YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE divinity/school THE AUTHORSHIP AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. THE AUTHORSHIP AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL Considered in Reference to the Contents of the Gospel itself A CRITICAL ESSAY WILLIAM SANDAY, M.A. FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD MACMILLAN AND CO. 1872 OXFORD: By T. Combe, M.A., E. B. Gardner, and E. Pickard HaU, PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. IF THIS BOOK DESERVE A DEDICATION, IT SHALL BE TO THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF TRINITY COLLEGE, WHO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE KINDEST OF FRIENDS TO ME, AND FROM WHOSE CLOSER SOCIETY I AM NOW UNWILLINGLY PARTING. PREFACE. In looking back over this first attempt in the diffi cult and responsible field of theology, I am forcibly reminded of its many faults and shortcomings. And yet it seems to be necessary that these subjects should be discussed, if only with some slight degree of adequacy. I cannot think that it has not been without serious loss on both sides, that in the great movement that has been going on upon the continent for the last forty years, the scanty band of English theologians should have stood almost entirely aloof, or should only have touched the outskirts of the questions at issue, without attempting to grapple with them at their centre. It is not for me to presume to do this : but I wish to approach as near to it as I can and dare ; and it has seemed to me that by beginning upon the critical side and taking a single question in hand at a time I might be not altogether unable to contribute to that, perhaps far-off, result, which will only be ob tained by the co-operation of many men and many minds. There is no limit to the efficacy of scientific method if it is but faithfully and persistently applied. If we could but concentrate upon theological questions a small. part of that ability arid that activity which is b2 viii PREFACE. devoted in this country to practical pursuits, I have little doubt that in a quarter or half a century the whole position of theology, and with it necessarily of belief and practical religion, would be very differ ent from what it is now. In the meantime it is of importance that isolated historical or critical questions should be dealt with, and that we should either come to some definite con clusion respecting them, or else at least see how far a definite conclusion is attainable. Until the facts of history and criticism are ac curately determined, speculative systems are but castles in the air. Even if a non-religious system of philosophy should be destined ultimately to pre vail, it will still have to give some account of religious phenomena, and must therefore know exactly, or with as much exactness as possible, what those phe nomena are. The facts of religion (i. e. the documents, the history of religious bodies, the phenomena of con temporary religious life, &c.) are as much facts as the lie of a coal-bed or the formation of a coral reef. And, if the ' record is defective,' that is no excuse for throwing the whole problem aside as insoluble. A reasonable man will enquire how far the record is defective, what portions of the problem are insoluble, what conclusions are probable, what others may be said to reach that degree of probability which in practical matters is called certainty, and what are the legitimate and necessary inferences from them. I propose, if I am permitted, and the judgment of critics on the present volume should at all warrant me in proceeding, to carry on the same method of enquiry, first, to investigate the origin and compo- PREFACE. ix sition of the Synoptic Gospels, and finally, to the subject of New Testament theology. With each of these topics I have already in the course of the present enquiry been more or less brought into contact, and upon both I have had to accept provisional conclusions. With regard to the Synoptists these have been taken from the elaborate work of Dr. Holtzmann (Die Sy- noptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863). It should be remembered that Dr. Holtzmann does not stand alone, but that for the greater portion of his results (e. g. as to the documentary origin of the Synoptic Gospels, the priority of St. Mark, the existence of two main documents, and the independent use of them by the Evangelists) he has the support of a majority of the best critics during the last ten or fifteen years, including among these Weizsacker, Meyer, Ritschl, Weiss, Wittichen, and practically also the veteran Ewald. These conclusions I accept temporarily, but I hope to be able to approach the subject myself with sufficient independence. On points of theology the reader will observe, per haps, a certain ambiguity of language. When the time comes I hope that this may be removed. But at present I have thought it best to adhere as nearly as possible to the language of Scripture, introducing a minimum of inference or comment, until the various data have been subjected to a closer analysis and more thorough co-ordination. Those who are acquainted with the subject will find little in this work, at least in the shape of general lines of thought and argument, that can lay claim to be considered new. Indeed, so thorough x PREFACE. have been the labours of German critics that I doubt whether any entirely new element in the discussion is possible. If there is anything at all distinctive in the following pages, it will be found, perhaps, partly in the analysis of the discourses, partly in the attempt to consider the several hypotheses as to the author ship of the Gospel from a point of view that may be called psychological^ i. e. constantly with reference to what in the supposed position of the author would be psychologically natural and probable. I cannot but think that through neglecting to do this, writers of great ability, like M. Wittichen, and also perhaps in a less degree Dr, Weizsacker, have been led into con clusions which must really be seen to be untenable. In conclusion, I would only remind the reader that the object of the present essay is critical, and nothing more. My endeavour has been to state the facts plainly and sincerely, and to draw the critical in ferences from them with sobriety and care. Beyond this I have not gone, nor could I have attempted to go, without greatly miscalculating my own powers and fitness. But the work bf criticism is necessary, and must be done; though in itself it is obviously incomplete. For its completion different and higher gifts are needed. And I shall be well content to wait for the time, when — non sine afflatu divino — a wor thier hand shall be found to build either upon this or upon some other foundation. PREFACE. XI I have experienced so much difficulty arid incon venience myself from not knowing the edition, date, &c, of works referred to, that I have thought it well to give a roughly-classified list of those which I have principally used, at the risk of drawing attention to its incompleteness. My object has been, not to write an exhaustive commentary upon the Gospel, but merely to determine two points — its authorship and historical character. And