CHAPTER I: AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND DATE AT WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.

AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND DATE AT WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.

WHAT has been said in Part I. contributes a very great deal towards the decision of the question, By whom and at what date was the Fourth Gospel composed? But it may be pointed out that all this was based solely on one definite view of the contents of the Gospel, and that besides this another is possible according to which the contents thoroughly deserve to be believed, have no connection with Gnosticism, or were directed against it--and so forth. Far more certain, we are told, are statements of men belonging to the oldest Christian times, who were still in a position to know the exact answer to our question. It will be seen whether they are more certain. In any case, we must hear what they are. __________________________________________________________________

1. PAPIAS' TEACHER IN EPHESUS: JOHN THE ELDER.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote about 185, and nearly all the Christian writers of later date are unanimous in saying that the Fourth Gospel was composed by the Apostle John, who lived in Ephesus during about the last third of the first century and took a leading position in the eyes of all the Christian communities in the West of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, who must have been born about 140, in his early youth stayed at the house of the aged Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in Asia Minor, who died in the year 156, and he often heard him speak of his teacher John. He adds that Papias also, the companion of Polycarp, who was afterwards bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, was a hearer of the Apostle John.

But the latter statement is a mistake. Eusebius, the author of the first History of the Church (ob. 340) has in an earlier work simply repeated it from Irenaeus; in the History, however, which was written later, he has corrected it and, in proof of his right to do so, appeals to Papias own words in a work which, apart from this quotation, has been almost entirely lost. We shall give this memorable passage in order to show how a documentary statement may prove the incorrectness of extremely important ideas which have not been doubted by any one for centuries. Papias' book contained, as we know from its title, "Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord" Jesus. In the Introduction Eusebius found the following: "I shall not hesitate to gather up for you, with the expositions (belonging to the same), as well all that I once learnt well from the mouths of the elders and committed well to memory, I myself guaranteeing the truth of it. . . . But whenever any one came who had enjoyed intercourse with the elders, I inquired (firstly) about the sayings of the Elders, (as to) what Andrew or Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord (said), and (secondly) what Aristion and John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord, say."

Quite a number of important inferences may be drawn from this. (1) Papias gathered his information partly from the persons whom he calls "the Elders," partly from their disciples. (2) The Greek word which we render "the Elders" is presbyter. We cannot use this Greek word itself, because it would be understood to mean, as it does still in the Reformed Churches, leaders of a Christian community. But such an office is no guarantee that its holder could give what Papias needed--reliable memoranda of the Life of Jesus based as far as possible on personal observation; such a guarantee could only be given by persons of great age. Papias was born about 70; even if he began to collect his information at twenty years of age, the people who could tell him anything which they had learned by experience from their association with Jesus--that is to say, about the year 30--must have been already well advanced in years. (3) Jesus twelve apostles would have been the proper people to have spoken to, but Papias did not speak to any of these. It would really be very unnatural for him to wish on his own part to guarantee for the first time the truth of what he had heard from such all-important persons. But, besides this, he expressly tells us that he inquired about the sayings of the Elders from companions of the Elders--inquired as to what Andrew and the six others first mentioned said, and what Aristion and John the Elder say. It is clear that only these two were still alive when Papias gathered his information, and that those who are mentioned before them were no longer living. But these are actually seven of Jesus twelve Apostles; and there can be no idea of his having spoken personally to any of the five others, since he would not in that case under any consideration have failed to mention it. (4) We must therefore distinguish four stages: the twelve Apostles whom Papias no longer knew, the elders whom he still knew, their disciples, and lastly Papias himself. (5) Papias distinguishes between two persons with the name John: the Apostle and the person whom he calls "John, the Elder." Both belong to the "disciples of the Lord," but each in a different sense. The Apostle was a constant disciple of Jesus; the other was not; in fact, it may be that he only heard Jesus a few times in his early youth. When the first century came to an end, and the persons who could boast of a personal acquaintance with Jesus died out, it became easier for the title of honour, "disciple of the Lord," to be applied to one who, strictly speaking, little deserved it. (6) Papias may very well have known this second John. This need not be doubted on the ground that he inquired about his sayings of other persons; this only became necessary when he himself could no longer speak to him, either because he was living in a remote place or because he had died. In all probability Papias wrote his work between 140 and 160. At that time the John who had seen Jesus could certainly no longer be living; he may very well have lived during Papias youth.

We must assume with the greater certainty that Papias really knew him, because Irenaeus says that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John, and yet, according to his own statements, he no longer knew the Apostle. Here then we have the confusion of which Irenaeus was guilty: Papias certainly had a John as his teacher; this, however, was not the Apostle, but John the Elder. __________________________________________________________________

2. POLYCARP'S TEACHER IN EPHESUS: JOHN THE ELDER.

The confusion might appear harmless. It affects Papias merely; but the man with whom we are concerned, who told the young Irenaeus about his former teacher, the Apostle John, was Polycarp. But why does Irenaeus call Papias a companion of Polycarp, unless it be because both of them in their early youth had the same teacher? Both lived in Asia Minor, and when they were young there was only one John in Asia Minor. It was left for a Christian writer in the third century to note that there were statements about both John the Apostle and John the Elder which indicated Ephesus as their dwelling-place; and because he knew of no other way of adjusting these, he was obliged to think that the two men lived there simultaneously. But no one belonging to the earlier period has any knowledge of this, and it is clear from our records, every one of which knows only of one head of the Christian Church in Asia Minor, that there was no room for the two men at the same time. Irenaeus must therefore have been as much mistaken about Polycarp's teacher as about the teacher of Papias; and Polycarp was the disciple of John the Elder, not of the Apostle. __________________________________________________________________

3. THE APOSTLE JOHN NOT IN EPHESUS.

Another thing that lends the strongest support to this conclusion is the fact that none of the Christian writers before Irenaeus knows anything of a stay of the Apostle John in Asia Minor; and yet this same John, who on the occasion of the meeting of Paul with the original apostles at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1-10 and Acts xv.) appears by the side of Peter and James (the brother of Jesus) as one of the three pillars of the first community, is one of the most important persons in primitive Christianity.

