‘Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many went up to
Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to purify
themselves. They sought therefore for Jesus, and spake one with
another, as they stood in the temple, What think ye? That he will
not come to the feast? Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had
given commandment, that, if any man knew where he was, he should
shew it, that they might take him.’
The strictest ritualistic purity was required of those who took part in
the feast. ‘Every man,’ said R. Isaac, ‘is bound to purify himself for
the feast’ (Lightfoot, _Hor. Hebr._ ad loc.). The purifying might take
quite seven days, and during this time the pilgrims to the feast would
be standing about and often conversing among themselves, and the rumours
of the day would circulate freely among them.
There are several pointed allusions in the Gospel to the laws of
Levitical purity. The mention of the water-jars at the miracle of Cana
is one; the dispute of John’s disciples with a Jew about purifying is
perhaps another; we have just had a third; and a fourth is in xviii. 28,
where the Sanhedrists are prevented from entering the _praetorium_, in
order not to incur defilement, and so be prevented from eating the
passover[48]. These allusions are really, if we think of it, very
striking. They fit into the narrative with perfect ease and
appropriateness; and they are admirably natural if the author of the
Gospel was really St. John, a Christian brought up as a Jew, and even as
it would seem in some way personally connected with the priesthood, who
had been himself in the company of Jesus, had himself held intercourse
with disciples of the Baptist, and himself moved about among the crowds
and heard their comments. It is a wholly different thing if we are to
suppose that all these touches were thrown in by a Christian of the
third generation, who could only arrive at them by study and
imagination. Chwolson says expressly: ‘After the destruction of the
Temple all the regulations about cleanness and uncleanness, which were
closely connected with the sacrificial system, fell into disuse[49].’
The last instance that I will notice is xix. 31, which is full of the
same truth of detail.
‘The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies
should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that
sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be
broken, and that they might be taken away.’
The exact nature of the ‘high day’ will depend upon the day of the
month, which is disputed. I have little doubt that on St. John’s
reckoning it would be Nisan 15, the first day of the feast of unleavened
bread, which was to be marked by an ‘holy convocation’ (Lev. xxiii. 7),
and which, coinciding with the sabbath, would make it a double sabbath.
It would also be the day for the offering of the peace-offering or
Chagigah. This would be on the Saturday morning: when the Jewish day
began (at sunset on Friday) the Jews would be engaged on the paschal
meal.
iii. The Temple.
The references to the Temple in the Fourth Gospel are marked by the same
minute accuracy.
There is a remarkable allusion in ii. 20, where we might paraphrase the
force of the aorist by saying in our own idiom, ‘it took forty-six years
to build this temple.’ The calculation is exact, though we must suppose
the word for temple (ναός, ‘the holy place’) to be used somewhat
loosely. The building of the Temple appears to have been begun about
20-19 B.C. The holy place or sanctuary proper is said to have been
finished in eighteen months; but the whole complex of buildings was not
finished till the reign of Nero. Reckoning forty-six years from 19 B.C.
we should come to 27 A.D., which suits the chronology of the Life of
Christ as well as any date could do. It seems, however, very improbable
that the date was arrived at by any elaborate process of calculation. We
are in the midst of a multitude of examples of the precise and accurate
detail which is characteristic of the Gospel; and the most natural
explanation seems to be that the actual words used stuck in the memory
of the Apostle, and were reproduced by him just as they were spoken.
There are two other close specifications of locality in connexion with
the Temple. One is the mention of ‘the treasury’ in viii. 20. The name
‘treasury’ (γαζοφυλάκιον) was given to the thirteen boxes with
funnel-shaped openings which stood round the women’s court. This court
was not confined to women, and was used indifferently by both sexes; but
it was the point beyond which women were not allowed to pass.
The other part of the Temple mentioned is ‘Solomon’s porch’ in x. 23. It
is explained that Jesus was walking here because of the season of the
year. The time was the Feast of the Dedication, which was held late in
December, when those who walked in the open court would be exposed to
snow or rain.