in order to do this, it has seemed enough to take certain representative works, so far as possible the best and latest in their respec tive schools. I would gladly do what I could to remedy any serious omission that might be pointed out to me ; but I can hardly think that anything will have been overlooked by which the balance of the argument generally would be altered. A few brief notes are added in explanation of the position and characteristics of those writers who will be less well known in England. I. Writers who maintain the Johannean authorship and complete authenticity of the Gospel : — Alford, Dr. H. — Commentary on the Greek Testa ment. Vol. i. sixth edition, Cambridge, 1868. Caspari, Dr. C. E. — Chronologisch-geographische Einleitung in das Leben Jesu Christi. Hamburg, 1869. Dr. Caspari (who must not be confounded with the Professor of Theology at Christiania) dates from Geu- dertheim, in Alsace, and apparently belongs to the Gallo-German school of Strasburg. He would seem, however, to hold more closely to the traditional posi tion than other members of that school, such as xii PREFACE. Reuss, Nicolas, Colani. His ' Chronological and Geo graphical Introduction ' is a clear and careful treatise, which often throws new light on the subject discussed, and is especially valuable for Talmudic illustrations. .Ellicott, Bp. — Hulsean Lectures on the Life of Our Lord. Third edition, London, 1862. Westcott, Professor, B.F. — Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, third edition, London and Cambridge, 1867. Wieseler, Dr. Karl. — Synopsis of the Four Gospels, translated by the Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A., Cam bridge, 1864 (the original appeared in 1843). Beitrage zur richtigen Wiirdigung der Evangelien und der Evangelisch en Geschichte. Gotha, 1869. This work is a supplement to the preceding one ; in the main elabo rately maintaining, but in some instances retracting, the views previously held. The value of Dr. Wieseler's labours is already well known to the English public, both through his translator and also through the Hulsean Lectures of Bp. Ellicott, pp. 143 n, 244 n. There are few works that more deserve to be inscribed with the German motto, ' Fleiss und Treue.' In this class also may be placed, with slight quali fication : — Luthardt, Dr. C.E. — Das Johanneische Evangelium. Nurnberg, 1852. To this writer also Dr. Ellicott has paid a merited tribute of praise, Huls. Lect. p. 31, n. Dr. Luthardt's is not in a special sense the work of either a scholar, a critic, or a theologian ; but every where shows signs of thought and care. PREFACE. xiii II. Writers who maintain Johannean or mediate Johannean authorship and qualified authenticity, in the first degree : — Bleek, Dr. F. — Einleitung in das Neue Testament, herausgegeben von Johannes Friedrich Bleek. Zweite Auflage, Berlin, 1866. The work of the late illustrious Professor at Bonn, now translated in Clark's series. I only regret that I am not in a position to refer to the work in which Dr. Bleek has dealt specially with many questions arising out of the Fourth Gospel, 'Beitrage zur Evangelien-Kritik,' published in 1846. The results, however, seem to be given in the ' Ein leitung' in sufficient detail. Liicke, Dr. F. — Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes. Dritte Auflage, Bonn, 1843. It is un necessary to say that this work, the author of which died in 1855, is still one of the undisputed classics of Biblical criticism ; although, when it is compared with the last edition of Meyer's Commentary, we see in some respects the advance which must be made merely by time. Meyer, Dr. H. A. W. — Kritisch-exegetisches Hand buch iiber das Evangelium des Johannes. Fiinfte Auflage, Gottingen, 1869. The second part of the Commentary on the New Testament. My admiration for this masterly commentary daily increases. It is a perfect mine of valuable matter of every kind — in scholarship and exegesis unrivalled. Dr. Meyer is bold in statement, perhaps almost to the verge of dogmatism : but there is something refreshing in the vigour and precision which results from this, and it is far better for the student of theology that he should xiv PREFACE. know precisely from what he has to differ, than that he should find himself in the midst of vague expressions with which he may possibly be able to agree. My own obligations to Dr. Meyer are very great. Orr, James. — The Authenticity of John's Gospel deduced from Internal Evidences, with Answers to Objections. London, 1870. Holding a place somewhat ambiguous between this and the next class is Ewald, Dr. H. — Die Johanneischen Schriften iiber- sezt und erklart. Erster Band, Gottingen, 1861. Dr. Ewald needs no commendation to an English or to any public. I had read the introductory portion of his work before beginning to write, but was accident ally prevented from consulting it while writing. Hence the references will be found to be somewhat less fre quent than they should be. III. Writers maintaining mediate or immediate Johannean authorship and qualified authenticity, in the second degree : — Renan, M. E. — Vie de Jesus. Treizieme Edition, Paris, 1867. (See p. 4, n.) I will only add that the thirteenth edition generally has been largely added to and improved, and quite supersedes all former ones. Weizsacker, Dr. C. — Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung. Gotha, 1864. Dr. Weizsacker is, I believe, a professor at Tubingen, but is not identi fied with the school which takes its name from that University. He is one of the editors of a well-known PREFACE. xv review, representing moderate Liberalism in theology, the 'Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologie.' The present work is a fine example of grave, dispassionate, able investigation. Wittichen, M. C. — Der geschichtliche Charakter des Evangeliums Johannis in Verbindung mit der Frage nach seinem Ursprunge. Elberfeld, 1868. A terse and able little work, but encumbered by paradoxes. M. Wittichen's view is that the Gospel was written by St. John, who, however, never left Syria, and retained to the last his Jewish stand-point. In the Gospel he seems to think that real and ideal elements are mixed in almost equal proportions. As it is beside my pre sent purpose to discuss the criticism of the Ephesian tradition, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to what is said upon the subject in the article upon Dr. Keim in 'The Academy' (July, 1871). The theory that is shared by Dr. Keim and M. Wittichen has hardly obtained foothold in Germany — at least it is rejected unhesitatingly by Ewald, Meyer and Weizsacker, though it has recently found an adherent in Dr. Holtzmann. It is possible that I may have occasion to return to this subject. IV. Writers who deny the Johannean authorship and authenticity of the Gospel entirely : — Hanson, Sir Richard. — The Jesus of History. .London, 1869. See p. 87 foil., below. Hilgenfeld, Dr. A. — Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung. Leipzig, 1854. This book has been chosen as representing the best and latest version of the Tubingen theory, xvi PREF A CE. and as one the plan of which ran more or less parallel to my own. It is throughout ably written. Keim, Dr. Theodor.— Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verkettung mit dem Gesammtleben seines Volkes. Band I, Zurich, 1867. I was permitted to review the first half of this most exhaustive work in ' The Academy ' for July, 1871. The last part of the second and first part of the third volume did not reach me until after the manuscript had been sent to the press. A few brief references to these are inserted in Brackets. I hope to do them more justice at some future time. Scholten, Dr. J. H. — Das Evangelium nach Johan nes, aus dem Hollandischen iibersetzt von H. Lang. Berlin, 1867. This a German translation of the work of a leading Dutch theologian, published originally in 1864. It is the one book out of those I have been led to consult, which has seemed to me distinctly inferior to its reputation. Admirably written, with perfect lucidity of exposition, the more solid qualities seem to be greatly lacking to it. It bristles with unsound reasoning, and, in spite of an apparently considerable acquaintance with the literature of the subject, must still be pronounced superficial. Tayler, J. J. — An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially in its Relation to the Three First. Second edition, London, 1870. I have hardly crossed the path of this work, as only eleven pages of it are given to the discussion of 'internal indications.' With regard to other books, the references to Light- PREFACE. xvii foot's ' Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae ' are taken from an old folio (somewhat faultily paged) of 1684; those to Schottgen from a Dresden and Leipsic edition °f 1733 ; Herzog's ' Realencyklopadie fur Protestant- ische Theologie und Kirche ' is alluded to simply as 'Herzog'; SchenkePs ' Bibel-Lexicon ' is indicated by the letters 'S. B. L.,' and Smith's Dictionary by ' S.D.' The articles chiefly referred to in the latter are those on geography and topography, which are excellent, and quite up to date — in this, I regret to say, a con trast to the article on the Gospel. I am greatly indebted for valuable help and sugges tions, during the passage of the book through the press, to the Rev. T. A. Eaglesim, B.A., of Worcester College, and to my friend Mr. James Beddard, of Nottingham, to whose kindness and judgment I never appeal in vain. Great Waltham, Chelmsford, February 8, 1872. CONTENTS. CHAP. PAGE I. INTRODUCTION AND PROLOGUE OF THE GOSPEL I II. THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN . . . . 21 III. THE FIRST MIRACLE AND THE FIRST PASSOVER . 48 IV. THE DISCOURSE WITH NICODEMUS . . . 69 V. SAMARIA AND GALILEE 87 VI. THE MIRACLE AT BETHESDA . . . . I03 VII. THE MULTIPLICATION OF THE LOAVES, AND THE DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM . . . Il6 VIII. THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES . . . . 1 44 IX. THE ALLEGORY OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD . . 1 67 X. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS .... 180 XI. THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM . . 191 XII. THE DAY OF THE CRUCIFIXION . . . 201 XIII. THE LAST SUPPER . . . . . . 214 XIV. THE LAST DISCOURSES . . . . . 221 XV. THE PASSOVER . . . . . . 239 XX CONTENTS. CHAP. PAGE XVI. THE RESURRECTION . . • • 258 XVII. THE APPEARANCE IN GALILEE . . . 266 XVIII. CURRENT ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE GENUINE NESS OF THE GOSPEL . . . . 273 XIX. SUMMARY PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL ...... 286 XX. THE HYPOTHESIS OF MEDIATE JOHANNEAN AU THORSHIP, AND CONCLUSION . . . 298 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PROLOGUE OF THE GOSPEL. AMONG the lengthened discussions which have had for their object the reconstruction of the, history contained in the four Gospels, one conclusion seems to have emerged with considerable distinct ness ; that is, the necessity of starting from a thorough critical investigation of the documents. It may, no doubt, be possible to draw a picture in rough outline and then simply to allege its consistency in proof of its truth. To a certain extent this method is a legitimate one ; and it is more applicable to a sub ject so unique and remarkable in its character, than it would be to a more ordinary series of events, where the number of possible combinations was greater. But it is clear that such a method can only admit of vague and approximate results. As soon as we descend to particulars, it fails us alto gether. The question may be raised as to whether the picture presented is really consistent, or as to whether it is the only consistent picture deducible from the premisses ; and where this is the case, it is obvious that its self- evidential force at once ceases. B r Necessity for critical examination of the, Evan gelical docu ments. INTR OD UCTJON. [chap. For example, to take the question of miracles! one writer produces a picture in which miracles are an essential feature ; another writes a history from which they are altogether eliminated1. How are we to decide between them ? Prior to the exami-| nation of the documents, what criterion have we that is not far too subjective to carry with it general conviction? We need to know how near the original narrators stood to the events, and what is the character of the context in which the miracles are found. The most satisfactory method, then, is to begin at the beginning, and to work steadily upwards; first to institute a searching examination of the. documents, so as to discover their true nature and value ; and then, with the results of this before us, to fit their contents, so far as is possible, into a single historical frame. The present essay is intended as an instalments towards the first half of such an enquiry. Following the natural division, according to which the three first or Synoptic Gospels are taken as one class, and the fourth, that which goes under the name of St. John, as another, it deals only with the latter, partly as the more important of the two, — a greater divergence of opinion in respect of it being possible, — and partly because the questions' raised in connection with it seem most ripe for decision. 11 Between the astonishing design nom de telle ou telle philosophie, and its astonishing success there c'est au nom d'une constante expe- intervenes an astonishing instru- rience, que nous bannissons le mira- mentality — that of miracles.' (Ecce cle de 1' histoire.' (Renan, Vie de Homo, p. +2.) ' Ce n'est done pas au Jesus, Introd. p. xcvi., 13th ed.). I-J INTRODUCTION. Within this more limited range, however, our enquiry still does not profess to be exhaustive. It is a subdivision of a division. It is confined to what is commonly known as the internal evidence to the character of the Gospel. Several reasons seem to make this limitation of treatment desirable. The subject of the external evidence has been pretty well fought out. The opposing parties are probably as near to an agreement as they ever will be. It will hardly be an unfair statement of the case for those who reject the Johannean authorship of the Gospel, to say, that the external evidence is com patible with that supposition. And on the other hand, we may equally say for those who accept the Johannean authorship, that the external