JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
If
the
Apostle
John
wrote
the
Fourth
Gospel
at
all,
it
must
have
been
composed
under
these
conditions,
as
early
tradition
asserts
that
it
was.
The
same
tradition
declares
that
it
was
written
under
pressure
from
without,
that
it
presupposed
the
first
three
Gospels,
and
was
not
intended
to
cover
the
ground
occupied
by
them,
that
it
was
'a
spiritual
Gospel'
—
which
is
only
another
way
of
saying
what
the
author
himself
has
told
us,
that
he
recorded
some
among
the
many
signs
that
Jesus
did,
viewed
from
the
side
of
a
Divine
mission
and
purpose,
'
that
ye
may
believejthat
Jesus
is
the
Christ,
the
Son
of
God,
and
that
believing
ye
may
have
life
through
his
name'
(Jn
20'').
Omissions
and
additions,
therefore,
such
as
are
obvious
in
a
comparison
between
the
Synoptics
and
the
Fourth
Gospel,
cannot
count
as
arguments
against
the
authenticity
of
the
latter.
Neither
can
a
more
completely
developed
doctrine
of
the
Person
of
Christ,
nor
a
somewhat
altered
representation
of
His
ministry
and
utterances.
We
have
rather
to
ask
whether
the
modifications
observable
in
the
latest
narrative
of
all,
written
after
a
long
time,
under
altered
conditions,
and
from
a
different
point
of
^view,
imply
an
incompati-bility
so
marked
that
it
cannot
be
ascribed
to
an
eye-witness
and
an
Apostle.
All
the
Gospels
are
confessedly
fragmentary,
and
if
one
of
the
Twelve
was
induced
after
the
lapse
of
nearly
two
generations
to
supplement
the
records
of
Christ's
life
already
in
existence,
and
to
present
a
selection
of
his
own
reminiscences
for
the
purpose
of
inducing
and
maintaining
Christian
faith,
quite
as
large
a
measure
of
difference
in
the
narrative
as
that
sketched
in
a
previous
paragraph
may
justly
be
expected.
Some
of
those
discrepancies
have
been
ex-aggerated.
For
example,
the
mode
of
speaking
of
'
the
Jews
'
in
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
prepared
for
by
the
expressions
found
in
Mt
28",
Mk
T,
Lk
7'
and
23".
Indeed,
such
a
habit
of
estimating
and
describing
the
members
of
a
nation
which
had
so
steadily
set
itself
against
Christ
and
His
followers
as
to
have
become
the
very
embodiment
of
virulent
opposition
to
Chris-tianity,
was
inevitable.
Again,
it
is
undeniable
that,
as
St.
John
from
his
later
point
of
view
discerned
not
only
the
glory
that
should
come
after
the
shame
and
the
death
of
the
Saviour,
but
the
glory
that
was
implied
in
His
suffering
and
death
on
behalf
of
the
world,
so
he
described
not
only
the
final
judgment
that
was
to
come
at
the
end
of
all
things,
but
the
present
judging,
searching,
sifting
power
of
Christ's
words
and
presence
in
the
earth,
as
the
Synoptists
do
not.
His
point
of
view
in
this
and
in
other
respects
is
confessedly
more
'spiritual.'
But
he
Is
not
unmindful
of
that
aspect
of
judgment
which
predominates
in
the
Synoptics.
In
521-2'
the
two
points
of
view
are
harmonized,
and
a
very
definite
reference
is
made
to
a
final
judgment
as
an
eschatological
event.
If
it
is
true,
as
we
read
in
12^',
that
'now
is
the
judgment
of
this
world,'
the
same
chapter
reminds
us
(v.")
that
Christ's
word
will
judge
men
'
in
the
last
day.'
There
is
no
contradiction,
except
for
shallow
interpreters,
between
the
statements
that
the
Kingdom
of
.God
is
already
come,
and
that
its
coming
must
be
waited
for
with
patience,
perhaps
during
a
long
period.
A
believer
in
'judgment'
already
accom-plished
is
so
far
prepared
for
the
confident
expectation
of
a
final
judgment
at
the
end
of
the
ages.
But
the
examination
of
details
necessarily
lies
outside
the
scope
of
the
present
article.
The
only
further
point
which
can
be
noticed
here
concerns
the
style
and
diction
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
and
the
contrast
observable
be-tween
the
discourses
of
Jesus
as
reported
in
it
and
in
the
three
Synoptics.
So
marked
a
difference
in
this
respect
does
obtain,
that
an
upholder
of
the
Johannine
authorship
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
must
be
prepared
to
admit
that
the
aged
Apostle
sees
all
the
objects
he
describes
through
a
medium
of
his
own,
and
casts
his
record
into
a
shape
moulded
by
the
habit
and
working
of
his
own
mind.
The
personal
stamp
of
the
writer
is
very
strongly
impressed
upon
his
material.
