{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60553/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60553","id":"gutenberg_60553","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60553","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. John -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel\n\n\n\n\nTHE MORSE LECTURES\n\nPUBLISHED BY CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n\nTHE CRITICISM OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\nBy WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D. 8vo $1.75 _net_\n\nTHE PLACE OF CHRIST IN MODERN THEOLOGY.\nBy A. M. FAIRBAIRN, D.D., LL.D. 8vo $2.50\n\nTHE RELIGIONS OF JAPAN.\nBy WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS. 12mo $2.00\n\nTHE WHENCE AND THE WHITHER OF MAN.\nBy Professor JOHN M. TYLER. 12mo $1.75\n\n\n\n\n                   THE CRITICISM OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL\n\n                      EIGHT LECTURES ON THE MORSE\n                      FOUNDATION, DELIVERED IN THE\n                        UNION SEMINARY, NEW YORK\n                     IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1904\n\n                                   BY\n\n                  WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., LITT.D.\n\n      LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD\n      HON. FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE; FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY\n                    CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE KING\n\n                                NEW YORK\n                        CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n                                  1905\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n\n                          MY AMERICAN FRIENDS\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThese lectures were delivered in accordance with the terms of the Morse\nfoundation in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, between October\n12 and November 4, 1904; and they were afterwards repeated, with some\nchanges, in Oxford. I have tried to improve their form both while they\nwere being delivered and since. But I have been content to state the\ncase for the most part broadly and constructively, and have not (as I\nhad at one time intended) burdened the pages with notes and detailed\ndiscussions.\n\nI am conscious of inadequate treatment throughout, but especially\nperhaps in Lecture VII. There has been a movement of thought going on\never since the lectures were begun; and, if I am not mistaken, the\nburning point of the whole controversy has come to rest more and more\nupon the question discussed in this lecture. But on neither side has the\nreal issue been pressed home with any thoroughness. Critical writers are\nin the habit of assuming with very little proof that the theology of St.\nJohn is simply a development of that of St. Paul, and that the theology\nof St. Paul was from one end to the other the Apostle\u2019s own creation. I\ncannot think that this is a true representation of the facts; it seems\nto me to ignore far too much the Mother Church and that which gave its\nlife to the Mother Church. At the same time I am quite aware that what I\nhave given is rather a sketch for a possible answer to this question,\nthan a really satisfactory discussion of it. There are not wanting signs\nthat a fuller examination of the relations between the teaching of\nChrist on the one hand and St. Paul and St. John on the other is the\nnext great debate that lies before us. In this debate the question of\nthe genuineness and authenticity of the Fourth Gospel will be but an\nepisode.\n\nIt is a matter of regret to me that the subject of these lectures should\nhave been so predominantly controversial. I cannot help feeling the deep\ncleft which divides me from many of the writers whose views I have\ndiscussed\u2014a cleft that extends to matters more fundamental still than\nthe criticism of the Gospel. I find it in some ways a relief to think of\nthe division between us as greater even than it is. Where there is frank\nand open hostility, the approaches that are made by the one side to the\nother are more highly valued. And from this point of view there is much\nin the writings of those of whom I am obliged to think as opponents that\ngreatly appeals to me. As typical of this I may mention the pamphlet by\nFreiherr von Soden entitled _Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu_. I\nhave referred to this pamphlet in a note on p. 129, in terms that are\nnot those of praise; and it true that the critical portion of the\npamphlet, especially so far as it deals with the Fourth Gospel, seems to\nme very defective. I also cannot disguise from myself that the author\nexplicitly denies what I should most wish that he affirmed (op. cit., p.\n92). But, when I have said this, it is only just to add that I have read\nthe concluding sections of his essay with warm respect and admiration.\nAnd what is true of this essay is true of much beside.\n\nI console myself by thinking that German criticism with which I have had\nto break a lance more often than with any other, has a wonderful faculty\nfor correcting itself. Only in the last few years we have had, first the\ndiscussions started by Wellhausen about the title Son of Man, and then\nthose set on foot by Wrede in his book _Das Messiasgeheimnis in den\nEvangelien_, and in each case criticism seems to be working its way\nthrough to a view that is really right and reasonable. In like manner\nthe extravagant estimate of the apocalyptic element in the Gospels which\nhas been in vogue in recent years seems to be reducing itself to sounder\ndimensions. In each case there is error; but in each case the error is\ncorrected, and something is learnt and gained by the way. May we not\nhope that on this question of the Fourth Gospel, and the still more\nvital matters with which it is bound up, by degrees the tension may be\nrelaxed, and there may be the same experience of permanent gain? Already\none may see great potentialities of good in much that as it at present\nstands may well give cause for concern.