JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
Gospel
was
known
and
appealed
to
as
authoritative
in
the
middle
of
the
2nd
century.
It
is
not,
however,
by
explicit
references
to
'texts'
that
a
question
of
this
kind
can
be
best
settled.
The
chief
weight
of
external
evidence
lies
in
the
fact
that
between
a.d.
150
and
180
four
Gospels
were
recognized
in
the
Church
as
authentic
records,
read
in
the
assemblies,
and
accepted
as
authoritative.
Also,
that
the
fourth
of
these
was
with
practical
unanimity
ascribed
to
St.
John,
as
written
by
him
in
Asia
at
the
very
end
of
the
1st
century.
This
acceptance
included
districts
as
far
apart
as
Syria
and
Gaul,
Alexandria,
Carthage
and
Rome.
Can
the
whole
Church
of
a.d.
180
have
been
utterly
mistaken
on
such
a
point?
True,
the
early
Christians
were
'
uncritical
'
in
the
modern
sense
of
the
word
criticism.
But
they
were
not
disposed
lightly
to
accept
alleged
Apostolic
writings
as
genuine.
On
the
other
hand,
the
inquiry
into
their
authenticity
was
usually
close
and
careful.
A
period
of
fifty
years
is
short
when
we
remember
how
generations
overlap
one
another,
and
how
carefully
traditions
on
the
most
sacred
subjects
are
guarded.
It
is
hardly
possible
to
suppose
that
on
such
salient
questions
as
the
residence
of
the
Apostle
John
for
twenty
years
in
Asia,
and
the
com-position
of
one
of
the
four
authoritative
Gospels,
any
serious
error
or
confusion
could
have
arisen
so
early.
At
least
the
prima
facie
external
evidence
is
so
far
in
favour
of
Johannine
authorship
that
it
must
stand
accepted,
unless
very
serious
objections
to
it
can
be
sustained,
or
some
more
satisfactory
account
of
the
origin
of
the
Gospel
can
be
suggested.
2.
Intemal
Evidence.—
The
first
point
to
be
noted
under
this
head
is
that
the
book
makes
a
direct
claim
to
have
been
written
by
an
eye-witness,
and
indirectly
it
points
to
the
Apostle
John
as
its
author.
The
phrase
■
We
beheld
his
glory
'
(1")
is
not
decisive,
though,
taken
In
connexion
with
1
Jn
1'-',
if
the
Epistle
be
genuine,
the
claim
of
first-hand
knowledge
is
certainly
made.
There
can
be
no
question
concerning
the
general
meaning
of
19",
though
its
detailed
exegesis
presents
difficulties.
The
verse
might
be
paraphrased,
'He
that
hath
seen
hath
borne
witness,
and
his
witness
is
genuine
and
real;
and
he
knoweth
that
he
speaketh
things
that
are
true,
so
that
ye
also
may
beUeve.'
No
one
reading
this
can
question
that
the
writer
of
the
narrative
of
the
Cruci-fixion
claims
to
have
been
present
and
to
be
recording
what
he
had
seen
with
his
own
eyes.
A
peculiar
pronoun
is
used
in
'he
knoweth,'
and
Sanday,
E.
A.
Abbott,
and
others
would
interpret
the
word
emphatically,
of
Christ;
but
its
use
is
probably
due
to
the
fact
that
the
writer
is
speaking
of
himself
in
the
third
person,
and
emphasizes
his
own
personal
testimony.
Parallel
instances
from
classical
and
modem
writers
have
been
adduced.
In
212*
further
corroboration
is
given
of
the
accuracy
of
the
disciple
who
was
at
the
same
time
an
eye-witness
of
the
events
and
the
author
of
the
narrative.
It
appears,
however,
to
have
been
added
to
the
Gospel
by
others.
'
We
know
that
his
witness
is
true
'
is
probably
intended
as
an
endorsement
on
the
part
of
certain
Ephesian
elders,
whilst
the
'I
suppose'
of
v.^*
may
Indicate
yet
another
hand.
In
addition
to
these
more
or
less
explicit
testimonies,
notes
are
freely
introduced
throughout
the
Gospel
which
could
proceed
only
from
a
member
of
the
innermost
circle
of
Christ's
disciples,
though
the
writer
never
mentions
his
own
name.
In-stead,
he
alludes
to
'the
disciple
whom
Jesus
loved'
in
such
a
way
that
by
a
process
of
exhaustion
it
may
be
proved
from
chs.
20
and
21
that
John
was
intended.
It
can
hardly
be
questioned
that
the
writer
delicately
but
unmistakably
claims
to
be
that
disciple
himself.
An
ordinary
pseudonymous
writer
does
not
proceed
in
this
fashion.
The
authority
of
an
honoured
name
is
sometimes
claimed
by
an
unknown
author,
as
in
the
Ascension
of
Isaiah
and
the
Apocalypse
of
Baruch,
not
fraudulently,
but
as
a
Uterary
device
to
give
character
to
his
theme.
