Full text of "Biblical essays"

BIBLICAL ESSAYS

BY THE LATE

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,

LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM

PUBLISHED BY
THE TRUSTEES OF THE LIGHTFOOT FUND.

Honfcon
MACMILLAN AND CO. LIMITED

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1904

All Eights reserved.

First Edition 1893
Second Edition 1904

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

INTRODUCTOEY NOTE.

A BOUT one-third of the present volume has already seen
-*-*- the light. The opening essay ' On the Internal Evidence
for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St John's Gospel ' was
published in the ' Expositor ' in the early months of 1890, and
has been reprinted since ; the essay ' On the Mission of Titus
to the Corinthians' appeared in the 'Journal of Sacred and
Classical Philology' nearly thirty years ago, while the ninth
essay 'On the Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the
Romans' consists of three famous articles contributed within
the years 1869 and 1871 to the 'Journal of Philology,' two by
Dr Lightfoot and one by Dr Hort. Beginning with a criticism
of M. Kenan's theory that our present Epistle to the Romans
represents no less than four letters addressed to different
Churches, Dr Lightfoot proceeded to formulate a counter-
theory of an original letter (our complete Epistle) addressed
to the Church of Rome, and a shorter recension of a more
general character reissued by the Apostle at a later period and
intended for a wider circle of readers. This theory did not
commend itself to Dr Hort, and his criticism of Dr Lightfoot's
arguments and Dr Lightfoot's reply, which form the second and
third of the articles in question, are published herewith, while
for a restatement of Dr Hort's view the reader is referred to the
' Notes on Selected Readings ' which form an appendix to the
Introduction to the edition of the New Testament edited by
Drs Westcott and Hort 1 . A singular pathos attaches to the

1 The New Testament in the original Greek (1881), vol. 2, Appendix,
pp. 100 sq.

VI INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

republication of these articles in the thought that he who so
recently gave his consent to their insertion in this volume, and
whose counsel was so reverently listened to by his co-trustees,
has been called to his rest, before the volume has passed into
circulation.

And the pathos of the situation is only increased as we turn
to the main part of the volume, to that which appears in print
for the first time. When in 1879 Dr Lightfoot was called
away from Cambridge to undertake the Bishopric of Durham,
apprehension was felt and expressed in many quarters that
the continual claims of diocesan engagements would seriously
impair his literary productiveness. How heroically he struggled
to belie this anticipation is well known. But the marvellous
steadfastness of purpose with which he devoted to literary
work every available moment which could be snatched
from official duties can be fully appreciated by those only who
had the privilege of watching the great bishop's life from day
to day. By sheer strength of will he completed the five
massive volumes on the Apostolic Fathers. But the issue of
commentaries on St Paul's Epistles was checked absolutely.
From time to time rumours were circulated that some par-
ticular commentary was in progress, nay more, in type and
within a measurable distance of publication ; but alas ! these
surmises were entirely devoid of foundation. The Bishop was
heard more than once to declare that, his edition of the Apostolic
Fathers finished, he hoped with what leisure he could secure in
two years to be able to bring out a commentary upon any one
of the Pauline Epistles on which he had lectured when at
Cambridge. But the necessary relief from pressure never
came, and after his death it was found, as had been anticipated
by those who knew his methods, that the notes on the New
Testament had remained untouched since the day when he left
Cambridge for Auckland Castle. There were moreover sad

INTRODUCTORY NOTE. Vll

gaps in the commentaries and in the introductory matter,
sketches of work which had never been filled in, and jottings
which needed the master-mind of the writer to interpret them
adequately. In accordance therefore with a report furnished
to the Trustees by Dr Hort, it was decided to abandon all
attempts to bring out a complete edition of any epistle on the
lines of the published commentaries, and instead to gather into
one volume such of the prolegomena as it was possible to pub-
lish, reserving for another volume selections from commentaries
on the text which appeared to be fullest and most valuable.
The present volume of ' Biblical Essays ' represents the first of
these undertakings. The contents can easily be assigned to
the places which they would have occupied had the Bishop
been able to complete his projected series of commentaries on
all the Pauline Epistles. The second and third essays on
St John's Gospel form part of a subject which, as he tells us
himself, he considered to have ' passed into other and better
hands,' and they would probably never have been published by
Dr Lightfoot himself. The next four essays were intended to
appear as excursuses in the Commentary on the Thessalonians ;
the three which follow would have supplied material for
introductions to the Epistles to the Corinthians, Romans and
Ephesians respectively, while the last two would have found a
place in an edition of the Pastoral Epistles.

To edit the writings of one who is no longer at hand to
explain and to correct must always present grave difficulties;
but when the material to be edited is to appear as the work of
a scholar of the widest reputation for learning and accuracy, to
venture upon the task is little short of presumption. ID the
present instance the difficulty is enhanced by Dr Lightfoot's
method of work, to which the present Bishop of Durham draws
attention in his prefatory note to the posthumous edition of
St Clement of Rome. Possessed of a remarkably retentive

Vlll INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

memory, he preferred to trust to outlines, rather than write
out in full what he intended to deliver in the lecture-room.
Accordingly, in those essays which are described as printed
from lecture-notes, it has been found necessary to frame into
sentences page after page which, in the original notes, exists
only in the briefest summary. It is inevitable therefore, that
in places the Bishop's meaning will have been obscurely ex-
pressed, if not entirely missed. That this inadequacy of
treatment is not more glaring is due to the kindness of those
who, in response to the appeal of the Trustees, have placed
their notes of Dr Lightfoot's professorial lectures at the dis-
posal of the editor. The cordial thanks of the Trustees are
tendered to the Rev. G. F. Browne, Canon of St Paul's, to
W. P. Turnbull, Esq., formerly Fellow of Trinity College and
now one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, to the Rev.
H. F. Gore-Booth, Rector of Sacred Trinity, Salford, for the loan
of their valuable notes ; and to the Rev. W. E. Barnes, Fellow
and Lecturer of St Peter's College, for kind assistance in
looking over the proof-sheets of the third essay.

As some of the lectures were delivered at Cambridge on
more than one occasion, it may be well to state that the date
placed at the end of each essay represents the year of delivery,
after which apparently no fresh material was added in the notes
in writing.

In conclusion, the Trustees desire to thank the officers and
workmen of the University Press for intelligent criticism and
for unfailing courtesy during the time that these sheets have
been passing through the press.

J. R. H.

CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
July 15, 1893.

EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE
JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

" I bequeath all my personal Estate not hereinbefore other-
" wise disposed of unto [my Executors] upon trust to pay and
" transfer the same unto the Trustees appointed by me under
" and by virtue of a certain Indenture of Settlement creating a
" Trust to be known by the name of ' The Lightfoot Fund for
" the Diocese of Durham ' and bearing even date herewith but
"executed by me immediately before this my Will to be ad-
" ministered and dealt with by them upon the trusts for the
" purposes and in the manner prescribed by such Indenture of
" Settlement."

EXTRACT FROM THE INDENTURE OF SETTLEMENT OF 'THE
LIGHTFOOT FUND FOR THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM.'

" WHEREAS the Bishop is the Author of and is absolutely
" entitled to the Copyright in the several Works mentioned in
" the Schedule hereto, and for the purposes of these presents he
" has assigned or intends forthwith to assign the Copyright in
"all the said Works to the Trustees. Now the Bishop doth
"hereby declare and it is hereby agreed as follows:

" The Trustees (which term shall hereinafter be taken to
"include the Trustees for the time being of these presents)

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY AND
GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL

Reprinted from the 'Expositor' of January,
February, March, 1890.

II. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY AND
GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL

Printed from Lecture-notes.

III. INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY AND

GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Printed from Lecture-notes.

IV. ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY

Printed from Lecture-notes.

V. THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES
Printed from Lecture-notes.

VI. THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA

Printed from Lecture-notes.

VII. THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA

Printed from Lecture-notes.

PAGES

144

45122

123193
194198

199211

213233

235250

251269

XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGES

VIII. THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS . . 271284

Reprinted from the ' Journal of Sacred and
Classical Philology,' Vol. n. p. 194 sq. (1855).

IX. THE STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE

TO THE ROMANS 285374

M. KENAN'S THEORY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 287 320

Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology,'
Vol. n. p. 264 sq. (1869).

ON THE END OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. BY

DR HORT 321351

Reprinted from the ' Journal of Philology,'
Vol. m. p. 51 sq. (1871).

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 352374

Reprinted from the f Journal of Philology,'
Vol. m. p. 193 sq. (1871).

X. THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 375396
Printed from Lecture-notes.

XI. THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES . . . 397410
ADDITIONAL NOTE 411418

Printed from Lecture-notes.

XII. ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS . 419 437
Printed from Lecture-notes.

INDICES .... 439 459

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

L. E.

Sprinted from the ' Expositor^ of January, February, March, 1890.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

lecture originally formed one of a series connected
with Christian evidences, and delivered in St George's
Hall in 1871. The other lectures were published shortly
afterwards ; but, not having been informed beforehand that
publication was expected, I withheld my own from the volume.
It seemed to me that in the course of a single lecture I could
only touch the fringes of a great subject, and that injustice
would be. done by such imperfect treatment as alone time and
opportunity allowed. Moreover I was then, and for some terms
afterwards, engaged in lecturing on this Gospel at Cambridge,
and I entertained the hope that I might be able to deal with
the subject less inadequately if I gave myself more time.
Happily it passed into other and better hands, and I was
relieved from this care.

A rumour got abroad at the time, and has (I am informed)
been since repeated, that I did not allow the lecture to be
published, because I was dissatisfied with it. I was only
dissatisfied in the sense which I have already explained. It
could not be otherwise than unsatisfactory to bring forward
mere fragmentary evidence of an important conclusion, when
there was abundant proof in the background. The present
publication of the lecture is my answer to this rumour. I give
it after eighteen years exactly in the same form in which it
was originally written, with the exception of a few verbal

GOSPEL - ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

alterations. Looking over it again after this long lapse of
time, I have nothing to withdraw. Additional study has only
strengthened my conviction that this narrative of St John
could not have been written by any one but an eye-witness.
As I have not dealt with the external evidence except for
the sake of supplying a statement of the position of antagonists,
the treatment suffers less than it would otherwise have done
from not being brought down to date. I have mentioned by
way of illustration two respects in which later discoveries had
falsified Baur's contentions. The last eighteen years would
supply several others. I will single out three : (1) The antago-
nists of the Ignatian Epistles are again put on their defence.
The arguments which were adduced against the genuineness of
these epistles will hold no longer. Ignatius has the testimony
of his friend and contemporary Polycarp, and Polycarp has the
testimony of his own personal disciple Irenaeus. The testimony
of Irenseus is denied by no one; the testimony of Polycarp
is only denied because it certifies to the Ignatian letters.
Before we are prepared to snap this chain of evidence rudely,
and to break with an uninterrupted tradition, we require far
stronger reasons than have been hitherto adduced. (2) Justin
Martyr wrote before or about the middle of the second century.
His use of the Fourth Gospel was at one time systematically
denied by the impugners of its apostolic authorship. Now it is
acknowledged almost universally, even by those who do not
allow that this evangelical narrative was written by St John
himself. (3) The Diatessaron of Tatian was written about A.D.
170, and consisted of a 'Harmony of Four Gospels.' Baur and
others contended that at all events St John was not one of the
four. Indeed how could it be ? For it had not been written,
or only recently written, at this time. The Diatessaron itself
has been discovered, and a commentary of Ephrsem Syrus
upon it in Armenian has likewise been unearthed within the
last few years, both showing that it began with the opening
words of St John.

[1889.]

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 5

The fourth of our canonical gospels has been ascribed by
the tradition of the Church to St John the son of Zebedee, the
personal disciple of our Lord, and one of the twelve apostles.
Till within a century (I might almost say, till within a genera-
tion) of the present time, this has been the universal belief
with one single and unimportant exception of all ages, of all
churches, of all sects, of all individuals alike.

This unanimity is the more remarkable in the earlier ages
of the Church, because the language of this gospel has a very
intimate bearing on numberless theological controversies which
started up in the second, third, and fourth centuries of the
Christian era; and it was therefore the direct interest of one
party or other to deny the apostolic authority, if they had any
ground for doing so. This happened not once or twice only,
but many times. It would be difficult to point to a single
heresy promulgated before the close of the fourth century,
which might not find some imaginary points of coincidence or
some real points of conflict some relations whether of antago-
nism or of sympathy with this gospel. This was equally true
of Montanism in the second century, and of Arianism in the
fourth. The Fourth Gospel would necessarily be among the
most important authorities we might fairly say the most
important authority in the settlement of the controversy,
both from the claims which it made as a product of the
beloved apostle himself, and from the striking representations
which it gives of our Lord's teaching. The defender or the
impugner of this or that theological opinion would have had a
direct interest in disproving its genuineness and denying its
authority. Can we question that this would have been done
again and again, if there had been any haze of doubt hanging
over its origin, if the antagonist could have found even a
primd facie ground for an attack ?

And this brings me to speak of that one exception to the
universal tradition to which I have already alluded. Once, and
once only, did the disputants in a theological controversy yield
to the temptation, strong though it must have been. A small,

6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

unimportant, nameless sect if indeed they were compact
enough to form a sect in the latter half of the second century,
denied that the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by
St John. These are the two canonical writings which especially
attribute the title of the Word of God, the Logos, to our Lord:
the one, in the opening verses, 'In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God';
the other, in the vision of Him who rides on the white horse,
whose garments are stained with blood, and whose name is
given as the 'Word of God.' To dispose of the doctrine they
discredited the writings. Epiphanius calls them Alogi, 'the
opponents of the Word,' or (as it might be translated, for it is
capable of a double meaning) r the irrational ones/ The name
is avowedly his own invention. Indeed they would scarcely
have acknowledged a title which had this double sense, and
could have been so easily turned against themselves. They
appear only to disappear. Beyond one or two casual allusions,
they are not mentioned ; they have no place in history.

This is just one of those exceptions which strengthen the
rule. What these Alogi did, numberless other sectaries and
heretics would doubtless have done, if there had been any
sufficient ground for the course. But even these Alogi lend no
countenance to the views of modern objectors. Modern critics
play off the Apocalypse against the Gospel, allowing the
genuineness of the former, and using it to impugn the genuine-
ness of the latter. Moreover there is the greatest difference
between the two. The modern antagonist places the composi-
tion of the Fourth Gospel in the middle or the latter half of the
second century; these ancient heretics ascribed it to the early
heresiarch Cerinthus, who lived at the close of the first century,
and was a contemporary of St John. Living themselves in the
latter half of the second century, they knew (as their opponents
would have reminded them, if they had found it convenient to
forget the fact) that the Gospel was not a work of yesterday,
that it had already a long history, and that it went back at all
events to the latest years of the apostolic age; and in their

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 7

theory they were obliged to recognise this fact. I need hardly
say that the doctrine of the Person of Christ put forward in
the Gospel and the Apocalypse is diametrically opposed to
the teaching of Cerinthus, as every modern critic would allow.
I only allude to this fact, to show that these very persons, who
form the single exception to the unanimous tradition of all the
churches and all the sects alike, are our witnesses for the
antiquity of the Gospel (though not for its authenticity), and
therefore are witnesses against the modern impugners of its
genuineness.

With this exception, the early testimony to the authen-
ticity and genuineness of the Gospel is singularly varied.
It is a remarkable and an important fact, that the most
decisive and earliest testimony comes, not from Fathers of
the orthodox Church, but from heretical writers. I cannot
enter upon this question at length, for I did not undertake
this afternoon to speak of the external evidence; and I ask
you to bear in mind, that any inadequate and cursory
treatment necessarily does a great injustice to a subject like
this ; for the ultimate effect of testimony must depend on
its fulness and variety. I only call attention to the fact that
within the last few years most valuable additions have been
made to this external testimony, and these from the opposite
extremes of the heretical scale. At the one extreme we have
Ebionism, which was the offspring of Judaizing tendencies ;
at the other, Gnosticism, which took its rise in Gentile license
of speculation and practice. Ebionism is represented by a
remarkable extant work belonging to the second century,
possibly to the first half of the second century, the Clementine
Homilies. The greater part of this work has long been known,
but until within the last few years the printed text was taken
from a MS. mutilated at the end ; so that of the twenty Homilies
the last half of the nineteenth and the whole of the twentieth
are wanting. These earlier Homilies contained more than one
reference to gospel history which could not well be referred to
any of the three first evangelists, and seemed certainly to have

8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

been taken from the fourth. Still the reference was not abso-
lutely certain, and the impugners of St John's Gospel availed
themselves of this doubt to deny the reference to this gospel.
At length, in the year 1853, Dressel published for the first
time, from a Vatican MS., the missing conclusion of these
Homilies ; and this was found to contain a reference to the
incidents attending the healing of the man born blind, related
only by St John, and related in a way distinctly characteristic
of St John a reference so distinct, that no one from that time
has attempted to deny or to dispute it.

So much for the testimony of Ebionism of the Judaic
sects of early Christianity. But equally definite, and even
more full, is the testimony which recent discovery has brought
to light on the side of Gnosticism. Many of my hearers will
remember the interest which was excited a few years ago by
the publication of a lost treatise on heresies, which Bunsen
and others ascribed (and, as is now generally allowed, correctly
ascribed) to Hippolytus, in the earlier part of the third century.
This treatise contains large and frequent extracts from previous
Gnostic writers of diverse schools Ophites, Basilideans, Valen-
tinians ; among them, from a work which Hippolytus quotes
as the production of Basilides himself, who flourished about
A.D. 130-140. And in these extracts are abundant quotations
from the Gospel of St John.

I have put these two recent accessions to the external
testimony in favour of the Fourth Gospel side by side, because,
emanating from the most diverse quarters, they have a peculiar
value, as showing the extensive circulation and wide reception
of this gospel at a very early date ; and because also, having
been brought to light soon after its genuineness was for the
first time seriously impugned, they seem providentially destined
to furnish an answer to the objections of recent criticism.

If we ask ourselves why we attribute this or that ancient
writing to the author whose name it bears why, for instance,
we accept this tragedy as a play of Sophocles, or that speech as
an oration of Demosthenes, our answer will be, that it bears

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 9

the name of the author, and (so far as we know) has always
been ascribed to him. In very many cases we know nothing,
or next to nothing, about the history of the writing in question.
In a few instances we are fortunate enough to find a reference
to it, or a quotation from it, in some author who lived a
century or two later. The cases are exceptionally rare when
there is an indisputable allusion in a contemporary, or nearly
contemporary, writer. For the most part, we accept the fact
of the authorship, because it comes to us on the authority
of a MS. or MSS. written several centuries after the presumed
author lived, supported in some cases by quotations in a late
lexicographer, or grammarian, or collection of extracts.

The external testimony in favour of St John's Gospel
reaches back much nearer to the writer's own time, and is
far more extensive than can be produced in the case of most
classical writings of the same antiquity. From the character of
the work also, this testimony gains additional value ; for where
the contents of a book intimately affect the cherished beliefs
and the practical conduct of all who receive it, the universality
of its reception, amidst jarring creeds and conflicting tendencies,
is far more significant than if its contents are indifferent,
making no appeal to the religious convictions, and claiming no
influence over the life. We may be disposed to complain that
the external testimony is not so absolutely and finally conclusive
in itself that no door is open for hesitation, that all must,
despite themselves, accept it, and that any investigation into
the internal evidence is superfluous and vain. But this we
have no right to demand. If it is as great, and more than as
great, as would satisfy us in any other case, this should suffice
us. In all the most important matters which affect our interests
in this world and our hopes hereafter, God has left some place
for diversity of opinion, because He would not remove all
opportunity of self-discipline.

If then the genuineness of this gospel is supported by
greater evidence than in ordinary cases we consider conclusive,
we approach the investigation of its internal character with a

10 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

very strong presumption in its favour. The onus probandi rests
with those who would impugn its genuineness, and nothing
short of the fullest and most decisive marks of spuriousness can
fairly be considered sufficient to counterbalance this evidence.

As I proceed, I hope to make it clear that, allowing their
full weight to all the difficulties (and it would be foolish to
deny the existence of difficulties) in this gospel, still the internal
marks of authenticity and genuineness are so minute, so varied,
so circumstantial, and so unsuspicious, as to create an over-
whelming body of evidence in its favour.

But before entering upon this investigation, it may be
worth while to inquire whether the hypotheses suggested by
those who deny the genuineness of this gospel are themselves
free from all difficulties. For if it be a fact (as I believe it is)
that any alternative which has been proposed introduces greater
perplexities than those which it is intended to remove, we are
bound (irrespective of any positive arguments in its favour) to
fall back 'upon the account which is exposed to fewest objections,
and which at the same time is supported by a continuous and
universal tradition.

We may take our start from Baur's theory, for he was the
first to develop and systematize the attack on the genuineness
of the Fourth Gospel. According to Baur it was written about
the year 1*70. The external testimony however is alone fatal
to this very late epoch ; for, after all wresting of evidence and
post-dating of documents, it is impossible to deny that at this
time the gospel was, not only in existence, but also received far
and wide as a genuine document ; that it was not only quoted
occasionally, but had even been commented upon as the actual
work of St John. Consequently the tendency of later impugners
has been to push the date farther back, and to recede from
the extreme position of this, its most determined and ablest
antagonist. Hilgenfeld, who may be regarded as the successor
of Baur, and the present representative of the Tubingen school
(though it has no longer its headquarters at Tubingen), would
place its composition about the year 150 ; and Tayler, who a

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 11

few years ago (1867) reproduced the argument of Baur and
others in England, is disposed to assign it to about the same
date. With a strange inconsistency he suggests, towards the
close of his book, that its true author may have been John the
presbyter, though John the presbyter is stated by Papias (who
had conversed with this John, and from whom all the informa-
tion we possess respecting him is derived) to have been a
personal disciple of our Lord, and therefore could hardly have
been older than John the apostle, and certaiuly could not have
been living towards the middle of the second century.

This tendency to recede nearer and nearer to the evangelist's
own age shows that the pressure of facts has begun to tell on
the theories of antagonistic criticism, and we may look forward
to the time when it will be held discreditable to the reputation
of any critic for sobriety and judgment to assign to this gospel
any later date than the end of the first century, or the very
beginning of the second.

But meanwhile, let us take the earliest of these dates
(A.D. 150) as less encumbered with difficulties, and therefore
more favourable to the opponents of its genuineness, and ask
whether a gospel written at such a time would probably have
presented the phenomena which we actually find in the fourth
canonical gospel. We may interrogate alike its omissions and
its contents. On this hypothesis, how are we to account for
what it has left unsaid, and for what it has said?

Certainly it must be regarded as a remarkable phenomenon,
that on many ecclesiastical questions which then agitated the
minds of Christians it is wholly silent, while to others it gives
no distinct and authoritative answer. Our Lord's teaching has
indeed its bearing on the controversies of the second century, as
on those of the fourth, or of the twelfth, or of the sixteenth, or
of the nineteenth : but, as in these latter instances, its lessons
are inferential rather than direct, they are elicited by painful
investigation, they are contained implicitly in our Lord's life
and person, they do not lie on the surface, nor do they offer
definite solutions of definite difficulties.

12 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Take, for instance, the dispute concerning the episcopate.
Contrast the absolute silence of this gospel respecting this
institution with the declarations in the Epistles of Ignatius. A
modern defender of the episcopate will appeal to the commission
given to the apostles (John xx. 22, 23). I need not stop here to
inquire to what extent it favours his views. But obviously it
is quite insufficient by itself. It would serve almost equally
well for an apostolically ordained ministry of any kind, for a
presbyteral as for an episcopal succession. Is it possible that a
writer, composing a gospel at the very time when the authority
of this office had been called in question, if a supporter of the
power of the episcopate, would have resisted the temptation
of inserting something which would convey a sanction, if an
opponent, something which would convey a disparagement, of
this office, in our Lord's own name ?

Or, again: take the Gnostic theories of emanations. Any
one who has studied the history of the second century will
know how large a place they occupy in the theological disputes
of the day ; what grotesque and varied forms they assume in
the speculations of different heretical teachers ; what diverse
arguments, some valid, some fanciful, are urged against them
by orthodox writers. Would a forger have hesitated for a
moment to slay this many-headed hydra by one well-aimed
blow ? What can we suppose to have been the object of such a
forger, except to advance certain theological views ? And why
should he have let slip the very opportunity, which (we must
suppose) he was making for himself, of condemning the worst
forms of heresy from our Lord's own lips ? It is true that you
and I think we see (and doubtless think rightly), that the
doctrine of God the Word taught in St John's Gospel is the
real answer to the theological questionings which gave rise to
all these theories about aeons or emanations, and involves im-
plicitly and indirectly the refutation of all such theories. But it
is only by more or less abstruse reasoning that we arrive at this
conclusion. The early Gnostics did not see it so ; they used
St John's Gospel, and retained their theories notwithstanding.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 13

A forger would have taken care to provide a direct refutation
which it was impossible to misunderstand.

Or, again : about the middle of the second century the great
controversy respecting the time of celebrating Easter was
beginning to lift up its head. For the latter half of this
century the feud raged, bursting out ever afresh and disturbing
the peace of the Church again and again, until it was finally
set at rest in the fourth century at the Council of Nicsea. Was
the festival of the Lord's resurrection to be celebrated always
on the same day of the week, the Sunday ? Or was it to be
guided by the time of the Jewish Passover, and thus to take
place on the same day of the month, irrespective of the day of
the week ? Each community, each individual, took a side in
this controversy. Unimportant in itself, it seriously endangered
the existence of the Church. The daring adventurer who did
not hesitate to forge a whole gospel would certainly not be
deterred by any scruple from setting the matter at rest by a
few strokes of the pen. His narrative furnished more than one
favourable opportunity for interposing half a dozen decisive
words in our Lord's name : and yet he abstained.

Thus we might take in succession the distinctive eccle-
siastical controversies of the second century, and show how the
writer of the Fourth Gospel holds aloof from them all : certainly
a strange and almost incredible fact, if this writer lived about
the middle, or even in the latter half, of the century, and, as a
romancer, was not restrained by those obligations of fact which
fetter the truthful historian who is himself a contemporary of
the events recorded !

But if the omissions of the writer are strange and unac-
countable on the assumption of the later date of the Gospel, the
actual contents present still greater difficulties on the same
hypothesis. In the interval between the age when the events
are recorded to have taken place and the age in which the
writer is supposed to have lived, a vast change had come over
the civilized world. In no period had the dislocation of Jewish
history been so complete. Two successive hurricanes had swept

14 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

over the land and nation. The devastation of Titus had been
succeeded by the devastation of Hadrian. What the locust of
the first siege had left the cankerworm of the second had
devoured. National polity, religious worship, social institutions,
all were gone. The city had been razed, the land laid desolate,
the law and the ordinances proscribed, the people swept into
captivity or scattered over the face of the earth. ' Old things
had passed away ; all things had become new.'

Now let us place ourselves in the position of one who wrote
about the middle of the second century, after the later Roman
invasion had swept off the scanty gleanings of the past which
had been spared from the earlier. Let us ask how a romancer
so situated is to make himself acquainted with the incidents,
the localities, the buildings, the institutions, the modes of
thought and feeling, which belonged to this past age and (as
we may almost say) this bygone people. Let it be granted
that here and there he might stumble upon a historical fact,
that in one or two particulars he might reproduce a national
characteristic. More than this would be beyond his reach.
For, it will be borne in mind, he would be placed at a great
disadvantage, compared with a modern writer ; he would have
to reconstruct history without those various appliances, maps
and plates, chronological tables, books of travel, by which the
author of a historical novel is so largely assisted in the present
day.

And even if he had been furnished with all these aids,
would he have known how to use them ? The uncritical
character of the apostolic age is a favourite commonplace with
those who impugn the genuineness of the canonical Scriptures,
or the trustworthiness of the evangelical narratives. I do not
deny that the age (compared with our own) was uncritical,
though very exaggerated language is often used on the subject.
But obviously this argument has a double edge. And the
keener of these two edges lies across the very throat of recent
negative criticism. For it requires a much higher flight of
critical genius to invent an extremely delicate fiction than to

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 15

detect it when invented. The age which could not expose a
coarse forgery was incapable of constructing a subtle historical
romance. This one thing I hope to make clear in the short
time that is allowed me this afternoon. The Fourth Gospel, if
a forgery, shows the most consummate skill on the part of the
forger ; it is (as we should say in modern phrase) thoroughly in
keeping. It is replete with historical and geographical details ;
it is interpenetrated with the Judaic spirit of the times ; its
delineations of character are remarkably subtle ; it is perfectly
natural in the progress of the events ; the allusions to incidents
or localities or modes of thought are introduced in an artless
and unconscious way, being closely interwoven with the texture
of the narrative ; while throughout, the author has exercised a
silence and a self-restraint about his assumed personality which
is without a parallel in ancient forgeries, and which deprives
his work of the only motive that, on the supposition of its
spuriousness, would account for his undertaking it at all.

In all these respects it forms a direct contrast to the known
forgeries of the apostolic or succeeding ages. I will only ask
my hearers who are acquainted with early apocryphal literature
to compare St John's Gospel with two very different and yet
equally characteristic products of the first and second centuries
of the Christian era with the Protevangelium, or Gospel of
the Infancy of Jesus, on the one hand, and with the Clementine
Homilies, on the other : the former, a vulgar daub dashed in by
a coarse hand in bright and startling colours; the other, a
subtle philosophical romance, elaborately drawn by an able and
skilful artist. But both the one and the other are obviously
artificial in all their traits, and utterly alien to the tone of
genuine history.

Such productions as these show what we might expect to
find in a gospel written at the middle or after the middle of the
second century.

If then my description of the Fourth Gospel is not over-
charged (and I will endeavour to substantiate it immediately),
the supposition that this gospel was written at this late epoch

16 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

by a resident at Alexandria or at Ephesus will appear in the
highest degree incredible ; and, whatever difficulties the tra-
ditional belief may involve, they are small indeed compared
with the improbabilities created by the only alternative hypo-
thesis.

I have already proved that the absence of certain topics in
this gospel seems fatal to its late authorship. I shall now
proceed to investigate those phenomena of its actual contents
which force us to the conclusion that it was written by a Jew
contemporary with and cognisant of the facts which he relates,
and more especially those indications which fix the authorship
on the Apostle St John. It is necessary however to premise by
way of caution, that exhaustive treatment is impossible in a
single lecture, and that I can only hope to indicate a line of
investigation which any one may follow out for himself.

First of all then, the writer was a Jew. This might be
inferred with a very high degree of probability from his Greek
style alone. It is not ungrammatical Greek, but it is distinctly
Greek of one long accustomed to think and speak through the
medium of another language. The Greek language is singularly
rich in its capabilities of syntactic construction, and it is also
well furnished with various connecting particles. The two
languages with which a Jew of Palestine would be most
familiar the Hebrew, which was the language of the sacred
Scriptures, and the Aramaic, which was the medium of com-
munication in daily life being closely allied to each other,
stand in direct contrast to the Greek in this respect. There is
comparative poverty of inflexions, and there is an extreme
paucity of connecting and relative particles. Hence in Hebrew
and Aramaic there is little or no syntax, properly so called.

Tested by his style then, the writer was a Jew. Of all
the New Testament writings the Fourth Gospel is the most
distinctly Hebraic in this respect. The Hebrew simplicity
of diction will at once strike the reader. There is an entire
absence of periods, for which the Greek language affords such
facility. The sentences are co-ordinated, not subordinated.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 17

The clauses are strung together, like beads on a string. The
very monotony of arrangement, though singularly impressive,
is wholly unlike the Greek style of the age.

More especially does the influence of the Hebrew appear in
the connecting particles. In this language the single connecting
particle is used equally, whether co-ordination or opposition is
implied ; in other words, it represents ' but ' as well as ' and.'
The Authorized Version does not adequately represent this
fact, for our translators have exercised considerable license in
varying the renderings : ' then/ ' moreover,' ' and/ ' but/ etc.
Now it is a noticeable fact, that in St John's Gospel the
capabilities of the Greek language in this respect are most
commonly neglected ; the writer falls back on the simple ' and '
of Hebrew diction, using it even where we should expect to
find an adversative particle. Thus v. 39, 40, ' Ye search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think that ye have eternal life : and
they are they which testify of He : and ye will not come to
Me'; vii. 19, 'Did not Moses give you the law, and none of
you keepeth the law ? ' where our English version has inserted
an adversative particle to assist the sense, ' and yet ' ; vii. 30,
' Then they sought to take Him : and no man laid hands on
Him/ where the English version substitutes ' but no man ' ;
vii. 33, ' Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I
with you, and I go to Him that sent Me/ where again our
translators attempt to improve the sense by reading ' and then.'
And instances might be multiplied.

The Hebrew character of the diction moreover shows itself
in other ways : by the parallelism of the sentences, by the
repetition of the same words in different clauses, by the order
of the words, by the syntactical constructions, and by individual
expressions. Indeed so completely is this character maintained
throughout, that there is hardly a sentence which might not be
translated literally into Hebrew or Aramaic, without any
violence to the language or to the sense.

I might point also to the interpretation of Aramaic words,
as Cephas, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Messias, Rabboni, Siloam,

L. E. 2

18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Thomas, as indicating knowledge of this language. On such
isolated phenomena however no great stress can fairly be laid,
because such interpretations do not necessarily require an
extensive acquaintance with the language ; and when the
whole cast and colouring of the diction can be put in evidence,
an individual word here and there is valueless in comparison.

There are however two examples of proper names in this
Gospel on which it may be worth while to remark ; because
the original is obscured in our English Bibles by a false
reading in the Greek text used by our translators, and because
they afford incidentally somewhat strong testimony to the
writer's knowledge both of the language and of contemporary
facts.

The first of these is Iscariot. In the other three gospels
this name is attributed to the traitor apostle Judas alone. In
St John's Gospel also, as represented in the received text and
in our English version, this is the case. But if the more correct
readings be substituted, on the authority of the ancient copies,
we find it sometimes applied to Judas himself (xii. 4, xiii. 2,
xiv. 22), and sometimes to Judas' father Simon (e.g. vi. 71,
c He spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot ' ; xiii. 26, ' He
giveth it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot'). Now this
shows that the evangelist knew this not to be a proper name
strictly so called, but to describe the native place of the person,
' the man of Kerioth/ and hence to be applicable to the father
and the son alike.

The other instance which I shall give, at first sight presents
a difficulty ; but when further investigated it only adds fresh
testimony to the exact knowledge of the Fourth Evangelist.
In St Matthew, Simon Peter is called Bar-Jona (Matt. xvi. 17);
i.e. son of Jona (or Jonan or Jonas). Accordingly in the
received text of St John also he appears in not less than four
passages (i. 42, xxi. 15-17) as Simon son of Jona (or Jonan or
Jonas). But there can be no reasonable doubt that the correct
reading in all these four passages is ' Simon son of Joannes '
the Hebrew and Aramaic Johanan, the English John and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 19

that later transcribers have altered it to make it accord with
the form adopted by St Matthew. Here there is an apparent
discrepancy, which however disappears on examination ; for we
find that Jona or Jonan or Jonas is more than once used in the
LXX version of the Old Testament as a contracted form of the
name Johanan, Johannes, or John. Thus the statements of
the two evangelists are reconciled ; and we owe it to the special
knowledge derived from the Fourth Gospel that the full and
correct form is preserved. For, when we have once got this
key to the fact, we can no longer question that John was the
real name of Peter's father, since it throws great light on our
Lord's words in St Matthew. The ordinary name Jonah, which
was borne by the prophet, and which is generally supposed to
be the name of Simon's father, signifies ' a dove ' ; but the
name Johanan or John is ' the grace of God.' Hence the
Baptist is called not Zechariah, as his relatives thought natural,
but John, in accordance with the heavenly message (Luke i. 13),
because he was specially given to his parents by God's grace.
So too the call of St Peter (John i. 42) becomes full of meaning:
' Thou art Simon the son of the grace of God ; thou shalt be
called Cephas ' ; and the final commission given to the same
apostle is doubly significant, when we interpret the thrice
repeated appeal as ' Simon son of God's grace, lovest thou Me ? '
for without this interpretation the studied repetition of his
patronymic seems somewhat meaningless. Bearing this fact in
mind, we turn to the passage of St Matthew (xvi. 17, 18) : ' Jesus
answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona
(son of the grace of God) : for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say
unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
My Church.' His name and his surname alike are symbols and
foreshadowings of God's special favour to him in his call and
commission. This is only one of many instances in which the
authenticity of the statements of the Fourth Gospel is confirmed
by the fact that they incidentally explain what is otherwise un-
explained in the narrative of the synoptic evangelists.

20 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Another evidence that the writer was acquainted with the
Hebrew language is furnished by the quotations from the Old
Testament. This evangelist, like St Paul, sometimes cites
from the current Greek version of the Seventy, and sometimes
translates directly from the Hebrew. When a writer, as is the
case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, quotes largely and quotes
uniformly from the LXX version, this is at least an indication
that he was not acquainted with the original ; and hence we
infer that the epistle just mentioned was not written by St
Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, but by some disciple, a
Hellenistic Jew, thoroughly interpenetrated with the apostle's
mind and teaching, but ignorant of the language of his fore-
fathers. If on any occasion the quotations of a writer accord
with the original Hebrew against the LXX version, we have a
right to infer that he was acquainted with the sacred language,
was, in fact, a Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking Jew. Several
decisive examples might be produced, but one must suffice.
In xix. 37 is a quotation from Zechariah xii. 10, which in the
original is, ' They shall look upon Me whom they pierced.'
Accordingly it is given in St John, 'They shall look on Him
whom they pierced ' (o-^rovrat els ov e^/cevTrja-av). But the
LXX rendering is, 'They shall gaze upon Me, because they
insulted ' (eTTtySXe^oz/rat Trpos /JL, dv6* wv KCLT(op f xr)cravTO\
where the LXX translators had a different reading, -npi for
I" 1 !?!, and where their Greek rendering has not a single word
in common with St John's text.

In xii. 40 again, the evangelist quotes Isaiah vi. 10,
'Because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes,
and hardened their heart ; that they should not see with their
eyes,' etc. Now this quotation is far from being verbally
exact ; for in the Hebrew the sentence is imperative, * Make
fat the heart of this people, and make heavy their ears, and
close their eyes, that they should not see with their eyes,' etc.
Yet, on the other hand, it does not contain any of the
characteristic renderings of the LXX ; and this is one distinct
proof that, however loosely quoted, it was derived, not from the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 21

LXX, but from the original. For the LXX translators, taking
offence, as it would seem, at ascribing the hardening of the
heart to God's own agency, have thrown the sentence into a
passive form : ' The heart of this people was made fat, and with
their ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they closed/ etc.,
so as to remove the difficulty. If therefore the evangelist had
derived the passage from the LXX, it is inconceivable that he
would have reintroduced the active form, thus wantonly reviving
a difficulty, unless he had the original before him.

I will only add one other example. In xiii. 18 occurs a
quotation from Psalm xli. 9 (xl. 10). Here the expression
which in the original signifies literally ' made great ' or ' made
high ' his heel is correctly translated ' lifted up his heel' (eirypev
rrjv Ti-repvav avrov), as in the A.V. of the Psalms. The LXX
version however gives epeyakwev TnepviafjLov, ' he multiplied
(or increased) tripping up with the heel/ or ' treachery/ which
has given rise to the paraphrastic rendering in our Prayer-
Book version, ' laid great wait for me/ Here again it is
obvious that the evangelist's quotation could not have been
derived from the LXX, but must have been rendered either
directly from the Hebrew, or (what for my purpose is equally
decisive) indirectly through some Chaldee Targum.

If therefore we had no other evidence than the language,
we might with confidence affirm that this gospel was not
written either by a Gentile or by a Hellenistic Christian, but
by a Hebrew accustomed to speak the language of his fathers.
This fact alone negatives more than one hypothesis which has
been broached of late years respecting its authorship, for it is
wholly inconsistent with the strictly Gentile origin which most
recent theories assign to it. But, though irreconcilable with
Gentile authorship, it is not wholly inconsistent with the later
date ; for we cannot pronounce it quite impossible that there
should be living in Asia Minor or in Egypt, in the middle
or after the middle of the second century, a Judaic Christian
familiar with the Hebrew or Aramaic language, however rare
such instances may have been.

22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Having thus established the fact that the writer was
neither a Gentile nor a Hellenist, but a Hebrew of the
Hebrews, we will proceed to inquire further whether he
evinces an acquaintance with the manners and feelings, and
also with the geography and history (more especially the
contemporary history) of Palestine, which so far as our know-
ledge goes (and in dealing with such questions we must not
advance one step beyond our knowledge) would be morally
impossible with even a Hebrew Christian at the supposed date,
long after the political existence of the nation had been
obliterated, and when the disorganization of Jewish society was
complete.

As I am obliged to compress my remarks within the space
of a single lecture, I cannot place the evidence fully before
you ; but my hope is, that I may indicate the lines of investi-
gation which will enable you to answer it more completely for
yourselves. I will only say, that we obtain from the Fourth
Gospel details at once fuller and more minute on all these
points than from the other three. Whether we turn to the
Messianic hopes of the chosen people, with all the attendant
circumstances with which imagination had invested this ex-
pected event, or to the mutual relations of Samaritans, Jews,
Galileans, Romans, and the respective feelings, prejudices,
beliefs, customs of each, or to the topography as well of the
city and the temple as of the rural districts the Lake of
Gennesaret, and the cornfields and mountain ridges of Shechem
or to the contemporary history of the Jewish hierarchy and
the Herodian sovereignty, we are alike struck at every turn
with subtle and unsuspicious traces, betokening the familiarity
with which the writer moves amidst the ever-shifting scenes of
his wonderful narrative.

This minuteness of detail in the Fourth Evangelist is very
commonly overlooked, because our gaze is arrested by still
more important and unique features in this Gospel. The
striking character of our Lord's discourses as recorded in St
John their length and sequence, their simplicity of language,

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 23

their fulness and depth of meaning dazzles the eye of the
critic and blinds him to the historical aspects of the narrative-
Only by concentrating our view on these latter shall we realize
the truth that the evangelist is not floating in the clouds of
airy theological speculations, that though with his eye he peers
into the mysteries of the unseen, his foot is planted on the solid
ground of external fact ; that, in short, the incidents are not
invented as a framework for the doctrine, but that the doctrine
arises naturally out of, and derives its meaning from, the
incidents.

One example will serve at once to illustrate the double
characteristic of this Gospel, the accurate historical narrative of
facts which forms the basis of the Gospel, and the theological
teaching which is built as a superstructure upon this foundation,
and which the evangelist keeps distinctly and persistently in
view in his selection and arrangement of the facts, and also to
introduce the investigation which I purpose instituting.

The narrative and the discourses alike are thoroughly
saturated with the Messianic ideas of the time. The Christ,
as expected by the Jews, is the one central figure round which
all the facts are grouped, the one main topic on which all the
conversations hinge. This is the more remarkable, because the
leading conception in the writer's own mind is not the Messiah,
but the Word, the Logos, not the deliverance of Israel, but
the manifestation of God in the flesh. This main purpose is
flung out at the opening of the Gospel, and it is kept steadily
in view in the selection of materials throughout the work.
But it does not once enter into the mind of the Jews, who are
wholly absorbed in the Messianic idea. Nay, the word Logos
does not once occur even on our Lord's own lips, though the
obvious motive of His teaching is to enforce this higher aspect
of His person, to which they were strangers. And I cannot
but think that this distinct separation is a remarkable testi-
mony to the credibility of the writer, who, however strongly
impressed with his mission as the teacher of a great theological
conception, nevertheless keeps it free from his narrative of facts ;

24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

though obviously there would be a very strong temptation to
introduce it, a temptation which to a mere forger would be
irresistible.

The Messianic idea, for instance, is turned about on all
sides, and presented in every aspect. On this point we learn
very much more of contemporary Jewish opinion from the
Fourth Gospel than from the other three. At the commence-
ment and at the close of the narrative in the preaching of the
Baptist and in the incidents of the Passion it is equally
prominent. In Galilee (i. 41, 46, 49; vi. 15, 28, 30 sq.), in
Samaria (iv. 25, 29, 42), in Judaea (v. 39, 45 sq. ; vii. 26 sq.,
40-43 ; viii. 30 sq. ; x. 24), it is the one standing theme of
conversation. Among friends, among foes, among neutrals
alike it is mooted and discussed. The person and character
of Jesus are tried by this standard. He is accepted or He is
rejected, as He fulfils or contradicts the received ideal of the
Messiah.

The accessories also of the Messiah's coming, as conceived
by the Jews, are brought out with a completeness beyond the
other gospels. I will only ask you, as an illustration of this,
to consider the discourse on the manna in the sixth chapter.
The key to the meaning of the conversation is the fact that
the Jews expected a miracle similar to the gift of manna in
the wilderness, as an accompaniment of the appearance of the
great deliverer. This expectation throws a flood of light on
the whole discourse. But the fact is not communicated in the
passage itself. There is only a bald, isolated statement, which
apparently is suggested by nothing, and itself fails to suggest
anything: 'Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness.'
Then comes an aposiopesis. The inference is unexpressed.
The expectation, which explains all, is left to be inferred,
because it would be mentally supplied by men brought up
among the ideas of the time. We ourselves have to get it by
the aid of criticism and research from rabbinical authorities.
But, when we have grasped it, we can unlock the meaning
of the whole chapter.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 25

Connected with Messiah's coming are other conceptions on
which it may be worth while to dwell for a moment. One
of these is the appearance of a mysterious person called ' the
prophet.' This expectation arose out of the announcement in
Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto
thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me.' To this
anticipation we have allusions in not less than four places in
St John (i. 21, 25 ; vi. 14 ; vii. 40), in all of which ' the prophet '
is mentioned, though in the three first the distinctness of the
expectation is blurred in the English version by the rendering
'that prophet.' In all these passages the mention of ( the
prophet ' without any explanation is most natural on the lips of
contemporary Jews, whose minds were filled with the Messianic
conceptions of the times ; while such language is extremely
unlikely to have been invented for them more than a century
after the date of the supposed occurrences. But the point
especially to be observed is, that the form which the conception
takes is strictly Jewish, and not Christian. Christian teachers
identified the prophet foretold by Moses with our Lord Himself,
and therefore with the Christ. This application of the prophecy
is made directly in St Peter's speech (Acts iii. 22), and infer-
entially in St Stephen's (Acts vii. 37); and later Christian
teachers followed in their steps. But these Jews in St John's
Gospel conceive ' the Christ ' and ' the prophet ' as two different
persons. If He is not * the Christ,' they adopt the alternative
that He may be 'the prophet' (i. 21, 25); if not 'the prophet,'
then 'the Christ' (vii. 40). It is hardly conceivable to my
mind that a Christian writer, living in or after the middle of
the second century, calling on his imagination for facts, should
have divested himself so absolutely of the Christian idea and
fallen back on the Jewish.

But before I have done with ' the prophet,' there is yet one
more point worthy of notice. After the miracle of feeding the
five thousand, we are told that ' those men who had seen the
miracle that Jesus did said, This is of a truth the prophet that
should come into the world' (vi. 14). The connexion is not

26 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

obvious, and the writer has not explained himself. Here again
the missing link is supplied by the Messianic conception of the
age. The prophet foretold was to be like Moses himself. Hence
it was inferred that there must be a parallel in the works of the
two. Hence a repetition of the gift of the manna the bread
from heaven might be expected. Was not this miracle then
the very fulfilment of their expectation ? Hence we read that
on the day following (after several incidents have intervened,
but with the miracle still fresh on their minds), they seek
Him out, and still try to elicit a definite answer from Him :
' What sign showest Thou then ? Our fathers did eat manna in
the desert.' Thus a casual and indistinct reference in one part
of the chapter is explained by an equally casual and indistinct
reference in another, and light emerges from darkness.

From the Messianic ideas I turn to the Jewish sects and the
Levitical hierarchy.

The Sadducees, with whom we are familiar in other gospels,
are not once mentioned by the Fourth Evangelist. How are we
to account for this fact ? Have we here a discrepancy, or (if not
a discrepancy) at least an incongruity ? Is there in St John's
picture an entire omission of that group which occupies a
prominent place on the canvas of the other evangelists, especially
of St Matthew ?

The common connexion, when describing the adversaries
of our Lord, is ' the Pharisees and Sadducees ' in the synoptic
evangelists, ' the chief priests and the Pharisees ' in St John.
In the comparison of these phrases lies the solution. The high
priests at this time belonged to the sect of the Sadducees. How
this happened we do not know. It may be that their Roman
rulers favoured this party, as being more lukewarm than the
Pharisees in religious matters, and therefore less likely to give
trouble to the civil powers. At all events, the fact appears dis-
tinctly from more than one notice in the narrative of the Acts
(iv. 1, v. 17); and the same is stated in a passage of Josephus
(Ant. xx. 9. 1). Thus a real coincidence arises from an apparent
incongruity.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 27

But Josephus elsewhere (Ant. xviii. 1. 4) makes another
statement respecting the Pharisees, which throws great light on
the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist. He tells us that the
Sadducees were few in number, though of the highest rank ;
and that when they were in office, they were forced, even
against their will, to listen to the Pharisees, because otherwise
they would not be tolerated by the people. Now this is
precisely the order of events in St John. The Pharisees (with
one single exception) always take the initiative ; they are the
active opponents of our Lord, and the chief priests step in to
execute their will.

The single exception is remarkable. Once only we find
chief priests acting alone and acting promptly (xii. 10). They
form a plot for putting Lazarus to death. This was essentially
a Sadducees' question. It was necessary that a living witness
to the great truth, which the high-priestly party denied, should
be got rid of at all hazards. Hence they bestir themselves and
throw off their usual apathy ; just as, turning from the Gospels
to the Acts of the Apostles, they have taken the place of the
Pharisees as the foremost persecutors of the new faith, because
the resurrection from the dead was the cardinal topic of the
preaching of the apostles.

But there is one other notice of the Jewish historian with
which the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist presents a striking
but unsuspicious coincidence. We are somewhat startled with
the outburst of rudeness which marks the chief of the party on
one occasion (xi. 49, 50). ' One of them, Caiaphas, being high
priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, and
ye do not reflect that it is expedient for you that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not
perish.' Asa comment on this, take the words of Josephus :
' The behaviour of the Sadducees to one another is not a little
rude, and their intercourse with their peers is brusque, as
if addressing strangers ' (B. J. ii. 8. 14).

These coincidences need little comment. I will only add
that the Fourth Evangelist does not himself give us the key to

28 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the incidents, that the references have been gathered from three
different parts of Josephus, that the statements in the evangelist
are not embroideries on his narrative, but are woven into its
very texture ; and that nevertheless all these several notices
dovetail together and create one harmonious whole, which bears
the very impress of strict historical truth.

After reviewing these coincidences, it will appear strange
that from the passage last quoted Baur derived what he
obviously considered to be one of his strongest arguments
against the authenticity of the Gospel. Because the evangelist
three times speaks of Caiaphas as ' high priest that year ' (xi.
49, 51 ; xviii. 13), he argues that the writer supposed the high
priesthood to be an annual office, and therefore could not have
been the Apostle John.

Now unless I have entirely misled you and myself, this is
incredible. You cannot imagine that one who shows an ac-
quaintance, not only with the language, but also with the
customs, feelings, history, topography of the race, even in their
minute details, should yet be ignorant of this most elementary
fact of Jewish institutions. Whether the Gospel is authentic or
whether it is not, such a supposition is equally incredible. If
the writing is a forgery, the forger was certainly highly informed
and extremely subtle ; he must have ransacked divers histories
for his facts ; and yet here he is credited with a degree of
ignorance which a casual glance at a few pages of his Old
Testament or his Josephus would at once have served to
dissipate. Suppose a parallel case. Imagine one, who writing
(we will say) a historical work, shows a subtle appreciation of
political feeling in England, and a minute acquaintance with
English social institutions, and yet falls into the error of
supposing that the premier is elected annually by vote of the
people, or that the lord- mayoralty is a hereditary office tenable
for life.

If therefore this supposition is simply impossible, we must
explain the expression, ' high priest that year,' in some other
way. And the explanation seems to be this. The most im-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 29

portant duty of the high priest was an annual function, the
sacrifice and intercession for the people on the great day of
atonement. ' Once every year,' says the writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews (ix. 7), ' the high priest alone entereth into the
second tabernacle (the inner sanctuary), not without blood,
which he offereth for himself and for the errors of the people.'
The year of which the evangelist speaks was the year of all
years ; 'the acceptable year of the Lord/ as it is elsewhere called;
the year in which the great sacrifice, the one atonement, was
made, the atonement which annulled once and for ever the
annual repetitions. It so happened that it was the duty of
Caiaphas, as high priest, to enter the holy of holies, and offer
the atonement for that year. The evangelist sees, if we may
use the phrase without irreverence, a dramatic propriety in the
fact that he of all men should make this declaration. By a
Divine irony he is made unconsciously to declare the truth,
proclaiming Jesus to be the great atoning sacrifice, and himself
to be instrumental in offering the victim. This irony of circum-
stances is illustrated in the case of Pilate, as in the case of
Caiaphas. The latter, the representative of the Jewish hierarchy,
pronounces Jesus the great atoning sacrifice ; the former, the
representative of the civil power, pronounces Him as the
sovereign of the race, ' Behold your King ! ' The malignity of
Caiaphas and the sneer of Pilate alike bear witness to a higher
truth than they themselves consciously apprehend.

From the sects and the hierarchy we may turn to the city
and the temple. Here too we should do well to bear in mind
how largely we owe the distinctive features of the topography
and architecture with which we are familiar to the Fourth
Gospel. Within the sacred precincts themselves the Porch of
Solomon, within the Holy City the pools of Bethsaida 1 and
Siloam, are brought before our eyes by this evangelist alone.
And when we pass outside the walls, he is still our guide.
From him we trace the steps of the Lord and His disciples on

1 ' Bethsaida ' or ' Bethzatha ' should probably be read in S. John v. 2 rather
than ' Bethesda.'

30 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

that fatal night crossing the brook Kedron into the garden ; it
is he who, relating the last triumphal entry into Jerusalem,
specifies ' the branches of the palm trees ' (the other evangelists
use general expressions, ' boughs of the trees/ or the like)
1 the palm trees ' on which he had so often gazed, of which the
sight was still so fresh in his memory, which clothed the
eastern slopes of Olivet, and gave its name to the village of
Bethany, 'the house of dates.' How simple and natural the
definite articles are on the lips of an eye-witness I need not say.
How awkward they sound to later ears, and how little likely
to have been used by a later writer, unfamiliar with the scene
itself, we may infer from the fact that in our own version they
are suppressed, and the evangelist is made to say, 'they took
branches of palm trees.'

Moreover the familiarity of the Fourth Evangelist, not only
with the site and the buildings of the temple, but also with
the history, appears in a striking way from a casual allusion.
After the description of the cleansing of the temple by our Lord,
a description which though brief is given with singular vivid-
ness of detail the Jews ask for some sign, as the credential
which might justify this assumption of authority and right of
chastisement. His answer is, ' Pull down this temple, and in
three days I will build it up.' Their astonishment is expressed
in their reply, 'This temple has been forty-six years in building,
and wilt Thou raise it again in three days ? ' (ii. 19, 20).

Now I think it will be allowed that this mention of time is
quite undesigned. It has no appearance of artifice, it occurs
naturally in the course of conversation, and it is altogether free
from suspicion, as having been introduced to give a historical
colouring to a work of fiction. If so, let us examine its historical
bearing.

For this purpose it is necessary to follow two distinct lines
of chronological research. We have to investigate the history
of the building of the Herodian temple, and we have to ascertain
the dates of our Lord's life.

Now by comparison of several passages in Josephus, and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 31

by the exercise of historical criticism upon them, we arrive
at the conclusion that Herod commenced his temple about
A.U.C. 735, i.e. B.C. 18. It took many years in building, and was
not finally completed until A.U.C. 817, i.e. A.D. 64. Thus the
works were going on during the whole of the period comprised
in the New Testament history. If we add forty-six years to
the date of its commencement (A.U.C. 735) we are brought down
to A.U.C. 781 or 782, i.e. A.D. 28 or 29.

