A Short Introduction to the Gospels

By Ernest DeWitt Burton

Chapter 5

 

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

1. THE AUTHOR

1. His nationality as it appears in the book itself.—On this point several classes of facts bear convergent testimony.

a) The author is familiar with Jewish history, customs, and ideas. Thus he speaks of the law as given by Moses (1:17); of the piece of ground which Jacob gave to Joseph (4:5, 6; cf. Gen. 48:221); of the priests and Levites in Jerusalem (1:19); of Caiaphas as high-priest that year, reflecting the frequent changes in the high-priestly office made by the Roman and Herodian authorities (11:49, 51; 18:132 ). He is familiar with the Jewish cycle of feasts (2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2, 37—cf. Lev. 23:35, 36; 2 Mace. 10:6; Jos., Antiq., III, 10, 4-10:22; 11:55; 12:1 ); with the time at which they occurred (6:4, 10; 10:22); with the custom of attending them in Jerusalem (7:2-13); with the habit of the Galileans in particular (4:45; . Luke 2 141 and abundant outside evidence; n 155); and with the practice of selling in the temple at the feast time (2:14-16; cf. Edersheim, Life of Jesus, Vol. I, p. 369). He represents correctly the Jewish usage and feeling respecting the sabbath and the "preparation" (5:10ff.; 19:31, 42; cf. 7:23). He is acquainted with the marriage customs of the Jews (2:1ff.; cf. 3:29); with the Jewish ideas about defilement and the custom of purification (2:6; 3:25; 11:55; 18:28; cf. Mark 7:3ff. ); and with the Jews manner of burying (11:44; 19:39, 40. His statements in 8:59; 10:31, 33 are in accordance with the Jewish penalty for blasphemy (cf. Lev. 24:10-16), yet are wholly devoid of any studied attempt to be thus true to Jewish custom. He knows the feeling of the Jews toward Samaritans (4:9); the relations of the Jewish and Roman authorities in the trial of a prisoner, and the function of the high-priest in the matter; and gives a very vivid account of the trial of Jesus in precise conformity to the then existing political situation (chaps. 18, 19).

To these passages may be added certain references to Jewish affairs which occur, not in the language of the author himself, but in that of Jesus and the other characters of the story. If these be supposed to owe their form to the author, then of course they are equally valuable as evidence of nationality with those already named. If they are to be attributed wholly and directly to the characters of the history, then they bear witness to the accuracy of the report, which would lead to the same conclusion respecting the author of the book, or of his sources if such he had.

Thus, as respects matters of external history, in 2:20 the Jews refer to the forty-six years which the rebuilding of the temple begun by Herod had occupied;3 and, in 18:31, to the unlawfulness of their putting a man to death, in precise accordance with the statement of the Talmud (Jer. Sanh., i, 1, fol. 18a; vii, 2, fol. 24b) that the Jews lost the power to enforce sentence of death forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, viz., about 30 A. D. The language of Nicodemus in 7:51 is in accordance with Jewish law (Deut. 1:16; 19:15), and that of Pilate in 18:39 is in harmony with the statement of the Jewish author of Matt. 27:15, on which, however, it may of course be based. In 3:14 Jesus speaks of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness; in 6:31 the Jews refer to the manna with which the children of Israel were fed;4 in 7:42 the Jews refer to Bethlehem as the village where David was. In the matters of Jewish usage and feeling, the language of John in 3:29 is true to the marriage customs of Judea,5 that of the Samaritan woman in 4:20 to the Samaritan ideas about place of worship, as are those of the Jews in 8:48 to the Jewish feeling toward the Samaritans. In 7:23 Jesus refers to the practice of circumcising a child even on a sabbath.

In 1:29 John the Baptist points out Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, an evident echo of Isa., chap. 53. In 1:41, 45, 49; 7:27, 41, 42; 10:24; 12:34 there are repeated reflections of the cur rent Jewish conceptions of the Messiah. In 1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:40-43 appear similar echoes of Jewish ideas about Elijah and "the prophet;" in 4:27, of the Jewish feeling about a rabbi talking with a woman; in 4:25, 29, 42, of the Samaritan expectation of the Messiah;6 in 8:33, 37, of the Jewish conception of the value of Abrahamic descent; in 9:28, of the Pharisees claim to be Moses's disciples (cf. Matt. 23:2); in 7:41, 52, of the prejudice of the Judeans against the Galileans; in 7:49, of the contempt of the Pharisees for the common people, the Am-haaretz; and in 9:2, of the general Jewish feeling about the cause of misfortunes.

b) The author is acquainted with the Old Testament, not only reporting the use of it, or reference to it, by Jesus and others (1:23, 29, 45, 51; 6:45, 49; 7:19, 22, 38; 8:17; 10:34 f.; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12)7 but, like the first evangelist, frequently quoting or referring to it himself and pointing out the fulfilment of its prophecies in the life of Jesus (2:17, 22; 12:14, 38-41; 19:24, 28, 36, 37; 20:9). These quotations, moreover, and the remarks by which he accompanies them, show clearly that he believes in the authority of the Old Testament and its divinely given prophecies. He evidently holds with Jesus that, as compared with gentiles or Samaritans, the Jews know the true way of salvation (4:22).

c) He is, moreover, familiar with the Hebrew language, as is indicated by his use and interpretation of Hebrew names (1:38, 41, 42; 5:2; 9:7; 19:13, 17; 20:16); by the fact that some of his quotations from the Old Testament are not made from the Septuagint, but are apparently his own translation of the Hebrew (13:18; 19:37, to which may, perhaps, be added 12:40); and by the Greek in which the book is written, which is throughout Hebraistic in its style, especially in its use of non-periodic sentences, and the frequent employment of the less distinctive conjunctions.8

When all this evidence is taken together, it strongly tends to the conclusion that our gospel is of Jewish origin. Some of the facts are quite consistent with gentile Christian authorship; some might be explained by the assumption of the use of Jewish sources; but the obvious meaning of them all, to be accepted unless overbalanced and set aside by counter-evidence, is that the material of the book is from the hand of a man who is of Jewish birth, and, in a sense, a Jew in religion.

2. The author's residence.—On this matter there is a diversity of evidence.

a) He is familiar with the geography of Palestine and the topography of Jerusalem, and in particular with things as they were before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. He knows of the Bethany beyond Jordan, as distinguished from the Bethany near Jerusalem (1:28; cf. 11:1, 18; 12:19); of Bethsaida as the city of Andrew and Peter ( 1:44, apparently a more accurate statement than the implication of the synoptists that they came from Capernaum; see Mark 1:2i, 29); of Cana of Galilee and its relation to Capernaum (2:1, 12; 4:46, 47; Capernaum lies about 1,500 feet lower than Cana); of Ænon near to Salim10 (3:23); of Sychar, and Jacob's Well, the former of which modern exploration has identified with 'Askar, half a mile across the valley from the unquestionably identified Jacob's Well; of the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, with its five porches (5:2), concerning which, again, most interesting discoveries have been made in recent times;11 of the Sea of Galilee (6:1), and the location of Capernaum and Tiberias in relation to it (6:17, 24, 25); of the treasury in the temple (8:20; cf. Edersheim, Temple, pp. 26, 27); of the Pool of Siloam (9:7), easily identified today with Ain Silwan,12 southeast of Jerusalem, but within the limits of the wall recently discovered;13 of Solomon's porch ( 10:23); of a city called Ephraim ( 1 1:54), probably the Ephron of the Old Testament (see Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible); of the brook Kidron (18:1, 2; cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 171ff.); of the pretorium of the procurator (18:28), and the pavement in the pretorium (19:13); of Golgotha, the place of crucifixion (19:17); and of the garden in which Jesus was buried (19:41). It is specially worthy of notice that several of these references are to places which must have been wholly destroyed or obscured in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D., and knowledge of which could with difficulty have been possessed except by one who had lived in Palestine and been familiar with Jerusalem before 70.14

b) The same thing is indicated by the writer's apparently intimate acquaintance with the events of the procuratorship of Pilate (11:49; 18:12, J 3, 3 1, 39)-

c) Of like significance is his familiarity with those Jewish ideas and expectations which prevailed among the Jews of the first century, but were not shared by the Christians of the second century (1:21; 7:27, 40, 41; the distinction here indicated between the prophet and the Christ was early given up by Christians, the passage in Deut. 18:15 being referred to the Christ, as in Acts 3:22; 7 37; cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 25), as well as with those which, though not repudiated by the Christians, were no longer held in the precise form in which they prevailed among the Jews of the first century ( 1:49; 12:13; cf. Psalms of Solomon, 17).

d) But, on the other hand, there are indications scarcely less clear that the author no longer counts him self with the Jews, and that he has come into contact with a type of thought by which he would be much more likely to be affected outside than inside Palestine. Thus he constantly speaks of the Jews in the third person, as if they were quite distinct from himself (2:6, 13, 18; 3:1; 4:9; 5:1, 10, 15, 16; 6:41; 7:15; 8:22, etc.). This is, no doubt, in part the reflection of the fact that his position as a Christian quite overshadows his merely national character as a Jew. Yet, many of the Jewish Christians who remained in Palestine continued for some time to feel themselves as truly Jews as ever. And the constant employment of this phraseology, so much more frequent than in Matthew or Paul (Matt. 28:15; 1 Thess. 2:14, etc.), implies that the author wrote at considerable distance of place or time, or both, from his home in Pales tine and his life in Judaism.

