I. Authorship, Date, And Place
Introduction
to the
Gospel According to John
I. AUTHORSHIP, DATE, AND PLACE
The Gospel according to John is the most amazing book that was ever written. “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” This may well be the attitude of anyone who steps upon the threshold of the study of this book; for if its testimony is true, the faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God has received glorious confirmation. The reason for this will become clear immediately.
The book tells us that, evidently in the days of Emperor Tiberius and of the tetrarch Herod Antipas, there was living in the land of Palestine a Jew (4:9), named Jesus, who claimed that he was the Rightful Owner of all things, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Good Shepherd who would give his life for his sheep, the One who would raise the dead at the last day, the very Messiah, the Way to God, the proper Object of faith and worship, a person so completely and in every sense divine that he was able to say: “I and the Father are One.”
This, indeed, is astounding. But even more marvelous is this: the writer of the book accepts these claims as being true! To “the Jesus of history” he gives the most exalted titles. He calls him the Word (Logos) of God, and tells us that this Word had been “with God” from eternity, dwelling in the immediate presence of the Father. Boldly the author even calls him God, and he does this in the opening verse! For the writer, Jesus is nothing less than what he claims to be. He is God Incarnate (1:1, 14).
Who is this author who accepts these claims and makes these startling declarations? Is he a total stranger, living in a country far removed from the actual scenes which he describes, so that distance lends enchantment to the view? And is he writing at a time very long after the events, so that the “hero” of the story has by degrees and gradual stages become a miracle-worker, and the latter, in strict obedience to the laws of legend and folklore, has at length been transformed into a god? Quite the contrary! The author of the Fourth Gospel is represented as one who belongs to the same race, stock, and family as does his “hero.” He is introduced as a contemporary and eye-witness (21:24; cf. I John 1:1–4). He belongs not only to the wide circle of the Master’s followers, but according to tradition he is one of the twelve, and within that group of twelve he is one of the three (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33). But even if one should object to these references to the Synoptics and should wish to confine himself to the testimony of the Fourth Gospel itself, he would have to grant that the author is here regarded as one of the two earliest disciples (1:35, 40). This conclusion naturally follows, unless one should adopt the improbable view that the unnamed disciple in 21:24 is someone else than the unnamed disciple in 1:35, 40. And of these two he is the one who represents himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (13:23).
No one knew Jesus better than he did. He walked with him from day to day, so that he had ample opportunity to observe his character-faults and personality-defects, had there been any. In that most sacred of all nights, the night of the Supper, he reclined on his bosom. He stood by his cross. He even entered his tomb (13:25; 19:26; 20:8). Yet, it is this very disciple who, as the author of the Fourth Gospel, does not shrink from proclaiming to all and sundry that this Jesus of history, whom he knew so well, is himself God!
Not only that, but in the very first chapter he introduces other eyewitnesses. He tells us that these men were so deeply impressed when they met Jesus for the very first time that they gave utterance to their thoughts and emotions in the following exclamations:
Andrew: “We have found the Messiah.”
Philip: “We have found the One of whom Moses wrote in the Law and of whom the prophets wrote.”
Nathanael: “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the king of Israel” (1:41, 45, 49).
To this may be added the testimony of John the Baptist, also recorded in this first chapter:
“I am not fit to unloose the straps of his sandals.… Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.… I have testified that this one is the Son of God” (1:27, 29, 34).
The opponents of the traditional view cannot allow this testimony to stand. They realize that if it remains unchallenged they have lost not only a battle but the war. What has Higher Criticism to offer that would shake this testimony? How do anti-conservatives try to prove that the Fourth Gospel could not have been composed by a contemporary and eye-witness; that it was not written in Asia Minor by the aged apostle John, as tradition says? Their arguments may be summarized as follows:
(1) John, the apostle, died too early to have written a Gospel in Ephesus toward the close of the first century a.d. Evidence: In Codex Coislinianus, Paris 305, which is one of the manuscripts of the chronicles of Georgius Hamartolus, a monk who lived in the ninth century a.d., it is stated that, according to Papias, the apostle John and his brother James died a martyr’s death. We know that James was put to death not later than 44 a.d. by Herod Agrippa I, and that Peter survived him (Acts 12). Now if also John suffered martyrdom at such an early date, he could not have written the Fourth Gospel. Proof: the author of that Gospel survived even Peter (John 21:18–24). This is the gist of the first argument.
The significant passages in the aforementioned Codex are as follows (note the words which we have italicized):
“After Domitian, Nerva reigned one year. It was he who recalled John from the island and allowed him to live in Ephesus. He was the only one of the twelve Apostles still living at the time and, after composing the Gospel that bears his name, was deemed worthy of martyrdom. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who knew him personally, says in the second book of his Oracles of the Lord that he was put to death by the Jews. In this way, together with his brother, he manifestly fulfilled the prophecy of Christ ‘… The cup that I drink you will drink, and with my baptism you will be baptized.’ Naturally, this must be so, for God can utter no falsehood! In his exegesis of Matthew, the very learned Origen also vouches for the martyrdom of John on the strength of information to the effect which he received from successors of the apostles. Besides, the great historian Eusebius says in his Ecclesiastical History: ‘Parthia fell by lot to Thomas; Asia to John. There he lived, dying at Ephesus.’ ”
Note first of all that while this manuscript states that John according to Papias was put to death by the Jews, other manuscripts of this author say that he rested in peace.
Secondly, this report does not even state that John and James suffered martyrdom at the same time.
And finally, also according to this testimony, the apostle John is represented as dwelling in Ephesus after his return from Patmos, and dying there after he had written the Gospel that bears his name.
Accordingly, what we find is this, that the critics in their attempt to refute the position according to which the apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel appeal to a document which explicitly states that at least this element in the traditional view is correct!
With reference to the “martyrdom” of John and James there is also a manuscript (Baroccianus 142), which was published by C. De Boor (Texte und Untersuchungen V. 2, p. 170), and which represents an epitome of the work of Philippus Sidetus, a church-historian who flourished at the beginning of the fifth century. The manuscript contains the following statement:
“Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a disciple of John the Theologian and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of oracles of the Lord.… In the second book Papias says that John the Theologian and James his brother were put to death by the Jews.”
There are also ancient church calendars in which James and John are commemorated together as martyrs.
With reference to this the detailed argument of J. A. Robinson, The Historical Character of St. John’s Gospel, London and New York, 1908, pp. 64–80, still holds. His conclusion is as follows:
“There is no sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt on the universal tradition of the Church that St. John the Apostle died peacefully at Ephesus in extreme old age. The attribution to Papias of the statement that John and his brother James were killed by the Jews rests on very slender authority. It is almost inconceivable that, if Papias really said this, Ireneus, Eusebius, and others who had read Papias should not have referred to it. And it is not difficult to explain the attribution of such a statement to Papias as a mistake due to careless interpretation. Nor can this isolated contradiction of the general tradition find any support either in the occasional description of the Apostle as a martyr, or in the position of his commemoration in the calendars of the Church. The word ‘martyr’ which is the common Greek word for a ‘witness’ was not at first restricted to those who had sealed their testimony with their blood.”