We will point to one fact only. When Paul took fare well of those who presided over the community at Ephesus (Acts xx. 29), he prophesied that after his departure fierce wolves would force a way in and would not spare the flock. This farewell address was not actually so delivered by Paul, but was composed by the author of the Acts (between about 105 and 130) in accordance with his own ideas a liberty which every ancient historian took with the speeches of his heroes, and which no one thought wrong, seeing that the most famous of the Greek historians, Thucydides (about 400 B.C.), expressly declares (I. xxii.
1) that he followed this plan in his work because it would have been an impossibility to have reported the exact words of the speeches as delivered. But how could the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who was as full of a feeling of veneration for the original apostles as he was for Paul, have introduced into Paul's speech so unfriendly an utterance about his successors, if he had any idea that the most important and influential of these was the Apostle John? But, further, if it be supposed that Paul actually made the utterance, without, of course, having any idea of the person of his successor, how could the author incorporate it in his book, and thus seriously impede his own main purpose--that of showing the unanimity subsisting between Paul and the original disciples--instead of quietly ignoring it, as he does so much that is unfavourable to the original apostles and their adherents (so we learn from the Epistles of Paul; e.g., Gal. ii. 11-21; i. 6 f.; vi. 12 f.)? __________________________________________________________________

4. CONFUSION OF THE TWO JOHNS.

But, as a boy, Irenaeus often heard Polycarp himself speak of his teacher John; how, then, can a mistake have been possible as to which John was meant? Well, the riddle explains itself. Both Johns were "disciples of the Lord." As a rule, Polycarp only needed to say, "my teacher John, the disciple of the Lord," and the young Irenaeus only too easily made the mistake of supposing that he meant the apostle, who was perhaps the only John of whom he had so far heard. In fact, Irenaeus himself says regularly in his book, when he means the Apostle John, as we have just conjectured that Polycarp did, "the disciple of the Lord," whereas for Paul he always uses the expression "Apostle."

Once a mistake of the kind had arisen, the statement would be believed only too readily. The community in a city thought it a great honour to have been founded by an apostle, or led by one for some time. In the second century the idea grew up that the bishop of a community must have been consecrated to his office through the laying-on of hands either by an apostle or by a bishop who had received his own consecration at the hands of an apostle. It was thought that the capacity to fill the office of bishop, the so-called "charisma of office," could be transferred from one person to another only through this laying-on of hands by a consecrated person, and the first of such a series must always be an apostle. Thus it was naturally of the greatest importance to be able to show that in the past an apostle himself laboured in the community. Every one believed that he attended to the consecration of his successor; otherwise doubts might arise as to whether a bishop was properly consecrated.

We must not suppose that the confusion by which Ephesus was given an apostle, instead of one who was not an apostle, as the leader of the community is an isolated case. In the Acts of the Apostles (vi. 5) we find included among the seven almoners of the community at Jerusalem a Philip who, according to xxi. 8 f., was an evangelist, that is to say, a missionary, and had four daughters who were endowed with the gift of prophecy. At the end of the second century this same Philip was identified with Philip the Apostle. Thus Hierapolis, where he is supposed to have stayed at the end of his life, was provided with an apostle as the head of the community. __________________________________________________________________

5. EARLY DEATH OF THE APOSTLE JOHN (IN PALESTINE).

Where then, if it was not he but John the Elder who led the Church of Asia Minor in Ephesus, did John the Apostle live, and why are we not told another word about his fate since the meeting in Jerusalem we have mentioned (Gal. ii. 1-10)? As regards this also Papias gives us information, but this time in another sentence of his book which became known to scholars only a few years ago: "John, the man of God, and his brother James were killed by Jews." We are also told this about James in the Acts of the Apostles (xii. 2); he was executed at Jerusalem in the year 44 by Herod Agrippa I. Of the John who was head of the Church in Ephesus we know the contrary: there is no other record but this, that he died a natural death at a great age. But there is really no contradiction here, if we realise that this was a different John from John the Apostle. Besides, in Ephesus, where the Jews were closely watched by a foreign power, they would hardly have dared to lay hands on the bishop of the Christian community. It would be quite different if the Apostle John, whom, as we learn from the story of Papias, they killed, lived in Pales tine. And as a matter of fact at the meeting with Paul (about 52) mentioned above, he, as well as Peter and James (the brother of Jesus), declared this intention: they wished to go as missionaries to the Jews (Gal. ii. 9).