Positive indications of residence outside of Palestine and an intimation of where his home was are conveyed in the frequent use of the terms and forms of thought which prevailed in regions affected by the Jewish-Greek philosophy represented to us by Philo Judeus, and reflected in the opposition to it in Paul's epistle to the Colossians. Such words as "Word,"15 "only-begotten," "life," "light," "darkness," "truth," "paraclete," are common to Philo and John, though conspicuously absent from, or employed in a different way in, the synoptic vocabulary. Account must also be taken of the indescribable, but perfectly evident, air of philosophical or abstract thought, so different from the intensely practical ethics and religion of the other gospels, and allying this book with Paul's letters to the Colossians and Ephesians more closely than with any other New Testament book. By this is not meant that the fourth gospel is more like Philo, either in style or substance, than it is like the other gospels. On the contrary, the resemblance to Philo is accompanied by even more marked differences, and the resemblances between John and the synoptic gospels in real spirit and doctrine are far closer than any between John and Philo. The influence to which the writer of the fourth gospel has been subjected is one of atmosphere, affecting his style and vocabulary, but leaving his doctrine essentially unchanged. As Paul in Colossians joins a translation of his thought into the terms of so-called philosophy with out-and-out opposition to the errors of that philosophy, so the fourth evangelist apparently avails himself of a vocabulary which is acquired rather than native to him, without thereby accepting the doctrines commonly associated with this vocabulary.

These two antithetical lines of evidence lead us to think of the author as one who had lived in Palestine in the first part of the first century, but who, before he wrote this book, had been for some time in non-Jewish lands, and in an intellectual atmosphere largely affected by the Alexandrian or Judeo-Hellenic type of thought; or else point to some form of double authorship. The simpler explanation is, however, of course, to be preferred, and is apparently adequate to account for the facts we have thus far examined. The theory of divided authorship is not excluded, but it must be sustained by further evidence before it can demand acceptance.

3. His religions position.—That the author, though a Jew in nationality and one who had been somewhat affected by Judeo-Hellenic philosophy, was yet, above everything else, a Christian is so evident throughout the book as to call for no detailed proof. The prologue ( 1:1-18), the writer's statement of his purpose in writing (20:30, 31), and, indeed, every paragraph of the gospel (see, e. g., 3:16-21; 31-36; 12:35-43), is penetrated with a conception of Jesus, and of the significance of his life and work, which is possible only to a Christian.

4. The relation of the author to Jesus, and to the events which he narrates, as reflected in his narrative.—We refer now not to direct assertions of such relation, but to the indirect indications furnished in the way in which the story is told.

a) The author constantly speaks as if he were an eyewitness of the events he narrates. The passage 1:19-51, e. g., while in some respects parallel to the synoptic story, adds also materially to that story, and especially such details as only an eyewitness could have added truth fully (see especially 1:29, 35, 39-42, 43). He alone of the evangelists tells us of the numerous but untrustworthy disciples that turned to Jesus in Jerusalem (2:23-25). He alone tells us of Nicodemus, and setches him in few words, but with remarkable verisimilitude. He alone informs us that Jesus for a time baptized (by the hands of his disciples, 3:22; 4:1, 2); the synoptic gospels would leave us with the impression that the baptism with the Holy Spirit (of which this writer also knows, 1:33) was Jesus only baptism. The story of Jesus and the woman of Samaria (chap. 4) is full of lifelike touches, suggesting that it is from the pen or lips of one who was present. The account of the events that followed the feeding of the five thousand (chap. 6), so wholly unsuggested in the synoptic narrative, while at the same time helping to explain the withdrawal into northern Galilee (Mark 7:24ff.) which the synoptists alone relate, and so wholly true to probability in its representation of popular interpretation of the Old Testament and popular views of the Messiah, is also told with a minuteness of detail at certain points that suggests again an eyewitness author. The account of events connected with the raising of Lazarus is full of similar details, relating what the several persons said to one another, where they stood, etc. So also the story of the Greeks who sought Jesus relates the precise part which the several disciples took in the matter. And the account of Jesus last interview with his disciples (chaps. 13-17) likewise tells what Peter, Philip, Thomas, and Judas said. The account of the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus, while clearly parallel, and in part identical, with that of the synoptists, adds many graphic but incidental details, each of which, where it can be tested, conforms to existing conditions, or to probability (see, e. g., 18:1, 2, 10, 15ff., 26, 29-38; 19:4-16, 20, 23, 39).16 The representation of the book respecting repeated visits of Jesus to Jerusalem is different from that of the synoptists, but corresponds with probability, and is indeed demanded, as the explanation of that which occurred on that last visit.17

b) An eyewitness one to whom facts of this character were known of personal knowledge could hardly have been other than one of the Twelve. It is improbable that one outside that circle would have possessed the detailed knowledge of so many events, of several of which the Twelve were the only witnesses. Certainly no other could have known the thoughts of Jesus and his disciples which this evangelist records (2:11, 17, 22; 4:6, 27; 13:22, etc.). Only by assuming that the gospel contains a very large imaginative and fictitious element can one avoid the conclusion that the material of it proceeded from an eyewitness, presumably one of the twelve apostles. But the hypothesis of such an element of fiction is rendered improbable by the historic accuracy of the gospel in matters in which it is possible to put its accuracy to the test.

c) The gospel, as we possess it, contains direct assertions that the author of the narrative, or at least of certain portions of it, was an eyewitness of the events narrated (1:14; 19:35; 21:24). Of these passages, however, the last is clearly not a statement of the author, and belongs therefore to external testimonies (see p. 115). The second may also be so regarded, but the evidence is not decisive. It is almost equally possible that it is a statement of the author concerning himself,18 and that it is, on the other hand, a statement of one who therein distinguishes himself from the person who is the source of the information, the author of the statement being either the final author of the book, who distinguishes him self from the author of the sources,19 or an editor who thus comments on the work of the author. In the former case, it is a direct affirmation by the writer that he was present at the crucifixion of Jesus, and as such of the highest significance. In the latter case, since it is the person here spoken of, not the one who speaks, to whom our previous evidence applies, it becomes a testimony of some early, but to us unidentified, scribe or editor or compiler that the author or source of the narrative was thus present. It is important to observe that in this case it is the testimony of a contemporary of the witness to whom it refers, the tense and person of the verbs in the expression "he knoweth that he saith true" implying that the author of the narrative was still living. It is thus only less significant on this interpretation than if taken as a statement of the author about himself. In 1:14 there is nothing to suggest editorial addition—it is clearly the author who is speaking for himself and his associates. Though the first person plural, "we," may be interpreted to mean "we Christians," the author using it so loosely as to include himself with the eyewitnesses, even though he himself was not such,20 it is more probable that the writer uses it in its obvious sense, as implying that he himself was of the eyewitnesses.21 The indirect evidence of the gospel is therefore confirmed by the direct testimony of the author that he had seen Jesus and had beheld his glory.

With this result we might for our present purpose be content, since, though the writer is not by this evidence personally identified, the knowledge of the author which we most need to assist us in the interpretation of the book is not his name, but his historical situation, his relation to Jesus and to the facts that he relates. Knowing these, it is of less moment that we should identify him individually. Yet, even his name is not without its helpful ness in the interpretation of the book; and, as an appendix at least to the evidence which the book itself furnishes in its disclosures of its author's characteristics, point of view, knowledge of facts, and relation to them, it will be well to consider briefly the external testimonies to his personal identity.

