* MAR 1 5 1907 * 
 
 y 
 
 Division 3 5) S *^ ^ 5 
 
 .4-.TI23 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 AND SOME 
 RECENT GERMAN CRITICISM 
 
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 C. F. CLAY, Manager. 
 
 ilontion: FETTER LANE, E.G. 
 
 ,®Iasaoto: 50, WELLINGTON STREET. 
 
 ILeipjtg: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 
 ^eSi) ?iorit: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS. 
 
 iSombao anti (Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. 
 
 [All lights reserved.] 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 AND SOME 
 RECENT GERMAN CRITICISM 
 
 HENRY LATIMER JACKSON, B.D. 
 
 Cambridge : 
 
 at the University Press 
 
 1906 
 
Volat avis sine meta 
 
 Quo nee vates, nee propheta 
 
 Evolavit altius : 
 
 Tam implenda, quam impleta 
 
 Nunquam vidit tot seereta 
 
 Purus homo purius. 
 
 Thesaurus Hymnologicus. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I MAY be allowed, perhaps, to say a word or two as 
 to the origin and existence of a book which, as it 
 seems to me, has few if any claims to rank as a con- 
 tribution to what Soltau speaks of as " das Haupt- 
 problem aller Bibel-Kritik." 
 
 It was urged but the other day that, if the clergy 
 cannot all be profound scholars and theologians, they 
 are at any rate pledged to be " a learned and a learning 
 body." If it is not presumptuous to say so, I have at 
 least tried to be the student, the learner : — not simply 
 "mine own self to gratifie," but as mindful of the 
 demands made by the ministry of teaching. Desirous 
 of kindling a deeper interest in the study of Holy 
 Scripture amongst those to whom, here and elsewhere, 
 I have been called to minister I have, for a good many 
 years, included regular and systematic lecturing on 
 topics connected with the "Divine Library" in the 
 ordinary routine of parochial work — not disguising the 
 fact that, if there be those who, as Soltau complains, 
 "deem it inexpedient that the results of Biblical 
 
VI PEEFACE 
 
 criticism should be communicated to wider circles," 
 I would not willingly be numbered with them. A 
 time came when, having treated at some length of the 
 Gospels generally, I was prompted to resume some 
 closer study of the Fourth Gospel (the " Schmerzenskind 
 der Theologie " of Pfleiderer) for my own purposes and 
 with the view of attempting some fuller discussion of 
 the subject with those who, if few in number, have 
 proved themselves intelligent and attentive hearers. 
 
 In short, availing myself of material already 
 collected and embarking on fresh studies which are 
 still occupying all the leisure at command, I combined 
 work for my own ends with the preparation of a course 
 of lectures which were delivered on the Sunday after- 
 noons of last winter. 
 
 The results of my work have now been prepared for 
 publication. That the lectures in question lie behind 
 the printed pages will be, perhaps, evident from the 
 somewhat colloquial style which has been adhered to ; 
 they are not, of course, merely reproduced. Apart from 
 attempts to improve on the spoken word, there has 
 been re-arrangement of matter, expansion and con- 
 densation. Much has been added on ; and the 
 additions go' far beyond the references and quotations 
 which have been given in foot-notes or embodied in the 
 text. As might be expected, I have drawn largely on 
 the works of English theologians. More numerous, 
 however, are my gleanings from the literature on the 
 
PREFACE VU 
 
 Johannine question which comes to us from abroad; 
 from many a continental student and scholar of 
 acknowledged eminence. In particular I have con- 
 sulted German writers — not by any means confining 
 myself to recent publications only ; and it will be 
 remarked that two of them have to some extent de- 
 termined the lines on which my subject has been 
 worked out. 
 
 Let me say here that, unfortunately, Professor 
 Schmiedel's important contributions to the Religions- 
 gesckichtliche Volkshucher {Das vierte Evangeliwni, and 
 Evangelmm, Briefe und Offenharimg des Johannes) 
 did not come to hand until my book was practically 
 finished. 
 
 It remains that I should acknowledge a large debt 
 of gratitude. If I have repeatedly turned to Germany 
 for help — not always, I fear, accepting guidance — the 
 reason shall point to early associations, to what I would 
 gladly think of as lasting ties with German friends 
 whose unvarying and warm-hearted kindness makes 
 me look on the " Fatherland " as a second home. 
 There are others, in the nearer home, to whom thanks 
 must be tendered. Of one who is to me as a brother 
 it shall suffice to say that he knows how I value the 
 encouragement which has ever come from him. Two 
 shall be mentioned by name : — my old friend the Rev. 
 E. Harris, D.D., Vicar of Bullinghope, Hereford, who 
 was good enough to read my work in its unrevised 
 
Vlll PREFACE 
 
 stage ; a more recent friend, the Rev. G. R. Holt 
 Shafto, Wesleyan minister, late of Huntingdon and 
 now of Exeter, who helped me greatly in preparing it 
 for the press. It goes without saying that they are in 
 no way committed to an agreement with its contents. 
 
 Here the thought occurs to me that, as time goes 
 on, I shall probably realise even more than I do now 
 its many deficiencies and defects, and be glad to claim 
 liberty to disagree with myself 
 
 St Mary's Vicarage, Huntingdon, 
 October, 1906. 
 
 P.S. I must plead guilty to an oversight on p. 29. 
 It should have been owned in the text or footnote 
 reference that a liberty had been taken with borrowed 
 words. If Professor Schmiedel will "concur in the 
 judgment of Strauss " he expressly says of ch. xxi that 
 " it does not come from the same author with the rest 
 of the book." 
 
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY Pages 1—10 
 
 "It is time to go back to Christ," 1. The New Learning of 
 our age and religious unsettlement, 2 — 3. The gaze fixed on Jesus, 
 3 — 4, Workers in the field of Bible study, 5. Methods of 
 
 critical investigation, 6 — 7. Biblical criticism not to be dreaded 
 but welcomed, 8 — 10. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 "the gospel according to ST JOHN" 11 — 22 
 
 The "favourite" Gospel, 11—12. Its authorship, historicity, 
 remain long unquestioned, 13 — 14. The attack ; Evanson and 
 
 Bretschneider ; a " mighty stream " of criticism ; diversity of posi- 
 tion of students of Fourth Gospel, 14 — 17. German " spirit of 
 research and love of truth," 17 — 18. To raise question with 
 
 regard to this Gospel not necessarily to impugn a *' central truth," 
 18 — 19. Of a popular literature on Bible questions; Wernle's 
 Quellen des Lebens Jesii, and Earth's Johannesevangelium, 19 — 22. 
 
X SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY . 23 29 
 
 The question at issue and its exact drift, composite nature of 
 books of Old and New Testaments, 23—24, Interpolations, possible 
 disturbances and displacements in the text of Fourth Gospel, use 
 of the Synoptics, 25 — 26. Diversity of opinion ; Chapters i — xx 
 
 evidently from the same pen, so also, perhaps, xxi, 1 — 23 ; xxi, 24, 25 
 in any case by another hand, 26 — 29. The "seamless robe" of 
 Strauss, 29. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 30 91 
 
 Johannine authorship affirmed and disallowed ; importance of the 
 question, 30 — 32. The Gospel itself silent ; inquiry necessitated, 
 
 its scope, 33. 
 
 i. External Evidence. 
 
 Opinions of Wernle and Barth, 33—36. Position of the latter 
 supported by Eusebius — who may have been in error, 36 — 39. Of 
 
 the "holy quaternion" of the Gospels; proof of the comparatively 
 early existence of the Fourth Gospel; contentions for a very late 
 date less frequent ; possible misconceptions on the part of the ancients, 
 39_42. Testimony of Ireneeus, 43—45 ; of Clement of Alexandria, 
 45_47 ; of Origen and Polycrates, 47—49. The Muratorian Canon 
 and the Monarch. Prologue, 49—51. Reference of Papias to John 
 
 the Presbyter, 52 — 54. Alleged martyrdom of John son of 
 
 Zebedee, 54 — 56. The decisive word "Apostle" wanting, 57. 
 
 Tentative conclusions, the external evidence far from conclusive, 
 58—61. 
 
 ii. Internal Evidence. 
 Barth and Wernle on the subject, 62 — 66. 
 
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS XI 
 
 [a) Direct Evidence. 
 
 The " we " of ch. i. 14, 16, 66. Discussion of ch. xix. 35 ; 
 significance of iKelvos, 67 — 70 ; we are pointed to the beloved disciple 
 who, xxi. 24, is said to be the author, 70 — 71. Who is he? not 
 the "creation of a devout imagination" but a real personage; one of 
 the company mentioned in ch. xxi.; who figure in the group? 72 — 75. 
 The dilemma proposed by Barth ; but no question, necessarily, of a 
 literary fraud, 76. Alleged arrogance (the self-styled beloved 
 
 disciple) and rivalry with Peter, 77 — 79. Tentative conclusions, 79. 
 
 (b) Indirect Evidence. 
 
 Its nature ; marshalled by Barth, 79—82. The Evangelist, who 
 writes for a Greek-speaking community, a Jew ; a Palestinian (per- 
 haps a Jerusalem) Jew; one of the "hundred and twenty"; 
 apparently an eye-witness ; a disciple ; close relations with Jesus, 
 82—87. The two alternatives, 87 — 88. Conclusions which the 
 
 internal evidence (direct and indirect) seems to warrant ; character- 
 istics of Fourth Gospel ; a plausible conjecture, 88 — 91. 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 92 186 
 
 Eecapitulation, 92 — 93. Need for confronting Fourth Gospel 
 
 with Synoptics, its admitted peculiarity, 93 — 94. Objections as 
 
 enumerated by Barth and urged by Wernle, 95 — 99. An admis- 
 
 sion, 99 — 100. General remarks on the Synoptics, on mechanical 
 
 theories of inspiration, 100 — 103. Discrepancies not to be ac- 
 
 counted for by the individuality of Fourth Evangelist, 103 — 104. 
 
 i. Chronology. 
 
 Beginning of our Lord's ministry : its duration, 105 — 107. 
 The Cleansing of the Temple, rightly dated by Synoptics, 107 — 
 108. Of the " Death-day " of Jesus ; the Fourth Evangelist, 
 
 perhaps, to be relied on, 109 — 113. General remarks, 114. 
 
xil SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS 
 
 ii. Locality. 
 
 The difference as stated and explained, 115 — 116. The 
 
 Synoptics invite assumptions of a prolonged if intermittent 
 ministry in Jerusalem ; Lament over Jerusalem ; Jesus evidently 
 no stranger there, 116 — 118. The Fourth Evangelist not so 
 
 violently in conflict with the Synoptics— who may have crowded 
 the events of several years into a single week, 119. 
 
 ill. John the Bajjtist. 
 
 The Synoptic and Johannine representations, 119 — 120. In 
 both cases the illustrious personage, 121. Figures chiefly as 
 the " witness " in Fourth Gospel, 122—123. Of later disciples 
 of the Baptist and exaggerated reverence for his person, 124 — 125. 
 The " loftier claims of Jesus " emphasised, 126. 
 
 - iv. Presentment of Miracle. 
 
 Definition of standpoint, 127—130. Objections, " enhance- 
 ment of miracle"; of the healing of demoniacs, 131 — 132. 
 Miracle-stories peculiar to Fourth Gospel, 132 — 134. Feeding 
 
 of the Five Thousand and Cana, 134 — 135. Raising of 
 
 Lazarus, 135—140. Summing up, 140—142. 
 
 V. The Discourses. 
 
 The contrast insisted on and realised, 142 — 146. Ad- 
 
 missions ; monotony of style, Johannine language, 146 — 148. 
 Idealised conversations, 149. Extreme subjectivity of the 
 
 Fourth Evangelist ; no question of ipsissinia verba, 150 — 152. 
 Jesus may have varied the form, subject-matter, of His teaching, 
 153 — 155. The importance of right action not ignored, 156 — 
 
 159. Why Jesus should discourse of Himself, 159 — 160. 
 
 Form of the discourses must be attributed to Fourth Evangelist, 
 160—161. 
 
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS Xlll 
 
 vi. The Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Christ. 
 
 The two portraits; "here man — there God," 161 — 163. 
 Preference for the Synoptic representation not incompatible with 
 profound reverence for the Lord Christ, 163 — 164. Scope 
 
 of present inquiry defined, 16-1 — 165. Independent stud}' of 
 the two portraits desirable, 166. The Jesus of the Marcan 
 
 narrative is true man, an exceptionally great personage, divine, 
 166 — 172. The Johannine Christ is certainly not mere man ; 
 
 He is after all true man, 173 — 177. One who is " human 
 
 and divine" is depicted by different artists, 178 — 180. 
 
 vii. Recapitulation. 
 
 Preliminary considerations ; a contrast between Fourth 
 Gospel and Synoptics to be expected, inadequately accounted for 
 by diversity of individuality, 180 — 182. Chronology, 182. 
 
 Locality; John the Baptist, 183. Miracles, 184. The 
 
 Johannine discourses and conversations illustrate an enhanced 
 subjectivity, 184 — 185. The two representations of Jesus, 185. 
 In spite of marked contrasts the Fourth Evangelist may be the 
 beloved disciple — who may be the son of Zebedee, 186. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 187 213 
 
 Of biographical sketches based on the traditional identification of 
 John son of Zebedee with the beloved disciple, 187 — 188. The 
 Fourth Gospel temporarily ruled out ; then the St John of the Synoptic 
 Gospels, of Acts, of Galatians, 188—191. Inferences, 191—194. 
 
 Probable age of St John ; reflections, 194 — 197. Is the Synoptic 
 
 John discoverable in Fourth Gospel? the one direct allusion, 197 — 
 198. The Synoptic John and the beloved disciple of Fourth Gospel, 
 resemblances and contrasts, 198 — 202. A difficulty, the alleged 
 
 martyrdom, 203. The John of Ephesus of " fragmentary tradition," 
 203—207. Is he really son of Zebedee and beloved disciple? 207— 
 210. The evidence for identification falls short of conclusiveness, 
 
 210—212. Were there two Johns of Ephesus ? 212—213. 
 
XIV SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The retrospect, 214 — 216. Eemarks on the two extreme posi- 
 
 tions in regard to Fourth Gospel, 217 — 218. Tentative conclusions 
 as to authorship ; impossibility of deciding for the son of Zebedee ; 
 we are pointed to the beloved disciple, who may have employed an 
 amanuensis ; his identity an open question, 218 — 223. Of the 
 
 contents of the Gospel, suggested inferences, 224 — 226. The 
 
 author not infallible ; his limitations, freedom exercised by him, what 
 has chiefly impressed him, his relation to the Synoptics, 226 — 229. 
 The Fourth Evangelist and St Paul, 229—235. Influenced by 
 
 Greek thought, 235 — 239. Purpose of the Evangelist ; if he is 
 
 concerned with polemics he will also edify, 239 — 242. Of the 
 
 permanent value of the Gospel : not entirely unhistorical, a revelation 
 of the mighty influence exerted by Jesus, warns against a merely 
 ceremonial religiosity, suggestiveness for re-union, bids us welcome 
 and assimilate all new knowledge, a Gospel of " the larger hope," 
 242—247. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 It will be understood that whenever the title of a foreign work 
 quoted is given in English the reference is to the English translation. 
 There are two instances, however, in which the title is the same in 
 English as in German — the Jesus of Arno Neumann and the Jesus of 
 Professor Bousset. In the former case the reference is to the transla- 
 tion, in the latter to the original work. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 "After eighteen centuries of Christianity it is 
 time to go back to Christ ! " 
 
 The words are those of a great German thinker. 
 To examine into the circumstances and conditions of 
 his period (the 18th century) would fill more pages 
 than can be spared ; some, at least, of its characteristic 
 features are at once suggested by his pregnant utter- 
 ance. It evidently voices deep dissatisfaction with then 
 current presentations of religious truth. As evidently 
 it voices a conviction that there must be a return to 
 first principles; that there should be a harking-back 
 not only to the teaching of Christ, but to the very 
 Christ Himself There is an anticipation of the thought 
 to which a later writer (Vinet) gave forcible expression : 
 " even now, after eighteen centuries of Christianity, we 
 may be involved in some tremendous error, of which the 
 Christianity of the future will make us ashamed." 
 
 Is it not true that what was said a hundred years 
 ago and more, said some sixty years ago, is being 
 said again to-day — said, indeed, in diverse fashion, but 
 said with an emphasis which is unmistakable ? The 
 "tremendous error" is suspected; the cry is heard: 
 J. 1 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 " after nineteen centuries of Christianity it is time to go 
 back to Christ." There is no blinding ourselves to 
 the fact that an " old order " has changed, is changing. 
 The "New Learning" of our age has antiquated beliefs 
 and opinions which met with unquestioning acceptance in 
 a still recent past. " It is a truism to say that in these 
 days we have to reckon with a combination of new 
 studies, with new methods and new results of study^"; 
 we have also to reckon with one of the consequences, with 
 widespread unsettlement, perplexity, in the sphere of 
 religious thought and action. Old embodiments have 
 ceased to satisfy ; and for many the new embodiments 
 are not yet found. Our age is, indeed, " one of religious 
 eclipse^"; in the case of many thoughtful people there is 
 a marked withdrawal from Church life : and even where 
 the habit of church-going is retained there is often a 
 dreary sense of uncertainty, of loss. To turn to the 
 uneducated masses is to become speedily aware, not 
 only of a dogged aloofness from the Church, but also of 
 scoffings at the verities of the faith ^. 
 
 We remark a dissatisfaction which is displayed in a 
 variety of ways. There is another thing to be noted : 
 an eagerness for the undiscovered something to replace 
 that which has ceased to satisfy ; and because, rightly or 
 
 1 Chase, Supernatural Elements in Our Lord's Earthly Life, p. 4. 
 
 2 Gold win Smith, In Quest of Light, p. 39. 
 
 3 Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, ihre Quellen und ihr Quellemoerth, 
 p. 2. 
 
INTRODUCTORY 3 
 
 wrongly, it is deemed outworn, obsolete. For those who 
 have eyes to see and ears to hear there are signs num- 
 berless of an often pathetic "craving after dogmatic 
 views and conceptions which rest on a firmer basis than 
 the Catechism-erudition of an older theology, after 
 presentations of religion which shall harmonise with 
 modern thoughts" It might be said again to-day : 
 " at the present moment two things about the Christian 
 religion must surely be clear to anybody with eyes in 
 his head. One is, that men cannot do without it ; the 
 other, that they cannot do with it as it is^." " They 
 cannot do without it " ! — beyond question the need of it 
 is realised, the deep consciousness of the need finds re- 
 peated utterance. Matters of religious import are for 
 ever in debate ; in the converse of friends, in the 
 magazine and newspaper. " Of the making of many 
 books " on religious topics " there is no end," and they 
 find multitudes of intelligent and earnest readers. Un- 
 belief, aloofiiess from Church life, hostility to the Church, 
 there may be ; there are also signs and tokens manifold 
 which make it clear " that the great body of mankind 
 will not long live without a faith ^." 
 
 One thing shines out from amidst all the confusion 
 and the controversy, and it is this : " the Man Christ 
 Jesus " retains His ascendancy over the hearts of men. 
 
 ^ Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, Hire Quellen und ihr Quellenwerth, p. 2. 
 2 M. Arnold, God and the Bible, p. xiv. 
 2 Munger, The Freedom of Faith, p. 6. 
 
 1—2 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 ** It is time to go back to Christ"; again we remark a 
 cry which sounds out now faintly and now loud to shrill- 
 ness, often from unexpected quarters^. True, indeed, 
 that "the life of Christ has yet to be written^"; those 
 we possess may well be deemed inadequate, but, such 
 as they are, they are turned to with absorbing interest. 
 If a novel treats of Him its circulation is immense. 
 Why is it, we ask, that one should want to force his 
 mind to answer the question, " what have I come to 
 think of Christ^"? — an explanation comes to us in the 
 following words: "the question, Who was Jesus? is 
 forcing itself on the men of our day far more than in 
 any previous age. Amid the crumbling of old forms 
 and institutions, when that new order is dawning for 
 which each one hopes but none may discern clearly, the 
 gaze is rivetted on Jesus with an intensity hitherto un- 
 known. That precisely at this juncture He has some 
 word for us, that we precisely now have need of Him, is 
 not so much a clear perception as a feeling which over- 
 whelms the soul^." 
 
 1 That " three cheers for Jesus of Nazareth ! " was the shout 
 raised not so long ago by London secularists is significant. Speaking 
 of the German artisan Gohre {Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter unci Kan- 
 didat der Theologie, ch. vi.) remarks: "One thing alone is left to 
 them — respect and reverence for Jesus Christ." 
 
 2 Jowett. 
 
 3 Diai-y of a Church-goer, p. 74. 
 
 4 Wernle, Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, p. 1. Westermann ( Was ist 
 uns Jesus ? Zeitschr. fiir Theol. und Kirche, xv. 1905, p. 523) says 
 truly : " So wie in unserer Zeit hat noch wohl kein Jahrhundert 
 
INTRODUCTORY 5 
 
 " It is time to go back to Christ." Thus far thoughts 
 have been mainly of yearnings and convictions which, 
 focussed on the " Founder of Christianity," are notice- 
 able in the ordinary walks of life — among the uneducated 
 classes — in thoughtful minds which have neither the 
 knowledge nor the power to grapple with problems 
 which they see fraught with tremendous issues. There 
 is an implied demand for help and guidance. Remark 
 now that it is being responded to, if diversely and in 
 sometimes discordant notes. As a matter of fact the 
 same problems have long been claiming and receiving 
 the attention of the specialist. Scholars have been, and 
 still are, labouring patiently in the wide field of Bible 
 study. Their unremitting toil, the works which come 
 from them, discussing from different standpoints ques- 
 tions relating to the Christian religion in its rise and 
 origin, may be conceived of as response to " the desire 
 of Christendom for the fullest and most exact know- 
 ledge possible of the historic life and ministry of Jesus ^." 
 The duty laid in particular on our age is that of fear- 
 less but reverent investigation into sources ; and there 
 are certainly numbers seeking to discharge it. It may 
 generally be said of them that they are characterised 
 by deep seriousness, a transparent honesty of purpose. 
 
 sich mit Jesus beschaftigt," And see Seeberg's Die Person Christi 
 der feste Fund im Jliessenden Strom der Gegemvart {Neue Kirchl. 
 Zeitung, xiv. 1903, pp. 437 £f.), " Es ist ein Mann, auf den sich aller 
 Blicke richten." 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 1. 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 One and all they are concerned to get down to facts ; 
 and so to prepare the way for a constructive theology to 
 come in due time^. 
 
 A word or two here as to the way in which Biblical 
 scholars, responsive to "the desire of Christendom," 
 prosecute their labours. It has been said already that 
 " in these days we have to reckon with a combination of 
 new studies, with new methods, and new results of 
 study": it may be added that "the study of the past 
 has become a science." The student is no longer " con- 
 tent to glean from early records a picturesque or a 
 majestic story"; he "has a more precise aim and follows 
 more precise methods ; he analyses his authorities, com- 
 pares them, weighs them in the balances of his critical 
 judgement," will "estimate... the real worth of the 
 accounts which have come down to him. Chronicles 
 become documents which he has to interpret, to reduce 
 to their original elements of fact and romance." " Truth 
 is the one only thing which it is his business to discover 
 and present." Rigid indeed is his method of historical 
 enquiry ; he works on in the " belief that in the end 
 there will come a great reward in pure and trustworthy 
 knowledge." Of such sort are his methods and his aim 
 when the question turns on the secular literature of 
 
 1 It might be an apt rejoinder to a recent criticism of the Cam- 
 bridge Divinity Professors (in the Church Quarterly Review) to say 
 that they are but shewing themselves alive to present needs and 
 present duty. 
 
INTRODUCTORY 7 
 
 a remote past. Precisely similar are they when his re- 
 search is into that collection of ancient sacred writings 
 which forms the " Divine Library " of the Old and New 
 Testaments, in other words, the Bible. And it was "in- 
 evitable" that it should be so. As inevitable was it that 
 the time should come when attention, hitherto mainly 
 centred on the Old Testament, should turn to the New 
 Testament and the problems raised by it ; in particular 
 to the records of the Life of Jesus. If writings which 
 tell of His teaching. His earthly ministry, His Person, 
 be to-day subject of critical inquiry, the explanation is 
 that " Christianity is a historical religion," and as such 
 distinctly challenges historical investigation^. 
 
 What should be our attitude in regard to all this 
 research on rigidly scientific principles which, concerned 
 with the sources of our information about Jesus, is so 
 suggestive of yearnings to "go back to Christ," of 
 earnest effort to satisfy these yearnings ? 
 
 Perhaps some are conscious of timorous shrinkings, 
 of demur ; if so, the reminder may be ventured that the 
 religion professed is scarce worth professing if it will 
 not stand the test of examination in the clear light of 
 day. Others, may be, imagine that to criticise is 
 necessarily to reject^; if so they should dwell on the 
 
 ^ Cf. Chase, Supernatural Elements, pp. 4-6. 
 2 As appeared from the recent vokiminous correspondence in the 
 Standard and Daily Telegraph. 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 fact that if on some points we have had to modify 
 beliefs and opinions, there has been very real gain to 
 compensate for the loss of what was after all " ready to 
 vanish away." Changed are our conceptions as to the 
 Creation-stories ; they still speak to us, and more in- 
 telligibly, of Deity. The Book of Jonah is no longer 
 the happy hunting-ground for Free-thought lecturers, 
 for it is now recognised as the allegory serving as vehicle 
 of spiritual truth. If doubt be still entertained as to 
 some of the writings traditionally assigned to St PauP, 
 there is a consensus of opinion that the four great 
 Epistles (Rom., I. and II. Cor., Gal.) do really come 
 from him, and they contain all the essentials of the 
 Christian faith. There has come to us, in short, 
 release from many a moral difficulty; encouragement 
 to expect larger developments of the truth with added 
 knowledge. 
 
 This critical investigation, then, is not something to 
 be dreaded. Hinder it we cannot, for it is inevitable ; 
 better to acquiesce in it and allow its reasonableness. 
 
 1 Wrede {Paulus, pp. 2 ff.) accepts eight Epistles as genuine, and 
 speaks of the view, which obtains in Holland and to a limited extent 
 in Germany, that all the Pauline Epistles belong to a later date, as 
 "eine schwere Verirrung der Kritik." Vischer {Die Pauhisbriefe, pp. 
 67 fif.) is disposed to accept more than eight. It is held that criticism 
 has practically established the Pauline authorship of Ephesiaus ; 
 objections deemed weighty being robbed of force by the circumstance 
 that the words "in Ephesus "' are no part of the original text. 
 
INTRODUCTORY 9 
 
 Still better to welcome it; as realising that, if the 
 results be sometimes the removal of old landmarks, 
 they have again and again brought more assurance as 
 to the trustworthiness of what is contained in the Holy 
 Scriptures^. And the welcome given to Old Testament 
 criticism should be ungrudgingly extended to that of 
 the New Testament ; " Biblical criticism has been ad- 
 mitted into the Church ; let Churchmen recognise it as 
 one of God's gifts, and make the most of it^." Let us 
 be ready to " make the most of it " in its application to 
 the records of the Life of Jesus. " Instead of using the 
 Gospels to foreclose inquiry, we must use the results of 
 inquiry to interpret the Gospels. Let inquiry proceed ; 
 the light shall help us, as we reverently welcome and 
 use it. We shall not accept every new hypothesis as 
 bringing the light of truth. We shall test the hypo- 
 theses with a rigorous scrutiny; or, if we cannot test 
 them ourselves, we shall wait till others whom we trust 
 have tested them. We shall accept for our guidance 
 the considered verdict of the ablest and most devout of 
 the scholars of the Christian Church. We shall ask 
 them to be honest, fearless, and grave, well weighing 
 their responsibility to guide those who cannot under- 
 take the inquiry for themselves^." 
 
 1 Cf. Fourth Visitation Charge of Ahoy ne, Bishop of Ely, p. 8. 
 
 2 Cheyne, Bible Problems, p. 42 ; cf. Chase, Supernatural Elements 
 <&c., pp. 23, 24. 
 
 3 J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on Inspiration, p. 47. 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 Of such sort should be our attitude in respect to 
 critical investigation of Christianity, of the writings of 
 the New Testament generally, of the historical docu- 
 ments contained in it, of that marvellous treatise known 
 to us as " The Gospel according to St John." 
 
 In the following pages we shall make the acquaint- 
 ance of many students of that Gospel, hear what they 
 have to say, look into the matter for ourselves. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO St JOHN." 
 
 It has been beautifully said of a Japanese gentleman 
 who became a Christian : 
 
 "The vision of glory which came to him while 
 reading John's account of Our Lord's life and teaching 
 was a vision from another and diviner world ; he fell at 
 the feet of Christ, exclaiming, ' My Lord and my God.' 
 ...He saw the Divine majesty and the Divine grace of 
 Christ; what could he do but worship him^ ?" 
 
 There are thousands who would testify to the same 
 experience. Dear to the heart of Christendom, this 
 Fourth Gospel has over and over again been felt to 
 unfold "a vision from another and diviner world"; to 
 reveal the Lord Christ in all the splendour of divine 
 glory. Few, perhaps, would describe it as the "most 
 interesting" of the records of the life and work of 
 Jesus; for the vast majority it is the "favorite Gospel" 
 
 1 Dale, The Living Christ and the Four Gospels, pp. 42, 46, 47. 
 
12 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 
 
 which responds to deep longings of their inmost soul. 
 They find it pointing to One mighty to save, and in 
 whom they may safely trust. They turn to it as to a 
 never-failing source of " comfortable words " in the hour 
 of pain or sorrow. With Luther they would hold it 
 " the one tender right chief Gospel, and infinitely pre- 
 ferable to the other three ^." They would re-echo the 
 words of Augustine : " in the four Gospels, or rather 
 the four books of the one Gospel, St John the Apostle, 
 not unworthily in respect of spiritual intelligence com- 
 pared to the eagle, hath taken a higher flight, and 
 soared in his preaching much more sublimely than the 
 other three, and in the lifting up thereof would have 
 our hearts lifted up likewise^." 
 
 That such are the feelings of many is certain. At 
 once questions arise as to deeply-rooted convictions — 
 shall we say, preconceived opinions ? — with which " St 
 John's Gospel " is approached by them, read, treasured. 
 Is there not a something which lies behind a realisation 
 of the help, the comfort, the spiritual teaching, dis- 
 covered in it ; a fixed belief absolutely independent of 
 impressions however strong of its " tender and unearthly 
 beauty^?" 
 
 1 Werke (Erlangen, 1854), lxiii. 115: "Das eiiizige zarte recbte 
 Haupt-Evangelium." Cf. Oberhey, Der Gottesbrunnen der Mensch- 
 heit, p. V: " des neuen Testamentes Allerheiligstes." 
 
 2 St Augustine on St John, Horn, xxxvi. 
 
 2 Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 2. 
 
"THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 13 
 
 Truly, yes. The conviction now to be recognised is 
 one which speaks of a sense of absolute security. With 
 those who thus treasure the Gospel with which we are 
 concerned there is no thought of difficulties respecting 
 it. It has either never occurred to them to suspect 
 difficulties, or they have been content to ignore them, 
 to silence doubt. In the case of the greater number 
 there is probably no knowledge whatever of problems 
 raised by this Gospel. As with the Japanese gentleman 
 above referred to, so with them ; they do not " check 
 their wonder and their awe " by asking questions about 
 the authorship of the book, its credibility. They are 
 wont to read it as the absolutely true narrative. That 
 it comes to them from " the disciple whom Jesus loved" 
 they are fully assured. The title at its head has been 
 once for all decisive for them : " The Gospel according 
 to St John." 
 
 It has been so regarded and read through many 
 centuries. Of a truth "no Gospel comes to us with 
 stronger external evidence of its acceptance by the 
 Church 1." We call it "The Gospel according to St 
 John"; well, such, we are told, was the name borne 
 by it immediately on its appearance in literature as the 
 work not only used but formally adopted^. When to- 
 wards the end of the second century the four Gospels 
 
 1 J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 113. 
 
 2 0. Holtzmann, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 115 ("eigentlich 
 eingezogenes Werk "). 
 
14 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 
 
 emerge into the clear light of day this Gospel is one of 
 them, and its authority is " recognised as undoubtingly 
 and unhesitatingly as that of the other three ^." A few 
 early dissentients are heard of; otherwise the Johannine 
 authorship is, practically, assumed as a matter of course. 
 *' The orthodox opinion that, in his old age, the Apostle 
 John, the son of Zebedee, wrote his Gospel as a last 
 testament to the Church^," and that what he wrote was 
 a true narrative, remained unchallenged through many 
 centuries. 
 
 Now, it is indisputable that " ecclesiastical tradition 
 has never assigned this Fourth Gospel to anyone but 
 the Apostle John^." To-day it is borne in upon us that 
 what ecclesiastical tradition and orthodox opinion have 
 persistently affirmed — the Johannine authorship of the 
 Gospel and its historicity — is gravely questioned, not to 
 say disallowed. A reminder comes from one who will 
 have this " unique book " approached with " no ordinary 
 reverence," that " the time is past when we can accept, 
 without a shade of misgiving, the tradition of its author- 
 ship, and delight ourselves without a question in its 
 narratives \" We are, in short, made to think of uncer- 
 tainties. If with some of us there is that sense of 
 security which was noted a moment ago, it will be, 
 
 1 Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, p. 162. 
 
 2 Julicher, Introd. to N. T. , p. 402. 
 
 3 Soltau, Unsere Evangelien dx., p. 103. 
 
 * Drummond, Character and Authorship dc, pp. 1, 2. 
 
"THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 15 
 
 perhaps, rudely shaken. It may seem that the ground 
 is no longer firm beneath our feet. 
 
 The "shaking process" may be said to date from 
 the last decades of the eighteenth century. With 1792 
 came the " shallow criticism " of an Englishman who 
 asked, in somewhat coarsely expressed astonishment, 
 " how any kind of delusion should have induced 
 creatures endowed with reason so long to have received 
 it (the Fourth Gospel) as the word of truth and the 
 work of an apostle of Jesus Christ^." Some thirty 
 years later a German professor propounded reasons for 
 finding it incredible that the Gospel should really have 
 come from an apostle's pen^; if he subsequently made 
 show of retreating from his position it was felt by others 
 that his reasons remained cogent reasons notwithstand- 
 ing the recantation^. Since then criticism of the Fourth 
 Gospel has verily grown into a "mighty stream"; a 
 stream by which, so it has been contended, the flood- 
 gates of established belief and opinion have been com- 
 pletely swept away*. That strong assertions such as 
 these have been met with counter-assertions (of which 
 more later on) is true enough : the fact remains that 
 " the Johannine question has become the cardinal 
 
 1 Evanson, Dissonance of the Four commonly received Gospels, 
 p. 226. (The " shallow criticism," as Luthardt calls it, if of a 
 particular passage, is generally indicative of Evanson's position.) 
 
 2 Bretschneider, Probabilia (i;c., passim. 
 =* Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 697. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 700. 
 
16 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 
 
 inquiry, not merely of all New Testament criticism, but 
 even of Christology^." The delicacy, the exceeding in- 
 tricacy, of the questions raised are fully recognised. A 
 mass of literature testifies to the fact that " the problem 
 of the Fourth Gospel is still the most unsettled, the 
 most living, the most sensitive in all the field of Intro- 
 duction 2." And this literature illustrates a variety of 
 position among theological inquirers of recent times. 
 By some the Johannine authorship, and with it the 
 trustworthiness of the Johannine narrative, is vigor- 
 ously maintained ; by others it is contended with 
 " exceeding vigour and rigour " that the Fourth Gospel 
 cannot possibly be assigned to the Apostle John, and 
 that its historicity must be disallowed. Between the 
 two extreme positions there are many others which tell 
 of a mutual recognition that there may be, after all, 
 something in what is argued for by the other side. 
 Concessions are made by some of those who are con- 
 vinced that the Gospel really comes from St John ; they 
 allow its very late date; its subjectivity; "its apparent 
 transference of the matured thought of the author to 
 the lips of the speakers in his narrative^"; it is for 
 some of them "an interpretation rather than a life*"; 
 they hesitate to contend for the acceptance of its every 
 
 1 Luthardt, St Johii's Gospel, p. 3. 
 
 2 Bacon, Introd. to N. T., p. 252. 
 
 3 J, Armitage Kobinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 114, 115 ; cf. 
 Stevens, Johannine Theology, pp. ix f. 
 
 4 Bacon, hitrod. to N. T., p. 252. 
 
"THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 17 
 
 detail. So also concessions are made by those who 
 prefer, maybe, to speak of the author as "the great 
 Unknown"; who at any rate question or deny the 
 traditional authorship: they have acquiesced in an 
 earlier date; the word "fiction" is more rarely heard 
 from them ; there is a readiness to allow dependence on 
 Johannine notes and influences even if the Evangelist 
 cannot be discovered in St John himself " Even among 
 those critics who regard the Gospel as concerned, on the 
 whole, more with religious instruction than historic 
 accuracy, there are some who make the reservation 
 that echoes of a true historic record are to be heard 
 in it, so that it may be called a mixture of truth and 
 poetry^." 
 
 The preceding remarks must suffice as to the 
 diversity of position of students of the Fourth Gospel. 
 We are to attempt to follow some of them in their in- 
 vestigations ; and as by no means confining ourselves to 
 the works of theological inquirers of our own land. Fre- 
 quent will be the reference to the productions of many 
 a Continental workshop ; in particular to German scho- 
 lars with " their indefatigable industry, their profound 
 thought, their conscientious love of knowledge V They 
 may sometimes fail to convince us ; perhaps defects of 
 temperament and method may become apparent; warm, 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 3 ; cf. Sanday, Criticism of the 
 Fourth Gospel, pp. 1-33 ; Holtzmann, Einleitung, pp. 436-438. 
 
 2 Stanley, Sermons oji the Apostolic Age. 
 
 J. 2 
 
18 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 
 
 in any case, shall be our appreciation of the " German 
 spirit of research and love of truth ^" so conspicuously 
 displayed. Two of them shall give us a lead ; how far 
 we shall be disposed to go with them remains to be 
 seen. At all events their recently published hand-books 
 shall open out questions raised by the Fourth Gospel; 
 we shall pursue our inquiry on the lines generally 
 marked out by them. 
 
 There is something which, at this stage, may well 
 be impressed on those who perhaps feel that they are 
 being robbed of their sense of security. As they remark 
 questions raised with respect to the Fourth Gospel, and 
 weight allowed to each difficulty which presents itself, 
 they may only too readily form erroneous opinions with 
 regard to one and all who part company from traditional 
 belief; they will perhaps recall words which lay it down 
 that the " assailants (of the Gospel) are of two kinds : 
 those who deny the miraculous element in Christianity, 
 those who deny the distinctive character of Christian 
 doctrine"; and that the Gospel "confronts both^." They 
 are words, be it said, which, if true of some critics, are 
 most certainly not true all round. Those who reject 
 the Johannine authorship of the Gospel are not one and 
 all prejudiced by "its emphatic declaration of the divinity 
 of Christ." On the contrary, " there are many who are 
 
 1 Stanley, Serriions on the Apostolic Age. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 47 ; cf. Diisterdieck, Uber das 
 Evglm. des Johannes (Theol. Stud. u. Krit.), p. 783. 
 
"THE GOSPEL ACCOEDING TO ST JOHN" 19 
 
 heartily devoted to that central truth, and yet cannot 
 easily persuade themselves that the Fourth Gospel 
 offers them history quite in the sense that the other 
 Gospels do, cannot think that Christ spoke exactly as 
 He is here represented as speaking, and consequently 
 cannot feel assured that this is the record of an eye- 
 witness, or, in other words, of the Apostle St John^." 
 So, on the other hand, the Johannine authorship can be 
 upheld by a Unitarian Divine. The distinguished Prin- 
 cipal of Mansfield College, Oxford, disallowing the 
 miraculous element in the Fourth Gospel, concludes 
 that St John wrote it^. 
 
 It has been said that the supply of religious and 
 theological literature is abundant. Here in England, 
 however, there would seem to be still need of small, 
 popular, handy works on the many and varied subjects 
 classed under the head of Religious History. Admirable 
 books, pamphlets, tractates, are to hand in plenty ; but 
 neither the "Hand-books for the Clergy," the " Christian 
 Defence" series, the publications of the S.P.C.K., the 
 recently published and most valuable lectures by the 
 Dean of Westminster (to enumerate but a few) are 
 
 1 J. Armitage Kobinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 113, 114 ; cf. p. 
 118 ;. J. H. Bernard, Paper read at Church Congress (Bristol, 1903). 
 '^ Cf. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 32. 
 
 2—2 
 
20 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 
 
 precisely what we have in mind. The call is for book- 
 lets in which the Apostolic Age, the origin of the New 
 Testament, theories of the Creation, the Pauline Epistles, 
 Miracles, and other kindred topics shall be handled se- 
 parately, and in a way at once terse, scholarly, entirely 
 appreciative of ascertained results of Bible study. The 
 style should appeal to the lay mind. The booklets 
 should be issued at a very low price. 
 
 Away in Germany the need is not only realised but 
 supplied. Two sets of publications are appearing which, 
 in respect at any rate to subject-matter, get-up, style, 
 and price, might serve to exemplify the sort of thing 
 above desiderated : the Religionsgeschichtliche Volks- 
 bilcher (Popular Manuals of Religious History), and the 
 Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen (Bible questions and 
 present-day controversy). The contributors are, for the 
 most part, scholars of acknowledged eminence and re- 
 pute. They discuss the very topics which, indicated 
 above, are attracting the attention of thoughtful people 
 conscious of difficulties and anxious for further know- 
 ledge. Speaking generally, they do so in an exceed- 
 ingly attractive way. They definitely address themselves 
 to the laity ; and, as the prices range from about 4c?. to 
 6d., their works are within the reach of all. Apparently 
 readers are numerous; word comes that both sets of 
 Hand-books are meeting with a large sale. Although 
 the individual authors preserve an independence, the 
 two sets of works are generally indicative of different 
 
"THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 21 
 
 schools of thought. The former series emanates from 
 representatives of a more pronounced, and, in some 
 respects, negative Biblical criticism ; as for the latter, 
 there are distinctive features which show the contri- 
 butors alive indeed to the more assured results of Bible 
 study, but decided to " take their stand on the ground 
 of revelation." There is, perhaps, just that difference 
 which is perceptible between the Encyclopaedia Bihlica 
 and Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 The two works alluded to above ^ belong, one to 
 the former, and the other to the latter series. In his 
 Quellen des Lebens Jesu Professor Wernle of Basel de- 
 votes some twenty pages to the Fourth Gospel, and 
 decides to rule it out as a reliable source for the life of 
 Jesus ; Professor Barth of Berne, on the other hand, in 
 his Johannesevangelium und die Synoptischen Evangelien, 
 is concerned to maintain its Johannine authorship and 
 general historicity. The writers are alike characterised 
 by a depth of religious feeling and genuine earnestness. 
 Of the one (Wernle) it might, perhaps, be said that too 
 little weight is attached by him to positive arguments 
 for the authenticity of the Gospel, and that he is in the 
 main content to reproduce stock arguments against it ; 
 of the other (Barth), that he makes light of real diffi- 
 culties, and that the purely subjective is too much in 
 evidence. In respect to arrangement and style the ad- 
 vantage will, perhaps, rest with Wernle; the average 
 1 See p. 18. 
 
22 "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN" 
 
 layman will be more readily attracted by him ; Barth, 
 again, will appeal more particularly to devout souls 
 already prepared to follow him in his conclusions. But 
 enough : the two works, each good in its own way, will 
 serve to open out questions, to mark out lines for the 
 inquiry to be taken in hand. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY. 
 
 Our inquiry is more particularly concerned with the 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel, its credibility as a 
 record of Our Lord's ministry. There is, however, a 
 preliminary question which must be treated of, if 
 briefly : Is the Gospel from beginning to end the work 
 of a single author, or are traces discernible of the com- 
 piler's or redactor's hand ? 
 
 The exact drift of the question will become clearer 
 from the following considerations. It has been esta- 
 blished that '"' the books of the Old Testament, as we 
 now have them, are, to a far larger extent than was 
 commonly supposed until recent times, the result of 
 processes of compilation and combination, and, in 
 modern phrase, 'editing.'" If at one time it was 
 held that they were " written as integral works or by 
 a single author, and preserved precisely in the original 
 form," it is now generally allowed that "some were 
 constructed out of earlier narratives ; some were formed 
 by the union of previous collections of poetry or prophe- 
 cies ; some bear marks of the reviser's hand ; and even 
 books which bear the names of well-known authors in 
 
24 THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY 
 
 some cases contain matter which must be attributed to 
 other writers^." And what is patent in the case of books 
 of the Old Testament is to-day recognised in the case of 
 the New Testament also. Thus, to begin with, in the 
 case of the Third Gospel, St Luke ; its author himself 
 appears to indicate sources from which he gleaned his 
 information; long excerpts are probably incorporated 
 into it. So too with a work doubtless by the same 
 hand; in The Acts of the Apostles narratives derived 
 from various quarters are distinguishable from what is 
 evidently the diary of a travelling companion of St Paul. 
 So again with the First and Third Gospels; it is a 
 practically established result of Biblical investigation 
 that they are in the main based on the Second Gospel, 
 St Mark, besides incorporating from other sources, in 
 particular from a lost document which is only to be re- 
 constructed by critical methods from the two Gospels 
 themselves 2. The Book called The Revelation is, con- 
 ceivably, a Christian working- up of Jewish apocalypses ^ 
 The so-called Pastoral Epistles may be largely composed 
 of genuine Pauline sayings which a later editor has 
 compacted into their present form. 
 
