The really crucial point in the argument relating to the Fourth Gospel
is whether or not the author was an eye-witness of the events which he
describes. In any case, if we are to take the indications of the Gospel
itself, the author must be identified with ‘the disciple whom Jesus
loved.’ But it does not quite necessarily follow that this disciple is
also to be identified with the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee.
Internally there seems to be a fair presumption that he is; and
externally, the evidence seems to be clear from the time of Irenaeus
(180-90) onwards. But neither the presumption in the one case, nor the
evidence in the other, is so stringent as to exclude all possibility of
doubt. We shall have presently to consider the whole question upon its
merits. But in the meantime we note that in recent years the hypothesis
has been definitely put forward that the author of the Gospel was not
the Apostle John, but another disciple—some would say a disciple of
his—of the same name, commonly known for distinction as ‘the Presbyter.’
The existence of this second John, if he really did exist, rests upon a
single line of an extract from Papias, a writer of the first half of the
second century. He too is called a ‘disciple of the Lord’; so that he
too may have been an eye-witness as fully, or almost as fully, as the
Apostle.
The hypothesis which ascribes the Gospel to this John the Presbyter has
taken different forms, some more and some less favourable to the
historical truth and authority of the Gospel.
From a conservative point of view the most attractive form of the
hypothesis is that put forward by the late Dr. Hugo Delff, of Husum, in
Hanover[6], to some extent adapted and defended by Bousset in his
commentary on the Apocalypse, and by one or two others. The theory is
that the beloved disciple was not of the number of the Twelve, but that
he was a native of Jerusalem, of a priestly family of wealth and
standing. We are expressly told that he was ‘known to[7]’ the high
priest (John xviii. 15); and he seems to have had special information as
to what went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (vii. 45-52, xi. 47-53,
xii. 10 ff.). These facts are further connected with the statement by
Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, towards the end of the second century,
that the John who lay upon the breast of the Lord ‘became, or acted as,
priest and wore the frontlet of gold’ (Eus. _H. E._ v. 24. 2 ff.). This
John is claimed as one of the ‘great lights’ of the Churches of Asia.
The theory opens up interesting vistas, the discussion of which must,
however, be reserved. It is consistent with the attribution of a high
degree of authenticity to the Gospel. At the same time it ought to be
said that Delff himself regarded certain portions of our present
Gospel—more particularly those relating to the Galilean ministry—as
interpolations.
Without going all the way with Delff, and without raising the question
as to the identity of the beloved disciple, other writers who have
inclined towards a middle position took the view that the Gospel was the
work of John the Presbyter, whom some of them regarded as a disciple of
John the Apostle. At the head of this group would stand Harnack and
Schürer, who have examined the external evidence very closely. The
assigning of the Gospel to John the Presbyter, or to some unnamed
disciple of the Apostle, was indeed the key to the compromise offered by
those who came nearest to the traditional position at the end of the
eighties and in the early nineties.
One of the very best of these attempts is by Professor von Dobschütz, of
Jena, in his brightly written _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters_[8]
(Leipzig, 1904), to which reference has been made. Dr. von Dobschütz
goes with Delff (whom he does not mention) so far as to describe the
fourth Evangelist as a native of Jerusalem, and to identify him with
John of Ephesus. He does not, however (at least explicitly), identify
him with the beloved disciple; and he treats him as rather the figure
behind the author, than the actual author, of the Gospel. He also, I
cannot but think, makes the mistake of questioning the unity of the
Gospel. Probably, if we had his views in full—which as yet we have
not—they would come under the next head, and not under that of which we
are now speaking.
In Great Britain a theory similar to Harnack’s has found expression in
Dr. James Moffatt’s _Historical New Testament_ (Edinburgh, 1901), and in
other quarters. In America, it is represented by Professor McGiffert,
and, more or less nearly, by Professor Bacon. Of the latter I hope to
say a word presently; the former, if I might hazard the opinion, has not
yet said his last word on the Fourth Gospel. While I recognize in what
he has written many sound and true observations, there seem to be two
strains in his thought which are not as yet fully harmonized.
Even Professor Harnack, whose influence is greatest, has not, I venture
to think, been quite consistent in the view that he has taken. The
Gospel may be assigned to the Presbyter or to some other disciple, and
yet have different degrees of value ascribed to it as a historical
document. In this respect it seems to me that Dr. Harnack has rather
blown hot and cold: in his _Chronologie d. altchristlichen Litteratur_
he blew hot; in his more recent lectures (E. Tr. _What is Christianity?_
p. 19 f.), and, if I am not mistaken, on Monday last he blew cold[9]. A
good deal turns on the description of John the Presbyter by Papias. In
the text of the extract as it stands both John the Presbyter and
Aristion are called ‘disciples of the Lord.’ There is some tendency
among critical writers to get rid of these words as a gloss; if they are
retained, they may be taken in a stricter or a laxer sense; but if they
really cover a relation such as that of the ‘beloved disciple,’ there
could not be a better guarantee of authenticity.
However this may be—and the subject is one of which I hope to speak in
more detail—in any case it must be somewhere within the limits marked
out by Delff on the one hand, and Harnack with his allies and followers
on the other, or else by means of the theories that I am just about to
mention, that an understanding must be reached between the two sides, if
that understanding is at all to take the form of compromise.