evidence would not be sufficient alone to prove it1. As it at present stands, the controversy may be regarded as drawn ; and it is not likely that the position of parties will be materially altered. Thus we are thrown back upon the internal evi dence ; and I have the less hesitation in confining 1 I am aware that in making this statement I am obliged to express a different opinion from Canon Liddon (Bampton Lectures, p. 224 n). But Canon Liddon has gone almost entirely to Tischen dorf, who with all his merits is a notorious partisan. Besides, he does not seem to have noticed sufficiently the qualifications to which the external evidence is sub ject. This side of the question will be found fairly discussed by Keim, Jesu von Nazara, pp. 136-146, and Holtzmann in S. B. L. ii. 222. ' Speaking impartially,' Dr. Holtz mann says, 'it must be confessed, that the evidence for the Synoptic Gospels hardly begins earlier than that for St. John. The use of the latter, however, was for a long time much weaker, much more cautious than that of the former.' This ' weaker and more cautious use ' may be explained by other causes than doubts as to the genuineness of the Gospel. It may be partly due to the fact, that it was in any case composed later than the other three ; partly also to its peculiar and almost esoteric character; partly to external accidents, which may have for a time limited its circulation. B 2 INTRODUCTION. [chap. myself to this, because I believe it to be capable of leading to a quite definite conclusion. Whether it really does so the event must show. But in the meantime the present1 essay is submitted to the public, as a contribution towards the solution of the problem. Its plan is not indeed unprecedented1, but may appear to an English reader somewhat novel. In accordance with the general principle by which lite rary neatness has throughout been sacrificed to prac tical serviceableness and reliability, it has been thought well to go through the Gospel chapter by chapter and verse by verse, determining, as far as possible, the exact value of the separate data as they present themselves, and not combining the whole into a single view until the detailed investi gation was complete. Obviously such a procedure will have its disad vantages. It will involve an appearance of confu sion, and a certain amount of repetition. But I cannot but think that the reader will be willing to put up with these in return for the greater security he will possess, that the facts have not been garbled, or their true bearing distorted ; inasmuch as he will be able to see each one of them in connection with its context, and if he should be led to form a dif ferent judgment from the writer, he will be able on each occasion to take note of it. The method is indeed in the strict sense of the 1 It is practically the plan pur- of his Vie de Jesus— a. somewhat sued by Hilgenfeld in his work, slight sketch, but one that often Die Evangelien, and also by Renan shows the author's fine historical in the Appendix to the 13th edition sense to much advantage. I-] THE PROLOGUE. 1 S word inductive. It first seeks and defines its data out of the confused mass of phenomena ; and then, when they are ready for use, groups and arranges them ; and not until that is done does it finally draw its conclusions. It may adopt the privilege of science in forming a provisional hypothesis as it proceeds ; but not until it has been tested and veri fied and compared with the whole sum of the pheno mena, will that hypothesis venture to assert itself as established ; and even then it will still be amenable to the bar of a competent public opinion. There will be the further incidental advantage that our enquiry itself will, in some respects, serve as a running commentary upon the fourth Gospel, and it is hoped that it may contribute something to the elucidation both of the narrative and the discourses which occur in the course of it. But this has been of course only a secondary object, and has been throughout subordinated to that announced upon the title-page ; viz. the attempt to ascertain who was the author of the Gospel, and what degree of authenticity is to be assigned to its contents. With this object before us we proceed to the consi deration of the first chapter. The Prologue. The Gospel opens with a prologue, which is the philosophical or theological introduction to the history that follows. In high metaphysical language the subject of the Gospel is announced as ' the Word made Flesh.' Accordingly in these first eighteen Incidentaladvantage. St. John i. 1-18. THE PROLOGUE. [chap. St. John i. 1-18. vv. 1-5. vv. 6-13. vv. 14-18. verses the Evangelist sets forth the nature, functions, and successive manifestations of the Word. 1. As pre-existent. When time began the Word was already throned face to face with God (irpbs tov ®eov), and partaking of His Divine Essence. Through the Word the work of creation was accomplished. He was the Source of light and life, i. e. of all physical, moral, and spiritual well-being for man. But the Light shone in vain : the darkness of human nature was too gross to receive it. 2. As incarnate. To this incarnation the prophet John bare witness. He was not himself the Light. The functions of the True Light were not, like hisj limited and subsidiary, but wide as the world itself, and extending to every man that is born into it1. He came ; the Creator to His creatures ; the Messiah to His people. As a people they rejected Him ; but there were some few who by the election and grace of God did receive Him ; and to them He proved to be the source of life indeed. 3. As revealing the Father. Thus the Word was made flesh, and manifested forth His glory, which as well by its own essential character, the grace and truth which flowed from it, as by the direct testi mony of John, was seen to be the glory of the only- 1 The one argument which seems fatal to the combination of hpxi- fitvov with ije is, that in that case a series of manifestations, the con tinuous manifestation of the word (' kam stets ' Ewald), must be meant; but the context clearly points to the special and chief manifestation in the Incarnation, to which John bore witness. The antithesis is between the lesser re flected light of John, and the world-wide illumination of the incarnate Word. For the expres sion ipx- (is t. *. there is a parallel in 2 John 7. Several others are quoted by Lightfoot from Jewish writers (Horae Hebraicae, p. 521). It would appear to be a He braism. I-] THE PROLOGUE. begotten, pre-existent Son 1. Thus God Himself has been revealed ; no longer partially as by Moses, but in the fulness of His attributes by Jesus Christ. It is obvious that we are moving here in a region of ideas wholly different from anything that is to be found in the Synoptic Gospels. All appears to turn round this single expression, the Logos or Word. The Word is that mediatory Divine Being by whom the invisible, unapproachable God acts visibly upon the world and upon men. It is the Organ of creation, revelation, salvation, the Giver of light and life, and It was incarnate in the 'man Christ Jesus.' Such is the Johannean doctrine of the Logos ; and the question at once arises, what is the sphere of ideas to which it belongs ? what is the theological or philosophical system with which it is to be correlated ? The answer to this may throw some light upon the origin of the Gospel. There are several systems into which 'the Logos' or 'Word' enters as an important factor, and with any of these it would seem that the Gospel might be connected ; it might be either Gnostic, or Jewish, or Alexandrine. If we are to suppose that it was formed under the influence of developed Gnosticism, then it will probably have been written some time in the second quarter of the second century. If it grew directly out of Alexandrinism or Judaism, then it may fall any time in the last quarter of the first. In other words, the first supposition is in any case Doctrine of the Logos. 