.

CHAPTER IX
THEN— AND NOW
In bringing our inquiry to a close we will proceed from a rapid
summary of results and inferences to an attempt to form some
estimate of the significance and value of our Gospel not only in
its own day but in the modern world.
Aptly is it designated ' The Ephesian Gospel' ; for it was surely
at, or in the immediate vicinity of, the once famous Asiatic city
that our Gospel originated. WhUe to fix its date with precision is
not possible, it may be safely assigned to the period which hes be
tween ca. a.d. 90 and a.d. 120; and quite probably there is no need
to travel beyond the first decade of the second century. Its tradi
tional authorship is hard to maintain; not only is the external
evidence altogether unconvincing, but there are other cogent
grounds for the view which eliminates the son of Zebedee. Whether
direct or indirect, the internal evidence occasions pause; and if,
on the one hand, there are features which testify to Jewish pen
manship, so, on the other hand, phenomena are met with which
do not suggest the first-hand information of an eye-witness. Nor
is doubt laid by that examination of the literary structure of the
Gospel which, necessitating a cautious recognition of displacement,
has issued in a qualified abandonment of the position which regards
it as a unity. The admission made that aU attempts to resolve it
into its constituent elements are precarious, we have differentiated,
however tentatively, between hand and hand; between main fabric
and matter which, originally foreign to it, has been so welded in
as to lend the semblance of unity to the Gospel in its present form.
In the case of the main fabric tbe author has been spoken of as
the Evangelist: — room being left for the contingency that, enig
matical personage as he would remain, he may perchance be that
Beloved Disciple whom we cannot identify with the Apostle John.
In the case of other matter we have reckoned with a possibUity

ch. IX. THEN— AND NOW 125
however shght that not one redactor only is responsible for the
processes to which the original work of the Evangehst was sub
jected before, or at the time of, pubhcation; and conjecture has
here turned to a mind, or minds, of smaUer grasp and duUer spiri
tual perception1 albeit representative of the Johannine School at
Ephesus. Let us once more glance at the Evangehst as his personality
may be discerned in the pages of a Gospel the main bulk of which
comes from him if it reveals his dependence on sources, and if,
writing and re-writing much himself, he did not always wield the
pen. Perhaps he is the Beloved Disciple and perhaps he is not; what
ever his identity he is a born genius. That he is a highly educated2
man is beyond question; he is at home in Hebrew literature and
by no means unversed in Alexandrian speculation. He is evidently
of an independent turn of mind ; and, if the works of great thinkers
are laid under contribution by him, it is certainly not as one con
tent jurare in verba magistri ; on the contrary he prefers to go his
own way, and in so doing he utihzes, qualifies, or rejects. It is,
no doubt, true to say of his Prologue that it gains in significance
when compared with Philo's3 reflexions ; yet the contrast is sharp,
and it is as truly added that, in respect of new elements in his own
conception of the Logos, he far outstrips that 'most spiritual of
authors4,' and dwells by preference on a unique historical person
rather than on the exaltation of individual souls 5 He can and
doessay what PhUo wouldhave found it hard to say: o A.670? o-dp%
1 Not necessarily the 'Ungeheuer' of Wetter's aUusion. And see Alex.
Schweizer, op. cit. p. 234.
2 Perhaps it is to go too far when ReviUe (op. cit. p. 299) speaks of an
' education scientifique. '
3 A native of Alexandria. The precise dates of his birth and death are
unknown. Aa we learn from his Legatio ad Caium, he was, a.d. 40, a member
of a Jewish embassy to Caius Cahgula. Evidently he was of good family;
his brother was Alabarch of Alexandria where he himself Uved. His hterary
activity was immense, but there is no trace in his extant works of his having
been affected by Christian teaching. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xiii.
4 As Conybeare (Philo about the Contemplative Life, p. x) calls Philo.
5 Windisch, Die Frommigkeit Philos, p. 114. A work which in any case
repays perusal.

126 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
eyivero1. li in his Prologue he moves in the region of phUosophical
inquiry, it is otherwise in the body of his work; he weU-nigh ceases
to be the metaphysician to become tbe mystic2; with definite and
deliberate surrender he projects himself into the divine presence,
and blends activity with contemplation in union with the Christ
Incarnate who for him is revealer and revelation of his God. His
musings are of things eternal, yet he is persuaded ' that the heavenly
hfe does not require us to leave the earth nor to refuse ourselves
to its concerns, but only to take care that they do not imprison
us in petty satisfactions and momentary ends3'; things temporal
are rightly appreciated by him; he 'sees that the ordinary human
hfe is part of the divine interest,' and, with an eye to his own en
vironment, he is fain so to ideahze aU human affairs as to .turn
their water into wine4. A real man of flesh and blood, his mood
varies; if sometimes inconsistent with himself, it is because his
mind refuses to be kept within a sohtary groove; in his terminology
he perforce turns to ' categories nearest to his hand5'; he Ulustrates
— as perhaps realizing — the inadequacy of aU human language to
express the infinite. His are the infirmities of tone and temper
which are common to the race ; what he sees in vision is blurred in
the telling of it; and it might perhaps be said that, appearing to
strike a note of exclusiveness in unexpected moments, he goes
near to invite the charge that there is scant room in his affection
for those outside the Church6. It is nevertheless a true instinct
1 Cohu, op. cit. pp. 482 ff. See in particular Johnston, op. cit. pp. 87 ff.
It is impossible to agree with BaUenstedt (op. cit. p. 87) that the Evangelist's
' Vortrag vom Logos ist ganz Philonisch,' and, int. al., Wendt (op. cit. pp. 98 ff.)
is decisive for the other way about. Yet one might say with BaUenstedt
(p. 6) that in Uke manner as the EvangeUst took over the phrase 'Lamb of
God' from Jewish sacrificial diction, so he might have had resort to Alex
andrian speculation for the term 'Logos.' Yet it should be added, with
Bruckner (op. cit. p. 91), that, if the latter provided him with a form suited
to his environment, its content, for him, was 'das Bild Jesu Christi mit
seiner Gnade und Wahrheit.'
2 This, again, is sUghtly reminiscent of Dr Stanton's Exposition.
3 Emerson, Memoir, i, p. 258.
* This sentence, with some of the preceding sentences, is adapted from
Watson, Mysticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 152 ff.
5 Cf. Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, i, p. 147.
6 JE, ix, pp. 251 f. 'This teaching of love is combined with the most in-

ix. THEN— AND NOW 127
which decides that, in the last analysis, the hatred displayed by
bim is not so much of persons as of principles ; and that, far from
being incompatible with, it is a necessary constituent of rightly-
apprehended and comprehensive love1 That he is capable of and
responsive to such a love is surely patent. As patent is it that 'he
is a candidate for truth2'; as fully satisfied that the honest search
for truth wiU ever be rewarded by augmented treasure, and that
for those who in after ages shaU engage in it there wiU be that
never-failing divine guidance which has been richly experienced by
himself3. He is far more concerned for unity than for uniformity.
Refusing to discard altogether the things which belong to outward
form and ceremony, he perhaps sits loosely to them. What he
emphaticaUy desiderates is worship 'in spirit and truth.'
Of such sort was the Evangehst; he, the Great Unknown — as
we wUl stUl speak of him — who, of Jewish origin but long resident
in 'Greek Ephesus4,' is author of the main fabric of the Fourth,
Gospel. The pity is that his work does not lie before us in its
original form.
With what purpose was it composed, and wherein lies the ser
vice rendered by the author in his own period?
It is an exaggeration which accounts his Gospel a diatribe
against groups of men who persisted in aUegiance to the Baptist5 ;
and the truth appears to be that, with Baptist-disciples in his view
tense hatred of the kinsmen of Jesus '...'a gospel of Christian love and Jew
hatred.' The writer of the article aUows for a possibUity that the original
work was elaborated into such a Gospel by 'a late compiler.'
1 So, perhaps, Calmes, when (op. cit. p. 63) he writes: 'L'antijudaisme
de Saint Jean n'est pas autre chose, au fond, que l'universaUsme.'
2 Emerson, Essay on Intellect.
* Is it altogether in accordance with the mind of the EvangeUst when,
with allusion to the section Jn xx, 26 ff . — which is in any case Johannine in
manner — Calmes (op. cit. pp. 77 f.) thinks good to say : ' L'exemple de Thomas
semble destine a mettre les lecteurs en garde contre les exigences de la raison ' 1
4 See the whole chapter so entitled in Prof. Percy Gardner's The Ephesian
Gospel. 6 So Baldensperger. And so, at a far earUer date, Cludius (op. cit. p. 52),
who, in the allusion 'there was much water there' (Jn iii, 23), discovered
'ein Spott. . .der sich auf die Hemerobaptisten bezieht. . .wegen ihrer tag-
Uchen Reinigungen.' According to Wetter (op. cit. pp. 167 ff.) the Johannine
polemic was also directed against Moses.

128 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
as concerned to win them, he reaUy breaks a lance with Jewish
disputants who made much of the priority of John to Jesus1: Not
withstanding coincidence in terminology he is not himself deeply
impregnated with Gnosticism2; and if later on its foremost ex
ponents found congenial matter in our Gospel, the utmost that
can be said is that he is sharply at issue with the view which rele
gated the Logos to a place among inferior aeons3 — who on a second
reading of bis Prologue would not ask: Is this the language of a
theologian who aims at refuting Gnosticism 4 ? In his own some
what ambiguous way he upholds the humanity of his Lord; yet
the anti-Docetism of his Gospel is less conspicuous than in that
first Johannine Epistle which, quite conceivably, came from his
pen. Lusty blows are struck by him at whatever heresy which,
fastening on the Manhood, denied the Divinity of Jesus, and
affirmed that he was mere man. But, generaUy speaking, bis po
lemic, where discoverable, is more particularly directed against
unbelieving and aggressive Judaism; and, if there be occasion for
the remark that 'he fights heretics with their own weapons5' there
is sufficient warrant for taking him at his word when, referring,
not in any case specificaUy to immediately preceding stories (xx,
11-29), but to his Gospel as a whole, he (xx, 31) thus defines his
purpose : ' that ye may beheve that Jesus is the Christ, tbe Son of
God6, and that believing ye may have hfe in his name.'
The question is: Who are the 'ye'? It wiU not do forthwith
to seek for them in the outer world ; for it was hardly the express
intention of tbe Evangehst to appeal directly to heathendom.
Nor may we dweU at once on local Christian Churches generaUy,
1 See Calmes, op. cit. p. 65; Wendt, op. cit. p. 109; Percy Gardner, op.
cit. pp. 199 ff.; Forbes, op. cit. p. 159; De Wette, op. cit. ti, p. 219.
2 Against Schwegler, op. cit. p. 211.
3 Cf. Forbes, op. cit. p. 160.
4 Calmes, op cit. p. 63. The pointed question is led up to thus: 'Sans
vouloir pretendre que l'Evan. Joh. contienne aucun des traits qui caracte-
risent l'heresie de Marcion et de Valentin, nous constatons qu'il offre un
certain nombre d'expressions qui rappeUent d'une maniere frappante la
terminologie des ecrits gnostiques.'
5 Cohu, op. cit. p. 431.
B Incidentally the Jewish Messiah, but — inasmuch as this would not
appeal to Hellenic minds — primarily Son of God.

ix. THEN— AND NOW 129
when quite possibly he never contemplated any immediate publi
cation and circulation of his work. Rather do we turn to an inner
circle which included the members of bis School, his disciples and
attached friends. It is surely they who are addressed by him in
the first instance ; — yet the thought would be present with him,
that, engaged as they were in a regular and systematic ministry
of teaching, the substance of bis Gospel would, by their agency,
permeate and influence an ever widening circle of receptive minds1.
His addressees, then, being primarily his intimates and associ
ates, it was his aim and object both to instruct and confirm them
in that reasonable faith which they had drunk in at bis hps. To
that faith he himself had risen as it were on 'stepping-stones'; it
fuUy satisfied him; it dominated his soul. It was concentrated on
a Person; the Christ of his experience. His experience had taught
him that in the hving out of it there was fulness of Life: — the
Life Eternal told of in tbe pages of his Gospel.
It was the great service rendered by the Evangelist that by
bim the religion of Jesus was emancipated from its swaddling
clothes and provided with a vesture more adapted to its expansion
and its growth. Truly it is said of him that he took up the im
mortal work of Paul2; whether he brought that work to its full
and final completion is another matter, and it is safer to decide
that it was so continued by him as to iUustrate a very considerable
advance. The Synoptic tradition was not simply explained by
him, but, in and by his interpretation of it, purified and refined3
as he transferred the Jesus of Capernaum to Ephesus 4, and sought
to make the Christ of his experience a reality for Hellenistic and
Hellenic modes of thought. If it reaUy be the case that old and
materialistic conceptions still clung to him (which is open to
question)5, their mfluence is faint; they practically fade away be-
1 In partial agreement with Hengstenberg, op. cit. iii, pp. 396 f.
2 Revtile, op. cit. p. 326. Yet Paul and our EvangeUst are different in
type of mind.
3 'Da schrieb Joh. sein Evglm., und erldutete nicht nur, sondern lautete
selbst die palastinische EvangeUensage,' Herder, op. cit. p. 264.
1 Cf. Amnion, op. cit. i, p. 78.
6 It is easier to discover in echoes of the Synoptic Representation of
Judgement and Resurrection the workings of a redactor's mind, yet they
J. 9

