Appendix B: More Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John’s Gospel

Appendix B: More Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John’s Gospel

Appendix B

More 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 discontinuity, 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 because they are unobtrusive—(a) that the author was the Apostle St. John; (b) 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.

This material also came from Lightfoot’s lecture notes. Originally appearing in Biblical Essays, it has long been out of print, until now.

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 quotations 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 Hebrew of the New Testament is Aramaic. This is the meaning of Ἑβραϊστί in such passages as John 5:2; 19:13, 17; 20:16. The forms quoted as Hebrew (‘Talitha cumi,’ ‘Maranatha’) are Aramaic. This is no doubt the language of the inscription on the cross (John 19:20), and of St. Paul’s speech on the temple stairs (Acts 21:40). It is a common error to suppose that Aramaic is a corrupt form of Hebrew. This is quite wrong. The Semitic 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 language 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 31:47, 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 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 such as the lake of Galilee and Jerusalem. In this respect the Palestinian Jew resembled a Welshman on the border-land, a Fleming in the neighborhood 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 connections or friends in high quarters at Jerusalem (18:16). 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.

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. γινώσκειν (57 times); κόσμος (79 times); πίστις/πιστεύειν (99 times); ζωή/ζήν/ζωοποιεῖν (55 times); μαρτυρία/μαρτυρεῖν (47 times); πρόβατον occurs in the tenth chapter alone 15 times; κόσμος occurs in the seventeenth chapter alone 18 times.

(b) We find not only the same words, but the same phrases: e.g. ἔρχεσθαι, ὁ πέμψας με, ἀποστέλλειν, καταβαίνειν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν—all used of Christ’s Incarnation, etc.

2. The Syntax. On the extreme simplicity of the Fourth Gospel in this respect, I shall have to speak later. This characteristic of the writer is well expressed by Heinsius, who describes him thus: ‘In sermone ἀφελεία in sensibus est ὕψος.’ 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 Semitic tongue, and obliged to write in an Aryan; of one familiar with (say) Aramaic, the conversational, spoken language, and Hebrew, the sacred language; but writing in Greek. Both these languages present striking contrasts with Greek. In these Semitic 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 וְ is used equally for opposition and for simple connection; 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 1 (taken at haphazard) וְ is translated ‘so’ vv. 15, 43, 46; ‘then’ v. 29; ‘yet’ v. 32; ‘but’ v. 40; and with לָא, ‘notwithstanding’ v. 26. Again in 1 Kings 12 (again taken at haphazard) 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 וְ. Of the remaining three, two are beginnings of speeches, and therefore necessarily are asyndeta. Indeed in the later Aramaic, Greek particles (ἀλλά, δέ and afterwards μέν) were deliberately introduced to supply the deficiency.

Consequently, in these languages sentences are not subordinated, but coordinated. ‘Hence,’ as Winer describes it, ‘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 (κατεστραμένη); (2) The disjointed (διηρημένη) or ‘jointed’ (εἰρομένη). (See Aristot. Rhet. iii.9.)

In the infancy of the language the earlier prose writers Hecataeus and Herodotus exhibit the εἰρομένη; the later, when a mastery over the language had been attained, the κατεστραμένη. Now, Hebrew and Aramaic do not lend themselves to κατεστραμένη, the genius of the languages necessitating the εἰρομένη. 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 καί takes the place of the וְ, and has almost as wide a range, connecting together not only independent, but dependent, and even opposite and contrasted clauses. I give a few examples of this:

John 1:1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34; 2:1, 3, 4, 8, 12-16; 3:11, 12, 13, 14; 4:11, 40, 41; 6:17; 7:26, 28, 33, 34; 9:18, 19; 10:3, 9, 12, 14-16, 22, 27, 28, 39-41; 14:23, 24; 15:6; 16:22, 32; 17:1, 8, 10, 11 (six times in three lines); 19:34, 35.

For instances where καί introduces an opposition, with the meaning of ‘and yet,’ ‘nevertheless,’ see John 1:5, 10; 3:10, 11, 19, 32; 4:20; 5:40; 6:70; 7:4, 19, 26, 30; 8:49, 55; 9:30, 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.

(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. 3:6 (τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.); 3:31 (ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ. ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν·). Cf. 7:6, 7, 8; 8:14, 23; 10:18; 11:9, 10 etc., etc.

(b) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel, but not opposed clauses, e.g. 9:21, 22 (πῶς δὲ νῦν βλέπει οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἢ τίς ἤνοιξεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμεῖς οὐκ οἴδαμεν); 17:16 (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου). Cf. 18:18; 19:10 etc., etc.

(c) Strengthening of a statement by the negation of its opposite, e.g. 1:3 (πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν); 1:20 (καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο). Cf. 3:18; 10:28; 11:25, 26; 20:27 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. 1:43-46 (εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον . . . ἦν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος . . . εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθαναὴλ . . . καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ . . . λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Φίλιππος). Cf 3:23sq.; 7:21sq. etc., etc.

(b) Repetition of the nominative pronoun, where the Greek does not require it, e.g. 1:42 (Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς). Cf. 1:25, 31; 4:10, 19 etc., etc.

(c) Repetition of the noun, e.g. 7:6 (Ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος πάντοτέ ἐστιν ἕτοιμος). Cf. 7:8, 19; 12:43, 47 etc., etc.

(d) Repetition of the verb, e.g. 5:17 (Ὁ Πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι·). Cf. 6:63; 7:24, 28; 8:53; 10:10; 13:43 etc., etc.

(e) Repetition of the same phrase in successive clauses, e.g. 3:31 (ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ. ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν). Cf. 8:14, 23, 24; 10:18; 11:9sq. etc., etc.

(f) Taking up a word or expression from the preceding sentence, e.g. 10:11 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός. ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων). Cf. 1:1; 3:32, 33; 17:2, 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 themselves; 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. 4 (esp. vv. 17, 27, 33); of the sick man healed in ch. 5 (esp. vv. 11, 12); the conversation in ch. 6 (esp. vv. 41, 42); cf. 7:11sq., 35, 36, 40sq.; 8:22; 9:8sq., 23sq., 40sq.; 10:20, 36, 41; 11:31, 36, 37; 12:19sq. etc., etc.

(5) The arrangement of words in the sentence, especially the precedence of the verb, e.g. 1:40-47 ( Ἦν Ἀνδρέας . . . εὑρίσκει οὗτος . . . ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν . . . ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ . . . εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον . . . εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθαναὴλ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ . . . λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Φίλιππος . . . εἶδεν Ἰησοῦς). This is noticeably the case with the expression λέγει αὐτῷ, e.g. 4:7-26; 9:34, 35, 39sq. etc., etc.

