M

namesake by frequently calling the latter 'the Baptist' (more than a dozen times in all). The Fourth Evangelist never does so; to him the Baptist is simply 'John.' He himself being the other John, there is for him no chance of confusion, and it does not occur to him to mark the distinction.

iii. Answers to objections.

We are now on too firm ground to be shaken by isolated difficulties. It would take a great many difficulties of detail to counterbalance the difficulty of believing that the Fourth Gospel was written by some one who was neither an Apostle nor even a contemporary. But there are certain difficulties supposed to be involved in the theory that the Evangelist is S. John the Apostle, some of which are important and deserve a separate answer. They are mainly these ;

(1) The marked dissimilarity between the Fourth Gospel and the three others.

(2) The marked dissimilarity between the Fourth Gospel and the Revelation.

66

(3) The difficulty of believing that S. John (a) would have 'studiously elevated himself in every way above the Apostle Peter;” (b) would have magnified himself above all as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.'

(4) The use made by S. Polycarp of S. John's authority in the Paschal controversy.

(1) The answer to the first of these objections will be found below in Chapter VI. of the Introduction, and in the introductory note to Chapter iii. of the Gospel.

(2) The answer to the second belongs rather to the Introduction to the Apocalypse. The answer to it is to a large extent a further answer to the first objection; for "the Apo calypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel" (Westcott). Great as are the differences between the Revelation and the Gospel, the leading ideas of both are the same. The one gives us in a magnificent vision, the other in a great historic drama, the supreme conflict between good and evil and its issue. In both Jesus Christ is the

central figure, whose victory through defeat is the issue of the conflict. In both the Jewish dispensation is the preparation for the Gospel, and the warfare and triumph of the Christ is described in language saturated with the O. T. Some remarkable similarities of detail will be pointed out in the notes (see on i. 14; xi. 44; xix. 2, 5, 13, 17, 20, 37). The difference of date will go a long way towards explaining the difference of style.

(3 a) The question, "How could S. John have studiously elevated himself in every way above the Apostle Peter?' reminds us of the famous question of Charles II. to the Royal Society. The answer to it is that S. John does nothing of the kind. S. Peter takes the lead in the Fourth Gospel as in the other three. His introduction to Christ and significant naming stand at the very opening of the Gospel (i. 41, 42); he answers in the name of the Twelve (vi. 68); he is prominent if not first at the feet-washing (xiii. 6); he directs S. John to find out who is the traitor (xiii. 24); he takes the lead in defending his Master at the betrayal (xviii. 10); the news of the Resurrection is brought to him first (xx. 2); his companion does not venture to enter the sepulchre until he has done so (xx. 6—8); he is mentioned first in the list of disciples given xxi. 2, and there takes the lead (xxi. 3); he continues to take the lead when Jesus appears to them (xxi. 7, 11); he receives the last great charge, with which the Gospel concludes (xxi. 15-22).

(b) To suppose that the phrase 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' implies self-glorification at the expense of others is altogether to misunderstand it. It is not impossible that the designation was given to him by others before he used it of himself. At any rate the affection of the Lord for him was so well known that such a title would be well suited for an oblique indication of the author's personality. Besides thus gently letting us behind the scenes the phrase serves two purposes: (1) it is a permanent expression of gratitude on the part of the Evangelist for the transcendent benefit bestowed upon him; (2) it is a modest explanation of the prominent part which he was called upon to play on certain occasions. Why

was he singled out to be told who was the traitor (xiii. 23)? Why was the care of the Lord's mother entrusted to him (xix. 26)? Why was he allowed to recognise the Lord at the sea of Tiberias (xxi. 7) before any of the rest did so? The recipient of these honours has only one explanation to give: Jesus loved

him.