5. Statements of ancient writers concerning the authorship of the book.—The testimony contained in 19:35 has already been spoken of. If it is an editorial statement, it is undoubtedly the earliest testimony we possess from another than the author himself. But it does not in any case identify the writer any more definitely than has been done by internal evidence. It affirms only that the writer was an eyewitness of the event there narrated, not who he was nor what was his name.

The first clearly external testimony is that of 21 124 of the gospel:

This is the disciple who beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.

Chap. 21 is clearly an appendix to the gospel added to it after it had once been completed at the end of the twentieth chapter (cf. iv, "Plan of the Gospel"). The chapter as a whole is by no means certainly of different authorship from the rest of the gospel. But vs. 24 is by its very terms not a statement of the author respecting himself, but the testimony of others affirming who he is. Though imbedded in the gospel itself, as we now possess it, having been inserted when the rest of the chapter was added, or perhaps even later, it is, strictly speaking, external testimony, not internal evidence. Who is the author or authors of this testimony, or when it was added to the gospel, cannot be definitely stated.22 In all documentary evidence, even the oldest, the gospel contains the twenty-first chapter including this verse.

The testimony of this verse is distinctly to the effect that the gospel is from the hand of an eyewitness of the events; that he was one of seven, five of whom are named and are of the Twelve (21:2); and, more specifically, that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, who leaned on Jesus bosom at the supper (21:20, 24). The internal evidence of the book, and the statement of 19:35, therefore, are confirmed and made more definite by this testimony of unknown persons inserted in the appendix to the gospel.

Not even yet, however, is the writer spoken of by name. If it might be reasonably assumed that the disciple repeatedly in the gospel designated otherwise than by his name (1:40, 41; 13:23; 18:15,16; 19:26,27, 35; 21:20) is always the same, then the person to whom this testimony refers could with probability be identified. For the testimony itself refers to 21:20, in which the disciple that Jesus loved is spoken of, and by implication identifies him with the disciple spoken of in 19:35. Now, one to whom these passages referred could hardly have been other than one of the inner circle of Jesus disciples James, John, Peter, Andrew (a presumption confirmed by 1:40, 41; 21:2); and of these Andrew is excluded by 1:40, Peter by 21:20, and James by 21:24, coupled with the fact of his early death (Acts 12:2), making it impossible for him to have written a gospel unquestionably the latest of our four. But the chain of argument by which we thus conclude that the disciple whom Jesus loved, and to whom the witnesses of 21:24 referred, was John the son of Zebedee, while probably leading to a right interpretation of this testimony, contains several links not irrefutably strong. For the name of the author to whom antiquity ascribed this gospel we must look to still later testimony.

Definite testimony that the fourth gospel is from the hand of John comes to us not earlier than from the third quarter of the second century.23 The following are some of the earliest and most striking passages in which the gospel is ascribed to John:

Whence also the Holy Scriptures and all those who bear the spirit teach us, of whom John (being one) says:1n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, pointing out that at first only God was, and in him the Word. Then, he says, And the Word was God, through him all things were made and without him nothing was made. (THEOPHILUS, Ad. Autolycum, II, 22.)

Irenaeus, having previously spoken of the three gospels and their authors proceeds:

Afterwards John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Adv. Haer., iii, i.)

In another passage he says:

John the disciple of the Lord . . . . thus commenced his teach ing in the gospel: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, etc. (Adv. Haer., iii, n.)

II. INDICATIONS OF EDITORIAL WORK IN THE GOSPEL

The evidence that the fourth gospel came from one of the Twelve is then full and strong; and tradition at least clearly points to John as the author. Yet it is necessary also to consider certain facts which seem to make against the theory of apostolic authorship in the strictest and fullest sense of the term, evidence suggesting the possibility that, though an apostle, presumably John, was not only the source, but in a sense the writer, of this book, yet the book perhaps does not owe its present form to him. In connection with this must also be considered certain evidence which may either make against the strict Johannine authorship, or tend to show that the material of the book underwent a process of recasting in the mind of the apostle himself.

1. Reference has already been made to the clear indication that 21:24 is from the hand of persons who definitely distinguish themselves from the author of the book, standing as sponsors to the readers for his trustworthiness, and to the possibility that 19:35 is of the same character.24 The former clearly, the latter possibly, show a hand other than that of the author of the material contained in the book. The evidence furnished by the fact of the addition of chap. 21, after the gospel was complete, will be discussed in a later paragraph.

2. The use of the title, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (19:26; 21:20), for the author of the book points, at least slightly, in the same direction. That associates of John in the latter part of his life should know from himself or from others that he was the special object of the Master's affection, and that they should call him " the disciple whom Jesus loved," is not at all improbable. But that he, writing with his own pen or by dictation a book whose authorship was to be no secret, should refer to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," is an improbable immodesty, strangely at variance with the modesty which on this supposition led him never to mention himself by name.

3. In several particulars this gospel gives a different representation of facts connected with the life of Jesus from that which the synoptic gospels present. Thus John the Baptist's characterization of Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world is so wholly different from his prediction, recorded in Matthew and Luke, of the Greater One coming to swift and irremediable judgment that it cannot but lead us to inquire whether the idea expressed by the Baptist is not at least slightly modified in this expression of it. Again, the representation of this gospel concerning the announcement of Jesus messiahship is sufficiently different from that of the synoptic gospels to raise the question whether there has not been in this matter some transformation of the material, some projection backward into the early portion of the ministry of what really belongs to the latter part, or a substitution for one another of terms which, when the gospel was written, had long been looked upon as practically synonymous, but which, when Jesus lived, had not yet become so. The difficulties at this point have often been exaggerated, especially in respect to the confession of Nathanael,25 but it remains true that there are differences which demand explanation. Cf. John 3:28; 4:26, with Matt. 16:13-18. In minor matters, also, there is an occasional editorial remark which it is difficult to account for as coming from an apostle of Jesus. See, e. g., 4:44, which by its position seems to imply that Judea was Jesus own country, though, indeed, this is not the only possible interpretation of it.26

4. The style of the gospel is uniform throughout, alike in narrative, discourse of Jesus, discourse of John, and prologue or comment of the evangelist. This style is, moreover, quite different from that which the synoptic gospels attribute to Jesus or John. Whose style is this? Is it that of John the apostle, or that of the men whose hand appears in the "we know" of 21:24? Or is it, per haps, the style of Jesus himself which John has learned from him? From the gospel itself we could perhaps hardly answer the question. But a comparison of the book, on the one hand, with the style which the synoptic gospels all but uniformly attribute to Jesus, and, on the other, with the first epistle of John, seems to point the way to an answer. In I John we have a letter which, though it uses the pronoun "we" in the first paragraph, as Paul also frequently does, because he includes in his thought other persons than himself of whom his statement is true,27 yet is evidently the letter of one person (2:1, 12; 5:13, etc.). This person, moreover, is an eyewitness of the life of Jesus (1:1-4). Now, the vocabulary, doctrine, and style of this letter are very similar to that of the fourth gospel, including also chap. 21. The obvious inference from these facts is that the gospel throughout not necessarily every word, but in the main and the epistle are in subject-matter and style from one hand, and that that hand is the hand of an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, the disciple of Jesus who in the epistle writes in the first person singular, who in the gospel discloses his knowledge of the things with which he deals, and to whom the authors of 21:24. refer. It follows that the style is neither that of editors who have put the book together,28 nor, in view of the evidence of the synoptists respecting Jesus manner of speech, that of Jesus. From this again follow two conclusions: First, the apostle is not simply in a remote sense the source of the facts, which the editors have wholly worked over into their style, but he is in some true sense the author of the book, the one who, as the authors of 21:24 say, "wrote these things." Second, in view of the uniformity of the style of this book, covering the discourses of Jesus as well as the rest, in view of the difference between this style and that of Jesus in the synoptists, and, on the other hand, its identity with that of 1 John, there is no room to doubt that John has thoroughly worked over into his own style—perhaps the style of his later years—his remembrance of the deeds and words of Jesus. That this style was learned from Jesus is a theory which could hardly be absolutely disproved, but which is not suggested by any convincing evidence. That the synoptic gospels contain a sentence or two in the style of the fourth gospel (see Matt, 11:27; Luke 10:22), is more easily explained on the supposition that the synoptic gospels were to a limited extent affected by the same influence that created the fourth gospel than that these few words discover to us the style of Jesus and account for that of the fourth gospel.

