{415}

priests and Pharisees speak of the Jewish people not as [------], but as

[------], the term employed by the Jews to designate the Gentiles.(1) We

need scarcely point out that the Jesus of the fourth Gospel is no longer

of the race of David, but the Son of God. The expectation of the Jews

that the Messiah should be of the seed of David is entirely set aside,

and the genealogies of the first and third Synoptics tracing his descent

are not only ignored, but the whole idea absolutely excluded.

Then the writer calls Annas the high priest, although at the same time

Caiaphas is represented as holding that office.(2) The expression which

he uses is: "Caiaphas being the high priest that year"[------]. This

statement, made more than once, indicates the belief that the office

was merely annual, which is erroneous. Josephus states with regard to

Caiaphas, that he was high priest for ten years from A.D. 25--36.(3)

Ewald and others argue that the expression "that year" refers to the

year in which the

{416}

death of Jesus, so memorable to the writer, took place, and that it

does not exclude the possibility of his having been high priest for

successive years also.(1) This explanation, however, is quite arbitrary

and insufficient, and this is shown by the additional error in

representing Annas as also high priest at,the same time. The Synoptists

know nothing of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason

given by the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took

Jesus to Annas: "for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high

priest that same year,"(2) is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear

mistake, and it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and

institutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an

error equally committed by the author of the third Gospel and of the

Acts of the Apostles. In Luke iii. 2, the word of God is said to come

to John the Baptist: "in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas"

[------], and again, in Acts iv. 6, Annas is spoken of as the high

priest when Peter and John healed the lame man at the gate of the Temple

which was called "Beautiful," and Caiaphas is mentioned immediately

after: "and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and

Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest." Such

statements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by the author of

the fourth Gospel, may have led to the confusion in the narrative.

Annas had previously been high priest, as we know from Josephus,(3) but

nothing is more certain than the fact that the title was not continued

after the office was resigned; aud Ishmael

{417}

Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term of

office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title. The

narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been committed

by a native of Palestine,(1) and much less by an acquaintance of the

high priest.(2)

There are also several geographical errors committed which denote a

foreigner. In i. 28, the writer speaks of a "Bethany beyond Jordan,

where John was baptizing." The substitution of "Bethabara," mentioned by

Origen, which has erroneously crept into the vulgar text, is of course

repudiated by critics, "Bethany" standing in all the older codices. The

alteration was evidently proposed to obviate the difficulty that, even

in Origen's time, there did not exist any trace of a Bethany beyond

Jordan in Peraea. The place could not be the Bethany near

{418}

Jerusalem, and it is supposed that the writer either mistook its

position or, inventing a second Bethany, which he described as "beyond

Jordan," displayed an ignorance of the locality improbable either in a

Jew or a Palestinian.(1) Again, in iii. 23, the writer says that "John

was baptizing in AEnon, near to Salim, because there was much water

there." This AEnon near to Salim was in Judaea, as is clearly stated in

the previous verse. The place, however, was quite unknown even in the

third century, and the nearest locality which could be indicated as

possible was in the north of Samaria and, therefore, differing from the

statements in iii. 22, iv. 3.(2) AEnon, however, signifies "springs," and

the question arises whether the writer of the fourth Gospel, not knowing

the real meaning of the word, did not simply mistake it for the name of

a place.(3) In any case, there seems to be here another error into which

the author of the fourth Gospel, had he been the Apostle John, could not

have fallen.(4)

{419}

The account of the miracle of the pool of Bethesda is a remarkable one

for many reasons. The words which most pointedly relate the miraculous

phenomena characterizing the pool, are rejected by many critics as

an interpolation. In the following extract we put them in italics:

v. 3.--"In these (five porches) lay a multitude of the sick, halt,

withered, _waiting for the moving of the water. 4. For an angel went

down at certain seasons into the pool and was troubling the water: he,

therefore, who first went in after the troubling of the water was made

whole of whatsoever disease he had_." We maintain, however, that the

obnoxious passage is no spurious interpolation, but that there is ample

evidence, external and internal, to substantiate its claim to a place in

the text. It is true that the whole passage is omitted by the Sinaitic

and Vatican Codices, and by C: that A(1), L, 18, and others omit the

last phrase of verse 3, and that D, 33, which contain that phrase, omit

the whole of verse 4, together with 157, 314 and some other MSS.:

that in many codices in which the passage is found it is marked by

an asterisk or obelus, and that it presents considerable variation in

readings. It is also true that it is omitted by Cureton's Syriac, by the

Thebaic, and by most of the Memphitic versions. But, on the other hand,

it exists in the Alexandrian Codex, C3, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, IT,

V, r, A and other MSS(1), and it forms part of the Peschito, Jerusalem

Syriac, Vulgate, Watkin's Memphitic, AEthiopic and Armenian versions.(2)

{420}

More important still is the fact that it existed in the ancient Latin

version of Tertillian, who refers to the passage;(1) and it is quoted by

Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, Euthymius, and

other Fathers. Its presence in the Alexandrian Codex alone might not

compensate for the omission of the passage by the Sinaitic and Vatican

Codices and C, D, but when the Alexandrian MS. is supported by the

version used by Tertullian, which is a couple of centuries older than

any of the other authorities, as well as by the Peschito, not to mention

other codices, the balance of external evidence is distinctly in its

favour.

The internal evidence is altogether on the side of the authenticity of

the passage. It is true that there are a considerable number of

[------] in the few lines: [------] and perhaps [------]; but it must

be remembered that the phenomena described are exceptional, and may

well explain exceptional phraseology. On the other hand, [------] is

specially a Johannine word, used v. 4 and six times more in the fourth

Gospel, but only five times in the rest of the New Testament; and

[------] with [------] occurs in v. 4, 6, 9, 14, and with [------] in

v. 11, 15, vii. 23 and nowhere else. [------] also may be indicated as

employed in v. 4, 7 and five times more in other parts of the Gospel,

and only eleven times in the rest of the New Testament, and the use of

[------] in v. 4 is thus perhaps naturally

{421}

accounted for. The context, however, forbids the removal of this

passage. It is in the highest degree improbable that verse 3 could have

ended with "withered" [------], and although many critics wish to retain

the last phrase in verse 3, in order to explain verse 7, this only shows

the necessity, without justifying the arbitrary maintenance, of these

words, whilst verse 4, which is still better attested, is excluded to

get rid of the inconvenient angel. It is evident, however, that the

expression: "when the water was troubled" [------] of the undoubted

verse 7 is unintelligible without the explanation that the angel "was

troubling the water," [------] of verse 4, and also that the statement

of the verse 7, "but while I am coming, another goeth down before me"

[------] absolutely requires the account: "he, therefore, who first went

in &c." [------] of verse 4. The argument that the interpolation

was made to explain the statement in verse 7 is untenable, for that

statement necessarily presupposes the account in the verses under

discussion, and cannot be severed from it. Even if the information

that the water was "troubled" at certain seasons only could have been

dispensed with, it is obvious that the explanation of the condition of

healing, given in verse 4, is indispensable to the appreciation of the

lame man's complaint in verse 7, for without knowing that priority was

essential, the reason for the protracted waiting is inconceivable. It is

also argued, that the passage about the angel may have been interpolated

to bring out^the presence of supernatural agency, but it is much more

reasonable to believe that attempts have been made to omit these verses,

of which there is such ancient attestation, in order to eliminate an

embarrassing excess of

{422}

supernatural agency, and get rid of the difficulty presented by the

fact, for which even Tertullian(1) endeavoured to account, that the

supposed pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. This

natural explanation is illustrated by the alacrity with which apologists

at the present day abandon the obnoxious passage.(2) The combined force

of the external and internal evidence, however, cannot, we think, be

fairly resisted.(3)

Now, not only is the pool of Bethesda totally unknown at the present

day, but although possessed of such miraculous properties, it was

not known even to Josephus, or any other writer of that time. It is

inconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the phenomena could have

been unknown and unmentioned by the Jewish historian.(4) There is here

evidently neither the narrative of an Apostle nor of an eye-witness.

Another very significant mistake occurs in the account of the

conversation with the Samaritan woman, which is said to have taken place

(iv. 5) near "a city of Samaria

2 "The Biblical critic is glad that he can remove these

words from the record, and cannot be called upon to explain

them."--Rev. H. W. Watkins, M.A., in "A New Test. Commentary

for English Readers," edited by Charles John Ellicott, D.D.,

Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, i. p. 416.

{423}

which is called Sychar." It is evident that there was no such place--and

apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty. The

common conjecture has been that the town of Sichem is intended, but

this is rightly rejected by Delitzsch,(1) and Ewald.(2) Credner,(3)

not unsupported by others, and borne out in particular by the theory

of Ewald, conjectures that Sychar is a corruption of Sichem, introduced

into the Gospel by a Greek secretary to whom this part of the Gospel

was dictated, and who mistook the Apostle's pronunciation of the

final syllable. We constantly meet with this elastic explanation of

difficulties in the Gospel, but its mere enunciation displays at

once the reality of the difficulties and the imaginary nature of the

explanation. Hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious

earnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the city of Sichem,

and that, by so slight a change in the pronunciation, the Apostle called

the place a city of Lies [------] a lie), a play upon words which he

does not consider unworthy.(4) The only support which this latter theory

can secure from internal evidence is to be derived from the fact that

the whole discourse with the woman is ideal. Hengstenberg(5) conjectures

that the five husbands of the woman are typical of the Gods of the five

nations with which the King of Assyria peopled Samaria, II. Kings, xvii.

24--41, and which they worshipped instead of the God of Israel, and as

the actual God of the Samaritans was not recognized as the true God by

the Jews, nor their

{424}

worship of him on Mount Gerizim held to be valid, he considers that

under the name of the City of Sychar, their whole religion, past and

present, was denounced as a lie. There can be little doubt that the

episode is allegorical, but such a defence of the geographical error,

the reality of which is everywhere felt, whilst it is quite insufficient

on the one hand, effectually destroys the historical character of

the Gospel on the other.(1) The inferences from all of the foregoing

examples are strengthened by the fact that, in the quotations from the

Old Testament, the fourth Gospel in the main follows the Septuagint

version, or shows its influence, and nowhere can be shown directly to

translate from the Hebrew.