The chronology of Herod's temple involves one considerable
effort of historical criticism. The chronology of our Lord's life
requires another. Into this question however I need not enter
in detail. It is sufficient to remind you that the common date
of the Christian era is now generally allowed to be a little wide
of the mark, and that our Lord's birth actually took place three
or four years before this era. The point to be observed here is,
that St Luke places the baptism of our Lord in or about the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, which comprised the interval between
the autumn of 781 and the autumn of 782. Now the occurrence
related by St John took place, as we may infer from his narra-
tive, in the first passover after the baptism ; that is, according
to St Luke's chronology probably at the passover of 782.

Thus we are brought to the same date by following two
lines of chronology; and we arrive at the fact that forty-six
years there or thereabouts had actually elapsed since the com-
mencement of Herod's building to this point in our Lord's
ministry. I am anxious not to speak with too great precision,
because the facts do not allow it. The exact number might
have been forty-five or forty -seven years, for fragments of years
may be reckoned in or not in our calculation, and the data are
not sufficiently exact to determine the date to a nicety. But,
after all allowance made for this margin of uncertainty, the
coincidence is sufficiently striking.

And now let us suppose the Gospel to have been written in
the middle of the second century, and ask ourselves what strong
improbabilities this hypothesis involves.

The writer must first have made himself acquainted with

32 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

a number of facts connected with the temple of Herod. He
must not only have known that the temple was commenced in
a particular year, but also that it was still incomplete at the
time of our Lord's ministry. So far as we know, he could only
have got these facts from Josephus. Even Josephus however
does not state the actual date of the commencement of the
temple. It requires some patient research to arrive at this
date by a comparison of several passages. We have therefore to
suppose, first, that the forger of the Fourth Gospel went through
an elaborate critical investigation for the sake of ascertaining
the date. But, secondly, he must have made himself acquainted
with the chronology of the gospel history. At all events, he
must have ascertained the date of the commencement of our
Lord's ministry. The most favourable supposition is, that he
had before him the Gospel of St Luke, though he nowhere else
betrays the slightest acquaintance with this gospel. Here he
would find the date which he wanted, reckoned by the years of
the Roman emperors. Thirdly, after arriving at these two
results by separate processes, he must combine them ; thus
connecting the chronology of the Jewish kings with the
chronology of the Roman emperors, the chronology of the
temple erection with the chronology of our Lord's life.

When he has taken all these pains, and worked up the
subject so elaborately, he drops in the notice which has given
him so much trouble in an incidental and unobtrusive way.
It has no direct bearing on his history; it does not subserve
the purpose of his theology. It leads to nothing, proves
nothing. Certainly the art of concealing art was never exer-
cised in a more masterly way than here. And yet this was an
age which perpetrated the most crude and bungling forgeries,
and is denounced by modern criticism for its utter incapacity
of criticism.

Nor, when we travel beyond the city and its suburbs, does
the writer's knowledge desert him. One instance must suffice ;
but it is, if I mistake not, so convincing, that it may well serve
in place of many.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 33

The country of the Samaritans lay between Judaea and
Galilee, so that a person journeying from the one region to
the other, unless he were prepared to make a detour, must
necessarily pass through it. This was the case with our Lord
and His Apostles, as related in the fourth chapter. The high-
road from Jerusalem passes through some very remarkable
scenery. The mountain ridges of Ebal and Gerizim run parallel
to each other from east to west, not many hundred feet apart,
thus inclosing a narrow valley between them. Eastward this
valley opens out into a plain, a rare phenomenon in this
country ' one mass of corn unbroken by a boundary or hedge/
as it is described by one who has seen it. Up the valley
westward, shut in between these mountain barriers, lies the
modern town of Nablus, the ancient Shechem. The road does
not enter the valley, but traverses the plain, running at right
angles to the gorge, and thus touching the eastern bases of the
mountain ridges as they fall down into the level ground. Here
at the mouth of the valley is a deep well, even now descending
' to a depth of seventy feet or more,' and formerly, before it had
been partially filled with accumulated rubbish, we may well
believe deeper still. In the words of Dean Stanley :

" Of all the special localities of our Lord's life in Palestine, this is
almost the only one absolutely undisputed. By the edge of this well, in
the touching language of the ancient hymn, 'quaerens me sedisti lassus.'
Here on the great road through which ' He must needs go ' when ' He left
Judaea, and departed into Galilee,' He halted, as travellers still halt, in the
noon or evening of the spring day by the side of the well. Up that
passage through the valley His disciples * went away into the city,' which
He did not enter. Down the same gorge came the woman to draw water,
according to the unchanged custom of the East. . . . Above them, as
they talked, rose ' this mountain ' of Gerizim, crowned by the temple, of
which vestiges still remain, where the fathers of the Samaritan sect ' said
men ought to worship.' . . . And round about them, as He and she
thus sate or stood by the well, spread far and wide the noble plain of
waving corn. It was still winter, or early spring, ' four months yet to the
harvest,' and the bright golden ears of those fields had not yet * whitened '
their unbroken expanse of verdure. But as he gazed upon them, they
served to suggest the glorious vision of the distant harvest of the Gentile
world, which with each successive turn of the conversation unfolded itself

L. E. 3

34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

more and more distinctly before Him, as He sate (so we gather from the
narrative) absorbed in the opening prospect, silent amidst His silent and
astonished disciples."

The scrupulous accuracy of the geographical and archaeo-
logical details in St John's account of the conversation with
the Samaritan woman will have appeared already from this
quotation. I will only ask you to consider for a moment how
naturally they occur in the course of the narrative, so naturally
and so incidentally that without the researches of modern
travellers the allusions would be entirely lost to us. I think
that this consideration will leave but one alternative. Either
you have here written, as we are constantly reminded, in an
uncritical age and among an uncritical people, the most masterly
piece of romance-writing which the genius and learning of man
ever penned in any age ; or you have (what universal tradition
represents it to be) a genuine work of an eye-witness and
companion of our Lord. Which of these two suppositions does
less violence to historical probability I will leave to yourselves
to determine.

Follow then the narrative in detail. An unknown Traveller
is sitting at the well. His garb, or His features, or His desti-
nation, show Him to be a Jew. A woman of the country comes
to draw water from the well, and He asks her to give Him to
drink. She is surprised that He, a Jew, is willing to talk so
freely to her, a Samaritan. And here I would remark that the
explanation which follows, ' For the Jews have no dealings
with ' (or rather, * do not associate with ') ' the Samaritans,' is
the evangelist's own, a fact obscured by the ordinary mode of
printing in our English Bibles. Hitherto, though the scene
is very natural and very real, there is nothing which a fairly
clever artist might not have invented. But from this point
onwards follow in rapid succession various historical and geo-
graphical allusions, various hints of individual character in the
woman, various aspects of Divine teaching on our Lord's part,
all closely interwoven together, each suggesting and suggested
by another, in such a manner as to preclude any hypothesis of

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 35

romance or forgery. ' Thou wouldest have asked, and I would
have given thee living water.' * Sir, Thou hast nothing to
draw with, and the well is deep. . . . Art Thou greater
than our father Jacob ? ' And so the conversation proceeds, one
point suggesting the next in the most natural way. Take, for
instance, the reference to Gerizim. ' Sir, I perceive that Thou
art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain.'
Observe that there is no mention in the context of any mountain
in the neighbourhood ; that even here, where it is mentioned,
its name is not given : but suddenly the woman, partly to
divert the inconvenient tenour of the conversation, partly to
satisfy herself on one important point of difference between
the Samaritans and the Jews, avails herself of the newly found
prophet's presence, and, pointing to the over-hanging heights
of Gerizim, puts the question to Him. The mention of the
sacred mountain, like the mention of the depths of the well,
draws forth a new spiritual lesson. ' Not in this mountain, nor
yet at Jerusalem. . . . God is a spirit/ The woman saith,
' When Messias cometh, He will tell us all things.' Jesus saith,
' I that speak unto thee am He.'

At this point the disciples approach from the valley, with
the provisions which they had purchased in the city, and rejoin
their Master. They are surprised to find Him so engaged.
Here again an error in the English version obscures the sense.
Their marvel was, not that He talked with the woman, but that
He talked with a woman. It was a rabbinical maxim, ' Let no
man talk with a woman in the street (in public), no, not with
his own wife.' The narrowness of His disciples was shocked
that He, their own rabbi, should be so wanting to Himself as
to disregard this recognised precept of morality. The narrator
assumes the knowledge with which he himself was so familiar.

So the conversation with the woman closes. With natural
eagerness she leaves her pitcher, and hurries back to the city
with her news. With natural exaggeration she reports there
that the stranger has told her all things that ever she did.

A conversation with the disciples follows, which is hardly

36 THE GOSPEL ACCOKDING TO ST JOHN.

less remarkable, but from which I must be content to select
one illustration only. I think that it must be allowed, that the
reference to the harvest is wholly free from suspicion, as regards
the manner of its introduction. It is unpremeditated, for it
cannot be severed from the previous part of the conversation,
out of which it arises. It is unobtrusive, for the passage itself
makes no attempt to explain the local allusion (which without
the experience of modern travellers would escape notice):
'There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest.
Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the
fields ; for they are white already to harvest.' And yet, when
we once realize the scene, when in imagination our eye ranges
over that vast expanse of growing corn so unusual in Palestine,
however familiar in corn-growing England we are at once
struck with the truthfulness and the significance of this allusive
parable.

I have thus endeavoured to show, by taking a few instances,
the accuracy of the writer's knowledge in all that relates to
the history, the geography, the institutions, the thoughts and
feelings of the Jews. If however we had found accuracy, and
nothing more, we might indeed have reasonably inferred that
the narrative was written by a Jew of the mother-country,
who lived in a very early age, before time and circumstance
had obliterated the traces of Palestine, as it existed in the first
century ; but we could not safely have gone beyond this. But
unless I have entirely deceived myself, the manner in which
this accurate knowledge betrays itself justifies the further
conclusion that we have before us the genuine narrative of
an eye-witness, who records the events just as they occurred
in natural sequence.

I have discussed the accuracy of the external allusions. Let
me now apply another test. The representation of character is
perhaps the most satisfactory criterion of a true narrative, as
applied to an age before romance-writing had been studied as
an art.

We are all familiar with the principal characters in the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 37

Gospel history : Peter, John, Philip, Thomas, Pilate, the sisters
Mary and Martha, and several others which I might mention ;
each standing before us with an individuality, which seems to
place him or her within the range of our own personal know-
ledge. Have we ever asked ourselves to which evangelist above
the rest we owe this personal acquaintance with the actors in
this great drama ?

When the question is once asked, the answer cannot be
doubtful. It is true indeed that we should have known
St Peter without the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist,
though he adds several minute points, which give additional
life to the portrait. It is true that Pilate is introduced to us
in the other Gospels, though without St John we should not
have been able to read his heart and character, his proud
Roman indifference and his cynical scorn. But, on the other
hand, take the case of Thomas. Of this Apostle nothing is
recorded in the other Evangelists, and yet he stands out before
us, not as a mere lay figure, on whose stiff, mechanical form the
artist may hang a moral precept or a doctrinal lesson by way of
drapery, but as a real, living, speaking man, at once doubtful
and eager, at once hesitating and devoted sceptical, riot
because his nature is cold and unsympathetic, but because
his intellect moves more cautiously than his heart, because the
momentous issues which belief involves bid him pause before
he closes with it ; at one moment endeavouring to divert his
Master's purpose of going up to Jerusalem, where certain
destruction awaits Him : at the next, ready to share the perils
with Him, ' Let us also go with Him ' ; at one moment resisting
the testimony of direct eye-witnesses and faithful friends to his
Master's resurrection : at the next, overwhelmed by the evidence
of his senses, and expressing the depth of his conviction in the
earnest confession ' My Lord and my God/

I must satisfy myself with one other example. The character
of the sisters Martha and Mary presents a striking contrast.
They are mentioned once only in the other Gospels, in the
familiar passage of St Luke, where they appear respectively as

38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the practical, bustling housewife, who is busied about many
things, and the devout, contemplative, absorbed disciple, who
chooses the one thing needful. In St John also this contrast
reappears ; but the characteristics of the two sisters are brought
out in a very subtle way. In St Luke the contrast is summed
up, as it were, in one definite incident ; in St John it is de-
veloped gradually in the course of a continuous narrative. And
there is also another difference. In St Luke the contrast is
direct and trenchant, a contrast (one might almost say) of light
and darkness. But in St John the characters are shaded off, as
it were, into each other. Both alike are beloved by our Lord,
both alike send to Him for help, both alike express their faith
in His power, both alike show deep sorrow for their lost brother.
And yet, notwithstanding this, the difference of character is
perceptible throughout the narrative. It is Martha who, with
her restless activity, goes out to meet Jesus, while Mary remains
in the house weeping. It is Martha who holds a conversation
with Jesus, argues with Him, remonstrates with Him, and in
the very crisis of their grief shows her practical common sense
in deprecating the removal of the stone. It is Mary who goes
forth silently to meet Him, silently and tearfully, so that the
bystanders suppose her to be going to weep at her brother's
tomb ; who, when she sees Jesus, falls down at His feet ; who,
uttering the same words of faith in His power as Martha, does
not qualify them with the same reservation ; who infects all the
bystanders with the intensity of her sorrow, and crushes the
human spirit of our Lord Himself with sympathetic grief.

And when we turn to the second occasion in which the two
sisters are introduced by St John, the contrast is still the same.
Martha is busied in the homely duties of hospitality towards
Jesus and her other guests ; but Mary brings her choicest and
most precious gift to bestow upon Him, at the same time
showing the depth of her humility and the abandonment of her
devotion by wiping His feet with her hair.

In all this narrative the Evangelist does not once direct
attention to the contrast between the two sisters. He simply

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 39

relates the events of which he was an eye-witness without a
comment. But the two were real, living persons, and therefore
the difference of character between them develops itself in
action.

I have shown hitherto that, whatever touchstone we apply,
the Fourth Gospel vindicates itself as a trustworthy narrative,
which could only have proceeded from a contemporary and an
eye-witness. But nothing has hitherto been adduced which
leads to the identification of the author as the Apostle St John.
Though sufficient has been said to vindicate the authenticity,
the genuineness is yet untouched.

It is said by those who deny its apostolic origin, that the
unknown author, living in the middle of the second century,
and wishing to gain a hearing for a modified gospel suited
to the wants of his age, dropped his own personality and
shielded himself under the name of St John the son of
Zebedee.

Is this a true representation of the fact ? Is it not an
entire though unconscious misrepresentation ? John is not
once mentioned by name throughout the twenty-one chapters
of this Gospel. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, occupy a
prominent place in all the other Evangelists. In this Fourth
Gospel alone neither brother's name occurs. The writer does
once, it is true, speak of the ' sons of Zebedee ' ; but in this
passage, which occurs in the last chapter (xxi. 2), there is not
even the faintest hint of any connexion between the writer
himself and this pair of brothers. He mentions them in the
third person, as he might mention any character whom he had
occasion to introduce.

Now is not this wholly unlike the proceeding of a forger
who was simulating a false personality ? Would it not be
utterly irrational under these circumstances to make no
provision for the identification of the author, but to leave
everything to the chapter of accidents ? No discredit, indeed,
is thrown on the genuineness of a document by the fact that

40 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the author's name appears on the forefront. This is the case
with the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides ; it is the case
also with the Epistles of Paul and Peter and James, and with
the Apocalypse of John. But, on the supposition of forgery, it
was a matter of vital moment that the work should be accepted
as the genuine production of its pretended author. The two
instances of early Christian forgeries which I brought forward
in an earlier part of this lecture will suffice as illustrations.
The Gospel of the Infancy closes with a distinct declaration
that it was written by James. The Clementine Homilies affirm
the pretended authorship in the opening words, 'I Clement,
being a Roman citizen.' Even if our supposed forger could
have exercised this unusual self-restraint in suppressing the
simulated author's name, would he not have made it clear by
some allusion to his brother James, or to his father Zebedee, or
to his mother Salome ? The policy which he has adopted is as
suicidal as it is unexpected.

How then do we ascertain that it was written by John the
son of Zebedee ? I answer, first of all, that it is traditionally
ascribed to him, as the Phcedo is ascribed to Plato, or the
Antigone to Sophocles; and, secondly, that from a careful
examination of indirect allusions and casual notices, from a
comparison of things said and things unsaid, we arrive at the
same result by a process independent of external tradition.
But a forger could not have been satisfied with trusting to
either of these methods. External tradition was quite beyond
the reach of his control. In this particular case, as we shall see,
the critical investigation requisite is so subtle, and its subject-
matter lies so far below the surface, that a forger, even
supposing him capable of constructing the narrative, would
have defeated his own purpose by making such demands on his
readers.

For let us follow out this investigation. In the opening
chapter of the Gospel there is mention of a certain disciple
whose name is not given (i. 35, 37, 40). This anonymous
person (for it is a natural, though not a certain inference, that

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 41

the same is meant throughout) reappears again in the closing
scene before and after the passion, where he is distinguished as
'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' At length, but not till the
concluding verses of the Gospel, we are told that this anony-
mous disciple is himself the writer : ' This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things.'

In accordance with this statement we find that those
particular scenes in which this anonymous disciple is recorded
as taking a part are related with peculiar minuteness and
vividness of detail. Such is the case, for instance, with the
notices of the Baptist and of the call of the earliest disciples.
Such again is the case with the conversation at the last supper,
with the scene over the fire in the hall of Caiaphas's house,
with certain other incidents connected with the crucifixion, and
with the scene on the Lake of Galilee after the resurrection.

Who then is this anonymous disciple ? On this point the
Gospel furnishes no information. We arrive at the identifica-
tion, partly by a process of exhaustion, partly by attention to
some casual incidents and expressions.

Comparing the accounts in the other Gospels, it seems safe
to assume that he was one of the inner circle of disciples. This
inner circle comprised the two pairs of brothers, Peter and
Andrew, James and John if indeed Andrew deserves a place
here. Now he cannot have been Andrew, because Andrew
appears in company with him in the opening chapter ; nor can
he have been Peter, because we find him repeatedly associated
with Peter in the closing scenes. Again, James seems to be
excluded; for James fell an early martyr, and external and
internal evidence alike point to a later date for this Gospel.
Thus by a process of exhaustion we are brought to identify him
with John the son of Zebedee.

With this identification all the particulars agree.

First. He is called among the earliest disciples ; and from
his connexion with Andrew (i. 40, 44) it may be inferred that
he was a native of Bethsaida in the neighbourhood.

Secondly. At the close of his Master's life, and after his

42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Master's resurrection, we find him especially associated with
Simon Peter. This position exactly suits John, who in the
earliest days of the Church takes his place by the side of Peter
in the championship of faith.

Thirdly. Unless the beloved disciple be John the son of
Zebedee, this person who occupies so prominent a place in the
account of the other Evangelists, and who stood in the fore-
most rank in the estimation of the early Church as a pillar
Apostle, does not once appear in the Fourth Gospel, except in
the one passage where ' the sons of Zebedee ' are mentioned
and summarily dismissed in a mere enumeration of names.
Such a result is hardly credible.

Lastly. Whereas in the other Evangelists John the Baptist
is very frequently distinguished by the addition of this surname,
and always so distinguished where there is any possibility of
confusing him with the son of Zebedee, in this Gospel alone the
forerunner is never once called John the Baptist. To others
some distinguishing epithet seemed needed. To the son of
Zebedee there was only one famous John : and therefore when
he had occasion to mention him, he naturally spoke of him as
John simply, without any addition. Is it conceivable, I would
ask, that any forger would have lost sight of himself so com-
pletely, and used natural language of John the son of Zebedee
with such success, as to observe this very minute and unob-
trusive indication of personality ?

I have addressed myself more directly to the theory of the
Tubingen school, either as propounded by Baur, or as modified
by later critics, which denies at once the historical character of
this Gospel and its apostolic authorship, and places it in the
middle or latter half of the second century. But there is an
intermediate position between rejecting its worth as a historic
record and accepting St John as its author, and this position
has been taken up by some. They suppose it to have been
composed by some disciple or disciples of St John from remi-
niscences of their master's teaching, and thus they are prepared

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 43

to allow that it contains some historical matter which is valu-
able. You will have seen however that most of the arguments
adduced, though not all, are equally fatal to this hypothesis as
the other. The process by which, after establishing its authen-
ticity, we succeeded in identifying its author is, if I mistake
not, alone sufficient to overthrow this solution. Indeed this
theory is exposed to a double set of objections, and it has
nothing to recommend it.

I have already taken up more time than I had intended, and
yet I feel that very much has been left unsaid. But I venture
to hope that certain lines of investigation have been indicated,
which, if carefully and soberly followed out, can only lead to
one result. Whatever consequences may follow from it, we are
compelled on critical grounds to accept this Fourth Gospel as
the genuine work of John the son of Zebedee.

Some among my hearers perhaps may be disappointed that
I have not touched on some well-known difficulties, though
these have been grossly exaggerated. Some have to be satis-
factorily explained ; of others probable, or at least possible,
solutions have been given ; while others still remain on which
we are obliged to suspend judgment until some new light of
history is vouchsafed. It is not from too much light, but from
too little light, that the historical credibility of this Gospel has
suffered. Each new discovery made, each old fact elucidated,
sets at rest some disputed question. If the main fact of the
genuineness be established, the special difficulties can well
afford to wait.

One word more, and I conclude. I have treated this as a
purely critical question, carefully eschewing any appeal to
Christian instincts. As a critical question I wish to take a
verdict upon it. But as I could not have you think that I am
blind to the theological issues directly or indirectly connected
with it, I will close with this brief confession of faith. I believe
from my heart that the truth which this Gospel more especially
enshrines the truth that Jesus Christ is the very Word

44 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Incarnate, the manifestation of the Father to mankind is the
one lesson which, duly apprehended, will do more than all our
feeble efforts to purify and elevate human life here by im-
parting to it hope and light and strength, the one study which
alone can fitly prepare us for a joyful immortality hereafter.

[1871.]

II.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

II.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL,

PT1HE genuineness of St John's Gospel is the centre of the
position of those who uphold the historical truth of the
record of our Lord Jesus Christ given us in the New Testament.
Hence the attacks of the opponents of revealed religion are
concentrated upon it. So long however as it holds its ground,
these assaults must inevitably prove ineffective. The assailants
are of two kinds : (1) those who deny the miraculous element in
Christianity Rationalists, (2) those who deny the distinctive
character of Christian doctrine Unitarians. The Gospel con-
fronts both. It relates the most stupendous miracle in the
history of our Lord (short of the Incarnation and the Resurrec-
tion), the raising of Lazarus. Again, it enunciates in the most
express terms the Divinity, the Deity, of our Lord. And yet at
the same time it professes to have been written by the one man,
of all others, who had the greatest opportunities of knowing
the truth. The testimony of St Paul might conceivably be
set aside, as of one who was not an eye-witness. But here we
have, not an eicrpw^a 1 , not a personal disciple merely, not one
of the twelve only, but the one of the twelve the Apostle who
leaned on his Master's bosom, who stood by his Master's cross,
who entered his Master's empty grave. If therefore the claim
of this Gospel to be the work of John the son of Zebedee be
true, if in other words the Fourth Gospel be genuine, the most

1 1 Cor. xv. 8.

48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

formidable, not to say an insuperable, obstacle stands in the
way of both classes of antagonists. Hence the persistence and
the ingenuity of the attacks ; and hence also the necessity of a
thoroughness in the defence. No apology therefore is needed,
if the subject should seem dry and uninviting.

And details too are necessary. For the nature of the proof
is cumulative. Some points which I shall have to urge may
seem weak. The allusions to the Gospel in many cases are
uncertain or anonymous. But they must be taken pro tanto.
To borrow a mechanical simile, evidence for the authenticity of
a document is not like a chain, where the strength of the whole
is the strength of its weakest link. It is like the supports of a
building, where the strength is in the aggregate. One pillar
may be weak, or may fall ; but the superstructure will still
remain, for each instance is independent of the others.

Consequently, considerable mental effort is necessary in
order to keep in view all the elements of a cumulative proof.
We are apt to concentrate our attention on that which is last,
or that which is exceptional. If then the last argument stated
is weak, or if anywhere there is one argument exceptionally
weak, we may leap to the conclusion that the whole is weak.
This is manifestly a false mode of arguing, and we must con-
stantly be on our guard against its subtle influence.

Hence the necessity of keeping the whole in view. We
shall be occupied during the present term with the external
evidence. But the external evidence is not all. And in sum-
ming up in our own minds the results which we shall obtain,
we must not forget what lies beyond what will occupy us
probably next term the reinforcement of the internal evidence.
For the present however we shall confine ourselves to the
former. And we cannot help being struck at the outset by
the inadequacy of treatment which the question has met with
in the prolegomena of the majority of commentators. An
allusion to Theophilus, to Irenseus, to Eusebius, an apology,
somewhat lame, for the silence of Papias, and the whole
subject is briefly and summarily dismissed. Now the injury

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 49

done to the cause of revealed truth by this method of treat-
ment is very serious, and has resulted in an undue disparage-
ment of the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel. On this
point I cannot do better than quote so temperate and judicious
a writer as Mr Sanday, who, in his introduction to his work on
the Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel,
when stating his reasons for confining himself to the internal
evidence, writes as follows:

' Several reasons seem to make this limitation of treatment desir-
able. 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 compatible 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 suf-
ficient alone to prove it. 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' (p. 3).

Now I hope to show that there is no deficiency of testimony
(considering the nature of the subject), that on the contrary
there is a vast body of evidence of various kinds, which cannot
be set aside ; that the result is a very powerful argument in
favour of the genuineness ; and that therefore, when we enter
upon the question of internal evidence, we shall enter upon it
with a very strong weight of evidence in support of St John's
authorship, which can only be counterbalanced by powerful
considerations on the other side.

But, before commencing the investigation, let us first see
what is the nature of the antagonism with which we have to
deal. The history of the controversy may be seen in Bleek 1 .
Briefly stated, the position of affairs is this. The universal
reception of the Gospel as the work of St John (with the
exception of an obscure sect 2 ) up to the close of the last
century has been assailed since the early years of the present

1 Bleek Beitrdge zur Evangelien- 2 The Alogi, on whom see below,
Kritik (1846). pp. 115 sq.

L. E. 4

50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

century by a series of writers, who unite in denying the
Johannine authorship, and place the date somewhere in the
middle or latter half of the second century.

I give the names of the principal exponents of the new
view, with the dates which they respectively assign for the
authorship :

BRETSCHNEIDER Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apo-
stoli indole et origine Leipzig 1820. He expressed himself vaguely as to the
date, but apparently placed it at the beginning or middle of the second
century. After two years, in the preface to his Handbuch der Dogmatik
1822, he withdrew his conclusions, and declared his conviction that the
Johannine authorship was finally established.

LUTZELBERGER Die kirchliche Tradition ilber den Apostel Johannes und
seine Schriften in Hirer Grundlosiglceit nachgewiesen Leipzig 1840. He con-
siders that the Gospel was written near Edessa, about 135-140.

BAUR first expressed his views on the Johannine question in the
Theologische Jahrbucher Tubingen 1844. He fixes the date somewhere
about 160-170, and this is the view of the older Tubingen School.

HILGENFELD Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem
Lehrbegriff (1849). He considers that the Fourth Gospel took its rise
in the middle of the second century owing to the prevalence of the
Valentinian Gnosis.

SCHOLTEN, professor at Leyden, and head of the modern Dutch
negative school, in his work entitled Het Evangelie naar Johannes
(1864-6) places the writing of the Fourth Gospel in 150, but considers
that it was interpolated subsequently. In a later work De oudste getui-
genissen (1867) he throws the date back later still to 170.

TAYLER, J. J. An attempt to ascertain the character of the Fourth
Gospel, especially in its relation to the Three First London 1867. In
reading this work we cannot fail to be struck with its evident sincerity ;
at the same time it exhibits singular deficiency in the enumeration of
facts, and looseness in the treatment of them. Tayler's conclusion is that
the Fourth Gospel was written after 135 and before 163 (p. 151). And yet
(p. 155) he suggests that 'John the Presbyter' is the author of the book
John the Presbyter, of whom we only know that he was a personal
disciple of our Lord.

KEIM Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (1867) ascribes the Fourth Gospel to
the reign of Trajan, A.D. 98-117.

RENAN in the first edition of his Vie de Je'sus (1863) considers that our
Fourth Gospel is based upon the genuine work of St John, but edited by his
disciples at the end of the first century. M. Renan's view has fluctuated
in subsequent editions of his book.

In reviewing this list of writers, we cannot fail to be struck

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 51

with two facts: (1) the variety of their opinions; (2) their
gradual retrogression from the extreme position taken up at
first. The pressure of facts has compelled them to abandon
one position after another, and to approximate more and more
closely to the traditional view.

I. THE CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR.

Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the
traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that the
latest years of the Apostle St John were spent in the Roman
province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital. This
tradition is singularly full, consistent and well-authenticated 1 .
Here he gathered disciples about him, organized churches,
appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole chorus of voices
unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One who passed his
earlier life in these parts and had heard his aged master, a
disciple of St John himself, recount his personal reminiscences
of the great Apostle 2 ; another, who held this very see of
Ephesus and writing less than a century after the Apostle's
death was linked with the past by a chain of relatives all
bishops in the Christian Church 3 ; a third who also flourished
about the close of the century and numbered among his
teachers an old man from this very district 4 are the principal,
because the most distinct, witnesses to a fact which is implied
in several other notices of earlier or contemporary writers.

As to the time at which St John left his original home and
settled in this new abode no direct account is preserved; but
a very probable conjecture may be hazarded. The impending

1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39 ; sources of these quotations Gaul,

Iren. ii. 22. 5, Fragm. 2 (p. 822 Stieren) Asia Minor, Alexandria, Rome, Car-

etc.; Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24; thage, Syria is worth noticing.

Apollonius in Eus. H. E. v. 18 ; Clem. 2 Irenaeus.

Alex. Quis div. salv. 42 (p. 958); cf. 3 Polycrates.

Can. Mur. (p. 17 ed. Tregelles), Tertull. 4 Clement of Alexandria. One of his

adv. Marc. iv. 5, Praescr. Haer. 32, teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom.

Ancient Syriac Documents pp. 32, 34 i. 1. 11 p. 322) ; see below, p. 92.
(ed. Cureton). The variety of the

52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

fall of the Holy City was the signal for the dispersion of the
followers of Christ. About this same time the three other
great Apostles, St Peter, St Paul and St James, died a martyr's
death ; and on St John, the last surviving of the four great
pillars of the Church, devolved the work of developing the
theology of the Gospel and completing the organization of the
Church. It was not unnatural that at such a crisis he should
fix his residence in the centre of a large and growing Christian
community, which had been planted by the Apostle of the
Gentiles, and watered by the Apostle of the Circumcision 1 .
The missionary labours of St Paul and St Peter in Asia Minor
were confirmed and extended by the prolonged residence of
their younger contemporary. At all events such evidence as
we possess is favourable to this view of the date of St John's
settlement at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the
work of the beloved Apostle 2 , and accepting the view which
assigns it to the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find
him now for the first time in the immediate neighbourhood
of Asia Minor and in direct communication with Ephesus and
the neighbouring Churches.

St John however was not alone. Whether drawn thither
by the attraction of his presence or acting in pursuance of some
common agreement, the few surviving personal disciples of the
Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as their permanent
abode, or at all events as their recognised headquarters. Here
at least we meet with the friend of St John's youth and perhaps
his fellow-townsman, Andrew of Bethsaida 3 , who with him had
first listened to John the Baptist and with him also had been
the earliest to recognise Jesus as the Christ 4 . Here too we

1 On the relation of the Apostles to indeed use it against the Gospel, it
the Ephesian Church see Theod. Mops. may be urged.

praef. in epist. ad Ephesos. 3 See the account in Anc. Syr.

2 If the Apocalypse be conceded, the Documents, p. 25.

testimony is decisive. And as oppo- 4 Can. Mur. (revelatum Andreae ex

nents with very few exceptions (Scholten apostolis), p. 17 ed. Tregelles, Anc.

is one) allow the genuineness, and Syr. Doc. pp. 32, 34.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 53

encounter Philip the Evangelist 1 with his daughters, and
perhaps also Philip of Bethsaida, the Apostle 2 . Here also
was settled the Apostle's namesake, John the Presbyter, also
a personal disciple of Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise
known to us 3 , who likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly
also other Apostles whose traditions Papias recorded, Matthew
and Thomas and James, may have had some connexion, tem-
porary or permanent, with this district.

Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the Lord, by
bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by the
pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for instruc-
tion, St John was the focus of a large and active society of
believers 4 . In this respect he holds a unique position among
the great teachers of the new faith. St Peter and St Paul
converted disciples and organized congregations ; St John alone
was the centre of a school. His life prolonged till the close of
the century, when the Church was firmly rooted and widely
extended, combined with his fixed abode in the centre of an
established community to give a certain definiteness to his
personal influence which would be wanting to the wider labours
of these strictly missionary preachers. Hence the notices of
St John have a more solid basis and claim greater attention
than stories relating to the other Apostles.

This fact is significant for the preservation of a tradition,
especially one so important as that of the authorship of the
Gospel. But there is another point, which increases the
value of the tradition itself, viz., the longevity of the principal
witnesses. Of St John himself we are told that he ' lived to the
times of Trajan 5 .' His pupil Poly carp, who suffered martyrdom

1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39; (condiscipulis et episcopis suis) ; Epiph.
Polycrates in Eus. H. E. iii. 31, v. 24; li. 6 (pp. 427, 8).

Gains in Eus. H. E. iii. 31 ; cf. Clem. 5 Iren. ii. 22. 5. The date of Tra-

Alex. in Eus. H. E. iii. 30. jan's accession is A.D. 98. According to

2 See my Colossians, p. 45 sq. the ChroniconPaschaleSt John survived

3 Papias, 1. c. till A.D. 104 ; see Clinton Fast . Rom. i.

4 Iren. ii. 22. 5 ; Clem. Alex. Quis p. 87.
div. salv. 42 (p. 958), Can. Mur. I. c.

54 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

A.D. 155 or 156 1 , speaks of himself at the time of his death as
having ' served Christ fourscore and six years 2 .' The expression
in the original may leave some doubt whether these eighty-six
years should be reckoned from his birth or from his conversion,
though the former would be the more natural interpretation.
But in any case he must have been born not later than A.D. 70.
And as Polycarp was the disciple of St John, so Irenseus was
the disciple of Polycarp. Again, of Pothinus bishop of Lyons
we are told 3 that he was more than ninety years old when he
suffered in the persecution of the Churches of Vienne and
Lyons (A.D. 177). The date of his birth therefore cannot be
later than A.D. 87. A later tradition 4 makes him a native of
Asia Minor ; and this would be a highly probable supposition,
even if unsupported by direct evidence. But whether an
Asiatic Greek or not, he must have been a lad when St John
died. And Irenaeus was the successor of Pothinus in the see of
Lyons. Thus one link only, and that a double one, connects
the life of the traditional author of the Fourth Gospel with
Irenaeus who preserves the tradition in writing ; and two long
lives, St John and Polycarp, link the personal ministry of our
Lord with the latter half of the second century 5 .

Of the traditions of this school, Irenseus, who had been

1 [On the question of the date of stances in the text are thoroughly
Polycarp's martyrdom see Apostolic substantiated, and can easily be paral-
Fathers (Part 11.), vol. i. pp. 646 sq. leled. Thus three Lord Chancellors
(ed. 2).] since the Eeforrn Bill (Brougham,

2 Mart. Polyc. 9 dydo^Kovra Kal l Lyndhurst and St Leonards) have lived
%TT\ 2x w SouXetfow ctury [see the note on to be 90. The longevity of the most dis-
the passage in Apostolic Fathers (Part tinguished German professors has been
ii.), vol. in. p. 379 (ed. 2)]; cf. Iren. iii. remarkable. Boeckh died at eighty-one,
3. 4 <?7ri7roXi> yap irap^etve Kal iravv Humboldt at eighty-nine, Eanke [and
777paX^os.../ia/>TU/>^<ras ^Xfle rov fiiov. Dollinger] at [ninety]. For the great age

3 Eus. H. E. v. 1. of the Jewish rabbi Hillel seeEtheridge

4 See the references in Tillemont Jerus. and Tiber, p. 33. The simple life
Hemoires n. p. 343. of the early Christians had probably a

5 There was doubtless a tendency great deal to do with this ; see Southey
to exaggeration in this matter, e.g. in Lifeof Wesley n.pp. 273 sq., 284(1858),
Christian Essene sources, where the and compare Josephus B. J. ii. 8. 10,
age of Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, who states that the Essenes often
is given as 120 years. But the in- lived virtp eKarbv try.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 55

educated in Asia Minor, though his later life was spent in
Gaul, is the principal witness. He was a pupil of St John's
personal disciple Polycarp, whom he mentions more than once.
He set great store on these traditions as representing most
truly the primitive teaching of the Church, and appeals to them
again and again with confidence. On one occasion, writing to
Florinus, whom he had known in youth as a fellow-pupil of
Polycarp, but who in after years had taken up heretical views,
he urges that these are not the doctrines delivered to him, by
the Elders, who were before them, who also associated with the
Apostles, and he appeals to his reminiscences of their common
master in this language :

' I distinctly remember (8iafj.vrjp.ovcva>) the incidents of that time
better than events of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received in
childhood, growing with the growth of the soul, become identified
with it; so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed
Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his
comings in, and his manner of life (rbv x a P aicr *IP a T v ^ t/ou ) an d his
personal appearance, and the discourses which he held before the
people ; and how he would describe his intercourse with John and
with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their
words. And what were the accounts he had heard from them about
the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, how
Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of
the Word (T&V UVTOTTT^V TTJS <0rjs TOV Adyou) used to give an account
harmonizing on all points with the Scriptures (navra o-vptycova rals
ypa<pals). To these (discourses) I used to listen at the time with
attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me, noting them
down, not on paper, but in my heart ; and by the grace of God, I
constantly ruminate upon them faithfully (yvrjo-iws) V

As regards this whole extract it will suffice to notice
(1) the opportunities of the witness, (2) the thoroughness of
the evidence (Trdvra o-v/j,<f>Q)va rat? ypatials). In more than
one passage also of his great work he refers to the ' Church of
Ephesus 2 / or to the Elders who associated with John in Asia.

It was not the object of Irenaeus to defend the authorship
of the Fourth Gospel, for his Valentinian antagonists not only

1 Bus. H. E. v. 20. 2 Iren. v. 33. 4.

56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

accepted it as genuine, but even set an exclusive value on it ;
and therefore any testimony to its authorship from the earlier
school of Asia Minor which may be gathered from his writings
is incidental. But any such testimony must have the highest
value.

1. It can hardly be doubted that THE ELDERS whom
Irenaeus quotes, and quotes for the most part anonymously,
belonged to this school. Of Polycarp and Papias, of whom the
former 'is mentioned several times by him and the latter once
casually, this is certain. I shall endeavour immediately to
discriminate the several persons whom he thus quotes by the
topics on which they write or speak ; but, before doing so, one
reference to such anonymous authority deserves attention, where
Irenaeus refers not to individual opinion, but to the collective
testimony of all the Elders who associated with St John 1 . It
relates to a question of chronology. His Valentinian adversaries
laid great stress on the number ' thirty.' Their celestial hier-
archy comprised thirty aeons, and they appealed to the thirty
years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the
Gospel chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke,
interpreted by themselves 2 . At the commencement of His
ministry, they contended, He was entering upon His thirtieth
year, and His ministry itself lasted a twelvemonth, the
'acceptable year of the Lord' foretold by the Prophet.
Irenaeus in reply expresses his 'great astonishment' that
persons professing to understand the deep things of God
should have overlooked the commonest facts of the Gospel
narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in
St John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's life ( 3).
Independently of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus
has an a priori reason why the Saviour must have lived more
than thirty years. He came to sanctify every time of life,
infancy, childhood, youth, declining age. It was therefore

1 Iren. ii. 22. tinians, whom Irenams here opposes,

2 On the chronology of the Valen- see Epiph. Haer. li. 20 (p. 450).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 57

necessary that He should have passed the turn of middle
life. ' From thirty to forty/ he argues, ' a man is reckoned
young, but from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already
declining into older age, which was the case with our Lord
when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders who
associated with John the disciple of the Lord testify that
John delivered his account. For he remained with them
(TrepiefjLeivev avTois) till the times of Trajan. Some of them
saw not only John but other disciples also, and heard these very-
things from their own lips (ab ipsis), and bear testimony to
such an account (de huiusmodi relatione)' ( 4). Irenseus goes
on to argue that the same may be inferred from the language
of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked, ' Thou art not yet
fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham ? ' (John viii. 57).
This, he contends, is properly said to one who had already lived
more than forty years, but had not yet reached his fiftieth year,
though not far off his fiftieth year ( 6).

On this passage three points are to be remarked. (1) The
Valentinian chronology was derived from an obvious, though
not a necessary, interpretation of the synoptic narrative, more
especially of St Luke 1 , while, on the other hand, the Asiatic
reckoning, which Irenaeus maintains, was, or might have been,
founded on the Fourth Gospel, whereas it could not possibly
have been suggested or elicited from the first three indepen-
dently of the fourth, whether reconcilable with them or not 2 .
(2) Irenaeus does not commit the Elders of the Asiatic School
to his own interpretation of the passage quoted from St John's
Gospel, nor to his own view that our Lord was close upon fifty
years old. He only asserts that the Gospel and the testimony
of all the Elders together support the view that our Lord was

1 St Luke iii. 1, 23 ; iv. 19. ing to subject and treatment. But

2 St John is our authority for the still, though the Synoptic Gospels are
chronology of our Lord's ministry. consistent with a more lengthened
In the Synoptic Gospels it is highly ministry, they do not suggest it, and
probable that the sequence of events thus the argument given above, that a
is not strictly chronological, but that knowledge by the Elders of the Fourth
in places incidents are grouped accord- Gospel may be assumed, is justified.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

past middle life; and the vagueness of his language at this
point may suggest the inference that he had their testimony
distinctly on his side as against the Valentinian chronology, but
that it did not go beyond this 1 . (3) So far as the chronology of
the Asiatic School is known from other sources, the statement
of Irenseus is confirmed ; for the Asiatic reckoning was dis-
tinctly based on the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. This is
the case with the duration of our Lord's ministry 2 as given by
Melito, and the time of the Crucifixion as given by Claudius
Apollinaris, to both which writers I shall have to refer hereafter 3 .
From this general notice of the Asiatic Elders I turn to the
opinions of individuals belonging to this school, as reported by
Irenseus. As these opinions are given anonymously and scat-
tered throughout his work, we can only separate one authority
from another by considering the subject-matter and treatment.

1 The argument from John viii. 57
is clearly Irenasus' own, and is not
justified by the passage itself. And
this suggests the probability that much
besides is his. We cannot safely as-
sume that the a priori argument is
taken from the Elders, or that the term
of years was extended by them beyond
forty. Irenasus classes together evan-
gelium et omnes seniores. It is a legiti-
mate assumption that the testimony
of the Elders went as far as the evan-
gelium and no further.

2 It may be interesting to consider
what was the term of our Lord's
life. The chief data are as follows :
(a) Matt. ii. 16, 22 the death of Herod,
which occurred March B.C. 4, see Clin-
ton Fast. Hell, sub anno. Thus the
Nativity might have taken place in
the year B.C. 5 or B.C. 6. (b) Luke
iii. 1, 23 our Lord's Baptism, and the
commencement of His ministry, stated
to have been ' in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Caesar' when
our Lord was 'about thirty years
old (uxrei tr&v Tptd/covra).' As Sept.

A.D. 28 was the beginning of the fift-
eenth year of Tiberius, our Lord would
be 32 or 33 years old, which does not
conflict with St Luke's statement,
(c) Matt, xxvii. 2 the Passion under
Pontius Pilate. We learn from Jo-
sephus Ant. xvm. 4. 3 that Pilate was
sent to Rome by Vitellius to answer
charges made against him, and that
before he arrived Tiberius had died,
and Caius (Caligula) had succeeded.
Now Tiberius died March A.D. 37.
Therefore the passover of the Passion
might have been as late as Easter
A.D. 36, but could not be later. Thus it
is possible that our Lord did live to be
over forty years of age; for we have
no right to assume that St John gives
all the passovers which occurred during
the ministry. On the whole, however,
a ministry of not more than three or
four years seems the more probable
view.

3 See below, p. 72 sq. For the refer-
ences to Melito and Claudius Apolli-
naris see Routh Reliq. Sacr. i. pp. 121,
124, 160.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 59

This criterion of course may be fallacious ; and allowance must
be made for the possibility of separating one authority into two
or more, or again of counting two or more authorities as one.
But the argument will not be materially affected by allowance
made for errors which may occur on either side. Judging then
by the subject-matter, I find that the following authorities are
referred to :

(1) A person quoted with great respect as 'one better than
us' [o Kpeia-crwv rjjjbwv (i. praef. 2 sq., i. 13. 3), superior nobis (iii.
17. 4)], in another as 'the divine old man and herald of the
truth, the old man beloved of God ' (i. 15. 6). Anyone who will
compare these references together cannot hesitate, I think, to
see that they allude to one and the same person. He is a
writer, as may be inferred both from the manner and from the
subject of the references. His style is epigrammatic and
telling, full of quaint metaphors and pointed sayings, and on
one occasion he runs off into iambic verse which is more
vigorous than rhythmical. The work which Irenseus quotes is
directed against heresies of the magico-gnostic school, and
more especially against Marcus.

(2) An ' Elder of a bygone generation' (de antiquis presbyter),
a 'primitive character' (iv. 31. 1), an 'elder and disciple of the
Apostles ' (iv. 32. 1), or, as he is elsewhere more precisely de-
scribed, ' an elder who had heard from those who had seen the
Apostles and from those who had learnt ' [ab his qui didicerunt
i.e. from personal disciples of the Lord (iv. 27. 1)]. Irenaaus
quotes at some length the opinion of this presbyter. From the
form of quotation it appears that he is relating oral discourses
(perhaps from his own lecture-notes), and not any written
treatise of this elder (audivi a quodam presbytero. Huiusmodi
quoque disputabat). The subject of these discourses is the
relation of the two covenants, and the Elder defends the Old
Testament Saints, describing the office of the patriarchs as
witnesses of Christ.

60 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(3) A single saying is quoted as from ' one of the ancients '
(quidam ex veteribus ait), apparently from a written treatise,
that God cursed not Adam but the earth in (or through) his
works (iii. 23. 3).

(4) Irenaeus, in explaining the expression ' sons of God/
' sons of the devil/ refers to a distinction made by one of these
Elders. * A son, as also one before us said (dixit, or c has said/ etyrj
or i[pij/c6v), is understood in two senses : one is a son according
to nature, because he is born a son, another is reputed a son
according to what he has been made, though there is a differ-
ence between the one who is born such, and the one who is
made such ' (iv. 41. 2).

(5) Irenseus twice refers to some writing or writings, in
which the opinions of ' the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles/
on eschatological subjects are given. In one passage it is
declared that the Old Testament Saints have been transferred
to Paradise and there await the coming of the Lord (v. 5. 1).
The second, which is of considerable importance, runs as
follows :

As the Elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed
worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy
' the delight of paradise,' and others again shall possess the brightness
of the city (i.e. the New Jerusalem) ; for in every place the Saviour
shall be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. (They
say) moreover that this is the meaning of the distinction between the
habitation of them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that
bring forth sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold ; of whom
the first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall
dwell in paradise, and the third shall inherit the city ; and that there-
fore our Lord has said, ' In My Father's abode are many mansions '
(St John xiv. 2) ; for all things are of God, Who giveth to all their
appropriate dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is
made unto all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be,
worthy. And this is the banquetiug-table, at which those are seated
who are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The Elders,
the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the arrangement and
disposal of them that are saved, and that they advance by such stages,
and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 61

Father, the Son at length yielding His work to the Father, as it is
said also by the Apostle, 'For He must reign until He putteth all
enemies under His feet, etc.' (v. 36. 1, 2) l .

Of these five Elders (assuming them to be distinct persons)
no coincidence with St John's Gospel can be traced in notices of
the first and third. Of the first, indeed, though he is appealed
to four times, only epigrammatic sentences against his heretical
antagonists are adduced, and these naturally do not give room
for any quotations from either the Old Testament or the New.
The third is represented by a single short sentence relating to
Adam's transgression, which from its brevity admits of no such
reference. The remaining three, the second, fourth and fifth,
all present more or less distinct coincidences with St John's
Gospel. Of the second Irenseus reports that he was wont to
say that the patriarchs and prophets gave thanks and gloried
in our salvation, where there is an obscure parallel to our Lord's
words in the Fourth Gospel, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see My day, and he saw it and was glad ' (John viii. 56). The
fourth is adduced to explain an expression especially character-
istic of St John ' sons of the devil 2 .' It is not certain indeed
from the language of Irenseus that this Elder actually used this
expression ; but it is at least more probable than not that the
distinction, which Irenseus quotes, was quoted by this father
i.e. to explain the words ' sons of the devil/ I shall presently
suggest a probable source from which this reference is taken 3 .
And, lastly, the fifth Elder distinctly quotes and explains a
saying of our Lord peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (xiv. 2). I
shall have something to say shortly about the name of this Elder
also 4 . At present it is sufficient to remark two things: first,

1 The references in Irenaeus to the which may represent either tyy or

five Elders are as follows : (1) Iren. i. etpriKev) ; (5) v. 5. 1, v. 36. 1, 2

praef. 2, i. 13. 3, i. 15. 6, iii. 17. 4 (written : \tyov<riv, Xtyovw).

(written: etp^rat, ^77, elirAv, dixit)', 2 See John viii. 44, 1 Joh. iii. 8,

(2) iv. 27. 1 sq., iv. 30. 1 sq., iv. 31. 1, 10; cf. Acts xiii. 10. The expression

iv. 32. 1, v. 17. 4 (oral : audivi, dice- is peculiar to St John among the

bat, reftciebat nos et dicebat, dispu- Evangelists.

tabat, #77); (3) iii. 23. 3 (written: 3 See below, p. 68.

ait); (4) iv. 41. 2 (doubtful: dixit, 4 See below, p. 67 sq.

62 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the form of the sentence shows that the quotation is given as
part of the Elder's own saying, and not of an after-comment of
Irenaeus ; and, secondly, as Irenaeus uses the present tense ' the
elders say' and yet the persons referred to belonged to a past
generation and were no longer living when he wrote, he must
be quoting from some written record, and therefore we cannot
suppose that he has unconsciously fused his own after-thought
with the original saying.

These references are anonymous. But Irenaeus likewise
mentions by name two of these Asiatic Elders who had conversed
with Apostles or personal disciples of the Lord, and of whom
something is also known from other sources, Polycarp and
Papias.

2. Of POLYCARP and his reminiscences of St John, as
recounted by his own pupil Irenaeus, I have already spoken 1 .
It is worth while to observe in passing that in the single
sentence in which he describes the conversation of Polycarp,
he represents him as retailing lessons which he professed to
have learnt ' from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word (napa
TWV avroTTTtov 7% &>?79 TOV Aoyov 2 )' an expression characteristic
of the writings of St John and suggesting that Irenaeus' recollec-
tions of Polycarp were intimately connected with those writings.
Of the many letters which Polycarp himself wrote, as Irenaeus
(in Eus. H. E. v. 20) tells us, ' either to the neighbouring
Churches to confirm them, or to individual brethren, to ad-
monish or encourage them,' only one remains. The extant
Epistle to the Philippians was written after the death of

1 See above, p. 54 sq. ^WT/S. Possibly there is an accidental

2 See above, p. 55. We might be transposition in the text of Irenseus
tempted to translate the passage 'from and we should read TOV A6yov rrjs fays,
the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life ' cf. Ign. Polyc. 5 els TI^V rrjs vapicos
(cf. 1 Joh. i. 1), but the Greek order TOV Kvpiov (v. Z. TOV KvpLov 7-775 crap/cos).
makes this impossible. Moreover the But it matters little for our immediate
expression avToirT^ TOV A.6yov occurs purpose. The personal use of 6 A.6yos
in Luke i. 2. On the other hand the is Johannine in either case. The
rendering 'from the eyewitnesses of Syriac translator has 'those who saw
the life (the earthly career) of the with their eyes the living Word.'
Word ' would require TOV piov for TTJS

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 63

Ignatius, but so soon after that Polycarp had not yet heard
the particulars. It may therefore be placed about the year
A.D. 110. The Epistle is not long and contains very few direct
references to the New Testament writings ; but numerous
passages, more or less exactly quoted, are embedded in it. For
the most part they are taken from the Epistles, as more suited
to the hortatory and didactic character of the letter, and the
references to the Gospels are very few. With the Fourth
Gospel no distinct coincidence is found ; but Polycarp was
evidently well acquainted with the First Epistle of St John,
for he writes ( 7) : * Every one that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh, is Antichrist 1 ; and whosoever
confesseth not the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil 1
(1 Job. iv. 3, compare 2 Job. 7, and shortly after ( 8)), ' but
He endured all for our sakes, that we might live through Him '
(1 Job. iv. 9). It will be shown hereafter that this First Epistle
was in all likelihood written at the same time with and attached
to the Gospel. At present I will assume that it proceeds from
the same author. There is a presumption therefore that the
Gospel also was known to this writer. At all events, the
quotations show that the writer of the Gospel flourished before
Polycarp wrote. And he is cited by this father, in the same way
in which our canonical writings, more especially the Epistles of
St Paul and St Peter, are cited.

3. PAPIAS of Hierapolis was a contemporary and a friend
of Polycarp. Whether he was a personal disciple of the Apostle
St John, as asserted by Irenseus, or only of a namesake of the
Apostle, the presbyter John, as Eusebius supposes, I will not
stop to enquire 2 . It is certain that he lived on the confines of

1 ira.3 yap 6s &v fjLrj ofj.o\oy-g 'Irjvovv 33. 4). On the other hand Eusebius,
Xpia-Tov ev vapid eX-rjXvdevai dcTi'x/H<rr65 who mentions this statement of Iren-
<TTI ( 7). [On the genuineness of aeus, remarks; 'Yet Papias himself,
Polycarp's Epistle see Apostolic Fathers in the preface to his discourses cer-
(Part ii.), i. p. 578 sq. (ed. 2).] tainly does not declare that he himself

2 Ireneeus speaks of Papias as 'a was a hearer and an eyewitness of
hearer of John' ('ludvvov d/covcrnjs v. the holy Apostles, but he shows, by

64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the apostolic age, that he was acquainted with the daughters
of Philip, and that he conversed with two personal disciples of
the Lord, Aristion and John. He wrote an ' Exposition of our
Lord's Oracles' in five books, which he illustrated by oral
traditions. Its date is somewhat uncertain, but on the whole
it would appear to have been written in his old age, towards
the middle of the second century, not before 130 to 140. Of
this work only the most meagre fragments remain; but it is
distinctly stated by Eusebius, that he ' made use of testimonies
from the First (Trporepas) Epistle of John ' (H. E. iii. 39) 1 . We
cannot indeed assume from this notice that he mentioned the
Apostle by name as the author, or that the quotations were
given as quotations (for Eusebius uses this same expression of
the quotations from St Peter in Polycarp, where St Peter is
not so mentioned and the passages are indirectly quoted) ; but
it is a fair inference from the procedure of Eusebius elsewhere
that the passages were obvious quotations (otherwise he would
not have noticed them), and that the coincidence was not so
slight as to be accidental, but clearer than the quotation from
St John in Polycarp's epistle, which Eusebius does not mention.
In carrying over the evidence from the Epistle to the Gospel,
the same remark will apply, as in Polycarp's case.