(6) Other grammatical and lexical peculiarities.

(a) The superfluous pronoun (1) after a relative, representing the Hebrew אֲשֶׁר which is indeclinable, e.g. 1:12 (ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς); v. 38 (ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε). Cf. 1:33; 7:38; 17:2; 18:9, 11 etc., etc.; (2) after nouns or participles, e.g. 1:18 (μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.); 5:11 ( Ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν Ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου). Cf. 6:46; 7:18, 38; 10:1; 14:21, 26; 15:5, etc., etc. This construction, 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 πᾶς . . . οὐ occurs three times in this Gospel 3:16; 6:39; 12:6.

(c) The frequent use of ἵνα in St. John, especially as the complement of a demonstrative pronoun, is probably to be explained by the flexibility of the Aramaic כי. Instances are 1:2; 4:34; 6:29, 40; 8:56; 11:50; 13:34; 15:8, 12, 13, 17; 16:7, 33; 17:3, 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 ἄνθρωπος for τις, e.g. 5:7 (Κύριε, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω); 7:22, 23 (ἐν σαββάτῳ περιτέμνετε ἄνθρωπον. εἰ περιτομὴν λαμβάνει ἄνθρωπος etc.). Cf. 8:40; 9:16 etc. This represents a thoroughly characteristic use of אִיש. See Gesenius s. v.

(e) The transition from the dependent to the independent clause, e.g. 1:32 (Τεθέαμαι τὸ Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν.) Cf. 11:44 (Winer §Ixiii. p. 717 ed. Moulton). This transition however appears in other New Testament writers also, and cannot be pressed into an argument.

(f) The frequent recurrence of the expression εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα especially with a negative, e.g. 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51, 52; 10:26; 11:28; 12:34; 13:8, 14:16; and the use of ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος 9:32.

(g) Other Hebraisms are: 1:13 (αἱμάτων), 15, 30 (πρῶτός μου cf. 15:18); 3:29 (χαρᾷ χαίρει); 7:33; 12:35; 14:19 (ἔτι μικρόν cf. 16:16, 17, 19); 4:23 (ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν); 11:4 (οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον cf. 16:20); 4:26; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5, 6 ( Ἐγώ εἰμι); 10:24 ( Ἕως πότε); 18:37 (Σὺ λέγεις).

(7) Imagery, secondary senses of words etc.

This displays a thoroughly Hebrew, or at least Oriental, coloring. The simple facts in life are used to convey deep spiritual truths. Nature and history become signs (σημεῖα) 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 ἀληθεία 1:14, 17; 3:21; δόξα 1:14; 2:11; 12:41; ὕδωρ ζῶν 4:10, 13; κοιλία 7:38; ζωή 5:24; τὸ μάννα 6:31; ἄρτος 6:32; ὑψωθῶ . . . ἑλκύσω 12:32; τὸ ποτήριον 18:11.

If the special Hebraisms or Aramaisms, are few, this is unimportant, for the whole casting of the sentences, the whole coloring 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 ungrammatical 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.’ On the general accord of recent writers on this point, see Sanday.

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 1:1sq.; 2 Cor 4:14sq.

(ii) The writer’s direct knowledge of Hebrew.

1. The quotations from the Old Testament. The quotations are a valuable criterion of the position of a writer. 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? 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 9:9 quoted in John 12:14, 15 (see Turpie, p. 222). The quotation is loose. Two points are noticeable. St. John has ὁ Βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται. The LXX ὁ βασιλεὺς σου ἔρχεταί σοι (but some eds. insert σου). The Hebrew represents ὁ Βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι as in Matt 21:5. The other point is more important. St. John has πῶλον ὄνου, which comes from the Hebrew, the LXX having πῶλον νέον, while St. Matthew quotes the Hebrew still more literally, ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου.

(2) Zech 12:10 quoted in John 19:37, Ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν (Turpie, p. 131). This agrees with the Heb. ‘They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.’ But the LXX is quite different, καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο, i.e. ‘they shall look on me, because they have derided.’ The LXX evidently read the same radical but not with the pointing דָּקָרוּ, 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.

On the reading of the Hebrew as ‘unto me’ rather than ‘unto him’ which is read by many MSS., see de Rossi ill. p. 217. Aquila, at least, of the other versions, seems to point to this reading. The Evangelist, however, if he had אֵלַי, would not unnaturally change the person from the first to the third to suit the connection. Comp. Apoc 1:7.

(3) Ps 40:10 quoted in John 13:18 (Turpie, p. 55). St. John has Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ. The LXX ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν. 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 הַגָּדֹל. 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 interpretation admissible.

(4) Is 6:10 quoted in John 12:40 (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. Τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν. 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 וְעֵינָיו הָשַׁע, it is quite possible that St. John translated the same words Τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν, 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, ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν μήποτε ἴδωσι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσι καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσι, καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσι, καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς, evidently to get rid of a doctrine which was a stumbling-block. Symmachus seems likewise to have surmounted the difficulty, though in another way. He takes הָעָם הַזֶּה as the nominative, ‘This people . . . etc.’ 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 13:14, 15; Acts 28:26, 27), quote it from the LXX. In Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, this part of the quotation is omitted.

(5) Is 54:13 quoted in John 6:45 (Turpie, p. 198). This is a doubtful case. The Hebrew has ‘And all thy sons (are) disciples of God.’ St. John [reads] Καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ. The LXX however attaches the sentence to what goes before, καὶ πάντας τοὺς υἱούς σου διδακτοὺς Θεοῦ. 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.

(b) 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 19:15 quoted in John 8:17 (Turpie, p. 49). Here the LXX inserts πάν; but St. John paraphrases the whole sentence δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία. Thus the crucial point of difference is evaded.

(b) Exo 12:46 (Num 9:12) quoted in John 19:36 (Turpie, p. 31). Here St. John follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX. But the passage intended to be quoted may be Ps 33:21; 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 34 (35):19; 68 (69):5 οἱ μισοῦντές με δωρεάν. Comp. Ps 108 (109):3, in John 15:25 (Turpie, p. 30).

(b) Ps 69 (68):10 quoted in John 2:17 (Turpie, p. 29), where the Evangelist substitutes καταφάγεται, for καταφάγεν.

(c) Ps 82 (81):6 quoted in John 10:34 (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 78 (77):24 quoted in John 6:31 (Turpie, p. 60). The use of ἄρτον 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 דְגַן is rendered ἄρτος.

(c) Is 40:3 quoted in John 1:23 (Turpie, p. 219). Yet εὐθύνατε (St. John) for εὐθείας ποιεῖτε (LXX) looks like a direct derivation from the Hebrew, which has one word יַשְּׁרוּ, not two, in the original. All the other Evangelists have εὐθείας ποιεῖτε (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4); and this makes the probability stronger.