These instances might be multiplied, but we must proceed to examine more

closely the indications given in the Gospel as to the identity of its

author. We need not point out that the writer nowhere clearly states who

he is, nor mentions his name, but expressions are frequently used which

evidently show the desire that a particular person should be understood.

He generally calls himself "the other disciple," or "the disciple whom

Jesus loved."(2) It is universally understood that he

{425}

represents himself as having previously been a disciple of John the

Baptist (i. 35 ff.),(1) and also that he is "the other disciple" who

was acquainted with the high priest (xviii. 15, 16),(2) if not an actual

relative as Ewald and others assert.(3) The assumption that the disciple

thus indicated is John, rests principally on the fact that whilst

the author mentions the other Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid

directly naming John, and also that he never distinguishes John the

Baptist by the appellation [------], whilst he carefully distinguishes

the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always speaks of the Apostle

Peter as "Simon Peter," or "Peter," but rarely as "Simon" only.(4)

Without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, it is

obvious that, supposing the disciple indicated to be John the son of

Zebedee, the fourth Gospel gives a representation of him quite different

from the Synoptics and other writings. In the fourth Gospel (i. 35 ff.)

the calling of the Apostle is described in a peculiar manner. John (the

Baptist) is standing with two of his disciples, and points out Jesus to

them as "the Lamb of God," whereupon the two disciples follow Jesus and,

finding out where he lives,

{426}

abide with him that day and subsequently attach themselves to his

person. In verse 40 it is stated: "One of the two which heard John

speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." We are left

to imagine who was the other, and the answer of critics is: John. Now,

the "calling" of John is related in a totally different manner in the

Synoptics--Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, sees "two brethren,

Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea,

for they were fishers, and he saith unto them: Follow me, and I will

make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets and

followed him. And when he had gone from thence, he saw other two

brethren, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the ship

with Zebedee their father mending their nets; and he called them. And

they immediately left the ship and their father and followed him."(1)

These accounts are in complete contradiction to each other, and both

cannot be true. We see, from the first introduction of "the other

disciple" on the scene, in the fourth Gospel, the evident design to give

him the precedence before Peter and the rest of the Apostles. We have

above given the account of the first two Synoptists of the calling

of Peter, according to which he is the first of the disciples who is

selected, and he is directly invited by Jesus to follow him and become,

with his brother Andrew, "fishers of men." James and John are not called

till later in the day, and without the record of any special address.

In the third Gospel, the calling of Peter is introduced with still more

important details. Jesus enters the boat of Simon and bids him push out

into the Lake and let down his net, and the miraculous draught of fishes

is taken: "When Simon Peter

{427}

saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am

a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him,

at the draught of fishes which they had taken." The calling of the sons

of Zebedee becomes even less important here, for the account simply

continues: "And so was also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who

were partners with Simon." Jesus then addresses his invitation to Simon,

and the account concludes: "And when they had brought their boats to

land, they forsook all, and followed him."(1) In the fourth Gospel, the

calling of the two disciples of John is first narrated, as we have seen

and the first call of Peter is from his brother Andrew, and not from

Jesus himself. "He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon, and

saith unto him: We have found the Messias (which is, being interpreted,

Christ), and he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on him and said: Thou

art Simon, the son of Jonas;(2) thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by

interpretation, Peter)."(3) This explanation of the manner in which

the cognomen Peter is given, we need not point out, is likewise

contradictory to the Synoptics, and betrays the same purpose of

suppressing the prominence of Peter.

The fourth Gospel states that "the other disciple," who is declared to

be John, the author of the Gospel, was known to the high priest, another

trait amongst many others elevating him above the son of Zebedee as he

is depicted elsewhere in the New Testament. The

{428}

account which the fourth Gospel gives of the trial of Jesus is in very

many important particulars at variance with that of the Synoptics. We

need only mention here the point that the latter know nothing of the

preliminary examination by Annas. We shall not discuss the question

as to where the denial of Peter is represented as taking place in the

fourth Gospel, but may merely say that no other disciple but Peter is

mentioned in the Synoptics as having followed Jesus; and Peter enters

without difficulty into the high priest's palace.(1) In the fourth

Gospel, Peter is made to wait without at the door until John, who is

a friend of the high priest and freely enters, obtains permission

for Peter to go in, another instance of the precedence which is

systematically given to John. The Synoptics do not in this particular

case give any support to the statement in the fourth Gospel, and

certainly in nothing that is said of John elsewhere do they render his

acquaintance with the high priest in the least degree probable. It is,

on the contrary, improbable in the extreme that the young fisherman of

Galilee, who shows very little enlightenment in the anecdotes told

of him in the Synoptics, and who is described as an "unlettered and

ignorant" man in the Acts of the Apostles, could have any acquaintance

with the high priest. Ewald, who, on the strength of the word

[------],(2) at once elevates him into a relation of the high priest,

sees in the statement of Polycrates that late in life he wore the

priestly [------], a confirmation of the supposition that he was of the

high priest's race and family.(3) The

{429}

evident Judaistic tendency, however, which made John wear the priestly

mitre may distinguish him as author of the Apocalypse, but it is fatal

to the theory which makes him author of the fourth Gospel, in which

there is so complete a severance from Judaism.

A much more important point, however, is the designation of the author

of the fourth Gospel, who is identified with the Apostle John, as "the

disciple whom Jesus loved." It is scarcely too much to say, that this

suggestive appellation alone has done more than any arguments to

ensure the recognition of the work, and to overcome doubts as to its

authenticity. Religious sentimentality, evoked by the influence of this

tender epithet, has been blind to historical incongruities, and has been

willing to accept with little question from the "beloved disciple" a

portrait of Jesus totally unlike that of the Synoptics, and to elevate

the dogmatic mysticism and artificial discourses of the one over the

sublime morality and simple eloquence of the other. It is impossible to

reflect seriously upon this representation of the relations between one

of the disciples and Jesus without the conviction that every record of

the life of the great Teacher must have borne distinct traces of the

preference, and that the disciple so honoured must have attracted the

notice of every early writer acquainted with the facts. If we seek for

any evidence, however, that John was distinguished with such special

affection,--that he lay on the breast of Jesus at supper--that even the

Apostle Peter recognised his superior intimacy and influence(1)--and

that he received at the foot of the cross the care of his mother from

the dying Jesus,(2)--we seek in vain. The Synoptic Gospels, which

minutely record the details

{430}

of the last supper and of the crucifixion, so far from reporting any

such circumstances or such distinction of John, do not even mention his

name, and Peter everywhere has precedence before the sons of Zebedee.

Almost the only occasions upon which any prominence is given to them are

episodes in which they incur the Master's displeasure, and the cognomen

of "Sons of thunder" has certainly no suggestion in it of special

affection, nor of personal qualities likely to attract the great

Teacher. The selfish ambition of the brothers who desire to sit on

thrones on his right and on his left, and the intolerant temper which

would have called down fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan village,

much rather contradict than support the representation of the fourth

Gospel. Upon one occasion, indeed, Jesus in rebuking them, adds: "Ye

know not what manner of spirit ye are of."(1) It is perfectly undeniable

that John nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the Synoptics

as this designation in the fourth Gospel implies. In the lists of the

disciples he is always put in the fourth place,(3) and in the first two

Gospels his only distinguishing designation is that of "the brother of

James," or one of the sons of Zebedee. The Apostle Peter in all of

the Synoptics is the leader of the disciples. He it is who alone is

represented as the mouth-piece of the twelve or as holding conversation

with Jesus; and the only occasions on which the sons of Zebedee address

Jesus are those to which we have referred, upon which

1 Luke ix. 55. These words are omitted from some of the oldest MSS., but

they are in Cod. D (Bezae) and many other very important texts, as well

as in some of the oldest Torsions, besides being quoted by the Fathers.

They were probably omitted after the claim of John to be the "beloved

disciple" became admitted.

{431}

his displeasure was incurred. The angel who appears to the women after

the resurrection desires them to tell his disciples "and Peter" that

Jesus will meet them in Galilee,(1) but there is no message for any

"disciple whom he loved." If Peter, James, and John accompany the Master

to the mount of transfiguration, and are witnesses of his agony in the

garden, regarding which, however, the fourth Gospel is totally silent,

the two brethren remain in the back ground, and Peter alone acts a

prominent part. If we turn to the Epistles of Paul, we do not find a

single trace of acquaintance with the fact that Jesus honoured John

with any special affection, and the opportunity of referring to such a

distinction was not wanting when he writes to the Galatians of his visit

to the "Pillar" Apostles in Jerusalem. Here again, however, we find

no prominence given to John, but the contrary, his name still being

mentioned last and without any special comment. In none of the Pauline

or other Epistles is there any allusion, however distant, to any

disciple whom Jesus specially loved. The Apocalypse, which, if any

book of the New Testament can be traced to him, must be ascribed to the

Apostle John, makes no claim whatever to such a distinction. In none of

the Apocryphal Gospels is there the slightest indication of knowledge

of the fact, and if we come to the Fathers even, it is a striking

circumstance that there is not a trace of it in any early work, and

not the most remote indication of any independent tradition that Jesus

distinguished John or any other individual disciple with peculiar

friendship. The Roman Clement, in referring to the example of the

Apostles, only mentions Peter and Paul.(2) Polycarp, who is described as

a disciple of the

{432}

Apostle John, apparently knows nothing of his having been especially

loved by Jesus. Pseudo-Ignatius does not refer to him at all in the

Syriac Epistles, or in either version of the seven Epistles.(1) Papias,

in describing his interest in hearing what the Apostles said, gives John

no prominence: "I inquired minutely after the words of the Presbyters:

What Andrew, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James,

or what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord,

and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord,

say,"(2) &c.

