^,I.I.I.I.I,I.I,I.I,I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.1.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I,I.I,I.I.I.M.I.I.1,I,I.I.!.I,I.I.I,I,T.I.1,I,I.I.M.I,I,',T

Library of the
H?ale Divinity Scbool

The Books of
flranfc Gbamberlain porter
Winkley Professor of
Biblical Theology

m^mmi^^m^nMm^m^mBmm

The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse.

M. W. BAKER.

The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse,

MARION W. BAITER.

Accepted by the Faculty of_ Wabash College as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy, June, 1895.

CKAWFOKDSVILLE :
The Journal Co., Printers,
1895.

CONTENTS.
/ •  PAGE.
I. Statement of the Question  5
1. The Main Question.
2. Related Questions.
3. Importance of the Discussion.
II. Historical Resume  5
1. Range and Character of the Argument.
2. Present State of the Problem. *
III. Synopsis of Evidence ... 10
1. External.
2. Internal.
IV. Table of Critical Opinion . 17
Examination of Arguments from Internal Evidence.
V. Stylistic Argument ...'.. 17
1. Languages of Palestine.
2. Characteristics of New Testament Writers.
VI. Stylistic Comparisons between, the Gospel and the
Apocalypse  20
1. Limitation of Evidence from Diction.
2. Parallelism and Repetition in the Gospel.
3. Symbolism and Connectives in the Apocalypse.
VII. Historical Argument  '.  27
1. Scenes, Discourses, Events and Duration of Christ's
Ministry.
2. The Person of Christ.
3. The Day of Christ's Death.
iTIII. Psychological Argument. . . 31
1. Discourses of Jesus in the Synoptics and in the
Fourth Gospel.
2. Sameness of Style throughout the Gospel.
3. The Galilean Fisherman and the Philosophical
Evangelist.
4. The "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved" and the "Son of
Thunder."
5. The Author of the Gospel and the Author of the
Apocalypse.
IX. Conclusion ... 36
X. Summary .... 37
XI. Bibliography . . 39

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND
THE APOCALYPSE.
Statement of the Question.
The main question to be here investigated is the author
ship of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. Inseparably
connected with this are such incidental questions as those of
the time, place and occasion of the origin of these writings,
their relation to the epistles that bear the name of John
and to the synoptic gospels. The extensive production,
within the last thirty years, of literature dealing with the New
Testament writings designated Johannean is evidence that
the problems connected with these are regarded as among the
most important that apologetics treats.1 To the solution of
these problems have been brought the ripest scholarship and
the most persistent effort. This might be surprising were
there not involved matters of so much importance as the
genuineness, authenticity and, as some think, the credibility
of parts of the New Testament most helpful in the Christian
life and most closely connected with historic Christianity.
Historical Resume.
Until 1792 scarcely a serious objection was presented
against the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Marcion
and his followers, in the second century, rejected all of the New
Testament except the Gospel according to Luke; and the
Alogoi, of whom Dr. Salmon believes Caius was the only rep
resentative, rejected the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse,
ascribing them to Cerinthus, a cotemporary of John. Neither
Marcion nor Caius produced external evidence to justify their
1. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 466; Schurer, The Fourth Gospel, Contemp. Rev.
Vol. Ix. p. 388; Gloag, Introduction to the Johannine Writings, p. 95.

rejection of these books. Their reasons were subjective, dog
matic and doctrinal. About the middle of the third century
Dionysius, the millenarian members of whose diocese drew
argument from the Apocalypse, ascribed the book to John
the Presbyter. Dionysius was the first to bring forward what
has since been used as a formidable argument; viz., that the
difference between the style of the Fourth Gospel and that
of the Apocalypse is so great as to render belief in the unity
of authorship extremely difficult, if not impossible.
English deists near the beginning of the eighteenth cen
tury opposed the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, but,
though this is regarded by Weiss as the beginning of modern
opposition, the fact is devoid of all save historical interest.
Near the close of the eighteenth century, Evanson in England
(1792) and Eckermann in Germany (1796) found themselves
unable to accept the Johannean authorship of the Gospel.
Evanson placed emphasis on the stylistic differences between
the Gospel and the Apocalypse, and ascribed the former to
some unknown Platonist of the second century. Eckermann
believed that there was a Johannean basis for the Gospel and
that others shaped into the book of present form whatever
traditions or notes John contributed.
At the beginning of the present century the Johannean
authorship was regarded by some as compromised. Since
then, however, vigorous arguments from negative critics have
called forth numerous equally vigorous replies. The first half
of the present century is marked by two well defined move
ments in the development of the Johannean question. The
first was that introduced in 1820 by Bretschneider, in his
Probabilia, which was such a masterful marshaling of facts,
objections and suspicions against the apostolic authorship
of the Fourth Gospel that Weiss declares that scarcely a new
objection of importance has since been advanced. Bretschnei-
der's chief argument was that of historical differences be
tween the synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. He saw in the
life of Jesus, as presented from these two sources, such var-

iance as amounts to inconsistency and renders it impossible
to accept both accounts as historical. Begarding the triple
account as credible, he attributed the Fourth Gospel to some
unknown Gentile Christian of the second century. When
numerous replies to Bretschneider added strength* to the be
lief in the Johannean origin of the Gospel, he announced that
this was the end in view of which he had written. Some of
his objections, however, were well founded and convinced at
least DeWette that the Johannean authorship was doubtful.
The lrist critical wave before 1850 surpassed in range
and intensity all that preceded, threatening to sweep away
the historicity of most of the New Testament. Compared
with it the mythical theory advanced by Strauss ten years
earlier presented nothing serious. This new movement had
its origin with Baur, who with able supporters established
what is known as the Tubingen school. They emphasize, in
the historical development of Christianity, the antagonism be
tween Jewish and non- Jewish tendencies. Baur considered
as unhistorical those books of the New Testament not show
ing evidence of such a conflict, and so held as authentic only
the Apocalypse and four Pauline Epistles. The spirit which
opposed Paul on his missionary journeys Baur saw in the
Apocalypse, a Jewish Christian book, in which Paul is repre
sented as antichrist. The Fourth Gospel he regarded as the
result of a compromise, each party to the controversy conced
ing to the other the right to difference of belief and practice,
and each retaining its own. About 1850 came a reaction
against this tendency theory of the origin of the New Testa
ment. Among the foremost of those who opposed the
Tubingen school were Schleiermacher, Ewald, and Meyer:
Later sympathizers, unable to sustain the radical position of
Baur, conceded various of his opinions, each yielding what
appeared to him the weakest ground. While the Tubingen
theory as such has not been maintained, its influence on later
criticism has been potent. Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Pfleiderer,
and others have adopted more or less modified forms of
Baur's theory and conclusions.

Since 1850 methods of critical investigation have greatly
improved. Present criticism while not absolutely scientific
and historical, is comparatively such in contrast with that of
the first century. In the light of recent developments, the
date of the Fourth Gospel is rarely placed so late as Baur
maintained. The problem has come to be regarded by many
as one dependent largely on internal evidence, and in that
field much work has recently been done. The theology of
the separate books, especially their christology and eschatol-
dogy, the diction, phraseology, style and spirit, as well as
the minutest incidental references, have been employed in
elaborate arguments by writers of each side to the contro
versy. Some have found what to them is convincing evidence
of unity of authorship; others reasoning from the same data
are sure that to the sagacious mind the evidence cannot indi
cate such unity. Nearly all critics admit preponderance of
evidence for common origin of the Fourth Gospel and the
Johannean Epistles, but Davidson says of the first Epistle,
"The deviations of the Epistle from the Gospel, though not
numerous, are inconsistent with sameness of authorship."1
Stylistic differences between the Gospel and the Apocalypse
are generally conceded to be a serious objection to unity of
authorship. Some account for these differences on the hypoth
esis that a quarter of a century intervened between the
composition of the books. Some think the Apocalypse is
composite, being a Jewish revelation written about 68 but
edited and interpolated by some Christian writer about 95.2
With respect to the relation between the Gospel and the
Apocalypse, there are, supported by ardent and able advo
cates, four conclusions. These are, the Johannean author
ship (1) of both books, (2) of the Gospel, (3) of the Apoca
lypse, and (4) of neither. Various modified forms of these views
are held' among critics. Some, from arbitrary canons of
criticism, have reached fanciful and arbitrary conclusions.
1. Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Vol. ii. p. 295. See also
Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. ii. p. 188.
2. So Sabatier and Visctaer.