\n\nOne common form of criticism that may be directed against this book I\nconfess that I should rather deprecate. Even my friend Dr. Cheyne, whose\nsympathies are so large, allows himself to write: \u2018Apologetic\nconsiderations are brought in to limit our freedom. The Fourth Gospel\nmust be the work of the Apostle John, and must be in the main\nhistorical, because the inherited orthodoxy requires it\u2019 (_Bible\nProblems_, p. 40 f.). Does he really think that this is our only reason\nfor holding those paradoxical positions? Or rather, I would put my\nquestion in another way; Does he really think that \u2018the inherited\northodoxy\u2019 is nothing better than a taskmaster that stands over us with\na whip, to keep us from straying? Is that his view of the divine meaning\nin the history and development of nineteen centuries? I have had\noccasion incidentally to define my attitude on this subject, and I may\nperhaps refer to the pages on which I have done so (pp. 3-5; comp. pp.\n233-235; 262 f.). I hope that this attitude is at least as consistent\nwith an earnest pursuit of truth as that which appears to assume that\northodox or traditional opinions are always wrong.\n\nAgain, I am not conscious of that \u2018paralyzing dread of new facts\u2019 of\nwhich my friend speaks. It may be true that new theories perhaps, rather\nthan new facts, have a greater attraction for some of us than for\nothers. But, as far as I am concerned, if I have been silent in public\non some of the no doubt important questions raised, the cause has been\nchiefly want of time. Life is very short, and very crowded, and we are\nnot all rapid workers, or gifted with the power of facing in many\ndirections at once. And yet I have tried to keep pace with the progress\nof thought; the problems which Dr. Cheyne propounds are not unfamiliar\nto me; and I am not without more or less deliberate views about them.\nDr. Cheyne\u2019s book is enough to convince me that the problems are really\nurgent; and I shall do my best to say what I have to say upon them as\nsoon as I can.\n\nPerhaps it should be explained that the enumeration of books and writers\ndoes not profess to be exhaustive. In the main I have confined myself to\nthe more recent, and to what may be called \u2018living\u2019 literature. Some few\nthings may have dropped out because they did not happen to fall in with\nthe method of treatment adopted. Of these the various writings of Dr.\nEdwin A. Abbott are the most important that I can remember. To the older\nworks mentioned on pp. 12-15 there should have been added Archdeacon\nWatkin\u2019s Bampton Lectures for 1890 as a summary of earlier criticism.\nThe absence of reference to the elaborate work of Dr. Joh. Kreyenb\u00fchl\n(_Das Evangelium der Wahrheit_, vol. i, 1900; vol. ii, 1905) is due in\npart to the accidental loss of my copy of the first volume. But it would\nbe wrong to suggest that I should have had patience enough to discover\nwhat there is of sanity in its learned but fantastic pages.\n\nIt only remains for me to express my heartfelt thanks to those who so\nkindly invited me to deliver these lectures, and to those who gave me\nsuch generous and considerate hospitality, while they were being\ndelivered. My visit to America was deeply interesting to me. I returned\nhome, not only with the feeling that I had made new and valued friends,\nbut also with a greatly strengthened hope and desire that American and\nEnglish workers may long be found side by side\u2014not as though either of\nthem had already obtained, or were already made perfect, but pressing\non, if so be that they may apprehend that for which also they were\napprehended by Christ Jesus.\n\nI must also add a word of very sincere thanks to my friends Dr. Lock,\nwho read the whole, and Mr. Ll. J. M. Bebb, who read a part of the\nproofs of these lectures, and to whose kindness and care I owe it that\nthey are not more faulty than they are.\n\nOXFORD. _Easter, 1905_.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\nLECTURE I\n\nSURVEY OF RECENT LITERATURE 1\n\nLECTURE II\n\nCRITICAL METHODS. THE OLDEST SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE FOURTH\nGOSPEL 42\n\nLECTURE III\n\nTHE STANDPOINT OF THE AUTHOR 74\n\nLECTURE IV\n\nTHE PRAGMATISM OF THE GOSPEL 109\n\nLECTURE V\n\nTHE CHARACTER OF THE NARRATIVE 142\n\nLECTURE VI\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS, AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE GOSPEL 185\n\nLecture VII\n\nTHE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL 205\n\nLECTURE VIII\n\nTHE EARLY HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL 236\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE I\n                      SURVEY OF RECENT LITERATURE\n\n\n_The Situation in November, 1903._\n\n\nThe subject of these lectures illustrates in a striking way the\nfluctuations and vicissitudes of critical opinion as presented before\nthe public. The facts remain the same, and the balance of essential\ntruth and error in regard to them also remains the same; but the balance\nof published opinion is a different matter, and in regard to this the\nchanges are often very marked and very rapid.