As a fact, it is undenied and undeniable that the representation of

John, or of any other disciple, as specially beloved by Jesus, is

limited solely and entirely to the fourth Gospel, and that there is not

even a trace of independent tradition to support the claim, whilst on

the other hand the total silence of the earlier Gospels and of the other

New Testament writings on the point, and indeed their data of a positive

and unmistakeable character, oppose rather than support the correctness

of the later and mere personal assertion. Those who abandon sober

criticism, and indulge in mere sentimental rhapsodies on the

impossibility of the author of the fourth Gospel being any other than

"the disciple whom Jesus loved," strangely ignore the fact that we

have no reason whatever, except the assurance of the author himself, to

believe that Jesus specially loved any disciple, and much less John the

Son of Zebedee. Indeed, the statements of the fourth Gospel itself on

the subject are

1 Indeed in the universally repudiated Epistles, beyond the

fact that two are addressed to John, in which he is not

called "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the only mention of

him is the statement, "John was banished to Patmos." Ad

Tars., iii.

{433}

so indirect and intentionally vague that it is not absolutely clear what

disciple is indicated as "the beloved," and it has even been maintained

that not John the son of Zebedee, but Andrew the brother of Simon Peter

was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and consequently the supposed

author of the fourth Gospel.(1)

We have hitherto refrained from referring to one of the most singular

features of the fourth Gospel, the chapter xxi., which is by many cited

as the most ancient testimony for the authenticity of the work, and

which requires particular consideration. It is obvious that the Gospel

is brought to a conclusion by verses 30, 31 of chapter xx., and critics

are universally agreed at least that, whoever may be its author, chapter

xxi. is a supplement only added after an interval. By whom was it

written? As may be supposed, critics have given very different replies

to this important question. Many affirm, and with much probability,

that chapter xxi. was subsequently added to the Gospel by the author

himself.(2) A few, however, exclude the last two verses, which they

consider to have been added by another hand.(3) A much larger number

assert that the whole

{434}

chapter is an ancient appendix to the Gospel by a writer who was not the

author of the Gospel.(1) A few likewise reject the last two verses of

the preceding chapter. In this supplement (v. 20), "the disciple whom

Jesus loved, who also leaned on his breast at the supper and said: Lord,

which is he that betrayeth thee?" is (v. 24) identified with the author

of the Gospel.

We may here state the theory of Ewald with regard to the composition

of the fourth Gospel, which is largely deduced from considerations

connected with the last chapter, and which, although more audaciously

minute in its positive and arbitrary statement of details than any other

with which we are acquainted, introduces more or less the explanations

generally given regarding the composition of chapter xxi. Out of all the

indications in the work, Ewald decides:

"1. That the Gospel, completed at the end of chapter xx., was composed

by the Apostle about the year 80, with the free help of friends, not to

be immediately circulated

{435}

throughout the world, but to remain limited to the narrower circle of

friends until his death, and only then to be published as his legacy

to the whole of Christendom. In this position it remained ten years, or

even longer.

2. As the preconceived opinion regarding the life or death of the

Apostle (xxi. 23) had perniciously spread itself throughout the whole

of Christendom, the Apostle himself decided, even before his death,

to counteract it in the right way by giving a correct statement of the

circumstances. The same friends, therefore, assisted him to design the

very important supplement, chapter xxi., and this could still be very

easily added, as the book was not yet published. His friends proceeded,

nevertheless, somewhat more freely in its composition than previously

in writing the book itself, and allowed their own hand more clearly to

gleam through, although here, as in the rest of the work, they conformed

to the will of the Apostle, and did not, even in the supplement, openly

declare his name as the author. As the supplement, however, was to form

a closely connected part of the whole work, they gave at its end (verses

24 f.), as it now seemed to them suitable, a new conclusion to the

augmented work.

3. As the Apostle himself desired that the preconceived opinion

regarding him, which had been spread abroad to the prejudice of

Christendom, should be contradicted as soon as possible, and even

before his death, he now so far departed from his earlier wish, that he

permitted the circulation of his Gospel before his death. We can

accept this with all certainty, and have therein trustworthy testimony

regarding the whole original history of our book.

4. When the Gospel was thus published it was for

{436}

the first time gradually named after our Apostle, even in its external

superscription: a nomination which had then become all the more

necessary and permanent for the purpose of distinction, as it was united

in one whole with the other Gospels. The world, however, has at all

times known it only under this wholly right title, and could in no way

otherwise know it and otherwise name it."(1)

In addressing ourselves to each of these points in detail, we shall

be able to discuss the principal questions connected with the fourth

Gospel.

The theory of Ewald, that the fourth Gospel was written down with the

assistance of friends in Ephesus, has been imagined solely to conciliate

certain phenomena presented throughout the Gospel, and notably in the

last chapter, with the foregone conclusion that it was written by the

Apostle John. It is apparent that there is not a single word in the work

itself explaining such a mode of composition, and that the hypothesis

proceeds purely from the ingenious imagination of the critic. The

character of the language, the manner in which the writer is indirectly

indicated in the third person, and the reference, even in the body of

the work (xix. 35), to the testimony of a third person, combined with

the similarity of the style of the supplementary chapter, which is an

obvious addition intended, however, to be understood as written by a

different hand, have rendered these conjectures necessary to reconcile

such obvious incongruities with the ascription of the work to the

Apostle. The substantial identity of the style and vocabulary of chapter

xxi. with the rest of the Gospel is asserted by a multitude of the most

competent critics. Ewald, whilst he recognizes the great

{437}

similarity, maintains at the same time a real dissimilarity, for which

he accounts in the manner just quoted. The language, Ewald admits,

agrees fully in many rare _nuances_ with that of the rest of the Gospel,

but he does not take the trouble to prove the decided dissimilarities

which, he asserts, likewise exist. A less difference than that which he

finds might, he thinks, be explained by the interval which had elapsed

between the writing of the work and of the supplement, but "the

wonderful similarity, in the midst of even greater dissimilarity, of

the whole tone and particularly of the style of the composition is not

thereby accounted for. This, therefore, leads us," he continues, "to the

opinion: The Apostle made use, for writing down his words, of the

hand and even of the skill of a trusted friend who later, on his own

authority (fur sich allein), wrote the supplement. The great similarity,

as well as dissimilarity, of the style of both parts in this way becomes

intelligible: the trusted friend (probably a Presbyter in Ephesus)

adopted much of the language and mode of expression of the youthful old

Apostle, without, however, where he wrote more in his own person, being

carefully solicitous of imitating them. But even through this contrast,

and the definite declaration in v. 24, the Apostolical origin of

the book itself becomes all the more clearly apparent; and thus the

supplement proves from the most diverse sides how certainly this Gospel

was written by the trusted disciple."(1) Elsewhere, Ewald more clearly

explains the share in the work which he assigns to the Apostle's

disciple: "The proposition that the Apostle composed in a unique way our

likewise unique Gospel is to be understood only with the

{438}

important limitation upon which I have always laid so much stress: for

John himself did not compose this work quite so directly as Paul did

most of his Epistles, but the young friend who wrote it down from his

lips, and who, in the later appendix, chapter xxi., comes forward in the

most open way, without desiring in the slightest to conceal his separate

identity, does his work at other times somewhat freely, in that he never

introduces the narrator speaking of himself and his participation in the

events with 'I' or 'we' but only indirectly indicates his presence at

such events and, towards the end, in preference refers to him, from his

altogether peculiar relation to Christ, as 'the disciple whom the Lord

loved,' so that, in one passage, in regard to an important historical

testimony (xix. 35), he even speaks of him as of a third person." Ewald

then maintains that the agreement between the Gospel and the Epistles,

and more especially the first, which he affirms, without vouchsafing a

word of evidence, to have been written down by a different hand, proves

that we have substantially only the Apostle's very peculiar composition,

and that his friend as much as possible gave his own words.(1)

It is obvious from this elaborate explanation, which we need scarcely

say is composed of mere assumptions, that, in order to connect the

Apostle John with the Gospel, Ewald is obliged to assign him a very

peculiar position in regard to it: he recognizes that some of the

characteristics of the work exclude the supposition that the Apostle

could himself have written the Gospel, so he represents him as dictating

it, and his Secretary as taking considerable liberties with the

composition as he writes it

{439}

down, and even as introducing references of his own; as, for instance,

in the passage to which he refers, where, in regard to the statement

that at the Crucifixion a soldier pierced the side of the already dead

Jesus and that forthwith there came out blood and water (xix. 35), it is

said: "And he that saw it hath borne witness, and his witness is true;

and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe."(1) It is

perfectly clear that the writer refers to the testimony of another

person(2)--the friend who is writing down the narrative, says Herr

Ewald, refers to the Apostle who is actually dictating it. Again, in the

last chapter, as elsewhere throughout the work, "the disciple whom Jesus

loved," who is the author, is spoken of in the third person, and also

in verse 24: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,

and wrote these things" [------]. This, according to Ewald, is the same

secretary, now writing in his own person. The similarity between this

declaration and the appeal to the testimony of another person in xix.

35, is certainly complete, and there can be no doubt that both proceed

from the same pen; but beyond the assertion of Herr Ewald there is

not the slightest evidence that a secretary wrote the Gospel from the

dictation of another, and ventured to interrupt the narrative by such a

reference to testimony, which, upon the supposition that the

{440}

Apostle John was known as the actual author, is singularly out of place.