The fact cannot pass unnoticed that the untiring study
of these New Testament records is prosecuted by critics most
of whom accept historic Christianity. To some the subject
may seem to lack importance, or to require for its investiga
tion a degree of labor and scholarship not at their disposal.
However, the discussion is sustained by those to whom its re
sult is of great moment, and who should be anxious only for
the discovery and preservation of truth as indicated, by facts.
If this spirit of inquiry prevail, the essential truths of Chris
tianity cannot be in danger of compromise. If neither the
Fourth Gospel nor the Apocalypse had survived the years
preceding the formation of the New Testament canon, we do
not know that the kingdom of Christ would have been either
more or less extensive and potent. If a special providence
utilized the books, that power is able to preserve them so
long as their utilization is necessary. If John wrote them
the facts of Christianity remain; if he did not, they may still
be the exposition of spiritual and divine truth. Should it be
proved and conceded that all the writings, called in accord
with tradition Johannean, are the products of post-apostolic
times, yet the facts of Christianity remain.1 This may not be
readily admitted by all.2 If so, it will not be surprising so
1. "Questions as to the authorship of particular biblical books are
questions of fact, not of faith. They may in some cases be very important
to faith, but hardly ever essential. In the present instance it is in a high
degree the interest of faith to assert its independence as far as possible of
the question of authenticity. For while the doctrinal significance of the
book is great, its claim to have been written by the Apostle John does not
rise above a high degree of probability." Bruce, Apologetics, p. 466. "The
value of a book does not depend essentially on the person who wrote it."
Samuel Davidson, Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Vol. ii. p.
448. "It is more and more clearly seen that the question treated is not one
touching our faith, but a problem of historical investigation." Sclmrer, The
Fourth Gospel, Contemporary Review, Vol. lx. p. 389. "Even if protestant
"theology should become convinced that this Gospel was not written by an
Apostle, the peculiar worth of it will still remain. For its worth lies not in
its historical narrative, but in its doctrine or teaching." Ibid. p. 417.
2. Sanday in reply to this statement of Schilrer says: "I cannot take to
heart his comforting assurance that the question of the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel is not one which need affect the faith of a Christian. * * *
I would not willingly place a stumbling block in the way of those who are
able to go with him, I am only afraid that I cannot count myself among the
number." Contempory Rev. Vol. lx. p. 530,

10
long as, in the opinion of some, evangelical Christianity is
limited to those accepting certain dogmatic formulae, philo
sophical statements, or doctrinal views aside from Jesus, the
Christ, and the power of Christianity to relieve and sustain
sinful man.
Since the question is one of evidence and not capable of
absolute demonstration, there must not be expected either for
or against any view more than a high degree of probability.
Evidence in kind and amount sufficient to convince all critical
minds will likely never be produced.1 If any one has written.
with a conviction that his word would close the discussion,
the increased production of literature upon the subject has
doubtless been sufficient refutation of his hopeful theory.
Synopsis of the Evidence. ,
1. External Evidence.
All critics admit the use of the Fourth Gospel during
the last third of the second century. In the writings of the
church fathers numerous references to it are cited. Those
who assign to it a late origin (150) admit of course no refer-
erence to it prior to that time. Among the various methods
used to explain apparent references to the Gospel before 150,
are some dangerously similar to those of sophistry. On the
other hand, some critics have weakened their position by
magnifying the importance of apparent references to the
Gospel in such documents as the Didache' (100) and the
Epistle of Barnabas (115). Tatian's use of the Fourth Gos
pel in arranging his Diatessaron (160), must now be admitted.2
1. See Bruce, Apologetics pp.467 and 470; Ezra Abbott, The Authorship of
the Fourth Gospel: External Evidence, p. 3. "It is evident that the Jobannine
controversy :is not yet terminated; it is still carried on almost as fiercely as
ever, and with much ability and learning on both sides." Gloag, Introduc
tion to the Johannine Writings, p. 129.
2. The discovery of Ephraem's Commentary (373) on the Diatessaron con
firms the view that Tatian, accepted the Fourth Gospel. Walter R. Cassels
reasons that Tatian's use of the Gospel (170) does not necessitate an earlier
origin than 140.— The Diatessaron of Tatian, Nineteenth Century, Vol,
xxxvii. p. 681. \

11
Clement's acquaintance with the Gospel is also conceded.
Evidence for Justin's use of it (147) has been so strongly de
veloped as to render untenable , the date advocated by the
Tubingen school.1 The combined testimony of Ireneeus (130)
and Polycarp (116) strongly indicates the Johannean author
ship. Irenseus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a personal
disciple of John, hence the peculiar weight of their testi
mony. The earliest external testimony claimed for the genuine
ness of the Gospel is in what is now numbered as verses 24
and 25 of chapter XII. A not implausible theory is that,
after the death of John, this testimony was appended by
some of his intimate Ephesian associates, in order that the
churches to which the writing had not been conveyed might
the more readily receive it. The early date of these verses
is shown from the fact that no manuscrips are known in
which they are lacking. SchUrer, however, says: ''The clos
ing note, just because added by a later hand is in no way de
cisive."2 And Davidson asserts that "an anonymous individ
ual cannot attest what is itself anonymous."3
The external evidence against the Johannean authorship
of the Gospel is not strong. Its rejection by the Alogoi and
the Marcionites is without critical significance. Negative
criticism has aimed (1) to show that evidence cited by Johan
nean advocates is of little weight and (2) that, if the Gospel
had been accepted, references to it would have been less indefi
nite and more numerous than even the most sanguine claim.
SchUrer believes that the external evidence for and against
1. Only Davidson and Renan question Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel.
2. The Fourth Gospel, Contemp. Rev. Vol. ix. p. 416.
3. Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Vol. ii. p. 427. As
additional evidence of the Johannean authorship the following writ
ers and writings are cited: Ignatius (115), Papias (120), Basilides (125) Val-
entinus (140), Marcion (140), Montanus (140), Melito (170), Celsus (170)
Apollinaris (170), Muritorian Canon (170), Athenagoras (176), Polycrates
(178), Epistle of Lyons and Vienne (180), Peshito Version (150?), Dionysius
(390), and others.

12
the Johannean authorship is about balanced.1 An impartial
judgment would probably decide, the testimony to be in favor
of apostolicity. From the nature of the Apocalypse, fewer references to
it than to the Gospel would be expected in the writings of
the second and third centuries. Tradition, however, almost
universally ascribes the Apocalypse to the Apostle John.
This tradition is confirmed by the testimony of Andreas and a
fellow bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, about the middle of
the fifth century. They state that the inspiration of the
book was accepted by Gregory (350), CyrU (340), Methodius
(290), Hippolytus (220), Irenseus (180) and Papias (120).
The historian Eusebius (275) states that Justin (147) spoke
definitely of the Apocalypse as the work of John,2 that Melito
(170) wrote a book on the devil and the Apocalypse; that
Apollonius (170) and the Montanists in controversy, both
drew arguments from the Apocalypse, as did also Theophilus
(170). In the writings of Irenaeus (180) and the Epistle
of Lyons and Vienne (180) appear references to the Apocalypse.
The Muritorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria (190), TertuUian
(200) and Origen (230) furnish evidence to the apostolicity of
the Apocalypse. On the contrary, Caius of Rome (211) assigned the
Apocalypse to Cerinthus a contemporary of John. Marcion
(160) rejected it for subjective reasons, and Dionysius (250)
thought that the same author could not have produced two
books so different as the Gospel and the Apocalypse, and that
the latter was the work of another John. Eusebius (275)
questions its genuineness, and the Peshito Version (150?)
does not include it.
In the early history of Christianity there was more ques-
1. "The most one can admit in an unprejudiced way is that the external
evidence is evenly balanced pro and con, and leads to no decision. Perhaps,
however, it is truer to say it is more unfavorable than favorable to the
authenticity." The Fourth Gospel, Contemp. Rev. Vol. lx. p. 416.
2. Eusebius quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, u. lxxxi., in
which he refers to Rev. xx., and affirms that the Apostle John wrqtQ it.

