The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 12

been written RS an efrenicon, with the endeavour to prove, by forged factR, that Peter and Paul were not really estr::mged from one another; that the substance of their preoohing WI\S practically identical, Rnd that their relation to the heathen world and to tl10 logal observance by Jews of circumcision lmd much in common. Pscudo-Pnuline Epistles to tlio Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, and the pastoral Epistles, he held recently to lmvo helped to bridge the chasm between the opposing parties, At length some manifesto was urgently needed which should show that there wa.s truth on both sides, that Paulini3m and Petrinism were really one in their dogmatic root, that while "salvation was of the JeWll," yet" God is a-Spirit," and his worship independent of Jerusalem and Gorizim. This position he thought not likely to be taken till aCter tha second humiliation of, Jerusalem under Hadrian. This manifesto might involve all that was essential or good in Montanism or Marcionitism, and should endeavour to root all in a popular theory, of the Logos. The eternal Logos was no sooner believed to have become incarnate in' Jesus, than from him all tbo unifying truths might be presumed to have proceeded. Baur supposed that some "great unknown" attempted this colosslll task, and produced the Fourth Gospel, which exactly met the case. By subtle suggestions its author meant to convey the idea that it was written by the son of Zebedee, who is represented as specially dear to Jesus, and therefore competent to reveal his thought. An additional ar!1:umcnt of great ingenuity was advanced. At this particular juncture, said Ba~, the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches as to the celebration of Easter and the Paschal rite had oru:e more come forward. It was supposed that the synoptic Gospels had demonstrated the fact that the Lord ate the Passover with his disciples on the night before his crucifixion. It was said that John favoured this view, his example heing quoted against the Roman custom of continuing the fa.st until the eve of the Easter morning. What could be more advantageous, in the. growing interest of the "Catholic Church," than that it should appear that the Lord was crucified on the 14th Nisan, and then to have John's authority for xegarding Christ's death as the veritable Passover? This he suggested .as one of the motives of the Fourth Gospel. Baur thus considered e,ery word of this Catholic manifesto as dexterously chosen to accomplish one or more of these results. 'l'hus the mythical hypothesis vanishes, aod the hints of Bruno Bauer are made to take the place of the Straussian construction of the life of Jesus. Baur fixed the date of the composition about the year A.D .. 170, when all these conditions combined, as he imagined, to provide its "hist.orical situation." The elate is a matter of prime importance in this speculation, and th@defenders of the authenticity were not slow to:.appeal to the historical proof of the existence of. this Gospel before the year A.D. 170. Ebrard, .in his introduction to the Commentary on the Gospel (Eng. trans.), Thiersch (' Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Stand- punkt1; fur die Kritik der Neutestamentlichen Schriften '), and Bleek (' Beitrage zur Evangelien-Kritik ') discussed the positions of Baur with great acumen and force. Later on we give the proof that lreWEus, between A.D. 180 and 185, quoted the Gospel as canonical and inspired Scripture; that Theophilus of Antioch (A,D. 170) quoted the Gospel as that of John; that Celsus, whose work Origen co=ented on and refuted, must have been familiar with the Fourth Gospel ; that the Muratorian Fragment shows, about A.D. 170, that it was regarded as of equal importance with the other Gospels; that Tatian, before A.D. 170, composed his 'Harmony of the Four Gospels;' .and that the pseudo-Clementine literature (as is now admitted by HilgenCeld) quoted the Fourth Gospel; that the disciples of Valentinus, viz;.Heracleon and Ptolemreus, were acquainted with the Gospel, the former writing a commentary on it between A.D. 125, and 1561 Thus it appeared that the date on which Baur laid stress, and in the midst of which he found the historical locus for its composition, absolutely vanishes, Godet shows, with conspicuous ability, that the supposed purpose of the author to reconcile .Christ's death-day with the Paschal feast would not have accomplished the purpose of defend- ing the Roman celebration of the Communion 011 Easler morning ; and that there is no probability that the sacramental commemoration of the night of the Passion by the Eastern Church was any commemoration of the moment when the Eucharist was i.ntltituted, but rather a prolongation of theocratic memories coupled with a reverent celebration of the death itself. Baur's date could not be sustained, and his followers and disciples have been com- pelled to take fresh ground while endorsing his main principles.  'l'HE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. xv