These points relating to the Temple are of more importance, because at
the time when the Gospel was written the Temple was a heap of ruins,
which had long ceased to be frequented for worship, and of which an
accurate knowledge could hardly be expected except from a few Rabbinical
students, like the author of the tract _Middoth_, and those who had used
the Temple before its destruction.
iv. Sects and Parties.
The fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. made a great change in the
ecclesiastical organization of the Jewish people. During the life of
Christ this too had been highly centralized. Both the great parties of
Pharisees and Sadducees—especially the latter—had their head quarters in
Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the seat of the Sanhedrin, in which both
parties were represented—the Sadducees in the numerical majority and
with the control of executive power, but the Pharisees in closer touch
with the people and with the stronger religious influence. In the Gospel
we have traces of both parties and in both characters, official and
extra-official.
We meet first with the Pharisees, and that in rather peculiar
circumstances, but in circumstances which we may be sure existed. We are
expressly told (i. 24) that the deputation sent to cross-examine John
the Baptist as to the nature of his mission was sent from the Pharisees.
Only one party was represented upon it, so that it cannot have been sent
by an act of the Sanhedrin as a whole. From the religious point of view
the Pharisees would be far more interested in the Baptist and his doings
than the Sadducees. At the same time the deputation consisted of
official persons (‘priests and Levites from Jerusalem,’ i. 19), who
would carry with them a certain authority. Of the nature of their
questions we shall have to speak presently.
In this part of our subject we are a little entangled in cross-division,
because the same sections of the narrative are interesting in more ways
than one. Chap. vii in particular will meet us under several heads; but
there is just one section of it that I must ask leave to quote in full,
as containing in a small compass a sketch that seems drawn from the life
of the Sanhedrin and its ramifications.
‘The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and
they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him? The officers
answered, Never man so spake. The Pharisees therefore answered them,
Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or
of the Pharisees? But this multitude which knoweth not the law are
accursed. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before,
being one of them), Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear
from himself and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto
him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee
ariseth no prophet’ (vii. 45-52).
The ‘chief priests’ in this Gospel correspond to the Sadducees in the
Synoptics; the chief priests and Pharisees together make up the
Sanhedrin. This body had its own servants and apparitors, whom it sent
to arrest Jesus; and their report is discussed in a debate which we may
be sure exactly reproduces the kind of thing that actually happened.
‘Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees?’ ‘But this
multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed.’ ‘Doth our law judge a
man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?’ ‘Art
thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no
prophet.’ It is a perfect specimen of the kind of speeches that would be
made, and the kind of answers that would be given.
We again get an interior view of the meeting of the Sanhedrin in xi.
47-50. ‘The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a
council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. If we let
him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come
and take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them,
Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing
at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’
Here we are introduced to the politics of the time. ‘The Romans will
come and take away both our place and our nation’ was exactly the fear
which constantly haunted the minds of the Sadducean aristocracy, but is
expressed in such general terms as would appeal most to the Pharisees as
well. The haughty Caiaphas makes a speech which, as reported to the
Evangelist, he interprets in a sense that was very possibly not that of
its author. The high priest may have meant only that as an act of policy
a single individual might be made a scapegoat. But the Evangelist, who
is himself a true prophet, has so strong a sense of divine overruling in
all that happened and of divine inspiration taking hold of men without
their will, that he sees in the words a profounder meaning than they
were intended to have, though not perhaps than they really had in the
counsels of God and to an insight like his own.
Another example of the same attitude of mind meets us a little lower
down in another passage that has the same strong marks of
verisimilitude.
‘They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace: and it was
early; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they
might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. Pilate therefore
went out unto them, and saith, What accusation bring ye against this
man? They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an
evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee. Pilate
therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for
us to put any man to death: that the word of Jesus might be
fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he
should die’ (xviii. 28-32).
There is an often-quoted statement in the Talmud to the effect that the
Jews lost the power of capital punishment forty years before the great
siege. The Evangelist sees in this a providential appointment designed
to verify the Lord’s words, and that His death might take the Roman form
(crucifixion) and not the Jewish form (stoning).