13
tion concerning the authorship of the Apocalypse than con
cerning that of the Gospel; yet if the decision depended on
early testimony alone, both the books in question would prob
ably, in harmony with almost unbroken tradition, be as
cribed to the Apostle John.
2. Internal Evidence.
The relative value of external and internal evidence is
variously estimated. Early critics necessarily dealt more ex
tensively with the external. This field has been very thor
oughly worked, and only the discovery of ancient documents
is likely to add considerably to the present sum of such evi
dence.1 The field of internal evidence has been regarded as
the source of testimony since the time of Dionysius (250).
SchUrer thinks that in England the discussion is still confined
mostly to external evidence. With this view Sanday does not
agree.2 Peabody says of the Fourth Gospel, "If John wrote
it. he must have left in it some tokens of his authorship."3
Gloag says: "The great objection against the Johannine
authorship of the Apocalypse is one of internal criticism."4
Sanday states "that the main battle must be fought out on
the internal evidence." Some regard internal evidence as
definitive and worthy of setting aside whatever does not
agree with its conclusions. Such a view is hardly justified by
the fact that so far as a verdict has been reached, both parties
to the trial claim it.
Internal evidence may be distinguished as direct and in
direct. By direct, we mean that drawn from the particular
writing considered, by indirect, that derived from compari
sons between facts stated in the given writing and facts known
from without. From the Gospel itself, Peabody believes that
"It was written by a native of Judea," "a Hebrew then living
remote from Palestine," "a resident of Ephesus before or not
1. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 467; Sanday, Dr. Schurer on The Fourth Gospel,
Contemp, Eev. Vol. lx. p. 533.
2. Contemp. Rev. Oct. and Nov. 1891.
3. Internal Tokens of Authorship, p. 1.
4. Introduction to the Johannine Writings, p. 296.

14
long after the close of the first Christian century," "a person
familiarly conversant with the events recorded," and "an old
man." He finds from the minuteness of detail that the author
was familiar with the places and customs of Judea; from ex
planations of terms understood by every Hebrew that the
book was written for other than Hebrew readers; from the
habitual use of the term Jews ('IoudaUt) that the book was
written among Gentiles; from the peculiar use of the word .
logos (6 X6y<k) that it was written at Ephesus, not later than
the time of John; and from the exact detailed references to
things unimportant in themselves, but indissolubly associated
with the events or scenes of its pages, that its author was an
old man who had been an eye-witness of the matter recorded.1
That in the Gospel John is not referred to by name, but
if at all as that disciple whom Jesus loved (b'v yrdna Yija-oD?) and
otherwise indirectly,2 is employed in argument by both
classes of critics. To the Johannean advocates it indicates the
apostle's modesty; to the non-apostolic advocates it appears
out of keeping with the character of Boavepre?. By those ar
guing apostolic authorship it is said that there are recorded
occurrences which could have been reported only by one of
the inner circle of the apostles, i.e. by Peter, James, or John.
But James was an early martyr3 and Peter is frequently
mentioned in connection with "that other disciple,"4 who
must therefore have been John. If the book were a forgery,
written during John's Hfe or soon after, it would have been
denounced. Moreover, -there is no knowledge of one who
was capable of producing such a book in the second century.
The following conclusions unfavorable to Johannean author
ship iave been drawn by Davidson and others from direct
internal evidence: 1. Geographical and other errors-5 2.

1. The Fourth Gospel, pp. 109-127.
2. xiii. 23;xviii. 15; xix. 26; xx. 2, 4, 8.
3. Acta xii. 2.
4. John xiii. 24; xviii. 15; xx. 3.
5. i. 28, 42; ii. 21; v. 18; vi. 36; ix. 7, 8,31; xi. 49.

15
Traditional reminiscences inserted without connection;1 3. A
relation foreign to the Jews, indicated by the manner in which
they are mentioned;2 4. "He," xix. 35, referring to other
than an eye-witness.
That the author of the Apocalypse calls himself John is
claimed to indicate both that he was the son of Zebedee and
that he was not the author of the Gospel, since that person
does not so designate himself. On the other hand this per
sonal mention is explained on the ground of the influence of
the custom in Old Testament prophecy. The claim of having
been an eye-witness to the things recorded is made by the
author of the Apocalypse, as also by the author of the Gospel
and the First Epistle. From the way in which the writer ad
dresses the churches he must have been fully acquainted with
their condition, and a leader of high position among them.
These qualifications are claimed for the Apostle John. The
Hebraistic character and solecisms of the Apocalypse are re
ferred to as indicating that the writer was a Hebrew Chris
tian, and also that he was not the author of the Gospel.
Indirect internal evidence has been developed on three
main lines; viz., stylistic, historical and psychological. The
argument from style is used on both sides of the question.
Differences between the style of the Fourth Gospel reports of
discourses of Jesus and that of the synoptic reports of the
same are claimed to denote unauthenticity of one of the ac
counts. Likewise arguments are drawn from the sameness
of style in recording the sayings of Jesus and the writer's
own observations, and from stylistic differences between the
Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. On the other hand,
similarity of diction in these two books is affirmed by advo
cates of unity of authorship. The historical argument is that
the account of Christ's life as given in the Fourth Gospel is
inconsistent with that given in the Synoptics, and hence un-
historical. The psychological question may be stated thus:

1. iv. 43-45; xiii. 20; xiv. 40.
2. ii. 6, 13; v. 1; vi. 4; vii. 2; xix. 40.

16
From what is known of the apostle John would it have been
possible for the Galilean fisherman to write the philosophical
universal Fourth Gospel? Also, Is the character of "the
disciple whom Jesus loved" the character of the "son of
thunder?" Again, Could the same man have entertained and
expressed so differently the ideas of the Gospel and those of
the Apocalypse?

Table of
Crittp Date or
wutic. publication.
Abbott* E. A. . . 1881
Abbot;, Ezra . . . 1892
Alford  1868
Baur  1851
Beyschlag . . . 1886
Bleek  1866
Bretschneider . . . 1820
Credner  1860
Davidson  1868
DeWette  1862
Ebrard  1868
Ewald  1862
Glasgow . . . 1872
Gloag  1891
Godet  1876
Guericke ... . 1854
Harnack  1875
Hengstenberg . . . 1863
Hilgenfeld . . 1881
Hofmann .... 1844
Holtzmann . . 1869
Jacobsen . . 1884
Keim  1867
Kostlin . ... 1865
Lange  1871
Lee  1881
Lightfoot .... 1892
Lticke  1852
Luthardt . ... 1874
Meyer ... .1869
Neander  1837
Nicholas  1864
Owen  1871
Pfleiderer  1885
Plummer ... . 1892
Renan  1874
Reuss  1874
Salmon  1892
Schaff  1891
Schenkel . ... 1864
Schleiermacher . . 1830
Scholten  1864
Schwegler . . 1841
Schurer  1891
Simcox  1891
Spitta  1889
Thiersch .... 1879
Thoma  1882
Volckmar ... . 1882
Weiss  1886
Weisse  1856
Weizacker .... 1886
Wendt  1890
Wescott  1880
Zeller  1847

Critical Opinion.

