See Perionii Vita'. ApostoL\\ 95 sq. ; Edzard,Z>e Joan- ne Cerintld prteseiifiain J'ltr/icnte ( Viteb. 1732) ; SchwoU- mann, Comment, de Jo. in Pathmo exilic (Halle, 1757) ; Hering, Von d. Schide d. Apost. Joh. zu Ephesus (BresL J 774); Bishop, Life, etc., of St. John (London, 1827); Webb, The Beloved Disciple (Lond. 1848) ; Krummacher (in Life of Cornelius, etc.) ; Lee, Life of St. John (N.Y, 1854) ; Macfarlane, The Disdple ivhom Jesus loved (Lond. 1855) ; Kienkel, 7Jc?- Apostel Johannes (Berlin, 1871).
II. The most pron;inent traits of Johns character ap- pear to have been an ardent temperament and a delicacy of sentiment. These combined to produce that devoted attachment to his Master which leads him to detail all his discourses and vindicate his character on all occa- sions. Yet, with all his mildness and amiability of tem- per— doubtless, in part, the fruit of divine grace, for we trace also a degree of selfishness in Mark ix, 38 ; x. 35 — he was not altogether feminine in dispositicn, but pos- sessed an energy and force of mind which gave him the title of one of the '-sons of thunder" (Mark iii, 17), burst- ing forth in vehement language in his writings, and on one occasion calling even for rebuke (Luke ix, 54, 55). See Boanerges. It was these traits of mind that en- abled him to take so profound and comprehensive a vie w of the nature and ciftice of the incarnate Son of (iod, evi- dent in all his writings, and especially developed in the introduction to his Gospel.
See Yon 'SleMe, Entwurf einer Lebensheschreibung und Cha7-ukteristik- d. Apost. Joh. (Heidelb. 1808); Niemeyer, Charakteristik der Bibel, i, 303 sq. ; Wernsdorf, Meletema de Elogio filior.toniti-ui (Helmst.1755); 0\iba.r,De Tem- peramento Joa. cholerico (Gott. 1738) ; F. Trench, Life and Character of John the Evangelist (London, 1850) ; Stanley, Sei-mons and Essays on the Apost. Age, serm. iv ; W. Grimm, in Erscli und Gruber's Encycl. sect, ii, pt. 22, p. 1 sq. ; Ad. Monod, Sermons {Jm Parole vivante) (Par. 1858) ; Pressense, Apostolic JEra, p. 415.
JOHN, GOSPEL OF. The fourth in order of the evangehcal narratives in nearly all editions, though a few SiSS. place it immediately after Matthew. See Gospels.
I. Genuineness. — There is no reason to doubt that the fourth Gospel was from the beginning received in the Church as the production of the apostle whose name it bears. We may decline to accept as a testimony for this the statement at the close of the Gospel itself (xxi, 24), for this can have the force of an independent testi- mony only on the supposition that the passage was add- ed by another hand; and though there is an evident allusion in 2 Pet. i, 14 to what is recorded in John xxi, 18, 19, yet, as that saying of the Lord was one which tradition would be sure to send forth among the breth- ren (compare ver. 23), it cannot be inferred from Peter's allusion to it that it was then put on record as we have it in the Gospel. We may also admit that the passages in the writings of the apostolic fathers which have been adduced as evincing, on their part, acquaintance with this Gospel are not decisive. The passages usually cited for this purpose are Barnab. Ep, v, vi, xii (comp. John
JOHN
946
JOHN
iii, 14) ; Herm, Past. Sim. ix, 12 (compare John x,7,9; xiv, 0 ) ; Ifjnat. .1 d M(U/nes. vii (comp. John xii, 49 ; x, 30;'xiv, 11). See Lardiier, irori«, vol. ii. AU of them maif owe their accordance with John's statements to the influence of true tratlition, or to the necessary resem- blance of the just utterance of Christian thought and feeliuf,' hy (Utterent men ; though iii three other pas- sages cited from Ignatius (Ad Horn, vii; Ad Trail, viii; and Ad Philad. vii) the coincidence of the first two with John vi, 32 sq., and of the last with John iii, 8, is al- most too close to be accounted for in this way (Ebrard, Kcanff. Joh. p. 102 ; Rothe, .1 nfdnge der Christl. Kirche, \,. 