130 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
fore other and spiritualized conceptions. On the one hand the
dross of specifically Palestinian Christianity is purged away by
him; on the other hand he freely avails himself of whatsoever
elements in the great spiritual tendencies of the age were capable
of assimilation1. He has parted with Judaism in its purely nation
alistic hopes and expectations; and, with adoption of a term aheady
familiar to the schools, he uses it as the key which discloses to
Ephesian hearers and readers the innermost nature of the Logos
Incarnate Who had tabernacled among men2. And so he furnishes
his proofs that, while faith in Jesus responded to the deepest yearn
ings of the human soul, it also satisfied the highest exigencies of
knowledge, and that this same Jesus, far from being the Messiah
of the Jews only, was Redeemer of the World at large3. The Apoca
lyptic Son of Man is not without an interest for him, but his main
thoughts are focussed on the Son of God.
' The Christian Gospels, broadly considered, stand for a certain
measure of free thinking re-action against the Jewish rehgion4.'
The qualified admission, when itself qualified, holds good of our
Evangelist; who, no mere reactionary and necessarUy bound by
the limitations of the period, is a very noble specimen of the true
free-thinker and liberator within the Christian Church. Not only
abreast of, he was, in no small measure, in advance of his times;
and there can be little doubt that, at aU events in certain quarters,
he was an object of suspicion and distrust: it may be that, in his
own immediate following, there were some who, brought up on the
Synoptio representation, looked askance at a work so different in
its nature and conceptions as that which they received at his hands.
That, prior to its publication, it should be subjected to a revision
which savoured of conventionalism was, perhaps, natural in the
circumstances ; nor is there ground for wonder that, even when so
may be 'little concessions' (Revtile, op. cit. p. 331) of the EvangeUst. And
see supra, p. 119, note 3.
1 Schmiedel, EB, ti, col. 2558. Our Evangelist is as it were the 'scribe' of
Mt. xiii, 52. 2 Cf. von Soden, Early Christian Literature, p. 404.
3 Sohenkel, op. cit. p. 25.
4 J. M. Robertson, Short History of Free Thought, i, p. 218. It is character-
isticaUy added, 'albeit their practical outcome was only an addition to the
world's supernaturaUsm and traditional dogma.'

IX. THEN— AND NOW 131
worked over as to become our Fourth Gospel, it was slow — as
seems to have been the case — to win its way to general acceptance.
Inviting controversy it was much in debate1 As to-day so then,
invidious and unreasoning comparisons would be drawn between
a 'new theology' and the 'old Gospel2.'
Was it really in the mind of the Evangelist to compose a 'per
manent Gospel3 ' ? ReadUy may we believe that his glances reached
ahead; as persuaded that those who came after him would find
help and guidance in a work which, rich in his own spiritual ex
periences, set forth great conceptions which had satisfied himself.
By no possibUity could it have occurred to him that, before many
decades had elapsed, it would take rank as Holy Scripture; nor
yet that a time would come when the Fourth Gospel would be
classed with 'the most priceless treasures which early Christian
literature had bequeathed to' a modern world4 not blind to the
problems it presents.
We pass by a natural transition to inquire into the signifi
cance and value of our Gospel in our own day; as prompt to reject
the verdict of an early, and withal ill-equipped and flippant, critic
that it is 'altogether void of worth and utility5,' and as feeling that
we should be glad to listen 'were John (let us say, the author) to
appear to our age and place his Gospel in our hands6.' As it is,
our inquiry must concern itself with the Gospel in its present form.
It has assuredly a historical value. Regarded from one point
of view it is, in some sort, a revelation of the circumstances and the
conditions of the period in which it originated. When closely
scrutinized it enables us to look on at the literary processes of
antiquity; it takes us as it were to Palestine; it has much to tell of
1 'Le trouble produit par l'apparition du ive. Evang. se traduisit par
des discussions acharnees,' Calmes, op. cit. p. 66.
2 Thus, but recently, by the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Watts-Ditchfield.
3 'Ein bleibendes Evglm. wollte Joh. schreiben, der Geschichte Geist
und Wahrheit,' Herder, op. cit. p. 349. 4 A. V, Green, op. cit. p. 82.
5 'Weder Werth noch Nutzen.' So in the work which, pubhshed anony
mously in 1801, was from the pen of Vogel, then Lutheran 'Superintendent
in Wunsiedel in Franken.' See Lucke, op. cit. i, pp. 93 ff. My search, in
which friends have most kindly assisted me, for a copy of the work (Der
Evangelist Joh. und seine Ausleger vor dem jiingsten Gericht) has been un
successful 6 Herder, op. cit. pp. 369-77.
9—2

132 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
the throbbing life which pulsated in that great city on the Aegean
whicb had been the 'pivot of civilisation, the crucial meeting-place
of East and West1.' Whether in its main fabric or in features
which go near or all the way to become evidence of redaction, it
is a study in the anxieties and perplexities, the peculiar difficulties
and facilities, the courage resolute for progress and the timorous-
ness reluctant to advance, which were very present with the early
Church. What of its historical value from another point of view? That
it is of no small importance, as an ancient document, for the stu
dent of antiquity no one wiU deny. The grave question is whether
it be safe to turn to it as a reliable source for the Life of Jesus.
The answer must be tinged with hesitation. It is one thing to
say that ' we cannot . . . write a Life of Christ as if the Gospel of
St John had no existence'; quite apart from the exceeding ven-
turesomeness of all attempts at such a biography2, it is difficult
to agree that to set our Gospel aside would be to 'reject half our
avaUable evidence3.' For the larger part of evidence relative to
the earthly life of Jesus we must admit dependence on the Synop
tics; and there is the further necessity of admitting that even in the
Synoptics he is ever and again pictured as seen by the eye of faith.
This necessity is intensified with our Gospel; which, perpetual
theophany4 that it is, represents and witnesses to the Christ of
experience whose glory is manifested, not on one sohtary occasion
only5, but from first to last. The behef is, indeed, weU grounded
that, albeit removed from a transitory setting and transferred to the
region of the spiritual, a deposit of genuine reminiscences both of
deed and word is embedded in it. It is however not, in the modern
sense, a strictly historical record of the earthly ministry of Jesus.
1 Percy Gardner, op. cit. p. 1.
2 CBE, p. 459. ' Wer sollte nicht in daa Bekenntniss der Anna Maria von
Sohurmann einstimmen,' wrote Neander (op. cit. p. viti), ' welche von einem
solchen Unternehmen zuriickfuhr, weil es ihr vorkam dass sie die Sonne nur
mit einem Kohle abmale 1 '
3 Cf . J. Armitage Robinson, Hist. Character of St John's Gospel, p. 49.
4 ' Le quatrieme E vangtie est une theophanie perpetuelle,' Loisy, op. cit.
pp. 104 f.
6 There is no room in the conception of the EvangeUst for any narrative
of the Transfiguration.

IS. THEN— AND NOW 133
The Fourth Gospel is a part, scarcely 'half,' of our avaUable
evidence; and, while appeal to it must be made with cautious re
servations, it is not imperative definitely and finally to rule it out
in its entirety as a source for the Life of Jesus.
There is more to be said. Let it be granted that the real Jesus,
in respect of each several point in his human developement, was
other than our Evangelist depicts1. It may then be added that
he, the Evangehst, profoundly conscious that personality is after
all the highest force, and that it is far less a question of what the
man says and does than of what the man is, has seized on great
ideas which absorbed the soul of Jesus ; and, in his portraiture,
has presented them in concrete form2. Whether eye-witness or
not, he is linked in spiritual affinity with Jesus. In his spiritual
Gospel the Christ of his experience is accordingly invested with a
personality which, tremendous in its impressiveness3, cannot for
a moment be regarded as nought but the mere creation of pious
fancy, of an imaginative mind.
'The problem of tbe Person of Christ' remains with us. It was
faced by our Evangehst; and in this, were there nothing else, there
is a deep and encouraging significance for the modern world.
There cannot be the shadow of a doubt that his own attempted
solution brought satisfaction to himself and real help to his con
temporaries ; we moderns, studying his Christology — and remark
ing, perhaps, that, whatever be the explanation4, there is an ap
parent absence of uniformity in the notes struck by it — are con
strained to speak of a problem by no means fully solved by him
and stiU awaiting its solution. Yet the land-marks he set up are
not negligible ; and, if the path he indicates be long and intricate,
to keep on treading it is not to lose sight of the goal.
There is truth in the remark that, in his Christ-ideal, our
Evangehst has anticipated the ideal as conceived of and set forth
1 Cf. Sohenkel, op. cit. p. 25. Sohenkel adds: 'aber er war so in der Tiefe
und auf der Hohe seines Wirkens; er war nicht immer so in Wirklichkeit,
aber er war so in Wahrheit.'
2 See W. F. Loman, Het vierde Evangelic, Kenbron van Jezus' Leer en
Leven, pp. 6, 34. 3 See Wernle, QueUen des Lebens Jesu, p. 29.
4 Conjecture has pointed to the mind and pen of a redactor. See Spitta,
op. cit. p. 404.

134 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
by some of the greatest and highest Christian thinkers of a far
later day1.
But to pass on. As with the Imitatio Christi, so with our Gos
pel; uncertainty in respect of its origination leaves its value essen
tially unimpaired2. Tbe lessons to be drawn from it are manifold;
let us fasten on some main points in which it is rich in suggestive-
ness for present-day circumstances and needs.
To begin with. In these awful days of world-wide strife of
nations our thoughts are first directed to 'the time of our wealth,'
and the invitation follows to unite in fervent prayer to be vouch
safed 'a lasting peace3,' while the 'visible consecration to an ideal'
is forcefully desiderated4- Wellandgood; yet it is greatly to be feared
that not only is the term 'wealth' widely identified with purses
filled to repletion, but that the 'peace' craved for by many imphes
little more than slumberous repose to follow after the clash of arms.
Unquestionably the great war has wrought great things in us; we
have been stirred to reflexion, dormant faculties have been quick
ened into life, the spirit of self-sacrifice is in marveUous display,
all classes are pervaded by the sense of brotherhood. As unques
tionably there is ground for hope that these and such-hke features
are not destined to speedy disappearance ; as Browning confidently
tells us: 'there shall never be one lost good6.' What cannot be
said is that the nation has as yet risen to, let alone consecrated
itself to, an 'ideal' which takes fuU account of things inteUectual,
moral, and spiritual. And apart from such an ideal, there can be,
in tbe true sense of the word, no national 'wealth.'
Let us be on our guard against sweeping generahzations. It
were idle to deny that the high ideal desiderated is both grasped
and aimed at by right-minded men who, sturdy in their refusal to
contemplate a reversion to the lamentable social conditions which
obtained in days of so-called ' Peace,' are as sturdy in demand and
deed for that new order which shall mean a richer and a fuUer life
within the reach of those conventionally designated 'the labouring
1 Schwalb, op. cit. p. 257. a Cf. ReviUe, op. cit. p. 320.
3 Form of Intercession in time of War.
4 Bishop of Chelmsford's Pastoral Letter in connexion with that National
Mission which, no doubt, testified to good intentions.
5 'Abt Vogler.'

rx. THEN— AND NOW 135
classes1.' The error is nevertheless wide-spread which imagines
God's Kingdom to be a synonym for universal comfort2; and
nought but mischief can issue from its prevalence. 'When this
terrible war is over a wave of materialism will sweep over the
land. Nothing wiU count but machinery and output. I am all for
output, and I have done my best to improve machinery and out
put. But that is not all. There is nothing more fatal to a people
than that it should narrow its vision to the material needs of the
hour. National ideals without imagination are but as the thistles
of the wilderness, fit neither for food nor fuel. A nation that de
pends on them must perish. We shall need at the end of the war
better workshops, but we shall also need more than ever every
institution that wUl exalt the vision of the people above and be
yond the workshop and the counting-house. We shall need every
national tradition that wUl remind them that men cannot hve by
bread alone.' Thus spoke England's present Prime Minister3 ; with
acute diagnosis of the situation, and keen perception of vitally
important needs.
The case is one in which our Gospel is of profoundest signifi
cance. The spiritual exaltation which characterizes it is precisely
what our times need* It upholds a great ideal ; as the Christ of its
conception so manifests his glory as to drive it home that suffering
and toU and service are not merely incidental to humanity but
inherent in divinity. A vision revealed by it is of the social organ
ism when emancipated from the thraldom of sordid and degrading
self-interest (whether of individuals or classes), and in full and
fruitful enjoyment of that 'perfect freedom' which attends right
thought displayed in right action: — 'ye shall know the truth, and
the truth shall set you free.'
In the second place. Form and ceremony are not things hghtly
to be discarded. They have their own proper value in that they
lend dignity and impressiveness to State or civic pageant; not only
are they essential to orderhness and reverence, but they set forth
uplifting ideas in the gatherings for common worship. It shall be
1 An instance might be found in Mr George Lansbury as cited in The
Modern Churchman, ti, 5, p. 209. 2 Burkitt, CBE, p. 209.
3 Lloyd George, Speech at the Welsh National Eisteddfod, 1916.