Fourth Gospel. Apocalypse.

Author.

Date. Author.

Date.

Unknown

125? John

78

John

80-90

John

70-85 John

95-96

Unknown

160-170 John

51

John

Presbyter

68-70

John

96? Presbyter

68-70

Presbyter

100-150

John ,

100 Presbyter

68

Unknown

100 John

70-95

Composite

Presbyter

68

John

90? John

95-96

John

80-89. Presbyter

68

John

67 John

51-54

John

70-85 John

96

John

100 John

95-96

John

John

69

Unknown

Unknown

64-90

John

94 John

95-96

Unknown

130-140 John

69

John

John

95-96

Unknown

100 Presbyter

69

John

70-90 John

90-96

Unknown

110-115 Presbyter

Unknown

150 John

John
69 John
95-96
John
85-95? John
95-96
John
95 John
68
John
Another John 69
John
John
John
80 John
70
John
Another John 69
Presbyter
110-115
John
70-85
Unknown
Unknown
68-69
John
80-95 John
68
Mediate
100 Mediate
68
John
Presbyter
68
John
90 John
68
John
90 John
68
Mediate
115-120 Presbyter
John
70-80 Unknown
Unknown
140 Unknown
Unknown
50 John
Unknown
John
80-100 John 68 ami lir.
Composite
60-95
John
John
96
Presbyter
110-130
Unknown
150 Unknown
68
John
96 John
70
Mediate
John Mark 68
Mediate
110-115 Mediate
69-79
Mediate
John
90-100 John
68
Unknown
150 John
18

Examination of Phases of Internal Evidence.
The Stylistic Argument.
At the time of Christ, two languages were used in Pales
tine, the Aramaic and the Greek.1 The former was em
ployed by the Jews in communication among themselves,
by the rabbins, and in religious services. The Greek was
the language of social' and commercial relations and of
culture. The Jews were familiar with the Greek language
but not with its literature. The Septuagint version of the
Hebrew Scriptures, made in the third century B. C, was in
current use among them, as is shown by quotations. Jesus
evidently spoke much in Aramaic, the language of his child
hood. In the Gospel according to Mark are reported in
transliteration three Aramaic expressions, following each of
which is its Greek translation.2 These sounds had so im
pressed his hearers that they seemed part of the thought and
emotion connected with the occasion of their utterance. From
this association came the endeavor to add to the narrative
by reproducing the exact words of the Master. It is prob
able that the intercourse between Jesus and his disciples
was in Aramaic except, when for the sake of others who were
not conversant with it, they spoke in Greek.
We know from the influence of the English of the King
James version, and from that of Latin in the church of the
the middle ages, something of the power of religion to per
petuate the usages and language of the period in which it has
received some marked impulse. Such was the potency of the
Jewish religion to keep alive the Hebrew tongue. From the
expectation that the Messiah would come and restore to the
Jew his former position and prosperity, the language of his

1. For a presentation of the subject see Schaff, Companion to the Greek
New Testament. The Latin, though used to a limited extent, took little root
In Palestine. See Luke xxiii. 38; John xix. 20.
2. v. 41; vii. 34; xv. 34; and Matt. xvii. 46.

19
ancestors, in which the promise was recorded, became a part
of his religion. In connection with the Jewish religion
existed, as a secondary tendency to preserve the language,
the training of children in Hebrew. The early education of
the child was a persistent drill in the Hebrew Scriptures.
This early influence would likely never be so far counteracted
but that his vernacular Aramaic would be the language in
which the Jew would naturally think. Especially would this
be true on occasions of profound thought or intense emotion.
There appears no reason for not believing that these
Hebraic influences prevailed in the case of the disciples as
with their race in general. This being so, the Hebraistic
character of New Testament Greek is not surprising. The
use of other Greek than that in which we have these writings
would necessitate an explanation. This period of Hebraistic
Greek has distinct limits. The causes producing it were no
longer potent after the time of the apostles. Jerusalem and
the temple were destroyed, the people scattered, and the
synagogue service not so assiduously carried out. - Those who
accepted Christianity relinquished the hope of a temporal
Messiah and material conquest, and with it many of the cus
toms and tenets peculiar to the Jews. Even among those
who did not accept Jesus as the Christ, the Hebrew language
was no longer so great a part of their religion. The life of
Jesus was a direct and continuous rebuke against the exclu
sive Jewish spirit, the destruction of city and temple was a
definite blow against Jewish form. Thenceforth the influence
of the Hebrew language and customs was inconsiderable. It is
not probable that the Hebraistic Greek period, at its height
near the middle of the first century, extended much beyond
the beginning of the second. The causes entering into the
production of this period were not less powerful than those
that gave to English that of the Elizabethan literature. The
limits and peculiarities of the former are not less distinctly
marked than those of the latter. What student of English
letters would mistake for representative Elizabethan works

20
the poetry of the Commonwealth or the dramas of the Restora
tion? The judgment of critical students of Greek literature
is that it would hardly have been possible for any part of the
New Testament to have been written long after the close of
the first century.
Respecting the writings here considered, this view is in
harmony with external evidence which signifies that the
books were familiar to the fathers of the first half of the sec
ond century. Allowing for the long time then necessary for
writings to become generally known through the slow pro
cess of manuscript making, we are brought to a time near
that in which John lived. This does not prove that the apos
tle John was the author of both the Gospel and the Apoca
lypse, or of either, but it goes far toward precluding the
hypothesis of a forgery, which would necessarily have been
committed within the time of John's life or in the years im
mediately following. It would have been quite improbable
that the apostle himself or those among whom, so far as we
are able to learn, he had spent the last decades of his life,
should have failed to disavow his responsibility for the origin
of a book practically ascribed to him by a forger.
Stylistic Comparison Between the Gospel and the
Apocalypse.
The style of these books has been very minutely com
pared by several skilful critics of New Testement Greek. It
has been pointed out that there are about 130 words peculiar
to the Gospel and Epistles, and 150 peculiar to the Apoca
lypse.1 These terms constitute a vocabulary much smaller
than that peculiar to Luke and somewhat larger than that
peculiar to Matthew &r Mark.2 Some critics furnish a list of

1. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, pp.40-80.
2. Peculiar vocabulary of Matt., 130; of Mark, 100; of Luke (a) Gospel
300; (b) Acts, 470.

21
similarities in diction and phraseology, others emphasize dis
similarities in the same line.1 The argument from style and
diction is valid only when judiciously applied. Some differ
ences must be expected even if the books were written by the
same author and near the same time; some similarity must
occur even if there be diversity of authorship. The facts
that each deals with truth as related to early Christianity, that
both are written in Hebraistic Greek and for readers under
conditions not separated by more than twenty-five years, in
sure various resemblances. Davidson's exaggeration of
minutest differences2 would, if applied to the works of Shake-
spere, indicate that probably no two plays or sonnets were
from the same writer. On the other hand, it would seem
proper to indicate parts the integrity of which is question
able; viz., Jno. vii. 53-viii. 11; xxi. and possibly Rev. i. 1-3.
Though the evidence is cumulative, the single use in one
writing of a word used in the other and peculiar to the two,
is not a strong argument. The application of methods of
New Testament criticism to works of English literature leads
to absurd results. Stanley Leathes in behalf of the Johannean
advocates has shown this by comparing several of Milton's
poems.3 He finds that of about 450 words in L ''Allegro,
300 are not found in II JPenseroso or in Lycidas, i. e., two-
thirds of the vocabulary of the first named poem is not used
in either of the longer poems. He compared Tennyson's
CEnone and Lotos-Eaters with similar results. It is not prob
able that so great difference in diction can be found between
the Gospel and the Apocalypse. The argument employed by
Leathes is however a two-edged sword; it may be turned
against the evidence from similarity of diction also. The
English vocabulary of Bacon's essay on Unity in Religion,
consists of about 460 words. Of these 250, or nearly 55 per
cent, appear in the book of Acts, as rendered in the version

1 See e. 0. Stuart and Davidson.
•>' Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Vol. I. pp. 319-343.
3. Boyle Lectures, 1868, p. 283.