Only, we must beware of misunderstanding the words of Papias as if he meant that John and his brother James were killed at the same time. If that were so, it would certainly be impossible to understand why only the death of James is reported in the Acts of the Apostles. But besides this, the idea that they died together does not suit the words of Papias. No one has ever said that John the Baptist was killed by Jews; every one says, by Herod Antipas (Mk. vi. 17-29). Similarly, if Papias had meant to say that the two brothers had perished at the same time and on the same pretext he would have said: they were killed by Herod Agrippa 1. When he says, instead of this, "by Jews," it is most natural to suppose that John at least perished in such a way that no such notable person as a prince could be referred to as the author of his death. The sooner we can suppose the death of John to have taken place after the year 52, the easier it is to understand, on the one hand, why we do not hear more of his work, and, on the other, how the John in Ephesus, alongside of him, could become so prominent that in the end he was confused with him. __________________________________________________________________

6. RESULT AS FAR AS THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS CONCERNED.

The result as far as the Fourth Gospel is concerned is as follows. The earlier the apostle died, the less easy it is to think that he wrote the Gospel. It is almost universally admitted that the first three Gospels were completed before the fourth; and of these the third at least was not composed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 (provisionally we confine ourselves to a statement the truth of which is recognised almost on all hands). But even if we do not suppose that the Apostle died early, he cannot be regarded as the author of the Gospel because, as we have seen, he did not live in Ephesus. The Christian writers who look upon him as the author do not say that the Apostle composed it, no matter where he lived, but they say, "the John who was head of the Church of Asia Minor wrote it," so that the Apostle may be held to be the author of the Gospel only if we can think of him as living in Ephesus. If he lived elsewhere, we cannot say that these writers regarded him as the author; for by the John who in their opinion wrote the Gospel, they always mean the John in Ephesus. Accordingly, their "testimony" to the effect that the Apostle was the author is evidence, rather, that some one else was the author. __________________________________________________________________

7. THE TESTIMONY OP THE BELOVED DISCIPLE.

But what about the author's own testimony? Does he not himself say that he is the Apostle? This is surely a curious question! When a matter is to be decided in other fields--when, for instance, the origin of extra-canonical books is in question, or a trial is being held--scant consideration indeed is paid to the personal testimony of the person involved; but here forsooth this is to be decisive, and all arguments against it, however plausible, are to be ignored. This is to take for granted--is it not?--what, strictly speaking, should first be proved, that a person whose book has been included in the Bible cannot have said anything incorrect.

But let us hear what this testimony is. The author nowhere refers to the name John as being his own. The superscription "Gospel according to John" is not due to him, but was first added when several Gospels were put together in one book. [7] Neither, however, does he ever refer to the Apostle John by this name. But he has him in mind when he says that after the arrest of Jesus, "Simon Peter and another disciple "followed him to the Palace of the High Priest (xviii. 15), and that "Peter and the other disciple "went to the grave of Jesus (xx. 1-10). Here he writes more fully (xx. 2), "Simon Peter, and that other disciple whom Jesus loved," and the simple description, "one of the disciples whom Jesus loved," is found already in xiii. 23, where it is said that at Jesus' last supper he "reclined in Jesus bosom"; finally, we learn from xix. 26, that "the disciple whom he loved" stood with Jesus mother at the foot of the cross.

In this circumlocution we see, it is said, the delicate and sensitive way in which the Apostle John hinted that he was the author of the Gospel, without expressly saying so. In reality, if he did this, he would have shown himself to be an incredibly presumptuous person. Jesus surely loved all his disciples! If the author had said of himself, "the disciple whom Jesus specially loved," we could not acquit him of presumption, even though this were really the case; but he says outright, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," as if he loved him alone. It is not really doing the Apostle any honour to insist that he must have described himself in this way. On the other hand, it is quite easy to understand that one of his devoted admirers may have so described him. But if we examine further all that is told us about the beloved disciple--the story, in particular, of his race with Peter to the grave of Jesus is so incredible (p. 133 f.) that we cannot imagine it to have been committed to writing by an eyewitness. And so here again this "testimony" of the author to the effect that he is the Apostle becomes evidence, rather, that some one else was the author. __________________________________________________________________

[7] The words are "Gospel according to John," not "Gospel of John"; similarly, "Gospel according to Mt., according to Mk., according to Lk." But this does not mean that such a gospel was written by another man with the help of communications from the person specially named. The word "Gospel" in these cases means, rather, "Account of the Life of Jesus," and the superscription means therefore "the Gospel History as composed by Mt., Mk., Lk., or Jn." __________________________________________________________________

8. FURTHER WITNESS OF THE AUTHOR TO HIMSELF
(Jn. xix. 35).

The most characteristic instance of the author testifying to himself--an instance in which there is a real idea of bearing testimony--is held to be that in xix. 34 f.: "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side (the side of the crucified Lord), and straightway there came out blood and water; and he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." We must remember here that we were told in verse 26 that the beloved disciple stood at the foot of the cross; it is he therefore who is meant when reference is made to one who saw the flowing of blood and water. But is it he himself who pens the words?

Searching inquiries have been instituted as to whether, in speaking of himself in Greek, any one could say "he." But this is not the point. Once the Apostle had begun by saying, instead of "I," "he that hath seen," there was no other way to continue than by saying "he." So that the question is: When the writer says "he that hath seen," does he mean himself? This in itself would be quite possible, if he wished to avoid the use of "I." Throughout the whole description of his wars (58-48 B.C.), Julius Caesar has never said "I did this and that," but always "Caesar did this and that." But, if he wished to express himself similarly, it would have been far more correct for the Fourth Evangelist to say: "he that hath seen it, bears witness" (now, as he writes it down). The expression, "he hath borne witness" would be far more appropriate if the observer of what occurred told it orally and another person recorded it in writing afterwards. Yet according to Greek Syntax the expression might also mean: he wishes (hereby) to have testified; and in this case it is still possible that what we read in this passage was written down by the observer.

It is decisive here that blood and water cannot by any means have flowed separately from Jesus' wound so soon after his death (it was at most two hours, but probably much less; see p. 127). It is therefore doing no honour to the Apostle to insist that he is here bearing personal testimony. On the other hand, we can very well under stand a later writer, who had been orally assured that it really happened, noting it down in good faith.