1 We are absolved from the ne cessity of deciding the difficult question as to the reading of ver. 18, povoycvTjs ®cos or pov. vl6s. Both are found in patristic citations as early as Irenaeus, and in the writings of Irenaeus himself (i 70- 200 A.D.V Canon Lightfoot argues from this that the text must have been some time in existence. (Re vision cf Eng. N. T-, p. 20.) THE PROLOGUE. [chap. St. John i. 1-18. To Gnostic systems. The Valen tinian. incompatible with Apostolic authorship ; either of the two others are compatible with it. But the hypothesis of Gnostic origin, e. g. in a system like the Valentinian, cannot in the present stage of critical investigation be regarded as tenable. The difference between the external evidence for the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics is now seen to be far too small for an interval of seventy or eighty years to be placed between them1. And on internal grounds, if the fourth Gospel had been produced in the midst of the Gnostic systems, it must have been / much more explicit upon the points where it comes into contact with Gnosticism. Whether it was com^ posed in the interest of the Gnostics or of ortho doxy, or to reconcile both, it could not have failed to declare its object much more plainly and definitely. A brief glance at the Gnostic systems will, I think, suffice to make this clear. The Valentinian system has indeed the Logos, but it has much more besides. The Logos is only one of a series of thirty Aeons or emanations which, proceeding from the Bythos or incomprehensible central point of the Divine Being, and combined in pairs male and female, fill up the circle of the Divine attributes known as the Pleroma. Outside the Pleroma, and parted from it by the boundary Horos or Stauros, lies the Ogdoas, an abode formed for Achamoth, the abortive fruit of Sophia the twenty-eighth Aeon. Beyond that again is the Hebdomas presided over by the Demiurgus, the 1 Cf. Holtzmann in iS. B. L. ii. Synoptists would come about 100 222 ad fin. Dr. Holtzmann speaks a.d. Dr. Holtzmann's. own view of ' three to five decads ;' but that is more probable, that the Synoptic is from the Tubingen point of view, literature was complete by the year according to which the last of the 80 a.d. •J THE PROLOGUE. maker of the world and of men. Monogenes is an other name for the Aeon Nous ; the Aeon Logos is separated from the Aeon Christus ; Christus from Jesus Soter, who1 is not an Aeon, but the fruit of all the Aeons, the ' Star of the Pleroma.' The Soter again is separated from the Son of Mary ; and the different parts of the system are linked together by an elaborate mythology1. What has become of all this wild overgrowth in the Gospel ? Surely it is not to be supposed, that the Evangelist has thrust his hand, as it were, into the middle of it, and drawn forth the Logos alone. Is it not much more natural to regard the Valentinian system as a corrupt heretical development of the ideas contained in the Gospel ? The two are related to one another much as, in architecture, Florid Perpendicular is related to Norman. But it is a law both of thought and nature, that the simpler form precedes the more complex. Again, it seems impos sible, that if the Evangelist had had these strange distortions of his own ideas before him, he should not have guarded more expressly against misconception. Would he not have told us that his Logos was not the Valentinian Logos ; that with him, Monogenes, Christus, Soter were but divers appellations of a single person ; that he knew nothing of Ogdoas or Hebdomas, of Achamoth or Sophia, of the Demi urgus, of Syzygies or Aeons ? It would have seemed almost superfluous to argue the question, if the op posite view had not actually been maintained 2. 1 Cf. Baur, Kirchen-geschichte der andii.; Hippolytus, Philosophumena, drei ersten Jahrhunderte, pp. 196- vi. 21 foil. 203. The original authorities are 2 e. g. by Hilgenfeld, pp. 330- principally Irenaeus adv. Haer. b. i. 334. Dr. Scholten thinks that the THE PROLOGUE. [chap. Valentinus appears to have flourished about 140 A.D. ; Basilides comes fifteen years earlier : but the same arguments which push the Gospel back behind Valentinus, also push it back behind Basilides. The Basilidian system starts with two main postulates, God, who represents the extreme of abstraction, none but negative predicates being applied to Him, and the primaeval chaos. In this chaos are mingled seeds of divine matter, which are designated by the name of vlorrjs. Some of these fly upwards at once by their own volatility. From the rest is evolved, first, the region of the Ogdoas with its Archon or sovereign, and the son who reigns by his side, better and wiser than himself; and then the region of the Hebdomas, with its Archon and his son. These regions are filled besides with other ' principalities and powers ;' and above them all, but below the highest region of the non-existent, hovers the Holy Ghost. There are still some particles of vlorrjs remaining beneath among the residuum of chaos ; and Christianity represents with Basilides the scheme by which these are liberated, through separation, from the matter in which they are imprisoned. A series of communications pass from the Spirit to the son of the higher Archon, from him to his father, and also to the son of the lower Archon, and finally to the son of Mary, through whom the ultimate separation takes place1. author of the fourth Gospel, ' pene trated by the philosophy of his time, and highly valuing the Gnostic speculations, set himself to reform the immorality and fantastic extra vagance of Gnosticism, as much in the interest of Christianity as of the true Gnosis, and so produced a work by which Gnosticism is brought down from the sphere of barren abstraction to that of reality.' (p. 428.) Schwegier connects the origin of the fourth Gospel with the still later phenomena of Mon tanism. Nacbapost. Zeit., p. 345 ; cf. Pfleiderer, Geschichte der Reli gion, p. 481. 