In this connection it must not be overlooked that in ancient writings various persons named John are sometimes confused. And the same is true with respect to James. If Papias said “John and James,” he may have been referring to John the Baptist and either James, the son of Zebedee, or James, the brother of the Lord. The latter, according to Josephus and Eusebius, was, indeed, “put to death by the Jews.” We know at least that Sidetus is not quoting Papias correctly, for the title The Theologian was not applied to the apostle John until much later. Papias surely did not use it. Hence, the entire “quotation” begins to take on a dubious appearance. Did Sidetus really read Papias, or was his ultimate authority Eusebius, which, however, he had misread? Surely, one cannot dignify with the adjective scholarly an inference (regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel) drawn from a corrupt quotation—if quotation at all—of the words of a writer (supposedly Papias), reputedly “of small intelligence,” which quotation the critics have found in a late epitome of the work of a bungling historian!
And as to church-calendars, an early Carthaginian martyrology contains the following:
Dec. 25 viii Kal. Jan. Domini nostri Jesu Christi, filii Dei.
Dec. 27 vi Kal, Jan. sancti Johannis Baptistae, et Jacobi Apostoli, quem Herodes occidit.
Here, too, James and John are commemorated together, but the John to whom reference is made is John the Baptist! In an ancient Syriac martyrololgy “John and James the apostles at Jerusalem” are linked. Regarding this we agree with the statement of W. M. Ramsay: “That James and John, who were not slain at the same time, should be commemorated together, is the flimsiest conceivable evidence that John was killed early in Jerusalem.” This joint-commemoration may simply be due to the fact that the James and John who were prominent among the Twelve were brothers, and to a misinterpretation of Christ’s prophecy with respect to them, found in Mark 10:39.
(2) Already at the beginning of the fourth century a.d. the view that the apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel was rejected; namely, by Eusebius who quotes a sentence from Papias in which the latter mentions two Johns, the second of whom was not the apostle but an elder (presbyter). Eusebius concludes from this that it was the “elder” John who wrote the Gospel. Thus, in substance, E. R. Goodenough, “John A Primitive Gospel,” 64(1945), p. 148.
But what is stated here with reference to Eusebius is not even true, for that historian never said that the “elder” John (in distinction from the apostle John) wrote the Gospel! Eusebius definitely believed that the Apostle John was the evangelist. It must be admitted that it is deplorable that Eusebius invented a fictitious person. We agree with T. Zahn’s statement: “Without discussing it at length, it is safe to say that the ‘Presbyter John’ is a product of the critical and exegetical weakness of Eusebius” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, art. “John the Apostle”). There is no historical evidence to indicate that this person ever lived. Yet, the critics have written page upon page about this nebulosity; e.g., B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, New York, 1925, ch. 14.
The statement of Papias which puzzled Eusebius was the following: “And I shall not hesitate to append to the interpretations all that I ever learned well from the elders and remember well, for of their truth I am confident. For unlike most I did not rejoice in them who say much, but in them who teach the truth, nor in them who recount the commandments of others, but in them who repeated those given to the faith by the Lord and derived from truth itself. But if ever anyone came who had followed the elders, I enquired into the words of the elders, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, had said, and what Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxix, 3–4).
The most natural interpretation of these words of Papias would seem to be this, that the reference in both cases is to the same John (who also calls himself “the elder” in two New Testament epistles, commonly known as II John and III John). If it be borne in mind that according to tradition the apostle John lived to a ripe old age, surviving all the other disciples, it will not be difficult to understand why Papias, after having first included John in the group of disciples, now again mentions him: he who had said certain things while the other disciples were still alive, was still saying them after their death.
But Eusebius is of the opinion that Papias was thinking of two Johns, the first of whom was the apostle and writer of the Fourth Gospel, while the second (the “elder”) was the author of the book of Revelation. With respect to the authorship of the latter Eusebius was clearly influenced by Dionysius (200–265 a.d.) whose forcefully presented arguments against the traditional view merit careful study even though one should disagree with his conclusions. We happen to disagree with them. Were these conclusions due, in part, to his aversion to chiliasm which was always appealing to Rev. 20? On this see N. B. Stonehouse, The Apocalypse in the Early Church, p. 151. But for our present purpose the question is: According to Eusebius, who wrote the Fourth Gospel? The answer will become clear from his comments on the words of Papias which we have just quoted. Eusebius interprets them as follows (note the words which we have italicized):
“It is here worth noting that he twice counts the name of John, and reckons the first John with Peter and James and Matthew and the other Apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist, but by changing his statement places the second with the others outside the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him and clearly calling him an elder. This confirms the truth of the story of those who have said that there were two of the same name in Asia, and that there are two tombs at Ephesus both still called John’s. This calls for attention: for it is probable that the second (unless anyone prefer the former saw the Revelation which passes under the name of John (Eusebius, op. cit., III, xxxix, 5–6).”
Clearly, then, Eusebius regards the second or “elder” John as having probably written the book of Revelation. However, it is important to emphasize that he regarded John, the Apostle to be the evangelist, the writer of the Fourth Gospel. He expresses the same conviction in III, xxiv, 5.
Hence, this appeal of the critics to Papias fails as completely as did the others. The source to which the critics make their appeal confirms the traditional view!
(3) The Alogi, a heretical sect in Asia Minor about 170 a.d., ascribed the Fourth Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus. Hence, it is clear that even at this early date the Johannine authorship was in doubt.
This argument, too, is not nearly as formidable as it may sound. Ascribing to Cerinthus a Gospel which loudly proclaims both the deity of Jesus and the incarnation of the Word or Logos is absurd, because these were the very articles of faith which this heretic denied. One might as well ascribe Luther’s Commentary on Galatians to the pope! The Alogi, as Epiphanius hinted when he gave them this name, were the illogical opponents of the Logos Gospel, the unreasonable rejecters of the divine and personal Reason.
The theory of these Alogi, though absurd, contains one valuable element: it shows, at least, that this sect recognized the very early date of the origin of the Fourth Gospel, for according to tradition John and Cerinthus were contemporaries. And if the Fourth Gospel is so very early, the critics are still confronted with an insoluble enigma, stated in the opening pages of this commentary.
(4) The Christology of this Gospel is too high to have been written by a first generation disciple.
But this is not even an argument. It amounts to begging the question. It is a bold assertion when proof is wholly lacking. Besides, the question may well be asked: Is the Christology of Paul any lower? Read Col. 2:9 or Phil. 2:6 or that very tantalizing passage Rom. 9:5 which, however hard they try, the critics never quite succeed in removing as a proof-text for Christ’s deity. And, indeed, is the Christology of the Synoptics any lower? Read Matt. 11:27, 28.
(5) There is no progress or development in the events as here recorded. From the very beginning Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Almost from the beginning his death is plotted. It is hard to believe that one of the Twelve would have written in this manner. Besides, this is the opposite of what is found in the Synoptics.