136 THE FOURTH GOSPEL oh.
left to shallow minds to rail at them1; to raise shallow objection
which is blind to or ignores their perfectly legitimate and often
helpful appeal to the senses and emotions2- There are nevertheless
signs and symptoms of an unwholesome tendency unduly to mag
nify the importance of externals ; and it is just here that our Gospel
comes in with its reminder that worship 'in spirit and in truth' is
alone precious in the sight of God.
Again. The spectacle is presented of a rent and tattered Christ
endom. As might be expected, the 'religious outsider' jeers at the
spectacle, and finds in it the 'strongest argument against co-opera
tion or belief ; the situation is widely realized in aU its ugliness and
shamefulness within Christendom itself, and in truth 'our unhappy
divisions' ought to be 'an outrage to the moral consciousness of
every Christian3.' Who would not agree that 'it is surely no longer
tolerable that bodies of Christians, equaUy devout, equaUy effec
tive in missionary work (which is the supreme test), loving one
Father, serving one Lord and Saviour, inspired by one Holy Spirit,
should go on thwarting each other while the tide of unbelief and
wickedness rises unchecked4'? The protest is much to the point;
yet it invites question as to the alleged efficiency of missionary
effort, while doubt is engendered whether genuine inspiration be
compatible with sectarian jealousies and rivalries; not to speak of
individual communions themselves 'broken into parties eager to
narrow the limits of their inheritance by the peculiarities of their
own opinions5.'
The 're-union of Christendom' is much in men's minds. In
that very fact there is ground of hope ; and the ground is widened
as the reflexion deepens that 'the old distinctions between tbe
1 Cf. Emerson, Memoir, i, p. 315.
2 See generaUy W. James, Varieties of Religious Experience.
3 Bethune-Baker, Nestorius, p. xtii.
4 C. T. Wood, in Rdigio-us Reconstruction after the War, A Cambridge
Programme, p. 38. See also pp. 44 ff. for remarks on the same topic by the
Hulsean Professor, Dr Emery Barnes.
6 Westcott, Historic Faith, p. 117. A lamentable instance is afforded by
Bishop Gore in his protest against the consecration of Dr Hensley Henson
to the see of Hereford ; — as a friend writes to me : ' he is •" out " to make the
Church of England — the only Catholic Church in existence — a peculium of
himseU and party.'

rx. THEN— AND NOW 137
several denominations no longer correspond with tbe vital affinities
which draw men of kindred faith and purpose together1.' The
ground will become ever wider as, inspired by our Gospel, men
resolutely turn their backs on that conception of 're-union' which
postulates external uniformity, and dwell by preference on unity
in diversity. 'If we look forward to the fulfilment of the great
promise which gladdens the future, it is not that there shall ever be,
as we wrongly read, "one fold," one outward society of Christians
gathered in one outward form, but, what answers more truly to
present experience and reasonable hope, "one flock and one shep
herd2.'" It were weU to make haste slowly. There is room for the
'venture of faith' — so long as it be tempered with sagacity. It is
scarcely so tempered when met with in the garb of platform mu
tual-admiration rhetoric3, nor yet in well-meant proposals and
arrangements which disguise grave differences with the cloak of
unreal harmony. Wide, no doubt, is the field in whicb hearty
co-operation is practicable; otherwise wisdom suggests that 'steps
towards Christian unity' are most surely taken in the more private
converse of those who, conscious of 'vital affinities,' meet together
for the discussion, at once frank and penetrating, of the problems
which the unity desiderated presents.
One such problem, not inconceivably of paramount importance,
is such as to suggest that the uncertainties of which thoughtful
minds are conscious are a very real barrier in the way of accom
plished unity in diversity.
To say this is to arrive at a fourth, and last, point. There is
no getting away from the fact that our lot is cast in a period of
transition. The ground has shifted beneath our feet ; and, by con
sequence, there is an uneasy feeling that it is idle to talk about a
'kindred faith' when faith itself appears to have been rudely
shaken to its foundations. And the pressing need is to draw clear
distinctions between scaffolding and fabric, between non-essentials
1 TurbeviUe, Steps towards Christian Unity, p. 17.
* Westcott, op. cit. p. 118. And see in this connexion Sir Thomas More
on The Religion of the Utopians.
3 'Ecclesiastical amenities are to be commended, but, like compliments,
they must not be taken seriously,' Mod. Churchman, vii, p. 203.

138 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ch.
and vital principle; and, that done— so far as is possible with
present limitations — to provide the new embodiment for newly-
apprehended truth.
Mutatis mutandis the Fourth Evangelist himself was in similar
case; and the pages of his Gospel (and the Fourth Gospel is in its
main bulk his Gospel) are a revelation of what was nothing short
of a magnificent attempt on his part to distinguish between the
obsolete and the permanent, and — discarding the one and holding
fast the other— to provide that reasonable faith which was in him
with a setting adequate to the exigencies of his own environment
and age.
Therein guidance by him for the modern world. It is not that
we must necessarUy acquiesce at aU points in his own conception
and presentation of eternal verities; were he to make his appear
ance in our midst he would surely speak to very different effect.
Reminding us that weU-nigh eighteen centuries have elapsed since
he composed his Gospel, he would have us realize that, confronted
by circumstances and conditions not so much diverse from as
infinitely more complex than those which obtained in his times,
we have entered upon a vaster inheritance of knowledge than that
which had come down to himself. He would bid us see to it that
we turn our splendid inheritance to right good account; and ac
cordingly be quick to 'recognize' — in fuller measure than for him
was possible — 'that a process of evolution is at work in rehgion
no less than in the realm of nature and in all human institutions1.'
On the one hand he would raise a warning voice against the glib
acceptance of doctrine, view, or theory which, 'fashioned to the
varying hour,' breaks down when put to the test; on the other
band we should be told by him to rid ourselves of accumulated
lumber in tbe form of beliefs not only old but outworn and obsolete.
In hke manner mindful of his own convictions, he would urge that
the New Learning of time present be regarded, in all its manifold-
ness, as tbe gift of God ; and that, by consequence, it is our wisdom,
not to stand aloof, but to welcome it, to strive to assinhlate the
added lessons which it has to teach. Again pointing to his own
example as one who did not scruple to draw water from the well
1 Bonney, in Religious Reconstruction, p. 140.

IX. THEN— AND NOW 139
of old-world philosophies, he would have us tread in his steps;
our thoughts would be directed by him to the newly-opened field
of Comparative Religion; his plea would be for the ungrudging
recognition of every element of truth in the non-Christian religious
systems of mankind. The intellectual and spiritual riches of indi
viduals and classes, of churches and of sects, of the nations in all
their variety of endowment and temperament, must, he would say
emphaticaUy, be laid under contribution in the attempt to trans
plant as it were the Jesus of GalUee and Jerusalem to vUlage, town,
or city of an expanded world.
Not that our Evangelist would point only to himself. On the
contrary, we should ever find him pointing away from himself to
the marveUous Personahty of his Lord; to the Christ no longer
of his own experience only but of that of one generation after
another right down to our own day. Asking us to take bis own
guidance for what it was worth as realizing his hmitations, he
would dweU and dweU again on the continuous presence of a divine
spirit whose aUotted function is to ' guide ' the men of every period
'into aU the truth.'
Was it reaUy our Evangehst who, telhng (xvi, 13) of the func
tions of the Paraclete, went on to say: 'he shall show you things
to come'? The phrase is somewhat reminiscent of specifically
Jewish-Christian conceptions; and, if that be reaUy the case, a
possibUity remains that it iUustrates the workings of a more con
servative and less spiritualizing redactor-mind. Be that as it may,
it is, perhaps, not altogether fanciful to find it suggestive of a
vision rising, however dimly, before modern Christians who are
at least united in their resolve to go forward on the path marked
out for them in a Gospel which has but lately been alluded to as
'the most modern book in the world1.'
We are told — and we know it to be true — that 'creeds are in
the melting pot.' The assertion is met with that one creed at any
rate is flouted (it must be said, by anticipation) by the Fourth
Gospel2; the ancient Symbolum apostolicum which, known to us
1 By R. Webb-OdeU, Modern Churchman, vii, p. 172.
2 Scholten, Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 471. In a foot-note on the same page
Scholten decides that, of aU the twelve Articles of the Apostles' Creed, the

140 THE FOURTH GOSPEL CH.
as the Apostles' Creed, is occasion of perplexity, and is certainly
characterized by a terminology and by conceptions which are not
exactly responsive to present-day modes of thought. Such an as
sertion is, of course, arguable; at the same time a point is raised
by it which we cannot afford to neglect. Interesting, beyond ques
tion, are experiments in creed-construction which have resort to the
actual phraseology of 'the Johannine writings ' ; yet there is ground
for the objection that the said writings are after all bound by the
limitations of a remote antiquity. It is quite another matter for
'the Christian consciousness of this age,' 'free to express itself in
a modern Christian Creed1,' boldly to experiment in creed-con
struction, not in terms of, but on the lines whicb are surely indi
cated by tbe Fourth Evangelist. The work would involve time
and patience, the exercise of thought, much anxious discrimination.
Who dare say that such labour would be void of result? Engaged
in by minds representative of every shade of thought and of every
persuasion, there would surely be a growing sense of rapprochement,
in the very doing of it. Tbe view would gain ground that variety
in organization is quite compatible with agreement in regard to
institution2. There might ultimately come about the formulating
and the general adoption of a credal statement which, inclusive
in its wording and sufficient for its day, would serve the three-fold
purpose of rallying-point, safe-guard, and weapon for now out
wardly sundered members of a divided Christendom..
We have not yet exhausted the suggested vision. It would be
but in part realized with the accomplished unity in diversity of
Christendom in respect of vital principle. There is promise of fuller
realization in the fact that accomplished diversity in unity is
bound to mean enhancement of efficiency in Christendom's mission
to 'the world' when, as things are, there is only too good reason for
the wailing cry which harps on 'the faUure of the Church.'
only one not contradicted by our Gospel is the 'suffered under Pontius
Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried,' and that even so the 'Pontius' must
be eliminated. 1 Modern Churchman, vii, 4, pp. 156 f.
2 Such, apparently, is the view of our EvangeUst. In his own spiritual
izing way he realizes and affirms the value of sacramental rites, while com
prehensiveness is a feature in his conception of fellowship.

ix. THEN— AND NOW 141
Is it altogether true to say of our Evangelist that he is an out
and out universalist? At times he wavers; it might seem that he
invites the conclusion that, if his faith in human 'capacity for
God' be unshakable, his inclusiveness stops short at 'the many'
and faUs to extend to the 'aU1.' In any case there is a note of
dualism2 in his conceptions; sharp is the antithesis between Church
and World which recurs in the pages of his Gospel. Yet there is
this to be said: — as his glances range ahead a conviction dawns
on him that, whUe the latter cannot but be a diminishing quantity,
the former is destined to extend its borders ; and he breathes forth
that conviction in Sayings placed by him on the hps of bis Lord :
as the 'lamp of life' is passed on by generations of believers (xvii,
20) there should be continuous additions to their ranks; and, if
the day be far off, it wiU nevertheless come when the Christ shall
have (xu, 34) 'drawn all men' unto himself. And hence we, in
speaking of the noble treatise bequeathed to us — not, alas, in its
integrity — by one, the 'Great Unknown,' who was in such close
sphitual affinity with Jesus, may legitimately describe it as the
Gospel of 'the larger hope.'
'Though it (the vision) tarry, wait for it3.' The vision, not of
the old-world Hebrew prophet, but that which, as we cannot but
beheve, rose before the author of the main fabric of the Fourth
Gospel; a vision which points, in its fuUest reahzation, to the high
est feUowship of individuals and peoples linked heart to heart and
hand to hand because one and aU 'bound by gold chains about
the feet of God.' Yet there must be no passive waiting for the
vision; it behoves us to work for it. And we shall so work to
better purpose when, steeping ourselves in the great thoughts
which stirred in the mind and soul of our Evangelist, we aim at
translating them into action with an eye to every circumstance
and exigency which confronts us in our modern world.
1 'Die Gottesfahigkeit aUerdings nicht aUer, aber doch vieler Menschen,'
Schwalb, op. cit. p. 257.
2 ' Grim duahsm.' So C. G. Montefiore, HJ, xvi, p. 235.
3 Habakkuk ii, 3.