We should add further, that in any case the flowing of water and blood has some deeper mysterious meaning. It was a common Christian belief that the blood of Jesus shed at his death was the means of bringing salvation to man kind. Now, the individual Christian can partake of the blood of Jesus in the Supper, and is reminded of the redemption which has through his blood been granted to men. And water is used in baptism for the purpose of initiating people into communion with those who have been redeemed by the death of Jesus. Accordingly, the idea that the two things which are necessary for the most important and holy of the Christian ceremonies came into being at the death of Jesus is an ingenious one. We can easily imagine that a preacher may have expressed the idea in a veiled form, just as was done, if we have conjectured rightly (p. 113 f.), in the case of the story of Lazarus, and that some one in the audience jumped to the conclusion that it might be recorded as an actual fact that blood and water flowed from Jesus wound. __________________________________________________________________

9. NO DECEPTION IN WRITING UNDER PSEUDONYMS.

If what we have said indicates that it was not the Apostle, but another who wrote the passage which speaks of testifying to the blood and water, and at the same time wrote the whole Gospel, we do not of course know as yet whether he wishes to be regarded merely as the reporter of the testimony of a greater person, or whether he wishes it to appear that he himself is this greater person, this eye witness. Even one who at the outset does not hold the Biblical writers in particularly high esteem, will readily be inclined to find the second supposition unthinkable, be cause it would imply such an amount of dishonesty as there is no reason to ascribe to the Evangelist, whose style is simple and candid.

But, as regards this matter, people quite ignore the fact that in those days it was not considered wrong to compose a writing in the name of another person. Among the Greeks and Romans it was quite common for disciples to publish their works, not under their own name, but under that of their masters; and we can see in what light this was regarded, from the philosopher Iamblichus (about 300 A.D.), for example, who was one of the followers of Pythagoras. We know even at the present time of a list of sixty writings which have been fathered upon Pythagoras and other old masters amongst his successors; and Iamblichus expressly praises the later disciples of Pythagoras, because they have sacrificed their own fame and given all the glory to their masters.

As regards Christian writers, the story of the leader of a Church in Asia Minor, who published the history of Paul and Thecla in the second century under the name of the Apostle Paul, is specially instructive. When he was reproached for doing so, he replied that he did it out of love for Paul; and Tertullian, the Church writer and jurist at Carthage (about 200), who tells us about it, does not think of charging him with it as a sin, but only makes fun of him for his incapacity in the words: "as if his work could do anything to increase the fame of Paul." The man was deposed, not however because he had been guilty of anything that we should call a forgery, but because he said in his book that Thecla came forward to teach in public and baptized herself by jumping into a ditch filled with water in view of death by wild beasts in the Circus. Both things were contrary to the regulations of the Church (on the first see 1 Cor. xiv. 34, "Let the women keep silence in the churches"). They were not allowed; but there was no offence in the publication of a writing in the name of another person.

This way of looking at the matter makes it very easy for us to understand how so many of the books of the New Testament were composed in the name of Paul, of Peter, of James, &c. And strange as it may appear, we must thoroughly accustom ourselves to it. To show that this suggests itself even to a quite orthodox theologian, we will quote an utterance by Professor Kahnis of Leipzig, who died in 1888. "If the fifth book of Moses is not by Moses, it is by an impostor, says Dr. Hengstenberg. To whom does Dr. Hengstenberg say this? Every one who has been to a classical school knows that there are a great number of writings in classical literature which are ascribed to persons with famous names, and that specialists do not think there was any deception in the practice." As regards the Second Epistle of Peter, even very conservative theologians now admit that it was written one hundred and twenty or more years after Jesus' death, although, in speaking of Jesus transfiguration, its author assures us, quite as if he were the Apostle Peter (i. 18): "and this voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven, when we were with him on the holy mount." Why then should the same thing not have happened in the case of the Fourth Gospel?

Thus we need not shrink from crediting the author of the Fourth Gospel with the wish to have his book regarded as the work of the Apostle himself. We have, however, no absolutely definite ground for saying so. The matter remains obscure. And perhaps it was meant to remain obscure. The testimony we have been examining could, as a matter of fact, hardly have been framed in a more enigmatic way than in the terms, "and his witness is true, and he knoweth that he saith true." It is possible therefore that the author, though he did not wish to say expressly that his book was the work of the Apostle, had no objection to people believing so. Even when he says in i. 14 "the Logos became flesh . . . and we beheld his glory", it is not certain whether he means with our bodily eyes (which, in view of what we have said above, would not need to be regarded as a fraudulent assertion), or whether he wishes to imply that those who were not privileged to do this saw his glory with their spiritual vision by means of the stories of Jesus' life, and of the blessings which proceeded from him even after his death. __________________________________________________________________

10. CHAPTER XXI AN APPENDIX FROM ANOTHER PEN.

We could not, it is true, seriously impute this obscurity to him, if the twenty-first chapter were due to the same author. But this is not the case. For the same concepts quite different words are used here from those found in the first twenty chapters. The appearance of the risen Lord in chapter xxi. (14) is said to be the third; but three others have already been mentioned in chapter xx. Peter is a fisher, as in the Synoptics (Mk. i. 16), whereas Jn. (i. 35-41) knows him only as a disciple of the Baptist. But, most important of all, in chapter xxi. Peter appears in a much more favoured light than before; he even receives the commission to feed Jesus sheep, that is to say, to guide the Church, and is told that he is likely to have the honour of dying a martyr's death. The beloved disciple, on the other hand, who has always taken precedence of him in chapters i.-xx. (xiii. 24; xviii. 16; xix. 26; xx. 2-10), in chapter xxi. (22-24) has to content himself with a humbler role: he is promised a long life, and is given the task of writing the Gospel. This striking recognition of Peter is in all likelihood due to the fact that offence had been taken because in chapters i.-xx. he was made subordinate to the beloved disciple. Peter had already won high esteem in the Christian Church, especially at Rome, and the friends of the author of the Gospel must have feared, or, as we shall see shortly, must have found, that for this reason the book was gaining slight recognition. One of them therefore decided to reckon with these circumstances by adding an appendix.