This argument does not do justice to the facts:
a. Not only in the Fourth Gospel but also in the Synoptics Jesus is recognized as the Messiah from the very beginning; in the latter by John the Baptist (Mark 1:7, 8) and by the demons (Mark 1:24, 34; 3:11); in the former by John the Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael (chapter 1).
b. The fact that the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah and as the Son of God receives greater emphasis in the Fourth Gospel than elsewhere is due to the purpose which the author has in mind, as stated in John 20:30, 31: “that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” From the mass of facts the writer carefully selects whatever is best suited to the realization of that expressed aim. He often omits that what the Synoptics have already told. (See p. 31.)
c. If Jesus is really the Messiah, the Son of God, and if his appearance from the very beginning was one that could not fail to cause amazement and awe (cf. Mark 1:27, 28), then it is not “hard to believe that one of the Twelve would have written in this manner.”
d. There is, nevertheless, progress in the recognition of Jesus as Messiah and as Son of God. The disciples see more of “his glory” in 2:11 than in chapter 1; otherwise why is this mentioned at all in 2:11? May we not also safely assume that at first their conception of the Messanic office was still, to a certain extent, earth-bound and nationalistic? But when, in connection with the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus shatters the hopes of the multitudes by clearly showing that he was not their kind of Messiah, so that many “walked no longer with him” (6:66), Simon Peter, in answer to the Master’s question: “Would ye also go away?” replies: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of everlasting life. And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God” (6:67–69).
This confession, under these circumstances, is surely to be regarded as a step forward. It shows real progress, though this does not rule out later moments of recurrent ignorance and doubt. An even more significant confession made by the disciples appears in 16:30: “Now we know that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.” Here, for a moment at least, the bright light of day breaks through the clouds of sorrow and ignorance. The disciples begin to recognize Jesus as Son of God in the ontological sense.
In the light of the entire preceding context (20:24–27) in which the risen Christ reveals his omniscience (cf. 16:30) we must view the glorious exclamation of Thomas: “My Lord and my God” (20:28). Yet even this adoration lacks perfection, as 20:29 clearly indicates. The Fourth Gospel shows that a fuller measure of knowledge regarding the person and work of Christ would be given later, on and after Pentecost. We read:
“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak and he will announce to you the things that are to come” (16:12, 13).
In the light of the passage just quoted, it can be truly said that the Gospel according to John is preeminently the Gospel of progress and development!
In the light of that same passage it also becomes clear that the very climax in the confession of the deity of Christ is reached in those statements—e.g., the Prologue, 1:1–18—in which the evangelist, looking back from the vantage-ground of the post-Pentecost period, expresses his own belief with reference to the Logos. It is entirely true that no higher Christology is found anywhere in the Fourth Gospel than in 1:1–5, 14, 18. But such passages stand outside of the story as such. They cannot be used to prove the theory that there is no progress in the narrative.
As has been shown, there is, indeed, progress in the narrative, but four things must be carefully distinguished: a. the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, b. his self-disclosure, c. the disciples’ recognition and confession of his Messianic office and deity, and d. the faith of the author of the book.
Anent the first, the Messianic consciousness, no development of any kind is recorded in the Fourth Gospel. It must be borne in mind that this Gospel does not describe the childhood of Jesus. But if, according to the Synoptics (Luke 2:49), at the age of twelve Jesus is already conscious of the fact that God is his own Father, it should not be considered surprising that in John he is introduced as speaking and acting from the very beginning with divine majesty.
With respect to the second, Christ’s self-disclosure—on which see H. N. Ridderbos, Zelfopenbaring En Zelfverberging, Kampen, 1946, pp. 66–69; also G. Vos, The Self-disclosure of Jesus, New York, 1926—, the difficulty of the problem must be admitted. It is evident that while in the Synoptics the emphasis is on the concealment, in John, in harmony with the purpose of his Gospel, the stress is rather on Christ’s self-disclosure. In the first and second chapters (1:51; 2:19) this self-disclosure may be considered not quite as far advanced as in later chapters. Subsequently Jesus is often pictured in the act of revealing his Messianic office and deity. But the comprehensive significance of this doctrine cannot be disclosed until the Holy Spirit has been poured out (16:12, 13). The same is true respecting other doctrines regarding the person and the work of the Lord (13:7).
With respect to the third, the disciples’ confession, the progress which this Gospel records has already been indicated.
Anent the fourth, the author’s own position, this naturally remains the same throughout the book.
e. Similarly, with respect to the plan to put Jesus to death there is progress and development in the Fourth Gospel. Also in this connection it must be remembered that the writer enjoys the great advantage of historical perspective. Writing many years after the events which he records he discerns the end in the beginning, the branch in the bud.
Thus, he sees that the disposition to kill Jesus established itself in the hearts and minds of the Jewish leaders immediately after the supposed breach of the sabbath on his part when he healed the man at Bethzatha and called God his own Father (5:18). At the feast of Tabernacles these leaders make an abortive attempt to arrest Jesus (7:32). Later the Jews actually pick up stones to hurl at him (8:59). The formal meeting of the sanhedrin at which the actual execution of Jesus is urged is still later. It follows the raising of Lazarus and the widespread fame of Jesus which resulted. The plans are actually laid now by an official body at an official gathering (11:47–53; cf. 12:10, 11). The trial follows (chapter 18), and Jesus is by the Jews delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. In all this the narrative shows progress and development.
(6) If the Synoptics were written by (or based upon the account of) eye-witnesses, then it is impossible to believe that the apostle John or any other eye-witness wrote the Fourth Gospel, for the differences are too many and too great. We answer:
a. There is no contradiction in doctrine.
It has never yet been shown that there are any doctrinal differences between the Synoptics and John. The approach, to be sure, is different. The Synoptics indicate that this man Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth, is the Messiah, the Son of God. The Fourth Gospel teaches that the Son of God became incarnate. These two ideas blend beautifully.
b. The general scheme of events is also the same in both cases:
In both we are introduced to the ministry of John the Baptist. In both Jesus is portrayed as the One who addresses large multitudes and performs miracles.
In both he feeds the five thousand and walks upon the water. In both he withdraws from the multitudes who have rejected him and teaches his disciples.
In both he enters Jerusalem in triumph and is anointed at Bethany. In both he is described as partaking of a meal with his disciples, in connection with which he points out Judas, the betrayer.
In both he warns the disciples against desertion, and subsequently enters the Garden. There follows, in both, the arrest and the trial before (Annas, in John, and then) Caiaphas. Also Peter’s denial and the trial before Pilate is related in both. Both relate the cross-bearing, the crucifixion, the watch of the women and their visit to the tomb from which the Lord has arisen.
The attempt is made at times to reduce the similarity between the Synoptics and John to two blocks of thought: the material contained in John 6 and the story of the Passion Week beginning with chapter 18. But this is hardly fair. For, first of all, the resemblance between John 1:32, 33 and Mark 1:10 is striking. Then also, the anointing at Bethany and the triumphal entry are related in John 12. Both of these events are also found in the Synoptics (Mark 14; Matt. 21; Mark 11; Luke 19). The historical setting for the events pertaining to the Supper and for the Supper Discourses is given in the Synoptics; cf. Mark 14:12–18. Accordingly, anyone who has not yet closed his mind to the probability that the Synoptics and John are referring to the same Supper will see that the material found in chapters 13–17 of the latter Gospel fits eminently into the framework of the former. And even the Early Judean Ministry, John 2:13–4:42, and the Later Judean Ministry, John 7:1–10:42, are not at all in conflict with anything that is found in the Synoptics. Does not Matt. 23:37–39 even suggest extensive activity in Judea? Does not Luke 4:44, according to the reading that is supported by the best manuscripts, teach that Jesus was preaching in the synagogues of Judea? Cf. also Luke 5:17, which presupposes that Pharisees and doctors of the law had become acquainted with Christ’s work in Judea. And conversely, do not John 2:12, 4:43–54, and chapter 6, show that the Fourth Gospel leaves room for Christ’s activity in Galilee?
c. The “words of Jesus” as recorded in the Synoptics are not at all inconsistent with those recorded in the Fourth Gospel.