(c) Passages almost certainly, or most probably, taken from the lxx.

(1) Ps 21:19 quoted in John 19:24 (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 ἱμάτια and ἱματισμός.

(2) Is 53:1 quoted in John 12:38 (Turpie, p. 106). Again the LXX is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, for τίνι as a rendering of עַל־מִי can hardly be regarded as an exception. But the probabilities are against the whole combination 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, 1:38 Ῥαββεί (ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον Διδάσκαλε); 20:16 Ῥαββουνεί (ὃ λέγεται Διδάσκαλε). 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 10:51, where again the circumstances are exceptional. These are the only two passages in the New Testament in which the form occurs. The omission by St. John of the interpretation of the pronoun ‘my master’ is to be explained by the fact that it had got attached to the word, as in Rabbi, and had ceased to have any distinct force: just as, by the reverse principle, ὁ κύριος is rendered in Syriac ‘our Lord.’

(6) Messias, 1:41 Εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν (ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Χριστός); 4:25. The word does not occur in the New Testament save in these two places.

(c) Cephas, 1:42 Κηφᾶς (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος). This title is only used by John and St. Paul. Elsewhere, when the appellation is employed, the Greek form is preferred.

(d) Thomas, 20:24; 21:2 Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος. 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. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. i.18; Acta Thomae I ed. Tisch. p. 190). In the Curetonian Syriac of John 14:22 ‘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 Lebbaeus, another Thomas, the third Iscariot.

(e) Siloam, 9:7 εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν τοῦ Σιλωάμ ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος. The word occurs in Isaiah 9:6 שִּׁׁלֹחַ (A. V. Shiloah), and signifies a ‘conduit,’ ‘emissary,’ ‘aqueduct,’ from the root שׁלח ‘send,’ which is used of water in Ps 94:10; Ezek 31:4 (Gesenius, p. 1415). הַשִּׁלֹחַ־בַּיְתָ occurs in the Talmud, meaning either ‘a conduit for irrigation’ or ‘field needing artificial irrigation’ (Buxtorf, p. 2412sq). Another form שַׁלּוּ (A. V. Siloah) is found as a proper name in Neh 3:15, 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: Σιλωάμ (LXX Luke 13:4; Josephus frequently); Σιλωάς (Josephus elsewhere); Σιλωά (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). The geographical and symbolical bearing of the notice will be considered hereafter. 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 l.c. the definite article occurs. With this compare Acts 9:35 ‘the Sharon’ (τὸν Σαρῶνα).

(f) Golgotha, 19:17 εἰς τὸν λεγόμενον Κρανίου τόπον, ὃ λέγεται Ἑβραϊστὶ Γολγοθᾶ. Cf. Matt 17:33; Mark 15:22 (Luke 23:33). As the interpretation occurs in the Synoptic narrative also, no argument can be drawn from it.

(g) Gabbatha, 19:13 εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον, Ἑβραϊστὶ δὲ Γαββαθα. 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 Praeneste 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.

But what is the meaning of the Hebrew Gabbatha? It is commonly connected with the Hebrew for ‘to be high,’ meaning a ‘prominence’ or ‘hill’ (גִּבְעָה). Cf. gibbus. The word would then represent the Hebrew radical גבעה. This theory receives further support from the fact that Josephus (Ant. v.1.29; vi.4.2 and elsewhere) uses Γαβάθα 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 β. Accordingly Ewald (Johan. Schr. I. p. 408) suggests as the derivation גָּבַע קָבַץ’ ‘to collect together’ and thus the word would imply ‘a mosaic.’ This appears to me highly probable, for I find this word קָבַץ used of studding or inlaying with jewels or precious stones, e.g. Ex. 25:7, of the jewels of the high-priest’s ephod, and Deut 33:21, where the Targum Ben Uzziel has ‘a place inlaid (קָבַץ’ם) 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 (6:71; 13:26) as well as to the son’s (12:4; 13:2; 14:22); (2) that in more than one place (12:4; 14:22) the definite article should precede the name. We gather therefore 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 Ἰσκαριώτης is ‘the man of Kerioth.’ Now in 2 Sam 10:6, 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 11:3-5. This word becomes in Josephus, Ant. vii.6.1 a proper name, Ἴστβος. 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 adequate illustration of the way in which ‘man of Kerioth’ would appear in a Greek dress. Again, the tradition of Judas’ birthplace is preserved in some MSS. of the New Testament. Thus in Matt 10:4; 26:14 some old Latin MSS. have Karioth, while other authorities have intermediate readings, Scarioth, Σκαριώτης; in Mark 3:19 the correct reading (א, B, C, L) is Ἰσκαριώθ, the termination not having been interfered with, e has Cariotha, and there are other variations. In Mark 14:10 א, B, L, C* have Ἰσκαριώθ, while Ἰσκαριώτης 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 Ἰσκαριώθ is consistently St. Mark’s form of the appellation. In Luke 4:16 Ἰσκαριώθ is the right reading (א, B, L); on the other hand in 22:3 Ἰσκαριώτην 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 ἀπό Καρυωτου in four out of the five verses in which the name occurs, and (followed by three Latin MSS.). Σκαριώθ in the fifth passage (6:71), where, on the other hand, ἀπό Καρυωτου receives the support of א ,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.

Kαριώθ is the LXX rendering of קריות. The word signifies ‘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 48:24, 41; Amos 2:2; see Merx, Arch. fur Wissensch. Erf. des Alt. Test., p. 320), another in Judah (Joshua 15:25). This latter is perhaps the birth-place of Judas who, like Perugino, Correggio, Veronese and others, has merged his personal name in that of his native town.

2. 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 discourses alike are thoroughly saturated with the Messianic ideas of the time.’ 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, center, no less than the Messiah as the historical, the objective center, 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 Χριστός, the word Μεσσίας, 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 Savior of the Jewish nation. Does He exhibit in His person the common associations and relationships 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 (10:8). This last passage has been attacked as fatal to the authority of the Gospel, and this on two grounds. First, we are told, 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 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 (8:37, 56). Moses will accuse them to the Father; for had they believed Moses, they would have believed Christ, for Moses wrote of Him (5:45sq.). 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 (12:37sq.). The interpretation therefore may safely be dismissed. 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 (August, c. Faust, xvi.12, vili., p. 288 F., 289 A.) and probably by other dualistic sects. Such at least would appear from Clement Alex. Strom. i.17, pp. 366sq. (ed. Potter). Further, the consciousness of the misuse that was made of the text would account for the omission of the words πρὸ ἐμοῦ by some authorities. (2) The expression need not necessarily be confined to false Messiahs. ‘Shepherds’ are teachers (Jer 23:1; Ezek 34:2, 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 7:15), as devouring widows’ houses (Matt 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). 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.