If John wrote the Gospel, why should he appeal in utterly vague terms

to his own testimony, and upon such a point, when the mere fact that he

himself wrote the statement was the most direct testimony in itself? An

author who composed a work which he desired to ascribe to a "disciple

whom Jesus loved" might have made such a reference as xix. 35, in his

anxiety to support such an affirmation, without supposing that he had

really compromised his design, and might have naturally added such a

statement as that in the last two verses, but nothing but the foregone

conclusion that the Apostle John was the real author could have

suggested such an explanation of these passages. It is throughout

assumed by Ewald and others, that John wrote in the first instance, at

least, specially for a narrow circle of friends, and the proof of

this is considered to be the statement of the object with which it was

written: "that ye may believe,"(l) &c., a phrase, we may remark, which

is identical with that of the very verse (xix. 35) with which the

secretary is supposed to have had so much to do. It is very remarkable,

upon this hypothesis, that in xix. 35, it is considered necessary even

for this narrow circle, who knew the Apostle so well, to make such an

appeal, as well as to attach at its close (xxi. 24), for the benefit

of the world in general as Ewald will have it, a certificate of the

trustworthiness of the GospeL

Upon no hypothesis which supposes the Apostle John the author of the

fourth Gospel is such an explanation credible. That the Apostle himself

could have written of himself the words in xix. 35 is impossible. After

{441}

having stated so much that is much more surprising and contradictory to

all experience without reference to any witness, it would indeed

have been strange had he here appealed to himself as to a separate

individual, and on the other hand it is quite inadmissible to assume

that a Mend to whom he is dictating should interrupt the narrative to

introduce a passage so inappropriate to the work, and so unnecessary for

any circle acquainted with the Apostolic author. If, as Ewald argues,

the peculiarities of his style of composition were so well known that it

was unnecessary for the writer more clearly to designate himself either

for the first readers or for the Christian world, the passages we are

discussing are all the more inappropriate. That any guarantee of the

truth of the Gospel should have been thought desirable for readers who

knew the work is to be composed by the Apostle John, and who believed

him to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved," is inconceivable, and that

any anonymous and quite indirect testimony to its genuineness should

either have been considered necessary or of any value is still more

incredible. It is impossible that nameless Presbyters of Ephesus could

venture to accredit a Gospel written by the Apostle John; and any

intended attestation must have taken the simple and direct course

of stating that the work had been composed by the Apostle. The

peculiarities we are discussing seem to us explicable only upon the

supposition that the unknown writer of the Gospel desired that it should

be understood to be written by a certain disciple whom Jesus loved,

but did not choose distinctly to name him or directly to make such an

affirmation.

It is, we assert, impossible that an Apostle who composed a history of

the life and teaching of Jesus could

{412}

have failed to attach his name, naturally and simply, as testimony

of the trustworthiness of his statements, and of his fitness as an

eye-witness to compose such a record. As the writer of the fourth

Gospel does not state his name, Herr Ewald ascribes the omission to the

"incomparable modesty and delicacy of feeling" of the Apostle John. We

must further briefly examine the validity of this explanation. It is

universally admitted, and by Ewald himself, that although the writer

does not directly name himself, he very clearly indicates that he is

"the other disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved." We must affirm

that such a mode of indicating himself is incomparably less modest than

the simple statement of his name, and it is indeed a glorification

of himself beyond anything in the Apocalypse. But not only is the

explanation thus discredited but, in comparing the details of the Gospel

with those of the Synoptics, we find still more certainly how little

modesty had to do with the suppression of his name. In the Synoptics a

very marked precedence of the rest of the disciples is ascribed to the

Apostle Peter; and the sons of Zebedee are represented in all of them

as holding a subordinate place. This representation is confirmed by

the Pauline Epistles and by tradition. In the fourth Gospel, a very

different account is given, and the author studiously elevates the

Apostle John,--that is to say, according to the theory that he is the

writer of the Gospel, himself,--in every way above the Apostle Peter.

Apart from the general pre-eminence claimed for himself in the very name

of "the disciple whom Jesus loved," we have seen that he deprives Peter

in his own favour of the honour of being the first of the disciples who

was called; he suppresses the account of the circumstances under which

{443}

that Apostle was named Peter, and gives another and trifling version of

the incident, reporting elsewhere indeed in a very subdued and modified

form, and without the commendation of the Master, the recognition of the

divinity of Jesus, which in the first Gospel is the cause of his change

of name.(1) He is the intimate friend of the Master, and even Peter

has to beg him to ask at the Supper who was the betrayer. He describes

himself as the friend of the High Priest, and while Peter is excluded,

he not only is able to enter into his palace, but he is the means of

introducing Peter. The denial of Peter is given without mitigation, but

his bitter repentance is not mentioned. He it is who is singled out by

the dying Jesus and entrusted with the charge of his mother. He outruns

Peter in their race to the Sepulchre, and in the final appearance of

Jesus (xxi. 15) the more important position is assigned to the disciple

whom Jesus loved. It is, therefore, absurd to speak of the incomparable

modesty of the writer, who, if he does not give his name, not only

clearly indicates himself, but throughout assumes a pre-eminence which

is not supported by the authority of the Synoptics and other writings,

but is heard of alone from his own narrative.

Ewald argues that chapter xxi. must have been written, and the Gospel

as we have it, therefore, have been completed, before the death of the

Apostle John. He considers the supplement to have been added specially

to contradict the report regarding John (xxi. 23). "The supplement must

have been written whilst John still lived," he asserts, "for only before

his death was it worth while to contradict such a false hope; and if his

death had actually taken place, the result itself would

{444}

have already refuted so erroneous an interpretation of the words of

Christ, and it would then have been much more appropriate to explain

afresh the sense of the words 'till I come.' Moreover, there is no

reference here to the death as having already occurred, although a small

addition to that effect in ver. 24 would have been so easy. But if we

were to suppose that John had long been dead when this was written, the

whole rectification as it is given would be utterly without sense."(1)

On the contrary, we affirm that the whole history of the first two

centuries renders it certain that the Apostle was already dead, and

that the explanation was not a rectification of false hopes during his

lifetime, but an explanation of the failure of expectations which had

already taken place, and probably excited some scandal. We know how the

early Church looked for the immediate coming of the glorified Christ,

and how such hopes sustained persecuted Christians in their sorrow and

suffering. This is very clearly expressed in 1 Thess. iv. 15--18, where

the expectation of the second coming within the lifetime of the writer

and readers of the Epistle is confidently stated, and elsewhere, and

even in 1 John ii. 18, the belief that the "last times" had arrived

is expressed. The history of the Apocalypse in relation to the Canon

illustrates the case. So long as the belief in the early consummation of

all things continued strong, the Apocalypse was the favourite writing of

the early Church, but when time went on, and the second coming of

Christ did not take place, the opinion of Christendom regarding the

work changed, and disappointment, as well as the desire to explain the

non-fulfilment of prophecies upon which so much hope had been based, led

many to reject the Apocalypse

{445}

as an unintelligible and fallacious book. We venture to conjecture that

the tradition that John should not die until the second coming of Jesus

may have originated with the Apocalypse, where that event is announced

to John as immediately to take place, xxii. 7, 10, 12, and the words

with which the book ends are of this nature, and express the expectation

of the writer, 20: "He which testifieth these things saith: Surely I

come quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." It was not in the spirit of the

age to hesitate about such anticipations, and so long as the Apostle

lived, such a tradition would scarcely have required or received

contradiction from any one, the belief being universal that the coming

of Jesus might take place any day, and assuredly would not be long

delayed. When the Apostle was dead, however, and the tradition that

it had been foretold that he should live until the coming of the

Lord exercised men's minds, and doubt and disappointment at the

non-fulfilment of what may have been regarded as prophecy produced a

prejudicial effect upon Christendom, it seemed to the writer of this

Gospel a desirable thing to point out that too much stress had been laid

upon the tradition, and that the words which had been relied upon in the

first instance did not justify the expectations which had been formed

from them. This also contradicts the hypothesis that the Apostle John

was the author of the Gospel.

Such a passage as xix. 35, received in any natural sense, or interpreted

in any way which can be supported by evidence, shows that the writer of

the Gospel was not an eye-witness of the events recorded, but appeals to

the testimony of others. It is generally admitted that the expressions

in ch. i. 14 are of universal application, and capable of being adopted

by all Christians, and,

{446}

consequently, that they do not imply any direct claim on the part of the

writer to personal knowledge of Jesus. We must now examine whether

the Gospel itself bears special marks of having been written by an

eye-witness, and how far in this respect it bears out the assertion that

it was written by the Apostle John. It is constantly asserted that the

minuteness of the details in the fourth Gospel indicates that it must

have been written by one who was present at the scenes he records. With

regard to this point we need only generally remark, that in the works of

imagination of which the world is full, and the singular realism of

many of which is recognized by all, we have the most minute and natural

details of scenes which never occurred, and of conversations which never

took place, the actors in which never actually existed. Ewald admits

that it is undeniable that the fourth Gospel was written with a fixed

purpose, and with artistic design and, indeed, he goes further and

recognizes that the Apostle could not possibly so long have recollected

the discourses of Jesus and verbally reproduced them, so that, in fact,

we have only, at best, a substantial report of the matter of those

discourses coloured by the mind of the author himself.(1) Details

of scenes at which we were not present may be admirably supplied by

imagination, and as we cannot compare what is here described as taking

place with what actually took place, the argument that the author

must have been an eyewitness because he gives such details is without

validity. Moreover, the details of the fourth Gospel in many cases do

not agree with those of the three Synoptics, and it is an undoubted

fact that the author of the fourth Gospel gives the details of scenes at

which the Apostle John was not

{447}

present, and reports the discourses and conversations on such occasions,

with the very same minuteness as those at which he is said to have been

present; as, for instance, the interview between Jesus and the woman of

Samaria. It is perfectly undeniable that the writer had other Gospels

before him when he composed his work, and that he made use of other

materials than his own.(1)

It is by no means difficult, however, to point out very clear

indications that the author was not an eye-witness, but constructed

his scenes and discourses artistically and for effect. We shall not, at

present, dwell upon the almost uniform artifice adopted in most of the

dialogues, in which the listeners either misunderstand altogether the

words of Jesus, or interpret them in a foolish and material way,

and thus afford him an opportunity of enlarging upon the theme. For

instance, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, misunderstands the expression

of Jesus, that in order to see the kingdom of God a man must be born

from above, and asks: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he

enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?"(2) Now, as it is

well known, and as we have already shown, the common expression used

in regard to a proselyte to Judaism was that of being born again, with

which every Jew, and more especially every "ruler of the Jews," must

have been well acquainted. The stupidity which he displays

{448}

in his conversation with Jesus, and with which the author endowed all

who came in contact with him, in order, by the contrast, to mark more

strongly the superiority of the Master, even draws from Jesus the

remark: "Art thou the teacher of Israel and understandest not these

things?"(l) There can be no doubt that the scene was ideal, and it is

scarcely possible that a Jew could have written it. In the Synoptics,

Jesus is reported as quoting against the people of his own city,

Nazareth, who rejected him, the proverb: "A prophet has no honour in his

own country."(2) The appropriateness of the remark here is obvious. The

author of the fourth Gospel, however, shows clearly that he was neither

an eye-witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when he

introduces this proverb in a different place. Jesus is represented as

staying two days at Sychar after his conversation with the Samaritan

woman. "Now after the two days he departed thence into Galilee. For

[------] Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in

his own country. When, therefore [------], he came into Galilee, the

Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did in

Jerusalem, at the feast--for they also went unto the feast."(3) Now it

is manifest that the quotation here is quite out of place, and none

of the ingenious but untenable explanations of apologists can make

it appropriate. He is made to go into Galilee, which was his country,

because a prophet has no honour in his country, and the Galilaeans are

represented as receiving him, which is a contradiction of the proverb.

