3. The writer is a contemporary of the eYents and persons in his narrative. — (1) His knoiBleihjr of the ecclesiastical situation and feelinq of the time. — A deputation is sent to the Baptist from the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem consist- ing of priests and their attendant Levites (l'""^-), and the^ writer breaks the narrative of the deputa- tion to insert the remark, evidently meant to ex- plain the question that follows, that the deputation included some Pharisees (v.^). Their inquiry be- trays an interest in ritual and in the orderly observance of the Law which is characteristic of that party, as distinct from the Sadducees. The Sadducees seem to have applied rationalist prin- ciples to the old religion, .-in.! were ilistiiifxuished by dogmatic difi'erences nut only HLjai.litii; the rule of faith, but in connexion wilh mk h iim'stions as the life after death, and the que.stiun uf free-will and predestination (Edersheim, Life and Times, i. pp. 310-324). The writer does not speak of Pharisees and Sadducees, but of Chief Priests .and Pharisees, showing- tliat lio is .a.qiiaintc-1 with t)ie f.aot that the
Saddiucr, licl.l II Hi.-,., ill the tini.' of Christ.
The pass:, .^,. I I ''Ms full ,,i, .,■,•!, .,ia-tiral knowledge. Thedisciissi,,!! ui tlip Sanlieilriii is .M-.-asioned by the
inlluence on the people of tlie raising of Lazarus, and we can clearly ilistinjiiiisli the attitude of the two parties. Tia' l'Iiari-ri> are repre.sented as in touch with the ].im,]iIc 1 1 I '', rf. .Jos. Ant. xin. x. 6), and they an- aliai.l \v^\ a tumult should arise, and thereby the n i l.',ia^l ir.il influence (roiros) and the national exisina,- !„■ .li',troyed by Rome. The reply of Caiaplia, 1, c liai-n ti-ristic. He scornfully sets aside the iiin'sti.iii cf ila- miracle, and urges an opportunist policy to deal with the actual situa- tion (vv.J-'- •*'). It can scarcely be without meaning that the Evangelist, who knew the Sadduc.'ean dis- belief in inedestination, should represent Caiaphas as the unconscious prophet and instrument of the death of Christ (vv.^i-^-'). In 7«-" there is dis- played a similar knowledge of ecclesiastical circles. After the triumphal entry the Pharisees seem to have been tilled with dismay at their loss of influ- ence with the people, and at the popularity of Christ (12'^), and it is the ruling Sadducjean party who plot tlie death of Lazarus (v.'"). Again, it is the Fourth Evangelist who tells us of the informal trial before Annas, who, though still wielding much power, had been deposed in favour of his son-in- law (W---^).
These indications of an acquaintance with opinion in ecclesiastical circles are in complete correspond- ence with the statement in 18'^ about the disciple 'who was known to the high priest.' In this Gospel alone are we told the name (Malchus) of the servant of the high priest whose ear was cut off by Peter. It is noteworthy, also, that the Evan- gelist is acquainted with Sicoilnniis, and with Joseph of Arimathsea, wlio lii.|on;:r.| to the Phari- saic party. In this coinaxion may lie mentioned the tradition of Polycralcs that ■ .lolm, who leaned on Jesus' breast,' also wore ' the frontlet ' (Tr^raXoi') of the high priest (Eus. HE in. xxxi. 3).
Delff has propounded the theory that the author of the Fourth Gospel was an unnamed native of Jerusalem, not of the number of the Twelve, but a man of high-priestly family, and a member of the higher aristocracy. He founds 'on IS'S, on the statement of Polycrates, and on the other indications in the Gospel. He identifies the author with ' the disciple whom Jesus loved,' and describes him as a kind of 'supernumerary disciple.' Sanday {C'l-tt. of Fourtlt GtKywf, 90-11)8) has discussed this theory with great generositj-, but it necessitates a further theory of interpolations, and itself presents some insuperable diHiculties. This disciple and Peter are close friends (202), and in the othiT (iosjiels, Peter and John are often named together 11 \' ' " :' ■ si-i. Gal 23). We cannot suppose that within the ii ' ■]' there were two pairs of friends, one identical in
I' ' if Delff is right, the Apostle John is not once " li II llic Gospel, and, on the other hand, this unknown ji i I iletely vanished from history, unless he be the
II ■ I M who fled at the arrest, leaving his linen cloth
III' I I tlie shadowy Presbyter John of Papias. It will
II I i lilt Delfl's conclusion goes considerably beyond the
i I , . uL' must be prepared, in assigning the authorship,
I' II ii-iii," ihi- undoubted Insight of the Evangelist into the
eock-siustiral situation.
(2) His knowledge of the opinions of the populace (6x^0^)- — He knows their varying verdicts about Christ (7"""); the wonder of "the ' Jerusalemites ' at the immunity Jesus enjoys from injury, not- withstanding His fearless speaking (7*'") ; the belief of some of the crowd (7^', cf. v.'"') ; the fickleness of the pojmlaris aura is graphically de- scribed (7*'-''-') ; the excitement among the people in view of the request of the Sanhedrin for informa- tion as to the whereabouts of Jesus, and the possi- bility of His niipcarance at the feast, is vividly portraycil (ll'» m The climax of popular accla- matioi'i is r..a,h..l in 12'2-'9.
(.'H) 77(1 ii-nt, r .ij" iiks as one to trhom the wrn and women uf his nnrrnfive arc pn-^>.),ri!!n f r-,-,iih'ar. — Nicodemus is introduced Sol I II hi i ■ I. ilyinto the narrative, but that is in till' i i i - i I'n i;\an-