either from the other Gospels, or t
iral tradi-
same words as John the Baptist (cf. !'■ and 3'), a
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
fact which must not be forgotten in view of the tendency to lind allegorical meanings in the characters (cf. 1-' and 4'). It would he strange if the Evangelist should take so little pains to distin- guish between characters known to be historical, and those that are allegorical. The realitj' of the characters is witnessed by the words they utter. It is not stupidity, but a profound emotion that makes Nicodemus speak as he does in 3^, when he discovers that all that he has learned must be un- learned, and that he must begin the process of human experience anew. He is on the threshold of a world of facts as yet unrealized by him (S"). The woman of Samaria is introduced upon the scene, amid real surroundings, at Jacob's well, on the road from Judaea to Galilee. Her character is revealed in her nonchalant air and bantering mood, behind which she conceals an aching and guilty heart, and is much too true to life for alle- gory. How can the woman of Samaria be an allegory of the Samaritan Church, and her five husbands symbolize her idolatrous worship? (so, e.g., Keim, Jesus of Naz. i. 159, note 1 ; Loisy, Lc Quat. ivaiigile, p. 354). It is not necessary to suppose that the Evangelist was present at these interviews. It is enough to remember that Christ was present, and that the Evangelist is the ' disciple whom Jesus loved,' -with whom confidences of that kind would be exchanged. Leaving for the moment the lifelike characters of the Apostolic circle, we are confronted in the closing scenes with a group of men that could have been painted only by a contemporary hand. The writer knows Caiaphas so well that he is able to reveal the man in a single sentence that fell from his lips (II'"'). Pilate is depicted, irresolute, and fettered by a guilty pa.st of oppressive and cruel government. At the critical moment, the Evangelist places in the hands of the people the powerful weapon of a covert threat to denounce him to the Emperor (19'-).
4. Relationship of the Evangelist to Jesus and the Apostolic circle. — It is evident that the author was able in a peculiar degree to interpret the mind of our Lord. He tells us of His emotions, thoughts, and motives (IV^ IS^' 2'^ i^'^ 6'* 13' 18*). Is the ^vriter identical with ' the disciple whom Jesus loved ' ? Jn 21™- -■* leaves us in no doubt. It is an entirely inadequate interpretation to say that the phrase is meant to stand for ' the type of the per- fect Gnostic, the spiritual witness of Jesus' (so Loisy, Le Quat. Ev. p. 125). It is a strong argu- ment against the view that a purely ideal figure is meant, when we note the variety of the references. His existence is implied in 1" : in 13^ lie is de- scribed as leaning on Jesus' breast ; in 18"* he is mentioned as ' another disciple who was known to the high priest' It would also be necessary to in- terpret the scene in 19^° as allegorical, if the disciple is not a historical figure. The variety of the situa- tions shows that the author had a real per.son in his mind.
We have, however, to explain the difficulty that when the personality of the Evangelist is obtruded, he describes himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' If tliere is an apparent lack of modesty in the use of the phrase, it may be questioned whether tliis cliarge would not be equally relevant in those ip.iss.i;_.,.v where the Evangelist confidently inter]. i.is thr iiniMist thoughts of our Lord. The fact lli;U lie sliciuM describe himself in this indirect fashion at all « ill be matter for discussion under the question of the historicity of the Gospel. In the meantime it is sufficient to point out that in every case where the phrase is used, the writer is laid nnder the necessity of referring to liimself individually. In 13=^ he explains the fact that he is lying on Jesus' breast. And in 19-' Jesus ad- dresses him directly. Perhaps in 20- there is the
suggestion of a thought in Mary's mind that the disciple would tell the mother of Jesus. The only alternative in these cases is to use the per- sonal pronoun or to mention his own name, a course which the Evangelist systematically avoids. If ch. 21 is an appendix by another hand, there is no difficulty about the use of the phrase in vv.'- ™.
It is also apparent that the author of the Gospel stood in a very intimate lelationship to the Apos- tolic circle. We have miniature portraits of several of the Apostles, conveyed often through questions they put. Philip throughout appears as a man of somewhat practical and business-like turn of mind (I''* 6^ 14*). Andrew is wise, helpful, and unobtrusive (!*' G*- » 12~). Thomas is de- spondent : his moods colour his outlook, and he experiences violent reaction (11"* 14^ 2(F'*- '""•). Peter is over-confident and impulsive, and at a time cowardly (IS'^'^- ^f- IS'"*- '"f). The scandal of Judas' presence among the Twelve is referred to as if by one who felt the shame of it and was eager to clear the situation (12*-« 13-- '-^-^ 18=). He knows also their places of resort (11" 18= 20'"), and the thoughts of the disciples at critical moments (211. "• -'^ 4-'' e'"- "» 12'=* 13"- =» 20^).