(6) 19!*5-". Here is an instance where the Evan- gelist is comijelled to distinguish his own per- sonality from the circle in whose name he speaks. St. John alone of that group was present at the Cross (19-*). In this case he has to find, in accordance with his principle, some means of authenticating his testimony. It is interesting to notice how this is done, ancl the character of the Gospel as not dependent on the evidence of a single testimony alone vindicated. A threefold corrobora- tion is adduced, (a) ' His witness is true ' (a.\-q0i.v6^), I.I', confirmed by the 'Spirit of truth' (I4"--'«). (/3) Reference is made to One wlio ' knoweth that lie saith true.' It is possible, but awkward, to refer iKeTvot to the Evangelist. Rather it is meant to denote Christ Himseir(cf. 1"*, 1 Jn S'" 4"). It is VOL. I.— 56
so taken by Sanday {op. cit. p. 78) and Schmiedel (Eneijc. Bill. ii. 1809). This interpretation is as old as Erasmus. (7) The Scriptures are adduced as a witness, i.e. the witness of God Himself (\v.^- ^). The fact of the How of blood and water from the pierced side can be explained medically, and the emphasis is laid not on the fact, but on the interpre- tation to be put upon it. It is a 'sign,' and the writer must have regarded it as of peculiar value to his readers. Perhaps some form of the Docetic heresy is aimed at (cf. Haussleiter, Zivei Apost. Zetigen, p. 29).
In conclusion, the Gospel is a genuine Johannine work from the pen of the Apostle, who wrote from Ephesus.* We cannot, however, overlook the un- doubted fact that the WTiter is concerned to hide his own identity, and thereby to impress the fact that the Gospel is not the work of a single individual, but the testimony of a group of eye-witnesses. With John's as the guiding mind, tliey conjointly made themselves responsible for the statements contained in the book. This is at once the oldest and simplest solution of the problem of authorship.
Two objections, on general gTounds, to the tra- ditional authorship may here be mentioned.
1. Can a Galilivan Jisherman have written this Gospel ? — There is no question of NT criticism where the need is more imperative to rid ourselves of prejudice than this question of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It is possible to have a completely mistaken conception of the con- nexion between letters and handicraft in the days of the Apostles. St. Peter and St. John are de- scribed in Ac 4'" as ' unlearned and ignorant men ' {dypdiJ.fii.aToi Kai Idiwrai). i5i(ir7)s marks a caste dis- tinction, in opposition to the learned or academic clas.ses. 'I'lic \iso of the vernacular tongue by the Apostles Would l.c -utlicient to sujjgest the expres- sion. The riiai i>.iir objection is, as Delitzsch reminds us, a deeliiie from the traditional honour- able connexion between the Rabbi and the hand- worker {Jcu-i.sh Aiiisrin Life, p. 54). Zebedee owned his own lisliing vessel, and the presumptuous request of the mother of Zebedee's sons betrays a somewhat overweening sense of social position. St. John was 'known to the high priest.' More- over, we too must take knowledge that he ' had been with Je.sus,' and it would not be easy to estimate, in addition to the spiritual training, the purely educative influence of companionship ^\ith Jesus of Nazareth. The over-ardent spirit that sought to call down fire on a hostile S;ini;nitaii village, finds a nobler exiuession in ihr uiiliiuing exposure of Judas (Ii!") and of ( ',ii,i|ili;i-. jr'''-). He who with such in.sight lets us into the spiritual incapacity of Nicodemus, must have been him.self born again into a new world, and liave gained a new outlook.
2. Is it impossible that John, a 'pillar ' Apostle {Gal 2^), who sofeivouved the claims of the circum- eision, should also have written such an anti- Judaic Gospel i" — Yet even then he cordially recognized, by the giving of the ridit hand of fellowship, St. Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Does the love for his own nation not breathe in the emphasis he lays in the Fourth Gospel on the tragedy of their rejection of Christ? The efl'ect of the destruction of Jerusalem must \\a.\e been very great on a mind like John's, and the Gospel was written forty years after that event. None of the other Evangelists lays such stress on the teaching of events as the Fourth. In Ephesus also he would breathe the atmosphere of the Pauline gospel, full of thoughts of the sovereignty of God, the condescension of tlie Divine grace, and the uni'.-ersality of the gospel message. He who
* For arpiinients apainst the Ephesian residence, see Druui- inoud, Sanday, Staniori, and art. John the Apostlk.
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
beheld the awe-inspirinf; vision of the Risen Christ in Patraos, might well, in the calm of later years, write the majestic words of the Prologue.
III. Relation to the Syxoptic Gospels. ~ It is impossible to doubt that the Fourth Evangelist presupposes tliat liis rcailers are acquainted with the contents i.t thi- lii>t three Go.spels, or that he himself is aiquaiiiteil witli them. We shall confine ourselves in this discussion to certain pointu of diverqcnce between John and the Synoptics.
1. The scene of the ministry of Christ is for the most jiart confined to Jerusalem. The Galila'an ministry is referred to in 2'- 6'- ^^ 7' 21'. We are not now concerned with the demand for chrono- logical correspondence with the Synoptic account. It will be sufficient to show that tliere is no incon- sistency in the prominence given in this Gospel to the events in Jerusalem. The Judiean ministry is pre.supposed in Lk 4", but the reading is doubtful. Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to atten.l on the Galihean ministry (Lk 5", Mk 3~ 7'). Juda- was a native of Kerioth, in Judipa. The friend^hiip of .losepli of Arimathiea, who in all pro- bability resiilfd in .Jerusalem, has to be explained. The relations witli Martha and Mary point to frequent visits to Bethany. We have also the 'How often'! of Mt 23" and Lk 13=- =«-^, which indicates not merel}' unfulfilled desire, but baffled eftbrt. After the Ascension the disciples make their headquarters in Jerusalem. It is well-nigh ini- l)ossiDle to e.vplain the attitude of the authori- ties, and many incidents of the closing days (e.g. the friend at whose house the Supper was eaten), unless by the Johannine accounts of the visits to .Jerusalem. The Synoptics tell us of only one Pass- over, but events could nardly have ripened there as they did unless .Tesus had been previously known