The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 28

is said with reference to Lnko and John is as follows. It is noticeablo th:tt tlio way in which Luka le introduced shows that it was regarded by the writer as tho Third Gospel. " Tlio third book of tho Gospol is that o.ccording to Luke. Luke, th,1t physician, artcr the ascension of Ohrist, when Paul has taken him (secundum or secum) as his sncond [or,• helper,' 118 one studious, anxions for the truth or right?], wrote to the best of his jndgment (e:i:: opinione, equivalent to "a.8ws no!•v a..,,,.,;, Luke i. 3), nor, never- theless had he himself seen the Lord in the flesh-and this same, so far as he was able to nsce;·tain, and so be began to speak from the birth of John." There are no new facts to be gathered from this; but it is clear that the writer is speaking of what was known, in the Church, as the Third Gospel, and thus throws the composition of the work much further back, confirming all that we have said about the independent proof of the precedence of the 'l'hird Gospel to that of Marcion. Then the document proceeds- " Of the fourth of the Gospels (the e.uthor) wae John, one of the disciples" (i.e. to distinguish him from John the Baptist, to whom he had just made reference). "[He wrote it] at the request of his fellow-disciples e.nd bishops, to whom he said,' Fast with me from to-day until the third day, and whatsoever shall have been revealed to any one, we will tell you.' On the same night it was revealed to .Andrew, (one) of the apostles, that, aided by the revision of all (recognoscenWYUs cunctis), John should describe all things in his own name (on his own authority); and so, though variuus princip~es arc taught in each of the Gospels, it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since in all of them: all things are declared by one ruling Spirit, concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, the resnrrection [of Christ], the conversation with his disciples, and bis. double (gemino) .advent. First he was contemned in his humility, then, secondly, illustrious in royal.power, which will occur (quodfuturum est). Wba.t wonder is it, then, that John so constantly should bring it forth, even in his Epistles, and mentioning details, should say as from himself alone, 'What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things ha,·e we written to you' ? For so he professes tbat he was not only an eye-witness, but also a hearer, and, moreover, a writer in order. (scriptorem . . . pe:r ordinem, an historian) of all the wonderful things of our Lord." 13ecause of the air of legend that the writer of this fragment bas thrown ronnd the composition of the Gospel, some of our recent critics. discount its value; but the very fact that Andrew and the other apostles should conjoinedly have been supposed to tesJ;ify to the truth of John'a· communications, throws the date of the composition of what was then a well-known work into a remote past. The statement, moreover, cor- responds ;with the concluding words of the Gospel itself. The value of this document is that it makes it impossible for us to suppose that J'i:.stin could have had any other document before him than that which we thus show very shortly after J ustin's death to have been called" the Fourth Gospel," and is decla.ri:d to be written by an eye-witness, etc., and by the author of the Epistle which bears his nnme. Boltzmann contends mainly that the principle on which books are approved or con- demned throughout this archaic fragment is their acceptance by what was then becoming recognized as the Apos~olic Catholic Church. Davidson sul!gests that the account of the origin of the Fourth.Gospel shows that its" apostolicity" was still open to grave doubt. It ought to be here stated that Dr. Salme>n is disposed to attribute the authorship of this document to Caius, Presbyter of Rome about A.D. 200, and therefore, valuable as it would still be, it would have no bearing on the quotations of Justin. Reuss, however, in 1884 (lib. cit.), repudiates the authorship of Caius. (4) PAPIAB.1 These testimonies of Papias concern more closely the first two synoptic Gospel~, though they are not without interest in their bearing on the Fourth Gospel. First, who wa$ he? and what records throw light upon the date of his episcopate or death, or the value of his testimonies or his silences? 1 Article by Archdeacon Farrar, Ezpositor, November, 1881, very important, considering the extraordinary uso made by Keim (' Life of Jesus of NllZara,' i. 207, Eng. traus.), of the re_reronoe~ of Popias to ono who is supposed to be John the presbyter; Contempe>rary Revi,nc, Bishop Lightfoot, vol. xxvi.; Dr. Sl\lmon, • Introduction to the New Testameut,' p. 100, ete.  u:a:ii INTRODUC'l'ION TO