There is a singularly fine characterization in the whole narrative of
the Trial. Take for instance the following:
‘Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out,
saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Cæsar’s friend: every
one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar. When Pilate
therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on
the judgement-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew,
Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about
the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! They
therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests
answered, We have no king but Cæsar’ (xix. 12-15).
The Roman had sufficient sense of justice not to wish to condemn an
innocent man. But the accusers of Jesus have a weapon that they use
against him mercilessly. They know that he was not in the best odour at
Rome. His administration of his province through his own wilfulness and
harshness, had not been very successful. It was in the later days of
Tiberius; and Tiberius thought something of the welfare of the
provinces, but thought still more of having in office instruments on
whom he could depend for strict subservience to himself. The accusers
play their part with cynical adroitness: ‘If thou release this man, thou
art not Cæsar’s friend;’ ‘We have no king but Cæsar.’
v. Jewish Ideas and Dialectic.
We are in search of hints and allusions appropriate to the time. The
evidence is overwhelming that the author of the Gospel was a Jew, and
(as I think) also a Jew of Palestine. The best critics admit this, and
it is hardly worth while to stay to prove it; indeed it is incidentally
proved by a large proportion of the examples I am giving. But it is of
more importance to prove that the author was a contemporary of the
events he is describing. Now I will not say that the points I am going
to urge exactly prove this. They do, however, I believe, justify us in
saying that if the author was really an Apostle, a member of the
original Twelve, or closely associated with them, the indications in the
Gospel entirely correspond with such a position. If the author was not
an Apostle, then he must either have been in a position extremely
similar to that of the Apostles, or else he must have taken great pains
to convey the impression that he was in such a position. The passages I
am about to adduce all reflect with great vividness a state of things
like that which must have existed in the time of our Lord.
There is just one period in which the Christian Church stood in a
relation to Judaism which it never occupied again: that was in its
origin. Christianity arose out of the bosom of Judaism. The first
disciples reached manhood as Jews; they were witnesses of the process by
which Christianity gradually broke loose from Judaism; they themselves
underwent a process of conversion; their ideas were modified little by
little as they went on, and in the end the new displaced the old. But
they had been as familiar with the attitude of their Jewish opponents as
they were with their own; they knew the arguments to which the Jews
appealed, the prejudices by which they were animated, the language that
they used. I repeat, there was one period to which this description
applied, and never another in the same degree. The Fourth Gospel is full
of instances of this. Let us turn to some of them.
The earlier chapters have been drawn upon rather freely in other
connexions: we will therefore begin with chap. iv. How perfect is the
local colour of the story of the Samaritan woman![50]
‘The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou,
being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a Samaritan woman?... The
woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the
well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou
greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank
thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle?’ (iv. 9, 11, 12).
The standing feud between Jews and Samaritans is notorious, and does not
need illustrating. ‘The well is deep’ in the most literal sense; the
actual depth is about 75 feet. But how appropriate and natural is the
appeal to the patriarch Jacob, and the local tradition about him!
‘The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto
her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this
mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.... The
woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (which is called
Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things’ (vers.
19-21, 25).
The natural impression of the discourse to which she was listening upon
the woman would be that her interlocutor was a prophet. And her first
impulse would be to put to Him the burning question which divided Jews
and Samaritans—Was the true centre of worship to be sought in Jerusalem
or on Mount Gerizim? It was at one time contended that the Samaritans
had no Messianic expectation; but that is now given up. The Samaritans
not only had such an expectation, but have it to the present day.
The Jews at Capernaum in chap. vi apply the Pentateuchal history in very
much the same way as the Samaritan woman. Some of our modern critics,
who have a keen eye for anything to which exception can be taken, and
who do not appreciate the simplicity which is not peculiar to St. John
but characteristic of the Biblical narrative generally, will say that
here we have a ‘schematism,’ a stereotyped formula, which shows poverty
of invention. On the contrary, I would describe it as a touch of nature
so ingrained in the Jewish habit of mind that it was sure to recur, and
harmonizes thoroughly with the historical situation.
Chap. vii is full of the kind of materials of which we are in search;
but the greater proportion of them we will reserve for our next head. I
must, however, just refer in passing to the expression of the Jews’
surprise, ‘How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?’ (ver.