(4) In the controversy as to the right time of keeping Easter S. Polycarp defended the Asiatic custom of keeping the Christian Passover at the same time as the Jewish Passover, viz. the evening of the 14th Nisan, "because he had always (so) observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he associated" (Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 16). On this ground he refused to yield to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, though he did not require Anicetus to give way to him. But, as we shall see (Appendix A), the Fourth Gospel clearly represents the Crucifixion as taking place on the 14th Nisan, and the Last Supper as taking place the evening before. Therefore, either Polycarp falsely appeals to S. John's authority (which is most improbable), or the Fourth Gospel is not by S. John. But this objection confuses two things, the Christian Passover or Easter, and the Last Supper or institution of the Eucharist. The latter point was not in dispute at all. The question debated was whether the Christian Churches in fixing the time of Easter were to follow the Jewish Calendar exactly or a Christian modification of it. S. Polycarp claimed S. John as sanctioning the former plan, and nothing in the Fourth Gospel is inconsistent with such a view. Schürer, who denies the authenticity of the Gospel, has shewn that no argument against the authenticity can be drawn from the Paschal controversy.

CHAPTER III.

THE PLACE AND DATE.

Tradition is unanimous in giving Ephesus as the place where S. John resided during the latter part of his life, and where the

Fourth Gospel was written. There is no sufficient reason for doubting this strong testimony, which may be accepted as practically certain.

There is also strong evidence to shew that the Gospel was written at the request of the elders and disciples of the Christian Churches of Asia. We have this on the early and independent authority of the Muratorian Fragment (c. A.D. 170) and of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 190); and this is confirmed by Jerome. No doubt S. John had often delivered the contents of his Gospel orally; and the elders wished before he died to preserve it in a permanent form. Moreover, difficulties had arisen in the Church which called for a recasting of Apostolic doctrine. The destruction of Jerusalem had given altogether a new turn to Christianity: it had severed the lingering and hampering connexion with Judaism; it had involved a readjustment of the interpretations of Christ's promises about His return. Again, the rise of a Christian philosophy, shading off by the strangest compromises and colouring into mere pagan speculation, called for a fresh statement, in terms adequate to the emergency, and by a voice sufficient in authority, of Christian truth. There is both external and internal evidence to shew that a crisis of this kind was the occasion of the Fourth Gospel.

The precise date cannot be determined with certainty. There are indications in the Gospel itself that it was written late in the author's life time. In his narrative he seems to be looking back after a long lapse of time (vii. 39, xxi. 19). And as we study it, we feel that it is the result of a larger experience of God's Providence and of a wider comprehension of the meaning of His Kingdom than was possible at the time when the other Evangelists, especially the first two of them, wrote their Gospels. All this induces us to place the date of the Fourth Gospel as late as possible; and tradition (as we have seen in Chap. 1) represents S. John as living to extreme old age. S. John would not begin to teach at Ephesus until some time after S. Paul left it, i.e. not much before A.D. 70. If Irenaeus is right in saying that S. Luke's Gospel was not written till after the death

S. JOHN

3

of S. Peter and S. Paul (Haer. III. i. 1), this would again place the writing of the Fourth Gospel considerably later than A.D. 70. It is not improbable that the first twenty chapters were written a considerable time before the Gospel was published, that the last chapter was added some years later, and then the whole given to the church (see introductory note to chap. xxi.). S. John may have lived almost if not quite to the end of the century; therefore from A.D. 80 to 95 would seem to be the period within which it is probable that the Gospel was published.

Those who deny that S. John is the author have tried almost every date from A.D. 110 to 165. Dividing this period into two, we have this dilemma:-If the Gospel was published between 110 and 140, why did not the hundreds of Christians, who had known S. John during his later years, denounce it as a forgery? If it was not published till between 140 and 165, how did it become universally accepted by 170?

CHAPTER IV.

THE OBJECT AND PLAN.

i. The Object.

These two subjects, the object and the plan, naturally go together, for the one to a large extent determines the other : the purpose with which the Evangelist wrote his Gospel greatly influences the form which it assumes. What that purpose was he tells us plainly himself: 'These have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name' (xx. 31). His object is not to write the life of Christ; if it were, we might wonder that out of his immense stores of personal knowledge he has not given us a great deal more than he has done. Rather, out of these abundant stores he has made a careful and self-denying selection with a view to producing a particular effect upon his readers, and by means of that effect to open to them an inesti