III. Integrity.— Certain portions of this Gospel have been regarded as interpolations or later additions, even by those who accept the Gospel as a whole as the work of John. One of these is the closing part of verse 2, from tKdtxofi'tvuiv, and the whole of ver. 4, in regard to which the critical authorities fluctuate, and which con- tain statements that give a legendary aspect to the nar- rative, such as belongs to no other of the miracles re- lated in the Gospels. Both are rejected by Tischendorf, but retained by Lachmann ; and the same diversity of judgment appears among interpreters, some rejecting both passages (Lticke, Tholuck, Olshausen), others re- taining both (Bruckner), others rejecting ver. 4, but re- taining verse 2 (Ewald), while some leave the whole in doubt (De Wette).
Another doubtiid portion is the section relating to the woman taken in adulterv" (vii, 53-viii, 11). This is regarded as an interpolation because of the deficiencj' of critical evidence in its favor (see Tischendorf or Al- ford, ad loc), and because of reasons founded on the pas- sage itself, viz. the apparently forced way in which it is connected with what precedes by means of vii, 53 ; the interruption caused by it to the course of the narra- tive, the words in viii, 12 being evidently in continua- tion of what precedes this section ; the alleged going of Jesus to the Mount of Olives and return to Jerusalem, which woidd place this occurrence in the last residence of our Lord in Jerusalem (Luke xxi, 37); the absence of the characteristic usage of the ovv, which John so constantly introduces into his narratives, and for which we have in this section Si, used as John generally uses ovv; and the presence of the expressions (ipSpor, Trac 6 Xooc, Ka^iaaQ tSiSaffKev avrovc, oi ypaftfianlg Kai 01 tpapiaaloi, trnfievciv, avafiapTrjTOC, KaraXtiTria^ai, and KaTUKpiviiv, which are foreign to John's style. On
the other side, it is urged that the section contains, as Calvin says, " Nihil apostolico spiritu indignum," that it has nonappearance of a later legend, but bears every trace of an original account of a very probable fact, and that it has a considerable amount of diplomatic evidence in its favor. The question is one which hardly admits of a decided answer. The preponderance of evidence is undoubtedly against the Johannean origin of the sec- tion, and it has consequently been regarded as an inter- polation by the great majority of critics and interpret- ers, including among the latter Calvin, Beza, Tittmann, Tholuck, Olshausen, Lucke, and Luthardt, as well as Grotius, De Wette, Paulus, and Ewald. At the same time, if it did not form part of the original Gospel, it is difticidt to account for its being at so early a period in- serted in it. From a passage in Eusebius {Hist. Eccl. iii, 39) some have concluded that Papias inserted it from the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; but it is not cer- tain that it is to this section that the words of Eusebius refer, nor is it certain that he meant to say that Papias inserted the stor^^ he refers to in the Gospel. See Adul- tery, vol. i, p. 87.
More important than either of these portions is chap, xxi, which is by many regarded as the addition of a later hand after the apostle's death. This opinion rests wholly on internal grounds, for there is no evidence that the Gospel was ever known in the Church without 'this chapter. At first sight it certainly appears as if the original work ended with ch. xx, and that ch. xxi was a later addition, but whether by the apostle him- self or by some other is open to question. The absence of any trace of the Gospel having ever existed without it must be allowed to afford strong p^«m«yrt«e evidence of its having been added by the author himself; still this is not conclusive, for t'ae addition may have been made by one of his friends or disciples before the work was in circulation. Grotius, who thinks it was made by the elders at Ephesus, argues against its genuineness, especially from ver. 24; but, though the language there has certainly the appeara?ice of being rather that of others than that of the party himself to whom it refers, still it is not impossible that John may have referred to himself in the third person, as he does, for instance, in xix, 35; and as for the use of the pi. o'idcrijiv, that may be accounted for by his tacitly joining his readers with himself, just as he assumes their presence in xix, 35. There is more difficulty in accepting ver. 25 as genuine, for such a hyperbolical mode of expression does not seem to comport with the simplicity and sincerity of John; but there seems to be no valid reason for calling into doubt any other part of the chapter.
IV. Design — At the close of the Gospel the apostle has himself stated his design in writing it thus: "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name" (xx, 31). Taken in the general, this may be said to be the design of aU the evangeUcal narratives, for all of them are intended to produce the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah promised to the fathers, and so to exhibit him in his saving power that men believing on him might enjoy that life which he had come to bestow. We must seek, therefore, John's specific design either in some spe- cial occasion which he sought to meet, or in some pe- culiarity in his mode of presenting the claims of Jesus, by which not merely his Messiahship should be evinced, but the higher aspect of his person, and the spiritual effects of his working, should be prominently exhibited. Probably both of these concurred in the apostle's design; and we shall best conceive his purpose by neither, on the one hand, ascribing to him a merely historical, nor, on the other, a purely dogmatical design. It is an old and still prevalent opinion that John wrote his Gospel to supply the omissions of the other three ; but no such impression is con^'eyed by the Gospel itself, which is as far as possible from having the appearance of a mere series of supplemental notes to previously existing writ-