22
of 1611. Many of these words are found nowhere in the
New Testament outside of Acts. Besides, the ending of
verbs of the third person, singular number, the forms of cer
tain verbs in the past and perfect tenses, and the use of
"which" referring to persons, furnish points of similarity not
existing between current English and that of the Acts. There
is also a noticable weight and dignity about the style of
Bacon's essay, comparable to that of Acts. This is particu
larly so with reference to subordinate connectives. But these
facts do not prove identity of authorship, though the degree
of dictional resemblance between the books is greater than
that existing between works that are known to have come
from the same writer. One acquainted with seventeenth
century English readily accounts for the similarity, though
such similarity does not appear between the Acts and all
seventeenth century literature.
The point to be observed is this: the argument from
style and diction, while not without value, has been used by
both parties to our controversy as leading to conclusions not
necessarily following. If the stylistic resemblance between
the Gospel and the Apocalypse were shown to be greater than
is known to exist between works of different authors, and
greater than could be explained on any other hypothesis than
unity of origin, the argument might then be regarded as hav
ing the weight now attached to it by some advocates of this
unity. Following is a list in which is indicated the propor
tionate use of certain words in the Synoptics, the Fourth Gos
pel, the Epistle of John, and the Apocalypse. Terms peculiar
to any one of the writings have in the main been avoided.
Syn. Gos. Epis. Apoc.
dyaitdw, to love  22 31 24 3
d/tyffy'?, true  2 13 2 0
aXi]0tv6-, true  1 8 0 10
<x/tvoc, lamb  0 2 0 o
apviov, lamb  0 1 0 28
Paadeia, kingdom  113 4 0 6

23 Syn. Gos. Epis. Apoc.
iKKkijiria, church  3 o 3 17
Saw, to live  7 ii i g
£«"?> We  14 34 n 15
£<«]?' almvtos, eternal life  7 9 (j g
/cadd>$, as  23 26 7 0
Karapaivw, to come down  16 10 0 8
KarotKlai, to dwell  5 o 0 10
fiivw, to abide  , . . 7 18 12 0
viKdw, to overcome  1 l 5 n
07:00, where  21 21 0 6
mjTiy>, father  126 126 16 0
Tzco-reom, to believe  27 80 5 0
jtcUic, city  60 8 0 26
o-ij,'ia(vio, to signify  . 0 3 0 1
<ro4>!a, wisdom  10 0 0 4
arltavo?;, crown  2 2 0 8
TypltD, to keep  2 17 8 9
0tXiu, to love  5 9 0 2
0<S?, light  12 21 5 3
%apd, joy  13 7 3 0
w?, as  67 3 3 39
<«?, when  11 12 0 0
The list might be extended but perhaps with no material
change in the results. The differences in diction may to a
\ large extent be explained from the different matter and pur
pose of the books. The Fourth Gospel is didactic, combin
ing the historical and the philosophical. The writer of such
a book must have been calm and deliberate. The prevalent
element is intellectual. The Apocalypse evidently followed
the design of Old Testament prophecy. It deals with the
symbohcal and the poetic. Its province is prophetic, not
didactic. Its creation and appreciation required lively imag
ination and profound emotion. The diction of the Gospel
and Apocalypse differs no more than would be expected
in the works of the same author^ if in one he treated physics

24
and in another metaphysics or ethics. If the peculiarities of
New Testament writers are questions not of grammar but of
diction and rhetoric,1 it may seem as if more conclusive re
sults should be reached from a consideration of the respective
vocabularies of New Testament writers. From the facts con
cerning diction no convincing argument has, to my knowledge,
been drawn either for or against the common origin of the
Gospel and the Apocalypse. I am disposed, however, to be
lieve that from such argument the evidence for unity will not
be strengthened. The style of the Gospel ' and the Apocalypse shows un
mistakably the Hebrew influence. This is most potent in the
parallelism and repetition of the former and in the symbolism
and connecting particles of the latter. Parallelism in the
Gospel is so marked that translation from the original Greek
into idiomatic Hebrew, as in the Hebrew New Testament
published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, occasions
hardly a change in phraseology, order of words, or sentence
structure. Schaff illustrates the Hebrew genius of the Gospel
by placing the Hebrew and the Greek of Jno. i. 11-18 in par
allel columns.2 The books of the New Testament disclosing the
most marked stylistic contrast are perhaps the Fourth Gospel
and the Pauline Epistles. In one, the sentences are short,
weighty, and loosely connected; in the other they are long and
involved. One proceeds by antithesis, the other by ratiocina
tion. The antithetic parallelism of the Gospel may be best
seen from parts in which the narrative element is not
strong. Besides the prologue, already referred to, the fol
lowing and numerous other passages may be cited.
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that entereth not by the door
into the fold of the sheep,
but climeth up some other way,
the same is a thief and a robber.

1. Prof. Thayer's Winer, p. 4.
2. Companion to the Greek New Testament and English Version, Fourth
edition, 1890.

25
But he that entereth in by the door
is the shepherd of the sheep.
To him the porter openeth;
and the sheep hear his voice:
and he calleth his own sheep by name,
and leadeth them out.
When he hath put forth all his own
he goeth before them,
and the sheep follow him:
for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow,
but will flee from him:
For they know not the voice of strangers. — 10: 1-5.
Also: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,
except it abide in the vine;
so neither can ye,
except ye abide in me.
I am the vine,
ye are the branches. — 15:4,5.
And, They took Jesus therefore,
and he went out,
bearing his own cross,
unto a place called of a skull,
which is called in Hebrew Golgotha:
where they crucified him,
and with him two others,
on either side one,
and Jesus in the midst. — 19:17, 18.
This parallelism not infrequently takes the form of re
petition. In some cases the second member of the couplet is
a restatement in other words, in some a restatement in nearly
identical words, and in some a negative statement of the
substance of the first member. Ah example of the first use
is found in the last two lines quoted above,
On either side one
And Jesus in the midst;

Another,

The same came for witness
that he might bear witness. 1:7.

26
An example of the second use is,
The word was with God, * * *
The same was * * * with God. 1:1,2.
Examples of the third use are:
All things were made by him;
And without him was not anything made; 1:3.
And, He that is a hireling,
And not a shepherd. 10:12. -
The resemblances between the Apocalypse and the books
of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, and Isaiah have been
noticed by several critics. Many parallel passages are given
by Gloag1 in which he finds "The same material images, the
same symbols, the same mystic numbers, the same visions."
The mystic numbers common to the Apocalypse and Hebrew
prophecy are 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 24, and various multiples of
1000. Other striking resemblances appear (1) in the de-.
scriptions of "One like unto a son of man," at his appear
ance, Rev. i., Dan. vii. and x.; (2) in the coming of beasts
from the sea, Rev. xiii., Dan. vii.; (3) in the ten horns repre
senting ten kings, Rev. xvii., Dan. vii.; (4) in the mention of
the judgment, Rev. xx., Dan. vii.; (5) in the appearance of the
four living creatures about the throne, Rev. iv., Ezek. i.; (6)
in the eating of the roll, Rev. x., Ezek. iii.;. (7) in the descrip
tion of the New Jerusalem, Rev. xxi., Ezek. xlviii.; (8) in the
tree by the river and the monthly fruit, Rev. xxii., Ezek.
xlvii.; (9) in the four horses, Rev. vi., Zech. vi.; (10) in the
olive-trees and candlesticks, Rev. xi., Zech. iv.; (11) in the
woman of wickedness, Rev. xvii., Zech. v.; (12) in the phe
nomena of the sun and moon, Rev. vi., Joel ii.; (13) in the
locusts, Rev, ix., Joel ii.; (14) in harvesting the vintage, Rev.
xiv., Joel iii.; (15) in the blissful state of the redeemed,
Rev. vii., Isa. xlix.; (16) in the new heaven and new earth,
Rev. xxi., Isa. lxv.2 Minor resemblances are numerous, but
1. Introduction to the Johannine Writings, London, 1891. pp. 348-357.
2. Glasgow appends a list of nearly 200 symbolic terms used in the
Apocalypse. See Apocalypse, pp. 610, 611.