But great stress has been laid on the silence of Eusebius,
as though it were inconsistent with the supposition that Papias
was acquainted with the Gospel. The historian quotes a few
lines from Papias, preserving some traditions respecting the
Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark which he related on the
authority of John the presbyter, but says nothing about the
Fourth Gospel. And the negative argument appears stronger,

the language which he uses, that he mation which were closed to Eusebius.

received the matters of the faith from Still Eusebius may have been right,

those who were his friends ' (H. E. iii. [See Essays on Supernatural Religion,

39). It is, however, not stated by p. 142 sq.]

Irenffius that he derived his knowledge l K^xpT rat & avrbs /JLapTvplau ajrb 7-775

from this preface, and from his fre- 'Iwdvvov Trportpas ^TnffTo\rjs, H. E. iii.

quent intercourse with Polycarp Iren- 39.
ceus doubtless had sources of infor-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 65

when it is remembered that Eusebius elsewhere 1 declares his
intention of extracting from early writers such notices as bear
on the formation of the Canon.

Before accepting this hasty conclusion however, we must
answer two preliminary questions, the one following from the
other: (1) What is the practice of Eusebius elsewhere ? Does
he, or does he not, fulfil to the letter the intention thus expressed
relative to the Canon ? (2) If he does not, what principle of
selection, if any, does he follow here or elsewhere in omitting
or recording such notices ?

To the first of these questions the answer is decisive. The
Epistle of Clement besides many embedded quotations from
St Peter, St James, and St Paul, and a few from the Gospels
and Acts, refers by name to St Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians. Yet Eusebius says nothing of all this. He
mentions only its coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews
(H. E. iii. 38). The Epistle of Polycarp again, besides the
references to the Gospels mentioned above, is replete with the
most obvious quotations from St Paul, and in two passages refers
to his Epistles by name ( 3, 11). But Eusebius omits all
mention of these and simply says 'he employs some testimonies
from the First Epistle of Peter,' not mentioning even the coin-
cidences with St John's first Epistle (IT. E. iv. 14). His account
of Irenseus is equally defective. Excepting one or two of the
Catholic Epistles, Irenaeus, as is well known, quotes by name
all the canonical books of the New Testament, and most of
them repeatedly; yet Eusebius, after giving one passage con-
taining an account of the origin of the four Gospels, and another
referring to the Apocalypse, adds 'he makes mention also of
the First Epistle of John, adducing very many testimonies from
it, and in like manner of the First Epistle of Peter ' (H. E. v. 8).
If Irenaeus had been known to us only from the account of
Eusebius, it would doubtless have been inferred of him (as
even cautious writers have drawn this inference respecting

1 Eus. H. E. iii. 3.
L. E. 5

66 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Papias), that he ignored or repudiated the Acts of the Apostles
and all St Paul's Epistles.

It will then be seen that the mere silence of Eusebius
justifies no such inference. And, when we come to enquire
the grounds on which he has omitted or recorded notices,
I think it is impossible altogether to acquit him of a certain
carelessness or caprice. Yet, so far as he is guided by any
principle, it appears to be this. The four Gospels, the Acts of
the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of St Paul were universally
allowed as canonical. He therefore records no references to,
or quotations from, these, except such as contain some interest-
ing tradition respecting their origin or history, as e.g. in Papias
the account of the Hebrew original of St Matthew or the
Petrine authority of St Mark. On the other hand the authority
of the Apocalypse and of the Epistle to the Hebrews was
doubted ; and the limits of the Catholic Epistles also (e.g. how
many Epistles of St John or St Peter should be received) were
an open question. On these points therefore he is more full ;
and, though the First Epistle of St John and the First Epistle
of St Peter were not themselves questioned, yet their relation to
the others leads him to note where they are quoted as authori-
tative 1 . There is no reason therefore to suppose that, though
Papias might have quoted the Gospel of St John a score of
times, Eusebius would have cared to note the fact, unless the
notices contained some interesting particulars respecting its
origin and history.

And in his account of Papias there is less completeness
than usual in repeating the traditions of his author. The five
books of the Expositions were largely interspersed with such
traditions, which it would have been tedious to reproduce in
full. The millennarian views of Papias were repulsive to
Eusebius ; and the historian's impatience is very evident when
he is dealing with this author. He mentions the fact that

1 But even this rule he fails to yet in his account of Papias Eusebius
observe strictly, e.g. we know that does not mention the Apocalypse at
Papias commented on the Apocalypse, all.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 67

Papias records * other narratives of the aforesaid Aristion of our
Lord's discourses, and also traditions of the Elder John ' which
he does not repeat, and he contents himself with 'referring
(avaTre/jL-tyai) the studious readers (rot"? <f)i,\ofj,a66i<i) ' to the
book itself, professing to give what the exigencies of the case
demand and nothing more (avayKaia)?) on this head (H. E. iii.
39) 1 .

But there is also positive evidence very strong, though not
absolutely conclusive, that Papias did quote from this Gospel.
I have already mentioned the reference in the Asiatic Elder
cited by Irenaeus to our Lord saying 'In My Father's house are
many mansions.' If anyone will take the pains to read with
care from the thirty-third to the thirty-sixth chapter of the
fifth book of Irena3us continuously, he can hardly fail (I think)
to arrive at the conclusion that the Elder in question is none
other than Papias. In the thirty-third chapter he gives a
passage from Papias, and in the thirty-fifth comes this passage
from 'the Elders,' with which we are immediately concerned.
That they are taken from the same book, appears in the highest
degree probable from the following considerations. (1) Both
passages treat of the future kingdom of Christ, and both regard
it from the same point of view, as a visible and external king-
dom, in which the enjoyments are enjoyments of the senses.
(2) The subject is continuous, the matter which intervenes
between the two quotations extending over some pages but all
having reference to the same topic. (3) The authority in the
first quotation is 'the Elders who saw John the disciple of the
Lord' (33 3); in the second 'the Elders' (36 1) simply, and

1 But why should he mention St it. Early references to a Gospel which
Matthew and St Mark, without St was universally acknowledged had no
John? The answer is probably as interest for anyone, unless they con-
follows. Papias related curious facts tained some curious or important fact,
of the two former. These are retailed. If we are at a loss to say why Eusebius
If Papias simply quoted the Gospel of singled out 1 Peter and 1 John in the
St John (whether he mentioned John's case of Papias, we are equally at a
name or not), or if he only related loss to say why he should single out
what was known to everyone, there is 1 Peter in the case of Polycarp, except
no reason why Eusebius should state on the theory given above.

68 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

at the end 'the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles' (36 2).
At the close of the first quotation Irenseus adds, 'But these
things Papias also... testifies in writing in the fourth of his
books, for there are five books composed by him.' Papias
therefore reports the statements of these Elders as we know
from Eusebius that he did on several occasions, and there is no
difficulty about the authority in the first passage. But in the
second passage Irenseus fails to explain whom he meant by
' the Elders/ unless they are the same who have been mentioned
shortly before. Only on this supposition is the reference plain.
(4) I have pointed out before 1 that the manner of quotation
obliges us to suppose that Irenseus refers to a written document,
and not a mere oral tradition. This limits the possibilities of
the case : for (so far as we know) Polycarp and Papias are the
only writers who could satisfy the description. (5) The tenour
of the passage accords entirely with the known subject of
Papias' work, as described by its title * Expositions of Oracles of
the Lord.' We have here one of these explanations 2 .

It seems fairly probable too, that not only our fifth Elder,
but the fourth also, must be identified with Papias. His ex-
planation of 'sonship' would be framed to explain our Lord's
words addressed to the Jews : 'ye are of your father the devil/
Gnostic dualists would interpret these words to mean that the
old covenant was directly opposed to the new, and was the
work of the evil principle. To meet this argument the Elder
makes the distinction between sons by nature and sons by
habit. In the latter sense only the Jews were sons of the
devil. The explanation at all events is a close parallel to an
extant fragment of Papias, where he explains that 'those who
practised a godly innocence were called children' by the early
Christians 3 .

1 See above, p. 61 sq. title of Papias' work.

2 It is curious that Eusebius (H. E. 3 TOVS Kara Oebv aKaiciav dcr/cowra.*
v. 8), describing the work of the Elder TrcuSas e'/rd.Aow, ws /cat Ha-rrlas 77X0?
whom Irenseus quotes, calls it uncon- /3t/3My Trp^ry ru>v Kvpiaxuif tt-tjyfio-ewv.
sciously 6^777770-615 Beluv ypa^uv, an The extract is preserved in Maximus
expression almost identical with the Confessor's scholia to the work of

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2.

Lastly ; in the few lines which Eusebius quotes from the
preface of Papias, it is worth observing, first, that the names
which he places at the head of the list of authorities are those
of the Apostles known to us from the Fourth Gospel and from
this alone, Andrew, Philip, Thomas 1 : and secondly, that he
speaks of 'the truth itself 2 ,' meaning our Lord, in accordance
with the characteristic phraseology of this Gospel 3 .

But indeed, though the evidence is late and confused, we
are not without direct testimony that Papias was acquainted
with this Gospel. 'The Gospel of John was revealed (manifes-
tatum) and given to the Churches/ says an old Latin argument
to this Gospel 4 , ' by John while he still remained in the body
as one named Papias, of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John,
related in his five books (or in his fifth book) of Expositions 5 /

Dionysius Areopagiticus de eccl. hier-
arch. c. 2, and is given in South
Reliq. Sac. i. p. 8, Fragm. 2.

1 Ti 'Avdptas r) TL Utrpos tlirev ?} rl
4>iXt7T7roj ?? rl Qwfj.as (Papias in Eus.
H. E. iii. 29). Andrew, Peter and
Philip are mentioned together in St
John's Gospel as belonging to the
same place (John i. 44). Of Philip
nothing is recorded except in the
Fourth Gospel. The last remark ap-
plies also to Thomas.

2 ciTr' avT-fjs TTJS aXydcias Eus. I. c.;
cf. John v. 33, viii. 32, xiv. 6.

3 The story of the woman taken in
adultery (John vii. 53-viii. 11) may
also be an extract from Papias' work.
It is certain that it is an interpolation
where it stands. It is wanting in all
Greek MSS. before the sixth century;
it was originally absent from all the
oldest versions Latin, Syriac, Egyp-
tian, Gothic: it is not referred to, as
part of St John's Gospel, before the
latter half of the fourth century. It
is expressed in language quite foreign
to St John's style, and it interrupts
the tenour of his narrative. Eusebius

tells us that Papias 'relates also an-
other story concerning a woman ac-
cused of many sins before the Lord '
and adds that it is ' contained in the
Gospel according to the Hebrews.' It
may very well be an illustration given
by Papias of our Lord's saying in John
viii. 15 'I judge no man.' [See Essays
on Supernatural Religion, p. 203.]

4 The argument is contained in a
Vatican MS. of the ninth century first
published by Cardinal Thomasius (Op.
i. p. 344).

5 The MS. has in exotericis, id est,
in extremis quinque libris. Overbeck
in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol. x. p. 68 sq. (1867), contends
that some one had forged five ad-
ditional works in the name of Papias,
and had entitled them Exoterica, at-
taching them to the genuine books.
Hilgenfeld adopts this view. But it is
simpler to suppose that exegeticis
should be read for exotericis, and
externis (a gloss on exotericis) for
extremis. The passage then presents
no difficulties. [See Essays on Super-
natural Religion, p. 210 sq.]

70 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

If the corruption of the context and the uncertainty of the
source of the statement forbid us to lay much stress upon it,
we are nevertheless not justified in setting it aside as wholly
valueless.

4. About the year 165 Poly carp suffered martyrdom at
a very advanced age. An account of the death of Polycarp is
extant in a LETTER OF THE CHRISTIANS AT SMYRNA addressed
to a neighbouring Church at the time. In this document the
brethren draw a parallel between the sufferings of their
martyred friend and the Passion of the Lord, which is suggested
to them by some remarkable coincidences. * Nearly all the
incidents which happened before his death/ it is said at the
outset, ' came to pass, that the Lord from heaven might exhibit
to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel ; for Polycarp
remained that he might be betrayed, just as the Lord did ' ( 1).
This account is the earliest instance of the type of hagiology
which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and imaged
in detail in the servants of Christ, of which in the middle
ages the lives of the great monastic founders St Francis and
St Dominic, of Anselm and of Becket, are an example, and
which has been unconsciously reproduced in more or less
distinct lineaments in the biographies of the Wesleyan heroes in
very recent times. This idea of literal conformity to the suffer-
ings of Christ runs through the letter. Some of the coincidences
are really striking, but in other cases the parallelism is more
or less artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate is
Herod ( 6); the time of the martyrdom is the passover,' the great
sabbath ' ( 21) ; Polycarp's conviction is obtained by a confession
elicited by torture from a youth in his employ, and thus he is
' betrayed by them of his own household' ( 6); he is put upon an
ass and so carried before the magistrate, and of course this is
a parallel to the triumphal entry at Jerusalem ( 8) ; his pursuers
come on horseback and in arms as 'against a robber' ( 7);
when he is apprehended, he prays ' The will of God be done'
( 7), and so forth.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 71

Most of these incidents have their parallels in the circum-
stances of the Passion as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, or
recorded by these in common with St John. This is natural; for
they refer mainly to external incidents, in which the Synoptic
account is rich. But there are one or two exceptions. Thus
we are told, at the crisis of Polycarp's trial, that a voice came
from heaven, 'Be strong and play the man, Poly carp 1 . And the
speaker no one saw, but the voice those of our company that
were present heard' ( 9). This corresponds to the voice which
St John records as speaking from heaven to our Lord, and as
imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders (John xii. 28, 29).

In 5, 12 a change of circumstances brings with it
the fulfilment of his prophecy as to the manner of his death
(cf. John xii. 33, xviii. 32). Again we are told, when the fire
would not consume the body of the Saint, his persecutors
' ordered an executioner (confector) to go up to him and thrust
a dagger into him. And when he had done this, there came
forth a dove and 2 a quantity of blood, so that it extinguished the
fire ; and all the multitude marvelled that there was so great
a difference between the unbelievers and the elect' ( 16). The
parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account (xix. 34) of
the crucifixion alone is obvious ; and just as the Evangelist lays
stress on his own presence as an eyewitness of the scenes (xix. 35)
so also have these hagiologers done; 'we saw a great marvel,' they
say, ' we to whom it was given to see ; and we were preserved that
we might relate it to the rest' ( 15). And, lastly, as St John
emphasizes the fact that everything was fulfilled in the death of
Jesus (xix. 28, 30), so also they declare of Polycarp that ' every
word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been, and shall be,
accomplished' ( 16). To these facts it should be added that
the dying prayer of Polycarp contains one or two coincidences
with the characteristic phraseology of the Fourth Gospel, such

1 The expression itself is probably question whether the words
from Deut. xxxi. 7, 23, Josh. i. 6, 7, 9. /cat are genuine or not.

2 The parallel is not affected by the

72 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

as 'the resurrection of life/ 'the true God' ( 14; cf. John
v. 29, xvii. 3) 1 .

5. Of all the Asiatic school, exclusive of its great Gallic
representative, MELITO of Sardis appears to have been the
ablest. He possessed some slight knowledge at least of Oriental
tongues ; he had travelled to the East to obtain certain informa-
tion about the Old Testament Canon ; he was at once learned,
thoughtful and eloquent. He moreover won deep respect by
his ascetic earnestness. His writings were very various,
embracing alike questions of speculative theology, of scriptural
exegesis, of practical duty, of ecclesiastical order.

Those works, of whose date any record is preserved, appear
to have been written between the years 165175. When
Polycrates of Ephesus wrote in the last decade of the century
he was no longer living ; and it may perhaps be inferred, from
the language there used of him 2 , that his death was not very
recent 3 . These facts will fix his epoch approximately. Though
he is not likely to have conversed with St John or other
personal disciples of the Lord, he belonged to the generation
immediately following, and must have had large opportunities of
intercourse with men like Polycarp and Papias; for he was
a flourishing and apparently an influential and prolific writer
about the time of their death.

Of his numerous works only a few fragments remain ; but
these are quite sufficient to attest the influence of the Fourth
Gospel on his teaching and language. It has been already
mentioned 4 , that the chronology of the Saviour's life, adopted

1 Perhaps too the closing words of in Le Bas and Waddington's Voyage
% 16 ere\eiw077 /cat reXetw^?j<rerai are a Archfologique etc.). Again we are in-
reminiscence of the rer(?\e<rTcu of St formed that he addressed his Apo-
John xix. 30. logy to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180).

2 See Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24. From an extant fragment we learn

3 His treatise ' On the Paschal Fes- that L. Verus, the colleague of M.
tival,' he himself tells us, was written Antoninus, was no longer living: this
while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of places the date after the spring of
Asia (A.D. 164-166; see Waddington A.D. 169.

Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques, p. 731 4 See above, p. 56 sq.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 73

in the Asiatic School, was derived from this Gospel. Of this
fact Melito is an illustration. Of our Lord he thus writes :
' Being at the same time both perfect God and perfect Man.
He convinced us of His two natures, of His Godhead through
His miracles in the three years after His baptism, and of His
manhood in the thirty years which passed before His baptism 1 .'
If the thirty years before the baptism are taken from St Luke,
the three years after the baptism cannot be derived from any
other canonical Gospel but St John.

The largest extant fragment is taken from his Apology to
M. Antoninus. In a treatise of this kind direct quotation is not
usual ; and accordingly we find no passage of either the Old or
the New Testament cited in Melito's work. But the language
and ideas are throughout coloured by the influence of the
Fourth Gospel. 'Neither can any sight see Him, nor any thought
comprehend Him, nor any word express Him' (p. xxxix.) 2 .
' Behold a light is given to us all, that in it we may see. They
dare to make an image of God, Whom they have not seen'
(p. xl.). ' What is God ? He that is Truth, and His Word is
Truth' (p. Ixv. ; cf. John xvii. 17). 'What then is Truth?' (cf.
John xviii. 38). ' If then a man adoreth that which is made
by hands, he adoreth not the Truth nor the Word of
Truth. But I have many things to say concerning this matter'
(p. xlv. ; cf. John viii. 26, xvi. 12). 'Wherefore I give thee
counsel, that thou know thyself and know God ' (p. xlvii. ;
cf. John xvii. 3). ' Worship Him with thy whole heart ;
then will He grant thee to know His will ' (p. xlvii. ; cf.
John vii. 17). ' To know God is Truth ' (p. xlix.). ' To know
the true God ' (ib. ; cf. John xvii. 3). ' The word of Truth
reproacheth thee ' (p. L). ' If thou canst not know God, at
least think that He is ' (p. li.). ' It is impossible for a mutable
creature to see the immutable ' (p. lii. ; cf. John i. 18, 1 John
iv. 12). ' Then shall they who know not God, vanish away'
(p. Hi.). ' According as thou shalt have known God here, so

1 Quoted by Anastatius of Sinai (Migne P. G. xxxix. p. 228 sq.).

2 The references are to Pitra's Spicileg. Solesm. i.

74 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

will He know thee there' (p. liii.). 'We worship the only
God, Who is before all and above all ; and we worship also
His Christ, being God the Word from eternity' (p. Ivi.).

In like manner in one of the homiletic fragments which
remain 1 , he speaks of our Lord as the ' Word of God and
begotten before the light, the Creator with the Father the
fashioner of man; all things in all, the Son in the Father,
God in God, King unto all eternity 2 ' (p. lix.) ; and in another,
using the images of St John he says : ' He appeared as a lamb,
but He abode as a shepherd. He wanted food, in so far as He
was man, yet He ceaseth not, in so far as He is God, to give
food wherewith He feedeth the world 3 ' (p. Iviii.).

6. CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS was a contemporary of Melito ;
the two being coupled together by Eusebius, Jerome and
others. He was a successor, if not the immediate successor,
of Papias, as bishop of Hierapolis. The ascertainable dates of
his life are: (1) He presented an apology to M. Antoninus,
who died in A.D. 180. (2) He mentioned the incident of the
thundering legion, which occurred A.D. 174. (3) Eusebius in
his Chronicle seems to place his accession to the episcopate
A.D. 171 4 . (4) He is no longer living in the last decade of the
century, when Serapion 5 alludes to him (Eus. H. E. v. 19).

1 The fragment is extant in a Syriac Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp.
version ; it is given in Pitra's Spicileg. 232 sq., 236 sq.]

Solesm. ii. p. lix. sq., in Cureton's 3 Cf. John i. 36, x. 1 sq. The so-

Spicileg. Syr. p. 53 sq., and in Otto called Clavis of Melito may contain a

Corp. Apol. Christ, p. 420. residuum of genuine matter, but as the

2 There is an Armenian extract amount of this is not ascertainable
(Spicileg. Solesm. i. p. 4), which gives with any degree of certainty, its evi-
this passage with some alterations and dence must be left out of the question,
a different commencement, assigning * See Clinton Fast. Bom. i. p. 167.
it to Irenaaus. There is also a Syriac 5 Eusebius Chron. and Jerome place
abridgment of the Armenian. It is the accession of Serapion to the epi-
probable that Irenaeus introduced this scopate in the eleventh year of Corn-
passage from Melito either anonym- modus, i.e. A.D. 190 or 191 (Clinton,
ously or otherwise, into one of his i. p. 187), and he died apparently about
writings. Another Armenian fragment A.D. 203 (Clem. Alex, in Eus. H. E.
(Spicileg. Solesm. i. p. 1) gives as vi. 11), though Eusebius himself says
Irenasus what is really an extract A.D. 212. See Clinton i. p. 211.
from Papias quoted by Irenasus. [See

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS - 2. 75

Of several works known to have been written by this father,
the scanty fragments which remain occupy something less than
half an octavo page. They contain however two or three unde-
niable references to the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Thus
Claudius speaks of our Lord as ' pierced in His holy side/ and
' pouring forth from His side the two purifying elements, water
and blood, word and spirit' (Routh Reliq. Sac. I. p. 160, cf.
John xix. 34). Thus too, he says, that the 14th was the true
Passover of the Lord, the day on which He suffered, finding
fault with those Avho maintain He ate the Paschal lamb with
His disciples on the 14th and was crucified on the 15th, on the
ground that ' according to their view the Gospels appear to be
at variance.' Thus he himself takes the Fourth Gospel as the
chronological standard, and interprets the others by it ; and
here again, as in the case of Melito, we have a confirmation of
the statement of Irenaeus, that the reckoning of the Asiatic
School was founded thereupon or accorded therewith. It is
only necessary to add that his allusions to the Gospels seem to
imply that they had long been received as authoritative, but
that the discussions on the Paschal question had at length
awakened criticism, and started difficulties in harmonizing
them which hitherto had not been perceived.

7. POLYCRATES of Ephesus closes the list of authorities
belonging to the Asiatic School. In the last decade of the
second century he writes to Victor, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 190-
202), on the Paschal question ; and having occasion to mention
the practice of St John describes him in the language of the
Fourth Gospel, as the disciple that ' reclined on the bosom of
the Lord 1 / Nothing like this occurs in the other Gospels. It
must be borne in mind also that Poly crates states that seven of

1 6 eTi-i TO ffTrjdos TOV Kvpiov avawevuv 6 /ccti eiri rb <TTij0o$ avrov

(Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24), the where this resemblance is important,

very expression which occurs in John when coupled with the fact that Iren-

xiii. 25 ava-n-evuv eiceivos tiri TO <TTrj6os seus and Polycrates were allied on the

TOV 'IijcroO (the correct reading) : comp. question of the Paschal controversy.
Iren. iii. 1 'ludwys 6 ^ta^rrjs TOV Kvpiov

76 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

his relatives before him had been bishops ; that he carefully
observes their traditions ; and that he has ' gone diligently
through every holy scripture ' (Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24).

8. But to complete the evidence, before passing away from
the Asiatic Church to her Gallic colony, let me direct attention
to one fact. MONTANISM, which took its rise about or soon
after the middle of the second century, was strictly an offspring
of the Christianity of Asia Minor. As might have been ex-
pected, the two main props on which it relied for support were
the two great writings ascribed to the Apostle St John. As its
picture of the earthly metropolis of Christ's kingdom, the New
Jerusalem, was drawn from the Apocalypse, so also the pro-
phetic mission of its founder was held to be the realisation of
the promise recorded in the Fourth Gospel of the Paraclete,
Who should lead the faithful into all truth.

On this subject I shall have more to say when I come to
discuss the extreme view, into which the more extravagant
opponents of Montanism were driven, of rejecting the writings
of St John wholly 1 .

II. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL.

Intimately connected with the Churches of Asia Minor were
the Christian brotherhoods established in the south of Gaul.
The close alliance existing between these communities as early
as the middle of the second century of the Christian era is a
striking testimony to the power of the new faith in cementing
the bonds of union between far-distant peoples. As, centuries
before, the districts of Gaul lying on the seashore and along
the banks of the Rhone had been civilised by colonists from the
Greek peoples of Asia Minor, so now it would appear that these
regions were indebted to the same country for the higher know-
ledge of the Gospel. However this may be, the intercourse
between the two Churches during the second century was close

1 See below, pp. 115 sqq.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 77

and uninterrupted. More than one instance is recorded in
which they corresponded with each other on matters of com-
mon or individual interest. On one occasion the Christians of
Yienne and Lyons write to their brethren in Phrygia and Asia,
giving them an account of the last hours of the martyrs who
had suffered under M. Aurelius, and among these are mentioned
at least two who were Asiatics by birth, Alexander, a physician
from Phrygia ( 13), and Attalus of Pergamum ( 17). On
another, the Gallican brotherhoods write to the same com-
munities to express their opinion on the recent heresies of
Montanus, Alcibiades, Theodotus, and others, an opinion which
Eusebius describes as ' circumspect and most orthodox ' (Eus.
H. E. v. 3). This opinion was appended, he tells us, to a
collection of letters written severally by the martyrs from their
prisons, and addressed to the brethren in Phrygia and Asia
(Eus. I. c.).

Though all these documents were known to Eusebius,
he has only preserved fragments (though very considerable
fragments) of the first mentioned (H. E. v. 1). Its date is fixed
as A.D. 177. In this letter the Gospel of St John is once
distinctly quoted ( 4), 'So was fulfilled the saying of our Lord,
" The time shall come, in which every one that killeth you shall
think to do service to God" (John xvi. 2)' : while elsewhere its
language is indirectly borrowed. Thus one of the martyrs is
described as 'having the Comforter in himself, the Spirit,
which he showed in the fulness (TrXypcb/jLaTos) of love, having
been well-pleased to lay down even his own life in defence of
the brethren ( 3 ; cf. John xiv. 26, xv. 13) : for he was and is
indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb
whithersoever He goeth ' (ib. ; Rev. xiv. 4) ; and another as
being ' sprinkled and strengthened from the heavenly fountain
of the water of life, that goeth forth from the body (vijSvos) of
Christ ' ( 22 ; cf. John iv. 14, vii. 38).

The persecution which was fatal to these martyrs placed
IREN^EUS in the vacant see of Lyons. His testimony is im-
portant, not only because a close connexion existed between

78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the Churches of Gaul and Asia generally, but because he was
himself by birth and education an Asiatic. It is important
also for another reason. He was directly connected with the
Apostolic age by two remarkable instances of longevity 1 .
Polycarp, his early instructor in his Asiatic home, declared
himself to have been 'eighty-six years in the Lord' at the time
of his martyrdom. Pothinus, his immediate predecessor in the
see of Lyons, his late abode, was close upon ninety when he
too died under the hands of the persecutor. Polycarp was a
disciple of St John, and is said to have been placed by him in
the see of Smyrna. Pothinus was a growing boy when the
Apostle died, and it seems probable (though of this there is no
direct evidence) that he, like his successor at Lyons, was of
Asiatic birth and parentage. Irenes us, as we have seen, lays
great stress on the teaching of the former, which he professes
to follow implicitly; and we may suppose with much probability
that among the anonymous presbyters whose authority he
quotes as having associated with the Apostles and their imme-
diate successors the latter held a prominent place. We are
therefore greatly interested in enquiring what language Irenseus
holds with respect to the Fourth Gospel.

The answer is decisive. He not only mentions or quotes
it many times, as the work of the beloved disciple, but gives
many particulars respecting it. He states in one place that it
was written at Ephesus (iii. 1. 1), in another that its object was
to counteract the heresies of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians
(iii. 11. 1). He uses it freely 2 , not only to establish his own
position, but also to confute his Gnostic opponents. To them
and to him alike, as to the universal Church, it is a recognised
authority. In short, a Fourth Gospel is to Irenasus not only a
historical fact, but a foreordained necessity. He ransacks heaven
and earth for reasons why the evangelical record should thus be
foursquared. In analogies from the physical world, in types
from Old Testament prophecy, in the successive developments

1 See above, p. 53 sq.

2 He quotes it between seventy and eighty times.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 79

of God's revelation to men, he finds evidence that this number
alone is consonant with the Divine order of things (iii. 11. 8).

The extant work of Irenseus on heresies, from which these
references are taken, was written during the episcopate of
Eleutherus 1 , who held the see of Rome from about A.D. 175 to
A.D. 190. The exact date is of little or no importance. The
point to be kept in view is this ; that in youth he had lived in
familiar intercourse with Polycarp, and had heard his aged
master speak again and again of the Apostle St John, that he
professed to have a very vivid remembrance of those early
days 2 , and that on every occasion he appealed to the traditions
of the Asiatic School as authoritative in matters of Christian
faith and history.

Of his honesty and good faith I think no reasonable doubt
can be entertained. Eager partisanship may occasionally have
blinded his judgment as to the value of the evidence before
him. Close and searching criticism was not the characteristic
either of his age or of his class. A tradition may here and
there have been confused or exaggerated in the course of
transmission; a metaphor translated into a fact; a categorical
statement substituted for an individual opinion ; an early date
replaced by a later or conversely. Let all reasonable allowance
be made for these possibilities. The fact still remains, that
he firmly believed himself, and received as the tradition
of St John's personal disciples, that the Fourth Gospel was
written by none other than the beloved Apostle himself. On
this point he does not betray a shadow of a misgiving.

On reviewing the evidence of the Asiatic school, which thus
culminates in Irenseus, we cannot fail to be struck with the
solidarity of the body through which it is transmitted. Polycarp

1 Eleutherus is mentioned as still Epiphanius, our authority for Theo-
living (Iren. iii. 3, 3). On the other dotion's date, is guilty of such start-
hand, a reference occurs to Theo- ling confusions in the passage (depond.
dotion's version of the LXX. (iii. 21, 1), et mens. 16, 17) that his trustworthiness
and Theodotion's version is stated not is much discredited. [See Essays on
to have been published until the reign Supernatural Religion, p. 260.]
of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). But 2 See above, p. 55.

80 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

and Papias, Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, Polycrates and
Irenseus, the martyrs of Asia and the martyrs of Gaul,
are not isolated individuals, nor is church-membership their
only bond of union; but within the Church itself they
belong to a more or less compact community, of which the
members are in constant mutual intercourse, and consult and
advise each other on very diverse matters of interest.

This fact is a strong safeguard for the continuity of trans-
mission where a tradition so important is concerned: but in the
case before us the disputes of the age and country afford an
additional security. As soon as we bring the original theory
of the Tubingen school, which dated the Fourth Gospel about
A.D. 170, or even the modified hypothesis of some recent
antagonists, which places it close upon the middle of the
second century, face to face with these controversies, we at
once see what enormous improbabilities are involved in either
supposition. The forgery (for professing, as it evidently does,
to emanate from the beloved disciple, the Fourth Gospel must
be called by this hard name, unless it be genuine), the forgery
is almost contemporary with, or even subsequent to, the rise of
Montanism and the first outburst of the Quartodeciman con-
troversy. It has a very direct bearing on Montanism, for it
supplies a basis for the prophetic theory of this sect ; and yet
it is received by Catholics and Montanists alike. It raises
questions connected with the celebration of Easter (though
it does not touch the main subject of dispute) ; and yet it is
accepted without misgiving equally by the Quartodecimans
and their opponents. Yet, if the hypothesis were true, that it
first saw the light during the lifetime of the very generation
which was most actively engaged in both these controversies,
must we not believe that its authenticity would have been
most fiercely contested, and that the clearest traces of this
contest would have been stamped on the extant literature
of the period?

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 81

III. THE CHURCH or ANTIOCH.

1, From the Churches of Asia Minor and their Gallic
colonies it is natural to turn to the neighbouring and allied
Church of Antioch ; and here the apostolical father IGNATIUS
first claims attention. His testimony is the more important,
because he is historically connected with the two principal
Churches in which the influence of St John prevailed, Ephesus
and Smyrna. The genuine Epistles of Ignatius were written
A.D. 110, very few years after the probable date of St John's
Gospel. They are brief, abrupt and epigrammatic, being
chiefly occupied with personal explanations and instructions.
An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom writes a few hurried
lines to the Christian congregations with whom he has been
brought into contact on his journey. Though they reflect the
teaching, and in many places echo the language, of the New
Testament especially of St Paul the letters contain only two
direct quotations, as such, from Holy Scripture 1 .

Under these circumstances it is sufficient if we are able to
trace the influence of the Fourth Gospel in individual thoughts.
and phrases. Nor are such traces wanting. When in his
Epistle to the Philadelphians Ignatius writes ( 7), ' The
Spirit is not deceived, being from God ; for it knoweth whence
it cometh and whither it goeth (ol&ev jap Trodev ep^erau /cal

1 Magn. 12, Eph. 5. In Eph. 5, (of our Lord's baptism; cf. Matt. iii.
' virepr)<f)dvoLS o Qeos OLVTL- 15), Smyrn. 6 d xwpwp %o>petTW (cf.

i, the quotation may have been Matt. xix. 12), Polyc. 2 0/j6ju^os yivov

taken direct from Prov. iii. 34, but the d?s 6 6<pis ev ira<nv /cat dxtpaios etVaei us

substitution of d Qeos for d Kvptos in- y -repio-repd (cf. Matt. x. 16) ; (2) with

clines me to suppose that Ignatius got the Pauline Epistles : Eph. 10 edpaioi TT?

it through 1 Pet. v. 5 or James iv. 6. 7Ti<rret (cf. Col. i. 23), 16. 16 oi oiico-

The same substitution is found in (f>06poi paffiXeLav Qeov ov K\r)povo/j.ri<rovcnv

Clem. Rom. 30. The following are (cf . 1 Cor. vi. 9) ; and ib. 18 irov ao<j>6s',

the most striking coincidences in the TTOU O-U^TTJTTJS ; (cf. 1 Cor. i. 20), Rom. 5

Ignatian Epistles (1) with the Gospel d\X' ov irapa TOVTO 5e8iKaiwfj.cn (cf. 1 Cor.

narrative : Eph. 14 Qavepbv TO oevopov iv. 4), Polyc. 5 dyairdv ras (ru/i/3/oi/5, ws

OTTO TOU Kapirov avrov (cf. Matt. xii. 33), 6 Kvpios TTJV eKK\i)ffia.v (cf. Eph. v. 29).
Smyrn. 1 iva ir\iipii)6fi irdcra. oiKaioo'iji'r)

L. E. 6

82 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

TTOV vircvyei), and it searcheth out the hidden things/ we
recognise at once our Lord's description of the Spirit in His
conversation with Nicodemus as related in John iii. 8. Other
reminiscences, not so obvious but equally real, of Johannine
language are traceable elsewhere. Thus the sentence, ' The
prince of this world is abolished' (Trail. 4) is an echo, almost a
repetition, of our Lord's language (John xii. 31, xvi. 11). Again,
the contrast of the 'corruptible food' with the 'bread of God,
which is the flesh of Christ and the draught of His blood' (Rom.
7), is an adaptation of the characteristic discourse related in the
sixth chapter of the same Gospel. So too in other passages he
echoes the same expressions, ' the flesh of the Lord,' ' the blood
of Jesus Christ' (Trail. 8; cf. Philad. 4), 'the bread of God'
(Eph. 5). And elsewhere the coincidences with St John are
equally patent; 'we ought so to receive him (the bishop), as
Him that sent him' (Eph. 6; cf. John xiii. 20); 'where the
shepherd is, there follow ye, as sheep, for many fair-seeming
wolves make captive those that run the race of God' (Philad. 2;
cf. John x. 4, 12) ; 'to Him alone (Christ) are committed the
hidden things of God, He Himself being the door of the Father'
(Philad. 9 ; cf. John x. 7) ; ' Jesus Christ, His Son, Who is His
Word, coming forth from silence, Who in all things pleased Him
that sent Him' (Magn. 8 ; cf. John vi. 38) 1 .

2. Following the succession of the Antiochene bishops we

1 The silence of Ignatius respecting made in the previous section to other

St John has been urged on the other Apostles with whom the Ephesian

side, especially in Rom. 4 (oi>x ws Church was in harmony. Moreover,

Utrpos Kai IlauXos StarcWo/Acu v/juv), Ignatius singles out St Paul on ac-

where, it is contended, the introduc- count of the parallel to himself. The

tion of the names of St Petei and Ephesian converts had sheltered St

St Paul makes the omission of St Paul as he passed through; and now

John's name more remarkable. But Ignatius is passing through Ephesus

there is a good reason for this omis- on his way to martyrdom. Besides

sion. Ignatius is addressing the Ko- these two passages no Apostle is

man Church, and therefore appeals to mentioned by name in the Ignatian

the two Apostles to whose precepts Epistles, except St Peter in Smyrn. 3,

that Church had listened. Again in where there is a reference to an inci-

Eph. 12, where St Paul is again men- dent in our Lord's life,
tioned, reference has been already

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 83

arrive at THEOPHILUS the sixth bishop according to Eusebius
(H. E. iv. 20), the seventh according to Jerome (Ep. ad Algas.
quaest. 6), who commences his list of Antiochene bishops with
St Peter. In his extant Apologia ad Autolycum, an un-
doubtedly genuine work, Theophilus quotes the beginning of
the Fourth Gospel and mentions St John as its author. The
passage runs as follows : ' whence the Holy Scriptures and all
the inspired men (TrvevpaTofyopoi) teach us, one of whom, John,
says, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God," showing that at the first God was alone, and the Word in
Him. Then he says, " And the Word was God. All things were
made through Him, and without Him was not anything made" '
(ad Autol. ii. 22). This direct and precise reference is the
more conspicuous, because it is the solitary instance in which
Theophilus quotes directly and by name any book of the New
Testament. To this undoubted quotation should be added the
following coincidences. ' How can one fail to notice the pangs
which women suffer in child-bearing, and after that they forget
their trouble?' (ad Autol ii. 23; cf. John xvi. 21); ' A corn of
wheat, or of the other seeds, when it is cast into the earth, first
dieth and is dissolved, then it riseth and becometh an ear
(o-ra^u?)' (ad Autol. i. 13). Here the language of Theophilus
combines expressions in John xii. 24 and 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37.
Lastly, in ad Autol. i. 14 occurs the following expression, ' Do
not therefore disbelieve, but believe,' a reminiscence of John
xx. 27, * Be not faithless, but believing.'

The date of these notices may be fixed with tolerable
accuracy. Eusebius in his Chronicon gives A.D. 177 as the year
of Theophilus's death. But it is almost certain that he has
antedated the event by six or more years at the lowest compu-
tation. For in his Apology Theophilus mentions the death of
M. Aurelius, and he carries his chronological calculations down
to this epoch (iii. 28). These calculations indeed are confessedly
taken from Chryseros ' the nomenclator' (ii. 27), a freedman
of Aurelius, who stopped at this point; but as the object of
Theophilus is to calculate the age of the world at the time

84 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

when he writes, it is a tolerably safe conclusion that the third
book, in which these calculations occur, must date not long
after the death of the Stoic emperor, i.e. not long after
A.D. 180. The three books were written and despatched
separately, so that the first and second, in which the quota-
tions are found, may be placed a little earlier than the
third book.

Besides the direct evidence which the Apologia ad Autoly-
cum supplies to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Theophilus
is in another way an indirect witness to the wide acceptance
of four Gospels in the Canon of the New Testament. Jerome
speaks in more than one passage of a work of Theophilus, now
lost, which he calls his ' commentaries 1 .' In one reference indeed
he appears to throw doubt upon the authenticity of this work.
Speaking of Theophilus in Vir. Illustr. 25 he says, * I have read
commentaries written in his name on the Gospel and on the
Proverbs of Solomon, which in my opinion do not appear to
agree with the elegance and style of the volumes mentioned
above' (i.e. the ad Autolycum and other works). But elsewhere
he quotes the work without the slightest misgiving. In the
preface to his own commentary on St Matthew's Gospel (in
Matth. praef. Op. vn. p. 7) he confesses 'to have read many
years before the commentaries on Matthew... of Theophilus,
bishop of the city of Antioch.' In his epistle to Algasia (Ep.
cxxi. Op. I. p. 866), written in A.D. 407, he throws further light
upon the character of this lost writing. He speaks of it as a
harmony of the four Gospels and as a lasting monument of the
writer's genius (Theophilus... qui quattuor Evangelistarum in

1 The four books of commentarii, Epist. Iviii. 5), and in Jerome (i. 4,
extant in Latin and ascribed to Theo- p. 280 ; cf. Jerome Comm. in Matt.
philus, cannot represent the genuine i. Op. vn. p. 12) ; and the work is
work alluded to by Jerome. The theo- evidently not a translation from the
logy is evidently post-Nicene ; passages Greek, but originally written in Latin,
are found nearly word for word in see e.g. i. p. 283 apex ( = Kcpaia) autern
S. Ambrose (i. 120, p. 295, ed. Otto; quatuor literas habens per evangelium
cf. Ambrose Comm. in Luc. iii. 2), in quadruples testamentum indicat no-
Cyprian (i. 153, p. 301 ; cf. Cyprian vum.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 85

unum opus dicta compingens ingenii sui nobis monumenta
dimisit). It is needless to point out the importance and
significance of a harmony of the four Gospels constructed in
the second century, in its relation to the genuineness of
St John's Gospel, and to the Diatessaron of Tatian.

IV. THE CHURCHES OF PALESTINE.

Contemporaneously with the Ignatian Epistles and the
treatise of Theophilus, we have the evidence of writers in
the neighbouring region of Palestine.

1. The date of the writings of JUSTIN MARTYR is of some
importance. The two Apologies were written in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, i.e. between July, 138, and March, 161. If we
can trust the present text, the first (the longer) Apology was
composed before M. Aurelius became Caesar, i.e. before A.D. 140.
Against this early date, however, it is urged (1) that L. Verus,
who is there styled epaarrjs TraiSeias, was only ten years old
at this time ; (2) that Justin (ApoL i. 46) speaks of our Lord
as born 150 years before, (3) that Marcion is mentioned as
already influential (ApoL i. 26). I do not think that much
stress can be laid on these arguments. The expression epaarijs
TratSeta? was a very fit one to apply to an imperial boy, who
was, or was presumed to be, studious and intelligent, and to
whom owing to his youth no other compliment could be paid.
As regards the question of the chronology of our Lord's life,
if Justin followed the ordinary computation (which is probably
the case), he would place the Crucifixion in A.D. 29 ; and,
allowing about thirty-three years for the interval between the
Nativity and the Crucifixion, Justin's 150 years would bring
the date of the work to A.D. 146. The third objection, the
allusion to Marcion, is more difficult to meet, but the dates of
his life are very uncertain. Happily, however, we can escape
these difficulties altogether. By a very plausible emendation
(see Hort in the Journal of Philology, in. pp. 163, 165, 1857),
which reads /cai KaiaapL for Kcucrapi KCLI in the opening words

86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of the Apology 1 , M. Aurelius has already become Caesar before
the date of the work. If we accept this conjecture, the
passage itself affords no posterior limit except the martyrdom
of Justin, and the death of Antoninus Pius in A.D. 161. The
second Apology is a sort of appendix or postscript to the first,
written at the same time or soon after.

The Dialogue with Trypho was written after the longer
Apology, to which it contains a clear allusion 2 , and therefore
probably after both Apologies. It is represented as held at
Ephesus, where Justin had stayed (Eus. H. E. iv. 18). Justin's
testimony therefore becomes in some sense the testimony of
the Asiatic school. The time of the dialogue is stated to be
during the war of Barcochba 3 A.D. 132-135, i.e. when Polycarp
and Papias were scarcely advanced beyond middle age, and
while Melito and Apollinaris were yet young men. From the
allusion to the first Apology given above, it is evident that if we
accept the later date for the Apology, the dialogue cannot have
been published until several years after it actually took place.

Eusebius and others after him place Justin's martyrdom in
the reign of M. Aurelius, and the Paschal Chronicle fixes it at
A.D. 165*. On the other hand, Epiphanius 5 apparently and others

1 The Apology opens as follows : Dindorf ) makes Justin thirty years at
AvTOKpdTopi Tiry AlXbp 'ASpiavy 'AVTW- the time of his martyrdom, which he
vivy Eu<rej3et Se/Saor^ Katcrapi Kal OUT?- places e?ri ' PUO-TIKOU yyefJibvos Kal 'Adpi-

0tXo<r60y Kal AovKly t<iXo- avov /ScunX^ws. The name Kusticus is

Kaiffapos <f>t<rei ut Kal Ei}(re/3oCs too common at this period to give us

, epao-rfj iraitidas, K.T.\. Over much assistance, and the text of Epi-

and above the question of date in- phanius is so corrupt that we may

volved, it is unnatural to describe without hesitation read 'AvTuvivov for

Antoninus' title in a descending scale 'Adpiavov in this passage, especially as

from Imperator to Caesar. a few lines lower down Epiphanius

2 ou5 yap airb TOV ytvovs TOV tftov... speaks of Tatian as setting up his
TWOS (ppovTida TTOIOV/JLCVOS, eyypd^us heretical school about the twelfth year
Kaio-apt irpo<rofju\<av elirov 7rXai>a<r0cu of Antoninus (irepl rb SudeKarov ?TOS
avrovs /c.r.X. Dial. 120. "'Avrwvivov TOV ev<rej3ovs Kcu<rapos). He

3 (pvyuv Tbv vvv yevb^vov Tr6\e/jiov had already described Tatian as a
Dial. 1. contemporary of Justin (o-waK/xci^ei

4 Eus. H. E. iv. 15; Chron. Pasch. 'TovcmVy) who lapsed into heresy after
p. 481 sq. (ed. Bonn). Justin's death.

5 Epiphanius (391 A; n. p. 411 ed.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 87

place it in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and, as far as we can
judge, before A.D. 150. If we adopt with Hort A.D. 149 as the
date (I. c. p. 180), and leave time for the Dialogue, we may place
the extant works of our author between A.D. 145-149.

We now turn to the evidence which Justin affords as to the
Fourth Gospel. He does not quote it by name, but he shows
more than one striking coincidence with its language. Thus
speaking of the sacrament of baptism he says (Apol. I. 61), ' For
Christ also said, " Unless ye be born again (dvayevvrjOrJTe), ye
cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," for that it is quite
impossible for those that are once born to enter into their
mother's womb is manifest to all' (cf. John iii. 3-5). If any
doubt could be entertained whence this saying was derived, it
will appear from a passage in the chapter immediately pre-
ceding ( 60) that the Fourth Gospel was present to his mind.
Applying the incident of the brazen serpent as an image of the
Crucifixion, he reports Moses as erecting the serpent and saying,
' If ye look on this image (ra> TVTTW rourw), and believe, ye
shall be saved in Him.' This is a very wide departure from
the account in Numbers (xxi. 79), where there is nothing
about a type or about the necessity of belief; but the writer
obviously had in his mind John iii. 14, 15, ' as Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man
be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him... should have
eternal life 1 .' Again, in the sixth chapter of the same Apology,
Justin says: 'The prophetic spirit we reverence and worship,
honouring (it) in reason and in truth,' where we are reminded of
John iv. 24. Speaking of the holy eucharist, ' We have been (or
were) taught (eStSa^^ez'),' he writes ( 66), ' that the bread and
wine are both the flesh and the blood of that Jesus Who became
flesh,' an expression founded upon John vi. 54. ' For,' he adds,
* the Apostles, in the memoirs left by them, which are called
Gospels, have recorded that it was so enjoined on them' etc.
This passage alone however would be far from conclusive. It
can only be taken to strengthen a position already established.
1 Compare the treatment of this incident in Dial. 94.

88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

One other coincidence from the same work will suffice. Speak-
ing of the prophecy in Isaiah of the miraculous conception of
the Messiah, Justin remarks that God by the Spirit of prophecy
foretold what was incredible, ' so that, when it came to pass, it
might not be disbelieved, but might be believed from its having
been foretold' (Apol. i. 33), where we are at once reminded of
John xiv. 29.

Turning now to the Dialogue with Trypho we find numerous
expressions, which cannot well be explained except on the
supposition that Justin had the Fourth Gospel before him.
Our Lord is described as 'the only spotless and righteous
light, that was sent from God to men' (Dial. 17 ; cf. John i. 9) ;
He is the ' only-begotten of the Father of the universe, His
Word and Power sprung in a special way (1810)9) from Him, as
we have learnt from the memoirs (&>? aTro ra>v aTrofjbvrjpovev-
fjiarcav efjLaOofJLev)' (Dial. 105 ; cf. John i. 14). An allusion to
the imagery of Genesis xlix. 11 is explained of Christ because
'His blood sprung not of man's seed, but of the will of God'
(Dial. 63 ; cf. John i. 13). We are informed (Dial 69) that
the Jews ' dared to call Him a magician and a deceiver of the
people (\aoTT\dvov)' where the last word seems to have been
suggested by John vii. 12 ' Nay, but He deceiveth the people
(Tr\ava TOV o%Xoi/).' Speaking of himself and of his brother
Christians, Justin says, ' We are called, and are, the true
children of God, who keep His commandments' (Dial. 123;
cf. John i. 12, 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2) ; 'to us it is given both to hear,
and to be with, and to be saved through this Christ, and to
know all the things of the Father' (Dial. 121 ; cf. John xiv. 7) ;
f w 7 ho are instructed in all the truth' (Dial. 39; cf. John xvi.
13). 'He that knoweth not Him (i.e. Christ), knoweth not
the counsel of God, and he that insulteth and hateth Him,
manifestly hateth and insulteth Him that sent Him ; and if
any man believeth not on Him, he believeth not the preaching
of the prophets, who announced the glad tidings of Him, and
preached them unto all' (Dial. 136, a reminiscence of John
v. 23, 45, 46). Again, in the description of John the Baptist

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 89

given in Dial. 88, an account which is chiefly taken from the
Synoptic Gospels, unmistakeable proofs are given of Justin's
acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel also. Thus the repudia-
tion of the Baptist's own claim to the Messiahship is closely
associated with the announcement of the presence of the ' one
stronger/ whose shoes John proclaims himself unworthy to
bear, in a way which presupposes Justin's knowledge of
John i. 19-27. Lastly, in Dial. 57 occurs an expression which
reminds us very forcibly of John vi. 31, 'Of the manna, on
which your fathers were nourished in the wilderness, the scrip-
ture saith, that they ate angels' food.'

A work of Justin earlier than any extant is his treatise
against Marcion. A few lines of this lost work are preserved in
Irenseus (iv. 6. 2). The passage is very short, not more than
half a dozen lines, and does not give much scope for quotations
from the New Testament, but in it occurs an expression
suggested by St John, 'The only-begotten Son came to us,
gathering up His own creation in Himself.' The latter part of
the clause is based on Ephes. i. 10, the former on John i. 18.

2. We now turn from the master to the scholar, from
Justin Martyr to TATIAN. The facts of Tatian's life are soon
told. An Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly says, and
a heathen, he exercised the profession of a sophist, in which
capacity he travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned
towards Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed
him greatly. He was converted, and became a disciple of Justin
Martyr, doubtless at Rome, and after the death of his master
appears to have remained some time in the metropolis teaching.
Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have spent the
remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria and
the neighbouring countries. After Justin's death how soon
after we do not know his opinions underwent a change. He
separated himself from the Church, and espoused views closely
allied to those of the Encratites. When Irenseus wrote his
first book, Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from
the language of this father (Iren. i. 28. 1); and this book must

90 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

have been written before A.D. 190, and may have been written
as early as A.D. 178 1 . On the whole, we shall perhaps not be
far wrong if we place the period of his literary activity at about
A.D. 155-170 2 .

Of several writings of Tatian mentioned by the ancients,
only one has come down to us 3 , his Address to the Greeks,
a work composed before Tatian's separation from the Church,
apparently not long after the death of Justin.

This Oratio ad Graecos is an Apology, addressed to Gentiles.
We do not therefore expect to find in it quotations from the
sacred books, with which Gentile readers would as a matter of
course have no acquaintance, and to which they would attribute
no authority. But the following passages place beyond the
reach of any reasonable doubt what was at least an a priori
presumption, that the pupil of Justin knew and accepted the
Fourth Gospel, to which his master's extant writings have
been shown to give testimony.

4. ' God is a Spirit (cf. John iv. 24).'

13. 'And this then is the saying (TO elpti/jLevov), "The
darkness comprehendeth not (ov rear aXapfi civet) the light"
(cf. John i. 5).'

19. 'Follow ye the only God. All things have been
made by Him, and apart from Him hath been made no thing
(cf. John i. 3).'

These passages are conclusive, for they are characteristic
passages of the Fourth Gospel. There are other coincidences
with Johannine language, such as 5 'God was in the begin-
ning/ which, taken by themselves, cannot be pressed, but in the

1 See above, p. 79. Clement of Alex- 1888 by Ciasca of Tatian's Diatessaron
andria Strom, i. 1. 11 (p. 322) men- in an Arabic version has set at rest for
tions an 'Assyrian ' as one of his earlier ever the question whether or no Tatian
teachers, and the identification of this knew the Fourth Gospel. The Dia-
Assyrian with Tatian is highly pro- tessaron is, as its name implies, a
bable; see below, p. 92. Harmony of the Four Gospels; and

2 [On the whole subject of Tatian as Dr Lightfoot had surmised, consists
see Essays on Supernatural Religion, of our four canonical Gospels, and
p. 272 sq.] commences with the opening words of

3 [The discovery and publication in St John's Gospel.]

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 91

light of the extracts given above are probably derived from the
same source.

V. THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA.

1. In all probability, the Epistle of Barnabas is to be con-
sidered the earliest piece of extant Christian literature, outside
the Canon, which emanates from Alexandria. Whoever is its
author and it is noticeable that he nowhere claims to be the
Apostle Barnabas in his general style and his interpretation of
the Old Testament, he represents Alexandrian thought. He
gives us moreover a picture of feuds between Jews and Chris-
tians, which is in keeping with what we know from other
sources of the character of the population of that great city.
For reasons which cannot be entered into here, but which bear
upon the interpretation of a passage in 4, I am inclined to
place the date of the Epistle in the reign of Vespasian, after
that emperor's association with himself of his sons Titus and
Domitian in the supreme power (A.D. 70-79). In this case, it
was written before the Fourth Gospel ; we must therefore look
elsewhere for the evidence of which we are in search. We
shall find, if I mistake not, that the earliest quotations from
the Fourth Gospel (and these very important) which proceed
from Alexandria, are contained in the works of Gnostic writers,
as Basilides, Valentinus etc.; and these will be considered later
on 1 . At present we will confine ourselves to orthodox writings.
With one possible exception there is no orthodox literature
extant which comes from the Alexandrian Church between the
Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Clement of Alexandria.
That exception is the latter part ( 11, 12) of the EPISTLE TO
DIOGNETUS. In our solitary authority for this Epistle, the
Strassburg MS., now no longer extant, the beginning of one
treatise and the conclusion of another have been accidentally
attached together so as to form in appearance one work. The
writer of the latter part is clearly an Alexandrian, and indulges

1 See below, p. 104 sq.

92 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

in the allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament which are
characteristic of that school. He calls himself 'a disciple of the
Apostles and a teacher of the Gentiles.' The whole tone of
thought of the fragment is second-century. These indications
appear to point to Pantsenus, the master of Clement, and the
Apostle of the Indies (c. A.D. 180-210), as the author of the
treatise. The account given of him in Eusebius (H. E. v. 10)
would seem to imply that his journey to India 1 preceded his
appointment as head of the Catechetical school of Alexandria ;
and Anastatius of Sinai speaks of him as one of those early
exegetes, who understood all the narrative of the Hexaemeron
as referring to Christ and the Church, a view which harmonizes
in a remarkable degree with the allegorical interpretation of
the garden of Eden preserved in this fragment.

