The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 36

But Drossol, in 1863, having discovered tho manuscript of 'Hom.,' xix., not previously known to exist, published it. In this is contained the remarkable quotath:,n (xix. 22): "It ie for this ronson 111s0 that our Lorri replied to those who questioned him concerning the man blind '"lpoii from his birth, who received his si~t, and who nsked him whether lhie man sinned, or his parentg, that he was born blind (-rv<f>J\&r), answered, Neither did this man sin ·nor his parents, but that by him the power of God ehould be made manifest, curing the sins of ignorance." Ililgenfeld yielded to this evidence. '£hose who hold out ag11inst it are compelled to admit that (save from this quotation) thero is nothing to bring the homilies later than A.D. 160. 'Jhc opponents of the Fourth Gospel are urgent in drawing attention to the strongly expressed divergence between the Clementine homilies and the Gospel. If this be so, these Ebionites from whom the homilies proceeded would never have quoted from a work of an opposite school, if it were of modern origin, or if there bad been any colourable reason for repudiating its apostolicity. This quotation, therefore, togethc1· with Justin's, Tatian's, and the other evidence adduced, renders the date assigned by Baur for the composition of the Fourth Gospel, viz. A.D. 160-170, entire1y incredible. 4. MoNTANUB and Montanism. Montanua, the leader of this sect, made his appear- ance in Phrygia about .A.D. 140, and he based his theory on the prophecy of a Pa1·aclete, and on the promised gift of the Holy Spirit as a perpetual and supernatural presence and prophetic energy in the Church. No intelligible explanation can be put upon the adoption of the terms, Logos, Paracletos, Numphios, which (Theodoret says) Montanns claimed for himself, but his own misuse of an acknowledged source of authoritative tradition and doctrine. Montanism, as a reaction into disciplinary forms and millennarian views, was not called forth by this Gospel, which nowhere sustains it; bnt, as Keim says, "Montanism derived its ideas from the surrounding Church, which was or might be under the influence of the Fourth Gospel." Then coupling this fact with the undoubted quotations and allusions, it brings the composition back to at least before .A.D. 120-140, during which time it must have been well known in the Church. 5. MARCION. Marcion, as we have stated in earlier remarks, has now been definitively proved to have mutilated for his purposes the Third Gospel, and to have endeavoured to establish his doctrine of Christian dualism by representing the demiurge as hostile to the supreme God, and the Lord Jesus to have had no part in him or his work, as one essentially hostile to "matter," and to Jews who were the very work and agents of the demiurge. How could he have found, even with abundant mutilation, anything to satisfy him in the Fourth Gospel, where the humanity of Jesus, his body and its characteristics, are so aburidantly insisted upon? It is very perplexing that scholars like Hilgenfold, Volkmar, and Davidson should think that. John's Gospel would have been more suitable than Luke's if it bad been in existence. The doctrine of the Incarnation, of the weariness of Christ, of the lle~h of Christ, his proof of the sameness of the body that had risen with that which had been ·crucified, the marriage'-feast, etc.,-all ha,·e led great critics like Bicek, Weiszackcr, Luthardt, Godet, and others, to take a very different view. That Marcion wa.s acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, and rejected it, is clisti □ ctly sai,l and argl).cd upon by ·'l'ertullia.n (' Adv. Marcion,' iv. 3), who recites JIJarcion's use of Gal. ii. to justify his rejection of the authority of the apostles, and to justify hfa repudL-i.tion &Cof the Gospels published in tho name of apostles, e.nd a.bo of apostolical men." "James, Cephas, and John" are the apostles or Rpostolical men whom JIJarcion knew to be authors of Gospels. In the 'De Carne Christi,' c. iii., 'l'ertLillia.11 says, when simply arguing against the Gnosticism of Marcion, "If thou hadst not rejected the writings opposed to thy system, the Gospel of John would be there to convince thee." The inference that Marcion, who reached Rome A.D. 140, knew and rejec~ed John's 0.Jspel, strongly confirms its wide cliffusion in the period already referred to, VIZ, A.D. 120-,-140. . 6. V ALENTINUS and the Valentinians. The philosophy of Valentinus, tbc most 1?teresting and poetic of all the Gnostic systems, cannot here be expounded. Much light hns been thrown upon it by Irenreus, who was positively induced to write the great work against heresies by his kuowlcdge of this system, aud of the two partic,, into which his disclrlcs, Ptolemruus and llerncleon, drifted. MorcoTcr, Hippolytu:;, in  INTRODUCTION TO