715). But Eusebius attests that this Gospel was among the books universally received in the Churcli ( //w/. Eccles. iii, 25); and it cannot be doubted that it formed part of the canon of the churches, both of the East and West, before the end of the 2d century. See Caxox. It is in the I'eshito, and in the Muratori Frag- ment. It is quoted or referred to by Justin MartjT (Apol. i, 52, 61; ii, G; c. Tri/ph. 105, etc.; compare 01s- hausen, Echtheit der Kan, Evv. p. 304 sq.) , by Tatian (Orat. ad Griecos, 4, 13, 19), who, indeed, composed a Diatessaron (Eusebius, //4s/.y!,'cc/.iv, 29; Theod. Ila-ret. Fab. i, 20), in preparing which he must have had tliis gospel before him ; in the Epistle of the Church at Vi- enne and Lyons (Euseb. v, 1); by MeUto of Sardes (see Pitra, Spicileg. Solmense, i, Prolegom. p. 5, Paris, 1852) ; by Athenagoras (Leff. pi-o Christ. 10); by ApoUinaris (frag. Chron. Pasch. p. 14, ed. Dindorf; ; by Polycrates, bishop of Epliesus (Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v, 24) ; and in the Clementine Homilies (xix, 22, ed. Dressel, 1853), in such a way that not only is its existence proved, but evidence is afforded of the esteem in which it was held as canon- ical from the middle of the 2d century. StiU more pre- cise is the testimony of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who not only composed a Harmony of the four evange- lists (Jerome, De riris I Hunt. 25 ; Ep. 151, ad A Ir/asiam), but in an extant work (ad Aiitol. ii, 22) expressly quotes Jolin 1, 1 as part of holj' Scrijjture, and as the produc- tion of the apostle, whom he ranks among the TTJ/fi;- fiUToipi'mot. More important still is the testimony of Irena>us (//cer. iii, 11,3, p. 218, ed. Grabe), both because of his acquaintance in early youth with Polycarji, and because of the distinctness and confidence with which he asserts the Johanncan origin of this Gospel. See Ire- ^MV!i. To these testimonies may be added that of Cel- sus, the enemy of the Christians, who, in preparing his attack upon them, cviilently liad the four canonical Gos- pels before liim, and of wlupse citations from them some are undoubtedly from that of John (compare Olshausen, ul sup. p. 349, 355 ; Liicke, Comment, i, 68 sq., 3d edit.) ; which shows that, at the time when he wrote, this Gos- pel must have been in general acceptance by the Chris- tians as canonical. Tlie heretic Marcion, also, in reject- ing this (fospel on dogmatical grounds, is a witness to the fact that its canonical authority was generally held by the Cliristians (Tertull. c. Marcion, iv, 5; De'Carne Ckristi).^ That the Gospel was recognised as canonical hy the Valentinians, one of the most important sects of the 2d century, is placed beyond doubt by the state- ment of Ireuicus (/larr. iii, 1 1 ), and by the fact that it is (|uotcd by Ptolemajus, a disciple of Valentinus (Epiphan. //irr. xxxiii, 3), and was commented on by Heracleon, another of his disciples, both of whom lived about the middle of the 2d century. Tliat Valentinus himself knew and used the book is rendered probable bv this, and by the statement of Tertullian (De Prascr. 'Umret. 38), that Valentinus accepted the Biblical canon entire^ lliough he perverted its meaning; and this probabihty is raised to certainty by the fact that, in the recently <hscovercd work of Hippolytus, Valentinus is found twice ( / /iUosop/i.xi, 33, 34, ed. Miller) citing the phrase o dp- Xwi/ Tov K6(Tfiov TovTov, as applied to the devil, which 'wcurs only in .John's (Jospel, and repeatedly there (xii, 31 ; xiv,30; xvi, 11); and also ipioting the saving, J(.hn X, 8, a.s the word of Christ. From the same source also ( vii, 22, 27, p. 232, 242) we learn that BasiUdcs was ac-