The influence of St John is very manifest in this treatise,
though there is no direct quotation from his Gospel. The
Word who is called 'the Life' (17 faij 12; cf. John i. 4),
'who was from the beginning' (o air p%% 11 ; cf. John i. 2),
' through whom the Father is glorified ' (Si ov Harrjp So^d^erai
12; cf. John xiii. 31, xiv. 13), 'has revealed Himself to His
disciples (ol? l^avepwaev o Aoyo? fyaveis 11; cf. John ii. 11).
These and other coincidences with the Fourth Gospel, occurring
in a fragment which occupies less than two octavo pages, are
sufficient to indicate that the writer's mind was imbued with
Johannine teaching and phraseology.

2. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA in his Stromateis* (i. 1. 11)
describes one of his instructors in Greece as ' the Ionian ' (o

1 Jerome Vir. III. 36, Ep. 70 (p. 428) enumerates his teachers as follows,
states that he was sent to India by giving the country in which he was
Demetrius (bishop of Alexandria A.D. their pupil, (1) in Greece, 'the Ionian,'
189-231). ButEusebius(Z.c.) represents (2) in Magna Grcecia, (a) one from
him as head of the catechetical school Ccelo-Syria, (b) another from Egypt,
ten years before the accession of Deme- (3) in the East, (a) one from Assyria,
trius. We must conclude that Jerome (b) another, in Palestine, a Hebrew,
places the visit to India too late. (4) in Alexandria, the last and greatest

2 The Stromateis was written A.D. i.e. Pantaenus. I am inclined to iden-
194 or 195 under Severus. Clement's tify ' the Ionian ' with Melito.

other extant works are earlier. He

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 93

eVl TT}? 'EXXa'So? o 'Iwviicos}, and places him first on the list of
his teachers, as though he were the earliest.

Thus he is connected with Asia Minor, and probably with
the school of St John. Consequently his testimony is of great
importance for our purpose. To Clement we owe several
traditions of St John 1 . He speaks 2 of a certain statement as
' not occurring in the four Gospels handed down to us (eV rofc
Trapabe&oiievoLS rjfjblv reTrapaiv evo/yyeXtW?) but only in the
Gospel according to the Egyptians,' thus showing that in his
time the number of the Gospels was definitely fixed at four.
In another passage 3 he appeals to the tradition of the presbyters
of a former generation (irapaSoa-is TWV dveicadev Trpeafivrepwv)
as to the order in which the Gospels were written, saying that
after the other Gospels had been written, 'John, last of all,
observing that the external (bodily) facts (TO, craj/zom/ea) had
been set forth in the existing Gospels, at the urgent request of
his friends and by the divine guidance of the Spirit, composed
a spiritual Gospel (Trvev/jLari/cov Troifjcrai, evayyeXiov).' The
value of this tradition may be great or it may be small ; but
his whole language bears testimony to the fact that the Gospel
of St John had long been recognised as authoritative, and that
traditions had grown up about it 4 .

3. ORIGEN was born in A.D. 185, and began to teach at
eighteen. Of him it is sufficient to say that he wrote a com-
mentary on St John's Gospel, and that he betrays no knowledge
that the authenticity of the Gospel had ever been called in
question 5 .

1 e.g. the story of St John and the work only two short fragments survive,
young robber (Quis div. salv. 42, p. but Eusebius informs us (H. E. vi. 13)
958), quoted in Eus. H. E. iii. 23. that in it he mentioned 'the traditions

2 Strom, iii. 13, p. 553. which he had heard from the elders.'

3 Cited in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. This is another indirect link with the

4 In his book on the Paschal Fes- School of St John.

tival Clement makes the 14th the day 5 See Liicke, p. 78. His commen-

of the Crucifixion (Fragm. p. 1017 ed. tary on St John was written about the

Potter), thus following out the tra- year 222. In it he controverts Hera-

dition of the Asiatic School. Of this cleon.

94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

VI. THE CHURCHES OF GREECE AND MACEDONIA.

1. The extant remains belonging to this branch of the Church
in the second century are very slight indeed. In the few lines
of Dionysius of Corinth that survive, no quotation could have
been introduced naturally. Perhaps however the EPISTLE TO
DlOGNETUS 1-10 may belong to this Church. It certainly
shows evidence of Hellenic culture both in diction and matter.
This however is a very slight presumption in favour of its
ascription to Greece proper ; and I only include it here because
some place must be found for a document which is undoubtedly
very early, and cannot well be assigned to a later date than the
middle of the second century 1 .

The Epistle is full of indications of the influence of
St John's writings. 'Christians dwell in the world but are not
of the world ( 6 ; cf. John xvii. 11, 14, 16).' The doctrine of the
Word is drawn out fully in 7. He is described as ' the
artificer and creator of the universe, by Whom God made the
heavens, by Whom He enclosed the sea in its proper bounds
(cf. John i. 3, Heb. i. 2)': 'God sent Him as saving... He sent
Him as loving and not as judging (cf. John iii. 17).' In a
later passage ( 10), in language which is an echo of John iii. 16,
we are told, 'For God loved men... to whom He sent His only-
begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in heaven
and will give it to those that love Him (cf. 1 John iv. 9).'
'How then/ the writer goes on, ' shalt thou (worthily) love Him,
that before loved thee so (cf. 1 John iv. 10, 11) ?'

2. That ATHENAGORAS should be considered a representa-
tive of the Church of Greece is evident from the heading of his

1 Westcott (Canon of the N. T. p. vlbv pa<ri\ta 7), as illustrating the

88, ed. 4) places it c. A.D. 117, Bunsen Incarnation, may very well have been

(Hippolytus i. p. 170) A.D. 135. I am in- suggested by the adoption of M. Aure-

clined to date it somewhat later. The lius by Antoninus Pius in A.D. 147.

Diognetus addressed is not improbably On the other hand the simplicity of

the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, and the the theological teaching will not allow

reference to ' a King sending his us to bring the date down much later,
son as a King ' (u>s /3ao-tXei>s

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 95

extant Apology, in which he describes himself as an 'Athenian.'
Thus the account of him given by Philippus Sidetes and pre-
served by Nicephorus Callistus 1 , which makes him the first
leader of the Catechetical school at Alexandria, must be
inaccurate. But Philip of Side, who lived in the fifth century
and was ordained deacon by Chrysostom, was a notoriously
pretentious and careless writer. For instance, in his short
account of Athenagoras he makes Pantsenus the pupil of
Clement, and asserts that Athenagoras' Apology was addressed
to Hadrian and Antoninus, whereas its title shows it to have
been dedicated to the emperors Aurelius and Commodus, and
therefore written after Commodus was associated in the govern-
ment (autumn of A.D. 176). From other indications it seems
possible to fix the date more precisely between the end of
A.D. 176 and the end of A.D. 177 2 .

The absence of all appeal to Holy Scripture, which is
characteristic of apologies addressed to the heathen, is noticeable
in Athenagoras also. But this does not prevent him from
exhibiting correspondences with the thought and teaching
of the Fourth Gospel. Thus God the Father ' hath made all
things by the Word that proceedeth from Him (Sia rov Trap'
avrov Aoyov 4 ; cf. John i. 3).' Again, ' the Son of God is
(the) Word of the Father in form and in energy ; for of Him
and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son
being one, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the
Son ( 10 ; cf. John i. 3, xvii. 21 sq.).' ' To know God and the
Word that proceedeth from Him, what is the union of the Son
with the Father, what the communion (KOIVOJVLCI) of the Father
with the Son' is the Christian's life (12; cf. John xvii. 3).

1 See Dodwell Dissert, in Iren. of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons

2 The /3a0e?a dprivrj ( 2) is only (A.D. 177) raises a difficulty. Athen-
applicable to the years 176-178 in agoras declares ( 35) that no slaves
the reign of M. Aurelius. This peace had ever accused their Christian mas-
intervened between the close of the ters of the infamous crimes attributed
insurrection of Avidius Crassus and to them. This statement ceased to be
the outbreak of the Marcomannic War. true after the commencement of the
On the other hand to place the Apology persecution in question.

after the outbreak of the persecution

96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

The later Church of Greece proper is almost a blank as
regards any literary activity.

VII. THE CHURCH OF ROME.

The genuine Epistle of Clement has been assigned with
great probability to A.D. 95 or 96, during the reign of Domitian,
when St John was still in banishment in the island of Patmos.
It was almost certainly composed before St John wrote his
Gospel. Accordingly, in this, the first contribution to Christian
extra-canonical literature which emanated from Rome, no
quotation from the Fourth Gospel is possible.

1. We therefore pass on to the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, the
author of which is described in the Muratorian Canon, in a
well-known passage, to have composed his work during the
episcopate of his brother Pius (c. A.D. 141-156) in Rome 1 . It is
the earliest Christian allegory, written probably by a slave 2 , and
is noticeable for its lack of quotations from Holy Scripture.
This applies not merely to the New Testament but to the Old
Testament likewise. There are numerous passages which recall
the language of the psalms and prophetical books in the one
case, and of the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles especially the
Epistle of St James in the other, but the coincidences are
embedded in the narrative itself, and have to be carefully
disentangled from it. The only quotation which is avowedly
such, is taken from an apocryphal work, the book of Eldad and
Modad 3 . In spite however of this characteristic feature, the
treatise contains indications that the author was influenced by
the writings of St John. The very title The Shepherd recalls
the parable of the Good Shepherd in John x., and the sixth
Similitude is an elaboration of the metaphor employed in that

1 Sedente cathedra urbis Eomae ec- probable that he came originally from
clesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius. Can. Southern Greece.

Murator. p. 58 sq. (ed. Tregelles). 3 '771)5 Kifyuos rots tTri<TTpe<f>o/j.ti>oi$,

2 Vis. i. 1, unless indeed he is as- wj ytypairrat tv T$ 'EX5a5 /cai Muddr
suming a fictitious character. His Vis. ii. 3.

mention of Arcadia (Sim. ix.) makes it

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 97

parable. The same chapter in the Fourth Gospel affords a
more remarkable coincidence. In the ninth Similitude the Son
of God is called 'the Gate 1 / and it is added that 'no man can
enter into the kingdom of God otherwise than through the
name of His Son Who is beloved by Him (Sim. ix. 12 ;
cf. John x. 9, xiv. 6).' In the same section the Son of God is
said to be 'begotten prior (Trpoyevecrrepo^) to all His Creation,
so that He became His Father's adviser in His Creation.'
These correspondences occurring together seem to indicate the
influence of the Fourth Gospel. Elsewhere St John's teaching
on ' the Truth ' underlies Hennas' words as in Mand. iii., 'Love
the truth, and let nothing but truth proceed out of your mouth
...and thus shall the Lord, Who dwelleth in thee, be glorified,
for the Lord is true in every word, and with Him is no lie,'
a clear allusion to 1 John ii. 27. Lastly, another passage recalls
expressions in John x. 18, the Son 'having Himself cleansed
the sins of His people, showed them the paths of life, giving
them the law which He received from His Father (Sim. v. 6).'
2. The reasons for assigning the MuRATORIAN CANON to
Rome are briefly as follows: (1) the mention of 'urbs,' implying
that the writer was familiar with Rome and probably wrote at
Rome, (2) the translation of the work into Latin and its
preservation in the Western Church, (3) the fact that the
Canon which it presents is substantially the Canon of the
Western Church 2 , (4) the knowledge which the writer displays
of the Roman authorship of the Pastor of Hennas, (5) the
prominent position assigned to the Epistle to the Romans,
which he explains more fully than usual, promising an
exposition of the Epistle itself 3 . I will not discuss the

1 The word is 6vpa in St John, TT^XT; refuse to allow the public reading of the
in Hermas ; but the passage in St Apocalypse of Peter, as though imply -
John is loosely quoted at least three ing that the majority accepted this
times by the early heretics given in work as canonical.

Hippolytus with irv\ri instead of 0upa; 3 Komanis autem ordine (?ordinein)

and so also in the Clementine Homi- scripturarum sed et principium earum

lies; see below, p. 114. esse Christum intimans prolixius scrip -

2 There is however an obscure allu- sit, de quibus singulis necesse est a
sion to some (quidam ex nostris) who nobis disputari.

L. E. 7

98 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

question of the authorship of this interesting fragment. It
has been assigned to Gaius, the Roman presbyter, to He-
gesippus, to Hippolytus. It was obviously written in Greek
originally, and Greek was for the first two centuries the
language of the Roman Church. The data for ascertaining the
age of the writing are two, (1) the notice of an event occurring
in the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 141-156) as having taken place
nuperrime temporibus nostris, (2) the mention in a passage
manifestly corrupt of Arsinous, Valentinus, Miltiades 1 , Basilides
and the founder of the Montanists. We have thus the inferior
and the superior limits within which the work is to be assigned ;
and, though the problem presents considerable difficulties, we
may provisionally place the date at A.D. 170 or thereabouts.

The fragment opens with an account of the Four Gospels.
It is mutilated at the beginning, and the description of
St Matthew's Gospel is wanting. This is the case too with the
notice of St Mark's Gospel, which is lost all but the conclusion
of the last sentence ' at which however he was present and so
he set them down 2 .' But the account given of St Luke throws
light upon the writer's meaning. St Luke, he tells us, was
a physician who after the Ascension became a follower of
St Paul and compiled his Gospel in his own name. 'But
neither did he (nee ipse i.e. any more than St Mark) see the
Lord in the flesh/ that is to say, he was not an eyewitness.
'He wrote from hearsay (ex opinione e'f a/eor}?).' The writer
then continues, 'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John one
of the (personal) disciples (of Christ) (ex discipulis e/c rdov
paOriTwv)! This expression is significant. St John's position
is here contrasted with that of St Mark and St Luke, who
were not eyewitnesses. The word /jbaOrjrr)^ implies a personal
disciple of the Lord, and it is so used in Papias and Irenseus 3 .
Moreover in this place it is peculiarly appropriate, inasmuch as
St John uses this expression of himself (John xviii. 15, 16,

1 For speculations as to Arsinous 2 Quibustameninterfuitetitaposuit.
and Miltiades see Bunsen Anal. Anten. 3 Irenaeus always calls John o TOV
i. p. 134 sq., andCredner Canon, p. 82. Kvplov /j.adrjTrjs; e.g. above, p. 57.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 99

xix. 26, 27, xxi. 20, 23, 24) 1 ; and his example doubtless fixed
the usage of the Asiatic School. A little lower down, after
quoting 1 John i. 1, he draws attention to the fact that
St John 'not only claimed to have seen and heard' the Lord
(read non solum visorem se esse et auditorem), 'but to have
written all the marvels of the Lord in order (sed et scriptorem
omnium mirdbilium Domini per ordinem profitetur).' This
statement is emphatic. As distinct from the arrangement of
events in the second and third (perhaps also in the firs) Gospel,
the eyewitness is declared to preserve the true chronology.

The references to the writings of St John in the
Muratorian Canon are full and explicit. (1) The circum-
stances under which the Gospel was written are first described ;
(2) incidentally the opening words in the first Epistle are
quoted, 'What wonder then if John so boldly puts forward
each statement in his Epistle (in epistolis suis rals eVto-ToXat? 2 )
also saying of himself, " What we have seen with our eyes and
heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things
we have written unto you'"; (3) The mention of the number of
St Paul's Epistles introduces an allusion to the Apocalypse, ' for
John likewise in the Apocalypse, although he writes to seven
Churches, yet speaks to all.' (4) Next the Catholic Epistles are
discussed 3 , and we are told that 'two Epistles of the before-
mentioned John are considered canonical 4 ,' (5) lastly, the
Apocalypse is mentioned again in conjunction with the Apoca-
lypse of St Peter, and an unqualified testimony is given to its
acceptance in the Church. Thus there is a continuous chain of

1 See Westcott Canon of the N. T. 3 There is evidently a lacuna in the
p. 211 (ed. 4). MS. hereabouts, for the First Epistle of

2 The plural is here probably used St Peter is not mentioned.

to describe one epistle. This is not 4 Superscript! lohannis duas (I.

uncommon, cf. the Epistle of Poly- duae) in catholica (Z. catholieis) ha-

carp ( 3) ; Euseb. H . E. vi. 1 ; vi. 43 ; bentur. The two Epistles meant are

Joseph. Ant. xii. 4. 10 ; and in classical probably the Second and Third Epistles,

writers Thuc. i. 132 ; iv. 50; viii. 51 ; the first being considered as a kind of

Polyb. v. 43. 5 etc. It is common in prologue to the Gospel, detached from

the LXX ; cf. Esth. iii. 14 ; 1 Mace. v. the shorter pair, and treated with the

14, etc. See my Philippians, p. 140 sq. Gospel.

100 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

notices, and the absence of the faintest hint to the contrary
renders it unquestionable that the same John is meant from
beginning to end as the author of the Gospel, of the First
Epistle, of the two shorter Epistles, and of the Apocalypse.

But is not the account of the Gospels in this fragment
founded upon Papias ? And if so, what account did Papias
give ? We have found that the Muratorian writer lays stress
on the secondary character of St Mark's account, with apparent
reference to his chronology. Papias also 1 informs us concerning
St Mark, that, though strictly accurate, he 'did not write in order
(ov /jbevToi rafet), for he was not himself a hearer or follower of
the Lord (ovre yap rj/covcre TOV ILvpLov ovre iraprjKdXovdrjcrev
aura}).' Again, we notice that the Muratorian writer quotes
from the First Epistle of St John in evidence. Papias likewise
does the same. We are not told with what object Papias
adduced this testimony from the Epistles; but it is at least
a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the
Muratorian writer. May it not then be inferred with some
degree of probability that the writer of the Muratorian Canon
borrowed in some degree from Papias ? The use of the term
ex discipulis seems to point to such a source of information.

3. It might have been unnecessary to carry the history of
the Canon in the Roman Church further ; but doubts have been
thrown 2 of the view of HIPPOLYTUS upon this question. It
has been maintained that he shows no knowledge of the Gospel
as the work of St John. It would indeed have been marvellous
if Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenseus, and the friend of Origen,
both of whom bear such unmistakeable testimony to the recep-
tion of the Fourth Gospel, had entertained any doubts on this
subject. But the answer to the objection is evident. (1) When
Hippolytus expounds his own views, he is addressing heathens.
He therefore does not appeal to any scripture, because it would
not carry authority with his hearers. (2) It is perfectly evident

1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. character of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 57,

2 Tayler An attempt to ascertain the 77, 87.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND

when he refers to the quotations from St John in Gnostic
writings 1 , that he and they alike received as authoritative the
documents which are quoted. (3) He does not mention by
name St Matthew or St Luke. He mentions St Peter and
St James indeed, but without any connexion with their writings
in the New Testament. The only Pauline Epistles which he
connects with the name of St Paul are Romans, 2 Corinthians,
1 Timothy and perhaps Galatians 2 , though he quotes these and
most of the other Epistles of St Paul repeatedly. (4!) In the
work against Noetus ( 12, 14, 15 etc.) and in a fragment
preserved by Lagarde (p. 52) he distinctly quotes the Fourth
Gospel and attributes it to 'John, the beloved disciple 3 .'
(5) Among the list of works ascribed to him on his statue is
a 'Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St John.' The work
is lost, but there is reason to suppose that it was known to, and
used by, Epiphanius 4 . These reasons seem to me amply to
justify our claim to reckon Hippolytus among the witnesses for
the Johannine authorship.

Hippolytus is the last and most famous representative of the
Greek Church of Rome. Henceforward Rome becomes the
focus of Latin Christendom.

VIII. THE CHURCHES OF AFRICA.

Meanwhile Latin Christianity has had its headquarters in
Africa and especially at Carthage. And it is here that we must
seek the opinion of the early Latin Church on the question of
the Canon. The Roman Church, Greek in nation and Latin in
soil, was the natural link between Greek and Latin Christendom.
Carthage and Africa were converted from Rome. The Canon

1 See below, p. 105 sq. 30, ii. 19, iii. 6, 13 (twice and by name),

2 Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians 31, iv. 34, v. 25 (twice), 36, vi. 27, 35,
once only, 1 Timothy twice. 45, viii. 12, x. 18, 30, xi. 35, 52, xiv. 6,

3 The quotations are as follows: 8 sq. 12; xvi. 28, xix. 14, 37, xx. 1,
John i. 1 (by name), 1-3 (by name)* 17.

10, 14, 18, 20, 29 (twice, once by name), 4 On this work see below, p. 118.

102 'tHE GGSBEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of the African Church therefore may be supposed, in all the
more important points, to reproduce the Canon of the Church
of Rome.

1. TERTULLIAN is the first known writer of the African
Church ; as to his own individual opinion on the authority of
the Fourth Gospel no doubt can be entertained. He quotes it
some two hundred times or more without the slightest mis-
giving. It is more important to trace the evidence, which his
language affords, to the traditional testimony to its use. Thus
in his treatise against Marcion (iv. 2, 5), after mentioning the
four Evangelists together by name, he appeals to the Churches
founded by St John and the succession of bishops derived from
St John, as evidence for the reception of the Gospels by the
Catholic Church. Making all allowance for his rhetoric, such
an appeal cannot be considered unmeaning. Of the Gospel of
St John especially he speaks (adv. Prax. 5) as though it had
long worked itself into the phraseology and the teaching of
Christianity.

2. Another document, contemporary with, or rather earlier
than, Tertullian, THE ACTS OF MARTYRDOM OF SS. PERPETUA
AND FELICITAS (Ruinart, p. 80 sq.) shows what deep hold the
writings of St John had taken on the African Church at this
time. At the outset, we meet in the preface with two obvious
coincidences with Johannine phraseology. The courage of the
martyrs is instanced as a proof of the power of God, * Who
worketh always the works which He hath promised, for a
testimony to them that believe not, for a support to them that
believe ' (quae repromisit non credentibus in testimonium, cre-
dentibus in beneficium a reference to John x. 38). The passage
then proceeds, 'accordingly in our case too, that which we
have heard and handled declare we unto you also, brothers and
sons, that ye also may... recount the glory of God (et nos itaque
quod audivimus et contrectavimus annuntiamus et vobis, fratres et
filioli, ut et vos...rememoremini gloriae Domini),' an expression

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 103

based upon the opening words of St John's First Epistle 1 .
Less stress can be laid on the fact that in her vision Perpetua
sees ( 4) sitting in the midst of a garden hominem canum in
habitu Pastoris, for this favourite idea of Christ as the Good
Shepherd may have been derived from the Pastor of Hermas,
though its original source was doubtless John x. But towards
the close of the document occurs an allusion to the Fourth
Gospel, which is interesting because it is not apparent on the
surface. The only direct quotation from the New Testament
found in this martyrology runs as follows : ' But He who had
said, "Ask and ye shall receive " (qui discer at Petite et accipietis),
gave (to the martyrs) at their prayer that form of death which
each had desired ( 19).' Now, though the passage quoted
occurs in three of the four Gospels (Matt. vii. 7, Luke xi. 9,
John xvi. 24), yet the exact form in which it is couched 2 shows
that it was derived, not from the Synoptic narrative, but from
the Fourth Gospel. In short, with the exception of the Apoca-
lypse (e.g. especially 12), there are no such coincidences with
any other part of the New Testament as are afforded to the
language of the Fourth Evangelist.

The Montanist, or rather Montanizing 3 , tendencies of this
martyrology bear testimony to its early date. Indeed, there is
every reason to believe that it was contemporary with the
events which it records. Tertullian refers to the document in
his de anima 55, and the date usually assigned to this treatise
is c. A.D. 208. The date of the martyrdom of St Perpetua and
her companions is fixed by a reference in the martyrology itself
to the birthday of Geta Caesar 4 , thus placing it between
A.D. 198, when Geta became Caesar, and A.D. 209, when he was
created Augustus. It is highly probable that the actual year
was A.D. 202, during the persecution of Severus.

1 The passage quoted is probably alone alrelre /ecu \-/i/j,\f/e<rOe.

verse 3. Notice however the variation 3 The allusion to ' cheese ' in 4

quod audivimus et contrectavimus for can, I think, hardly be taken to show

quod vidimus et audivimus. that the writer or the martyrs were

2 St Matthew and St Luke have Artotyrites.

cu'retre /ecu dodrja-eTcu vfuv, St John 4 Natale tune Getae Caesaris 7.

104 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

IX. THE CHURCHES OF SYRIA.

There is no early Syrian writer of importance until Barde-
sanes. He flourished at the close of the second century, or at
the beginning of the third century, according as we consider the
emperor Antoninus mentioned in connexion with him (Epiph. i.
477 A, Eus. H. E. iv. 20, Jerome Vir. III. etc.) to have been
M. Aurelius or Caracalla. Bardesanes was a voluminous writer,
but of the various works assigned to him only one has survived,
The Book of the Laws of Countries, which was discovered by
Cureton among the Nitrian MSS., and published by him in his
Spicilegium Syriacum in 1855. When examined, however, this
treatise appears to have emanated from the disciples of Barde-
sanes rather than from Bardesanes himself, and its date is too
late to be of assistance in determining the tradition of the
Syrian Church on the question of the Fourth Gospel. Among
the Ancient Syriac Documents discovered by Cureton in 1848
and published in 1864, is one entitled The Doctrine of the
Apostles, in which Simon Peter is represented (Cureton I. c.
p. 25) as quoting the promise of the Comforter in the language of
John xiv. 26 ; and in another document, The Doctrine of Simon
Cephas, the same quotation in a shorter form is again put into
St Peter's mouth (Cureton 1. c. p. 36). But here again, the value
of this evidence is lessened by the uncertainty of the date which
is to be assigned to these ancient documents.

X. THE TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL WRITERS.

We now pass from the evidence of orthodox writers to the
testimony of heretics, and when we begin to look into it we are
surprised at its extent and at its early date. The numerous
controversies which the early fathers held with the multiform
systems to which Christianity gave rise, has resulted in our
possessing, embedded in the works of the defenders of the faith,
large extracts from the writers who assailed it. This mine
of unorthodox literature has been largely increased by the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 105

acquisition in recent years of Hippolytus' great work the
Refutation of all Heresies. From this newly-discovered work
I shall draw the greater part of the evidence which I hope
to bring before you. The evidence itself I shall state as briefly
as I can. We will begin with the Gnostics.

A. THE GNOSTICS.

1. SIMON MAGUS is credited with a work called The Great
Revelation (77 fjueyaXr) d7r6<f>acri,s), of which Hippolytus has pre-
served considerable extracts (Ref. vi. 9-18). There is however
reason to believe that the treatise was mainly written by his
disciples. In a quotation from this book given by Hippolytus
(1. c. vi. 9), where man is described as ' born of blood ' (rov e'
ai/jLcircov yeyevvrjfjLevov), some have found an allusion to John i.
13 (ot ov/c ef ai/jLdra)v...6jvvr)67ja-av). This seems to me very
doubtful. Indeed the book was probably composed somewhere
about the close of the first century, perhaps before the Gospel of
St John was written, or at least circulated.

2. The OPHITES or NAASSENES. This was a very early sect,
almost pre-Christian in its origin, which broke up into several
distinct branches, as it adopted diverse extraneous elements.
But its assimilative character makes it next to impossible for
us to separate the more ancient features of its teaching from
the more recent developments. Thus we have no means of
ascertaining the exact date of the writings quoted by Hippolytus
But Hippolytus himself composed his Refutation some time
early in the third century 1 , and he intimates that when he
wrote the Ophite system was already on the wane. There is
good reason therefore for assigning an early period in the second
century for the document which he had before him. It abounds
with quotations from the Fourth Gospel. I will not weary you

1 The limits of date for the compo- own death, which took place some-

sition are the death of Callistus A.D. where between A.D. 235 and 238 (Liber

220, of whom an account is given Pontificalis i. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne).
(Haer. ix. 11 sq.), and Hippolytus'

106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

by detailing them at length, but will content myself with giving
the references to the Gospel and to the pages in Duncker and
Schneidewin's edition (1859) of the Refutatio, merely premising
that the quotations are clear and explicit.

John i. 3. Refutatio v. 8 (p. 150), v. 9 (166).

i. 9. v. 9 (p. 172).

iii. 5. v. 8 (p. 162).

iii. 6. v. 7 (p. 148).

iv. 10, 14. v. 9 (p. 172).

iv. 21. v. 9 (p. 166).

v. 37. v. 8 (p. 154).

vi. 44. v. 8 (p. 158).

vi. 53. v. 8 (p. 152).

viii. 21. v. 8 (p. 154).

x. 9. v. 8 (p. 156).

xiii. 33. v. 8 (p. 152).

There are also undoubted allusions to the marriage of Cana
in Galilee (John ii'. 1-11 ; cf. Ref. v. 8 p. 152) and to the man
born blind (John ix. 1 ; cf. Ref. v. 9 p. 172), which are evidently
taken from the same source. And this list might be enlarged
without difficulty.

3. The distinction between the PERAT^E and the Naassenes
is not very clearly defined, and the two bodies seem to have
held many tenets in common ; but Hippolytus treats them as
separate sects, and it is evident therefore that he considered the
Peratse, as a body, to have a real and independent existence.
I tabulate as before the obvious quotations from the Fourth
Gospel, which occur in the account of them taken by Hippolytus
from one of their own documents.

John i. 1-4. Refutatio v. 16 (p. 194).

iii. 14. v. 16 (p. 192).

iii. 17. v. 12 (p. 178).

viii. 44. v. 17 (p. 196).

x. 7. v. 17 (p. 198).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 107

4. We pass on to another Ophite sect, which is treated
next in order in the Refutatio the SETHIANI. As far as we
can judge from the extracts which Hippolytus gives us, the
formularies of this sect do not indulge in scriptural phraseology
to any great extent But here again we meet with traces of
the use of St John's language, e.g. Ref. v. 19 (p. 206), where
the Logos is said to have 'drunk the cup of the living water which
springeth up,' an expression which recalls John iv. 10, 14 ; and
Ref. v. 21 (p. 212), where true believers are spoken of as those
' who are born again of the Spirit, not of the flesh,' words which
remind us of John iii. 6.

5. JUSTINUS, whom Hippolytus quotes as another Ophite
heresiarch, elaborated a system which combined heathen
mythology and the book of Genesis into a fantastic theory of
the universe. The Book of Baruch, from which Hippolytus
quotes, presents few correspondences with the New Testament,
but the same coincidence is found with John iv. 10, 14, which
we have noticed already ; and Jesus, as he leaves his body on
the cross, says to his mother Eden, ' Woman, thou hast to the
full thy son ' (Tvvai, aTre^et? crov rbv viov), words which, though
with a wholly different application, betray an acquaintance with
John xix. 26.

6. The evidence which the Ophite system affords can be
supplemented from the PISTIS SOPHIA, one of the few
remains of the old Gnostic literature which have come down to
us. This work is preserved in a Coptic version. It is in four
books, the fourth probably by a different author, and containing
a simpler form of teaching than the other three. The date
usually assigned to the composition is the middle of the third
century. I give from Petermann's edition the correspondences
which it presents with the Fourth Gospel.

John i. 20. Pistis Sophia p. 9.
vii. 33. p. 11.

xii. 35. p. 11.

xiv. 3. p. 145.

108 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

John xv. 15. Pistis Sophia p. 145.

xv. 19. pp. 8, 145.

xvii. 14, 16. pp. 8. 145.

xvii. 23. p. 145.

xvii. 25. pp. 120, 175.

The Johannine expression ' Verily, verily '
occurs very frequently (pp. 23, 55, 117, 197) in this treatise.

7. BASILIDES, Gnostic teacher of Alexandria, flourished in
the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). He professed to have
been instructed by Glaucias, a follower of St Peter. Clement of
Alexandria, to whom we owe this information (Strom, vii. 17
p. 898), classes him in a loose way with those heretics ' who
arose about the times of Hadrian, and who reached until the
period of the elder Antoninus 1 / Though Clement was interested
in placing his date as low as possible 2 , there is no serious
difference of opinion in this respect. Within a few years the
limit must lie. Now Hippolytus gives an abstract of a work,
or portion of a work, by Basilides ; and in it one or two passages
of St John are quoted and gnostically explained : ' And this,'
says he, ' is what is called in the Gospels, " That was the true
light that lighteth every man who cometh (or coming) into
the world " J (*Hz> TO $? TO d\r)6ii>6v, b </>omet iravra avOptoirov
ep%6/jLvov et? TOV KQG^ov Ref. vii. 22 p. 360 ; cf. John i. 9).
And again : ' But that every thing,' says he, ' has its own
proper times (/caipovs), the Saviour states explicitly, saying,
" My time is not yet come " ' (ovirco rjKet, rj a>pa JJLOV Ref. vii. 27
p. 376 ; cf. John ii. 4). It is said, however, that these quotations
are taken not from Basilides himself, but from some other
Basilidean writer. But what are the facts ? The general form
in which the quotations are introduced the word ty^a-lv
cannot be urged as an argument one way or the other ; for the
expression is often used impersonally, and may mean ' he says '

1 Our chief authorities for the life xxiv. 1. (p. 68 c), Theodoretfl". F. i. 2.
of Basilides are Clem. I.e., Iren. i. 24, 2 He is contending that the Catholic
3 sq., Eus. H. E. iv. 7, Epiph. Haer. Church is older than the sects.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 109

or ' they say.' The question must be decided by an examination
of the passages themselves. Hippolytus begins by stating
(p. 356 1. 64), that Basilides and Isidore his son and disciple
declare that Matthew delivered to them certain secret truths
which he had heard from the Saviour. Then follows a series of
quotations, extending over many pages and ushered in (p. 356
1. 69) by <f)7)criv. This connecting particle is repeated again and
again, but it links together a continuous argument from which
it is patent that Hippolytus is quoting some one book and
some one representative of the school. When he comments on
the statements made, he occasionally speaks of his opponents in
the plural 1 , but the narrative quoted exhibits more than once the
writer's personality, e.g. '"I do not admit," says he' (ov &e%o/i,afc,
<f>7)o-iv p. 356 1. 79); '"By willed, I mean," says he' (TO Se
r)6e\rj(re Xeyw, fyrjcri p. 358 1. 97), clearly showing that the
writer was a single individual who delivered his opinions with
authority. Who then was this writer ? The answer is obvious.
None other than Basilides himself. No other name is
mentioned 2 by Hippolytus. After the first introduction Isidore
is tacitly dropped, and Basilides is treated as the solitary
antagonist. But it may be contended that this was a later
work written by a disciple in the name of Basilides. To this
contention we may reply, (1) that no such work was ever heard
of, (2) that Basilides differed herein from other heresiarchs, as
Simon Magus for example, in that his followers had no interest in
forging documents in his name. For unlike the Ophites and the
Valentmians, the Basilideans were not a large and spreading sect.
They soon dwindled away, leaving by a natural selection the
Ophites and Valentinians masters of the Gnostic field. On the
other hand, the abstract which Hippolytus gives shows the
influence of a master mind. Now it is known that Basilides
wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel 3 a work which is

1 e.g. p. 356 11. 84, 86, p. 360 11. 45, roiouro B.), p. 364 1. 8 (StT^rcu ybp
49, p. 366 1. 36, p. 368 1. 69, p. 376 vwo B.), P- 366 1. 46 (B....3ui<ra0er), cf.
1. 7, p. 378 1. 12. p. 366 1. 47, p. 368 1. 50 etc.

2 e.g. p. 356 1. 85, p. 360 1. 27 3 See Agrippa Castor in Eus. H. E.
(<j>evyei ybp 6 B.), p. 362 1. 67 (Ka\ei TO iv. 7.

110 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

quoted by Clement of Alexandria 1 , and which therefore was
very likely to be in the hands of Hippolytus. And part of the
abstract in Hippolytus is taken up with explaining what is
meant by the term 'the Gospel' 2 ; while the whole is closed
with the significant sentence, ' These then are the fables which
Basilides utters, who taught throughout Egypt, and such were
the fruits which he produced who was instructed in so great
wisdom (p. 378 1. 40 sq.).' And then Basilides is dismissed,
and Hippolytus goes on to combat his contemporary Saturninus 3 .
The extreme probability therefore that we have in the Refuta-
tion the very words of Basilides himself falls little short of
demonstration; and thus we have a passage from St John
quoted, as contained ' in the Gospels,' by one outside the
Church who ranks in antiquity between Clement of Rome
and Poly carp 4 .

8. VALENTINUS came to Rome, we are told, in the episco-
pate of Hyginus (A.D. 138-141) and was in his full vigour in the
episcopate of Pius (c. A.D. 141-1 56) 5 . He professed to have
received his instruction from Theodas, a disciple of St Paul 6 .
Tertullian informs us 7 that he adopted the Canon of the New
Testament complete, and the fact that the whole phraseology of
the Valentinian system is built upon the opening verses of
St John's Gospel 8 is conclusive evidence that he recognised our
Fourth Evangelist. Indeed, we have Irenseus' authority (iii. 11, 7)
for saying that the Valentinians especially affected the Gospel
of St John. But the matter is set at rest once for all by a
distinct quotation from St John (x. 8) which Hippolytus
records of him (Bia TOVTO, (frrjcri, Xeyet o 2fim//o* Hai/re? 01

1 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 12, 83 sq. 5 Irenams iii. 4, 3.

(p. 599 sq.). 6 Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 17, p. 898.

2 e.g. p. 370 1. 97 sq. , p. 372 11. 12 7 Tert. de praescr. 38, si Valentinus
sq., 32, 37, 40, p. 378 1. 10 sq., and integro instrumento uti videtur, non
especially p. 376 1. 6 sq. callidiore ingenio quamMarcionmanus

3 ravra. i*tv oSv tartv a ical B. pv0e6ct, intulit veritati ; cf. de came Chr. 19,
. . . SaTO/wet Acs S TIS <rwaK/tid<ras ry B. Iren. iii. 14, 4.

K.r.X. Eef. vii. 27, p. 378 1. 40 sq. 8 7rX^/)w/Aa, /Jiovoyevris, 0a>s, <r/f6Tos,

4 See Westcott Canon of the N. T. \6yos, fwij, dX^tfeia are Valentinian
p. 290, ed. 4. terms, so also is

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. Ill

7T/30 efjuov 6Xrj\v06vTs K\e7TTcu teal \rj<TTal el<rl Ref. vi. 35 p. 284
1. 77 sq.).

9. The Valentinians were divided into two schools (1)
Western and (2) Eastern (Hipp. Ref. vi. 35 p. 286). Of the
Western Valentinians the most noticeable names are Heracleon,
Ptolemaeus and Marcus. Now HERACLEON 1 wrote a commentary
on St John, which is quoted frequently by Origen 2 . Origen
informs us that Heracleon was reported to have been a familiar
friend of Valentinus (Comm. in Joan. Tom. n. 8). The rise of
commentaries shows an advanced stage in the history of the
text of the Fourth Gospel. PTOLEMAEUS, like Heracleon, was
a direct disciple of Valentinus. His letter to his sister Flora
is preserved in Epiphanius (Haer. xxxiii. 3 p. 216 sq.); and in it
John i. 3 is quoted ( 3) as the statement of o aTrotrroXo?. Again,
in Iren. i. 8, 2 a Valentinian writer quotes John xii. 27 (ri etirta
OVK olSa), and a little later on ( 5) follows a direct quotation
from the same or another writer, commencing, 'John the
disciple of the Lord/ and explaining from a Valentinian stand-
point the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. From the clause
added at the end of the section in the Latin version (et
Ptolemaeus quidem etc.) it appears that the anonymous writer
was Ptolemaeus. MARCUS himself must have been of early
date, inasmuch as ' the Elder who lived before ' Irenaeus wrote
against him (Iren. i. 15, 6). From the account which Irenaeus
preserves of him, he appears to have used our Four Gospels,
and the extracts from his teaching which survive in the works
of this father contain an illustration of the mystical number
ten, founded on a reference to the appearance of our Lord after
His resurrection 'when Thomas was not present' (Iren. i. 18, 3;
cf. John xx. 24).

It is doubtful whether Marcus should be included among
the Western, and not rather among the Eastern Valentinians.
Our information as regards these last is very scanty, but a ray

1 For his date see Hilgenfeld Zeit- 2 He is also quoted by Clem. Alex.
schr. x. p. 75, and Westcott Canon Strom, iv. 73, p. 595.
p. 299 sq. ed. 4.

112 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of light is thrown upon them by a collection of extracts ap-
pended to the works of Clement of Alexandria and according to
Bunsen (Analect Antenic. p. 203) taken from the first book of
the Hypotyposeis. The collection is entitled etc rwv SeoBorov
Kal r^9 ava,To\i,ief)<; Ka\ovp,evns SiSaa/eaXta? Kara TOU? Ova\ev-
Tivov %poVoi/9 7riTOfjLa. It abounds in quotations from the
Fourth Gospel, explained in a Valentinian sense. I tabulate
the most striking, giving the pages from Potter's edition of
Clement :

John i. 1. Clem. Alex. 6, 18 pp. 968, 973.

i. 3. 45 p. 979.

i. 4. 6, 18 pp. 968, 973.

i. 9. 41 p. 979.

i. 14, 18. 6 p. 968.

ii. 16. 9 p. 969.

iii. 8. 17 p. 972.

iv. 24. 17 p. 972.

viii. 12. 35 p. 978.

viii. 56. 18 p. 973.

x. 7. 26 p. 975.

xi. 25. 6 p. 968.

xiv. 6. 6 p. 968.

10. MARCION elaborated his system about A.D. 150. At first
he accepted all the Four Gospels (Tert. de came Chr. 2, 3), but
afterwards he became 'ultra- Pauline/ rejecting all but mutilations
of the writings of St Luke and St Paul. The ground on which he
would reject the authority of the three 'pillar- Apostles 1 ' is
evident from Tertullian (adv. Marcion. v. 3), who tells us that he
appealed to St Paul's references in the Epistle to the Galatians
to certain false apostles who had perverted the Gospel of
Christ, and especially to St Peter, as not walking uprightly
after the truth of the Gospel. Thus he would consider them
plunged in the blackness of intellectual darkness and incapable
of imparting any teaching to a Gnostic like himself, while his

1 Galat. ii. 9 ol SOKOVVTCS oruXot eli/cu.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 113

condemnation of the Fourth Gospel would be pointed by the
consideration that St John was an Apostle of the circumcision.
His silence therefore with respect to the Fourth Gospel
becomes an argument in favour of its genuineness ; had
Marcion quoted it with approval, the fact would have been,
so far as it went, evidence against the Johannine authorship,
Apelles, his disciple, was certainly aware of its existence, for he
tells us 1 that after His resurrection our Lord showed His
disciples ' the marks of the nails and in (of) His side/ an inci-
dent which is mentioned by St John alone (xx. 25).

11. The DOCET^E doubted the reality of the Incarnation,
saying that our Lord's humanity was an appearance and
nothing more. Their language was founded upon St John's
phraseology \6yos, povoyevr)?, 7rX?;/3&>//,a occurring constantly
in their formularies (Hipp. Ref. viii. 9, 10, pp. 416, 418, 420).
John iii. 5, 6 is adduced in support of their opinions in a Docetic
document given us by Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 10 p. 422).

12. The JUDAIZING CHRISTIANS in the primitive Church
separated off into two main divisions, according to the view that
they adopted of the obligation of the Mosaic Law. The Nazarenes,
while recognising the binding nature of the law upon themselves,
were in the main orthodox. On the other hand the Ebionites
considered the old dispensation permanent and for everyone,
and repudiated the authority and Apostleship of St Paul. In
considering the testimony which these two early Judaizing
sects afford to the Fourth Gospel, we are fortunate in being
able to appeal at first hand to extant works emanating from
representatives of both schools of thought.

The CLEMENTINE HOMILIES represent the views of Gnostic
Ebionism 2 . The exact date of the work is -uncertain, but it
may be placed with confidence between A.D. 100 180. I am
myself inclined to fix it at c. A.D. 150. Formerly our know-
ledge of the treatise was derived from a manuscript mutilated

1 In Hipp. Ref. vii. 38, p. 410. my Galatians, pp. 327 sq., 340 sq.

2 On the Clementine literature see [Dissertations, pp. 83 sq., 98 sq.]

L. E. 8

114 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

at the end, and some alleged correspondences with the Fourth
Gospel, which it contained, were hotly disputed by the Tubingen
school, who made this document the keystone of their elaborate
theory of the alleged antagonism between St Paul and St Peter in
the early Church. In 1853, however, Dressel published the mis-
sing conclusion from a Vatican MS., and it was found to contain
an obvious allusion to the story of the man born blind 1 . From
that time the acquaintance of the Clementine writer with the
Fourth Gospel has not been denied. Though this passage in
the 19th homily is decisive, it may be of interest to give
other coincidences from the earlier portions of this work; e.g.
Clem. Horn. iii. 25 * He was a murderer and a liar ' (fyovevs yap
rjv /cal ^JreucTTT/?, cf. John viii. 44) ; Clem. Horn. iii. 52 ' I am
the gate (77 irv^yY of life, ne that entereth through me entereth
into life ' (cf. John x. 27) ; ib. ' My sheep hear my voice ' (cf.
John x. 9) ; Clem. Horn. xi. 26 ' Verily I say unto you, except
ye be born again of living water in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven ' (cf. John iii. 5).

The book entitled THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE
PATRIARCHS is a product of Nazarene, as the Clementine
Homilies of Ebionite, Judaism. It was written after the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus, and probably before the
rebellion of Barcochba (A.D. 132 135) 3 . It professes to be a
prophecy of the Messiah, and it could not therefore without
loss of dramatic propriety quote from the Evangelical record,

1 80ev Kal 5i5d<r/caXos w&v irepl TOV named by Origen (Horn, in Jos. xv. 6),
eK yeverijs wripov Kal at>a(3\e\f/avTos Trap' and probably was known to Tertullian
avrov %era[t;(av epwrrjffaau'] el OVTOS (c. Marc. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I

77 ol yoveis avrov 'iva Ti>0Xos believe) even earlier to Irenaeus (Fragm.

y, direKplvaTO, Otfre ovrds n TJ/j.ap- 17, p. 836 sq. Stieren). Had it been

rev otfre 01 70^15 avrov, dXX' 'iva 8C avrov written after the suppression of Bar-

(fiavepwdrj i) dtiva/jus rod Qeov Clem. cochba's rebellion, it is next to im-

Hom. xix. 22 ; cf. John ix. 2, 3. possible that no mention should have

2 For irtXr) see above, p. 97. been made of an event so important

3 For the various dates assigned to to the Judaizing Christians as the
this work see on Galatians, p. 320, second destruction of Jerusalem by
[Dissertations, p. 76]. It is directly Hadrian.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 115

but it contains many expressions which are characteristic of the
Fourth Gospel, as povoyevrjs (Test. Benj. 9), o a/-i*/o? rov eoO
(Test. Jos. 19, Benj. 3), o crarrjp rov /coo-pov 1 (Test. Levi 14,
Benj. 3), 77 7777777 et? farjv rcd<rr)s crap/cos (Test. Jud. 24). Other
longer sentences are apparently due to the same source ; thus
Test. Levi 14 TO <c3<? rov KOO-JJLOV TO SoOev eV v/julv et? (froorio-fjLov
iravros dvQpcoTTov (cf. John i. 9, viii. 12), ib. 18 avros 7roi,r)<ri,
Kpicriv a\rf6eia^ eVt TT}? 7779 (cf. John v. 27) ; 16. TOTE a<ya\-
\ida erai 'A/3 pad /JL (cf. John viii. 56) ; Test. Jud. 20 TO Trvevpa
T7J9 X?7#ea9 fj,aprvpel irdvra /cal Karrjyopel irdvrwv (cf. John
xv. 26); Test. Benj. 9 eVt uXou vifra)6ijo~6rai,...Kal...(rrai,
dvaj3aivwv diro 77^9 t9 ovpavov (cf. John iii. 13, 14, vi. 62).

Hitherto the voice of antiquity, whether uttered by the
early fathers of the Church or by those who stood outside her
pale, has been unanimous, as far as we can follow it, in testifying
to the genuineness and authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. To
this universal tradition, however, there is one exception, and
one only, and we will conclude our examination of the external
evidence by a consideration of this solitary exception to the
chorus of universal attestation.

After speaking of Marcion's mutilation of the Canon,
Irenaeus (iii. 11, 9) goes on to mention 'others also, who, in
order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, do not
admit that type of Church teaching (illam speciem), which is in
accordance with St John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised
that He would send the Paraclete ; but at one and the same
time reject both the Gospel and the spirit of prophecy.
Unhappy men in very truth, who desire false prophets to exist
(pseudo-prophetae read pseudo-prophetas quidem esse volunt),
but yet banish from the Church the grace of prophecy...
Accordingly they ought not to acknowledge the Apostle Paul
either... because he testifies to men and women prophesying in
the Church 2 .'

1 This expression occurs only in 2 A reference to 1 Cor. xi. 4, 5.

John iv. 42 and 1 John iv. 14.

116 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Now from Irenseus' argument, of which I have given only a
part, it is clear (1) that these objectors repudiate the Gospel of
St, John, because it contains a special promise of spiritual gifts,
< -) that they confess the existence of false prophets, and yet
deny the existence of a true prophecy, (3) hence, Irenseus
argues, they are as unreasonable as those who refuse to associate
with the brethren for fear there should be hypocrites among
them, (4) on this ground they ought not only to reject the
Gospel of St John, but also the Epistles of St Paul, for St Paul
has spoken very emphatically about spiritual gifts, and recognises
both men and women as prophesying in the Church 1 . Irenseus
goes on in the next chapter to show at great length that there
is a Spirit.

It is evident therefore that the persons spoken of are strong
anti-Montanists ; they took offence at the claims of the Monta-
nists to spiritual gifts, more especially at the prophesyings of
women. We must therefore read pseudo-prophetas in the
passage given above 2 . For Montanism was spiritualism con-
sidered as a reaction against formalism and intellectualism.
The Montanists laid great stress upon the writings of St John,
especially the Apocalypse, hence these opponents of Montanism
cut the knot by denying the authority of the Fourth Gospel 3 .
And they did more than this. Irenaeus speaks only of their
rejection of the Gospel of St John. He is dwelling only on
the Gospels ; and therefore he would naturally not say anything

1 See a similar argument used a- the martyrs 'while yet in bonds' to the
gainst these same persons by Epipha- brethren in Asia and Phrygia. At the
nius (li. 32, p. 106 ed. Oehler). same time the martyrs sent Irenseus,

2 The alternative correction of Liicke then a presbyter, as their delegate
(p. 65) nolunt for volunt seems to inter- with letters of recommendation to
fere with the sense. Eleutherus, bishop of Eome (Eus.

3 Considerable light is thrown on H. E. v. 4) for the sake of conferring
Irenseus' attitude upon this matter by with him on this same question,
the letter of the Gallican Churches to Irenaus therefore is not a strong
the Asiatic Churches quoted in Eus. anti-Montanist. He mentions the
H. E. v. 3 on this very subject of pseudo-prophetae in another passage
Montanism. The letter is an attempt (Haer. iv. 33, 6) with, again, a pro-
at mediation ; it was written avowedly bable reference to Montanism.

eKcv, and it was penned by

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 117

about their position with respect to other canonical books. It
appears however from other sources that they rejected also the
Apocalypse. For Epiphanius (who wrote after A.D. 350) describes
a sect of heretics, whom he dubs "AXoytu, or irrationalists. It is
a play on the word, for they rejected the testimony of John, who
taught the doctrine of the Logos. He says, ' I put upon
them this nickname ; from henceforth they shall be so called,
and therefore, my beloved, let us give them this name ' (Epiph.
Haer. li. 3). He seems to have succeeded in affixing this
opprobrious title upon them, for Augustine so calls them
afterwards (Haer. 30, Oehler i. p. 202). Of these Alogi Epi-
phanius relates that they sprang up after the Cataphrygians,
and he evidently considers that they originated in the same
neighbourhood (I. c. esp. 33). He begins by describing them
( 1) as e-myeloi ' material/ ' sensual/ in their views, and as
gainsaying the Holy Spirit and the wonderful sequence of the
Gospels ( 16). He closes a full account of them with a passage
commencing ( 35) ' And these not receiving the Holy Spirit
are convicted by the Spirit etc.' Thus his account begins and
ends with an allusion to their attitude towards the doctrine of
the Holy Spirit, and his expressions are meaningless unless he
is describing an anti-Spiritualist, anti-Montanist movement.
We may therefore take it for granted that Irenseus and
Epiphanius are referring to one and the same body of people.
Epiphanius goes on to say that they rejected the Gospel and
the Apocalypse, and attributed these writings to Cerinthus.
He supposes that they also rejected the Epistles of St John
likewise, ' for these/ he says, * agree in character with the
Gospel and the Apocalypse ' ( 34), but he evidently knows
nothing definite about this last point.

In every other respect the Alogi seem to have been orthodox
(Epiph. li. 4 Bofcovdi yap /cal avrol ra ccra rjfjblv Tua-revetv 1 ). It
does not appear that they rejected the doctrine of St John's
Gospel. The silence of Epiphanius on this point is speaking.

1 Compare Prsedestinatus Haer. i. 30 onmia nobiscum sapiunt (Oehler i.
p. 243).

118 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Certainly this energetic champion of orthodoxy does not detect
any mark of Ebionism in them. They may, however, have
repudiated the Johannine form under which the Divinity of our
Lord was taught, though even this is doubtful.

Very similar is the brief notice of the Alogi in Philastrius
(Oehler i. p. 61). He mentions those who reject both the
Gospel and the Apocalypse ; but he seems to restrict to the
Apocalypse their attribution of the authorship to Cerinthus.
And this was perhaps really the case. For Dionysius of
Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25, comp. iii. 28) speaks of some
before him who attributed this book to Cerinthus and the
Cerinthians, because they thought that they saw in it a gross
and material picture of an earthly kingdom of Christ. This
ascription would suit very well the fragment of Gaius written
against the Montanists and preserved in Eusebius (H. E. iii. 28),
and it is possible that Dionysius alludes to Gaius; but it is
strange that, if this was the view of Gaius, Eusebius should not
have told us so distinctly. Certainly Theodoret interpreted it
differently (Haer. Fab. ii. 3; see Routh E. S. ii. 139).

But whence did Epiphanius draw his information ? We can
make a shrewd guess. Hippolytus of Portus wrote a book vjrep
TOV Kara 'Iwavvrjv evajy\Lov /cal d7ro/ca\v^ra)^ 1 . This fact is
recorded on his statue (Fabricius Hippol. pp. 36 sq., Bunsen
Hippol. I. p. 460). That this book was known in the East
appears from the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu (Assemani Bibl. Or.
III. p. 15), where it occurs in the list of Hippolytus' works as
Apologia pro Apocalypsi et Evangelic loannis Apostoli et
Evangelistae. It is probable also that this is the same work
of which the title is given by other writers, e.g. de Apocalypsi
(Jerome Vir. III. 61), Trepl a7roKd\vtyeax; (Andreas of Csesarea
in Apocal. Synops., Syncellus Chron. p. 674 ed. Bonn). At all
events, Epiphanius is borrowing largely from some earlier writer 2 .
Here then and elsewhere Epiphanius may have consulted Hip-

1 See above, p. 101. and the pseudo-Tertullian on heresies

2 The common source unlerlying is an interesting problem, which can-
the works of Epiphanius, Philastrius not be entered upon here.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 119

polytus. Now twice in the immediate context (li. 6, 7) is an
allusion to a Merinthus who is mentioned side by side with
Cerinthus; and from another passage 1 it is clear that Epiphanius
was uncertain whether they were not after all one and the
same person. The passage is interesting. ' Whether the same
Cerinthus was afterwards called Merinthus, or there was a sepa-
rate person by name Merinthus, a fellow-worker of his, is known
to God (alone).' Now MijpwOos means a 'noose,' and was
doubtless, as Fabricius shrewdly suggested (Cod. Apoc. N. T.
344), nothing more nor less than an opprobrious nickname given
by an earlier writer, whose work was in Epiphanius' hands, and
who may have written thus ' Cerinthus, or had we not better
say Merinthus ' (6 Se Krfpivdos ouro?, elre MrjpivOov Set \eyeiv),
and in this way misled his copyist. Such pleasantries were by
no means uncommon as applied to antagonists. Thus Demo-
critus is called by Epicurus Lenocritus (Zeller Stoics iii. 1 p.
429), Photinus of Pirmium in the Macrostich Skotinus 2 , Manes
(Mai/^?) by Eusebius 3 and others Maneis (Mavels). This habit
of playing upon names is quite characteristic of Hippolytus.
Thus in his treatise against Noetus, he turns his antagonist's
name to ridicule, NO^TO? ^ vowv rrjv d\r)6eiav (c. Noet. 8),
and in his Refutation, when dealing with the Docetae, he plays
upon the words So/celv ' to seem ' and So/eo? ' a beam,' contending
that they are so named 4 , not because they ' seemed to be of
importance ' (Gal. ii. 6), but because of * the beam in their eye '
(Matt. vii. 3). For these reasons we are tempted to infer that,
though Epiphanius claims for himself the invention of the term
Alogi, he may have borrowed the name and the account which
he gives from his more fanciful predecessor 5 .