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 5:35sq.), 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.1.1sq.), and his language shows evidently that the rising took a theocratic character. 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,’ 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’ (ὁ ἀρχιλῃστής). 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 rumors, and echoes of the Messianic expectations had penetrated as far as Rome, and found expression 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 (Vict. Ant. ap. Cramer Cat. 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.

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 powerful 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 (1:29, 36). The reference is to Isaiah 53:4, a passage which was commonly interpreted of the Messiah, apparently before the Christian era (see Bishop Harold Browne, Sermons, p. 92sq. and cf. Sanday, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 39 sq.), and is interpreted of our Lord directly by Philip the Evangelist (Acts 8:32) and indirectly St. Peter (1 Pet 1:19). 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 (ἀρνίον for ἀμνός) the same metaphor occurs in the Apocalypse nearly thirty times.

(b) The Son of God, the King of Israel (1:49). 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 artificiality. The first designation, the ‘Son of God,’ is derived from Ps 2:7. It occurs again in the Fourth Gospel, 1:34; 3:18; 9:35 and especially 11:27, in the last passage coupled expressly with the title ‘the Christ,’ a combination which we find elsewhere (Matt 16:63 in the mouth of the High Priest, and Matt 16:16 in the confession of St. Peter). Even when it stands alone, as in Luke 4:41; 22:70, it is at once recognised as applying to the Christ. The second title, ‘the King of Israel,’ is a favorite appellation in the Fourth Gospel (12:13; cf. 18:36, 37; 19:3, 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 (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) 6:14; 11:27; cf. Matt 11:3; Luke 7:19, 20; derived from the well-known Messianic psalm (Ps 118), which is quoted in this sense by all the four Evangelists (Matt 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; John 12:13); (d) the Holy One of God (ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ) 6:69; cf. Mark 1:24 and other passages; (e) the Son of Man, 1:51 etc., the most familiar of all designations of the Christ, especially in St. Luke’s Gospel; (f) the Light, 1:7, 8; 8:12, 12:46; cf. Luke 2:32; an idea found in Messianic passages like Is 9:2; 42:6, 7; Mal 4:2, 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 (ὃ . . . Ἀπεσταλμένος) 9:7, where the interpretation of the name Siloam connects the pool with Christ (see 10:36; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25 etc; cf. Is 61:1) rather than with the man (see Wettstein 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 expectations and the national feelings of the period which he depicts.

(ii) The companions of the Messiah. Attention has been drawn above to the significant references to ‘the prophet’ which occur in four places in St. John (1:21, 25; 4:14; 7:40). 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 18:15) with our Lord Himself (Acts 3:22; 7:37; cf. John 1:46) the Jews in St. John’s Gospel conceive of ‘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’ (1:21, 25); if not ‘the prophet,’ then ‘the Christ’ (7:40). But this brings us to another point, which is worthy of consideration. Springing 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 mediators of the two covenants (Heb 8:5, 6). Thus again, in a well-known passage (1 Cor 10:1-11), 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 (15:3) sets in the mouth of the redeemed a twofold song, ‘the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb.’ And lastly, our Lord Himself instances the action of Moses in lifting up the serpent in the wilderness as emblematic of Himself (John 3:14). 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, undertakes to divide the Jordan (Josephus, 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.’ Gfrorer, who has worked out this subject in his Jahrhundert des Heils (ii. p. 318sq), tells us that Micah 7:15 was quoted to prove that the Passover was the time in which this manifestation of Messianic power should be exhibited. In fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah (9:9), 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 Qoheleth Rabba, 9 fol. 86.4, we read Dixit P. Berachia nomine 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 iis manna’ (see Lightfoot Hor. 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’ (6:30, 31), which in St. John’s narrative occurs in so abrupt and unexplained a manner. The key to the understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with the national expectation of the greater Moses. But this knowledge 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 5:2, should be a descendant of David, born in Bethlehem (7:42), and yet at the same time the mystery and uncertainty of that birth (7:27) based upon the well-known passage in Isaiah ‘who shall declare His generation?’ (Is 53:8), the apparent discrepancies of the two accounts being explained by the rabbis on the analogy of Moses who was born and then hidden; His manifestation ‘to Israel’ (1:31 a passage with which Sanday, p. 33, compares Luke 1:80 spoken of John the Baptist; cf. 14:22; 17:6sq.), an event which Jewish tradition decided would take place at the Passover (Shemoth Rabb. xv.150, Jerusalem Targum on Ex 3:42; 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 6:2); lastly, His eternal continuance (12:34), a point much discussed among the rabbis.

One of the accompaniments of the Messiah in Jewish anticipations was the return of the Shekhinah, 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 37:27; 43:7; Zechariah 2:10sq.; 8:3; Isaiah 8:8, and on the language of Ecclesiasticus 14:8sq.: ‘He that created me caused my tabernacle to rest, and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob . . . in the holy tabernacle I served before him’ (τότε ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ κτίστης ἁπάντων, καὶ ὁ κτίσας με κατέπαυσε τὴν σκηνήν μου καὶ εἶπεν· ἐν ᾿ Ιακὼβ κατασκήνωσον καὶ ἐν ᾿ Ισραὴλ κατακληρονομήθητι. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέ με, καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπω. ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐλειτούργησα καὶ οὕτως ἐν Σιὼν ἐστηρίχθην). It finds expression in more than one passage in the Apocalypse (7:15; 13:6; 15:5; 21:3). It remains however for St. John in his Gospel, in words which are replete with local coloring, to point with a quiet triumph to the fulfilment of this expectation in the person of Jesus Christ, ‘The Word became flesh, and tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us, and we beheld His glory (καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ), the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (1:14).

(iii) The Messianic expectation among the Samaritans.