27
these are sufficient to indicate the broad and close familiar
ity which the author of the Apocalypse must have had with
Hebrew prophecy. It is not likely that any but a Jew would
have been thus conversant with the Scriptures of the Israel
ites, or thus able to reproduce the spirit and genius of He
brew prophecy.
In the Apocalypse the connective Kai is used like the He
brew 1 (waw), which denotes not only the copulative but also
the adversative and various other relations. The particles
Si, ovv, ri, yap, common to other New Testament books, are
very infrequent in the Apocalypse. Where a classic writer
would have used them, Kai is found. This peculiarity is dis
coverable also in the Gospel. Instances of such usage ap
pear in the following passages: Rev. ii. 8, 12, 18; iii. 1, 7, 14;
vi. 1; vii. 1; viii. 1; x. 1; xi. 1, 15; xii. 1, 7; xiii. 11; xiv. 1, 6, 8,
9, 13, 14; xv. 1; xvi. 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17; xx. 1, 4; John i. 19;
v. 39, 40; vi. 27, 46; vii. 1, 19, 30. 33; ix. 1; I. John i. 5; ii. 20;
iv. 21. The common Hebraistic coloring of the Gospel and
Apocalypse indicates strongly the apostolic, and hence the
Johannean, authorship of the books.
The Historical Argument.
It is not the purpose here to enter extensively into the
historical problem, upon which much has been written, but to
suggest that the question has been considered unnecessarily
complicated, and to examine briefly the real difficulties.
The scene of the synoptic account and that of the Fourth
Gospel account are in the main different. This does not
invalidate either, for neither claims to record everything in
the life of Jesus. Given a different scene, different people
would be met, and hence the same events and discourses
would not be expected. Also, the duration of the part of the
ministry reported in one account, might be longer or shorter
than that in the other. The argument from silence is pre
carious; better reason from what the Evangelists say rather

28
than from what they might have said, but did not. The assis
tant of a great revivalist recently contended that since the
New Testament makes no mention of a previous meeting be
tween the penitent thief and Jesus, their first encounter must
have been at the scene of their death. This semblance of logic
has been the basis of not a few conclusions concerning ques
tions of Biblical criticism.
In connection with another difference, the manner of the
portrayal of the person of Christ, the purpose for which the
Fourth Gospel was written needs to be considered. It is
universally believed to have been written later than the other
three, and perhaps when they were generally known. In the
last Gospel occur numerous expressions which presuppose
that the contents of the Synoptic Gospels were known, not
only to the author, but also to the readers of that Gospel.
The writing of the last Gospel, if it were in no essential way
different from the other three, would have indicated lack of
purpose. Differences however are not wanting, and they to
gether with the author's own statement of his object may
perhaps disclose the purpose for which the Gospel was pro
duced. Few events recorded by the Synoptists as prior to the
passion are narrated in the Fourth Gospel, though to several
of them allusion is made. The last Gospel records no par
able, but gives instead allegories employed in discourses to
the multitude, in conversation with single individuals, or
more frequently in conference with the Twelve. Scarcely an
event is mentioned but that Jesus is represented in connec
tion with it as teaching, often using some prominent feature
of the incident as the symbol of his theme, e. g. at the well
he offers living water, after feeding the multitude he says
that he is the bread of life, having introduced the figure of a
sheep-fold, he declares himself to be the door. The sayings
of Jesus constitute more than half the book. Narrative is
supplied as it is necessary to introduce or connect discourses,
i. e. narrative is not for its own sake. If this be true the pur-

29
pose of the Gospel is not biographical or historical. Keim
says: "A Gospel which does not profess to be a complete his
tory is a one-sided gospel."1 If the Gospel according to John
be one-sided, perhaps the other sides are furnished in the
Gospel according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, so that we
have a four sided Gospel. There are however, two reasons
because of which this objection is not well founded, (1) the
primary object of the Gospel is not historical; and (2) this
principle would not apply even if it were historical., Would
any one say of Green's History of the English People, that
because it omits many thing contained in Macaulay's History
of England, it is unhistorical? The very purpose of the
writer was to present only the leading facts. No book biblical
or non-biblical, purports to contain all that might be said on
the subject treated. (John xx. 30; xxi. 25.)
The author states the object of his writing to be, "That
ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that believing ye may have life in his name," (xx. 31). Hence if
the book is polemic, apologetic, or an historical supplement to
the Synoptics, it is so incidentally. Its main purpose is
didactic, and the lesson is, that Jesus is the divine Christ. We
are not surprised that the person of Christ should be differ
ently represented. It is not improbable that the writer con
tended against an incipient gnosticism and had that in mind
when writing the prologue; but his main purpose is not com
promised. The view of Christ is that of one seeking to reveal
his higher nature. If one biography of Gladstone were to be
written by a statesman, and another by a man of letters they
would doubtless present different phases of the great man's
character. If inspiration does not annihilate personality but
works through it, differences of ability, temperament, cul
ture, and other characteristics would be expected to be indi
cated in the writings of the evangelists. Such is the case.
The Synoptics are manifestly on a lower level than the Fourth
1. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1. p. 121.

30
Gospel; they deal more with the surface facts, the latter more
with the underlying spirit. The conception- of Christ in the
Fourth Gospel is more spiritual.
Perhaps the most important difference is that with ref
erence to the day of Christ's death. The question is whether
Jesus partook of the passover supper; whether he was put to
death on the paschal day itself, as the Synoptics seem to im
ply, or, as, the Fourth Gospel appears to state, was crucified
and hastily buried on the day of preparation. If there were
no way but to admit a contradiction, the latter view would of
itself seem more credible, because of the assiduous Jewish
observance of the paschal day as a holy day. The many hy
potheses on which this difference is sought to be explained
cannot be even mentioned here.1 Prominent among them is
that of Weiss,2 in which he supposes that Jesus anticipated
the paschal meal, partaking of it on the day preceding the
day of preparation. There is however no evidence that ac
cording to usage, the lamb could be slain before the day of
preparation, and besides, statements concerning the meal
clearly signify that it was on the day of preparation.
Most plausible to the writer seems the explanation of
Wescott,3 who regards the supper partaken by Jesus as not
including the paschal lamb, but as the Feast of the Prepara
tion, at which was instituted the Christian rite corresponding
to the Jewish Passover. Galileans observed the day of
preparation, the first day of unleavened bread, as a holy day.
The direction given by Jesus applied to the observance of
this day as to that of the paschal supper. Days were reck
oned from evening to evening, so that the events of the supper
recorded in the Synoptics and referred to in the Fourth Gos
pel, took place soon after the beginning of the 14th Nisan,
the preparation day. From the supper Jesus went to the
1. See Ezra Abbot, Bleek, Meyer, Sanday, Gloag, Alford, Ewald, Godet,
Plummer, Farrar.
2. Weiss, Life of Christ, Vol. iii. p. 280.
3. Wescott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 318.