\n\nIn November last (1903), when I definitely accepted the invitation so\nkindly given me by your President, and definitely proposed the subject\non which I am about to speak, the criticism of the Fourth Gospel had\nreached a point which, in my opinion, was further removed from truth and\nreality than at any period within my recollection. There had followed\none another in quick succession four books\u2014or what were practically\nbooks\u2014three at least of which were of conspicuous ability, and yet all\nas it seemed to me seriously wrong both in their conclusions and in\ntheir methods. To the year 1901 belong the third and fourth editions,\npublished together, of the justly praised and largely circulated\n_Introduction to the New Testament_ of Professor J\u00fclicher of Marburg\n(now translated into English by the accomplished daughter of Mrs.\nHumphry Ward), the second volume of _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, containing\na massive article on \u2018John, Son of Zebedee,\u2019 by Professor P. W.\nSchmiedel of Z\u00fcrich, and a monograph on the Fourth Gospel by M. Jean\nR\u00e9ville of Paris.[1] To these was added in the autumn of last year a\ncomplete commentary on the Gospel by the Abb\u00e9 Loisy, whose more popular\nwritings were at the time attracting so much attention. A profound\ndissent from the conclusion arrived at in these works was one of my main\nreasons in offering to discuss the subject before you. The feeling was\nstrong within me that in this portion of the critical field\u2014and I do not\nknow any other so vital\u2014the time was one of trouble and rebuke; that\nthere was a call to me to speak; and that, however inadequate the\nresponse to the call might be, some response ought to be attempted.\n\nThese were the motives present to my mind in the month of November when\nI chose my subject. But by the beginning of the year (1904) the position\nof things by which they had been prompted was very largely changed. The\nurgency was no longer nearly so great. Two books had appeared, both in\nthe English tongue, which did better than I could hope to do the very\nthing that I desired\u2014one more limited, the other more extended in its\nscope, but both maintaining what I believe to be the right cause in what\nI believe to be the right way. These books were _The Gospels as\nHistorical Documents_, Part I, by Professor V. H. Stanton of Cambridge,\nand _The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ by Dr. James\nDrummond, Principal of Manchester College. I should be well content to\nrest the case, as I should wish it to be stated, on these two books,\nespecially the second. But by the time when they appeared I was already\ncommitted to my task. As I have said, one of them is limited in its\nscope; and the other\u2014admirable as it is, and heartily as I agree with\nits principles as well as with most of its details\u2014is perhaps not quite\nso complete on all points as it is on some; so that there may still be\nroom for such a brief course of lectures as you ask of me, partly to\nreinforce points already made, and partly, it may be, in some small\ndegree to supplement them.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat I have been saying amounts to a confession that my purpose is\napologetic. I propose to defend the traditional view, or (as an\nalternative) something so near to the traditional view that it will\ncount as the same thing. It is better to be clear on this point at\nstarting. And yet I know that there are many minds\u2014and those just the\nminds to which I should most like to appeal\u2014to which this will seem to\nbe a real drawback. There is an impression abroad\u2014a very natural\nimpression\u2014that \u2018apologetic\u2019 is opposed to \u2018scientific.\u2019\n\nIn regard to this there are just one or two things that I would ask\nleave to say.\n\n(1) We are all really apologists, in the sense that for all of us some\nconclusions are more acceptable than others. No one undertakes to write\non any subject with his mind in the state of a sheet of white paper. We\nall start with a number of general principles and general beliefs,\nconscious or unconscious, fixed or provisional. We all naturally give a\npreference to that which harmonizes best with these beliefs, though all\nthe time a process of adjustment may be going on, by which we assimilate\nlarger conclusions to smaller as well as smaller to larger.\n\n(2) Even in the strictest science it must not be supposed that the\nevidence will always point the same way. The _prima facie_ conclusion\nwill not always be necessarily the right one. It cannot be, because it\nis very possible that it may conflict with some other conclusion that is\nalready well established. A balance has to be struck, and some\nadjustment has to be attempted.\n\n(3) If I defend a traditional statement as to a plain matter of fact, I\nam the more ready to do so because I have found\u2014or seemed to myself to\nfind\u2014as a matter of experience, that such statements are far more often,\nin the main, right than wrong. It is a satisfaction to me to think that\nin this experience, so far as it relates to the first two centuries of\nChristian history, I have the distinguished support of Professor\nHarnack, who has expressed a deliberate opinion to this effect, though\nhe certainly did not start with any prejudice in favour of tradition. Of\ncourse one sits loosely to a generalization like this. It only means\nthat the burden of proof lies with those who reject such a statement\nrather than with those who accept it.