It has been denied that the Samaritans had any Messianic anticipations at all. But, firstly, they had the prophecy referred to above (Deut 18:15), which, as forming part of the Pentateuch, 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 (τὰ ἱερὰ σκεύη) 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 (2:1-8), 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 Yoma Bahl. (fol. 526, quoted by Gfrorer, p. 350), and explains the reference in Apoc 2:17 to the ‘hidden manna,’ which was one of the treasures contained in the ark (Ex 16:33, 34; Heb 9:4). 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 Recognitions. Here Simon Magus and Dositheus are both mentioned as Samaritans who professed themselves to be Messiahs 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). All the major 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 interpretation of the passage in Josephus beyond a doubt. With them the Messiah is represented under two aspects, first as the Hashah or Hathab (הַחָב) the Converter, Restorer, Buyer-back (Westcott and Petermann l.c.); secondly as the El Muhdi the Guide (Robinson, Biblical Researches ii.27.8 1867). 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’ (4:25; 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 8:33sq. is worthy of notice, as illustrating the writer’s acquaintance with the Jewish ideas of his time. The boast, ‘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’ Cicero, 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 (Josephus, 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’ (9:28) is illustrated by John Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. ii. p. 572) from Yoma fol. 4. 1, where the same expression occurs, and the favourite title of Moses in 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 (8:15), the contemptuous disregard for the opinion of the people (7:49), the very form of address (Σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, 3:10), which was apparently a formula of remonstrance among the Jews—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 (μὴ εἰς τὴν Διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων μέλλει πορεύεσθαι καὶ διδάσκειν τοὺς Ἕλληνας), and teach the Gentiles?’ (7:35). 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 deportations 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 John 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 born blind’ (John 9:2) 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 metempsychosis was confined to the souls of the righteous (Josephus, Bell. Jud. 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 Judean 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’ (7:41, 52) ‘Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ (1:46) 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.

This contempt arose in great measure from the admixture of foreign blood in the Galilean people. The Sea of Galilee was an important commercial center, and as a natural consequence strangers—Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans—settled in the district, and intermarried with the Jewish inhabitants, to the prejudice of the race in the eyes of a strict Jew of the capital (see Keim I p. 309). The distinction thus inaugurated 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 14:70), is a favorite theme likewise in rabbinical writers. Thus in one story a Judaean professes himself unable to distinguish between אּמְּרִ ‘lamb,’ צָמֶר ‘wool,’ חֲמַר ‘wine’ and חֲמוֹר ‘an ass,’ as pronounced by a Galilean when the latter wants to make a purchase, an illustration 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 1:46). Certainly the account which we have of them from other passages in the Gospels (Luke 4:16-29; Matt 13:54-58) 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 19:19).

We pass on to notice the Evangelist’s accurate knowledge of other traits in the Galilean character. In John 4:45 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. The natural turbulence of the Galileans, to which Josephus calls attention was on these occasions aggravated by their intense religious enthusiasm. It is therefore quite what we should expect when we find a reference in St. Luke (13:1) 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 (I. 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 deference exhibited in the words of the chief priests, ‘The Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation’ (11:48). ‘We have no king but Caesar’ (19:15). ‘If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend’ (19:12). 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’ (18:28). 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’ (σπεῖρα, 18:3, 12), once to ‘the captain’ (ὁ χιλίαρχος, 18:12). Now, we learn from Polybius and Suidas that σπεῖρα and χιλίαρχος were technical terms, the recognised Greek renderings of cohors and tribunus respectively. Accordingly the use of the definite article by St. John in both cases, ‘the cohort’ and ‘the tribune,’ shows that he was aware of a fact, which we learn from Josephus also (Bell. Jud. ii.12.1), that a Roman cohort was quartered in the Turris Antonia at Jerusalem to prevent disturbances at the great festivals. 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.

Again, the scene of the Crucifixion furnishes St. John with another opportunity of showing his intimate knowledge of Roman military customs. A quaternion (τετράδιον, Acts 12:4) 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 27:35; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:34), that the soldiers divided the Savior’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 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’ (19:31, 82). 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 crucifixion. It was a separate punishment 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 III.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 21:23 quoted by Tertullian, adv. Judaeos 10).

(ii) The writer’s 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 nominated 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 to the wide use of the word ἀρχιερεύς, but not altogether explained thereby. Thus, in his Gospel St. Luke dates the first year of our Lord’s ministry ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καϊάφα (Luke 3:2), but in the Acts he mentions as present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin shortly after the day of Pentecost καὶ Ἄννας ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ Καϊάφας (Acts 4:6). 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 (11:49; 18:13, 24), but he assigns an important position to Annas also, whom in some sense he recognizes likewise as ὁ ἀρχιερεύς (18:15, 16, 19, 22).

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’ (γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ, 18:15, 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 Testament. Yet this episode about Annas in the history of the Passion is peculiar to St. John.

The use of ἀρχιερεύς 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). 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 Damnaeus 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’ (ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, xx.9.2), and this title is applied to him, even as late as the breaking out of the Judaic war (Bell. Jud. ii.17.6, 9), though in the meantime there has been a fifth change in the actual holder of the high-priesthood. And this is not all. Ananias is designated the high-priest in describing his dealings with the actual high-priest even in the same sentence (Ant. xx.9.2). This is at least as great an intermingling of the use as in John xviii. and is exactly of the same kind. Again, the passage in Josephus gives an example of the employment of the plural ‘the high-priests,’ 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 the expression ‘Annas the high-priest and Caiaphas’ in Acts 4:6. 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.

2. The Jewish Festivals.

We cannot fail to notice the large place which religious festivals occupy in this Gospel. They are much more prominent 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 7. It is introduced by a remarkable expression (δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡ σκηνοπηγία, 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 ‘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.’ It was sufficiently prominent to attract the notice of the heathen, such as Plutarch (Symp. iv.6; Op. Mor. p. 671 sq.), who regards it as a sort of Dionysiac festival. Still, if the words ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων alone had been used, the Passover would probably have been meant. Hence the words ἡ σκηνοπηγία are added. A little later on (v. 37) St. John speaks of the ‘last, the great day of the feast’ ( Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς ἑορτῆς), 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. 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 16:13sq.; Ezek 45:25), yet elsewhere the eighth day is reckoned as part of the feast, and a special prominence attached to it. This is the case in Num 29:35, in Neh 8:18, in 2 Macc 10:6, in Philo and Josephus, and in Jewish writers generally. I need not dwell upon the fact, to which attention has been frequently drawn, that on this occasion our Lord bases His discourse (7:37sq.; 8:12sq.) 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. It will be sufficient to notice, first, that as in 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 (ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ) stood, and where our Lord was speaking at the time (8:20). 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.

