CHAPTER I.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