EXCURSUS I
THE DEATH OF JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE
In the foregoing pages it is suggested that, as Jiilicher puts it,
'the fortunes of the Presbyter, his exile to Patmos and residence
.at Ephesus have been transferred to the Apostle' (sc. John, son
of Zebedee), and that the latter, the venerable tradition of his
peaceful death in extreme old age at the capital of Asia Minor
notwithstanding, met a 'tragic end1.'
The suggestion is based on certain pieces of evidence which,
together with other considerations, have led an increasing number
of scholars to incline to or to adopt the view that John the Apostle,
like his brother James, died a martyr's death.
Let us see how the case stands2-
We turn in the first instance to the incident related Mk x,
35-10 = Mt. xx, 20-23. Upon a request made by, or on behalf of,
the two sons of Zebedee there follows presently a prediction which
is placed in the mouth of Jesus. As recorded by Mk it runs thus:
'The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I
am baptized withal shall ye be baptized.' Otherwise tbe Fhst
Evangelist; according to him Jesus says: 'My cup indeed shall
ye drink3.' The historicity of the incident being here assumed — ¦
the point will be referred to later on — Jesus appears expressly
to announce the destiny which awaits the brother-pair. It is
evidently tbe self-same destiny; nay more, it is the very same
destiny which Jesus already knew to be in store for himself4- No
1 Jiiticher, Einl. in das NT (5th and 6th ed.), pp. 369, 391.
2 I shaU be permitted to draw on a paper read by me before the Cambridge
Theological Society and also (with modifications) before the Oxford Society
of Hist. Theology (vid. Proceedings for the year 1912-1913). See also my
Note in JTS, xviii, pp. 30 ff.
3 The words 'and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with'
(AV) are without sufficient authority, and are rightly omitted by RV.
4 The figure of 'the cup' has but one meaning in his Ups (cf. Mk xiv, 36),
and the recorded pregnant saying, Lk. xii, 50 ('I have a baptism to be
baptized with, etc.'), points to anticipated death.

EX. I. THE DEATH OF JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE } 43
word comes from him which qualifies the prediction in respect of
either brother, and its natural meaning surely is that both James
and John would one day share their Master's fate.
The presumed genuine prediction refuses, it would seem, to
be watered down or explained away. That once conceded, there
would be real ground of surprise were it found to be affirmed of
one or other of the two brothers (as it is affirmed of course, of
John in the 'venerable tradition') that, whUe he 'had his share of
suffering1,' he yet went to his grave in peace. It would be, upon
the other hand, nothing short of reasonable to look for, and expect
to find, some positive statement to tbe effect that the prediction
had been fulfiUed to the letter in the case of both James and John.
A statement relative to the elder brother is quickly found
Acts xii, 2; where it is said of Herod that 'he kiUed James the
brother of John with the sword2.' Is there any like statement in
respect of John? There is: — if reliance may be placed on two
authorities who, whatever their claims to respect, are at all events
in singular agreement in the gist of what they narrate.
1. Georgius Hamartolus3. In a MS. of his Chronicle it is stated
that 'John the Apostle after he had written his Gospel suffered
martyrdom, for Papias in the second book of the Xoyia Kvoiaicd
says that he was put to death by Jews, thus plainly fulfilling along
with his brother the prophecy of Christ regarding them, and their
own confession and common agreement concerning him4.'
2. PhUip of Side5. In an epitome probably based on his
1 Slater, 'St Matthew' (CB), p. 258.
2 According to Preuschen (HBNT, ' Apostelgeschichte,' p. 75) the account
bears traces of modification in that all mention of the death of John is
eliminated. And see the reading in Cod. D; where, after 'Xoudaiois, there
foUows i] eirixeiprio-is auTou eirl tous -kigtous.
3 A monkish chronicler of the tenth century.
4 EB, ti, col. 2509. 'The passage was first brought into notice by de
Muralt. . .and afterwards more widely by Nolte' (Tab. Quartalschrift, 1862,
p. 466). The Greek is as foUows: llairias yap b 'lepairbXeios iirio-Kowos, aurb-
ttttjs Totirov yevbfxevos. iv Tip SeuTeptp Xbyip t2v KupiaKwv Xoylwv (pdo-Kei &ti uwb
'lovfialiSv av-QpiB-q, irX-rjpibo-as 5r]\adii fiera tou ddeXipou ttjk tou XpitrToO irepl
avriov irpbpprio-iv .
6 A church historian of the fifth century who is somewhat contempt
uously noticed by Socrates (HE, vii, 27).

144 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
Chronicle we read: 'Papias says in his second book that John the
Divine and James his brother were slain by Jews1.'
As might be expected, tbe statement thus doubly attributed
to the Bishop of Hierapolis has been much in debate. The text
being deemed corrupt, emendations have been offered2; the state
ment, it is affirmed, 'rests on very slender authority3'; one sug
gestion is that the James referred to is not the Apostle but the
brother of the Lord4 and another points from John son of Zebedee
to John the Baptist5. Other scholars prefer to hold their judgement
in suspense: 'it is one of those .statements that we can neither
whoUy trust nor whoUy distrust . . . the evidence . . . does not warrant
a positive assertion either way6.' Less hesitation is manifested in
another quarter: 'with this testimony before us it is not easy to
doubt that Papias made some such statement; if these MSS. are
strictly independent witnesses it is difficult or well-nigh impossible
to doubt that Papias used the words 'lojdvvrj'i. . .viro 'lovSalcov
avripednf) or the like7.' Yet more decidedly: 'UntU some valid
reason is advanced . . . why this doubly attested statement of tbe
martyrdom of James and John may not have stood on the pages
of Papias ... it must be accepted as tbe simple historical fact, in
perfect harmony with the "prophecy" (sc. Mk x, 39) it was ad
duced to confirm8.' And such positive assertions as the following
are on the increase: 'henceforth there is no room for doubt that
Papias did actually state that the Apostle John was slain by Jews9.'
1 De Boor, TU, ti, p. 170. In the Greek: II curias iv ti} Seuripip Xbyq Xiyei
'6ti 'luidvvns 6 deoXbyos Kai 'Id/cu/3os 6 abeXipbs airou into 'loudaltav av-ypitj-qaav .
Papias, of course, could not have made use of the term 6 OeoXbyos. Cf.
Julicher, op. cit. p. 367.
2 Lightfoot, Essays on Supernal. Religion, pp. 211 ff.
3 J. Armitage Robinson, Histor. Character of Fourth Gospel, p. 79.
4 A. V. Green, Ephes. Canonical Writings, p. 23.
5 Zahn, Introd. iii, p. 206. Otherwise Gutjahr (Glaubwiirdigkeit, p. UO)
who, identifying John of Asia with the Apostle, makes the foUowing ad
mission: 'What reader, finding James and John in this conjunction, would
ever have thought that the Baptist was meant, would not at once have
thought of the son of Zebedee?'
6 Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 103.
' Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 378; Apoc. of St John, p. clxxix.
8 B. W. Bacon, Fourth Gosp. in Research and Debate, p. 133.
9 De Boor, op. cit. ti, p. 177. To similar effect Juhcher (op. cit. p. 368);

I. THE DEATH OF JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE 145
A safe conclusion, perhaps, is that the case for the statement
attributed to Papias by 'George the Monk' and Phihp of Side
'seems stronger than is generally acknowledged by conservative
critics1'; nor is it surprising that it be said: 'what must be ex
plained is its (sc. the statement) displacement by the subsequently
dominant tradition of the survival of John2.' Of course Papias
may have blundered. The assumption being that what he is held
to have affirmed is fact, how is the sUence of Eusebius and others
respecting such a fact to be accounted for? A reminder comes
that3 ecclesiastical historians have the knack of suppression, and
it may have point here.
But the case for the aUeged statement gains in strength as
certain notices and aUusions, met with elsewhere, are taken into
consideration. i. To turn first to Clement of Alexandria. In the passage in
question4 he appeals to Holy Scripture in its demands to risk
martyrdom sooner than deny Christ; he proceeds to quote Hera
cleon5 who, says he, affirms that there are two ways of making
confession; he then instances Heracleon' s allusion to some who
had not sealed their faith with their Uves: ef &v MarOaios,
3>tXt7T7ro9, &oafid<;, A.evK Kai aWoi troWoi,.
The distinction between Matthew and Levi, met with now and
again elsewhere, is of no great moment. The one point to fasten
on is the explicit denial of 'red martyrdom' in a context from
which the name of the. Apostle John is absent — he is surely not
relegated to the 'many others.' Clement, it would appear, makes
no demur. Is there much force in the suggestion that, if the Apostle's
Schwartz (Ober den Tod der Sohne Zeb., passim); Schmiedel (Evang. Brief e
u. Offenbarung Joh. p. 7); HeitmuUer (SNT, ii, p. 710); WeUhausen (Das
Evang. Joh. pp. 119 ff.).
1 Scott-Moncrieff, St John Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet, p. 252.
2 B. W. Bacon, op. cit. p. 133. .
3 Bolingbroke, also Bousset. Eusebius, who has no very high opinion
of Papias, may have classed the statement along with other p,u0iKiirepa (HE,
iii, 39). 1 Strom, iv, 9.
5 See Brooke, Extant Fragments of Heracleon, TS, i, iv, p. 102. 10

146 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
name is absent, sufficient explanation is forthcoming in stories
already current as to the Patmos-exUe and the caldron of
boiling oU?
ii. We pass on to the apocryphal Martyrdom of Andrew1.
Here a tale is told of the Apostles meeting in conclave at Jerasalem :
'Wherefore do we delay,' asks Peter, 'to enter upon our work?'
In the event lots are cast, and respective mission-fields are assigned
to each and aU: Kai eKkripcodr) Ylirpos rrjv irepiTOfirjv IaKa>/3o<;
Kai '](odvwt]<; rrjv dvai-o\r\v - <S?C\.nnro<; ras 7roXet? TJ75
%afiapta<; Kai Tr\v ,Acr(,av 
No doubt pure legend. It wiU be observed that, as by Poly
crates2, so here, Phihp the Evangehst is confounded with the
Apostle of the same name. The point is that the words rr/v dva-
toXt/v are in the very teeth of the tradition as to a departure to
and prolonged residence in Asia Minor in the case of the Apostle
John. in. Next comes the Syriac Martyrology3. Dated a.d. 411 and
drawn up at Edessa for the use of the local church, it is based on
an 'Ur-Martyrolog' which Duchesne locates at Nicomedia. It con
tains the foUowing commemorations :
Dec. 27. IwavvTjs Kai Ia«&)/8os oi aTroo-roXoi iv 'lepoo-oXv/j.oi';.
Dec. 28. 'Ei> 'Va>p,rj rfj TroXet HavXos Kai ^vfieoov K^cfxzc; 0
Kopv<f>aio<> t&v diroaroXoov rod K.vpt,ov r/fimv.
Here, as elsewhere, is encountered the popular tradition of a
Church — Edessa; also Nicomedia — in regard to martyrs. The tra
dition is weU founded in the case of Paul, and probably of Peter;
in respect of James it is confirmed by Acts xii, 2. Is there ground
for questioning its vahdity in the case of John the brother of
James ?
It would by no means necessarUy foUow that, because thus
1 Bonnet, Acta Apos. Apocr. n, i, pp. 46 ff. Scholten (Der Apos. Joh. in
Kleinasien, p. 82) speaks of a new feature introduced by Origen in assigning
John's field to Asia.
2 Euseb. HE, iii, 31. Let me here disclaim responsibihty for the 'as by
Gaius' which occurs in my Note (JTS, xviii, p. 30) on the death of John,
son of Zebedee. The words ' as by Polycrates ' stood in the proof revised by
me. 3 Die drei altesten Martyrologien (Lietzmann's Kleine Texte), pp. 8 ff.

I. THE DEATH OF JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE 147
hnked together in the Martyrology, the two brothers suffered at
the same place and date1.
iv. The last witness to be called is Aphrahat2. In his homUy
De Persecutione (dated a.d. 343 or 344) tbe 'Persian Sage' speaks
thus: "Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus. . .to
him foUowed the faithful martyr Stephen whom the Jews
stoned. Simon also and Paul were perfect martyrs. James
and John trod in the footsteps of their Master Christ. Also
other of the Apostles thereafter in divers places confessed,
and proved themselves true martyrs."
The James and John here named are, beyond doubt, the two
sons of Zebedee. Inasmuch as Aphrahat, far from confining him
self to those who had actuaUy yielded up their hves, makes room
for others who had endured suffering, the question might arise
whether — in an aUusion which, possibly, is 'etwas vag3' — John,
by reason of stories whieh had gathered round his name, be not
here simply accorded martyr-rank. Yet the context surely points
the other way; and besides, the closing words of the passage cited
are such as to invite the conjecture that the Apostle died, by actual
martyrdom, a relatively early death.
Of such sort are the four notices and aUusions 4. Weighed in
the balances of critical investigation they might severaUy invite
suspicion; they are of unequal value; the third and the fourth are
perhaps more deserving of credence than the remaining two 5. But
their cumulative effect is strong. Grave doubt is awakened by
them as to the traditional Ephesian residence, the peaceful death in
extreme old age, of the Apostle John. They account, it may be, for
the otherwise incomprehensible attitude of Ignatius ; who, address-
1 Aehelis, Die Martyrologien, pp. 27, 58 ff. Cf. Burkitt, Gospel Hist, and
its Transmission, pp. 253 ff.
2 Bishop of the Monastery of Mar Mathai, MetropoUtan of Nineveh.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, xii, pp. 2, 158, 401 ; TU, iii, pp. 329 ff.
3 Erbes, ZKG, xxxm, ti, p. 203.
4 For some further discussion of them (adverse or otherwise), see int. al.,
J. Armitage Robinson, op. cit. pp. 64 ff. ; J. H. Bernard, Irish Church Quar
terly for Jan. 1908; Clemen, Entstehung des Johannes Evglm. pp. 442 ff.;
Moffat, Intr. NT, pp. 608 ff. ; Bousset, TR, 1905, pp. 225 ff.
5 'The evidence of Heracleon should never have been brought forward,'
A. E. Brooke, DAC, i, p. 626.
10—2