(b) The Feast of Dedication. This festival (τὰ ἐνκαίνια) 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’ (10:22, Ἐγένετο τότε τὰ ἐνκαίνια ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις). There is no mention made, as in the case of other feasts (e.g. 2:13; 4:45; 5:1; 7:8), of going up to Jerusalem. For the ἐνκαίνια, 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 pollution by Antiochus Epiphanes B.C. 167. This event and the institution of the annual festival are described in 1 Macc 4:36sq., where Judas Maccabaeus 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 Chislev’ (v. 59). Now the month Chislev falls in November and December, coinciding more nearly with December, and the Jewish winter is reckoned to commence on the fifteenth of Chislev. Hence the notice of the season of the year in St John is strictly accurate. Yet it is introduced quite incidentally, apparently to 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 (19:36), to the danger of ceremonial pollution (18:28), and to the Preparation (Παρασκευή, 19:14, 31, 42), a term which he employs in common with the Synoptists (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54), but, unlike St Matthew, uses twice without the article, and in one case defines more accurately by the addition of the words τά πάσχα (19:14), implying that the term was not restricted to the Passover. Lastly, the parenthetical remark on 19:31, ‘For the day of that sabbath was a high day’ (γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου) 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 untouched in Herod’s restoration. 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 (ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ, 8:20). This word St. John employs in common with the Synoptists (Mark 12:41sq.; Luke 21:1), 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’ (ὑπερ τοῦ γαζοφυλακίου). 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. Mark (l.c.) calls special attention to the crowd of people which passed to and from (πῶς ὁ ὄχλος βάλλει χαλκὸν εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον). How natural to take advantage of this concourse, and how significant the addition ‘and no man laid hands on him’ (8:20) when we recollect that the Sanhedrin held its meetings 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 (5:2). The Evangelist describes this as ‘a pool near the sheep (gate)’ (ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα). The ‘sheep gate’ (A.V. ‘sheep market’) is mentioned more than once by Nehemiah (3:1, 32; 12:39, καὶ ἕως πύλης τῆς προβατικῆς), but it is difficult to fix its exact position. It was this uncertainty of locality, doubtless which led to the omission of the words ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ in the Curetonian and Peshitta Syriac, and to the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα, which understands the two descriptions as defining one and the same spot. However it is clear that others also, besides the scribe of א, explained προβατικῇ as an adjective describing κολυμβήθρα. Thus Eusebius in his Onomasticon makes the following statement: ‘Bethzatha, the gate in Jerusalem, which is the sheep (one)’ and goes on to derive the name from the animal sacrifices which used to take place there. And this interpretation may have produced the reading which we find in א. It is possible however, that Eusebius may have got hold of the rabbinical word (Buxtorf, p. 1796), which seems to mean ‘a bath,’ unless indeed this word has come from προβατικῇ, 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? 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 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’ at all events accords with the uninterpolated 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 introduce, 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 ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ employing an adjective 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 (9:7). Attention has been drawn already 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 situation, 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, Silwan, as in our Lord’s time. It lies at the mouth of the Tyropoeon 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 of Jerusalem, ‘the water gate.’ It was both a fountain and a pool. The fountain (πηγή) is mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. v.12.2), the pool or tank by Nehemiah (iii.15, בְּרֵכַת) and St. John (κολυμβήθρα). The derivation of the name, which means an ­‘aqueduct’ or ‘conduit’ (from ‘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 (8:6) 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 Yahweh and the overwhelming of a foreign conquest. This idea of an indigenous stream, the possession of the favored people, ‘the river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God’ (Ps 46:4; cf. Isaiah 33:21), 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 10:4). Thus St. John seizes upon the current thought, and extends its application. The Healer who sends the blind man is Himself ‘the sent.’

(3) Cedron (18:1). This is undoubtedly the Kidron of the Old Testament (2 Sam 15:23 etc.), and is mentioned by St. John alone of the Evangelists. The common text runs χειμάρρου τῶν Κέδρων (‘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 Κέδρων is the Hebrew word קָדַר ‘dark,’ so called probably from its turbid stream (cf. Ps 130:5 ‘the tents of Kedar,’ i.e. the dark skinned folk) and have proceeded to argue that the Evangelist in his ignorance has imagined it to be the genitive plural of κέδρος ‘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 Κέδρων occurs frequently (Bell. Jud. 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 Josephus’ manner in dealing with Hebrew substantives. In the LXX the expression ὁ χειμάρρους Κέδρων is employed without an article, e.g. 2 Sam 15:23 (its second occurrence in this verse); 2 Kings 23:6, 12; 2 Chron 15:16; 29:16; 30:14; Jer 31:40. But in two passages it is found with the plural article—2 Sam 15:23 (on the first occurrence) and 1 Kings 15:13, ἐν τῷ χειμάρρῳ Κέδρων. This is the reading of A.B. 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 ὁ χειμάρρους Κέδρων, as they generally do, a solecism on this supposition; but we should have had ὁ χειμάρρους τῶν Κέδρων in every case. Therefore either there is a corruption in the best manuscripts of the LXX, or ὁ χειμάρρους τῶν Κέδρων 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 τῶν Κέδρων, τοῦ Κέδροῦ and τοῦ Κέδρων, and that the preponderance of evidence is either for τῶν Κέδρων or τοῦ Κέδροῦ. 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 τοῦ Κέδρων and this for two reasons. First, it is the intermediate reading, the reading which explains the other two, whereas neither of the other two will explain either this or each other. Secondly, it is much more probable that τοῦ Κέδρων would be changed into τῶν Κέδρων and τοῦ Κέδροῦ, than conversely. Indeed the converse change in either case is hardly conceivable, the tendency being to assimilate terminations. And unless τῶν Κέδρων 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 Sanday. Tregelles gives it as an alternative. On the other hand Tischendorf reads τοῦ Κέδροῦ.

But suppose τῶν Κέδρων 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 קִדְרוֹן׃ נַחַל. We must suppose therefore that it 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 σάββατα out of the Hebrew noun שַׁבָּתוֹן as though σάββατον. As Κέδρων was only used with χειμάρρους, the change to the genitive would be natural. Again, the temptation to extract a Greek sense out of Hebrew names is exemplified in the derivations given to Jerusalem and Essene. If by an accident there were any cedars in the valley, the adoption of this Grecized form would be facilitated.

(c) Scenes illustrating our Lord’s Passion.

Bethany is mentioned by the Synoptists in connexion with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29), with our Lord’s retirement during Holy Week (Matt 21:17; Mark 11:11, 12), especially the feast at the house of Simon the leper (Matt 26:6; Mark 14:3; cf. John 12:1), and with the Ascension (Luke 24:50). It occurs in St. John’s narrative likewise as the scene of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1, 18), and he exhibits his acquaintance with the place in a characteristic way by mentioning that it was distant fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem (11:18, δὲ Βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε.). 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 knowledge regarding the scene of the Agony, which he describes more precisely than the Synoptists, calling it ‘a garden,’ κῆπος (18:1) instead of simply ‘an enclosure’ (χωρίον, Matt 26:36; Mark 14:32), 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 (19:20). 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 (13:11sq.), 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 Jerusalem. We do not therefore expect him to give us many fresh details about the topography of Galilee. However he mentions Cana in Galilee (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2), and he gives a new designation to the Lake of Gennesareth, which he calls ‘the sea of Tiberias’ (6:1; 21:1). Again, in describing the events which clustered round the Feeding of the Five Thousand, his varying use of πέραν ‘on the other side,’ now for the west, now again for the east shore of the lake, bespeaks the eyewitness, who, as he records the miracle, fancies himself enacting the scene once more, and speaks as if he were himself first here, then there.

