Philo used to refer the manifestations of the Angel of J" to the operations of the Logos and to specialized functions of the human mind ; the apostles found in this mysterious phraseology an age-long witness to the possibility of an incar- nation.
Perhaps nothing more than a personification of vnsdom can be found in Pr, Job, or the Sapiential Books, but this method of presentation reappears in the Epistles of Paul to tlie Corinthians and in those to the Colossians and Ephesians.* See also He !'• ', from which it is clear that ideas of the Son, robed in phraseology of the Sapiential Books descriptive of wisdom, are independent of the treatment of the Alex, philosophy, and also of the author of the Fourth Gospel. With this may be compared the almost extreme Johannine phrases of Mt 11 and Lk 10. Where could these writers have obtained these notions except from the widely diffused traditions and holy memories of the apostles themselves ? Thoma has done service in demonstrating the remarkable resemblance between the root-ideas of St. Paul and the Fourth Gospel. Beyschlag, in his Theolvqy of NT, vol. i., has endeavoured with success to show the identical basis of the Synoptic and Johannine ideas of the relation between the Father and Son, the Father and Christ. Yet it is very noteworthy that ' John ' uses a term from Gr. philosophy to which he attached a profoundly difl'erent sense from
• See Watkins In Smith's DB* p. 1755, who also shows the link bebveeD OT aod Fourth Gospel in many other particulars of IP.
Philo, and to which the other sacred writers bar* not attained. It is almost a demonstration that he was a Palestinian, not an Alexandrian Jew.
p. I'he writer claims to have been an eye-iritnest and car-witness of that which he describes. Number- less unconscious touches, without any theological bias in them, reveal the indelible impression left u]>on the writer of what he had seen and heard. i..g. observe the numerous indications of ' day ' and ' hour ' when that which he recorded took place (!». ». ». a 21 3a 40. $2 6i». a 121- " 13'- » 18=« 20', and many others).
In 1" and in 1 Jn 1' he puts himself in the posi- tion of those disciples who beheld His ^lory, and in 19" he lays the strongest emphasis on the testimony he was personally able to bear to a great si^n which accompanied the piercing of the side of the dead Christ. The fact that the author speaks of himself in the third person under the term ^teivot is in keeping with other tacit references to himself elsewhere, and with a similar u.sage of iKeivo!, referrin<j to the subject of the sen- tence, in 9". The writer indicates throughout intimate acquaintance with the secret fears, thoughts, murmurs, and questionings of the inner- most circle of the disciples. He knows what they thought at the time, and how they subsequently modified their views (1. 2"'^-" 12"); he recorcig the conversations with Nathanael, Andrev, Philip {chs. 1-6) ; the questions of Peter, Thomas, Judas AJphnei, Philip, in the valedictory discourse, together with remarks of his o^vn ; he gives indi- cations of the blank ignorance of the disciples themselves with reference to the great utterances of their Lord (4'" 6™- " 11'- »• " 16") ; the innermost mind of Peter at the feet- washing (13'""- --) ; the ignorance on the part of all of the deep signifi- cance of Scripture (20") ; and the conversations with Thomas {20"-»).
He is, moreover, acquainted with the very thoughts and motives of Jesus Himself (2"- " 4' 5« 71.6 i3iff.) . ijg gives a whole group of condensed perceptions of the blended divinity and humanity of our Lord which were flashed upon his conscious- ness by the Saviour's work and conduct (cf. 18*-19°'). He certainly suggests himself as the unnamed dis- ciple of the Baptist and of our Lord (ch. 1) ; and we feel that he must have been an auditor of the conversations with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman , and with the nobleman in chs. 3. 4. Caspari'a interesting suggestion that he had a house in Jerus., connected with the fish trade between that city and the lake, would explain his presence in Jerus. (ch. 5), and his intimate knowledge of what occurred (ch. 6) in 6". There is an unconscious revelation of his presence in the words, ' Now Jesus was not yet come to them.' We do not see any animosity to Peter's prominence. He is one of the two whom Jesus loved (20'). We owe to his constant clinging to Jesus the details of the trial before Annas, the private converse with Pilate, and the words from the Cross which intrusted the Mother to his care (19"- *■).
The closing scenes of ch. 21, with the appendix by the survivors, leaves it without doubt tnat the wTiter was one of the disciples whom Jesus loved, but not Simon Peter. Those present at the Sea of Galilee (21'- ') are Peter, distinguished from the unnamed disciple (v.*) ; Thomas and Nathanael, who are elsewhere mentioned bv name ; the two sona of Zcbedee ; and two other of tlis disciples. Now, James the brother of John was slain (Ac 12'- '). It follows that the ' beloved disciple ' who, in the Epilogue, is accredited with the authorship, must either have been John the son of Zebedee, or one of the two unnamed disciples. Andrew and Philip are conceivably hinted at, but, seeing they are elsewhere mentioned by name, it is not probable •