 Now to return to the Fourth Gospel. Is it, we ask, 
 the integral work of a single author ? Or must it, on 
 
 ^ Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of 0. T., pp. 11 ff. 
 - J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 67 ; cf. Soltau, 
 Uiisere Evangelien, p. 16 ; Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 8. 
 ^ Harnack, Chron. i. p. 675. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY 25 
 
 the other hand, be regarded as a compilation ; as the 
 composite work of a redactor who has availed himself of 
 earlier narratives and sayings, and simply provided a 
 framework or setting of his own ? And again, is the 
 Gospel as we have it the Gospel in its original form ? 
 The last question must be answered in the negative. 
 At least one passage (according to some, several pas- 
 sages) is "unmistakably an insertion, and by another 
 hand : the story of the woman taken in adultery 
 (vii. 53, viii. 11) is very likely a narrative pointing to 
 a " genuine Apostolic tradition"; but, because of marked 
 differences of style, it must be regarded as an interpo- 
 lation, and as such it is printed in the Revised Version^. 
 It is, further, possible that disturbances and displace- 
 ments have crept into the text; the "arise, let us go 
 hence " of xiv. 31, followed as it is by the unbroken dis- 
 course — certain alleged awkwardnesses in the account 
 of the hearing before Annas and Caiaphas — are, may 
 be, to be explained of the slips and mistakes of copyists. 
 And here we may notice the interesting conjecture that 
 the absence from the Fourth Gospel of an account of 
 the Institution of the Lord's Supper may be attributed 
 to an accident; originally there was such an account, 
 but the leaf containing it dropped out^. 
 
 1 But cf. Hilpenfeld, Einleit., p. 707: " Aber in dem Zusammen- 
 hang ist sie (die Erziihlung) unentbehrlich." 
 
 2 Cf. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums , i. 
 pp. 194-199, 189-193. 
 
26 THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY 
 
 Another admission may be summed up in the 
 remark that the author of the Fourth Gospel evidently 
 had the other Gospels before him. As will be seen 
 later on, he subjects them to a somewhat free handling. 
 That he does make use of them is plain from cases of 
 coincidence, sometimes verbal, between Synoptic and 
 Johannine narratives^. 
 
 Is the Fourth Gospel, therefore, the compilation of 
 one who has simply pieced together what he takes from 
 other sources, or is it the composition of a single author ? 
 This is, after all, the main question. 
 
 There is diversity of opinion. It is contended that 
 " the Fourth Gospel is a composite work^." The sugges- 
 tion is made that, even if the " famous comparison of 
 Baur^" holds good, " the seamless coat had also a warp 
 and woof and a tasselled fringe"; that materials oral 
 and written have been used by an author who supple- 
 ments them by his own reflections*. A similar theory, 
 as recently elaborated, takes account of older sources 
 worked in and combined ; of genuine reminiscences, of 
 notes by St John himself, used by a later writer as he 
 pens this GospeP. But such theories are surely hard 
 
 1 Cp. Matt. iii. 16, John i. 32 ; Mark ii. 11, John v. 8 ; cf. Soltau, 
 Unsere Evangelien, pp. 105, 106. 
 
 2 Encycl. Bibl, iii. p. 3338. 
 
 "^ Not Baur but Strauss ; in Ulrich von Hutten (Gesammelte 
 Schriften, 1877, vii. 556). 
 
 * Cf. Bacon, Introd. to N. T., p. 268. 
 5 Wendt, St John's Gospel, passim. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY 27 
 
 to maintain in face of marked literary features through- 
 out presented by the Gospel; and they have been 
 vigorously, and, it is held, successfully controverted \ 
 The support they meet with is limited; there is a strong 
 consensus of opinion that the first twenty chapters at 
 any rate reveal the same pen throughout. 
 
 But what about the closing chapter ? Clearly it is 
 of the nature of an appendix, for the Gospel reaches a 
 perfectly natural conclusion with xx. 30, 31. Is it from 
 another pen ? Is it written by the author of all that 
 has preceded it ? 
 
 Opinions again differ. " Clearly, yes," — such is the 
 unhesitating answer to the latter question which comes 
 from one quarter ; all the twenty-one chapters do really 
 emanate from the self-same author^ It is affirmed, on 
 the other hand, that ch. xxi. is " a supplement, not by 
 the author of i.-xx., but supplied by others, in the 
 author's lifetime, with his approval, in fact, by his 
 order^." The two scholars who thus differ are in full 
 agreement on other points ; what follows is the verdict 
 of one whose position in respect to the authorship and 
 historicity of the Gospel generally is widely removed 
 from theirs : " ch. xxi. is, as is well known, a later 
 
 ^ Cf. Swete, Studies in the Teaching of our Lord, p. 127. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 194. 
 
 3 Zahn, Einleit., ii. p. 493. Haussleiter {Zwei apos. Zeugen fiir 
 das Johannesevglm) assigns this chapter to Andrew and Philip. 
 
28 THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY 
 
 addition, and not only so but, as can be proved, by 
 another hand^." 
 
 What shall be our conclusion ? We note to begin 
 with, that, so far as is known, the Gospel was never 
 circulated without this ch. xxi. being a part of it^. 
 Then, as we compare this appendix-chapter with the 
 preceding chapters, we are disposed to say that, if it 
 be by another hand, its author must indeed be held a 
 past-master in the art of literary imitativeness. The 
 resemblances are so strong that to distinguish between 
 author and author is next door to impossible. We 
 can but agree that "in respect of style and manner 
 this supplement betrays with exactness and nicety 
 the self-same author who has penned the rest of the 
 Gospel^." 
 
 And yet there is a reservation to be made. Con- 
 strained as we are to speak of the Gospel as the 
 integral work of a single author, we carefully mark 
 
 1 Soltau, Urisere Evangelien dx., p. 10; cf. Schwartz, Uber den 
 Tod der Sohne Zebed., p. 48. 
 
 ■- Cf. Gutjahr, Die Glaubivilrdigkeit des Iren. Zeugnisses uber die 
 Abfassung des Aten Kanon. Evghns., p. 185. 
 
 '^ Wernle, Die Quellend-c.,-p. 14. Horn {Abfassuvgszeit, Geschicht- 
 lichkeit und Ziceck von Evan. Johan. Kap. XXI. p. 77) writes : " Auch 
 wird das richtig sein dass xxi. 1-23 nicbt so unmittelbar wie i.-xx. 
 aus der Feder des LieblingsjiiDgers geflossen, sonderu in seinem 
 Auftrag und auf Grund seiner Erzahlung von anderen niedergeschrie- 
 ben ist." He adds: "Dass er trotz dem als Verfasser auch dieses 
 Kaps. bezeichnet werdeu kounte v. 24, geht aus einer eiufachen Beo- 
 bachtung hervor." 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL A UNITY 29 
 
 off the two final verses. They, beyond question, are 
 by another hand. The " we " who speak in them are 
 clearly " disciples and Mends of the author whose work 
 is handed over by them for use in the churches^." 
 
 This reservation made, we own that the Fourth 
 Gospel is indeed the work of " a single casting, and one 
 which stubbornly resists all modern attempts to distin- 
 guish between source and source^." Its "unity and 
 symmetry^" must be admitted. In short, we " concur 
 in the judgment of Strauss that the Fourth Gospel is, 
 like the seamless coat, not to be divided, but taken as 
 it is*." Accordingly, we shall pursue our inquiry as 
 convinced that a characteristic of this Gospel is a 
 "deep-seated unity of structure and composition ^" 
 
 1 Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 6 ; Sanday, Criticism of the 
 Fourth Gospel, p. 81. It has been suggested that the "we" also 
 speak in xix. 35 ; cf. Weizsacker, Apos. Age, ii. p. 210. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 13. 
 
 3 M<=Clymont, St John (Century Bible), p. 29. 
 
 * Encycl. Bibl. ii. 2556 ; cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, i. p. 141, 
 •' the whole indivisible Gospel." 
 5 Sanday, Criticism d'c, p. 22. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE AUTHOESHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 It has been decided that the Fourth Gospel is " a 
 unity which cannot be satisfactorily distributed between 
 two authors^"; that a single author, whoever he be, has 
 " managed to impress an admirable unity even upon 
 the form and expression of his thoughts " ; that he has 
 woven his ideas "into one perfect woof^." 
 
 Thus far Barth and Wernle are of the same mind. 
 But they part company directly the question turns on 
 the genuineness of the Gospel : the former " unhesitat- 
 ingly assigns it to St John^"; the latter sees ground for 
 the "utmost doubt and suspicion"; his admission that 
 "valuable recollections live on in what is but a very 
 secondary historical source^" is equally a denial of the 
 Johannine authorship. The former, let us add, has the 
 support of, amongst others, a prince of German con- 
 servative theologians : " John, as we permit ourselves to 
 
 1 Swete, Studies in the Teaching of our Lord, pp. 127, 128. 
 
 2 Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 298, 317. 
 ^ Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 27. 
 
 4 Wernle, Quellen dc. , pp. 14, 26. 
 
OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 31 
 
 call the author^"; the latter is backed up by one who 
 discovers much which "categorically forbids us to regard 
 this Gospel as the work of an apostle or of an immediate 
 disciple of an apostle^." And similar differences of 
 opinion are illustrated by English and American as 
 well as German scholars; the Johannine authorship 
 being vigorously maintained by some^; as confidently 
 disallowed by others*. 
 
 The question, then, immediately before us is whether 
 the Fourth Gospel be really from the pen of the Apostle 
 John or not. It must be allowed at once that it is an 
 important question. True, no doubt, that the Gospel 
 has a value altogether independent of its authorship^; 
 the fact remains that its intrinsic value is immeasurably 
 enhanced if it can be definitely assigned to one possess- 
 ing intimate and first-hand knowledge of the circum- 
 stances and events narrated. If he be one who had no 
 such knowledge, his narrative would cease to be the 
 absolutely reliable narrative ; for there would be always 
 the probability that, in respect to this or that event, he 
 had been misinformed. On the other hand, if the first- 
 hand knowledge of the author be established, there will 
 be the greater readiness to accept his statements. It 
 
 1 Zahn, Einleit., ii. p. 466. 
 
 2 Soltau, Unsere Evangelien dc, p. 104. 
 
 3 As, e.g. Ezra Abbott, Stevens, Lightfoot, Westcott, Sanday, 
 Drummond. 
 
 ^ As, e.g. Davidson, E. A. Abbott, Bacon. 
 
 5 Cf. Oberhey, Der Gotteshrunnen der Menschheit, p. vii. 
 
32 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 may not hold good all round that " a reader who is sure 
 that the Gospel was written by the Apostle John will 
 need no further guarantee for the substantial credibility 
 of its text^"; the inclination to allow such credibility 
 will in any case be strengthened. And there is another 
 consideration. The relation of the Fourth Gospel to 
 the Synoptics will be considered later on ; at this stage 
 the fact should be noted that two of the three other 
 Gospels (Mk., Lk.) are not by eye-witnesses at all, and 
 that the origin of a third (Mt.), in its present form, is 
 singularly obscure. If the Johannine authorship of the 
 Fourth Gospel has to be abandoned, well — there might 
 remain not a single Gospel of which it could be posi- 
 tively affirmed that it comes from one personally 
 acquainted with the Lord Jesus. 
 
 It is, then, no trivial question this : from whom 
 does the Fourth Gospel really emanate ? 
 
 The Gospel itself is silent ; that is to say, nowhere 
 is its author definitely named. Like the other three it 
 is an anonymous composition ; as with them so with it, 
 the title at its head was not prefixed by the author 
 himself We are bound, indeed, to interpret it of 
 assigned authorship, but it is simply " derived from the 
 tradition of the Church 2." If the pages of the Fourth 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 3 ; cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, 
 p. 438. 
 
 2 J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 10, 11 ; cf. 
 Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 9. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 33 
 
 Evangelist contain hints and veiled allusions and express 
 statements, they are so worded that his identity is not 
 explicitly disclosed. To look for an "I, John, son of 
 Zebedee and Apostle of the Lord, penned this record of 
 His Life" is to look in vain ; there is no such declaration. 
 
 The question is, evidently, not to be answered off- 
 hand. Inquiry is necessitated ; it behoves us to seek 
 for earliest traces of the existence of the Fourth Gospel; 
 to ask : to whom was it assigned, and on whose authority ? 
 As our attention then centres on the Gospel itself, we 
 shall ask further: what inferences and conjectures are 
 suggested by its contents ? 
 
 And so we address ourselves to the external and 
 internal evidence for the authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 I. External Evidence. 
 
 The subject is dealt with by Barth and Wemle; 
 what remarks do they make on it ? 
 
 To begin with Wernle. He argues, in substance, as 
 follows : In the case of the Matthew and Mark Gospels 
 the tradition as to authorship can be followed up to 
 very nearly the turn of the first century ; as for the 
 Luke and John Gospels we can scarcely get behind 
 Irenaeas. Scanty indeed is the information given by 
 the latter with regard to Luke ; the tradition advanced 
 by him with regard to John has no very safe ground to 
 rest on. He (Irenaeus) depends, as a matter of fact, on 
 
 .7. 3 
 
34 OF THE AUTHOKSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 Polycarp of Smyrna, whom, 'in his boyhood, he had 
 known and heard; who, according to him, had been 
 wont to speak of his intercourse with John and others 
 who had seen the Lord, to tell what he had learnt from 
 them concerning Jesus. By way of proof that this was 
 nothing short of possible he goes on to say that, as John 
 lived on at Ephesus into the reign of Trajan, Polycarp 
 in his youth may well have known him. Up to this 
 point Irenaeus' memory, no doubt, serves him, and the 
 accuracy of his statement may be depended on. When, 
 however, he adds (1) that this John, Polycai-p's teacher, 
 was the Apostle John, and (2) that this Apostle was 
 the Fourth Evangelist, we are at once transported to a 
 region of mere conjecture and inference. For this John 
 of Asia Minor whom Polycarp knew was almost certainly 
 that John the Presbyter who is so alluded to by Papias 
 as clearly to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee. 
 The two persons have evidently been confused, and in 
 such a way as to leave the credibility of Irenaeus' 
 statement in grave question. If he identifies this John 
 with the author of the Fourth Gospel, it is not neces- 
 sarily to point back to Polycarp, but to venture what 
 may be simply and solely a conjecture of his own. In 
 short, the question of the authorship of this Gospel still 
 confronts us, and the only safe answer will be that 
 offered by the Gospel itself ^ 
 
 1 Wernle, Quellen <&c., pp. 9, 11; cf. Jiilicher, Introduction c^c, 
 p. 405. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 35 
 
 Wernle, then, attaches little weight to external 
 evidence. Barth, too, passes over it with rapid sen- 
 tences; not, therefore, as making light of it. He 
 alludes to objection raised by the Alogi — a little sect 
 or coterie which attributed the Gospel to the heretic 
 Cerinthus. He remarks that the Church's leaders might 
 well have been tempted to acquiesce in repudiations of 
 the Johannine authorship in days when the very people 
 who disturbed its peace (Gnostics and Montanists) were 
 wont to appeal to this very Fourth Gospel, to avail 
 themselves of its terminology in their speculations. 
 That the Church disregarded these and other difficulties 
 — content to leave a weapon in the hands of antagonists 
 rather than renounce this Gospel — is conclusive for a 
 belief that all needful proof of authenticity was actually 
 available. Slowly but surely did the Gospel make its 
 way into the Church's use — just as did the Synoptics 
 and the Epistles of St Paul. Resemblances to its range 
 of thought are met with in the Apostolic Fathers and 
 in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles ; by the middle 
 of the second century it is cited from (by, amongst 
 others, Justin Martyr) — if without mention of its 
 author's name ; a few decades later it stands side by 
 side with the Synoptics as the Fourth Gospel in the 
 Canon of the New Testament, and is appealed to as 
 Holy Scripture. A conviction has become deeply rooted 
 that it was written by the Apostle John himself, at 
 
 3—2 
 
36 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 Ephesus, at the request of his friends, at the close of 
 a long life^ 
 
 Friends and foes are to some extent agreed here. 
 That the tradition which identifies the Fourth Evan- 
 gelist with the aged Apostle John may be traced back 
 to a very early period is, of course, allowed by all ; the 
 point of issue is whether the tradition be founded on a 
 safe basis. As we remark that Barth abides by the 
 " orthodox opinion," we may conveniently observe here 
 that he is but reiterating the words of one who preceded 
 him by many centuries. 
 
 This was Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea from A.D. 314 
 to 340, and justly styled "father of ecclesiastical history.'* 
 The pupil and the friend of scholars, he was a scholar 
 himself; possessed of extensive learning, and indefatig- 
 able in research. Courtier, politician, high in ecclesi- 
 astical office, he had travelled much ; frequent were his 
 opportunities of converse with other famous personages; 
 he was fully conversant with the beliefs and opinions of 
 his age. That he was something of a sycophant may be 
 conceded ; the point is that he was more than abreast 
 of the times in which he lived. As a historian he had 
 his defects ; but his good faith as a historian is beyond 
 question. 
 
 It is, then, no illiterate and obscure person to whom 
 Barth and other holders of the " orthodox opinion " can 
 1 Barth, Das Johannesevangelium dx., pp. 9, 10. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 37 
 
 appeal for support. Eusebius, a prominent scholar of 
 his age, unhesitatingly identifies the beloved disciple of 
 Jesus with John the Apostle and Evangelist who governed 
 the Churches in Asia after his return fi-om exile and the 
 death of Domitian^. He proceeds with a notice of the 
 undisputed writings of the same Apostle : " of these his 
 Gospel, so well known in the churches throughout the 
 world, must first of all be acknowledged as genuine." 
 He shows why it was placed fourth in order by the 
 ancients; having related the circumstances under which 
 the first three were composed he adds : " they say that 
 John, who during all this time was proclaiming the 
 Gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it 
 on the following occasion. The three Gospels already 
 written, and having been distributed among all, having 
 been handed to him, they say that he admitted them, 
 giving testimony to their truth; but that there was 
 only wanting in the narrative the account of the things 
 done by Christ among the first of His deeds and at the 
 commencement of the Gospel.... For these reasons, the 
 Apostle John, it is said, being entreated to undertake it, 
 wrote his GospeP." 
 
 These quotations (in substance) will suffice for the 
 present. They make it plain that Eusebius is not 
 volunteering his own private opinion only; evidently 
 he has a strong consensus of opinion behind him. He 
 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 23. 
 
 2 Ibid., III. 24. 
 
38 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 has consulted his authorities, and they are decisive for 
 him that the Fourth Evangelist (and author of the 
 First Epistle) is the Apostle John. Is it possible that 
 he and his authorities are victims of some " tremendous 
 error " ? 
 
 There is a possibility. As will be seen presently, if 
 Eusebius' own words appear conclusive, extracts from 
 other writers which he incorporates into his work may 
 raise difficulties. At this stage we dwell on his defects 
 as an old-world historian; nor is it only to remark a 
 style often dry and clumsy, a lack of system in the 
 arrangement of material \ Eusebius, in short, is not, 
 could not be, the historian of the modern type. He 
 does, indeed, record what for him are ascertained facts ; 
 that he has analysed his authorities, compared them, 
 weighed them in the balances of his critical judgment, 
 estimated the real worth of the accounts, whether con- 
 temporary or traditional, which have come to him, in 
 modern fashion, is not to be expected^. The rigid 
 method of historical inquiry followed by students of 
 to-day could by no possibility have been the method 
 followed by one who, no doubt, read thoroughly^. 
 Hence, not for a moment blaming him, we may fairly 
 question whether the Johannine authorship of the 
 
 1 Kurtz, Church History, 47, 2. 
 
 2 Cf. Chase, Supernatural Elements <&c., pp. 4, 5. 
 
 ^ Harnack, Chron., i. p. 657. (Eusebius " las griindlicli "). Cf. 
 Schwartz, Ueher den Tod der S'ohne Zeb., p. 22. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 39 
 
 Fourth Gospel is finally established by what he sets 
 down in all good faith. 
 
 We will look into the matter for ourselves. 
 
 And we begin with a certainty. "There is proof 
 that towards the last quarter of the second century, in 
 every part of the Roman Empire, four Gospels had been 
 selected and were regarded as authentic ^" These four 
 Gospels (the " holy quaternion " of Eusebius) are found 
 to be identical with those described as " according to " 
 — the term implying accepted authorship — Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke and John ; for Irenaeus they are the four 
 pillars of the Church, and he likens them to the four 
 comers of the world and the four winds, giving mystic 
 reasons why they should be precisely four in number 2. 
 They have been "left without rivals as authorised 
 records of the Gospel History^." 
 
 Again, proof is forthcoming of the comparatively 
 early existence of the Fourth Gospel. It is contended 
 that the first unequivocal proofs of its influence on 
 ecclesiastical thought and diction are met with in the 
 Ignatian Epistles* penned by the martyr somewhere 
 between A.D. 109-116 when on his way to Rome^; 
 true that no passage from the Gospel is actually quoted, 
 
 1 Hastings, D. B., 11. 695. 
 
 2 Iren., in. 11. 
 
 ^ Encycl. Bibl., i. 674. 
 ^ Zahn, Einleit., 11. p. 446. 
 
 5 Hastings, D. B., 11. 699. Harnack {Ghron., i. p. 719), says : 
 " 110-117 ; perhaps, but improbably, a few years later." 
 
40 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 and that references to historical notices contained in it 
 are absent ; at any rate there is that which is strongly 
 suggestive of " the Johannine world of thought and 
 phrase^." Resemblances between the Fourth Gospel 
 and the writings of Justin Martyr are undeniable, nor 
 may they be explained on the supposition that the 
 Evangelist has borrowed from one who became a con- 
 vert at Ephesus ; they imply that Justin was actually 
 acquainted with the Gospel. If his writings may be 
 assigned to a date somewhere between A.D. 145-148 
 it may be fairly assumed that the Gospel had already 
 been some time in existence. Traces of its use are 
 manifest in the writings of early heretics 2. The very 
 fact that the little sect to whom Epiphanius gave the 
 nickname of the Alogi attributed it to the heretic 
 Cerinthus at least favours the theory of its early com- 
 position, for Cerinthus was a contemporary of St John^. 
 And indeed there has been a general retreat from the 
 position of the older Tubingen school in their contention 
 for a very late date. The Gospel is " not to be dated 
 later than the middle of the second century"; " at latest 
 from A.D. 100-125"; " somewhere between A.D. 80-110 "; 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, pp. 176, 177. 
 
 2 Cf. Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays, p. 110. If we have in the Refuta- 
 tion of Heresies of Hippolytus the very words of Basilides as he 
 quotes from the Prologue to the Gospel, a comparatively early date 
 for the Gospel is at once established, for Basilides flourished, c. 117- 
 138 A.D. See also Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. p. 144. 
 
 3 Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, p. 211. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 41 
 
 — such are the verdicts of three who disallow the 
 Johannine authorship^. The opinion advanced from a 
 very different quarter may be acquiesced in: "there 
 are indeed only resemblances between our Gospel and 
 the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but they are far 
 too numerous to be explained of ideas then seething in 
 men's minds ; they are only to be accounted for by an 
 acquaintance with the Gospel itself^"; and this, of 
 course, is to affirm its very early date. If it can be 
 dated between a.d. 80-110, the Johannine authorship 
 is at once possible. 
 
 Two things, then, may be regarded as established : 
 the general acceptance of all four Gospels before the 
 close of the second century; the existence, many de- 
 cades earlier, of this particular Gospel. As yet, however, 
 no express references as to its authorship have been 
 noticed ; and it may be allowed that " earlier traces of 
 acquaintance (with it) prove nothing either way because 
 no statements are made as to its author^." It may in- 
 deed have " existed from the very first under the name 
 of the Apostle John*"; be that the case or not, "from 
 A.D. 180 John {i.e. the Gospel) was almost universally 
 recognised in the Church as the work of the Apostle 
 John who died at Ephesus^." 
 
 1 Soltau, Julicher, Harnack. 
 
 2 Schanz, Evang. des heil. Johan., p. 6. 
 
 3 Julicher, Introd. to N. T. , p. 403. 
 
 ^ 0. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 157. 
 
 s Julicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 405. Theophilus of Antioch 
 
42 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 On whose authority was it thus recognised ? 
 
 The question is an intricate one. Before attempting 
 to deal with it we should recall what was said above as 
 to information at the command of Eusebius. That al- 
 most universal recognition of which we have now heard 
 is significant ; there must have been strong grounds — 
 or what were deemed strong grounds — for it. Aptly 
 has it been asked : " an individual might make a mis- 
 take about the authorship of a book, but could a whole 
 community^?" We, too, ask: is it really conceivable 
 that, at the end of a good deal less than a century. 
 Christians throughout the Empire should be labouring 
 under a delusion with regard to a work highly prized 
 by them ? That widespread belief that the Fourth 
 Evangelist was none other than the son of Zebedee; 
 could it really have been founded on a mistake ? 
 
 But beliefs do grow up on a very slight basis. And 
 again, the critical judgment of an older world might 
 often be at fault ; the ancients would take on trust 
 much that modern scholars would only accept after the 
 application of rigorous tests. If in the case before us 
 we pay due respect to convictions so generally enter- 
 tained in remote times, we still ask : is the evidence as 
 conclusive for us as it was then ? 
 
 (c. A.D. 180) speaks of "John" as one of the "inspired men," and 
 quotes from the Prologue to the Gospel. Cf. Stanton, Gospels as 
 Hist. Documents, pp. 144 f. 
 
 1 Mackay, A Reasonable Faith, p. 106. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 43 
 
 There are several authorities to be questioned on 
 the subject, and we begin with Irenaeus. A native of 
 Asia Minor, he was born c. A.D. 135-142 ^ That he 
 resided on occasions in Rome is tolerably certain. The 
 scene of his principal activities was Gaul. For several 
 years a presbyter of the Church of Lyons, he succeeded 
 the martyred Pothinus in the episcopate of that Church 
 about the year A.D. 178. One of his works, the Refuta- 
 tion of Heresies, was written c. A.D. 180-190. The date 
 of his death was at the close of the second century. 
 
 And Irenaeus is one of those who transmitted the 
 traditions which descended to Eusebius as to the Holy 
 Scriptures. His words, in substance, about the Gospels 
 (as given by Eusebius) are as follows: Matthew pro- 
 duced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their 
 own tongue ; Mark, the disciple and interpreter of 
 Peter, handed on in writing what Peter had preached ; 
 Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote down the Gospel as 
 the latter had preached it ; afterwards John, the disciple 
 of Our Lord, he who lay on His bosom, also published 
 the Gospel while he was yet at Ephesus in Asia^. And 
 again he says : " all the presbyters of Asia that had 
 conferred with John, the disciple of the Lord, testify that 
 John had delivered it (their traditions) to them, for he 
 continued with them until the times of Trajan^." And 
 thus in a letter to Florinus, where he tells how in his 
 
 1 Harnack, Chron., i. p. 656. 2 Eusebius, H. E., v. 8. 
 
 3 Ibid., HI. 23. 
 
44 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 boyhood in Asia he had known Polycarp, Bishop of 
 Smyrna : " I remember the events of those times far 
 better than those of more recent date ; the very place 
 where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse 
 with John, and the others who had seen the Lord^." 
 Irenaeus was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel. 
 That, in the passage instanced, he means the Apostle is 
 allowed^, and ought never to have been doubted; he 
 identifies him, accordingly, with the beloved disciple ; 
 he is, we remark, content to speak of him as "the 
 disciple of Our Lord." For Irenaeus he is the Evan- 
 gelist ; then the question arises : is Irenaeus solely 
 dependent on Polycarp for the belief that he has trans- 
 mitted ? The suggestion has been made that he is ; 
 that his belief, again, is founded on mere conjecture^; 
 but we must confess to grave difficulties in accepting it. 
 The exact extent of his intimacy in early days with 
 Polycarp may be hard to determine ; at least we may 
 trust to his retentive memory. The express statement 
 may be wanting : " I heard Polycarp answer in the 
 affirmative when asked whether the John whom he had 
 known was really the son of Zebedee, the Apostle, the 
 beloved disciple, the Evangelist*"; all the same we are 
 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 20. 
 
 2 Harnack, Chron., i. p. 657 ; cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 403 ; 
 Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, p. 213. See also Gutjahr, Die 
 Glauhwiirdigkeit dtc., p. 3. 
 
 3 Cf. Wernle, Quellen d;c., p. 10; Harnack, Chron., i. p. 657. 
 
 4 Cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 405. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 45 
 
 slow to admit that Irenaeus' sole authority was that 
 Polycarp whom he is alleged to have misunderstood, 
 that he was simply indulging in private conjecture if 
 he pointed to the Apostle John. It might be so had 
 he been a hermit ; one who had lived his life in entire 
 seclusion from his fellow-men. The absurdity of it 
 strikes us in view of his travellings to and fro, the 
 important missions entrusted to him, the prominent 
 positions which he held. As far as it goes — and, no 
 doubt, the decisive word " Apostle " is missing — his 
 testimony must be deemed weighty; and it surely 
 speaks of a belief founded on what he has ascertained 
 from various sources^. 
 
 We shall return to Irenaeus presently — perhaps to 
 find that he is not infallible. Meanwhile our next 
 witness shall be Clement of Alexandria. The date of 
 his birth is uncertain ; his death took place c. a.d. 200. 
 In earlier life a learned pagan philosopher, he had 
 travelled extensively in search of knowledge. It was 
 at Alexandria that he became a convert ; thenceforward 
 all his energies were directed to promote the Church's 
 welfare by his discourses and his writings. In one of 
 his works he gives condensed accounts of all the 
 Canonical Scriptures; the tradition respecting the 
 order of the Gospels derived from the oldest presbyters 
 and handed down by him is to the following effect : — 
 
 1 Cf. Drummond, Character and Authorship dc, p. 348. See also 
 Gutjahr, Die Glauhxciirdigkeit dx., p. 14. 
 
46 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 those which contain the genealogies (i.e. Mt., Lk.) were 
 written first ; Mark, at the request of many who had 
 heard Peter at Rome, composed his Gospel, Peter 
 neither encouraging nor hindering him ; John, last of 
 all, perceiving that what had reference to the body 
 in the Gospel of our Saviour was sufficiently narrated, 
 encouraged by his familiar friends and impelled by 
 the Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel^. That Clement 
 has the Apostle John in his mind may be taken for 
 granted: and here we may remark his story: "no 
 fiction, but a real history carefully preserved," of the 
 youth who, having relapsed into evil courses and 
 become leader of a robber-band, was sought out and 
 reclaimed by the aged Apostle then lately come to 
 Ephesus from the island of Patmos^. 
 
 Now, the opinion of a man like Clement deserves 
 respect; and here again it appears reasonable to 
 suppose that it was based upon painstaking inquiry. 
 And yet it occurs to us at once that Clement is no 
 modern critic : he is content to place the Matthew and 
 Luke Gospels first in order of composition, when the 
 priority of Mark is an established result of critical 
 investigation. Further, he has derived his belief from 
 the oldest presbyters; the question arises, who were 
 they and on what circumstances was their own in- 
 formation founded? And again, Clement names 
 John as author of the Fourth Gospel; he no doubt, 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., vi. 14. 2 jbid., m. 23. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 47 
 
 means the Apostle, but he does not explicitly designate 
 him as Apostle. Conceivably he might have been 
 told that the Gospel had been written by a John of 
 Ephesus, and have straightway concluded that the 
 latter was the son of Zebedee. 
 
 The singular expression, a "spiritual Gospel," will 
 come up again in another section. We turn here 
 naturally to Clement's illustrious pupil Origen (a.d. 
 185-254). Born at Alexandria he visited Rome, 
 lie laboured as a missionary in Arabia, some years 
 were spent by him at Antioch, he journeyed through 
 Palestine on his way to Greece. Profound were his 
 studies ; vast his literary activity ; alike for Christians 
 and pagans he was a "miracle of scholarship." Among 
 his great works was a commentary in many books on 
 the Fourth Gospel ; in one of them he writes : " what 
 shall we say of him who reclined on the breast of Jesus, 
 I mean John ? who has left one Gospel, confessing that 
 he could write so many that the world itself could not 
 contain them^." By John, Origen means the Apostle 
 John, and it may be noted in passing that, for him, 
 both Gospel and Apocalypse come from the same 
 hand^. 
 
 Another name should precede Origen's in the 
 list of witnesses, that of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 ^ Eusebius, H. E., vi. 25 ; cf. John xxi. 25. 
 
 2 On the assumption of the one authorship (cf. Harnack, Chron., i. 
 p. 675), the locality of composition would be fixed in Asia Minor. 
 
48 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 In a letter addressed by him, towards the close of the 
 second century, to the Roman Bishop Victor he is 
 found thus writing: "In Asia also mighty luminaries 
 have fallen asleep. Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, 
 sleeps at Hiej-apolis, and his two aged virgin daughters ; 
 another daughter rests at Ephesus. Moreover John, 
 he who rested on the Lord's bosom, who was a priest 
 who wore the ' petalon,' martyr (or witness) and teacher, 
 he also rests at Ephesus^." 
 
 This quotation from Polycrates' letter is not a little 
 curious. That he means the Apostle John is to be 
 assumed; why does he speak of him in a way which 
 might suggest martyrdom ? He identifies him with 
 the beloved disciple; why this allusion to him as 
 having worn the golden frontlet (to irerakov) of the 
 High-priest^ ? But the point to be specially noted is 
 this, an apparent confusion between two persons. It 
 occurs to us that the Philip of whom Polycrates speaks 
 is not the Apostle Philip, but Philip the Evangelist, 
 who is referred to in the Acts of the Apostles^. 
 There may, then, be a mistake here; there may be 
 also ground for suspecting a confusion as to the 
 identity of that John whom Eusebius, quoting from 
 the letter, understands to be the son of Zebedee ? And 
 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 31. 
 
 2 It may be remarked in anticipation that the beloved disciple has 
 been conjectured (by Delff) to have been of priestly lineage. 
 
 ^ Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, p. 231, suggests that he 
 may be the Apostle after all. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 49 
 
 again, the allusion is so worded that it might be 
 argued that Polycrates is excluding the John he names 
 from the number of the Twelve. The rejoinder is of 
 course possible that Polycrates may have deemed a 
 description so familiar amply sufficient to indicate that 
 he meant the Apostle John. It remains a fact that he 
 who "sleeps at Ephesus" is spoken of as "John," and 
 without the decisive word Apostle. 
 
 From the voices of men we turn now to two very- 
 ancient documents which have also something to say 
 on the question before us. 
 
 A very early list of sacred books remains to us. 
 A mere fragment, it was published by Muratori, 
 librarian at Milan, in 1740 ; hence it is known as the 
 Muratorian Canon. There is no word in it to deter- 
 mine date, authorship, locality; it is written in 
 barbarous Latin, but there can be little doubt that 
 it is a version from a Greek original. It is generally 
 conjectured that it was written in the West, perhaps at 
 Rome, towards the close of the second century^. Its 
 opening sentences evidently referred to the Mark 
 Gospel; then comes a statement as to Luke; the 
 fourth place is given to the Gospel of St John, "a 
 disciple of the Lord," and an account is given of the 
 circumstances of its composition. The words are 
 these: "At the entreaties of his fellow-disciples and 
 his bishops John said: Fast with me for three days 
 1 Encycl. Bibl., i. 679 ; Westcott, Canmi of N. T., pp. 190, 191. 
 
 J. 4 
 
50 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 from this time, and whatever shall be revealed to 
 each of us (whether it be favourable to my writing or 
 not) let us relate it to one another. On the same night 
 it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that 
 John should relate all things in his own name, aided 
 by the revision of all... what wonder is it then that 
 John so constantly brings forward Gospel-phrases even 
 in his epistles, saying in his own person, what we have 
 seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our 
 hands have handled, these things have we written ? 
 For so he professes that he was not only an eye- 
 witness, but also a hearer, and moreover a historian 
 of all the wonderful works of the Lord^." 
 
 A legendary element is discernible in the story 
 thus given ; and it is suggested that it rests on some 
 narrative more detailed and invested with romance^. 
 But to fix our attention on some main points: the 
 Fourth Gospel is recognised as last in order; it is 
 dated at a time when the Apostles are still alive ; the 
 collaboration of others is suggested, even if it be 
 John who writes. The testimony, thus far, to his 
 authorship is emphatic ; at the same time the allusion 
 to other Apostles is difficult to reconcile with the 
 persistent tradition that he wrote in extreme old age. 
 On the other hand, the allusion does not necessitate 
 a change of the locality of composition from Ephesus 
 
 1 The translation is that given by Westcott. 
 
 2 Cf, Corssen, Monarch. Prologe (Texte u. Untersuch., xv. i. 103). 
 
EXTEKNAL EVIDENCE 51 
 
 to Palestine ; the Apostles travelled about, and some 
 may have found themselves together in Asia Minor. 
 
 The second document is the Monarchian Prologue 
 to the Gospel itself. It would appear to be con- 
 siderably older than the days of Jerome^; and (with 
 the companion Prologues to the other Gospels) may be 
 regarded as a sort of introduction to the Gospel with 
 more or less marked features indicative of the Monar- 
 chian tendency. The personality of the author of the 
 Gospel, not the contents, is the main subject of it : 
 John the Evangelist, one of the disciples of God, chosen 
 by God a virgin... he wrote this Gospel in Asia, after he 
 had written the Apocalypse in the isle of Patmos. And 
 then comes the story how, knowing that the time of 
 bis departure was at hand, he gathered round him his 
 ■disciples at Ephesus and descended into his tomb. 
 
 We now proceed to gather up the threads of what 
 thus far has been remarked. The date of the Fourth 
 Gospel has been pushed back to a comparatively early 
 period. Before it has been many decades in existence 
 it is generally identified with one who, if not expressly 
 ■designated as the son of Zebedee, is at any rate so 
 alluded to as to show that the Apostle John is meant. 
 If the decisive word be wanting where the question 
 turns on authorship, there is a strong consensus of 
 
 1 Corssen, holding that the Prologues come from one author, is 
 inclined to assign them to the first third of the third century, op. cit. 
 p. 63. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 Opinion that the John named had his home in Asia 
 Minor. And he is deemed pen-man ; at the same time 
 there are more than dropped hints at collaboration. 
 A time comes when this John of Ephesus and Evange- 
 list is plainly spoken of as Apostle and beloved disciple. 
 As such we might recognise him forthwith were it not 
 that another John has been made to figure on the 
 scene; that "John the Presbyter" to whom Wemle 
 has already pointed us. 
 
 Here we turn to Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in 
 Phrygia — about 80 miles E. of Ephesus. Possibly 
 he and Poly carp were of about the same age ; his life 
 may have extended from c. A.D. 70 (80)-140 ; the story 
 of his suffering martyrdom at Pergamus seems to- 
 have arisen from a confusion of names and may be 
 disregarded. According to Irenaeus he was "John's 
 hearer" — and beyond doubt Irenaeus meant the 
 Apostle; it is precisely here, however, that we find 
 that Irenaeus is not infallible; Eusebius corrects him 
 with the remark : " Papias by no means asserts that he 
 was a hearer and eyewitness of the holy Apostles." Of 
 the work in five books written by him (Papias), pro- 
 bably when advanced in years, fragments alone remain;, 
 we are here concerned with the following extract : 
 
 "But if anywhere anyone also should come who had 
 companied with the elders I ascertained (first of all) 
 the sayings of the elders ('as to this,' not 'to wit')- 
 what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip,. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 53 
 
 or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or 
 any other of the disciples of the Lord (had said), and 
 (secondly) what Aristion and John the Elder, the 
 disciples of the Lord, say. For I supposed that the 
 things (to be derived) from books were not of such 
 profit to me as the things (derived) from the living and 
 abiding utterance^." 
 
 We remark, with Eusebius, that the name John 
 appears twice on the list. By the first of the two 
 Johns Papias undoubtedly means the Apostle; for he 
 ranks him with Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, 
 and Matthew. It would appear too that the second 
 John is distinguished from the former ; not only is he 
 not named with Apostles, but he is expressly designated 
 "John the Presbyter." Were he and Aristion still 
 alive when Papias made his inquiries ? The change of 
 tense is noticeable; what Andrew and others "had 
 said," what Aristion and the Presbyter " say." Three 
 solutions have been proposed: the "say" is a historical 
 present introduced for the sake of variety ; it is to be 
 understood of utterances actually heard and still fresh 
 in the narrator's mind ; of what those who have passed 
 away still "say" in books 2. The last of the three 
 theories might be open to the objection that Papias 
 ever preferred the living voice ; and it is possible that, 
 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39. The rendering is Schmiedel's {Encycl. 
 BibL, 11. 2507). 
 
 2 Lightfoot, Salmon, Drummond. 
 
54 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 whether he actually heard them himself or not, Aristion 
 and the Presbyter were still alive when he made the 
 inquiries afterwards incorporated into his work. 
 
 In any case the question is complicated by the 
 appearance of this second John, "John the Presbyter." 
 He, like the Apostle, is designated a disciple of the 
 Lord — a description which Aristion shares with him. 
 Because distinguished from the latter as " the 
 Presbyter" it seems natural to think of some special 
 prominence enjoyed by him. We ask whether he too 
 had his home in Asia ? An answer comes from Eusebius, 
 who is not unwilling to allow the statement of those 
 who say that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each 
 bearing the name of John^. 
 
 It is said that this "John the Presbyter," and not 
 the Apostle John, was the one to whom Polycarp was 
 really alluding when telling of his familiar intercourse 
 with John and the others who had seen the Lord 2. 
 
 But the question becomes still more complicated. 
 Here we are confronted with another statement which 
 is attributed to the Bishop of Hierapolis: "Papias says 
 in his second book that John the divine {scil. the 
 Apostle) and his brother James were slain by the 
 Jews^" With two authorities for it the statement is 
 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39; vii. 25. But cf. Stanton, Gospels as 
 Hist. Documents, p. 170. 
 
 2 Wernle, Quellen d;c., p. 10 ; cf. Harnack, Chron., i. pp. 657 ff. 
 
 3 de Boor, Texte und Untersuch., v. 2. 170, 177 ; cf. Schwartz, 
 ijherden Tod der S'dhne Zeb., p. 7. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 55 
 
 not to be disallowed off-hand ; nor is it so easily to be 
 explained of a confusion between John the Apostle 
 and John the Baptist^; that the former is really in- 
 tended is strongly urged. On the assumption that the 
 story is true, the use, by Polycrates, of a word which 
 might be rendered 'martyr' (and he means the Apostle) 
 is at once explained ; the words spoken by Jesus to the 
 sons of Zebedee^ will have been fulfilled to the letter 
 in the case of John as well as his brother James. It 
 would not necessarily follow that they suffered at the 
 same time and place : on the one hand, the evidence 
 that John survived his brother by more than a few 
 years is hardly to be rejected ; on the other hand, the 
 Jews stirred up persecution outside Palestine, and the 
 scene of the alleged martyrdom might quite possibly 
 have been in Asia. The strange thing is that a story 
 so utterly at variance with the very early tradition as 
 to a natural death in extreme old age is nowhere 
 referred to by Eusebius and his predecessors; either 
 they know nothing at all about it, or, knowing it, are 
 
 1 As, e.g. by Zahn. Gutjahr {Die Glaubioiirdigkeit dc, p. 110), 
 however, writes thus : " Zahn's Erklarung ist sicherlich, so weit sie 
 den Papias betrifft, weder unmoglich noch unwahrscheiulich. Ich 
 will sie auch keineswegs bestreiten, doch sei es gestattet, einigen 
 Bedenken Ausdruck zu geben. Welcher Leser hatte wohl bei der 
 ZusamtQenstellung des Johannes und Jakobus an den Taufer und 
 nicht vielmehr an den Apostel gedacht...." 
 
 2 Mark x. 35-45. Wellhausen {Marcusevglm. p. 90) writes: "if 
 the prophecy had remained but half fulfilled it would scarcely have 
 stood in the Gospel." 
 
56 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 content to ignore it as an idle tale^. But what if, after 
 all, it rests on actual fact ? — in that case there might 
 be but one John of Ephesus who survives to extreme 
 old age, and he not the Apostle but "the Presbyter^." 
 
 Is there anything more that can be set down about 
 this "John the Presbyter"? It has, indeed, been 
 suggested that Papias, by a "mere slovenliness of 
 composition," has named the same John twice over^; 
 but even were he as "limited in his comprehension," as 
 Eusebius in one place deems him*, it well-nigh passes 
 belief that such a blunder should have found its way 
 into his preface. That the second John he tells of 
 was a real historical personage and distinct from the 
 Apostle of the same name (whom he does not designate 
 Evangelist) is, on the whole, highly probable. If so 
 this John has companied with Jesus, for he is a disciple 
 of the Lord. If Papias has actually heard him, he 
 must have been the old man full of years. The possi- 
 
 1 Gutjahr, Die GlauhioUrdigkeit dtc, p. 108. Stanton will not 
 attach much importance to the story. Harnack discredits it. Sanday 
 classes it with "unsolved problems." Schwartz accepts it. Bousset 
 {Der Verfasser des Johannesevglm, Theol. Rundschau, 1905) finds 
 additional testimony to the story of the martyrdom, and writes : 
 " Somit steht ein negatives Resultat im Wirrwar der joh. Streitfrage 
 endgiiltig fest : der Zebedaide und Apos. Joh. kann nicht identisch 
 sein mit dem kleinasiatischen Joh. auf den man mit Einstimmigkeit 
 spater die joh. Literatur zuruckfiihrte " (p. 231). 
 
 2 The question remains whether the authorship of the Apocalypse 
 may not, after all, point to a second John. 
 
 3 Salmon, Introd. to N. T., p. 269. 
 * Eusebius, if. JE., m. 39. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 57 
 
 bility is that his home was in Asia Minor, not to say 
 Ephesus. If he is styled "the Presbyter," if his 
 utterances command attention, it is surely difficult to 
 account him a person of no significance whatever. 
 Granted that he is termed "the Presbyter," to distin- 
 guish him from his namesake the Apostle, it would still 
 appear that he is a man of some little mark. 
 
