The conception of the Christology of the book as being the work of a writer strongly influenced by Alexandrian philosophy is probably a false one due to the fact that modern writers on the Gospel know something about Alexandrian philosophy because Philo wrote in Greek, but little or nothing about Jewish theology in the time of Christ, except at second hand, or in so far as it can be ascertained from Greek sources (the apocalyptic literature). The Gospel is probably thoroughly Hebraic in language, in method of argument, in idea, and it will be seen to be so when Christian scholars take the trouble to set themselves to the work of critically editing the Rabbinical literature, with a view to ascertaining how much of its theology they must carry back into the period of the life of Christ.*
(c) With regard to the 2nd cent, tradition, it is significant that decision as to its value seems to depend upon a prior question — that of the possi- bility of an apostolic authorship for the Fourth Gospel. That is, critics who find the Gospel so unhistorical as to render its composition by an apostle impossible all depreciate the value of the 2nd cent, witness to St. John as the author. And
* See I. Abrahams, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, London 1909, p. 181 ff.
478 GOSPELS (UI^CANOmCAL)
GOSPELS (UNCANONICAL)
indeed Avhat need to trouble about explaining away this witness if the Gospel on its own showing can- not be apostolic? On the other hand, all who do not find the Gospel to be so unhistorical as to make its composition by an apostle, or its depend- ence upon him, incredible, find the 2nd cent, attestation to be good. The most recent critical work, that of Clemen,* decides in favour of the literary unity of the Gospel ; denies a confusion between two Johns, a presbyter and an apostle ; arg-ues that there is no valid ground for denying that the apostle settled in Ephesus at the end of his life, and none for supposing his early martyr- dom. Clemen believes the Gospel to be too far removed from history to have been written by the apostle himself, but thinks that Johannine tradi- tion is a main element in it.
Recent attempts to analyze the Gospel into sources seem to have f ailed, t and it is little likely that for the present any fresh light on the book will be forthcoming. It may be hoped that we shall one day have an editor of the Gospel who is trained in Rabbinic exegesis, as well as in Western scholarship. Such a one may find that the Gospel is certainly the work of a Jew, and may see no reason for denying that its author may have been Joim the son of Zebedee. If he prefer historical evidence as to Christ's teaching and Person to pre- conceived ideas about Him, he may also see no reason for denying that both Synoptic and Johan- nine pictures of Jesus are substantially true, yet equally one-sided, and that the Jesus of history must have been One of whom all our knowledge can be only partial, enough to elicit our devotion and to silence our criticism.
Literature. — This is enormous. The following are some recent books in English : V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as His- torical Documents, Cambridge, pt. i. [1903], pt. ii. [1909] ; J. Moffatt, LNT, Edinburgh, 1911 ; A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the NT, London, 1909 ; W. Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, Oxford, 1907, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, do. 1911, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, do. 1905 ; A. Harnack, Luke the Physician, Eng. tr., London, 1907, and Sayings of Jesu^, do. 190S ; F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, Boston, 1910; J. R. Cohu, The Gospels in the Light of Modern Research, Oxford, 1909 ; E. R. Buckley, An Introductinn to the Synoptic Problem, London, 1912 ; B. W. Bacon, The Making of the NT, do. 1912;
E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh, 1906 ; J. Armit- age Robinson, The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel, London, 190S ; L. PuUan, The Gospels, do. 1912 ; W. C. Allen and L. W. Grensted, Introduction to the Books of the NT, Edinburgh, 1913. W. C. AlLEN.
GOSPELS (UNCANONICAL).—/»«roc?Mc^ory.—l. ' Tlie Church,' as Origen said — or rather, as the translator of Origen's Homilies on Luke (i.) said for him — 'the Church has four Gospels, heresy has many.' This could be said by the middle of the 3rd century. A century earlier, with the rise of the Gospel canon, a sharp distinction had been drawn between the four Gospels of the NT and all other writings of this class. The present article deals with the latter, not in relation to the former but rather in the light of their own genesis and structure as products of early Christian literature. Still, two preliminary remarks must be made in connexion with tlie distinction drawn by Origen. One is, that while the Church liad only four Gospels in the sense of Scriptures relating to tiie life of Jesus, whicli were authorized to be used in public worship and for purposes of doctrine, the early Christians did not by any means confine their read- ing to the canonical Gospels. Their piety was nourished upon some Gospels which found no place in the canon. And these Gospels were not