5. There are numerous indications that the arrangement of the material of which this book is composed is not wholly from the hand of the author himself. These apparent displacements attracted attention long ago,29 and of recent years have been the subject of careful study. Among the most obvious of them is the position of 7:15-24. This is manifestly connected in thought with chap. 5. The Jews apparently take up in 7:15 a statement of Jesus in 5:47, and the whole paragraph 15-24 unquestionably carries forward the controversy related in chap. 5. But as the material now stands, months of time and an extended absence of Jesus from Jerusalem fall between the two parts of this continuous conversation. The attachment of these verses to the end of chap. 5 gives them a far more natural and probable position. Independently of this case, 6:1 and 7:1 present an obvious chronological difficulty. In 6:1 Jesus goes away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, though chap. 5 leaves him not in Galilee at all, but in Jerusalem. And 7:1 states that after these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him; though in chap. 6 he was already in Galilee. The transposition of chaps. 5 and 6 would give a far more intelligible order of events. Even the latter part of chap. 7 would read much more smoothly if vss. 45-52 stood between 36 and 37, thus making the officers return the same day that they were sent, rather than, as it now stands, several days later, as well as yielding in other respects a more probable order of thought. Combining these suggestions, we should arrange these chapters in this order (after chap. 4, which leaves him in Galilee): 6:1-71; 5:1-47; 7:1 5-24; 7:1-13, 2 5-3 6, 45-5 2, 37-44.That 7:53 8:11 is from some outside source is generally admitted, being established by external testimony as well as by internal evidence. The insertion of this pas sage is, of course, not editorial transposition, but scribal interpolation.30

The difficulties of arrangement in chaps. 13-16 have long been noticed, and one of them, the interposition of the long discourse of chaps. 15-16 after the words, " Arise, let us go hence," in 14:31, is obvious to the most casual reader. Others have been observed by more attentive students, such as the evidence in 14:25-31, especially in 27, " Peace I leave with you," that these are intended to be the closing words of the discourse; and that 16:5 can scarcely have been spoken after the question of 14:5, but would itself naturally give rise to that question. These difficulties are greatly relieved by supposing chaps. 15, 16 to have stood originally either after the words "Jesus saith," in 13:31, or after 13:20. It has been further pointed out that the recognized difficulties in 18:12-28 are considerably relieved by supposing that vss. 19-24 belong properly after vs. 13, the beginning of vs. 25 being a repetition of the end of vs. 18. The order of the Sinaitic manuscript of the Syriac Version (verses 12, 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-31), suggests either that the present order was not the original, or that the difficulty of the present order made itself felt very early.

Spitta accounted for these transpositions on the theory that the book w r as originally written on papyrus sheets, each containing approximately eighteen and one-half lines of the length of those of the Westcott and Hort text, or about eight hundred Greek letters, and that by pure accident some of these sheets were displaced and then copied as transposed. It is certainly remarkable how many of the pieces which are out of place are either about eight hundred letters long or multiples of this number.31 Professor Bacon, recognizing in large part the same displacements, thinks they are the result of editorial arrangement.32 Without undertaking to decide which, if either, of these two theories is correct neither one of them seems to account for all the facts or whether all the alleged displacements are really such, we are constrained to admit that the evidence of some displacement is almost irresistible. But, if so, then it follows that some other hand has been at work upon the gospel than that of the original author.

6. But chap. 21 furnishes at once a problem of itself and a hint for the solution of the whole matter. This chapter seems clearly, and is generally admitted to be, an appendix added after the gospel was felt to be completed in 20:30, 31. Now Weizsäcker has pointed out in his Apostolic Age (Vol. II, pp. 209, 212) that the motive for this addition is to be seen in 21 123, viz., in the fact that the death of John seemed at once to discredit both the apostle and his Lord, since, as was generally supposed, Jesus had predicted that his beloved disciple should not die, but should survive till his coming. To obviate this discrediting of Jesus and John, this chapter is published, pointing out that Jesus did not so predict. The motive for such a publication would, as Weizsäcker says, exist most strongly immediately after the death of John. From this fact he draws a conclusion in favor of the early date of the gospel. For our present purpose its significance lies in the fact that this chapter was added after the death of John. But if, as already argued, the style of this chapter is the style of the author of the epistle and the gospel, not that of the editors who speak in 21:24, then it follows that this chapter existed before its incorporation into the gospel. And this in turn suggests both that the apostle, while still alive, composed chapters of a gospel—"booklets," if you please33—and that he left them in this form, not organized into a gospel. If now we turn back to examine the gospel itself, it is easy to imagine, to say the least, that we can discern, approximately, the lines of cleavage which distinguish these booklets from one another, somewhat as follows:34 Book I, 1:1-18; Book II, 1:19 2:12; Book III, 2:13 3 136; Book IV, chap. 4; Book V, 5:1-47; 7:15-24; Book VI, chap. 6; Book VII, chaps. 7, 8 (with omissions and transpositions as suggested on p. 123 and in n. 30); Book VIII, chaps. 9, 10 (with changes suggested in n. 30); Book IX, 10:22-29, 1-18, 30-42; Book X, chap, n; Book XI, chap. 12; Book XII, chaps. 13-17 (as arranged above); Book XIII, chaps. 18-20; Book XIV, chap. 21.35

If now we attempt to combine and interpret all this evidence, it seems to point to the following conclusion: The narrative of the life and discourses of Jesus proceeds from an eyewitness of the events, a personal disciple of Jesus, in all probability John the son of Zebedee. The whole material has, however, been melted and recast in the mind of the author. Lapse of time, change of surroundings, contact with a new type of thought, desire to make Jesus and his teaching intelligible to the men with whom, now at the end of the first century, he has to deal, have all operated to make the book, not merely a narrative of the life of Jesus, but a series of historical sermons shaped to meet the needs of living readers. This material left the hand of the author, moreover, not in the form of the book which we have, but in a number of smaller books. In its spirit the book is far more the work of a preacher seeking to develop spiritual life, than of an historian seeking to produce an accurate record of past events. The gospel as we possess it shows the hand of an editor or editors in the arrangement of the material which he or they had, and possibly of a careless copyist or binder in the disarrangement of it. The precise extent of the editorial work, and the exact nature of the causes which have given the book its present form, are as yet unsolved problems. But the evidence seems to show that the bulk of the material exists in the form which the apostle gave it, even the style being his.

These facts, if facts they are, do not disprove the essential unity of the book, nor do they show it to be based upon "sources" in the usual sense of that term. They indicate that the book is mainly from one hand, but they imply also that we may expect to find four strata of material, or rather evidences of four influences at work: first, the actual deeds and words of Jesus; second, the apostle melting over and recasting these in his own mind, and adding prologue and occasional comment or summary (1:1-18; 3:16 -21, 31-36; 12:36b-43 or 5036); third, the work of an editor in the preparation of the book for publication; and fourth, possibly, the blundering work of a copyist or binder.

III. THE READERS FOR WHOM THE GOSPEL WAS INTENDED

Internal evidence tends to show that the readers for whom the fourth gospel was primarily written and published were not Jews, but gentiles. A Christian writer writing for Christian Jews might, indeed, occasionally speak of "the Jews" as this gospel does (cf. Matt. 28:15), but a Jewish writer writing for Jews, even Christian Jews, is not likely to have felt his and their distinctness from the Jewish nation so strongly as to have used this form of expression with the frequency with which it occurs in this gospel. The explanation of Hebrew terms when they occur (1:41,42; 4:25; 19:13, 17; 20:16), and the manner of referring to Jewish customs and sentiments (2:6; 4:9; 7:2; 19:40), point in the same direction. This evidence does not exclude Jewish readers, but it certainly tends to show that the readers were not wholly, or even chiefly, Jews. To this must be added the statement of 20:31, which by its use of the words "believe" and "have" in the present tense, denoting action in progress and most naturally referring to the continuance of action already in progress, implies that the readers are Christians, in whom the writer desires, not to beget faith, but to nourish and confirm a faith that already exists. The book seems, therefore, to have been intended chiefly for gentile Christians.