 In face of all this it has to be remembered that 
 later tradition apparently knows nothing of any John 
 of Ephesus save only the Apostle and Evangelist. 
 
 Again we dwell on the curious, it may be significant, 
 fact that where a John is alluded to as author of the 
 Fourth Gospel (and by those whose thoughts are 
 evidently of the son of Zebedee) the decisive word is 
 wanting which would expressly identify him with the 
 latter^. He is the "disciple of the Lord"; he is the 
 one who reclined on Jesus' bosom — and accordingly 
 the beloved disciple; but he is not designated as one 
 of the Twelve Apostles. A time indeed comes when 
 he is spoken of as "Apostle"; but even then there is 
 room for the conjecture that he has gained the title in 
 the same way as others (e.g. Paul and Barnabas) who 
 had not been of the number of the original Twelve. 
 The further conjecture is, then, possible that he is, 
 
 1 " Though so many titles of honour are here (i.e. by Polycrates) 
 heaped upon this John, that of Apostle, the highest of all in those 
 days, is not among them." Von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, 
 p. 427. 
 
58 OF THE AUTHOESHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 after all, the Presbyter of whom Papias speaks. On 
 the assumption that the two smaller Epistles do really 
 come from the same hand as the First Epistle and the 
 Gospel^ this same "John the Presbyter" may yet turn 
 out to be the Fourth Evangelist himself 2. 
 
 To what very tentative conclusions does our in- 
 quiry, far from exhaustive, seem to lead up ? 
 
 In the first place. The tradition which brings John, 
 son of Zebedee, to Ephesus is persistent ; it is hard to 
 say that it does not rest on actual fact. " Manifestly a 
 legend"; — so it is somewhat airily affirmed^: it were 
 wiser, perhaps, to agree that doubts cast on the resi- 
 dence of the Apostle John in Asia, not altogether 
 captious, are not convincing*. For the ancients such 
 residence appears to have been an " uncontested his- 
 torical fact^"; and some weight must be attached to 
 their testimony. That it deserves credence is strongly 
 maintained : " We cannot refuse to believe that the 
 latest years of the Apostle John were spent in the 
 Roman province of Asia, and chiefly in Ephesus its 
 capital^." The following words are noteworthy : " The 
 impossibility is ever more and more realised of arriving 
 
 ^ Harnack, Chron., i. p. 658. 
 
 2 The term Presbyter is, however, one which an Apostle (in the 
 narrower sense) might use of himself; cf. 1 Pet. v. 1. 
 
 3 Davidson, Introd. to N. T., 11. p. 347. 
 
 4 Wendt, St John's Gospel, pp. 5, 216. 
 
 5 Schanz, Evang. d. h. Johannes, p. 2. 
 •* Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 51. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 59 
 
 at a historical conception of the John-Gospel without 
 allowing the prolonged stay and lasting influence in 
 Asia of the Apostle John^." 
 
 Secondly. True that the Fourth Evangelist is 
 spoken of in terms which are also used of John the 
 Presbyter; the fact remains that we are encountered 
 by a consensus of opinion, dating from very early times, 
 that he was none other than that Apostle and son of 
 Zebedee who is held to be the beloved disciple. 
 Eusebius, apparently, had no doubts whatever on the 
 subject^though glad to father the Apocalypse on to 
 the second John of Papias. The position of Clement of 
 Alexandria is evidently the same ; possibly also that of 
 Theophilus, Bishop of the great See of Antioch^. If 
 Irenaeus be indeed " ultimate authority," we hesitate to 
 rule him altogether out of court as witness to the 
 Johannine authorship ; to allow that his absolutely 
 reliable testimony must be limited to a statement that 
 he had heard from Polycarp about a certain John of 
 Asia^. That he was dependent on Polycarp alone for 
 whatever knowledge he possessed as to the authorship 
 of the Fourth Gospel is hard to believe. The presump- 
 tion is that, if he will point to the Apostle John as 
 author (that he means the Apostle is conceded), it is 
 
 ^ Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift filr wissent. TheoL, 1904. 
 
 2 We remember that, for Theophilus, "John" is one of the 
 "inspired men." 
 
 3 Cf. Harnack, Chron., i. p. 657 ; Wernle, Quellen d;c., p. 10 ; 
 JiiUcher, Introd. to N. T., p. 406. 
 
60 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 because inquiries made have furnished evidence deemed 
 sufficient to warrant his belief. 
 
 Yet one thing more. That John, son of Zebedee, had 
 his home at Ephesus appears probable ; he may or may 
 not have died a martyr's death. An important fact has 
 been brought out clearly : the early recognition, by re- 
 presentative Churchmen, of this John the Apostle as 
 author of the Fourth Gospel^; and it is still a question 
 whether the tradition which fixes on him is, after all, so 
 lamentably weak at the commencement as some have 
 deemed it. There must have been a basis of substantial 
 fact on which the tradition rested ; that, too, may be 
 admitted. At the same time certain features and cir- 
 cumstances have been noted which require that a 
 margin must be left for mistakes and misapprehensions 
 by no means unlikely in an uncritical age. That the 
 evidence " for the work of the Apostle John in Asia in 
 the last years of his life " is overwhelmingly strong may 
 be conceded ; it is not so easy to allow that the evidence 
 "for his authorship of the Gospel" is strong with a 
 strength which is irresistible. On the one hand the 
 decisive word is wanting which would remove difficulty ; 
 on the other hand hints and allusions are forthcoming 
 which at least raise questions. There is room for a 
 possibility that " the idea of actual authorship might 
 almost imperceptibly have been substituted for a more 
 indirect part in the work, that of a witness and teacher 
 
 1 Cf. Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 9. 
 
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 61 
 
 whose utterances had been embodied in it and had 
 inspired it^." 
 
 And so we leave the external evidence for the 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It has been said 
 to " constitute that portion of the field in which con- 
 servative theology has hitherto believed itself to have 
 gained its securest successes^"; the impression left on 
 our minds is that the external evidence is far from con- 
 clusive^; already, maybe, we agree (with Wernle) that 
 it is the Gospel and the Gospel alone that can give the 
 answer sought for*. As yet it appears to us " beyond 
 question that, in some way or other, John, son of Zebedee, 
 stands behind the Fourth GospeP." Before very long, 
 however, we shall discover grounds for the remark : " It 
 must be admitted that, in ignorance of the tradition, no 
 modern scholar would be likely to ascribe the Gospel in 
 its present form to one of the Twelve Apostles^." 
 
 ^ Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, p. 277. 
 
 2 Schmiedel, Encijcl. BibL, ii. 2545. 
 
 3 It is urged by a Bampton Lecturer that there is **much more 
 reason to accept the Fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle than 
 we have to accept the histories of Herodotus, or Thucydides, or 
 Xenophon, or Tacitus, or Livy, or Caesar, as genuine documents." 
 (Watkins, Mod. Grit, considered in Rel. to Fourth Gosp., pp. 138, 139.) 
 
 4 Cf. Wernle, Quellen (&c., pp. 11, 12. 
 
 5 Harnack, Chron., i. p. 677. 
 
 6 Contentio Veritatis, pp. 222, 223. 
 
62 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 II. Internal Evidence. 
 
 Another stage of our inquiry is entered. The 
 tradition has been examined into; the Fourth Gospel 
 itself is now to be searched for indications as to author- 
 ship. In other words, we pass from external to internal 
 evidence. 
 
 In the first instance we ask : how is the question 
 discussed by the writers whose respective works are 
 opening up the subject generally and marking out lines 
 for our inquiry ? 
 
 To begin with Barth. He lays it down at once that 
 *' the Fourth Gospel claims to be the work of an eye- 
 witness of the life of Jesus ^." Precisely the same thing 
 is admitted or affirmed by many others : " the rank of 
 eye-witness is certainly claimed for the writer with re- 
 gard to the Gospel story ^"; "turning to the Prologue 
 we at once come across not indeed an ' I ' but a thrice- 
 repeated * we ' which includes an ' 1/ the ' I ' of the 
 author^" (i. 14, 16), who is accordingly one of those 
 who " beheld." But to follow Barth further ; comment- 
 ing on xix. 35 he remarks, "Surely the speaker here 
 can be no other than the Evangelist himself, who is 
 throughout constant in declining the use of 'I'; un- 
 equivocally does he vouch for what he relates by assert- 
 
 1 Barth, Das Johannesevangeliuni d;c., pp. 5 ff. 
 
 2 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 410. 
 
 3 Zahn, Einleit., ii. p. 4G7. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 63 
 
 ing that he was eye-witness of it. It is no casual 
 disciple who is spokesman, but one who will have it 
 understood that his place was very near to Jesus." 
 Reference is then made to notices of a disciple " whom 
 Jesus loved"; one surely to be identified with that un- 
 named disciple who at the first and together with Andrew 
 became acquainted with Jesus by the river Jordan, who 
 is seen following Jesus when led prisoner to the High 
 Priest's palace, and who is himself known to the High 
 Priest. And this same disciple "whom Jesus loved" 
 is, at the close of the Gospel, expressly said to be its 
 author. Significantly is he again and again coupled 
 wdth Peter ; hence we naturally look for him amongst 
 those who constituted the inner circle in the apostolic 
 college. There is the little group of three; Peter, 
 James and John the sons of Zebedee. In the last 
 analysis we are pointed to St John^. 
 
 We take up Wernle. In his view the self- testimony 
 of the Fourth Gospel is singular to a degree. At the 
 very outset the " we beheld His glory " of the Prologue 
 prompts us to ask who it is who speaks ; an individual, 
 or a plurality of persons ? personal eye-witnesses, or 
 inspired Christian believers generally ? The narrative 
 proceeds, but anonymously, objectively; precisely in 
 the manner of the other Gospels. We come to 
 ch. xiii.; it is to be introduced, but in strangest 
 fashion, to one of whom hitherto nothing has been 
 
 ^ Barth, Das Johamiesevangelium d'c, pp. 6 ff. 
 
64 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 heard; he is "beloved disciple" and bosom-friend of 
 Jesus. Henceforward he is ever to the front. With 
 one exception only he is, whenever mentioned, not so 
 much a leading character as a figure eclipsing the 
 otherwise known leading character Peter. And, after 
 all, the exception ranges itself with all the parallels 
 which have been drawn with Peter ; for while the latter 
 has denied his Lord, the beloved disciple is steadfast at 
 the Cross, receives the parting charge of the dying 
 Jesus, vouches for the reality of His Death. Precisely 
 here is it that we learn that the beloved disciple is the 
 witness, the authority on whom the tradition of the 
 Fourth Gospel rests. Then, too, does the full import 
 of the so striking eclipse of Peter by the beloved 
 disciple become patent ; the question is seen to be 
 not of two disciples, but of two traditions; the tradition 
 which rests on the authority of the beloved disciple is 
 to have a place if not superior at any rate equal to that 
 based on the authority of Peter. Earlier evangelic 
 tradition has been quite content to command accept- 
 ance by a homely and objective style of narrative, and 
 without any boasting of authorities and guarantors ; as 
 for this younger branch of tradition, it will seek to 
 obtain hearing and recognition by putting forward an 
 authority with persistence. And then this self- testimony 
 is further and utterly complicated by the closing verses 
 of ch. xxi. : — where a number of persons affirm that the 
 beloved disciple whose death has been gently touched 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 65 
 
 on is precisely he who has testified concerning these 
 things and written these things, adding, " and we know 
 that his testimony is true." The authority of the 
 beloved disciple, in other words, is at the last con- 
 firmed by the authority of the " we." Strange indeed 
 does a method of procedure such as this appear to us. 
 The authority for the Fourth Gospel none other than 
 an apostolic witness; for all that his name will not 
 suffice, there is still need of the testimony of the " we " 
 who know and declare that the testimony of the said 
 witness is true ! Finally, we are left in the dark as to 
 the name of this witness ; as to who the " we " are. 
 It is forced upon us that the Fourth Gospel lays claim 
 to apostolic origin and authority in totally different 
 fashion to the other three. Its self-testimony is such 
 as to raise far more riddles than it solves. Far from 
 establishing the authenticity of the work, it is calcu- 
 lated to awaken doubts and suspicions not easily to be 
 laidi. 
 
 It occurs to us, perhaps, that the first writer conveys 
 an impression that everything is plain and simple 
 enough. As for the latter, we are probably to a 
 certain extent in agreement with him; the self- 
 testimony of the Fourth Gospel is, indeed, of a .curious 
 sort ; by no manner of means so quickly intelligible as 
 the former is content to hold it. It is not only that 
 "the author nowhere gives his name"; personal allusions 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen dtc, pp. 12-14. 
 J. 5 
 
66 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 there are, but the fact that he "designates himself 
 merely in mysterious hints i" raises grave difficulties, 
 and will point to more than one quarter as we try 
 to discover him. To treat the question under two 
 heads : 
 
 (a) Direct Evidence. 
 
 Hints are forthcoming in the Prologue^. One thing, 
 perhaps, strikes us at once ; the " we " of i. 16 may have 
 a wider inclusiveness than the " we " of i. 14 ; because 
 preceded by an "all" it might be interpreted of Christian 
 believers generally, whether eye-witnesses or not^. With 
 i. 14 the case appears different ; true, no doubt, that 
 the " we beheld " contained in it has been explained of 
 spiritual perception ; it has been pointed out, however, 
 that "the original word in the N.T. is never used 
 of mental vision*," and we conclude accordingly that 
 the " we " in question should be interpreted of those 
 who had actually seen Jesus. And we go a step 
 further; we cannot but believe that of those who 
 " beheld " the Evangelist himself is one ; " by his use 
 of the first person plural he associates himself with the 
 
 1 Weizsacker, Apost. Age, ii. p. 207. 
 
 2 John i. 1-18. 
 
 3 0. Holtzmann, Das Johamiesevangelium, p. 198, " die Gemeinde 
 der Gotteskinder." 
 
 •* Westcott, St John, p. xxv; Sanday, Criticism d'c, p. 76. But 
 cf. Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 121; Keim, Geschichte Jesu d^c, 
 I. p. 157. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 67 
 
 other eye-witnesses of Jesus' appearance on earth ^." It 
 does not necessarily follow that he is one of the apostolic 
 band"^. 
 
 To pass on to the remarkable passage, xix. 35. Who 
 are we to understand by the "he that hath seen hath borne 
 witness and his witness is true" — in formal validity? 
 And again, " he knoweth that he saith true " — things 
 that are true to fact ; — of whom is this second " he " 
 (6Ketvo<;, " that man^,") to be interpreted ? 
 
 Imagine such a passage meeting us in some recent 
 biography or narrative ; what meaning should we read 
 into it ? We should hardly explain it forthwith of a 
 reference by the author to himself. Probably we should 
 see him somewhat abruptly appealing to the absolutely 
 reliable testimony of one who actually witnessed the 
 event narrated. Perhaps we should add : he proceeds 
 with an appeal to someone else, to one who can vouch 
 for the truth of that which the aforesaid reliable eye- 
 witness is still telling. Were we informed that the 
 author is referring to himself throughout we should 
 be disposed to answer that, if this really be the case, 
 he does so in a very strange, roundabout way. 
 
 Very much the same thing, if not precisely the 
 same thing, has been said of the passage before us. 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 207. 
 
 2 Of the Johannine Epistles the first surely comes from the same 
 pen as the Fourth Gospel ; and so its opening words may be studied 
 in connexion with the verses in question. 
 
 2 Barth sets down " derselbige " without note or comment. 
 
 5—2 
 
58 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 The Evangelist^, it is argued, clearly distinguishes 
 himself from one whom he introduces as fully deserving 
 of trust, if not from two such persons. " He that hath 
 seen hath borne witness" — only a third party could 
 speak thus. And it is also a third party who says of 
 the witness : " and that man knoweth that he saith 
 true^." The allusion is certainly obscure; there is at 
 any rate some ground for the comment that "beyond 
 doubt the Evangelist has an eye-witness in his mind 
 from the very first ; he does not, however, venture to 
 represent himself as the eye-witness in question; he 
 designates him in a way which is singular to a 
 degree^." The Evangelist does seem to bring in two 
 personages; the possibility is, however, that the " he that 
 hath seen" may be explained of his oblique way of 
 referring to himself; as for the "that man knoweth," 
 the reference is hard to determine. Everything hinges 
 on the significance to be attached to the word in the 
 original. We ask: Is it really a word which must 
 indicate a third party and not that eye-witness in 
 whom we may perhaps recognise the speaker himself? 
 It is held that it is ; and by one firmly persuaded that 
 the eye-witness is identical with the evangelist and 
 the evangelist with St John ; for him the one appealed 
 
 1 We recall the conjecture that the verse really comes from those 
 who speak in xxi. 24, 25. 
 
 - Weizsacker, Apost. Age, ii. p. 209 ; cf. Wendt, St John's Gospel, 
 pp. 210, 211. 
 
 3 Hilgenfeld, Elnleit., p. 732. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 69 
 
 to as knowing that what is recorded is true to fact is 
 none other than the risen and ascended Master^. An 
 opposite view is taken by one holding precisely similar 
 convictions as to authorship ; it is urged by him that 
 the word in question can be used by a speaker of him- 
 self, and that as a matter of fact it is often so used in 
 this very Gospel^. As for the former view — well, it is 
 in full keeping with the upward glance so characteristic 
 of the author, whoever he be; as for the latter, the 
 whole style of the Gospel is such as to render it possible 
 " that the author is simply turning back upon himself 
 and protesting his own veracity^." If it be more 
 natural, however, to explain the word of a third party, 
 perhaps there is room for the conjecture that he who 
 pens the narrative is turning to one who, still alive, can 
 corroborate his testimony*. 
 
 But such a conjecture may not detain us. For the 
 present it must be enough to say that, taking the verse 
 as a whole, it perhaps places us in the presence of the 
 Evangelist himself. He may be the "secondary his- 
 torian "; this one thing is certain, that he will lay claim 
 to be (or is said to be) an eye-witness. Shall we 
 
 1 Zahn, Einleit., ii. pp. 474 f. ; cf. Sanday, Criticism of Fourth 
 Gospel, p. 78. See also E. A. Abbott, Joh. Grammar, pp. 284 f. 
 
 2 Westcott, St John, p. xxv. 
 
 '^ Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 78. 
 
 * The possibility must not be lost sight of that the words are 
 written by another (cf. von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 436 ; 
 Keim, Geschichte Jesu dx., i. p. 157) ; and such a possibility will be 
 referred to later on. 
 
70 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 proceed on this assumption, and seek for traces of his 
 identity ? 
 
 Now, the eye-witness of xix. 35 (possibly the narrator 
 himself) was plainly close at hand when the spear-thrust 
 pierced the side of Jesus. We read in this same chapter 
 of a little company who "stood by the cross of Jesus"; 
 among them is the mother of Our Lord, another is the 
 beloved disciple. We read of loving words spoken and 
 obeyed : " from that hour that disciple took her unto 
 his own home"; instinctively we feel that that beloved 
 disciple must be identical with the eye-witness who 
 figures, who alludes to himself, in v. 35. No word is, 
 indeed, said as a return for the closing scenes — what 
 matter ? — the " from that hour " is naturally explained 
 of a statement that from that day forward Mary's home 
 was with " the disciple whom Jesus loved." On the 
 whole it appears highly probable that, be he the 
 Evangelist himself or not, beloved disciple and eye- 
 witness are one and the self-same person. 
 
 At once we turn to a third passage. Admittedly, 
 chap. xxi. is of the nature of an appendix, for the 
 Gospel has already reached a perfectly adequate con- 
 clusion in XX. 30, 31. What is stated in one of those 
 tw^o final verses which must be assigned to another and 
 a later hand ? Nothing short of an " express assurance^" 
 that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is verily and 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 213. The "express assurance," 
 according to Haussleiter, of Philip and Andrew. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 71 
 
 indeed he " which beareth witness of these things and 
 wrote these things, and we know that his witness is 
 true " (true to fact). It has been suggested that the 
 declaration in no way turns on the authorship of the 
 Gospel and is simply and solely concerned with the 
 truth of its contents^. But to think it out is, maybe, 
 to find a threefold assertion in it : the disciple is yet 
 alive; he is author of the entire work which has 
 reached its final conclusion with v. 29 ; the " we," 
 because in a position to know that his narrative is 
 true, are themselves ej^e-witnesses. 
 
 To gather up the threads of the foregoing brief 
 survey of the direct internal evidence. 
 
 With his "we" of i. 14 the writer does introduce 
 himself; and as of the number of those who had seen 
 Jesus. In xix. 35 an eye-witness figures; one who 
 is evidently living; who has not merely seen but 
 companied with Jesus; who had stood by the Cross; 
 who is the beloved disciple; who is possibly the 
 evangelist himself, — we are told that he is in xxi. 24 ; 
 where unknown eye-witnesses (as we infer them) 
 expressly confirm his testimony. He has, no doubt, 
 alluded to himself with an air of mystery, and in 
 curiously veiled language. If by the unknown *'we" 
 he is evidently spoken of as still alive it is within 
 the bounds of possibility that the "testifieth" of xxi. 24 
 may be explained by a "he being dead yet speaketh." 
 1 Baldensperger, Prolog., p. 110. 
 
72 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 In any case the said "we" bid us recognise him in the 
 beloved disciple. 
 
 But the puzzle is not yet solved. We ask, who was 
 "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? 
 
 Now, it has been said that the disciple thus 
 beautifully designated is not a historical personage at 
 all. We have seen him alluded to as a mere "figure"; 
 elsewhere there is the refusal to own him as a being 
 of flesh and blood i; we are asked to think of the 
 "exquisite creation of a devout imagination^." And 
 unquestionably his portrait, as pourtrayed in the 
 Fourth Gospel, is absent from the Synoptics. They 
 tell, indeed, of three disciples admitted to a closer 
 intimacy with Jesus ; about one who reclined " in 
 Jesus' bosom" they have no word — even if they relate 
 an occurrence which has been explained (in a way 
 which appears strained) of special pre-eminence accorded 
 to the two sons of Zebedee^. It must be said at once 
 that, but for the Fourth Gospel, the beloved disciple 
 would only be known to us as such by the tradition 
 which identifies him with St John*. 
 
 1 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 413. 
 
 2 Encycl. Bibl., iii. p. 3339. 
 
 '^ Cf. Jiilicher, Einleit., p. 413. The reference is to Mark x. 37. 
 
 ^ The Synoptics nowhere allude to a disciple specially beloved by 
 Jesus. One of them, however (Mark x. 17-32) says of a rich young 
 man that Jesus, " looking upon him, loved him " : what may not his 
 subsequent history have been ? The verb is the same as that used in 
 the case of the beloved disciple, and signifies the love of moral choice. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 73 
 
 He is, so we are disposed to believe, a real personage ; 
 in whom, then, shall we discover him ? 
 
 If we discover him at all, it will be in a group of, 
 perhaps, seven persons^. They are alluded to — if only 
 they were all mentioned by name! — in that very 
 appendix-chapter which ends with an assertion as to 
 authorship ; Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the two sons of 
 Zebedee, two others who are not expressly designated 
 but who may have been Andrew and Philip, — more 
 probably "disciples in the wider sense 2." Peter may 
 be at once eliminated, for in vv. 15-23 the beloved 
 disciple is side by side with him; we may strike out 
 Thomas, so also James, so soon to perish by the sword 
 of Herod. Accordingly our range of choice is limited 
 to four: the two unnamed disciples, Nathaniel, John, 
 brother of James, and son of Zebedee. What if 
 absolute certainty were ours that the beloved disciple 
 was one of the Twelve^ ? — in that case Nathaniel 
 disappears, and with him, if disciples only in the 
 "wider sense," the two who are unnamed. John, son 
 of Zebedee, then, might be the only one left in. His 
 identity with the beloved disciple would appear to be 
 made out. Going by that definite statement in xxi. 23 
 
 1 Perhaps seven persons. Is it not just possible that there were 
 eight ; the eighth person being the narrator, in short, the Evan- 
 gelist ? 
 
 2 Westcott, St John, p. 300. Godet {St John's Gosp., iii. p. 341) asks 
 whether they might not have been Aristion and John the Presbyter. 
 
 3 Jiilicher, Einleit., p. 411. 
 
74 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 he would appear, further, to be the author of the Fourth 
 GospeP. 
 
 Unfortunately, the process of elimination is not so 
 easily accomplished: even if seven persons only were 
 present. John himself might have to vanish ; for there 
 comes in a thought of the alleged statement that he, 
 like his brother James, died a martyr's death. But 
 apart from that — true that the beloved disciple of 
 ch. xxi. is identified with him pictured in ch. xiii. as 
 "reclining on Jesus' bosom"; the question arises, how 
 many were present at the Last Supper ? On the 
 assumption that it was really the Passover-meal we 
 might answer; Jesus and the Twelve only. But, as 
 will be seen later on, it may not have been the 
 Passover-meal at all; if so, others beside the Twelve 
 might have been present on the occasion. Conceivably, 
 Nathaniel was there ; conceivably the two unnamed 
 disciples (who were probably not Apostles) also. May 
 not, then, the beloved disciple be one of these three ? 
 We turn to i. 47-51 ; it is to hear of " an Israelite 
 indeed, in whom there is no guile." Nathaniel is quite 
 the type of person to become very dear to Jesus : may 
 he then not be thought of as the beloved disciple and 
 author of the Fourth Gospel^ ? 
 
 ^ Cf. Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 103. 
 
 2 Gutjahr (Die Glaiibwurdigkeit dbc, p. 184) writes : "Durch das 
 4. Evglm. allein wird man am ehesten auf Nathaniel gefiihrt, da 
 Jesus diesem ein so schones Zeugniss ausgestellt hat, und dieser 
 c. xxi wieder mit Namen vorgefiihrt wird." 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 75 
 
 But here an important consideration arises. No- 
 where in the Fourth Gospel is the beloved disciple 
 expressly included with the Twelve : but for the one 
 saying and allusion (vi. 67-71), it is indeed urged, "we 
 should learn nothing whatever (from the Fourth Gospel) 
 of a privileged circle of twelve Apostles^." Not inclined 
 to agree in questioning whether there was really such 
 a circle 2, we find it, perhaps, hard to believe that one 
 enjoying so close an intimacy with Jesus should be 
 excluded from the number of the Twelve. If the 
 difiiculty be insurmountable, then, of course, thoughts 
 of Nathaniel quickly fade away. The two unnamed 
 ones, if not Apostles, will also be set aside. Again it 
 would appear that John, son of Zebedee, remains in 
 possession of the field. We now turn to i. 35-45 ; it 
 is to become, perhaps, aware of a "silent spectator in 
 the background^" in whom we are asked to distinguish 
 this same John. Is he, after all, that beloved disciple 
 of whom we are in search ? If so, a dilemma may here 
 be proposed to us ; either he is the author of the 
 Gospel, or it has been written by someone else who 
 will personate him: — "The author is either the eye- 
 witness (and, with every probability, the son of 
 
 1 Jiilicher, Einleit., pp. 411, 412. 
 
 2 Bousset, Jesus, p. 29. But cf. von Dobschiitz, Das Apos. 
 Zeitalter, p. 2. 
 
 2 Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, pp. 82, 83 ; cf. Westcott, 
 St John, p. xxii ; Schwartz, Ueber den Tod dx., p. 48. 
 
76 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 Zebedee), or, with resort to artfully contrived and 
 mysterious hints, he poses as such... and good friends 
 of his are prompt with their imprimatur for what is 
 a sheer imposture ; for they, knowing his testimony to 
 be false, declare it to be true^." We object to this 
 way of putting it. There is, surely, no question of 
 libelling the dead^ if the alternative that the Gospel 
 has been penned in St John's name be preferred : 
 for the literary etiquette of ancient times sanctioned 
 much that at the present day would be indefensible^. 
 No one associates the idea of conscious fraud with the 
 unknown author of Ecclesiastes because he chose to 
 write under the great name of Solomon. So here ; if 
 the Fourth Evangelist be really one who has made 
 himself organ of the eye-witness (John, son of Zebedee, 
 or not) there is no compulsion to speak of a literary 
 fraud perpetrated by himself and condoned by others. 
 
 The chances are, however, that those who take up 
 the pen in the closing verses of the Gospel are, after 
 all, stating fact when they declare that its author is 
 
 ^ Barth, Das Johannesevangelium , p. 7 ; cf. Lightfoot, Biblical 
 Essays, p. 80. 
 
 2 Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 81. 
 
 3 Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of 0. T., pp. 40, 41. " It was 
 characteristic of the spirit and custom of ancient historians and 
 poets, and especially those of the Bible, to live themselves into the 
 modes of thought and expression of great men, and by imitating their 
 thoughts and feelings, make themselves their organ." See also 
 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, pp. 15, 16. But cf. Fouard, 
 St John and the close of the Ajios. Age, p. xix. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 77 
 
 that eye-witness who figures in its pages as the beloved 
 disciple, St John, or not. 
 
 If so, it is he who thus styles himself. Objections 
 here are numerous: — of that repeated and beautiful 
 description, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," it has 
 been truly said that "it certainly does not express the 
 devotion of the disciple but a preference by which the 
 Master distinguished him^"; we remark that it has 
 been fastened on for severest strictures. Its lack of 
 modesty is insisted on^. Stress is laid on the arrogance 
 betrayed by it ; on a self-exaltation insolent to a degree. 
 That disciples and friends of the author might come to 
 use it of one whom they revered and loved is con- 
 ceivable enough ; what is not conceivable is that he 
 should deliberately use it of himself^. This sort of 
 criticism, however, is artificial ; it surely reveals a type 
 of mind too aloof from human life in its manifold 
 complexity. Nor does the theory which suggests 
 that an explanation by Jesus of the Hebrew name 
 (Johannan, whom Jehovah loves) has been assumed 
 commend itself^. Be the author of the Fourth Gospel 
 St John or not, he may yet be the old man full of 
 years and hallowed recollections. He loves to dwell on 
 them. Let people speak, if they will, of the vanity of 
 
 1 Weizsacker, Apost. Age, ii. p. 207. 
 
 2 Wernle, Quellen d^c, p. 27. But see Hase, Geschichte Jem, p. 48. 
 
 3 Cf. Hilgenfeld, Einleit., pp. 732, 733 ; von Soden, Early Christ. 
 Literature, pp. 435 f . 
 
 * Hengstenberg, Evang. d. heil. Joh., ii. 373 f. 
 
78 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 old age ; it appears natural enough that he should pen 
 this "word of blessed memory^." 
 
 Another objection may here be considered. The 
 Fourth Gospel, it is said, indicates a rivalry between 
 the beloved disciple and the " Prince of the Apostles." 
 The former is the figure who overshadows Peter ; never 
 does he refer to himself without pushing himself in 
 front of Peter^. It is argued that the author, whoever 
 he was, writes "with a certain animosity^" against 
 Peter, and has resolved to know nothing as to a pre- 
 eminence accorded to him. Frankly, we see little if 
 anything which bespeaks jealousy, bitterness, hostility. 
 At least some of the passages instanced*, it would 
 appear, are capable of another explanation ; the question 
 is not of rivalry but of that close friendship which has 
 often linked men of diverse stamp and temperament ; 
 of the attachment, it may be added, of a younger to 
 an older man. And an apt rejoinder is surely not far 
 to seek : it is precisely the Fourth Evangelist who will 
 use fewest words in recording the denial ; who will omit 
 the stern rebuke (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33) which came 
 to Peter from his Master^. The utmost we should 
 venture to say is that, on the assumption that the 
 author is not the beloved disciple himself, equality 
 
 1 Luthardt, St John's Gospel, i. p. 95. 
 
 2 Wernle, Quellen d'c, pp. 12, 13, 27. 
 
 ^ Cf. Barth, Das Johannesevangeliuvi, p. 7. 
 
 4 xiii. 23 ff. ; xviii. 15 ; xx. 2-10 ; xxi. 7 ff.; xxi. 20-23. 
 
 5 Cf. Ligbtfoot, Bihiical Essays, p. 185. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 79 
 
 with Peter is claimed on behalf of one whose name is 
 very dear to the churches of Asia Minor. 
 
 To sum up for the moment. The direct evidence, 
 apparently, favours the conclusion that "the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved" is the author of the Fourth Gospel. 
 But there is ground for questioning whether this 
 beloved disciple be identical with John, son of Zebedee. 
 Evidently he is a comparatively young man, perhaps 
 a very young man^. The probability is, that he has 
 a house of his own at Jerusalem^. If he alludes to his 
 acquaintance with the High Priest^ in a modest way 
 the inference perhaps is that he is a man of good social 
 position*. 
 
 (/3) Indirect Evidence. 
 
 Here we look away from passages noticed in the 
 preceding section. For the moment we cease to take 
 account of direct evidence in the shape of hints and 
 allusions and express statements as to authorship. The 
 
 1 XX. 4. 
 
 2 xix. 27. 
 
 3 xviii. 15, 16. That "other disciple" is surely the beloved 
 disciple himself. 
 
 •* But cf. Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 101. If, however, 
 there be any question of the "servants' hall" it is surely Peter who 
 has to stay there while the beloved disciple has the entree. The 
 present writer is informed by an American clergyman that the 
 latter's daughter, a girl of 15, expressed herself to the same effect. 
 
80 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 question is now solely of the indirect evidence : we are 
 to ask, that is, what is the impression conveyed by the 
 style and the manner of the narrative generally ? Is 
 it one which raises thoughts of a mere secondary 
 historian very far removed from scenes and events 
 which he delineates with artistic skill ? Or, on the 
 other hand, is it an impression that first-hand knowledge 
 must be admitted ; that only an eye-witness could have 
 penned this Fourth Gospel ? 
 
 First of all we turn to our two recent German 
 critics. One of them, it would appear, has little, if any- 
 thing, to serve our purpose here ; as for the other, he 
 has "an array of additional reasons^" in support of the 
 traditional authorship accepted by him. Briefly stated 
 they are as follows :— The Gospel presents a number 
 of detached features which, in themselves absolutely 
 unessential^, are alone explicable as personal remin- 
 iscences. That the two first disciples came to Jesus 
 at exactly four o'clock in the afternoon, that the 
 water-pots at Cana numbered precisely six, that Jesus 
 was in the treasury when he spoke of Himself as the 
 Light of the World; all these details are irrelevant 
 enough ; the point is that they betray vivid recollections 
 of a narrator who never stays to ask whether a thing 
 be trivial or not, but who will describe scenes photo- 
 graphed on his mind — even side incidents. Hence it 
 
 1 Earth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 7. 
 
 2 Cf. Eeuss, Geschichte d. Heil. Schriften d. N. T., p. 207. 
 
INDIRECT EVIDENCE 81 
 
 is that this or that description given in the Fourth 
 Gospel is so eminently realistic ; and that in the case 
 of the stories told (as, e.g. of the woman of Samaria, 
 of the man born blind, of the raising of Lazarus, of 
 Mary of Magdala at the tomb) the scene is, as it were, 
 re-enacted before our eyes. And as for the language 
 of the Gospel, assuredly it points to a member of the 
 primitive Church ; penned indeed in Greek for Greek 
 readers for whom Hebrew terms and customs must 
 be explained; but revealing throughout a distinctly 
 Semitic mode of thought by its phraseology, its frequent 
 Hebraisms, its comparatively small vocabulary. John's 
 diction has closest affinity, not with the literature of 
 Hellenistic Judaism, but with that of Palestinian 
 learning. That the Jewish Christian who holds the 
 pen knows his subject as only an eye-witness can know 
 it, is clear from his independent attitude in regard to 
 the S}Tioptic Gospels^. 
 
 But this last sentence raises questions which must 
 be deferred for the present. The previous contentions 
 will amount to this : the author of the Fourth Gospel 
 is resident in a Greek-speaking community — he is 
 himself a Jew — there is ground for recognising in him 
 a Jew of Palestine — evidently he is a member of the 
 infant Church at Jerusalem — so graphically does he 
 write that he must have first-hand knowledge of the 
 events narrated — the trivial details he records establish 
 
 ^ Barth, Das Johamiesevangelium, pp. 7, 8. 
 
82 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 it that he is an eye-witness. Nor will the conclusions 
 stop short here ; he will be identified (as will be 
 remembered) with that beloved disciple who is John 
 son of Zebedee. 
 
 There need be no difficulty on the first point. 
 Beyond doubt the author writes his Gospel for a 
 Greek-speaking community, or communities ; for, apart 
 from his use of the Greek language, he is careful to 
 give translations^ and explanations^. His place of 
 residence at the time of writing may well have been 
 in Asia Minor. 
 
 But was he a Jew ? The question has been 
 answered in the negative by a master of English prose : 
 the author is "a sincere Christian, a man of literary 
 talent certainly, and a Greek... not a fisherman of 
 Galilee^." A negative reply was made a hundred years 
 ago and more by one who expressed his views on the 
 Fourth Gospel generally in unchastened language: — 
 "satisfactory proof" was discovered by him that the 
 author was "no Apostle, nor any Jew*." And negations 
 are heard still : it is noticeable, however, that there is 
 a marked tendency to answer in the affirmative ; even 
 in quarters where the Johannine authorship of the 
 Gospel is disallowed. The author, it is said, has come 
 
 1 i. 42 ; ix. 7 ; xx. 16. 
 
 2 ii. 6 ; xix. 31. 
 
 3 M. Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 284. 
 "* Evanson, Dissonance d'c, p. 226. 
 
INDIRECT EVIDENCE 83 
 
 from and belonged to Jewish Christianity^. "There is 
 nothing to preclude his Jewish birth; his style and 
 methods of presentment favour its admission^." "John, 
 like Paul, was a Jew" is the candid avowal of one who 
 will not reckon him of the number of the Twelve ^ 
 It is precisely the conclusion to which we ourselves 
 are led. Features may be presented by the Gospel 
 necessitating a more or less qualified assent to state- 
 ments that "we find ourselves on Greek soil, we are 
 breathing a Greek atmosphere*"; the conviction will 
 remain unshaken that it comes from a Jewish hand. 
 It suggests that a foreign language has been acquired, 
 but not so mastered that thought can be expressed in 
 it without effort, that all its resources are fully at 
 command. In respect to form and diction there are 
 traces unmistakeable of the casting from a mould which 
 is no Greek mould; "the style of the narrative alone is 
 conclusive as to its Jewish authorship^." Hebraisms 
 are indeed plentiful ; significant the facility with which 
 readers are informed as to Jewish customs and con- 
 ditions^; still more significant is it that Old Testament 
 allusions and references point sometimes from the 
 
 ^ Weizsacker, AjJos. Age, ii. p. 218. 
 
 2 H. J. Holtzmann, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 16. 
 
 3 von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Prim. Ch., p. 218; Probleme 
 des Apos. Zeitalters, pp. 92, 93. 
 
 4 Wernle, Quellen dc, p. 28. 
 
 5 Westcott, St John, p. vi. See Thoma, Genesis des Evan. Johan., 
 p. 787, " Er hat mit der Muttermilch judische Denkart eingesogen." 
 
 ^ H. J. Holtzmann, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 16. 
 
 6—2 
 
84 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 Septuagint to the Hebrew Bible ^. If again and again 
 the author makes use of the term "the Jews" he is not 
 necessarily of a different nationality ; the manner of 
 the allusion would be perfectly natural in one writing 
 for foreigners in a foreign land. This resident in, let 
 us agree, Asia Minor, is, it appears certain, himself 
 a Jew. 
 
 A Jew, but of what sort ? A Jew of the Dispersion, 
 a Hellenistic Jew, one of a family long settled in some 
 region remote from the Holy Land ? Or a Jew of 
 Palestine, one whose earlier home had been in the very 
 country marked by the footsteps of the Son of Man ? 
 It is, beyond doubt, "inconceivable that a Gentile, 
 living at a distance from the scene of religious and 
 political controversy, which he paints, could have 
 realised as the Evangelist has done, with vivid and 
 unerring accuracy, the relations of parties and interests 
 which ceased to exist at the Fall of Jerusalem 2"; but 
 the thought is now no longer of a Gentile but a Jew ; 
 of a Jew, further, who evidently knows his way about 
 the Holy City, who has travelled in Judaea and Galilee, 
 who is by no means ignorant of the topography of 
 Palestine generally. Granted, for the moment, that 
 his work must be assigned, not to Palestinian, but to 
 
 1 Thus, e.g. xix. 37 (cf. Zech. xii. 10 where the lxx. reading is 
 '• because they danced in triumph " or " insulted "). Cf. Druramond, 
 Character and Authorship dx., p. 363. 
 
 2 Westcott, St John, p. x. 
 
INDIRECT EVIDENCE 85 
 
 Hellenistic Judaism^; may he not be after all some 
 foreign Jew who, through force of circumstances, has 
 spent long years in the land so dear to every Jewish 
 heart ? The conjecture, if tempting, becomes impossible 
 with a closer study of his narrative. It does indeed 
 prompt us to regard him as a Palestinian Jew ; if not 
 to "say more definitely" that he is "a Jerusalem Jew^." 
 He is, perhaps, "equally at home in the provinces^." 
 
 A third question arises; is this Palestinian Jew 
 one whose place was within the Jewish Christian circle 
 of the earliest days ? The conviction grows upon us 
 that he is : — assuredly he sets down much that no 
 Stephen, Saul, or Barnabas could possibly have told; 
 but which is readily accounted for if he be one of the 
 "hundred and twenty" referred to in Acts i. 15. We 
 are inclined to connect him with events which date 
 back to the days of Jesus : and this is practically to 
 accept the theory that his narrative is based on first- 
 hand knowledge. 
 
 Is he, then, one of the eye-witnesses ? It would seem 
 so ; but an eye-witness of what sort ? Eye-witness he 
 might have been and withal a Greek ; had we not recog- 
 nised in him the Palestinian Jew, the mention of certain 
 
 ^ H. J. Holtzmann, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 16. 
 
 - von Dobschiitz, Christian Life d'c, p. 218. See also Schlatter, 
 Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten, p. 8. 
 
 3 McClymont, St John {Century Bible), p. 17. On the other hand 
 Thoma {Genesis des Evan. Joh., p. 788) decides that he had no personal 
 geographical knowledge of the Holy Land. 
 
86 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 Greeks who desired to see Jesus ^ might have been 
 regarded as suggestive. Eye-witness he might have 
 been, and withal a Hellenist; one of many foreign 
 Jews who, thronging to Jerusalem on great occasions 2, 
 had both seen and heard Jesus. But the question 
 shall be narrowed down to this : is he one of those who 
 had companied with regular disciples from the very 
 first^? It might appear so from the wording of his 
 narrative. Not that he forces himself upon the gaze ; 
 on the contrary, he will evidently remain in the 
 background ; the touches are, however, such that time 
 after time we seem to feel his presence. There may 
 be an occasional departure from strict accuracy of 
 statement^: if so, it is to be explained by the confused 
 memories of later life ; by the fact that, in any case, 
 there was a long interval between the event narrated 
 and the telling of the tale. There may be, here and 
 there, a difficulty : so detailed is the record of the con- 
 verse held by Jesus with the woman of Samaria that it 
 almost necessitates the presence of a third party in the 
 
 1 xii. 21. - Acts ii. 5. ^ Acts i. 21, 22. 
 
 * There is certainly a difficulty in iv. 44 (cf. Matt. xiii. 57, Mark 
 vi. 4, Luke iv. 24). So again in xi. 49 : it is argued that the author 
 conceives of the High-priesthood as an annual office, which it was 
 not. The allusion has been explained of "the year of the Lord" 
 (Westcott, St John, p. 174). Delff offers two ingenious explanations 
 {Rabbi Jesus, pp. 85 fif.). See also H. J. Holtzmann, Das Evan, des 
 Johannes^ p. 160 ; Jiilicher, Einleit., p. 420. And cf. Keim, Geschichte 
 Jesu von Nazara, i. p. 133. 
 
• INDIRECT EVIDENCE 87 
 
 person of the narrator ; it is precisely he who gives us 
 the impression that Jesus had been left entirely alone 
 by the disciples^. On the other hand there is a great 
 deal which can only be interpreted of "the knowledge 
 of actual experience^." The impression left on our 
 minds, then, amounts to this : the author of the Fourth 
 Gospel is one who evidently lived and moved in the 
 scenes which he depicts. Companion of disciples, he is 
 an attached follower of Jesus. 
 
 Is there anything else that can be safely affirmed 
 of him ? To judge from more than one passage he 
 is one who seems to know instinctively what is passing 
 in the minds of others; hence he appears to be dis- 
 tinguished by powers of perception of a singularly high 
 order. Nor are those powers exercised in the case of 
 his fellow-disciples only; again, judging from what is 
 said, this attached follower is able to read the inmost 
 mind of Jesus Himself. As we find him actually 
 setting down what Jesus thought and felt, we are 
 constrained to add : he is one whose relations with 
 Jesus appear to have been singularly close. 
 
 And then we are again met by two alternatives. 
 Either the Fourth Evangelist has a perfectly marvellous 
 faculty for projecting himself back into a remote 
 past and investing a narrative based on second-hand 
 knowledge with all the air of reality; or he is verily 
 and indeed one who will tell of events and circumstances 
 ^ iv. 8. 2 Westcott, St John, p. xix. 
 
88 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 which have transpired within his own range of ex- 
 perience. Of the two alternatives — at this stage, at 
 any rate — we are inclined to prefer the second. 
 
 Here we may set down some results to which the 
 internal evidence, direct and indirect, appears to have 
 pointed us. 
 
 The author of the Fourth Gospel is probably an 
 eye-witness. The indications of personal knowledge 
 possessed by him would seem to necessitate the 
 conclusion that he was a frequent, quite possibly a 
 regular, companion of Jesus. There is ground for 
 believing that he was admitted to a close intimacy 
 with Jesus; hence the conjecture is reasonable that 
 Jesus regarded him with peculiar affection. The 
 eye-witness, then, is one whom Jesus loves, and with 
 the love of moral choice. 
 