The Synoptics differ in many respects from the Fourth Gospel, as we indicate below. This is also apparent in the sayings and discourses of Jesus. But the differences are not fundamental. The tone of the reputed words and speeches in John is not at all inconsistent with the tone of those given in the Synoptics. And it is inconsistency—not merely difference—which the critics must prove if their argument is to stand. Using the for this list, what we actually find is as follows:
JOHN:
3:3: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Matt. 18:3: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven.”
3:5: “… Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 10:23: “How hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of God.”
4:35: “Behold I say unto you. Lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white already unto harvest.”
Matt. 9:37: “The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest.”
3:35; 10:15; 14:6: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand … The Father knoweth me and I know the Father … I am the way, and the truth and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Matt. 11:27, 28: “All things have been delivered unto me of my Father; and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father; save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
5:8, 9: “Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.”
Mark 2:9 (a different occasion): “Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk.”
5:35, 36: “He (John the Baptist) was the lamp that burneth and shineth … But the witness which I have is greater than that of John.”
Matt. 11:11: “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
5:39: “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me.”
Luke 24:24, 45: “All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures.”
6:20: “It is I; be not afraid.”
Mark 6:50: “Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.”
6:44–46: “No man can come to me except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day … Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father.”
Matt. 11:27, 28, quoted above.
8:12; 12:36: “I am the light of the world.… While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light.”
Matt. 5:14–16: “ye are the light of the world … Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
12:25: “He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.”
Luke 9:24: “For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”
12:27: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour.”
Matt. 26:37, 38: “And he began to be sorrowful and sore troubled. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death.” Cf. also Luke 12:50.
13:16, 20: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.… Verily, verily I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” Cf. also 15:20.
Matt. 10:24, 40: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord.… He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”
13:38: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.”
Matt. 26:34: “Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”
It is true that in the Synoptics Jesus often speaks in parables; not so in the Fourth Gospel. But is it really so strange that he who uttered the kingdom-sayings recorded in John 3:3–5 should speak kingdom-parables? And must the figure of the Good Shepherd, John 10, be regarded as impossible in the mouth of him who spoke the parable of the Lost Sheep, Luke 15?
10:27, 28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”
Luke 15:3–6: “And he spake unto them this parable saying, What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.”
d. Even on minor points it has not been established that the Fourth Gospel is in conflict with the Synoptics:
On the basis of John 13:1, 29 and 18:28 it has been held that the Fourth Gospel is in conflict with the Synoptics, which clearly teach that Jesus ate the Passover at the regular time (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). But it would be very strange, indeed, if the Supper described in John 13, which is distinguished in such a remarkable manner and in connection with which so many important events take place, would not be the regular Passover Supper eaten on Thursday-evening, the fourteenth of Nisan. In fact the combination (verse 1): “before the feast of the passover” followed by (verse 2): “and during supper” would seem to indicate that the supper here indicated is the Passover Supper. When it is argued that this Passover Supper is, in harmony with Numbers 28:16, 17, followed by seven days of celebration, particularly by a joyful Passover Feast (the Chagigah on the fifteenth of Nisan), a solution has been suggested with reference to the last clause of 18:28 which, whatever be its merit, commends itself as being at least more reasonable than the theory that the Fourth Gospel devotes so much space—five chapters!—and attaches such importance to a meal supposedly eaten the night just before the great Passover Supper.
According to John 19:14 it was about the sixth hour when Pilate brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called Gabbatha. According to Mark 15:25 it was about the third hour when Jesus was crucified. Here again there need not be a conflict. A reasonable solution is this: John figures time the Roman way, and in counting the hours begins at midnight and at noon, just as we do today (, art, “Hour”). Hence, when he says “about the sixth hour,” this could mean sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 A. M. On the other hand, the evangelist Mark figures time the Jewish way, and therefore tells us that Jesus was crucified about three hours after sunrise. Not only is there no conflict at all but once this solution is adopted, other passages in the Fourth Gospel become clear. See explanation of 1:39; 4:6, 52, 53.
(7) Minor arguments, generally quite subjective in character and therefore not in need of detailed refutation, are the following:
a. A native Jew could not have written so disparagingly about the Jews, representing them as being the very enemies of God, 5:18; 7:1; 9:22. Moreover, he would not have employed the third person in referring to them. Answer: When the apostle John wrote this Gospel, the Jews as a nation had rejected the Christ. Moreover, those who were the first to read this book were Christians from the Gentiles (mostly). It is altogether natural that in writing for them the author would be using the third person in referring to the Jews.
b. A disciple of Jesus would not have ascribed to Jesus the same style of discourse which he himself employs. Answer: Though it is sometimes difficult to determine just where Jesus stops and John begins (e.g., 3:16–20; 12:44–50), this should not surprise us. We should bear in mind that the author is the disciple whom Jesus loves. He was so very close to Jesus that he began to think his thoughts after him, to speak like his Master, and to write in that same style.
c. If the apostle John wrote the book of Revelation, he cannot have written the Gospel, for the two differ very much not only in thought-content but also in linguistic characteristics.
For suggestions in the direction of an attempt to solve this admittedly difficult problem we refer to our More Than Conquerors, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1949, pp. 17–19. See also p. 37. All we wish to say about it here is that, while he was living in Ephesus and writing the Gospel, John may have had helpers who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and subject to the final approval of the apostle who assumed sole responsibility, influenced style and diction to some extent. Cf. 21:24. The absence of these helpers when he wrote the Apocalypse may account in part for the linguistic differences (cf. A. T. Roberston, Word Pictures in The New Testament, New York and London, 1932, vol. V, p. xix). At any rate, unless all the circumstances under which each book was written are thoroughly known, it would be precarious to say in such a categorical manner that whoever wrote Revelation cannot have written the Fourth Gospel.
Enough has been said to indicate the inadequacy of the arguments of the critics.
On the supposition that the Gospel of St. John was written last of all and that its purpose differs from that of the Synoptics, the main problem has been solved, at least to a very large extent.
According to the information furnished by the Gospel itself the author was:
(1) A Jew:
a. This is evident from his style. See p. 63.
b. It also follows from his thorough acquaintance with the Old Testament, which he is able to quote both according to the Hebrew and from the Septuagint. See the following passages: 2:17; 10:34, 35; 12:40; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37.
c. It is corroborated by his references to Jewish (and Samaritan) religious beliefs, particularly regarding the Messiah: 1:41, 46, 49; 4:25; 6:15; 7:27, 42; 12:34.
d. It is supported by evidence which indicates that the author is acquainted with religious and political conditions in Palestine: 4:9; 7:35; 11:49; 18:13, 28, 31, 39; and also with Jewish feasts and purification-rites: the Passover: 2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28; perhaps also 5:1; the Feast of Tabernacles: 7:2, 37, 38; the Feast of Dedication: 10:22, 23. See also 3:25; 11:55; 12:12; 18:28, 39; 19:31.
e. It explains the easy and natural manner in which he introduces Jewish customs with reference to weddings and funerals: 2:1–10; 11:38, 44; 19:40.
(2) A Palestinian Jew.