1 Cf. Baur, Kirchen-geschichte, I-] THE PROLOGUE. II We repeat the question, is it credible that the doctrine of the prologue to the fourth Gospel should have grown by any means of contact or of contrast out of systems such as these ? May we not go farther and say that the interval necessary for their deve lopment out of the kind of conditions that the fourth Gospel implies, must have been a cpnsiderable one ? The date of Basilides and his system is about 125 A.D. : that assigned to the fourth Gospel by those who believe it to be the work of the Apostle, is the decad 80-90 A.D. And conjecturally, taking as a basis of calculation the interval which separates Ba silides from Valentinus and the number of points which they have in common, this would appear to be a not unreasonable period to place between them. There are however, I suspect, data a degree more definite than those supplied by the system of Basi lides. The Ophitic is the earliest Gnostic system of which we have sufficiently full and trustworthy infor mation. But there is much reason to doubt whether the Evangelist would have written iii. 14 as he has done, if Ophitic Gnosticism had then been in exist ence, or at least if it had come within his knowledge. The serpent was the centre of this system, at once its good and its evil principle. The serpent who tempted Eve, the fiery serpent in the wilderness, the rod of Moses, the brazen serpent, represented under various forms the malevolent or beneficent powers. The good serpent is also the apxfi> the Lo gos, the Saviour who stands between God and matter, and works in its votaries that Gnostic emancipation pp. 204—212. b. vii. etc. Original authorities, Iren. adv. Haer. i. 24; Hipp. Philos. St. John i. 1-18. The Ophi tic. THE PROLOGUE. [chap. St. John i. 1-18. To the Pauline Epi stles of the imprison ment. by which they are delivered from the thraldom of the flesh. But, this being so, it does not seem likely that the serpent would have been introduced as it is in the discourse with Nicodemus. An orthodox writer could not treat it as a harmless symbol ; a writer with Ophitic leanings would have emphasized the point and enlarged upon it1. We are thus brought by a negative process to a date not very far from 80-90 A.D. And on the posi tive side the data seem to converge nearly upon the same point. Dr. Lipsius, the latest authority upon the history of Gnosticism, in speaking of the Pauline Epi stles to the Ephesians and Colossians, describes them as standing in much the same relation to Gnosticism as the fourth Gospel 2. He does this indeed leaving it an open question whether they were really written by St. Paul. But I do not imagine that an English critic will have any doubt upon this head. The Epistle to the Colossians is vouched for, not only by its language and style, but chiefly by its connection with the Epistle to Philemon, which cannot by any possibility be a forgery. And the only real difficulty in regard to the Epistle to the Ephesians is removed by the amended reading of i. 1, and the hypothesis which regards it as a circular letter. M. Renan, although he raises the question, has evidently no doubt of the genuineness of these Epistles 3 : it is maintained by all the moderate German schools, e. g. those which are 1 Cf. Baur, pp. 192-195; Lip sius, Gnosticismus, pp. 126-133. 2 Cf. art. ' Gnosis ' in S. B. L. ii. 5°4- 3 Cf. St. Paul, pp. xi, xx-xxiii. M. Renan thinks that the Epistle to the Ephesians was not written ac tually by St. Paul, but under his eyes and in his name by Tychicus or Timothy. This would leave its date unaltered. I.] TIIE PROLOGUE. 13 represented by Bleek, Reuss, Meyer, and even Schen kel 1 ; and the denial of it forms a part of the Tubin gen system that is rapidly falling into discredit. The literary data, including under these the general im probability of forgery, are decisive in favour of the Epistles to the Philippians and Philemon. And from these two fixed points we argue backwards to the other Epistles of the imprisonment. It may be set down as to all intents certain that they were written by St. Paul ; and to this conclusion the history of dogma clearly must conform. But if the Johannean theology is to be grouped with that of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colos sians, and if we allow for a certain advance which it exhibits upon them, it cannot be dated much later than 80 A.D., which agrees with the results of our pre vious investigation. The history of the Church at this period is exceed ingly obscure. The Epistle of Clement to the Co rinthians, and perhaps that of Barnabas, are the only extra-canonical books that fall within the first century 2 ; while the external authorities, Irenaeus and the Philosophumena, cease to be trustworthy guides when we pass beyond the Ophites. Any theory, therefore, that we may form as to the growth and development either of orthodox or of heterodox doctrine' must be based upon conjecture, derived chiefly from data contained within the canonical 1 Cf. Bleek, Einl. pp. 444-446, 449-45 1 ; Reuss, Gesch. der Heil. Schrift. N. T. it, 118, 119, 121, 123 ; Schenkel on Eph. in S. B. L. 2 The Epistle of Clement was written about the year 95 a.d. (Lightfoot, Ritschl, &c). The Epistle of Barnabas falls' either in the reign of Hadrian, c. 1 33 a d., or in that of Nerva, c. 97 a.d. — probably the latter. St. John i. 1-18. Approx imate de terminationof date. 14 THE PROLOGUE. [chap. St. John i. 1-18. Relation to previous de velopments, Judaean or Alexan drine. books themselves. But there is nothing to hinder the composition of the Gospel at a date not far from that upon which we have fixed ; rather, so far as we can see, everything to favour it. All the elements both of orthodox and heterodox development had now been for some time in existence. Philo was an old man in 39 A.D. The foundation of Christianity was, as we shall have occasion to show, complete in the year 30. The dates assigned to the death of St. Paul are from 64 to 68. Jerusalem was in ruins. The Gentile congregations had a fixed and recognised existence in the Church. And alongside of the conditions which these facts would represent, were the Oriental religions with their mythologies always ready to draw upon, and to give birth to here tical opinions. On the whole, it would seem as if the decad 80-90 A.D. stood upon the line of de velopment between the simple facts of Christianity and the final coalescence of Alexandrinism and the Oriental religions under Christian forms, very much in the place that we should assign to the Gospel and Epistle that go under the name of St. John. There is, however, a further question that has some bearing upon the authorship of these writings. We have seen that the theology of the prologue cannot be referred to the period of full-grown Gnosticism. Are we then to look for its antecedents in Alexandria or Palestine ? Until recently the first of these two views has prevailed ; but the second has of late found energetic defenders .'. It is not difficult to show, both that the Logos of St. John differs from that of Philo, 1 e.g. Luthardt, whose view is discussed by Alford, Comm. p 6;8; Weiss, Theologie des N. T. § 202 ; Wittichen, Ev. Jcb. pp 10-15. I.] THE PROLOGUE. 