are distinguished, i. 19; the composition and action of the Sanhedrim is well understood; the less frequented feasts (ἐγκαίνια, x. 22) are known. He is also aware of the chief point in dispute between Jews and Samaritans, iv. 20; the length of time the Temple has been in building, ii. 21; that synagogue and temple are the favourite resort of teachers, xviii. 20.1
Two objections, however, have been raised. Ist. It is said that the author throughout his Gospels betrays a marked antipathy
to the Jews. He uses the name as a recognised designation of *
the enemies of Jesus; “the Jews” sought to kill Him; “no man spake openly of Him for fear of ‘the Jews’”. They are spoken of as “the children of the devil’. This objection, however, is base- less. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus, Himself a Jew, is represented as pronouncing invectives against the leaders of the people quite as strong as any to be found in the Fourth Gospel. In John all the apostles are Jews, and it is in this Gospel the great saying is preserved that “salvation is of the Jews”. 2nd. Matthew Arnold and the author of Supernatural Religion have maintained that the Jews and their usages are spoken of in this Gospel as if they belonged to a race different from the writer’s. ‘The water-pots at Cana are set ‘after the manner of purifying of the ews’; ... ‘now the Fews' passover was nigh at hand’.... It seems almost impossible to think that a Jew born and bred—a man like the Apostle John— could ever have come to speak so... . A Few talking of the Fews: passover and of a dispute of some of John’s disciples with a Few about purifying. It is like an Englishman writing of the Derby as the English people’s Derby, or talking of a dispute between some of Mr. Cobden’s disciples and an Englishman about free trade. An Englishman would never speak so.”? An Englishman who had for many years been resident abroad and who was writing for foreigners would use precisely such forms of expression.
(2) The author was a Palestinian. A Jew of the dispersion, a Hellenist, would probably betray himself, not only by writing a freer Greek style, but by showing a less intimate knowledge of the localities of the Holy Land, and by using the LXX., and not the original Hebrew, in quoting from the Old Testament. In regard to the evidence afforded by a knowledge of localities, Professor Ramsay lays down the following: “It is impossible for any one to invent a tale, whose scene lies in a foreign land, without betraying in slight
1 The best statement of this part of the evidence will be found in Oscar Holtz-
mann’s Fohan., pp. 188-191. 2 God and the Bible, p. 251.