And because the Gospel had gained such slight recognition, he took occasion at the same time, in the appendix which he added, to assure its readers once more that the author was the famous John. This he does (xxi. 24) with more clearness and emphasis than the author himself: "this (that is to say, the long-lived beloved disciple) is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true." We? Who? Here we have a hint that the author of the appendix has perhaps been commissioned by a whole number of the party of the Evangelist to write, or at least writes to voice their sentiments and to promote the idea that the Gospel was composed by the beloved disciple and for that reason deserves to be trusted absolutely. But his very zeal has been the means of discrediting him in the eyes of a serious critic. A witness, whose evidence must itself be witnessed to in turn, cannot seem a very trustworthy person. __________________________________________________________________

11. THE REAL PICTURE OF JOHN THE APOSTLE.

After all these "witnesses" on the part of badly informed writers, of the author himself and of his friends who have intervened on his behalf, it is at length time to seek for some point from which we can learn better who wrote the Fourth Gospel. What information have we then in the New Testament about the Apostle John which is really reliable? We must not of course turn to the Fourth Gospel for our answer. The most certain thing is the record of Paul, that John was one of the three pillars of the Community in Jerusalem, and wished to confine his missionary activity to the Jews (see pp. 174 and 177), the reason being no doubt that, if he held intercourse with the Gentiles, he would violate the Old Testament commandments about foods, cleanness, &c., which he thought ought still to be observed. This does not harmonise well with the fact that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus calls the Law a "Law of the Jews" and feels that he is quite superior to it. Further, the whole view of the world here, familiar as it is with the ideas of the greatest Greek thinkers, and the boldness with which, following the example of Gnosticism, all that is traditional is swept away--all this, which we have found in the Gospel, suits no one so little as this man who had remained stationary and simply persisted in holding the standpoint of the Old Testament. Add to this that according to Mk. i. 19 he was a fisherman, and according to Acts iv. 13 a man without learning and culture. Nor is this altered by the fact that he, with his brother James and with Peter, was one of the most intimate companions of Jesus in the circle of the twelve disciples (Mk. v. 37; ix. 2; xiv. 33). __________________________________________________________________

12. MISTAKES AS TO THE CONDITION OF THINGS IN PALESTINE.

One who writes under an assumed name often betrays himself by having false ideas of the places or institutions of the country in which he claims to be living. As far as places are concerned, it cannot be shown with success that Jn. does this. But, as regards institutions, he has been led to make as great a mistake as it is possible to imagine. By telling us twice (xi. 49, 51, and xviii. 13) that Caiaphas was "high priest that year" he assumes that the office changed hands every year. As a matter of fact, the high priest held the office for life, and, although it happened not infrequently that one was deposed, there was never any question of a yearly vacation of office. This of course is a fact which would have been as well known to a contemporary of Jesus in Palestine, as the fact that the office of Emperor is hereditary is to a German of to-day. In face of a mistake on such a matter, how can we attach importance to the knowledge of places in the country, which could easily be acquired even one hundred years after the events with which they are associated? __________________________________________________________________

13. JOHN THE ELDER NOT THE WRITER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

May we therefore speak of John the Elder in Ephesus as the author of the Fourth Gospel? Support for this might, as a matter of fact, be found in the consideration that Irenaeus and his successors virtually supposed this, even though they believed that this John in Ephesus was the Apostle. But the assumption will not bear closer examination. If he was a disciple of Jesus, and consequently a man whose home was in Palestine, he ought to have known more about the tenure of the high-priest's office. But, above all, his standpoint was hardly less Jewish-Christian than that of the Apostle. In fact when Polycarp (see p. 173), who was a former disciple of his, visited Rome towards the end of his life (154 or 155), and found that Easter was fixed at a quite different time (the time at which we still fix it) from that of Asia Minor, where he lived, he appealed to the practice of John (and others). In Asia Minor what, according to the Jewish Calendar, was always the 14th Nisan was duly celebrated, not in memory of the death of Jesus--as the Fourth Gospel would require (p. 118)--but of the institution of the Supper a practice which conflicts with the Fourth Gospel, and is, as a matter of fact, supported by a special appeal to Mt. The John who shared this practice as leader of the Church of Asia Minor cannot have written the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, this would be equally true of John the Apostle if he had been the leader of the Church of Asia Minor. __________________________________________________________________

14. WHAT KIND OP PERSON WAS THE FOURTH EVANGELIST?

If this means that we must give up the idea of naming some well-known person as the author, we are, nevertheless, very well able to form a clear idea of the writer of the Fourth Gospel. In seeking to do so, we have come back, after making a long circuit, to our starting-point, for we have to consult the Gospel itself. To have been able to write such a book, the author must have been one of the leading spirits of his age. He was familiar with the best that the Greek mind and the religions of the whole world known to people of those days had produced. His own mind was liberal enough to soar to the realm of these ideas, and to refuse to allow itself to be cramped by anything traditional. He knew how to gather into a common reservoir all the streams of thought that flowed towards him from the most diverse sources. His great object was to use all for the glorification of Jesus as he conceived him. Even Gnosticism, the most dangerous movement of his time, was well known to him--so much so that he had made many of its ideas his own. But he recognised the danger in it and did all in his power to overcome it, without giving up anything in Gnosticism which was really lofty and emancipating.