 It is an eye-witness who claims to be author of the 
 Fourth Gospel. There is a personal allusion which, if 
 strangely worded, appears to identify him with one 
 who, with hallowed memories, will designate himself 
 as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"; and such we are 
 prepared to deem him. If he gives himself out as the 
 narrator we are disposed to accept his word. When 
 unknown friends of his testify to the fact of his 
 authorship we are slow to disbelieve their statements. 
 
 The Fourth Evangelist, then, appears to stand 
 revealed in that beloved disciple who is a real historical 
 
INDIRECT EVIDENCE 89 
 
 personage. The latter would seem to be a comparatively 
 young man; the youngest, in all likelihood, of the 
 companions of Jesus. He is comfortably off, if not 
 well-to-do. In regard to station in life he perhaps 
 belongs to the upper classes. His type of mind is such 
 that a work like the Fourth Gospel may well have 
 come from him in after life. That he should ever 
 have penned, and in a language not his own, a work 
 establishing his claim to the higher gifts of style and 
 diction is, perhaps, more than doubtful. But this 
 Fourth Gospel is no such work. That it is a work 
 of "tender and unearthly beauty" is unquestionable; 
 perhaps it reminds us of "solemn cathedral voluntaries" 
 improvised on the organ of human language. The 
 author is, indeed, one who has pondered much and 
 whose mind seethes with splendid thoughts; the fact 
 remains that facility to give his thoughts elegant and 
 terse expression is not his. He is no master in the 
 field of letters. It is, after all, a just criticism which 
 bids us remark that his ideas, if sublime, are few ; that 
 they are continually reiterated and in scarcely differing 
 forms ; that there is a poverty of vocabulary, a sameness 
 in manner of presentment^. And a precisely similar 
 criticism is made by one who identifies the Evangelist 
 with John, son of Zebedee: "If the same great con- 
 ceptions and ideas return over and over again, the 
 
 ^ Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 389. von Soden remarks: "The 
 smallest amount of linguistic versatility is shown in the Johannine 
 writings." Early Christ. Literature, p. 13. 
 
90 OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 language becomes almost monotonous, colourless, — yes, 
 almost poor I" To repeat : the Fourth Gospel may well 
 have come from such an one as the beloved disciple. 
 
 Again we ask : who, then, is this beloved disciple ? 
 It is just here that tentative conclusion becomes mere 
 conjecture, that we begin to hesitate. Nowhere are we 
 expressly told that he is one of the Twelve. On the 
 one hand we find much that tempts us to identify him 
 with that younger son of Zebedee who, figuring in his 
 narrative, is never named; on the other hand the 
 inclination sometimes becomes strong to believe that 
 he is actually distinguishing himself, not merely from 
 the Apostolic band, but from that very Apostle who 
 would be accounted a "pillar" of the Church 2. Is he, 
 we ask, obviously the Apostle John himself because he 
 nowhere deems it needful to speak of his namesake, 
 the son of Zachariah by the familiar title of "the 
 Baptist"? We ask further: is it conceivable that, if 
 the author of the Fourth Gospel be really a renowned 
 Apostle, there should be felt necessity to testify to the 
 veracity of what he has set down in writing? The 
 former suggestion is, beyond doubt, weighty; as for 
 the latter, we refuse to demand that the nameless 
 witnesses should anticipate hostile criticism to be 
 passed on them long centuries afterwards. Would it 
 
 1 Luthardt, St John's Gospel, p. 19 ; but cf. Westcott, St John, 
 pp. 1, li. 
 
 2 Gal. ii. 9. Schwartz {XJeher den Tod der Sohne Zeb., p. 5) suggests 
 that the John of St Paul's allusion is John Mark. 
 
INDIRECT EVIDENCE 91 
 
 ever occur to the "we" of xxi. 24 that exception 
 might be taken to the manner of their statement ? 
 
 As yet no decisive word seems possible. A moment's 
 consideration may, however, be given here to a con- 
 jecture (already hinted at) which is, at least, plausible, 
 and which rests on the assumption that the beloved 
 disciple and John, son of Zebedee, are two distinct 
 persons. They are, both of them, comparatively young 
 men; perchance, for the sake of argument, they bear 
 the same name — a very common one. Long years 
 afterwards they both find themselves in Asia Minor, 
 at Ephesus. If they are both high in the estimation 
 and affection of the Christian communities, it is the 
 latter, John, son of Zebedee, who has the pre-eminence. 
 And then the time comes when the "spiritual gospel" 
 is composed ; the beloved disciple pens it : John, son of 
 Zebedee, aids with his store of memories and approves. 
 And so light is thrown on that mysterious reference 
 in xix. 35 which, according to one theory, must be 
 explained of a third party. " He that hath seen " will 
 then be "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in all the 
 consciousness that his record is true. For himself and 
 for his readers there is another personage to testify- 
 that his narrative is true to fact; and so with his "that 
 man knoweth" he points, not to the Ascended Master, 
 but to the still living servant, the aged Apostle John. 
 
 It is but a conjecture. There are elements of 
 plausibility in it. Whether it will stand the test of 
 careful scrutiny is more than doubtful. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS. 
 
 Another stage of our inquiry is now entered, and 
 it will be a lengthy stage. It will be convenient to 
 have before us the very tentative conclusions thus far 
 arrived at, and in condensed form. 
 
 It was agreed that a prolonged residence of the 
 Apostle John in Asia Minor, in Ephesus, was highly 
 probable. The unanimity with which early writers 
 identify the beloved disciple with the Evangelist was 
 duly noted; it was also remarked that, at the crucial 
 point, some refrain from using the decisive word 
 Apostle, and refer to him in terms which might be 
 equally indicative of John the Presbyter. If on the 
 one hand there was ground for the belief that "in some 
 way or other John son of Zebedee stands behind the 
 Gospel which bears his name," so, on the other hand, 
 the possibility was recognised that the idea that the 
 Apostle himself was pen-man might, with the lapse of 
 time, have been substituted for that of a work not 
 actually written by him but owing much — perhaps its 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 93 
 
 very existence — to his teaching and inspiration^. That 
 the Gospel itself claimed to be by an eye-witness 
 appeared undeniable; and of two alternatives preference 
 was given, if guardedly, to that which points to an 
 actual looker-on at scenes and occurrences which he 
 professes to relate. An impression was gained that, 
 whoever the author was, his relations with Jesus had 
 been singularly close. In the end it appeared possible 
 that, even were he not the Apostle and son of Zebedee, 
 the disciple whom Jesus loved was one and the self- 
 same personage with the Fourth Evangelist. 
 
 Beyond the above very tentative conclusions we 
 were unable to go. In the first place, difficulties 
 presented by the external and internal evidence were 
 realised; hence the note of hesitation which was heard 
 continually. And again, as may already have occurred 
 to us, there may be something more to be considered 
 before the region of conjecture can be quitted for one 
 of greater certainty. 
 
 As a matter of fact there is something more. Up 
 to the present we have concerned ourselves with two 
 sets of testimony only; the testimony of ancient 
 authorities, the testimony of the Fourth Gospel itself: 
 there are other documents which must now be 
 questioned. The time, that is, has come when the 
 Fourth Gospel must be confronted with the three other 
 
 1 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Die Entstehung des N. T., p. 43. 
 
94 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 Gospels; those which, bearing the names of Matthew, 
 Mark and Luke, are commonly spoken of, from their 
 general similarity in narrative and point of view, as 
 the Synoptic Gospels. Will any decisive word as to 
 the authorship of the Fourth Gospel be spoken by 
 them ? Will they substantiate or disallow the historicity 
 of its contents? And, after all, this second question 
 of historicity is "ultimately the more important^" 
 question than that of authorship. Glad, no doubt, 
 should we be if cumulative evidence be decisive that 
 the author is really the Apostle and son of Zebedee. 
 If the substantial accuracy of its contents^ can be 
 vouched for there will be less reluctance to admit (if 
 finally compelled to do so) that the Johannine author- 
 ship is either not proved or that it cannot be maintained. 
 Not by St John himself; and yet a narrative which 
 deserves credence. 
 
 But the comparison has been already instituted by 
 many: with the result that an array of reasons are 
 advanced for disallowing the genuineness and credibility 
 of a Gospel which, from its admittedly peculiar character 
 (a peculiarity obvious — if not to every Sunday School 
 scholar — at any rate to careful and instructed readers)^ 
 is generally grouped apart by itself, separately from 
 the Synoptics. 
 
 1 Schmiedel, Encycl Bibl, ii. 2518. 
 
 2 Cf. Barth, Das Johannesevavgelium, p. 5. 
 
 3 Julicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 387 ; cf. Wernle, Quellen dC-c., p. 14. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 95 
 
 The aforesaid reasons are summarised by Barth^. 
 Nineteenth century criticism, says he, will have it that 
 the Gospel is no record of actual events, but a manual 
 of instruction on Jesus as the divine Logos manifested 
 in the Flesh. As for its author, he is no Apostle and 
 eye-witness; he is some unknown Christian of the 
 second century whose own impressions of Christianity 
 have taken the form of a narrative concerning Christ. 
 If the Gospel be ruled out as a source for the life of 
 Jesus it is from its marked contrast with the Synoptic 
 Gospels; a contrast specially observable (it is alleged) 
 in regard to two main points, the portrait of Jesus, and 
 the manner and the subject-matter of His discourses. 
 If the S3rnoptics portray Him as true child of His age 
 and people, as great prophet-preacher, as proclaimer of 
 the Kingdom of God and healer of the sick, as human 
 in His every lineament and sharer in all the experiences 
 which are the lot of man, the Johannine Christ, on the 
 other hand, is pictured as a divine Being come down 
 from heaven to move as a stranger on this earth, who 
 makes men realise His ascendancy, whose mighty works 
 are done, not from compassion, but to manifest His 
 glory and to lead up to profound spiritual reflections, 
 who discourses of His own divine origin instead of 
 inculcating righteousness and pointing to the Heavenly 
 Father, who speaks of Himself in metaphor, who treats 
 
 1 Barth, Bas Johannesevangelium, pp. 10-13. The passage is 
 given in substance. 
 
96 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 His compatriots as children of the Evil one and doomed 
 to destruction, His disciples are no longer rescued 
 sinners but seekers after truth, good people and not 
 sinners flock to hear His words. In the Christ of the 
 Fourth Gospel, it is said, there is no trace of development; 
 from the very first He is Son of God, Messiah, omniscient, 
 scarce feeling for Himself the need of prayer. Unfamiliar 
 traits these ; they are all traceable to conceptions 
 borrowed from Philo's writings, and hence a portrait in 
 which the historical Jesus cannot possibly be discerned. 
 As for the characters, they are all made to speak in the 
 same Johannine language. Very seldom is the question 
 of the Kingdom of God, repentance, righteousness ; the 
 talk is ever of light and darkness, life and death, truth 
 and lie, heaven and earth, the world and God — favourite 
 ideas of the author which, repeated to monotony, betray 
 his dualistic tendencies. Of such sort, says Barth, are 
 the indictments ; then, when the question is asked how 
 any second century writer should have so completely 
 transformed the life and personality of Jesus, conjectures 
 of all sorts are put forward by way of answer. For some 
 the author of the Gospel is a Gnostic, for others an 
 an ti- Gnostic ; his work is viewed as a polemic against 
 Judaism with its refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah; 
 a special tendency is suspected against the little sect 
 of adherents of the Baptist; it is held to reflect the 
 strifes and dissensions of the second century. There 
 may be no getting away from the idea that the Gospel 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 97 
 
 does embody genuine reminiscences from the days of 
 Jesus: then it is a Christian of Asia Minor who has 
 pieced together what some Jerusalem disciples may 
 have told; a later redactor may have interspersed with 
 narratives some collection of sayings which were current 
 under the name of John; the author of the entire 
 Gospel is indeed a John, but not the Apostle. The 
 latter suffered martyrdom as Jesus had foretold; hence 
 the Fourth Evangelist is John the Presbyter. 
 
 Thus far Barth in his enumeration of objections 
 raised. It will be observed that there is no detailed 
 reference to alleged discrepancies and contradictions; 
 elsewhere, however, pointed allusion is made to the very 
 free handling by the Fourth Evangelist of the Synoptics^. 
 Turning to Wernle we find him by no means anxious 
 to condense in his cross-questioning of the Fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 What, then, has he to say on the subject 2? The 
 marked peculiarity of the Fourth Gospel is accentuated, 
 and stress laid on the two utterly unlike portraits of 
 Jesus. Meagre indeed is the material common to all 
 four Gospels; in respect to the beginnings and the ends 
 there may be indeed a strong family resemblance, but 
 even there differences are apparent; but rarely are the 
 intervening narratives found to coincide. Fourth Gospel 
 
 1 Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 8. 
 
 2 Wernle, Die Quellen (&c., pp. 14-22. It will be understood that 
 only the substance of the passage is given. 
 
 J. 7 
 
98 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 and Synoptics part company in regard to the dates 
 assigned to great events. In the one case we are 
 pointed to Jerusalem as chief centre of a three years' 
 ministry, in the other Galilee is for a single year the 
 chief scene of action. Here the Baptist is the mere 
 witness to Jesus; there he figures conspicuously as the 
 great prophet of repentance. If we are told by the one 
 authority that the vision at the Baptism was to assure 
 the Baptist of the Messiahship of Jesus, the others have 
 been quick to explain it of a sign for Jesus Himself. 
 Fundamental is the difference which startles us in 
 the respective stories of the Passion, the Death, the 
 Resurrection. Not only is there the enhancement of 
 miracle; while the Synoptic Jesus is moved by tender 
 pity to His many deeds of love, the Johannine Christ 
 performs His signs as proofs of His divine omnipotence. 
 Discrepancies like all these are striking enough, but 
 what is infinitely more striking is the difference of 
 style and diction and subject-matter in the reported 
 sayings and discourses of Jesus. Never before in the 
 world's history have any two men illustrated such a 
 total diversity in respect to mode of speech as do the 
 Jesus of the Synoptics and the Christ of the Fourth 
 Evangelist; not only is the language essentially different, 
 but where the one is ever speaking of doing the will of 
 God the other is Himself sum and substance of His own 
 utterances. And again, changed is the attitude of Jesus 
 towards His own nation, the Jews, — those Jews who in 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 99 
 
 the one case are portrayed in picturesque variety of 
 class and section, who in the other have dwindled down 
 to Pharisees, High Priests, perhaps also the Synoptic 
 elders of the people; the Pharisees are now the very 
 core of unbelieving Judaism in its hostility to Jesus; 
 the Jews have persisted in their unbelief from the very 
 first; while they are pictured as in hopeless case there 
 is brought in that story so full of hope of certain Greeks 
 who will fain see Jesus. The Jew^s to the devil, the 
 Greeks for Jesus and for God! — so might we not 
 unwarrantably understand this Fourth Evangelist who 
 in his very Prologue directs our gaze to the Logos ever 
 working in the world at large. It is to have travelled 
 once for all beyond the range of vision of the Synoptic 
 Jesus. 
 
 Thus do our two authors marshal the arguments 
 -against the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, and withal 
 against the traditional belief that it was penned by an 
 Apostle of the Lord. For the one they are arguments 
 which fail to shake his faith in the reliability of the 
 Gospel and its Johannine authorship; as for the other 
 they are decisive on the other side, and he rules the 
 Gospel out as a source for the life and sayings of Jesus. 
 To w^hich of the two shall we give our adhesion? 
 
 An admission must be made in any case. It cannot 
 be denied for a moment that the Fourth Gospel does, 
 in many respects, present a marked contrast to the 
 other three, the Synoptics. True indeed that there 
 
 7—2 
 
100 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 are features common to both groups, resemblances; 
 it is equally true that discrepancies stare us in the 
 face^. They have stared others in the face before us; 
 as a matter of fact our two authors have been but 
 repeating — now and again almost word for word — the 
 adverse criticisms of more than a century ago as well 
 as those of more recent, of our own, times ^. That such 
 objections are being reproduced to-day and accounted 
 valid ^ is certainly suggestive of doubts not fully laid, 
 of difficulties still held insuperable by honest minds. 
 Nor is it a little significant that, of those who uphold 
 the Johannine authorship and general historicity of the 
 Fourth Gospel, there are some who, alive to its peculiar 
 features, are prepared with concessions and qualifica- 
 tions*. 
 
 Here the question arises : why the undisguised 
 preference to be remarked in many for the Synoptic 
 Gospels ? 
 
 A word or two, then, about the Synoptics. As ha& 
 been remarked already, two of them, Mark and Luke, 
 are not by eye-witnesses at all; a third, Matthew, in 
 
 ^ Wernle, Die Quellen d;c., p. 22. 
 
 2 Cf. Evanson, Dissonance dc, pp. 221, 222, 226, 233 ; Bret- 
 schneider, Probabilia, pp. 1-4 ; Hilgenfeld, Einleit., pp. 703, 704, 707,. 
 711, 712. Differences were also remarked by the ancients; cf. Euseb.,. 
 H. E., III. 24. 
 
 3 As, e.g., by H. J. Holtzmann, 0. Holtzmann, Soltau, Bacon. 
 
 * As, e.g., Barth, Westcott, McClymont, J. Armitage Robinson^ 
 Stephens. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 101 
 
 its present form, is of obscure origin. Alike they are 
 anonymous compositions. Three separate and in- 
 dependent authorities they are not; two of the authors 
 have had the third before them, and incorporated the 
 greater part of his work into their own narratives. 
 The priority of Mark is now generally regarded as 
 established^; Matthew and Luke are both dependent 
 on it; they have also made use of other sources, of 
 what is called "the non-Marcan document^"; each of 
 them has in addition matter peculiar to himself. Their 
 narratives, that is, are composite in their nature ; several 
 strata of evangelic record are to be distinguished in 
 them. That primary and secondary elements are also 
 to be discerned is more than probable. In that case 
 the earlier tradition, the primary elements, will be 
 forthcoming in the main, not exclusively, in the Mark 
 Gospel. 
 
 To word our question somewhat differently: why 
 is the earlier tradition embodied in the Synoptics so 
 evidently preferred to the narrative given by the 
 Fourth Evangelist? 
 
 One answer has been more than hinted at. The 
 preference is accounted for by reluctance to admit the 
 full divinity of the Lord Christ as it appears to shine 
 
 1 Soltau, Unsere Evan., p. 19 ; Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 8. The 
 existence of an "Ur-Markus" is contended for; as, e.g., J. Weiss, 
 Das dlteste Evangelium. 
 
 2 J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 49. 
 
102 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 out in the pages of the Fourth Gospel on the part 
 of those who find Him pictured in the Synoptics as 
 towering indeed above His fellow-men, but never for 
 a moment ceasing to belong to humanity alone ^. For 
 the present, however, we content ourselves with another 
 answer; merely remarking in passing (and not for the 
 first time) that there is also a realisation of difficulty 
 in quarters where the divinity of Jesus is fully owned » 
 And the answer to be given is this : of the four Gospels 
 the Fourth Gospel is, beyond question, the latest 
 Gospel. As for the Synoptic Gospels, belonging as 
 they do to an earlier period, they enable us to get 
 nearer to the events narrated in them 2. The earlier 
 the narrative the greater the likelihood of its substantial 
 accuracy; hence justification for the preference in 
 question. That weight should be attached to evidence 
 forthcoming from the Synoptics is, then, but natural. 
 It would still be reasonable, were it proved conclusively 
 that the Fourth Evangelist was the Apostle John 
 himself. Penned at a late date and in extreme old 
 age his narrative might quite conceivably bear traces 
 of his failing memory. 
 
 Again we decide to look into the matter for 
 ourselves, limiting the range of inquiry to some main 
 points, and noting what may be said by our two authors 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Qnellen (&c., p. 30. 
 
 2 "The history of the Synoptic tradition stretches back to the 
 very life-time of Jesus." (Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 374.) 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 103 
 
 as to discrepancies cleared up, vain attempts at recon- 
 ciliation. One of them (Barth) has some remarks 
 which we are quick to make our own: the answer to 
 questions raised, says he, will vary with varying con- 
 ceptions of the divine revelation to man; and it is 
 nothing short of a boon that the Church is no longer 
 fettered by mechanical theories of inspiration and 
 interpretation which are alike unbiblical and mis- 
 leading^. What we too contend for is a frank recog- 
 nition of the varying personalities of those whose 
 narratives are before us. They are no passive agents, 
 "living pens grasped by an Almighty Hand^," in- 
 voluntary scribes of divinely dictated utterances. Each 
 one has his tale to tell; each one will, and does, tell it 
 in his own way, and so that his own proper individuality 
 is never lost. 
 
 Then there is something which may be set down 
 at once. As compared with the Synoptics the Fourth 
 Gospel does unquestionably present certain peculiarities; 
 — well, it is precisely what might be expected. The 
 individualities of the respective writers are diverse; 
 their style, standpoint, methods of presentment are 
 
 1 Cf. Barth, Das Johannesevdngelium, pp. 13, 14. It is regrettable 
 that the Australian Bishops, departing from the language of the Sixth 
 Article, should write in their recent Pastoral Letter: "The Bible 
 is... the word of God." 
 
 2 Cf. von Dobschiitz, Der gegemodrtige Stand der N.T. -lichen 
 Exegese: "Das Bibelbuch gait als Einheit, die Einzelverfasser nur 
 als Griff el des hi. Geistes." 
 
104 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 certain to be characterised by diversity. And again, 
 there should be nothing abnormal in the fact that this 
 or that Evangelist — let us say the Fourth Evangelist — 
 should refrain from attempting to cover the whole 
 ground, or that he should complete, supply what was 
 lacking in, the other narratives^. 
 
 But is the question simply of a diversity of this 
 sort? If so there would be little need to pursue our 
 inquiry further, for the peculiarities noticeable in the 
 Fourth Gospel would be sufficiently accounted for. 
 As it is we have to remark not merely a variety at 
 once natural and intelligible, but alleged inaccuracies, 
 discrepancies, contradictions, marked differences of 
 conception. The credible, it is said, is discoverable 
 in the Synoptics; not in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 We proceed with our inquiry, contrasting the 
 Fourth Gospel more particularly with the Mark Gospel, 
 and chiefly directing our attention to the following 
 topics : Chronology, the Scene of the Ministry, John 
 the Baptist, Miracles, the Discourses, the Johannine 
 and Synoptic portraits of Jesus. 
 
 1 Zahn, Einleit., ii. p. 499. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 105 
 
 I. Chronology. 
 
 The independent attitude of the Fourth Evangelist 
 to the Synoptics is shown by his extension of the period 
 of our Lord's ministry, by his bold transpositions of 
 events and dates. 
 
 We take first the date assigned to the beginning 
 of the ministry. Here, at first sight, the narratives 
 appear to be mutually exclusive: the Mark Gospel 
 informs us that it was not until after the Baptist's 
 imprisonment that Jesus entered upon His work^: 
 from the Fourth Gospel we learn that He had already 
 come forward at a time when the Baptist was still at 
 liberty and the centre of attraction 2. Only then we are 
 met by a difficulty raised by the Synoptist himself; 
 when he relates the calling of Simon and Andrew and 
 the two sons of Zebedee^. They are pictured as at 
 once abandoning their occupation to follow One who, 
 if the former statement is to be understood literally, 
 would be an entire stranger to them. That they 
 should render prompt obedience is alone explicable 
 on the ground that Jesus was already well known to 
 
 1 Mark i. 14 ; Matt. iv. 12 ; cf. Luke iii. 20, where the allusion 
 does not necessarily fix the date. 
 
 2 John iii. 23, 24. 
 
 3 Mark i. 16-20 ; Matt. iv. 18-22. Luke (v. 11) appears careful to 
 lead up to his "they forsook all, and followed Him." 
 
106 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 them, that they had already felt His constraining 
 influence. We are led, in short, to infer previous 
 acquaintance; discipleship at an earlier stage; work 
 already done by Jesus which had rivetted the attention 
 of the two pairs of brothers and prepared them for the 
 more definite call. If the Synoptists do not actually 
 go back upon their own statements, they certainly 
 invite conjectures of what may have been a more 
 private ministry begun at the earlier date and tem- 
 porarily relinquished. The Fourth Evangelist, with 
 his fuller details, supplies that which the circumstances 
 manifestly require^. 
 
 Again, the Sjraoptics appear to indicate that the 
 public ministry of Jesus was begun and ended within 
 a single year; the Fourth Evangelist, on the other 
 hand, expands it to a period which includes no less 
 than three Passovers^. It has, indeed, been suggested 
 that all three Passovers were, in reality, the same, but 
 this is unlikely ; the question is whether the Synoptic 
 narrative does not, after all, postulate the more pro- 
 longed ministry. True that but one Passover is ex- 
 pressly mentioned; the difficulty remains of compressing 
 the numerous events recorded, the many journeyings 
 
 1 As, e.g., in John i. 40-42 ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., in. 24. Wernle 
 appears to allow this {Die Quellen (&c., p. 23). 
 
 2 John ii. 13 (not v. 1); vi. 14; xi. 1. Stanley {Sermons on the 
 Apos. Age) has some remarks on the far longer ministry alluded to by 
 Irenaeus. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 107 
 
 to and fro, within so short a space of time^. Allusions 
 to seasons of the year are also discoverable^ which are 
 suggestive of the longer period. The Fourth Evangelist 
 is evidently nearer the mark ; and the other three are 
 implicitly in agreement with him. 
 
 In the foregoing instances it is comparatively easy 
 to reconcile the accounts given. Far less easy is it 
 when the episode of the Cleansing of the Temple is 
 brought in question. According to the Fourth Evan- 
 gelist it occurred at the beginning of the ministry^; 
 the Synoptic Gospels with one voice testify that it 
 happened at the close*. 
 
 Attempts have been made to bridge over the diffi- 
 culty. We are asked to believe that a Cleansing of 
 the Temple really took place on two distinct occasions, 
 but this surely appears improbable to a degree. There 
 is truth in the remark : " such a demonstrative act, the 
 expression of a holy zeal, can only once be morally 
 justified^." The natural conclusion is that we have 
 but one event to think of; then the question is, to 
 which period does it belong ? 
 
 We are inclined, perhaps, to decide forthwith in 
 favour of the Synoptics as against the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 ^ Westcott, St John, p. Ixxxi. But see Keim, Jesus von Nazara, i. 
 p. 130. 
 
 2 Cf. Mark ii. 23. 
 
 » John ii. 13-17. 
 
 ^ Mark xi. 15-17; cf. Matt. xxi. 12 ff.; Luke xix. 45 ff. 
 
 5 Weudt, St John's Gospel, p. 12. 
 
108 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 Can it be that one of them (St Mark), embodying as 
 it does the recollections of Peter, should be so utterly 
 at fault as to the date of an event which must have 
 made a deep impression on the minds of the disciples ? 
 And besides, effectively does the story stand in that 
 part of the narrative which ushers in the closing scenes ; 
 the story of a decisive act precipitating that final 
 conflict which was to end in death. If it really hap- 
 pened at the earlier period there would be surely little 
 need for the question, " Who is this ? " which, we are 
 told, was asked later on^. And yet there is some slight 
 ground for hesitation; anticipating what will be said 
 in another section as to possible repeated visits to 
 Jerusalem, we ask here : what if the conflict had begun 
 at the very first ? what if the Galilaean ministry had 
 been but — so to speak — a series of retreats from a pro- 
 longed but intermittent ministry at the headquarters 
 of Jewish orthodoxy ? In that case it might be reason- 
 able to conclude that the Synoptics have been set right 
 by the Fourth Evangelist. Perhaps such is the case ; 
 it does seem, however, that the balance of probability 
 is distinctly in favour of the Synoptic Gospels^. 
 
 1 Matt. xxi. 10, 11. 
 
 ■^ A displacement of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel has been 
 suggested. Sanday (Hastings' D. B., ii. 613) prefers the dating of that 
 Gospel. Baldensperger {Prolog des 4. Eva)i. , p. 65) finds a sequence of 
 thought from the preceding story of the Marriage at Cana. Jiilicher 
 {Introd. to N. T., p. 418) regards the statement of " John " as " the less 
 probable of the two." von Soden {Early Christ. Literature, p. 403) 
 
CHRONOLOGY 109 
 
 One more instance of" violent alteration"; it points to 
 the "Death-day" of Jesus. According to the Synoptics 
 Jesus is made to eat the Passover with the Twelve; 
 the Agony, the Betrayal, the Trial, the Crucifixion 
 take place afterwards^. The Fourth Evangelist records 
 indeed a Last Supper partaken of by Jesus and His 
 disciples (not necessarily the Twelve only), but he does 
 not identify it with the Passover-meal; on the contrary 
 he proceeds to relate that the Passover was not cele- 
 brated until the evening of the day following, and, 
 consequently, after the death of Jesus ^. Two dates 
 are thus given for the Crucifixion; the 15th Nisan of 
 the Synoptics, the 14th of the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 Here, again, attempts to harmonise have been made. 
 It is argued, for instance, that "to eat the Passover" 
 was a fagon de parler ; a vague term popularly used of 
 the whole seven-day — strictly speaking, seven-and-a- 
 half-day — Feast beginning with the slaughter of the 
 Paschal lamb; that the men of the Sanhedrin referred 
 to in John xviii. 28 were thinking of the so-called 
 Chagiga, or sacrificial meal of the 15th Nisan, which 
 was held, not like the Passover after sunset, but in the 
 course of the day^. Earth, who declines to waste time 
 
 says: "its position in the former case (Syn.) is natural; in the 
 latter (Fourth Gospel) it has rather the effect of an anti-climax." 
 
 1 Mark xiv., xv. ; of. Matt. xxvi. 17 ff. ; Liike xxii. 7 ff. 
 
 2 John xiii. 1,2; xviii. 28 ; xix. 14. 
 
 3 Zahn, Einleit., ii. p. 514. Sanday, formerly inclined to adopt 
 this hypothesis, now abandons it (Hastings' D. B., ii. 634). Baur 
 
110 THE FOUKTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 in such "preliminary skirmishes," hints at Synoptic 
 alhisions which afford indirect evidence that the 14th 
 Nisan was after all the correct date^ and these will be 
 considered presently. We remark here that, in face 
 of the very marked divergence on the main point, 
 reconcilement is impossible. The Synoptists are ap- 
 parently persuaded that the Last Supper was a Pass- 
 over celebrated at the legal time : — and the contention 
 that their silence as to formal rites and accessories of 
 Passover observance is significant can scarcely be 
 pressed when some of the details given are at least 
 suggestive^. The statements of the Fourth Evangelist, 
 on the other hand, are characterised by precision, and 
 steadfastly resist attempts to explain them away. A 
 discrepancy must be recognised: the sole question is, 
 to which of the two statements shall preference be 
 accorded ? 
 
 It is an exceedingly difficult question. And yet 
 two reasons may be advanced for the belief that, in 
 
 {Kanon. Evan. p. 63) notices Ebrard's suggestion that in those days 
 the Paschal lamb was not eaten by the whole population on one day 
 but on two successive days ; by the Galilaeans on the first day, by the 
 inhabitants of Judah on the second. The suggestion was, however, 
 withdrawn (Ebrard, Gosp. Hist., pp. 400 f.). 
 
 ^ Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, pp. 15, 16 ; cf. Wernle, Die 
 Quellen dx., p. 22. 
 
 2 Bacon, Introd. to N. T., p. 26. Granted that there is no mention 
 of the lamb, other concomitants of the Passover-meal are surely 
 alluded to. The singing of a hymn might also be deemed signi- 
 ficant. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 111 
 
 the case before us, the Fourth Evangelist is in the 
 right; not the Synoptists. 
 
 To begin with. If the Synoptists identify the Last 
 Supper with the legal Passover, their narrative reveals 
 singular inconsistencies and incongruities when closely 
 scrutinised. They relate a decision arrived at by the 
 Sanhedrin to take no action on the "Feast-day^"; and 
 yet it is on that very day that Jesus is arrested. They 
 naively recount occurrences and transactions which 
 would be so many breaches of festival enactment, not 
 to say impracticable at the time specified: one of the 
 disciples has a sword with him^; Simon of Cyrene is 
 said to be coming from his work^; Joseph of Arimathaea 
 <jan make his purchases without let or hindrance*; the 
 women, unrestrained by scruples, prepare spices and 
 ointment. To inconsistencies such as these Barth was 
 no doubt referring in his allusion to indirect evidence 
 for agreement on the main point. They appear to 
 indicate that the Synoptists, notwithstanding their 
 contradictions, "bear unwilling testimony^" to the ac- 
 curacy of the statement of the Fourth Evangelist that 
 the Passover lay still ahead. And it may be that traces 
 of early confusion in reports of the Last Supper are 
 
 1 Mark xiv. 2 ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 5. 
 
 2 Mark xiv. 47. 
 
 3 Mark xv. 21. (This is probably the meaning of " coming from 
 the country.") 
 
 ■* Mark xv. 46. 
 
 5 Sanday, Hastings' D. B., ii. 634. 
 
112 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 discoverable in a saying of Jesus recorded by one of 
 the Synoptists. We ask, what precise meaning is to 
 be read into those words, "with desire I have desired 
 to eat this Passover with you before I suffer i"? Of 
 course they may be explained of the Passover-meal 
 then and there celebrated. Another interpretation is, 
 however, possible; that which Jesus had so greatly 
 desired was not to be, for the Passover so close at 
 hand would be celebrated on the evening of His death. 
 There is a second reason. Here we consult an 
 authority earlier by a good many years than any of 
 the Synoptic Gospels ; and one which gives the oldest 
 account we possess of the Institution of the Lord's 
 Supper. In respect to leading features the account 
 given by St PauP is generally in agreement with that 
 of the Synoptists; had we merely those words of his 
 before us, "in the same night in which He was be- 
 trayed," we should have nothing to fix the precise date, 
 for the words might apply equally to the Passover-meal of 
 the Synoptics or the Last Supper of the Fourth Gospel. 
 Even here perhaps it is significant that no reference 
 is made to any Paschal lamb^; but we turn back at 
 once to a passage which is, to say the least, significant; 
 which has, indeed, been held to be decisive. There is 
 the beautiful comparison: "For our Passover also," says 
 St Paul, "hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 15. 2 i Cor. xi. 23 ff. 
 
 3 Cf. O. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 35. 
 
CHKONOLOGY 113 
 
 let us keep the feast i." And another beautiful com- 
 parison meets us further on: "Now hath Christ been 
 raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are 
 asleep 2." The comparison is not only beautiful but apt 
 if based on the dating of the Fourth Gospel. Christ 
 Himself is conceived of as the true Paschal lamb ofiPered 
 up upon the Cross at that very hour when the lambs 
 were being slaughtered for the Passover-meal. Christ 
 Himself the firstfruits; the day on which the first- 
 fruits were offered in the Temple coinciding with the 
 Sunday of the Kesurrection^. 
 
 And here, perhaps, an appeal may be made to the 
 following passage in one of the Apocryphal Gospels: 
 " The sun must not go down upon a murdered person 
 on the day before their feast, the feast of unleavened 
 bread." It bears out the contention that the Fourth 
 Evangelist gives the correct date of the Death of 
 Jesus*. 
 
 1 1 Cor. V. 7, 8. 
 
 2 1 Cor. XV. 20. 
 
 ^ 0. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 35. Cf. Bacon, 
 Introd. to N. T., p. 267 ; Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 419 ; but see 
 Keim, Jesus von Nazara, i. pp. 127 f. 
 
 ^ Eendel Harris, Newly -recovered Gospel of Peter, pp. 43, 44. Cf. 
 0. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, ^» 4:5. Jiilicher {Introd. to N. T., p. 419) 
 gives it as his opinion that the Synoptics are '* right as to the day of 
 Jesus' death." And we are told that St Paul's thought of Jesus as 
 the Christian's "Paschal Lamb" "probably induced the Fourth 
 Evangelist to transfer Jesus' hour of death to the day on which the 
 Paschal lamb was sacrificed." Weinel, St Paul, the Man and his 
 Work, p. 303. 
 
 J. 8 
 
114 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 There are other instances of discrepancy, of " violent 
 alteration." Some of them may come up for consider- 
 ation in the following sections; those which have been 
 discussed above will serve the purpose sufficiently in 
 respect to the question of chronology. The impression 
 left on our minds is that, if " the author did not wish 
 simply to follow the course of events^," it is he (the 
 Fourth Evangelist) who now and again speaks the final 
 word. The Synoptics which he has had before him 
 reveal traces of the confused report, they invite and 
 necessitate his fuller statements and corrections. We 
 can but feel that not only in regard to the date of the 
 Crucifixion, but in regard to other matters " the record 
 in the Fourth Gospel may claim the greater internal 
 probability^." That its author has "divorced the 
 Cleansing of the Temple fi:om its tragic connection 
 with the final catastrophe^" remains tolerably certain. 
 
 It has been asserted that "the Synoptics, in this 
 respect, cannot possibly be taken as standards, for 
 chronology is entirely wanting in them ; they are but 
 precipitates of tradition on a groundwork of unordered 
 fragments*." 
 
 1 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 403. 
 
 2 Cf. Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 13. 
 
 3 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 443. 
 
 4 Delff, Grundziige der Entwicklungsgeschichte der Religion, p. 
 271. 
 
LOCALITY 115 
 
 Note. 
 
 For an exhaustive discussion of Quartodecimanism, 
 its rationale, and bearing on the date and character of 
 the Last Supper, vide Stanton, The Gospels as Historical 
 Documents, pp. 173 ff.; Drummond, Character and Au- 
 thorship Sc, pp. 444 ff. ; Zahn, Einleitung, ii. pp. 509 ff. 
 
 II. Locality. 
 
 Another "burning question" is that of the differ- 
 ence of scene. "According to the Synoptics the activity 
 of Jesus is made to pursue its course on Galilaean soil ; 
 once and once only does he reach Jerusalem as Messiah, 
 and it is forthwith to meet his doom. With the Fourth 
 Evangelist he moves to and fro repeatedly between 
 Judaea and Galilee; but the stays made in Galilee 
 appear but as mere episodes when compared with the 
 Judaean ministry: two are exceedingly brief (ii. 1-12; 
 iv. 43-53) and the third somewhat longer (vi. 1- 
 vii. 10)^." Thus is the contrast stated; and if an 
 explanation be asked for there are hints at Jewish 
 and Baptist-disciple contemporaries of the Fourth 
 Evangelist as main cause of the change effected in 
 the narrative. It was felt to be above all things a very 
 serious consideration that Jesus should have dragged 
 out a quiet and obscure existence in so out-of-the-world 
 
 1 H. J. Holtzmann, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 3. 
 
 8—2 
 
116 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 a region as Galilee, instead of appearing and labouring 
 openly at Jerusalem, at the very centre of Jewish life, 
 as would be meet and right in the case of one who 
 desired to be regarded as the Messiah^. 
 
 Explanations of this sort may hold good or not. 
 There are certainly others which will occur at the 
 present juncture ; they are suggested by some of the 
 very points which have been noticed and discussed in 
 preceding sections. It has been agreed that allowance 
 may be made for diversity of individuality, treatment 
 of subject, method of presentment: hence it might be 
 argued at once that the Fourth Evangelist has decided 
 to select ground insufficiently covered by the three 
 Synoptists. And again, what if it be possible to see 
 in him not merely the Palestinian Jew but the Jeru- 
 salemite; one whose private residence may have been 
 in Jerusalem itself? How natural, then, that the scene 
 as pictured by him should be laid more particularly in 
 his own immediate neighbourhood^. 
 
 But then the question arises (and not for the first 
 time) whether the Synoptic Gospels themselves do not 
 deliberately invite assumptions of that more prolonged 
 ministry at Jerusalem which is recounted by the Fourth 
 
 1 Cf. Baldensperger, Prolog des 4. Evan., p. 120. See also Wrede,. 
 Charakter und Tendenz des Johannesevangelium, pp. 48 f. 
 
 2 von Sodeii, who discovers in the author of the Fourth Gospel 
 *' a devoted adherent of the Beloved Disciple," and who thinks of the 
 latter as " a native of Jerusalem," has some remarks to the sam& 
 effect. Early Christ. Literature, pp. 439 f. 
 
LOCALITY 117 
 
 Evangelist. That he, on his part, leaves room for 
 Galilaean activities is evident. 
 
 In the first place. Two of the Synoptic Gospels 
 record the "pathetic lament over Jerusalem^," Ob- 
 jection will here be raised to arguments based upon 
 the passage : it will be said, perhaps, that this lament 
 is absent from the earliest Synoptic; it will be added 
 that the allusion to Jerusalem and her children is not 
 to be understood literally, but rather of the. whole 
 population for whom Jerusalem was mother-city. Hard 
 indeed is it to account it the utterance of one " who 
 had not visited (Jerusalem) before during His public 
 ministry 2"; nor can we straightway acquiesce in the 
 remark that to explain it of repeated visits is nothing 
 but a " childish pastime ^" The whole wording of the 
 lament is such as to lead to a very different conclusion. 
 It speaks to us of repeated efforts and repeated failure. 
 And if we add here that " it is perfectly credible that 
 the earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem saw the begin- 
 ning of the conflict with the high priests which after- 
 wards led to His death*," we are almost tempted to 
 surmise that weight may after all attach to the Fourth 
 Evangelist's dating of the Cleansing of the Temple. 
 
 Secondly. Even supposing that the argument based 
 
 1 Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34. 
 
 2 Davidson, Introd. to N. T. , ii. 390, 391 ; Bousset, Jesus, p. 8. 
 
 3 .Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 419. But cf. J. Armitage Kobinson, 
 Study of the Gospels, p. 128. See also Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 40. 
 
 4 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 183. 
 
118 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 on the lament over Jerusalem must be abandoned 
 (which we are slow to admit), there are hints and 
 allusions in the Synoptics which appear to presuppose, 
 actually to necessitate, frequent and prolonged visits to 
 the Holy City. Dwellers at Jerusalem are numbered 
 with the great multitudes who are said to have followed 
 Jesus at the very first ^. Not as the friendless stranger 
 in the city and its neighbourhood is He Himself pictured 
 on the occasion of His final visit; on the contrary 
 He is not only familiar with the locality, but He is 
 evidently on terms of intimate and longstanding ac- 
 quaintance with several households. A welcome awaits 
 Him at the village of Bethany^. In another village 
 unknown men have learnt to recognise Him as Lord ; 
 hence they comply at once with the request made 
 through two of His regular disciples^. There is a 
 house in the city itself in which He has, perhaps, often 
 stayed, for He can describe its internal arrangements ; 
 its owner is one already in His confidence and devoted 
 to Him, for he is quick to place it at the disposal of 
 Jesus and His companions*. The conjecture has indeed 
 been made that he who needed but the Master's word 
 to lend his house may have had an honoured place 
 amongst those who partook with Jesus of that last 
 meaP. 
 
 J Mark iii. 7, 8. 2 Mark xiv. 3. 
 
 3 Mark xi. 1-6. ^ Mark xiv. 12-15. 
 
 5 Cf. Delff, Grundziige <^c., p. 268. (It is, of course, possible to 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST 119 
 
 What conclusion do we arrive at ? Surely this, that 
 the Fourth Evangelist is not so violently in conflict 
 with the Synoptic narratives after all. On the one 
 hand he evidently recognises that Galilee was fre- 
 quently the scene of action : on the other hand he 
 details that longer, if intermittent, Judaean ministry 
 which the Synoptics appear to postulate ; and he does 
 so possibly as one whose own abode was in Jerusalem 
 itself. At all events he will complete the story of 
 which the other three Evangelists are aware, but of 
 which their version is altogether meagre and in- 
 adequate. 
 
 A probability must be reckoned with that the 
 Synoptists, with their confused chronology, have crowded 
 into one short week events and occurrences which in 
 reality were spread over a period of several years. 
 
 III. John the Baptist. 
 
 It is held that the Baptist of the Synoptics and the 
 Baptist of the Fourth Gospel are two totally different 
 personages. If, in the former, he is made to figure as the 
 prophet " mighty in word and deed," he is, in the 
 
 account for these friendships by visits to Jerusalem at a far earlier 
 period — Jesus would come up from Nazareth for the Feasts. But this 
 is surely not to account for them sufficiently. The manner of the 
 allusions is such as to imply ties strengthened, not necessarily 
 formed, during a prolonged, if intermittent, ministry in Jerusalem.) 
 
120 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 latter, relegated to an entirely subordinate position. 
 According to the older tradition doubts are entertained 
 by him, and expressed : " art thou he that cometh, or do 
 we look for another^?"; with the latest Evangelist his 
 assurance rings out loud and clear from the moment 
 when he has pointed to Jesus with his "behold the 
 Lamb of God I" There are, it is urged, two portraits 
 of the Baptist ; portraits which are strangely unlike. 
 
 Granted that there are two portraits presented to 
 us. What is not so certain is that they are portraits 
 of different men. At least there is the possibility of 
 their being portraits of the same man, but by different 
 artists, from a different point of view. 
 
 But to look into the narratives. One thing is 
 evident; the omission, by the Fourth Evangelist, of 
 any detailed account of that mission-preaching of the 
 Baptist to which, at the same time, he is careful to 
 allude^. He is, no doubt, content to assume knowledge 
 of it on the part of the Christian communities for 
 whom he wrote; certainly he enables modern readers 
 to draw large inferences as to its scope and import, as 
 to the effect which it has produced. To read between 
 the lines is to see the Baptist of the Fourth Gospel 
 anything but an inconspicuous personage; on the 
 contrary he appears one who has compelled attention 
 by striking acts and by incisive utterances. The 
 
 1 Matt. xi. 3 ; Luke vii. 19. ^ john i. 29. 
 
 3 John iii. 23. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST 121 
 
 authorities at Jerusalem, far from regarding him with 
 complacent indifference, judge it more than expedient 
 to send a deputation to make full inquiry at the scene 
 of his activities^. Significant is the wording of the 
 question proposed; no mere "what is this that thou 
 art saying and doing ? " the " who art thou ? " is 
 tantamount to a recognition that the one questioned 
 is no ordinary personage. And the question carries a 
 great deal with it ; almost instinctively do we expand it 
 from the Marcan narrative^: — " who art thou to whom 
 this crowd is thronging, by whom men, conscience- 
 stricken, are baptised on confession of their sins ? " 
 
 The two portraits, it would seem, are not so unlike 
 after all. There is at least this strong resemblance ; 
 he who is portrayed on each canvas is really an 
 illustrious personage. That the artists are different 
 we recognise at a glance. 
 