He has a detailed knowledge of Palestinian topography: 1:28 cf. 11:1; 2:1, 12; 3:23; 4:11, 20; 11:54; 12:21; particularly, of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity: 5:2; 9:7; 11:18; 18:1; 19:17; and of the Temple: 2:14, 20; 8:2, 20; 10:22, 23; 18:1, 20.
(3) An eye-witness.
As such he remembers when the events occurred; sometimes the exact hour: 1:29, 35, 39; 2:1; 3:24; 4:6, 40, 52, 53; 6:22; 7:14; 11:6; 12:1; 13:1, 2; 19:14, 31; 20:1, 19, 26.
He knows that Jesus was weary when he sat down by the well (4:6); he remembers the very words spoken by the neighbors of the man born blind (9:8–10); he himself saw the blood and water issuing from the pierced side of Jesus (19:33–35); he knows by name the servant of the high priest whose right ear was cut off by Peter (18:10); and he is acquainted with the high priest (18:15). These and many other details clearly show that the author was an eye-witness of the events which he records.
(4) One of the Twelve.
The fact that he partakes of the Supper with his Lord shows that he must be one of the Twelve (13:23). His close association with Peter would also seem to prove this (1:35–42; 13:23, 24; 18:15, 16; 20:2; 21:20–23). That the writer was, indeed, one of the apostles appears also from his intimate knowledge of their actions, words, and feelings: 2:17, 22; 4:27; 6:19; 12:16; 13:22, 28; and 21:21. And if anyone should argue that it is not clear that in all these cases the disciples whose reactions are recorded belong to the inner group and that therefore the inference which we have drawn is not quite convincing, we call attention to such other passages where the reference is distinctly to “the twelve,” (6:66–71; 20:24–29). The author knows exactly what was said within that inner group! The conclusion is inescapable that he belongs to it.
Note also that in 1:35–51 the unnamed disciple is mentioned in connection with Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael, all of whom belong to the Twelve.
(5) The Apostle John.
This surely is the most natural inference to be drawn from all the facts presented. It is to be noted that the author, while mentioning other apostles by name, never indicates in that distinct manner either John or his brother James. That very fact is significant and would seem to point in the direction of the writer’s identity.
By a process of elimination it is not too difficult to arrive at an answer to the question: who is the author?
There is an old rhyme which makes it easy to remember the names of the Twelve (cf. Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13):
“Peter and Andrew, James and John,
Philip and Bartholomew,
Matthew next and Thomas too,
James the Less and Judas the Greater,
Simon the Zealot and Judas the Traitor.”
As the Fourth Gospel also speaks about “the Twelve” (6:67, 70, 71; 20:24), it may be assumed that the reference is to the same group of men. Which of these was the author?
Obviously we immediately eliminate Judas the Traitor. Whenever the author refers to him, he names him (6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2, 3, 5).
From 21:24 in comparison with verse 20 we learn that the writer is the disciple who reclined on the bosom of Jesus at the Supper. He is definitely not Peter, from whom he is distinguished. That still leaves ten to choose from.
Matthew’s name, however, can be eliminated immediately, for it is associated with another Gospel. Next, the question may be asked: is it at all likely that the writer of the Fourth Gospel who is a most intimate friend of Jesus (13:23) would be a more or less obscure disciple like James the Less (the son of Alphaeus) or Simon the Zealot? Judas (called “The Greater” in the little rhyme, but “Judas of James,” “Lebbaeus,” “Thaddaeus,” and “Judas not Iscariot” in the scriptural references to him) and also Thomas (called Didymus) are mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel (14:5, 22). This distinguishes them clearly from the author who is not named.
There remain the names of James, John, Andrew, Philip, and Bartholomew. John relates how Philip brought Nathanael to Jesus, and in the lists of the Twelve in the other three Gospels Philip and Bartholomew are always mentioned together. John never mentions Bartholomew; the Synoptics never mention Nathanael. It is thus altogether probable that the Nathanael of John is the Bartholomew of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Nathanael being his chief name and Bartholomew indicating his filial relationship, meaning son of Tolmai. (Cf. C. E. Macartney, Of Them He Chose Twelve, Philadelphia, 1927, pp. 63, 64.) Now if the unnamed disciple is the same person throughout the Gospel, we meet him also in 1:35–51. Here he is clearly distinguished from Andrew (verse 40), from Simon Peter (verses 41 and 42), whose name we have already eliminated on the basis of information furnished by the twenty-first chapter, from Philip (verses 43 and 44), and from Nathanael (Bartholomew, verses 45–51).
Subtracting also the names of Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael, there remain only James and John. However, it is clearly evident from 21:19–24 that the author of the Fourth Gospel was still alive and bearing witness when it was first published (note present tense in verse 24) though Peter had already gained the martyr’s crown (verse 19). And whereas we know that Peter survived James (Acts 12), it is clear that the latter cannot have written the Fourth Gospel. The apostle John remains.
It is to be noted that in the argumentation which we have followed we have based our conclusions entirely upon data furnished by the Fourth Gospel itself. A comparison with the Synoptics confirms our conclusion. We learn from John 1:35–40 that the author of the Fourth Gospel was one of Christ’s earliest disciples, the other two being Andrew and Simon Peter. The Gospel according to Mark also has a list of earliest disciples (1:16–20, 29). In that list occur four names: Simon and Andrew, James and John. By comparing the two lists it is again apparent that the unnamed disciple of the Fourth Gospel is one of the sons of Zebedee.
Attempts to evade the force of these arguments must be considered a failure. They often center about the fact that in 21:2 there is mention of “two other disciples” (besides Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee). It is argued that these “two” may not have belonged to the Twelve, and that one of them—perhaps the Elder John?—may have been the author. But all this misses the point completely. It does not take into account all the evidence which we have presented in the preceding.
Besides, such argumentations do not help any. For, even if the author were not the apostle John but some obscure disciple referred to in 21:2, the fact remains that he was an eye-witness who, according to the story recorded in John 21, had seen the risen Lord and who proclaims to the Church of all the ages that Jesus is what he claimed to be: God in the highest sense of the term (1:1–18) and that by the very first followers Jesus was immediately recognized as the Messiah, the Son of God. How is this possible? How can it be explained psychologically? There is, in the final analysis, only one fully satisfactory solution of this problem, and it is that Jesus is in reality what he himself claimed and what these men proclaimed him to be: the Messiah, the Son of God, the object of worship. Accept his and their testimony as the truth, and the problems begin to disappear!
The testimony of the early church is in harmony with the conclusion which has been derived from the Fourth Gospel itself. Thus Eusebius, having made a thorough investigation in the literature at his command, states:
“But come, let us indicate the undoubted writings of this apostle. Let the Gospel according to him be first recognized, for it is read in all the churches under heaven.… Thus John in the course of his gospel relates what Christ did before the Baptist had been thrown into prison, but the other three evangelists narrate the events after the imprisonment of the Baptist” (Ecclesiastical History III, xxiv, 1–13). The famous historian wrote these words at the beginning of the fourth century.
Before him Origen (fl. 210–250) stated that John, the beloved disciple, wrote both the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. Origen wrote a Commentary on the former, in which he states:
“The Gospels then being four, I deem the firstfruits of the Gospels to be that which you (Ambrosius) have commanded me to search into, according to my powers, the Gospel of John.…” (Commentary on John I, vi). In the same paragraph he indicates that the author of the Fourth Gospel is that John “who lay on Jesus’ breast.”