The writer evidently misunderstood the facts of the case or

{449}

deliberately desired to deny the connection of Jesus with Nazareth and

Galilee, in accordance with his evident intention of associating the

Logos only with the Holy City. We must not pause to show that the

author is generally unjust to the Galilaeans, and displays an ignorance

regarding them very unlike what we should expect from the fisherman of

Galilee.(1) We have already alluded to the artificial character of the

conversation with the woman of Samaria, which, although given with so

much detail, occurred at a place totally unknown (perhaps allegorically

called the "City of Lies"), at which the Apostle John was not present,

and the substance of which was typical of Samaria and its five nations

and false gods. The continuation in the Gospel is as unreal as the

conversation.

Another instance displaying personal ignorance is the insertion into

a discourse at the Last Supper, and without any appropriate connection

with the context, the passage "Verily, verily, I say unto you: he that

receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me

receiveth him that sent me."(2) In the Synoptics, this sentence is

naturally represented as part of the address to the disciples who are

to be sent forth to preach the Gospel;(3) but it is clear that its

insertion here is a mistake.(4) Again, a very obvious slip, which

betrays that what was intended for realistic detail is nothing but a

reminiscence of some earlier Gospel misapplied, occurs in a later part

{450}

of the discourses very inappropriately introduced as being delivered on

the same occasion. At the end of xiv. 31, Jesus is represented, after

saying that he would no more talk much with the disciples, as suddenly

breaking off with the words: "Arise, let us go hence" [------]. They

do not, however, arise and go thence, but, on the contrary, Jesus at

once commences another long discourse: "I am the true vine," &c. The

expression is merely introduced artistically to close one discourse,

and enable the writer to begin another, and the idea is taken from some

earlier work. For instance, in our first Synoptic, at the close of the

Agony in the Garden which the fourth Gospel ignores altogether, Jesus

says to the awakened disciples: "Rise, let us go" [------].(1) We need

not go on with these illustrations, but the fact that the author is not

an eyewitness recording scenes which he beheld and discourses which

he heard, but a writer composing an ideal Gospel on a fixed plan, will

become more palpable as we proceed.

It is not necessary to enter upon any argument to prove the fundamental

difference which exists in every respect between the Synoptics and the

fourth Gospel. This is admitted even by apologists, whose efforts to

reconcile the discordant elements are totally unsuccessful. "It is

impossible to pass from the Synoptic Gospels to that of St John,"

says Canon Westcott, "without feeling that the transition involves the

passage from one world of thought to another. No familiarity with the

general teaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of the character of

the Saviour is sufficient to destroy the

{451}

contrast which exists in form and spirit between the earlier and

later narratives."(l) The difference between the fourth Gospel and the

Synoptics, not only as regards the teaching of Jesus but also the facts

of the narrative, is so great that it is impossible to harmonize them,

and no one who seriously considers the matter can fail to see that both

cannot be accepted as correct. If we believe that the Synoptics give a

truthful representation of the life and teaching of Jesus, it follows of

necessity that, in whatever category we may decide to place the fourth

Gospel, it must be rejected as a historical work. The theories which are

most in favour as regards it may place the Gospel in a high position as

an ideal composition, but sober criticism must infallibly pronounce that

they exclude it altogether from the province of history. There is no

option but to accept it as the only genuine report of the sayings and

doings of Jesus, rejecting the Synoptics, or to remove it at once to

another department of literature. The Synoptics certainly contradict

each other in many minor details, but they are not in fundamental

disagreement with each other and evidently present the same portrait of

Jesus, and the same view of his teaching derived from the same sources.

The vast difference which exists between the representation of Jesus in

the fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics is too well recognized to

require minute demonstration. We must, however, point out some of the

distinctive features. We need not do more here than refer to the fact

that, whilst the Synoptics relate the circumstances of the birth of

Jesus, two of them at least, and give some history of his family and

origin, the fourth Gospel, ignoring all this, introduces the great

{452}

Teacher at once as the Logos who from the beginning was with God and

was himself God. The key-note is struck from the first, and in the

philosophical prelude to the Gospel we have the announcement to those

who have ears to hear, that here we need expect no simple history, but

an artistic demonstration of the philosophical postulate. According

to the Synoptics, Jesus is baptized by John, and as he goes out of the

water the Holy Ghost descends upon him like a dove. The fourth Gospel

says nothing of the baptism, and makes John the Baptist narrate vaguely

that he saw the Holy Ghost descend like a dove and rest upon Jesus, as

a sign previously indicated to him by God by which to recognize the Lamb

of God.(1) From the very first, John the Baptist, in the fourth Gospel,

recognizes and declares Jesus to be "the Christ,"(2) "the Lamb of God

which taketh away the sins of the world."(3) According to the Synoptics,

John comes preaching the baptism of repentance, and so far is he from

making such declarations, or forming such distinct opinions concerning

Jesus, that even after he has been cast into prison and just before his

death,--when in fact his preaching was at an end,--he is represented as

sending disciples to Jesus, on hearing in prison of his works, to ask

him: "Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?" (4) Jesus

carries on his ministry and baptizes simultaneously with John, according

to the fourth Gospel, but his public career, according to the Synoptics,

does not begin until after the Baptist's has concluded, and John is cast

into prison.(5) The Synoptics clearly

{453}

represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single

year,(1) and his preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem,

where his career culminates at the fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel

distributes the teaching of Jesus-between Galilee, Samaria, and

Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and refers to

three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.(2) The Fathers felt this

difficulty and expended a good deal of apologetic ingenuity upon it;

but no one is now content with the explanation of Eusebius, that the

Synoptics merely intended to write the history of Jesus during the one

year after the imprisonment of the Baptist, whilst the fourth Evangelist

recounted the events of the time not recorded by the others, a theory

which is totally contradicted by the four Gospels themselves.(3)

The fourth Gospel represents the expulsion of the money-changers by

Jesus as taking place at the very outset of his career,(4) when he could

not have been known, and when such a proceeding is incredible; whilst

the Synoptics place it at the very close of his ministry, after his

triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when, if ever, such an act, which might

have contributed to the final catastrophe, becomes conceivable.(5) The

variation from the parallels in the Synoptics, moreover, is exceedingly

instructive, and further indicates the amplification of a later writer

imperfectly acquainted with the circumstances. The

{454}

first and second Synoptists, in addition to the general expression

"those buying and selling in the Temple," mention only that Jesus

overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those

selling doves. The third Synoptist does not even give these particulars.

The author of the fourth Gospel, however, not only-makes Jesus expel the

sellers of doves and the moneychangers, but adds: "those selling oxen

and sheep." Now, not only is there not the slightest evidence that sheep

and oxen were bought and sold in the Temple, but it is obvious that

there was no room there to do so. On the contrary, it is known that the

market for cattle was not only distant from the Temple, but even from

the city.(1) The author himself betrays the foreign element in his

account by making Jesus address his words, when driving them all out,

only "to them selling doves." Why single these out and seem to exclude

the sellers of sheep and oxen? He has apparently forgotten his own

interpolation. In the first Gospel, the connection of the words of Jesus

with the narrative suggests an explanation: xxi. 12 "... and overthrew

the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats _of those selling doves,

and saith to them_, &c." Upon the occasion of this episode, the fourth

Gospel represents Jesus as replying to the demand of the Jews for a sign

why he did such things: "Destroy this temple, and within three days I

will raise it up," which the Jews understand very naturally only in

a material sense, and which even the disciples only comprehended and

believed "after the resurrection." The Synoptists not only know nothing

of this, but represent the saying as the false testimony which the false

witnesses bare

{455}

against Jesus.(1) No such charge is brought against Jesus at all in the

fourth Gospel. So little do the Synoptists know of the conversation of

Jesus with the Samaritan woman, and his sojourn for two days at Sychar,

that in his instructions to his disciples, in the first Gospel, Jesus

positively forbids them either to go to the Gentiles or to enter into

any city of the Samaritans.(2) The fourth Gospel has very few miracles

in common with the Synoptics, and those few present notable variations.

After the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus, according to the

Synoptics, constrains his disciples to enter a ship and to go to the

other side of the Lake of Gennesaret, whilst he himself goes up a

mountain apart to pray. A storm arises, and Jesus appears walking to

them over the sea, whereat the disciples are troubled, but Peter says to

him: "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee over the water," and

on his going out of the ship over the water, and beginning to sink, he

cries: "Lord save me;" Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and

when they had come into the ship, the wind ceased, and they that were in

the ship came and worshipped him, saying: "Of a truth thou art the

Son of God." (3) The fourth Gospel, instead of representing Jesus as

retiring to the mountain to pray, which would have been opposed to

the authors idea of the Logos, makes the motive for going thither the

knowledge of Jesus that the people "would come and take him by force

that they might make him a king."(4) The writer altogether ignores the

episode of Peter walking on the sea, and adds a new miracle by stating

that, as soon as Jesus was received on

{456}

board, "the ship was at the land whither they were going."(1) The

Synoptics go on to describe the devout excitement and faith of all

the country round, but the fourth Gospel, limiting the effect on the

multitude in the first instance to curiosity as to how Jesus had crossed

the lake, represents Jesus as upbraiding them for following him, not

because they saw miracles, but because they had eaten of the loaves

and been filled,(2) and makes him deliver one of those long dogmatic

discourses, interrupted by, and based upon, the remarks of the crowd,

which so peculiarly distinguish the fourth Gospel.

