' ^' .^^ 'r^^';^.::i::^rr^d"iiL;p"rr;s;;t,'^s:
able that Tatian, hU conUiUiuorary and disciple, lu-tuallv con Ss^^Se"G"^7o?Vr.^'°^n^;«it^^^^^^
u erkhirV) Weiss and Weizsiicker discussed, m J<^rbJ- rf^f«rV 7'V<i(o7i>, the relation of the Logos doctrine of John t^U sourees.%t«uss and Hilgenfeld j" '^f ..-l^/ J^SS^ ' .V,,^,. the Mur Canon and on minor defences of tne uospei Vommar Uenan.TRiTville thought to rehabiliUite the »^- ment "hit it the Fourth Gospel Tiad been in use "nAO- >50;
of • the Lor^ • oi OT? the Creator of aU things, with the God and
^"i^ml van"?o.ter»e'. Life of Christ, Hengstenber^ Comm. on Co^cl favoured, while Echthal's Let iV'Oiwi/M attacked the
V t J^l ii^TCtt de la m«r-all three mainloiniiig the authcnUclt,^iZe enconnlered by Keim, Qe^ichte J«u von A'^arn eli" whoannied (18«7) thit the Gospel was publ shed atthe beg o ^^nd cSlit. under the name o the Apo«Ue John I wVo nevertheless had never been >" EphMU^ Taylor^J .. Mempt to ascertain the Character <^ (V ^T^'* ?<^ " r/;arton (o the three ftrtt. was rtrongly opposed to the »<jtl>"- rf^^r/v ToMer attempted to cut out the original kernel, and Elf 'on (»70) he reduced It to 81 ver.es. Oost«rx« jnd
, . Ti„t« l>nL-lish Stanley 1-eathes' Boyle Lecture 0870) on
l,n»pei , ;■■•';'» |.„,,f,n Kitai/i. Theoloijical and Litrram. ''■'""^■fuuiw^lh great fore, the historicity of the liMpel lans irurLdhUMlower^u lloltxn.ann om-^iore took up Bgiunsl '"'"',"'' , i.„,i,v(,r In I8TS appeared the Import-
I of reply The anonj-inuu. writer wa. vehMueutl,- ad>er« to U»
J
722
JOHX, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, G015PEL OP
nithcntlcItT of this Gospel (vol. il. 2S1-470) on cver>- (rroiind ami every 8i(ie issue. I.,ii;htfoot in tile VonUmp. Hfv. (afler- wanls republislwl) ; Saniliiy in the (Jotprlnlurin;! Ihfimt CnU.; Kow. The Jeitui of the t'vaiujelUts ; Luthanlt, DerJohan. CrMp. da 4(.ii Evatiij. (tr. into V.ng. \n- C. It. lire^-orv, 1S7.'>),— replied very successtullv. Furrar'e Life of Chrint (1874) «u»Uine<l the aulliciitiiity ; liiit Hil(,'en(eld, iu 1876, in tlut.-Krit. EiiUnt. in dax A"/"., determined the Iiniit3 of production between a.d. 132 anil 140. Miincold (Blcek'a EiiUeit.) was again adverse, but Mat thew Arnold. Review of Ohjeetiom to Literature and Doijma, (Cont. Remrw, afterwards republished In Qod and the ISiliU), defended the authenticity with high lit«rary tact, but by fallinit baclc in part on some special partition Iheor}' of his own. In ISS:; the remarkable work appeare<i of Albrcoht Tlioma, Dit Qenesie dee Johan. Evang. : ein Be%tra>j zu $einer Atuleg,^ Getch., u. A' rid*, in which the author endeavoured to Und an Alex.-Philonio orii,'iti for the entire Gospel, which is dealt with as Philo handled the I'ent, and which, on this hypothesis, could have had no meaning save among the Neopliitonic schools, where supposed forecasts and sumraaries of hi.^tory were only cr^iito- granis of philosophical theory, e.g. ch. 9 is regarded as a cipher of the position and career of St. Paul, and ch. 21 an outline of the history of the Acta of Apostles. With ingenuity the theorv was carried through 879 napes. In 1882 (Kng. tr. 1883) appeared B. Weiss. Life of Chrwt. The chajilers on the * Johannine ' sources are singularly impressive, and vindicate the historii^ity of the Gospel against the speculations of various cflshoots'of the Tiibingen School. The theory of the reminis- cence of one who hod fathomed the deep secret of the Incarnate lA>go3 in Jesus, Interprets the author's 'ideal elevation and spiritual form, but also his historical trustworthiness. If It be regarded RS the invention of a semi-Gnostic philosopher of the lind