ii. A point upon which the opponents of the Johannine authorship have laid much emphasis is the writer's use of the term ' the Jews,' as of a hostile [larty from whom he was separated, e.g. ' the purifying of the Jews' (2''), ' the passover of the Jews ' (2'^), ' a feast of the Jews ' (5' 6'), ' the manner of the Jews is to bury' (19'°). But the writer is here conveying no reproach, but explain- ing to Gentiles events of his early life. Doubtless 'the Jews' are discriminated from the (ix^<" of Galila'ans as hostile to Jesus, but the writer calls special attention to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, to Joseijh, and to those of ol fSioi who received Him, as well as to the roWol who ' believed on Him.' He .says that Jesus made more disciples in Judjea than John (4'), and in a most emphatic way that Jesus recognized that <rorrr!pla is from the Jews. Cf. the difficult passage (4"""), where Jesus it said to regard the land of Judma as ' his own country.' Even ch. 5, which discloses the enmity of ' the Jews ' to our Lord's interpretation of the Sabbath (cf. eh. 9), is ])enetrated throughout with the Jewish ideas of the Sabbath, of the Scriptures, and of Moses. The dramatic episodes of chs. 7-10 reveal great antagonism on the part of the mob in Jerus. and the JewLsh authorities to the teaching and mandate of Jesus, but the con- versations di.splay the author's intimate knowledge of Jewish law, alike of the Sabbath and of circum- cision (7'''), and the Jewish idea of the Siatr-ropi. And these three or four chapters are replete with assurances that ' many believed on him,' whUe 8" speaks of ' the Jews that had believed him.'
Again, when Jesus speaks of 'their law' and 'your law,' which Pharisees and Sadducees had misinterpreted, it is as one who is bringing to theii memory what they and not He had forgotten
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
70.3
Moreover, not infrequently, by the term 'the Jews' the writer evidently means to denote technically the ruling powers in State and Church, the Sanhe- drin in its pride, in opposition to the pilgrims from Galilee or from the ' Dispersion. '
One passage from the 'Jewish ' Gospel of Mt (28") shows an analogous use of the ol 'louSoioi. See also Lk 23". St. I'aul's use of the term is well known, and must have familiarized men in Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica with it, without suggesting for a moment that he was not a ' Hebrew of Hebrews.'
iii. The author is by many opponents of the genuineness of the Gospel allowed to be of Jewish origin and sympathy, but not a Palestinian Jew. He is supposed to have belonged to Alexandria or Ephesus, otherwise, they contend, he would never have made so many errors of a topographical or historic kind. The most seriouscharge is his refer- ence to Bethany beyond Jordan (1-°* RV). But it is clear that the author was not confounding this Bethany with that near Jerusalem. And if there were two Bethsaidas, two Canas, two Antiochs, and two Caesareas, why not two Bethanys ? Origen, it is true, had not recognized the site, and prob- ably suggested the Bethabara of AV which is found with variants in some MSS. Ca«pari has located it N. of the Sea of Galilie ; Conder, nearly S.E. of the Sea, far above the traditional site and much nearer to Cana of Galilee. Then the reference to the Pool of Siloam (Jn 9') has been triumphantly contirniecl by recent di.scovcry. The mention of '.Enon near Salim,' of Ephraim in the wilderness, and of 'Sychar' near Shechem, has been remarkably confirmed by recent research. In association with this may be classed the pictur- esque reference to the brook Kidron (18'); the 'gabbatha' of the Koman governor, with its Aram, name (19"); 'Solomon's porch' (10^); 'the treasury in the temple' (8'-'"); the scenery and various nomenclature of the Sea of Galilee; and possibly the decoration of the temple courts by the golden Tine (14" 15'-').
These Indications of personal knowledge have been disputed as evidence of the author's Pal. origin, because the writer might have visited Palestine and picked up, like the author of the ' Apocr. Gospel of Matthew,' a multitude of small details. So esp. Cross {fVcstmitister liev., Au^. 1890, p. 177). It is enough to refer to Sanday s complete reply in Expos., March 1892, p. 163.
Frequent use is made of the supposed ignorance of the writer touching the appomtment of the Jewish high priest, illustrated by the state- ment that Cniaphas held the othce ' in that year,' as though the s'lcer/lotium had been an annual apjiointnient. But the evangelist speaks of Annas being hi^h priest in the very ' same year ' in whitli ('aiaphas delivered the unconscious prophecy of the ellect of the death of Je.sus ( 1 1'"). Moreover, St. Luke, both in the (Jospcl (3^) and in the Acta (4'), speaks of Annas au<l Caiaplias as ' high priests.' Annas had been de]ioscd by the Boman procurator in favour of hisson-inlaw Caiaplias. His influence was great, though not ollicially recognized by Pilate; and therefore tlie cvangcli>t, who was known to the family of the high priest, in giving the account of the preliminary examination by Annas, says that Jesus was sent bound by Annas to Caiaplias the high priest, from whom alone Pilate would have accepted theotlicial charge of the Sanhedrin. The phrase ' that same year ' rellects the ab.sorbing interest of that year in which the highest court in the nation rejecte4l and delivered over to the Gentiles the Incarnate Son of (.!od. (See Pulp. Com. Introd. p. xl, ami notes on ll" 18"- '»• »•«).