Inspiration
JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
is
quite
consistent
with
marked
individuality
in
the
prophet's
character
and
writings,
and
the
highest
kind
of
inspiration
is
inseparable
from
this.
The
accuracy
of
the
chronicler
who
regards
himself
as
a
mere
recording
pen
is
one
thing,
the
truth
of
the
artist
or
historian
who
passes
all
that
he
knows
through
the
alembic
of
his
own
vigorous
and
active
mind
is
another.
As
regards
the
form
of
the
narrative,
St.
John,
if
he
be
the
writer,
must
have
allowed
himself
freedom
to
present
his
record
in
a
mould
determined
by
the
later
working
of
his
own
mind
and
the
conditions
of
the
times
in
which
he
lived.
He
presents
us
not
with
an
exact
photograph
—
though
traces
of
the
photography
of
memory
are
fairly
abundant
—
but
with
a
free
and
true
picture
of
the
life
of
Him
who
was
and
is
the
Life
indeed.
Differences
in
the
mode
of
presentation
do
indeed
exist,
but
they
need
not
be
exaggerated.
For
example,
as
regards
the
number
and
length
of
Christ's
discourses
recorded,
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
not
separated
from
the
rest
by
some
impassable
gulf.
Dr.
Drummond
has
calculated
that
whilst
in
Mt.
Christ
speaks
139
times,
in
Jn.
He
speaks
only
122
times;
and
that
as
regards
length
of
speeches,
Mt.
records
111
utterances
not
exceeding
3
verses
and
Jn.
96;
of
speeches
exceeding
3
and
not
exceeding
10
verses,
Mt.
gives
16
and
Jn.
20;
whilst
of
discourses
exceeding
20
verses,
Mt.
records
4
and
Jn.
3
only.
Then
as
regards
the
character
of
the
sayings
of
Jesus,
it
is
often
represented
that
those
recorded
in
the
Synoptics
are
pithy,
incisive,
and
telling,
whereas
in
Jn.
the
style
is
prolix
and
monotonous.
Dr.
Drummond,
however,
enumerates
sixty
detached
logia
taken
from
the
Fourth
Gospel
quite
as
aphoristic
and
memorable
as
any
contained
in
the
other
three,
whilst
it
has
often
been
pointed
out
that
in
Mt
II25-2'
is
found
in
germ
the
substance,
both
in
matter
and
in
form,
of
teaching
which
is
fuUy
developed
by
St.
John.
At
the
same
time
it
is
not
denied
that
the
Fourth
Evan-geUst
allows
himself
the
liberty
of
blending
text
and
comment
in
one
narrative
marked
by
the
same
char-acteristic
diction,
so
that,
as
in
ch.
3,
it
is
not
altogether
easy
to
determine
whether
Jesus
or
John
the
Baptist
or
the
Evangelist
is
speaking;
or,
as
in
17^,
whether
the
Evangelist
has
not
expressed
in
his
own
words
the
substance
of
what
fell
from
the
Master's
lips.
Such
freedom,
however,
is
not
really
misleading.
A
measure
of
translation,
of
re-statement
and
reproduction,
was
necessary
from
the
very
nature
of
the
case.
Harnack
says
of
the
NT
generally,
'The
Greek
language
lies
upon
these
writings
only
like
a
diaphanous
veil,
and
it
requires
hardly
any
effort
to
retranslate
their
contents
into
Hebrew
or
Aramaic'
Such
slight,
but
easily
pene-trable
veils,
partly
of
language,
partly
of
representa-tion,
necessarily
rest
over
the
four
narratives
of
our
Lord's
life
and
ministry
which
have
been
handed
down
through
different
media
and
under
different
conditions.
The
argument
here
briefly
sketched
out
goes
to
show
that
the
Fourth
Gospel
contains
no
representation
of
the
Person,
words,
or
works
of
Christ
incompatible
or
seriously
inconsistent
with
those
of
the
Synoptics,
whilst
at
the
same
time
it
bears
the
indubitable
marks
of
a
sacred
individuality
of
its
own.
4.
Alternative
theories.
—
A
considerable
number
of
eminent
scholars
of
the
last
two
generations
have
not
been
satisfied
by
the
line
of
argument
indicated
above,
and
they
decline
to
accept
not
only
the
Johannine
authorship
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
but
also
its
historical
trustworthiness.
It
is
easy
to
understand
that
con-siderations
which
would
strongly
appeal
to
Christian
believers
might
have
small
weight
with
those
who
reject
the
supernatural,
and
cannot
admit
the
evidence
of
an
alleged
eye-witness
of
the
raising
of
Lazarus,
and
who
profess
to
be
able
to
trace
the
growth
of
the
legend
which
transformed
the
prophet
of
Nazareth
into
the
Word
of
God
Incarnate.
For
them
the
document
we
are
examining
is
an
ideal
composition
of
the
2nd
cent.,
of
no
greater
historical
value
than
the
Gospel
of
Nico-