IV. THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE EVANGELIST WROTE

But what did it aim to accomplish for these Christians? The verse just referred to contains an explicit statement of aim, viz., by the narration of facts respecting the life of Jesus to lead men (presumably already believers) to believe (i. e., continue to believe) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, to the end that thus believing they may (continue to) have life in his name.37 Doubtless it would be an over-pressing of the force of the tenses in this sentence to insist that the book was written solely for the maintenance of existing- faith against adversaries; but that this was a part of its purpose is certainly more than hinted. If, then, we turn back to the prologue, 1:1-18, in which we may naturally expect to discover indication of the purpose of the book, three things attract our attention. First, the term "Word" is here employed in a peculiar way, not paralleled in the other portions of the gospel or in the first epistle of John,38 and yet introduced as if it were familiar to those who would read the book.39 The purpose of the writer in the prologue is evidently not to introduce to readers hitherto unacquainted with them either the conception of the "Word " as the expression and revelation of God, or the person Jesus Christ, but rather to predicate the former of the latter. These facts indicate that the writer desires to avail himself of a conception more congenial to the thought of his readers than to his own, in order to set forth in words familiar to his readers the doctrine he wishes to teach, viz., the unique ness, finality, and all-sufficiency of the revelation of God made in the person of Jesus Christ. In other words, he translates into a current vocabulary and mode of thought his own thought about Jesus, in order by such translation to render this thought more intelligible and more accept able. This reminds us of the evidence afforded by the letter of Paul to the Colossians, and in a less degree by Ephesians, that the gentile Christianity of Asia Minor was subject in the first century to the influence of a certain type of philosophy which tended to dethrone Christ from his place of supremacy, and that Paul was led in opposing it strongly to affirm the priority, supremacy, and all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God and the mediator between God and man (Col. 1:15-20; 2:8ff., 16ff.). The epistle to the Colossians gives evidence, also, that this philosophy was affected by the same conception of the intrinsic evil of matter which later appeared in the gnosticism of the second century a conception which led to the predication of numerous intermediary beings between God and the world in order to avoid attributing to God the evil involved in creating an evil world. This tendency is triply opposed in the prologue. The world is made the product of divine activity through the "Word;" the "Word" is the only mediator between God and the world; the Word is himself divine. In place, therefore, of the long series of intermediary beings, of whom the last and remotest from God brings the world into being, it is the doctrine of the prologue that all things became through the Word, who was in the beginning with God and who was God.

In the second place, we discern in the prologue, in immediate connection with the employment of the Philonean term "Word," a denial of Philo's doctrine.40 To Philo the Word was a philosophic conception rather than a reality objectively known, the joint product of a theory about God and the hard fact of the existence of the world. Whether objective existence was predicated of this product of reflection does not seem to be wholly clear; per haps Philo himself scarcely knew. But at best the Philonean conception of the Word, instead of bringing God near and making him more real to men, only put him farther away; the Word himself, through whom alone God could be known, was only an inference, a product of thought. No man had ever seen him at any time, or ever could see him. Philosophically he might bridge the chasm between God and man; practically he only widened it. Over against this conception, the prologue of our gospel, availing itself of the familiar term, but converting it to the uses of a wholly different doctrine, affirms that Jesus Christ, the historic person, is the God-revealing Word, and that all that philosophy vainly dreamed of as accomplished in the unknown and unknowable Word has, in fact, been wrought in that the eternal, self-revealing God has incarnated himself, having become flesh in the person of Jesus; and we beheld his glory, the glory of one who reveals God as an only-begotten son reveals his father.

In the third place, we cannot fail to see in vss. 6-9 and 15 an intention to oppose the doctrine, evidently held by some, that John the Baptist is the true Messiah and revelation of God. Of the existence of a John the Baptist sect there is a hint in Acts 19:3, and further evidence in the Clem. Recogn., I, 54.41

Thus against a tendency, essentially gnostic in character, to separate God from the world by the intervention of one or more intermediary beings, against the Philonean notion of the " Word " of God as a mere philosophic conception, only rhetorically personified and never for a moment identified with the Messiah or conceived of as incarnate, against the assertion that John the Baptist is the true Messiah, the prologue affirms the eternal existence of the " Word " as the one medium of God's relation to the world, his incarnation in Jesus Christ, and his messiahship.42

But this is not all. The prologue not only affirms certain propositions about Jesus which are denied by the contemporaries of the writer; it is in entire harmony with 20:30, 31, in emphasizing faith in Jesus Christ as the condition of true life, here represented also as true sonship to God (1:12, 13).

If now we examine the body of the gospel, we find no further reference to the philosophical heresies controverted in the prologue, but a controlling emphasis upon the simpler and more positive ideas of vss. 12, 13. Indeed, the gospel may almost be said to be summarized in the words of vss. 11-13:" He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But to as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." We are told of his appearance among his own people, the Jews, of their rejection of him, first tentative, then growing more and more decisive; of his acceptance by a few who believed on him, and the Master's reception of them into an intimate fellowship with himself and with God; and through all of Jesus constant insistence that in him is life, that it is imparted to those who believe in him, while they who reject remain in death. We cannot, indeed, overlook the fact that in the early part of the gospel there are repeated references to John the Baptist, in every one of which he is represented as bearing testimony to Jesus or refusing to make any claim for himself, declaring that Jesus must increase, but he himself decrease (1:19-35; 3:22-30); nor can we fail to connect these passages with the refer ences to John in the prologue, or to see in both an opposition to the John the Baptist cult. Yet these passages dc scarcely more than bring into clearer relief the otherwise constant emphasis on the life-giving power of faith in Jesus Christ, the supreme revelation and only-begotten Son of God.

While, therefore, we discern in the prologue evidence that it is rather a bridge from the gospel to the readers than a summary of the book from the author's own point of view, and while, as we compare the prologue, the body of the book, and the statement of purpose in 20:30, 31, we perceive that each differs somewhat from the other in emphasis or minor conceptions; while we may observe that the references to John are sufficiently distinct from the rest of the matter to constitute possibly a distinct stratum of the book; yet we discern also that the book reflects a situation which, if complex, is nevertheless self-consistent, and a unity of purpose that implies the dominance of one mind or of a group of minds holding substantially the same doctrine and seeking the same ends.

If we seek a definition of that purpose, the evidence leads us to say that negatively the gospel was intended to oppose certain conceptions of God and the world, akin at least to those of Philo and the Gnostics—conceptions which belittled or excluded the work of Christ—and incidentally to controvert the doctrine of the messiahship of John the Baptist; but that this negative aim was itself subordinate to the positive object of so presenting Jesus in his deeds and words as to show the danger of unbelief and the blessed issue of faith, to the end that the faith of believers might be confirmed and they continuing in faith might increasingly possess life in his name.

It is greatly to be desired that, however remote we may feel ourselves to be from the particular errors which this gospel originally opposed, it may still attain in respect to us all its positive and dominant purpose, and that we, as we study it afresh, may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and believing may have life in his name.

IV. THE PLAN OF THE GOSPEL

The structure of the gospel as it stands seems to be the result of three facts: the purpose which the evangelist had in mind in writing and the editors in publishing the book; the existence of the material as it came to the editors in the form of isolated chapters or books; and the influences already referred to as tending in some unknown way to disarrange the material. But these latter influences do not seem to have obscured the plan of the book beyond the possibility of easy recognition. The purpose of the author and the editors to set forth the evidence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to show the contrasted effects of faith and unbelief, is clearly discernible and affects both material and structure. The following is an attempt, on the basis of the book as it stands, to show its original plan as nearly as possible, but with suggestions in the footnotes of possible restorations of the original order.