(6) Judaea.

(1) Ephraim. In 11:54 St. John describes our Lord’s retirement ‘into the country near the desert, into a city called Ephraim’ (εἰς τὴν χώραν ἐγγὺς τῆς ἐρήμου, εἰς Ἐφραὶμ). 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’ (ἡ ἔρημος) is generally associated with ‘the mountain district’ (τὸ ὄρος). This city Ephraim (or Ephrem) is noticed here only in the New Testament. But it is mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. iv.9.9) in connection with the mountain district north of Judaea, as a small fort (πόλιχνιον) 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 13:19, Bethel is named with it. The two places were probably not far apart. Mr. Robinson (i. 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 עֶפְרַיִן, but the Qri Ephraim עפרון; 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 18:6, or the Ephraim of 2 Sam 13:23, both of which are spelt with an Aleph like the patriarch Ephraim; or with the district called Apherema in 1 Macc. xi.34. Mr Robinson (l.c.) identifies it with Ophrah עָפְרָה of Benjamin (1 Sam 13:17; Josh 18:23). This may or may not be the case. The Qri of 2 Chron. l.c. and the passage in 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 (1:28). This is certainly the correct reading in this passage, and accordingly St. John has been charged with gross ignorance as not being aware that Bethany was near Jerusalem. In the light of the accurate and minute acquaintance 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’ (1:28), of the other as ‘Bethany the town of Mary and her sister Martha’ (11:1); secondly, that he accurately described the Bethany of chapter 11 as ‘nigh unto Jerusalem about fifteen furlongs off’; thirdly, that if we assume with most commentators the identification of Bethany beyond Jordan with ‘the place where John was at first baptizing’ (10:40), our Lord is represented at the time as out of Judaea (11:7, εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν πάλιν), as journeying from the one Bethany to the other, a journey which occupies three days (11:39, τεταρταῖος γάρ ἐστιν), which takes Him into Judaea once more (11:7, Ἄγωμεν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν πάλιν), and into danger from a position of security (11:8). Personally I prefer to keep these scenes of St. John’s baptism distinct, and to place the Bethany of chapter 1 somewhere in the Upper Jordan. 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.’

(3) Aenon near to Salim (3:23). Here again we are introduced by the Evangelist to fresh names. It is true that in Joshua 15:32 mention is made in the tribe of Judah of שִׁלְחִים וְעַיִן (Cod. A Σελεείμ, 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. 345sq.) exactly in this position, six English miles south of Beisan (Bethshan), and two miles west of Jordan. The name Aenon fully bears out St. John’s description of the place, ‘there was much water (ὕδατα πολλά) there,’ the plural noun indicating ‘many fountains’ or ‘springs.’ Evidently therefore Aenon 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,’ ὅπου ἦν Ἰωάνης τὸ πρῶτον βαπτίζων (10:40; cf. Matt 3:1). We meet with him next at Bethany (1:28, A.V. ‘Bethabara’) ‘beyond Jordan,’ probably at the upper fords. Lastly, his headquarters are at Aenon, near Salim (3:23). 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 Judaea (Luke 1:39), yet he is apprehended and put to death by Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:19, 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.

II. The Writer was an Eye-witness of the Events Recorded.

In a striking passage in one of his works 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 vividness 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 connection 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 (14:51sq.) 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 Evangelists 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 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 (1:29, 35, 43; 2:1) and of the last week (12:1, 12 etc.) of the narrative, but it is present throughout (4:40, 43; 6:22; 7:14, 37; 10:22; 11:6, 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 (1:39; 4:6, 52; 19:14), or, if not the hour, the time approximately (3:2; 6:16; 13:30; 18:28; 20:19; 21:3, 4).

(2) Place. We have had occasion already to allude to the increased definiteness to be observed in the Fourth Gospel in this respect. 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 10:38, εἰς κώμην τινά, with John 11:1, ἀπὸ Βηθανίας, ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας καὶ Μάρθας τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτῆς. It runs through the whole narrative, e.g. 6:59, ἐν συναγωγῇ διδάσκων ἐν Καφαρναούμiv; 10:23 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τοῦ Σολομῶνος. 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, 6:19, ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα θεωροῦσιν; 21:8, ὡς ἀπὸ πηχῶν διακοσίων, and for his greater chronological accuracy contrast the Fourth Evangelist with St. Luke in the scenes of St Peter’s denial (18:15sq.), 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. 1:41, 45, 46 (bis), 48, 49 of Andrew, Philip and Nathanael; 6:7, 8 Andrew and Philip; 6:68 Peter; 11:16 Thomas; 12:4 Judas Iscariot; 12:21 Andrew and Philip again; 13:8, 9 Peter; 13:24, 25 Peter and John; 13:36, 37 Peter again; 14:8 Philip; 14:22 Judas not Iscariot; 20:25sq. Thomas; 21:3 Peter; 21:7 Peter and John; 21:15sq., 21:20sq. 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 6:37, λέγουσι) instead of being placed in the mouth of Philip (John 6:7), or the feast at Bethany, where the loving ministrations of Mary (John 12:3) are vaguely assigned to ‘a woman’ (Matt 26:7; Mark 14:3, γυνή), and where the expressed discontent of Judas (John 12:4) is robbed of half its force by being generalized (Matt 26:8, οἱ μαθηταί; Mark 14:4, τινες). 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 18:10) who with characteristic impulsiveness drew his sword in his Master’s defence.

(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 (2:6), the thirty and eight years during which the man lying at the pool of Bethesda had been afflicted (5:5), the bag in which our Lord and His disciples kept their common fund (12:6), the sop given to Judas (13:26), the three languages of the title on the cross (19:20), the four parts into which the tunic (τὸν χιτῶνα) and the cloak (τὰ ἱμάτια) were divided (19:23), the water and the blood which issued from the Savior’s side (19:34), the weight of the myrrh and aloes used for the embalming (19:39), the orderly folding of the napkin which had been about His head (20:7), and, in the last chapter, the side of the ship on which the net was to be thrown (21:6) and the number of the fish which were drawn up (21:11)—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 Synoptic 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. 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 outhnes 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 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 18:21); the exact reward which those who follow Jesus should obtain (‘Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?’ Matt 19:27). He will have one mysterious parable explained (‘Declare unto us this parable.’ Matt. 15:15), and he will know the exact range of the application of another (‘Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?’ Luke 12:41). Notice his eagerness to remark upon what is going on around him, whether it be the evidence of Christ’s power (‘Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.’ Mark 11:21), or the current of popular opinion (‘All men seek for thee.’ Mark 1:37). 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 16:22), 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 8:45). 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 16:16), his proposal on the Mount of Transfiguration (‘Lord, it is good for us to be here. If thou wilt, let us make three tabernacles.’ Matt 17:4), his confidence on the Sea of Galilee (‘Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.’ Matt 14:28), his protestation on the night of the betrayal (‘Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.’ Matt 26:33). 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 26:58). On the other side, we notice sudden revulsions of feeling, resulting, now in lack of faith (‘Lord, save me.’ Matt 14:30), now in lack of courage (the three denials, Matt. 26:69sq.), now again in un­expected self-abasement (‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.’ Luke 5:8). Accordingly we find our Lord in the Garden rebuking Peter specially and by name (Matt 26:40; Mark 14:37), 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 endeavored to undermine it in his Gospel. The charge is false in every way. Compare St. John’s account of the third denial (18:27) with that of St. Matthew (26:74) or of St. Mark (14:71), the one Synoptist writing for the Jewish Christians among whom St. Peter was especially honored, the other ‘the interpreter’ of St. Peter. Or again, remember that the rebuke ‘Get thee behind me, Satan,’ is confined to St. Matthew (16:23) and St. Mark (8:33), and is not recorded by St. John. These facts will show how gratuitous this offensive insinuation is. On the other hand, another antagonistic critic (Kosthn 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 others.