From Origen we can go back still farther, to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200). He knows only one John; namely, the apostle. He definitely ascribes the Fourth Gospel to him, stating:
“Last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI, xiv, 7). Clement has preserved a beautiful story about the aged apostle John; for reference see p. 31. Born in the middle of the second century, Clement stood close to the successors of the apostles. He was a person of considerable learning and had traveled widely.
About this same time Tertullian ascribes the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John (Against Marcion IV, v).
Clement’s contemporary was Ireneus. He was a pupil of Polycarp, who had known the apostle John. In a letter to Florinus, who had also received instruction from Polycarp but had erred from the truth, Ireneus states:
“These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak with caution, do not pertain to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest wickedness. These opinions even the heretics outside of the church never dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, they who accompanied the apostles, did not transmit to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp’s house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and were endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united with it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the addresses which he delivered to the people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eye-witnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V, xx, 4–7).
Now, Ireneus, who had traveled from Asia Minor to Gaul and had frequent contacts with the church in Rome, not only was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel but definitely ascribed it to the apostle John. This testimony, coming from one who had been a pupil of a pupil of the apostle John cannot be robbed of its force. Moreover, because of his many travels and intimate acquaintance with almost the entire church of his day, what Ireneus says about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel must be considered of great significance. His voice in a matter as important as this may be considered the voice of the church. His words, as reported by Eusebius, are:
“Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia” (Ecclesiastical History V, viii, 4).
Ireneus even argues that there can be neither more nor fewer than four Gospels (Against Heresies III, xi, 8).
The Muratorian Fragment, an incomplete list of New Testament books, written in poor Latin and deriving its name from cardinal L. A. Muratori (1672–1750) who discovered it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, may be assigned to the period 180–200. It contains the following:
“The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. In response to the exhortation of his fellow disciples and bishops he said: ‘Fast ye with me for three days, and then let us tell each other whatever shall be revealed to each one.’ The same night it was revealed to Andrew, who was one of the apostles that it was John who should relate in his own name what they collectively remembered. And so to the faith of believers there is no discord, even though different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels, because in all of them, under the one guiding Spirit, all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in his humiliation rising from contempt, which took place, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel is it then if John adduces so consistently in his epistles these several things, saying in person: ‘what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, those things we have written.’ For thus he professes to be not only an eye-witness but also a hearer and narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord, in their order.”
It is thought that the fragment is a translation from the Greek and that it originated in Rome or at least in the region of Roman influence. For our purpose it is important to notice that the disciple John, who like Andrew is one of the apostles, is here described as the writer of the Fourth Gospel. The interesting story with reference to the exact manner in which that Gospel originated must be considered legendary, as it is certainly improbable and contrary to all tradition that the other disciples lived up to the time when this Gospel was produced. For that very reason it is highly precarious to draw any inferences from that circumstantial tale. This is done at times. First the opening words of the clause “ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret” (“that it was John who should relate in his own name what they collectively remembered”) are rendered: “… they all acting as correctors.” Next the conclusion is drawn that, because of all these correctors, the apostle John himself may have played a very minor role in the actual writing of the book. Finally, the wholly fictitious “elder” John crops up once more as the actual author! But this is basing too much upon too little! The only legitimate conclusion which one can draw from the Muratorian Fragment is that about the year 180–200 the church at Rome (at least, some person of importance in the region of Roman influence) ascribed the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John.
Polycrates, writing about this same time, was a bishop of the church at Ephesus. The place is significant and so is the date. At Ephesus at this early date (approximately 196) the traditions with respect to the apostle John who had lived here were still fresh. Polycrates remarks: “Seven of my relatives were bishops and I am the eighth.” He gives advice anent the Paschal controversy (whether Easter should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon, no matter what the day, or always on a Sunday). In his letter he not only refers to John 13:25 (at least, to the fact affirmed in that passage) but also to the residence and the death of John at Ephesus. He writes:
“John, moreover, who reclined in the Lord’s bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, and a witness and a teacher—he rests at Ephesus” (Letter to Victor and the Roman Church concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover, preserved by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V, xxiv).
Writing probably a few years earlier, Theophilus, who according to Eusebius was the sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria from the apostles, names John expressly as the inspired writer of the Fourth Gospel. His statement is:
“And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the inspired men, one of whom, John, says: ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God,’ showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in him” (To Autolycus II, xxii).
From the preceding a few facts become clear:
(1) Within the orthodox church there is a uniform tradition regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. This tradition can be traced back from Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century to Theophilus who flourished about 170–180.
(2) According to this uniform tradition the Fourth Gospel was written by John. Generally it is even made clear that this John was the apostle, the beloved disciple who reclined on Christ’s bosom. The major witnesses are Eusebius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ireneus, the writer of the Muratorian Canon, and Theophilus.
(3) Ireneus, one of the earliest of these witnesses, was a disciple of Polycarp, who, in turn, had been a disciple of the apostle John. The inference would seem to be legitimate that the tradition of apostolic authorship can thus be traced back to the disciple whom Jesus loved.
(4) Because of his wide travels and intimate acquaintance with the convictions of the entire Church Ireneus may be called a representative witness. He represents the faith of the whole Christian community. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Ireneus, and Theophilus show us that in the last quarter of the second century the Fourth Gospel was known and read throughout Christendom: in Africa, Asia Minor, Italy, Gaul, and Syria, and that it was ascribed to the well-known John.
(5) The external evidence derived from this uniform and very early tradition is in harmony with the internal evidence derived from the Fourth Gospel itself.
(6) The evidence which we have examined proves three important things:
a. That the Fourth Gospel must have been in existence at a very early time. Surely when about the year 170 this book is called a holy writing composed by one who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and when this sacred Gospel is used to prove certain doctrinal positions that are considered so precious that men are willing to die in their defence, it can be safely inferred that its origin goes back to a date that is even earlier.
b. That it was regarded as being (at least) equal in value and authority to the other Gospels.
c. That it was considered to have been written by the apostle John.
Among the men who can be classified as heretics we find that Tatian (about the year 170), who became a heretic after the death of his teacher, Justin Martyr, accepts the Fourth Gospel and used it in composing his Harmony (Diatessaron). In fact, Tatian’s book opens with the first five verses of the Fourth Gospel.
Heracleon, of the school of Valentinus, which existed between 140 and 180, even wrote a commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Ptolemy, also of this school, ascribed it to “the apostle.” Marcion, indeed, about the middle of the second century, rejected all the Gospels, and prepared one of his own, using as his source a mutilated version of Luke. But it has not been established that he denied that the apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. His rejection of this Gospel seems rather to have been due to the fact that he regarded its author as a Judaizer. He based this conclusion on Paul’s words recorded in Gal. 2:9, 11–13, which he grossly misinterpreted (cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV, iii).
Now, the fact to be emphasized is this, that if these heretics, who knew very well that their own teaching was not in harmony with that of the Fourth Gospel, could have ascribed this Gospel to a non-apostolic writer, they would have done so.
Among the orthodox writers who flourished at one time or another during the period 100–170 we find that Justin Martyr (Apology I, 61) quotes from John 3:3–5. He uses a number of expressions from this Gospel. (See also his Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 105.) Moreover, his doctrine of the Logos is almost surely derived from the Fourth Gospel. Besides, it must not be forgotten that Justin’s pupil, Tatian, included it in his Harmony.