1 Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 8, p. 1150. doKov ev 6<f>9a.\^ (ftepop^vrjv 5ie\tyxo/J.ev,

2 See Bright'sC/mrcfc History (1860), Hipp. Ref. viii. 11.

p. 52, who gives instances from Eu- 5 Two additional sources of testi-

sebius H. E. v. 23, vi. 41, vii. 10, 31. mony have been omitted in the above

3 See Bright I.e. and Cotelier Pair. account, viz. that (1) of heathen
Apost. i. p. 543. writers, (2) of Apocryphal documents.

4 AO/CT/TOIS eavrovs Trpo(nr)y6pev<ra.v, uv In the former class, Celsus (c. A.D. 150)
ov TO ooKeiv eZVcu -rims Ka.Tavoovfj.ev treats the Gospel of St John as a
/j.a.TaiovTas, dXXd TTJV K TOffavT^ vXrjs record considered authoritative by the

120

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

In looking back over the subject which has been occupying
us, we cannot fail to be struck with the variety and the fulness
of the evidence which has been adduced. Within the Catholic
Church that evidence springs in the first instance direct from
the fountain-head, the band of disciples which in Asia Minor
gathered round the person of the aged Apostle of Love. From
Polycarp and Papias it is handed down to the next link in the
chain in Irenseus, the great scholar and traveller, whose life
is associated with three distinct and important Churches-
Churches in constant intercommunication Asia Minor, Rome.
Gaul. These three great centres we are able to test by inde-
pendent extant documents, the Apology of Theophilus, the

Christians (Origen c. Celsum i. 67, ii.
18, x. 24). He speaks of Christians
calling our Lord avrbXoyov (c. Gels. ii.
31), he refers to our Lord sitting
thirsty by Jacob's well (c. Gels. i. 70 ;
cf. John iv. 6), and to the piercing of
His side and the result (c. Gels. ii. 36 ;
cf. John xix. 34). Therefore we con-
clude that by the middle of the second
century this Gospel was so well known
amongst Christians that Celsus could
appeal to it as an accredited witness.
Again Lucian(c. A.D. 165 170), in his
account of Peregrinus Proteus ( 11),
gives indications of acquaintanceship
with the Fourth Evangelist (see Zahn
Ignatius, p. 593), and so does Amelius
in Eusebius Praep. Evang. xi. 19.
The last-named was a disciple of
Plotinus, and nourished c. A.D. 250.
Prominent in the latter class are
the Ada Pilati (given in Tischendorf
Evangelia Apocrypha), which form the
first sixteen chapters of the Evange-
lium Nicodemi, and appear not only in
Greek but in Coptic and in Latin.
This is a very early work, and in its
Latin form exists in a Vienna palim-
psest of the 5th or 6th century. There
is little doubt that it is the compo-
sition referred to by Justin Martyr
(Apol. i. 35, 48) and Tertullian (Apolo-

geticus 21), for it answers in all par-
ticulars to the books described by
these writers. Apocryphal Gospels are
notoriously liable to interpolations ;
we cannot therefore lay much stress
upon the evidence in this case, but as
the document stands, with whatever
uncertainty hanging over it, the inci-
dents are again and again taken from
St John's Gospel. Lastly the Sibyllist
lends her voice to the general attesta-
tion. The eighth book of the Oracula
Sibyllina is the work of a Christian
who wrote during the reign of Anto-
ninus Pius (A.D. 138161). Speaking
of the resurrection, the poet declares
that those shall rise with the risen
Lord 'who have washed away their
former sins in the waters of the
eternal fount (^777775), having been
born again from above (avayevvyetv-
res dvu6ev)...For the Lord will exhibit
Himself first to His own, in bodily
shape as He was before, and will show
them His hands and His feet and the
marks printed upon His limbs, four
in number, east and west, south and
north (x.tpffi-v re iroffiv T' eiri5eit;ei Te'cr-
<rapa rots idlois txvr) irrj-xdtvTa ^Xetraiv
dvffiv re, /jiea-rj/ji^ptav re xai
(Orac. Sib. viii. 316 sq.; cf.
John iii. 3, xx. 20).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 121

Muratorian Canon, the Letter of the Gallican Churches, and we
find an unhesitating response to our enquiry. We pass over to
other Churches of the East, to Palestine and Alexandria, to
Greece and Macedonia, with equally satisfactory results. We
cross the Mediterranean southwards to Carthage, and the earliest
extant writings of the Latin Church of Africa show unmistake-
able acquaintance with St John. And now we take a new
departure. We leave the apologists and fathers of the orthodox
Church, and we turn to the representatives of those multifarious
heresies whose rank growth seemed likely to stifle the infant
Church of the second century. And here we are startled at
once by the variety and the unanimity of the evidence presented.
Differing in almost every other particular, heterodoxy unites in
bearing testimony to St John's Gospel. Gnosticism, the out-
come of Gentile license of speculation and practice, Ebionism,
the offspring of Judaizing tendencies, Montanism, the expres-
sion of spiritual excitement they all presuppose, and to some
extent build upon, the Fourth Gospel. Fresh discoveries, which
have added considerably to our stock of heretical treatises, have
only served to give new weight and force to this testimony.
Making every allowance for the possibility that in some cases
zealous disciples may have interpolated documents already
existing, or have perpetrated forgeries in their masters' names,
yet more than enough of unorthodox literature can be tested
to throw back the date of the general acceptance outside the
Church of St John's Gospel as genuine to a very early period in
the second century. The solitary exception to this chorus of
attestation is found to proceed from an insignificant sect, which,
having a special doctrine to inculcate, seeks to effect its end by
impugning the documents which strike at the root of its theory.
When we pass to the consideration of heathen writers in
the opponents of Christianity, or of Apocryphal literature, the
supplementary evidence which we are able to collect, though
necessarily scanty, still bears out the results to which our
previous investigations have already pointed us.

Lastly, so far from considering that the general subject is in

122 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

any way exhausted, we rise from our review with the conscious-
ness that it has been most inadequately treated, and with the
confident persuasion, that a little more patient investigation
bestowed on the literature of the first two centuries of the
Christian era, as it has come down to us, would enable us to
add very materially indeed to the weight of external evidence
which with fresh force from year to year tends to the conviction
that this most divine of all divine books was indeed the work
of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.'

[18671872.]

III.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

III.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

IN considering this question three points will be taken in
succession. I shall endeavour to show :

I. That the writer was intimately acquainted with the
language, customs, ideas, geography and history of Palestine at
the time which he describes.

Inference. He was not only a Jew, but a Palestinian Jew ;
not a Hellenist, but a Hebrew. And most probably too he was
a contemporary. For the double destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus and by Hadrian had caused a dislocation, a discon-
tinuity, in the history of the Jews, which it would be difficult
to bridge over by one writing after the occurrence of the second
of these events.

II. That the narrative bears on its face the credentials of
its authenticity. It is precise, circumstantial, natural in the
highest degree.

Inference, It is the work of an eyewitness.

III. That it contains indications the more convincing be-
cause they are unobtrusive (a) that the author was the Apostle
St John ; (@) that the book was written at the time and under
the circumstances, under which tradition reports it to have
been written, i. e. at Ephesus, towards the close of the first
century after Christ.

126 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

These, then, are the three stages in the argument :

(1) The writer was a Hebrew, probably a contemporary.

(2) The writer was an eyewitness.

(3) The writer was St John (and as a subsidiary matter,
St John writing under peculiar circumstances).

I.
THE WRITER WAS A HEBREW, PROBABLY A CONTEMPORARY.

The main heads of this division of the argument are as
follows :

1. His knowledge of the Jewish language.

2. His knowledge of Jewish ideas, traditions, expectations,
modes of thought, etc.

3. His knowledge of external facts, the history, geography,
names and customs of the Jewish people.

i. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE JEWISH LANGUAGE.

This is shown (i) indirectly, by his own Greek style ; (ii)
directly, by his interpretation of Hebrew words and his quota-
tions from Hebrew Scriptures.

(i) The writer's indirect knowledge of Hebrew shown by his

Greek style.

I spoke of the Jewish language ; but what is meant by this?
There are two languages with which a Palestinian Jew might
be familiar :

(1) The Hebrew the sacred language, the language of the
Old Testament.

(2) The Aramaic the colloquial language, the language
of common life.

He would necessarily know the second, not necessarily know
the first.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 127

The Hebrew of the New Testament is Aramaic. This is the
meaning of 'Efipala-ri in such passages as John v. 2 ; xix. 13, 17 ;
xx. 16. The forms quoted as Hebrew (Talitha cumi, Maran atha)
are Aramaic. This is no doubt the language of the inscription on
the cross (John xix. 20), and of St Paul's speech on the temple-
stairs (Acts xxi. 40).

It is a common error to suppose that Aramaic is a corrupt
form of Hebrew. This is quite wrong. The Shemitic family of
languages has three main languages, one of which Arabic
may be neglected for our purpose, leaving Hebrew and Aramaic.
Of these, Aramaic, the language of Aram (Syria) [the high-
land ?], has, as its dialects, Syriac, Chaldee, Assyrian (the
cuneiform inscriptions). On the other hand, Hebrew, the lan-
guage of Canaan [the low-lands ?], was originally the language
of Phoenicians and Canaanites, the people on the coast.

Which then was the language of the Jewish nation at the
beginning of the Christian era ?

Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldees, and therefore
would naturally speak an Aramaic language. But he settles
in Palestine among the Canaanites, adopts a Canaanite language,
and speaks what we call Hebrew. Hence the incident in Gen.
xxxi. 47, 48. The * heap of witness ' is called by Laban ' Jegar-
sahadutha,' by Jacob ' Galeed.' Thus the descendants of Terah
in the third generation speak two languages. The grandson
of Nahor retains his Aramaic, while the grandson of Abraham
has adopted Hebrew. This is what we should expect, and is an
incidental testimony to the credibility of the Mosaic narrative.
After the return from the Babylonian captivity the Jews
gradually merged their own Hebrew language in Aramaic,
but the name 'Hebrew' was transferred to the adopted language.
Thus the Jews returned apparently to what was the language
of their ancestors. How they came by this Aramaic whether
it was the dialect of their Chaldean masters, or the dialect
of the people who overran their land during their absence,
or a mixture of both we need not stop to enquire.

At the time of our Lord the natives of Palestine were

128 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

bilingual ; they spoke Greek and Aramaic. At least this was
the case in a great part of the country, more especially in the
towns and populous districts, the centres of commerce 1 , such as
the lake of Galilee and Jerusalem. In this respect the Pales-
tinian Jew resembled a Welshman on the border-land, a Fleming
in the neighbourhood of the half- French towns of Flanders, a
Bohemian in Prague.

Now apply this to the case of the Apostle St John. John
was not a man of the lowest class socially. He was a native
of Bethsaida, and had connexions or friends in high quarters at
Jerusalem (xviii. 16). He would be able to understand and
speak Greek from his boyhood, possibly even to write it. But
he would think in Aramaic. Aramaic would mould the form
of his thoughts 2 .

Take the case of a person writing in a language which was
not the common language of his daily life, not his mother-tongue.
What would be the phenomena, which his style would present ?
The two parts of a language, in which a person writing in a
foreign tongue is apt to be at fault, are the vocabulary and the
syntax. As regards vocabulary, we should not expect great
luxuriance of words, a copious command of synonyms for
instance. In the matter of syntax, we should not look for a
mastery of complex and involved syntax, or of sustained and
elaborate periods.

Now apply this to the Fourth Gospel.

1. The Vocabulary. The words in this Gospel are very
few ; probably much fewer than in any other portion of the
New Testament of the same length.

(a) We meet with constant repetition of the same
words: e.g. ^iv^cnceiv (57 times), Kocrfios (79 times), irlans,
(99 times), fatf, tfiv, ^(ooTroieiv (55 times), paprvpia,

1 See Eoberts, Dissertations on the fellow townsmen Andrew and Philip,
Gospels, whose view however is per- is strictly in accordance with proba-
haps somewhat exaggerated. bilities. It is a significant fact that

2 The incident given in John xii. they both bear Greek names.
20 22, relating to his friends and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 129

fjiaprvpetv (47 times) ; TrpofSaTov occurs in the tenth chapter
alone 15 times; icocrpos occurs in the seventeenth chapter
alone 18 times 1 .

(6) We find not only the same words, but the same
phrases : e.g. ep^a-dcu, o Tre/u^a? yite, a7roa-re\\eiv, Karaftaiveiv
CK (anro) rov ovpavov all used of Christ's Incarnation, etc. 2

2. The Syntax. On the extreme simplicity of the Fourth
Gospel in this respect, I shall have to speak later. This charac-
teristic of the writer is well expressed by Heinsius, who describes
him thus, In sermone afyekeia : in sensibus est tn/ro? 3 . The
absence of periods is particularly noticeable, and is without
a parallel in the New Testament.

Thus much, generally, of one writing in another language
than his mother tongue. Now to come to the special case of
one accustomed to speak in a Shemitic tongue, and obliged to
write in an Aryan ; of one familiar with (say) Aramaic, the
conversational, spoken language, and Hebrew, the sacred lan-
guage ; but writing in Greek. Both these languages present
striking contrasts with Greek. In these Shemitic tongues
there is little or no syntax. This is due partly to

(1) The absence of moods, inflexions, etc.

(2) The paucity of connecting particles.

On this last point, which is of special importance, one
example will suffice.

(1) Paucity of connecting particles.

The ^ is used equally for opposition and for simple connexion;
in Hebrew and Aramaic it stands for ' but ' as well as ' and.'
The extent of this use is best shown by the variety of particles
which are employed to render it in the Authorised Version of
the Old Testament.

Thus in Deut. i. (taken at hap-hazard) 1 is translated ' so '

1 These calculations are based upon 2 See Luthardt i. p. 31 sq.
Ij\ifiia,rdiDasJohanneischeEvangelium 3 Quoted by Luthardt i. p. 28.

i. p. 27 (1852).

L. E. 9

130 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

vv. 15, 43, 46; 'then' v. 29; 'yet' v. 32; 'but' v. 40; and
with ?, 'notwithstanding' v. 26.

Again in 1 Kings xii. (again taken at hap-hazard) it is
rendered ' but ' vv. 8, 17, 22 ; ' so ' vv. 12, 33 ; 'so when ' v. 16 ;
' wherefore ' vv. 15, 19 ; ' then' vv. 18, 25 ; ' whereupon ' v. 28 ;
' that ' v. 3. There are thirty-three verses in this chapter, and
all the verses but vv. 4, 23, 27 (i.e. thirty verses out of thirty-
three), begin with ). Of the remaining three, two are be-
ginnings of speeches, and therefore necessarily are asyndeta.

Indeed in the later Aramaic, Greek particles (a\\d, 8e, and
afterwards pev) were deliberately introduced to supply the
deficiency 1 .

Consequently, in these languages sentences are not subordi-
nated, but coordinated ; 'hence.' as Winer describes it 2 , 'the very
limited use of conjunctions (in which classical Greek is so rich),
the uniformity in the use of the tenses, the want of the periodic
compactness which results from the fusion of several sentences
into one principal sentence, and along with this the sparing use
of participial constructions, so numerous and diversified in
classical Greek.' The result is an entire absence of periods,
producing a monotony of expression, which however is most
impressive.

The character of the Greek language was quite different.
Greek writers distinguished two styles :

(1) The periodic (Kareo-rpa^evrj) ;

(2) The disjointed (Siyprj/jLewri), or 'jointed' (elpopevrj).
See Aristot. Rhet. iii. 9, rrjv \ej~w dvdy/cr) elvat, rj elpofjuevr^v /cal
rw avvSeo-fJMi) p,iav...ri /car ear pa/jLfjievrjv.... \eyco 8e elpo^evrjv fj
ovSev e^et reXo? KCL& avrrjv, av fj.r) TO Trpay/jLa \ey6fAevov reXeico-
0rj... /career pafji/jLevr) Se 77 eV Trepio&ois' \eyco Be wepioSov \e%tv
e^ova-av dp^rjv KOI re\evrrjv avrrjv /cad' avrrjv /cal /j,eye6o$
evavvoTrrov.

1 This strange lack of particles, trated likewise by Coptic.
which seem to us indispensable to 2 Winer Grammar of N. T. Greek
express our simplest thoughts, is illus- p. 33 (Moulton's translation).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 131

In the infancy of the language the earlier prose writers
Hecatseus and Herodotus exhibit the dpopt-vr] ; the later, when
a mastery over the language had been attained, the fcareo-rpap,-
jjievrj. Now, Hebrew and Aramaic do not lend themselves to
the Karecrrpa^evTj, the genius of the languages necessitating
the elpo/jLevrj. Hence, as a rule, the general simplicity of the
New Testament writers, who either spoke Aramaic, or derived
their materials from Aramaic sources. The exceptions are the
cases of those who commonly spoke Greek, and did not speak
Aramaic at all, as St Luke in the prologue to his Gospel (for
where he is using documents, the case is different), and the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

This simple, jointed style, is seen in its extreme form in
St John. In fact, no greater contrast can be exhibited in this
respect than the prologue of St John when compared with the
prologue of St Luke. The sentences are strung together, where
they are not altogether asyndeta. There is no attempt at
periodicity. The ical takes the place of the \ and has almost as
wide a range, connecting together not only independent, but
dependent, and even opposite and contrasted clauses 1 . I give
a few examples of this :

John i. 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34; ii. 1, 3, 4, 8,
12-16 ; iii. 11, 12, 13, 14; iv. 11, 40, 41; vi. 17 ; vii. 26, 28, 33,
34 ; ix. 18, 19 ; x. 3, 9, 12, 14-16, 22, 27, 28, 39-41 ; xiv. 23, 24 ;
xv. 6; xvi. 22, 32 ; xvii. 1, 8, 10, 11 (six times in three lines);
xix. 34, 35.

For instances where /cal introduces an opposition, with the
meaning of 'and yet,' 'nevertheless/ see John i. 5, 10; iii. 10,
11, 19, 32; iv. 20; v. 40; vi. 70; vii. 4, 19, 26, 30; viii. 49, 55;
ix. 30, 34 etc.

A single instance would occur here and there in classical
Greek as in any other language ; but it is the frequency of
occurrence in the Fourth Gospel which betrays the Hebraeo-
Aramaic mould in which the diction is cast.

1 See the references in Wilkii Clavis N. T. (ed. Grimm, 1868, s. v. KCLI p. 215).

132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(2) Hebraic parallelism of sentences.

Instances of this characteristic can be found in almost every
part of the Fourth Gospel. The prologue especially presents
a succession of parallel clauses. I content myself with drawing
attention to some special phenomena of this parallelism.

(a) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel and
opposed clauses, e.g. iii. 6 (TO yeyevvrjfjLevov /c rfjs crap/cos crdpj;
eanv KOI TO yeyevvrjfjievov IK rov rcvev^aro^ rrvevfj^d <mv} ;
iii. 31 (o wv /c rfjs 7779 etc rrjs 7779 e(rriv...o IK rov ovpavov
epxopevos errdvto Trdvrwv ecrriv) ; cf. vii. 6, 7, 8, viii. 14, 23, x.
18, xi. 9, 10 etc. etc.

(b) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel, but not
opposed clauses, e.g. ix. 21, 22 (TTW? e vvv ft\e7rei, OVK
otSa/jiev, r} Tt9 r)voi%ev avrov rou? o$#aXyu,ou9 17/^669 OVK ol^>a^ev)\
xvii. 16 (e/e TOV KOG/JLOV OVK elo~iv Ka6a)s eja) OVK el/jul K TOV
KOCT/JLOV) ; cf. xviii. 18, xix. 10 etc. etc.

(c) Strengthening of a statement by the negation of its
opposite, e.g. i. 3 (jrdvra $i avrov eyevero Kal %ft)/3t9 avrov
eyevero ovSe ey); i. 20 (0)^0X07770-6^ Kal OVK ^pvtjcraro), cf. iii.
18, x. 28, xi. 25, 26, xx. 27 etc. etc.

(3) Oriental definiteness of expression by the repetition of
the same word or phrase.

(a) Repetition of the name, instead of using a personal
pronoun, e.g. i. 43 sq. (evpia-Ket, <&l\i,7r7rov...tfv Se o
...evpiffKeiQiXiTTTTOs rov NadavarfX,. . .Kal elrrev avrw
...\eyet, avru> o ^XtTTTTW) ; cf. iii. 23 sq., xii. 21 sq. etc. etc.

(6) Repetition of the nominative pronoun, where the
Greek does not require it, e.g. i. 42 (o-v el ^IJJLCOV 6 vlos "\(odvov,
a-v K\t)0rjo-r) K?7(/>a9); cf. i. 25, 31, iv. 10, 19 etc. etc.

(c) Repetition of the noun, e.g. vii. 6 (o Kaipos o e/xo9
ovTTd) Trdpeo-riv, 6 Be /cat/309 o vfjuerepos rrdvrore eanv eroifjuos) ;
cf. vii. 8, 19, xii. 43, 47 etc. etc.

(d) Repetition of the verb, e.g. v. 17 (o Trartjp pov ea>9
apn epryd&rai, Kayo* epyd^ofjiai) ; cf. vi. 63, vii. 24, 28, viii.
53, x. 10, xiii. 43 etc. etc.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 133

(e) Repetition of the same phrase in successive clauses,
e.g. iii. 31 (o dov IK -n}? 7779 /c r/J? 7*79 ecrriV KOI ex rfjs 7779
\a\i); cf. viii. 14, 23, 24, x. 18, xi. 9 sq. etc. etc.

(f) Taking up a word or expression from the preced-
ing sentence; e.g. x. 11 (70) eiju o iroi^v o /ca\6s' 6 iroi^rjv o
/caXos Tr]v tyvxrjv avrov rLOrjaLv K.T.\.) ; cf. i. 1, iii. 32, 33, xvii.
2, 3 etc. etc.

(4) Preference of the direct over the oblique narrative in
relating the words of another.

In some instances these will be the precise words them-
selves ; in others only an approximation, and in this latter case
the direct narrative is only a different way of expressing what
we express by the oblique. Thus we find the narrator himself
relating the words or surmises of a crowd, where from the
nature of the case the exact words cannot be reproduced ; or
we find persons referring back to their own words or the words
of another, and not always reproducing the exact expressions.
Examples of all these varieties are very common, see the
narrative of the Samaritan woman in ch. iv. (esp. vv. 17, 27,
33); of the sick man healed in ch. v. (esp. vv. 11, 12); the
conversation in ch. vi. (esp. vv. 41, 42); cf. vii. 11 sq., 35, 36,
40 sq., viii. 22, ix. 8 sq., 23 sq., 40 sq., x. 20, 36, 41, xi. 31, 36,
37, xii. 19 sq. etc. etc.

(5) The arrangement of words in the sentence, especially
the precedence of the verb, e.g. i. 40 47 (77^ 'Avpeas...6vpicrfCi

...rjv B 6 < 3>L\i7r7ros,..vpi(TK6i, <$>l\L7nro<$...ical CLTTCV aura)
NaOavafa... \eyet, avrcD o <&L\.iTnros...elev 'lij(rovs). This is
noticeably the case with the expression \eyei avroJ, e.g. iv.
726, xi. 34, 35, 39 sq. etc. etc.

(6) Other grammatical and lexical peculiarities.

(a) The superfluous pronoun (1) after a relative, repre-
senting the Heb. *)&^N which is indeclinable, e.g. i. 12 (60-01 Se
e\a(3ov avrov, eSa)K6i> avrols) ; v. 38 (bv aire<TTei\ev

134 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

TOVTW u/xefc ov Trio-revere) ; cf. i. 33, vii. 38, xvii. 2, xviii. 9,
11 etc. etc., (2) after nouns or participles, e.g. i. 18 (/jiovoyvrj<?
#eo9 6 wv et9 rov KoXirov rov TTarpos 6/celvo<? etyyrjaaTo) ; v. 11
(o 7rofc?7cra9 yu,e t^t?} eicelvos /-tot elirev 9 Apov rov Kpdparrov <7ou);
cf. vi. 46, vii. 18, 38, x. 1, xiv. 21, 26, xv. 5, etc. etc. This con-
struction, it is true, occurs in classical Greek, but the point to
be noticed is the extreme frequency of the usage in the Fourth
Gospel.

(b) The characteristic Hebraism 7ras...ov (prf) occurs
three times in this gospel ; iii. 16, vi. 39, xii. 46.

(c) The frequent use of Iva in St John, especially as
the complement of a demonstrative pronoun, is probably to be
explained by the flexibility of the Aramaic ^D. Instances are
i. 27, iv. 34, vi. 29, 40, viii. 56, xi. 50, xiii. 34, xv. 8, 12, 13, 17,
xvi. 7, 33, xvii. 3, 24 (see Winer xliv. p. 425 ed. Moulton).
In every one of these passages a Greek would probably have
expressed himself differently.

(d) The use of av&p(i>7ro$ for r^, e.g. v. 7
avOpwirov OVK e%o>), vii. 22, 23 (eV aappdr

av6 PWTTOV el irepiro^rjv \a/jL/3dvei avdptoiros K.T.\.)\ cf. viii. 40,
ix. 16 etc. This represents a thoroughly characteristic use of
t^X, see Gesenius s. v.

(e) The transition from the dependent to the inde-
pendent clause, e.g. i. 32 (reBea^ai TO Trvevfjua /cara/3a2vov...Kal
efjiewev eV avrov)', cf. xi. 44 (Winer Ixiii. p. 717 ed. Moulton).
This transition however appears in other New Testament
writers also, and cannot be pressed into an argument.

(/) The frequent recurrence of the expression el? TOV
al&va, especially with a negative, e.g. iv. 14, vi. 51, 58, viii. 35,
51, 52, x. 26, xi. 28, xii. 34, xiii. 8, xiv. 16; and the use of e/c
rov alwvos ix. 32.

(g) Other Hebraisms are : i. 13 (alfidrwv), 15, 30 (TT/JWTO?
pov, cf. xv. 18), iii. 29 (%a/o %at/36fc), vii. 33, xii. 35, xiv. 19
(eri /jiiKpov, cf. xvi. 16, 17, 19), iv. 23 (ep^erai wpa /cal vvv
earlv), xi. 4 (OVK eo-riv 777)09 Odvarov, cf. xvi. 20), iv. 26, viii.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 135
24, 28, xiii. 19, xviii. 5, 6 (eyco elfu), x. 24 (ew? Trore), xviii. 37

((TV \eyet,?).

(7) Imagery, secondary senses of words etc.

This displays a thoroughly Hebrew, or at least Oriental,
colouring. The simple facts in life are used to convey deep
spiritual truths. Nature and history become signs (a-jj^ela)
of the heavenly and the eternal. Instances of this figurative
treatment are to be found in the Evangelist's use of the
following words and phrases; a\r)6eia i. 14, 17, iii. 21; Sofa i.
14, ii. 11, xii. 41; vSa)p fwz> iv. 10, 13; tcoi\ia vii. 38; fan? v.
24; TO /jLavva vi. 31; apros vi. 32; TO Trorrjpiov xviii. 11;
v-fy(i>6&, e\fcva-a) xii. 32.

If the special Hebraisms or Aramaisms, are few, this is
unimportant : for the whole casting of the sentences, the whole
colouring of the language, is Hebrew.

In short, it is the most Hebraic book in the New Testament,
except perhaps the Apocalypse. The Greek is not ungram-
matical Greek, but it is cast in a Hebrew mould. It is what
no native Greek would have written. As Grotius puts it.
Sermo Graecus quidem, sed plane adumbratus ex Syriaco illius
saeculi (quoted in Lticke 1 i. p. 172). On the general accord of
recent writers on this point, see Sanday Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel, p. 28 2 .

On the other hand, there are no classicisms ; not a single
sentence, I believe, from first to last which suggests in the
smallest degree acquaintance with classical literature.

In this respect the writer presents a great contrast to
St Luke, and even to St Paul, e.g. Luke i. 1 sq.; 2 Cor. vi. 14 sq.

(ii) The writers direct knowledge of Hebrew.

1. The quotations from the Old Testament.
The quotations are a valuable criterion of the position of
a writer.

1 Commentar iiber das Evangelimn is purer than that of the Synoptists.'
des Johannes (1840). If purer in one sense, yet it is more

2 Mr Sanday (I. c.) says ' The Greek Hebraic.

136 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

The quotations in St Paul show a knowledge of the Old
Testament in Hebrew. He frequently quotes the LXX, but in
other passages he is as plainly indebted to the original. On
the other hand, the quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews
are all derived from the LXX. There are no distinct traces of
a knowledge of the original.

What are the facts in St John's case? 1 The quotations in
St John are not very numerous. Moreover they are often free
quotations ; so free that we cannot say whether they were
taken from the Hebrew or the Greek. But there is a residuum
of passages, which are decisive, and certainly cannot have been
borrowed from the Greek.

(a) Passages certainly taken from the Hebrew.

(1) Zech. ix. 9 quoted in John xii. 14, 15 (see Turpie,
p. 222).

The quotation is loose. Two points are noticeable. St
John has o ftacriXevs crov ep^erai. The LXX o /Sao-tXeu?
e/o%rat aoi (but some edd. insert crov). The Heb. repre-
sents o ftacn\evs crov ep-^erai croi, as in Matth. xxi. 5.

The other point is more important. St John has TTU>\OV
ovov, which comes from the Hebrew, the LXX having 7rw\ov
veov, while St Matthew quotes the Hebrew still more literally,

7Ti 7TOu\OV VIOV V7TO^Vj[,OV.

(2) Zech. xii. 10 quoted in John xix. 37, o-fyovrai et? bv
ei;efcevTr)crav (Turpie, p. 131).

This agrees with the Heb. 'They shall look upon me whom
they have pierced.' But the LXX is quite different, KOI ejn-
P\etyovTat irpos //,e dv6" wv Karcdp-^rjcravro, i.e. they shall
look on me, because they have derided. The LXX evidently
read llpl for ^|T7> and this reading is actually found in some
MSS. of Kennicott and de Rossi. The LXX has not a single
word in common with St John.

1 My investigation was made before 244 sq). I have derived much help
I saw Bleek's Beitrdge, and agrees from Turpie The Old Testament in
almost entirely with his results (p. the New (1868).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 137

On the reading ^K ' unto me ' and V ?fct * unto him/ which
is read by many MSS., see de Rossi in. p. 217. Aquila, at
least, of the other versions, seems to point to this reading. He
renders avv &>. The Evangelist, however, if he had '7fct, would
not unnaturally change the person from the first to the third to
suit the connexion. Comp. Apoc. i. 7.

(3) Ps. xl. 10 quoted in John xiii. 18 (Turpie, p. 55).

St John has o rpcoyuv fiov rov dprov eirrfpev 67r' e/ze rrjv
irrepvav avrov. The LXX o eo-Olwv aprou? fiov e^eyd\vvev eir

Here again there is hardly a word the same in the two
translations. St John's is evidently a loose quotation taken
from the Hebrew. The LXX translation has lost the meaning
in endeavouring to render /**TJTL St John gives the more
correct, though free, rendering. So Gesenius takes it (p. 266,
ed. 1829); but Perowne ad loc. seems to think either inter-
pretation admissible.

(4) Is. vi. 10 quoted in John xii. 40 (Turpie, p. 233).

It is a very free quotation. The LXX is quite different.

The point to be observed is the use of the active in St John
T6TV(f>\a)Kv avT&v TOL/9 o</>#aX//.oi>9 KOL 7r(opa)(Tv avrwv TTJV
fcapblav. God Himself is represented as blinding, as hardening.
This points to the Hebrew, which has also the active. But
there it is imperative ; and the change to the indicative is
intelligible. As Symmachus translates *O3n> JfiETl e/3dpwe,
efjLvo-e, it is quite possible that St John translated the same
words TeTv<j)\a)Kv, eiro^pwaev, perhaps from a mixture of Aramaic
with Hebrew forms. In the Syriac the imperative and 3rd pers.
pret. are the same.

On the other hand, the LXX has adopted a passive form of
the sentence, eTra^vvOrj fj /capita /t.r.X., evidently to get rid of
a doctrine which was a stumbling-block. Symmachus seems
likewise to Lave surmounted the difficulty, though in another

138 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

way. He takes PITH DJ?H as the nominative, 6 Xao? ouro? ra
wra efSdpvvev ical rovs ocfrQaX/jiovs avrov e/juvae K.T.\.

Now it is quite inconceivable that the writer of the Fourth
Gospel, having only the LXX before him, should accidentally
have reconverted it, and thus reintroduced the perplexity. The
chances are a thousand-fold against it ; and he would surely
have shrunk from it.

It is noticeable too, that the other New Testament writers
who quote the sentence (Matt. xiii. 14, 15 ; Acts xxviii. 26, 27),
quote it from the LXX. In Mark iv. 12, Luke viii. 10, this
part of the quotation is omitted.

(5) Is. liv. 13 quoted in John vi. 45 (Turpie, p. 198).

This is a doubtful case. The Hebrew has 'And all thy
sons (are) disciples of God,' St John /cat ecrovrai Trai/re? BtBa/crol
BeoO. The LXX however attaches the sentence to what goes
before, teal Trdvra^ TOU? vlovs crov SiSaKTovs eoO. St John
treats it as independent so do the Targum, Ewald, Gesenius,
in interpreting the Hebrew.

These passages then, except perhaps the last (5), are decisive.
In no case could they be derived from the LXX.

But, it may be said, they came perhaps not from the original
Hebrew, but from a Targum.

This admission is sufficient for my purpose, which is to show
the direct acquaintance of the Evangelist with Hebrew writings.

($) Passages which may have come from either the Hebrew
or the Septuagint.

In many cases it is doubtful whether a quotation was taken
from the LXX or the Hebrew.

These instances divide themselves into three classes :

(1) Where the Greek and Hebrew differ, but the quotation
is too loose to allow of any inference. Examples of this are :

(a) Deut. xix. 15 quoted in John viii. 17 (Turpie, p. 49).

Here the LXX inserts irav\ but St John paraphrases the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 139

whole sentence Bvo dvOpwirwv r) f^aprvpia. Thus the crucial
point of difference is evaded.

(/3) Exod. xii. 46 (Numb. ix. 12) quoted in John xix. 36
(Turpie, p. 31).

Here St John follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX.
But the passage intended to be quoted may be Ps. xxxiii. 21 ;
in which case the Hebrew and LXX agree, and no inference
can be drawn. Or St John may have had all three passages
in his mind, and combined them in a loose way.

(2) Where the Greek and Hebrew agree, but the Greek
is the obvious, or an obvious, rendering of the Hebrew ; and
no conclusion can be drawn. Examples :

(a) Ps. xxxiv. (xxxv.) 19, Ixviii. (Ixix.) 5 ol fiurovvTe?
fji baypedv. Comp. Ps. cviii. (cix.) 3, in John xv. 25 (Turpie,
p. 30).

(/3) Ps. Ixix. (Ixviii.) 10 quoted in John ii. 17 (Turpie,
p. 29), where the Evangelist substitutes /cara^dyerat for
/caretyayev.

(7) Ps. Ixxxii. (Ixxxi.) 6 quoted in John x. 34 (Turpie,
p. 4).

Or again, (3) The Greek and Hebrew agree, but the Greek
is not an obvious rendering. Yet the Evangelist's quotation is
not exact enough to warrant an inference. Examples :

(a) Ps. Ixxviii. (Ixxvii.) 24 quoted in John vi. 31 (Turpie,
p. 60).

The use of aprov however here in St John seems to show
that he had the LXX rendering in mind, for this is apparently
the only passage in the Old Testament where p*l is rendered
by dp TO 9.

(/3) Is. xl. 3 quoted in John i. 23 (Turpie, p. 219).

Yet evOvvare (St John) for evOelas Treuerre (LXX) looks like
a direct derivation from the Hebrew, which has one word
not two, in the original. All the other Evangelists have e
Trotetre (Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4); and this makes
the probability stronger.

140 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(7) Passages almost certainly, or most probably, taken from

the LXX.

(1) Ps. xxi. 19 quoted in John xix. 24 (Turpie, p. 4).
The LXX is a literal translation of the Hebrew; but the

probabilities are greatly against the Evangelist stumbling
upon the same rendering word for word, more especially the
opposition of i^dna and l/juana-pos.

(2) Is. liii. 1 quoted in John xii. 38 (Turpie, p. 106).
Again the LXX is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, for

TIVI as a rendering of ^/J? can hardly be regarded as an
exception. But the probabilities are against the whole com-
bination of words being the same.

These are all the quotations from the Old Testament in
St John, and the result at which we arrive is as follows:

The writer certainly derived several of his quotations
from the Hebrew, or from an Aramaic Targum, not from the
LXX.

On the other hand, he most probably took one or two from
the LXX, though the evidence for the LXX is not so decisive
as for the Hebrew. The majority of the passages prove nothing
either way.

2. The writer s interpretation of Hebrew words.

(a) Rabbi, Rabbouni, i. 38 ( ( Pa/3/3ei, o \eyerai
vevopevov AtSao-^aXe), xx. 16 ( ( Pa/3/3ovv6L, o \eyerat,
The longer form is the more impressive, the higher title ; hence
it is peculiarly adapted to the solemnity of the circumstances
of Mary's recognition of the risen Lord. In this respect compare
Mark x. 51, where again the circumstances are exceptional.
These are the only two passages in the New Testament in which
the form occurs; see Keim iii. p. 560, Buxtorf p. 2177 sq.,
Levy ii. p. 401. The omission by St John of the interpretation
of the pronoun ' my master ' is to be explained by the fact that

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 141

it had got attached to the word, as in Rabbi, and had ceased
to have any distinct force : just as, by the reverse principle,
6 fcvpio? is rendered in Syriac ' our Lord.'

(b) Messias, i. 41 (evpijtcajjiev rov Meo-a-'iav, o eariv
fjL0pfjL7]vev6fj,vov Xpto-To?), iv. 25. The word does not occur in
the New Testament save in these two places.

(c) Cephas, i. 42 (K?;(/>a9, o ep^veverai Der/ao?). This
title is only used by John and St Paul. Elsewhere, when the
appellation is employed, the Greek form is preferred.

(d) Thomas, xx. 24, xxi. 2 (o>//,a?, o \<yofLvos Ai8vjj,os).
Thus St John takes care to let us know that the familiar name
of this Apostle was merely a surname, ' twin.' There was an
early tradition in the Syrian Church that Thomas' real name
was Judas, e.g. Eus. H. E. i. 13 'lovSas 6 /cal Bwyita?, Acta
Thoinae I. 'lovSa Scoria TGO /cal ^i^vfjiw (ed. Tisch. p. 190), see
Assemani Bibl. Orient. I. pp. 100, 318, Cureton's Syriac Gospels
p. 1., Anc. Syr. Documents p. 32. In the Curetonian Syriac of
John xiv. 22 ' Judas Thomas ' is substituted for ' Judas, not
Iscariot.' As there were two other Apostles of this same name,
some distinction would be necessary ; and this we find was
the case, one being called Lebbseus, another Thomas, the third
Iscariot.

(e) Siloam, ix. 7 (et? rrjv Ko\v/j,(3ij0pav rov StAojayu,, o
ep/jLTjveverat, ' ATrecrTaXpevos). The word occurs in Isaiah viii. 6
rh& (A. V. Shiloah), and signifies a 'conduit/ 'emissary/
'aqueduct/ from the root rhW 'send/ which is used of water
in Ps. civ. 10, Ezek. xxxi. 4 (Gesenius p. 1415). D'PPK7"rrV2
occurs in the Talmud, meaning either 'a conduit for irrigation' or
'field needing artificial irrigation' (Buxtorf p. 2412 sq). Another
form rh& (A. V. Siloah) is found as a proper name in Neh. iii.
15, if indeed the Masoretic pointing may be trusted. That
two forms should exist side by side is very conceivable, for the
word is not strictly speaking a proper name. In Greek the
forms vary : StXcoayu, (LXX Luke xiii. 4, Josephus frequently),

(Josephus elsewhere), StX-wa (Aquila, Symmachus,

142 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Theodotion). The geographical and symbolical bearing of the
notice will be considered hereafter 1 . At present I am only
concerned with the etymology. This the Evangelist has
explained rightly. Two further points deserve attention. He
has given the correct meaning, notwithstanding that it is
somewhat obscured by the Greek form. Again he has added
the definite article ' the Siloam.' This is in accordance with
Jewish usage. In the Old Testament, and generally in the
Targums and the Rabbinic passages, as well as in St Luke /. c.,
the definite article occurs. With this compare Acts ix. 35
' the Sharon ' (rov ^apwva).

(f) Golgotha, xix. 17 (et? rov Xeyo/Aevov Kpavlov TOTTOV,
o Xeyerat 'E@pai<rTl ToXyoOd); cf. Matt, xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22
(Luke xxiii. 33). As the interpretation occurs in the Synoptic
narrative also, no argument can be drawn from it.

(g) Gabbatha, xix. 13 (et? TOTTOV Xeyopevov AiOoo-rpwrov,
'El3pal<rrl Be Ta^aOd). Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 28) tells us that
the pavements called lithostrota were first introduced by Sulla,
and that in the temple of Fortune at Prseneste one could be
seen in his day which Sulla had placed there. Again, Suetonius
(Jul. 46) states that Julius Caesar was accustomed to carry
tesselated pavements about with him for his own use in his
expeditions (in expeditionibus tesselata et sectilia pavimenta
circumtulisse). This last notice however does not help us
much, for evidently St John's account speaks of some fixed
locality. It shows, however, that such a flooring would seem
necessary for a Roman magistrate's tribunal. A fixed place at
Amathus was so called, Boeckh G. /. G. 2643 7ro rov 'Hpatov

60)9 TOV AtOoCTTpCOTOV.

But what is the meaning of the Hebrew Gabbatha 1 It is
commonly connected with 33 from PQH or JD3 'to be high,'
meaning a ' prominence ' or ' hill/ compare gibbus. The word
would then represent KHJD3 ; see Levy, I. p. 123, Lticke, Heng-
stenberg ad loc., Keim iii. p. 365. This theory receives further

1 See below, p. 171.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 143

support from the fact that Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 29, vi. 4, 2 and
elsewhere) uses TafiaOa for Gibeah, 'a hill.' And it is a very
possible solution, for the Evangelist does not say that the
Hebrew represents the meaning of the Greek equivalent. But
this interpretation labours under the disadvantage that it does
not account for the doubling of the @. Accordingly Ewald (Johan.
Scfi7. I. p. 408) suggests as the derivation JD3 JDp ' to collect
together/ and thus the word would imply 'a mosaic.' This
appears to me highly probable, for I find this word JDp used
of studding or inlaying with jewels or precious stones, e.g.
Ex. xxv. 7, of the jewels of the high-priest's ephod, and
Deut. xxxiii. 21, where the Tar gum Ben Uzziel has 'a place
inlaid (jDp/D) with precious stones and jewels'; see Levy s.v. II.
p. 342. Thus here again St John shows his intimate knowledge
of the derivation of an obscure Hebrew term.

(h) Iscariot. The phenomena which St John's Gospel
presents in the use of this name are somewhat remarkable. As
soon as the false readings are swept away which obscure the
true text, we find (1) that the designation is attached to the
father's name (vi. 71, xiii. 26) as well as to the son's (xii. 4,
xiii. 2, xiv. 22), (2) that in more than one place (xii. 4, xiv. 22)
the definite article should precede the name. We gather there-
fore that the word is not strictly speaking a proper name at
all, but merely describes the native place of the traitor. This
solution is suggested by St John's Gospel, but there is no hint
of it given by the Synoptists. Yet it is rendered highly probable
by other considerations also. The word 'IcrtcapicoTTjs is &W
HV")p 'the man of Kerioth.' Now in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8 among the
mercenaries hired by the children of Ammon to attack David
are mentioned 'of Ishtob twelve thousand men,' or, as it almost
certainly should be rendered, 'of the men of Tob twelve
thousand men,' Tob being a district mentioned in Judges
xi. 3-5. This word becomes in Josephus Ant. vii. 6, 1 a proper
name, "Io-ro/3o?. The interpretation of Josephus may be right
or wrong ; but we are only concerned with the representation
of the Hebrew form in Greek ; and, so far as it goes, it is an

144 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

adequate illustration of the way in which Wlp WW would
appear in a Greek dress. Again, the tradition of Judas' birth-
place is preserved in some MSS. of the New Testament. Thus
in Matt. x. 4, xxvi. 14 some old Latin MSS. have Carioth,
while other authorities have intermediate readings, Scarioth,
; in Mark iii. 19 the correct reading (K B C L) is
, the termination not having been interfered with,
e has Cariotha, and there are other variations. In Mark xiv. 10
N B C L* have la/capicoO, while la/capKorrj^ is found in A and
the majority of authorities. Here again Scarioth is read by
some Latin MSS. On the whole it seems probable that
'Itr/capitoO is consistently St Mark's form of the appellation.
In Luke vi. 16 Icr/capicoO is the right reading (N B L); on the
other hand in xxii. 3 latcap iwr^v seems to be correct, though
here again the alternative form has supporters. St Luke
therefore appears to vary, and this we might expect from the
manner in which his Gospel was composed. Turning now to
St John's Gospel we find that D has airo Ka^ucoroi; in four out
of the five verses in which the name occurs, and (followed by
three Latin MSS.) ^KaptcoO in the fifth passage (vi. 71), where,
on the other hand, airo Kapv&rov receives the support of N 1 69,
124, and of the margin of the Harclean Syriac. Thus the trace
of the original meaning of the word seems to linger in the
Western text of the Fourth Gospel.

Kapt,a)6 is the LXX rendering of HVIp. The word signi-
fies 'cities/ i.e. a conjunction of small towns. Hence it is of
frequent occurrence. Thus a place of the name was situated in
Moab (Jer. xlviii. 24, 41, Amos ii. 2, see Merx Arch. f. wissensch.
Erf. des Alt. Test. p. 320), another in Judah (Joshua xv. 25).
This latter is perhaps the birth-place of Judas who, like Peru-
gino, Correggio, Veronese and others, has merged his personal
name in that of his native town.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 145

i. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF JEWISH IDEAS, TRADITIONS,
EXPECTATIONS, MODES OF THOUGHT.

(i) The Messiah. Occasion has been taken elsewhere to point
out that, in the Fourth Gospel, 'the narrative and the dis-
courses alike are thoroughly saturated with the Messianic ideas
of the time 1 .' In discussing this subject attention was drawn
to two facts as especially worthy of notice: (1) that though the
writer's point of view is twofold, the Word as the theological,
the subjective, centre, no less than the Messiah as the his-
torical, the objective, centre, yet, with a true insight which is
the best evidence for his veracity, he keeps these two points of
view separate. The topic of our Lord's discourses with the
Jews is not the doctrine of the Logos, for which His auditors
would feel neither predilection nor interest, but the Messianic
expectation, in which they were thoroughly absorbed. (2) It
was shown that the Messianic conceptions are not the ideas as
corrected by the facts, but the ideas in their original form, not
yet spiritualised, but coarse and materialistic still, reflecting
the sentiments not of the second century but of the early years
of the first ; in a word, Jewish, not Christian. This Messianic
idea is turned about on all sides. We learn very much more
about it from the Fourth Gospel than from all the other three
Gospels together. This is a fact which we do not sufficiently
realise, and it is a characteristic, though an accidental, token to
this fact that the Hebrew equivalent for Xpio-ros the word
Mecr<7ta9 is found only in this Gospel. The prevalence, nay,
the ubiquity, of the Messianic idea is the key to the motive of
the narrative. Does Jesus work a miracle ? It is a sign of His
Messianic office. Does He suffer an indignity ? It is fatal to
His claims as the triumphant King and Avenger of His people.
Does He utter an unpalatable truth, or a seemingly unpatriotic
sentiment? Such language is inconsistent with the office of
the long-expected Saviour of the Jewish nation. Does He
exhibit in His person the common associations and relationships

1 [See above, p. 23 sq., where this part of the argument is treated fully.]
L. E. 10

146 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of life ? This again is not compatible with His Messianic
character.

Moreover, He is only one in a long line of claimants who
have arrogated to themselves this high office. Before Him
many thieves and robbers have entered into the fold by stealth
and violence (x. 8). This last passage has been attacked as
fatal to the authority of the Gospel, and this on two grounds.
First, we are told 1 that it is a thoroughly Gnostic sentiment,
directed against the lawgiver and the prophets. They are the
thieves and the robbers. Thus it is inconsistent not only with
our Lord's own position, but also with the position of St John
as a ' pillar-apostle ' of the Circumcision. Secondly, we are
informed 2 that the statement is historically incorrect; for as a
matter of fact we do not hear of false Messiahs before Christ.
I give this as a sample of the attacks which are made in certain
quarters upon the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. In reply
it is sufficient to state (1) that the interpretation, which sees in
the thieves and robbers a reference to Moses and the prophets,
is quite untenable. It contradicts the whole teaching of the
Gospel. Our Lord constantly refers to the Old Testament
Scriptures as authoritative, and as foretelling Himself. Thus
Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, and he saw it and was
glad. The Jews are Abraham's seed, yet they seek to kill Him
(viii. 37, 56). Moses will accuse them to the Father; for had
they believed Moses, they would have believed Christ, for
Moses wrote of Him (v. 45 sq.). And the Evangelist sees in the
persistent unbelief of the Jewish race a fulfilment of a prophecy
of Isaiah uttered when he saw Christ's glory and spake of Him
(xii. 37 sq.). The interpretation therefore may safely be dis-
missed. Curiously enough it is a view borrowed from Valentinus,
who states that ' all the prophets and the law spake from the
Demiurge, a foolish God, and were foolish themselves and
ignorant' (Hippol. Haer. vi. 35 p. 194), and then proceeds to
quote this passage : and it is echoed by the Manicheans

1 By Hilgenfeld. 2 By Baur and Scholten.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 147

(August, c. Faust, xvi. 12, vm. p. 288 F., 289 A.) and probably
by other dualistic sects. Such at least would appear from
Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 17 pp. 366 sq. (ed. Potter). Further, the
consciousness of the misuse that was made of the text would
account for the omission of the words irpo efjiov by some
authorities 1 . (2) The expression need not necessarily be
confined to false Messiahs. 'Shepherds' are teachers (Jer.
xxiii. 1, Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3), and thus the Scribes and Pharisees,
the leaders of religious thought, would naturally be included in
the category. In other passages our Lord refers to them as
robbers, as wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. vii. 15), as devouring
widows' houses (Matt, xxiii. 14, Mark xii. 40, Luke xx. 47)
And the beginning of this corrupt state of teaching did not
synchronize with the time of our Lord's life upon earth. For
some generations past the whole tendency of religious education
had been thoroughly vicious 2 .

But after all there is no sufficient reason for denying the
appearance of false Messiahs before the Christian era. On the
contrary, everything points to the fact of such appearances.
And if these earlier false Messiahs do not come forward
so prominently in Josephus as those who flourished afterwards,
this is only what was to be expected; for they did not fall
within his own lifetime. Gamaliel, at all events, in his speech
as recorded by St Luke (Acts v. 35 sq.), mentions two of these
impostors, Theudas and Judas the Galilean, the latter of whom
is described as having revolted ' in the days of the taxing.' In
the case of the former, there is a well-known chronological
difficulty, Josephus (Ant. xx. 5. 1) speaking of a Theudas who
headed a rebellion in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus
after A.D. 44 ; but the occasion of the revolt of Judas the
Gaulanite is given by him in detail (Ant. xviii. 1. 1 sq.), and
his language shows evidently that the rising took a theocratic

1 The words are omitted in K*, in Chrysostom and Augustine,
most Latin MSS., in the Syriac, Sahidic 2 See Ewald, Jahrb. der Bibl. Wissen-

and Gothic versions, and by Cyril, schaft ix. 43.

102

148 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

character 1 . In another place Josephus, referring to the time
of the death of Herod the Great (Ant. xvii. 10. 8), tells us that
'Judaea was infested with robbers (Xyo-Trjpiwv 77 'lovBaia 7rXea>?
riv), and as the bands of the seditious found anyone to head
them, he was created a king at once, in order to do damage to
the community.' He mentions several of these adventurers by
name, beginning (Ant. xvii. 10. 5) with Judas the son of a
certain Hezekiah, whom he calls the 'brigand-chief (o apxi-
\77<7T77?). Now it is quite impossible to separate all these
uprisings from Messianic anticipations, even if the contrary
was not directly stated in some cases by the historian. For
the air was full of rumours, and echoes of the Messianic
expectations had penetrated as far as Rome, and found expres-
sion in the pages of Suetonius (Vesp. 4), and in the Fourth
Eclogue of Virgil. By some the Herod-family was looked to as
the embodiment of the national hope, Antipas (Viet. Ant. ap.
Cramer Gat. in Marc. p. 400), Agrippa (Philastrius Haer.
xxviii.), and Herod the Great (Epiphanius Haer. xx. p. 45) being
at different times regarded as the Messiah by their partisans 2 .

But it is not only the prevalence of the Messianic idea
exhibited in this Gospel, it is the minuteness and variety of
detail displayed which arrests our attention, and is so power-
ful a testimony to the authenticity of the narrative. This
phenomenon can be conveniently illustrated by the designations
which the Evangelist applies to the Messiah. I give some of
the most striking.

(a) The Lamb of God (i. 29, 36). The reference is to Isaiah
liii. 4, a passage which was commonly interpreted of the
Messiah, apparently before the Christian era (see Bishop
Harold Browne, Sermons 3 p. 92 sq., and cf. Sanday, Authorship
of the Fourth Gospel p. 39 sq.), and is interpreted of our Lord
directly by Philip the Evangelist (Acts viii. 32), and indirectly

1 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1. 6 dvffviKrjros Dictionary of the Bible; and compare
5e TOV \ev6tpov tpws tffrlv avrois fibvov Keim I. p. 244 sq.

iiyfji.6va teal deffirbryv rbv Qebv vireiXij- 3 Messiah as foretold and expected

<j>bciv. Cambridge (1862).

2 See the article Herodians in Smith's

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 149

by St Peter (1 Pet. i. 19). This idea of the lamb as typifying
the Messiah is not found in the other three Evangelists. It is
introduced however by St John naturally and without comment :
the meaning is only explained by recalling the Messianic
expectations of the time, and in fact is lost sight of by many
commentators. With the substitution of another Greek word
(apviov for a/^i/o?) the same metaphor occurs in the Apocalypse
nearly thirty times.

(b) The Son of God, the King of Israel (i. 49). The
naturalness of this outburst on the part of Nathanael is
deserving of notice. The titles with which he hails the Messiah
are introduced in a way which is absolutely free from artifici-
ality. The first designation, the ' Son of God/ is derived from
Ps. ii. 7. It occurs again in the Fourth Gospel, i. 34, iii. 18, ix. 35
and especially xi. 27, in the last passage coupled expressly with
the title ' the Christ/ a combination which we find elsewhere
(Matt, xx vi. 63 in the mouth of the High Priest, and Matt. xvi.
16 in the confession of St Peter). Even when it stands
alone, as in Luke iv. 41, xxii. 70, it is at once recognised as
applying to the Christ. The second title, ' the King of Israel/
is a favourite appellation in the Fourth Gospel (xii. 13, cf. xviii.
36, 37, xix. 3, 5, 12, 14, 19). As Mr Sanday appositely remarks
(Authorship of the Fourth Gospel p. 35), ' the phrase is especially
important, because it breathes those politico-theocratic hopes,
which, since the taking of Jerusalem, Christians, at least, if not
Jews, must have entirely laid aside. It belongs to the lowest
stratification of Christian ideas, before Christianity was separated
from Judaism; and there is but one generation of Christians,
to whom it would have any meaning.'

