In regard to this I would not spend time in refinements upon some of the
scanty details furnished by the scanty literature of the first half of
the second century. I would rather take my stand on the state of things
revealed to us on the lifting of the curtain for that scene of the
Church’s history which extends roughly from about the year 170 to 200. I
would invite attention to the distribution of the evidence in this
period: Irenaeus and the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in
Gaul, Heracleon in Italy, Tertullian at Carthage, Polycrates at Ephesus,
Theophilus at Antioch, Tatian at Rome and in Syria, Clement at
Alexandria. The strategical positions are occupied, one might say, all
over the Empire. In the great majority of cases there is not a hint of
dissent. On the contrary the four-fold Gospel is regarded for the most
part as one and indivisible. Just in one small coterie at Rome
objections are raised to the Fourth Gospel, not on the ground of any
special and verifiable tradition, but from dislike of some who appeal to
the Gospel and from internal criticism of which we can take the measure.
Just at this period of which I am speaking these dissentients appear and
disappear, leaving so little trace that (as we have seen) Eusebius, who
is really a careful and candid person, and has ancients like Origen and
Clement behind him, can describe the Gospel as unquestioned both by his
own generation and by preceding generations (p. 65 _supra_).
Let us for the moment treat these great outstanding testimonies as we
should treat the reading of a group of MSS. The common archetype of
authorities so wide apart and so independent of each other must go back
very far indeed. If we were to construct a _stemma_, and draw lines from
each of the authorities to a point _x_, representing the archetype, the
lines would be long and their meeting point would be near the date at
which according to the tradition the Gospel must have been composed. A
tradition of this kind, so wide-spread and so deep-rooted, could not
have arisen if it had not had a very substantial ground. Suppose we
allow for a moment that it is something in itself a little short of
absolutely decisive, there comes in to reinforce it what we have just
been speaking of as the result of internal criticism, that the Gospel is
the work of an eye-witness, a member of the circle which immediately
surrounded our Lord. That is also a position which seems to me very
strong.
I submit that this is a much fairer statement of the case than that (e.
g.) which we find in Schmiedel (_Enc. Bibl._ ii. 2550):
‘Instead of the constantly repeated formula that an ancient writing
is “attested” as early as by (let us say) Irenaeus, Tertullian, or
Clement of Alexandria, there will have to be substituted the much
more modest statement that its existence (not genuineness) is
attested only as late as by the writers named, and even this only if
the quotations are undeniable or the title expressly mentioned.’
This is a characteristic example of the spirit in which the author
writes—much more that of the lawyer speaking to his brief for the
prosecution than of the scholar or historian. The criticism is couched
in general terms: as far as it applies in particular to the Gospel of
St. John the _caveat_ is superfluous, because all the three writers
named, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria bear witness
expressly to the genuineness of the Gospel, and not only to its
existence. The witness of Heracleon is still more important. To
recognize a writing is one thing; to recognize it as sacred is another;
to comment upon it as so sacred and authoritative that its contents can
be interpreted allegorically is a third: and all this is so early as
_c._ 170. But apart from this the whole form of the statement is unjust.
It leaves entirely out of account the extreme scantiness of the material
from which evidence could be drawn in the period before the year 180. To
me the wonder is that the evidence borne to the New Testament writings
in the extant literature prior to this date should be as much as it is
and not as little.