quainted with John's Gospel, and cited it; and this brnigs us up to the beginning of the 2d centurj-, within a short time of the apostle's death.
This concurrence of external testimony is the more noticeable as there are certain peculiarities in the fourth Gospel which would have thrown suspicion on its genu- ineness had not that been placed beyond doubt by the knowledge which the Christians had of its having pro- ceeded from the pen of John. Such are the promi- nence given to the extra-Galikcan ministry of our Lord ; the record of remarkable miracles, such as the healing of the impotent man (ch. v), of the blind man (ch. ix), the raising from the dead of Lazarus, and others, omit- ted by the other evangelists ; the insertion of so many discourses of Jesus, of which no hint is found in the other Gospels, as well as the omission of remarkable facts in the evangelic history, especially the institution of the supper and the agony in the garden ; and certain important apparent discrepancies between this and the synoptical Gospels. In perfect keeping with this as- sumption, also, is the entire tone, spirit, and character of the Gospel ; it is emphatically, as Clement of Alexan- dria calls it, the Trvtv fiariKov tvayyiXiov, and breathes throughout the spirit which was characteristic of '• the disciple whom Jesus loved." The work is evidently the production of one who was, as the writer professes to be (i, 14 [comp. 1 John i, 1 ; iv, 14] ; xix, 35; xxi, 24), an eye-witness of what he narrates ; and there is a simplicity, a naturalness, and a viviihiess in the whole narrative which no forger of a later age could have at- tained— which the very consciousness of composing what was intended to be an imposition would have pre- cluded. The remarkable manner also in which the writer avoids introducing John by name (xiii, 23 ; xix, 16; XX, 2, 3, 4; xxi, 7, 24) affords additional evidence that John himself was the writer. It has been urged also by some (Bleek, Ebrard, Credner) that the use of the simple 'ltx)avvr]Q, without in any case the addition of the usual 6 Ba7m(T7-/;f, to designate the Baptist, in this Gospel, is an evidence of its being the production of John the apostle, on the ground that, " supposing the apostle not to be the writer, one woidd expect that he should, like the Synoptists, discriminate the Baptist from the apostle by this epithet, whereas, supposing the apostle himself to be the writer, he would feel less promjited to do so" (Bleek, Einleit. in das N. T. p. 148) ; but to this much weight camiot be attached; for, though it is probable that a writer, taking his materials from the other evangelists, would have designated John as thoy do. and though, as jNIeyer suggests (Krit. Exeget. (.'(Ill, III., l-ymhitunrj in das Ev. des Johannes, p. 23), it is [irdlialile tliat John, who had been a disciple of the Bap- tist, might prefer speaking of him by the name by which he had been accustomed to designate him during their personal intercourse rather than by his historical name, yet, as we cannot tell what considerations might have occurred to a forger wTiting in the apostle's name to induce him to drop the distinctive epithet, it is hard- ly competent for us to accept this omission as a pi-oof that the work is not the production of a forger. It is needless to press every minute particular into the ser- vice of the argument for the genuineness of this Gospel; it is impossible to read it without feeling that it is Jo- hannean in all its parts, and that, had it been the pro- duction of any other than the apostle, that other must, in mind, spirit, affection, circumstances, and character, have been a second John.
Attempts to impugn the genuineness of this (iospel have been comparatively recent (Guerike, Einkitinn/. p. 303). The work of Bretschneider, entitled ProbahUia de Evangelii et Epp. Johnmiis apo.tf. indole et oriyine (Lips. 1820), is the earliest formal attack of any impor- tance made upon it ; and this, the author has himself assured 'Us, was made by him witli a view to exciting anew and extending inquiry into the genuineness of the Johannean writings, an end vrhich, he adds, has been gained, so that the doubts he suggested may be
JOHN
947
JOHN
regarded as discharged {Doffmatik, i, 2G8, 3d ed.). Since that work appeared, the claims of the Gospel have been opposed by Strauss in his Leben Jesu ; by Weisse in his Evanfielische Geschichte ; by LUtzelberger (Z'ie Kirch^ Uche Tradition iib. d. Apost. Joh. Lpz. 18-t8, and in many other forms since) ; by Baur {Krit. Untersuch. iiber die Kanonischen Evang.') ; by Hilgenfeld {Das Evanc/. und die Briefe Joh. nach ihrem Lehrbegr. dargestellt, HaUe, 1849), and by others. But the reasons advanced by these writers have so little force, and have been so thor- oughly replied to, that even in Germany the general opinion has reverted to the ancient and catholic belief in respect of the authorship of the fourth Gospel. See Tholuck, Gltuihiriinli<ikiit der Evangel. Gesch.; Ebrard, Kritik d.ErangiL Geschichte (Ziir. 1850, 2d ed.) ; Ewald, Jahrbuch, iii, 146; v, 178; Meyer, Kritik. Exeg. Coiiiin. ii, Th. 2 Abt. (Gott. 1856, 3d edit.) ; Bleek, Einl. in das N. T. (Berlin, 1862) ; Davidson, Introduction to the New Test, i, 233 sq. ; SchafF, Church Histoi-y (Apostolic Age), § 105. The importance of the fourth Gospel as a proof of the divine character of Jesus Christ led to this spe- cial assault on its genuineness by the Kationalists of the Tubingen school and their imitators elsewhere, but without shaking the convictions of the Church at large. See Jesus Christ. For further details of the contro- versy, see Fisher, Supernat. Origin of Christianity (new edit. N.y. 1870) ; Pressense, Apostol. Age (N. Y. 1871), p. 509 sq. See Kationalisji. The most important other express treatises in opposition to the authenticity of John's Gospel are those of Bruno Bauer (Brem. 1840, Berl. 1850), Zeller (Jahrb. 1845 sq.), Kostlin (ib. 1853), Volkmar (in several works and arts, in Germ, journals), Scholten (Leid. 1864, etc.), Matthes (ib. 1867), Tayler (Lond. 1867) ; in favor, Stein (Brandenb. 1822), Crome (Lpzg. 1824), Hauff (Nllrnb. 1831, and in the Stud, und Krit. 1846, 1849), Weitzel {ib. 1849), Maver (Schaffh. 1854), Schneider (Berl. 1854), Tischendorf (Lpzg. 1865 and since), Kiggenbach (Basel, 1866),Witticher (Elberf. 1869), PfeifFer (St. Gall. 1870), Row (in the Journal of Sacred Lit. 1865, 1866, etc.), Clarke (in the Christian Examiner, 1868) ; see also the Brit, and Eor. Ev. Rev. July, 1861, p. 553 ; Westminster Rev. Ap. 1865, p. 192.