Other Messianic titles which are found in our Evangelist are

(c) He that is coming (6 epxopevos) vi. 14, xi. 27, cf. Matt. xi. 3,
Luke vii. 19, 20, derived from the well-known Messianic psalm
(Ps. cxviii.), which is quoted in this sense by all the four Evan-
gelists (Matt, xxiii. 39, Mark xi. 9, Luke xiii. 35, John xii. 13);

(d) the Holy One of God (6 ayios TOV Seov) vi. 69, cf. Mark i.
24 and other passages; (e) the Son of Man, i. 51 etc., the most

150 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

familiar of all designations of the Christ, especially in St Luke's
Gospel; (/) the Light, i. 7, 8, viii. 12, xii. 46, cf. Luke ii. 32; an
idea found in Messianic passages like Is. ix. 2, xlii. 6, 7, Mai. iv.
2, 3, and expressly interpreted of Christ by the Talmud ' Light
is the name of Messiah' (see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. p. 564 quoted
by Sanday, p. 152); (g) He that hath been sent (o aTreo-raXitevos),
ix. 7, where the interpretation of the name Siloam connects the
pool with Christ (see x. 36, xvii. 3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25 etc., cf. Is. Ixi.
1) rather than with the man (see Wetstein ad loc.), but where
the allusion to the title, so far from appearing on the surface,
is inserted in the most unobtrusive manner possible. These
instances show the perfect ease and familiarity with which the
writer of the Fourth Gospel moves among the Messianic expec-
tations and the national feelings of the period which he depicts.

(ii) The companions of the Messiah. Attention has been
drawn elsewhere 1 to the significant references to 'the prophet'
which occur in four places in St John (i. 21, 25, vi. 14, vii. 40).
It has been pointed out that the form which the conception
takes is strictly Jewish, not Christian. While Christian teachers
identified the prophet foretold by Moses (Deut. xviii. 15) with
our Lord Himself (Acts iii. 22, vii. 37, cf. John i. 46) 2 , the Jews
in St John's Gospel conceive of * the Christ ' and f the prophet '
as two different persons. If He is not the Christ, they adopt
the alternative that He may be 'the prophet' (i. 21, 25); if
not c the prophet,' then ' the Christ ' (vii. 40). But this brings
us to another point, which is worthy of consideration. Spring-
ing out of the phrase employed by Moses in the passage quoted
above (* a prophet like unto me ') came the Jewish idea of the
parallelism of the lawgiver and the Messiah. In part this idea
was justified by the prophecy, and finds its proper place in the
language of the New Testament. Thus, as the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews shows, Moses and Christ are the two

1 See above, p. 25. 20, Clem. Recogn. i. 43, Origen in

2 This identification is a common- Johan. vi. 4, Eusebius Demonstr.
place in patristic writers, see Tertull. Evang. i. 7, p. 26 sq. (ed. Paris 1628).
adv. Marcion. iv. 22, Apost. Const, v.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 151

mediators of the two covenants (Heb. viii. 5, 6). Thus again, in
a well-known passage (1 Cor. x. 1 11), St Paul works out the
parallel in his record of the wanderings of the children of Israel.
The crossing of the Red Sea is a baptism by Moses. The rock
smitten in the wilderness is Christ. Thus again, St John in
the Apocalypse (xv. 3) sets in the mouth of the redeemed a
twofold song, ' the song of Moses the servant of God, and the
song of the Lamb. 3 And lastly, our Lord Himself instances
the action of Moses in lifting up the serpent in the wilderness
as emblematic of Himself (John iii. 14). But the Rabbis
carried out the parallelism into the most minute details, so
that the career of the Messiah became in effect a reproduction
of the career of Moses. Of this belief adventurers, who wished
to pose as the Messiah, were not slow to take advantage. For
instance Theudas, to whom allusion has already been made 1 ,
undertakes to divide the Jordan (Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 1), in imitation
probably as much of Moses as of Joshua and Elijah. Again,
other nameless adventurers, to whom Josephus makes reference
a little later on (Ant. xx. 8. 6), ''urged the multitude to follow
them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would
exhibit manifest wonders and signs that should be performed
by the providence of God (tear a rrjv rov OeoO Trpovoiav).'
Gfrorer, who has worked out this subject in his Jahrhundert
des Heils (ir. p. 318 sq), tells us that Micah vii. 15 was quoted
to prove that the passover was the time in which this mani-
festation of Messianic power should be exhibited. In fulfilment
of the prophecy of Zechariah (ix. 9), the King should appear
riding an ass (Gfrorer p. 339). The miracles which he was
expected to perform were to include the two mighty works of
his prototype, the smiting of the waters as suggested by
Zechariah (x. 11), and the giving of the manna. We have seen
how the first of these symbolical acts was promised by Theudas.
To the general expectation of the second miracle rabbinic
literature furnishes full and explicit testimony. Thus in
Coheleth Rabba, 9 fol. 86. 4, we read Dixit P. Berachia nomine
1 See above, p. 147.

152 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

R. Isaaci ; qualis fuit redemptor primus, talis erit redemptor
ultimus....Sicut redemptor primus fecit descendere manna, ita
redemptor posterior faciet descendere manna. Again, in Shir
Rabba, fol. 16, Redemptor posterior revelabitur iis...et quonam
illos ducet? Sunt qui dicunt in desertum Judae, sunt qui
dicunt in desertum Sichoris et Ogi et descendere faciet pro Us
manna (see Lightfoot HOT. Heb. II. pp. 552, 557 ; cf. Shemoth
Rabba xxv.). In the light of these notices we can imagine the
ferment which would be occasioned by the feeding of the five
thousand, and we can now understand the full significance of
the challenge thrown out to Him on the part of the unbelieving
crowd, ' What dost thou work ? Our fathers did eat manna in
the wilderness (vi. 30, 31),' which in St John's narrative occurs
in so abrupt and unexplained a manner 1 . The key to the
understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with
the national expectation of the greater Moses. But this know-
ledge is not obtruded upon us by the Evangelist. It is tacitly
assumed. In fact, the meaning is unintelligible, except to one
who is brought up among the ideas of the time, or to one who,
like a modern critic, has made them his special study.

And so we might pass in review the various details of the
Messianic conception, and show how marvellously they correspond
with the account given so naturally and incidentally by the
Evangelist. The birth and generation of the Christ who, in
accordance with Micah v. 2, should be a descendant of David,
born in Bethlehem (vii. 42), and yet at the same time the
mystery and uncertainty of that birth (vii. 27) based upon the
well-known passage in Isaiah 'who shall declare His generation?'
(Is. liii. 8) 2 , the apparent discrepancies of the two accounts
being explained by the rabbis on the analogy of Moses who
was born and then hidden 3 ; His manifestation 'to Israel'

1 See this matter treated more fully fol. 5. 1) alleged that the Messiah had
above, p. 24. been born at Bethlehem a good while

2 See Sanday p. 146, Gfrorer, pp. before their own times but had been
203, 307, Wetstein and Lightfoot on snatched away. The same idea is
John vi. 27. found in Midrash Sair fol. 1, 16. 4 (on

3 The Gemarists (Hieros. Berachoth Canticles ii. 9) Caprea apparet et oc-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 153

(i. 31 a passage with which Sanday, p. 33, compares Luke i. 80
spoken of John the Baptist ; cf. xiv. 22, xvii. 6 sq.), an event
which Jewish tradition decided would take place at the Passover
(Shemoth Rabb. xv. 150, Jerusalem Targum on Ex. xii. 42,
Mechilta on Ex. xii. 42, R. Bechai in Kad Hakkemach 49) *
doubtless another element in the excitement of the crowds
after the Feeding of the Five Thousand which took place at
Passover-tide (John vi. 2) ; lastly, His eternal continuance (xii.
34), a point much discussed among the rabbis 2 .

One of the accompaniments of the Messiah in Jewish antici-
pations was the return of the Shechinah, the symbol of that
visible divine presence, the loss of which after the captivity had
been so universally deplored. This confident hope was based
on such prophecies as Ezekiel xxxvii. 27, xliii. 7, Zechariah ii.
10 sq, viii. 3, Isaiah viii. 8, and on the language of Ecclesiasticus
xxiv. 8 sq. ' He that created me caused my tabernacle to rest
(fcareTravcre rrjv cr/crjvtjv /JLOV), and said, Let thy dwelling be in
Jacob (ev 'Iatfft>/3 Karaa/cr)va)crov)...in the holy tabernacle I
served before him (eV (r/crjvfj dyia zvunriov avrov eXeirovpyrjcra).'
It finds expression in more than one passage in the Apocalypse
(vii. 15, xiii. 6, xv. 5, xxi. 3). It remains however for St John
io his Gospel, in words which are replete with local colouring, to
point with a quiet triumph to the fulfilment of this expectation
in the person of Jesus Christ, ' The Word became flesh, and
tabernacled (ta-Ktjvcocrev) among us, and we beheld His glory

cultatur, apparet et occultatur. Sic postes nostrarum frontium consecrati

redemptor primus (Moses) apparuit et sunt. Hieron. Comm. in Matth. iv. 25.

fuit occultatus, et tandem apparuit 6, Op. vn. 203 (ed. Vallarsi). For the

iterum... Sic redemptor posterior (Mes- Christian counterpart of this Jewish

sias) revelabitur iis atque iterum abs- expectation see Justin Dial. c. Tryph.

condetur ab iis... In fine quadraginta 8, p. 34, 110, p. 368 (ed. Otto),
quinque dierum revelabitur iterum iis 2 See these various speculations given

et descendere faciet pro iis manna. in Gfrorer pp. 252 sq, 296, 315 317.

1 And at midnight ; Traditio Judae- The passages referred to by the multi-

orum est Christum media nocte ven- tude (^ytteis -f)Koij<rafj.v K rov v6fj.ov) were

turum in similitudinem Aegyptii tern- probably Is. ix. 6, Dan. vii. 13, 14,

poris, quando Pascha celebratum est and the Targums on these texts wilJ

et exterminator venit et Dominus super repay study,
tabernacula transiit et sanguine agni

154 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

rjv Sotfav avrov), the glory as of the only-begotten from the
Father, full of grace and truth (i. 14).'

(iii) The Messianic expectation among the Samaritans.

It has been denied 1 that the Samaritans had any Messianic
anticipations at all. But, firstly, they had the prophecy referred
to above (Deut. xviii. 15), which, as forming part of the Penta-
teuch, they would accept as authoritative. This was sufficient
in itself to suggest such expectations, and the fact that they were
under the same stimulating influences as the Jews, influences
arising from the political troubles of the times, would encourage
presentiments of a Deliverer. Secondly, as a matter of fact,
there is sufficient evidence to show that Messianic hopes were
as rife among them at the time of our Lord, as they are now at
the present day. Thus Josephus informs us (Ant. xviii. 4. 1)
that in the procuratorship of Pilate a disturbance arose among
the Samaritans in consequence of an impostor who ' bade them
assemble on Mount Gerizim ' under promise that he ' would
show them the sacred vessels (Se/feiz> ra iepd o-tceinj) which
were buried there, because Moses had put them there.' All
this is distinctly Messianic in character, and has an obvious
reference to the narrative of 2 Maccabees (ii. 1 8), where
Jeremiah is related to have buried the tabernacle, the ark and
the altar of incense on the mountain ' where Moses climbed up
and saw the heritage of God/ and to have declared that the
secret of the hiding place should not be revealed 'until the
time that God should gather His people again together, and
receive them unto mercy.' And this view finds confirmation
from a passage in the Joma Babl. (fol. 526, quoted by Gfrorer
p. 350), and explains the reference in Apoc. ii. 17 to the 'hidden
manna,' which was one of the treasures contained in the ark
(Ex. xvi. 33, 34, Heb. ix. 4). These disturbances among the
Samaritans took place A.D. 34, 35, and are connected by Keim
(I. p. 518) with the preaching of John the Baptist. Further
light is thrown on these Samaritan aspirations in the Clementine

1 e.g. by the author of The Jesus of History (1869).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 155

Recognitions. Here Simon Magus and Dositheus are both
mentioned as Samaritans who professed themselves to be
Messiahs 1 , and the Samaritans are described as ' rightly looking
forward to one true Prophet in accordance with the foretelling
of Moses, but prevented by the perverse teaching of Dositheus
from believing that Jesus was He whom they expected (Recogn.
i. 54 ; cf. vii. 33).' For the later communications with the
Samaritans held by Scaliger, Ludolf, and de Sacy, see Westcott,
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels p. 148. Petermann
likewise, who resided two months at Nablous, gives the results
of his visit and investigations in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. XIII.
p. 372 sq. All these authorities agree that the Samaritans
found their hopes upon the appearance of the prophet like unto
Moses. All agree too that they expect the discovery of the
furniture of the Sanctuary, e.g. the ark, the manna and the
tables of the commandments, a fact which leaves the interpre-
tation of the passage in Josephus beyond a doubt. With them
the Messiah is represented under two aspects, first as the
Hashab or Hathab (^HH) the Converter, Restorer, Buyer-back
(Westcott and Petermann I.e.), secondly as the El Muhdi the
Guide (Robinson, Biblical Researches n. 27 8 2 ). Thus we see how
the confident aspirations placed by St John in the mouth of
the Samaritan woman, * I know that Messias cometh, which is
called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things'
(iv. 25, cf. vv. 29, 42), are not the invention of a later generation,
but reflect the contemporary national feelings of this interesting
people.

(iv) Jewish beliefs, and sentiments on other points.

(a) The relation of the Jews to Abraham exemplified in
John viii. 33 sq. is worthy of notice, as illustrating the writer's
acquaintance with the Jewish ideas of his time. The boast,

1 Recogn. ii. 7, Simon hic...gente Recogn. i. 54 magistrum suum (i.e.

Samaraeus...gloriaeacjactantiae supra Dositheum) velut Christum praedi-

omne genus hominum cupidus ita ut carunt ; cf. Origen c. Gels. i. 57 (i.

excelsam virtutem...credi se velit et 372).

Christum putari (cf. Horn. ii. 22) ; 2 ed. 1867.

156 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

' We are Abraham's seed/ is an evidence of a justifiable pride of
birth (cf. v. 53), but the latter part of the sentence 'and we
have never been in bondage to any man ' has given much
difficulty to the commentators. Certainly it is not what a
stranger would have said of the Jewish people. The opinion
felt by the Romans for the Jews is well expressed by Cicero,
who contemptuously classes together the Jews and the Syrians
as nations born to slavery (Judaeis et Syris nationibus natis
servituti, Cic. Prov. Cons. 5). And Apion casts in the teeth of
Josephus the fact that, so far from ruling the Gentiles, the
chosen people were as a fact subject to them (TO /-i^ &PX eLV
ov\evt,v Be paXkov eOveai Jos. c. Apion. ii. 11). Yet this
proud assertion of liberty is exactly what the Jews would make
on their own behalf, whatever wresting of facts might be
necessary to maintain it. The answer of Josephus to Apion
at the end of the section is quite characteristic. 'At a time
when even the Egyptians,' he contends, ' were servants to the
Persians and the Macedonians, we (the Jews) enjoyed liberty,
and moreover had the dominion of the cities round about us
for about a hundred and twenty years, until Pompey the Great.
And when all nations were conquered by the Romans, who are
kings everywhere, our ancestors were the only people who
continued to be esteemed their allies and friends because of
their fidelity.' And in a certain sense the claim was true.
The national spirit of the Jews had never been thoroughly
enslaved. But externally it would appear to be the reverse of
the truth, and it is difficult to conceive how words such as the
Evangelist records could have found a place in a narrative
written in the middle of the second century, after the twofold
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and by Hadrian had stamped
out the last spark of national liberty.

(b) The authority assigned to Moses is another graphic
touch which shows a minute acquaintance with Jewish thought.
The assertion ' We are Moses' disciples ' (ix. 28) is illustrated
by Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. n. p. 572) from Joma fol. 4. 1, where the
same expression occurs, and the favourite title of Moses in

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 157

vogue among the Jews was 'Moses, our master' (quoted by
Scholtz on this verse). Associated with this idea is the
prestige which attached to the rabbinical schools. The
surprise expressed that our Lord should set up for a teacher
(vii. 15), the contemptuous disregard for the opinion of the
people (vii. 49), the very form of address (2t> el o Si&da/caXos
rov 'lo-parfK; iii. 10), which was apparently a formula of
remonstrance among the Jews 1 all these features can be
readily illustrated from rabbinical literature.

(c) The jealousy and contempt with which the Palestinian
Jews viewed the Greek dispersion is strikingly evidenced by
the sarcastic comment of the Jews ' Will he go unto the
dispersed among the Gentiles (M?) els rrjv SiaaTropdv TWV
e E\\Tjvo)v /teXXet TropevecrOat,), and teach the Gentiles?' (vii. 35.)
Contemporary Jewish opinion drew a hard and fast line
between their brethren of the Babylonian dispersion, i.e. those
who preferred to remain in the land of their captivity, and the
Greek dispersion in Asia Minor, the result of the wholesale de-
portations of Seleucus Nicator and Antiochus Epiphanes. The
former were held in high honour. The land of Babylon was
considered to be as holy as that of Palestine (Rabbi Solomon in
Gittin fol. 2. 1), and the descendants of the Jews there even
purer than those in Judaea itself (Kiddush fol. 69. 2). Even
Gamaliel deigned to hold correspondence with the 'sons of
the Dispersion of Babylonia' (Frankel Monatsschrift, p. 413,
1853). Hence, as Lightfoot remarks (Hor. Heb. ad loc.), 'for a
Palestine Jew to go to the Babylonish dispersion was to go to
a people and country equal, if not superior, to his own : but to
go to the dispersion among the Greeks was to go into unclean
regions, to an inferior race of Jews, and into nations most
heathenized.'

(d) Lastly (to confine ourselves to one further instance),
the question put to our Lord concerning the man born blind,
' Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was

1 See the story told in Lightfoot, from Echah Rabbathi, fol. 66. 2.
Hor. Heb. n. p. 534, of Kabbi Joshua

158 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

born blind 1 ?' reflects with a faithful accuracy the popular
teaching of the day as regards the consequences of sin. It
was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools that physical
defect in children was the punishment of sin committed by
their parents ; and though the Jewish doctrine of metempsy-
chosis was confined to the souls of the righteous (Jos. B. J. ii.
12), and thus a man brought no taint of sins with him from his
previous existence, yet it is clear from many curious Rabbinic
passages which Lightfoot quotes (ad loc.) that even in the
womb the infant, from the moment of his first quickening, was
considered capable of incurring stain of sin.

3. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF EXTERNAL FACTS, THE
HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, NAMES AND CUSTOMS OF THE
JEWISH PEOPLE.

(i) The relations of the Jews with those around them.

(a) The Galileans. Owing to the fact that St John lays
special stress on the Judsean ministry, the references to the
Galileans in his Gospel are less numerous than in the Synoptic
narrative. But the notices, though few, are highly significant,
and the touches with which St John depicts them, singularly
vivid. Thus we cannot fail to observe the contempt which the
Jews of the metropolis display for them. * Shall Christ come
out of Galilee?' 'Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' (vii. 41,
52). 'Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?'
(i. 46). Such is the objection, which rises unpremeditatedly to
the lips of speakers, when the northern province is indicated as
the home of the Messiah. This disparagement of the Galileans
is reflected more than once in the rabbinic literature of the
period. ' Foolish Galilean ' seems to have been the inevitable
form of address when a Galilean appears as a character in a
dialogue 2 . This contempt arose in great measure from the
admixture of foreign blood in the Galilean people. The Sea of

1 John ix. 2. 2 e.g. see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. n. pp. 78, 543.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 159

Galilee was an important commercial centre, and as a natural
consequence strangers Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans
settled in the district, and intermarried with the Jewish inhabi-
tants, to the prejudice of the race in the eyes of a strict Jew of
the capital (see Keim I. p. 309). The distinction thus in-
augurated by the taint of foreign blood was further emphasized
by a difference of pronunciation. The rough dialect of the
northerners, which was a subject of comment in the case of
St Peter (Mark xiv. 70), is a favourite theme likewise in
rabbinical writers 1 . Thus in one story 2 a Judaean professes
himself unable to distinguish between ^^ 'a lamb/ Iptf
' wool,' *"^?r! ' wine ' and "^H ' an ass/ as pronounced by a
Galilean when the latter wants to make a purchase, an illus-
tration which shows that the divergence consisted largely in a
careless confusion of gutturals on the part of the Galileans.
The bad name, from which the Galileans suffered generally,
seems to have attached itself more particularly to their city
Nazareth (John i. 46). Certainly the account which we have of
them from other passages in the Gospels (Luke iv. 16 29,
Matt. xiii. 54 58) conveys the impression that the Nazarenes
were a violent, unscrupulous, irreligious people. They may
therefore have fully justified their invidious reputation. That
this reputation was widespread appears from the irony in the
superscription on the cross, ' Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the
Jews' (John xix. 19). We pass on to notice the Evangelist's
accurate knowledge of other traits in the Galilean character.
In John iv. 45 occurs a brief and incidental mention of the
welcome accorded to our Lord by the Galileans in consequence
of His doings at Jerusalem at the feast, ' for they also went to
the feast.' Now it is worthy of record that Josephus (Ant. xx.
6. 1) relates that serious troubles arose owing to collisions
between the Samaritans and the Galileans while the latter
were on their way to keep the feasts at Jerusalem 3 . The

1 See the instances given by Light- 2 See my Galatians, p. 197 (ed. 6).

foot, n. p. 78 sq, and cf. Fiirst Aram. 3 This notice illustrates John iv. 4
Idiom. 15. compared with Luke ix. 51 sq.

160 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

natural turbulence of the Galileans, to which Josephus calls
attention 1 , was on these occasions aggravated by their intense
religious enthusiasm 2 . It is therefore quite what we should
expect when we find a reference in St Luke (xiii. 1) to certain
Galileans 'whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,'
and the portrait which St John gives us of St Peter is, as Keim
truly observes (l. p. 315), of 'a genuine Galilean type.'

(b) The Romans. St John's consummate skill does not fail
him as he sketches the relations of the Jews with their Roman
masters. We notice on the one hand the cringing political defer-
ence exhibited in the words of the chief priests, ' The Romans
shall come and take away both our place and nation (xi. 48),'
'We have no king but Caesar (xix. 15),' 'If thou let this man
go, thou art not Caesar's friend (xix. 12)'; on the other, the
religious horror of the pollution attaching to contact with the
Romans, which even at the height of their frenzied hatred of
their prisoner kept the Jews outside the judgment hall, 'lest
they should be defiled (xviii. 28).' He then proceeds to give
us details which reveal an accurate acquaintance with the
Roman customs and military arrangements of the time. Twice
over is reference made to ' the band ' (97 cnrelpa xviii. 3, 12),
once to 'the captain' (o %tX/a/?%o9 xviii. 12). Now, we learn
from Polybius 3 and Suidas 4 that o-jrelpa and %tXiap%o9 were
technical terms, the recognised Greek renderings of cohors and

1 Trpbs iraaav del iroXfaov Treipav dv- expression /caXetVcu shows that he is
rtffxw ' fuixwol T y&p fK vyirlwv /c.r.X. merely giving the Latin equivalent
Jos. B. J. iii. 3. 2 ; cf. Vit. 17 veur^puv (/co6prtj) for the Greek expression
tiridviJiovvTes del IT pay par wv. (aireipa). A little later on (xi. 33. 1)

2 Many of the false Messiahs were Polybius has again eirl r^rrapas tcobp-
Galileans, e.g.'IotfSas 6 raXiXcuos (Acts w TOVTO d' ten (nreTpa, where Ca-
v. 37). saubon has struck out the last four

3 rjoetj ffirelpas ' TOVTO 5e /caXetreu TO words, though they occur in all the
<rtivTay/j.a T&V ireffiv irapa 'Pw/xcu'ois manuscripts.

Ko6/ms Polybius xi. 23. Schweig- 4 Suidas (s. v.) states that x^ a PX OL

hauser in his note (ad loc.) contends came into office at Kome three hun-

that cnrflpa here means manipulus, and dred and fifteen years after the foun-

that the term cohors is applied to the dation of the city. This coincides

complement of three maniples ; but with the institution of military tri-

Livy in the parallel passage (xxviii. 14) bunes with consular power at the

has ternis peditum cohortibus, and the close of the Decemvirate.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 161

tribunus respectively. Accordingly the use of the definite
article by St John in both cases, 'the cohort' 'the tribune 1 ,'
shows that he was aware of a fact, which we learn from
Josephus also (B. J. ii. 12. 1), that a Roman cohort was
quartered in the Turris Antonia at Jerusalem to prevent
disturbances at the great festivals 2 . A few years later we find
soldiers from this Roman garrison employed in rescuing St Paul
from the hands of the Jewish mob during the feast of the
Passover 3 .

Again, the scene of the Crucifixion furnishes St John with
another opportunity of showing his intimate knowledge of
Roman military customs. A quaternion (rerpdStov Acts xii. 4)
of soldiers, as we learn from Vegetius and others*, was usually
employed as a watch on night duty, or for purpose of escort.
Now, it is noticeable that, when the other Evangelists speak
of the guard which attended at the Crucifixion, no number is
given. It is simply stated (Matt, xxvii. 35, Mark xv. 26,
Luke xxiii. 34), that the soldiers divided the Saviour's garments
among them. St John however gives the actual number. But
observe how incidentally the fact comes out. He makes no
mention of a quaternion: he merely says, 'Then the soldiers,
when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made
four parts, to every soldier a part.' The information is not
paraded in any way ; it is involved in the narrative. One more

1 On the other hand, though ' the the chief priests (Matt. xxvi. 5) as evi-
band ' is mentioned by the Synoptists dence to these disturbances.

(Matt, xxvii. 27, Mark xv. 16) at a 3 Acts xxi. 31 sq, where again the

later stage in the proceedings, the same technical terms are used with

definite article, as used in the Fourth the definite article av^tj 0d<rts T$ xiXi-

Evangelist, is more decisive. &PXV r W o""""/"?* K.T.\. This account,

2 When Cumanus was procurator, like that in the Fourth Gospel, is pro-
the insolent conduct of a Eoman bably the narrative of an eye-witness,
soldier at the Passover resulted in a 4 De singulis centuriis quaterni equi-
riot (B. J. I.e., cf. Ant. xx. 5. 3) in tes et quaterni pedites excubitum
which ten thousand (B. J. I.e., twenty noctibus faciunt, Vegetius de re mili-
thousand Ant. I.e.) Jews perished. tari iii. 8 ; cf. Philo in Flacc. 13, n. p.
For the disturbances at the great 533 ffTparubr^v nvb. TWV iv rots rerpadLois
festivals see B. J. i. 4. 3. Whiston <f>v\a.K<av KO.& 656v evpwv, Polyb. vi. 33
instances the cautious procedure of 7-6 0uXcucei6' <TTII> K rerrdptav dvdpuv.

L. E. 11

162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

instance, and I leave this part of the subject. ' The Jews,' we
read, 'besought Pilate that their legs might be broken... Then
came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the
other which was crucified with Him (xix. 31, 32).' This again
is a detail added by St John, which a forger would not have
cared to risk. For crurifragium formed no part of a cruci-
fixion. It was a separate punishment 1 , to which slaves could be
subjected at the caprice of their masters, and it was abolished
together with crucifixion at the command of Constantine
(Lipsius de Grace in. 14). But there is some reason to suppose
that it was used to hasten death in the case of Jewish criminals
(Lactant. Inst. iv. 26), in order that the ends of justice might not
be defeated by the Mosaic enactment which required the bodies to
be taken down on the day of execution (Deut. xxi. 23 quoted
by Tertull. adv. Judaeos 10).

(ii) The writers acquaintance with Jewish Institutions.

1. The High-Priesthood.

The relative positions of Annas and Caiaphas at the time of
the Crucifixion have been a source of some perplexity. Annas
the high-priest had been deposed by Gratus the predecessor of
Pilate, and after intermediate appointments Gratus had nomi-
nated Caiaphas to the office. The date of Caiaphas' succession
is probably A.D. 25, one year before Pilate became procurator,
and he was deposed apparently about the passover of A.D. 37 ;
whereupon there followed a series of changes, as many as seven
high-priests holding office in the next ten years. These facts
we learn from a comparison of certain passages in Josephus
(esp. Ant. xviii. 2. 2 compared with xviii. 4. 3). Thus at the
time of our Lord's Passion Caiaphas was the actual high-priest,
while Annas had been high-priest a few years before. Turning
now to the New Testament, we find a certain vagueness in the
description of the two by the Synoptists, a vagueness due partly

1 See Plaut. Asinar. ii. 4. 68, Paen. Aug. 67, Tib. 44, passages quoted with
iv. 2. 64, Sen. de Ira iii. 32 ; Suet. others by Lipsius de Cruce n. 14.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 163

to the wide use of the word dpxiepevs, but not altogether
explained thereby. Thus, in his Gospel St Luke dates the first
year of our Lord's ministry eVl dp^cepeco^ " A.VVCL /cal Kaidcfra
(Luke iii. 2), but in the Acts he mentions as present at the
meeting of the Sanhedrin shortly after the day of Pentecost
"Az/i/a? o dp%{,ep6v<; /cal Kata^a? (Acts iv. 6). He would seem
therefore either to have consulted documents which did not
recognise the validity of Caiaphas' appointment, or to have had
himself no very clear conception of the relative positions of the
two. The account in the Fourth Gospel is much more precise.
St John is aware that Caiaphas is the high-priest (xi. 49, xviii.
13, 24), but he assigns an important position to Annas also,
whom in some sense he recognises likewise as dpxiepevs (xviii.
15, 16, 19, 22) 1 . On these facts we may remark, first that this
unguarded, and to us unintelligible, way of speaking betokens
a genuine author, who does not feel the necessity of explaining
what to himself is a familiar fact. As was natural with one
who was ' known unto the high-priest ' (7^0x7x0? rw dp^epel
xviii. 15, 16), he evidently has a very clear conception of the
relation of the two persons, though he has not definitely put it
on paper. Secondly, so far as we are able to test the accuracy
of his facts, they satisfy the test, i.e. Caiaphas is the actual high-
priest. Thirdly, his account serves as a connecting link between
scattered and apparently divergent notices in the New Testa-
ment 2 . Yet this episode about Annas in the history of the
Passion is peculiar to St John 3 .

The use of o dpftiepevs as applied to two different persons in
St John is admirably illustrated by a passage in Josephus
(Ant. xx. 9. 2). The high-priest Ananias (the Ananias of the
Acts) has been deposed, and Ishmael the son of Phabi has
succeeded (Ant. xx. 8. 8). Ishmael again has been set aside,
and his place given to Joseph, surnamed Kabi (xx. 8. 11).

1 The A. V. has taken unwarrantable - e.g. Matt. xxvi. 3, 57 compared
liberties with dtr^ffreiXev iu xviii. 24. with Acts iv. 6.

It should be * sent him ' not ' had sent 3 Keim's attempt (in. p. 322) to set

him.' The events are related in strict this episode of Annas aside is quite
chronological order. futile.

112

164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Shortly after, Joseph is deposed, and the office conferred upon
the younger Annas or Ananus, son of the Annas of the Gospels
(xx. 9. 1). A period of three months however witnesses the
fall of Ananus, and Jesus (Joshua) the son of Damnseus is
appointed (ib.). In spite of this, however, after these four
changes in the high-priestly office, when Ananias reappears
upon the scene, he is still called ' the high-priest ' (o dp^epevs
xx. 9. 2), and this title is applied to him, even as late as the
breaking out of the Judaic war (B. J. ii. 17. 6, 9), though in the
meantime there has been a fifth change 1 in the actual holder of
the high-priesthood. And this is not all. Ananias is desig-
nated 'the high-priest' in describing his dealings with the
actual high-priest even in the same sentence (Ant. xx. 9. 2
o Se dp%i,6pv<; 'Avavias Kaff e/cdo-rrjv K.T.\. r)v yap

/cad' rj/juepav <yovv rbv ' 'A\ftivov ical rov d
eOepdnrevev}. This is at least as great an intermingling
of the use as in John xviii.; and is exactly of the same kind 2 .
Again, the passage in Josephus gives an example of the employ-
ment of the plural (OL re dp^iepels o/xota /e.r.A,.), a sufficiently
striking phenomenon. All this is perfectly natural in Josephus,
a contemporary and eye-witness, perfectly natural also in the
Fourth Evangelist, supposing him to be a contemporary and
eye-witness; but incredible in a forger, who could not have
failed to betray himself by some slip when treading upon such
delicate ground. Lastly, the prominence assigned by Josephus
to Ananias is a parallel to the case of Annas in the Gospel
and the Acts. If we had only a chapter or two of Josephus
detached from the sequence of the narrative, and read of
' Ananias the high-priest,' we should certainly suppose him to
have been the actual holder of the office at the time. It is
conceivable that some such mistaken inference has resulted in

1 Jesus the son of Gamaliel ap- may be considered doubtful. On the
pointed in place of Jesus the son of other hand Mr Sanday (p. 245) con-
Damnaeus (Ant. xx. 9. 4). siders the title to apply to Caiaphas

2 It is evident that the references in throughout, a view which compels him
vv. 13, 24 are to Caiaphas, those in to regard the aorist drArTetXe? in v. 24
vv. 19, 22 to Annas, while vv. 15, 16 as a pluperfect.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 165

the expression 'Annas the high-priest and Caiaphas' in Acts
iv. 6. Indeed it is quite possible that St Luke himself did not
know the precise facts, but had copied an authentic document,
in which an especially leading part had been assigned to
Annas 1 .

2. The Jewish Festivals.

We cannot fail to notice the large place which religious
festivals occupy in this Gospel. They are much more promi-
nent than in the Synoptic narrative. The main incidents are
connected with them, and this applies not merely to the
Passover, but to the other feasts likewise.

(a) The Feast of Tabernacles is described in John vii. It
is introduced by a remarkable expression (rjv 8e eyyvs $ eoprrj
TWV 'lov&aicov T] o-KTjvoTT'rjyia v. 2). 'The feast of the Jews'
was not in itself an unnatural way of designating the Feast of
Tabernacles. For it was called by the rabbis 3H 'the festival
par excellence*,' and Josephus (Ant viii. 4. 1) speaks of it as
'a feast of the utmost sanctity and importance among the
Hebrews ' (eoprrjs <r<f)68pa irapa rot? 'T&ftpaiois ayiwTdrijs /ecu

1 For the popular idea that the high- woman, on which see above, p. 35 ;

priest had a sort of inspiration (John (4) ii. 6, the purificatory rites on which

xi. 51 ' And this spake he not of him- see Lightfoot, ad loc. ; (5) marriage

self, but being high-priest that year he customs, especially * the friend of the

prophesied') comp. Josephus .B.J. iii. 8. bridegroom' (iii. 29), a metaphor in-

3 Tcepl Kpifffis oveipuv lKav6s...avr6$ (5v stinct with meaning, but it is only

iepevs, and Philo de Great. Princ. 8 (n. when we enter into the Jewish practice

p. 367) 6 Trpos d\r)6eiav iepevs el/Otis that this meaning comes out ; (6)

<TTI irpo<priTrjs, the gift however being funeral ceremonies, especially the form

in both passages extended to the of the grave (xi. 38, 41), and the mode

priesthood generally. Other minor of burial (xii. 7, xix. 39, 40, xx. 1, 5,

references which show St John's ac- 7, 11), on which last point compare

quaintance with Jewish rites and cus- Tacitus Ann. xvi. 6, where we read of

toms are (1) viii. 17, the necessity for Poppaea, a Jewish proselyte, ' corpus

two witnesses (cf. Deut. xvii. 6, xix. non igni abolitum, ut Eomanus mos ;

15, Matt, xviii. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 1, Heb. sed regum externorum consuetudine

x. 28, 1 John v. 7 sq) ; (2) viii. 44, the differtum odoribus conditur.' Most of

allusion to Cain (cf. 1 John iii. 12) : these passages are well illustrated from

the argument appealed to certain ideas rabbinical sources in Lightfoot's Horae

prominent at the time which would Hebraicae.

not have occurred to any writer of a 2 See Smith's Dictionary of the

later date ; (3) iv. 27, talking with a Bible, s. v.

166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

It was sufficiently prominent to attract the notice
of the heathen, as Plutarch (Symp. iv. 6, Op. Mor. p. 671 sq.),
who regards it as a sort of Dionysiac festival. Still, if the
words 77 eoprrj T&V J lov8alo>v alone had been used, the Passover
would probably have been meant. Hence the words 77 cnc^vo-
irrjyia are added. A little later on (v. 37) St John speaks of
the 'last, the great day of the feast' (ev rfj ea-^drrj rj^epa ry
fjLeya\rj TT}? eoprrf^), language which may mean either the
last of the seven days, i.e. strictly speaking the last of the
feast, or the eighth day, the holy convocation, which followed
upon the seven. There seems however to have been no special
sanctity about the seventh day 1 . The first was apparently
much more important than the seventh. On the other hand it
is urged that the eighth day did not properly belong to the
feast, which lasted only seven days. But though the feast is
sometimes spoken of as a seven days' feast, and the eighth day
is not regarded (Deut. xvi. 13 sq., Ezek. xlv. 25), yet elsewhere
the eighth day is reckoned as part of the feast, and a special
prominence attached to it. This is the case in Numb. xxix. 35,
in Neh. viii. 18, in 2 Mace. x. 6 8 , in Philo and Josephus 3 and in
Jewish writers generally 4 . I need not dwell upon the fact,
to which attention has been frequently drawn, that on this
occasion our Lord bases His discourse (vii. 37 sq., viii. 12 sq.)
upon the two most prominent features in the ceremonial of the
day, the pouring out of the water of Siloam upon the altar, and
the illumination of the city by flaming torches lighted in the
Temple area 5 . It will be sufficient to notice, first, that as in

1 Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. xvi. p. 327, 6/crtb coprV ofyoiras, Jos. Ant. iii. 10.
gives a certain prominence to it in his 4, and so a little lower down avievrai
description of the modern Jewish ce- de diro TroLvrbs tpyov Kara TT\V 6yd6r)v
lebrations of the tabernacles : see too -rj/utpav.

Groddeke in Ugol. xvm. p. 534. 4 Succah iv. 4 (hymnus et gaudium

2 fter' elxppoffvvTjs yyov T)/jipas 6KT& octo dies), iv. 9 (onines octo dies), v. 6
ffK^vwfj-drwv Tp6irov, 2 Mace. x. 6. (octavo die redibant ad sortes) ; cf.

3 eTTTo, de ^/ifycus 675677*' eTri<r<ppayl- Gem. Hieros. in Ugol. xvm. p. 492.
eTcu, /caA^<ras e65toi/ avT-fjv, OVK eKdvrjs 5 On the ceremonies of the eighth
cos eoiice V.QVQV rrjs eop-njj d\Xa iraffdv day seeesp. J&vf&ld. Alterth. p. 404. The
T&I> eTT]<rlwi> 6<ras Karri pi6fj,-ri<Tafji.e)>, Philo people broke up their tents and re-
Septen. 24, p. 298 M. ; <?<' wepas paired to the Temple. As the dwelling

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 167

our Lord's discourse, so in the ceremonial itself, the lighting of
the lamps followed the pouring out of the water, and was
intimately connected therewith ; secondly, that it took place in
the court of the women where the treasury (<yao<j>v\dKiov)
stood 1 , and where our Lord was speaking at the time (viii. 20).
Thus He would be able to point to the candelabra. Thirdly,
it is worthy of remark that Philo also incidentally connects the
same two images with the Feast of Tabernacles 2 .

(b) The Feast of Dedication. This festival (TO, ey/caivta) is
mentioned by St John alone, and it is remarkable how thorough
and confident a knowledge of it is implied in his narrative.
Here, again, the mode in which it is introduced deserves notice,
'At that time the feast of dedication was held at Jerusalem 1
(x. 22 eyevero rare ra ey/catvia ev rot? c Iepo<7oXi'/Aot?). There
is no mention made, as in the case of other feasts (e.g. ii. 13,
iv. 45, v. 1, vii. 8), of going up to Jerusalem. For the ey/calvia,
unlike the Passover, Tabernacles and Pentecost, might be
celebrated anywhere (see Lightfoot ad loc.). 'It was winter,'
we are told. Now the festival was held to commemorate the
purification and dedication of the altar and temple after pollu-
tion by Antiochus Epiphanes B.C. 167. This event and the
institution of the annual festival are described in 1 Mace. iv.
36 sq., where Judas Maccabseus directs that the commemoration
should take place 'from year to year by the space of eight days,
from the five and twentieth day of the month Chisleu (v. 59).'
Now the month Chisleu falls in November and December,
coinciding more nearly with December, and the Jewish winter
is reckoned to commence on the fifteenth of Chisleu. Hence
the notice of the season of the year in St John is strictly
accurate. Yet it is introduced quite incidentally, apparently to

in tents symbolized the wilderness life, 2 77 /JLV yap diKaiocrvi>i]s f<rriv 77 d

itself a deliverance from bondage, so ddiKias o.px~n Te ^al TT 77777, /ecu 77 fj.tv

the eighth day would be taken to da-Ktov 0wT6$, 77 5e o-/c6rous ffvyyevr/s,

signify the end of their wanderings Philo Septen. 24, not as read in the

when they settled in the land of ordinary texts, but as given in Tisch.

promise. Philonea.
1 See below, p. 169.

168 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

explain the fact that Jesus was not teaching in the open air
but under cover. 'It was winter, and Jesus was walking in
the Temple in Solomon's porch.'

(c) The Feast of the Passover. Graphic touches which
illustrate St John's acquaintance with the details of this feast
are his references to the paschal victim (xix. 36), to the danger
of ceremonial pollution (xviii. 28), and to the Preparation
(Trapao-Kevr) xix. 14, 31, 42), a term which he employs in
common with the Synoptists (Matt, xxvii. 62, Mark xv. 42,
Luke xxiii. 54), but, unlike St Matthew, uses twice without the
article, and in one case defines more accurately by the addition
of the words rov Trdcr^a (xix. 14), implying that the term was
not restricted to the Passover 1 . Lastly, the parenthetical
remark on xix. 31, 'For the day of that sabbath was a high
day ' (TJV ryap /JLeyaXfj 77 r)/j,epa etcelvov rov <7a/3/3rou) points to
the special sanctity of the day as a double sabbath, the sabbath
alike of the week and of the festival, hebdomadal as well as
Paschal.

(iii) The Topography of Jerusalem.

From this review of the festivals we pass on to consider the
localities mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, merely premising
that the complete destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and
Hadrian would have gone far to obliterate traces of the actual
sites, and would thus have rendered the work of a subsequent
forger more than usually exposed to danger of errors.

(a) The Temple. We start with the Temple. Observe the
familiarity with which the Evangelist moves about among the
sacred precincts. He mentions the Porch of Solomon, ' the east
portico,' as Josephus describes it to us (Ant. xx. 9. 7), ' on the
outer part of the Temple, lying in a deep valley with walls four
hundred cubits (long), built of square and very white stones'
of enormous size. It was the work of Solomon, and was left

1 This was apparently the case (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mark xv. 42).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 169

untouched in Herod's restoration 1 . A covered portico of so
vast an extent was doubtless a favourite place of resort and
shelter in winter time, to which its eastern aspect, catching the
warmth of the morning sun, would not be a disadvantage, and
thus it was a natural scene for our Lord's teaching. Another
spot where our Lord is stated to have taught is the treasury,
the ya&^vXd/ciov (viii. 20). This word St John employs in
common with the Synoptists (Mark xii. 41 sq., Luke xxi. 1), but
with characteristic exactness, he gives us additional information.
The other Evangelists merely speak of casting money ' into the
treasury,' confining the term apparently to the corban-chests,
and this is probably the use in Josephus also, when he says
(Ant. xix. 6. 1) that Herod Agrippa hung up a certain golden
chain which Caligula had given him ' within the temple-
precincts over the treasury (vTrep rov <yao<f>v\a,KLOvy St John
however shows that the expression was extended to embrace
the chamber in which the chests were placed. This chamber
was situated in the outer front of the Temple in the court of
the women. Thus it would be a frequented spot, since women
could penetrate no further, and St Luke (I. c.) calls special
attention to the crowd of people which passed to and fro (eOewpei
7TW9 o 0^X09 j3'i\\i, ^a\icov els TO ya^o^vXd/CLOv). How
natural to take advantage of this concourse, and how significant
the addition 'and no man laid hands on him (viii. 20),' when
we recollect that the Sanhedrin held its meetings 2 hard by
between the court of the women and the inner court, within a
stone's throw of the speaker.

(6) The Watercourses of Jerusalem.

(1) Bethesda, Bethsaida, or Bethzatha (v. 2). The Evan-
gelist describes this as 'a pool near the sheep (gate) 3 ' (eV^ 777

The ' sheep gate ' is mentioned more

1 Herod's restoration of the Temple included in it.

was so complete, that it is unlikely 2 In a hall called Gazzith (Light-

that in the second century a distinc- foot, i. p. 2005).

tion would have been preserved be- 3 A.V. ' sheep market.'
tween what was, and what waa not,

170 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

than once by Nehemiah (iii. 1, 32, xii. 39 f) TTV\T} 77
TrpoffaTitcr}), but it is difficult to fix its exact position. It
was this uncertainty of locality, doubtless which led to the
omission of the words eVt rf) 7rpo/3aTi/cf) in the Curetonian and
Peschito Syriac, and to the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus eV
rot? 'lepoo-oXvpois TrpoftariKr) Ko\vfjL(3rj6pa, which understands
the two descriptions as defining one and the same spot.
However it is clear that others also, besides the scribe of tf,
explained TrpofBarucr) as an adjective describing /co\v/jLj3r)0pa.
Thus Eusebius in his Onomasticon makes the following state-
ment : ^r)%a0a KO\vp0rf0pa ev 'lepovcrdXri/j,, ^rt? e&rlv rj jrpo-
/3ari,Ki] *, and goes on to derive the name from the animal
sacrifices which used to take place there (-Trap 1 b KOI TrpoftaTiKr}
KaXelrai SLO, ra Ov/juara). And this interpretation may have
produced the reading which we find in K. It is possible how-
ever, that Eusebius may have got hold of the rabbinical word
ITlKtDl'TS or K'MVlfi (Buxtorf p. 1796), which seems to mean
' a bath/ unless indeed this word has come from 7rpo(3a,Ti,KT], the
bath as well as the gate bearing the name. But it does not
follow that Eusebius and the Bordeaux Pilgrims were right in
their locality. Where then must we place the pool 1 The
question would be answered if we could fix the position of the
' sheep gate/ This however is only roughly possible. From the
notices in Nehemiah we draw the conclusion that the gate was
situated somewhere near the Temple, on the east side of the
city. The traditional site identifies it with St Stephen's gate,
north of the Temple area, but there is no sufficient ground for

1 He proceeds rb ira\aibv irtvrf. <rroas to which Eusebius draws attention is

fyovtra. KQ.I vvv deiKwrai tv rats avrbdi mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrims

\t[jivai.s Sidtf/iois, <Zv eKartpa. e/c T&V /car' in their description : Interius vero

ros ver&v wX^povrai, dartpa de irapa- civitatis sunt piscinae gemellares, quin-

56|ws TreQou'ly/j.froi' delKwat rb i/5wp, que porticus habentes, quae appellan-

txvos, ws 0ao-t, <t>tpov<ra T&V irdXai tur Betsaida. Ibi aegri multorum

Ka6aipo/j,{}>uv 4v avrfj iepelw. Jerome, annorum sanabantur : aquam autem

knowing the locality better, says quae habent eae piscinae in modum coccini

vocabatur irpofiaTucfi, Hier. de situ et turbatam, quoted by Wesseling, Itine-

n&m. (op. m. p. 182 ed. Vallarsi). raria (1735), p. 589.
The curious red colour of the waters

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS - 3. 171

this ; and Robinson's conjecture (i. p. 342) that Bethesda is the
intermittent spring in the Upper Pool known as the * Fountain
of the Virgin 1 ' at all events accords with the uninterpolated 2
account of St John, which implies nothing miraculous in the
water itself, but describes what was evidently an intermittent
and medicinal, perhaps (from the allusions quoted above to the
redness of the water) a chalybeate spring. However we need
not pursue the enquiry further. Enough has been said to show
that from early times much uncertainty was felt as to the
actual site. What forger then would have ventured to intro-
duce, or if he introduced, to localise, so obscure and contested a
spot ? Who but one thoroughly familiar with the scene would
have been content to describe the position by so elliptical and
ambiguous a phrase as eVt rfj TrpoftaTircf), employing an ad-
jective without a qualifying noun, a phrase which, as we have
seen, has been interpreted to mean 'sheep market,' 'sheep gate/
' sheep pool ' ? The naturalness of this vague allusion is the
best guarantee for the authenticity of the narrative.

(2) Siloam (ix. 7). Attention has been drawn already 3 to
the derivation of this word, and the symbolical use which
St John makes of this derivation. The topographical question
however requires a separate treatment. Fortunately the situa-
tion, unlike that of Bethesda, can hardly be considered doubtful.
Siloam is frequently mentioned and described by Josephus, and
the tradition of its position is tolerably continuous. It bears
the same name now, Silwdn, as in our Lord's time. It lies
at the mouth of the Tyropceon valley, close to its junction with
the valley of Hinnom, and is fed by a stream issuing somewhere
from the heart of the rocks of Jerusalem. Its proximity to
Jerusalem is evidenced by the well-attested tradition that water
was brought from it for the libations customary at the Feast of
Tabernacles, and by the name which it gave to one of the gates

1 It was connected by an under- omit the words e*5ex/^ I/WJ '-
ground passage with the pool of Si- (vv. 3, 4), which are found in the
loam. Textus Receptus.

2 Textual criticism compels us to 3 See above, pp. 141, 150.

172 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of Jerusalem, ' the water gate.' It was both a fountain and a
pool. The fountain (Trrjyrj) is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. v.
12. 2), the pool or tank by Neherniah (iii. 15, riDIl) and St John
(Ko\v/jL/3rj0pa) 1 . The derivation of the name, which means an
' aqueduct ' or ' conduit ' (from H/fc^ to send) seems to imply
that the Siloah properly so-called was not the pool, but the
stream which feeds it or which flows from it. The points on
which the Evangelist incidentally displays his exact knowledge
are two : first, he apparently places the pool near the Temple,
for it is improbable that a blind man would be sent on a long
journey ; secondly, he is aware of, and draws a lesson from, the
Hebrew meaning of the name, in which he sees a spiritual
significance. Long ago these very waters had been invested by
Isaiah (viii. 6) with a symbolical interpretation. The contrast
between the ' waters of Shiloah that go softly ' and the * waters
of the River (i.e. the Euphrates), strong and many ' typified the
contrast between Judah and Assyria, between the quiet dwelling
in Jerusalem under Jehovah and the overwhelming of a foreign
conquest. This idea of an indigenous stream, the possession of
the favoured people, ' the river, the streams whereof shall make
glad the city of God ' (Ps. xlvi. 4 ; cf. Isaiah xxxiii. 21), bespoke
the Messianic hope. It foretold the stream of running
life-giving waters, which should issue from the temple-rock,
and revive the nations. It recalled and renewed the type of
the waters flowing from the rock smitten by Moses, which rock
was understood by St Paul to be the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4).
Thus St John seizes upon the current thought, and extends its
application. The Healer who sends the blind man is Himself
'the sent 2 .'

(3) Gedron (xviii. 1). This is undoubtedly the Kidron of

1 Isaiah (viii. 6) has simply rPfc^n *& OLTTO rov deov Trarpos avrov direa-raX^vos;
(LXX TO tidup roO SiXwdyw). Haer. xxxv. 3. So the ps. -Basil on

2 Epiphanius rightly connects the Isaiah viii. 6, ris ofo 6 dTrearaX^^os
two passages. After quoting Isaiah viii. /cat d^o^ri ptuv 17 irepl ov dprjTai o
6, he continues vdup yap SiXwd/t Ian Ktpios airtffreiXtv /*e; Basil, op. i. p.

di5a<TKa\la rov aircffTaXptvov ' rLs 5' ov 536 A.
eirj OUTOS dXX' r\ 6 Ktfpios yfA&v 'Irjffovs, 6

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 173

the Old Testament (2 Sam. xv. 23 etc.), and is mentioned by
St John alone of the Evangelists. The common text runs irepav
rov xei/jidppov rwv Ke&pcov (' the torrent of the Cedars '), and the
passage has a peculiar interest because it has furnished the text
for an elaborate attack upon the personality of the Evangelist.
Baur and Hilgenfeld after him (see Ewald Jahrbuch, vi. p. 118)
have pointed triumphantly to the undoubted fact that KeSpwv is
the Hebrew word pTlp 'dark,' so called probably from its turbid
stream 1 , and have proceeded to argue that the Evangelist in his
ignorance has imagined it to be the genitive plural of /ceSpos
' a cedar.' The writer therefore, they conclude, cannot have
been the Apostle St John, who, as a Jew, must have been
aware of the true derivation of the name.

Before admitting this conclusion, let us look the facts
fairly in the face. In Josephus the form KeSpwv occurs fre-
quently (B. J. v. 2. 3, v. 6. 1, v. 12. 2 ; Ant. vii. 1. 5, viii. 1. 5,
ix. 7. 3) used as a declinable noun. This is quite after Jose-
phus' manner in dealing with Hebrew substantives. In the
LXX the expression o %ifjLdppov<; TLe&pwv is employed with-
out an article, e.g. 2 Sam. xv. 23 (its second occurrence in
this verse); 2 Kings xxiii. 6, 12; 2 Chron. xv. 16, xxix. 16,
xxx. 14; Jer. xxxi. 40. But in two passages it is found with
the plural article 2 Sam. xv. 23 (on the first occurrence), and
1 Kings xv. 13 eV TGO ^ei/iappa) r&v Kefy>o>i/. This is the
reading of AB in both passages. Now it is quite clear that
the LXX translators did not mistake the meaning of the word.
Otherwise they could not have written, as they generally do,
6 'xei^appov^ Keopw, a solecism on this supposition; but we
should have had in every case o xeipappovs r&v KeSp&v.
Therefore either there is a corruption in the best manuscripts
of the LXX, or 6 ^ei^appov^ rtov KeSpcov was considered
a legitimate Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase * the
brook Kidron.' Turning now to the passage in St John, we
find that there is great uncertainty as to the actual reading,
authorities varying between r&v KeSpwv, rov KeSpou and rov
1 Compare Ps. cxx. 5 ' the tents of Kedar ' i.e. the dark-skinned folk.

174 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

1 , and that the preponderance of evidence is either for
rwv Ke&pcov or rov KeSpov. But the necessity for making a
selection suggests another view. What then is the probability ?
I believe the true account to be that the original reading was
rov KeSpwv; and this for two reasons. First, it is the inter-
mediate reading, the reading which explains the other two,
whereas neither of the other two will explain either this or
the other 2 . Secondly, it is much more probable that rov
Keopwv would be changed into r&v Ke&pcov and rov Ke&pov,
than conversely. Indeed the converse change in either case is
hardly conceivable, the tendency being to assimilate termina-
tions. And unless rwv KeSpwv be a legitimate rendering of
'the brook Kidron,' the corruption has taken place, and has still
more completely obliterated the original reading, in the LXX.
This solution was adopted by Griesbach and Lachmann, and
recommends itself to Renan, Meyer and San day. Tregelles gives
it as an alternative. On the other hand Tischendorf reads rov
Ke'Spou.