Without dwelling upon such details of miracles, however, we proceed

with our slight comparison. Whilst the fourth Gospel from the very

commencement asserts the foreknowledge of Jesus as to who should betray

him, and makes him inform the Twelve that one of them is a devil,

alluding to Judas Iscariot,(3) the Synoptists represent Jesus as having

so little foreknowledge that Judas should betray him that, shortly

before the end and, indeed, according to the third Gospel, only at the

last supper, Jesus promises that the disciples shall sit upon twelve

thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,(4) and it is only at the

last supper, after Judas has actually arranged with the chief priests,

and apparently from knowledge of the fact, that Jesus for the first

time speaks of his betrayal by him.(5) On his way to Jerusalem, two days

before the Passover,(6) Jesus comes to Bethany where,

{457}

according to the Synoptics, being in the house of Simon the leper, a

woman with an alabaster box of very precious ointment came and poured

the ointment upon his head, much to the indignation of the disciples,

who say: "To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold

for much, and given to the poor."(1) In the fourth Gospel the episode

takes place six days before the Passover,(2) in the house of Lazarus,

and it is his sister Mary who takes a pound of very costly ointment, but

she anoints the feet of Jesus and wipes his feet with her hair. It

is Judas Iscariot, and not the disciples, who says: "Why was not this

ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?" And Jesus

makes a similar reply to that in the Synoptics, showing the identity of

the occurrence described so differently.(3)

The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening of the

14th Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover with his

disciples,(4) and that he was arrested in the first hours of the

15th Nisan, the day on which he was put to death. Nothing can be more

distinct than the statement that the last supper was the Paschal feast.

"They made ready the Passover [------], and when the hour was come, he

sat down and the apostles with him, and he said to them: With desire I

desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" [------].(5)

The fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the principle which is

dominant throughout, represents the last repast

{458}

which Jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper [------], which

takes place, not on the 14th, but on the 13th Nisan, the day "before

the feast of the Passover" [------],(1) and his death takes place on the

14th, the day on which the Paschal lamb was slain. Jesus is delivered

by Pilate to the Jews to be crucified about the sixth hour of "the

preparation of the Passover" [------],(2) and because it was "the

preparation," the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus were broken,

that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the great day of the

feast.(3) The fourth Gospel totally ignores the institution of the

Christian festival at the last supper, but, instead, represents Jesus

as washing the feet of the disciples, enjoining them also to wash each

other's feet: "For I gave you an example that ye should do according

as I did to you."(4) The Synoptics have no knowledge of this incident.

Immediately after the warning to Peter of his future denial, Jesus goes

out with the disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane

and, taking Peter and the two sons of Zebedee apart, began to be

sorrowful and very depressed and, as he prayed in his agony that if

possible the cup might pass from him, an angel comforts him. Instead

of this, the fourth Gospel represents Jesus as delivering, after the

warning to Peter, the longest discourses in the Gospel: "Let not your

heart be troubled," &c; "I am the true vine,"(5) &c; and, although said

to be written by one of the sons of Zebedee who were with Jesus on the

occasion, the fourth Gospel does not mention the agony in the garden

but, on the contrary, makes Jesus utter the long

{459}

prayer xvii. 1--26, in a calm and even exulting spirit very far removed

from the sorrow and depression of the more natural scene in Gethsemane.

The prayer, like the rest of the prayers in the Gospel, is a mere

didactic and dogmatic address for the benefit of the hearers.

The arrest of Jesus presents a similar contrast. In the Synoptics, Judas

comes with a multitude from the chief priests and elders of the people

armed with swords and staves, and, indicating his Master by a kiss,

Jesus is simply arrested and, after the slight resistance of one of

the disciples, is led away.(1) In the fourth Gospel, the case is very

different. Judas comes with a band of men from the chief priests and

Pharisees, with lanterns and torches and weapons, and Jesus--"knowing

all things which were coming to pass"--himself goes towards them and

asks: "Whom seek ye?" Judas plays no active part, and no kiss is given.

The fourth Evangelist is, as ever, bent on showing that all which

happens to the Logos is predetermined by himself and voluntarily

encountered. As soon as Jesus replies: "I am he," the whole band of

soldiers go backwards and fall to the ground, an incident thoroughly

in the spirit of the early apocryphal Gospels still extant, and of an

evidently legendary character. He is then led away first to Annas, who

sends him to Caiaphas, whilst the Synoptics naturally know nothing of

Annas, who was not the high priest and had no authority. We need not

follow the trial, which is fundamentally different in the Synoptics and

fourth Gospel; and we have already pointed out that, in the Synoptics,

Jesus is crucified on the 15th Nisan, whereas in the fourth Gospel he is

put to death--the spiritual Paschal lamb--on the 14th Nisan. According

{460}

to the fourth Gospel, Jesus bears his own cross to Calvary,(1) but the

Synoptics represent it as being borne by Simon of Cyrene.(2) As a very

singular illustration of the inaccuracy of all the Gospels, we may point

to the circumstance that no two of them agree even about so simple a

matter of fact as the inscription on the cross, assuming that there was

one at all. They give it respectively as follows: "This is Jesus the

King of the Jews;" "The King of the Jews;" "This (is) the King of

the Jews;" and the fourth Gospel: "Jesus the Nazarene the King of

the Jews."(3) The occurrences during the Crucifixion are profoundly

different in the fourth Gospel from those narrated in the Synoptics. In

the latter, only the women are represented as beholding afar off,(4)

but "the beloved disciple" is added in the fourth Gospel, and instead

of being far off, they are close to the cross; and for the last cries

of Jesus reported in the Synoptics we have the episode in which Jesus

confides his mother to the disciple's care. We need not at present

compare the other details of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which are

differently reported by each of the Gospels.

We have only indicated a few of the more salient differences between the

fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, which are rendered much more striking,

in the Gospels themselves, by the profound dissimilarity of the

sentiments uttered by Jesus. We merely point out, in passing, the

omission of important episodes from the fourth

{461}

Gospel, such as the Temptation in the wilderness; the Transfiguration,

at which, according to the Synoptics, the sons of Zebedee were present;

the last Supper; the agony in the garden; the mournful cries on the

cross; and, we may add, the Ascension; and if we turn to the miracles

of Jesus, we find that almost all of those narrated by the Synoptics are

ignored, whilst an almost entirely new series is introduced. There is

not a single instance of the cure of demoniacal possession in any form

recorded in the fourth Gospel. Indeed the number of miracles is reduced

in that Gospel to a few typical cases; and although at the close it is

generally said that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his

disciples, these alone are written with the declared purpose: "that ye

might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."(1)

We may briefly refer in detail to one miracle of the fourth Gospel--the

raising of Lazarus. The extraordinary fact that the Synoptists are

utterly ignorant of this the greatest of the miracles attributed to

Jesus has been too frequently discussed to require much comment here.

It will be remembered that, as the case of the daughter of Jairus is,

by the express declaration of Jesus, one of mere suspension of

consciousness,(2) the only instance in which a dead person is distinctly

said, in any of the Synoptics, to have been restored to life by Jesus

is that of the son of the widow of Nain.(3) It is, therefore, quite

impossible to suppose that the Synoptists could have known of the

raising of Lazarus and wilfully omitted it. It is equally impossible to

believe that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, from whatever sources

they may have drawn their materials,

{462}

could have been ignorant of such a miracle had it really-taken place.

This astounding miracle, according to the fourth Gospel, created such

general excitement that it was one of the leading events which led to

the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus.(1) If, therefore, the Synoptics had

any connection with the writers to whom they are referred, the raising

of Lazarus must have been personally known to their reputed authors

either directly or through the Apostles who are supposed to have

inspired them, or even if they have any claim to contemporary origin

the tradition of the greatest miracle of Jesus must have been fresh

throughout the Church, if such a wonder had ever been performed.(2) The

total ignorance of such a miracle displayed by the whole of the works of

the New Testament, therefore, forms the strongest presumptive evidence

that the narrative in the fourth Gospel is a mere imaginary scene,

illustrative of the dogma: "I am the resurrection and the life," upon

which it is based. This conclusion is confirmed by the peculiarities of

the narrative itself. When Jesus first hears, from the message of the

sisters, that Lazarus whom he loved was sick, he declares, xi. 4: "This

sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of

God may be glorified thereby;" and v. 6: "When, therefore [------], he

heard that he was sick, at that time he continued two days in the

place where he was." After that time he proposes to go into Judaea, and

explains to the disciples, v. 11: "Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep;

but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." The disciples reply, with

the stupidity with which the fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold

colloquy with Jesus,

{463}

v. 12: "Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover. Howbeit, Jesus

spake of his death; but they thought that he was speaking of the taking

of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly: Lazarus is dead,

and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent that ye

may believe." The artificial nature of all this introductory matter will

not have escaped the reader, and it is further illustrated by that which

follows. Arrived at Bethany, they find that Lazarus has lain in the

grave already four days. Martha says to Jesus (v. 21 L): "Lord, if

thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. And I know that even now

whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee. Jesus saith

unto her: They brother shall rise again." Martha, of course, as usual,

misunderstands this saying as applying to "the resurrection at the last

day," in order to introduce the reply: "I am the resurrection and the

life," &c. When they come to the house, and Jesus sees Mary and the Jews

weeping, "he groaned in spirit and troubled himself," and on reaching

the grave itself (v. 35. f.), "Jesus wept: Then said the Jews: Behold

how he loved him!" Now this representation, which has ever since been

the admiration of Christendom, presents the very strongest marks of

unreality. Jesus, who loves Lazarus so much, disregards the urgent

message of the sisters and, whilst openly declaring that his sickness

is not unto death, intentionally lingers until his friend dies. When

he does go to Bethany, and is on the very point of restoring Lazarus

to life and dissipating the grief of his family and friends he actually

weeps and groans in his spirit. There is so total an absence of reason

for such grief at such a moment that these tears, to any sober reader,

are unmistakably mere theatrical adjuncts of a scene

{464}

elaborated out of the imagination of the writer. The suggestion of the

bystanders (v. 37), that he might have prevented the death, is not

more probable than the continuation (v. 38): "Jesus, therefore, again

groaning in himself cometh to the grave." There, having ordered the

stone to be removed, he delivers a prayer avowedly intended merely

for the bystanders (v. 41 ff): "And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said,

Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I knew that thou

hearest me always: but for the sake of the multitude which stand around

I said this, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." This prayer

is as evidently artificial as the rest of the details of the miracle

but, as in other elaborately arranged scenic representations, the charm

is altogether dispelled when closer examination shows the character of

the dramatic elements. A careful consideration of the narrative and of

all the facts of the case must, we think, lead to the conclusion that

this miracle is not even a historical tradition of the life of Jesus,

but is wholly an ideal composition by the author of the fourth Gospel.