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL

I. THE PROLOGUE OF THE GOSPEL: The central doc trines of the book so expressed in terms of current thought as to relate the former to the latter and facilitate the transition from the latter to the former. 1:1-18

II. THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS: John bears his testimony; Jesus begins to reveal himself; faith is begotten in some, and the first signs of opposition appear. 1:194:54

1. The testimony of John and the beginnings of faith in Jesus. 1:19 2:12

a) The testimony of John to the representatives of the Jews. 1:19-28

b) John points out Jesus as the Lamb of God and the one whom he had come to announce. 1:29-34

c) John points out Jesus to his own disciples, and two of them follow Jesus. 1:35-42

d) Jesus gains two other followers. 1:43-51

e) In Cana of Galilee Jesus first manifests his glory in a sign and strengthens the faith of his disciples. 2:1-12

2. Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea: opposition and imperfect faith. 2:13 3:36

a) The cleansing of the temple: opposition manifested. 2:13-22

b) Unintelligent faith, based on signs, in Jerusalem. 2:23-25

c) In particular, Nicodemus is reproved and instructed. 3:1-15

d) The motive and effect of divine revelation in the Son. 3:16-2143a

e) The further testimony of John the Baptist to his own inferiority and Jesus superiority 3:22-30

f) The supreme character of the revelation in the Son. 3:31-3643b

3. Jesus in Samaria, and the beginnings of work in Galilee. chap. 4

a) Jesus self-revelation to the Samaritan woman, and the simple faith of the Samaritans. 4:1-42

b) The reception of Jesus in Galilee, for the most part on the basis of signs seen, but in one case without waiting for such evidence. 4:43-54

III. THE CENTRAL PERIOD OF JESUS MINISTRY, to the end of his public teaching: Jesus declares himself more and more fully, many believe on him, and the faith of his disciples is strengthened, but the leaders of the nation reject him and resolve upon his death. chaps. 5-12

1. The healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, raising the sabbath question, and then the question of Jesus relation to his Father, God. chap. 544

2. The feeding of the five thousand and attendant events leading to the discourse on Jesus as the Bread of Life, in consequence of which many leave him, but the Twelve believe in him more firmly. chap. 6.

3. The journey to the feast of Tabernacles, and discussion concerning who Jesus is, whence he is, and whither he goes. chaps. 7, 845

4. The healing of the man born blind, and the teaching of Jesus concerning himself as the Light of the World and concerning spiritual blindness. chap. 946

5. Discourse of Jesus at the feast of Dedication concerning himself as the Good Shepherd and the Door of the Fold. chap. 1047

6. The raising of Lazarus, and the teaching of Jesus concerning himself as the Resurrection and the Life. chap, 11

7. Jesus last presentation of himself to the Jews of Jerusalem. chap. 12

a) Jesus anointed by Mary at Bethany. 12:1-11

b) The triumphal entry. 12:12-19

c) The coming of the gentiles to see Jesus: Jesus announcement of his death and its results. 12:20-36a

d) The rejection of Jesus by the Jews; its nature and explanation.48 12:36b-50

IV. THE FULLER REVELATION OF JESUS TO HIS BELIEVING DISCIPLES. chaps. 13-17

1. The washing of the disciples feet by Jesus, and the lesson of humility and service. 13:1-20

2. The prediction of the betrayal, and the withdrawal of the betrayer. 13:21-310

3. The farewell discourses of Jesus. 13:31b 16:3349

4. The prayer of Jesus for his disciples. chap. 17

V. THE CULMINATION AND APPARENT TRIUMPH OF HOSTILE UNBELIEF. chaps. 18, 19

1. The arrest of Jesus. 18:1-14

2. The trial before the Jewish authorities, and Peter's denial. 18:15-2750

3. The trial before Pilate. 18:28 19:16

4. The crucifixion. 19:17-30

5. The burial. 19:31-42

VI. THE TRIUMPH OF JESUS OVER DEATH AND HIS ENEMIES: The restoration and confirmation of faith. chap. 20

1. The empty tomb. 20:l-io

2. The appearance of Jesus to Mary. 20:11-18

3. The appearance to the disciples, Thomas being absent. 20:19-25

4. The appearance to Thomas with the other disciples. 20:26-29

5. Conclusion of the gospel, stating the purpose for which it was written. 20:30, 31

VII. APPENDIX. chap. 21

1. Appearance of Jesus to the seven by the Sea of Galilee, and his words concerning the tarrying of the beloved disciple. 21:1-24

2. Second conclusion of the gospel. 21:25

 

1) The Septuagint reads in Gen. 48:22, ἐγὼ δὲ διδωμί σοι σὶκιμα "I give thee Shechem " (for this form of the name see Josh. 24:32 and Jos., Antiq., iv, 8, 44), which probably represents Jewish tradition. The statement of the evangelist is particularly significant as indicating an acquaintance both with the region spoken of and with the passage or the tradition based on it.

2) These statements are, indeed, alleged to betray ignorance on the writer's part, implying that the high-priest was appointed annually. But it is to be observed (a) that in 18:13-24 the writer shows himself well acquainted with the relations of Annas and Caiaphas, and gives to Annas the title of high-priest in immediate connection with his mention of Caiaphas as high- priest that year; (b) that the office of high-priest was, according to Jewish law, one of life-tenure, but that the Roman and Herodian authorities made frequent changes for their own ends; there were three high-priests between Annas and Caiaphas; (c) that from the Jewish point of view an ex-high-priest still living, at least the oldest living high-priest, would be most legitimately entitled to the name, while, of course, the de facto condition would necessarily be recognized also; (d) that these facts actually led to the designation of two different men as high-priest at the same time, as, e. g., in Luke 3:2, where Annas and Caiaphas are said to have been high-priests at a certain time (cf. Acts 4:6, where Annas is called high-priest ), and in Jos., Antiq., xx, 8, 8; xx, 8, 1 1; xx, 9, i and 2, especially the last passage, where Ananus and Jesus are both called high-priests in the same sentence; see also SCHURER, History of the Jewish People, Div. II, Vol. I, pp. 202-6, especially the passages cited by him on p. 203; also 3d German edition, Vol. II, pp. 221-24; JOSEPHUS, Jewish War, II, 12, 6; IV, 3, 7, 9; IV, 4, 3; Vit., 38; (e) that the evangelist, who evidently knows the personal relations of Annas and Caiaphas, and, with an unstudied carelessness to explain the apparent contradiction, represents two men as high-priest at the same time, yet who in this follows usage illustrated also in Luke and Josephus, can hardly have been so ignorant of the situation as to suppose that Caiaphas held office for one year only (he was, in fact, high-priest for a number of years, though his three predecessors must each have been in office a very short time), or that the high-priestly office was an annual one; (f) that accordingly " that year " is probably to be understood, not of the year of Caiaphas's high-priesthood, but that year—that dreadful year—(in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas) in which Jesus died. (Cf. B. WEISS, ad loc.)

3) According to Jos., Antiq., xv, 11, 1, the rebuilding of the temple began in the eighteenth year of Herod, that is, between Nisan 734 and 735 A. U. C. From other statements of Josephus it is rendered probable that the building of the temple was begun in December or January. Combining these data, the end of 734 or beginning of 735 is given as the date of the beginning of the temple. Reckoning by the usual Jewish method from Nisan 1 to Nisan 1, and counting any portion of the year at either end of the period as a year, the forty-fifth year of the building of the temple would end, and the forty-sixth year would begin, Nisan 1, 779. If, then, we assume that the period of forty-six years, John 2:20, is reckoned strictly according to the above-mentioned Jewish method, even the two weeks from Nisan 1 to Nisan 15 being counted as a year, the time of the utterance would be the passover, Nisan 15, of the year 779 A. U. C, which is 26 A. D. If, however, it be supposed that so brief a period as two weeks would be ignored in reckoning, then the utterance would date from the passover of 780 A. U. C., which is 27 A. D. The same result is reached if it be supposed that Josephus used the Roman reckoning from January to January (cf. LEWIN, Chronology of the New Testament, pp. 22ff.).

The calculation of WIESELER, Chronology of the Four Gospels, p. 165, by which he reaches the year 781 (and in which he is followed by SCHURER, Div. I, Vol. I, p. 410, 11. 12; 3d German ed., Vol. I, p. 369, 11. 12), is directly contrary to his own statement of the Jewish method of reckoning, and the examples which he himself cites on pp. 51-56.

The only way of reaching a later date is that adopted by Lewin, who, comparing ῳκοδομήθη ὀ ναὸς οὗτος of John 2:20 with ῳκοδο,.ιηθη δὲ ὁ ναός of Jos., Antiq., xv, n, 3, infers that the evangelist is speaking of the building of the sanctuary exclusive of the foundations, which Josephus has mentioned previously. But it is improbable that one speaking after the lapse of nearly fifty years would make such a discrimination.