But suppose r&v KeSpcov is after all, as Westcott considers,
the right reading, what then ? The Septuagint shows that it
was held to be an adequate rendering of the Hebrew |*nip 7PIJ.
We must suppose therefore that is was the equivalent familiar
to Greek ears, and that St John writing to Greeks would not
hesitate to employ it. In confirmation of this view we may
notice the general tendency to assimilate Hebrew terminations
to Greek forms, which has coined the Greek plural o-dft/3ara
out of the Hebrew noun JIJl!}^ as though a-apftarov. As
Ke&pcw was only used with xeipappovs, the change to the
genitive would be natural 3 . Again, the temptation to extract

1 BCL, with the bulk of the Greek 2 A good instance of the application

manuscripts and the Gothic Version, of this test is the celebrated passage

have TUV Kedpuv ; ND ab the Sahidic 1 Tim. iii. 16, where 6s is to be pre-

and the ^Ethiopia have TOV icedpov ; ferred as accounting for both the vari-

AAS, the Vulgate and certain manu- ants 6e6s and 6'.

scripts (c, (e) f, g) of the Old Latin, 3 In Ps. Ixxxii. 10 XAB read ev

the Peschito and the Philoxenian ru x^appu K&ffwv (KHTCTW A) anar-

Syriac and the Armenian have TOV throus, but some inferior manuscripts

have TUV Kiacrwv.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 175

a Greek sense out of Hebrew names is exemplified in the
derivations given to Jerusalem and Essene 1 . If by an accident
there were any cedars in the valley, the adoption of this
Grecised form would be facilitated.

Bethany is mentioned by the Synoptists in connexion with
the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark xi. 1 , Luke xix. 29),
with our Lord's retirement during Holy Week (Matt. xxi. 17,
Mark xi. 11, 12), especially the feast at the house of Simon the
leper (Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3 ; cf. John xii. 1), and with the
Ascension (Luke xxiv. 50). It occurs in St John's narrative
likewise as the scene of the raising of Lazarus (John xi. 1, 18),
and he exhibits his acquaintance with the place in a charac-
teristic way by mentioning that it was distant fifteen furlongs
from Jerusalem (xi. 18, *Hy e TSrjQavia yyv9 rwv 'lepocroXu/itoi/
&><? OLTTO (rraSicov $Ka7TevT6 2 ). This statement exactly accords
with the account which a modern writer gives of its situation.
' We reached it in three-quarters of an hour from the Damascus
gate. This gives a distance of a little less than two Roman
miles from the eastern part of the city' (Robinson I. p. 431).

Gethsemane is not named in the Fourth Gospel, but this
does not prevent St John from adding to our stock of know-
ledge regarding the scene of the Agony, which he describes
more precisely than the Synoptists, calling it 'a garden'

1 Jos. B. J. vi. 10. 1, 8ia TOVTO tense. The Evangelist sometimes uses
iepa.ffa.To r< 0e< irpwros KO.I TO lepov the imperfect (xviii. 1, xix. 41, 42),

5etduej>os ' Iepoff6\v/j.a Trjv ir6\iv sometimes the present (v. 2), occasion-

, ~Z6\vfj.a Ka\ovfj.fvrjv irpoTt- ally both tenses together (iv. 6, 9).

pov, Philo quod omn. prob. 12, n. p. 457 Similarly St Luke uses the imperfect

'E<rffaioi...dia\^KTov e\\-rjviKr)s irapwvv- (Luke iv. 29), and we may compare

/ioi 6<noTT)Tos ; cf. 12, p. 459, and' Kinglake's Crimea in. pp. 38, 117, 118,

fragm. n. p. 632 (ed. Mangey). The 122, 286, which is unquestionably the

same tendency is to be seen in English narrative of one who was an eye-

in the forms Charterhouse, Barmouth witness of the events he relates, and

etc. who writes not half a century later,

2 No inference can be drawn as to but within a very few years of the
the date of the composition of the occurrences.

Gospel from the use of the imperfect

176 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

xviii. 1) instead of simply 'an enclosure' (xpypiov Matt. xxvi. 36,
Mark xiv. 32), and defining its position as 'over the brook
Cedron.' Can we wonder if the events of that evening were
burnt into the memory of the beloved disciple in letters of fire ?
Again, he alone of the Evangelists informs us that the
Crucifixion took place outside the city-walls (xix. 20). This
statement is thrown out quite naturally, and no point is made
of it, but it is borne out by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (xiii. 11 sq.), who sees in it a deep moral lesson.
And no one denies that this Epistle was written at some time
or other in the first century after Christ.

(iv) The Topography of Palestine generally.

As far therefore as knowledge of the locality of the Holy
City is concerned, our author has ably stood the test applied
to him. Let us now take a wider sweep and investigate his
acquaintance with the geography of Palestine at large.

(a) Galilee. As is well known, the Fourth Evangelist
directs his attention chiefly to our Lord's ministry in Jeru-
salem. We do not therefore expect him to give us many fresh
details about the topography of Galilee. However he mentions
Cana in Galilee 1 (ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), and he gives a new
designation to the Lake of Gennesareth, which he calls 'the
sea of Tiberias 2 ' (vi. 1, xxi. 1). Again, in describing the events
which clustered round the Feeding of the Five Thousand, his
varying use of Trepav ' on the other side/ now for the west,
now again for the east shore of the lake, bespeaks the eye-

1 Cana is named several times by is more closely allied to the represen-

Josephus (Vit. 16, B. J. i. 17. 5, Ant. tative in the Curetonian and Peschito

xiii. 15. 1), but the references do not Katna, though the t is not represented.
throw much light on its position. 2 The city of Tiberias also occurs

The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, (vi. 23). As it was built by Herod

about four miles north-east of Naza- Antipas (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 3, B. J. ii.

reth, and this identification is as old 9. 1), it could hardly have given its

as S. Willibald in the eighth cen- name to the lake as early as the date

tury. Robinson however prefers a of our Lord's ministry. The designa-

village, Kana el-Jelil, some five miles tion however 'sea of Tiberias 'is found

further north, and the spelling of the in Josephus (B. J. iii. 3. 5), before St

name (with a Koph instead of a Caph) John wrote his Gospel.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 177

witness, who, as he records the miracle, fancies himself enacting
the scene once more, and speaks as if he were himself first here,
then there.

(b) Judcea.

(1) Ephraim. In xi. 54 St John describes our Lord's
retirement ' into the country near the desert, into a city called
Ephraim ' (771/9 rfjs epijfjiov, e/9 *E<pat//, Xeyo/Aevrjv TroXtv).
This ' desert of Judah ' seems to mean the broad mountain
pasture lands near Jerusalem, which were sparsely inhabited,
for in the Gospel narrative 'the desert' (17 6/377^09) is generally
associated with ' the mountain district ' (TO 0/909). This city
Ephraim (or Ephrem) is noticed here only in the New Testa-
ment. But it is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. iv. 9. 9) in
connexion with the mountain district (rj bpeivr)) north of
Judaea, as a small fort (iro\i'xyiov) captured and garrisoned by
Vespasian when on his way westward to fight against Vitellius.
Josephus couples it with Bethel, and it is a coincidence that,
where it occurs in 2 Chron. xiii. 19, Bethel is named with it.
The two places were probably not far apart. Mr Robinson
(l. p. 447) identifies it with El-Tayibeh, some eight miles north
of Jerusalem. In the passage in the Chronicles referred to,
the Kthib has Ephron jIlBy, but the Qri Ephraim pSp,
perhaps a dual form like Mizraim, the Upper and Lower Egypt.
It is mentioned also in the Talmud (Neubauer p. 155). The
Ephraim of St John must not be confused with the wood of
Ephraim of 2 Sam. xviii. 6, or the Ephraim of 2 Sam. xiii. 23,
both of which are spelt with an Aleph like the patriarch
Ephraim ; or with the district called Apherema in 1 Mace. xi.
34. Mr Robinson (I. c.) identifies it with Ophrah PH^y of
Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 17, Josh, xviii. 23). This may or may
not be the case 1 The Qri of 2 Chron. 1. c. and the passage in

1 It is noticeable that in the Codex Ai'Ai'as J>s airb ffrjfjLelwv K ; cf. Hier.

Alexandrinus E(f>pcu[j. is the LXX ren- Op. ni. p. 203, who repeats the same

dering of the other Ophrah, the birth- statement. But if Mr Robinson's

place of Gideon, in Judges viii. 27, ix. 5. identification is correct, the Ephraim

Eus. Onom. s. v. says Kai ion K.O.I vvv of St John is the Aphra of Eus. Onom.

K^fjLT) 'E(j>pai[j. fjieyitTTT} vepl TO, 6pia 8. v.

L. E. 12

178 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Josephus are sufficient for my purpose. Whether the Qri be
the right reading or not, it shows that such a place existed just
in the region where, from St John's account, we should expect
it to be.

(2) Bethany (i. 28). This is certainly the correct reading
in this passage, and accordingly St John has been charged 1
with gross ignorance as not being aware that Bethany was near
Jerusalem. In the light of the accurate and minute acquaint-
ance with topography elsewhere displayed by the Apostle, such
an accusation is hardly worth the trouble of refutation.

We may however briefly reply, first, that the writer carefully
distinguished the two places, speaking of one as 'Bethany
beyond Jordan ' (i. 28), of the other as ' Bethany the town of
Mary and her sister Martha' (xi. 1); secondly, that he accu-
rately described the Bethany of chapter xi. as ' nigh unto
Jerusalem about fifteen furlongs off 2 '; thirdly, that if we assume
with most commentators the identification of Bethany beyond
Jordan with 'the place where John was at first baptizing'
(x. 40), our Lord is represented at the time as out of
Judsea (xi. 7, aya)fj,v e/9 rrjv 'lovbalav ira\iv\ as journeying
from the one Bethany to the other, a journey which occupies
three days (xi. 39, rerapralo^ yap <TTI), which takes Him into
Judaea once more (xi. 7, aywpev 6/9 rrjv 'lovSaiav 7rd\iv), and
into danger from a position of security (xi. 8). Personally I
prefer to keep these scenes of St John's baptism distinct, and
to place the Bethany of chapter i. somewhere in the Upper
Jordan 3 . It was probably an obscure place. ' In any case/ as
Mr Sanday truly says (p. 45), 'the distinction between two
places having the same name is a mark of local knowledge
which is unlike fiction 4 .'

(3) JEnon near to Salim (iii. 23). Here again we are

1 By Paulas and Bolten ; see Liicke 4 In Mark viii. 22 there is a well-
i. p. 394. supported variant Rr]6a.vi<u> for Bi;0-

2 See above, p. 175. <rou.av, which may contain some under-

3 This is the view of Dr Caspari, lying foundation of fact, pointing to a
quoted by Sanday, p. 45. Bethany in the north-east of Galilee.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 179

introduced by the Evangelist to fresh names. It is true that
in Joshua xv. 32 mention is made in the tribe of Judah of
J71 &rh& (Cod. A, 2eXe*/4, A.V. ' Shilhim and Ain ') ; but
neither name corresponds exactly to the notice in St John.
Moreover the places mentioned in the Old Testament lie in the
arid country south of Judaea (see Grove in Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible, s. v. Salim). The most probable site of the
Salim of the Fourth Gospel is that assigned to it by Eusebius
and Jerome near the Jordan, eight Roman miles south of
Scythopolis. In Jerome's time it was called Salimias. A
Salim has been discovered by Van de Velde (Memoir p. 345 sq.)
exactly in this position, six English miles south of Beisan
(Bethshan), and two miles west of Jordan. The name ^Enon
fully bears out St John's description of the place, ' there
was much water (7ro\\a vBara) there/ the plural noun indi-
cating ' many fountains ' or ' springs.' Evidently therefore
^Enon was not situated on the Jordan itself.

These last two notices are especially interesting as showing
how carefully the successive stages of John the Baptist's
preaching are brought out in the Fourth Gospel. We find
him first at the lower fords of Jericho ' beyond Jordan,' OTTOV
rjv 'laydvwrjs TO irpwrov ^airri^wv (x. 40; cf. Matt. iii. 1). We
meet with him next at Bethany (i. 28, A.V. ' Bethabara ')
'beyond Jordan,' probably at the upper fords. Lastly, his
headquarters are at ^Enon, near Salim (iii. 23). Thus we seem
able to trace his course northward, and the successive changes
of scene bear out what we gather from the more general
account with which St Luke supplies us. Though John's
native town is in the hill country of Judsea (Luke i. 39), yet
he is apprehended and put to death by Herod, the tetrarch of
Galilee (Luke iii. 19, 20), and therefore must, before his arrest,
have passed within Herod's jurisdiction. The minuteness of
detail which in the Fourth Gospel characterizes the episodes in
which John the Baptist takes part, becomes doubly significant
when we consider the great probability that John the Apostle
had been in his early days a disciple of the Baptist.

122

180 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

II.

THE WRITER WAS AN EYE-WITNESS OF THE EVENTS RECORDED.

In a striking passage in one of his works 1 Auguste Sabatier
draws attention to two characteristics of this Gospel which
run side by side : that though in its teaching it is the most
dogmatic, yet at the same time in its narrative it is the most
vivid of the Four Gospels. We are apt to forget this latter
point in the absorbing eagerness with which we fix our attention
upon the sublimity of the doctrines inculcated. Yet this vivid-
ness of description is the best guarantee for the conclusion that
the writer was not merely a Palestinian Jew, but an actual
eye-witness of the events which he records. We shall be
compelled to treat this part of our subject in a very cursory
and incomplete manner.

(i) The minuteness and exactness of detail which he exhibits.

Sometimes these minute notices stand more or less closely
in connexion with the progress of the story; sometimes they
are detached personal reminiscences which apparently struck
the writer at the time, and have dwelt in his memory since.
Such a reminiscence, introduced apropos of nothing, is the
incident recorded by St Mark (xiv. 51 sq.) of the young man
clad with the linen cloth, which has been generally interpreted
as an allusion to the history of the Evangelist himself. I shall
divide what I have to say on this subject under the following
heads : (1) Time, (2) Place, (3) Persons, (4) Incidents.

(1) Time. The chronology of our Lord's life can be
gathered from St John's Gospel alone. In the other Evange-
lists the incidents are often grouped together with little or no
reference to their chronology. This is especially the case with
St Luke, who, having neither been present himself at the events,
nor, like St Mark, especially attached to one who was himself

1 A. Sabatier, Essai sur Us sources de la vie de Jesus (1866), p. 34.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 181

present, is of the four the farthest removed from the position of
an eye-witness. The minute exactness of St John's chronology
shows itself most particularly in his record of the first (i. 29,
35, 43, ii. 1) and of the last week (xii. 1, 12 etc.) of the narrative,
but it is present throughout (iv. 40, 43, vi. 22, vii. 14, 37, x. 22,
xi. 6, 17). It arises in great measure from the part which he
himself has in the drama. It extends even to the hour of the
day (i. 39, iv. 6, 52, xix. 14), or, if not the hour, the time
approximately (iii. 2, vi. 16, xiii. 30, xviii. 28, xx. 19, xxi. 3, 4).

(2) Place. We have had occasion already to allude to the
increased definiteness to be observed in the Fourth Gospel in
this respect 1 . All the incidents are referred to their locality.
Compare this feature with the other Gospels, e.g. St Luke's
account of Martha and Mary, Luke x. 38, et<? /cojf^ijv TWO,, with
John xi. 1, CLTTO RrjOavias e/c Trjs /cwfjLTjs Ma/u'a? fcal MdpQa?
T?)? aeA</>77? avrrjs. It runs through the whole narrative, e.g.
vi. 59, eV avva<yayyr) BtBdo-fcwv iv Ka<f>apvaov/j,, viii. 20, eV TO>
rya%o<t>v\aicup, x. 22, eV rc5 iepq* ev rfj crroa TOV SoAo/u-cS^o?.
Notice the precision with which on two occasions the distance
of the boat from the shore is recorded, measured by the
practised eye of the fisherman, vi. 19, o>9 a-raSLovs eitcoat irevre rj
Tpid/covra, xxi. 8, ft>? djro TTIJX&V Statfocr/a>i>, and for his greater
chronological accuracy contrast the Fourth Evangelist with
St Luke in the scenes of St Peter's denial (xviii. 15 sq.),
remembering that the narrator is 'the other disciple who was
known unto the high-priest/ himself a spectator throughout
the terrible tragedy.

In all these details we recognise the hand of the personal
disciple, and it would be strange indeed if an author with such
opportunities did not produce more exact and precise results
than one who, like St Luke, was the disciple of one who was not
even himself a personal disciple.

(3) Persons. Sayings, instead of being left vaguely general,
are attributed to the speakers by name, e.g. i. 41, 45, 46

1 See above, p. 168 sq.

182 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(bis), 48, 49 of Andrew, Philip and Nathanael, vi. 7, 8 Andrew
and Philip, 68 Peter, xi. 16 Thomas, xii. 4 Judas Iscariot,
21 Andrew and Philip again, xiii. 8, 9 Peter, 24, 25 Peter and
John, 36, 37 Peter again, xiv. 8 Philip, 22 Judas not Iscariot,
xx. 25 sq. Thomas, xxi. 3 Peter, 7 Peter and John, 15 sq.,
20 sq. Peter. This exactness is more noticeable when we have
an opportunity of comparing the incidents with the Synoptic
records, as in the miracle of the feeding of the Five Thousand,
where the objection on the part of the disciples is left general
(Mark vi. 37 \e<yovai) instead of being placed in the mouth of
Philip (John vi. 7), or the feast at Bethany, where the loving
ministrations of Mary (John xii. 3) are vaguely assigned to
' a woman ' (Matt. xxvi. 7, Mark xiv. 3 yvwr)), and where the
expressed discontent of Judas (John xii. 4) is robbed of half its
force by being generalised (Matt. xxvi. 8 ol paOifrai, Mark xiv.
4 rives). Or again take the scene of the betrayal, where a
flood of light is thrown upon that part of the drama when we
learn from St John that it was St Peter (John xviii. 10) who
with characteristic impulsiveness drew his sword in his Master's
defence 1 .

(4) Incidents. The Fourth Evangelist acquaints us with
a number of details, which, though in some cases unimportant
in themselves, add greatly to the life-like character of his
portraiture of events. The six waterpots of water containing
two or three firkins apiece (ii. 6), the thirty and eight years
during which the man lying at the pool of Bethesda had been
afflicted (v. 5), the bag in which our Lord and His disciples
kept their common fund (xii. 6), the sop given to Judas
(xiii. 26), the three languages of the title on the cross (xix. 20) 2 ,
the four parts into which the tunic (XITMV) and the cloak
(Ifjuana) were divided (xix. 23), the water and the blood which
issued from the Saviour's side (xix. 34), the weight of the

1 The Synoptists are perhaps de- avrwv). The name of the servant

signedly vague (Matt. xxvi. 51, e?s Malchus is also given by St John.

rdv fj.era 'I-rjcrov, Mark xiv. 47, eis TU>V 2 The corresponding notice in St

, Luke xxii. 50, efs rts 4% Luke xxiii. 38 is an interpolation.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 183

myrrh and aloes used for the embalming (xix. 39), the
orderly folding of the napkin which had been about
His head (xx. 7), and, in the last chapter, the side of the
ship on which the net was to be thrown (xxi. 6) and the
number of the fish which were drawn up (xxi. 11) all these
are instances of the miniature painting which is noticeable in
this Gospel. What is the inference from all this? Minuteness
is not in itself an evidence of authenticity. But taken in
conjunction with the other arguments which have been adduced,
this fact is important, pointing as it does to an author who,
as he wrote, had all the scenes clearly and vividly before his
eyes.

(ii) The naturalness of the record.

This is exhibited in two ways, (1) by the development of
the characters depicted, and (2) by the progress of the incidents
related.

(1) The characters. Some of these appear also in the Synop-
tic Gospels; others are new. Of the former class are Martha and
Mary, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Judas, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas ;
of the latter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Nathanael, the woman
of Samaria, Nicodemus 1 . In the first group of instances we
have an opportunity of testing the Fourth Gospel by other
independent accounts. The Evangelist therefore must be found
true to his fellow-Evangelists. In the second group we have
no such external criterion to guide us; but the Evangelist must
be found true to himself. We will select an example or two
from each of the two classes.

(a) St Peter. His character is sketched for us in clear
outlines in the Synoptic narrative. We cannot fail to notice
his eager, forward, impetuous nature. He is the self-constituted
spokesman of the disciples. His eagerness to learn, his curiosity,
his love of definiteness shows itself in the type of question
which from time to time he puts before his Master. He will

1 [The characters of Martha and in the first Essay (p. 37 sq.); they are
Mary and of Thomas are given above therefore omitted here.]

184 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

know the precise point at which forgiveness ceases to be a duty
(' Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive
him?' Matt, xviii. 21); the exact reward which those who
follow Jesus should obtain (' Behold, we have forsaken all, and
followed thee; what shall we have therefore?' Matt. xix. 27).
He will have one mysterious parable explained (' Declare unto
us this parable' Matt. xv. 15), and he will know the exact
range of the application of another (' Lord, speakest thou this
parable unto us, or even to all?' Luke xii. 41). Notice his
eagerness to remark upon what is going on around him,
whether it be the evidence of Christ's power (' Master, behold,
the figtree which thou cursedst is withered away ' Mark xi. 21),
or the current of popular opinion ('All men seek for thee'
Mark i. 37). His impetuosity leads him on two occasions to
administer rebuke to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, either
alone (' Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying,
Be it far from thee, Lord : this shall not be unto thee ' Matt,
xvi. 22), or with others (' Peter and they that were with Him
said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and
sayest thou, Who touched me ? ' Luke viii. 45). His eagerness
of faith and assurance is discernible throughout the whole
course of the Gospel narrative. It prompts his confession at
Caesarea Philippi (' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God' Matt. xvi. 16), his proposal on the Mount of Transfigura-
tion (' Lord, it is good for us to be here : if thou wilt, let us
make three tabernacles ' Matt. xvii. 4), his confidence on the
Sea of Galilee ('Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on
the water ' Matt. xiv. 28), his protestation on the night of the
betrayal (' Though all men shall be offended because of thee,
yet will I never be offended' Matt. xxvi. 33). After the arrest,
with a characteristic mixture of courage and of curiosity, he
follows Jesus into the high priest's palace 'to see the end'
(Matt. xxvi. 58). On the other side, we notice sudden revul-
sions of feeling, resulting, now in lack of faith (' Lord, save me'
Matt. xiv. 30), now in lack of courage (the three denials
Matt. xxvi. 69 sq.), now again in unexpected self-abasement

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 185

(' Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord ' Luke v. 8).
Accordingly we find our Lord in the Garden rebuking Peter
specially and by name (Matt. xxvi. 40, Mark xiv. 37), as though
implying that his actions had in the most signal way belied his
professions.

Such is St Peter's character as delineated in the Synoptic
Gospels. Before proceeding to test the record of the Fourth
Gospel, we must turn aside to notice a charge brought against
St John by M. Renan (Vie de Jesus p. xxviii. and p. 159) and
reiterated by other critics (e.g. Lampe III. p. 510). It is to the
effect that St John was jealous of St Peter's reputation and
endeavoured to undermine it in his Gospel. The charge is
false in every way. Compare St John's account of the third
denial (xviii. 27) with that of St Matthew (xxvi. 74) or of
St Mark (xiv. 71), the one Synoptist writing for the Jewish
Christians among whom St Peter was especially honoured, the
other ' the interpreter ' of St Peter. Or again, remember that
the rebuke ' Get thee behind me, Satan,' is confined to St
Matthew (xvi. 23) and St Mark (viii. 33), and is not recorded
by St John. These facts will show how gratuitous this offensive
insinuation is. On the other hand, another antagonistic critic
(Kostlm in Theol. Jahrb. for 1850-2, p. 293) has supposed
that the object of the twenty-first chapter is to glorify St Peter
and St Peter's see. Thus one criticism serves to neutralise the
other 1 .

\Ye return to St Peter's character, as portrayed by St
John. It is in thorough accord with what we have already
gathered from the other Evangelists. His curiosity comes out
in the eager question with which he interrupts his Master's
discourse in the upper room * Lord, whither goest thou ?'
(xiii. 36), in the expedient by which he endeavours to obtain
through the medium of the beloved disciple the traitor's name

1 M. Renan accepts the latter criti- proves chap. xxi. (though probably

cism, but supposes this last chapter to a postscript) to have been written by

be a later addition by some other hand, the author of chaps, i.-xx. (see the

in which amends are made to St Peter. additional note at the end of this

But the internal evidence of style Essay).

186 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(xiii. 24 sq.), in the anxiety which he shows to learn his
brother apostle's destiny ('Lord, what shall this man do?'
xxi. 21). He will not rest content with dark forebodings and
mysterious intimations ; he will know the facts, and know them
definitely. Again, his ready profession of faith, which makes
him now the mouthpiece of the apostolic band ('Lord, to
whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life '
vi. 68), now the revealer of his own deepest heart-utterances
(' Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee '
xxi. 17), is in perfect keeping with what the Synoptic narrative
has led us to expect. His impetuosity shines out in every
action which is recorded of him. In Gethsemane, without a
thought for the consequences, he draws his sword and smites
the high-priest's servant (xviii. 10 sq.) ; at the tomb, while the
younger disciple stands awestruck and uncertain, he enters in
without a moment's hesitation (xx. 6) ; at the sea of Galilee, he
plunges into the lake (xxi. 7), he drags the net to land (xxi. 11).
And the sudden revulsion of sentiment, of which such striking
examples are recorded in the first three Gospels, has its complete
parallel in an incident peculiar to the Fourth Evangelist
the washing of the disciples' feet (' Thou shalt uever wash my
feet.' 'Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head '
xiii. 8, 9).

(b) Pontius Pilate. In the portraiture of the Roman pro-
curator there is much in common between the Synoptists and
St John. Thus in all we see the abstract love of justice,
inherent in a Roman magistrate, overborne by the desire of
securing popularity, natural to a provincial governor. But his
personal characteristics appear especially in the Fourth Gospel,
and it is not too much to say that we should not have appre-
hended his character as a whole without the light thrown upon
it from this fresh source of evidence. Here at last we get to
understand the man thoroughly in all the variety of his complex
nature his desire to purchase public favour at the expense of
justice and yet his unwillingness to condemn Jesus, his cynical
contempt of the subject-people, his sarcasm, his scepticism and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 187

yet his fear. It is only when, fresh from studying him in the
Fourth Gospel, we turn once more to the pages of the Synop-
tists, that his scorn for the Jews as a nation is clearly discerned.
However, when once we have found the clue, that scorn is
evident enough. It appears in the form of his questions ' Art
thou the King of the Jews?' (Matt, xxvii. 11), 'What will ye that
I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?' (Mark
xv. 12) 1 ; and especially in the title placed over the cross 2 . Ap-
parently he could not lose the opportunity of insulting the Jewish
rulers, whom he was obliged to gratify nevertheless. But when
we read St John's account, we see these lurid features of Pilate's
character emphasized and lighted up under the glow which
issues from the narrator's master-pen. With what persistency
does Pilate evince his desire to shirk the responsibility of
condemnation! 'Take ye him, and judge him according to
your law' (xviii. 31). Baffled here by the logic of facts, the
inability of the Jews to condemn to death, he tries another
loophole to escape from his dilemma. ' Ye have a custom, that
I should release unto you one at the passover : will ye therefore
that I release unto you the King of the Jews?' (xviii. 39).
Foiled again by the malignant hostility of the crowd, he seeks
to appeal to their pity by exhibiting his prisoner scourged and
mocked. In vain. He is met by the cry, 'Crucify him.'
Once more he would shift the responsibility on the shoulders of
the chief-priests, ' Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no
fault in him.' From the furious, raging mob he turns to meet
the calm, impassive countenance of Jesus Christ. The sight
only increases his perplexity. ' From henceforth Pilate sought
to release him.' The struggle is ended by the twice-repeated
name of Csesar (xix. 12), and the dread image thus called up
before his mind of the suspicious, vindictive emperor prevails
at last over his sense of justice and of awe. He tries one last

1 The scorn is lost in the form in contempt is found in St John's version,
which the question appears in St 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the
Matthew (xxvii. 22). Jews'; see above, p. 159.

2 Though here again the climax of

188 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

appeal, ' Behold, your King,' and then delivers Him unto them
to be crucified. And if the wavering, vacillating temper of the
governor is drawn in clearer outline by St John than by the
Synoptists, no less is his cynicism, his sarcasm and unbelief
painted in deeper colours. ' Am I a Jew ?' (the English fails to
convey the withering scorn of the Greek original fjurfri, 70)
'louSo-to? elfju;), 'Art thou a King then?' (OVKOVV /3aai,\6vs el
(TV ; we can imagine the intonation of the voice upon the final
word av, as Pilate amuses himself with what he considered the
fanaticism of his prisoner), 'What is truth?' And so the
conversation ends, Pilate no doubt thinking that he had had
the best of it, had secured the last word. Notice too how he
repeats the expression ' the King of the Jews/ harping on the
title which he knows to be offensive to his Jewish audience
(xviii. 39, xix. 14, 15, 19, 22). And the Roman soldiers catch
up the spirit of the Roman governor, who sets the fashion, and
cry, ' Hail, King of the Jews' (xix. 3).

(c) Philip. Of the characters known only from St John's
Gospel the first in importance undoubtedly is Thomas ; but
there are others, which the Evangelist, with a few masterly
touches, depicts for us, and which deserve more than a passing
notice.

There is in Philip a certain cautious, business-like way of
looking at things which bespeaks much circumspectness of
disposition. We remark this at once when we are introduced to
him in the first chapter (i. 43 sq.). Unlike Andrew and the name-
less disciple, he does not make the first advances himself; but
he is found and summoned by the Saviour. Yet when found, he
accepts the call without hesitation, and finds a new adherent
in his turn. But the mode in which he announces his discovery
to Nathanael is characteristic. He keeps back the name as
long as possible, and the place to the last word in the sentence,
for Nazareth would prejudice any cause. When Nathanael
demurs, he does not argue ; he simply bids him try, ' Come and
see.' Philip appears again upon the scene in the sixth chapter
on the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand. Again it is

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 189

Jesus who opens the conversation : ' Whence shall we buy
bread, that these may eat (v. 5)?' The business question is put
to the business man. It is answered in a business spirit. He
makes the necessary calculation. ' Two hundred pennyworth of
bread is not sufficient for them that every one of them may
take a little/ But he does not reply to the question. It is
left for Andrew to suggest a remedy. We meet with him a
third time in the twelfth chapter, when certain Greeks come to
him with the request, 'Sir, we would see Jesus.' Here again he
does not take the initiative. He will not act without consulta-
tion. ' Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and again Andrew
and Philip tell Jesus 1 / It has been suggested that Philip was
the steward, the purveyor of the little company, that he
managed the commissariat ; just as Judas was the treasurer,
the purser. Such a position at all events would suit his
business-like character. And it would account for strangers
(xii. 21) applying to him first, as they may have been brought
in contact with him in this capacity 2 .

(d) Andrew. In two places Andrew is associated with
Philip, and on both occasions he appears not merely in contact
with, but in contrast to, his brother- Apostle. He is as eager
and prompt as the other is slow and cautious. While Philip
is calculating the amount of bread required to feed the multi-
tude, Andrew has hit upon an expedient (vi. 8, 9). While
Philip cannot act alone in bringing the Greek strangers to
Christ, Andrew, as soon as he is consulted, goes with him
to tell Jesus. Thus he is quick alike to act and to speak.
It is this decision of character which made him the first to join
the Saviour himself, and the first to bring another to the
Saviour (i. 37, 40, 41). In short, he has much of his brother
Peter's eagerness, without that brother's tendency to grievous
falls. It is quite in accordance with this characteristic that

1 John xii. 2022. (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 4. 25, p. 522).

2 An early tradition identified him This would be in keeping with Philip's
with the disciple who requested that hesitating faith.

he might first go and bury his father

190 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

we read in the Muratorian Canon that Andrew was the Apostle
to whom it was revealed that John should write his Gospel,
and that the revelation took place on the first night of the
three days' fast 1 .

(iii) The progress of events.

We cannot rise from the perusal of the characters as they
appear in the Fourth Gospel without the assurance that we
have been introduced to real, living persons, described by some
one who knew them well. Individuality is seen to be stamped
on every face. Exactly in the same way, as we mark the
progress of events gradually unfolded before us in the narrative,
our conviction becomes more and more settled that the guide
who conducts us has been an eye-witness of the incidents which
he records. In order to get the full effect of the extreme
naturalness of the description, we have only to read the his-
torical portions successively, and to remark how vivid is the
sequence of the narrative as it opens out from point to point.
Or we may take a conversation like that held in the fourth
chapter between our Lord and the woman of Samaria. We
notice, first of all, the development of the conviction in the
woman's mind. Starting with a contemptuous irony (v. 9),
she passes by gradual stages into a growing respect mingled
with curiosity (v. 11), then into wonder ripening into faith
(v. 15). The conversation now takes another turn. There is a
direct home-thrust at the vicious part of her character (v. 16).
This she disingenuously parries. Convinced by this time of her
questioner's spiritual insight, she attempts to divert into a
general theological channel the conversation which was taking
so inconvenient a turn (v. 19). Our Lord's answer contains a
tacit reproach (v. 24), but she still shows her unwillingness to
appropriate the lesson (v. 25), and quietly ignores all particular

1 Cohortantibus condiseipulis et epi- latum Andreae ex apostolis ut recog-

scopis suis dixit [Johannes] Conieiu- nescentibus cunctis Johannes suo no-

nate mihi hodie triduum, et quid mine cuncta describeret. Canon Mura-

cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum tor. p. 33 (ed. Tregelles).
nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte reve-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 191

allusions (v. 25). Observe secondly, that the spiritual teaching
of our Lord, which is so prominent throughout, arises naturally
out of the external incidents. The presence of the woman with
the pitcher at the well (v. 7) leads to the subject of the living
water; the arrival of the disciples with provisions (w. 8, 27,31)
to the reference to the spiritual food. In these two cases the
point of connexion is distinctly stated ; in others it is mentally
supplied by the recollection of the eye-witness. Thus the
mountain of Gerizim towering above them, and the expanse of
corn-fields stretched out at their feet, are each in turn taken
advantage of as opportunities for inculcating spiritual truths.
And the whole is woven together with a naturalness which
defies all separation of its component parts ; for the teaching
and the incident are the woof and the web of the fabric.
Thirdly, the amount of local and special knowledge contained
in the incident is both considerable and varied. As we glance
through the chapter, we notice that it demands a particular
acquaintance with the well of Jacob (v. 5), the relations of
Jews and Samaritans (v. 9), the depth of the well (v. 11), its
history (v. 12), the mountain and the worship on its summit
(v. 20), the social position of women (v. 27), the corn-fields and
the harvest-time (v. 35). And all this intimacy with places
and customs is not an excrescence merely, but an integral and
essential part of the narrative. You cannot remove it without
the whole structure falling to the ground 1 .

Or take the scene enacted in the Judgment Hall (xviii. 28
-xix. 16). Observe at the outset the unartificial, the unsyste-
matic, character of the narrative. The incidents are not grouped
according to subject, but related in sequence as they actually
occurred. Hence the history of St Peter's denials is interrupted
by other matters. The third denial interposes between the
mention of the transfer from Annas to Caiaphas, and the
transfer from Caiaphas to Pilate. On the other hand St Luke
(xxii. 54-62) adds force to the episode by placing all three
denials together. With St John however dramatic propriety
1 [This whole incident has been already treated above, p. 33 sq.]

192 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

is sacrificed to chronological accuracy. Notice, in the second
place, the gaps in the narrative. Jesus is first examined before
Annas, then He is transferred to Caiaphas ; but nothing is
recorded of what happened at this second examination. We
may perhaps infer from the silence of the Evangelist that he
was not an eye-witness of this part of the scene. Again, we
cannot fail to be struck by the introduction of certain incidents
which have no direct bearing on the history, but yet are not on
this account excluded. A moment's consideration will explain
their presence in the narrative. The fire of coals kindled in
the hall (xviii. 18), the goings in and goings out of Pilate (xviii.
29, 33, 38, xix. 4, 9, 13), notes of place and of time (xviii. 28,
xix. 14) such would be just the kind of circumstances which
would impress themselves indelibly upon the memory of an
eye-witness, and would inevitably rise up again before him as,
years after, he recalled the memorable scene. Or consider the
respective attitudes of the chief-priests and of the Roman
governor. How natural the representation. On the one side,
the Jews, with their fear of ceremonial pollution (xviii. 28),
their appeals to the law (xviii. 30, xix. 7), their inability to
punish (xviii. 31), their affected loyalty (xix. 12, 15). On the
other, Pilate that masterpiece of portrait-painting to which
attention has been drawn already. Surely, whether we examine
the details, or regard the picture as a whole, we are constrained
to admit that all this is something more than 'ben trovato':
nay, we may say with confidence ' e vero.' And so we might
pass in review other incidents ; the calling of the disciples, the
marriage at Cana, the man at the pool of Bethesda, the scene
at Bethany and at the tomb of Lazarus, the washing of the
disciples' feet, the declaration of the betrayal all these bear
stamped upon their face the impress of trustworthy and con-
temporaneous testimony. I will conclude this part of my
argument by an appeal presented from a somewhat different
quarter. The writer of the Fourth Gospel often distinguishes
the facts which he records from his commentary upon those facts,
made when an interval of time had thrown fresh light upon

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 193

their spiritual import. Is it Christ's prophetic language,
'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'?
We are told that 'when He was risen from the dead, His disciples
remembered that He had said this unto them ; and they be-
lieved the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said ' (ii. 22).
Is it the mysterious utterance, ' He that believeth on me, as the
scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water ' ? The Evangelist's comment, made subsequent to the
Pentecostal gift, explains it of ' the Spirit which they that
believe on Him should receive ; for the Holy Ghost was not yet
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified ' (vii. 39). Is it
Christ's announcement of results to issue from His coming
exaltation, 'I, if I be lifted up, shall draw all men unto me' ?
It is explained as ' signifying what death He should die ' (xii.
33). The prophecy of Caiaphas (xi. 51), the triumphal entry
into Jerusalem (xii. 16), Christ's appeal on behalf of His dis-
ciples in the moment of the betrayal (xviii. 9) all form texts
for the conveyance of spiritual truths viewed from the stand-
point of the Evangelist's maturer experience. Some have
maintained that the commentary is wrong. I do not assert
this, nor do I allow it. But one thing at least is clear. If the
fact or the saying had been invented for the sake of the com-
ment, the fact or saying would in most instances have taken
a different form and the correspondence would have been made
more obvious. But the fact does not lead up to the comment,
for the simple reason that the fact was already there, in absolute
possession ; and as, in the light of a fuller and clearer know-
ledge, the Evangelist draws out its hidden meaning, he will not
venture to subserve the purpose of the application by diverging
one hair's-breadth from the exact letter of the record 1 .

1 [For the third section of this Essay, ZEBEDEE, the reader is referred to the
THE WRITER WAS JOHN THE SON OF first Essay in this volume, p. 39 sq.]

L. E. 13

194 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

A. On the twenty-first Chapter,

The Gospel was originally intended to end with the twentieth
chapter. The conclusion of the narrative is significant, ( Blessed
are they that have not seen, and yet have believed' (xx. 29,
fiaKaipLOL OL p.r] iSoVres KOL TrwrTeixravTes), and the writer's own addition
(vv. 30, 31) is evidently the original close to the whole. The
twenty-first chapter therefore is an after-thought. This distinction
is no refinement of modern theorists; it is as old as the time of
Tertullian 1 . But did it emanate from the same author or not?
Clearly yes. The style is essentially Johannine. There is the
same historic ovv, so characteristic of St John's narrative, and of
his alone (vv. 5, 6, 7 (bis), 9, 11, 15, 21, 23); the same comparative
absence in the narrative part of 8e (which is wrongly inserted by
the scribes in v. 12); the same tendency to place the verb first
(vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 25), especially with Xe'yet
(v. 15 sq.); the same abruptness of diction, the result of the
avoidance of connecting particles (vv. 3, 12, 13, 16, 17). Again
such sentences as VTrctyw dA.iveiv...epxo/t0a KOL ^/xets <rw crot (v. 3),
8cvT a/DMmy<ra,T...crv TI'S e?; (v. 12), a-KoXovOtL LLOL (v. 19), Kvpie,
ovros 8e rt; (v. 21), TI Trpos (re; <ru /xot aVoAovfoi (v. 22) etc. are
features which are familiar to us from previous chapters, and should
be compared with e.g. the narrative of i. 35 sq. or xx. 1 1 sq. We
find the same fondness for CKCM/OS (vv. 3, 7, 23), the same love of
definiteness, e.g. TO, 8eia /xepi; (v. 6), aVo Tn/xwv BiaKoorilav (v. 8),
CKarov TrevnjKOVTa rpwov (v. 11), TOVTO 17877 rpirov (v. 14), to which we
have already drawn attention ; the same vivid painting (e.g. vv.
7, 9 etc.) the same use of a parenthetic explanation (vv. 7, 8, with
which compare vi. 23). Favourite Johannine expressions are found,
as the doubled a'/ojv (v. 18), which is peculiar to this Gospel, TOVTO
tLTTfv crrjfjLaLVtDV Trout) $avara) K.r.X. (v. 19; cf. xii. 33, xviii. 32), /cat TO
oi^aptoi/ 6yw,ot<o5 (v. 13; cf. vi. 11 6/xotoos /cat e/c TOJV oij/apitav, which last
is a word only used by the Fourth Evangelist). We notice the

1 Ipsa quoque clausula evangelii He refers however in three places to

propter quid consignat haec scripta, the twenty-first chapter (see Konsch,

nisi Ut credatis, inquit, lesum Chris- p. 290).
turn filiumDei? Tert. adv. Prax. 25.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 195

characteristic mode of designating places, TTfs flaAaVcrqg rfjs
(v. 1; cf. vi. 1), and of describing disciples, 'Thomas called Didymus'
(v. 2; cf. xi. 16), 'Nathanael from Cana of Galilee' (ib., his abode
specified as in the case of Philip xii 21), 'Simon, son of John'
(v. 15 sq.; cf. i. 42), 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (w. 7, 20;
cf. xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2) 1 . Again there is the suppression of the
author's own name, which would most certainly have been mentioned
by a continuator of the narrative. Lastly, the delineation of the
character of St Peter, and of his relation to St John, has all the
refinement of our Evangelist. This is the case in the two scenes in
which they appear in contact. The spiritual insight of St John
(v. 7) is matched by the impetuosity (vv. 3, 7, 11) and the curiosity
(v. 21) of St Peter 3 .

Thus, though an after-thought, this chapter was certainly written
by the author of the Gospel. How soon after, it is impossible to
say ; but there is nothing in the style which requires us to postulate
more than a few weeks or a few days. As all the manuscripts
without exception contain the chapter, and there is no trace of its
ever having been wanting from any copies, the probable conclusion
is that it was added before the Gospel was actually published.
After the Gospel was written and submitted to his friends, the
Apostle may have heard that some misapprehension was abroad
respecting himself, or that some disappointment had been expressed
because no mention had been made of an incident which they had
heard him relate, and which would naturally be interesting to his
admirers. He may have then consented to add it as a postscript.
Apart from the identity of style, it is hardly likely that the chapter
was written after the Apostle's death, for in that case an event which

1 The Evangelist is fond of marking and c^erdo-at (v. 12). Any writing or
his characters by some striking circum- portion of a writing might be set aside
stance which serves as a label. Ex- on the same grounds. Thus, to take
amples are the designation of Nico- ch. xx. 30, /j.ev ovv is a aira.% \fyb(j.evov
demus (xix. 39, vii. 50 from iii. 2), in St John, so is pipXiov, so is evwTriov.
and of Caiaphas (xviii. 14 from xi. 49). Indeed the first and third phrases are
From a different spirit and with a rather characteristic of St Luke ; but
different aim Carlyle exhibits the same the endeavour to press such arguments
tendency. would justly be scouted as fatal to all

2 Against such indications of iden- fair criticism. The chronological diffi-
tity of authorship, the objections com- culty of TOVTO -ijSr) rpirov (v. 14) re-
monly alleged (e.g. by Liicke) are mains unaffected by the question of
powerless, e.g. the use of new ex- authorship.

pressions, as tyavtputrev St OUTWS (v. 1)

132

196

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

threw so much light upon our Lord's mysterious utterance respect-
ing the beloved disciple would scarcely have been passed over in
silence.

The question of the integrity of the last two verses of the
chapter is an issue which has to be treated separately. The twenty-
fourth verse is a confirmation or attestation of the truth of the
narrative on the part of his friends and disciples, and it bears out
the traditional account, given in the Muratorian Canon, of the
origin of the Fourth Gospel 1 . The last verse is evidently a
scholium. Tischendorf declares that in the Sinaitic manuscript (&$)
it is written in a different hand from the rest of the Gospel, by the
Stopdconf? of the whole, and it is perhaps omitted in a valuable
cursive (63) 2 . However, as it occurs in all the other copies, and

1 See above, p. 190.

2 [Dr Gwynn kindly supplies (Oct. 4,
1892) the following information re-
specting this manuscript. 'I think
there is no room for doubt that Cod. 63
has lost a leaf (or more) at the end,
and that it when complete contained
John xxi. 25. At first sight, one
might be led to form an opposite
opinion. For the last page of the MS.,
as it now is, is the last of a complete
quaternion, and in it the text ends Kal
otdaficf on a\r)6r)s tariv 77 /map | rvpta
avrov- (the last ten letters being
arranged in the middle of a new
line). The final stop looks like a
colon, but may be a period; and one
might suppose that the scribe's reason
for placing rvpla airroC thus, was
because his text was at an end. But
on looking through the MS. , one would
find this supposition to be unfounded.
It frequently happens that he ends a
page with an incomplete line, longer
or shorter, not ranging with the pre-
vious lines, either at its beginning or
its end. Comparing the place with
the ends of the three preceding Gospels,
one finds a small bit of negative
evidence. Each of them has, after its
last word, the marks : These do
not appear after rvpia atirov. None

of them has any subscription, or even
reAoc subjoined.

So much for the text ; but when we
look at the surrounding scholia all
doubt is removed. The MS. has in
every page a body of continuous
scholia, some half-dozen lines in the
top margin, a pretty long column (in
continuation) all down the outer mar-
gin, and six or eight more lines at the
foot. As the scholia proceed, the
scribe denotes change of subject com-
mented on, by a numeral letter (some-
times), and always by beginning the
new matter with a capital letter, in
red. The last two lines of these
scholia run as follows: e^erd^eiv TO.
yeypa/j.fji.ei'a' A'T?re/)/3oXt/cu)s TOVTO <f)r)<rlf
etc fJLVpiwv yap | davfj-druv ra ^ova irpbs
Trlarriv (sic) /ecu dpeTTjv. Here you will
observe (1) that the scholium breaks
off in the middle of a sentence, showing
that there ought to be another leaf:
(2) that this broken scholium referred
to verse 25, as is proved by the word
vTrep/SoXtKws, the /mtipLa da^^ara being
the a\\a TroXXci of St John. These
facts seem to settle the question.'
Compare Scrivener, Collatio Cod. Si-
nait. p. lix., C. E. Gregory's prolego-
mena to Tischendorf, N. T. (ed. 8)
p. 479.]

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 197

these come from very various sources, we may safely infer that, if
an addition, it was written by St John himself, or by one of his
immediate disciples.

B. On the conversational character of the Gospel.

The Fourth Gospel was addressed to an immediate circle of
hearers. In this respect it differs from the other three, St Luke's
Gospel approaching most nearly to it in this respect. But
Theophilus, if a real person, and not a nom de guerre, the type of
a God-loving or God-beloved Christian, soon disappears out of sight.
On the other hand, the Fourth Evangelist keeps his disciples before
his mind. He has to correct misapprehensions, to answer questions,
to guide and instruct a definite class of persons, and those persons
his immediate circle of acquaintance. Hence he assumes a know-
ledge of himself in the case of those for whom he writes. He does
not give his own name, because his hearers already know his
personal history.

For the most part however the reference to these disciples is
indirect. They are before the Evangelist, but he does not address
them in the second person. Instances of allusions to misapprehen-
sions or to questionings rife in those about him are i. 41 l He was the
first to find' etc., ii. 11 'This was the beginning of his miracles,'
iii. 24 'John was not yet cast into prison,' iv. 54 'This again was the
second miracle which Jesus did,' xviii. 13 'He (Annas) was father-
in-law to Caiaphas, who was high-priest of that year,' xix. 34 sq.
' There came out water and blood.' Great stress is laid upon this
last point, doubtless in allusion to some symbolism which is not
explained, because they would understand it. So xxi. 14 'This was
now the third time that Jesus manifested Himself,' xxi. 23 'The saying
therefore went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should
not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die' etc. Thus
we find the Evangelist clearing up matters which the current
tradition had left doubtful, or on which the popular mind wished to
be further informed. Through the main part of the narrative we
see these parenthetical additions, these conversational comments.
At length (xix. 35, xx. 31) there is a direct appeal to these
disciples, for whom the whole has been written. ' He knoweth that
he saith true, that ye might believe.' 'These things are written
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through His name.'

198 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

The Gospel however does not stand alone. Its connexion with
the First Epistle is both intimate and important. Its authenticity
and genuineness are still further confirmed by this consideration,
which brings out in clearer colours the circumstances under which
the Gospel was written, and sets more vividly before us the relation
of the Evangelist to his band of hearers. The Muratorian Canon
points to this connexion 1 . The close association of the two
Johannine writings warrants the inference that the author of the
Canon treated the First Epistle as an epilogue to the Gospel. And
this in fact is its true character. The Epistle was intended to be
circulated with the Gospel. This accounts for its abrupt commence-
ment, which is to be explained as a reference to the Gospel which in
one sense preceded it. This accounts likewise for the allusion to
the water and the blood (1 John v. 6 sq.) as the witnesses to the
reality of Christ's human nature, the counterpart of the statement
in the Gospel narrative (xix. 35).

The evidential value of all this cannot be over-estimated. It
presents us with a combination of circumstances which a forger
would not have had the ingenuity to invent; nor, if he had
invented it, would he have commanded all the circumstances
necessary to carry out to a successful issue so stupendous an under-
taking.

[1867, 1868.]

1 See above, p. 99.

IV.
ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

IV.

ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY.

OT Paul dates the commencement of his preparation for the
ministry as far back as the day of his birth. He describes
himself as set apart for the Gospel of God, set apart from his
mother's womb (Rom. i. 1, Gal. i. 15). In his social position,
in his intellectual training, in his religious creed in all the
influences which wrought upon his childhood and youth there
was a schooling which eminently adapted him to fill the part
for which he was designed to gather the Gentiles into the fold
of Christ, to preach the universality of the new dispensation.
This was especially his work his Gospel.

And, when we come to piece together the notices preserved
of his early life, we find that this training was in itself very
remarkable, that it did in a way forecast his future destination,
furnishing him with a large store of varied experiences, idle
and unfruitful in Saul the Persecutor, but quickened suddenly
into life in Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, the Preacher to
the Gentiles, by the lightning flash which struck him on the
way to Damascus.

We are accustomed to look to three countries especially as
the great teachers of the modern world Rome, Greece, Judaea.
Rome, the foremost of all nations in the science of government,
has handed down to us the principles of law and order. Greece,
setting before us her rich treasures of thought and imagina-
tion, has been a schoolmistress in art and literature. Above all,
from Palestine we have learnt our true relation to God, which
gives higher significance to art and literature and an eternal

202 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

value to the principles of law and order. If Rome supplied the
bone and sinew to our colossal man, while Greece clothed him
with flesh and gave him grace and beauty, it was Judaea that
breathed the breath of life into him. Now all these three
influences were combined in the great Apostle of the Gentiles.
He was a citizen of Rome. His native place, Tarsus, was the
great university of Greece. He was brought up in the Jew's
religion in its most rigorous and most typical form.

We are accustomed to dwell solely on the Jewish education
of St Paul when considering his preparation for the ministry,
not only as the most important, but also as the most prominent
in the notices preserved of his early history. But the other
elements in his training must not be neglected. It is not
probable that one whose maxim it was to ' become all things to
all men,' whose nature was eminently sensitive and impressible,
could have failed to be moved by these powerful influences, and
the traces of their working are sufficiently distinct in his life
and writings. On the other hand, exaggeration must be avoided.
It would be a grave mistake to picture to ourselves the Apostle
as an active politician, or an erudite philosopher and man of
letters. The sphere of his thought was far different. His life
was far otherwise spent. But he must have received from his
political status as a Roman citizen and from his residence in the
heart of a great Greek University impressions which enlarged
his sympathies and his views, and thus, enabling him to enter
more deeply into the thoughts aud strivings of others, and to
contemplate the Gospel from different points of view, rendered
him a fitter instrument in the hands of God for the special work
for which he was destined.

1. Let us consider St Paul as a citizen of Rome. The
extension of the franchise was the keystone of the Roman
system 1 . By this means a connexion and sympathy was kept
up in the remotest parts of the Empire. The blood of the
political body thus circulated freely by veins and arteries
through the great heart of the republic to its extreme
1 Cic. pro Balb. 13; Becker Handbuch der romischen Alterthiimer n. (1), p. 91.

FOR THE MINISTRY. 203

members, and any injury done to one limb was an injury done
to the whole. The metaphor which I have employed is not
my own : I am only expanding the image used by Cicero 1 to
express these relations. To the Roman his citizenship was his
passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulty
and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of muni-
cipal law and the injustice of local magistrates. In Syria, in
Asia, in Greece wherever he went he bore about with him
this safeguard of his liberties. How valuable such a protection
must have been to St Paul, how often he must have invoked its
aid in a life spent in travel and in the midst of enemies, we can
well imagine. He had never known what it was to be without
this citizenship, for he had been born a citizen of Rome 2 . It
procured him an honourable discharge from the prison at
Philippi 3 ; it loosed his fetters in the tower of Antonia 4 ; it
rescued him from the lawlessness of a zealot mob, and sped
him on his way under escort to Caesarea 5 ; it transferred him
from the hearing of a provincial governor to the court of CaBsar
himself 6 . As he lived, so he died a citizen of Rome. It is
recorded that, while his brother- Apostle St Peter suffered the
punishment of a common malefactor on the cross, St Paul was
allowed to die by the sword, as the last recognition of his civic
rights conceded by the law, when everything besides had been
forfeited 7 .

In this way St Paul's position as a citizen must have been
of essential service in the spread of the Gospel. But this is
not exactly the point on which I wish to dwell. I am anxious
rather to point out that, having been so constantly in requi-
sition, it must have impressed itself upon his mind with
a corresponding force. And thus he must have been led to
appreciate, as far as it was necessary for him to appreciate,
the position which Rome occupied as a teacher of the world.

1 Cic. Verr. v. 67; Becker, n. (1), 5 Acts xxiii. 27.

p. 98. 6 Acts xxv. 12.

3 Acts xxii. 28. 7 Tertull. Scorpiace 15, de Praescr.

3 Acts xvi. 37 sq. Haeret. 36, etc. See Wieseler Chran.

4 Acts xxii. 25 sq. p. 542.

204 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

I think there are very clear indications of this. It was no vulgar
pride or idle self-assertion, but a true political instinct, which
led St Paul to demand a practical apology from the magistrates
at Philippi. It is clear from his language on this occasion, as
on others, that he valued his position as a citizen of Rome. It
was something to be connected with that gigantic Empire, whose
presence he had felt everywhere, and which, in the restraints it
placed on the lawless opposition of his adversaries, presented
itself to him as a type and manifestation of that letting power
which keeps Antichrist in check till the last day (2 Thess.
ii. 7).