This being the case, the other miracles of the Gospel need not detain

us.

If the historical part of the fourth Gospel be in irreconcilable

contradiction to the Synoptics, the didactic is infinitely more so. The

teaching of the one is totally different from that of the others, in

spirit, form, and terminology; and although there are undoubtedly fine

sayings throughout the work, in the prolix discourses of the fourth

Gospel there is not a single characteristic of the simple eloquence of

the Sermon on the Mount. In the diffuse mysticism of the Logos, we can

scarcely recognise a trace of the terse practical wisdom of Jesus of

Nazareth. It must, of course, be apparent even to the most superficial

{465}

observer that, in the fourth Gospel, we are introduced to a perfectly

new system of instruction, and to an order of ideas of which there is

not a vestige in the Synoptics. Instead of short and concise lessons

full of striking truth and point, we find nothing but long and involved

dogmatic discourses of little practical utility. The limpid spontaneity

of that earlier teaching, with its fresh illustrations and profound

sentences uttered without effort and untinged by art, is exchanged for

diffuse addresses and artificial dialogues, in which labour and design

are everywhere apparent. From pure and living morality couched in brief

incisive sayings, which enter the heart and dwell upon the ear, we turn

to elaborate philosophical orations without clearness or order, and to

doctrinal announcements unknown to the Synoptics. To the inquiry: "What

shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus replies, in the Synoptics:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy

soul, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself,... this do,

and thou shalt live."(1) In the fourth Gospel, to the question: "What

must we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answers, "This

is the work of God, that ye should believe in him whom he sent."(2) The

teaching of Jesus, in the Synoptics, is almost wholly moral and, in the

fourth Gospel, it is almost wholly dogmatic. If Christianity consist of

the doctrines preached in the fourth Gospel, it is not too much to say

that the Synoptics do not teach Christianity at all. The extraordinary

phenomenon is presented of three Gospels, each professing to be complete

in itself and to convey the good tidings of salvation to man,

{466}

which have actually omitted the doctrines which are the condition of

that salvation. The fourth Gospel practically expounds a new religion.

It is undeniable that morality and precepts of love and charity for

the conduct of life are the staple of the teaching of Jesus in the

Synoptics, and that dogma occupies so small a place that it is regarded

as a subordinate and secondary consideration. In the fourth Gospel,

however, dogma is the one thing needful, and forms the whole substance

of the preaching of the Logos. The burden of his teaching is: "He that

believeth on the Son, hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the

Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."(1) It

is scarcely possible to put the contrast between the Synoptics and

the fourth Gospel in too strong a light If we possessed the Synoptics

without the fourth Gospel, we should have the exposition of pure

morality based on perfect love to God and man. If we had the fourth

Gospel without the Synoptics, we should have little more than a system

of dogmatic theology without morality. Not only is the doctrine and the

terminology of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel quite different from

that of the Jesus of the Synoptics, but so is the teaching of John

the Baptist. In the Synoptics, he comes preaching the Baptism

of repentance(2) and, like the Master, inculcating principles of

morality;(3) but in the fourth Gospel he has adopted the peculiar views

of the author, proclaims "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of

the world,"(4) and bears witness that he is "the Son of God."(5) We

hear of the Paraclete for the first time in the fourth Gospel It is so

impossible to ignore the distinct individuality

{467}

of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, and of his teaching, that even

apologists are obliged to admit that the peculiarities of the author

have coloured the portrait, and introduced an element of subjectivity

into the discourses. It was impossible, they confess, that the Apostle

could remember verbally such long orations for half a century, and at

best that they can only be accepted as substantially correct reports of

the teaching of Jesus.(1) "Above all," says Ewald, "the discourses of

Christ and of others in this Gospel are clothed as by an entirely new

colour: on this account also scepticism has desired to conclude that the

Apostle cannot have composed the Gospel; and yet no conclusion is more

unfounded. When the Apostle at so late a period determined to compose

the work, it was certainly impossible for him to reproduce all the words

exactly as they were spoken, if he did not perhaps desire not merely

to recall a few memorable sentences but, in longer discussions of more

weighty subjects, to charm back all the animation with which they

were once given. So he availed himself of that freedom in their

revivification which is both quite intelligible in itself, and

sufficiently warranted by the precedent of so many great examples of

antiquity: and where the discourses extend to greater length, there

entered involuntarily into the structure much of that fundamental

conception and language regarding the

{468}

manifestation of Christ, which had long become deeply rooted in the

Apostle's soul. But as certainly as these discourses bear upon them the

colouring of the Apostle's mind, so certainly do they agree in

their substantial contents with his best recollections--because the

Spruchsammlung proves that the discourses of Christ in certain moments

really could rise to the full elevation, which in John only surprises us

throughout more than in Matthew. To deny the apostolical authorship

of the Gospel for such reasons, therefore, were pure folly, and in the

highest degree unjust. Moreover, the circumstance that, in the drawing

up of such discourses, we sometimes see him reproduce or further develop

sayings which had already been recorded in the older Gospels, can prove

nothing against the apostolical origin of the Gospel, as he was indeed

at perfect liberty, if he pleased, to make use of the contents of such

older writings when he considered it desirable, and when they came to

the help of his own memory of those long passed days: for he certainly

retained many or all of such expressions also in his own memory."(1)

Elsewhere, he describes the work as "glorified Gospel history," composed

out of "glorified recollection."(2)

Another strenuous defender of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel

wrote of it as follows: "Nevertheless, everything is reconcilable," says

Gfroerer, "if one accepts that testimony of the elders as true. For as

John must have written the Gospel as an old man, that is to say not

before the year 90--95 of our era, there is an interval of more than

half a century between the time

{469}

when the events which he relates really happened, and the time of the

composition of his book,--space enough certainly to make a few mistakes

conceivable, even presupposing a good memory and unshaken love of truth.

Let us imagine, for instance, that to-day (in 1841) an old man of

eighty to ninety years of age should write down from mere memory the

occurrences of the American War (of Independence), in which he himself

in his early youth played a part. Certainly in his narrative, even

though it might otherwise be true, many traits would be found which

would not agree with the original event. Moreover, another particular

circumstance must be added in connection with the fourth Gospel.

Two-thirds of it consist of discourses, which John places in the mouth

of Jesus Christ. Now every day's experience proves that oral impressions

are much more fleeting than those of sight. The happiest memory scarcely

retains long orations after three or four years: how, then, could John

with verbal accuracy report the discourses of Jesus after fifty or sixty

years! We must be content if he truly render the chief contents and

spirit of them, and that he does this, as a rule, can be proved. It has

been shown above that already, before Christ, a very peculiar philosophy

of religion had been formed among the Egyptian Jews, which found its way

into Palestine through the Essenes, and also numbered numerous adherents

amongst the Jews of the adjacent countries of Syria and Asia Minor. The

Apostle Paul professed this: not less the Evangelist John. Undoubtedly,

the latter allowed this Theosophy to exercise a strong influence upon

his representation of the life-history of Jesus,"(1) &c.

{470}

Now all such admissions, whilst they are absolutely requisite to

explain the undeniable phenomena of the fourth Gospel, have one obvious

consequence: The fourth Gospel, by whomsoever written,--even if it could

be traced to the Apostle John himself,--has no real historical value,

being at best the "glorified recollections" of an old man, written

down half a century after the events recorded. The absolute difference

between the teaching of this Gospel and of the Synoptics becomes

perfectly intelligible, when the long discourses are recognized to

be the result of Alexandrian Philosophy artistically interwoven with

developed Pauline Christianity, and put into the mouth of Jesus. It will

have been remarked that along with the admission of great subjectivity

in the report of the discourses, and the plea that nothing beyond the

mere substance of the original teaching can reasonably be looked

for, there is, in the extracts we have given, an assertion that there

actually is a faithful reproduction in this Gospel of the original

substance. There is not a shadow of proof of this, but on the contrary

the strongest reason for denying the fact; for, unless it be admitted

that the Synoptics have so completely omitted the whole doctrinal part

of the teaching of Jesus, have so carefully avoided the very peculiar

terminology of the Logos Gospel, and have conveyed so unhistorical and

erroneous an impression of the life and religious system of Jesus that,

without the fourth Gospel, we should not actually have had an idea of

his fundamental doctrines, we must inevitably recognize that the fourth

Gospel cannot possibly be a true reproduction of his teaching. It

is impossible that Jesus can have had two such diametrically opposed

systems of teaching,--one purely moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one

expressed in

{471}

wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long,

involved, and diffuse discourses; one clothed in the great language of

humanity, the other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology;--and

that these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the

Synoptics, on the one hand, and the fourth Gospel, on the other.