His chief pattern was Philo, and he perhaps had some thing else in common with him in the fact that he was of Jewish extraction. If he had not been, he would hardly have attached so much importance to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies (see p. 128 f.), and would hardly have made Jesus say "salvation is of the Jews" (iv. 22). He cannot of course have received his wide culture in Palestine. Accordingly, we must seek his home outside of this country, and preferably in a great city which would gather up all the wisdom of the known world. Ephesus would suit the requirements admirably, and if the Gospel came into existence here, it would be very easy for it to be ascribed to a person who had taken a very prominent position in the city at an earlier date, John the Elder whether or not it was done in such a way that he was sup posed to be the Apostle. Ephesus will suggest itself again when we inquire into the origin of the "Revelation" of Jn.; and in itself it is rather likely that all the five writings which are supposed to have been composed by John the Apostle would have come into existence amongst the same circle of men of kindred spirit, and so in one and the same locality. But we cannot rely upon all these considerations, nor need we think it important to be able to say where the Gospel was written. __________________________________________________________________

15. DATE AT WHICH THE FOURTH GOSPEL WAS COMPOSED.

More pressing is the question, When did it come into existence? And, as regards this, we must of course look once more for statements outside the Gospel. When were the first three Gospels written, which, by almost general agreement, were all known to the writer of the Fourth? If we may voice our own conviction, it would suffice to say that the Third Gospel cannot have come into existence until about the year 100, because the author was well acquainted with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus who composed his chief work in the year 93 or 94. Others, who place the Gospel of Lk. (and so the Gospels of Mk. and Mt. also) earlier, think that, when this estimation is taken into consideration, the Gospel of Jn. may have been composed as early as about the year 100. But here again we have to remember that the Gnosticism with which the Fourth Evangelist is familiar, and which he vigorously opposes, did not force its way into the Christian communities until about the year 100. We learn this from Hegesippus, who wrote his "memorials" about the year 180, and as he was of a great age was still able to afford correct information on the matter. Jn., on the other hand, already had to do with a more developed form of Gnosticism (p. 205). Only, he does not seem to be acquainted with the forms which appeared after about the year 140. __________________________________________________________________

16. THE APOSTLE IS NOT MENTIONED AS THE AUTHOR UNTIL AFTER THE YEAR 170.

The most important and decisive point is to know from what date we have reliable external evidence, as we say, concerning the Fourth Gospel; in other words, statements by writers which imply that they knew the book as the work of such and such an author, or at least that they wrote out passages from him, so that there can be no mistake that they really had the book lying before them. This, in fact, is the point on which those who claim that the Gospel was composed by John the Apostle have staked everything. Many of them have undertaken no less a task than to prove by such external testimony that the author ship has been placed so much beyond doubt that it is not permissible even to take into consideration the counter arguments drawn from other considerations, for instance from an examination of the Gospel itself.

Unfortunately it is quite impossible here to go into this point with all the thoroughness that is really required. If we thought of doing so, we should have to give verbatim an almost endless number of passages from all the writers of the second century, in order to enable the reader to decide whether or not they betray a knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. We should be obliged, further, in the case of all these writers to state when they wrote, or rather, since in most cases the matter is not certain, to make inquiry and try to fix the most likely date. Ten years earlier or later here mean a very great difference. Finally, we should be obliged to find out their habits: whether to a greater or less extent they incorporate in their works passages from other books; whether they are accustomed to do this exactly word for word or merely from memory; whether they state regularly from what book they draw, or simply write down the words without saying that they have borrowed them; whether they use books which we no longer possess. All this may be important when it is a question whether a passage in their writings which resembles one in the Fourth Gospel is taken from this or not. Instead of going into all these troublesome and wearisome questions, it must suffice here to state the results briefly, and to show by a few examples how they have been attained.

First then we have to establish the fact that before the year 170 no writer can be found who ascribes the Fourth Gospel to John the Apostle. As regards this matter, we must note further that the year 170 is the very earliest that can be specified, for the statement we have in mind that belongs to this time reads simply: as to the day of Jesus' death "the Gospels seem to be at variance." The name, therefore, of John the Apostle is not mentioned. But it is clear from the words that this writer (Claudius Apollinaris) puts the Fourth Gospel, which introduces the variance (for the first three are quite agreed; see p. 118 f.), on the same level as the others. __________________________________________________________________

17. VALUE OF THESE "EXTERNAL EVIDENCES."

But if from this date it is almost generally regarded as the work of the Apostle, in order to be able to determine the value of this assertion, we must know in the first place the general idea which leading persons of the time had of the books of the New Testament.

On this point Irenaeus (about 185) is specially instructive. To prove that there are just four true Gospels (there were still many others in existence), he points to the fact that there are four quarters of the world and four winds; since, then, the Church is scattered over the whole earth and the Gospel constitutes its pillar and support and the spirit of its life, it is appropriate that the pillars which on all (four) sides blow upon it with the airs of imperishability should be four in number--in other words, the four Gospels. Such was the idea of so distinguished a person as Irenaeus; when it was a question of deciding whether the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Apostle, he took his stand on the fact that the quarters of heaven and the chief winds are four in number. To understand how he could do this while speaking of the spirit of life, as well as of the winds, we must be aware that in Greek "wind "and "spirit "are represented by the same word (pneuma). So that by means of a play upon words, to sustain which he has further to think of pillars (i.e., the Gospels) as blowing, he is prepared to decide a question of such great importance. Surely we are justified in practically ignoring the proof which a person of this stamp brings forward to show that such and such a person was the author of a book in the New Testament.