31
Garden where before sunrise he was arrested; before the
setting of the same sun, which closed the day of the 14th, he
was crucified and buried. During this day the lambs were
slain and on the evening following sunset, which was the be
ginning of the 15th Nisan, the passover was eaten. Gloag
thinks that against this view the wOrds of the Synoptists are
conclusive. To him these words appear distinctly to assert
that Jesus did eat the passover, and any other explanation of
them seems a perversion of their meaning.1 Such construction
however, may not be inevitable. TJ, Si xpaJTy rmv aZop-wv, (Matt.)
and' 'HXOev di r^uipa rmv a^u/itov, (Luke) indicate to me that at the
beginning of the day, 14th Nisan, Peter and John were sent
somewhat in advance to prepare for the feast, the lamb for
which must be sacrificed that day, and hence would not be
brought to the room until later. Jesus and the other disci
ples followed soon after.
It is nowhere stated that Jesus ate the Passover. He
says: "With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with
you before I suffer; for I say unto you I will by no means
(od p.i]) eat it till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."2 This
seems to indicate that the desire was to be unsatisfied, and
that he did not eat it. This explanation, though not without
objection, is the most nearly satisfactory that I have found.
If the data were at hand, probably all differences suggesting
unauthenticity of either account could be explained, yet if in
mere historical statements there were conceded such differ
ences as to render one of the accounts incorrect, this would
not diminish the value of the Gospels, since their purpose is
not historical instruction, but the portrayal of the Christ as
he revealed God in his life.
The Psychological Argument.
Some of the questions considered under this head are
closely related to the argument from style and history. Their
1. Introduction to the Johannine Writings, p. 202,
2. Luke xxii. 15, 16.

32 ,
examination is chiefly a study in psychological principles,
hence their investigation here. The first of these problems
relates to the difference in substance and style between the
Lord's discourses recorded in the Synoptics and those
recorded in the Fourth- Gospel. Aside from the feed
ing of the multitude and the events of the last passover,"
the Fourth Gospel contains little in common with the
Synoptics. Most of the words of Jesus reported by the
Fourth Evangelist were spoken outside of Galilee. In adopt
ing his message to the subtler thought and more philosophic
minds of the Judeans and in encountering their objections it
would be expected that in both substance and style his ad
dresses would differ from those in Galilee. Besides, much
that is preserved here was said in conference with the
apostles, who, from ability and association with Jesus, were
able to hear what the average Palestinian could not appre
hend. John was particularly intimate with Jesus and prob
ably heard from him privately many things, which the com
pany of the apostles did not know. In his writings would be
expected a superior conception of Christ, his work, words and
nature. The stylistic likeness between the observations of the
writer and the words he records as those of Jesus or John
the Baptist, is to some a difficulty in the way of accepting
the historicity of the Gospel. On the hypothesis of the
Johannean authorship it should be remembered that more
than sixty years passed after John heard these words before
he wrote the Gospel, and that during that time their meaning
and the spirit underlying it had been to him a subject of con
tinual contemplation. He must have sought in his long min
istry to convey the substance of Christianity rather than a
chronological narrative of the life of Christ, or a report of
his words in their original order. John was not like Paul, a
missionary to those who had not accepted Christianity, but a
minister among those who were already Christians. To them
he wonld have taught the more subtle truths of Christianity,

33
perhaps putting in proximity statements made by Jesus at
different times. This is exactly what a pastor does in pre
senting a particular theme. More than all else, the discourses
heard in Aramaic would be written in Greek. When allow
ance is made for the process of translation, for the lapse of
time, for the aim to give the substance rather than the exact
words, there remains in the sameness of' the style here ob
served, little that is mysterious.1
In the study of the next question, it is necessary to recall
what is known of John and his surroundings previous to his
discipleship. His father, a Galilean fisherman, employed ser
vants (Mark i. 20). A fishing partnership included Zebidee,
his sons and Andrew and Peter(Lukev.lO). This was not nec
essarily a mean employment. John's mother was Salome, who
ministered to Jesus (Mark xv.41,42), and went to the tomb
to anoint his body (Mark xvi. 1). This fact and the probable
one of John's taking Mary to his own home (John xix. 27)
would indicate that means were at their disposal. Salome
was among the women who beheld the crucifixion (Matt.
xxvii.56; Mark, xv.40), and is thought to be designated as the
sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, "His mother's sister,"
(John xiv.25). In this case the relationship between Jesus and
John may be some explanation of their close association, of
Salome and her sons' asking the first place in the kingdom,
and of the supposed fact that Jesus committed his mother to
John's care. If Salome and Mary were sisters, the home in
fluences that producd a woman worthy of the distinction held
by the mother of Jesus, would be expected to be potent upon
her sister also. Thus John's heredity and early environment
would be such as to make of him that disciple whom Jesus
loved. John is thought to have been that disciple whose
acquaintance with the high priest enabled him to bring Peter
into the court (John xviii. 15,16), in which case he must have
1. See Peabody, Internal Tokens of Authorship in the Fourth Gospel, p. 14;
Bruce, Apologetics, p. 487; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 289;
and Gloag, Introduction to the Johannine Writings, p. 142.

34
been acquainted in Jerusalem and of no mean social position.
We do not know that John's early education exceeded that
ordinarily provided for Jewish youth. The dypap/iaroc and
Idiarac applied to him and Peter (Acts iv.13) are used in con
tradistinction to the learning of the rabbis. If John had not
the highest scholastic training of his time, neither have the
greatest men of letters had.
Of John's later life not much is known. He is mentioned
several times in connection with Peter (Acts), and is referred
to by Paul as a pillar of the church at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 9).
Tradition says that he succeeded his brother James as pastor
of that church, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, lived
at Ephesus to a very old age; that he was banished to Pat-
mos and that he wrote the Apocalypse and the Gospel. Tra
dition and early testimony have not sufficed, to put the Ephe-
sian residence beyond question, though it is generally ad
mitted by negative critics. Keim and Martineau are repre
sentatives of those who do not admit this residence, taking
this position probably because the concession of the procon
sular residence leaves little room for questioning the Johan
nean authorship of the Fourth Gospel, as it was accepted in
that section early in the second century.
Ephesus was the capital and metropolis of Asia Minor.
Its location on the JEgean Sea in the line of commerce, its
close connection with surrounding cities, its Greek culture
and its large population made it a very desirable center for
Chrisianity. Such it became after the destruction of Jerusalem,
for in it Paul had early established a church. The influences
of this city of enterprise and culture would not fail to modify
to an extent the views and style of one even of John's years.
If when he began the disciple's life he was a man of no ordi
nary ability, an intimate association with Jesus, an experience
of more than a quarter century with the church at Jerusa
lem, and a later residence amid the various philosophical and
classical influences of Ephesus would seem hardly to allow a
question of the possibility of his writing the Gospel. If he
could not write it, who of the first or second century could?

35
Jesus called John and James sons of thumder, probably
because of some marked characteristic of their temperament.
This element is thought to appear in the attempt to prohibit
from casting out devils, those who did not follow the company
of the disciples (Mark ix. 38); in the desire to call fire upon
the village that would not receive Jesus (Luke ix. 53); in the
effort to forestall the chief places in the kingdom (Matt. xx.
20); and, if the second Epistle be ascribed to John, in the
command not to greet or entertain teachers who did not ac
knowledge that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. When
mentioned in the Gospels, this disposition is shown to have
been disapproved by the Master. It is held that John had
been a disciple of the Baptist (John i. 36, 40); if so he hkely
shared for a time the Baptist's views of judgment rather than
Christ's views of mercy. An intense hatred of evil and a de
sire to deal with it summarily seems to have been the comple
ment to John's devotion for his Master. Some seem to find
in the Fourth Gospel and Epistles evidence that after a long
continued effort their author had attained a fixed amiable
temper. Unless "that disciple whom Jesus loved" refers to
John he is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, except once
as the son of Zebidee, and then in a chapter that seems to be
an appendix. That the Gospel should not take notice of so
prominent an apostle is not likely. The beloved disciple was
among those who went fishing at the sea of Tiberias(John xxi).
The others were Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, and two
not mentioned by name, but who were probably Andrew the
brother of Peter, and Philip the brother of Nathaniel, who,
after the Master's death, might be expected in the neighbor
hood of their old home. The beloved disciple was not Peter,
but was more intimately associated with him than was any other
of the disciples.1 The Synoptics and Acts show that Peter's
constant companion was John.2 If it be objected that the "son
1. John xiii. 23; xx. 2; xxi. 7, 20.
2. Matt. xvii. 1; xxvi. 37; Mark i. 29; v. 37; ix. 2; xiii. 3; xvi. 13; Luke
v. 10; viii. 51; ix. 28; xxii. 8; Acts iii; iv;'viii. 14.