cent., it is a delusive will-o'-the-wiap — in truth, a ^gantic lie.' In the same sense Godet's invaluable Introd. to his Coin- mtntary touches and illumines every part of this great subject (Eng. tr. 1887). In 1886 Salmon's llitt. Introd. to the Sttidii of yv gave ample space and great freshness to the maintenance of the authenticity. Edward Reuss in his HiM. of Sac. Scrip. OJf yr, tr. into Eng. by Houghton from the 5th Germ, ed., with additional bibliographical details, minimized the value of the external endence, and left it as only barely possible that jn was the work of the apostle. The introducton- discussions of Uengstenberg are scattered througliout bis Cotnmt'ntart/. Bpecial excursuses on the Paschal and other questions are to be found in srClellan's great work on the Gosjpels. Against I-Mvvin Abbott's lew in his article 'Gospels' in Encye. Brit. 9 may be put Ezra Abbot's Extertial Ecidence of the Fourth GoS]>et, and WcStcott's Introd. to his invaluable Comm. on the Go.stnl in Speaker's Commentartj (and published separately) ; also Milli..'an and Miulton, Introd. totheirComm.inSchafT's Popular Comjneti' (ar>,andWatkiii3' Introd. to Comm. in KUicott's Com irt. /or ii'H</. headers, as well as his very important discussion of the history of criticism in Hampton Lectures for 1890; Reynolds' Introd. to his Comm. on Jn in the Pulpit Commentary. Keim in his voluminous Life of Jesus of Nazara settled down to the date A.D. l:iO and to a repudiation of St. John's residence in Ephesus. He decided that early antiquity w.as grievously misled by Irenffius in this and other respects, just as Riggenbach, Farrar, and others think that the very personality of 'John the Pres- byter' has been created by an ill-starred guess of Eusebius. In liandkom. z. A'7'(' Job. Evangeliura '), Holtzmann, 1890, argues tiiat the most extreme critical view which he adopts doubles the value of the Gosi>el. Edersheim's Life and Timet of Jesus the Messiah (1SS3) throws \ivid light upon the Johan. as well as other sources of the great biography by his intimate acquaint- ance with Heb. literature. In 1890 IIu^o Delff, Das 4 Evan- gelium, and (188:^) in his Grundziige des Entwick.-Geschichte d. Religion, advocated a special view which creates many fresh ditticulties, that 'John' was neither the son of Zebedee, nor John the Presbyter, nor the author of the Apoc., but a well- to-do pbilnsophical disciple of Jesus, whom He loved and who was Bjiecially acquainted with the ministry in Jerus., who was subsequently confounded with the John of Acts and Apocalv-pse. P. Ewald, in 1890, Das Uauptproblem der Evangelienfratje, strove to bring out the original Johan. nucleus of the entWe evangelical tradition, of which John has given the richest an- thology. In 1891 Gloag issued Introd. to the Johan. Writings. This is one of the most complete r^suinis of the entire question in the light of modern criticism, embracing not only the Gospel but the Epp. and the Apocalypse. Hamack in his History of Dogma, vol. i. 9&-98, admits that the oricrin of the Johan, writings is 'a marvellous enigma,' that therein a Christ clothes the indrscribable with words, that a Pauline Christ walks on the earth * far more human than the Christ of Paul, yet far more divine.' He seems to a<bnitthat Christ Himself is the author of oh. 17, but all is suffused in a bright cloud of the supra-historical. He repudiates the dependence on Philo and Hellenism, with which John lias little =n common but the word /*/«, and he regards the author ,»s a bom Jew. Important articles have appeared at various times in the Expositor by Lightfoot, Sandav, and others. In 1891 Willibald Beyschlag of Halle