But we will take a few more cases as tests of the care fulness of Irenaeus and those of his contemporaries who agreed with him in claiming that the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Apostle; they will serve to test their critical powers as well. Irenaeus regards the James who is said in Acts xv. to have been present at the already-mentioned (p. 174) meeting with Paul as one of the three pillars of the Church at Jerusalem as that brother of John and personal disciple of Jesus whose execution has been recorded three chapters further back (xii. 2). In the Gospel of Lk. again he thinks that the discourses of the Apostle Paul concerning the Life of Jesus are committed to writing just as those of Peter are in the Gospel of Mk.--and this in spite of the fact that Paul never met Jesus, and continued to persecute the Christians even after Jesus' death. Dealing with the question of eternal happiness, Irenaeus is able to tell us that there will be vines with 10,000 stems, on each stem 10,000 branches, on each branch 10,000 shoots, on each shoot 10,000 clusters, on each cluster 10,000 berries, and that every berry will yield 900 to 1000 litres of wine. The most important point, however, is not the size of these vines, but Irenaeus statement, that Jesus himself prophesied this; the aged men whom he so often mentions had told him so, and had added that they had heard it from John the Apostle. And this Irenaeus believes, although he assures us so emphatically that this same person wrote the Fourth Gospel which makes Jesus appear so superior to all such expectations.

Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned and most venerated teachers in the Church (about 200), quotes as an utterance of the Apostle Paul(!) the words, "take also the Greek books, read the Sibyl and see how it reveals one God and the future, and read Hystaspes, and you will find in them the Son of God described much more clearly." Hystaspes was the father of Darius, the Persian king who reigned from 521 to 485 B.C. The words of Clement give us some idea of the kind of fabrication that was put forth in his name. The credulous Clement also quotes the book of Zoroaster of Pamphylia in which he recorded after his resurrection all that had been taught him in the under world by the gods. The jurist Tertullian (about 200) is able to tell us that in the official account of Jesus condemnation which Pilate sent to the Emperor Tiberius, he mentioned, amongst other things, the eclipse of the sun at the time of Jesus' death, the guarding of the sepulchre, the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension, and that in his inmost convictions he was already a Christian. If Tertullian is not giving free rein to his imagination here, but has used some book ("Acts of Pilate"), we shall be glad to think that the author of it was a Christian.

But enough. We can see clearly the kind of people we have to deal with when the witnesses in support of the usual statements about the origin of the New Testament books are brought forward. Instead of insisting so emphatically that the fact that the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Apostle is already borne witness to by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and others, it ought in truth to be said that no one did so until they bore witness to it--or, rather, asserted it. __________________________________________________________________

18. THE GOSPEL NOT USED BEFORE 140.

Of rather a different nature are the cases in which passages from the Fourth Gospel are merely cited without its being said who wrote them. As regards these, it can be shown that before the year 140 there is evidence of none to which we have strict right to appeal. Sayings and expressions which resemble some in this Gospel, are indeed found in Christian writings after about the year 100 not infrequently. But it is a very strange idea that this resemblance must always be accounted for by supposing that the writers had read the Fourth Gospel. Because the Gospel has first made us acquainted with these sayings and expressions, there is no need to suppose that the circum stances were the same as early as about the year 100. On the contrary, why may not the Fourth Evangelist have been acquainted with the writings in question? Or, to mention a suggestion which in many cases is more likely, the discourses of the travelling teachers of the times, of whom there were very many, may have given currency to a number of catchwords, phrases, and whole sentences, which became the common property of all more or less cultured Christians. No one could say where he first heard them. Any one who wrote a book made use of them without suspecting that the question from what other book he took them would ever be asked. It may be that the Fourth Evangelist availed himself of them, and stamped them with his own particular genius; and we of the present day may easily be misled into supposing that he must have been the first to coin them, and that all other writers who use them must have written subsequently.

It is particularly easy to think this when a whole sentence is in question, which contains in itself an independent and important thought. We have an example in Jn. xiv. 2, "in my Father's house (that is to say, in heaven) are many mansions." Those people of great age to whom Irenaeus often appeals, have handed down to him as a saying of Jesus the words, "in my Father's domains are many mansions." Besides this, we learn from Jn. alone (xiv. 2) that Jesus made this statement, and the conclusion is drawn that the "elders" also can only have become acquainted with it from the Gospel. And since they have been referred to by Irenaeus as people who speak not from a more recent age, but from their own recollection of the distant past, the Gospel must already have been in existence at a very early date. This is a typical example of the kind of proof it is not permissible to use. We refrain from reckoning with the possibility that Jesus may really have made the statement, and that the elders were just as likely as the Fourth Evangelist to have learned it orally. But in their case, as well as that of Jn., the belief may also have grown up erroneously that he made the statement. This assertion would then have been repeated, and so finally have found its way into the Fourth Gospel. It was certainly the kind of saying that was likely to have been passed on from mouth to mouth, for it contains the comforting assurance that after one's death one might look forward with certainty to finding a refuge in heaven. Another indication that the saying became current in this way may be found in the fact that the versions in Jn. and Irenaeus are not word for word identical. __________________________________________________________________