15). It is just what would excite the astonishment of the populace that
one who seemed to be a simple peasant, and had not been a student in any
of the current Rabbinical schools, should yet show himself so well able
to deal with the profoundest questions that the Rabbis were in the habit
of discussing. This seventh chapter places us in the midst of a society
which, with only a slight difference of method, reminds us of the
restless curiosity with which we are told that Alexandrian Christians
canvassed the metaphysical problems involved in the Arian controversy.
In Palestine the dominant influence was Rabbinism; the one idea that the
people had of learning was Rabbinical learning; and so entirely did the
‘scribes and Pharisees’ cover the ground that the appearance of a
teacher who was neither scribe nor Pharisee was sure to be remarked
upon.
A little lower down we have exactly the kind of argument to which the
Jewish people were accustomed.
‘The multitude answered, Thou hast a devil: who seeketh to kill
thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all
marvel. For this cause hath Moses given you circumcision (not that
it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye
circumcise a man. If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath,
that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me,
because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?’ (vers. 20-3).
I do not think it can be doubted that arguments like this were just what
would be constantly heard at the first beginnings of Christianity. But
they belong to the time when it was just in the act of differentiating
itself from Judaism; and I cannot easily imagine that they would be so
clearly realized and so appropriately introduced later.
Of the same kind is much of the discussion in ch. viii. I do not
undertake to say that this discussion, or other discussions in the
Fourth Gospel, are given exactly as they really happened. I am quite
prepared to believe that especially the part in them taken by our Lord
Himself was a little different from that which He is represented as
taking. But, if I think this, it is because the narrative seems to me
(if it is not too much of a paradox to say so) even too true to the time
and circumstances in which the discussion took place. No doubt our Lord
is represented as holding Himself apart from and above the Jewish
controversialists. I feel sure that He did this; but, with the Synoptic
Gospels before me, I suspect that He did it in a slightly different, i.
e. in a more reserved and—if I may be forgiven the expression—delicate
way.
With thus much of preface I will just give a specimen of what I mean by
truth to the time and circumstances.
‘The Jews answered and said unto Him, Say we not well that thou art
a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil;
but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour me.... The Jews said unto
him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the
prophets; and thou sayest, if a man keep my word, he shall never
taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is
dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?’ (vers.
48, 49, 52, 53).
‘Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil’; ‘Abraham is dead, and the
prophets.’ These are exactly the things that would be said, and that we
may be sure were said. But I am not satisfied with the hypothesis that
the author who wrote them was a Jew of Palestine. I believe that he was,
and must have been, an actual contemporary and eye-witness of what he is
recording.
The same conclusion forces itself upon us all through the next chapter,
which is steeped in Jewish ideas and customs; and those not Jewish ideas
and customs in the abstract, but in direct and close connexion with the
Jewish controversy as it existed in the time of our Lord and centring in
His person. I single out a few of the verses that illustrate this most
vividly.
‘And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his
disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his
parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did
this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be
made manifest in him.... Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This
man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. But others
said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a
division among them.... He therefore answered, Whether he be a
sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now
I see. They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened
he thine eyes? He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not
hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his
disciples? And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple;
but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God hath spoken unto
Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is. The man
answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know
not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes. We know that God
heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do
his will, him he heareth. Since the world began it was never heard
that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were
not from God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him,
Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they
cast him out’ (ix. vers. 1-3, 16, 25-34).
Notice in this the following essentially Jewish ideas: The connexion of
sin with physical infirmity, and the speculation as to how far back, in
a particular case, this connexion went—whether it was confined to the
individual affected himself, or whether it went back to his parents; the
observance of the sabbath as indispensable to one who really had a
divine mission; in reply to this, the plea that none but a righteous man
could work miracles; the relation of discipleship, and the claim of the
Pharisees to be in the strict sense Moses’ disciples; and finally, the
characteristic abuse of one who bore in his body the mark of having been
born in sin, and yet presumed to teach doctors of the Law; for such a
one expulsion from the synagogue was a fitting penalty[51].
vi. The Messianic Expectation.
