702
JOHN. GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
taken from the Gospel becomes almost demon- strated by the romantic discovery, not only of Tatinn's Address to the Greeks, but also of the Diatessaron, where the largest part of tlie Fourth Gospel is interwoven with the other three. Within 20 years of this date we have the clear testimonies of Irena-us, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and then that of Athenagoraa, and the Munitorian Canon, fre- quently cementing the fragmentary relies of the century. Even Keim admits that tlie evidence is as strong as for any other of the Gospels. Not one of these reminiscences or citations was placed where it has been found for the sake of the modern apologist. It is simply marve/luiis that the ele- ments of the testimony should thus have been dra«-n together from such a number of sources within the compass of a century.
III. Canonicitv of the Fourth Gospel. — There is sulhcient evidence that this Gospel is among the least disputed components of the earliest collection of documents. The Apoc, 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, are missing from the Peshitta. In the Old Lat. belonging to tlie 2nd cent.. He, 2 P.andJa are want- ing. The Mur. Canon does not contain a reference to Hebrews, unless it be identified with the Letter to the Alexandrians ; and the refeience to 2 and 3 Jn is dubious. The document is incomplete or muti- lated, and does not contain explicit mention of the Gospels of Mt or Mk. Yet all these early indica- tions of a list of NT books contain the Gospel of Jolin. The same may be said of Origen's list (184-253). And EuseLius' Canon, which placed among tlic antilegomcna Ja, 2 P, Jude, 2 and 3 Jn, and reckoned the Apoc. spurious (viflTjx), contained the Fourth Gospel. The earliest codices of the 4th cent. (B, N), the Canon of Athanasius and all tho.oe of the ecclesiastical councils, also include it. These facts establish widespread and ancient con- viction as to the sacred character and authority of this document.
IV. Intkrnal Evidf.nck for the Authorship. — The familiar process by which the question of the authorship of the P'ourth Gospel is limited and decided must now be briefly recounted in the light of the fresh treatment it has received at the hands of Wendt, Ewald, Weizsiicker, Beyschlag, Cross, Delir, and Sanday.
o. The author, whoever he may have been, was essentinlly a Jew. — From beginning to end he is saturated with Heb. and OT ideas, though thej' are illumined from within by the new and heavenly lilllit which broke upon him through direct contact ■with Jesus.
i. The inner sources and main tendencies of the author's thought are to be found in the OT ; and bis quotations from it in independent freedom, even from the current Gr. ASS, are hardly now in dispute. The whole argument of the Prologue is a prophetic fore.shortening of the history of ' Hiso^\'n,' ana their age-long refusal to admit to the full the highest revelation of the Eternal. Note also the reference to the hope of the Prophet who should make all things clear, and to the Elijah of the new dispen- sation (]'-' 4^), our Lord's zeal for the sanctity of the temple (2''-'^), his familiarity with OT history (3"), the a.scription to Je.sus by John the Baptist of the function of the Bridegroom of the true Israel, an idea which frequently appears in ancient oracles (Jer 2^ Ezk \&, Hos 2'»- *). The writer's references to the feasts of the Jews, the pas.sovers (chs. 2, 6, 12, 18), the unn.amed feast (ch. 5) which may or may not be a passover, the feast of tabernacles (ch. 7), the feast of dedication (ch. 10), show the region of his religious ideas. He alludes to the special ceremonial of the feast of tabernacles in the pouring of water and illumination of the temple. The same conclusion may be drawn
from his numerous reftrences to Moses (1' 5" 7"), and Abraham (ch. 8) ; from the gnat authcrity attributed to the law, and even from the verbal criticism of the Psalms (ch. 10) ; from the declara. tion that ' the Scriptures cannot be broken ' ; and especially from the fourteen passages quoted from OT. Five of these are attributed to our Lord, seven are ma<le by the Evangelist, two by other speakers (see Turpie, Old I'est. in the New ; West- cott. Introduction in Speaker's Comm. p. xiii • Sunday, Ej-pusitor, RIarcn 1892, p. 17811'.). Fou: of these agree with the accurate tr. in the LXX. Some, however, are in closer agreement with the Heb. against the LXX. Thus Jn 19-'' 'They shall look on him whom they pierced' ( = Zec 12'") instead of ' insulted.' This tr. is found also in Kev 1', and is a curious link of linguistic correspondence between the Gospel and Apoc. It is found al.so in Justin, and in the versions of Theod., Synim., and Aqnila. This does not necessarily imply that the author was utilizing his personal knowledge of Heb., but that more accurate translation.s of Zee than that of LXX existed. Cf. with this Jn 6" ( = Is 54") ; and especially 13>» ( = P8 41») ' He that eateth bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.' Here the Gos[)el stands alone, the fou.- other extant Gr. VSS dill'ering from each other. The passage 12", quoted accurately from LXX, where this version fairly represents Heb. in Mt and Ac, is diti'erent from both authorities in our Gospel. There is no case where this Gospel agrees with LXX against the Hebrew. These peculiarities indi- cate knowledge of the original Scriptures. Besides these phenomena of translation, h t it be observed that tne a"thor is acquainted with a majority of the OT bojks, the historical books, Psahr.s, Pro- verbs, and both parts of Isaiah. He is familiar with the history of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David, with the brazen serpent, with circunuision, with the manna in the wilderness, and with O'f similitude and doctrine.