With reference to Papias and to Polycarp we refer to what has already been said. Eusebius states that Papias “used quotations from the First Epistle of John” (Ecclesiastical History III, xxxix, 17). Whether any argument can be based upon this with reference to his acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, which is very similar in style, is a matter on which there can be a difference of opinion.
The spirit of the Fourth Gospel is evident everywhere in the Epistles of Ignatius (short recension). Though it cannot be proved with absolute certainty that he, when sent to his martyrdom (about 110), actually had seen this Gospel and alluded to it, nevertheless, this would seem to be by far the most natural conclusion. The resemblances have impressed many as being too many and too striking to warrant any conflicting inference. It is true, of course, that these allusions are not exact quotations, but who expects anything else from a prisoner who is on his way to martyrdom in Rome? The parallel columns furnish the evidence:
IGNATIUS
THE FOURTH GOSPEL
A.R.V.
“For if I in a short time gained such fellowship with your bishop as was not human but spiritual, how much more do I count you blessed who are so united with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may symphonize in unity” (To the Ephesians V, i).
“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one” (17:23).
“As then the Lord was united to the Father and did nothing without him, neither by himself nor through the apostles, so you should do nothing without the bishop and the presbyters” (To the Magnesions VII, i).
“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing” (5:19).
“I desire the bread of God which is the flesh of Jesus Christ … and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (To the Romans VII, iii).
“He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (6:54, 55).
“For it (the Spirit) knoweth whence it comes and whither it goes” (To the Philadelphians VII, i).
“The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit” (3:8):
If these and several other expressions which remind one of John indicate that Ignatius knew the Fourth Gospel, its date of origin would be pushed back to sometime before 110. This would approach a vindication of the traditional belief that it was written not later than the year 98 and not earlier than the year 80.
However, the traditional belief regarding the date of the Fourth Gospel has received strong confirmation in the actual discovery of a very early Gospel of John fragment of a papyrus codex. This together with other Greek papyri, was found in Egypt and acquired for the John Rylands Library. It is the earliest known fragment of any portion of the New Testament. It may have originated from the Christian community in Middle Egypt. On the basis of paleographical evidence it has been established that this papyrus-scrap belonged to a codex which circulated in that general region in the first half of the second century. The fragment contains words from the Gospel of John, chapter 18. On the recto it has part of verses 31–33, on the verso part of verses 37–38.
Now if this Gospel was already circulating in Middle Egypt in the early part of the second century, it must have been composed even earlier. From Ephesus, where according to tradition this Gospel was written, to Middle Egypt, where this codex circulated, is a long distance. Some authorities, accordingly, allow for a time-lag of thirty years between the date of composition and that of circulation in Egypt. The statement of W. F. Albright is significant:
“Meanwhile the sensational publication of a fragment of the Gospel from the early second century and of a roughly contemporary fragment of an apocryphal gospel dependent on John has dealt the coup de grâce to all radically late dating of John and has proved that the Gospel cannot be later than the first century a.d.” (From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 299; see also C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel, Manchester, 1935).
This means, therefore, that the traditional view with respect to the date of the composition of the Fourth Gospel has at length been confirmed by irrefutable evidence. It means that those negative critics who have long maintained that the conservative position was all wrong have suffered a major defeat! Today more than ever we can endorse the exclamation of Volkmar: “It is very certain that it is all over with the critical thesis of the composition of the Fourth Gospel in the middle of the second century!”
Moreover, now that we have this external evidence, so that we know that the Fourth Gospel existed in Asia Minor very early in the second (and probably already in the first) century, it begins to look very credible that Ignatius, who wrote his Epistles from Asia Minor, had read it!
It is true that neither Justin Martyr nor Ignatius nor anyone else before the middle of the second century mentions the apostle John by name as the author of this Gospel. This, however, is not at all surprising. These men were living so close to the time of the beloved disciple that it was entirely unnecessary for them, in quoting from his Gospel or in alluding to it, to mention his name. Besides, by Ignatius the apostles were held in high honor. He writes:
“I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; they were apostles, I am a convict” (To the Romans IV, iii).
It is, therefore, safe to assume that in using expressions which remind one of the Fourth Gospel he is conscious of the fact that no one less than a genuine apostle was responsible for the truths which had endeared themselves to him to such an extent that he wishes to impress them upon the hearts of others.
Another fact which favors an early date for the Fourth Gospel is its strongly Semitic tone. (See pp. 63, 64.)
The earliest attestation of apostolic authorship is found in the Gospel itself. After the divinely guided John had written the first twenty chapters, ending with the beautiful conclusion found in 20:30, 31, and another leader at Ephesus, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with the full approval of John, had added a beautiful story which he had heard so often from the lips of his dear friend and which closed with a distinct reference to the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20–23), the presbyters at Ephesus appended these significant words:
“This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things and who wrote them down, and we know that his testimony is true” (21:24).
We have seen that both internal and external testimony support this attestation.
As pictured in the Gospels, John was the son of Zebedee and Salome (Mark 1:19; 16:1, 2 cf. Matt. 27:56). Zebedee seems to have been a prosperous fisherman. He employed hired servants (Mark 1:20). It is supposed that Salome was a sister of the virgin Mary (Matt. 27:56, cf. John 19:25). If this be correct, Jesus and John were cousins. John’s brother James is usually mentioned first, and was probably the elder of the two.
Before he became a follower of Jesus, the apostle John was a disciple of John the Baptist. In his later years the apostle vividly recalled the moment when he first met Jesus and decided to become his follower. He states: “It was about the tenth hour” (1:39). That first meeting of which we have any record was followed after an interval by the decision to become a regular disciple (Mark 1:16 ff; Luke 5:10); and then, an apostle (Matt. 10:2), sent forth and charged by Jesus.
John and James appear to have been men with pent-up emotions, flashing forth on occasion. Jesus called them “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). When Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of a Samaritan village refuse to lodge him, the fiery anger of the sons of Zebedee flashes forth in the words: “Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (Luke 9:54). Surely, John was “the disciple of love.” Love and flashing anger are not mutually exclusive. It was genuine love for Jesus which manifested itself in this ill-conceived utterance. It was love also which caused John to interfere with the man who, though casting out demons in the name of Jesus, was not a regular disciple (Luke 9:49, 50).
It is a mark of John’s genuine humility that he never mentions by name those who belong to the inner circle of his relatives. Although he loved the Master intensely, it is not his love for Christ but the latter’s love for the apostle that is emphasized in the Fourth Gospel. John styles himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (12:23).
Not only in the Gospels, as already indicated, but also in Acts we often find John in the company of Peter (Acts 3:1; 4:19; 8:14). After the resurrection he is one of the pillars of the church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9; Acts 15:6). He probably left Jerusalem at the beginning of the Jewish War. T. Zahn states:
“It is safe, then, to say that the apostle John, with other disciples of Christ, came from Palestine to Asia Minor. If Polycarp, on the day of his death (Feb. 23, 155), was looking back on eighty-six years of life as a Christian, not as a man, and was thus baptized in 69, and if his conversion (according to Ireneus, Against Heresies III, iii, 4) was the work of an apostle, this migration to Asia Minor must have occurred before that date, possibly as the result of the outbreak of the Jewish War. John, then perhaps not more than sixty or sixty-five, would thus have been able to devote some thirty years to the fostering of Christian life in the province” (“John the Apostle,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge).
