We have, of course, no right to as.sume that the 2nd cent, was right in classing the Fourth Gospel as a ' spiritual ' work. We shall have to consider its allegorism in detail before we can pronounce on its relation to history. But it should be perfectly obvioiLS that its author did not mean it to be studied as a i)lain historical narrative. He would probably have said that he had a higher aim than to record trivial details, some of which had no spiritual meaning. The Gospel is, and claims to be, an interpretation of our Lord's Person and ministry, an ideal construction which aims at pro- ducing a certain impression about the Person of Christ. This impression is to be the true inter- pretation of the historical Jesus— the author is infinitely anxious about this. He is >vriting no mere historical romance, like the Life of ApoUonius of Tyana, which was afterwards concocted as a rival to the Gospels. He is no Docetist, as is shown by several passages in the Gospel, and more cate- gorically in 1 John, which, if not by the same author, is in closest connexion with the Gospel. But a very .sUght critical investigation is enough to show that he allows himself a free hand in manipulating the facts on which he is working. It is perfectly honest history, as history was under- stood by the ancients. But even the most scientific of ancient historians did not scruple to put his own views of the political situation into the mouths of the chief characters in his period ; and among the Jews the composer of a mggadah had no fear of being branded as a romancer or a forger.
The plan of the Gospel is clearly stated in 20*'- 3', an impressive passage which was intended to be the conclusion of the book, and was so until the appendix was added. The object here avowed is strictly adhered to throughout. No other book of the NT is so entirely dominated by one conception. The theology of the Incarnation, taught in the form of a historical narrative, with an underlying framework of symbolism and allegory, which, though never obtruded, determines the whole arrangement and selection of incidents — this is the topic of the Fourth Gospel. And unless it is read in the light of this purpose, and with a due recog- nition of the peculiar method, the se\en seals of the Apocalypse ^vill remain set upon the ' spiritual GospeL'
Different opinions have been held as to the readers wliom the writer has mainly in view. Kevillc thinks tliat 'the author has wished to prove to hi- ( (intiniporaries who had remained in the liberal and |iliil(i>ophieal Judaism of the Dias- pora, that, ill .le>ii- ( liri-t. the revelation of the Logos, admitted l.y ihem in the OT, has its full and definitive fullilment. Hut tlie Gospel is not an apologia writt'ii fur the .lews. The extremely un- conciiiatory tone, used throughout in speaking of them, is enough to disprove this hypothesis. There is a subordinate element of apologetic, but the main object is clearly to edify and teach the faith- ful, not' to convert the unbeliever. The author never descends to his opponents' ground, but re- mains throughout on his own. His aim is didactic, but not exactly dogmatic. He -wishes, not to prove a theological thesis, but to confirm and perfect the believer in his adhesion to Christ as the Incarnate AVord, the principle of spiritual regeneration, and the nourishment of 'eternal' life. This is the
foundation of his own faith, and the characteristic Johannine ideas are the intellectual form of this faith, which is centred in the unio mystica. There is no sign of a polemic against Docetism, Ebionism, or against Cerinthus. Still less is he \mting against liberalized Judaism, as Eeville seems to suggest. Whatever was his attitude towards PhUo (and the question is not an easy one to answer), it was not one of conscious antagonism.
The author, then, is WTiting for Christians. But for what Christians ? It has often been maintained or a.ssumed that his object Is to teach a pliilosophy of religion — that he is, in fact, the ivuthor of the formula 'Je.siLs Christ, the promised Messiah of the Jews, is the Incarnate Logos of God.' But this view Ls untenable. There is no systematic philo- sophy in the Gospel — not even in the Prologue. AiKTbesido, the Logos theology was not new. It is nut proiiouiided as new in the Gospel ; and it exists in substance in St. Paid's Epistles, as well as in the Hebrews. There can be little doubt that Apollos, the learned Jew of Alexandria, made this identification in his preaching, which was so mightily convincing. For at this time ' Logos ' was as familiar a term to all educated persons as ' Evolution ' is to our own generation.
The Gospel is not a philosophical treatise. Is it, then, an attempt to mediate between two parties in the Church, between the ad\'ocates of ' Faith ' and ' ICnowledge,' of Gnosis and Pistis ! The con- flict between these two parties was acute at the end of the 2nd cent., as we see from the caution
imposed upon Clement of Alexandria by <
by the
[1st ph .\t that period Gnosticism had gained a footing
prejudice, and on the other side by the diatribes of the obscurantist TertuUian against philosophy?