15 and that there are apparent antecedents for it in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. But we must remember, first, that between Philo and the Evan gelist there lay the historical fact of the life of Christ ; this life is, according to the Evangelist, the Incarnation of the Logos ; and the philosophic idea could not but undergo transformation, as soon as it came to be iden tified with a historical Person. And secondly, it should be remembered that Philo bases, nominally at least, his whole philosophy on the Old Testament ; so that it is not strange if theories derived from him should bear a certain Old Testament colour. At the same time the books of the Apocrypha in which the nearest approximations to the doctrine of the Logos are to be found, belong to the same general stream as Philo himself. One of them, the Book of Wisdom, was actually attributed to him by a tradition older than Jerome \ This class of writings, therefore, cannot be alleged as showing that a doctrine of the Logos was formed independently of Alexandria. On the other hand, it is only contended that ¦ Philo is the medium through which the Word of the Old Testament passed into the Logos of St. John : and I cannot think that this proposition has been satis factorily disproved. The personification of Wisdom in the Old Testament is poetical : that of the Word in St. John is metaphysical : and this is precisely the character that had been given to it by Philo. One of the writers who assigns the doctrine of the Logos to Jewish sources, speaks of it as a creation of ' religious 1 Jerome says in his preface, the book by modern critics range ' nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc between 217 B.C. and 40 a.d. It (libr. Sap.) esse Philonis Judaei was probably written after 145 b.c. affirmant' The dates assigned to i6 THE PROLOGUE. [chap. St. John i. 1-18. poetry' (religios-dichterischer) ; but this description is, I think we must say, certainly misplaced — and it seems to be an equal error to call the Logos of Philo 'nothing but the caput mortuum of philosophical abstraction1.' On the contrary, it is through the Logos that Philo saves his idea of the Deity from becoming a mere abstraction. The Logos is the agency through which the Absolute Being operates upon finite matter. It is the divine Organ, by which the worlds were made. It is ' the Captain of the host of ideas,' 'the Vice-regent ofthe Great King,' 'the High Priest,' in whom God and the world are reconciled, ' a second God,' 'the eldest Son of God2.' Instead of being a pure philosophical abstraction, this conception of the Logos is rather the very point at which the Platonic Idealism begins to be intermingled with the more concrete forms of the East. And yet there is still a wide difference from the Gospel. The Philonian Logos is a kind of fluid medium : at one moment it seems to have a separate and almost hypostatical existence ; at the next it is reabsorbed in the centre from which it issues. We find the phrase ' Logoi ' as well as ' Logos,' as if Logos were a collective term. There is none of the definite ness and fixity of a person. But we have only to read in between the lines the single sentence 6 Ao'yos trap^ eyivero, and this difference is removed. Once think of the Philonian Logos as incarnate, as dwelling or having dwelt upon the earth in the likeness of a man, and the resulting conception will be found to be very similar 1 Cf. Wittichen, pp. 13, 14. 2 Cf. Lipsius in .S. B. L. i. 95-97; prologue to the Gospel. Meyer, Liicke, and Alford on the I-J THE PROLOGUE. 17 to that which is laid down " in the prologue to the fourth Gospel. We conclude, then, that the prologue must be taken to show a certain acquaintance with Philo's, or at least with Alexandrine theology. Without assuming this I do not see what account we are to give of the transition from that which had been hitherto a poetic figure of speech to a metaphysical reality. For the prologue clearly presupposes the step to have been taken. The author is conscious that he is not now taking it for the first time : his manner is that of one who is introducing a new content into a current recog nised and generally intelligible idea. If this had not been the case he must have begun by sketching a system of abstract metaphysics, before he came to apply them specially to theology. It is not the doctrine of the Logos which is novel, but only the identification of the Logos with the Founder of Christianity. But the fact that the theology of the prologue has its origin in Alexandria, still does not give us any exact information as to the author. Alexandrine ideas were widely diffused, and their geographical boundary line is too indistinct to admit of a precise conclusion. There seems indeed to be some doubt as to how far they had penetrated into Palestine — the peculiar cul ture that we find in St: Paul appears to be due rather to an independent Rabbinical branch of the same movement 1. But in the centres of Greek civilisation, and especially in Asia MinOr, which was as much a meeting-point of East and West as Alexandria itself, Alexandrine theories were at home. 1 Cf. Lipsius, Gnosticismus, pp. 4r, 42. Yet the later Epistles (Eph. and Col.) surely show signs of Alexandrine influence. St. John i. 1-18. Geographical relationsofthe doctrine. i8 THE PROLOGUE. [chap. St. John i. 1-18. Dogmaticcharacteroftheprologue. Compared with that oftheSynoptic Gospels. All we can say then is, that so far as the prologue:! is concerned there is a certain probability — somewhat vague and slight in respect of place, stronger in respect of time — in favour of the tradition that the Gospel was composed at Ephesus, and between 80-90 A.D. But before we quit the prologue, we ought ta con sider it in its bearing upon the other subject of our enquiry — the historical value of the facts related in the Gospel. There has been a tendency to argue; immediately from the philosophical and dogmatic", character of the prologue to the conclusion that the Gospel is from first to last an ideal composition \ In any case the conclusion would be a hasty one ; be cause it is quite as likely a priori that an author would invent metaphysics to suit his facts, as that he would invent facts to suit his metaphysics. We do not sus pect Comte or Hegel of inventing history because they have endeavoured to explain it philosophically. But when the objection is especially urged to the disadvantage of the fourth Gospel, it is too often for gotten that the Synoptists also are not exempt from it. Of the three Synoptic writers, St. Luke is the only one who comes forward as a professed historian. St. Matthew and St. Mark, or the Evangelists who now bear their names, proclaim their dogmatic intention in a manner that is really little less pronounced than St. John. When the fourth Evangelist avows at the end of ch. xx, i. e. in the verse with which the first draught of the Gospel concluded, 'These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ 1 Cf. Keim, pp. 124, 125. Scholten states this point fairly, p. 182. I.] THE PROLOGUE. 