We have already more than once come across allusions to the Messianic
expectation as it existed in the time of Christ. But there are a few
examples of this to which it is well that we should direct special
attention.
The first is the series of questions put to the Baptist by the
deputation which came to test the nature of his mission. They ask him
who he is, and he expressly denies that he is the Christ. Is he then
Elijah? He replies that he is not. He is once more asked if he is the
expected prophet like unto Moses; and to this too he answers, No. His
questioners draw the natural inference, and call upon him to explain
what is his authority for administering this new rite of baptism, if he
had none of these credentials. Thereupon he discriminates between his
own mission and that of his greater successor.
It may be contended that this passage was suggested by two parallel
groups in the Synoptics, the speculations of Herod Antipas as to our
Lord—that He is the Baptist risen from the dead, or Elijah, or a prophet
(Mark vi. 14-16; Matt. xiv. 1, 2; Luke ix. 7, 8), and the preliminary of
St. Peter’s confession, when the disciples are asked by their Master as
to the common opinion about Him and they reply that some supposed Him to
be the Baptist and others Elijah, and others again, one of the prophets
(Mark viii. 27, 28; Matt. xvi. 13, 14; Luke ix. 18, 19).
There are doubtless the two possibilities: the questions attributed to
the deputation in St. John, if we suppose that the author was really
remote from the events, would be suggested by passages like these; if he
was an eye-witness, it would be more probable that they were taken
directly from the life, or at least from the personal knowledge of the
writer that such ideas were commonly entertained at the time. There are
several reasons for thinking that this latter hypothesis is the easier
and less artificial. To suppose that the scene was a literary invention
would involve the adaptation to the Baptist of what was originally said
of Christ. It is also against the supposition that the questions are
borrowed from the Synoptists, that in one important point they run
directly counter to the Synoptic tradition. When the Baptist is asked if
he is Elijah, he says that he is not, whereas the Synoptists
persistently identify him with Elijah, and that upon the authority of
Christ Himself (Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 10-13; Mark ix. 11-13). There is
another noticeable divergence. In St. John the question relates to
‘_the_ prophet,’ with direct reference to Deut. xviii. 15, 18; in the
Synoptists the phrase used is ‘a prophet, as one of the prophets,’ or
‘one of the prophets.’ These are the forms of the phrase in St. Mark,
which is fundamental. On the second occasion St. Matthew substitutes
‘Jeremiah or one of the prophets’; on both occasions St. Luke has ‘one
of the old prophets is (was) risen again.’ The difference between the
two versions is rather marked, though no doubt the Synoptic idea
ultimately goes back to Deut. xviii, like the other. For these reasons
the hypothesis that St. John is drawing from the life seems distinctly
preferable.
Allusion has already been made to some of the popular ideas and to the
meeting of the Sanhedrin in chap. vii. That chapter is especially
important from our present point of view, that of the Messianic
expectation. We see there reproduced with wonderful vividness just such
an undercurrent of criticism as we may be sure was constantly going on,
particularly in Jerusalem.
‘Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he whom they
seek to kill? And lo, he speaketh openly, and they say nothing unto
him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ?
Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when the Christ cometh,
no one knoweth whence he is.’
‘But of the multitude many believed on him; and they said, When the
Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man
hath done?’
‘Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said,
This is of a truth the prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But
some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the
Scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from
Bethlehem, the village where David was? So there arose a division in
the multitude because of him. And some of them would have taken him;
but no man laid hands on him.’
‘They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search,
and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet’ (vers. 25-7, 31,
40-4, 52).
It is to be observed that several of the points in the expectation thus
depicted are of a somewhat recondite character. ‘We know this man whence
he is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.’ This
point can be verified, at least approximately. There is a Jewish saying
that ‘three things come wholly unexpected, Messiah, a god-send, and a
scorpion[52].’ And Justin Martyr alludes to another tradition, that the
Messiah would not even know his own mission until he was anointed by
Elijah[53]—the idea of this was perhaps suggested by the anointing of
David.
