The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 47

establi!!bes a connection hctwccn the later boob 1tnd dAut.cro-cnnonicnl bool{s of the Old T01<tament end the Christian doctrine of the writer to the Hebrews, which are not only independent of Philo, but also of the author of the Fourth Gospel. It becomes probable that. the doctrine, which is supposed by some to be an evolution of the second century, really preceded that period by eome ninety or a hundred years; that it is appnrent throughout Paul's letters, and especially in his e~rliest and most indubitably authentic Epistles. 'Where did Paul obtain such notions, if not from the sacred tr.idition of those parts of Christ's tc>aching which, while not absent from the synoptists (ns, e.g., Matt. xi.), are most abundantly revealed in the \angl\l\ge of the Fourth Gospel? Defore the Gospel was written, it is indeed almost scientifically demonstrated that some of the disciples had thus reported and reiterated the teaching of their Lord. "'l'his," says the Ephesian presbyter, "is the disciple which tcstifieth of these thinos, ns well as wrot.e the~ things," etc. We find no difficulty in believing that Nathan:el (Bartholo- mew), Mary of Bethany, Nicodemus and Joseph, Judas (not Iscariot), Thomas and Philip, a.nd others of his disciples-why not Peter and Andrew ?-all contributed to swell that class of record and teaching which we find so fully reported and so wonder- folly enshrined in the Fourth Gospel. 3. 'J.'lie author was an eye-witness of much that he descri"bes. Having, then, made it more than evident that the writer was a Jew, and a Jew of Palestine, we proceed, in the next place, to show that the writer was an eye-witness of that which he describes, an auditor of the discourses which he records. There is no doubt that he wishes to be considered an eye-wit'TWSS; that he practically claims to have been such, and that a multi- tude of small details a.re given, either with a consummate art which almost conceals itself, or with the simple object of recording what ma.de an indelible impression on his mind at the time. I am willing to admit tha.t pseuderiigraphers do adopt this method. Historical romancists, even great poets, when treating events well known in tradition, from Homer to Goethe, and from Welter Scott to living poets and novelists, know that nothing preserves the illusion of autoptic memoir better than the use of these appa- rently useless adjuncts of a story. Yet we think that this author, from the supple- mentary character of his Gospel, and from the numberless additional fragments of information which be supplies, as well as from touches which cannot (as Baur urged) be due to a.ny theological bias, does unconsciously and unintentionally reveal the eye-witness. Let us enumerate some of these artless traits of the presence of the writer. The references to the day a.nd hour when so many of the memorable scenes occurred (eh. i 29, 35, 43; xii I, 12; xiii. 1, etc.; xx. 1; ii. 1; iv. 43, 52; vi. 22; :x.i. 6, 17); the hours of the <lay ( eh. i. 39; iiL 2; vi 16; xiii. 30 ; xviii. 28). In eh. i 14 the phrase," We beheld his glory," undoubtedly places the writer in the company of those who had personal and irresistible reasons for believing that he was the incarnate /1.&-yos of God. This passage, however, derives strong emphasis from I John i. 1, where the same writer declares (not, as some German critics have assumed, what any bdiever might claim) that he and others, not only saw with their bodily eyes, but touched with their hands, the" Word of life." The object of the writer of that Epistle was to bring its readers i.ntQ a state of fellowship with their own trium- phant faith in facts and manifestations of such transcendent importance. The writer, on an occasion of awful and immense significance, viz. the piercing of the side of the Lord Jesus, declares that a strange "sign" occurred, and, in order to emphasize the fact, adds (eh. xix. 35), "And he that bath seen bath home witness, and his witness is veritable; and he knoweth that be saith true, that ye also may believe." The opponent.s of the authenticity have found, in the use of l,ciivos, some proof that the writer is here only quoting a credible witness, and distinguishing him.self from the dliciple whom Jesus loved, and who bad gone away from the cross, in his anxiety to protect the mother of the Lord; but the frequent use of ;,ciivos elsewhere in reference to the subject of the sentence has disposed of 1his suggestion (eh. ix. 37). It is certain that either the author quotes what be regarded as perfectly trustworthy testimony of one still living when he wrote, or refers to his own personal experience in the matter. The latter, from bis style, is far more probable, and the fact that he was accnstomcd to regard himself in the third person would in this passage make e. still more forcible $epe.ration in thought between himself as witness and himself .as wtlter. It is in favour of this that the a.uthor uses the perfect rather than the aorist, which last would  Tm; GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8T. JOIIN. liii