VI. 'I'm: CANONIOITY OJ!' THE FounTB GosPET,. By this we mean the proof that it takes its place, with the other Gospels and the most o.uthentic Epistles, in the oldest collections of sacred books, in the earliest versions of them into other languages, and the most celebrated and earliest-known manuscripts of the New 'l'estament, and sacred li~ts of the earliest councils which treated of the question. The whole of this evidence is not forthcoming for the Apocalypse, nor for all the general Epistles. 'l'he Fourth Gospel, however, is contained (1) in the Peshito Syriac of the second century, which is destitute of the Apocalypse, of the Epistles of Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John; (2) in the Old Latin, which translation, thou.~h prepared in the second century, does not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews, nor 2 Peter, nor (?)James; (3) in the Muratorian Canon; (4) in the Canon of Origen (A.D. 184-253); (5) in the Canon of Eusebius, who regarded the Epistles of James, of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, as disputed, and the Apocalypse as spuiious; (6) in Codex VaticanUB (D) and Codex Sinaiticus (~) of the fourth century; (7) in the Canon of .A.tbanasius; and (3) in the Canon of the Councils of Laodicea (A.D. 364), the Third Council of Cartha;e (A.D, 397), and the Canons of Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. These facts do not, per se, establish authenticity or greater positive antiquity for the document than thefr own dates; yet they reveal an amount of widespread belief anJ reverence on the part of learned and by no means credulous writers, by bodies of men, by Churches diffused over Asia, Europe, and Africa, from Mesopotamia to Gaul, from Alexandria and Antioch to Smyrna and Rome. It is difficult to conceive such a combination of facts as compatible with the late origin of the document, by some utterly unknown and untrustworthy pseudepigrapher. Other questions, sometimes associated with the external evidence, seem to me better discussed when we have maJe further inquiries into the phenomel)a of the authorship. • .Having, then, made it highly probable, if not a demonstrable fact, that this Fourth Gospel was known, quoted, and accepted as an authority for the facts and teachings of the new faith, and having shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, to put its origina- tion later than the commencement of the second century, we proceed to investigate-
VIL THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ITS AUTIIOBSHIP. 1. The author must have been a Jew. Great effort is made by many writers to prove that, whoever wrote it, be could not have been a Jew, but must have been some Christian Gentile of marked hostility to the Jews and their race, and that the author displays an ignorance or indifference to the sacred people incompatible, of course, with his being the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee. This impression is created by calling attention to a few peculiarities of the Gospel, which seen:i to point in that directior., but which are abundantly counterbalanced by other most important characteristics of the document. In proof of the position, (1) Dr. Davidson (ii. 427) calls attention to the contrast between the Old 'l'estament doctrine of the creation of all things out of nothing, and the statement of the Fourth Gospel that all things were formed by the Word from pre- existent materials. How that can be possibly reconciled with eh. i. 3 it is <lifricult to see. Other statements follow, compnring the richer, riper, teaching of the Fourth Gospel with the Old 'l'estament doctrine of Hades, of judgment. It is argued that no Jew could have spoken of eternal life on this side the grave-, and that the revolution of thought thus indicated carries the anthorship beyond the limits of Jndaism. In reply, wo call attention t,, the distinct references to "judgment" and '' the resurrection of the dend" in eh. v. 29, ae well as to the teaching of the Apostle Paul touchi!lg the essential natnre of eternal life. Moreover, the argument of ,our opponents here precludes the l)ossibility that the horizon of this Jew should have been enlarged by his contact with, to say the lenst, the greatest Teacher that the world had ever known. Was not St. Paul a Jew, "a Hebrew of Hebrews"? XllT INTRODUCTION TO