Thus far we have sought to get at the real facts of tradition. It will surprise no one to know that the life of one so eminent as Jolm was embellished with all manner of legends, such as his meeting with Cerinthus in the bath-house at Ephesus (ndv. Hmr. iii. 3, 4) ; Iiis being carried in extreme old age to the church, and saying, ' Little children, love one another' (Jerome, Com. ad Gal. vi. 11); his recovery of the j^oung robber from his life of shame (Eus. HE lii. 23) ; his immersion in a cal- dron of boiling oil (Tert. Prceseripf. Hwr. ch. xxvi.); and a number of others. Some of them may have germs of truth in them. They all seek in some way to illustrate the noble character of the man, or to interpret the prophecy of the Gospels regarding his earthly destiny.
lii. The chaeacter of John.— It is commonly
thought that John was of a gentle, contemplative nature, and almost effeminate in character. Con- templative he was, and the Gospel is but an expression of his profound meditation upon the character and work of his Master ; but a moment's refiexion upon some of the scenes of the Gospels (see Mt 20-""^, Lk 9'''- ^■'), in correspondence with which are some of the legends regarding his later life, will show that this Apostle was, at least in earlier life, impetuous, intolerant, and ambitious. Doubtless he was effectively moulded by the Spirit of Christ during his long discipleship, but he was always stem and uncompromising in his hatred of evil and in his defence of truth. He loved with a strong, passionate devotion, and he hated all Avrong and untruth as only one can who understands as profoundly as he did the significance of his Lord and His teaching. Because of his profound under- standing, he writes as one who has an immediate perception of truth. He does not reason as does Paul. He satv ' the King in his beauty,' or, to use his own words, ' the glory of the only-begotten of the F'ather ' (Jn 1'''). His strength and devotion made him courageous ; his affection and sympathy made him tender and abundantly helpful. His was the finest type of strong manhood made beautiful by spiritual purity.
of the Fourth (
following : James Drummond, The Character and Authorship Fourth Gospel ; V. H. Stanton, The Goepettt as llistorical Documents ; W. Sanday, The Criticisin of the Fourth Gospel ; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age ; Eneyc. Bibl. art. ' John, Son of Zebedee * ; Hastings* DB, art. * John, the Apostle ' ; Harnack, Chronol. der Altchrist. Lit. bis Emebius, pp. 320-340, 656-680 ; Keim, Geech. Jem von A'azara. Eng. tr. i. pp. 211-232.
James S. Kiggs. JOHN, GOSPEL OF (I. : Critical article).- Introduction.
2. Justin Martyr,
3. Tatian.
4. The Apostolic Fathers.
5. Evidence derived from Opponents of the Church
doctrine.
0. Evidence afforded by the Quartodeciman controversj-. 7. The Alogi.
ii. Internal evidence of authorship.
1. The author is a Jew.
2. The author is a Jew of Palestine.
3. A contemporary of the events and persons.
4. Relationship to Jesus and the Apostolic circle.
5. Is John the Apostle the author?
iii. The divergences from the Synoptic narrative, iv. The problem of the historicity of the Gospel. Literature.
Introduction. — It is important to remember that the Kingdom of Christ was in being before the Gospel records were written. They did not origin- ate the institution, but are themselves the expres- sion of it. Previous to the publication of the Johannine Gospel, which is the latest of the four, St. Paul had completed his mission to the Gentiles ; and in Ephesus, where the Gospel was written, his doctrine had already an assured place in the Chris- tian Church. It is therefore historically untrue to .say that faith in the Divine Person and work of Jesus is de.stroyed if the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel cannot be proved. For the basis of our faith we must dig deeper than the results of critical investigation.
The question, however, of the authorship of this Gospel is more than a merely academic one. It occupies a unique position. None of the other three claims to be written by the man whose name it bears, but the Fourth Gosi)el is issued with an explicit statement to that effect (SI-'-*). Moreover, its contents are vitally connected witli the indi- viduality (if tliH author. The very way in which his identity is studiously concealed shows that the writer is lii'iiiself conscious that the Gospel contains a personal testimony, which he does not hesitate to
870
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
present as objective and mipersoual. We desire to know who it is that claims to be an eye-witness ; who it is that narrates events and disf-c-ses of Jes'is "o distinct in character from the Synoptic! and yet meant to occupy a place alongside these without contradiction ; who it is that has ^o boldh mingled historic fact and ideal conception-- tint has t,nen to the Person of Christ a timtltss tusiiiic si^ni hcance, and has represented oui lorl in Hi-- t and in His words as Himself ju tit>in^ tint l^ression and those claims. If, i is (titun tl work is influenced by developed tlitol i^u d ceptions, and reflects the conteiiipoi u\ hi tnK i situation of the Christian Church ve desiie to 1l certain that the writer was in a position not sti i ously to misrepresent the actual facts I hi-- is no merely antiquarian question. Theic can be no doubt that the Gospel is intendea to oe reaa as tne work of the Apostle, and it would seriously detract from its value, if, as extreme critics are more and more inclined to allow, that claim means only that it contains a nucleus of Johannine tradition. The same objection applies to all partition theories of the