 There is a further question : are the two portraits 
 alike in a portrayal of the same steadfast gaze, the 
 same immediate assurance, the same conviction un- 
 shaken to the end ? 
 
 It is just here that a contrast in the narratives 
 must be admitted. With the Fourth Evangelist the 
 Baptist no sooner becomes acquainted with Jesus than, 
 prompted by a heavenly vision, he bears record that 
 
 1 John i. 19, 24. But see Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz des 
 Johannesevangelium, p. 18. 
 '^ Mark i. 4, 5. 
 
122 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 "this is the Son of God^"; nowhere is there a word 
 suggestive of a faith which had begun to falter. We 
 turn to the Synoptics : as for the Mark Gospel, it 
 records indeed the Baptist's announcement of the 
 coming of the " mightier One " ; there follows but the 
 bare statement that Jesus " was baptised of John in 
 Jordan," that a heavenly vision is immediately seen by 
 Himself^. The two other Synoptics relate much that 
 occasions reflection. From one of these we learn that 
 directly the Baptist sees Jesus coming to him he 
 recognises His superior claims^. They appear to agree 
 with St Mark in their description of the vision as seen 
 by Jesus*. It is they (not Mark) who tell that story 
 of disciples sent by the Baptist to Jesus ^ — a story 
 which, sometimes explained of the imprisoned Baptist's 
 desire that his disciples should have their faith 
 strengthened, is more naturally interpreted of doubts 
 which had been rising in his own mind^. 
 
 Apparently, the portraits are dissimilar. In the 
 one case the Baptist's eye is seen gazing into an open 
 heaven ; in the other his gaze is, perhaps, fixed, but it 
 will be on the One of whose coming he has been the 
 
 1 John i. 34. 2 j^^rk i. 9-11. ^ Matt. iii. 13-15. 
 
 4 Matt. iii. 16, 17 ; Mark i. 10, 11 ; Luke iii. 21, 22. According 
 to von Soden (Early Christ. Literature, p. 454) Matt, makes the 
 Baptist to be " recipient of the revelation." 
 
 5 Matt. xi. 3 ff.; Luke vii. 19 ff. 
 
 6 Bousset {Jesus, p. 4) holds that it was only when imprisoned 
 that belief dawned in the Baptist's soul that Jesus might be "he that 
 should come, " Messiah. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST 123 
 
 herald. We take account, that is, of the apparent 
 discrepancy in the stories of the vision. Perhaps the 
 suggestion will be made that the vision of the heavenly 
 glory, the divine voice, was seen and heard alike by 
 Jesus and the Baptist ; that it is a case in which two 
 artists have invested a single occurrence (however to 
 be explained) with varying import. What if we be 
 confronted with the two alternatives : either the 
 Synoptic version of the story, or that of the Fourth 
 Evangelist^ ? The former would be, perhaps, preferable, 
 if only as more in keeping with what is subsequently 
 related of the Baptist. It is difficult to conceive how 
 doubts should ever have risen in his mind if a revelation 
 so wonderful had really come to him. 
 
 But the point to dwell on is this, the Baptist of the 
 Fourth Gospel does shrink in comparison with the 
 Baptist of the Synoptics. Two of the latter, as has 
 been remarked already, picture him in his uncertainty ; 
 and this will be again touched on. True, no doubt, 
 that the Fourth Evangelist concedes to him a real 
 greatness ; we cannot get away from the fact that the 
 great personage is made to take lower rank. He is 
 pictured indeed as steadfast, resolute ; then it is brought 
 home to us repeatedly that there are limitations of 
 which he himself is profoundly conscious. We remark 
 his own disclaimers^. He is a witness, and only a 
 
 ^ Liitgert {Die joh. Christologie, p. 12) asks pertinently: "Wie 
 konnte das Herabkommen des Geistes auf Jesus keine Bedeutung fiir 
 Jesus selbst haben?" 2 John i. 20. 
 
124 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 witness^. A time comes when, in view of other and 
 greater testimony, his witness can be dispensed with 2. 
 The strong soul has become, as it were, a mere " voice ^." 
 And it would never occur to us to find a mere " voice " 
 in the Baptist of the Synoptics. The contrast is 
 certainly remarkable. 
 
 Here questions arise as to circumstances in which 
 the Fourth Gospel was composed, as to objects which 
 the Fourth Evangelist may have had in view at the 
 time of writing, as to special needs. Many and varied 
 are the conjectures which have been made : here, 
 perhaps, one theory may be noted which, alluded to by 
 Barth*, is at least suggestive. It has been elaborately 
 contended that the Fourth Evangelist is mainly con- 
 cerned to defend the Christian standpoint against 
 Jewish onslaughts ; more particularly against opposition 
 on the part of later disciples of the Baptist. The 
 purpose of the Evangelist, it is said, is at once apologetic 
 and polemical : on the one hand he will disallow the 
 exaggerated pretensions of those who invest their 
 master, the Baptist, with divinity ; on the other hand 
 he will regain for Jesus Christ (who has been com- 
 pletely overshadowed) the acknowledged pre-eminence 
 which is His due^. And these disciples of the Baptist, 
 who and of what sort were they ? Some information is 
 
 1 John i. 7, 8, 15. 2 JqIj^ y, 32.36. 
 
 ^ Cf. Baldensperger, Prolog des 4. Evan., p. 59. 
 ^ Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 12. 
 5 Baldensperger, Prolog des 4. Evan., pp. 153, 56. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST 125 
 
 furnished in Acts xviii. 24-xix. 4; we read there of certain 
 men at Ephesus who, sharing the Messianic conceptions 
 of the Christians to a certain point, had focussed their 
 own beliefs on the person of the Baptist. If the men 
 in question (of whom Apollos was one) were " baptised 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus " it would not necessarily 
 follow that every Baptist-disciple at Ephesus at once 
 abandoned the distinctive tenets of the sect. As a 
 matter of fact it lived on. "It is plain that in the 
 interval between the preaching of St Paul and the 
 Gospel of St John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus 
 had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His 
 name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, 
 but the watchword of direct antagonism. John (i.e. the 
 Baptist) had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus ^." 
 There is no need to commit ourselves to the above- 
 mentioned theory in its every detail. That the purpose 
 of the Evangelist had a wider scope, that there were 
 other sets of circumstances and needs which claimed 
 his notice, may be admitted ; it may equally be 
 admitted that the theory helps us to account for the 
 altered tone noticeable in the Fourth Gospel. Rightly 
 does the Baptist figure in the Synoptics as the great 
 personage ; a time has arrived when it is imperative to 
 
 1 Lightfoot, Coloss., p. 401. (Baldensperger, Prolog des 4. Evan., 
 passim.) But cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 423. von Soden {Early 
 Christ. Literature, p. 415) speaks of "an exaggerated reverence for 
 the Baptist existing within the circle for which this Gospel was 
 ■written.' 
 
126 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 draw clear distinctions ; to establish it that, great as he 
 was, there is One infinitely greater than he, even Jesus. 
 Hence the second portrait drawn of him by the Fourth 
 Evangelist. "The studied presentation of John the 
 Baptist as a witness for Jesus has, perhaps, a special 
 significance of its own^": — we are disposed to omit the 
 " perhaps " and to speak of pointed reference to Baptist- 
 disciples at Ephesus at the time when the Gospel was 
 composed. They had identified the forerunner, not 
 Jesus, with the incarnate Word. They must be made 
 to realise "the transient and subordinate character of 
 John's ministry... the loftier claims of Jesus^." 
 
 To hazard a conjecture. The earliest Gospel 
 (St Mark) has nothing to tell as to any embassy sent 
 by John the Baptist to Jesus ; as has been seen 
 already, Matthew and Luke alone record an occasion on 
 which his faith broke down under the strain and dejec- 
 tion of imprisonment. May not a secondary element 
 be recognised in the narrative in question ? Hints 
 may be read into it that a time had come for forcible 
 reminders as to the frailty, the inferiority, the humanity, 
 of one already held to be divine, already deified. 
 
 Be this as it may, the conclusion appears reasonable 
 that it is after all the self-same personage who figures 
 in the two portraits which come to us from different 
 
 1 Weizsacker, Apost. Age, ii. p. 226 ; cf. von Soden, Early Christ. 
 Literature, p. 415. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, Goloss., p. 401. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 127 
 
 hands. In other words, the difficulty of reconciling 
 the two accounts given of John the Baptist is not 
 insurmountable. If there be any " violent alteration " 
 in the case before us^ it is upon cause shown. 
 
 IV. Presentment of Miracle. 
 
 Another objection. The Fourth Gospel, it is 
 affirmed, differs widely from the Synoptics in respect 
 to the nature and purpose of the miracles recorded. 
 Perhaps it is desirable that the standpoint from which 
 the alleged contrast is here approached and treated of 
 should be briefly and generally defined. 
 
 What do we understand by miracle ? 
 
 Two conceptions obtain. According to one of them 
 — the popular conception — the w^ord is used of a very 
 distortion of the wonderful^. A miracle is the down- 
 right prodigy; the question is solely of occurrences 
 therefore deemed miraculous because they utterly 
 stagger the intellect ; unintelligibility is their charac- 
 teristic feature ; the more improbable and contrary to 
 experience they are, the miraculous is deemed all the 
 more in evidence. As for the other, it is of a very 
 different sort. The word is used in its proper signifi- 
 cance of that which, be it never so strange, wonderful, 
 marvellous, is not therefore contrary to reason, but 
 
 ^ O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 40. 
 
 2 Traub, Die Wunder im N. T., p. 7 ; "eine Abart des Wunders." 
 
128 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 which admits of explanation. The explanation may be 
 long delayed; when once discovered it is, will be, a 
 fuller revelation of the divine wisdom which " sweetly 
 ordereth all things." A miracle, that is, is no violation 
 or interruption of Law ; rather is it the marvel in 
 perfect harmony with Law not yet discerned and 
 understood. With fuller knowledge it will remain the 
 marvel; but wonder will then be for the beautiful 
 methods and processes of its accomplishment. God 
 will be manifested in it : — working along the lines 
 which He Himself has ordained. 
 
 There need be no hesitation in choosing between 
 the two conceptions thus roughly indicated. The 
 former repels by its crudeness; by its demand for a 
 credulity too often identified with a reasonable faith ^. 
 The latter is felt instinctively to be the worthier 
 conception, and one infinitely more compatible with 
 loftiest thoughts of Deity. It is precisely through " a 
 larger understanding of the range and meaning of 
 Nature^," through a growing perception of laws 
 pervading nature, that the human soul will bend in 
 adoring reverence before the Wisdom, Power, Majesty, 
 which has ordered all things^, and which is to be 
 discerned in all things. 
 
 1 Was it not the White Queen in Alice through the Looking-glass 
 who found no difficulty in believing six impossible things before 
 breakfast ? 
 
 2 A. W. Eobinson, In Menwriam, p. xxii. 
 
 3 Traub, Die Wunder im N. T., p. 6. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 129 
 
 Such, then, is our standpoint. It implies the 
 repudiation of "miracle" as the word is popularly 
 understood; not by any means the repudiation of 
 " marvel." On the contrary, we are quite prepared 
 to meet with marvels, to allow them, to expect more 
 of them, to rest assured that sooner or later explanations 
 will be forthcoming. True, no doubt, that we have 
 " become more careful, more hesitating in our judgment, 
 in regard to the stories of the miraculous which have 
 come down to us from antiquity " : the chances are 
 that there are some things in the Gospel narratives 
 which we are disposed to " put quietly aside " ; we say 
 to ourselves, "perhaps you will have to leave it there 
 for ever; perhaps the meaning will dawn upon you 
 later, and the story will assume a significance of which 
 you never dreamt^." And again, to dwell on wonderful 
 occurrences of recent times is to refrain from " saying 
 too hastily that this or that occurrence" of a remote 
 past is "impossible^." Further, to reflect on the 
 mysterious power exercised by mind on mind is to 
 cease to find difficulty in, at any rate, some of the 
 Gospel narratives : other difficulties are, perhaps, 
 lessened with added reflections on the influence of 
 mind on matter. We are, in short, ready to allow that 
 " exceptional manifestations of psychic and spiritual 
 force... were only to be expected in a Being of excep- 
 
 ^ Harnack, What is Christianity ? pp. 28, 29. 
 2 Granger, The Soul of a Christian, p. 109. 
 
130 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 tional elevation and fullest capacity^ " ; and, as will be 
 seen later on, precisely such a Being looms large in the 
 Gospel pages. 
 
 Here a reminder comes of what we have seen 
 affirmed as to two portraits of Jesus; the one drawn 
 by the Synoptists, and the other as portrayed in the 
 Fourth Gospel. But this is a question to have separate 
 consideration : enough to remark now that in any case 
 Jesus, if conceived of as mere man, admittedly towers 
 conspicuously above men in an intimate acquaintance 
 with the mind of God 2. 
 
 And so we proceed to inquire whether certain 
 stories recorded by the Fourth Evangelist bear the 
 stamp of authenticity. We are not pledged in advance 
 to the acceptance of one and all by what has been said 
 above as to a readiness to expect and to allow the 
 marvellous. Their acceptance, on the contrary, will 
 depend on circumstances. We may fairly stipulate 
 for reasonably sufficient evidence. As fairly may we 
 inquire whether there be anything which appears 
 diametrically opposed to ascertained Law. At the 
 same time we take account of human limitations; 
 "although the order of Nature be inviolable, we are 
 not yet by any means acquainted with all the forces 
 working in it and acting reciprocally with other forces^." 
 
 1 A. W. Robinson, Sermon. ^ Wernle, Die Quellen (&c., p. 30. 
 
 3 Harnack, What is Christianity? p. 27. See also Ferris, The 
 Growth of Christian Faith, pp. 152 ff. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 131 
 
 Now, the objection before us hinges on a contrast 
 with the Synoptic Gospels. They, indeed, contain 
 ample store of the marvellous. But, so we are told, 
 new features are apparent in the Fourth Gospel. 
 "John knows nothing whatever of the most frequent 
 wonder-works of Jesus — the healing of demoniacs^"; 
 there is the " enhancement of miracle." In respect to 
 purpose, nature, all seems changed. 
 
 An admission must be made ; but a qualified 
 admission. The Synoptists tell again and again of 
 demoniacs healed by Jesus: — and we promptly allow 
 the narratives in question : there is, indeed, unanimity 
 of opinion that Jesus did really heal many of those 
 who (according to the conceptions of the age) were 
 "possessed with evil spirits^." The Fourth Gospel, on 
 the other hand, has no such detailed narratives. The 
 fact is patent, and we admit it ; what we do not admit 
 is that the absence of such narratives implies entire 
 ignorance, still less contradiction. There is room for 
 the argument that the Fourth Evangelist, assuming 
 that his readers had independent knowledge of the 
 "many things that Jesus did," will avoid needless 
 repetition. But we find ground for believing that, 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen d-c, p. 18. 
 
 2 Harnack, What is Christianity ? p. 28 ; Traub, Die Wunder im 
 N. T., p. 41 ; Bousset, Jesus, pp. 23-25. (Bousset's explanation of the 
 Parable of the Unclean Spirit as an admission of repeated failures 
 and relapses is certainly interesting, perhaps suggestive.) 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 knowing of, he confirms such Synoptic narratives ; they 
 are surely to be inferred when he tells of "many 
 miracles" performed in and near Jerusalem (xii. 37); 
 of crowds following Jesus because of miracles done " on 
 them which were diseased" at the Sea of Galilee 
 (vi. 1, 2). 
 
 What miracle-stories, then, does he detail ? They 
 are seven in number; and, in the case of some, they 
 are not new to us. The feeding of the multitude, the 
 stilling of the storm, and the walking on the sea, are 
 related in the Synoptics ; it may, perhaps, be the case 
 that in the healing of the nobleman's son and of the 
 centurion's servant we have but two versions of the 
 self-same story. If so, there remain four miracle-stories 
 peculiar to the Fourth Gospel : the water turned into 
 wine ; the cure at the pool of Bethesda ; a man blind 
 from his birth made to see ; the raising of Lazarus^. 
 
 A first question suggests itself Looking to the 
 seven stories which the Fourth Evangelist has selected 
 for narration, is it really the case that they all point ta 
 " downright wonders of omnipotence as God alone can 
 conjure them^"? Up to a certain point only do we 
 allow the " enhancement of miracle " ; for it quickly 
 strikes us that there is no essential difference from 
 what is discoverable in the Synoptics. Truly, we are 
 
 1 By some the Resurrection is counted as the seventh Johannine: 
 miracle. 
 
 2 Wernle, Die Quellen c&c, p. 18. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 133 
 
 not prepared to say that in every single instance Jesus 
 is seen working " outside the domain of natural law and 
 in defiance of it^." Three works of healing are narrated, 
 and we are fully alive to the special features illustrated 
 by them; healing at a distance, congenital blindness, 
 infirmity become chronic ; we are nevertheless inclined 
 to allow the substantial accuracy of the stories. It is 
 quite possible that in them Jesus may be seen "operating 
 within the domain of natural law ^." Nor is the walking 
 on the sea so easily discredited : " there are serious 
 reasons for hesitating before we declare that a human 
 being cannot rise in the air or float along the sea in 
 defiance of gravity^." 
 
 On the whole, then, we find no sufficient reason for 
 disallowing historicity in the. case of miracle-stories of 
 which two (on the supposition above alluded to) are 
 met with in the Synoptics, two being peculiar to the 
 Fourth Gospel. 
 
 But what of the three which remain ? It does, 
 indeed, seem that the term " wonders of Omnipotence " 
 may be used of two of them ; nor is difficulty obviated 
 by reflecting that one is common to the Synoptic 
 Gospels. True, no doubt, that " what is regarded as a 
 miracle to-day may be known to be a scientific fact 
 to-morrow*": the feeling remains that occurrences are 
 
 1 Cf. Hudson, Lata of Psychic Phenomena, p. 375. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 375 ; cf. Harnack, What is Christianity ? p. 27. 
 
 3 Granger, The Soul of a Christian, p. 109. 
 
 * Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, p. 373. 
 
134 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 now related which find no "satisfactory explanation 
 within the known laws of nature^"; and that, appar- 
 ently, conditions on which such narratives may be 
 readily allowed are unsatisfied. That those who told 
 of the bread obedient to the word of Jesus, and how 
 " the modest water saw its God and blushed " had some 
 actual occurrence in their minds is conceivable enough ; 
 we can but add that, for us, their stories are inexplicable. 
 Inclination perhaps arises to speak of a legendary 
 element in the narratives. And again, may not Old 
 Testament influences be detected ? At least there are 
 remarkable coincidences : the feeding of the multitude 
 has its parallel in the story of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 42-44): 
 if Moses gave water in the wilderness One greater than 
 Moses has His gift of wine. 
 
 " In the days of Jesus the allegory was the common- 
 place of Hellenistic Judaism 2." Be it so ; it is not so 
 certain, however, that those who told of thousands fed 
 with a few loaves were conscious allegorists all of them, 
 whatever may be affirmed of him who tells of water 
 changed to wine at the marriage-feast at Cana. Beyond 
 question the stories, as they stand in the Fourth Gospel, 
 do lend themselves to allegorical interpretation. The 
 bread ministered by the disciples will then cease to be 
 the bread of corn to become the Bread of Life for the 
 soul^. Judaism will be symbolised by the wine which 
 
 1 Hudson, Lmv of Psychic Phenomena, p. 372. 
 
 2 Traub, Die Wunder im N. T., p. G8. 
 ' Philochristus, pp. 213-215. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 135 
 
 has failed, Christianity by the good wine brought in at 
 the end ; " the water of legal purification turned into 
 the wine of marriage joy^." " We forget the outward 
 narrative and lose ourselves in its deeper significance^." 
 
 This story of the marriage at Cana, it is said, " has 
 perplexed the commentators^." It was, we may agree, 
 intended to serve as vehicle of spiritual truth ; the 
 question arises whether it (and the story of the feeding 
 of the multitudes) may not point back to figurative 
 utterances which came to be understood literally. With 
 the lapse of years there would be all the force of reality 
 in pictures of the mind. 
 
 To turn to that " most stupendous miracle*" of the 
 raising of Lazarus. 
 
 " Stupendous " indeed ! And yet we are inclined 
 to suspect that the story which enshrines it may, in 
 the main, be less beset with difficulty than the two 
 just alluded to. They impose a serious strain on the 
 intelligence, nor do we altogether wonder that some 
 can only find in them the magician practising his 
 magic arts. Not so necessarily with the Lazarus-story ; 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 241 ; cf. Soltau, Unsere Evan., 
 p. 108 ; Baldensperger, Prolog des 4. Evan., p. 62 ; 0. Holtzmann, 
 Das Johannesevangelium, p. 205. 
 
 2 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 390. 
 
 3 Davidson, Introd. to N. T., ii. p. 351. 
 
 ■* Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 47. Keim {Jesus von Nazara, i. 
 p. 132) remarks: "Dieses grosste Wunder hat wiederum Johannes so 
 erzahlt dass Niemand as im Buchstabensinne glauben kann." 
 
136 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 it may again speak of One possessed of a perfect 
 understanding of " the laws pertaining to mental 
 therapeutics \" One from whom " exceptional manifesta- 
 tions of psychic and spiritual force 2" may be expected. 
 Likely enough that it was within His capacity to deal 
 with cases of catalepsy, suspended animation. On the 
 assumption that actual death had supervened, may He 
 not have been able to recall the departed soul to its 
 earthly tenement ? 
 
 Now the Synoptics relate two raisings from the 
 dead. In each case the narrator will evidently have 
 it understood that death has really taken place; it is 
 still conceivable, however, that the stories of the 
 widow's son of Nain and Jairus' daughter may be 
 explained of trance-conditions^. May not a similar 
 explanation hold good in the case of the story of 
 Lazarus ? Beyond doubt the narrator will affirm that 
 Jesus was in the presence of death itself: the question 
 occurs whether the account he deems adequate is 
 equally adequate to us who have higher scientific 
 knowledge. That grave at Bethany; did it really 
 contain a corpse in the first stages of corruption, or a 
 still living man in a death-like state of trance*? 
 
 ^ Hudson, Lcuv of Psychic Phenomena, p. 354. 
 
 2 A. W. Robinson, Sermon. 
 
 3 " She is not dead, but sleepeth." 
 
 "* Wrede {Chamkter und Tendeiiz des Johannesevangeliiim, p. 7) 
 writes : " Lazarus' Leiche stromt bereits Verwesungsgeruch aus ebe er 
 erweckt wild." But did it ? 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 137 
 
 In any case the story has its difficulties. Full, 
 indeed, is it of "minute touches^"; it is so "vivid and 
 circumstantial in its character^" that it appears well- 
 nigh impossible to regard it with suspicion. To read 
 it again and again, with closest scrutiny, is to be 
 struck by, if not "incongruous^" at any rate, singular 
 features in it. There is that exquisite "Jesus wept," 
 the remarkable expression rendered "groaned in the 
 spirit" with the "troubled himself" that follows: — 
 it may perhaps be asked : why this grief, this almost 
 wrath, this shuddering on the part of Jesus when He 
 knew to a certainty that "he that was dead" would 
 come forth alive at the spoken word of power*? And 
 again, the thought may occur to some that there is an 
 anti-climax in the story for all its pathos and beauty. 
 
 1 Westcott, St John, p. 163 ; cf. Peabody, The Fourth Gospel, 
 p. 120. 
 
 2 McClymont, St John {Century Bible), p. 233. 
 
 3 Davidson, Introd. to N. T., ii. p. 359. 
 
 * Treating of the raising of Jairus' daughter, Hudson {Lmv of 
 Psychic Phenomena, pp. 351 ff.) affirms that the mysterious power of 
 suggestion is so exercised as to reveal perfect knowledge of the 
 mental conditions necessary ; faith inspired in the father ; adverse 
 infliience of incredulity guarded against ; while weeping relatives are 
 excluded three strong believers are brought in ; the " not dead, but 
 sleepeth " is not merely an assurance to others, but a powerful sug- 
 gestion to the damsel's mind : the way is carefully prepared for the 
 energetic command "I say unto thee, arise." Up to a certain point 
 similar remarks might, perhaps, be made in the case of the Lazarus- 
 story. But are not "adverse suggestions" also noticeable? — the 
 mental environment disturbed by the grief, the wrath, the shudder of 
 Jesus ? 
 
138 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 On the one hand it points to "that higher eternal life 
 which Jesus, in other places besides, claims to bestow 
 on all who believe, a life which dwells in them even 
 now, and because it is a life eternal and divine, survives 
 the temporal death"; on the other hand it seems to 
 place us, as it were, on a lower level by pointing to the 
 earthly life to which Lazarus was raised again from the 
 grave, to the mere prolongation of that earthly life^. 
 The sequel to that splendid "I am the Resurrection 
 and the Life" might appear — shall we venture to say 
 it? — poorer than we should have expected. 
 
 The Fourth Gospel has been recognised as a unity ; 
 otherwise we should be disposed to agree that "the 
 story has not been struck out at one stroke of the die, 
 that it embodies certain elements which do not accord 
 with the Evangelist's general conception of the event, 
 that he has taken them up into his own narrative as 
 elements of a secure tradition, that he has not appre- 
 hended them in their original meaning^." As it is, the 
 mind reverts to certain elements from which such a 
 story might have been elaborated. There is the parable 
 which alludes to a return from the dead, and it is the 
 only parable in which a character is mentioned by 
 name; — he whom Dives will have sent from Abraham's 
 bosom is none other than a Lazarus. The sister-pair 
 have figured already in a Synoptic Gospel. The 
 
 1 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 155. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 154. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 139 
 
 Synoptics have prepared the way with their stories 
 
 of the widow's son of Nain and Jairus' daughter^. 
 
 If it be really some consummate artist who paints that 
 
 "poetic picture" which has ri vetted the gaze of 
 
 thousands, there is material in plenty for his canvas. 
 
 On the assumption that he was allegorising — well, 
 
 thoughts come of the moral change figured by St Paul 
 
 as a death, a burial, a resurrection : " dead indeed unto 
 
 sin... alive unto God." 
 
 And yet somehow the conviction grows on us that 
 
 the story is not to be explained away in this fashion. 
 
 That it has an allegorical purpose and significance 
 
 may be allowed; if in tones of "tender and unearthly 
 
 beauty" it bids us 
 
 "Behold a man raised up by Christ," 
 
 it is surely permissible to apply it to those who 
 
 " rise on stepping-stones 
 
 Of their dead selves to higher things," 
 
 to the once "buried life" quickened into the activity 
 of divinest service. The question remains whether 
 it was consciously penned as allegory in the first 
 instanced It is possible to regard it as embodying 
 recollections, blurred perhaps, of something which had 
 actually taken place — and, it may well be, in the 
 narrator's presence. As for the description given by 
 him, it may be coloured by the beliefs and opinions 
 
 ^ Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, pp. 108, 109. 
 2 Cf. Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz c^c, p. 6. 
 
140 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 of his own day ; quite probable that for our day the 
 description would have to be modified, worded differently. 
 For him it was the downright miracle ; we should 
 apprehend it as a marvel. In other words, the story 
 may point to fact, but what precisely the fact was is 
 impossible to determine^. 
 
 It is certainly curious that the story of an event which 
 leads so directly up to the closing scenes finds no place in 
 the Synoptics^. The argument from silence is, however, 
 to be used warily at all times ; here, in particular, the 
 need of caution should be realised. There is, to begin 
 with, no question of three independent authorities 
 testifying, by their silence, against the historicity of 
 the Lazarus-story; there is but one fundamental 
 authority, viz. St Mark's Gospel. And again, the 
 element of completeness is wanting in all the records 
 of the life of Jesus. 
 
 To sum up. Our conceptions of the miraculous have 
 changed ; at the same time we may allow that the 
 miracle (in the popular sense of the word) had its 
 purpose in the divine providence as a means of inspiring 
 and confirming faith. It follows that we are not taken 
 aback if this special purpose be accentuated by the 
 
 1 Delff {Rabbi Jesus, pp. 396 ff.) by no means discredits the story, 
 while not finding fault with those who prefer to think of the death- 
 like trance. 
 
 2 For Wernle their silence is decisive. Die Quellen (£c., p. 24 ; 
 cf. Drummond, Character and Authorship dc, p. 63. 
 
PRESENTMENT OF MIRACLE 141 
 
 Fourth Evangelist. He is aware of those more in- 
 telligible works of healing which the Synoptics had 
 detailed sufficiently; for himself he will deliberately 
 select just those "signs" which he judges to have 
 highest value and significance. Nor does his selection 
 point exclusively to "works of omnipotence as God 
 alone can conjure them"; for, in the first place, the 
 "enhancement of miracle" is not quite so marked 
 as critics have assumed, and secondly, of the "signs" 
 recorded at least five seem capable of being explained 
 by the mighty influences of "a strong will and a firm 
 faith^." Two only occasion real difficulty and perplexity; 
 and even in their case we are slow to use the words 
 incredible, impossible. Scientific knowledge is still 
 circumscribed. And besides; "behind the alleged 
 miracles of the Gospels we have the absolutely greatest 
 spiritual force that the world has ever known ^." 
 
 There is one thing more to be said. If strict 
 historicity be no characteristic feature of these stories 
 in their every detail, it does not necessarily follow that 
 the author is dependent on second-hand knowledge. 
 Rather do they reveal numerous, significant traces of 
 an old man's memory as he lives again in the past, and 
 tells, as an old man would tell, of the things which he 
 saw and heard ^, He may not tell his story with 
 
 ^ Harnack, TVhat is Christianity ? p. 27. 
 
 2 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 177. 
 
 3 Cf. Peabody, The Fourth Gospel &c., pp. 117-119. 
 
142 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 scientific accuracy: but, whoever he be, he strikes us 
 as an eye-witness. There need be no hesitation in 
 adding, "he employed stories for his own ends^." 
 
 V. The Discourses. 
 
 Is the Fourth Gospel a reliable document in respect 
 to the conversations, discourses, sayings, which it 
 purports to relate? 
 
 We are met by decided answers in the negative. 
 A sharp contrast between the Synoptic representation 
 and that of the later Gospel is insisted on. The 
 •dissimilarity, it is said, is patent throughout ; it is 
 specially glaring in what is put into the mouth of 
 Jesus. In respect alike to form and subject-matter 
 the two representations are at variance : they cannot 
 both be true to fact ; to accept the one is, of necessity, 
 to reject the other. "Jesus must have spoken just 
 as the Synoptists make him speak^"; His utterances, 
 as reported by the Fourth Evangelist, have been trans- 
 formed "into the theological and philosophical language 
 of the schools ^" 
 
 Of such sort are the numerous objections. Whether 
 stated briefly or at length they are reiterated in almost 
 
 ^ von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 396. 
 
 2 Jiilicber, hitrod. to N. T., p. 372. 
 
 3 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 441. Keim [Jesus von 
 Nazara, i. p. 112) says : " Jesus selbst ist zum subtilsten Dogmatiker 
 geworden." 
 
THE DISCOURSES 143 
 
 identical terms: — "to discourse in Synoptic and 
 Johannine fashion is precisely what Jesus did not 
 do^"; "a Jesus who preached alternately in the manner 
 of the Sermon on the Mount and of John xiv.-xvii. is 
 a psychological impossibility; the distinction between 
 his so-called exoteric and esoteric teaching a palpable 
 absurdity 2." There is, by the way, a strong family 
 likeness between recent objections and those dating 
 from the opening of the attack on the Fourth GospeP. 
 Take, for instance, the pronouncement of a modern 
 critic : "in place of the popular form of oriental proverb- 
 wisdom and inventive parable, the profound allegory 
 with its appeal to matured reflection ; instead of sayings 
 pithy and concise, luminous and easy of retention, a 
 sequence of witnessings and disputings in an exalted 
 tone and marked by an utter disregard of the capacity 
 of the hearers... with the Synoptics Jesus makes 
 demands for self-renunciation, compassionate love, the 
 taking of self in hand, work for others, he warns against 
 the danger of riches, of worldly desires and anxieties, 
 above all he preaches about the Kingdom of God and 
 the conditions of entrance to it ; in the Fourth Gospel 
 the preaching of the Kingdom recedes from view, 
 Jesus is the dialectician who treats in singular and 
 anything but popular style of his own divinity. In 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen dtc, p. 24. 
 
 2 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 421. 
 
 3 Cf. B. Weiss, Einleitung, pp. 611 ff. 
 
144 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 both cases he appears as teacher; in the Fourth Gospel 
 he is himself almost exclusively subject of his teaching ^'* 
 And then compare with it the pronouncement of a 
 critic of nearly a hundred years ago: — "Jesus, as 
 pictured by the earlier gospels, never employs dialectic 
 skill, the ambiguity of artifice, a mystical style, whether 
 he be speaking, preaching, or disputing ; on the contrary 
 there is the utmost simplicity, clearness, a certain 
 natural eloquence which owes far more to the genius 
 of the mind than to acquired art. In the Fourth 
 Gospel he disputes as the dialectician, his speech is 
 ambiguous, his style mystical, he deals in obscurities, 
 so much so that even very learned people are quite 
 in the dark as to the real meaning of many of his 
 sayings. In the one case there are short and pregnant 
 utterances, parables so beautiful and of such inward 
 truth that they grip the attention and sink deep into 
 the soul; in the other the parabolic style of teaching 
 is practically absent. In the one case the question 
 turns on conduct, on rules of life, the Mosaic law, 
 errors of the Jewish people ; in the other the speaker 
 is concerned with dogma, with metaphysics, with his 
 own divine nature and dignity^." The resemblance 
 is unmistakable ; as it is detected again and again 
 
 1 H. J. Holtzmann, FAnleit., pp. 430, 431 ; cf. Wernle, Die 
 Quellen d:c., p. 19 (" Statt der Sache iiberall nur die Person ") ; von 
 Soden, Early Christ. Literature, pp. 409 S. 
 
 2 Bretschneider, Probabilia dc, pp. 1, 2. 
 
THE DISCOURSES 145 
 
 the supposition is pardonable that one objector after 
 another has either contented himself with arguments 
 that have become traditional, or gone for inspiration 
 to the one fountain-head. As in substance, so in 
 wording, the indictments are certainly very near 
 akin. 
 
 The question is : are they purely fanciful or well- 
 founded ? 
 
 It may be noted here that the contrast expatiated 
 on was felt (not in respect of the discourses only) at a 
 far earlier period^. For the "Fenelon of Germany" 
 (Herder) the Fourth Gospel was "an echo of the older 
 gospels in sublimer chorus"; we retrace our steps from 
 the eighteenth century to the sixteenth ; if for Luther 
 it be "the one tender right chief gospel" an explanation 
 again will be that its peculiarity was apprehended. 
 But to go a long way further back still: if Origen 
 accounts it the "firstling of all scripture," Clement of 
 Alexandria is quick to distinguish it as the "spiritual 
 gospel." A reason will surely be this, its characteristic 
 features of style and subject-matter have impressed 
 him. He does not therefore proceed to an opinion 
 unfavourable to the Gospel. 
 
 Another thing may be remarked. Short, pithy, 
 pregnant, it is said, are the sayings which come from 
 the lips, not of the Johannine, but of the Synoptic 
 
 1 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Einleit., p. 427. 
 J. 10 
 
146 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 Jesus. Very similar is the description which comes 
 down from the second century, and from one whose 
 allusions to "memoirs of the Apostles" imply a know- 
 ledge of the four Gospels. The speaker is Justin 
 Martyr: he will tell of "the very doctrine delivered 
 by Christ Himself"; he goes on to say: "short and 
 sententious are His discourses, no trifling sophister was 
 He^." The Fourth Gospel may have had its contrasts 
 for him ; the inference is that he was able to reconcile 
 them, at all events to his own satisfaction. 
 
 We ask : how does the case really stand ? In 
 attempting to answer we begin with a rapid survey 
 of the Gospel as a whole. 
 
 Allusion has been made already to a certain mono- 
 tony which runs through it, a sameness in manner 
 of presentment. The sameness, the monotony, are, 
 it must be confessed, illustrated in the speeches of 
 those who play their parts in the wonderful drama 
 which is made to unfold itself. It may be true that 
 the Fourth Evangelist has succeeded in investing the 
 several personages with an individuality which is all 
 their own. Rich is his narrative in "distinct personal 
 types" of character; "the vividness, the vigour, the life, 
 of their portraitures cannot be mistaken or gainsaid. 
 
 1 Justin Mart., ApoL, i. 18; cf. Drummond, Character and Author- 
 ship d-c, p. 20 : "It is not true, then, that the Johannine Christ 
 speaks like a Sophist, and abstains from using brief and concise 
 sayings." 
 
THE DISCOURSES 147 
 
 The different personages shew themselves. They come 
 forward and then pass out of sight as living men, and 
 not like characters in a legendary history^." Well and 
 good : it may, however, be argued and conceded that 
 they are brought forward to serve a purpose^, and that 
 as soon as their purpose is served they are allowed to 
 vanish without word or hint as to their subsequent 
 history^; for the time being, at any rate, they are men 
 and women of real flesh and blood. Situation, attitude, 
 temperament, turn of mind, are delineated in graphic 
 touches. All this may readily be granted; at once it 
 must be added that it is just when they begin to speak 
 that a strangely uniform note becomes perceptible. 
 It is not merely that they have one and all the same 
 topic, that "the theme is for ever the same, Jesus 
 Himself ^" The subject of inquiry or debate may be 
 diverse ; there is little, if any, variety in the manner of 
 the discourse. The language is admittedly Johannine^. 
 If the Fourth Evangelist has indeed " fashioned a speech 
 
 1 Westcott, St John, pp. Ixxi., Ixxv. ; cf. Barth, Das Johannes- 
 evangelium, p. 30. von Soden {Early Christ. Literature, pp. 390 f.) 
 will scarcely assent : " The characters appear in a strange twilight... 
 they profess to be actual personalities, yet live only the life of typical 
 characters." So also Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz des Johannes- 
 evangelium, p. 21, 
 
 2 Cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 388. 
 
 3 *'Our author loses the whole of his interest in both persons and 
 situations as soon as they have served his doctrinal purpose." von 
 Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 398. 
 
 ■* Barth, Das Johannesevangellum, pp. 29, 30. 
 ^ Ibid., p. 32. See also Thoma, Genesis des Ev. Joh., p. 345. 
 
 10—2 
 
148 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 peculiar to his school^," his characters hold converse 
 in its phraseology. 
 
 Again, and in close connection with what has just 
 been said. As a result of this sameness of style and 
 diction it is often far from easy to determine who the 
 speaker really is. The words flow on in a continuous 
 stream, subject-matter may remain unchanged, there 
 is a sequence of thought; at the same time there is 
 now and again ground for the conjecture that the one 
 whose voice is heard is not the character who has been 
 speaking hitherto but another. That other will be the 
 Evangelist himself. He has a way, that is, of narrating 
 some conversation or discourse, and of merging his own 
 reflections in it 2. 
 
 Yet another thing is observable. Scenes and in- 
 cidents are so narrated as to suggest that those alone 
 are present who are expressly mentioned; the conversa- 
 tions, however, are reported with the precision of an 
 eye-witness, of one who has actually listened to the 
 spoken words. Of this there are at least three striking 
 instances : the night- visit of Nicodemus^, the talk with 
 
 1 von Dobschiitz, Christian Life d-c, p. 222 ; cf. Jtiliclier, Introd. 
 to N. T., p. 392. 
 
 2 Thus, e.g., in John iii. 16-22 ; 31-36 : which probably contain 
 not words of Jesus and the Baptist, but ponderings of the Evangehst. 
 Cf. Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften N. T., p. 208, " Zudem 
 verschwimmen die ihm (Jesus) geliehenen Worte ofters mit den 
 eigenen Reflexionen des Verfassers " ; von Soden, Early Christ. 
 Literature, p. 412 ; Weizsacker, Apost. Age, ii. 225. 
 
 3 John iii. 1-16. 
 
THE DISCOURSES 149 
 
 the woman of Samaria^, the questioning by Pilate^. 
 In two of them the presence of a third person may 
 perhaps be inferred : of one who, as intimate friend of 
 the Jewish ruler, had arranged the interview, who, 
 closely attached to Jesus, had stayed on with his 
 Master when the disciples went away to buy provisions^. 
 No such inference seems possible in the third instance ; 
 but for the military guard Pilate would be alone with 
 Jesus. It has been urged that the soldiers would be 
 eagerly questioned later on as to what had taken place 
 betw^een Roman governor and august prisoner; but 
 even so there could hardly be question of a report given 
 and set down with entire accuracy. Where inference 
 alone is possible the conclusion appears inevitable that 
 the Fourth Evangelist does sometimes amplify from his 
 own conceptions as to what would be said by the 
 respective personages. The conclusion has been stated 
 thus : "few will deny that in this Gospel the prerogative 
 of the ancient historian to place in the mouth of his 
 characters discourses reflecting his own idea of what 
 was suitable to the occasion, has been used to the 
 limit "*." The least that can be said is that the narrative 
 is coloured by the idealism of the narrator. 
 
 Points such as these refuse to be ignored. They 
 compel to some admissions in respect to the Fourth 
 
 1 John iv. 7-26. 2 john xviii. 33-37. 
 
 3 But cf. Keuss, Geschichte des N. T., p. 208. 
 •* Bacon, Introd. to N. T., p. 257 ; cf. Barth, Das JoJidnnesevan- 
 gelhim, p. 32. 
 
150 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 Gospel as a whole. If an element of subjectivity be 
 discernible in the Synoptics^ (and no doubt such is the 
 case), it is met with in an enhanced degi-ee in the pages 
 of the Fourth Gospel. The speakers cannot, one and 
 all, have expressed themselves in exactly the same style ; 
 if the thoughts and ideas be theirs the words in which 
 thoughts and ideas are clothed will often be those of 
 the Evangelist himself And again, if there were 
 occasions when he was not in the presence of the 
 speakers, that which they are made to say will then 
 be the imagined utterance. He has dared, that is, to 
 exercise a considerable amount of freedom; and, for 
 some, this very freedom is one of many conclusive 
 proofs of Apostolic authorship. No one but an Apostle, 
 it is argued, would have dared to take such liberties 
 in the representation. 
 
 Be this as it may, the admissions made in respect 
 to the Fourth Gospel generally are in no wise to be 
 withdrawn when the question turns in particular on 
 the discourses of Jesus as reported in it. They must 
 still be adhered to. What will they now carry with 
 them? 
 
 The question demands an honest, candid answer. 
 And the only answer possible is this: the Fourth 
 Evangelist displays a "sovereign indifference" to the 
 mere letter. He is no stenographer who takes down 
 
 1 H. J. Holtzmann, Einleit., p. 441 ; cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., 
 pp. 368 ff. 
 
THE DISCOURSES 151 
 
 verbatim and with practised hand sentences as they 
 come directly from the speaker's lips, and who reproduces 
 them for the press with verbal accuracy. His may, no 
 doubt, be the trained memory, the retentive Jewish 
 mind; the suggestion has been made that heads of 
 discourses actually heard by him were jotted down at 
 the time^ and carefully preserved : it is none the less 
 true that he has allowed himself full liberty of expan- 
 sion, perhaps of condensation^. Concerned to give 
 the substance of what has been either spoken in his 
 presence or told him subsequently, he does not hesitate 
 to give it in a form which is of his own devising. His 
 individuality is impressed on all his reports of the say- 
 ings and discourses of Jesus. The language is his own. 
 
 It follows that the Fourth Gospel is not throughout 
 a depository of the very words of Jesus as originally 
 spoken. Actual sayings of His are, no doubt, enshrined 
 in it, the gist of what He said on many an occasion, 
 kernels of discourses. Of word for word reports there 
 can be no question. 
 
 The admission forced upon us is, then, very nearly 
 this: "Jesus cannot have had, at the same time, the 
 
 ^ Michaelis, Lectures on the N. T., p. 240. Strauss {Life of Jesus, 
 p. 382) notices aa opinion of Bertholdt to the same effect. But see 
 B. Weiss, Einleitung, p. 605, note. 
 
 2 Luther's comment on one passage might serve for others : 
 "St Joh. fasset diese Predigt kurz mit wenig Worten, aber der Herr 
 Christus wird sie viel reichlicher und hiibscher ausgestrichen haben. " 
 {Werke, xlviii. 164.) t 
 
152 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 style and method of teaching which the Synoptists 
 describe and that which the Fourth Gospel reflects. 
 We must therefore attribute the language, the colour, 
 and the form of these Johannine discourses to the 
 Evangelist. The Gospel of John is a distillation of the 
 life and teaching of Jesus from the alembic of the 
 Apostle's own mind. It is his interpretation of the 
 meaning of Christ's words, deeds, and person, derived 
 from intimate personal relations with him, and coloured 
 and shaped by a long life of Christian thought and 
 experience^." 
 