19. USED WITHOUT RECOGNITION IN THE YEARS 140-170.

Most noteworthy are the writers between the specified years 140 and 170, who really cite passages from the Fourth Gospel, but do not say who composed it. The most important is Justin, who wrote about 152 and was subsequently martyred. From the Synoptics he introduces over one hundred passages, but from Jn. only three, and these are so far from following Jn.'s language exactly that in every case it can be thought that he took them from another book, and that the Fourth Evangelist may have done the same. We assume, however, that Justin took them from Jn.'s work. But why, then, are there so few, and why is nothing said about this work being the composition of a personal disciple of Jesus? Referring to the "Revelation" of Jn., he says positively that it was composed by the Apostle; but he says nothing about the Gospel. And yet he attaches so much importance to the "memorials of the Apostles and their companions," as he calls the Gospels; and shares with the Fourth the doctrine of the Logos. We can only understand this on one supposition: Justin did not consider the Fourth Gospel to be the work of the Apostle. In that case, it must in his age still have been quite new; otherwise it would long ago have won general recognition. Obviously Justin finds in it some passages which are beautiful and worth mentioning, but, compared with the rich use made of the Synoptics, he uses it with great caution, and almost with hesitation. __________________________________________________________________

20. CONCLUSION AS TO THE "EXTERNAL EVIDENCES."

When therefore we sum up the results of our examination of the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel, we find that the lesson it teaches is the opposite of what those who believe that it was written by the Apostle think it ought to teach. Instead of proving that this was written very early, it proves that it was composed at a very late date. If the work in question were that of an obscure person, we can perhaps understand that it may have been in existence for decades without attracting attention or gaining recognition. But think of it! A work by the disciple whom Jesus loved! And, besides, a work containing disclosures of such paramount importance! It could not have failed to be greeted on its first appearance with the greatest joy, and to be greedily devoured; we could not fail to find an echo of it in all Christian writers. Instead of that, from the date at which it must have been published by the Apostle, that is to say, at latest from 90-100, until 140, there is not one certain instance of the use of the book; we do not find the Apostle recognised as the author until after 170, and in the meantime we do find it clearly realised that it was not by him. Indeed, we have to add further that after 160 or 170 it was positively stated by some who were good Churchmen, and later by the Presbyter Gaius in Rome at the beginning of the third century, to have been composed by a heretic. The result therefore of examining the external evidence means that we cannot place the origin of the Gospel earlier than very shortly before the first appearance of this evidence, and so very shortly before 140. __________________________________________________________________

21. MENTION OF BAR COCHBA S INSURRECTION IN JN. v. 43 .

Let us now return to a consideration of the Gospel itself, and ask whether we cannot really get the best information as to the date at which it was composed in the same way that we have obtained it in considering the questions who was its author, and whether the work is reliable. Here then our attention is arrested by Jesus' words to the Jews in v. 43, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." In the year 132 Simon, having taken the name Bar Cochba, came forward, proclaimed himself the Messiah, and became among the Jews the leader of a fanatical rising against the Roman rule, with the result that in the year 135 the Jewish nation finally lost its in dependence. The Christians, as we can well understand, declared against the new Messiah from the first, and in consequence were fiercely persecuted so long as he retained any power. If the Fourth Evangelist had had experience of all this, may he not have thought that it would be under stood and would make an impression if he put into Jesus mouth a prophecy of these events? In that case he would have written between 132 and 140. If it had not been that for other reasons we have already been led to assign the composition of his book to about this date, we might not have had the boldness to appeal to this passage; but, such being the case, we seem to be really justified in doing so. __________________________________________________________________

22. THE FOURTH GOSPEL NOT THE WORK OF SEVERAL AUTHORS.

We have reserved a question for discussion last, which, it might be thought, ought to have been dealt with first. Can it be that the Fourth Gospel is not by one and the same author? If not, whenever any assertion is made with regard to the author, it must of course be stated very care fully to what part it refers. But the question is not of serious importance. We have mentioned that the story of the woman taken in adultery (vii. 53-viii. 11) and chap. xxi. are later additions (pp. 39 and 186 f.; see also p. 209). But this does not make the least difference to our explanation of the Gospel as a whole.

The case would be altered, only if we were obliged to partition the first twenty chapters in large part between two or more authors. The attempt to do this as a rule rests upon the supposition that one half is due to a trust worthy historian and an eye-witness, the other to a badly informed contributor. In an earlier part of this volume (p. 110 f.), we have already realised how far such assumptions are from making anything contained in the Gospel really credible. But in conclusion we will try to show the contradictions in which people involve themselves when they make a division of the kind.

One of the most recent of these attempts explains that the eye-witness Peter, whose record Mk. preserves in his Gospel, tells us that on the last evening of Jesus' life he celebrated the Supper with his disciples; and the eye-witness John that he washed their feet. Peter therefore knew nothing of the washing, and John nothing of the Supper. The eye-witness Peter--we are told further as regards--Jesus' idea of the judgment of the world, preserved the record that it would begin for all men on one and the same day at the end of the world; the eye-witness John recorded that for those who believed in Jesus it would never take place (v. 24), and it is the badly informed contributor who has added the version in v. 28 f. which agrees with the statement of Peter. The eye-witness Peter, we are told, finally, left a record which suggests that .Jesus never betrayed that he was conscious of having lived a life with God in heaven before his earthly life; the eye-witness John is able to tell us that Jesus said "before Abraham was, I am," "Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (viii. 58; xvii. 5); and he wrote in the Prologue the sentences in which Jesus is described as the Logos who was with God before the be ginning of the world. In face of such contradictions, it is really no use bringing forward passages here in which the context is said to have been interrupted by some intervention on the part of the contributor. We have already found out the carelessness of the Evangelist (pp. 76-78, 81-83) and it sufficiently explains the contradictions which appear in his book, even if no one else helped to compose it. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________