We 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?’ (13:36), in the expedient by which he endeavors to obtain through the medium of the beloved disciple the traitor’s name (13:24sq.), in the anxiety which he shows to learn his brother apostle’s destiny (‘Lord, what shall this man do?’ 21:21). 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.’ 6:68), now the revealer of his own deepest heart-utterances (‘Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.’ 21:17), 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 (18:10sq.); at the tomb, while the younger disciple stands awestruck and uncertain, he enters in without a moment’s hesitation (20:6); at the sea of Galilee, he plunges into the lake (21:7), he drags the net to land (21:11). 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 never wash my feet.’ ‘Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.’ 13:8, 9).

(6) Pontius Pilate. In the portraiture of the Roman procurator 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 apprehended 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 favor at the expense of justice and yet his unwillingness to condemn Jesus, his cynical contempt of the subject-people, his sarcasm, his scepticism and yet his fear. It is only when, fresh from studying him in the Fourth Gospel, we turn once more to the pages of the Synoptists, 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 27:11); ‘What will ye that I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?’ (Mark 15:12); and especially in the title placed over the cross. Apparently 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’ (18:31). 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?’ (18:39). 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 Caesar (19:12), 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 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 outhne by St. John than by the Synoptists, no less is his cynicism, his sarcasm and unbelief painted in deeper colors. ‘Am I a Jew?’ (The English fails to convey the withering scorn of the Greek original—Μήτι ἐγὼ Ἰουδαῖός εἰμι;), ‘Art thou a King then?’ (Οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; We can imagine the intonation of the voice upon the final word σύ, 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 (18:39; 19:14, 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’ (19:3).

(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 (1:43sq.). Unlike Andrew and the nameless disciple, he does not make the first advances himself; but he is found and summoned by the Savior. 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 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 consultation. ‘Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus’ (John 12:20-22). 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 (12:21) applying to him first, as they may have been brought in contact with him in this capacity.

(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 multitude, Andrew has hit upon an expedient (6:8, 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 Savior himself, and the first to bring another to the Savior (1:37, 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 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.

(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 someone 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 historical 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 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 (vss. 8, 27, 31) to the reference to the spiritual food. In these two cases the point of connection 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.

Or take the scene enacted in the Judgment Hall (18:28–19:16). Observe at the outset the unartificial, the unsystematic, 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 (22:54-62) adds force to the episode by placing all three denials together. With St. John however dramatic propriety 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 (18:18), the goings in and goings out of Pilate (18:29, 33, 38; 19:4, 9, 13), notes of place and of time (18:28; 19:14)—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 (18:28), their appeals to the law (18:30; 19:7), their inability to punish (18:31), their affected loyalty (19:12, 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 contemporaneous 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 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 believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said’ (2:22). 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 Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified’ (7:39). 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’ (12:33). The prophecy of Caiaphas (11:51), the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:16), Christ’s appeal on behalf of His disciples in the moment of the betrayal (18:9)—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 comment, 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 knowledge, 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 records.

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’ (μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες, 20:29), 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. But did it emanate from the same author or not? Clearly yes. The style is essentially Johannine. There is the same historic οὖν, 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 δέ (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 λέγει (v. 15sq.); the same abruptness of diction, the result of the avoidance of connecting particles (vv. 3, 12, 13, 16, 17). Again such sentences as Ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν. λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Ἐρχόμεθα καὶ ἡμεῖς σὺν σοί. (v. 3); Δεῦτε ἀριστήσατε. οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα τῶν μαθητῶν ἐξετάσαι αὐτόν Σὺ τίς εἶ; (v. 12); Ἀκολούθει (v. 19); Κύριε, οὗτος δὲ τί; (v. 21); σύ μοι ἀκολούθει (v. 22) etc. are features which are familiar to us from previous chapters, and should be compared with e.g. the narrative of 1:35sq. or 20:11sq. We find the same fondness for ἐκείνος (vv. 3, 7, 23), the same love of definiteness, e.g. τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη (v. 6); ἀπὸ πηχῶν διακοσίων (v. 8); ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν (v. 11); τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον (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 6:23). Favorite Johannine expressions are found, as the doubled ἀμὴν (v. 18), which is peculiar to this Gospel, τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ etc. (v. 19; cf. 12:33; 18:32), καὶ τὸ ὀψάριον ὁμοίως (v. 13; cf. 6:11 ὁμοίως καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων, which last is a word only used by the Fourth Evangelist). We notice the characteristic mode of designating places, τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος (v. 1; cf. 6:1), and of describing disciples, ‘Thomas called Didymus’ (v. 2; cf. 11:16), ‘Nathanael from Cana of Galilee’ (ib., his abode specified as in the case of Philip 12:21), ‘Simon, son of John’ (v. 15 sq.; cf. 1:42), ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (v. 7, 20; cf. 13:23; 19:26; 20:2). 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.

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 threw so much light upon our Lord’s mysterious utterance respecting 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. The last verse is evidently a scholium. Tischendorf declares that in the Sinaitic manuscript (א) it is written in a different hand from the rest of the Gospel, by the διοθωτης of the whole, and it is perhaps omitted in a valuable cursive (63). However, as it occurs in all the other copies, and 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 knowledge 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 misapprehensions or to questionings rife in those about him are i. 41 ‘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 (19:35; 20:31) 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.’

The Gospel however does not stand alone. Its connection 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 colors 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 connection. 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 commencement, 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 5:6sq.) as the witnesses to the reality of Christ’s human nature, the counterpart of the statement in the Gospel narrative (19:35).

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]

↑ Back to top