 It will be remarked that the writer just quoted 
 affirms the Apostolic authorship; further, that, refer- 
 ring to the person of Jesus, he points to a subject to be 
 dealt with in another section. As for his opening 
 sentence, it will presently be reverted to ; it will have 
 to be modified in order to gain acceptance. What he 
 says in the main may be unhesitatingly assented to. 
 The author of the Fourth Gospel is, very probably, one 
 who has lived a long life, many and varied have been 
 his experiences, the scenes and conditions of his old 
 age are very different from those of his earlier man- 
 hood, he has learnt many a lesson — in earlier days from 
 Jesus — later on from his great predecessor in Asia 
 Minor. He has pondered much, and light has broken 
 in upon him from many quarters. The result is that 
 new and great conceptions have taken hold of him; 
 
 1 Stevens, Theology of N. T., p. 172. 
 
THE DISCOURSES 153 
 
 they influence his mode of speech, his style of writing. 
 Of such a one it is not to be expected that he will 
 have retained every saying of Jesus precisely as it was 
 spoken^; still less that he will mechanically indite 
 every remembered or recorded line and syllable. It 
 would be altogether foreign to his genius, his type of 
 mind, to allow himself to be the mere automaton. He 
 will, indeed, pen " living memories," but he will pen 
 them in his own words. 
 
 The discourses of Jesus, as reported in the Fourth 
 Gospel, are, then, "a distillation of the teaching of Jesus 
 from the alembic of the " Evangelist's " own mind." 
 
 To revert to the opening sentence of the passage 
 above quoted. That there is a contrast between the 
 Synoptic and Johannine representation of the preaching 
 and teaching of Jesus may be admitted ; does it entirely 
 justify the assertion that "Jesus cannot have had, at 
 the same time, the style and method" described by the 
 Synoptists and reflected by the Fourth Gospel ^ ? Is 
 a Jesus who can adopt the two styles and methods 
 really " a psychological impossibility " ? 
 
 The question shall be considered, briefly, under two 
 heads : the form of the teaching ; its subject-matter. 
 
 First, then, as to the form. An explanation of the 
 
 1 Cf. Barth, Das Joliannesevangelium, p. 34 ; J. Armitage Eobin- 
 son, Study of the Gospels, p. 138. See also B. Weiss, Einleitung, p. 605. 
 
 '^ Kaftan {Dos Evan, des Joh., in Die Christliclie Welt, No. 17) 
 says of the Syn. representation : " So hat Jesus gesprochen und 
 gelehrt, wie es uns hier entgegentritt." 
 
154 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 contrast is already to hand ; the recognised subjectivity 
 of the Fourth Evangelist, the fact that he is in no way 
 concerned to reproduce the past with scrupulous regard 
 to accuracy. A further explanation occurs to us as we 
 think of powers possessed by living men to adapt them- 
 selves to their environment; to "speak in the ver- 
 nacular " to ruder minds, to reserve their more abstruse 
 arguments for cultured and reflective hearers. There 
 is the gift of racy simplicity, the gift of profundity ; if 
 seen now-a-days — in rare instances perhaps — combined 
 in the same individual, why deny them, in their combi- 
 nation, in the case of Jesus ? If He be but one 
 towering conspicuously above His fellow-men there is 
 surely good reason to concede them to Him; to feel 
 persuaded that He will use now one and now the other 
 as the exigencies of locality and circumstance may 
 require. And there are exigencies which go some way 
 to explain the marked difference in style and method : 
 the difference is conditioned by that of the people with 
 whom Jesus has to do in this place and that; the 
 difference between them, again, being conditioned by a 
 difference of scene. Away in Galilee — where the scene 
 is so largely laid by the Synoptists — those to whom 
 Jesus will address Himself are "the multitude," the 
 poor, the weary and the heavy-laden, unlearned and 
 simple folk, sheep having no shepherd ; His very dis- 
 ciples are of the same sort ; if He dispute with Scribes 
 and Pharisees He is ever mindful of the limited com- 
 
THE DISCOURSES 155 
 
 prehension of the bystanders ; He confines Himself to 
 the concrete, and draws His similitudes from the 
 objects of nature, the events of social life. In Jerusalem 
 — the scene as laid for the more part in the Fourth 
 Gospel — the audience is of another sort ; those with 
 whom Jesus has now to do are no longer simple, unin- 
 structed folk, but practised theologians of the Temple 
 schools, and His discourses are framed accordingly. 
 Well might He be as it were one person in Galilee and 
 quite another in Jerusalem : to the Galilaean populace 
 a man of the people; to scholars of Jerusalem one of 
 their own number^. It was there that His deeper 
 teaching would naturally be given — to " cultured and 
 responsible people " as distinguished from the " motley 
 crowd" in Galilee^. 
 
 His deeper teaching. Depth not only in respect of 
 style and method ; depth also in respect of substance, 
 topic. If the contrast in form has been to some extent 
 accounted for (and we cannot but believe that it has), 
 what can be said now as to the contrast in subject- 
 matter ? 
 
 Again we dwell on the subjectivity which is a 
 
 feature of the Fourth Gospel; it is to find much 
 
 explained by it. At once we see questions raised 
 
 which, connected, as they are, with the two portraits of 
 
 Jesus, must be deferred for subsequent consideration. 
 
 ^ Delff, Rabbi Jesus, pp. 138, 139. But see Hase, Geschichte Jesti, 
 p. 41. 
 
 '^ Swete, Studies in the Teaching of our Lord, p. 130. 
 
156 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 For the time being our inquiry shall be strictly limited 
 to points raised by the contention that the Johannine 
 discourses of Jesus leave men utterly in the lurch when 
 it comes to the vitally important question : what is it 
 that God looks for ? what is it that is alone decisive for 
 life or death ? There is, we are told, the answer of the 
 Fourth Gospel : — believe on the Son of God who came 
 down from heaven, believe that this Son of God is 
 Jesus ; — an answer, it is added, which has had a baneful 
 influence on the history of Christendom, for it is only 
 too easy to profess the belief without drawing a step 
 nearer to God, without becoming a better man. Far 
 different; it is further urged, is the answer which comes 
 from the sayings of the Synoptic Jesus : — he only who 
 does the will of God has a place in God's Kingdom ; 
 who is for Jesus mother, brother, sister. And in what 
 the will of God consists is plain and clear to read: 
 uprightness, brotherly love, trust in God, humility, a 
 yearning after God's Kingdom. Of all that there is 
 practically not a single word in the pages of the Fourth 
 Evangelist: — instead of the real issues the person of 
 Jesus is alone in evidence^. 
 
 There is something in all this that is, no doubt, 
 exceedingly attractive at first sight. It might appeal 
 to those who are content to take their stand with Pope : 
 
 " For forms of faith let graceless zealots fight ; 
 He can't be wrong, whose life is in the right." 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen dbc, pp. 31, 19. 
 
THE DISCOURSES ]57 
 
 Attention will, likely enough, be called to instances, 
 not infrequent, where the comforting promises of the 
 Johannine discourses have been glibly appropriated by 
 those whose life has not been too strictly in accordance 
 with a profession of religion postponed to the last 
 illness, perhaps to dying moments. We remember the 
 old adage, abusus non tollit usum ; then we too maintain 
 that it is in the last degree important that right 
 conduct should be emphasised and insisted upon. All 
 the same it occurs to us that, however attractive the 
 contention now under consideration may appear on the 
 surface, it falls a long way short of accounting for 
 phenomena discernible in the history of the past nine- 
 teen centuries. Why was it, we ask, that " Christianity 
 was a great crisis of civilisation " ? as the reply comes, 
 '* because it changed the internal man, creeds, senti- 
 ments ; because it regenerated the moral man, the 
 intellectual man^," we are constrained to expect that He 
 who founded it should be more than a great moral 
 teacher. His personality, it seems to us, must also be 
 taken into account. It is not only a question of how 
 and what He taught, but of what He was Himself; He 
 — admittedly the greatest spiritual force that the 
 world has ever known. 
 
 But this is to anticipate. Agreed that the earlier 
 Gospels are characterised by a greater difFuseness when 
 the question turns on teaching with regard to morals, 
 
 ^ Guizot, Hist, of Civilisation, i. 12 ; cf. Barth, Das Johannes- 
 evangelium, p. 44. 
 
158 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 behaviour, personal conduct, it is not so certain that the 
 latest Gospel is altogether silent. Agreed that the 
 latest Gospel finds its theme continually in the person 
 of Jesus, it may still be true that the earlier Gospels 
 point also in the same direction. There may be, after 
 all, weight in the remark : " plainly there was nothing 
 further from the mind of the Synoptic Jesus than the 
 idea that virtue was a something that might be 
 taught \" 
 
 There are two ways of emphasising a point. The 
 one is to enlarge on it, to discuss it in all its bearings, 
 to bring out its full meaning by copious illustration; 
 the other is to formulate some short incisive aphorism 
 which strikes home with telling effect, which incites to 
 reflection, which prompts to action. If the former 
 method be that adopted by the Synoptists, the latter 
 has been preferred by the Fourth Evangelist. He too 
 will establish it that if the Jesus of whom he tells 
 requires belief in Himself He also makes a demand for 
 conduct in perfect harmony with and inspired by the 
 belief professed. How, then, does he do it ? By using 
 an expression which is packed with a whole world of 
 meaning, by making Jesus say : " he that doeth truth 
 cometh to the light that his deeds may be made 
 manifest, that they are wrought in God^." " Doeth 
 truth ! " — in that one pregnant saying the whole root 
 
 1 Delff, Rabbi Jesus, p. 177. 
 
 - John iii, 21 (cf. vii. 17 — to which Wernle refers ; Die Quellend'c, 
 p. 23). 
 
THE DISCOURSES 159 
 
 of the matter is indeed contained. " Right action is 
 right thought realised^" The importance of right 
 action is, then, insisted on by the Johannine Jesus. 
 Well has it been said : " it is precisely in John's Gospel 
 that the thoroughly practical spirit of early Christianity 
 makes itself felt most powerfully ; the Word has become 
 true man, as such He has revealed the Father, together 
 with the revelation of the Truth (that is, the moral 
 being of God), He has also taught men to do the Truth 
 — that is, to follow the will of God, to love God and to 
 love the brethren also-." And again: a "thoroughly 
 practical Christianity" is "mirrored" in the Fourth 
 GospeP. 
 
 Yet one thing more. It were easy to enumerate 
 passages in the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus is 
 seen, as it were, pointing to Himself, assuming a 
 position, an authority, which implied His claims to the 
 reverence of men. If the Jesus of the Fourth Evan- 
 gelist is discovered more frequently discoursing of 
 Himself, His person, and His claims, one reason at any 
 rate is not far to seek. He is not in Galilee, but in 
 Jerusalem. What more natural than that, asserting 
 
 1 Westcott, St John, p. 57. 
 
 2 von Dobschiitz, Das Apostol. Zeitalter, pp. 68, 69. 
 
 3 von Dobschiitz, Christian Life d'c, p. 231. See also Wetzel, 
 Die geschichtliche GlaubwUrdigkeit der im Evan. Joh. enthaltenen 
 Reden Jesu, Neiie Kirch. Zeitschr., xiv. 1903, p. 674. "An klaren, 
 aufs Praktische und Sittliche gerichteten Stiicken fehlt es auch im 
 Evan. Joh. nicht." 
 
160 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 His Messiahship, He should have discoursed of Himself 
 at the headquarters of Judaism, and in language which, 
 abstruse as it might be for some, was by no means 
 unintelligible to cultured Jewish hearers ? 
 
 To sum up in fewest words. A marked contrast 
 between Synoptic and Johannine representation of the 
 discourses of Jesus must be frankly recognised. It is 
 in some part to be explained by the difference of 
 locality, of audience; in respect to both form and 
 subject-matter the teaching suited to Galilee would be 
 quite unsuitable at Jerusalem, and vice versa. If Jesus 
 be no more than " the greatest man that ever lived " it 
 is far from being a " psychological impossibility " that 
 He should, on occasion, have at least varied the manner 
 and the matter of His discourse. The method is, 
 beyond question, diverse ; it remains true that, in both 
 cases, He is seen directing attention to Himself; making 
 highest demands for an uprightness of heart and life. 
 But this is no sufficient explanation. The contrast is 
 mainly to be accounted for by the greater subjectivity 
 of the Fourth Evangelist; who records, not ipsissima 
 verba, but the substance of the teaching of Jesus, and 
 records it in his own way. " Recent criticism is steadily 
 tending to the conclusion that the form in which the 
 discourses of Christ are recorded in the Fourth Gospel 
 is, in part, due to the Evangelist himself. Say what 
 we will about differences of audience and of situation 
 demanding different forms of address, and allowing for 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 161 
 
 exceptional instances, the contrast between the terse, 
 axiomatic sayings, the simple parables of the Synoptics 
 and the elaborate arguments of the Johannine dis- 
 courses, is too great to be explained away. For myself, 
 I believe that these wonderful discourses suggest at 
 every point their own authenticity as regards the 
 substance of their teaching; yet I cannot but think 
 that the form in which that teaching is presented 
 reflects the habits of thought of the Greek society, 
 for whose benefit they were at first committed to 
 writing^." 
 
 With which remarks we can but admit general 
 agreement. 
 
 VI. The Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine 
 Christ. 
 
 We come to the two portraits of Jesus. It is said that 
 they are totally unlike ; that the Jesus of the Synoptics 
 is no longer recognisable in the Christ as conceived of 
 and pictured by the Fourth Evangelist. The contrast 
 has been thus stated : " the one has almost nothing to 
 bring forward as to his divine nature, and, judging by 
 his utterances, will solely describe himself as endowed 
 with divine gifts, sent by God, Messiah; as for the 
 other he makes everything turn on himself, pre-exist- 
 
 ^ J. H. Bernard, Church Congress Paper (Bristol, 1903). 
 J. 11 
 
162 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 ence is claimed, one with God he has shared the divine 
 glory, he had come down from heaven in all the fulness 
 of divine knowledge and might, he is about to return 
 speedily to the throne on high^." 
 
 The foregoing criticism is nearly a century old. It 
 has been adopted and adapted, reiterated alike in form 
 and substance by many a critic of later times. Never 
 does the Synoptic Jesus "step outside the bounds of 
 the purely human ^ " ; in the Fourth Gospel we have 
 the " unfathomable mystery of Jesus, his pre- and post- 
 existence ^." " The Johannine Christ is complete from 
 the very first, for him there is no childhood and youth, 
 he is all along the divine Word manifested in the flesh. 
 Every trace of that development, that battling and 
 struggling, which betoken the growing Son of God of 
 the Synoptics, is for the most part expunged and 
 weakened, characteristically transformed and renovated ; 
 whatever bespeaks dependence, the stories of the birth 
 and youth ; whatever points to foreknowledge lacking 
 and to failure, the choice of the traitor Judas ; whatever 
 to real passivity, Gethsemane and Golgotha*." " In the 
 Synoptics we have the man Jesus of Nazareth, charged 
 
 1 Bretschneider, Prohdbilia, p. 2. 
 
 2 Bousset, Jesus, p. 98, 
 
 3 Soltau, Unsere Evangelien d'c, p. 111. 
 
 4 H. J. Holtzmann, Einleit., p. 432 ; cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., 
 p. 390; von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 392; Wrede, 
 Charakter und Tendenz dtc, pp. 31, 37. "Es ist ein waudelnder Gott 
 der geachildert wird." 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 163 
 
 indeed by God with the Messianic calling and endued 
 with spiritual power, but even in his moments of 
 highest exaltation and God-consciousness alive to the 
 distance at which he is removed from God and bowing 
 in lowliest reverence before Him like every other child 
 of man. With the Fourth Evangelist he is the God by 
 whom the world was made, God with God from all 
 eternity, come down to earth for our salvation but ever 
 conscious of his divine origin and dignity, revealing the 
 power of God in his wonders of omnipotence, if he prays 
 it is not for himself but for the sake of bystanders, of 
 his own free will he goes to that death which is entirely 
 within his own power, from death he returns in glory 
 to the Father after the confession has come from dis- 
 ciple-lips : ' my Lord and my God.' " " In fine, the 
 difference between the Christ-portraits may be ex- 
 pressed in the simple formula: here man — there 
 Godi." 
 
 This last criticism, be it remembered, comes from 
 the very one who has told, and in all reverence, of a 
 gaze which is to-day fixed on Jesus ; of overpowering 
 feelings that this same Jesus has a message for the 
 modern world, that the modem world cannot do without 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen d'c, p. 25. Weinel writes : "in the fourth, 
 gospel... we have a version — or perversion — of the Master's life by a 
 disciple who has portrayed Him not in His self-sacrificing love... but 
 as the mighty superhuman being demanding recognition of the Divine 
 Sonship and Messianic glory." {St Paul, the Man and his Worky 
 p. 320.) 
 
 11—2 
 
164 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 Him\ In substantial and beautiful agreement is the 
 summing-up of another whose critical standpoint is 
 identical : Jesus is indeed " leader to God for every 
 period and for every people." " The world's history is 
 responsive with its Yea, Amen." As for ourselves, " if 
 we do but strive to be absorbed in His figure there 
 will come to us an exaltation of the soul. Then is it 
 that we shall in truth have got down to the very depths 
 of our own spiritual, personal existence V 
 
 There is assuredly no thought of banishing the Lord 
 Christ from the world's life on the part of those who 
 have but one answer to the question : " is the Synoptic 
 or the Johannine Christ the Christ of history ^ ? " They 
 cannot, indeed, recognise the historical Jesus in the 
 pages of the Fourth Gospel ; they do assert His supreme 
 claims to reverence, to devotion. Pointing to Him as 
 "yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever," inspirer, 
 leader and guide of humanity, they too will make 
 avowal — qualified it may be — of that earliest Christian 
 creed : " Jesus Christ is Lord." 
 
 Are we called upon to supply deficiencies in their 
 confession ; to emphasise, with no uncertain sound, a 
 meaning to be read into that credal statement ? 
 
 The duty, be it said, is not here required of us. 
 Strong, indeed, may be our own convictions; if we 
 
 1 Wemle, Die Quellen d:c., p. 1. 
 
 2 Bousset, Jesus, pp. 102, 103. See also Arno Neumann, Jesus ^ 
 p. 171. 
 
 2 Wernle, Die Quellen dx., p. 27. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 165 
 
 refuse to state them, to argue in support of them, the 
 reason is simply this, that we are not concerned now 
 with Christian apologetics but with historical criticism. 
 The province of dogmatic theology shall be ruled out- 
 side the range of the present inquiry. It will, indeed, 
 take us on to holy ground. Deep seriousness is called 
 for; a full realisation that momentous questions are 
 raised in turning from recorded sayings of Jesus to the 
 person of Jesus Himself Of such momentous questions 
 there can be no discussion in these pages ; no attempts 
 to treat exhaustively and confidently of " the divinity 
 of our Lord." 
 
 Agreed, then, as to limits, we proceed with our 
 inquiry. The questions before us are these: are the 
 Synoptic and Johannine portraits of Jesus so totally 
 unlike as they are said to be ? Is there really ground 
 for the categorical "either... or ^ !" which requires that 
 if the one be held true to life the other must be 
 deemed imaginary and unreal ? May it not, on the 
 other hand, be possible to detect common features, to 
 account for the difference of representation ? 
 
 An admission shall be made forthwith. The two 
 portraits are utterly unlike — as they have been described 
 to us. If the descriptions be absolutely reliable, exact in 
 their every detail, given by those whose artist-eye enables 
 them to form a correct judgment of the artist's finished 
 work and to pen appreciations as art-critics of the front 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen dc, p. 26. 
 
166 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 rank, it would scarcely be worth while to go on with 
 the inquiry. Cadit quaestio ; the subjects of the por- 
 traits are altogether different. " Here man — there 
 God"; such, it would seem, is the only conclusion 
 possible if the descriptions given be accepted without 
 demur. But demur we cannot but make. It is not 
 that we doubt the good faith, the sincerity, the learning, 
 of those who lay stress on the marked contrast presented 
 by the Synoptic and Johannine representation of Jesus; 
 far from it. We simply decline to rest content with 
 being told, no matter by whom, what the portraits are 
 like. We would view them for ourselves ; study them 
 and compare them. At any rate attempts must be 
 made to distinguish between style and style, to appre- 
 ciate the thoughts and conceptions of the respective 
 artists, to decide as to the subject portrayed on the 
 two canvasses. Then we would venture an opinion of 
 our own ; and it may, or may not, coincide with that so 
 confidently pronounced by others. In the former case 
 the admission made a moment ago in guarded terms 
 will hold good ; in the latter it will have to be still 
 more highly qualified if not absolutely withdrawn. 
 
 Without further delay, then, we approach the two 
 portraits. As for the one discoverable in the pages of 
 the Fourth Evangelist, we decide that closer study of it 
 shall be reserved to the last. The other looms large in 
 the Synoptic Gospels; it stands full in view in that 
 earliest of the three which contains "what we may 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 167 
 
 call, without disparagement to the veracity of any 
 additions found in the several Gospels, the most valu- 
 able and authentic recital of the story of Jesus Christ ^" 
 The reference, here, shall be to the Mark Gospel, and 
 we begin by contemplating Jesus as He is pictured 
 in it. 
 
 Clearly the portrait is of one whose every feature 
 bears the impress of a true humanity. We remark in 
 passing that stories of the birth and childhood are 
 absent ; the Jesus of the Marcan narrative has arrived 
 at manhood when He comes upon the scene. Of a truth 
 the experiences common to our race are shared by 
 Him; He is stirred by emotions; He is conscious of 
 physical needs. Hungry and thirsty He eats and 
 drinks with disciples and with friends. The strain of 
 continuous action tells on Him ; He falls asleep in the 
 ship, He will fain seek quietude and repose. He is 
 capable of pity ; " moved with compassion " by the 
 spectacle of disease and pain 2. He is " acquainted with 
 grief"; and not merely as Himself sufferer, but mourn- 
 ing that which he discerns in others. Strong are His 
 sympathies and His passions; He can win affection 
 and bestow His love ; He can be stern ; He is moved 
 to wrath. He meets with failure and rebufif. The 
 reception accorded Him by those among whom He has 
 lived as the village carpenter causes Him surprise, 
 
 ^ Cf. Bp. of Ripon, Introd. to the Study of the Scriptures, p. 130. 
 2 ' ' Der Menschheit ganzer Jammer fasst mich an. " Faust. 
 
168 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 renders Him incapable of action. He requires to be 
 informed on this point or that ; accordingly He puts 
 questions. His knowledge has limits which He Himself 
 owns. Great spiritual crises come to Him ; the mean- 
 ing and power of temptation are realised. For ever 
 pointing to the Heavenly Father He is Himself depen- 
 dent on the Heavenly Father ; He must go apart for 
 communion with God, He cannot do without prayer. 
 There are dread hours when the strength which comes 
 from prayer seems to fail Him. He is well-nigh crushed 
 by the anticipation of the fate in store for Him. In 
 Gethsemane deep terror seizes Him ; He pleads and 
 hopes for deliverance from those who are compassing 
 His death. Not till flight is impossible does He nerve 
 Himself, and even then He almost expostulates with 
 His captors. Easily is the arrest made, and the now 
 friendless prisoner conducted to the high priest's pre- 
 sence. Bitter is the cry which comes from Him in 
 His dying moments : " My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me ? " 
 
 We have accentuated, not exaggerated, features in 
 the Marcan portrait which reveal the humanity of 
 Jesus. Verily He is one like unto ourselves. The 
 descriptions of Him as invested with not merely the 
 form but the temperament of manhood which have 
 been given us are therefore warranted. It is a real 
 man who looks down on us from St Mark's canvas. 
 
 The question is : have we as yet done full justice to 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 169 
 
 the portrait ? That some of the features thus far noted 
 are sharply defined is a certainty; the vividness of 
 their delineation is, however, calculated to engross 
 attention. Perhaps they have blinded us to other 
 features which, really there, are only waiting to be 
 discerned and appreciated. 
 
 Again we look at the portrait, and with closer 
 scrutiny. It is impressed upon us that He who is 
 pictured is great with no ordinary greatness. The 
 Jesus of the Marcan Gospel has it in Him to exercise a 
 marvellous influence. He is invested with strange 
 powders. Wonderful is His energy. Wherever He 
 goes there is stir and movement ; the burst of enthu- 
 siasm ; opposition equally significant of an acknow- 
 ledged forcefulness. His " come ye after me " is no 
 sooner heard than obeyed. Unclean spirits are subdued 
 by His word, and His fame as physician spreads far and 
 wide. It is noised that He is in the house ; straight- 
 way it is besieged by the surging crowd ; He will seek 
 privacy, but multitudes throng to Him. His hearers 
 marvel as they listen to His teaching ; His authorita- 
 tive tone is remarked ; it is felt that there is something 
 entirely new in the doctrine set forth by Him. Incisive 
 are His utterances, and ever to the point. He has a 
 word for all ; and it is a word which, exactly suited to 
 the case, goes home to the very heart. He will raise 
 men to higher planes. Lofty are the thoughts to 
 which He gives expression. Himself full of God-con- 
 
170 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 sciousness He will make God a reality for those among 
 whom He lives and moves^. That He has a mission to 
 them He is persuaded, and He spends Himself in its 
 discharge. 
 
 More features, then, are discernible in the portrait 
 of Jesus. His humanity remains, and it is of a very 
 noble type. Exalted is His mission and heroically is it 
 fulfilled ; " His Passion and His Death are in truth His 
 coronation^." The true man who still looks down on us 
 from St Mark's canvas is no ordinary man. He is the 
 exceptionally great personage. " He towers above His 
 fellow-men in virtue of a calling which is peculiarly 
 His own : Messiah, Son of God, King of the Kingdom 
 which is God's, knowing the very heart of God as man 
 has never yet known it^." 
 
 It is even so. We, viewing the portrait for our- 
 selves, are constrained to allow that descriptions of 
 such sort are not overdrawn. They coincide with our 
 own opinions of it. 
 
 But we must look again, still more narrowly, at the 
 portrait. What if other features have escaped notice ? 
 What if there be that in the Marcan narrative which 
 compels us to go a step further before the final opinion 
 is arrived at ? 
 
 1 " He must call into life in the souls of others the treasure of 
 His own soul." von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 3. See also 
 Arno Neumann, Jesus, p. 76. 
 
 2 Bousset, JesuSf p. 100. 
 
 ^ Wernle, Die Quellen dx., p. 30. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 171 
 
 There is much in the narrative which startles us. 
 Were it not that uncertainty attaches to the reading, 
 appeal might be made at once to that " Son of God " 
 which meets us in the opening verse ^; Jesus is, in any 
 case, the "mightier one" whose coming is expected; 
 who, appearing, is quick to assert His sovereignty. He 
 has authority to forgive sins. The Sabbath must own 
 Him Lord. Earthly relationships are scarce heeded by 
 Him. He takes it as a matter of course that there 
 should be grave questioning as to who He really is. No 
 matter that it means the felon's cross, allegiance to His 
 person is insisted on. He identifies Himself with the 
 Gospel He proclaims. Foretelling false Christs He 
 emphasises His own importance; they will come "in 
 My name." His "I say unto you" has the ring of 
 conscious supremacy. For Himself His own sayings 
 are of transcendent and eternal weight and import : 
 " heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall 
 not pass away." He knows that death will have no 
 dominion over Him. Unhesitatingly does He accept the 
 designation " the Christ, the Son of the Blessed." Time 
 after time He styles Himself by that mysterious title, 
 " Son of Man." A deep meaning must be read into it^. 
 
 ^ The words "Son of God" are omitted in some very ancient 
 MSS. ; they may, however, have stood in the original text. 
 
 2 "He speaks as 'the Son of Man' who in His representative 
 character descends to bear the burden of the race." J. Armitage 
 Eobinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 65. Of. Dalmau, Words of Jesus, 
 pp. 234 ff. See also Grill, Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehung des 
 4. Evan., pp. 46 ff. 
 
172 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYXOPTICS 
 
 What shall we say now ? Account shall be taken of 
 the fact that there is difference of opinion as to the 
 exact significance of the title " Son of Man"; of sugges- 
 tions that its reiteration is mainly due to the dogmatics 
 of the early Church, and that its use by Jesus Himself 
 was comparatively rare^. Perhaps we are told to make 
 allowances, to think of pictures of Jesus re-painted and 
 gilded by the Church's faith-; if so the reply is that we 
 cannot do otherwise than take the Marcan portrait as it 
 stands in view. And then we are driven to confess that 
 it is the portrait of one utterly unlike all other men. 
 He who is subject of it is great with more than human 
 greatness. As the Roman centurion is reported to have 
 said of Him, "truly this man was divined" 
 
 We are compelled to go beyond the descriptions 
 given of the portrait. The subject of it is indeed true 
 man ; He is the exceptionally great personage ; His 
 majesty is unique^. "King of men" He is, but He is 
 more than mere man. The conclusion is that we are 
 "justified in holding that the relation in which He 
 stood to God was not only different in degree from that 
 in which we stand, but also unique in kind^." 
 
 1 Boussct, Jesus, pp. 89 ff. 2 ibid., p. 81. 
 
 3 J. Armitage Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 59. It may be 
 said here that Earth (Das Johannesevangeliuvi, pp. 15 ff.) works 
 up to the same point with copious reference to all three Synoptics ; 
 remarking on the precarious position of opponents who disallow so 
 much as unhistorical. Cf. Wernle, Die Quellen dx., pp. 22, 23. 
 
 4 Cf, Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, i. p. 75. 
 
 5 Lotze, Philosophy of Religion, p. 172. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 173 
 
 " The Synoptic picture of Christ," it has been said, is 
 "the finest flower of religious poetry^." We realise the 
 beauty of the Marcan picture, but we may not linger 
 on it. The second portrait has now to be studied ; that 
 presented in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 The portrait is a noble one. At a glance we perceive 
 that its subject is an exalted personage. Of such sort 
 is the word-painting that His greatness overpowers us ; 
 even as it did those who appear constrained to follow 
 Him, to attach themselves to His person. There is an 
 air of imperiousness about Him ; He is one who has a 
 right to command and to expect obedience. Men own 
 Him Master; truly has it been said: "He did not 
 invite them as friends, nor even as pupils, but sum- 
 moned them as subjects^." It is natural that He should 
 be confidently appealed to when there is need of help. 
 Traders in the Temple courts scatter before His im- 
 posing presence, at His sternly authoritative order. 
 Wonderful His powers of perception, profound His 
 insight into character. On the one hand He inspires 
 such awe that even disciples refrain from questioning 
 Him ; on the other hand His continued stay is earnestly 
 desired by strangers. There are bursts of enthusiasm ; 
 equally significant is the opposition, the hostility, 
 encountered by Him. The multitudes are clamorous 
 to hail Him king; just because He is a force to be 
 
 1 Brandt, quoted by Julicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 371. 
 
 2 Ecce Homo (20tli ed.), p. 67. 
 
174 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 reckoned with His destruction is resolved and planned. 
 His ver}^ foes marvel at His teaching; and in truth His 
 discourse is of great matters, His demands are pitched 
 high. If He speaks of Himself it is with conscious 
 dignity. In His condescension He is sublime. Majes- 
 tically does He figure in the closing scenes. He 
 "decides His own fate^." Those who will arrest Him 
 quail before Him. Stately is His mien, serenely does 
 He speak, in the high priest's palace. The Roman 
 governor shrinks into insignificance by His side. No 
 title on the cross is needed to proclaim His royalty. 
 But the Johannine representation does not stop short 
 there. It is plain from it that, if Jesus be the excep- 
 tionally great personage, mere man He most certainly 
 is not. He in whom men recognise the " son of Joseph " 
 is pointed to as Son of God, Anointed, King of Israel, 
 Son of Man. His glory is manifested. He knows all 
 men, as knowing what is in man. If He tell of heavenly 
 things it is as having seen and known them, for He has 
 come down fi-om heaven ; He will soon return to heaven. 
 He speaks of His Father and Himself in the same 
 breath ; if His Father works hitherto He works also ; if 
 eternal life be the knowledge of the only true God it is 
 equally the knowledge of Himself; dishonour done to 
 Him is dishonour done to God. He can say confidently, 
 
 1 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 399. See also Liitgert, Die joh. 
 Christologie, p. 90: "Die Kraft, durch eigenen Willen und eigene 
 That in den Tod zu gehen, bildet Jesu Herrlichkeit." 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 175 
 
 '•' the Father is in Me and I in Him." He has existed 
 in the ages past and gone. World-wide will be His 
 dominion. He is pictured as " the ' Word ' that was 
 with God from all eternity, the creator of the world, 
 who allowed His glory to be seen for a short time in 
 the flesh, and who then returned to the Father, not to 
 new honours, but to the place He had occupied of old, 
 where He was now preparing the abode of His faithful 
 flock ^." And He is so pictured by one who claims to 
 have known Him in His earthly life : " the Word 
 became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld His 
 glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), 
 full of grace and truth 2." "Such is the melody, the 
 Leitmotiv which rings in our ears again and again amid 
 a mass of variations^." 
 
 The descriptions we have had of the second portrait 
 are, then, justified. They coincide with the opinions 
 we ourselves have formed, and perhaps at the first 
 glance. The Jesus of the Johannine representation 
 is indeed far more than the exceptionally great per- 
 sonage. Mere man He is not. He is invested with a 
 halo of divinity. 
 
 Quite so. And yet we may not stop here. The 
 very radiancy of the picture has perhaps blinded us to 
 other features discernible in Him who is the subject. 
 It must be looked at again, and more closely. 
 
 1 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 399. 2 jo^n i. 14. 
 
 3 Julicher, Introd, to N. T., p. 387. 
 
176 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 Truly there are other features which have been 
 overlooked. The representation, after all, is of One 
 who, if more than mere man, is true man. Again and 
 again there are touches only to be interpreted of 
 humanity shared by Him. As " a man " He is spoken 
 of and pictured. Like other men He has his " abode." 
 He is minded to go here and go there. He companies 
 with "His mother and His brethren"; His hearers are 
 permitted to speak of His "father and mother^." Be- 
 cause "wearied with His journey" He will rest awhile 
 
 1 This (with passages already instanced) raises the "perennial 
 question " of the Virgin-birth. From the silence of Mark, of the 
 Pauline Epistles, it would seem that the doctrine formed no part of 
 the earliest stratum of Apostolic teaching. Ultimately traceable 
 to the opening chapters of Matt, and Luke, it would be known to 
 the Fourth Evangelist, for he was evidently acquainted with the 
 Synoptic Gospels. His own silence is explained in two ways : he 
 deems it unnecessary to repeat what is already well known and 
 accepted ; he will deliberately brush the nativity stories aside. Ac- 
 cording to 0. Holtzmanu {Das Johannesevangelium, p. 47) he will 
 agree with the opponents of Jesus that Joseph is really the earthly 
 father of Jesus; according to Zahn {Einleit., ii. pp. 504 f.) he will so 
 portray the origin of the children of God (John i. 13) after the pattern 
 picture of the origin of the only Son of God who is such in the fullest 
 sense that his readers will be at once reminded of a begetting and a 
 birth without carnal impulse, will of man. In any case Joseph would 
 be the legal father of Jesus (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 318 f.). 
 It is allowed by Baldensperger {Der Prolog d'c, pp. 28, 123) that 
 the Johanniue theology is by no means incompatible with representa- 
 tions having their basis in the Virgin-birth. But see Grill, Unter- 
 suchungen iiher die Entstehung des 4, Evan., pp. 330 ff. If I refrain 
 from discussion of the " difficult and anxious question " in these 
 pages I may be allowed to refer to my ' ' Born of the Virgin Mary, or 
 Traditional Belief and Present Unsettlemeut." 
 
THE SYNOFTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 177 
 
 and quench His. thirst. He can form friendships and 
 strong attachments. He knows the feeling of gladness; 
 the groan of mingled wrath and anguish comes from 
 Him; in the presence of bereavement and death 
 " Jesus wept." By implication He realises the neces- 
 sity of prayer : is He not confident that He is always 
 heard ^ ? There are moments when He is " troubled in 
 the spirit," perhaps one dark hour when He pleads for 
 deliverance from His impending fate 2. He will stand 
 on His defence and protest His innocence. His almost 
 dying words (" I thirst ") are " the keen expression of 
 bodily exhaustion^." The " sour wine " offered by those 
 whose mockery had been exchanged for pity is "received" 
 because His tortured frame needs it. 
 
 The descriptions, then, given of the Johannine 
 portrait of Jesus fail to satisfy us. In so far as they 
 accentuate the divinity which shines out from it they 
 are, beyond question, amply justified. They are not 
 full descriptions. The manhood which we cannot but 
 recognise is omitted from them*. 
 
 We have made some independent study of the two 
 portraits, taking them separately. The time has come 
 
 ^ "Es ist eine Entstellung des Gedankens wenn man von einem 
 * Schein-gebet ' redet." Liitgert, Diejoh. Ghristologie, p. 34. 
 
 2 Johu xii. 27. But cf. Westcott, St John, p. 182. See also 
 Oberhey, Ber Gotteshriinnen der 3Ienschheit, p. 116. 
 
 3 Westcott, St John, p. 277. 
 
 ^ It is recognised by Oberhey : " Im Johannesevangelium wird 
 auf die voile Mens^hheit Jesu iiberall Gewicht gelegt." Op. cit., 
 p. 111. 
 
 J. 12 
 
178 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 for US to compare them ; to remark .their distinctive 
 characteristics. Sharp contrast there probably is : if so, 
 how shall we now be disposed to state it ? 
 
 Beyond doubt there are differences. In respect to 
 style and colouring, to the lights and shades, to pose of 
 subject, to the filling in of details, the two portraits are 
 significantly unlike. There is no need to be told that 
 two schools of painters are represented by them, for it 
 is at once obvious. The artists are different. As for 
 the one, he will devote himself to graphic presentments 
 of the scenes of everyday life; as for the other, he is one 
 who looks beneath the surface of things. The one will 
 portray, the other will interpret. The one is an adept 
 at drawing rapid likenesses; the other, with deeper 
 subtil ty and insight, is bent on painting soul-portraits^. 
 
 But are there no resemblances, no common features, 
 in the portraits which come from two artists whose 
 individuality has stamped itself on their respective 
 works ? We cannot but feel persuaded that there are. 
 One resemblance is so marked that it must be allowed 
 without a moment's hesitation ; the portrait, in each 
 case, is of an exalted personage. To drop metaphor: 
 there is no getting away from the fact that He who is 
 pictured in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel towers 
 above other men. In each case we gaze on One who is 
 verily and indeed clothed with majesty. 
 
 Is there no further resemblance ? Again we answer 
 ^ Cf. Angus Mackay, A Reasonable Faith, pp. 102, 103. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC JESUS AND THE JOHANNINE CHRIST 179 
 
 that there is ; it must, however, be admitted that it is 
 no longer so distinct. And the reason is this : the two 
 narratives are penned from a different standpoint ; that 
 which the one dwells on and accentuates is more lightly 
 touched on by the other. But to come to the point at 
 once : the gi^eat personage represented is in both cases 
 discovered to be more than mere man. Looking to the 
 one narrative we discern manhood in which there is the 
 divine ; looking to the other we remark divinity which 
 includes manhood. There are, after all, common features; 
 the human and the superhuman. 
 
 We pursue our inquiry no further. Enough to have 
 realised that the Synoptic (let us say, the Marcan) and 
 Johannine portraits of Jesus are by no means so totally 
 unlike as they have been held to be. That there is a 
 contrast between them we own ; we will go so far as to 
 say that it is a marked contrast ; it is not, however, one 
 which leaves no loophole of escape fi'om the " either. . . 
 or ! " which is proposed to us. There are resemblances, 
 common features, which, if not at once apparent, become 
 apparent with closer scrutiny; and they justify the 
 assertion that the subject of the portraits is, indeed, 
 the same. Beyond doubt it is treated differently: 
 naturally so ; for the artists belong to different schools, 
 they are men of diverse type. Their point of view is 
 not identical. The strange thing would be if they 
 pictured Jesus in precisely the same way. 
 
 Was it Renan who said, " We should only write 
 
 12—2 
 
180 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 about what we love"? The words have point in the 
 present instance. The Sjoioptists have loved to dwell 
 on Him who, "approved of God," "went about doing 
 good"; as for the Fourth Evangelist, he will tell of 
 hallowed memories and ripened thoughts as one who 
 has penetrated into the inmost soul of Jesus. " Who 
 would not confess that in his sweet unearthly picture 
 he has given us the true religious import of that sacred 
 Life^?" 
 
 In conclusion. That " simple formula ; here man — 
 there God " must be demurred to. Whether we look at 
 the Synoptic Jesus or the Johannine Christ we are 
 constrained to say : 
 
 Thou seemest human and divine. 
 
 VII. Recapitulation. 
 
 We have instituted some comparison of the Fourth 
 Gospel with the Synoptics : what is the sum and sub- 
 stance of the conclusions which appear to follow from it ? 
 
 There were two preliminary considerations. In the 
 first place, it was impressed upon us that strong prefer- 
 ences for the Synoptic representation are not of necessity 
 incompatible with unfeigned acceptance of what is held 
 to be a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. And, 
 
 ^ von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 417, but cf. p. 416 : 
 " the historical form of Jesus is now transfigured into the glorious 
 object of his spiritual vision." 
 
RECAPITULATION 181 
 
 again, it was decided that we were in no wise tied and 
 bound by mechanical and cast-iron theories of in- 
 spiration. "However the Spirit of God may have 
 used for His higher purposes the minds of men, He 
 did not overpower their natural habits of expression, or 
 hold individual genius passive in the grasp of His 
 Almighty hand^." 
 
 Accordingly we began our inquiry as fully prepared 
 to find and to admit a contrast of some sort between 
 the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. One explana- 
 tion was already to hand : they were " written by 
 living men, whose life entered into their writings," 
 hence they would assuredly reflect the "colour and 
 temper" of the mind of their respective authors^. 
 Individuality, then, would account for a great deal. 
 As a matter of course each Evangelist would tell his 
 story in his own way. That the ground traversed 
 would not be, in every case, precisely the same need 
 be no occasion of difficulty. Deficiencies might reason- 
 ably be supplied; fuller details given where fuller 
 information was possessed. Only then it was speedily 
 realised that the contrast which met us was not so 
 easily accounted for. If much might be explained by 
 diversity of type and temperament, there was also much 
 which refused to admit of such an explanation. The 
 question confronted us: what of discrepancies and 
 
 1 Newman Smyth, Old Faiths in Neic Light, p. 26. 
 
 2 Munger, Freedom of Faith, p. 16. 
 
182 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 contradictions, differences of conception and present- 
 ment, which come to light when Synoptics and Fourth 
 Gospel are closely looked into and compared^ ? 
 
 We proceed at once with a resume of the general 
 conclusions arrived at in the course of an investigation 
 which, if lengthy, falls a long way short of completeness. 
 
 To begin with. The chronology of the Synoptic 
 Gospels is evidently confused, not to be relied on 
 throughout. They tacitly admit that it needs amend- 
 ing; they implicitly make demands for readjustment. 
 Certainly they presuppose that earlier, if more private, 
 ministry of Jesus which they do not relate ; assuredly 
 they invite conjectures as to a public ministry which 
 extended over several years. They are, it would seem, 
 right in assigning the Cleansing of the Temple to the 
 last visit to Jerusalem. The possibility is that they 
 stand corrected by the Fourth Evangelist in their 
 dating of the Last Supper, of the "Death-day" of 
 Jesus. It may be that there are other " examples 
 where St John " (to quote from a critic of the eighteenth 
 century) "appears in a delicate manner to have cor- 
 rected the faults of his predecessors 2." We cannot, 
 however, build too much on the chronology of the 
 Fourth Gospel^. 
 
 ^ Apparently they do not greatly trouble Nuelsen : ' ' Alle Unter- 
 schiede des 4. Evan, von den drei ersten lassen sich vollig befriedigend 
 aus den verschiedenen Verlialtnissen erklaren." [Die Bedeutung des 
 Evan. Joh. fiir die Christliche Lehre, p. 15.) 
 
 2 Michaelis, Introd. to N. T., i. p. 95. ^ Cf. Bousset, Jesus, p. 6. 
 
RECAPITULATION 183 
 
 Secondly. With the Synoptics the scene is chiefly 
 laid in Galilee ; the Fourth Evangelist points more 
 particularly to Judaea, to Jerusalem. On one suppo- 
 sition the difference is easily accounted for: if he be 
 himself a Jerusalemite it would be only natural that 
 he should seize on events which had happened in his 
 own neighbourhood. But apart from this, the author, 
 whoever he be, will by no means exclude activities in 
 Galilee, he not only allows for but alludes to a Galilaean 
 ministry^. As for the Synoptics, they crowd, may-be, 
 events in reality spread over several years into one 
 short week. They drop many a hint that Jesus was 
 no stranger in the Holy City. The pathetic lament 
 over Jerusalem is, we cannot but feel persuaded, sig- 
 nificant of earlier visits. Another, perhaps a stronger, 
 appeal can be made to Synoptic references to acquaint- 
 ances, close friends, in and near Jerusalem. That it has 
 really been the scene of a prolonged if intermittent 
 ministry appears probable. 
 
 In the third place. The Baptist of the two 
 representations is the same man. There is agree- 
 ment that he is, in any case, the great personage. 
 If question there be — and it would seem that there 
 is — of his depression by the Fourth Evangelist a reason 
 is apparent : erroneous opinions as to his personality 
 are prevalent and require to be controverted. 
 
 A fourth conclusion. The " enhancement of miracle " 
 
 ^ Is it entirely correct to say, *' Galilee is quite without interest 
 for him"? von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 421. 
 
184 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 is, after all, not so strikingly in evidence. If the Fourth 
 Evangelist gives no detailed accounts of cures wi-ought 
 on victims of demoniacal possession, he does not dis- 
 allow Synoptic narratives of such works of healing ; he 
 will have them inferred, he more than hints at them. 
 For himself he will fix on just those "signs" which he 
 deems more particularly suited to his purpose. Two 
 only remain occasions of very real difficulty, and one of 
 the two is common to the Synoptic Gospels. As for the 
 others, they refuse to be set aside offhand. It may be 
 that explanations will point to descriptions, natural at 
 the time, but requiring to be modified in the light of 
 modern scientific knowledge. In any case we dwell on 
 the mighty influence of mind on mind and matter which 
 our age has come to recognise ; on powers possessed and 
 exercised by "the greatest spiritual force that the world 
 has ever known." 
 
