Rom. xv. 25. John's notion of (wf, almost requires the present tense (eh. iii. 36; v. 26). Notwithstanding the urgency with which Winer maintains the telic force of fva throughout the New Testament, in many places where fva can and must be limited to a simple apposition, or to what Canon Evans felicitously terms "a contemplated result," yet Winer enumerates tbe passages in John's writings where it cannot mean more than what might be expressed by an infinitive clause, as eh. xv. 8; xvii. 3; xv. 13; 1 John iv. 17; 3 John 4 (see also notes on eh. viii. 56). And though Winer with difficulty renounces the telic force of fvm (1 John iii. 11 ; eh. vi. 40; xii. 23; xiii. 1 ; xvi. 2, 32), he says a Greek writer would have perhaps used II,<TT• lio!au6,\va, instead of fva lio!iiuBp (see Wine1·'s treatment of 3,rra,s in pp. 575, 57S). 'l'he use of Tva in this weakened sense shows the sense of a Divine aim pervading all the ordinary nexus of human relations. Not only John but Paul used certain prepositions (e.g. 111) in a mode unknown to Greek writers, but adapted to express Christian ideas, which were originally expressed for the apostles in specific force given to Aramaio prepositions. One characterLstic feature of the grammatical style of the evangelist is the occurrence of repeated asyn~ deta-the breaking up of sentences which might othenvise be woven into a context by e1u, or /l.l-y11 mb-r<ii, orb,KplB11 ab'Ttp (see numerous examples in cb. ii., iii., and iv.). Some of these short sentenoes, like" Jesus wept" (eh. xi. 35); "Now Barabbas was a robber" (ob. xviii. 40); "And it was night" (eh. xiii. 30); "Now Jesus loved Martha," etc. (eh. xi. 5) ;-reveal a suppressed fire which flashed at times through the apparent monotony of the style. cxxvl INTRODUCTION '1'0
These various peculiarities simply show that the writer's Dlind was familiarized with the forms of later Greek construction, and open some glimpses into the simplicity and intenBily of his nature, bis receptivity to a succession of thoucrhts and facts which one by one left their impression on bis mind. They are not of such & character as to separate the writer from his colleagues, or to remove him to another century. 'l'hcy reveal his idiosyncrasies, which have their parallels in Paul nnd Luke. Some of them are unknown to the classical Greek, while the repetition of the same idea in a positive and negative form, and the play of ideas produced by setting the same term in an ever- ascending and climact.eric series of relations, are the demonstrable consequences of a Hebrew training. Thus eh. xvi. 21, the ima.ge of the travailing woman, may be com- pared with Isa.. xxi. 3 and Hos. xiii. 13; that of "living water" (eh. iv. 10) with Isa. xii. 18. Ewald justly says, " In respect of the spirit which animates it no lancruage can be more purely Hebraic than that of our author." In respect of 'mere s~vish imitations of Heb~ew i;yntax, or Talmudic form, Renan is right in saying that there is no symptom of either. Lutbardt remarks and proves that "there is a Hebrew soul in the Greek language of the evangelist." Keim has eloquently asserted the same idea. The style is no barrier whatever to the theory suggested by the entire external and internal evidence, that the beloved disciple was the author of the Fourth Gospel. 5. The character of the discourses contained in the Fourth Gospel. Notwithstand- ing the abundant proof thus summoned from the Fourth and synoptic Gospels of general identity of the signal portraitures, including that of the Lord himself, and also of special and subtle hints of the moral nature of Jesus, and his mental habitude; and though we have pointed out very numerous touches of positive agreement and same- ness of utterance between our two sources, and that in the limited vocabulary placed by John into the lips of the Lord there are not fewer than forty words or terms also attributed by the synoptists to him ;-yet the lengthened discourses in eh. iii., v., vi., L, xiii., xiv.-xvi, xvii., do unquestionably introduce the reader of them into a new atmosphere. We do not altogether miss the spirit or even the actuality of parabolic speech, as witness especially eh. L and xv., yet the contrast is very marked between the parables of the kingdom, in Matt. xiii. and parallels, and the semi-parables and semi-allegorical representations of the closing discourses of the Fourth Gospel. The form of the discourses differs almost as much from the general form of the synoptic discourses as the 'Dialogues ' of Plato do from the 'Memorabilia' of Xenopbon. That well-known difference of form includes also a profound. difference of subject-matter and of definite teaching ; yet no one presumes to deny that Xenophon and Plato were alike disciples of Socrates. We need both, and the 'Comedies' of Aristophanes also, to draw our portraiture of the historical Socrates, and to form a sound opinion of the authentic teaching of the great philosopher. The case of Socrates and his followers is an extreme one, because there is hardly &nything in common, either as to teaching or framework, in the three representations to which we have referred, whereas in the four Gospels, with their characteristic differences, there are, as we have seen, subtle resemblances of a unique kind, which bridge the chasm between them, and blend the divergences into a wonderful unity. It is so often said that a later disciple placed his own theology and eoteriology into the lips of Jesus, and so sought and secured a wide diffusion for his personal opinions, that some investigation of the alleged charge must be here made. The ingenious and fantastic treatment of the great discourses by Albrecht Thome., a.s well as the allegations of Keim, remove any necessity, even the faintest, for travelling en into the second century for the material or spirit of the Christology. According to Thoma, abundant antecedents are found in the synoptic narrative, in the Pe.uline Epistles (even the universally accredited Epistles to the Rom&ns, Corinthians, e.nd Gal.e.tis.ns), and in the speculations of the Ali;xandrines! the LXX., and the Old 'l'esta- ment, for every shade of doctrine, every form of narre.tive. The e.uthor (whosoever he wM) may, therefore, have produced this Gospel, so far as e.ll necessar'!! anteceden~ goes, in the closing decade of the first century. Ho does but work out in a narrative the material and ideas which were widely circulated, and formed the basis of Christian communities between A..D. 60 and 70. The question then passes from an inquiry into the chronological conditione, into the psychological possibility of our Lord having been the real Author of the ideas about himself which are attributed to him by the Fourth Gospel 'fHE GOSPEL ACCORDING ·ro S'J'. JOHN. cxxvii