JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
demus
or
the
Clementine
Recognitions.
Others,
who
are
convinced
that
the
book
embodies
early
and
perhaps
Apostolical
traditions,
have
adopted
mediating
theories
of
different
types,
pointing
to
the
use
by
a
2nd
cent,
writer
of
earlier
'
sources,'
much
as
the
Logia
document
is
supposed
to
have
been
used
by
the
author
of
'
Matthew
'
or
the
Markan
document
by
St.
Luke.
The
late
date
assigned
by
Baur
to
the
composition
of
the
Gospel
has
long
been
given
up
as
impossible,
and
a
theory
of
'
forgery
'
Is
no
longer
advocated
by
any
one
whose
judgment
is
worth
considering.
Few
responsible
critics
now
would
place
the
document
later
than
a.d.
110-120,
and
the
good
faith
of
the
writer
is
hardly
questioned
even
among
those
who
most
strenuously
deny
that
his
facts
have
any
historical
basis.
Among
partition-theories
may
be
classed
that
of
Renan,
who
considers
that
the
history
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
more
accurate
than
that
of
the
Synoptics,
and
that
it
was
probably
derived
from
the
Apostle
John
by
one
of
his
disciples;
but
he
slights
the
discourses
as
tedious
and
almost
entirely
tictitious.
Wendt,
on
the
other
hand,
holds
that
a
'third
main
original
source'
of
the
Gospels
—
in
addition
to
the
Logia
of
Matthew
and
the
original
Mark
—
is
to
be
found
in
the
groundwork
of
the
discouiBes
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
whilst
the
historical
framework
came
from
another
hand
and
is
less
trustworthy.
Ewald
held
that
St.
John
composed
the
Gospel
with
the
aid
of
friends
and
disciples
whose
pens
are
discernible
in
the
body
of
the
work,
whilst
the
21st
chapter
is
entirely
theirs,
though
written
with
the
Apostle's
sanction
and
before
iiis
death.
Dr.
E.
A.
Abbott
holds
that
John
the
son
of
Zebedee
was
the
author
of
the
Gospel,
but
not
in
its
present
shape.
He
says
that
viewed
as
history
the
document
must
be
analyzed
so
as
to
'separate
fact
from
not-fact,*
but
that
it
has
considerable
value
in
correcting
impressions
derived
from
the
Synoptic
Gospels,
whilst
the
spiritual
significance
of
the
Gospel
is
exceedingly
high.
Hamack
attributes
the
authorship
to
'John
the
Elder'
of
Ephesus,
a
disciple
of
the
Apostle,
who
has
incorporated
in
his
work
some
of
his
teacher's
remi-niscences,
so
that
it
might
be
styled
'
Gospel
of
John
the
Elder
according
to
John
the
Son
of
Zebedee.'
He
holds
that
the
Gospel,
the
three
Epistles
and
the
Apocalypse
in
its
latest,
i.e.
its
Christian,
form,
were
all
written
by
John
the
Elder
in
Asia
about
a.d.
100.
Bousset
ascribes
the
Gospel
to
a
disciple
of
this
John,
who
had
access
to
tra-ditional
knowledge
concerning
Christ's
Judsean
ministry
which
enabled
him
in
some
respects
to
correct
and
to
supplement
the
Synoptic
accounts.
Schmiedel,
on
the
other
hand,
considera
that
the
Gospel
caimot
be
the
work
of
any
eye-witness,
ApostoUc
or
non-Apostolic,
and
that
it
was
not
meant
to
record
actual
history.
The
author
is
'a
great
and
eminent
soul,'
in
whom
the
tendencies
of
his
time
(about
A.n.
120)
are
brought
to
focus;
and
he
finds
in
the
Gospel
'the
ripest
fruit
of
primitive
Christianity
—
at
the
same
time
the
furthest
removed
from
the
original
form.'
The
mention
of
'
John
the
Elder
'
brings
to
view
the
only
definite
alternative
theory
of
authorship
that
has
gained
much
support.
It
is
based
upon
a
much
discussed
passage
from
Papias,
preserved
for
us
by
Eusebius
{HE
iii.
39),
of
which
the
following
sentence
is
the
most
important:
'If,
then,
any
one
came
who
had
been
a
follower
of
the
elders,
I
questioned
him
in
regard
to
the
words
of
the
elders
—
what
Andrew
or
what
Peter
said,
or
what
was
said
by
Philip,
or
by
Thomas,
or
by
John,
or
by
Matthew,
or
by
any
other
of
the
disciples
of
the
Lord,
and
what
things
Aristion
and
the
presbyter
John,
the
disciples
of
the
Lord,
say.'
Upon
this
foun-dation
the
hypothesis
has
been
set
up
that
the
John
who
at
the
end
of
the
1st
cent,
gained
such
a
position
of
influence
in
Ephesus
was
not
the
Apostle,
but
a
presbyter
of
the
same
name.
It
follows
that
Irenteus
totally
misunderstood
Polycarp
when
he
claimed
to
have
heard
'
John,
'
imagining
that
he
meant
the
Apostle;
and
moreover,
that
Polyerates
was
mistaken
in
his
refer-ence
to
the
Apostle's
residence
in
Ephesus;
and
further,
that
Clement
of
Alexandria
and
the
whole
Church
of
the
2nd
cent,
were
similarly
misled.