148 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
ing himself to the Ephesian Christians, is content to refer to Paul
whUe he finds not a single word to say of one whose hallowed
memory would — had he actuaUy resided among them — be peculi
arly dear to their hearts1. And they incite to search for some
explicit statement that John son of Zebedee did really and truly
die a martyr's death.
The statement is to hand; in the words which, attributed by
two authorities to Papias, are precisely what the recorded Saying
of Jesus to the brother-pair has prepared the seeker to expect.
It has been hinted that the historicity of the incident narrated
Mk x, 35-40 =Mt. xx, 20-23 does not pass unchaUenged2 Tbe
section is without a Lucan paraUel3; was it absent from the Mk
used by Luke ? if not so absent, did Luke deliberately suppress it
by reason of a stiU hving son of Zebedee, or simply decide to pass
over the whole episode (Mk x, 35-45) whUe transferring the Lord's
words on the subject of humility to the account (Lk. xxii, 24-27)
of what happened at the Last Supper4? The latter alternative is
preferable. Let it then be frankly conceded that the story as told
by Mk (and condensed by Mt.), far from being the verbatim report
of a stenographer, is the embroidered product of a day long sub
sequent to the period to which it points. The main fact to be
reckoned with is that the recorded prediction to tbe brother-pair
is allowed to stand part of it. Would this have been the case had
the prediction been altogether unfulfiUed, or only half-fulfiUed,
when the story went its round 5 ?
On the assumption, scarcely gratuitous, that John son of Zebe
dee met a violent end, a two-fold question is suggested : when and
where did he suffer? Tentative answers must suffice.
When? It has been suggested that the words 'whom Herod
1 Loisy, Quatrieme l£van. p. 6.
2 See on this point Montefiore, Syn. Gospels, i, pp. 257 f. ; also SNT,
i, p. 173 f.
3 Bacon (op. cit. p. 449) writes: 'for which Lk. xxii, 30 significantly
substitutes the logion Mt. xix, 28.'
1 Stanton, op. cit. ii, p. 162.
5 Decided answers in the negative come from WeUhausen (Evang. Marci,
p. 90); HeitmuUer (SNT, ii, p. 710); Forbes, op. cit. p. 166. Yet similar
objection might be raised in the case of the ' unfulfiUed prediction,' Mt. x, 23.

I. THE DEATH OF JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE 149
kiUed1' refer to both the sons of Zebedee; the suggestion is not
easUy reconcUed with the text of Acts xii, 2, nor yet with the vague
aUusion to Papias — which seems to point from Herod Agrippa I
to 'Jews who could not further be specified2.' If the John of Gal.
n, 9 be indeed the Apostle John (and he surely is)3, the date of
Paul's conference with the 'pUlar-apostles' becomes the terminus
a quo ; unless John does actually reappear at Ephesus, which is un
likely, the year of the FaU of Jerusalem might be taken as terminus
ad quem; and this might be pushed somewhat further back if the
Marcan Gospel faUs within the period 'after a.d. 64 but not much
after a.d. 704,' and it be aUowed that the prediction of Jesus was
aheady an accomphshed fact.
To turn to the question of locality. It being allowed, for the
moment, that John did actuaUy make his way to Ephesus5, was
his martyr-death instigated by 'Jews' of Asia Minor as happened
in the case of Polycarp ? The conjecture is precarious 6 ; and besides,
tradition knows nothing whatsoever of a martyred John of Asia.
If the Apostle 'feU a victim to Jewish hate, it was only in Pales
tine that such a fate could have befaUen bim7'; once more, then,
pointed to 'the East' (as by the Martyrdom of Andrew), the aUu
sion Gal. n, 9 is again significant; it suggests that John, extending
the right hand of feUowship to Paul and Barnabas, decides to cast
in his lot with 'the circumcision ' ; when the curtain then and there
faUs on him it is without hint that he wUl one day bid fareweU to
a Palestinian home. An appeal, perhaps, hes to the Muratorian
fragment; John 'seems to be thought of as stUl Uving at
Jerusalem8.' Was it there that, foUowing in his Master's steps
1 See Achalis (op. cit. pp. 21 ff.) on the reading quem, Herodes occidit in
the Martyr. Karthaginiense. 2 EB, ii, col. 2510.
3 Schwartz (op. cit. p. 5) identifies him with John Mark. Liitzelberger
(op. cit. pp. 180, 197) is able to satisfy himself that John's death was prior
to a.d. 60 on the ground that, as he puts it, Paul uses the past tense in his
aUusion to the 'pillars.' 4 SNT, i, p. 67.
5 As maintained by, int. al., Clemen, op. cit. p. 456; PoUdori, / Quattro
Evangelii, p. 240.
8 See on this point Stanton, op. cit. i, p. 167 ; Pfleiderer, Prim. Christianity,
i, pp. 128, 135; Schmiedel, op. cit. p. 8; Adeney, Thess. (CB), p. 10.
7 JuUcher, op. cit. p. 367.
• EB, ii, col. 2511; JuUcher, op. cit. p. 363.

160 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex. I.
(as Aphrahat relates), he gained the crown of martyrdom? Or
must the scene be transferred to Samaria, the date to the year
a.d. 66? So it has recently been contended; with the suggestion
that the tomb stiU shown at Sebaste as that of Nabi Jahja is in
reality that of the Apostle John1.
In fine. If, on the one hand, the venerable tradition to the
effect that John son of Zebedee lived to be an old man and went
down to his grave in peace has support behind it, so, on tbe
other hand, it is plain that, in the fourth century, both in Asia
Minor and in the farther East, a tradition persisted that he had
actuaUy died a martyr's death. To speak, then, of 'the universal
tradition of the Church2' is no longer possible, and it becomes less
and less easy to dismiss as 'altogether untrustworthy3' the story
of the 'Bed martyrdom' of the Apostle John4-
1 By Erbes, op. cit.
2 J. Armitage Robinson, op. cit. p. 79.
3 J. H. Bernard, op. cit. p. 52. See on the whole question A. E. Brooke,
DAC, i, pp. 626 f.
4 Scholten (Der Apos. Joh. in Kleinasien, pp. 127 ff.), refusing to build
on the alleged statement of Papias or the fragment of Heracleon, set aside
the Ephesian residence of the Apostle on independent grounds.

EXCURSUS II
THE BELOVED DISCIPLE
May the veil be lifted which hides the identity of that mysterious
personage whose style and title is: 'the Disciple whom Jesus
loved'? Is he a real man of flesh and blood? If such he be, is he
to be discovered in John son of Zebedee ? If other than the Apostle
John, who is he? That beautiful designation, was it self- bestowed,
or did others confer it on him? So far as the New Testament is
concerned, it is in our Gospel only that he is brought on tbe scene ;
for, apart from a conjecture of which more hereafter, no such per
sonage is met with in tbe earlier Gospels. And again; but for the
Synoptists, it would be impossible to identify the sons of Zebedee
as such; for, once and once only definitely aUuded to in the Fourth
Gospel, it is without specification of their number or their names1.
It wiU be convenient to have before us the references to the
Beloved Disciple as they occur in our Gospel.
Jn xiii, 23 ff. The scene is at The Supper; by reason of the
words of Jesus : ' One of you shaU betray me,' the disciples are in
doubt; it is then said: 'There was at the table reclining in Jesus'
bosom one of his disciples, whom (ov) Jesus loved. Simon Peter
therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, TeU us of whom
he speaketh. He leaning back, as he was, on Jesus' breast saith
unto him, Lord, who is it? '
The manner of the representation is such as to suggest a person
who, peculiarly dear to Jesus, is held by others to be in the inmost
confidences of their Lord.
Jn xviii, 15 ff. The Trial has begun: — Simon Peter, it is said,
'foUowed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple
1 Jn xxi, 2: Kai oi tou Zefiedalou. 'Dass der Lieblingsjiinger gerade ein
Zebedaide sei, ist mit nichts angedeutet,' Alex. Schweizer, op. cit. p. 235.
The aUusions to James and John in Acts are simply decisive for a brother-
pair; who their father was is not told.

162 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into
the court of the high priest: but Peter was standing at the door
without. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high
priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought
in Peter.' The question then is whether he thus vaguely desig
nated (a\Xo<; fia&rjTijs, 6 Be p.adrjTrj'i eKelvos, o p.aQrjTr)^ o aX\.o<?)
be reaUy the Disciple whom Jesus loved or another person.
We remark a conflict of opinion. It is hesitatingly said that
perhaps he is1; the suggestion of an omission or dislocation of the
text is ventured2; a halting verdict, adducing the view of a majority
of Fathers (viz. that the person reaUy is the Beloved Disciple) adds
that 'perhaps they are right3'; of proof, it is said, there is none:
'the inference is simply suggested to the reader's mind in view of
Mk xiv, 334'; if it be admitted that the idea that this disciple is
the Beloved Disciple has prevaUed in the end, and that at the
least it is probable5, it is with no decisive word; quite recently it
has been argued that the unnamed disciple of the section is none
other than Judas Iscariot who lures Peter to his faU6; conjecture
has pointed to one of the nobUity of Jerusalem7. On the other
hand he is more or less boldly identified with the son of Zebedee;
'in aU probability John himself8'; 'the reader cannot faU to identify
tbe disciple with St John9.' Be he so identified or not, the prevalent
view regards him as the Disciple whom Jesus loved — whoever
that disciple may be.
Tbe problem, for such it is, is encompassed with difficulty.
Yet tbe prevalent view bas strong support behind it; not only is
1 'Der andere Jiinger diirfte der Junger sein, den Jesus tiebte,' Heit
muUer, SNT, ti, p. 844.
2 'Es scheint hier etwas zu fehlen oder in Unordnung zu sein,' WeU
hausen, Evang. Joh. p. 82 note.
3 Bauer, Handbuch zum NT, n, ti, pp. 130, 162. In the view of Augustine
(tr. cxtii) the question does not admit of hasty decision, yet he leans to the
identification. Cf. Loisy, op. cit. p. 833. 4 Bacon, op. cit. p. 307.
6 Loisy, op. cit. p. 833. 'Tres vraisemblablement,' Revtile, op. cit. p. 312.
6 E. A. Abbott, Fourfold Gospel, sect, ti ('The Beginning'), pp. 351 f.
The same view was put forward, at a far earUer day, by Caspar Merken and
Heumann. ' See Lampe, Commen. in Evang. Joh. iii, p. 522.
8 McClymont, St John (GB), p. 313.
» Westcott, St John (in loe), and cf. Hastings, DB, ii, p. 781.

II. THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 153
the coupling here, as elsewhere, with Peter suggestive, but there
is another point which perhaps deserves notice : with but one ex
ception, it is only when in the actual company of Jesus that the
nameless disciple is expressly aUuded to as the Beloved Disciple,
whUe in the section now in hand the situation is altogether different.
And besides, the term aXXos p,a6rjTr)<; is again met with Jn xx,
2, 3, 4, 8.
Let us assume that the Beloved Disciple is really meant. In
that case he is evidently a personage of rank and distinction1.
Jn xix, 25 ff. Here the Beloved Disciple is standing at tbe
Cross of Jesus. The Mother of Jesus is entrusted to his charge;
and, to aU appearance, he takes action without delay : ' from that
hour the disciple took her unto his own home? Quite in the manner
of the Fourth Evangehst no word is said of his return to Calvary ;
yet it is safe perhaps to discover him in the crux of commentators :
'he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true : and
he (e'/cetj/o?, some third person) knoweth that he saith true, that
ye also may beheve.'
The inference surely is that he who, having taken Mary to his
own home2 (et? to, Ihia), is quickly back at the Cross, is resident
in, or in the vicinity of, Jerusalem.
Jn xx, 2 ff. The scene is now laid at the Grave of Jesus. Upon
tidings brought by Mary Magdalene 'to Simon Peter, and to the
other disciple whom Jesus loved,' they both ran to the tomb ; of
the 'other disciple' it is said that he 'outran Peter,' and, first to
arrive, looks in yet does not enter; Peter, foUowing, enters the
tomb forthwith: 'then entered in therefore the other disciple also,
which came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed.'
An impression is conveyed, that, as contrasted with Peter, the
'other disciple' (who is the Beloved Disciple) has all the vigour
of youth or early manhood.
Jn xxi, 1-24 (The appendix chapter). Here the story tells of
1 See infra, p. 162, Note 5. ,
2 It must be remembered that the Mother of Jesus may here be an
ideal figure representing Judaism and the Beloved Disciple typical of the
Christian Church. And thus Kreyenbuhl (op. cit. ti. p. 599), 'auch das stabat
mater macht wohl dem Herzen seines Dichters Ehre, hat aber leider in der
Geschichte keinen Grand.'