In
this
case,
however,
the
indirect
sug-
JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
gestion
of
authorship
either
must
indicate
that
the
Apostle
wrote
the
book,
modestly
veiling
his
own
identity,
or
else
it
points
to
an
unwarrantable
pretence
on
the
part
of
a
later
writer,
who
threw
his
own
ideas
into
the
form
of
a
(largely
imaginary)
narrative.
Some
modern
critics
do
not
shrink
from
this
last
hypothesis;
but
it
surely
implies
a
misleading
misrepresentation
of
facts
incredible
under
the
circumstances.
A
third
theory,
which
would
imply
collaboration
on
the
part
of
one
of
John's
own
disciples,
will
be
discussed
later.
Does
the
Gospel,
then,
as
a
whole
bear
out
this
claim,
directly
or
Indirectly
made?
Is
it
such
a
book
as
may
well
have
proceeded
from
one
who
ranked
amongst
the
foremost
figures
in
the
sacred
drama
of
which
Jesus
of
Nazareth
was
the
august
centre?
The
answer
cannot
be
given
in
a
word.
Many
features
of
the
Gospel
strongly
support
such
a
claim.
Putting
aside
for
the
moment
its
spiritual
teaching,
we
may
say
that
it
displays
a
minute
knowledge
of
details
which
could
have
come
only
from
an
eye-witness
who
was
intimately
ac-quainted
not
only
with
the
places
and
scenes,
but
with
the
persons
concerned,
their
characters
and
motives.
No
artistic
imagination
could
have
enabled
an
Ephesian
Christian
of
the
2nd
cent,
either
to
insert
the
minute
topographical
and
other
touches
which
bespeak
the
eye-witness,
or
to
invent
incidents
like
those
recorded
in
chs.
4
and
9,
bearing
a
verisimilitude
which
commends
them
at
once
to
the
reader.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
so
much
in
the
Gospel
which
implies
a
point
of
view
entirely
different
from
that
of
Christ's
immediate
con-temporaries,
and
there
are
so
many
divergences
from
the
Synoptics
in
the
description
of
our
Lord's
ministry
—
as
regards
time,
place,
the
manner
of
Christ's
teaching,
and
particular
incidents
recorded
—
as
to
make
it
im-possible
to
ascribe
it
to
the
son
of
Zebedee
without
a
full
explanation
of
serious
difficulties
and
discrepancies.
But
for
these
two
diverse
aspects
of
the
same
document,
there
would
be
no
'Johannine
problem.'
It
will
be
well
to
take
the
two
in
order,
and
see
if
they
can
be
reconciled.
It
has
been
usual
to
arrange
the
evidence
in
narrowing
circles;
to
show
that
the
author
must
have
been
a
Jew,
a
Palestinian,
an
eye-witness,
one
of
the
Twelve,
and
lastly
the
Apostle
John.
It
is
impossible,
however,
to
array
here
all
the
proofs
available.
It
must
suffice
to
say
that
a
close
famiUarity
with
Jewish
customs
and
observances,
such
as
could
not
have
been
possessed
by
an
Ephesian
in
a.d.
120,
is
shown
in
the
account
of
the
Feast
of
Tabernacles
(ch.
7),
the
Dedication
(lO^^),
Jews
and
Samaritans
(4"-
"),
conversation
with
women
in
pubUc
(4^'),
ceremonial
pollution
(18^*),
and
other
minute
touches,
each
slight
in
itself,
but
taken
together
of
great
weight.
The
numerous
references
to
the
Messianic
hope
in
chs.
1.
4.
7.
8.
and
indeed
throughout
the
Gospel,
indicate
one
who
was
thoroughly
acquainted
with
Jewish
views
and
expectations
from
within.
Familiarity
with
the
Jewish
Scriptures
and
a
tree
but
reverent
use
of
them
are
apparent
throughout.
The
places
mentioned
are
not
such
as
a
stranger
would
or
could
have
introduced
into
an
imaginary
narrative.
As
examples
we
may
mention
Bethany
beyond
Jordan
(IM),
.iEnon
(323),
Ephraim
(11"),
the
treasury
(8=»),
the
pool
of
Siloam
(9'),
Solomon's
porch
(10=»),
the
Kidron
(18').
It
is
true
that
difficulties
have
been
raised
with
regard
to
some
of
these,
e.g.
Sychar
(4');
but
recent
exploration
has
in
several
instances
con-firmed
the
writer's
accuracy.
Again,
the
habit
of
the
writer
is
to
specify
details
of
time,
place,
and
nimiber
which
must
either
indicate
exceptional
first-hand
knowl-edge,
or
have
been
gratuitously
inserted
by
one
who
wished
to
convey
an
impression
of
'
local
colour.'
The
very
hour
of
the
day
at
which
events
happened
is
noted
in
1"
4»-
'2
1914;
or
'the
early
morning'
is
mentioned,
as
in
18"
20'
21<;
or
the
night,
as
in
3"
13s».
The
specification
of
six
water-pots
(2«),
five
and
twenty
furlongs
(6"),
two
hundred
cubits
(21«),
and
the
hundred
and
fifty-three
fishes
(21"),
is
a
further
illustration