That the forty-six years refer to the period which at the time of speaking had elapsed since the beginning of the rebuilding of the temple, is evident from the fact that the temple was, on the one hand, practically completed within nine and a half years (Jos., Antiq., xv, 11, 5, 6), and, on the other hand, not wholly completed until a short time before its destruction by the Romans in the war of 66-70 (Jos., Antiq., xx, 9, 7). Now, the mention of this precise period, not a round number, can be accounted for only on the supposition that the author possessed very accurate sources of information as to the words of Jesus on this occasion, or else that he had a very definite theory as to the chronology of Jesus life, and also an accurate knowledge of Jewish history. In either case the author i. e., the author of this section, and presumably, until there is evidence to distinguish them, the author of the book was in all probability a Jew. These facts must also be taken into account in deciding whether the cleansing of the temple narrated in this section is identical with that related by the synoptists, and if so, whether it is wrongly placed by the fourth evangelist. Prima facie, at least, they make against the latter supposition, since the year 27 A. D., which they yield for the events recorded by John, antedates by three years that of the passion history. n. 11. 26, p. 119.

4) The references in this connection to Old Testament history are particularly significant. The feeding of the five thousand, reminding the people of Moses's feeding of the children of Israel and his promise that a prophet like unto himself should the Lord God raise up unto them (vs. 14; cf. Deut. 18:15), and the demand of the people for a continuous feeding which should show Jesus to be the prophet like Moses (vss. 30, 31), together with the wholly unstudied reference to these things, can hardly be accounted for save as either a very accurate report of the actual event or as coming from one who was thoroughly familiar with the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish way of interpreting them.

5) Cf. EDERSHEIM, Social Life, p. 152.

6) Cf. LIGHTFOOT, Biblical Essays, p. 154; COWLEY, in the Expositor, March, 1895.

7) It is impossible to say with certainty precisely how many of these quotations are intended to be attributed to others, and for how many the writer makes himself responsible. Quite likely some of this list should be placed in the next one. Both groups indicate the author's attitude toward the Old Testament.

8) See SCHLATTER, Die Sprache und Heimat des vicrtcn Evangelisten (Giitersloh, 1902), whose argument, even if it includes items that are of little weight, is, as a whole, weighty.

9) Here, also, it is alleged, and even by so recent a writer as MARTINEAU (Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 212), that the evangelist betrays ignorance. But, surely, in view of his evident discrimination of the two places, and of the recently discovered and probable evidence that there was a Bethany beyond Jordan, such an objection is feeble, if not self-refuting. See CONDER, art. " Bethabara " in HASTINGS'S Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 76; SMITH, Historical Geography, p. 496, n. i.

10) On the identification of this place see W. A. STEVENS, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1883, and HENDERSON, art. " Aenon " in HASTINGS'S Dictionary of the Bible; cf. art. "Salim" in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. IV, col. 4248.

11) See Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 1883, pp. 115-34; 1890, pp. 118-20; CONDER, art. "Bethesda" in HASTINGS'S Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 279.

12) See ROBINSON, Biblical Researches, Vol. II, pp. 333-42; Palestine Exploration Fund, Memoirs, volume on Jerusalem, pp. 345ff.; Quarterly Statements, 1886, 1897; LEWIS, Holy Places of Jerusalem, pp. 188ff.

13) MITCHELL, "The Wall of Jerusalem According to the Book of Nehemiah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 1903, pp. 85-163, especially pp. 152ff.; BLISS, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 1895, pp. 305ff.

14) Cf. on the general subject of the geographical references in this gospel, FURRER in Zeitschrift für neutes foment liche Wissenschaft, 1902, pp. 257-65, who suggests identifications for all the sites named in this gospel, in a number of cases differing from those suggested above.

15) The basis of this usage is, of course, to be found in the Old Testament, remotely perhaps in such passages as Gen. 1:3, and more directly in such as Pss. 33:6; 107:20; 147:15; 148:5; Isa. 55:11. Some writers Westcott, Godet, Reynolds, et al, think that John's usage is derived directly from the Old Testament. But Siegfried, Sanday, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Harnack, Wendt, et al., hold—and rightly, it would seem, in view of the evidence—that, while the author of the gospel does not hold the doctrine of Philo, his usage of the term reflects the influence of the type of thought seen in Philo.

16) See the evidence that this author is an eyewitness much more fully stated by WATKINS in SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible, revised Eng. ed., Vol. I, pp. 1753 f., where, however, some things are cited which are rather evidences of an editor's hand.

17) See STANTON in HASTINGS'S Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 2440.

18) So MEYER, ALFOED, WEISS, DODS, et al., ad loc,; see especially STEITZ, "Ueber den Gebrauch des pronom-ἐκεῖνος im 4ten Evangelium," Studien und Kritiken, 1859, pp. 497ff.

19) So substantially HOLTZMANN, ad loc., and WENDT, The Gospel According to John, pp. 211-13; WEIZSACKER, Apostolic Age, Vol. II, pp. 209 ft.

20) Cf. the two instances of ἡμῖν in Luke 1:1 f., which is, however, not a precisely parallel case.

21) Cf. GODET, ad loc.

22) Concerning Weizsäcker's interesting and certainly hot improbable suggestion see p. 126.

23) Evidence for the existence of the gospel is much earlier, quite clearly as early as 130 A. D. But it is beyond the purpose of this book to discuss the complicated problem of the external evidence.

24) Probably not, however, in any case from the same hand. The third person and the present tense in 19:35, "he knoweth that he saith true," imply that the witness is still living; while the past tense in 21:24, "that wrote these things," and the use of the first person in the statement, "we know that his witness is true," suggest that the witness-author is no longer living.

25) Cf. the very useful discussion of this matter by PROFESSOR RHEES in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1898, pp. 21ff.

26) It is a tempting suggestion that the last clause of 18:28, "but that they might eat the passover," which implies that the passover had not yet been eaten, whereas the synoptists clearly put the passover on the preceding night, is an editorial comment from a later hand, the discrepancy of which with the chronology of the synoptic narrative is due to the editor's ignorance of the exact facts. But the evidence, which apparently grows clearer with fuller investigation, that the Johannine chronology of the passion week is alone consistent with the testimony of all the gospels respecting the day of the week on which Jesus died and the evidence concerning the Jewish calendar in the first century, tends rather to the conclusion that, whether the words " but that they might eat the passover " are from author or editor, they are at least in harmony with the facts respecting the relation of Jesus death to the celebration of the Jewish passover. See PREUSCHEN in Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, January, 1904; BRIGGS, New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 56ff. Another difference between this gospel and the synoptists concerns the chronological position of the cleansing of the temple. But here also the evidence tends to sustain the accuracy of the fourth gospel. By the expression in John 2:20, " forty and six years was this temple in building," the event there referred to is assigned to the year 26 or 27, barely possibly to 28 A. D. (cf. n. 3). This fact, combined with the increasingly clear evidence that Jesus was crucified in the year 30, tends to the conclusion that the cleansing narrated in this gospel is correctly placed as it stands, and that, if there was but one cleansing of the temple, it is the synoptists that have misplaced the account. On the evidence of the year of Jesus death see PREUSCHEN as above. The argument by which TURNER in the article "Chronology of the New Testament" in HASTINGS'S Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 411, 412, seeks to establish 29 A. D. as the year of Jesus death, rests upon a misinterpretation of the evidence of the Mishna as to the method by which the beginning of the Jewish year was fixed in the first Christian century.

27) It is not meant that Paul's "we" always has this force; it is probably sometimes used simply for " I." See DICK, Die Schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (Halle, 1900); cf. LIGHTFOOT, Notes on Epistles of Paul, p. 2.2. This is perhaps also the case in 1 John.

28) The only escape from the conclusion that the style of the book is that of the eyewitness author of the gospel and the epistle would be in the contention that such similarity of style does not prove identity of authorship, but only shows that the various writings exhibiting it are from the same school, and the theory that, while the epistle was written by a member of that school who was an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, in the gospel we must distinguish between the eyewitness source of the facts and the non-eyewitness writer, ascribing to the latter the style. Even in that case the writing of the book would be carried back into a school some members of which were eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. But, in fact, there is little to recommend such a view. If there was an eyewitness who could write the first epistle of John, there seems no obvious reason why he may not be the author as well as the source of the gospel. Only in respect to chap. 21 do the facts seem to furnish any support for such a theory. The evident fact that this chapter was added to the gospel already regarded as complete at 20:21, and doubtless after the death of the author to whom 21:24 ascribes the preceding chapters, does, indeed, suggest that it is from a different hand from the rest of the gospel. See further in n. 35, p. 127.

29) Some of them are spoken of in a work of the fourteenth century: LUDOLPHUS DE SAXONIA, Vita Christi, referred to by J. P. NORRIS, Journal of Philology, Vol. III (1871), pp. 107 ff.

