JOHN, GOSPEL OF

conflict has been waged with great abiUty on both sides, with the effect of modifying extreme views, and more than once it has seemed as if an agreement between the more moderate critics on either side had become possible. Among the conservatives, Zahn and Weiss in Germany, and Westcott, Sanday, Reynolds, and Drummond in this country, have been conspicuous: whilst, on the other hand, Holtzmann, Jtllicher, and Schmiedel have been uncompromising opponents of the historicity of the Gospel on any terms. SchUrer, Harnack, and others have taken up a middle position, ascribing the book to a disciple of John the Apostle, who embodied in it his master's teaching; whilst Wendt and some others have advocated partition theories, implying the existence of a genuine Johannine document as the basis of the Gospel, blended with later and less trustworthy matter.

The position taken in this article is that the traditional view which ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to John the Apostle is still by far the most probable account of its origin, the undeniable difilculties attaching to this view being explicable by a reasonable considera-tion of the circumstances of its composition. Fuller light, however, has been cast upon the whole subject by the discussions of recent years, and much is to be learned from the investigations of eminent scholars and their arguments against the Johannine authorship, especially when these do not rest upon a denial of the supernatural element in Scripture. In the present treatment of the subject, controversy will be avoided as far as possible, and stress will be laid upon the positive and constructive elements in the examination. The method adopted will be to inquire into (1) the External Evidence in favour of St. John's authorship; (2) the Internal Evidence; (3) the scope of the Gospel and its relation to the Synoptics; (4) Objections and suggested alternative Theories; (5) Summary of the Conclusions reached.

1. External Evidence. — It is not questioned that considerably before the close of the 2nd cent, the four Gospels, substantially as we have them, were accepted as authoritative in the Christian Church. This is proved by the testimony of IrenEeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, writing about a.d. 180; Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about a.d. 170 ; Clement, head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, about 190; and Tertullian, the eloquent African Father, who wrote at the end of the century, and who quotes freely from all the Gospels by name. The full and explicit evidence of the Muratorian Canon may also be dated about a.d. 180. Irenaeus assumes the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel as generally accepted and unquestioned. He expressly states that after the pubUcation of the other three Gospels, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, himself also published the Gospel, while he was dwelling at Ephesus in Asia.' He tells us that he himself when a boy had heard from the lips of Polycarp his reminiscences of 'his familiar intercourse with John and the rest of those that had seen the Lord.' He dwells in mystical fashion upon the significance of the number four, and characterizes the Fourth Gospel as corresponding to the 'flying eagle' among the hving creatures of Ezk 1'° and 10". Theophilus of Antioch quotes it as follows: 'John says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God' (Aid. 22). The Muratorian Fragment, which gives a list of the canonical books recognized in the Western Church of the period, ascribes the Fourth Gospel to 'John, one of the disciples,' and whilst recognizing that 'in the single books of the Gospels diCferent principles are taught,' the writer adds that they all alike confirm the faith of beUevers by their agreement in their teaching about Christ's birth, passion, death, resurrection, and twofold advent. Clement of Alexandria, in handing down 'the tradition of the elders from the first,' says that ' John, last of all, having observed that the bodily

JOHN, GOSPEL OF

things had been exhibited in the Gospels, exhorted by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual gospel' (Eus. HE vi. 14). Tertullian, among other testimonies, shows his opinion of the authorship and his discrimination of the character of the Gospels by saying, ' Among the Apostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us; among the companions of the Apostles, Luke and Mark renovate it' (adv. Marc. iv. 2). Was this clearly expressed and wide-spread belief of the Church well based? First of all it must be said that the personal link suppUed by Irensus is of itself so important as to be almost conclusive, unless very strong counter-reasons can be alleged. It was impossible that he should be mistaken as to the general drift of Polycarp's teaching, and Polycarp had learned directly from John himself. On the broad issue of John's ministry in Asia and his composition of a Gospel, this testimony is of the first importance. The suggestion that confusion had arisen in his mind between the Apostle and a certain 'Presbyter John' of Asia vrill be considered later, but it is exceedingly unlikely that on such a matter either Polycarp or his youthful auditor could have made a mistake. The testimony of churches and of a whole generation of Christians, inheritors of the same tradition at only one remove, corroborates the emphatic and repeated statements of Ireneeus.

It is quite true that in the first half of the 2nd cent, the references to the Gospel are neither so direct nor so abundant as might have been expected. The question whether Justin Martyr knew, and recognized, our Gospels as such has been much debated. His references to the Gospel narrative are very numerous, and the coincidences between the form of the records which he quotes and our Gospels are often close and striking, but he mentions no authors' names. In his first Apol. ch. 61 (about a.d. 160), however, we read, ' For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven,' which would appear to imply, though it does not prove, an acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. Other references to Christ as 'only begotten Son' and the 'Word' are suggestive. The recent discovery of Tatian's Diatessaron (c. a.d. 160) makes it certain that that 'harmony' of the Gospels began with the words, ' In the beginning was the Word,' and that the whole of the Fourth Gospel was interwoven into its substance. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (before a.d. 120) apparently quotes 1 Jn. in the words, ' For every one who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the fiesh is antichrist,' but no express citation is made. The Epistles of Ignatius (about A.D. 110) apparently show traces of the Fourth Gospel in their references to 'living water,' 'children of light,' Christ as 'the Word' and as 'the door,' but these are not conclusive. Papias may have known and used this Gospel, as Irenaeus seems to imply (adv. Hcer. 36); and Eusebius distinctly says that he 'used testimonies from the First Epistle of John' (,HE iii. 39). Some of the most noteworthy testimonies to the use of the Gospel in the former part of the 2nd cent, are drawn from heretical writings. It is certain that Hera^ cleon of the Valentinian school of Gnostics knew and quoted the Gospel as a recognized authority, and it would even appear that he wrote an elaborate com-mentary on the whole Gospel. Origen quotes him as misapprehending the text, 'No one has seen God at any time.' Hippolytus in his Refutation of all Heresies (vi. 30) proves that Valentinus (about a.d. 130) quoted Jn 10', "The Saviour says. All that came before me are thieves and robbers,' and that BasiUdes a little earlier made distinct reference to Jn 1»: ' As it is said in the Gospels, the true light that enlighteneth every man was coming into the world.' SUghter and more doubtful references are found in the Clementine Homilies and other heretical writings, and these go at least some way to show that the pecuUar phraseology of the Fourth

478