Nay, so strong is the impression left in his mind, that he
chooses the Roman franchise as the fittest image of the position
of the believer in his heavenly kingdom. I have already
referred to the language of Cicero in which he compares the
connexion of the different parts of the Roman empire by this
political tie to the circulation of the blood, language which
reminds us of the Apostle's own image of the Church as the
body knit together by its joints and ligatures (Col. ii. 19).
Another passage of the same writer suggests still more striking
points of comparison. ' I maintain it as a universal principle/
says Cicero (pro Balbo c. 13), 'that there is no nation any-
where so hostile or disaffected to the Roman people, none so
united by ties of faith and friendship, that we are debarred
from admitting them to the right of citizens 1 .' What wonder
then if the Apostle saw a peculiar fitness in this image ? In the
guarantee it offered to individual freedom, in its independence
of circumstances of time and place, in its superiority over
inferior obligations, in the sympathy which it established
between all the members of the community, in the universality
of its application, lying as it did within the reach of all, far or
near, friend or foe in all these points it expressed, as no other
eai'thly institution could do, the eternal relations of the kingdom
of Christ. Hence the language of St Paul, ' Our citizenship
is in heaven ' (Phil. iii. 20). * Only perform your duties as
1 Becker ii. (1), p. 93, note (18).

FOR THE MINISTRY. 205

citizens in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ ' (Phil. i. 27).
And in a third passage, where the image reappears, his
language seems to be coloured by the legal distinction of cives
and peregrini. ' Ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but
fellow-citizens of the saints/ ov/ceri eare %evoi, (the recognised
Greek equivalent of peregrini 1 ) /cal irapoiKot, a\\a (rvpTroXirat
TWV ayiwv (Ephes. ii. 19). They were once peregrini, they have
been enrolled in the civitas caelitum.

All this shows the deep impression which the Roman insti-
tutions had made on St Paul. And this being so, we cannot be
wrong in recognising here a special training for the Apostleship
of the Gentiles, opening out this wider view of social life, and
suggesting to him the true relation between the ordinances of
men and the Gospel of Christ.

2. But secondly, he was a native of Tarsus, the capital of
Cilicia, ' no mean city,' as he himself styles it 2 . We have it on
the authority of Strabo 3 , a contemporary of St Paul, that
Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and
Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature
in general. ' Its great pre-eminence/ he adds, ' consists in this
that the men of learning here are all natives/ Accordingly he
and others 4 have made up a long catalogue of distinguished
men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek
learning : philosophers of the Academy, of the Epicurean and
Stoic schools poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one
might say, you breathed the atmosphere of learning. How far
St Paul may have availed himself of these opportunities of
cultivating a knowledge of Greek literature, how much of his
boyhood and youth was spent here and how much at Jeru-
salem, we cannot say. His Jewish teacher Gamaliel, who was
distinguished for his liberality in this respect, would at least
have encouraged him not to neglect this culture. It has
been the tendency of recent writers to underrate St Paul's

1 Plaut. Rudens, Prol. v. 2. 3 Strabo xiv. p. 673.

- Acts xxi. 39, OVK d<r^fjMv TroXews 4 Pauly Eeal-Encycl. der class. Al~

TroXiTTs. terthiimer s. v. Tarsus.

206 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

attainments. The extravagant language of older writers has
produced a natural reaction. A treatise was even published
' On the stupendous erudition of St Paul ' \ Such exaggerations
would be ludicrous if they were not painful. The majesty of
the Gospel is not glorified by such means. St Paul's strength
lay in a widely-different direction. It was ' not with enticing
words of wisdom or philosophy (ov/c ev TreiOols aofyias A,o<yot<?),
but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (1 Cor. ii. 4),
that he won his way. There is no ground for saying that
St Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An
obvious maxim of practical life from Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33),
a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, him-
self a native of Tarsus (Acts xvii. 28), a pungent satire of
Epimenides (Tit. i. 12), with possibly a passage here and
there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very
slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast
learning. His style certainly does not conform to classical
models : his logic savours little of the dialectics of the schools.
But on the other hand he did get directly or indirectly from
contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider
and far more useful for his work than a perfect style or a
familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity.
Whoever will study carefully the picture of the gradual degra-
dation of the heathen world in the opening chapters to the
Romans, or, still better, the address to the philosophical
Athenians from the Areopagus, will see how thoroughly St
Paul entered into the moral and religious position of the
heathen world, and with what deep insight he traced its
relations, whether of contact or of contrast, with the great
message of which he was the bearer. These are only samples 2 .
If we recognise in such passages the voice of inspiration, in
union with that instinctive quickness of moral apprehension
which a tender love always inspires, we have still to look to
external influences to supply the material on which inspiration

1 Schramm De Stupenda Eruditione 2 See Jowett The Epistles of St Paul
Pauli (1710). i. p. 352 sq. (1859).

FOR THE MINISTRY. 207

might work. And foremost among these must be reckoned the
lessons derived from his residence in early life in the centre of
a great school the greatest of its day of Greek thought and
learning.

We are disposed indeed to think lightly of the literary
efforts of the Greeks at this late date: but though Greek
literature had now lost the freshness and beauty of the spring
and early summer of its existence, it had in the decline of its
autumn still a glory of its own. We must not forget that the
later schools of Greek philosophy exhibited a much greater
earnestness of moral purpose, whether for good or evil, and
achieved in consequence a much wider influence than the
earlier. And if later Greek literature was rather critical and
reproductive than original and imaginative, as the earlier had
been, this only rendered it a fitter handmaid for the diffusion
of the Gospel. It was required that the great Apostle of the
Gentiles should be able to understand the bearings of the
moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature,
and this lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully
at Tarsus in the days of her decline, than at Athens in the
freshness of her glory. Greece in her old age was now summing
up, as it were, the experiences of her past life.

3. I have dwelt hitherto on the Gentile side of St Paul's
training. The most important feature in his education has
still to be considered. He was a Jew in the strictest sense of
the term. Let us take his account of himself. 7repLTo/j,fj
, etc yvov<$ *I(rpar}\ <f>v\fjs Heviafj,eiv, 'E/Spato? ef
(Phil. iii. 5). ' I was not admitted to the privileges of
the covenant late in life, as a proselyte. I was circumcised on
the earliest day sanctioned by the law. I was not even the
son of proselyte parents, but of the race of Israel Israel the
chosen of God. I was not descended from the rebellious
Ephraim, who had played fast and loose with the covenant, as
many Jews are, but from the select tribe of Benjamin, always
faithful to Jehovah. I had no admixture of alien blood in my
veins, for my ancestors from first to last were Hebrews.' Thus in

208 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

respect of these four points, (1) the covenant, (2) race, (3) tribe,
(4) lineage, he was identified most closely and narrowly with
the chosen people of God. He includes himself in the inmost
circle of Judaism.

And not only this, but in sect, education and conduct
nothing was wanting to identify him fully with Jewish feeling
and Jewish life in its most rigid and trenchant form 1 . He was
a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. He had been instructed at
Jerusalem in the strictest principles of the law by Gamaliel,
one of the seven great doctors, ' the Beauty of the Law,' whom
all the Jews revered. He had carried out these principles with
the utmost zeal and devotion. He was surpassed by none.

And the lessons which he learnt in this way, and which
he could not have learnt so well in any other way, were two-
fold.

First of all, there was the negative lesson of what the law
could not effect. He had borne in his own person the burden.
He had felt its galling pressure, striving earnestly, with all
the intensity of his nature, to meet its exactions. In propor-
tion as he increased his efforts, he had to confess his weakness
and inability. Who can read his pathetic description in the
Epistle to the Romans of the helplessness and despair of one
struggling under the weight of this load, without feeling that
the Apostle is drawing from his own personal experiences, that
these are the words not of a vague theorizer, but of a painful
sufferer. And here too it is important to observe the influence
of the sect to which he belonged. Of the three great parties
who shared the empire of Jewish thought the Essenes, the
Sadducees, the Pharisees the last alone could teach him the
lesson in its completeness. On the Sadducee the law sat
loosely ; he could not entirely divest himself of it, for it was the
national badge, but he would wear it as lightly as he could.
The Essene indeed was a most strict observer of ordinances, but
the law was to him the starting-point of his mystical reveries, the

1 The chief passages relating to St 13, 14 ; Phil. iii. 5, 6 ; Acts xxii. 3,
Paul's Jewish experiences are Gal. i. xxiii. 6, xxvi. 4, 5; 2 Cor. xi. 22.

FOR THE MINISTRY. 209

foundation of an ascetic practice by which he hoped to extricate
the soul from the defilement of matter. Thus the Essenes
could abandon the law where it seemed to interfere with their
aspiration after purity, e.g. in sacrifice. To the Pharisee, on the
other hand, the law presented itself in a different light. He
regarded it as an end, as an absolute rule of conduct. He
respected it in and for itself. 'Fulfil the law and you shall live/
was his motto. His vision did not extend beyond the law
the law as laid down by Moses, and as enlarged and interpreted
by tradition. It was to him a compact strictly binding on
the contracting parties in its minutest details. And thus it
became to him, what it could scarcely have been to the Essene,
the means of righteousness (Si/caioa-vvr) e/c vbfiov). This is just
the point which St Paul seizes upon as the important feature
of the law regarded as an instrument of training. It is in
contrast to, and in consequence of, it that he develops the
doctrine of grace, essentially the cardinal point in the Gospel
of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

But secondly, the positive influence which St Paul's Jewish
education exercised upon him was equally great and important.
Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen,
in spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which
he derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending
daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among
the Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. From his
repeated denunciations against the Judaizers we are apt to
forget this feature in the Apostle's character until we are
startled to find by some passing allusion how deep-seated is this
feeling in his heart. The Apostle's whole nature was made up
of contrasts, and this was one. * The strength of sin is the law,'
and 'the law is holy and righteous and good/ these two
maxims 1 he could hold together and repeat in one breath. The
most ardent patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the
glories of the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the
Romans. His care for the poor in Judaea is a touching proof

1 1 Cor. xv. 56; Eom. vii. 12.
L. E. 14

210 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

of the strength of this national feeling. His attendance at the
great annual festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant.
'I must spend the coming feast at Jerusalem 1 ' (Aet /-te iravTws
Ti)v eopTrjv TTJV ep%ofjbevr]V 7roifjo"ai, et? '\epocro\vfjia). This
language becomes the more striking when we remember that
he was then intending to open out a new field of missionary
labour in the far West, and was bidding perhaps his last farewell
to the Holy City, the joy of the whole earth.

And here again it is important to remark on his connexion
with the Pharisees. Whatever may have been their faults, they,
and they alone, entered into the religious feeling of the nation.
Hence their influence with the people. They were the true
historical link with the past, they represented the growing
consciousness of the chosen people, in the two all-essential
points in which it prepared the way for the Gospel in their
belief in the immortality of the soul and in the cherished
expectation of the Messiah. In more senses than one they
sat in Moses' seat. The pure negativism of the Sadducee lent
no aid here. Even if he did entertain some faint Messianic
hopes, which is more than questionable, he deprived them of
all religious value by denying a future state. And so again
with the Essenes. Whatever importance we may attach to the
reveries of the mystic Essene recluse, as testifying to the
reality of a spiritual world, when all around was frozen and
stiffened into formalism, still in his isolation from the national
life of the Jews he lost that true historical instinct which was
the life-blood of the people, and with it the vivid anticipations of
the coming of Messiah.

It is not the spirit of the Sadducee, or of the Essene, but of
the Pharisee, the son of Pharisees, which breathes in these
glorious words, 'And now for the hope of the promise made by
God to our fathers I stand at the bar as a criminal, unto which
promise our twelve tribes, instantly ministering day and night,

1 Acts xviii. 21, cf. xx. 16. If St not affect the fact of his visit to Jeru-
Paul's words quoted above are to be salem at this crisis (Acts xviii. 22).
rejected as an interpolation, this does

FOR THE MINISTRY. 211

hope to attain : for this hope I am accused, king Agrippa, by
Jews ' (Acts xxvi. 6, 7). And whatever shadow of worldly policy
may for a moment be supposed to have overclouded the
Apostle's conscience, as by his timely appeal he divided the
two rival sects on the question of the resurrection of the dead 1 ,
still the appeal in itself was perfectly justifiable, because
perfectly true. His cause was the cause of the Pharisees,
while between them and the Sadducees a great gulf was
fixed.

I have thus traced the three threads which were in-
woven into the texture of the Apostle's mind, to strengthen
its fabric and so to prepare him for his great work. It may
be said indeed that when he is first brought before our notice,
he bears no traces of any other than Jewish influences. He is
a bigoted zealot, a narrow-minded persecutor. There is even
a strong contrast between the cautious liberality of Gamaliel the
master, and the persecuting rage of Saul the pupil. But is it not
a matter of common experience, that the lessons of youth often
lie for a time dormant and unnoticed, till they are suddenly
kindled into flame by some electric stroke from without ? The
miraculous appearance on the way to Damascus produced in
St Paul a change far greater indeed but analogous to that
which the more striking incidents of life have produced on
many another. It flashed a new light on vast stores of
experience laid up unconsciously in the past. It quickened
into energy influences long forgotten and seemingly dead.
The atoms of his nature assumed a fresh combination. The
lightning fused the Apostle's character and moulded it in
a new shape, and the knife of the torturer was forged into
the sword of the Spirit.

1 Acts xxiii. 6.

[1863.]

142

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND
EPISTLES.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND
EPISTLES.

ON the subject of the chronology of St Paul's life originality
is out of the question. Unless new documents are dis-
covered to throw fresh light upon the period, little or nothing
can be added to our present stock of knowledge. Recent
writers have treated the matter with a fulness which may be
considered exhaustive, and it only remains for those who are
later in the field to repeat and to sift the results at which their
predecessors have already arrived.

It may be as well to premise at the outset that as regards
the exact dates in St Paul's life absolute certainty is unattain-
able. An approximation to the truth is the most that we can
expect, but this approximation is all that is necessary for my
main object, which is to place his Epistles in connexion with
his life. This impossibility of arriving at definite chronological
results arises from the fact that there are very few points of
contact between the Acts of the Apostles and contemporary
history, and such points of contact as exist are of a vague
kind chronologically. Indeed there are only two events in
secular history which help us primarily in our search, though
there are other allusions of a more uncertain character which
can be appealed to as secondary and corroborative evidence.
The two events to which I refer are, (1) the death of Herod
Agrippa, (2) the procuratorship of Felix. We will proceed to
investigate them in turn.

1. The death of Herod Agrippa, which is recorded in
Acts xii. 23, is known to have fallen in 44 A.D. For Josephus

216 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

says that at the time of his death he had already completed the
third year of his reign over the whole of Judaea (Ant. xix. 8. 2).
Now this dignity was conferred upon him by Claudius soon
after the commencement of that Emperor's reign, which took
place on January 24th, A.D. 41. He died after the Passover, for
it was during that festival that St Peter was imprisoned by him,
and soon after Herod left Jerusalem for the last time. Now
Herod's persecution of the Church and his subsequent death
are related by St Luke in connexion with St Paul's second visit
to Jerusalem. The account is inserted between the notices of
St Paul's journey thither and his return to Antioch. It must
not be assumed however that they exactly synchronized with that
visit. St Luke's language is indefinite, 'about that time,' and as
his object in digressing is to describe the state of the Church at
Jerusalem when St Paul arrived, the incidents which are then
interpolated in the narrative may be supposed to have happened
previously to that visit. In this case St Paul's second visit
to Jerusalem may be placed at the end of 44, or in 45.

St Paul's object in visiting Jerusalem on this occasion was
to carry relief to the Jews suffering from a dearth which extended
'over the whole land,' or, as others would translate, 'the whole
world ' (e<' oki]v rqv olKov/jLevrjv), and happened in the reign
of Claudius 1 . Unfortunately contemporaneous history does not
furnish us with the exact date of this dearth : but so far as we
can draw any conclusion, it is quite in accordance with the
result already obtained. We read of several famines occurring
at different times in different parts of the Roman Empire
during this reign, but of no general dearth. Among these, one
(and one only) is recorded as having happened in Judaea.
Whatever interpretation therefore is to be put upon the words
e<j) oXyv rrjv ol/covpewjv, this must be the occasion in question,
as history supplies no other.

Now Josephus states 2 that this famine in Judaea fell in the
procuratorships of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander.
Cuspius Fadus was appointed soon after the death of Herod
1 Acts xi. 28. 2 Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 2.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 217

Agrippa, i.e. probably in 44, and Tiberius Alexander ceased to
be procurator about 48. During this period then (44-48) the
famine must have raged. Cuspius Fadus was still procurator
at the end of June 45, but the close of his office is uncertain.
If we suppose him to have been succeeded by Alexander in 46,
the famine may have broken out in 45, and spread over the
following year at least.

This date is further confirmed by another incident recorded
by Josephus 1 . Helena, Queen of Adiabene, having recently
embraced the Jewish religion, paid a visit to Jerusalem and,
finding the famine raging, purchased food for the sufferers.
This incident is inserted among events of 45, and the historian
immediately adds that about this time (Kara TOVTOV rov fcaipov)
Fadus appeared in his province. It seems highly probable then
that the famine broke out in 45, and as the Christians of
Antioch had been prepared beforehand by the prophecy of Agabus,
and were ready with the means of relief, it may be presumed
that Paul and Barnabas would be sent to Jerusalem as soon as
the pressure began to be felt, i.e. in the year 45.

2. The date of the recall of Felix and the succession of
Festus to the procuratorship is not directly known, but may be
ascertained with a tolerable degree of accuracy.

Pentecost had already passed when St Paul was imprisoned
at Jerusalem 2 , and he remained in captivity two years before
Festus reached his province. Festus therefore did not arrive
before Pentecost. Again, at the great fast of the same year,
which fell in October, St Paul was as far as Crete on his way
to Rome. Festus therefore must have entered upon his pro-
curatorship between Pentecost and October, i.e. some time in
the summer or autumn of the year. We have now to deter-
mine this year.

The following considerations show that it could not well
have been earlier than A.D. 60 :

(a) St Paul pleading before Felix (Acts xxiv. 10) says :
' I know that thou hast been of many years (etc 7ro\\ouv e

1 Jos. Ant. xx. 2. 6, xx. 5. 2. 2 Acts xx. 16, xxi. 27.

218 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

a judge unto this nation.' Now Felix entered upon his procura-
torship at the close of 52, and, if we allow between five and six
years for the period designated Tro\\d err), this will give 58 as
the date of St Paul's imprisonment, and 60 as that of Felix'
recall. We can scarcely allow less, and on the other hand, con-
sidering the rapid succession of the procurators at this time,
a period of five or six years might fairly be considered a long
term of office.

(6) Nero came to the Imperial throne in October 54. Now
Josephus 1 mentions several incidents which happened during the
procuratorship of Felix subsequent to Nero's accession, and
these together must have occupied a considerable time. These
events include the death of Azizus, king of Emesa, the succession
of Aristobulus to the kingdom of Chalcis, and the readjustment
of the dominions of the younger Agrippa. They cover the period
of the 'great quarrel' between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants
of Caesarea, which was closed by the armed intervention of the
Roman procurator. Describing the jealousy which arose at
this time between Felix and the high priest Jonathan, and
which led to the assassination of Jonathan in the streets of
Jerusalem by the governor's order, Josephus speaks of the
reign of terror which, as the result of this dark deed, prevailed
at festival times from the bands of assassins, who infested the
capital, murdering their private enemies with impunity, even
inside the sacred precincts. He devotes two long chapters to
an account of the various robbers and impostors who flourished
during this period of Felix's procuratorship, beginning with
Eleazar, son of Dinseus, who was treacherously slain by Felix,
and culminating in the formidable insurrection of the Egyptian.

(c) This last-mentioned incident, the rebellion headed by
the Egyptian, is alluded to by Claudius Lysias (Acts xxi. 38),
on the occasion of St Paul's imprisonment, as having happened
some time before (irpb TOVTMV TWV rj/jbepwv). We may fairly
allow five or six years for the events which happened previously
(as enumerated in the last paragraph), for the duration of this
1 Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 18, B. J. ii. 13.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 219

rebellion itself, and for the period which elapsed; and this again
will bring the date of St Paul's imprisonment to A.D. 58.

If this consideration leads to the year 60 as the earliest
probable date of the recall of Felix, there are other circumstances
which show that it cannot well have been later.

(1) Felix was the brother of Pallas, the notorious favourite
of the Emperor Claudius, and after he had been removed from
the procuratorship to make room for Festus, was only saved
from the clamours of the Jews by the intercession of his brother.
As Pallas was poisoned A.D. 62 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 65), Felix must
have been recalled before this. It might have been supposed that
this incident occurred before the removal of Pallas from power,
A.D. 55, related by Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 14), but the considerations
already adduced preclude this supposition.

(2) Again St Paul, after his arrival in Rome, preaches two
whole years unmolested (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). The great fire at
Rome broke out in July 64, and the persecution of the Christians
commenced immediately after. Thus the Apostle cannot have
arrived in Rome later than 62, and Felix must have been re-
called in the summer of 61 at the latest.

(3) But there are other considerations which lead to the
previous year 61 as the probable date of St Paul's arrival at
Rome, for in Acts xxviii. 16 his fellow-prisoners are given
up to the prefect of the prsetorium (ro> o-rparoTreBapxp)- Now
Burrus held the office of prefect alone, but after his death it
was shared by two, as had been the case also before his appoint-
ment. As the plural is generally used in similar cases, the
singular here would seem to imply that there was but one
prefect at this time, i.e. that Burrus was still living. But Burrus
died early in the year 62 (in February at the latest) 1 , and St Paul
can scarcely have arrived in Rome before the end of March.
The great fast, which fell on the 10th of Tishri (corresponding
roughly to October), had already passed when the ship left
Lassea in Crete. The voyage thence to Malta occupied four-
teen days, and there they stayed three months, leaving for

1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 52.

220 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

Puteoli by an Alexandrian vessel, that had wintered at Malta
(Acts xxviii. 11). The season at which the seas became navig-
able is stated by Vegetius 1 to be the sixth before the Ides
of March. For long voyages Pliny 2 places it at the vernal
equinox. Taking the earlier date we have to allow three
days for the stay at Syracuse, one for the delay at Rhegium,
two for the voyage thence to Puteoli, and seven for the stay at
Puteoli (Acts xxviii. 12 14). Besides this we have to account
for the voyages from Malta to Syracuse and from Syracuse to
Rhegium, with the journey from Puteoli to Rome, St Luke not
having stated the time occupied by these. If therefore Burrus
was still living when St Paul reached the metropolis, he must
have arrived in the preceding year 61, and Felix must have
been recalled in the summer of 60.

(4) This date is further borne out by another considera-
tion. Felix was succeeded by Festus, Festus by Albinus. Now
Albinus was already procurator at the Feast of Tabernacles A.D.
62. For the Jewish war broke out in 66, and Albinus was at
Jerusalem at the season of this festival four years before. How
long he had held office at that time we are ignorant. At most
however this would allow only a year and a quarter for the
procuratorship of Festus, supposing him to have entered on
his office in the summer of 61. But the number of incidents
which Josephus records as having taken place during his pro-
curatorship can scarcely be crowded into this short space of
time ; and we are thus led to the year 60 as the more probable
date of his appointment.

We have thus ascertained two fixed dates in the chronology
of St Paul's life A.D. 45 for his second journey to Jerusalem
and A.D. 60 for his voyage to Rome. The former of these being
an isolated event in St Luke's narrative is of little value com-
paratively for our purpose ; but from the latter the whole of the
known chronology of St Paul's life is determined, by means
of the notices in the Acts of the sequence of events and the

1 Vegetius de re militari iv. 39. 2 Pliny N. H. ii. 47.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 221

time occupied by them, together with occasional allusions in the
Epistles.

These notices in St Luke's narrative are much more exact in
the latter part of the history, commencing with the third
missionary journey, than in the former : and it will be seen from
the following table how the dates of the Apostle's life are
ascertained by a backward reckoning from the date of the
procuratorship of Festus.

A.D.

34. St Paul's conversion.

Cf. Gal. i. 15 sq. Three years after his conversion he went up to
Jerusalem, for (1) the point of time is obviously his conversion, for
the argument depends on that, and (2) pera rpia errj must mean
three whole years, or substantially so, for the preposition /*era, to
say nothing of the argument, excludes the supposition of a Judaical
reckoning, by which a term of a little more than a year might be
so designated 1 .

He visits Arabia, and returns to Damascus (Gal. i. 17, Acts ix. 20-25,
2 Cor. xi. 32, 33).

37. First visit to Jerusalem (Acts ix. 26, Gal. i. 18).

Cf. Gal. ii. 1. Between the first and third visit to Jerusalem a period
of 14 years elapsed, for (1) the visit recorded in this passage of the
Galatians must be identified with the third of the Acts, (2) 8ia
SfKaTfo-o-dpwv erS)v must be reckoned from the first visit, not from
the date of the Apostle's conversion, because St Paul's object is to
show how long a period elapsed without his holding communication
with the Apostles of the Circumcision, (3) TraXti/ dvefirjv refers back
to the previous visit.

37-44. To Csesarea and Tarsus, visit to Syria (Acts ix. 30, Gal. i. 21).

44. St Paul brought by Barnabas to Antioch. He stays there a year
(Acts xi. 26).

45. Second visit to Jerusalem with alms (Acts xi. 29, 30).

46. 47. At Antioch.

48. FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY (Acts xiii. 1-xiv. 26) with Barnabas.

He visits Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and
returns to Antioch.

1 [In his commentary on the Gala- version in A.D. 36, and the first visit to
tians, however, Dr Lightfoot adopts the Jerusalem in A.D. 38 ; see note on Gal.
Jewish reckoning, and places the con- ii. 1, 2.]

222 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

A.D.

51. Third visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1 sq., Acts xv. 1 sq.).
The Council of Jerusalem.

Returns to Antioch. The interview with Peter (Gal. ii. 11 sq.).
SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY (Acts xv. 36-xviii. 22) with Silas.
First visit to Galatia.

52. Crosses into Europe. First visit to Philippi, Thessalonica, and
Corinth.

[1 Thessalonians.]

53. At Corinth.

[2 Thessalonians.]

54. (Spring) Leaves Corinth for Ephesus.

(Summer) Fourth visit to Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts xviii. 21, 22).

Returns to Antioch.

(Autumn) THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY (Acts xviii. 23-xxi. 15).

Second visit to Galatia (Acts xviii. 23, Gal. iv. 13-16).

To Ephesus again.

55. At Ephesus.

Second visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, 2).

56. At Ephesus. Sends a letter (now lost) to the Corinthians (1 Cor.
v. 9).

Reply from the Corinthians (1 Cor. vii. 1).

57. (Spring) At Ephesus. Mission of Timotheus to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi.
10-12, Acts xix. 22).

[1 Corinthians.]

First Mission of Titus to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18).
St Paul leaves Ephesus, overtaking Timotheus (?).
Visits Troas and Macedonia.
Second visit to Philippi and Thessalonica.
(Autumn) Titus rejoins St Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6).

[2 Corinthians.]

Second Mission of Titus to Corinth.
(Winter) Third visit to Corinth (Acts xx. 2).
[Galatians 1 .]

58. (Spring) At Corinth.

[Romans.]

Third visit to Philippi ; meets the elders of Ephesus at Miletus.
(Summer) Fourth visit to Jerusalem : arrested and sent to Caesarea.

59. At Csesarea.

60. (Autumn) Voyage to Rome, and shipwreck at Malta.

61. (Spring) Arrival at Rome.

1 The Epistle to the Galatians may have been written in the early spring
of A.D. 58.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 223

A.D.

62. (Spring) At Home.

[Philippians.]
(Autumn) [Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.]

63. (Spring) Release of St Paul.

St Luke's narrative mentions ' two whole years ' (Acts xxviii. 30) as
the period of St Paul's sojourn at Rome. The notice implies a change
at the end of this period, hence we fix the release in the spring of 63.

63-66. First journey Eastward.

(?) He revisits Macedonia. Fourth visit to Philippi (ra^e'tos e'Xevo-o/icu,

Phil. ii. 24).

(?) Revisits Asia and Phrygia. Visit to Colossee (Philemon 22).

Journey Westward.

(?) Founds the Church of Crete.

Visits Spain, Gaul (?) (2 Tim. iv. 10), and Dalmatia (?) (2 Tim. iv. 10).

Second journey Eastward.

Revisits Asia and Phrygia (2 Tim. i. 15 sq.). Visits Ephesus (1 Tim.

i. 3) ; here probably he encounters Alexander the coppersmith (1 Tim.

i. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 14). Leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian

Church.

67. Revisits Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3). Fifth visit to Philippi.
(?) Revisits Achaia (Athens and Corinth).

[1 Timothy.]

Visits (perhaps revisits) Crete, and leaves Titus in charge of the
Church there (Titus i. 5). Returns to Asia.

[Titus.]

Visits Miletus (2 Tim. iv. 20), sails to Troas (2 Tim. iv. 13), is at
Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20) on his way to Nicopolis to winter (Tit. iii. 12).
(Autumn) Arrested (probably at Corinth) 1 , and carried to Rome.
Titus joins him there.

[2 Timothy.]
Timothy shares his imprisonment (Heb. xiii. 23).

68 (?). (Spring) Martyrdom of St Paul (Jerome de vir. illustr. 5 ' in the
fourteenth year of Nero ' 2 ).
June. Death of Nero.

The table of the events of St Paul's life given above has
been drawn up with the special object of presenting a record
of the Apostle's association with the Churches to which he wrote

1 Nero was in Greece fromA.D. 66 to 2 Eusebius (Chronicon) places it 'in
August A.D. 67 (Suet. Nero 19 sq.; Jos. the thirteenth year of Nero' i.e. before
B. J. ii. 20. 1). Oct. 67.

224

THE CHRONOLOGY OF

letters, and of the periods of his epistolary activity. It remains
for us now to consider in their mutual relations the letters
which have come down to us.

The Epistles of St Paul may be divided into four chrono-
logical groups, each group being separated from the next by an
interval of about five years, each group again corresponding to
a marked epoch in the Apostle's life, and representing a distinct
phase in his teaching. To make my meaning clear, I give the
scheme in a tabulated form :

PERIOD

EPISTLES

DATES

CHARACTERISTICS

1. Second Missionary
Journey

land 2
Thessalonians

A.D. 52, 53

Christ the Judge
or
The Tribunal

2. Third Missionary
Journey

1 and 2
Corinthians
Galatians
Romans

57,58

Christ the Redeemer
or
The Cross

3. First Roman
Captivity

Philippians
Ephesians
Colossians
Philemon

62, 63

Christ the Word
or
The Throne

4. After the Release,
including the Second
Roman Captivity.

1 Timothy
Titus
2 Timothy

67, 68

Church Organisation
or
The Congregation

These dates are in some cases approximate only. Thus
there is a possibility that 1 Thessalonians was written in
A.D. 51, and 2 Thessalonians in A.D. 52 ; a possibility also that
the Epistles of the First Roman Captivity should be antedated
a year throughout ; but upon the whole the above is the result
which falls in best with the chronology of St Paul's life as given
above ; and the phenomenon which this result presents throws
much light upon the way in which we should approach the
study of Holy Scripture as the vehicle of Divine revelation.

In every inspired writing there are two elements, the human
and the Divine, or, as it is sometimes expressed, the letter and
the spirit ; and the different views held of the doctrine of
inspiration depend upon the prominence given to one or the
other of these elements, and the judgment formed of their

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 225

mutual relations. Hence it will be seen that no conceivable shade
of opinion is excluded, and every attempt at classifying these
views must be more or less fallacious. But it will be sufficiently
exact for our present purpose roughly to assume a threefold
division in the attitude taken by writers on this question in
the first of these the Divine element being too exclusively
considered, in the second this undue prominence being assigned
to the human agency, and in the third, and only adequate view
of inspiration, each of these elements being recognised in
its proper sphere and the two harmoniously combined. The
first of these views is irrational, the second is rationalistic,
the third alone is in accordance alike with the highest reason
and the fullest faith.

The irrational view that which loses sight of the human
agency is prior in time (I am speaking now of modern
criticism) to the rationalistic. It refuses to recognise any
peculiarities in the individual writer who is under the guidance
of the Spirit ; it is insensible to any varieties in style, any
difference in the method of treatment in different books of
Holy Scripture. It reduces the whole Bible to one uniform
colour. It is needless to say that such a view must fall at
once before the assaults of criticism. If this were all, it might
be borne patiently, but unhappily it has dragged down the
tottering faith of not a few in its fall. It may also be said
that it is derogatory to the majesty of God, that it has no
support from analogy in His workings elsewhere, and no
authority from Holy Scripture itself.

This theory of inspiration provokes a reaction. The rational-
istic view is the natural consequence of its exaggerated form.
In this the human element is put so prominently forward that
the Divine is obscured. The Divine agency is perhaps not
actually denied, but it is so virtually. By indefinitely extending
the action of inspiration, it is in fact rendered meaningless. It is
allowed that Moses and David, that St Paul and St John, were
inspired, but then the same privilege is claimed for Homer and
^Eschylus, for Pythagoras and Plato. Now I should be the last
L. E. 15

226 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

to deny that whatever is good, whatever is beautiful, whatever
is true in the heathen writers is derived from the primal source
of all beauty, truth and goodness. I have been taught and I
fully believe it that every good gift and every perfect gift
cometh from above. But practically there is such a vast
difference between the illumination of the apostle and prophet,
and the illumination of the philosopher and poet, that to call
both by the same term 'inspiration/ instead of tending to clear
our conceptions, does in fact leave a very erroneous impression
on our minds. Inspiration is thus emptied of its significance.

The true view is a mean between these extremes, or rather
it is a combination of the two. It recognises the element of
truth which each contains, adopting and uniting the elements.
And it recognises them too in all their fulness. It does not
assign less power to the Divine agency, nor does it ignore any
of the characteristics of the human instrument. The truth is
one, but it has many sides. One man is more fitted than
another by natural endowments to appreciate it from some
particular point of view. No man is capable of seeing it from
every side, else he becomes more than a man. The Holy Spirit
has chosen His instruments, as Christ chose His Apostles, for
their natural gifts, whether intellectual or spiritual, and has
inspired them for our instruction and guidance. But He has
not destroyed their individuality. Each with his special
message to deliver, they become fit instruments under Divine
guidance to develop a particular aspect of the truth, and we
may suppose, without presumption, that they had each their
part assigned them, according to their natural capabilities and
acquirements, in penning the volume of Holy Scripture, as we
know that they had in rearing the fabric of the Church.

To sum up and to apply what has been said. Inspiration is
not a mechanical power or a magical agency. It does not use
men merely as its instruments. It is a moral arid spiritual
power. It does not transmute its agents : it moulds them.
Hence, as a natural result arising from the varied circumstances
and training of the inspired writers, it is not uniform. And,

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 227

for a right appreciation of the lessons of Holy Scripture, three
stages in this absence of uniformity must be recognised. First,
there is a growth from age to age. From the Law we advance
to the prophets ; from the prophets to the Gospels. Thus
inspiration is developed. Secondly, there is a diversity of in-
spiration in different persons in the same age. One sacred writer,
St Paul, views the Gospel as the abrogation of the Law; another,
St James, as its fulfilment. They are not contradictory, but
complementary the one to the other, for the Gospel is at once
the abrogation and the fulfilment of the Law. One Evangelist,
St John, dwells chiefly on the Eternal Sonship of the Saviour ;
another, St Luke, on His human tenderness and His sympathy
with our infirmities. They are both true, for He is very God
and very Man. Thus they have different functions to perform ;
their office is to set forth the Gospel message from different
points of view, which are determined by their respective positions
and characters. Thirdly, there is a diversity in the same writer
in different stages in his career. When we apply this principle to
St Paul, we discover on examination that he exhibits a historical
development in his teaching. By the word 'development' is
meant, not that St Paul added to his doctrines, but that he
altered the lights in which he placed them, making one point
more prominent at one time than at another. The whole
doctrine is there from the first implicitly involved in the funda-
mental conception of the person of Christ, but the particular
aspects are brought into special prominence, as they are called out
at different times by the exigencies of external circumstances.

These external circumstances are twofold ; first, the varying
requirements of the Church at large, secondly, the altered con-
ditions of the Apostle's own life. These are the two forces
through which inspiration acts upon the development of St
Paul's teaching; and the progress in his case I have endeavoured
to express in the watchwords which I have attached above to
the four groups of Epistles ' The Tribunal/ 'The Cross," The
Throne,' ' The Congregation.'

For the sake of convenience we will set aside the chrono-

152

228 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

logical order, and consider, at the outset, the first and the fourth
group of his Epistles. The doctrine of the Epistles to the
Thessalonians throughout is the Second Advent, ' Christ the
Judge.' This is the one prominent idea which runs through
this pair of letters from end to end. Similarly, the purpose of
the Pastoral Epistles is ecclesiastical organization. In the light
of the external circumstances of the Church at the two periods
involved, the reasons for this striking difference between the two
groups are hardly less obvious than the fact of its existence.

It is only natural that the doctrine of the Second Advent
should occur early in the Pauline Epistles. And this for several
reasons. The Resurrection was the central point in the
teaching of the Twelve after the day of Pentecost, and the
Resurrection naturally suggested its necessary correlative, the
Second Coming of Christ. Again, the doctrine of the Second
Advent involved the doctrine of rewards for faithful service in
the infancy of the Church. When persecution was rife, the
disciples would need the necessary incentive to steadfastness
under trial which such a promise brought with it. Thirdly, the
expectation of the Second Advent implied the call to repentance,
and therefore found its natural place in the forefront of St
Paul's early teaching, just as the Baptist's cry ' Repent ' pre-
ceded our Lord's ministry. Thus, in his discourse on the
Areopagus, St Paul, after drawing attention to God's presence
in nature, goes on to point the moral of the special doctrine of
revelation as repentance resulting upon Christ's coining to
judgment 1 . Lastly, Messianic hopes had to be satisfied.
Hitherto, externally everything had ended in disappointment.
The King had suffered a malefactor's death; and the Ascension,
which followed upon the triumph of the Resurrection, was, to
Jewish Christians, if not a negation, at least a deferring, of the
promised kingdom of God. Thus the Second Advent became
the answer to Messianic expectations.

And if the Second Advent furnished the natural theme for
St Paul's earliest Epistles, not less obvious is it why his latest

1 Acts xvii. 30, 31.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 229

utterances should have been devoted to the question of the
organization of the Church. A study of the history of the
Church at this period shows a growing restlessness both in
thought and action, synchronizing with the withdrawal of the
teachers most competent to check these disorders. Schisms and
heresies were starting into life within the fold, and meanwhile
the apostolate was dying out. Therefore a double necessity was
laid upon 'Paul the aged' to meet this danger by strengthening
and developing the Church's system of government. If we look
at the Pastoral Epistles, we find no new doctrine inculcated.
The two notes which are struck again and again are (1) 'Hold
fast the tradition' (rrjv TrapaOiJKrjv <j>v\aj;ov I Tim. vi. 20,
2 Tim. i. 14), and (2) 'Preserve order in the Church.' In short,
this group of Epistles constitutes St Paul's last will and
testament, in which he gives his final instructions for the
maintenance and continuity of the faith.

Thus the two letters to the Thessalonians and the Pastoral
Epistles may be entitled the preface and the postscript re-
spectively to the Pauline literature, its prologue and its
epilogue. We have now cleared the ground, and may pass
on to consider the second and third of the groups of Epistles,
which contain the main substance of the Apostle's doctrine.
And here a somewhat fuller explanation will be necessary. The
ancient Greek Fathers divided what we call by the general
name of 'Theology' into two distinct provinces, olicovofjiLa and
Oeo\oyia. The first of these two terms points, as its deriva-
tion implies, to a Divine dispensation. The Church is, in effect,
the household (o ot/eo?) of God, and rj OLKOVO/JLLO, is the plan by
which God rules His household. It is the means whereby
God ransoms from sin. It includes the dispensation of the
gifts and graces of the Spirit which form part of the Divine
' household-stuff.' On the other hand, as understood by the
Fathers, 77 6eo\oyia directed itself to the contemplation of
Christ's Eternal Being His relation to the Father and the Holy
Spirit before the worlds were made. It was in this technical
sense of the word that Gregory of Nazianzus and St John

230 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

alike procured the title of o #60X0709. Thus the spheres in
which the two sciences move are different. The one centres
round the Incarnation and embraces all that flows therefrom ;
the other, taking for its theme the Divine attributes of Christ,
pierces behind the Incarnation to the Eternal, Pre-existent
Word. This twofold division in the province of Theology has
its counterpart in the two groups of St Paul's Epistles with
which we are now concerned. The distinctive feature of the
Epistles of the Third Missionary Journey is the stress laid
upon oiKovo^ia ; on the other hand, the Epistles of the First
Roman Captivity deal mainly with OeoXoyia. I have therefore
given as its leading characteristic to the one group, ' the Cross/
to the other, ' the Throne. 7

Justification, Atonement, Sacrifice the vast majority of
passages which bear upon these doctrines are to be found in the
Epistles of the second group. And if we turn to the circum-
stances of the Church at the period at which they were written,
the reason becomes obvious. This was the time of St Paul's
great conflict with Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism on
the other. The Cross of Christ contains the complete answer
to the error of both, to the formalism of the one and the anti-
nomianism of the other. ' Christ died for us ' here is the
reply to the legalism of the Jew, setting forth that the true
ground of Christian hope is faith, not works ; ' we must die
with Christ' here is the reply to the license of the Greek,
exhibiting as it does the true motive of life. In short, there
is a work done for us, and a work done in us. The two must
not be separated. Christ's righteousness, so St Paul tells us,
cannot become our righteousness, unless we become one with
Christ, unless we live in Christ. It is this repose in Christ
which makes sin impossible. This is St Paul's doctrine. He
never sacrifices the one proposition to the other. When he
dwells on the truth * Christ died for us/ he is ever mindful of
its correlative ' We must die with Christ/ i.e. die to self and to
sin. He never separates the religious belief from the moral
change. Nay, he cannot conceive of the two as separated. For

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 231

faith in Christ is a moral as well as an intellectual state, and
with St Paul its moral aspect is in fact the more prominent of
the two. So that not 'justification by faith' so much as 'dying
and living with Christ,' ' oneness with Christ/ may be regarded
as the central point of his Gospel. This is the meaning of his
constantly repeated phrase 'in the Lord/ 'in Christ' (ev Kvpiw,
ev X/Mo-TG)) 1 , and this fact it is which, when once realised, makes
it impossible even to suspect an opposition between St Paul
and St James in their fundamental views, though the verbal
statement of them is at first sight different 2 . The two proposi-
tions of the antithesis contain the answer to the two fundamental
errors of the Jew and the Gentile. The Jewish error, which was
dogmatic, rested upon a false ground of hope. The Hellenic
error, which was practical, sprang from a false theory of life.
The Jewish convert said/ We are saved by the works of the law.'
St Paul's answer is, ' No : Christ died for us. A work has been
done for us by God; and we are saved by faith in Christ'
(meaning thereby, faith in Christ, with all that the idea conveys
with it). The Gentile convert said, ' We are no longer under
the works of the law. We are free to do as we like ; let us sin
that grace may abound.' c No/ replies the Apostle, ' we must
die with Christ ; Christ's work must be done in us.' Thus the
danger of the one was bondage ; the danger of the other
license. These respective errors he meets separately in writing
to the Galatians and to the Corinthians. The watchword of

1 'Ev Kupt'y Kom. xiv. 14, xvi. 2, 8, Hence Luther's saying ' Sin, and sin
11,12,13,22; 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 22, 39, boldly,' though Luther himself was
ix. 1, 2, xi. 11, xv. 58, xvi. 19; 2 Cor. anything but antinomian. Mr M.
ii. 12 etc.; iv XpurTy Kom. iii. 24, vi. Arnold justly protests against this
11, 23, viii. 1, 2, 39, ix. 1, xii. 5, xv. 17, perversion, this one-sided view, of St
xvi. 3, 7, 10; 1 Cor. i. 2, 4, 30, iii. 1, Paul's doctrine, and all its dangerous
iv. 10, 15, 17, xv. 18, 19, 31 ; 2 Cor. ii. consequences, dangerous to practice
17, v. 17, xii. 2, 19 etc. and dangerous to belief, for it has

2 Some modern teachers however, done more than almost anything else
alleging his name, have forgotten the to repel the moral sense. On the
one proposition or the other. Taking other hand, Mr M. Arnold himself, it
justification by faith and by faith alone seems to me, has thrown the other
as their watchword, they have produced, proposition ' Christ died for us' a little
as an extreme result, antinomianism. too much into the background.

232 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

the one Epistle is ' Liberty, not bondage ' ; of the other ' Not
license, but liberty/ though in neither is the antithetical pro-
position suppressed 1 . Finally iu the Epistle to the Romans
the composite character of the Church which he addressed
compelled him to combine the two aspects, and to treat them
in a full exposition.

And side by side with the special questions which were
agitating the Church at large at this crisis of her history, must
be set the particular circumstances of the Apostle's life. This
was its most tumultuous period, a time of constant travel, of
bitter personal opposition, of ceaseless activities of every kind.
All this combined to fit him at this time to be the exponent of
this particular side of Gospel truth.

We turn to the third group of Epistles, and at once we
notice a change of subject-matter. The metaphysical, mystical,
contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought out into special
prominence. In place of the lessons of soteriology and re-
demption which we meet with in the Epistles of the Third
Missionary Journey, Christ is exhibited as the Eternal Word,
as God manifest in the flesh 2 , and, as the corollary upon this
teaching, is set forth the union of the individual and the Church
with God through Christ 3 . Christ's reign in heaven, His p re-
existence, His omnipotence, form the Apostle's theme rather
than His life on earth, His humiliation, the example of His
perfect character. The Church militant is for the time lost in
the Church triumphant. As before, the secret of this change
of thought is to be found in the altered conditions of the
Apostle's life and the Church's needs. A lengthened term of
imprisonment, first at Csesarea, then at Rome, had succeeded
upon a period of bustling, strained activity. In God's good

1 Contrast generally Gal. ii. 15 sq corrective), ix. 19, 21, x. 14, 16, 23, 32,

(vv. 19, 20 supply the corrective), iii. 2, xi. 3, xii. 12, 27, 2 Cor. i. 5, iv. 10 12,

10 sq, v. 36, 11 (vv. 13 sq, 16 sq v. 1720 (v. 21 corrective),
corrective), vi. 14, with 1 Cor. v. 6, 7 2 Cf. Eph. i. 10, 2023, iii. 15, iv. 15,

(v. 7 Kal yiip rb 7rd<rxa corrective), vi. vi. 9; Phil. ii. 6 sq; Col. i. 15 sq,

9 sq (v. 11 corrective), 15 sq (v. 20 ii. 9 sq, iii. 1, 4, etc.
corrective), vii. 19, 23, viii. 8, 9 (v. 11 3 Cf. Phil. iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19, etc.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 233

providence St Paul was enjoying a season of uninterrupted rest,
which gave the opportunity for a contemplation of the highest
mysteries of the faith. The most tranquil period of his life
supervened upon the most tumultuous. The Epistle to the
Ephesians is the expression of the one period, the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians is the reflection of the other. But
the consideration that the Apostle's frame of mind at this time
would naturally lead him to the study of metaphysical specu-
lation must not blind us to the propriety of this study in
relation to the altered conditions of the Church. The foe from
which she had most to fear now was no longer Judaism or
Hellenism, but Orientalism, that mystic, theosophic speculation
with regard to angelic, intermediate beings between God and
man which was afterwards known as Gnosticism and reached
its climax in the fantastic systems of Basilides and Valentinus.
That this was the case is evident when we consider the character
of the heresy in the Colossian Church, against which St Paul
argues in his Epistle to that Church. In order therefore to
confront these false doctrines, it was necessary for the Apostle
to show that there was only one link between God and man,
Christ manifest in the flesh, and that there was no room for the
successive emanations, in the creation of which his opponents
delighted to indulge their elaborate fancy.

[1863.]

VI.
THE CHUKCHES OF MACEDONIA.

VI.
THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

O T PAUL'S first visit to Macedonia was the dawn of a new
era in the development of the Christian Church. The
incidents, which ushered it in. spoke significantly to himself
and his fellow-labourers ; and, in St Luke's record, they stand
out in bold relief. The entrance into Macedonia and the visit
to Rome are the two most important stages in the Apostle's
missionary life, as they are also the two most emphatic
passages in the historian's narrative the one the opening
campaign of the Gospel in the West, the other its crowning
triumph. It is no surprise therefore that St Paul years after-
wards should speak of his labours in Macedonia, as 'the beginning
of the Gospel 1 ,' though his missionary course was now half run.
The faith of Christ had, as it were, made a fresh start.

This portion of St Luke's narrative 2 is emphasized not by
any artifice of the writer, but by the progress of the incidents
themselves which all converge to one point. St Paul having

1 Phil. iv. 15 iv apxa rov evay- 8ir)\0ov..,e\06vTes St... be correct, the
ye\iov. complexion of the incident will be

2 Acts xvi. 6-10 Ate\06j>res 8e TT\V slightly, but not materially, altered.
Qpvylav Kai TaXaTiKrjv x^/* 1 "* fw\u- But, though the preponderance of
Qtvres virb TOV aylov Trj/eifytctTos \d\i)<rcu authority is considerably hi its favour,
TOV \6yov tv rrj 'Affta, e\66vres Kara rrjv it is open to suspicion as an attempt

weipaov els rrjv Bidwiav Tropev- to simplify the grammar of a sentence

KOL OVK etao-ev cuprous TO irvev^a. rendered awkward by the accumula-

- irapeXQovTes 8t rrjv 'M.va'iav xart- tion of participles.
els Tpydda K.T.\. If the reading

238 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

passed through the country of Phrygia and Galatia is driven
forward under the Divine guidance and in spite of his own
impulses towards the shores of the Hellespont. Attempting to
diverge on either side, he is checked and kept in the direct
path. He first looks wistfully towards the country lying on his
left, wishing to preach the Gospel in the populous district of
Proconsular Asia. 'The Holy Spirit forbids him' to do so.
He next turns his steps towards Bithynia situated on his right,
doubtless with the same purpose. This attempt is as futile as
the former. ' The Spirit of Jesus ' will not permit it. Thus
hemmed in on either side, he has no choice but to go forward,
and so he arrives on the coast of the JEgaean. Here at length
the meaning of those strange hindrances, which had thwarted
his energetic purpose, becomes apparent. God's providence has
destined him for a nobler mission-field. While at Troas gazing
on the sight of the opposite shores of Europe, he receives an
intimation which decides him. He sees a vision in the night.
A man of Macedonia stands before him and entreats him :
' Come over and help us.' He considers this as an indication of
the will of God, and in obedience thereto he crosses the narrow
sea which separates Asia from Europe.

In this way St Luke forces upon our notice the importance
of this visit to Macedonia. When he comes to narrate the
visit itself, he does so with a greater minuteness of detail than
is usually found in his narrative. The incidents of St Paul's
preaching at Philippi especially, the first European town which
hears the truths of the Gospel from the lips of the Apostle, are
dwelt upon with singular fulness. Of these incidents the his-
torian was himself an eyewitness. He had but lately joined
St Paul's company for the first time, and the scenes, in which
he now moved, would naturally dwell in his memory with all
the force of fresh and unwonted experiences. But beyond this
personal reason we can scarcely doubt that the fulness of detail
in this part of his narrative is due also to the conviction in his
mind that this visit heralded a new and important era in the
history of the Christian Church.

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 239

It was not only that the Apostle had surmounted the sea-
barrier which separates two tracts of country bearing different
names, and conventionally regarded as distinct continents 1 .
The real significance of his journey lay in this, that it brought
him in contact with new interests, new associations and ideas,
or at least into closer contact with them than hitherto. He
now occupied the ground which from its geographical position
was the natural high road between the East and the West, and
was mixing with that people whose mission it had been to fuse
the whole civilised world, to bring the arts and intelligence of
Greece and the political capacities of Rome into alliance with
the nobler spiritual instincts and sublimer theological conceptions
of Asia above all, with the one specially revealed religion of
Palestine and thus to pioneer the way for the Gospel. The
great Macedonian conqueror had appreciated the task which
its natural position imposed upon his country. He can have
been no mere selfish tyrant or vain profligate, who when advised
by the wisest philosopher of the day to treat the Greeks as free
subjects, the Orientals as slaves, repudiated the narrow counsels
of his teacher, declaring that he had been ' sent by God to
unite, pacify, and reconcile the whole world 2 .' This generous
sentiment of Alexander was an anticipation, however feeble, of
the work of that great Reconciler, who broke down the partition
walls between castes and nations 3 , and may well recal the loftier
utterance of St Paul, who proclaimed that there was now
' neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free/
but all were 'one in Christ 4 .' And when again we read of the

1 It is interesting to observe that rjyefjLoviKuis, rots de fiapfidpois

' Europe' is never once mentioned in /ccSs x/ 3 ^A te " OJ '---aXXa Koivbs TJKCIV

the New Testament, and that 'Asia' apuoaTTjs Kal StctXXa/trrjs TWV

denotes not the continent, but the vo^ifav K.T.\. The whole passage is

Eoman province. The words of the worth reading.

man in St Paul's vision are not 'Come 3 See Ephes. ii. 14, 15; and corn-

over into Europe,' but 'Come over pare the expressions dTro/caraXXd^ai ra

into Macedonia,' Acts xvi. 9. iravra Col. i. 20, and Kara\\ayi] /c6cr-

2 Plut. de Alex. Fort. 1. 6. Op. pov Bom. xi. 15.

Hor. p. 329 B -yAp, &s 'Ap^rror^s 4 Col. iii. 11, Gal. iii. 28.
airry, rots ptv '"EI\\TI<TIV

240 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

taunts levelled at the Macedonian king by narrower-minded
Greeks, because he strove to conciliate the Oriental peoples
whom he had vanquished, by conforming to their dress and
habits as matters of indifference 1 , we seem to trace the shadow
of that large-hearted policy of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who
in a like spirit, but with a nobler aim, braved the fierce hatred
of his countrymen, consenting to be reviled as a subverter of
the laws and institutions of his fathers, and, himself a Jew,
became as a Greek to the Greeks that he might win them to
Christ 2 .

Alexander had not entertained this grand purpose in vain.
Though he died young, he had accomplished a vast task, the
importance of which to the future history of the world it is
scarcely possible to overrate. If he had not realised his project,
he had prepared the way for its realisation in a far higher sense
than he himself could have imagined. He had diffused the
literature and life, the habits and institutions, of Europe through
the East. He had made the language of Greece a common
instrument of communication throughout the civilised world.
Now, at length, the completion of his great design, though very
different, no doubt, from that which he himself had contemplated,
was drawing near. And as his country had borne the chief
part in preparing the way for this universal pacification of the
world, so now in turn she was herself to receive the earliest
and most striking earnest of its fulfilment. The tide, which
had once flowed eastward through Macedonia bearing with it
the civilisation of the West, was now rolled back through the
same channel, laden with a nobler treasure, by which Asia more
than discharged her debt of obligation to Europe.

Each successive station at which he halted might have
reminded the Apostle of the great services rendered by Mace-
donia as the pioneer of the Gospel. The very names of the

1 See Plutarch 1. c. p. 329 C and ws ph 0i\6<ro0os TOLS d5ia<f>6pois XP&-

p. 330 A 'Ex rov M.a.Ke8oviKov KO.I nevos K.T.\.

Hep<riKov rp6irov /te/tu'y 'fi^vrjv nva oro\V 2 1 Cor. ix. 19 sq, Gal. ii. 14 sq.

t<p6pei Ka.0d.Trep 'EpaTOffdevrjs Iffrbprj^v '

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 241

places bore testimony to the part she had played in history.
The seaport whence he embarked on leaving the Asiatic shore
was surnamed, after the great conqueror of the East, Alexandria
Troas. In Philippi, the first European city which he visited,
was perpetuated the memory of the monarch, who, by organizing
the armies of Macedonia and establishing the supremacy of his
country over Greece, prepared the way for the vast projects of
Oriental conquest carried out by his greater son. The name of
the next town in which he planted the standard of the cross
spoke of a later stage in the progress of events. It recalled the
partition of Alexander's empire, having been founded by one of
his successors Cassander, in honour of his wife Thessalonica, the
half-sister of the conqueror himself. Whether St Paul, w