30) If, on the basis of the clearer cases mentioned above, it should be established that the material of the gospel has suffered displacement, then it would be reasonable to interpret the less clear indications in chaps. 8-10 as showing that here also there has been some disarrangement. Thus chap. 8 (omitting vss. 1-11) begins without narrative introduction with the words, "Again, therefore, Jesus spake to them," as if this were a continuation of the discourse in chap. 7. But the theme of 8:12ff. is Jesus as the Light of the World, which is suggested by nothing in the preceding chapter, and is clearly related to chap. 9. The paragraphs 10:19-21 and 10:22-29 also occupy a position difficult to account for. A rearrangement of this material that will at once com mend itself as the original arrangement can hardly be offered. But the following is possible:7:37-44; 8:21-59, the discourse of Jesus on the last day of the feast, discussing the question already raised in 7:25-36, whence he is, whither he goes, and who he is; 9:1-41; 10:19-21; 8:12-20, on the theme Jesus the Light of the World; 10:22-29, 1-18, 30-42, a chapter on the one theme: Jesus the good Shepherd, and his relation to the Father, having the typical structure of a Johannine chapter, viz., narrative introduction, discourse of Jesus, discussion with the Jews, narrative conclusion.

31) See SPITTA, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums, Vol. I, pp. 157-204.

32) Journal of Biblical Literature, 1894, pp. 64-76; cf. also his article " Tatian's Rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel," in American Journal of Theology, 1900, pp. 770-95, in which he endeavors to show that Tatian had a gospel differently arranged from our present gospel. In criticism of this latter article see HOBSON, The Synoptic Problem in the Light of the Diatessaron of Tatian (Chicago, 1904).

33) Cf. the use of the word βιβλος in Matt, 1:1, referring to vss. 1-17.

34) The book numbers are not intended to indicate the original order of the books, since, according to the suggestion here made, they existed originally as separate books, not as a connected series. It is to be supposed, also, that the introductory phrases, "After these things," 5:1; 6:1, etc., were editorial notes, not parts of the original books.

35) If it should be made clear by ancient examples that such similarity of style as exists between chap. 21 and the rest of the gospel indicate? no more than that the writings exhibiting it emanated from the san. school of writers, then the inference to be drawn from chap. 21 respecting the original form of the rest of the gospel would certainly be less obvious. But if chap. 21 may be from a different hand from the rest of the gospel, it can hardly be maintained that the rest of the gospel must certainly have been throughout from the same pen, literally from the same writer. Instead, there is suggested to us the possibility that various writers of the same school, all eyewitnesses of the events or in touch with such an eyewitness—a company, e. g., of John's disciples—put into writing different portions of what John had reported and taught about Jesus, and that the gospel was made up of these various writings, completed with chap. 20 before the death of the apostle, and receiving the addition of chap. 21 from the same general source after his death. And if with such a possibility in mind we examine the structure of the gospel itself, the probability that it existed originally in separate books will seem scarcely less than on the supposition of unity of authorship throughout. But until it has been rendered less improbable than it now seems that the writings even of writers of the same school would resemble one another as closely as chap. 21 resembles the rest of the gospel, it is reasonable to abide by the conclusion that substantially all the material of the gospel is from the same author. That he wrote it with his own pen, or dictated it to an amanuensis need not be maintained. It may well be composed mainly of uttered discourses, written down by hearers. The similarity of style implies only identity of authorship but of authorship, not simply of ultimate and remote source.

PROFESSOR BACON, "The Johannine Problem," Hibbert Journal, January, 1904, p. 344, has expressed the opinion that "The similarity of style and language between the appendix and the gospel is not too great to be fully accounted for by simple imitation, plus a revision of the gospel itself by the supplementing hand," and separates the com position of this chapter from the rest of the gospel by a considerable interval of time, thus apparently excluding the hypothesis that it proceeds even from the same school of writers as the rest of the gospel. This opinion has not yet run the gauntlet of criticism.

36) The following passages, to which still others, chiefly portions of a verse, might be added, are also of the nature of interpretative comment on the history, some of them undoubtedly from the hand of the author, others possibly added by the editors: 2:11, 21, 22, 25; 4:2, 9, 44; 6:64b, 71; 7:39; 11:51, 52; 12:14b-16, 33; 18:32; 19:24, 35, 36, 37.

37) The theory already suggested respecting the method of composition of this book raises the question whether 20:30, 31 is from the hand of the author, being intended by him as the conclusion of this particular book (chaps. 18-20), or from the hand of the editors, and intended as the conclusion of the whole work. It is an objection to the former supposition that no such conclusion is attached to any other of the "books," and that in chaps. 18-20 "signs," in the sense of the word in this gospel, are by no means prominent; indeed, there are none in the usual sense of the term. It is against both this supposition and the view that the author wrote these words as a conclusion of the whole series of books, or (setting aside the particular theory here advocated) of the work as a whole, that the gospel itself does not put upon the signs quite the emphasis which this verse seems to give them (cf. 2:23-25; 3:1-3). It is, therefore, most probable that these verses are from the editors, though it may well be that, except in the use of the word "sign," they have correctly expressed the purpose which the apostle had in view in the delivery of the discourses or writing of the books which they have here published.

38) The use of the phrase "Word of life" in 1 John 1:1, the "prologue" of the epistle, is approximately parallel, and in view of the usage of the prologue of the gospel is probably to be traced to the same influence which produced this; yet it is only approximately parallel, involving by no means so clear a hypostatizing of the Word as that of John 1:1ff. The mode of speech of the letter even is doubtless an acquired one, but it has apparently become a natural one for the apostle. This can hardly be said of the phraseology of the prologue of the gospel.

39) See HARNACK, Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, Vol. II, pp. 189-231; WENDT, The Gospel According to John, pp. 223-34.

40) Cf. McGIFFERT, Apostolic Age, p. 488.

41) Here Peter is represented as saying:" Yea even some of the disciples of John . . . . have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ." This bears witness to the existence of such a sect in the latter part of the second century. But such a sect could not have sprung into existence so long after the death of John. It must have its roots in a much earlier time, as Acts 19:3, indeed, bears witness that it did have. Cf. HACKETT, Acts, ad. loc.; WILKINSON, A Johannine Document in the First Chapter of Luke, pp. 21ff. See on this whole subject NEANDER, Church History, Vol. I, p. 376, and the commentaries of Godet and Westcott; contra, Weiss. In his monograph, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, 1898, BALDENSPERGER has maintained that opposition to the John-cult is the central purpose of the gospel. See review by RHEES in the American Journal of Theology, April, 1899.

42) GODET (Commentary on John, Vol. I, p. 284) finds the chief polemic of the prologue in its opposition to the docetic distinction between Jesus and the Christ, according to which the latter descended into Jesus at his baptism, but left him and reascended into heaven before the passion. HARNACK also (Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, Vol. II, p. 217) includes this anti-docetic polemic in the purpose of the prologue. That the first epistle is distinctly anti-docetic in its aim there is no reason to question (see especially 1 John 5:6ff., though Godet interprets vs. 6 as directed against the messiahship of the Baptist). But the traces of such polemic in the gospel are slight.

43a) 43b) Concerning these sections, see p. 129.

44) With this chapter, 7:15-24 was probably originally connected. On this question and the relation of chaps, 5 and 6 see p. 123.

45) But these chapters, as they stand, apparently include three sections that do not properly belong to them:7:15-24, which belongs with the fifth chapter; 7:53 8:11, which does not properly belong to this gospel, though doubtless historical and probably as old as the rest of the gospel; 8:12-20, which seems to belong to chap. 9. Chap. 7:25-52 has also apparently suffered some transposition. See pp. 123, 124, and n. 30.

46) With which, however, 10:19-21 and 8:12-20 are so evidently connected in subject as to suggest that they originally belonged to this chapter. See n. 30, p. 124.

47) Originally, perhaps, arranged 10:22-29; 1-18; 30-42. See n. 30, p. 124. Concerning 10:19-21, see previous note.

48) Vss. 36b-43 are evidently a comment of the evangelist on the meaning of the events that precede. Vss. 44-50 are probably his summary of Jesus whole teaching to the nation. The character of the whole passage 366-50 indicates that it is felt to mark the conclusion of the history of Jesus offer of himself to the nation.

49) Concerning possible restorations of the original order here, see pp. 124, 125.

50) See p. 125.