2. A mediating position is represented by : Weisse, Ev. Geschichte, 1838, Die Ecan;ietische Frage. 1856 (discourses and prologue Apostolic] ; G. Weizsacker, Utltersuchungen, 1864, reprinted 1901 [written tiy disciple of John ; narratives and dis-
cTar
element]; Renan, Vie de .Jesus, 1863 (practically abandons the historicity of discourses, but retains narrative as fundamentally Johannine]; Hugo Delflf, Grundziige des Entwickelungs-Geschichte d. Religion, 1883, Das vierte Evangeltum, and Nette Beitrdge, 1890; Julicher, Einleitnng, 1901 (tr. 1904); B. W. Bacon, Introduction, 1902 ; Wendt, Lehre Jcsu, 1886, i. 216-342, Das Johannesevangelium, 1900 (translated) [a development of the partition theory of Weisse ; criticised by Wauchope Stewart Expositor, Jan., Feb. 1903, and Drunni Authorship, pp. 399-404]; Harnack, Chi Litteratur, vol. i.
hife
Character of the Fourth G< Bible (from Contemp. Ree'' johann. Frage, 1876, AT 7 Historical Introduction, 1 1881 [classical]; Rejnolfls Hastings' DB; Watkins, valualjle for external evid.- der Ecangelienfrage, IS'.m element has a fundameiil:L dition of four Gospels] ; i'l 1891 [containing valuable Essays by Ezra Abbot, A.
Marcus Dods, Expos' G'r. Test, vol 1899 ; Drummond, Character i Gospel, 1903 (very significant oi of the writer; especially mi-- evidence; displays tend, i tation] ; Stanton, Gospeh . (external evidence]; San(l:i\. 1905 [containing surveys anU t valuable criticism of critical m und Streitfragen, ' Das Johann 1903.
1897 ; Zahn
Vie, etc.; Sabatier, Essai s Godet, Introd. and Com. (1864, tr. 1 1901) (still most valuable in every dii Essaps Theological and LiUrary, 1 credibility against Baur] ; Sanday, A
)/ the Fourth
\r^'x to ttf theological position ■m. Ill iiiitnient of e.xternal IN ill. L,-orical intert)re- " ' l'.«„ments, i. 1903
1.1. r w <i thy Fourth Gospel, uniaLt.^ ..I iv'ceiit theories, and thodsj ; Barth, Biblischen Zeit- evang. und die Synopt. Evang.'
The series of volumes by Edwin Abbott, entitled ' Diates- sarica ' (esp. From Letter to Spirit, 1903 ; Johannine Vocabu- lary, 1905 ; Johannine Grammar, 1906), contains much fresh matter, suggested by an elaborate study of the language of the Fourth Gospel.
Among articles in magazines may be mentioned W. Milligan in Contemp. Review (Sept. 1867, Aug. and Nov. 1868), and British and Foreign Evangelical Revtew (Oct. 1871) [directed against Baur and his school] ; Schiirer, Contemp. Review, 1891 [a review of the position of the problem ; replied to by Sanday, Oct. 1891] ; Bacon, Hibbert. Journal, April 1903, Jan. 1904, 1905 [has developed theory of editorship by author of 1-3 Jn. and ch. 21] ; three important articles on conservative side by an anonymous writer in the Church Quarterli/ Review, 1905-1906. The monograph by Schwarz, (feber den Tod der Sohne Zebedcei, 1904, while completely hostile to the traditional view, is valuable for certain portions of the external evidence.
K. H. Strachan.
JOHN, GOSPEL OF (II. : Contents).—!. Character of the Gospel. — The interesting fragment of Euse- bius (HE vi. 14), quoted from the lost ' Outlines ' of Clement of Alexandria, gives us the earliest view which was taken of the Fourth Gospel. ' John, last, having observed that the bodily things had been set forth in the [eai li.i ] ( e.^jiels, and exhorted theict.i liy bis fiiiiuK ,ni.l iiis|inv,l by the Spirit, produced a .ijiiril icil ( eisiiil. '! In' «ord 'spiritual,' or 'pneumatic,' is here, .is usually with the Alex- andrians, opposed to 'bodily,' or 'somatic' And what the ditterence was, as regards the records of the past, is shown admirably by Origen's comment on Jn 2'^. He says that if all the four Gospels are to be believed, the truth of them cannot be in their 'bodily characters,' but in their spiritual meaning. The Gospels, he says elsewhere (dc Princ. 4), contain many things which are said to have hajipened, but which did not happen literally ; and in one place of Ids Conmientary on St. John he says that when the writers of Holy Scripture were unable to speak the truth ' at once spiritually and bodily' (i.e. at once literally and with a deeper symbolical or allegorical meaning), it was their practice to prefer the spiritual to the cor- poreal, 'the true spiritual meaning being often preserved in the corporeal falsehood '_ (irui'o/iivov woWdKis TOO aXtjSou! TrvevfiaTiKoO iv t(^ a-ufnaTiKi} ^evSei). So Epiphanius says of St. John's Gospel : ' most of the things spoken by him were spiritual, the fleshly things having been already attested' {ffcer. Ii. 19).
These passages are very important for the study of the Fourth Gospel. They are evidence, not, of course, for the author's method of composition, but for what was thought of tlie Go.spel in the latter part of the 2nd cent, and the first half of the 3rd, that is to say, as soon as it was widely known. It was accepted as 'a spiritual Gospel,' and by spiritual was meant, not devotional, ethical, and philosophical, but allegorical as opposed to barely historical.
The distinction between the two modes of treatment was familiar at Alexandria, and had been familiar long before the Fourth Gospel was wTitten. Philo compares the literal mean-
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
spiritual to the
ul. Ue applies this ■ith j,'reat thorough- ness. To the literal truth of aiieii-iu sacred histor,\ he is very indifferent. Particular events are important only in proportion to their universal si^'nificjTice. To ijrasp the truth of a narra- tive is to see its relation to universal spiritual law or fact. He would have considered the laborious investigation of historical detail to be merely learned trifling, worthy only of a grammarian or a pedant. Moral edification and gnosis were the only objects for which it was at all worth while to trouble about the records of the pa.st.