The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 80

We have now endeavoured to show, by comparison of the grammatical, lexical strnct~ral, ~nd tbeologi~l peculiarities of the _Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse, that there 1s a high probab1hty that they were wntten by the same pen. Seeing, then, that the external evidence for tbe authenticity of the Apocalypse is exceptionally stron11, and that the internal evidence is remarkably convincing, it cannot be concealed th:i the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse is a powerful argument in favour of the Johannine authorship of the Ji'ourth Gospel. We may, therefore, claim to have shown that the synoptic" John," the author of the general Epistles, and the" John" of the Apocalypse, though exhibiting some features of difference frc,m each other, and from the character of the author of the Fourth Gospel, do not so diverge from each other, either in spirit, style, or teaching, as to make the hypothesis of their identity at all incredible. But a far more formidable problem presents itself as soon as we examine the subject-matter of the Fourth Gospel. The following questions arise-ls the record of the Lord's life and teaching here preserved an historical document? Can we trust to its historical details? Is it indubitably the record of an eye-witness? Are its discrepancies (in various respects) with the previously existing narratives of such a character as to invalidate its testimony? Is the portraiture of Christ consistent with any of the ordinary qualities of a biography ? Are the details of this Gospel so peculiar that, if credible witness to facts, they pulverize or evaporate the older records? Are the omissions so remarkable, and the scenes, times, and style of onr Lord's discourses so unique, that the narrative really presents another Jesus, fundamentally different from him with whom Matthew, Mark, and Luke have made us familiar? Are the omissions by the eynoptiets of certain remarkable events recorded in the Fourth Gospel so amazing that the only satisfactory explanation is that the synoptics must have been in ignorance of the fact (e.g. of the raising of Lazarus), and is there a justifiable suspicion thrown upon the trustworthiness of the narrative? Are there traces in it of a date later than even the latest that can be attributed to the life of St. John? If these questions be answered in the affirmative, then the external and internal evidences need the most careful scrutiny. There is no longer any question that learned men and illustrious scholars have endeavoured to shake their credit, and have demanded an amount of evidence in this particular case which can be dispensed with in less vital controversies. If an honest and true eye-witness, 611ch an individual as John the son of Zehedee, whose character sheds a glow upon the first century, could not have written such a work aa this Gospel, as a reco1-d of facts, as a chronicle and reproduction of the words of the Lord Jesus, then some other hypothesis consistent with indubitable facts must be hazarded to account for a work of such amazing significance and mysterious grandeur. These have not been wanting, and may be divided into two groups. (1) Oue group consists of those who cannot gainsay or resist the evidence of the identity of the author of the Gospel and Apocalypse, and do not dispute the position that John was the author of the Fourth Goepel. '!'hey, like Gtbhart, Renan, Schenkel, and Matthew Arnold, affirm that we have no better external evidence for the existence of the s7,noptic Gospels and Epistles of Paul than we have for that of the Goepel of John. •...'h;,y pre88 back decade after decade in the second century, and find that it le tbe extravagance of hypercrhicism to doubt the very early use and recognition by  'flJF, GOSPEL ACCOHDI~G TO BT. JOUN. lxxx,ii