The tradition of Justin Martin applies solely to the system of the

Synoptics: "Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him: for he

was no Sophist, but his word was the power of God."(1)

We have already pointed out the evident traces of artificial

construction in the discourses and dialogues of the fourth Gospel, and

the more closely these are examined, the more clear does it become that

they are not genuine reports of the teaching of Jesus, but mere ideal

compositions by the author of the fourth Gospel. The speeches of

John the Baptist, the discourses of Jesus, and the reflections of the

Evangelist himself,(2) are marked by the same peculiarity of style and

proceed from the same mind. It is scarcely possible to determine where

the one begins and the other ends.(3) It is quite clear, for instance,

that the author himself, without a break, continues the words which he

puts into the mouth of Jesus, in the colloquy with Nicodemus, but it

is not easy to determine where. The whole dialogue is artificial in the

extreme, and is certainly not genuine, and this is apparent not only

from the replies attributed to the "teacher of Israel," but to the

irrelevant manner in which the reflections loosely ramble from the new

birth to the dogmatic statements in the thirteenth and following verses,

which are the never-failing resource of the

{472}

Evangelist when other subjects are exhausted. The sentiments and almost

the words either attributed to Jesus, or added by the writer, to which

we are now referring, iii. 12 ff., we find again in the very same

chapter, either put into the mouth of John the Baptist, or as

reflections of the author, verses 31--36, for again we add that it

is difficult anywhere to discriminate the speaker. Indeed, while the

Synoptics are rich in the abundance of practical counsel and profound

moral insight, as well as in variety of illustrative parables, it is

remarkable how much sameness there is in all the discourses of the

fourth Gospel, a very few ideas being constantly reproduced. Whilst

the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics is singularly universal and

impersonal, in the fourth Gospel it is purely personal, and rarely

passes beyond the declaration of his own dignity, and the inculcation of

belief in him as the only means of salvation. There are certainly some

sayings of rare beauty which tradition or earlier records may have

preserved, but these may easily be distinguished from the mass of the

work. A very distinct trace of ideal composition is found in xvii. 3:

"And this is eternal life, to know thee the only true God, and him whom

thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." Even apologists admit that it is

impossible that Jesus could speak of himself as "Jesus Christ." We need

not, however, proceed further with such analysis. We believe that no

one can calmly and impartially examine the fourth Gospel without being

convinced of its artificial character. If some portions possess real

charm, it is of a purely ideal kind, and their attraction consists

chiefly in the presence of a certain vague but suggestive mysticism. The

natural longing of humanity for any revelation regarding a future state

has not been

{473}

appealed to in vain. That the diffuse and often monotonous discourses

of this Gospel, however, should ever have been preferred to the grand

simplicity of the teaching of the Synoptics, illustrated by such

parables as the wise and foolish virgins, the sower, and the Prodigal

Son, and culminating in the Sermon on the Mount, each sentence of which

is so full of profound truth and beauty, is little to the credit of

critical sense and judgment.

The elaborate explanations by which the phenomena of the fourth Gospel

are reconciled with the assumption that it was composed by the Apostle

John are in vain, and there is not a single item of evidence within the

first century and a half which does not agree with internal testimony in

opposing the supposition. To one point, however, we must briefly refer

in connection with this statement. It is asserted that the Gospel and

Epistles--or at least the first Epistle--of the Canon ascribed to

the Apostle John are by one author, although this is not without

contradiction,(1) and very many of those who agree as to the identity of

authorship by no means admit the author to have been the Apostle John.

It is argued, therefore, that the use of the Epistle by Polycarp and

Papias is evidence of the apostolic origin of the Gospel. We have,

however, seen, that not only is it very uncertain that Polycarp made

use of the Epistle at all, but that he does not in any case mention its

author's name. There is not a particle of evidence that he ascribed the

Epistle, even supposing he knew it, to the

{474}

Apostle John. With regard to Papias, the only authority for the

assertion that he knew the Epistle is the statement of Eusebius already

quoted and discussed, that: "He used testimonies out of John's first

Epistle,"(1) There is no evidence, however, even supposing the

statement of Eusebius to be correct, that he ascribed it to the Apostle.

The earliest undoubted references to the Epistle, in fact, are by

Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, so that this evidence is of little

avail for the Gospel. There is no name attached to the first Epistle,

and the second and third have the superscription of "the Presbyter,"

which, applying the argument of Ewald regarding the author of the

Apocalypse, ought to be conclusive against their being written by an

Apostle. As all three are evidently by the same writer, and intended to

be understood as by the author of the Gospel, and that writer does not

pretend to be an Apostle, but calls himself a simple Presbyter, the

Epistles likewise give presumptive evidence against the apostolic

authorship of the Gospel.

There is another important testimony against the Johannine origin of the

fourth Gospel to which we must briefly refer. We have pointed out that,

according to the fourth Gospel, Jesus did not eat the Paschal Supper

with his disciples, but that being arrested on the 13th Nisan, he was

put to death on the 14th, the actual day upon which the Paschal lamb was

sacrificed. The Synoptics, on the contrary, represent that Jesus ate

the Passover with his disciples on the evening of the 14th, and was

crucified on the 15th Nisan. The difference of opinion indicated by

these contradictory accounts actually prevailed in various Churches, and

in the

{475}

second half of the second century a violent discussion arose as to the

day upon which "the true Passover of the Lord" should be celebrated, the

Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th

Nisan,--the day on which, according to the Synoptics, Jesus himself

celebrated the Passover and instituted the Christian festival,--whilst

the Roman Church as well as most other Christians,--following the fourth

Gospel, which represents Jesus as not celebrating the last Passover,

but being himself slain upon the 14th Nisan, the true Paschal lamb,--had

abandoned the day of the Jewish feast altogether, and celebrated the

Christian festival on Easter Sunday, upon which the Resurrection was

supposed to have taken place. Polycarp, who went to Rome to represent

the Churches of Asia Minor in the discussions upon the subject, could

not be induced to give up the celebration on the 14th Nisan, the day

which, according to tradition, had always been observed, and he appealed

to the practice of the Apostle John himself in support of that date.

Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus the statement of the case: "For neither

could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it (the 14th Nisan),

because he had ever observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and

with the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted."(1) Towards the

end of the century, Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, likewise appeals

to the practice of "John who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord," as

well as of the Apostle Philip and his daughters, and of Polycarp and

others in support of the same day: "All these observed

{476}

the 14th day of the Passover, according to the Gospel, deviating from it

in no respect, but following according to the rule of the faith."(l) Now

it is evident that, according to this undoubted testimony, the Apostle

John by his own practice, ratified the account of the Synoptics, and

contradicted the data of the fourth Gospel, and upon the supposition

that he so long lived in Asia Minor it is probable that his authority

largely contributed to establish the observance of the 14th Nisan there.

We must, therefore, either admit that the Apostle John by his practice

reversed the statement of his own Gospel, or that he was not its author,

which of course is the natural conclusion. Without going further into

the discussion, which would detain us too long, it is clear that the

Paschal controversy is opposed to the supposition that the Apostle John

was the author of the fourth Gospel.(2)

We have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence during

a century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth Gospel that

it was composed by the son of Zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the

strongest reason for believing that he did not write it. The first

writer who quotes a passage of the Gospel with the mention of his name

is Theophilus of Antioch, who gives the few words: "In the beginning

was the Word and the Word was with God," as spoken by "John," whom he

considers amongst the divinely inspired [------]

{477}

[------],(1) though even he does not distinguish. him as the Apostle.

We have seen the legendary nature of the late traditions regarding the

composition of the Gospel, of which a specimen was given in the defence

of it in the Canon of Muratori, and we must not further quote them.

The first writer who distinctly classes the four Gospels together is

Irenaeus; and the reasons which he gives for the existence of precisely

that number in the Canon of the Church illustrate the thoroughly

uncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight dependence which can

be placed upon their judgments. "But neither can the Gospels be more in

number than they are," says Irenaeus, "nor, on the other hand, can they

be fewer. For as there are four quarters of the world in which we

are, and four general winds [------], and the Church is disseminated

throughout all the world, and the Gospel is the pillar and prop of the

Church and the spirit of life, it is right that she should have four

pillars, on all sides breathing out immortality and revivifying men.

From which it is manifest that the Word, the maker of all, he who

sitteth upon the Cherubim and containeth all things, who was manifested

to man, has given to us the Gospel, four-formed but possessed by one

spirit; as David also says, supplicating his advent: 'Thou that

sittest between the Cherubim, shine forth.' For the Cherubim also are

four-faced, and their faces are symbols of the working of the Son of

God.... and the Gospels, therefore, are in harmony with these amongst

which Christ is seated. For the Gospel according to John relates his

first effectual and glorious generation from the Father, saying: 'In the

1 Ad Autolyc, ii. 22. Tischendorf dates this work about

a.d. 180. Wann wurden, a. s. w., p. 16, anm. 1.

{478}

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God,' and 'all things were made by him, and without him nothing was

made.' On this account also this Gospel is full of all trustworthiness,

for such is his person.(1) But the Gospel according to Luke, being as it

were of priestly character, opened with Zacharias the priest sacrificing

to God.... But Matthew narrates his generation as a man, saying: 'The

book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of

Abraham,' and 'the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise,' This Gospel,

therefore, is anthropomorphic, and on this account a man, humble and

mild in character, is presented throughout the Gospel. But Mark makes

his commencement after a prophetic Spirit coming down from on high unto

men, saying: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is

written in Isaiah the prophet;' indicating the winged form of the

Gospel; and for this reason he makes a compendious and precursory

declaration, for this is the prophetic character....

Such, therefore, as was the course of the Son of God, such also is the

form of the living creatures; and such as is the form of the living

creatures, such also is the character of the Gospel. For quadriform

are the living creatures, quadriform is the Gospel, and quadriform the

course of the Lord. And on this account four covenants were given to the

human race.... These things being thus: vain and ignorant and, moreover,

audacious are those who set aside the form of the Gospel, and declare

the aspects of the Gospels as either more or less than has been

said."(2) As such principles of criticism presided

1 The Greek of this rather unintelligible sentence is not

preserved. The Latin version reads as follows: Propter hoc

et omni fiducia plenum est Evangelium istud; talis est enim

persona ejus.

{479}

over the formation of the Canon, it is not singular that so many of the

decisions of the Fathers have been reversed. Irenaeus himself mentioned

the existence of heretics who rejected the fourth Gospel,(1) and

Epiphanius(2) refers to the Alogi, who equally denied its authenticity,

but it is not needful for us further to discuss this point. Enough has

been said to show that the testimony of the fourth Gospel is of no value

towards establishing the truth of miracles and the reality of Divine

Revelation.

END OF VOL. II.