7. The Alogi.— These were a party in Asia Minor (c. A.D. 180) who rejected the Johannine authorship of the Gospel and the Apocalypse. They are first mentioned by Epiphanius and Philaster (4th cent.), but it may now be safely admitted that Irenseus opposes their views in H(Er. in. xi. 12 (Zahn and Harnack). They attributed the authorship to Cerinthus, and founded their argument chiefly on the chronological disparity with the Synoptics. The main interest in the Alogi centres round the question whether they betoken uncertainty in the ecclesiastical tradition. Epiphanius ranks them among heretics, but it is certain that they were a party in the Church (Schiirer and Harnack). The name 'Alogi' is a jest of Epiphanius, and indicates merely that they rejected the Logos Gospel, with more than a hint at their stupidity (aXo7os=' un- reasonable'). It gives no clue to their doctrinal position. Epiphanius, himself very orthodox, says ' that they seem to believe as we do.' Probably they were opposed to some form of the Montanist heresy, and in their zeal sought to get rid of the teaching of the Gospel on the Holy Spirit by re- jecting the whole. This step they strove to justify by the chronological disparities with the Synoptics and otlier internal discrepancies. Irenceus says of them that 'they frustrate the gift of the Spirit.' The raillenarian views of the Montanists may have directed their first attack on the Apocalypse, which they extended to the Gospel ' by a piece of sheer
bravado ' (Sanday, Crit. of Fourth Gospel, p. 65). Their influence seems to have been small. Irenteus and Epiphanius refer to them slightingly, and Schwarz (op. cit. p. 33), in common with Salmon, al- though from a ditierent motive, narrows them down to a single individual with perhaps a coterie behind liini. We may admit that tlie presence of the Alogi in the Church indicates tliat the belief in the Johan- nine authorship had not reached that stage of clear definition and regular acceptance which only con- troversy and time could give. They ' came upon the tradition unawares ' (Loisy). Tiie Cliurcli was not yet in a position either to challenge with critical weapons, or to expel as heretics those who dift'ered from her traditional beliefs about authorship (Iren- Beus could only defend the fourfold Gospel mystic- ally), especially when they were fighting, as in this case, a common foe in Montanism. Indeed, the Alogi can really be pressed into the service of tra- dition. ' Its ascription to Cerinthus, an impossible author, betrays the recklessness of the judgment pronounced ; while the naming of
and fellow • townsman of the Apostle may be ' " of the
contemporary . jstle m accepted as an indication of the true date Gospel' (Dods, Expos. Gr. Test. i. p. 659).
II. The Internal Evidence.— No text of the Gospel that we possess is without the categorical statement of 21^ that the book contains the witness of the Apostle John and is written by him. It seems the more probable view that this whole chapter was composed by friends of the Evangelist, either towards the end of his life, or after his death, in order to remove a misinterpretation of a saying of Jesus about him. The position assi'Tied to St. Peter in the chapter might be explained by the desire to show that, although tlie Gospel leaves him weighted with the guilt of his denial, he was restored to his place in the Apostolic circle, and that no disparagement or supersession is intended of the Petrme Gospel that lies at the basis of the Synoptics. We have no moral right to regard the statement of 21^ as anything but a bona fide state- ment of the earliest view of the authorship, and in the internal evidence we have to consider how far the book itself corresponds with this suggested view.
1. The author is a Jew.— (1) His attitude towards the OT shows unmistakably that it was for him a valuable aid to faith and a deep source of religious experience. The opening words of the Gospel are reminiscent of Gn l' ; 3" recalls Dt 30'-. ' His own ' in 1" can betray only the tragic consciousness of a Jew that the chosen nation rejected the Christ. The words in 10*^ ' the Scripture cannot be broken,' may be taken as expressing the Evangelist's own conviction. He sees in certain incidents in the life of Jesus that would otherwise cause perplexity, especially some connected with the Passion, the fulfilment of the OT. Twice the conduct of Judas is explained by Scripture (13'* 17'^). The mournful sight of the "arments of Jesus distributed among the rough soldiers brings to mind a prophecy (ig-'^). The thirst of Jesus, who Himself had the gift of the living water, is a fulfilment of Scripture (19^). It is in Scripture that he finds a solution for the problem of the failure of Christ's ministry and teaching (12^'). The very spear-thrust has a place in the counsels of God (19^"- *'), and becomes an aid to faith (19^^*). While the Evangelist rarely cites incidents from the OT, and the great majority of the OT references are contained in the discourses of Christ, it has to be borne in mind that the Gospel was written for Gentile readers, to whom only the outlines of the history would be familiar.