'John
the
Elder'
is
at
best
a
shadowy
personage.
Dr.
Salmon
contended
that
he
had
no
real
existence,
but
that
Papias
in
the
extract
names
the
Apostle
John
twice
over,
though
through
his
'slovenliness
of
composition'
it
might
seem
as
if
JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
two
distinct
persons
were
intended.
It
would
appear,
however,
to
be
fairly
established
that
a
second
John,
known
as
'the
Presbyter,'
was
recognized
by
Papias,
and
perhaps
by
Eusebius,
but
he
is
an
obscure
figure;
history
is
almost
entirely
silent
about
him,
and
there
is
no
proof
that
he
was
ever
in
Asia
at
all.
It
is
hard
to
believe
that
such
a
person'
was
really
the
author
of
a
book
which
so
boldly
challenged
and
so
seriously
modified
evangelical
tradition,
and
that,
by
an
in-explicable
mistake
which
arose
within
the
living
memory
of
persons
actually
concerned,
his
personality
was
confused
with
that
of
one
of
the
inner
circle
of
the
twelve
Apostles
of
the
Lord.
6.
Summary
and
Conclusion.
—
It
will
be
seen
that
some
approximation
has
taken
place
between
the
views
of
those
who
have
defended
and
those
who
have
assailed
the
traditional
view
of
the
authorship
of
the
Gospel,
since
the
middle
of
the
last
century.
It
is
fairly
agreed
that
the
date
of
its
composition
must
be
fixed
somewhere
between
a.d.
90
and
110.
It
is
further
agreed
by
a
large
majority
of
moderate
critics
that
the
Gospel
contains
historical
elements
of
great
value,
which
must
have
come
from
an
eye-witness.
These
are
independent
of
all
the
sources
upon
which
the
Synoptists
had
drawn,
and
they
enable
us
in
many
important
particulars
to
supplement
the
earlier
narratives.
It
is
admitted,
further,
that
the
discourses
at
least
contain
valuable
original
material
which
may
have
come
from
John
the
Apostle,
though
many
contend
that
this
has
been
so
'worked
over'
by
a
later
hand
that
its
general
com-plexion
has
been
altered.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
admitted
by
many
who
maintain
the
Johannine
author-ship,
that
the
Apostle
must
have
written
the
Gospel
in
advanced
age,
that
he
may
have
been
aided
by
others,
that
he
has
cast
his
reminiscences
into
a
characteristic
form
determined
by
the
working
of
a
mind
saturated
with
the
teaching
of
Christ
but
retaining
its
own
indi-viduaUty,
and
that
he
was
of
necessity
largely
influenced
by
the
conditions
of
the
time
in
which
he
wrote.
It
is
not
pretended
that
the
measure
of
approximation
thus
reached
amounts
to
agreement.
The
difference
in
time
between
A.n.
90
and
110
may
appear
slight,
but
the
earlier
date
admits
the
possibihty
of
Apostolic
authorship,
and
the
later
does
not.
The
agreement
to
recognize
elements
of
value
in
the
historical
portion
of
the
Gospel
is
important,
but
it
does
not
extend
to
the
admission
of
the
possibility
that
one
who
had
himself
witnessed
with
his
own
eyes
the
signs
and
mighty
works
that
Jesus
wrought,
did
also
at
the
close
of
his
life
record
with
substantial
accuracy
what
he
had
heard
and
seen,
so
that
readers
of
to-day
may
be
assured
that
they
are
studying
history
and
not
a
work
of
pious
imagination.
The
deep
chasm
remains
practically
unbridged
which
separates
those,
on
the
one
hand,
who
hold
that
the
view
of
the
Person
and
work
of
Christ
taken
in
the
Fourth
Gospel
can
claim
the
authority
of
an
eye-witness,
one
of
'the
men
who
companied
with
us
all
the
time
that
the
Lord
Jesus
went
in
and
went
out
among
us,'
and,
on
the
other,
those
who
hold
that
the
document
contains
a
'
developed
'
and
practically
unhistorical
representation
of)
facts,
devised
to
support
a
doctrinal
position
which
belongs
essentially
not
to
the
first,
but
to
the
fourth
generation
of
primitive
Christians.
This
distinction
is
deep
and
vital.
It
need
not
be
exaggerated,
as
if
such
representative
scholars
as
Harnack
and
SchUrer
on
one
side,
and
Sanday
and
Drummond
on
the
other,
are
fundamentally
antagonistic
in
their
views
of
Christianity.
But
the
distinction
should
not
be
minimized,
for
a
deep
doctrinal
difference
is
often
tacitly
impUed
by
it.
John
the
Presbyter
may
seem
to
be
removed
by
but
a
hair's
breadth
from
John
the
Apostle
at
whose
feet
he
sat,
but
it
is
a
question
of
vital
importance
to
the
Christian
faith
of
to-day
whether,
when
we
read
the
first
and
the
eighth
and
the
fourteenth
chapters
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
we
are
listening
to
the
voice
of
an
Apostle
recalling
the
memories
of
years
long