164 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
a manifestation of the Bisen Lord. Whether one of 'the sons of
Zebedee,' one of the 'two other of his disciples,' or some othef
person, the Beloved Disciple looms large on the scene. He it is
who, recognizing Jesus, says to Peter: 'It is the Lord.' To him
Peter points with the question: 'Lord, and what shaU this man
do?' The reply of Jesus misunderstood, the saying goes abroad:
'that that disciple should not die'; the misunderstanding is then
corrected. Once more the same individual is pointed to: 'This is
tbe disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote
these things : and we know that bis witness is true.'
It shall suffice to say here that the aUusions are of such a nature
as to imply the, perhaps recent, death of the Beloved Disciple.
Beturning to tbe questions proposed at the outset, they shall
be discussed under three heads.
I. Is the beloved disciple a real man of flesh and blood? Nega
tive or hesitating answers come: — it is said that he who is thus
beautifully designated (whether by himself or others) is not a
historical personage, but the ' exquisite creation of a devout imagi
nation1.' And again, he is a type of the perfect Gnostic, spiritual
witness to Jesus2. We are told further that there are features
Which are highly suggestive of an ideal figure which owes its ex
istence to the Evangelist 3 ; that of aU the dramatis personae in our
Gospel not one is so phantasmal as the Beloved Disciple himself,
albeit he is something more than a purely ideal figure, for a Teal
man has sat for the portrait4- As might be expected, opinions are
both numerous and weighty on the other side, where there is no
hesitation in believing that a real historical personage is indicated5.
And there is certainly force in the contention that, whoever the
persons may be who speak xxi, 24 and whatever the value of their
1 EB, iii, col. 3339.
'¦ Loisy, op. cit. pp. 124 ff., 'Les passages de l'Evangile ou l'on croit
retrouver le disciple, et ceux ou il est expUcitement designe, sont loin de
prouver l'historicite de son personnage et son identity avec Papotre Jean.' And
see Scholten, Het Evan, naar Joh. pp. 405 ff., 'den geesteUjken broeder van
Jezus.' Elsewhere (Der Apos. Joh. p. 110), Scholten says that the Disciple
stands before us like another Melchizedek, d-n-dTwp, dfji-firap, dyeveaXbywros.
3 HeitmuUer, SNT, ti, pp. 714 ff. 4 Bacon, op. cit. pp. 319 ff., 325.
5 As a rule the further step is taken of identifying the Beloved Disciple
with the Apostle John.

n. THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 166
testimony on the point of authorship, it would be almost, if not
altogether, incredible that they should be victims of a delusion
and not be aUuding to one who (whatever his identity)1 had actu
aUy lived a real life. Yet the case is not proved to demonstration;
and perchance we must regard the Beloved Disciple 'either as a
purely ideal figure or as the symbolical counterpart of a real per
sonage2.' We wiU content ourselves with saying that, on the one hand,
it is not inconceivable that the portrait is, if somewhat highly
coloured, of a real man, whUe, on the other hand, it is quite possible
that it is of an ideal disciple.
II. Let it be assumed for the sake of the argument that the
Beloved Disciple is a real man. We then ask: is he verUy and
indeed the son of Zebedee? It is, of course, held by many that he
is ; yet adverse voices are raised, there are not a few who are con
vinced that he is not. In the latter case it is nevertheless aUowed
by some that the identification has been drawn aheady, if wrongly,
by the anonymous persons who, xxi, 24, testify to the authorship
of our Gospel.
The question demands lengthy inquiry; and with necessary re
ference to the 'venerable tradition' which brings the Apostle John
to Ephesus. Now, what is recorded in the New Testament of the Apostle
John? With good reason is it urged that a fertile cause of miscon
ception is the habit, inveterate with many, of reading the Gospels
(or hearing them read) as a single work; of preaching or teaching
which, reckless of distinctive features necessitating a division into
groups, is based on a combination of the several narratives3. A
result in the case in hand is that biographies are offered of the
1 'L'identification du disciple bien-aime avec Papotre Jean n'est pas le
fait de Pauteur de xxi,' ReviUe, op. cit. p. 312.
2 E. F. Scott, op. cit. p. 47. In the latter alternative Scott fastens on
Paul. ReviUe (op. cit. p. 317) says of the Beloved Disciple: 'B apparait
comme un etre irreel. . .le disciple ideal qui est sur le sein du Christ, comme
le Christ est sur le sein de Dieu.'
* 'In einer unnaturiichen Einheit,' Baur, Kanon. Evang. p. 63. Cf.
Wernle, Die Quellen, p. 15.

156 THE FOURTH GOSPEL EX.
Apostle John which, aU four Gospels being fused together into a
single wbole, depend for outhne, perhaps, on the Synoptics whUe
the hghts and shades are filled in from the Fourth Gospel. Its
author is boldly identified with the Beloved Disciple and tbe
Beloved Disciple with the son of Zebedee. His circumstances, his
character, are then glibly delineated in terms of writings which
bear the Apostle John's name1.
In the present instance, any such unwarrantable method being
definitely repudiated, resort shaU be had at the outset to the Syn
optic Gospels. It is said of the two brothers James and John that
they respond to the definite caU of Jesus2. Of their father Zebedee
no more is known than that he was a GalUaean fisherman with hired
servants in his employ3; as for their mother it is probably safe to
identify her with Salome4, and, if so, she is sister to the Mother of
Jesus, cousin of EUzabeth, and one of the women who minister
to Jesus of their substance and bring sweet spices to the tomb.
They, James and John, are in partnership with Peter5. They
are present at the heahng of Peter's mother-in-law6. Ordained of
the number of the Twelve, they are surnamed Boanerges7; a de
signation of obscure significance, but interpreted of fiery zeal,
which is not again applied to them. An ambitious request is made
by them8; — according to another version of the story their mother
makes it on their behalf9 — and they learn their destined fate.
Alike they are ready to caU down fire from heaven on inhospitable
Samaritans10, if it be John only who reports to Jesus how he and
the other disciples had dealt with one who, not a foUower with
them, was casting out devUs11. Together with James and Peter he
1 As e.g. by Macdonald, Life and Writings of St John; PoUdori, / Quattro
Evangelii, pp. 26 ff.; Hastings, DB, ti, pp. 680 ff.; Johnston, Philosophy of
the Fourth Gospel, pp. 17 f.; Hitchcock, A Fresh Study of the Fourth Gospel.
2 Mk i, 19. s Mk i, 20.
4 Cf. Mt. xxvii, 56; Mk xvi, 1. * Lk. v, 7,. 10. « Mk i, 29-31', pars.
7 Mk iii, 17. With aUusion to the Hermetic Uterature it is suggested that
the word, compounded of podu and evipyeia, may mean sons, or manifesta
tions, of the Divine voice.
" Mk x, 35 ff. 9 Matt, xx, 20. 10 Lk. ix, 54.
11 Mk ix, 38; Lk. ix, 49. Is it strictly accurate to say that he ' plays no
independent part or special rdle in the Synoptic tradition'? Moffatt, op. cit.
p. 565.

II. THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 157
is included in a sort of inner circle within the 'Apostohc CoUege';
he is present at the raising of Jairus' daughter1 ; he is a witness of
the Transfiguration2; he is one of those who ask when events pre
dicted are to come to pass3. But once is he found in the sole com
pany of Peter — when sent by Jesus to prepare the Paschal meal4.
Present, so it may be inferred, at the Last Supper, he is certainly
in the Garden of Gethsemane5. Nowhere is he again alluded to
by name in the Synoptic Narrative.
To pass from the Synoptics to Acts. John's name stands third
('Peter and James and John') on the hst of the Eleven who are
assembled, with others, in the Upper Boom6- With Peter, who
takes the lead, he is at the Gate Beautiful when tbe lame man is
made to walk7. With Peter he is imprisoned and brought before
the Sanhedrin: whUe Peter is spokesman, there is equal 'boldness'
on the part of John, the two are equaUy accounted 'unlearned and
ignorant men8.' With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria on
a mission of inspection9. When next aUuded to by name, and for
the last time, it is simply in connexion with bis brother's martyr
dom; Herod 'kiUed James the brother of John with the sword10.'
To turn from Acts to the Epistle to the Galatians. According
to Paul's statement, James (the 'Lord's brother'), Cephas (Peter)
and John (surely the Apostle John), 'the three leading apostles,'
are in repute as ' PUlars ' of the Jerusalem Church u Whether John
be of the stricter school of James or of the less conservative school
of Peter there is httle if anything to determine; his behef, it seems,
is that his own mission field is circumscribed. He aUows that to
Paul and Barnabas a divine caU has come to labour among the
gentUes, and he extends to them the right hand of feUowship. As
for himself, it would appear that he is content to stay on where be
is, and to devote aU his energies to 'the circumcision12.'
1 Mk v, 37, pars. 2 Mk ix, 2, pars. 3 Mk xiii, 3.
4 Lk. xxii, 8. 6 Mk xiv, 33; Matt, xxvi, 36.
« Acts i, 13. ' Acts iii, 1 ff. 8 Acts iv, 1, 3, 8, 13.
2 Acts viii, 14. 'Eine Art KontroUe,' von Dobschiitz, Das Apos. Zeitalter,
p. 39. 10 Acts xii, 2.
a Gal. ii, 9. Schwartz's contention that the John of Paul's allusion was
'John whose surname was Mark' has been noted elsewhere.
12 Gal. ii, 9. See Scholten, Het Evan, naar Joh. p. 410.

158 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
And so the curtain falls on the son of Zebedee. Except on the
venturesome assumption that the Apocalypse was penned by him,
his name never again occurs in the pages of the New Testament.
Of direct New Testament information respecting him there being,
then, no further word1, it shaU now be asked: how does the case
stand with the personality of the Apostle John as revealed in the
sparse and fragmentary notices which have been instanced?
He is a Galilaean fisherman. In aU probabUity younger than
bis brother James, he comes of a family which, if prosperous, is
of the like stratum of society as that of Peter; if his mother be
Salome he is kin to Jesus, with connexions in the priestly caste2.
His home by tbe Sea of GalUee, he has at least received the educa
tion provided by the Synagogue schools of the locality3', whUe, in
view of the circumstances, he can doubtless make himself suffi
ciently understood in Greek4. He throws in his lot with Jesus, and
is included in the number of ' the Twelve ' ; zealous for his Master's
cause and honour, his good qualities have been marked by the
penetrating gaze of Jesus5, and his admission to the 'inner circle'
tells of high regard which he had gained. Yet grave faults and
defects of character are discerned in him; scarcely loveable by
nature, he is impetuous and intolerant, not to say vindictive ; his
ambitions are self-centred, he faUs to rise to spiritual concep
tions 6 ; if importance be attachable to order of sequence, there is
1 ' We fail to reaUse how seldom St John the son of Zebedee appears in
the Synoptists,' von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 433.
2 Cf. Lk. i, 5, 36. According to Chrysostom (In Joan. Hom. i) the family
was wretchedly poor.
3 For some notice of the opportunities within the reach of GaUlaean
boys, see J. B. Mayor, Ep. of James, pp. xU ff. When it is said of Peter and
John that they were 'unlearned and ignorant men' the phrase simply means
that they were not trained theologians by profession. Cf. Delff, Rabbi Jesus,
p. 76. The twelfth century Byzantine monk Euthymius Zigabenus (see
Ammon, op. cit. i, p. 76), with a view to accentuating John's later marveUous
theological attainment, makes out that he had been an ignoramus (iravTeX&s
ISiwttjs fjv) in the fuU sense of the word.
4 There was a considerable Greek-speaking element in the population
of Galilee. Cf. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des 4 Evglms.
5 Cf. Reuss, Geschichte der HS des NT, p. 215, 'Jesus muss tiefer gebhckt
haben, etc'
6 Joh. Weiss commenting (SNT, i, p. 172) on Mk x, 35, finds the story

H. THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 169
significance in the fact that, as a rule1, he is named last among
those who form the 'inner circle' or who are 'pUlars' in repute. He
is not only associated with but paired with Peter; the latter being,
by comparison, the man of speech and action. A leading personage
in the Church at Jerusalem, he, by this time surely getting on in
years2, can indeed join in bidding Paul God-speed3, but he himself
is plainly representative of Judaistic Christendom. He thereupon
vanishes from the scene ; what if it be really true that he reappears
at Ephesus? In that case much, let it be conceded, may have
happened with the lapse of time; as with many another, so, per
haps, with John. Self-discipline may have eradicated earlier faults
and feehngs; his character wiU have been refined and sweetened;
an impending catastrophe may have startled him to reflexion;
Pauline influences, it might be said, have told on him, and by con
sequence, there are larger sympathies and a broader mind4. A
new career, in short, may open out for bim when, as the 'venerable
tradition' has it, he says a last farewell to Jerusalem5 — the Holy
City soon to be, or aheady, encompassed by the Boman legions.
He may have left bis past behind him when he set foot in Asia
Minor; and then the change of scene may issue in the altered man.
Years go by, and higher quahties and faculties might be developed
in him which, perhaps aheady latent, had not as yet been recog
nized by others or so much as suspected by himself. In the event
it might come about that he is had in memory as verUyand indeed
the Beloved Disciple and reputed author of the Gospel which bears
John's name6.
reminiscent of some unpopularity which attached to the memory of the sons
of Zebedee. 1 There are remarkable exceptions, cf . Lk. ix, 28 ; Acts xii, 2.
2 The inference is that both John and James had reached full manhood
when they responded to the caU of Jesus, whtie the date of Paul's visit to
Jerusalem was some twenty years and more subsequent to the Crucifixion.
3 Yet Wrede (Paulus, p. 43) remarks: 'IJber ein Schiedlich-friedtich kam
es doch nicht hinaus. Die Einigung bedeutete zugleich Trennung.'
4 'Konnte er nicht von Paulus lernen und ihn noeh uberschreiten ? ',
De Wette, op. cit. ii, p. 233.
5 Upholders of the 'venerable tradition' (as e.g. PoUdori, op. cit. p. 240)
are at a loss to fix a date for John's aUeged departure from Judaea and arrival
in Asia Minor.
* 'Das der Johannes der Gal. ti auftritt das Evglm. nicht geschrieben,

