There are indications in the Gospel that the Evangelist is concerned to keep his own ideas sepa- rate from those of Christ. The actual Logos idea outlined in the Prologue is never put into the mouth of Christ except as underlying His words in certain cases. He keeps separate his own explana- tions of words of Christ (2>»--'i 12^3 7^). What can only be an actual saying of Christ is represented as liaimting the minds of the disciples m le'*'"". Again, in 12'"'*^, in the midst of a passage contain- ing his own reflexions, tliere is a summary contain- ing a free rendering of words of Christ that are repeated elsewhere in the Gospel ; 14- would seem to indicate that the .same ideas had been expressed before, and would be familiar to the disciples.
On the other hand, it is clear that it is not the concern of this Evangelist to record the precise phrase that ' once for a moment ruffled the air of Palestine.' 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life' (6**). At one point the disciples think they understand clearly the words they hear, but Jesus shows them theii- ignorance still (16^*"). The teaching by parables ajjpears only as transformed into allegory. In 10^"'' the image and the interpretation are inextri- cably intermingled. In some of the discourses the meaning Is carried up to a certain point, and is then repeated like a motif, as though the Evan- gelist sought to express himself more clearly (e.g. the valedictory discourses). Tliere are some cases where there is doubt as to where the words of Jesus end and the words of the Evangelist begin. It Is conceivable that a more exact study of Ids language would aftbrd us critical appliances more capable of detaching the two eiwnents than those we now possess. Abbott, in his Joha n n ine Grammar (20666), lias suggested that where 7dp is used as a connective it is an indication that the Evangelist is entering on his own words. This would certainly suit such ca.ses as 3'* 4' 5='-=* =»■ '^. At the -same time, whatever further grammatical study may reveal, we must lie jirepared to regard the Johannine tradition of the words of Christ as differing in many aspects from that of the Synoptics. On tlie
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
other hand, atliuities are found in earlier NT •writings witli the words of Christ as reported in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 1 P S--* and Jn 10', 1 P 2-' and Jn lO'* ; also 1 P I*- =^ Ro e'" and Jn 8^^ ; Gal 5" and 5*^, Eph 2'™- and Jn 10"^ ; Fli 2= and Jn 10"), and in all probability the question of the histuiicity of the words of Christ is nut a problem peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (see P. Ewald, D,i.-< Haiiptprvbkiii der Ei;i,i,/r/ir,ifni,/r]. Tlir clialo.yues witli the Jews ill tills (h.mh'I have taken <.u the abstract often been preaching.
lorin that we slioulil expe.'t il t orally repeated by the Evall^eli^ before they were written tlown. The discom'ses themselves are definitely connected with historical situations, and may, In some cases, be the expan- sion of fragmentary reminiscences. On the other hand, the gaps in the thought seem sometimes to point to abridgement. The problem is the same as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. The valedictory discourses have no doubt taken their continuous form through the welding together of recollections of the closing days, suggested by the desire to make plain to the early Church that her jjresent condition of anxiety and distress was anticipated with solicitous forethought in the pro- phetic words of the Saviour. The prayer in ch 17 is the prayer of One who has become the Great High Priest of His Church and of humanity. There is no reason for denying that the mind of the writer had a place in the composition of these. The spiritual equipment of the Evangelist is the guarantee for the fidelity of his psychological attitude as a ' witness,' and we must be prepared to trust not only the man himself, but above all his peculiar and intimate knowledge of the mind of Christ. We may thus reverently examine the material of which his unique spiritual experience is composed, but may well refrain from dividing a seamless robe.
LiTEBATDRE.— Full bibliographies will be found in Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel (by C. P. Gregory); Reynolds in Hastings' DB ii. pp. 721-722 ; a survey of modern literature in Loisy, Le Qxiatriime Emngile, p. 36 fl. ; a critical account of recent literature in Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 1-32.
1. The most important works hostile to the traditional view of the authorship are : Bretschneider, Probabilia, 1820 ; Strauss, Leben Jesjt, 1836-1840 (mythical view] ; Baur, Die Kanonischen Evangelien, 1847 [date a.d, 170, tendency criticism] ; Keini, Jcsu mil Nazara, 1807 [written by a .Jewish Christian, 110-115, under name of .Vpostle John); J. J. Tayler, An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1807 ; Srrper- natural Reliiiion, 1874 [replied to by Lightfoot, Cont. Ree., Dec. 1874, Jan. 1875 ; Sanday, Gospels in Second Century ; Luthardt, St. John the author of Fourth Gospel, 1875] ; Albrecht Thonia, Die Genesis der Johann. Evang. 1882 [Gospel an Alexandrian allegory of Philonic character] ; Oscar Holtzmann, 1887 [specially valuable for Jewish element in Gospel] ; H. J. Holtzmann, Handcom. zum NT, 1893 ; Jean RSville, Le Quatfiime Evanriik, 1901 (unknown antbor ; 'beloved disciple' not an individual but an ideal type); Jloftatt, Historical NT, 1901; Schraiedel in Enctfc. Biht. ii. art. ' John, son of Zebedee,' and ' Die Johann. .Schrift'en' in ReUrjionsrieschichtliche Volksbiieher;Wrede, Char- akter mid Tendenz, lf)U3 ; Loisy, Le Quafriem^ Eeangile, 1903.