Again we note that the writer assumes the point of view of the crowd,
according to which Christ was regarded as coming from Nazareth in
Galilee, though in any case he had before him the First and Third
Gospels which placed His birth in Bethlehem. Not a hint escapes the
Evangelist of his knowledge of this, although the point is brought as an
objection to our Lord’s Messianic claims. In other words, the Gospel
reflects the real state of things in A.D. 28, not the Christian beliefs
of A.D. 90. We have to say the same of the test applied by the
Sanhedrin, that a prophet was not to be looked for from Galilee.
All these points agree beautifully with the time when Jesus was moving
about with His disciples among His countrymen, a time of which the
genuine recollection must have been long lost to all those Christians
who had not themselves actually lived in it. The same comment would have
to be made upon the language in which the Evangelist more than once
refers to Christ’s mission, or rather the popular conception of it. In
vi. 15, the people are represented as coming to take Him by force and
make Him king; and at the entry into Jerusalem He is greeted as the King
of Israel, and the prophecy of Zechariah is applied to Him, ‘Behold thy
King cometh, &c.’ In all this there are evident traces of the unreformed
Messianic idea, as associated with political domination. By the year 90
all such ideas must have entirely vanished, and it must have required an
effort of mind to recover them which one who had not been himself
connected with the events would have had no incentive to make.
* * * * *
I am greatly mistaken if the mass of particulars collected in this
lecture does not come home to the mind with great, and even
overwhelming, force. In me at least it inspires, and has always inspired
ever since I took up the study of the Gospel, a strong conviction that
it could only be the work of one who had really lived through the events
that he describes. Perhaps there is a little exaggeration in the phrase
that it ‘could only be’ such a one. It is the kind of rough approximate
phrase that one is apt to use for practical common-sense purposes.
Strictly speaking, there is the other alternative, of which we ought not
wholly to lose sight, that the author was a second-century Christian,
perhaps of Jewish descent and with some Jewish training, who by a _tour
de force_ threw himself back into the circumstances of the time and had
a wonderful success in reproducing them. Dr. Drummond reminds us that
there is this alternative.
‘It is sometimes said that to produce an untrue narrative possessing
such verisimilitude as the Gospel would have been quite beyond the
capacity of any writer of the second century: such an author would
be without example; such a work would be a literary miracle. In
making this allegation people seem to forget that the book is in any
case unique. Whether it be true history, or the offspring of
spiritual imagination, or a mixture of both, no one, so far as we
know, could have written it in the second or any other century,
except the man who did write it; and to assert that an unexampled,
unknown, and unmeasured literary genius could not have done this or
that appears to me extremely hazardous’ (p. 378 f.).
Perfectly true; there doubtless is the possibility that ‘an unexampled,
unknown, and unmeasured literary genius’ could have done what we find.
But as a rule, where facts can be explained easily and naturally without
having recourse to any such extraordinary assumption, the world is
content so to explain them. The practical question is a balance of
probabilities. And even now, as in the days of Bishop Butler,
probability is the very guide of life.
Footnote 41:
Wrede, _Charakter und Tendenz d. Johannesevangeliums_ (Tübingen and
Leipzig, 1903), p. 25.
Footnote 42:
An excellent example is the treatment of the Acts of Paul and Thecla
by Professor W. M. Ramsay in _The Church in the Roman Empire_, pp.
375-428.
Footnote 43:
‘Das Geographische im Evangelium nach Johannes,’ in the _Zeitschr. f.
neuttest. Wiss._, 1902, pp. 257-265.
Footnote 44:
Cf. Drummond, p. 366 f.; and the writer’s _Sacred Sites of the
Gospels_, p. 95.
Footnote 45:
H. J. Holtzmann, ad loc., and _Einleitung_, ed. 2, p. 469: cf.
Drummond, p. 437 f.
Footnote 46:
Pp. 42-6.
Footnote 47:
It is denied by Holtzmann, but approved by Westcott.
Footnote 48:
For a discussion of the nature of this defilement see Chwolson, _Das
letzte Passamahl Christi_, p. 56 ff.
Footnote 49:
Op. cit. p. 49.