160 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
It must nevertheless be admitted that the Johannine portrait
of the Beloved Disciple has but few features in common with that
of the Synoptic John. But further inquhy is necessitated; and the
question now is: What is related of him who, surviving to extreme
old age at Ephesus, is in course of time positively identified with
John son of Zebedee? The New Testament being sUent, the region
of 'somewhat fragmentary tradition1' must be explored.
As a group of stories run, he knows what it is to suffer perse
cution. The scene laid before the Latin Gate at Bome, he emerges,
uninjured, from the caldron of boning oil into which he has been
plunged by cruel men2. He drinks of tbe fatal hemlock-cup, but
the poison leaves him unharmed. Condemned to exUe, he is ban
ished to the Isle of Patmos; returning thence to Asia, he is ruler
of the churches3. Other stories are connected with bis asserted '
long residence at Ephesus. He seeks out, and reclaims, the robber-
youth 4; Cerinthus discovered by bim in the pubhc baths, he forth
with rushes out, and bids others likewise flee lest the bath fall in
upon that enemy of the truth5. It is said that he had worn tbe
high-priestly 'petalon6, ' and that he had brought back the dead
to life 7 To the huntsman astonished by finding him playing with
his tame partridge his long since proverbial reply is that the 'bow
cannot always be bent8 ' ; when the Ephesian elders ask him to pen
his Gospel he, by sudden inspiration, gives utterance to its opening
words 9. He sets forth what has been beautifuUy caUed ' his last wiU
and testament10 ' with that reiterated ' Little ChUdren, love one an-
kann unbedenkUch zugegeben werden. Aber muss er derselbe gebUeben
sein...?' Reuss. op. cit. p. 215. Scholten (op. cit. p. 410), raising similar
questions, adds significantly: 'Op zich zelf ware dit mogeUjk, maar is dit
ook waarschijnUjk?' 1 Hastings, DB, ii, p. 681.
2 TertuUian. In the calendar, May 6th: St John E. ante Port. Lat.
According to Jerome he emerged nihil passus; purior et vegetior exiverit quam
intraverit. 3 Euseb. HE, iii, 18, 23. 4 Ibid, iii, 23.
5 Irenaeus. Euseb. iii, 28, iv, 14. « Euseb. HE, iii, 31.
' Ibid, v, 18. Cf. Traub, Die Wunder im NT, pp. 45 f. Schwegler (op. cit.
p. 155) suggests the spiritual death and resurrection of the robber youth.
8 Cassianus. For a fable near akin to the story see Herodotus, ti, 173.
9 Jerome, De vir. iUustr.
10 Lessing (Das Testament Johannis) says that not the prologue to the
Gospel, but the touching words of John are worthy to be set up in letters
of gold where they may be read of all men.

n- THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 161
other' which wearies his hearers, who are then reminded by him
that it was the Lord's command1. He is said to be ever virgin2.
Death has no power over bim; in bis grave he goes on sleeping; a
strange movement of the ground caused by the sleeper's breathing
is witnessed by visitors to bis tomb3.
It may occur to some that such 'fragmentary tradition' is very
near akin to if it be not altogether sheer fiction. The admission
must, of course, be made that for some of the stories there is but
slight authority, whUe it has been rightly affirmed of others that
'they are alien not only to the simplicity of Apostolic times, but
to tbe reasonableness of Christianity itself4.' It does not follow
that they are one and aU the mere creations of pious credulity; and
very likely they now and again point to actual event or incident
in the hfe of some real personage ; that real person being (as those
wbo originaUy told the stories or who to-day uphold the ' venerable
tradition' are ahke firmly persuaded) John, Apostle and Evange
list, disciple whom Jesus loved.
The stage has now been reached for instituting a comparison
between the Synoptic John son of Zebedee and the Johannine
Beloved Disciple who is said to have survived to extreme old age
at Ephesus. And it shaU be borne in mind that the solitary aUu
sion in the Fourth Gospel to the sons of Zebedee is without mention
of their number or their names ; if they are among the little com
pany to whom Jesus manifests himself at the Sea of Tiberias, there
is no single word to indicate that their relations with Jesus have
been singularly close. The Fourth Evangehst apparently knows
nothing of any 'inner circle,' whUe he is curiously reticent, and,
as some think, disparaging, in his notices of 'The Twelve5.'
To begin with, the Synoptic John is a fisherman. It by no
means foUows that, because the Beloved Disciple is found ( Jn xxi)
1 Jerome, Epis. ad Gal. 2 Monarch. Prol.
3 Augustine, Tract, in Joh. 124.
4 Stanley, Sermons on the Apos. Age.
5 HeitmuUer (SNT, ii, p. 714) writes: ' OffensichtUch behandelt er die
kanonisch gewordenen Z wolf -apostel mit einer gewissen Geringschatzung.'
According to Scholten (Der Apos. Joh. in Kleinasien, pp. 91 f.) he goes
further than Paul and Luke in representing the inadequacy of the apostolate
of the Twelve. And see W. F. Loman. op. cit. pp. 24 ff.
j. u

162 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
in the company of fishermen, he is therefore of the same trade
himself; and besides, he may be one or other of the two unnamed
disciples1, conceivably he is an eighth person2. There is at least
the possibility that, far from being an artisan, he is the leisured
man of means.
Again. If well-to-do and with relatives among the priesthood,
the family of which John is a member is in no way sociaUy removed
above that of Peter. True that the following of a trade was not
only no social barrier but enjoined by Jewish custom, yet it is
certainly suggestive that a term (yvtoo-TO?) which may imply rela
tionship3 with the High priest is used of the Beloved Disciple. An
impression is in any case conveyed that the latter, evidently quite
at home in exalted circles4, is Peter's superior in rank5.
Thirdly. The son of Zebedee of the Synoptics is coupled with
Peter as is also the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel. Ad
mitting that the coincidence is too striking6 to be ignored, it is
not inconceivable that there were occasions on which Peter was
accompanied, not by John, but by another, and far younger, at
tached friend. The latter, in that case, is the Beloved Disciple; and
he, to all appearance, is John's junior by many years.
Another point. John is one of 'the Twelve.' Not so, it would
seem, is the Beloved Disciple.
In the fifth place. The Beloved Disciple stands by tbe Cross
of Jesus, and is, apparently, witness of the closing scenes. Scarcely
so John; the statement Mk xiv, 50 is strongly suggestive of his
1 Godet discovers in them John the Presbyter and Aristion. Cf. Holtz
mann, Evglm. des Joh. p. 226.
2 Seven persons only being specified in the narrative.
3 So Delff. The possibility is allowed by Holtzmann (op. cit. p. 23), and
E. G. King (Interpreter, v, p. 170). But see E. A. Abbott, op. cit. p. 356;
also Westcott, St John, p. 255. 'Connu ou parent du grand pretre,' Calmes.
op. cit p. 426.
4 The assumption here is that he is the a\\os /iiaflijrijs of Jn xviii, 15 ff,
5 But cf. Sanday, op. cit. p. 101. Yet if there be any question of the
'servants' hall,' Peter surely has to wait there while his companion as evi
dently has the entree which admits him to the presence. And see Swete.
JTS, xvii, pp. 372 f. Thus Jerome (Ep. cxxvti, 5): Unde et Jesus Johannem
Evangelistam amabat plurimum: qui propter generis nobilitatem erat notus
pontifici. c See Sanday's forcible remarks on this point, op. cit. p. 107,

il- THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 163
absence. He might, indeed, have overcome his fears; yet even
then his place would be with those who (Lk. xxiii, 49) 'stood afar
off.' Next. The conjecture is not far-fetched that the Beloved Dis
ciple is a dweUer in or near Jerusalem. There is nothing to suggest
a hke inference in the case of John; his fixed abode is evidently
in Galilee. A last consideration; it relates to type of character. As for
the Beloved Disciple, he is slow to speak; whatever may have
been the case with John at a later period, in the days when he
companies with Jesus he is scarcely reluctant to give vent to his
thoughts. WhUe on both sides there are features which testify to
devotion to the Lord and Master, with the one it endures to tbe
end, and with the other it faUs with the test. There are singularly
unpleasant traits in John ; not so with the Beloved Disciple, even
if the conjectured real man was by no means the placid and effemi
nate personage of conventional representation. There is little diffi
culty in recognizing the latter when tbe scene is shifted from
Palestine to Asia Minor; on the contrary, there are vivid remin
ders of him in the 'fragmentary tradition'; far less easy is it to
discover in the stories told of ' John of Ephesus ' the son of Zebedee.
John, in days gone by, has attained to prominence at Jerusalem ;
it might be tempting to suppose that, president of the churches of
Asia, it is the self-same John who is once again in renown. As for
the Beloved Disciple, he is evidently quite at home in a Greek-
speaking community; the conjecture, then, might be that he who,
in earher hfe, had at least a smattering of Greek has become
familiar with the language as the years go by. Two of the legen
dary stories are, it may be, reminiscent of the 'son of thunder' of
the Synoptic Narrative. There is a touch of John's impetuosity
in the sharp rebuke administered to the bishop who has failed in
his duty to the robber-youth; of his intolerance in tbe tale told of
one wbo rushes from tbe public baths because of tbe detested
presence of Cerinthus1
1 If it be really the Beloved Disciple who penned the Third of the Johan
nine Epistles, the sharp allusion to Diotrophes (vv. 9, 10) might be to the
point. Cf. Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Prim. Church, pp. 221 f.

164 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
To sum up. Upon the one hand there is, no doubt, something
to be said for the time-honoured belief which identifies John son
of Zebedee with 'John of Ephesus.' The pairing with Peter is of
significance ; on both sides there is acknowledged leadership ; if the
one be the man of means the other is weU -to-do; priestly connexions
may be fairly adduced; stress may, unquestionably, be laid on
intimate relations with Jesus. Yet upon the other hand there is
something, and it is a larger something, which goes far to shake
the behef to its foundations. There is no escape from impressions
as to difference of social status. As for the Apostle John, he is
brought on the field at a comparatively early date; not untU a
later period does the Beloved Disciple stand in full view1. The
latter is evidently a Jerusalemite ; the former is as evidently a
Galilaean. The one, constant to the end, is at the Cross of Jesus;
John, it would appear, is not there. And besides: 'All tbe depth
of insight and fervour of love which we connect with the name of
John belong to the Beloved Disciple and not, so far as we know,
to the son of Zebedee2.'
The conclusion here is (and it is arrived at quite independently
of evidence relative to the Apostle John's early death by martyr
dom) that, if a real person, the Beloved Disciple is not John bro
ther of James and one of 'The Twelve3.'
III. Who, then, is he, this anonymous disciple whom Jesus
loved? Truly it is difficult to see in him 'even a glorified son of
Zebedee4,' if only because the Ephesian residence of the latter is
incapable of proof. Needs must be to look in other quarters ; and,
as guess-work alone is possible, there is small prospect of rewarded
search. Inconceivable as it may be — conjecture has fastened on 'the
man of Kerioth5.' Not only is the Beloved Disciple identified with
1 He has been discovered, and perhaps rightly, in the nameless disciple
of Jn i, 35-40. See below. 2 Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 373.
3 As against Percy Gardner (Ephes. Gospel, p. 69). In any case the time
has long gone by for inabtiity to identify the Beloved Disciple with John the
Apostle to be airily dismissed by reviewers (e.g. Marcus Dods, British
Weekly, Dec. 13, 1906) as a 'modern fad.'
4 Bacon, op. cit. p. 319.
5 Noack, Geschichte Jesus (Publ. 1876).

n. THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 165
'the traitor' of Gospel representation1, but, with large deductions
made from it, Judas Iscariot is presumed to be author of the
Fourth Gospel. He and he only has entered into the Master's
mind and purposes ; he plays into the hands of Jesus in the deed
for which tradition has vilified his name2. So runs the theory;
but, quite apart from what to many is its offensiveness, it breaks
down at two points. To begin with, in the narrative Jn xiii, 21 ff.,.
Judas and the Beloved Disciple are plainly two distinct personages.
And again, the latter is not a member of the 'Apostohc College';
the former is certainly an Apostle, and, it may be, ' tbe first or the
chief of tbe Twelve3.'
With far greater attractiveness does conjecture fix on the per
son aUuded to in the recorded Saying (Jn i, 47): 'Behold, an
Israelite indeed in whom is no guile4.' Views have, no doubt, been
entertained that the portrait is reaUy that of Paul6; it might
readily be aUowed that, were the Fourth Gospel alone available
as guide, the choice would soonest faU on the Nathaniel6 who,
introduced by PhUip to Jesus, reappears with others (Jn xxi, 2) at
the Sea of Tiberias. He is quite the type of person to be dear to
the Master's heart; is he, then, the man we are seeking? There is
this difficulty; the latter is a Jerusalemite, Nathaniel is 'of Cana
in GalUee.' Interesting in any case is the suggestion which, not content with
bare admissions of a contingency7, bids seekers turn with confidence
to the famUy at Bethany. 'Some of the conditions are,' no doubt,
'satisfied by Lazarus'; according to the Fourth Gospel representa-
1 The hypothesis lies behind some pages of a work by the Russian novehst
Leonid N. Andreyev of which » translation has been pubhshed (Judas
Iscariot) by W. H. Lowe.
2 The representations of Judas constitute an enigma, and De Quincey's
Essay on the subject is stiU much to the point.
3 In an interesting paper (JTS, xviii, pp. 32 ff.), A. Wright, remarking on
Mk xiv, 10 — where Judas is caUed 6 eh twv dihdeKa — advances the view that
6 els is HeUenistic Greek for b vpwTos.
• So Spaeth and Rovers. And cf. Jiilicher, op. cit. p. 370; E. F. Scottr
op. cit. p. 47.
5 So Holtzmann and HUgenfeld. Cf. Rom. ii, 28 f.
6 Cf. Gutjahr, Glaubwurdigkeit, etc., p. 184.
' Ibid. 'Selbst Lazarus ware nicht ausgeschlossen.' 11—3

166 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
tion he might be regarded as a man of means (xii, Iff.); his home
is within easy reach of Jerusalem1; it is emphaticaUy stated (xi,
3, 6, 36) that Jesus loved him2. The coincidences are striking;
nor need we wonder that, with abundant variety of detail and
suggestion, it should be vigorously affirmed in two quarters 3 that
he is the Beloved Disciple. Yet the question arises whether tbe
Lazarus of the beautiful Johannine story be an actual historical
personage, or, in part at aU events, tbe creation of the Fourth
Evangehst — buUt up, perhaps, on Synoptic references to ' a certain
beggar' (Lk. xvi, 20) and (Lk. x, 38 ff.) to a sister-pair. The real
personage admitted4, it is stiU not easy to conceive of any chain
of circumstances which would have converted Lazarus of Bethany
into the #60X070?, the leader of Greek Christianity who survived
under tbe name of John to the end of the first century5.
A Jew of Jerusalem the Beloved Disciple is; had he belonged
to the Sadducaean party? Had he been himself a priest6? If so,
a conjecture might be that he is the John found in the Sanhedrin
(Acts iv, 5 f.) together with others 'of the kindred of the high
priest.' The theme of somewhat venturesome speculation, he is
discovered in the 'certain young man' Mk xiv, 51 1, who momen
tarily appears at the Arrest'. Another suggestion (it has been
alluded to in ch. x) is that he is the Aristion who is coupled by
Papias with ' John the Presbyter.'
Yet one more conjecture. As baldly stated8, it amounts to this,
that albeit the Synoptists know nothing of a disciple specially be
loved by Jesus, they nevertheless agree in relating how there came
1 Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 374.
2 8v <piXels, -qydira di 6 'I-rjo-., irias iipiXei abTov. The significance of the
Greek verbs is discussed further on.
3 See a paper (Guardian of 19 Dec. 1906) by my friend the Rev. W. K.
Fleming, B.D., who now informs me that he is possessed of additional proof.
The second reference is to Zwickendraht, Schweiz. theol. Zeitschrift, 1915,
ii, pp. 49 ff. For a rejoinder, by Steck, see Schw. TZ, xxxiii, 1916, pp. 91 ff.
Kreyenbuhl goes on to identify Lazarus with Menander.
4 His portrait, as Eleazar, is somewhat fantastically drawn by the Russian
noveUst already instanced, and in the same work. Browning's poem is, of
course, familiar to every reader.
5 Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 374.
6 Cf. Burkitt, Gosp. Hist. p. 248. ' Erbes, op. cit.
8 By the present writer some dozen years ago.

ii. THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 167
a certain young man to him with an anxious question1, while it is
expressly recorded by one (Mk) that ' Jesus looking upon him loved
him' ; the suggestion thereupon foUows that he who then and there
made 'the great refusal' may have become ere long not the dis
ciple only, but tbe devoted friend of Jesus. As elaborately worked
out2, the conjecture discovers the young man of rank and learning
at an earlier period; be has come under the Baptist's influence;
for one day, it may be, he has been a foUower of Jesus ( Jn i, 19-28) ;
again in Peraea he, half a disciple already, is impressed greatly
by the Master's act and words in the Blessing of the httle children;
he puts his question; he goes away sorrowful, yet, dwelUng on the
look of love, he is aheady potentiaUy the disciple he is destined
soon to be. Himself the good-man of the house (Mk xiv, 14), he
welcomes the httle company to a lordly room: naturaUy present
at the Supper, his place as naturaUy is very near to Jesus. Buler
(Lk.) that he is, it might weU foUow that he is an acquaintance if
not a relation of the high priest; hence the ease with which Peter
is admitted by him to the presence-chamber. Like bis friends
Nicodemus and Joseph he is drawn nearer to Jesus in the closing
scene; whUe others are afar off he — the young man — stands with
the women at the Cross; Mary is led by him to his adjacent home;
at the burial he shares, perhaps, the charitable work of embalm
ment with his. two above-named friends. He runs with Simon
Peter to the empty tomb. He figures once again in the appendix
to the Gospel ( Jn xxi) ; not the son of Zebedee, he is surely included
in the phrase: 'two other of bis disciples.'
The conjecture, broadly taken, is a tempting one. This, at the
least, might be urged in its support; it 'answers better to the re
quirements of the case' than does that which points so confidently
to Lazarus. And again, of the rich young man who was a ruler ' who
shaU say that Christ's love did not avaU to bring him back? or
that on his return he may not have attached himself to Jesus with
a fervour and whole-beartedness which justified the Lord's im
mediate recognition of his worth 3 ' ?
1 Mk x, 17 ff. = Mt. xix, 16 ff. = Lk. xviii, 18 ff.
2 In an exceedingly suggestive paper by E. G. King, Interpreter, Jan. 1909,
pp. 167 ff. 3 Swete, JTS, xvii, p. 374.

168 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex.
Non liquet. Conjecture may follow on conjecture, but of con
clusive proof there is none; perhaps no last word is possible. That
he is a real person is far from certain. If real person be be be is
not — so we venture to decide — the son of Zebedee. Otherwise the
veil which hides the identity of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'
refuses to be drawn.
Once more proceeding on the assumption that he is not simply
an ideal figure, let us ask in conclusion : is he himself, or are others,
responsible for that 'phrase of blessed memory1' which, so it has
been said, is not expressive of tbe devotion of the disciple but of a
preference by which he was distinguished by his Lord2?
If he himself it be, he has certainly gone the right way to con
ceal his own identity. Never is the designation used by bim in
tbe first person ; nowhere in the Gospel is there anything equivalent
to an ' I am be ' ; whUe search is vain in tradition for hint, let alone
statement, that, if alluded to as the Beloved Disciple, it was be
cause he was so wont to allude to himself. Looking to the manner
of the Johannine representation — 'one of his disciples,' 'the dis
ciple,' 'the other disciple,' 'that disciple' — the inference is not
exactly far-fetched that some third person is throughout respon
sible for the designation.
It may be so. Assuming, if only for the moment, that he is
really author of (or authority for) the Fourth Gospel, a further
inference might be weU founded that the Johannine sections in
which he figures are coloured by a redactor's hand. The question
at once arises : how had it come about that men spoke of him as
the disciple beloved by Jesus? And there is yet another important
consideration ; for here inquhy is suggested as to the precise mean
ing of the phrase: 'whom Jesus loved.' 'Loved' — with what sort
of love ? No answer is forthcoming from the twice-repeated Gospel
allusion: 'reclining in Jesus' bosom,' 'which also leaned back on
his breast at the Supper'; the phrase came, no doubt, to be inter
preted of devoted attachment as between master and disciple, yet
it might simply mean that, host for the occasion, the latter's place
1 Luthard, St John's Gospel, i, p. 95.
2 Weizsacker, Apos. Age, ii, p. 207. The latter part of the statement, as
may appear below, is open to question.

"• THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 169
of honour was next to that of Jesus1. Neither is it safe to draw
conclusions from the term 'loved,' when the question is of two
Greek words2 which, not necessarily of diverse connotation, are
indifferently used of tbe disciple. Unique and distinctive tbe love
might indeed be, yet not so much in respect of quality as in manner
of appreciation3. It might be added, not in anything exceptional
in the manner of its display; for aptly has it been urged4 that he
who discouraged aU tendency to jealousy in those who foUowed
him would scarcely have singled out one of them as, above all the
others, object of regard and love. What — a supposition hard to
entertain — if he bad reaUy done so? It would be altogether in
credible that such a type of man as the Beloved Disciple should,
with unpardonable lack of modesty5, not only glory in the fact,
but go on to publish it abroad ! How does the case stand with
Paul? If (Gal. U, 20) he can say: 'Who loved me,' he surely
would have shrunk instinctively from vain-glorious self -description
as the disciple beloved by Jesus.
1 A time, no doubt, came when (as, e.g., in Eusebius) the phrase was
invested with more than technical significance, and the term einarljdios
later on apphed by Photius, Ephraim, and Dienysius Areo. (see Suieer)
signifies a 'bosom friend.' There is an interesting parallel, Cicero, Ad Fam.
xiv, 4, 3; Isle (sc. the younger Cicero) sit in sinu semper et complexu meo.
Hitchcock, by the way, is in error when, citing Euseb. HE, v. 24, he writes
(op. cit. p. 47, note): 6 i-n-iaTijoios; the phrase as it there stands is: 6 eirl
Tb <TTT]d0S tou Kup. dvairetribv.
2 It is surely a case of over-refinement when Westcott (op. cit. onjnxi, 2, 5)
differentiates between the bv <j>iXeis placed in the mouth of the sisters and
the riydira of the reference to Jesus. And besides, the use of the latter verb
is not invariable when the subject is the Beloved Disciple (see Jn xx, 2, Sc
iipiXei). Nor is this aU; as E. G. King (op. cit.) remarks, the former verb is
found in a connexion where, on Westcott's hypothesis, the latter verb might
be expected: b yap irar-^p tpiXet rbv ulbv k.t.X. ( Jn v, 20), while Gen. xxxvii, 3 f.
(lxx) both verbs are used for the same Hebrew word. Yet a distinction is
met with in Homer: obb" dya-n-a^bpsvoi QCXiouo-' (Od. vii, 33).
3 Thus Lampe (op. cit. iii, p. 60): Procul dubio Joannes de amore Jesu
ex effectu judicans, se magnopere a Jemi amari inde colligit, quoniam vehementi
erga Jesum affectu se incensum ac repletum esse sentit.' A remark of which
Hengstenberg (op. cit. ti, p. 372) says that it is 'mehr schimmend als wahr.'
4 By Dr E. G. King.
5 For objection on this point see, int. al., Wernle, Qudlen, p. 27; Hilgen-.
feld, Einl. p. 732; von Soden, Early Christian Liter, p. 435; HeitmiiUer, SNT,
ii, p. 711.

170 THE FOURTH GOSPEL ex. ii.
Yet it is at least within the bounds of reasonable conjecture
that the Beloved Disciple of the Johannine representation may
have had special ground for dwelling on a love which, freely ex
tended to and shared by others, had left a deep and lasting im
pression on his mind. And perhaps it is just here that tbe Fourth
Gospel itself goes near, certainly not all the way, to identifying him
with the rich young ruler of the Synoptics. If the latter he reaUy
be, he has experienced the searching look of love of Jesus; and
impressed by it at the time, tbe memory of it is ineffaceable. It
remains with him, ever deepening, to the end of life. Perhaps he
now and again spoke of it, if only to his more intimate friends1.
If there be force in the conjecture, the choice rests between
two alternatives in respect of tbe Beloved Disciple sections of the
Fourth Gospel. On the one hand, they may be attributed to the
enigmatical personage himself, who, from motives of delicacy, has
had resort to ambiguity; and if in after times a significance not
intended by him was read into tbe designation, it is not be wbo is
responsible for the mistake2. On the other hand it is quite con
ceivable that they are the additions of another and a later pen;
and if so it must be the pen of men who, having enjoyed the dis
ciple's inmost confidences, and heard him discourse on a topic very
near to his heart, make him live in the Fourth Gospel as 'the
disciple whom Jesus loved.'
In any case his identity, assuming that he was a real personage
and not an ideal figure, remains unrevealed.
1 It is suggested by E. IUff Robson that some merely technical signi
ficance (suggesting the official Unk between the Master and his School) may
attach to the term ' beloved disciple,' and he instances the relation in which
Crito stood to Socrates. The suggestion does not seem to fit the case under
consideration. 2 'It is not impossible,' writes Plummer ('St John' in Cambr. Gk Test.
p. xxxiv), that the designation was given him by others before he used it of
himself.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

y.::';:yyyy:.^-'.::;-^'-y''M•V:v::"i;.i,'.;-..; ¦• ;77;J A' :7,y:;."K .7777 77

7A''-;'i777H7 7 - -
l7^3A*-:,77iA?77
¦ y ':yy«yy>-
.77.7777:.. 77777. s.,<-