19 the Son of God,' he is using almost exactly the same words as those with which the second Gospel opens, ' The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God ;' and the modification which this receives in the first Gospel only corresponds to its Jewish object and character, ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.' None of the Evangelists write otherwise than with a distinct dogmatic conclusion before their minds. But we cannot argue from this at once that the facts which they relate are fictitious, or even that they have been distorted. In the case of the Synoptists we are able to control their procedure with considerable accuracy. The groundwork of their narrative has been supplied to all three by a single document, which they have used independently of each other. We can therefore tell by comparing the parallel columns of the synopsis to what extent changes have been introduced into that document on dogmatic grounds. It cannot be said that such changes do not exist. For instance, ' the Son ' is left out in Matt. xxiv. 36 as compared with Mark xiii. 32, ' But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father ;' and conversely Matt. xv. 24, ' I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' has been omitted in Mark vii. 26, 27 ; so in Mark vi. 3, ' the carpenter, the son of Mary,' seems to have been substituted for 'the carpenter's son' of Matt. xiii. 55. These are perhaps the principal instances of alterations made from dogmatic motives ; and there are some others \ But altogether they do J Cf. Wittichen, Uber den historischen Cbarahter der Synopt. Evangelien, in Jabrbucber fur Deutsche Theologie, 1866, iii. pp. 427-482. C 2 THE PROLOGUE. St. John i. 1-18. Metaphysi cal use of the word Logos con fined to the prologue. j not make up an important total. Before the fact,. then, there is no greater reason for suspecting the fourth Evangelist than the Synoptists. The question must remain open for detailed investigation, and is not foreclosed either way by the prologue. In one respect, indeed, a favourable conclusion is suggested. It has been frequently noticed that the doctrine of the Logos is confined strictly to the Evangelist's own reflections, and is nowhere intro duced into the body of the history. The word Ao'yo? occurs repeatedly, but always in the Jewish sense of the message or command, single acts and utterances of God, but not in the Alexandrine sense of a hypostatized Divine Being '. If the discourses in the Gospel had been really, as Baur and his followers think, free compositions, this distinction would scarcely have been observed. It is to be noticed generally, that the Hellenistic colouring is nowhere so strong as in the prologue ; as though it served to indicate the stand point of the writer, but did not materially affect his treatment of his subject. 1 Cf. x. 35, xvii. 14, xvii. 6, viii. 47, viii. 55, &c. Also Westcott, Introd. p. 272 ; Keim, p. 124; and Wittichen, p. 11. CHAPTER II. THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. BEFORE we enter upon the narrative proper, it will be well to set before ourselves distinctly the different hypotheses with which we shall have to deal. It is sufficiently evident that the author of the Gospel intended his work to be attributed to St. John. This would seem to follow from xxi. 24, taken along with the context in which 'the beloved disciple' is elsewhere mentioned1. He is never named; but by the prominence accorded to him, and especially frorri his intimate relation with Peter, it is clear that he belonged to the first of the Apostolic groups ; and as Peter and Andrew are both excluded and James fell a victim to one of the earliest persecutions, 1 Liitzelberger suggested that 'the beloved disciple' might be Andrew, and Holtzmann (seri ously?), following Spath, that he might be Nathanael. The argu ment against the identification with John drawn from the silence of the fourth Gospel as to scenes, like the Transfiguration, where accord ing to the Synoptists John was present, cannot count for very much. It is certain on other grounds that the author of the fourth Gospel had seen the other three ; and it would therefore be a sufficient reason for omitting these scenes that they had been already adequately narrated. On the other hand, Dr. Holtzmann rightly calls attention to the fact that, while the two Judases are carefully distin guished, and Peter in all but a single passage (i. 42) bears his double name Simon Peter, the Baptist is designated simply by the name of ' John,' as if there was only one John external to the au thor. Cf. S. B. L. iii. pp. 329-332. St. John i. I0-5'- Possible hypotheses as to the author of the Gospel. 22 THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. [chap. St. John i. 19-51. Self-indica tion of the author. there seems no choice but to identify this disciple^ with the Apostle St. John. In all ages up to the present the same inference has been drawn ; and may be accepted, so far at least as the intention of the author goes, without much hesitation. But if this is the case, then either the work must be genuine and apostolic, or else it must be a deli berate forgery. In using this term I do not wish to attach to it modern associations, but merely to imply that the presumed author and the real author are different persons. Apart from any question as to the ethics of forgery, our view of the probabilities* of the case will be affected by the condition of mind in which we suppose the Gospel to have been written. There is, however, yet a third hypothesis, that the Gospel was not written immediately by St. John, but by a disciple of his, and from traditions left, by him. This also is a tenable view ; but it may save confusion if we leave the discussion of it to the end of our enquiry, when we have only one other alter native with which to compare it. The way in which the author alludes to himself is remarkable, and it would seem as if it ought to lead to some conclusion. But the arguments flowing from it are too much matter of subjective appreciation, and they are too variously estimated to be alleged as proof on either side. There are some to whom the author's mode of self- indication seems a mark of genuineness. They think it too peculiar to be the work of a forger. They see in it a natural and spontaneous compromise between dignity and modesty. The author had really played a prominent part in the events he is describing ; and II.] THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 23 he wishes to insist upon this gently, not obtrusively, but yet firmly. But there are other critics who take an opposite view. The personality of the author, they think, is too little suppressed. They characterise his expe dient as ' egotism,' ' vanity,' ' self-assertion ' (Eitelkeit, Selbst-iiberhebung '). And it seems to them to be more like the device of a forger. The third hypothesis, it must be remembered, is in any case exempt from this objection. But then it is not easy to determine the exact relation of the writer to the Apostle. It is expressly stated in the supple mental chapter that 'he who testified these things' and ' he who wrote them ' were the same ; and it is difficult to find room for a second person, unless his functions were merely mechanical, and he wrote directly from the Apostle's dictation. Without professing to decide between the two con flicting opinions, we yet cannot but notice, that the expedient is very far-fetched to be that of a forger. Here at least we have some objective data. In an age that was prolific in spurious works, there is none in which the pretended author has been indicated so circuitously. To go back a little before the Christian era, the apocryphal book of Baruch claims to have been written by the companion of Jeremiah, in the face of gross and palpable anachronisms. The Psalms of Solomon are each of them headed ^ah.p.os to> '2okop.