The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 41

(_2) The author of the Fourth Gospel is cb1trged with ignorance of topo~raphicnl facta which a Jew would newr have displayed. The i!!llorance of enlightened Englishmen, in the days of ~chool boards e.nd large m11ps and ;rdnance surveys, nbout geographical facts is no proof th11t they are not Englishmen; and ten thousand similar illustratione might be given of far more weight from well-knO'lvn writer~. Dut what are these eign11 or ignorance ? "Bethany beyond Jordan" (eh. i. 28). The modern e.nd approved revision of the text. This was e. place of which Urigen was ignorant in his day,a fact which probably explains the alteration into Bethabara, " the house of the ford," in lieu of Bethany, " the house of the boat." Different etymologies are given of the word" Bethnny," as •• house of dates," etc., which may have suited the well-known Bethany (see notes on eh. i. 28). It is clear that the author was not confounding it with Ilethany near Jerusalem, by the very phrase, "Bethany beyond Jordan," and by his close and exnct statement as to the distance of the well-known Bethany from Jerusalem (eh. xi. 18). We find in the gospel narrative two Antiochs, two 13ethsaidas, two Cresarcas : why should there not have been two little villages called Bethany? Ch. ix. 7, "Siloam, which is by inter- pretation, Sent," is another reference which is rnpposed to prove the author's ignorance. The latest investigations show that, even to the present day, can be traced the link of connection between the waters of Siloam and the Fountain of the Virgin. That the evangelist should have seen some typical meaning in the very name is essentially Jewish. Now, against these supposed flaws may be set his accurate statements about "the pool of Bethescla and the five porches" (eh. v. 2). Again, the Ephraim near the wilderness (eh. xi. 54) is identified with Ophrah (1 Sam. xiii. 17); the "lEnon near to Salim," of eh. iii. 23 is identified by the modern explorers. "The brook Kedron" (eh. xviii.1). The Prre- torium is accurately referred to in eh. xviii. 28; the " Gabhatha n of eh. xix. 13 is given in the Aramaic form, as of one acquainted with the place before the fall of the city. Besides this, the Sychar of John iv. 5, which cannot be identified with Shechem, though it was once thought to be a mere corruption of the name. It turns out that this "Sychar" has been identified conclusively with a village still standing under the name· of '.Askar, which reveals traces of great antiquity(' Report of the Palest. Expl. Fund,' 1877, p. 149; and 1876, p. 197). Add to this a number of minute topographical touches, more abundant than in most books of the New Testament: "Solomon's porch" (eh. L 23); "the treasury in the temple" (eh. viii 20); the scenery of the sea ot Galilee, of Tiberias; and, as Westcott admirably indicates, the decoration of the temple Ly the great golden vine which adorned its exterior (see note, eh. xiv. 31; xv. 1-7). (3) 'l'he apparent antipathy of the writer to" the Jews," who are said always to be spoken of as hostile, and as people from whom the writer regarded himself as separated; e.g." The purifying of the Jews" ( ch.'.ii. 6); " The Jews' Passover" ( eh. ii. 13); "A feast of the Jews" (eh. v.1; vi 4); "'l'he mannerofthe Jews is to bury" (eh. xix.40). But these expressions are nothing more than what a narrator, writing for Gentiles, would be sure to adopt, when giving them information, and there is no opprobrium involved in any of them. 'l'he words were written down many years after the events occurred, and wh9n the Jewish people were scattered, and had proclaimed themselves bitterly hostile to the faith. There are, however, other passages where "the Jews" are referred to as distinct from the ~ 6x>..os of Galilaia.ns, and iu opposition to the Lord. This is a terrible fact in their history; but other and countervailing statements should be pondered. The writer studiously calls attention to the division of opinion among these Jews, and to certain reIIl.Bl"kable exceptions, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathrea (eh.iii. 1; vii. 60). He speaks of the Jews as Christ's own people, as ol Bio,," who received him not" except in part. There was always "a division among them." .As a nation, they rejected their Lord ; as individuals, they received him ( eh. 1ii. 23, woMol lwlunutra.11 ; iii. 2, orlia,,,u, etc.; iii. 26, ..-d.1,ru lpxovra.i ..-pbs a.in-611; iv. 1, Jesus made more disciples in Judiea than John did; iv. 22, "·Ii U""Jpla. is from the Jews." The true interpretation of eh. iv. 43-45 is that Jesus con~idered the land of Judrea to be _par excellence" his own country." The whole narrative iu John v. shows a bitter enmity to Jesus when he assumed an independence of Pharisaic interpretation of the sabbatic law; but the narrative is interpenetre.ted throughout with Jewish ideas of the sabbath, of the Scriptur';II, ~nd of Moses. In eh. vii. the next visit to Jerusalem ie characterized by the resusc1te.t1on of their malice, and reveals "the fea.r of the Jews;" but it showa also the knowledge of the  THR GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S'f. ,JOHN. xiv