S. Is St. John the Apostle the author of the Gospel 7 — Is he the unnamed disciple who is identified with the writer ? This unnamed disciple is called among the earliest disciples, and re- members even the hour of the day (P"). He is closely associated with St. Peter m the closing scenes. We know from the Synoptics that St. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee were in specially close relationship with Jesus. St. Peter is out of the question ; St. James died early ; only St. John is left. Unless John be the beloved disciple, one of the 'pillar' Apostles (Gal 2") is never once mentioned in the Gospel, except indirectly in 21=. A very strong argument for supposing that St. John is meant may also be founded on the fact that nowhere does the author refer to ' the Baptist,' but always to 'John.' Elsewhere he is very care- ful to distinguish names {e.g. 14==), but in this case he seems to have thought that no confusion was possible.
If St. John is the writer of the Gospel, why does he so studiously conceal his identity ? The fourth Gospel is distinguished from tlie Synoptics by the fact that, while in them we have a purely imper- sonal narrative except in the preface to St. Luke, in St. John we have a narrative where individual experience ('testimony ') is prominent. Is it solely because St. John is himself the author and writer of the Gospel, that he sedulously veils his own name ? Why was it not possible for him to in- corporate his own testimony in the Gospel without keeping himself in the background in such a way as really to attract attention ? There must be some reason for this conduct other than a modesty which thus defeats its own end. It is quite evident that the authority of the Gospel for the Church is re- garded as depending on the fact that St. John the Apostle wrote it. It is permissible to see in 21=* an indication that it was felt necessary, even at that early date, to authenticate the position that the Apostle John made himself responsible for the statements contained in this Gospel. This is not because there was doubt as to the Johannine authorship, but because the Gospel ditt'ers so much in character, subject, and content from the Sjm- optics, which already held the ground as authorities for the life and teaching of the Lord.
We shall be able to find an answer to these ques- tions if we consider the two passages in the Gospel itself that have been most relied on as direct state- ments of Johannine authorship, (a) l'*. In what sense is ' we beheld ' to be taken ? It has been con- tended that a seeing ■with the bodily eye is not
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, CxOSPEL OI'
meant, but spiritual vision. If we compare the
Parallel passage in 1 Jn 1', there can be little oubt that the ' hearing ' and the ' handling ' there mentioned demand the sense that the ' seeing ' is also literal. The presumption is in favour of applying the same interpretation to the passage in the Gospel. By 'we' is iiiwuit li. unmp of eye- M'itnesses who are associiituil with .St. John in the statement. Who these -nere it is impossible actually to determine, but perliaps it is unnecessary to limit the range of ' we ' to the circle of the Twelve. The Gospel shows that the writer is in- terested in tlie testimony, however imperfect it may sometimes be, of many others besides his fellow-Apostles. Clement of Alexandria says that 'last of all, John, perceiving that the bodily facts liad been set forth in the idhrv Go-pels, .at the in- stance of his disciples ami wilh tin- iii-|iiration of the Spirit composed a siiiritii;il ( :o-|iel. With this may be compared tlie stati/iiHui m I lie .Muratorian Canon: 'It was rexealeil t<> Amliew, one of the Apostles, that John slmnM nnrate everything in his own name, sulijeit to I In- revision of the rest' {ut rccognoscentibus i-inn-li.^ Jnluinncs suo nomine cimcta dcscribcixt). AVhile these statements may not have independent historical value, and may themselves be based on the internal evidence of the Gospel, and especially on 21-^, surely they must be regardeil as the simplest and most direct inter- pretation of the facts. A group of eye-witnesses was concerned in the origin of the Gospel. We may therefore otier the hypothesis that, while St. John wrote the Gospel .umI inipresseil upon it his own personality, thefoiiu in wIikH Iio expresses himself, the philosophical mould in wliich the writing is cast, the Philonic plua.seuluj^y, and the extra- ordinary power of analyzing situations and char- acters, would owe much to the intellectual environ- ment of Ephesus, and in some cases to direct suggestion on the part of some fellow-disciple, not necessarily one of the Twelve. The value of the Gospel and its authenticity are conhrmed by the fact that it is the expression of St. John's own e.Kperience, attested by that of his fellow-disciples who had seen the Lord. The purpose of the Gospel is to treat the facts of the life and teaching of Jesus in such a way as to advance faith in the hearts of those who had not been eye-witnesses, and were therefore all the more inclined to regard their position in relation to the ' bodily facts' as a loss and a hindrance to faith. So far from this, the climax of faith is not to have seen and yet to believe ('2021*). There would, no doubt, be men like Thomas in the early Church, easily cast down, and satisfied only Ijy the bodily presence of Christ, to whom all else was unreal. No personal assurance was sufficient to convince them. St. John, there- fore, veiled his identity, and emphasized the joint- testimony of the group of eye-witnesses to which he also belonged. This is also the origin of the impersonal reference in 20^" 'These things are written,' etc.