 Fifthly. That, in respect to reported discourses, 
 conversations, sayings, there is a contrast both sharp 
 and significant between the two representations must 
 be unhesitatingly asserted. It is in part, but only in 
 part, to be accounted for by questions of locality and 
 populace; that such a one as Jesus both could and 
 would adapt the form and subject-matter of his dis- 
 courses to audiences so totally different as those in 
 Galilee and Jerusalem might, indeed, be reasonably 
 expected. But we are bound to add at once that, in 
 view of marked peculiarities presented by the Fourth 
 Gospel, explanations of such sort are altogether in- 
 
RECAPITULATION 185 
 
 adequate. The subjectivity discoverable, it is true, in 
 the Synoptics is now enhanced. Whoever he be, the 
 author of the Fourth Gospel is the idealist. He is not 
 careful to give ipsissitna verba- of those who figure in 
 his narrative. It bears throughout the impress of his 
 own thoughts and conceptions. They are expressed in 
 his own language ; not, perhaps, without resort to a 
 terminology acquired by him on foreign soil. 
 
 We arrive at the sixth general conclusion, and the 
 last. There is scarcely occasion for surprise that the con- 
 trast between Synoptic and Johannine representations of 
 Jesus should be emphasised ; a contrast there undoubt- 
 edly is, and it is a sharp contrast. That a personage of 
 transcendent greatness is in each case represented is 
 plain at the outset ; it is not at the first glance manifest 
 that it is the self-same personage. Here the lineaments 
 are, apparently, of one who, if " the greatest man that 
 ever lived," is still mere man only; there everything 
 seems to proclaim the more than mere man, the entirely 
 superhuman. With prolonged and closer investigation, 
 however, common features are at length discerned. 
 They compel to a recognition that, if in the one case 
 Manhood be accentuated and in the other Divinity, 
 there is but the one subject which has been portrayed 
 by two artists of very different type and standpoint. 
 Divinity does, after all, shine forth from the Synoptic 
 Jesus ; the Johannine Christ is true man^. 
 
 1 " Mit derselben Energie wie den himmlischen Ursprung Jesu 
 
186 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS 
 
 " Human and divine," then, is the Jesus of both 
 representations. By the Fourth Evangelist. He is 
 pictured from a point of view which is deeply sug- 
 gestive of long years of pondering on His character and 
 life. It is an " aged Christian disciple " who will tell of 
 Him^; and perhaps in a way which "reflects the habits 
 of thought of the Greek society for whose benefit " he 
 pens his Gospel. 
 
 That " aged Christian disciple," so we are still 
 disposed to believe, may turn out to be " the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved." Notwithstanding all that has 
 been noticed he may be the son of Zebedee'-. But 
 is he ? There must be further inquiry before the 
 tentative answer can be ventured. Accordingly our 
 next business will be to search for direct information 
 respecting the Apostle John ; to compare it with what 
 is said of the beloved disciple, with whatever "frag- 
 mentary tradition " may be forthcoming as to a John 
 who lived on to extreme old age at Ephesus. 
 
 betont er (the Evangelist) seine menschliche Art." Liitgert, Die joh. 
 Christologie, p. 70. 
 
 1 As convinced of "the supreme importance of the person of 
 Christ Jesus." von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 415. 
 
 2 Baur pertinently remarks: "Warum soil denn die Vorausset- 
 zung eine absolut unniogliche seyn, dass auch ein Apostel, als Ver- 
 fasser einer evangelischen Geschichte, sich auf einen nicht streng 
 geschichtlichen Standpunct gestellt, und nach dem Zwecke seiner 
 Darstellung das Faktische der Geschichte mehr oder weniger um- 
 gestalte habe? " Die Kanon. Evang., p. 81. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS. 
 
 What estimate may be formed of the Apostle John 
 from direct information respecting him ? 
 
 The question is advisedly limited in its scope. 
 It has been said, not without reason, that a frequent 
 cause of misconception is the habit inveterate with 
 many of reading the Gospels or hearing them read 
 as a single work; preaching or teaching which, un- 
 mindful of distinctive features requiring a division 
 into two groups, is based on a combination of the 
 several narratives^. By implication those biographical 
 sketches of the Apostle John are deprecated which 
 show that all four Gospels have been fused together 
 into a single whole. The outline is drawn, perhaps, 
 from the Synoptics; then the lights and shades are 
 filled in from the Fourth Gospel. Its author is identified 
 with the beloved disciple and the beloved disciple with 
 the son of Zebedee. The circumstances, the character, 
 
 1 Cf. Wernle, Die Quellen dtc, p. 15. "In einer unnatiirlichen 
 Einheit" ; Baur, Kanon. Evang., p. 63. 
 
188 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 of the Fourth Evangelist are, in short, delineated with 
 incessant reference to the writings which bear St John's 
 name^. 
 
 We do not now raise complaint that this should 
 be the case. The reasonableness of it may be conceded 
 where the biographer has fully satisfied himself that 
 the Fourth Evangelist and the Apostle John are the 
 self-same person. Obviously, it would be unreasonable 
 at the present juncture ; when the object in view is 
 this, to decide how the St John of explicit notices and 
 allusions compares with the conjectured author of the 
 Fourth Gospel. Hence, for the present, the Gospel 
 called after him shall be ruled out as a source of 
 information. We confine ourselves to whatever state- 
 ments may be forthcoming from other quarters. 
 
 To begin with the Synoptic Gospels. Of the two 
 brothers who respond to the definite call of Jesus ^ 
 James is presumably the elder and John the younger. 
 Their father is Zebedee ; of him nothing more is known 
 than that he was a Galilaean fisherman who had hired 
 servants in his employ^. As for their mother, it is 
 perhaps safe to identify her with the Salome of 
 subsequent allusion*; if so she is sister to the mother 
 of Jesus and cousin of Elisabeth, one of the women 
 who minister to Jesus of their substance and bring 
 
 1 As, e.g., by Macdonald, Life and Writings of St John. 
 
 2 Mark i. 19. '^ Mark i. 20. 
 * Cf. Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xvi. 1. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 189 
 
 sweet spices to the empty tomb. The two brothers 
 are in partnership with Peter ^. They are present 
 at the healing of Peter's mother-in-law I Ordained 
 of the number of the Twelve they are surnamed 
 Boanerges^; a designation of obscure significance 
 which has been interpreted of fiery zeal and which 
 is never again applied to them. They come to Jesus 
 with an ambitious request*; — according to another 
 version of the story the mother makes it on her sons' 
 behalf^. They unite in desiring that Jesus will call 
 down fire from heaven on inhospitable Samaritans*^. 
 It is John who reports to Jesus that he and the other 
 disciples had forbidden one who, not being a follower 
 with them, was casting out devils''. Together with his 
 brother James and Peter he is included in a sort of 
 inner circle within the Apostolic college : the three are 
 present at the raising of Jairus' daughter^; they alone 
 are witnesses of the Transfiguration^; they (and this 
 time Andrew is associated with them) make private 
 request to Jesus to be told when events predicted will 
 come to pass^^. Once and once only is John connected 
 with Peter alone — when sent by Jesus to prepare the 
 Passover ^^ With James and Peter he is present in the 
 
 1 Luke V. 7, 10. 2 Mark i. 29-31, refs. 
 
 3 Mark iii. 17. ■» Mark x. 35 ff. 
 
 5 Matt. XX. 20. 6 Luke ix. 54. 
 
 7 Mark ix. 38 ; Luke ix. 49. " Mark v. 37, refs. 
 
 ^ Mark ix. 2, refs. ^'^ Mark xiii. 3. 
 ^1 Luke xxii. 8. 
 
190 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 garden of Gethsemane^. He is not again mentioned 
 by name in the Synoptic narrative. 
 
 We pass from the Synoptics to the Acts of the 
 Apostles. John's name stands third ("Peter and James 
 and John") on the list of the Eleven who are assembled 
 with others in the upper room^. With Peter, who 
 takes the lead, he is at the Gate Beautiful when the 
 lame man is made to walk^. With Peter he is im- 
 prisoned and brought before the Sanhedrin : Peter 
 is spokesman, but there is equal "boldness" on the 
 part of John, he is equally accounted "unlearned and 
 ignorant*." With Peter he is sent from Jerusalem to 
 Samaria on a mission of inspection^. When next he is 
 alluded to by name, and for the last time, it is simply 
 in connection with his brother's martyrdom; Herod 
 "killed James the brother of John with the sword ^." 
 
 From the Acts of the Apostles we turn to the 
 Epistle to the Galatians. According to St Paul, James 
 (the "Lord's brother"), Cephas (Peter) and John (surely 
 the Apostle John) have become "the three leading 
 Apostles"; in repute as "Pillars" of the Church at 
 Jerusalem^. There is little to determine whether 
 
 1 Mark xiv. 33 ; Matt. xxvi. 36. 2 ^cts i. 13. 
 
 =* Acts iii. 1 ff. 4 Acts iv. 1, 3, 8, 13. 
 
 ^ Acts viii. 14. " Eine Art Koutrolle " ; von Dobschiitz, Dasapos. 
 Zeitalter, p. 39. 
 
 ^ Acts xii. 2. 
 
 7 Gal. ii. 9. (It will be remembered that Schwartz prefers to 
 think of "John whose surname was Mark,") 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 191 
 
 John be of the stricter school of James or of the less 
 conservative school of Peter; what seems plain and 
 clear is this, he believes that his own mission-field is 
 circumscribed. He can frankly own that to Paul and 
 Barnabas there has come a divine call to labour among 
 the heathen. He can willingly extend to them the 
 right hand of fellowship. For himself he will stay on 
 where he is, and devote his energies to those of the 
 circumcision only^. 
 
 Then the curtain falls on John the Apostle and 
 son of Zebedee. Except on the assumption that the 
 Apocalypse was penned by him, his name never again 
 occurs in the pages of the New Testament. Of direct 
 New Testament information respecting him there is, 
 then, absolutely nothing more than what has now been 
 gleaned from the Synoptics^, the Acts of the Apostles, 
 the solitary allusion by St Paul. 
 
 What, then, may be inferred from the very fi:-ag- 
 mentary notices which are all we have to go upon (for 
 the moment) in attempting to form some estimate of 
 the personality of St John ? 
 
 To begin with. We recognise in him a Galilaean 
 fisherman. The probability is that he is younger than 
 his brother James. He comes of a family which, if 
 
 1 Gal. ii. 9. It is, perhaps, significant that he can recognise the 
 wider mission. 
 
 2 "We fail to realise how seldom St John the son of Zebedee 
 appears in the Synoptists." von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, 
 p. 433. 
 
192 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 prosperous and tolerably well-to-do, is in no way re- 
 moved above that lower middle class to which his 
 partner so evidently belongs. If his mother be really 
 Salome he is first cousin to Jesus, and other relatives 
 of his are of priestly lineage^. Be he a householder 
 himself or resident with his parents his home is away 
 on the coast of the sea of Galilee. 
 
 Again, there was a considerable Greek element 
 in the population of Galilee; hence, if not exactly 
 bi-lingual, John, son of Zebedee, would have more than 
 a smattering of the Greek language, a knowledge 
 sufficient for the practical purposes of daily life^. If 
 later on he is spoken of as " unlearned and ignorant " 
 it surely does not follow that intellectual cultivation 
 was absolutely wanting in him^ ; the expression would 
 simply mean that, unlike St Paul, he was no trained 
 theologian, unversed in rabbinic lore. He will have at 
 least received the ordinary education provided in the 
 synagogue-school of his native town*. 
 
 He becomes a follower of Jesus. Together with 
 his brother he is enrolled among the number of the 
 Twelve Apostles. That he is keen for his Master's 
 cause is certain ; but along with fervent zeal there are 
 also faults, defects of character, apparent in him. It 
 
 1 Luke i. 5, 36. 
 
 - Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des 4. Evan., p. 9. 
 a Delff, Rabbi Jesus, p. 76. 
 
 ■* For some notice of the opportunities within the reach of a 
 Galilaean boy, vide J. B. Mayor, Epis. of St James, pp. xH., xUi. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 193 
 
 is not so evident that he is naturally of a loving 
 disposition. He is intolerant, impetuous to vindictive- 
 ness, his ambitions are selfish and betray unspiritual 
 conceptions. It may be argued perhaps that he has 
 " the defects of his qualities " ; qualities discerned by 
 Jesus, who marks his sterling worth, his capacity for 
 usefulness^. The fact that he is admitted to the 
 *' inner circle " is significant of the high regard of Jesus 
 which he shares with Peter and his brother James. 
 If importance be attachable to the order in which the 
 names are mentioned it may be again significant that, 
 as a rule"^, his name stands last of the chosen three 
 who are so frequently alone with Jesus. 
 
 As a member of the " inner circle " he is associated 
 with Peter. It is particularly noticeable that on several 
 occasions he is paired with Peter. The latter is spokes- 
 man and man of action ; as for John son of Zebedee he 
 is the trusty and staunch companion who is content to 
 look on, who prefers to remain silent. 
 
 A time comes when he figures as a leader of the 
 Church at Jerusalem. Once more it may be noted 
 that his name is placed last in order of the reputed 
 ■" Pillars " ; then the question must be asked, what is 
 his attitude to Gentile Christianity ? It would appear 
 to be sympathetic, and at the same time guarded. 
 
 1 Cf. Reuss, Geschichte der h. S. cles N. T., p. 215, " Jesus musste 
 tiefer geblickt haben &c." 
 
 2 There are remarkable exceptions : cf. Luke ix. 28 ; vide also 
 Acts xii. 2. 
 
 J. 13 
 
194 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 He is evidently glad that the Gospel-message should 
 be carried to the heathen. His views have so far 
 broadened that he can bid Paul God-speed in what is 
 unmistakably his divinely-allotted work. They have 
 scarcely broadened enough for him to slough off all 
 his old prejudices. He certainly does not throw in 
 his lot unreservedly with one for whom the wall of 
 partition has been broken down. When heard of on 
 the occasion in question he is still representative of 
 Judaistic Christendom^. 
 
 We ask here : how old would John son of Zebedee be 
 when he figures here in the pages of the New Testament ? 
 An exact answer is impossible ; there is nothing to fix 
 his age at the day when he "forsook all" to follow 
 Jesus. If the date of St Paul's visit to Jerusalem be 
 circa a.d. 50 then some two decades will have elapsed 
 since the Crucifixion. The call to follow Jesus had 
 come, say, three years earlier ; there is nothing in the 
 story of it to suggest extreme youthfulness in the 
 brother-pair; the assumption would rather be that 
 both James and John are grown men. If the scanti- 
 ness of allusion to the father is indicative that Zebedee 
 soon passed away, the latter may perhaps be pictured 
 as advanced in years; then his two sons might have 
 reached middle age when they became disciples of 
 
 1 Wrede {Paidus, p. 43) remarks as follows: "In gewissen Gren- 
 zen. Denn iiber ein Schiedlich-friedlich kam es doch nicht hinaus. 
 Die Einigung bedeutete zugleich Trennung : Paulus zu den Heiden, 
 Petrus zu den Juden." 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 195 
 
 Jesus. Perhaps St John was between 20 and 30 years 
 of age then ; the chances are that he is getting on to 
 50 when last heard of. He will have arrived, that is, at 
 a period of life when opinions have become fixed and 
 settled. In the vast majority of cases there has been 
 the settling down in this or that particular sphere of 
 action; character has been formed; and while there 
 will still be development it will be, in the main, on the 
 same lines. There is a reluctance to move very far 
 away from accustomed standpoints. It has ceased to 
 be an easy thing to enter on the new profession or 
 occupation, to break with the past, to take up with 
 unfamiliar theories, to engage in fresh studies. New 
 ideas and aspirations may be approved, perhaps 
 welcomed ; the inclination is ever strong to leave the 
 working-out to the younger generation. 
 
 And yet there are exceptions to the rule. Instances 
 are not wanting of men as old as and older than the son 
 of Zebedee at the time in question who have struck 
 out boldly on some new path. It has at last become 
 possible for them to follow what has all along been 
 their real bent. In respect to politics they have crossed 
 over to the other side. They have parted company 
 with beliefs and convictions which have dominated 
 them through long years ; perhaps they have exchanged 
 one religious persuasion for another, or identified them- 
 selves with another school of thought. Through force 
 of circumstances they have been compelled to make 
 
 13—2 
 
196 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 that break with the past which means the unfolding 
 of qualities of a higher order really possessed but 
 hitherto unexercised, perhaps never suspected either 
 by themselves or others. Events, may-be, have taken 
 place which have startled them to reflection ; reflection 
 has been followed by persistent attempts to master 
 altered conditions and circumstances ; thought and 
 study emanate in telling action widely different from 
 that of earlier days. To make use of a common but 
 inelegant expression, " the new departure " is by no 
 manner of means impossible for the man who is already 
 leaving middle age behind him. 
 
 What if John son of Zebedee be such an exception ? 
 He no doubt disappears from view in the New Testa- 
 ment pages as one who has thrown in his lot with 
 those of the circumcision^; as yet we are unable to 
 detect signs which point to a speculative nature, to a 
 character marked by depth of spirituality and warmth 
 of affection : it might indeed be said that his failings 
 are more conspicuous than his virtues; he is narrow- 
 minded and inclined to be self-seeking, perhaps self- 
 assertive. At the same time there is significance in 
 his being not only of the number of the Twelve^, but 
 
 1 " Dass der Johannes der Gal. 2 auftritt das Ev. nicht geschrieben, 
 kann unbedenklich zugegeben werden. Aber muss er derselbe geblieben 
 sein... ? " Reuss, Gesch. der h. S. ties N. T., p. 215. 
 
 2 It is altogether impossible to accept Delff's theory that the 
 relation in which the Twelve stood to Jesus was in no way private 
 and personal but purely official (Rabbi Jesus, p. 77). 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 197 
 
 also one of the three who, standing very near to Jesus, 
 enjoyed His special regard and confidence. That he is 
 no insignificant person is patent, for he is one of the 
 leaders of the infant Church at Jerusalem. He is, it 
 is true, the man of middle age, perhaps of more than 
 middle age ; but what may not the future have in store 
 for him ? His character may be chastened and refined 
 with every added year. He may yet be brought more 
 and more under the influence (direct or indirect) of the 
 great Apostle of the Gentiles. To lessons learnt from 
 St Paul may be added reflections and convictions borne 
 in upon him by the approach of the catastrophe; as 
 he sees Jerusalem encompassed by the Roman legions. 
 A new career may open out before him on the day of 
 his final departure from the fated city. He may then 
 have completely broken with his past: with the changed 
 scenes there may be the changed man. 
 
 But this is to move on too quickly. Attention is 
 now claimed by the following question : — is the John 
 son of Zebedee of direct information anywhere discover- 
 able in the Gospel which bears his name ? And it had 
 better be considered under two heads : in the first 
 place, specific reference to the sons of Zebedee must be 
 weighed ; secondly, contrasts and resemblances with the 
 disciple whom Jesus loved must be taken into account. 
 
 What, then, does the Fourth Evangelist relate — 
 and how does he relate it — of the two sons of Zebedee ? 
 But once only are they alluded to, and without mention 
 of their names ; they form two of the little company to 
 
198 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 whom Jesus manifests Himself at the sea of Tiberias^. 
 The fact of their presence is recorded, but not one word 
 is said to indicate that their relations with Jesus have 
 been exceptionally close. The Fourth Evangelist, in- 
 deed, refrains throughout from allusions to any specially 
 favoured three. As has been remarked elsewhere, but 
 for the notices in ch. vi. he is equally reticent with re- 
 gard to the appointment of the Twelve. 
 
 We pass without delay to the second head. At the 
 very beginning of his narrative the Fourth Evangelist 
 is thought to make the presence felt of one who, un- 
 named, is said to be none other than John son of 
 Zebedee himself^. It is further conjectured that he 
 is also the one who later on figures so prominently 
 as the beloved disciple^; the question then is: is the 
 conjecture supported or not by what has been set down 
 as to the son of Zebedee of direct information ? The 
 question must be gone into point by point. 
 
 A first point. The son of Zebedee is, by calling, a 
 fisherman. As such he figures on the one occasion 
 when, as son of Zebedee, he is alluded to in the Fourth 
 Gospel. Is it quite so certain that the beloved disciple 
 is of the same calling ? That he companies with those 
 who embark with Peter for the night's fishing is 
 obvious, but the fact may argue nothing more than 
 
 1 John xxi. 1, 2. 2 John i. 35. 
 
 3 "Dass der Verfasser den Zebedaiden Johannes meine, ist die 
 traditionelle Ansicht, sie lasst sich aber aus dem Evan, schwerlich 
 erweisen." Wrede, Charakter unci Tendenz dx., p. 35. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 199 
 
 intimate acquaintance with the party. He may be 
 one of the two unnamed disciples (in the wider sense)^; 
 it is just possible that he is an eighth person who tells 
 of the doings of the seven whom he enumerates : — if so 
 his ordinary occupation need not necessarily be the 
 same as theirs. They are not one and all fishermen. 
 For aught we know the beloved disciple may be the 
 man of means and leisure; not the artisan. 
 
 A second point. Looking to circumstances and 
 connections the impression gained in the one case is 
 that of a family not perhaps absolutely dependent on a 
 thriving business, and certainly removed from poverty ; 
 in the other there are hints which suggest competency 
 if not exactly affluence. The Zebedee household appears 
 to have relatives in good position ; that said it may be 
 fairly urged that the social status is in no way different 
 from that of Peter. To make a similar assumption in 
 the case of the beloved disciple is, to say the least, not 
 easy. True that the following of a trade was not only 
 no social barrier but positively enjoined by Jewish 
 custom ; the difficulty remains of seeing a Galilaean 
 peasant and artisan in him who moves about so freely 
 in exalted circles. He is so thoroughly at home in 
 them that we are led to conceive of him as born 
 to comparatively high station, the Jewish aristocrat. 
 
 ^ It has been suggested (by Godet) that they were John the 
 Presbyter and Aristion of later allusion, viz. by Papias. Cf. H. J. 
 Holtzmann, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 226. 
 
200 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 There is a remarkable coincidence : the uncle and the 
 aunt of John son of Zebedee are of priestly and high- 
 priestly descent ; of the beloved disciple it is recorded 
 that he is known to the high-priest. Intimacy may be 
 inferred; not necessarily relationship i. 
 
 A third point. John son of Zebedee is ever and 
 again coupled with Peter ; with the Fourth Evangelist 
 Peter and the beloved disciple are made to figure side 
 by side, are named in the same connection. The 
 coincidence is striking; whether it be entirely con- 
 clusive for purposes of identification is another matter. 
 That some weight must be attached to it is certain; 
 it has been urged that unless the beloved disciple and 
 St John are identified two pairs have to be reckoned 
 with who are " too much the doubles of each other 2." 
 And yet it is not altogether inconceivable that, if 
 Peter and John should be together and act together 
 as Apostles, there should be occasions when Peter is 
 accompanied by another who regards him with an 
 affection warmly reciprocated by himself. It may be 
 added here that, while the beloved disciple appears to 
 be the comparatively young man^, there is nothing to 
 
 1 Delff infers relationship. For him the beloved disciple is a 
 member of the priestly aristocracy. He will even discover him in the 
 John of Acts iv. 6 — where the context is, however, anything but 
 suggestive of even concealed friendship {Rabbi Jesus, pp. 92-95). 
 H. J. Holtzmann allows a possibility of relationship {Das Evan, des 
 Johannes, p. 23). But cf. Westcott, St John, p. 255. 
 
 2 Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 107. 
 
 3 Delff imagines him to be the young man of Mark xiv. 51, 52. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 201 
 
 fix the exact age of the brother- Apostle of Peter. He 
 may have been of Peter's own age. 
 
 A fourth point. According to the Fourth Evangelist 
 the beloved disciple takes his stand by the cross of 
 Jesus, and receives His last command. Not one word 
 is said to indicate the presence of John son of Zebedee ; 
 we are well-nigh constrained to infer his absence from 
 the closing scenes : " then all the disciples forsook him, 
 and fled." He might, of course, have overcome his 
 fears and returned^. 
 
 A fifth point. There may be no express statement ; 
 at the same time there are grounds for the supposition 
 that the beloved disciple is a resident of Jerusalem, 
 perhaps a householder. Of hints that precisely the 
 same thing may be said of John son of Zebedee there 
 are none whatever. If he has gone up regularly to the 
 Jewish feasts he is perhaps a comparative stranger in 
 Jerusalem. The home, his own home or his father's, 
 which he has left to follow Jesus is away to the North, 
 by the sea of Galilee. 
 
 A sixth point — and a last. What of resemblances, 
 contrasts, in regard to type of character ? The beloved 
 disciple is evidently slow to speak ; once only does he 
 break silence of his own accord, by preference he is 
 the attentive listener and the looker-on; if the same 
 characteristic be observable in John son of Zebedee it 
 
 1 Even then we might have to think of him as standing " afar 
 off." Luke xxiii. 49. 
 
202 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 is at the later period; in the days when he follows 
 Jesus he is less reluctant to express his thoughts. In 
 the one case there are traits indicative of devotion, of 
 an earnestness which is attended by self-restraint, of 
 intuitive perception: in the other devotion may be 
 admitted — but it apparently fails to stand the test in 
 Gethsemane, at Calvary ; then the other traits are sug- 
 gestive of impetuosity, of ambition, intolerance. Those 
 traits have disappeared indeed in the John of the later 
 period ; the fact remains that they are apparent in 
 that earlier period when the beloved disciple figures 
 in the scenes 
 
 To sum up for the moment. If the sons of Zebedee 
 are explicitly alluded to by the Fourth Evangelist it is 
 not in such a way as to suggest special prominence. 
 Beyond doubt there are connecting links, striking co- 
 incidences, which are more or less in favour of the 
 identification of John the Apostle with the beloved 
 disciple : the hint, if hint it be, at a common occupa- 
 tion; in each case, perhaps, some little means; a 
 connection, however explained, with priestly families ; 
 intimate discipleship with Jesus ; a certain tendency 
 to reticence ; a devotion to the one cause. Of all the 
 coincidences there is not one more striking than the 
 repeated coupling with Peter; — it might, indeed, be 
 decisive were there not a great deal to be considered 
 on the other side. There are dissimilarities in regard 
 ^ Cf. Keim, Jesus von Nazara, i. 160. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 203 
 
 to type of character. If the one be steadfast by the 
 cross the other is, apparently, not there. If the one 
 seem a dweller at Jerusalem, the other's ties are far 
 away. There is an apparent difference of social position ; 
 in the one case a man who stands on an equal footing 
 with persons of distinction, in the other a far more 
 homely personage of lowly origin. Is identification 
 really possible when there are such marked differences? 
 But are the differences — in particular those of character 
 and temperament — really so marked ? That very de- 
 signation "the beloved disciple" invites to idealised 
 conceptions ; the man pictured in the mind may not 
 be the real man. The real man and John son of 
 Zebedee may have more in common after all. 
 
 Here, perhaps, the thought occurs : if John son of 
 Zebedee be actually the beloved disciple he is portrayed 
 in the Fourth Gospel as he appeared, not at the earlier 
 period, but in after years, at the close of a long life. 
 
 We are met by a difficulty: the "unsolved problem" 
 of the statement attributed to Papias that John, like 
 his brother James, died a martyr's death. It may yet 
 turn out that, in the case of the Apostle, the words of 
 Jesus were fulfilled to the letter^ ; that he who was to 
 tarry on was not the Apostle but the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved: on the other hand it must not be over- 
 looked that the perplexing statement in question (if 
 
 1 Wellhausen, it will be remembered, contends for a literal 
 fulfilment in the case of both brothers. 
 
204 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 actually made) was unknown to or ignored^ by early 
 writers, that tradition is constant in bringing the son 
 of Zebedee to Asia Minor. He may have quitted 
 Jerusalem on the outbreak of the Jewish war which 
 precipitated the downfall of the Jewish nation. He 
 may have lingered on for a few years at Pella, in the 
 company of other Christian refugees; the date of his 
 final departure jfrom the Holy Land may have been 
 shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem. As has been told 
 us in effect already, " all the accounts of St John's later 
 life resolve themselves into a statement of his residence 
 at Ephesus and of his living to the close of or shortly 
 beyond the close of the first century 2." At any rate 
 there is certainly a "John of Ephesus^." 
 
 What information, then, is forthcoming respecting 
 one who, surviving at Ephesus, was identified with the 
 Apostle John if also sometimes designated in a way 
 which is calculated to awaken doubt ? New Testament 
 
 1 Bousset {Dei' Verfasser des Johannesevan., Tlieol. Rundscliau, 
 1905, p. 228) will remind us " dass man zu alien Zeiten Mittel 
 und Wege gehabt hat, an unbrauehbaren uud widersprechenden 
 Ueberlieferungen voriiberzugehen." 
 
 2 Stanley, Serm. tt- Essays on the Apostolic Ape. 
 
 3 Those who reject the Ephesian residence of the Apostle some- 
 times appeal to the Epistle to the Ephesians. The Pauline author- 
 ship is denied, it is assigned to a later date ; then its silence with 
 regard to the Apostle is deemed conclusive (cf. Schmiedel, Encycl. 
 Bibl., II. 2511). But the objection falls to the ground if the Pauline 
 authorship of the Epistle be established (cf. J. Armitage Eobinson, 
 Ephesians, pp. 11-13). 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 205 
 
 sources are no longer available. The region now to be 
 explored is one of " somewhat fragmentary tradition^.'* 
 
 According to three stories John knows what it is to 
 '*' suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." In the 
 first story the scene is laid in front of the Latin Gate at 
 Rome ; he is placed in a cauldron of boiling oil, but he 
 is miraculously preserved from injury 2. According to 
 a second he drinks the hemlock-cup unharmed. In a 
 third he is condemned to banishment; then the exile 
 (^f the island of Patmos appears later on as presiding 
 over the Churches in Asia^ 
 
 And there is a group of stories connected with the 
 Ephesian residence. It is St John who seeks out and 
 reclaims the robber-youth*. He goes to the public 
 baths, but, discovering Cerinthus, he rushes out him- 
 self and exhorts others to do the same : " let us flee lest 
 the bath fall in with that enemy of the truth within ^" 
 He had worn the "petalon," the golden frontlet of 
 high-priestly attired The divine power is manifested 
 as a dead man is raised to life by him''. To a hunts- 
 man who, finding him stroking a tame partridge, 
 
 1 Hastings' B. B., 11. 681. 
 
 - TertuUian, Commemorated on May 6th ; St John Evaug. ante 
 Portam Latinam. 
 
 3 Eusebius, H. E., 111. 18, 23. 
 
 -» Ibid., III. 23. 
 
 ^ Iren. Eusebius, H. E., iii. 28 ; iv. 14. 
 
 « Eusebius, H. E., iii. 31. 
 
 ^ Eusebius, H. E., v. 18. Cf. Traub, Die Wunder im N. T., 
 pp. 45, 46. 
 
206 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 expresses astonishment that so illustrious a personage 
 should condescend to such trivial amusement, he replies 
 in words which have become proverbial : " the bow 
 cannot always be bent^." He is asked by the Ephesian 
 elders to pen his Gospel; as if suddenly inspired he 
 gives utterance to its opening words ^. Exquisitely 
 beautiful is the narrative which records what has been 
 called his last Will and Testament^: he is in extreme 
 old age ; he is still carried into the church, but it is 
 but to reiterate the same saying, " Little children, love 
 one another " ; as those who are at last wearied by the 
 incessant repetition ask, "Master, why do you always 
 say the same thing ? " he replies : " Because it is the 
 Lord's command, and if that be obeyed it suffices*." 
 He is ever virgin^. Death has no power over him ; he 
 sleeps on in his grave at Ephesus ; his breathing causes 
 a movement of the ground, said to be witnesed by 
 visitors to the place of sepulture^. 
 
 That the region is not only of " fragmentary tradi- 
 tion" but of legend is apparent. Of some of the 
 stories it must be owned that the authority is but 
 
 1 Cassianus. 
 
 2 Jerome, De Vir. Illust7\ 
 
 ^ Lessing, Das Testament Johannis. 
 
 •* Jerome, Epis. ad Galat. 
 
 ^ Monarch. Prolog. 
 
 6 Augustine, Tract, in Johan., 124. For some notice of most of 
 the stories above referred to see Couard, Altchrist. Sagen fiber das 
 Leben der Apostel {Neue Kirclil. Zeitschr., xiv. 1903, p. 154). 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 207 
 
 slight ; of others that they are " alien not only to the 
 simplicity of Apostolic times, but to the reasonableness 
 of Christianity itself^. To set them all aside as mere 
 creations of a pious fancy is impossible ; it may be well 
 believed that here and there there is a basis of fact, 
 that the narrative does really point back to historical 
 event or incident. Thus, perhaps, with the stories of 
 the partridge, of the robber-youth, of the encounter 
 with the heretic Cerinthus. Not readily to be dis- 
 carded is the episode of the last Will and Testament^. 
 There may be something in the allusion to the " priest 
 who wore the petalon." 
 
 An element of truth, perhaps more than an element, 
 is, then, to be admitted in some of the '' fragmentary 
 traditions " respecting John of Asia Minor. The ques- 
 tion now arises : who is discoverable in them, the son 
 of Zebedee or the beloved disciple ? Are they, on the 
 other hand, conclusive for identification ? 
 
 One thing is certain. The identification is already 
 made by the narrators of the stories. He of whom 
 they believe themselves speaking is John, Evangelist, 
 Apostle, disciple beloved of Jesus. Perchance they 
 think of him as martyr in will if not in deed: his 
 Master and Lord "vouchsafing him the honour of 
 
 1 Stanley, Sermons on Apost. Age. 
 
 2 Not the prologue to the Gospel but the touching command of 
 John is, according to Lessing {Das Testament Johannis), worthy to be 
 inscribed in letters of gold where all may read them in our churches. 
 Cf. Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, ii. 137 (note). 
 
208 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 martyrdom, without his enduring the torments of it^," 
 before the Latin Gate at Rome. There remains a 
 possibility that they have confused two distinct per- 
 sonages. 
 
 It is equally certain that the beloved disciple lives 
 again in the traditions. No great stretch of imagina- 
 tion is required to discover him in the narrative of the 
 robber-youth. That last Will and Testament is pre- 
 cisely what might be expected of him. If the story of 
 the partridge can be relied on it is in perfect harmony 
 with the character and temperament apparently re- 
 vealed by the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 Equally certain is it that there are vivid reminders 
 of the son of Zebedee. There may be one of them in 
 that very story of the robber-youth : a touch of the 
 old impetuosity is perhaps discernible in the rebuke 
 administered to the neglectful bishop by the one who 
 has entrusted to his keeping a brother's soul. The 
 intolerance of earlier days may have been transformed ; 
 there is at least a flash of it in him who cannot 
 brook the presence of Cerinthus. If that designation 
 Boanerges be really indicative of fiery zeal issuing in 
 vehement words, then it is far from inapplicable at the 
 later period. There is, in short, much which, capable 
 of transference from the one to the other, may reveal 
 in the end the single personage. The saying that " love 
 begets love" has point perhaps in the case of the 
 ^ Wheatley, Common Prayer, p. 64. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 209 
 
 beloved disciple ; it may have equal application in the 
 case of the son of Zebedee : if he too shares the affec- 
 tion of Jesus it surely argues an affection which he has 
 it in him to bestow. What if it be really he whose 
 soul yearns over the robber-youth whom he will not 
 leave until he has brought him to a better mind ? If 
 his anger flashes forth against Cerinthus he is deeply 
 concerned for the spiritual welfare of those whom the 
 heretic may lead astray. Quite possible that those 
 touching words, "love one another," may have come 
 from him in extreme old age, when his character has 
 ripened to perfection. And again; what if too much 
 rein has been given to the imagination in the case of 
 the beloved disciple ? Too readily, perhaps, has he 
 been conceived of as of calm and unruffled tempera- 
 ment; the feminine is accentuated, the masculine 
 ignored, in the pictures drawn of him. There is nothing 
 in the Fourth Gospel to warrant such portraits. He is 
 surely no weak personality, or he would hardly have 
 been singled out for the special regard of Jesus. That 
 he can both dare and do is plain from the narrative 
 which tells of his presence at the trial and the Cross. 
 There is force unmistakable in his character : hence 
 a display might be expected of those very qualities 
 which fix attention in the case of the son of Zebedee, 
 which are illustrated in the traditions of John of 
 Ephesusl That appropriated designation might be 
 ^ If the beloved disciple be author of the smaller Johamiine 
 J. 14 
 
210 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 significant ; if ambition has gone " the vanity of an old 
 man^" may remain. 
 
 There is more to be said. If the two personalities 
 can thus be brought into some sort of unison there are 
 also connecting links which appear to be in favour of 
 identification. John of Ephesus has attained to a 
 position of recognised pre-eminence; the son of 
 Zebedee has held a foremost place as one of the three 
 leaders of the infant Church. The former is evidently 
 quite at home in a Greek-speaking community; the 
 latter, as a young man, will have acquired more than 
 a smattering of Greek, and plenty of time will have 
 elapsed for him to increase his* knowledge of the 
 language. If the former has worn the " petalon," both 
 son of Zebedee and beloved disciple are alluded to 
 as in some way related to or connected with a priestly 
 family. 
 
 Is the process of identification finally completed, 
 and to entire satisfaction ? 
 
 There can be no thought of speaking a decisive 
 word. It may indeed appear that there is a pre- 
 ponderance of evidence in support of the theory that 
 John of Ephesus is none other than the son of Zebedee 
 of direct information and the beloved disciple of the 
 Fourth Gospel. To repeat the arguments in briefest 
 
 Epistles there will be point in the impetuous allusion to Diotrephes in 
 the third, vv. 9, 10 ; cf . von Dobschiitz, Christian Life &c. , pp. 221, 222. 
 ^ Kenan, Les Evangiles. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 211 
 
 summary : reconcilement is not impracticable in the 
 case of " fragmentary tradition " ; other notices affirm 
 or imply intimate relations with Jesus, a tendency to 
 reticence, the possession of some means, a knowledge 
 of Greek, priestly connections, companionship with 
 Peter, acknowledged leadership. That some of the 
 links in the chain of evidence are weaker than others 
 may be admitted ; taken cumulatively the evidence is 
 strong — almost to conviction. 
 
 Almost to conviction. There are still difficulties, 
 and they militate against the winding-up of absolute 
 certainty. They may not be insuperable in the light 
 of fuller knowledge ; at present they appear to be very 
 real difficulties. 
 
 A first difficulty. We are pointed to the statement 
 attributed to Papias. A problem still unsolved con- 
 fronts us ; what may its solution have in store ? There 
 is at least a possibility that John son of Zebedee must 
 be thought of with others " that had been slain for the 
 word of God, and for the testimony which they held^." 
 Room may have to be found somehow for the death by 
 martyrdom. 
 
 A second difficulty. We are pointed to questions 
 of circumstance and condition. In both cases the 
 
 ^ It is certainly remarkable that John and James are coupled 
 together in the Marty rologium Syriacum. Aphraates (Texte und 
 Untersuch., iii. 3, 4, 1888, p. 347) speaks of them as having trod 
 the same path as their master Christ. See Bousset, Der Verfasser 
 des Johannesevangeliums, Theol. Rundschau, 1905, pp. 225 tf. 
 
 14-2 
 
212 JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 
 
 possession of means of some sort may be allowed ; it is 
 not so easy to allow a common trade. The impression 
 still remains that there is a difference of rank ; that 
 the social position of the beloved disciple is in some 
 degree superior to that of the son of Zebedee. 
 
 A third difficulty. John son of Zebedee is a 
 disciple from the very first : as for the beloved disciple, 
 he may, indeed, be the nameless one of i. 35-40 ; 
 not until the closing scenes does he emerge into full 
 view^ 
 
 A fourth difficulty. We are pointed to Calvary. 
 The beloved disciple is standing by the Cross ; the 
 question still arises : what has become of the Apostle 
 John? 
 
 In view of these difficulties it must be said that the 
 evidence is far from conclusive for the identification of 
 the Apostle John with the beloved disciple, and, ac- 
 cordingly, with the conjectured author of the Fourth 
 GospeP. 
 
 The latter, in any case, lives on as John of Ephesus. 
 Here we remind ourselves that, if (on certain assump- 
 tions) the Apocalypse can be attributed to the Fourth 
 Evangelist, there is also the contingency of its requiring 
 another author of the same name. If so there may be 
 
 ^ von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, pp. 431 f. 
 
 - The evidence is conclusive for Horn. ' ' Wir kommen nach 
 sorgsamer Abwagung von Tiir' und 'Wider' doch zu dem Schluss 
 dass der Lieblingsjunger der Apos. Johan ist." Ahfassungszeit d-c, 
 p. 7. 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE AND JOHN OF EPHESUS 213 
 
 two Johns of Ephesus to be reckoned with ; the story 
 of the two tombs may have something in it. Accord- 
 ingly we end here with the recognition of a bare 
 possibility : John son of Zebedee and John the beloved 
 disciple may both of them have spent the evening of 
 their days in Asia Minor ^. 
 
 1 Is it but a bare possibility ? Strauss suggested that sufficient 
 attention had not been paid to the circumstance that there were two 
 Johns, the Apostle and the Presbyter, living contemporaneously at 
 Ephesus {Life of Jesus, p. 73). Tradition is certainly constant in 
 bringing the son of Zebedee to Ephesus ; John the Presbyter, a real 
 personage, appears to have dwelt in Asia Minor. One cannot but 
 feel, however, that there is force in von Soden's remarks on two 
 traditions combined, at the end of the third century, in "the assertion 
 that two Johns had lived in Ephesus, the Apostle and the Elder — of 
 the first of whom the second century knew absolutely nothing, while 
 the third century knew nothing of the second " {Early Christ. Litera- 
 ture, pp. 429 f., 426). 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 Our inquiry has nearly reached its close. We 
 pause for a moment for the retrospect. 
 
 "It is time to go back to Christ." Such, it was 
 said, was the cry heard yet again in our own age, from 
 many quarters and in varied note. We noted its 
 significance : how it told its own tale of a recognised 
 ascendancy of Jesus over the minds of men. We 
 remarked a wide-spread eagerness " for the fullest and 
 most exact knowledge possible of the historic life and 
 ministry of Jesus " : it was to dwell on right views as 
 to the aim and object of Bible students as they question 
 the sources from which that full and exact knowledge 
 is to be derived ; not from mere curiosity, but as con- 
 scious of and responsive to yearnings to get " back to 
 Jesus." The methods and processes of modern critical 
 investigation were then glanced at. As helpful results 
 of criticism in its application to the Old Testament 
 were realised, the decision was made to welcome it in 
 its inevitable application to the New Testament, to 
 those historical documents which make up " the holy 
 quaternion of the Gospels." Attention was then centred 
 
CONCLUSION 215 
 
 on "the Gospel according to St John"; the "favourite 
 Gospel"; the Gospel still dear as of old to the heart of 
 Christendom. It was thought of as treasured and read 
 by numbers who, alive to its " tender and unearthly 
 beauty," hold its title conclusive as to authorship, its 
 contents literally true in their every detail. Quickly 
 it was borne in upon us that the Gospel so highly 
 prized had long ceased to meet with unquestioning and 
 general acceptance. Account was taken of objections 
 raised a century and more ago ; of objections raised 
 to-day — and frequently in terms almost identical with 
 those used by earlier critics. A vast mass of litei-ature 
 was found testifying to the fact that " the problem of 
 the Fourth Gospel was still the most unsettled, the 
 most sensitive, the most living," in all the field of New 
 Testament criticism. We heard of attack and defence ; 
 of the Johannine authorship denied and asserted ; of the 
 historicity of the Gospel contended for and disallowed ; 
 further, of a variety of shades of opinion between the 
 two extreme positions. In short, the nature of the 
 questions raised was indicated, their importance 
 realised ; then the resolve was made to attempt some 
 independent study of them, and in so doing to give 
 a hearing to representatives of differing schools of 
 thought. It was agreed, to begin with, that, certain 
 reservations made, the Fourth Gospel was no composite 
 work but a unity ; the production, in the main, of a 
 single author.. We went on to seek for earliest traces 
 
216 CONCLUSION 
 
 of its existence and recognition: ancient authorities 
 were questioned ; their statements considered and 
 allowed due weight. We passed from external to in- 
 ternal evidence: it was to scrutinise the Gospel itself: 
 hints, allusions, assertions as to authorship were sought 
 for and examined into ; inquiry was made whether its 
 contents throughout were suggestive or not of first- 
 hand knowledge of circumstances and events narrated. 
 Fourth Gospel and Synoptics were then placed side by 
 side ; the two representations compared ; an admitted 
 contrast followed up in regard to leading points. The 
 last stage was reached when, in the preceding section, 
 there was discussion of inferences to be drawn from 
 direct information respecting the traditional author of 
 the Gospel, the Apostle John. 
 
 Wide, indeed, is the field which has been opened 
 out to us. In reality the field is a wider one ; we have 
 had but a part of it. Nor has that part been fully 
 and completely explored, far from it. We have only 
 skimmed the surface of the many delicate and intricate 
 questions bound up in what is justly spoken of as the 
 "chief problem of all Bible-criticism \" It would be 
 absurd to suppose that difficulties have been solved ; 
 indeed the chances are that for some of them there is 
 no solution. And yet the inquiry which has occupied 
 us, stimulating and interesting as it has been, should 
 not be altogether fruitless. Perhaps there are some 
 1 Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 103. 
 