For several years John lived in Ephesus. But sometime during the reign of Domitian, who ruled from 81–96, he was banished to the island of Patmos. With the accession of Nerva he was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he died at the beginning of Trajan’s reign; i.e., about the year 98.
Now tradition is well-nigh unanimous in maintaining that the place where the apostle wrote his Gospel was Ephesus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, xxiii, 1, 6; V, viii, 4; xxiv, 4; Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII, ii). Repeated attempts, also in recent literature, to discredit this strong tradition have not been successful.
The question, however, is this: Was the Fourth Gospel written before or after John’s banishment to Patmos? Was it composed earlier or later than the book of Revelation?
It would seem that the earliest date for its composition would be about the year 80. We base this upon the following considerations: Peter had received his inheritance, as 21:19 seems to imply; Paul, his crown. The latter nowhere mentions the work of the apostle John in Asia Minor. It is considered probable that the Synoptics had been written and that the author of the Fourth Gospel had read them. The Jews had become the confirmed enemies of the Church. The fall of Jerusalem is no longer mentioned, probably because several years had elapsed since it occurred.
On the other hand, the latest possible date for the composition of the Gospel is the year 98, if the testimony of Ireneus and Jerome is trustworthy. The former states:
“Then again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles” (Against Heresies III, iii, 4).
The date, therefore, must lie between 80 and 98. Is it possible to be more definite and to determine the date more precisely? According to Epiphanius (fourth century) John did not write his Gospel until after his return from Patmos when he was more than ninety years of age. However, nothing resembling this has been found in the writings of the early fathers. There are those who prefer a date much closer to the year 80, giving as their reason that the style of the Gospel is that of a matured but not of an aged writer. There may be an element of truth in this view. However, we must exercise caution at this point. If the apostle came to Ephesus in the year 67 (about the time of Paul’s death), and if he was then sixty or sixty-five years of age (Zahn), he must have been between seventy-three and seventy-eight in the year 80. He was, therefore, in any case “an aged writer.” The problem can also be approached in this way: if John was twenty-five years of age when Jesus died (about the year 30), then in the year 80 he must have been seventy-five.
But he may still have been young and strong in physical and mental vigor. Clement of Alexandria tells us that even after his return from Patmos the apostle carried on a very active ministry as chief administrator of the churches located in the Ephesus district (Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII). He must have been over ninety then. But who will wish to maintain that he who at this very advanced age was able to convert a robber-chief, according to the interesting story which Clement has transmitted to us in the reference just given, and who went about “appointing bishops and setting in order whole churches,” could not have written a Gospel under the guidance of the Spirit, especially if this project had long occupied his mind? Church History furnishes several examples of men who continued in active ministry, charged with very responsible tasks, until they were well over ninety!
Nevertheless, the opposite view—namely, that John wrote the Gospel first of all; i.e., before his banishment to Patmos; that the composition of this book was followed by the Epistles; and that the Apocalypse came last—continues to have its appeal (cf. Lenski, Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, p. 20), perhaps because it would seem to be the natural and logical order. The question cannot be definitely answered either way.
Anyone who reads the following literature — a selection from among hundreds of works written on this subject — will have both the arguments of the critics and the answers given by those who cling to the traditional view with reference to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. We acknowledge indebtedness to all of the following:
Albright, W. F., From The Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore, 1940, especially pp. 298–300.
Andrews, Mary E., “The Authorship and Significance of the Gospel of John,” JBL 64(1945), 183–192.
Bacon, B. W., The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, New York, 1910.
Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 2 vols. (in International Critical Commentary), New York, 1929.
Burney, C. F., The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922, especially pp. 126–152.
Dods, M., The Gospel of St. John (in The Expositor’s Greek Testament), Reprint Grand Rapids, Michigan (no date), vol. I, especially pp. 655–681.
Gardner-Smith, Percival, St. John and the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge, 1938.
Godet, F., Commentary on the Gospel of John (translated by T. Dwight), 2 vols., New York, 1886.
Goguel, M., Le Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1924.
Goodenough, E. R., “John A Primitive Gospel,” JBL 64(1945), 145–182.
Grosheide, F. W., Johannes (in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1950, especially vol. I, pp. 1–42.
Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel, 2 vols., London, 1940.
Howard, W. F., The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation, London, 1945.
Howard, W. F., Christianity According to St. John, Philadelphia, 1946, especially pp. 11–33; also his review of Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, JThS 42(1941), 75–81.
Luthardt, C. E., St. John The Author of the Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh, 1875.
Menoud, P. H., L’évangile de Jean d’après les recherches recentés, Neuchatel and Paris, 1943.
Nunn, H. P. V., “The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church,” EQ 16(1944), 173–191.
Nunn, H. P. V., The Fourth Gospel, An Outline of the Problem and Evidence, London, 1946.
Redlich E. B., An Introduction to the Fourth Gospel, London, 1939.
Roberts, C. H., An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel, Manchester, 1935.
Robertson, A. T., John, in Word Pictures, New York and London, 1932, vol. V., especially pp. ix–xxvii (Introduction).
Robinson, J. A., The Historical Character of St. John’s Gospel, London and New York, 1908.
Sanday, W., The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, London, 1872.
Sanday, W., The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1905.
Scott, E. F., The Fourth Gospel, Its Purpose and Theology, Edinburgh, 1906.
Strachan, R. H., The Fourth Evangelist, Dramatist or Historian?, London, 1925.
Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels, New York, 1925.
Taylor, Vincent, “The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent Criticism,” in Contemporary Thinking About Jesus (edited by T. S. Kepler), New York, Nashville, 1944, pp. 99–106.
Journal of Biblical Literature
Cf. R. P. Casey, “Prof. Goodenough and the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 64 (1945), 535–542.
See, e.g., M. Goguel, Le Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1923. pp. 161, 162.
Cf. E. F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, 1940, p. 242.
American Standard Revised Version
Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels
Dates assigned to the Fourth Gospel by various critics: F. C. Baur: 160–170: Volkmar: 155; Zeller and Scholten: 150; Hilgenfeld: 130–140; Keim: 130; Schenkel: 115–120; Reuss, Nicolas, Renan, Sabatier, Hase: 110–125; Scott (E. F.): 95–115.
P. H. Menoud, L’Évangile de Jean d’après les recherches recentès, Neuchâtel and Paris, 1943, concludes with these remarkable words:
“On peut dire, sans trop s’avancer, que les défenseurs de l’autenticité johannique occupent aujourd’hui des positions plus favorables qu’au début du siècle, par exemple. Car les recherches recentes tendent à écarter les obstacles que la critique a dressés sur la voie de l’ identification du ‘Bien-Aimé’ avec le fils de Zébédée.” By the same author also: “Le problème johannique,” RThPh, 29(1941), 236–256; 30(1942), 155 ff; 31(1943), 80–101.
And yet in 1927 Vincent Taylor spoke about “the collapse of the traditional position,” (!) in “The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent Criticism,” HJ 25(1927) 725–743.
See F. Godet, Commentaire’ sur l’Évangile de Saint Jean, Paris, 1881, vol. I, pp. 354–356.