Footnote 50:
It is very surprising that Freiherr Hermann von Soden, in a pamphlet
published at the end of the year, _Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben
Jesu_ (Berlin, 1904), p. 9, should deny the existence of local colour
in the Fourth Gospel. In proof he mentions some half-dozen points that
occur in the Synoptics but not in this Gospel; which only means that
it is of a different type from the other three, and does not repeat
what was already found in them. And yet, even of these points, several
come back in another form. It is true that the Gospel does not
describe the healing of a demoniac, but it has many marked allusions
to demoniacal possession (see below, p. 134). It is true that it has
not the name ‘Sadducees’; it speaks of them rather as ‘chief priests’;
but it is well acquainted with their character and policy (see above,
p. 126 ff.). The Gospel has no ‘elders,’ but it has ‘rulers’ or
members of the Sanhedrin, whose position it perfectly understands. In
like manner it has no νομικοί or νομοδιδάσκαλοι, but it is fond of the
title ‘Rabbi,’ and it makes pointed reference to Rabbinical training
(see below, p. 132). The whole page of criticism, coming from a writer
of such eminence, is most disappointing. Either the statements are
very questionable as fact or they have not the slightest bearing on
the authorship of the Gospel. Why should not an Apostle break off
somewhat abruptly in his report of a discourse, or glide imperceptibly
from narrative into comment? That is just what St. Paul does, as we
shall see (p. 168, below).
The truth is that the criticism of the Fourth Gospel on the liberal
side has become largely conventional; one writer after another repeats
certain stereotyped formulae without testing them. It is high time
that they were really tested and confronted with the facts.
Footnote 51:
On the application of this penalty in the lifetime of Christ, see
above, p. 115.
Footnote 52:
_Sanhedr._ 97 a.
Footnote 53:
_Dial. c. Tryph._ §8, cf. 110.
LECTURE V
THE CHARACTER OF THE NARRATIVE
The last lecture called attention to a multitude of little points that
seem to lead to a definite conclusion. They almost all belonged to the
framework, or setting of the narrative, and not to its salient features.
I was conscious, not seldom, of stopping short just where we seemed to
be coming to something of more importance, and to which exception would
be more likely to be taken. I stopped short deliberately and of set
purpose, because I am myself of opinion that from the point of view of
critical method, it is just these small incidental details that are most
significant. They are the sort of details that an author throws in when
he is off his guard. From them, far more than from his laboured
arguments, we may tell what is his real standpoint and attitude. In
regard to the abundant details which we have examined, the Evangelist
had plentiful opportunities of tripping; but in no single instance is he
really convicted of doing so, whereas in a vast number his record has
been verified.
Taking this ample verification of details with the direct claim
considered in the last lecture but one, we have reached a point at which
the authentic character of the Gospel, its claim to come from an
eye-witness if not from an Apostle, seems to be really well assured. But
the question that now meets us is, how far this assurance is neutralized
by the arguments brought against the Gospel from a comparison of it with
the Synoptics and from certain points of general probability. It is true
that there are differences, which may amount to discrepancies, between
the Fourth Gospel and its predecessors.
There is, however, this preliminary remark to be made, before we discuss
the differences in detail, that whatever we may think in regard to them,
in any case the result must in one respect be favourable, and not
adverse, to the Gospel; it must be favourable at least to its
independence and authority. For there are two things to be noticed in
regard to these differences.
i. The Evangelist had the Synoptic Gospels before him; and, where he
differs from them, he does so deliberately. Either his intention is to
correct them, or at least he deliberately goes his own way.
It follows that he was a person who was conscious of writing with
authority. If he had not been, and if he was only desirous of
insinuating his own views under cover of a great name, we may be pretty
sure that he would have kept closely to the lines already marked out by
works that had a considerable vogue and a considerable reputation.
ii. And we are confirmed in this opinion by the further observation that
the points on which he differs from his predecessors are for the most
part and to all appearance indifferent for any particular purpose that
he seems to have had in writing. He has certainly not gone out of his
way to exploit or insist upon them. For anything that we can see the
only reason that he had for his divergences was that to the best of his
belief and knowledge the facts were really as he has stated them, and
not otherwise.