CONCLUSION 217 
 
 few results; perhaps some very tentative conclusions 
 may be ventured, and that without thought of speaking 
 last words on any single point. 
 
 What, then, are we disposed to say about the 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the historicity of its 
 contents, its permanent value ? 
 
 The two extreme positions shall again be stated, 
 and baldly. As for the one, it points to the popular 
 belief that the Fourth Evangelist is John, son of 
 Zebedee, Apostle, beloved disciple; that his Gospel 
 from beginning to end is the absolutely true narrative. 
 As for the other, we are made to think of positive 
 rejection of the Johannine authorship and historicity 
 of the Fourth Gospel ; it is either definitely assigned 
 to another than the Apostle or to a " great unknown " ; 
 it is alleged to contain, not history, but poetic religious 
 fiction. The former theory, it should be remembered, 
 is maintained in its entirety by few, if any, Bible 
 students: if the Johannine authorship be vigorously 
 pressed, there is a readiness to make more or less 
 limited concessions with regard to the contents. The 
 latter theory, of course, means this : the Fourth Gospel 
 is ruled out as a source of information for the life and 
 ministry of Jesus ^ 
 
 To neither of these extreme positions do we assent. 
 
 ^ "We can never make the Fourth Gospel our standard," says 
 Arno Neumann, Jesus, p. 7. See also the preface (pp. xxv. f.) con- 
 tributed by Prof. Schmiedel. 
 
218 CONCLUSION 
 
 Obviously, the former must be set aside : doubt remains 
 as to the identity of the Evangelist : the extreme sub- 
 jectivity of his work has been fully recognised. The 
 latter must equally be rejected; it has seemed that the 
 author is one of those who had companied with Jesus ; 
 that substantial truth is embodied in his Gospel. 
 
 Evidently the standpoint adopted will lie some- 
 where between the two extremes. Let us attempt to 
 define it ; and first of all with regard to the question of 
 authorship. 
 
 The Fourth Gospel, so we are inclined to believe, 
 is really traceable to one who had first-hand knowledge 
 of what he relates. He himself claims to be an eye- 
 witness, others advance the claim on his behalf; on the 
 whole we are disposed to allow the claim. Whoever 
 the author be he was surely of the number of the first 
 disciples. 
 
 Accordingly, we look for him among the associates 
 of Jesus. It is possible — not certain — that he has 
 attached himself to Jesus at an early stage. That he 
 is no ordinary disciple appears evident. The place 
 occupied by him has been very near to Jesus ; the 
 intimacy to which he has been admitted singularly 
 close. Of one thus distinguished above all the rest 
 there would seem to be no mention in the Synoptic 
 Gospels; there is express reference to such a one in 
 the Fourth Gospel, and he appears to be the very type 
 of person from whom such a Gospel might be expected. 
 
CONCLUSION 219 
 
 In spite of being warned away from him^ we ultimately 
 turn to " the disciple whom Jesus loved." It appears 
 at least probable that he is the eye-witness in question. 
 Are we able to go a step further and say unhesitatingly 
 that he is to be identified with John the Apostle and 
 son of Zebedee ? 
 
 We are not. It is within the bounds of probability 
 that the beloved disciple is the Fourth Evangelist. 
 Possibly he is the son of Zebedee : — beyond that 
 " possibly " we are not prepared to go. There is room 
 for doubt. And it is not simply that we question the 
 ability of the son of Zebedee to have penned the 
 Gospel. The ranks of literature have again and again 
 been recruited from the humbler walks of life. The 
 quondam Galilaean fisherman might have developed 
 into the author. This Fourth Gospel might have come 
 from him ; for, as we have seen already, it by no means 
 argues that its author was a master in the field of 
 letters. Of parts of it the remark has been made that 
 the style " is of exactly the kind which we should have 
 expected in the composition of a man of Palestine, in 
 that age, who had received no scholastic education 2." 
 
 No. We admit that there are many reasons for 
 identifying the beloved disciple of our conjecture with 
 
 1 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 415. " It is the one unassailable 
 position... that its author was not ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' " 
 Cf. von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 435. 
 
 2 Wendt, St John's Gospel, pp. 220 ff. 
 
220 CONCLUSION 
 
 the Apostle John^. That repeated coupling with Peter 
 is exceedingly significant. Beyond doubt the Fourth 
 Gospel was written in Asia Minor ; well — it is hard to 
 believe that the son of Zebedee did not actually find 
 his way to Ephesus. Again and again we seem to 
 discern him in the John of later story, legend, " frag- 
 mentary tradition." That he is so persistently pointed 
 to as author is at least suggestive that " in some way 
 or other he stands behind " the Gospel which bears his 
 name. But for considerations not lightly to be ignored 
 we should own forthwith that the case for identification 
 is made out. 
 
 What are those considerations ? There is the ques- 
 tion, to begin with, whether the son of Zebedee is to be 
 found by the Cross of Jesus. Secondly, there is the 
 statement attributed to Papias (and in full keeping 
 with the prophecy of Jesus) that John, like his brother 
 James, died a martyr's death : it may be decisive 
 against the Johannine authorship ; at least it occasions 
 difficulty. Once more, the impression remains that 
 there is a difference of social status : the son of Zebedee 
 a Galilaean peasant, the beloved disciple (if it be really 
 he who is alluded to as known to the high priest ^) the 
 
 1 It is impossible not to sympathise with Fouart when he writes : 
 " we are haunted by the feeling that between this Apostle and the 
 anonymous author of the book there is a connection so intimate as to 
 strongly suggest a personal identity." St John and the close of the 
 Apost. A(ie, p. xviii. 
 
 2 It is surely the beloved disciple. H. J. Holtzmann regards it as 
 
CONCLUSION 221 
 
 " gentleman by birth." And again, is it so certain that 
 the latter was a disciple from the very first ? 
 
 The Fourth Evangelist, then, may be the beloved 
 disciple. There is a possibility that he is the son of 
 Zebedee. If he be not the Apostle John ^ (and we 
 question whether he be), who is he ? 
 
 Wernle has wisely urged the desirability of the " I 
 do not know^" There is need of an " I do not know" 
 here : — of confident answer there can be none whatever; 
 suggestions and conjectures are alike precarious. That 
 the beloved disciple is the " Presbyter " of later years is 
 possible : the question, however, now^ relates to days 
 when he companied with Jesus. Is he really the 
 Jerusalemite ? Is he not only known to but related^ 
 to the high priest ? If so, is he a member of the 
 priestly aristocracy ? He is evidently in his earlier 
 manhood ; is he the " certain young man " of the 
 Marcan narrative ? And he is well-to-do : is he, then, 
 owner of the house in which the Last Supper was held, 
 and himself present as the host ? Young, possessed of 
 means, loved by Jesus with the love of moral choice, 
 our thoughts perhaps turn to the rich young man of 
 the Synoptic story ; we ask : might not one who, 
 unable at the time to stand the test, was even then 
 
 doubtful {Das Evan, cle.s Johannes, p. 18) ; von Soden favours the 
 supposition that he is {Early Christ. Literature, p. 432) ; cf. Aug. 
 'Tractate cxiii. 
 
 ^ Wernle, Die Quellen dx., p. 2. 
 
 ^ Cf. H. J. Holtzmanu, Das Evan, des Johannes, p. 23. 
 
222 CONCLUSION 
 
 beloved, have come to be the devoted friend of Jesus ? 
 — the suggestion, if tempting, must fall to the ground 
 if discipleship from the very first be absolutely certain. 
 Is he one of those who shrank from making public 
 avowal of their belief in Jesus ? — surely not ; there is 
 nothing suggestive of hesitation to profess allegiance. 
 
 To have done with such conjectures. Tentative 
 is the conclusion which discovers the author of the 
 Fourth Gospel in the beloved disciple. That the latter 
 is the son of Zebedee is doubtfuP; on the assumption 
 that he is not, his identity remains an open question. 
 
 Thus much of him in earlier days. Thought of in 
 connection with the Gospel he is, of necessity, the old 
 man full of years ; is old age decisive argument against 
 his authorship^? By no means. Cases innumerable 
 might be instanced in which mental activities have 
 lasted on beyond the allotted threescore years and 
 
 ^ If there be considerations which weigh against the identification 
 of the beloved disciple with the Apostle John, a difficulty confronts 
 us if we decide for two distinct persons of whom the former is the 
 Evangelist. The question will at least be asked : what, then, becomes 
 of the admission that in some way or other John, son of Zebedee, 
 "stands behind" the Fourth Gospel? It must be confessed that the 
 question is not easily answered. The suggestion might, indeed, be 
 thrown out that the beloved disciple has gone to the Apostle John 
 (and perhaps at Ephesus) for information respecting the earlier, in 
 particular the Galilaean, ministry. Only then the objection might 
 hold good that he sets down details with the precision of one who 
 was himself an eye-witness of at all events some of the occurrences in 
 question. 
 
 2 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 416. 
 
CONCLUSION 223 
 
 ten^; men far advanced in years have still been 
 engaged in literary production. Besides, how old 
 would he be ? Shall we see in him the young man 
 of between 20 and 30 at the date of the Crucifixion ? 
 shall we assume further that the Fourth Gospel was 
 written A.D. 80-110 ? In that case he might indeed 
 be already the centenarian. He may, on the other 
 hand, be still under 80, not much over 70. There is 
 nothing here which renders it absolutely impossible 
 that the Fourth Gospel should have come from him '2. 
 
 Thus much on the question of authorship. It will 
 be remarked that we have parted company from the 
 two writers whose works have given us a lead. The 
 one (Barth) decides for the Johannine authorship ; the 
 Apostle John has not been plainly discovered to 
 ourselves as the Evangelist. The other (Wemle) 
 
 ^ Gladstone is a case in point ; so also Dr Martineau. Goethe 
 and Tennyson were over 80. Eoget, when over 90, was still engaged 
 on his Thesaurus. A former Chief Justice of New South Wales, the 
 late Sir Alfred Stephen, was remarkable for faculties still vigorous up 
 to a comparatively short time before his death at the age of 93 ; cf. 
 Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 28. 
 
 2 He may have employed an amanuensis. If so, the latter would 
 take down at his dictation, perhaps give polishing touches ; he would 
 still be the author. And his amanuensis would be his devoted pupil : 
 might not such a pupil have himself inserted the famous verse, 
 xix. 35 ? In that case the " he that hath seen " will be the revered 
 master, the beloved disciple. The question remains, of whom is the 
 " that man " to be explained if we are bound to interpret it of a third 
 person ? Hardly the son of Zebedee ; if the latter were only one of 
 those who stood " afar off." Vide supra, p. 91. 
 
224 CONCLUSION 
 
 discovers the secondary historian ; our thoughts are of 
 an eye-witness who is conceivably the beloved disciple. 
 
 From the question of authorship — a question 
 answered but tentatively and with the still open 
 mind^ — we turn now to the Fourth Gospel itself 
 What shall we find ourselves saying — and again 
 tentatively — with regard to its contents ? 
 
 It is the Gospel, so we cannot but infer, of a very 
 old man. It is the Gospel, therefore, of one whose 
 gaze reaches back over long years chequered by events 
 and charged with a variety of experiences. It is the 
 Gospel, be it added, of one who shares the limitations 
 of his own age. It is the Gospel, beyond doubt, of no 
 ordinary man; of one more highly cultured, perhaps, 
 than other companions of Jesus; he may be neither 
 classical scholar nor steeped in rabbinical lore, but he 
 is well educated ; vigorous is his intellect ; the type of 
 mind revealed is a singularly reflective type ; there are 
 traits which bespeak one who has pondered over all 
 that he has seen and heard, who is capable of great 
 conceptions, who has known what it is to be "stung 
 by the splendour of a sudden thought." Further, 
 it is the Gospel of late date ; of a date late enough for 
 other New Testament writings to have been composed, 
 
 1 "It may be that in our Fourth Gospel we have the teaching of 
 St John turned to account by the thought and labour of another 
 mind, possibly one of larger grasp." Stanton, Gospels as Hist. 
 Documents, p. 238. " The teaching," as we venture to think, of the 
 beloved disciple. 
 
CONCLUSION 225 
 
 circulated, become generally known : — it will be written, 
 accordingly, with some knowledge of the Synoptics on 
 the part not only of its author but of those for whom 
 he writes; the probability — may we not say, the 
 certainty ? — is that, knowing of the work done by 
 St Paul, he is familiar with Pauline Epistles, he has 
 assimilated something of the Pauline spirit. The late 
 Gospel, the Gospel penned in the light of long and 
 varied experiences by a singularly reflective mind, the 
 Gospel of an aged disciple, it is the Gospel penned — 
 we cannot but believe — by a Jew^, a Palestinian Jew, 
 conceivably a Jerusalemite ; but he is one who long 
 ago bade farewell to the scenes of his earlier manhood. 
 It is the Gospel dating from a day when the great 
 catastrophe is a thing of the past; when the Fall of 
 Jerusalem is looked back to and apprehended in its 
 full significance as at once the wrecking of misplaced 
 hopes and the dawn of a new order which is bright 
 with promise. And it is the Gospel which has its 
 birth in a place where there is the throb and stir of 
 movement, the many and varied interests, the meeting 
 of religious cults, a proneness to the speculative, 
 distracting influences for the Christian communities. 
 For it is penned at Ephesus : — the greatest emporium 
 of Asia, centre of the Roman administration, meeting- 
 place of the great roads which traversed the district, 
 
 1 " He is certainly of Jewish origin ; his speech bewrayeth him." 
 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 420. 
 
 J. 15 
 
226 CONCLUSION 
 
 the mart resorted to by foreigners from all parts, the 
 abode of numbers of Jews, the head-quarters of a 
 surrounding heathenism. 
 
 What do we find — what might we expect to find, 
 what not to find — in the Gospel which comes from 
 such an author and from such conditions ? 
 
 The Gospel composed by one who is full of years. 
 Inspiration, we remember, does not pre-suppose 
 infallibility; hence there will be no cause for surprise 
 should inaccuracies be apparent. They will be readily, 
 and naturally, accounted for: — by recollections which 
 have become blurred and indistinct with the lapse 
 of time, by confused memories. That unimportant 
 details should remain fixed in the author's mind, that 
 he should also be apt to transpose events, perhaps to 
 allude to this event or that circumstance in a way 
 more suggestive of present sun^oundings than of the 
 actual time and place, is precisely what might be 
 expected in the case of an old man. 
 
 The Gospel of one sharing the limitations of his 
 age. Inspiration, again, does not pre-suppose exact 
 scientific knowledge ; hence we approach the miracle- 
 stories as not pledged to the acceptance of one and all 
 in the precise form in which they are narrated, even 
 if we be slow to speak of "exuberance of legend^" 
 whenever the unintelligible meets us. Of the "signs" 
 recorded in the Fourth Gospel there are some which, 
 1 Of. Bousset, Jesus, p. 26. 
 
CONCLUSION 227 
 
 after all, impose no serious difficulty; in the case of 
 others we shall, perhaps, say that they point, now to 
 some saying which came to be interpreted of an actual 
 occurrence^, now to descriptions which satisfied the 
 knowledge of the age. 
 
 The Gospel of one who was no ordinary man. 
 Inspiration, be it again remembered, does not stifle 
 individuality; it allows full scope for it. Not for a 
 single moment, then, do we look for strict historicity, 
 a scrupulous regard to bare facts, photographic re- 
 productions of scenes and events, the shorthand 
 reporter's verbatim account of all that has been told 
 and heard. On the contrary, we find, as we expect 
 to find, a large freedom exercised in the representation. 
 That events pictured did really take place may be 
 conceded ; but it is the connection in which they stand, 
 the purpose they are made to serve, which is the main 
 thing. Of ipsissima verba throughout there can be no 
 question. Historical personages figure on the scene, 
 but they speak, not their own words, but words in 
 which the author will clothe his own thoughts. The 
 Fourth Evangelist does indeed preserve the gist, the 
 substance, of this or that conversation or discourse^; 
 but he condenses here and he expands there, his report 
 is given in his own language. "As for the numerous 
 discourses which are placed in the mouth of Jesus, and 
 
 1 Arno Newmann, Jesus, p. 86. 
 
 2 Eeuss, Geschichte d. lieil. Schriften d. N. T., p. 209. 
 
 15—2 
 
228 CONCLUSION 
 
 which really constitute the kernel and the substance 
 of the book, in respect to form and setting we hold 
 them to be the work of the Evangelist himself^." 
 
 The Gospel traceable to one who has pondered over 
 all that he has himself seen and heard in a remote past. 
 That aged disciple, we cannot but believe, had seen and 
 heard Jesus. He had been admitted to a peculiar 
 intimacy with Jesus. He may be credited with deeper 
 insight than his fellows and higher powers of perception. 
 Already, in that remote past, he has been capable, above 
 the rest, of entering into the mind of Jesus. That 
 which has impressed him above all else is the mysterious 
 personality of Jesus — the marvellous blending of utter 
 humility and supreme dignity which renders Jesus 
 unique. At length, when the time comes for him to 
 set down his matured thoughts, he can but give all 
 prominence to what has all along been uppermost in 
 his own mind. The result is, not a biography, but that 
 soul-portrait which, without obliterating the humanity, 
 accentuates the divine. 
 
 The Gospel composed with a knowledge of the 
 Synoptics 2 which is shared by others. Obviously — 
 and apart from questions of purpose — there will be 
 omissions: what need to go over ground which has 
 been already covered, and sufficiently ? As obviously, 
 something will be supplied where the Synoptic narra- 
 
 1 Beuss, Geschichte d. heil. Schriften d. N.T., p. 208. 
 
 2 See Keim, Jesus von Nazara, i. 118. 
 
CONCLUSION 229 
 
 tive, defective and confused as it has been seen to be, 
 necessitates and invites supplementing^. Because 
 better informed on some points the "aged Christian 
 disciple" will not hesitate to clear up misapprehensions 
 and to correct mistakes. If he be not always concerned 
 for strict historical detail we shall bear in mind that 
 this Fourth Gospel is no biography, but a delineation 
 of that which has impressed itself most strongly on its 
 author's mind. 
 
 The Gospel which has a Pauline ring about it; 
 which, as well by contrasts as resemblances, awakens 
 thoughts of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 A preliminary question : had the Fourth Evangelist 
 been personally acquainted with St Paul ? If he be 
 really the son of Zebedee the answer will, of course, 
 be in the affirmative : he had known Saul the per- 
 secutor of the Christians ; he had heard of the "wonderful 
 conversion" which was fraught with such momentous 
 issues ; he had looked on from a distance at the doings 
 of the great missionary ; he had listened to St Paul's 
 own accounts of progress in the wider mission-field; 
 the possibility is that the interview at Jerusalem to 
 which St Paul refers was followed by other interviews 
 of * a more private nature ; deep may have been the 
 impression made on St John's mind then; the resolve 
 may have been speedily taken, and as the direct 
 outcome of prolonged intercourse, to shake himself free 
 
 ^ But see Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz <&c.^ p. 40. 
 
230 CONCLUSION 
 
 from old prejudices. But proof positive that he is the 
 son of Zebedee has not been forthcoming. He is, so 
 we have conjectured, the beloved disciple ; but with 
 the identity of the latter still in doubt, there is 
 nothing on which conjectures as to intimate acquaint- 
 anceship with St Paul may be safely based. Surely 
 the two men must have come into personal contact at 
 Jerusalem. That they met in after years at Ephesus 
 is hardly to be thought of: the date of St Paul's last 
 recorded interview with "the elders" would be antecedent 
 to the arrival on the scene of the Fourth Evangelist. 
 Little would the former then dream that a day was 
 coming when the Ephesian churches would welcome 
 one who had been the intimate friend of Jesus ^. 
 
 Personally acquainted with St Paul or not, the 
 Fourth Evangelist has evidently drunk deeply of the 
 Pauline spirit; Pauline Epistles have come into his 
 hands and been read by him. The Gospel is frequently 
 suggestive of Paul's range of thought and manner of 
 expression: if there be no direct quotations "we are 
 reminded often enough of Pauline ideas and phrases^." 
 We turn to Rom. vi. 16 : it is to read of those who 
 yield themselves servants of sin unto death ; we turn 
 to John viii. 34 and it is to be told that "whosoever 
 committeth sin is the servant of sin." Again, in 
 
 ^ Cf. Acts XX. 29, 30 ; where St Paul's thought is solely of im- 
 pending dangers. 
 
 2 Julicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 397 ; cf. von Soden, Early Ghnst. 
 Literature, p. 424. 
 
CONCLUSION 231 
 
 Rom. X. 16 St Paul quotes from Isaiah when telling 
 that "they have not all obeyed the gospel"; in John 
 xii. 38 the Fourth Evangelist, recounting the unbelief 
 of many, falls back on the same quotation. And so, 
 perhaps, in Rom. ii. 28, 29, where St Paul draws a 
 sharp distinction between the Jew outwardly and the 
 Jew inwardly; there is surely a similar thought in 
 John i. 47, where the portrait is drawn of "an Israelite 
 indeed, in whom there is no guile." If there are 
 resemblances in diction, there are also resemblances 
 of idea; the same breadth of view is to be remarked, 
 the same great conception of the universality of the 
 work of Jesus. St Paul has risen to thoughts of 
 mankind compacted together into unity ^; the Fourth 
 Evangelist will set down words which tell of One who, 
 lifted up from the earth, will draw all men, all things 
 to Himself^. The former sees an end to racial 
 separations and distinctions^; the latter tells of Greeks 
 in their eagerness to see Jesus*. 
 
 There are traces of Pauline influences in the 
 Fourth Gospel. It is clear, however, that, in respect 
 to at least two points, the situation has changed since 
 St Paul's day. In the first place, difficulties which 
 pressed heavily on St Paul have practically ceased to 
 exist for the Fourth Evangelist. The former is en- 
 countered by opposition as he raises his great war-cry 
 
 1 Eph. i. 10; iv. 13. Even if " Epliesians " be not by St Paul 
 himself it surely points back to genuine Pauline utterances. 
 
 2 John xii. 32. 3 Col. iii. 11. -* John xii. 20. 
 
232 CONCLUSION 
 
 of "freedom from the Law," and vehemently maintains 
 the vital principle that "belief in Christ implies the 
 entire repudiation of the righteousness of the Law for 
 the Jews, a,nd that he who has become a Christian is 
 ipso facto delivered from Gentile pollution^." For the 
 latter there is no longer need of battlings for emanci- 
 pation from a yoke of bondage. The Fall of Jerusalem 
 had taken place, and it had meant the snapping of old 
 ties : Judaistic Christians were at once parted from the 
 Jewish nation and from non- Jewish Christians; they 
 became isolated, and in their isolation they sank into 
 a state of torpor; traces of their existence are subse- 
 quently met with, but later Judaism is unaffected by 
 them, and they are entirely destitute of influence on 
 the enlarged and enlarging Church^. By the time 
 that the Fourth Gospel was penned its author had long 
 broken with Judaism ; the Church had long ceased to 
 be concerned with matters of ceremonial observance^. 
 If the Law be alluded to in the Gospel it is now 
 specifically the Law of "the Jews." A "new command- 
 ment" maybe said to have replaced it for the Christian 
 communities; they are pointed to the Law of Love. 
 Secondly; the standpoint has become different in 
 relation to the Jews themselves. The Jewish nation- 
 
 1 von Dobschiitz, Das Apos. Zeitalter, p. 44. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 54. 
 
 ^ Of. Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 398 ; Reuss, Geschichte d. heil. 
 Schri/ten d. N. T., p. 204 : " Die Lebensfrage in der ersten Kirche, von 
 der Geltung des Gesetzes, beriihrt es (das Ev.) nicht." 
 
CONCLUSION 233 
 
 ality of the Fourth Evangelist has been regarded as 
 established ; it has been said that his use of the term 
 "the Jews" may be partly accounted for by the fact 
 that he is writing for foreigners in a foreign land; it 
 must be added now that his position is, after all, in 
 contrast with that of St Paul. The latter will glory 
 in his Jewish birth; if he mourns the stubbornness 
 of the chosen people he can dwell on their advantages ; 
 if he turns from Jew to Gentile it is still as cherishing 
 high hopes for Israel. There is, in truth, little to 
 suggest such an attitude in the pages of the Fourth 
 Gospel. We fail, perhaps, to discover notes struck 
 which justify the sharp summing-up: "the Jews for 
 the devil, the Gentiles for Jesus and for God^!" At 
 the same time, we can but feel that, for the Fourth 
 Evangelist, "the Jews" are irreconcilables. They have 
 preferred darkness to light. They have rejected Jesus. 
 Yet one other point. It is urged that "the deifica- 
 tion of Jesus, for which Paul had opened the way, was 
 inexorably carried out by John to its furthest con- 
 clusion 2." Mindful of a decision arrived at in a 
 preceding chapter^ we can but ask here whether the 
 assertion be entirely warranted by the facts. Beyond 
 question, the Fourth Evangelist accentuates the divine ; 
 and it may be admitted that he gives expanded 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen dc, p. 22. 
 
 2 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 400. 
 ' Vide supra, pp. 164, 165. 
 
234 CONCLUSION 
 
 expression to conceptions of the person of Jesus which 
 had been gradually shaping themselves in the minds 
 of other Christian thinkers ; as will be noticed presently, 
 he makes choice of a remarkable term by which to set 
 forth all that he himself has come to feel. Beyond 
 question also is it that the divinity of Jesus is emphasised 
 by St Paul: and in a way which, perhaps, shows him 
 struggling to coin a language in which to clothe great 
 thoughts which dominate his soul. It surely remains 
 a fact that St Paul is but a follower where others have 
 led the way. The way has been already opened out to 
 him. We can but feel it to be a case in which divinity, 
 already apprehended and owned, has been seized upon 
 and earnestly proclaimed. That there were differences 
 between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the members 
 of the Mother-Church at Jerusalem goes without saying : 
 what, however, were the questions at issue ? They had 
 reference to policy, to methods of procedure, to questions 
 of legal obligation, to the scope of Christian enterprise ; 
 there is surely nothing to indicate divergence of opinion 
 with regard to doctrine, to the Founder of the new 
 religion. On the contrary, there is evidence that St 
 Paul and the other Apostles were at one in the view 
 held by them of Him who was their Lord and Master. 
 The Jesus whom St Paul preached was a Jesus already 
 recognised as more than mere man. In respect to 
 terminology and manner of expression development 
 may be frankly admitted — development only to be 
 
CONCLUSION 235 
 
 expected — in the case iilike of St Paul and of the 
 Fourth Evangelist. May it not be development, not 
 along the lines of growing misapprehension, but from 
 the fountain-head of substantial truth ? 
 
 The Gospel penned at Ephesus, and for the Christian 
 communities of Asia Minor. 
 
 "So, then, we find ourselves on Greek soil, we are 
 breathing a Greek atmosphere^." In so far as they 
 pointed to locality of composition the truth of these 
 words has already been admitted ; a further admission 
 is necessitated as we remark characteristics of the 
 Gospel which appear to reveal influences of Greek 
 thought which would naturally make themselves felt 
 at a gi'eat centre such as Ephesus^. If the Fourth 
 Evangelist has not scrupled to avail himself of the 
 opportunities within his reach during long years of 
 Ephesian residence to increase his knowledge of the 
 Greek language, he has also acquired something of 
 Greek philosophy; he has appropriated philosophical 
 ideas of the Alexandrian schooP. And he will use his 
 knowledge to make great truths which have become 
 part of his very being intelligible to those Hellenic 
 minds amongst whom he lives and for whom he 
 composes his very "noble work." 
 
 It is impossible to do more than indicate, and in 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen dc, p. 28. 
 
 2 Of. Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Docuvients, p. 238. 
 
 3 Of. J. B. Mayor, Ep. of St James, p. ccx ; von Soden, Early 
 Christ. Literature, p. 423. 
 
236 CONCLUSION 
 
 bare outline, features which appear to make it evident 
 that Judaean soil has been quitted, and that the Fourth 
 Gospel places us in "some meeting-place of Jewish and 
 Hellenic culture, where, as in Alexandria or Ephesus, 
 the national hopes of Israel were accommodated to new 
 views of the world and life^." 
 
 The studied arrangement of the Gospel might here 
 be noticed. It is constructed "with a system of trinities 
 carried out with equal persistency in small things as in 
 great 2"; it "falls into three main divisions framed as it 
 were in an overture (ch. i.) and a finale (ch. xviii. — xx., 
 xxi.)^" And each of these main divisions again falls 
 into three cycles which respectively develop great 
 themes. This studied arrangement of material may 
 be in itself significant that he who composed the work 
 was not so much concerned to pen what we call history 
 as to emphasise his own ideas of the personality and 
 character of the One whom (so we cannot but believe) 
 he had known and loved. 
 
 The structure of the Gospel is certainly remarkable. 
 But we pass on to remark a significance in its tone, its 
 
 1 Carpenter, Bible in XlXth Cent., pp. 42 f. 0. Holtzmann re- 
 marks: "Grade einem paulinisch gebildeten Christen, als welchen 
 wir ja den Johannesevangelisteu schon zur Geniige keunen gelernt 
 haben, lag ein Versuch, die bishevige christliche Heils-lehre in 
 Griechische Formen umzuschmelzen, besonders nahe." Das Johan- 
 nesevangeliuin, p. 90. 
 
 '- Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 384; cf. Bacon, Introd. to N. T., 
 p. 253. 
 
 3 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, pp. 403 ff. 
 
CONCLUSION 237 
 
 terminology, the changed conceptions discoverable in 
 its pages. Stress is laid upon knowledge. There are 
 the ever-recumng contrasts, abstractions. The Evan- 
 gelist will ever spiritualise ; certainly he spiritualises 
 when the question turns on the outward and visible 
 coming of Jesus of which so much is said in the Sjnioptic 
 Gospels. "The grand scenic display which will usher 
 in the new age, the Son of Man with angel-retinue 
 and trumpet-blast descending from the sky, the rising 
 multitude caught up from earth to meet him in the 
 air — these have all vanished^." Echoes of the Synoptic 
 conception remain, but they are echoes which are but 
 faintly heard ; the thought is rather of a divine presence 
 in the world's life; of a judgement which is not so 
 much external and in the future as within and con- 
 tinually going on. It is impossible not to concur in 
 the remark that "the Gospel in truly Alexandrian 
 fashion spiritualises the very realistic and genuinely 
 Jewish conceptions concerning Resurrection and Judge- 
 ment which are found in the Book of Revelation V 
 If that Book be really from the same pen as the Fourth 
 Gospel its author has assuredly assimilated much with 
 
 1 Carpenter, Bible in XlXth Cent., pp. 443 f. 
 
 2 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 448. von Dobschiitz, 
 alluding to traces of development in the N. T., remarks: "Ich 
 erinnere an die...Eschatologie bei Paulus, die dann vollends bei 
 Johannes ganz verinnerlicht ist." Der gegenwdrtige Stand des N. T.- 
 lichen Exegese, p. 33. But see Wetzel, Die geschichtliche Glaub- 
 wiirdigkeit &e., Neue Kirchl. Zeitschr., xiv. 1903, p. 678; Liitgert, Die 
 Joh. Christologie, p. 111. 
 
238 CONCLUSION 
 
 the lapse of years, old Jewish conceptions have been 
 left far behind. A time has come when he will so 
 translate and transform them that they may appeal 
 more strongly to Hellenic thought. 
 
 And what are we to say of that " exalted term ' the 
 Word ' " which, applied to Jesus in the marvellous 
 Prologue^ to the Gospel, is never again used of Him in 
 the body of the Gospel although it recurs again and 
 again, and in a sense scarcely to be restricted to the 
 sayings of Jesus, to this or that command of His, to the 
 sum of His teaching or revelation; in a sense which 
 has been said to indicate a "divine principle of life^." 
 The subject demands a treatise to itself, nor can we 
 here attempt discussion of arguments for and against 
 the use of the term by the Fourth Evangelist in a way 
 which suggests "some contact with that speculative 
 religious philosophy of the Logos which was formulated 
 by Philo, and became widely current in connection with 
 his name^." That he has appropriated a term already 
 familiar to the schools is beyond question \ the proba- 
 bility is that in his own use of it he will not part 
 company from its Hebraic significance, while at the 
 same time he will enter into the workings of Alexan- 
 drian thought. For his readers it is " the key which 
 
 1 It is difficult to acquiesce in the suggestion of a friend that the 
 Prologue to the Gospel is not so very profound after all ; that it has 
 all the notes of the simplicity of an old man. 
 
 2 Cf. Carpenter, Bible in XlXth Cent., p. 417. 
 
 3 Wendt, St John's Gospel, p. 224. 
 
CONCLUSION 239 
 
 discloses to them the innermost nature of Him whom 
 he wishes to set before them : — He is the incarnate 
 Logos. There is no one English word which coincides 
 with this Greek expression ; it embraces both the 
 active reason of God and the means by which He 
 reveals Himself; it signifies a spiritual power, which is 
 absolutely of the Divine essence and yet proceeds from 
 God, as it has declared itself in the creation of the 
 world and is operative in the soul of man. This Logos, 
 clothed in flesh and blood, dwelt among men in com- 
 plete fulness in Jesus. In Him the glory of this Logos 
 was revealed to the eyes of men ^" 
 
 What special purpose had he in view, this Fourth 
 Evangelist who is not so much biographer or historian 
 as prophet^ who will speak forth the great thoughts, 
 the overpowering convictions, which have come to him, 
 and in language influenced by and adapted to his 
 environment^? 
 
 ^ von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 404. The subject is 
 elaborately discussed by Westcott [St John, pp. xiv fi".) who decides, 
 "the teaching of St John is characteristically Hebraic and not 
 Alexandrine " ; cf. Stevens, Johannine Theology, pp. 74 ff. Drum- 
 mond writes : " In the doctrine of the Logos he seems to place 
 himself betv/een Jews and Greeks, and to appropriate a common term 
 as the expression of a uniting faith." Character and Authorship dx., 
 p. 419. See also Liitgert, Die Johan. Christologie, pp. 159 ff. 
 
 2 " Er war Visiouar und Prophet, er besass einen tiefsinnigen 
 kontemplativen Geist, er war ein praktischer Kircheumann, und er 
 war doch nie weltiich konnivent." Seeberg, Zur Charakteristik des 
 Apes. Johan., Neue Kirchl. Zeitschr., xvi. 1905, p. 52. 
 
 * We agree with Wrede : the Fourth Evangelist is " eine Person- 
 
240 CONCLUSION 
 
 Many theories have been put forward. He will, 
 indeed, fill in gaps in the Synoptic narrative and 
 supplement it; but to say that his object is historical 
 is to go too far^. That he is concerned with polemics 
 must be allowed : we may perhaps recognise a thrust 
 at that one of the earliest heresies (Docetism) which 
 asserted that "the suffering Christ was a phantom^"; 
 that if Jesus appeared as a man He was not a real man, 
 that His body was merely simulated, that it was but an 
 immaterial phantasm^. He Avill also combat erroneous 
 ideas as to the personality of the Baptist which were 
 still prevalent : to regard the Gospel simply and solely 
 as a manifesto against the little Baptist sect is, how- 
 ever, neither warranted by its contents as a whole nor 
 by the circumstances of the case*. In so far as a 
 controversial element is discernible in it we can but 
 agree that it is mainly directed against the mass of 
 unbelieving Jews in their bitter hostility and persistent 
 
 licbkeit die dem wirklichen Leben zugewendet ist." Charakter und 
 Tendenz (&c., p. 68. 
 
 1 " The Synoptists are primarily historians or biographers ; the 
 writer of the Fourth Gospel regards history or biography as sub- 
 servient to direct instruction." Swete, Studies in the Teaching of our 
 Lord, p. 128. " Er hat iiberhaupt nicht in erster Linie beabsichtigt 
 zu erzahlen, sondern zu lehren," Wrede, op. cit. p, 5. 
 
 2 Rendel Harris, Gos^JeZo/ Si Pefer, p. 30. But see Wrede, 02). cit. p. 60. 
 
 3 The Johannine Christ can say "I thirst." And cf. Westcott, 
 St John, p. 279 : "The issuing of the blood and water... shewed both 
 His true humanity and (in some mysterious sense) the permanence of 
 His human life." Cf. Corssen, Monarchian. Prologe d;c., pp. 124 fif. 
 
 ^ So Jiilicher (commenting on Baldensperger's theory), Introd. to 
 N. T., p. 423. 
 
CONCLUSION 241 
 
 efforts to discredit Jesus. The " main purpose " is to 
 " give a comprehensive demonstration, in opposition to 
 the objections of the Jews, of the proposition ' Jesus is 
 the Christ/ and to declare its significance." It "pre- 
 sents an apology for the Christian Faith as opposed to 
 Judaism^." 
 
 But is this to say all that can be said ? If so then 
 the Gospel is indeed " throughout Apologetic 2," and its 
 author one whose sole concern is to fulminate against 
 the Church's enemies. To adopt this view of him and 
 of his work ceases to be possible as we take account of 
 his own words ; they quickly bid us regard him as one 
 who specially addresses himself to the Christian com- 
 munities amongst whom he lives. He will write for 
 them ; not simply against those whose continued attacks 
 are occasion of distraction. " The faithful " are in his 
 mind ; he will instruct them, build them up, lead them 
 on to that life which (as he himself realises) is the out- 
 come of genuine faith in the incarnate Son of God. 
 " The aim of the author, as he himself declares at the 
 close of his book, is to confirm his readers in the faith 
 that Jesus is the Christ in order that they may have 
 life in this faith (xx. 31)^." 
 
 To confirm them in the faith; in order that they 
 may have life. '' Two aims are here formulated, the 
 
 ^ von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, pp. 414 f. 
 
 2 Jiilicher, Introd. to N. T., p. 425. 
 
 3 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 416. 
 
 J. 16 
 
242 CONCLUSION 
 
 production of belief in the disciple, and through belief 
 the attainment of life." Of what sort is the belief to 
 be produced in them and in which they are to be con- 
 firmed ? — there is no question of " a simple intellectual 
 act like the acceptance of a geometrical theorem," the 
 appeal is " addressed to the spiritual affections," there 
 must be self-surrender, implicit trust in and absolute 
 devotion to the person of Jesus. Where such belief 
 exists the " life eternal " has been already entered ; 
 that life to which Jesus Himself pointed when He said 
 " he that believeth on me shall never die." Thoughts 
 come to us of " all the new emotions, the new desires, 
 the new hopes, the new aims, the new endeavours, the 
 new outlook on the world, the new affections towards 
 God and man, which filled the believer's soul, and con- 
 stituted that fi:"esh element of being known in the 
 vocabulary of the early Church as 'life^.'" 
 
 It remains for us to ask: what is the permanent 
 value of this Fourth Gospel which we to-day approach 
 with the consciousness that the last word has not been 
 spoken as to its authorship, and that, whoever its 
 author was, he — assuredly one of the greatest disciples 
 of Jesus 2 — is not throughout " reporting historical fact " 
 as it would be " reported by a chronicler^ " or modern 
 historian ? 
 
 1 Carpenter, Bible in X/Xth Cent., pp. 419 f. 
 
 2 Bousset, Jesus, p. 51. 
 
 3 von Soden, Early Christ. Literature, p. 418. 
 
CONCLUSION 243 
 
 To begin with. It has, after all, some value as a 
 narrative. We allow, as we cannot but allow, its 
 extreme subjectivity ; at the same time we are not 
 prepared to rule it entirely out as a source for the life 
 of Jesus. That it must be read with caution, dis- 
 crimination, is obvious ; at the same time it may well 
 be believed that actual, and very precious, sayings of 
 Jesus are really enshrined in it, and that it does enable 
 us to catch glimpses — if through much that dazzles 
 us — of that most holy life which was lived among 
 men. 
 
 Again. The Fourth Gospel is a wonderful revela- 
 tion of the stupendous impression made by Jesus on 
 a human mind. " This Evangelist, so every single line 
 of his writing tells us, has, through Jesus, found God, 
 and the finding of God has meant life for him, fullest 
 satisfaction ; whatever he makes Jesus say is at the 
 bottom a full and joyful confession of what Jesus has 
 become to himself." Thus Wernle^: — we may not, 
 perhaps, go all the way with him in his explanations 
 of sayings placed by the Fourth Evangelist in the 
 mouth of Jesus; at least we may do ample justice 
 to his recognition of the mighty personality of Jesus. 
 Perhaps we go on to ask: could such stupendous 
 
 1 Wernle, Die Quellen d^c, p. 29. Cf. Drummond, Character and 
 Authorship dx., p. 428 : "If we do not learn from him the very words 
 which Jesus spoke, we learn what he said to a sensitive and loving 
 heart." 
 
244 CONCLUSION 
 
 impression have been made by one who was but 
 greatest among prophets, religious genius, hero of love 
 and of sublimest trust in God^? We are disposed to 
 doubt it— and the doubt becomes intensified as we 
 dwell on a mighty influence exerted, not only on 
 that "greatest of disciples" in ancient times, but 
 on the world's life through centuries by the "strong 
 Son of God." 
 
 Once more. Truly this Gospel of "tender and 
 unearthly beauty " responds " with timeless voice to 
 the permanent needs of man." It contains rich store 
 of "comfortable (strengthening) words" which con- 
 strain the genuine believer to live out in himself that 
 which he discerns in the person of the Lord Christ. 
 It is full of suggestiveness for our own age — for 
 ages yet to come. It has its salutary warnings for 
 us. It bids us strive to find the common ground; to 
 be ever eager to clasp hands of brotherhood with those 
 who are in different camps. It tells us to be as the 
 wise householder who will ever bring things new as 
 well as old out of his treasure-house ; to enter into and 
 assimilate all new knowledge. It prompts us to look 
 forward with faith to the future ; is it not a Gospel of 
 " the larger hope " ? 
 
 It has its warnings for us. The remark has been 
 made^: in all that relates to externals, to ceremonial 
 
 1 Of. Barth, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 44. 
 
 2 By a friend of the present writer. 
 
CONCLUSION 245 
 
 observance, the barometer has been steadily rising ; it 
 has been as steadily falling in all that relates to heart- 
 religion, to the spiritual life, to character and conduct. 
 Not for a single moment would we undervalue the use 
 of that which appeals to the senses and the emotions, 
 nor are we quite so certain that nowhere does Jesus 
 Himself attach any value " to outward means and 
 forms ^." There remains deep need to be pointed away 
 from mere externalism in religion^; and here the 
 Fourth Gospel has this great word for us : " God is 
 spirit, and they that worship must worship in spirit 
 and in truth." 
 
 It points to unity. These are days when "the 
 problem of the reunion of English Christianity " lies as 
 a burden on the heart, and when the thought rises in 
 many reflective minds that "the old distinctions be- 
 tween the several denominations no longer correspond 
 with the vital affinities which draw men of kindred 
 faith and purpose together^." Wisdom will dictate the 
 festina lente, there is need of caution, if movement be 
 slow it will be all the more sure, a true coming- together 
 will scarcely be brought about by the sinking of 
 principle on either side. That which is to be aimed at 
 and accomplished — unity rather than uniformity — is 
 
 ^ Bousset, Jesus, pp. 51 f. 
 
 2 Cf. von Soden, Early Christian Literature, p. 456. 
 
 3 Turbeville, Steps towards Christian Unity, p. 17. The book is 
 one which deserves careful and sympathetic perusal. 
 
246 CONCLUSION 
 
 brought full in view by this Fourth Gospel with its 
 reference (by implication) to the many folds, the one 
 flock. 
 
 It bids us enter heart and soul into the New 
 Learning of our age. Well has it been said of the 
 Johannine writings that " they rendered an extra- 
 ordinary service to their time by absorbing into Christi- 
 anity, as they did, every element in the great spiritual 
 tendencies of the age that was capable of being assimi- 
 lated^"; and a demand is surely made that the like 
 service should be rendered now. If the Fourth 
 Evangelist be indeed revealed to us as one who has not 
 scrupled to draw water from the well of Greek philo- 
 sophy, he will surely have us follow where he has led 
 the way. We may learn from him to recognise the 
 truths which underlie the non-Christian religions of 
 the world, each one of them a "broken light" of the 
 Eternal. The revelations of physical science must be 
 accounted helps to a fuller understanding of the divine 
 processes. The intellectual and spiritual riches of the 
 nations must be made to contribute to every effort 
 made to "ring in the Christ that is to be." 
 
 It uplifts us with the buoyancy of hope. We have 
 spoken of it as a Gospel of " the larger hope," and 
 why ? — because of that universalism which is one of its 
 characteristic features. We are made to anticipate a 
 time when humanity shall have been compacted to- 
 1 Schmiedel, Encycl. Bihl., ii. 2558. 
 
CONCLUSION 247 
 
 gether into the " full-grown man " of St Paul's 
 imaginings. For is it not written : " I, if I be lifted 
 up, will draw all men, all things, to myself" ? 
 
 There is uncertainty as to who the Fourth Evange- 
 list really is^. That what he gives us in his "noble 
 work " is not history in the modern sense of the word 
 cannot be gainsaid. But we may say this of him : he 
 is verily one who has " made ready his soul, as some 
 well-fashioned and jewelled lyre with strings of gold, 
 and yielded it for the utterance of something great and 
 sublime to the Spirits" 
 
 1 Grill {TJntersuchungen (&c., p. vi.) says: "ich glaube er wollte 
 und wird unbekannt bleiben." Gutjahr {Die Glaubwurdigkeit <^c., 
 pp. 183 f.) had previously remarked : " Oder aber wusste der Verfasser 
 des Evglms. dasGeheimnis seiner Abfassung vor jedermann zu wahren? 
 Konnte er es wenn er es wollte, auch am Orte wo er schrieb?" The 
 question viay be of a secret never to be disclosed. 
 
 2 Chrysostom, Homilies on St John, i. 
 
 Cambridge: printed by john clay, m.a. at the university press. 
 
V 
 
Date Due 
 
 mr^^'- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f