36
of thunder" could not have written the Gospel, the answer is,
neither could the Peter of the high priest's court have
preached the pentecostal sermon, nor Saul of Tarsus have
proclaimed Christ to Agrippa.
Aside from what can be explained on the ground of di
versity of purpose, the' variance between the ideas and style
of the Gospel and those of the Apocalypse, is less real than
apparent. Some account for this diversity by placing the
origin of the Apocalypse before the destruction of Jerusalem
and that of the Gospel near the close of the century, thus
allowing the Ephesian abode to intervene and affect John's
ability in the use of Greek. On this hypothesis John would
have been about sixty-five years old at the writing of the
Apocalypse, after which age his style would be expected to suf
fer little change. "The grounds for unity of authorship seem
to me unnecessarily narrowed by conditioning unity on the
Neronian date of the Apocalypse. I am aware that the early
date is accepted by a number of eminent critics, whose views I
have endeavored to consider deferentially, but I cannot at
present see in their arguments the supposed weight, nor ac
cept their conclusion. Aside from the stylistic, their argu
ments are drawn from xi. 1,2 and xvii. 9-11. The former does
not appeal to me as strong evidence of early origin, , since the
actual existence of the temple is no more presupposed than is
that of the woman, (xii. 1). The 'seven kings' (xvii.) is var
iously handled so as to indicate contradictories. Evidence
which at the same time proves contradictories, proves nothing.
I shall not contend for any particular interpretation of this
passage, but am inclined to believe that "the one is" is not to
be taken as referring to the time at which the prophecy was
made, but to a time viewed as present at a certain stage in
the vision; the prophet's point of view is from that particular
time, hence to him it is present. This has abundant preced
ent in Old Testament prophecy.
The view that Rev. i. 9, does not indicate banishment

37
seems to me to lack supports Aid with the accusative, as here
used, indicates the ground, not the purpose, and may be ren
dered on acconnt of.2 The matter of the Apocalypse and its
affinity to Hebrew prophecy also indicate that its orgin was at
a time of persecution. The date then would probably be in
the reign of Nero or in that of Domitian, and hence about 64
or 95. For the early date the argument that appeals to one
most strongly is the stylistic, and I can more easily conceive
of John as able to write both books at either date, than as
enabled to write the Gospel by a lapse of thirty years after
he had passed the age of sixty-five. I question whether the
change intimated by those who hold the development theory
is not without a parallel. After ftie age of sixty the opinions
and the manner of expressing them naturally change little.
The habits of thought are fixed, and the intricate connection
between intellectual activity and the cerebral function would
require for any marked development a change in the physical
beyond that which accords with the laws of nature.
I am disposed to ascribe both books to the Apostle
John, and their origin to the last quarter of the first century.
This accords with tradition and early testimony. The pecu
liar Hebraistic and Jewish elements in the Apocalypse may be
accounted for on the well-established ground of the potency
in extreme old age of the influences prevalent in early life.
The Gospel, then, I regard as first written and best known.
To it some disciple of John probably refers in the proem '
to the Apocalypse, i. 2, "Who bore witness of the word
of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, of all that he saw."
Summary.
1. Men to whom Christianity is the highest type of
religion conduct the discussion.
2. The question is not concerning the stability of
Christianity, but concerning the origin of certain writings.
1. See.however, Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the Xfew Testament,
Vol. ii, p. 56.
2. See Thayer's Lexicon and Winer's New Testament Grammar.

38
3. No universally accepted conclusion is likely to be
reached. The question may continue in the present unsettled
state. 4. External evidence favors the apostolic authorship of
both books.
5. Neither internal nor external evidence must be disre
garded; they must be combined.
6. Indirect internal evidence has developed on three
main lines: stylistic, historical, psychological.
7. The influences producing Hebraistic Greek waned
with the apostolic age.
8. The argument from diction is not conclusive.
9. Each book gives evidence of a different kind that
it author was a Hebrew.
10. Differences in scene and in those addressed would
give reason to expect variance in the substance and style of
Christ's discourses.
11. The primary object of the Fourth Gospel was not
historical, but interpretative and didactic. •
12. The supper of which Jesus partook may have been
not the paschal supper, but the feast of preparation occurring
at the beginning of 14 Nisan.
13. John's contemplative spiritual nature and his in
timacy with Jesus would enable him to present the person
and teachings of Christ uniquely.
14. Translation of discourses and allowable subjective
influences explain largely the sameness of style throughout
the Fourth Gospel.
15. The character of the "son of thunder" is not incon
sistent with that of "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
16. In view of John's ability and environment it is not
unlikely that he should have written the Fourth Gospel.
17. The opinions and style of a writer would not be
expected to change considerably after he had passed the age
of sixty-five years.
18. Internal evidence indicates the Johannean author
ship of both books, which were probably written 75-95.

39

Bibliography.
E. A. Abbott, Gospels, Encyc. Britt. 9th Ed., 1875; E. Abbot,
Tlie Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External Evidence, 1880; Henry
Alford, Tlw New Testament for English Headers, 1872; J. F. Bleek,
An Introduction to tlie New Testament, 1866; A. B. Bruce, Apologetics,
1892; Walter R. Cassels, The Diatessaron of Tatian, 19th Cent., 1895;
Saml. Davidson, An Introduction to tlie Study of the New Testament,
1868; J. H. A. Ebrard, Commentary on St. John, 1860; Jas. Glasgow,
The Apocalypse, 1872; Geo. P. Fisher, History of the Christian
Church, 1889; P. J. Gloag, Introduction to tlie Johannine Writings,
1891; F. Godet, Commentary on St. John, 1876; A. Harnack, Revela
tion., Encyc. Britt, 9th Ed., 1875; E. W. Hengstenberg, Commen
tary on St. John's Gospel, 1871; J. P. Lange, Commentary, 1870;
William Lee, The Revelation of St. John, Bible Commentary, 1880;
J. B. Lightfoot, Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuine
ness of the Fourth Gospel, 1871; H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the
Gospel of John, 1868; A. P. Peabody, Internal Tokens of Authorship
in the Fourth Gospel, 1891; A. Plummer, St. John and the Epistles of
St. John, 1892; Geo. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1892;
Wm. Sanday, The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth
Gospel, 1872; and Dr. Schurer on the Fourth Gospel, Contemp. Rev.,
1891; Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek New Testament and
English Version, 1891; Emil Schurer, The Fourth Gospel, Contemp.
Rev., 1891; and The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 1885;
W. H. Simcox, The Hevelation of St. John, Cambridge Bible, 1891;
Wm. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, 1876; Moses Stuart, Commen
tary on the Apocalypse, 1845; J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament, 1886; Bernard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction
to the New Testament, 1886; B. F. Wescott, St. John's Gospel, Bible
Commentary, 1880; Wescott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek,
Revised by Philip Schaff, 1893; Geo. B. Winer, New Testament
Grammar, Translated and Revised by Henry Thayer, 1868; Robt.
Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 1880.