\n\n(4) I cannot but believe that there is a real presumption that the\nChristian faith, which has played so vast a power in what appear to be\nthe designs of the Power that rules the world, is not based upon a\nseries of deceptions. I consider that, on any of the large questions,\nthat view is preferable which does not involve an abrupt break with the\npast. It is very likely that there may be involved some modification or\nrestatement, but not complete denial or reversal.\n\nTo say this is something more than the instinct of continuity\u2014something\nmore than the instinct expressed in such words as\u2014\n\n                   \u2018I could wish my days to be\n                   Bound each to each by natural piety.\u2019\n\nIt is the settled belief that there is a Providence that shapes our\nends, and that this Providence never has wholly to undo its own work,\nbut that there is a continuous purpose running through the ages.\n\nThat is the sense\u2014and I do not think more than that\u2014in which I plead\nguilty to being an apologist. I hope there is such a thing as\n\u2018scientific apology\u2019 or \u2018apologetic science,\u2019 and that this is entitled\nto fair consideration along with other kinds of science. I would not for\na moment ask that anything I may urge should be judged otherwise than\nstrictly on its merits.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nI began by saying that the nearer past, the last three or four years,\nhas been distinguished by the successive appearance of a number of\nprominent books on the criticism of the Fourth Gospel, which have been\nall on the negative side. Those I mentioned are not only negative, but\nthey have taken the more extreme form of negation. Not content with\ndenying that the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. John, they\ninsist at once that the true author is entirely unknown, and that\nwhoever he was he stood in no direct relation to the Apostle. It has\nbeen the special characteristic of the last few years, as compared with\nthe preceding period, that this more extreme position has been held by\nwriters of note and influence. If we take the period from 1889 to\n1900\u2014or even if we go further back, say, from 1870 to 1900, the dominant\ntendency had been different. Opinion had seemed to gravitate more and\nmore towards a sort of middle position, in which the two sides in the\ndebate could almost reach hands to each other. There was a distinct\nrecognition on the critical side of an element in the Gospel of genuine\nand authentic history. And, on the other hand, there was an equally\nclear recognition among conservative writers that the discourses of our\nLord in particular were reported with a certain amount of freedom, not\nas they had been actually spoken but as they came back to the memory of\nthe Apostle after a considerable lapse of time. While the critics could\nnot bring themselves to accept the composition of the Gospel by the son\nof Zebedee himself, they seemed increasingly disposed to admit that it\nmight be the work of a near disciple of the Apostle, such as the\nsupposed second John, commonly known as \u2018the Presbyter.\u2019\n\nIf this was the state of things six or seven years ago, and if this\ndescription might be given of the general tendency of research in the\ndecade or two preceding, the same can be said no longer. The threads\nthat seemed to be drawing together have again sprung asunder. The sharp\nantitheses, that seemed in the way to be softened down and harmonized,\nhave asserted themselves again in all their old abruptness. The\nalternatives are once more not so much between stricter and less strict\nhistory as between history and downright fiction, not so much between\nthe Apostle and a disciple or younger contemporary of the Apostle as\nbetween a member of the Apostolic generation and one who was in no\nconnexion with it.\n\nI am speaking of the more pronounced opinions on either side. Whereas\nseven or eight or fifteen or twenty years ago the most prominent\nscholars were working towards conciliation, at the present time, and in\nthe near past, the most strongly expressed opinions have been the most\nextreme. The old authorities, happily for the most part, still remain\nupon the scene, and they have not withdrawn the views which they had\nexpressed; but other, younger writers have come to the front, and they\nhave not shown the same disposition for compromise. They know their own\nminds, and they are ready enough to proclaim them without hesitation and\nwithout reserve.\n\nThe consequence is that the situation, as we look out upon it, presents\nmore variety than it did. There are many shades of opinion, some of them\nstrongly opposed to each other. It is no longer possible to strike an\naverage, or to speak of a general tendency. The only thing to be done is\nfor each of us to state his view of the case as he sees it, and to\nappeal to the public, to the jury of plain men, and to the rising\ngeneration, to decide between the competing theories.\n\n\n                        1. Conservative Opinion.\n\n\nIt must not be thought that conservative scholars have shown any\nweakening of confidence in their cause. Quite the contrary. The latest\nperiod, which has seen so much recrudescence of opposition, has also\nseen not only the old positions maintained by those who had maintained\nthem before, but an important accession to the literature on the Fourth\nGospel\u2014from the hand of a veteran indeed, but a veteran who had not\nbefore treated the subject quite directly. I refer to Zahn\u2019s monumental\n_Introduction to the New Testament_, 2 vols., published in 1899, with\nwhich may be taken vol. vi of the same writer\u2019s _Forschungen z. Gesch.\nd. neutest. Kanons_ published in 1900. It is no disparagement to other\nworkers in the field of Early Christian Literature to say that Dr. Zahn\nis the most learned of them all. We could indeed count upon our fingers\nseveral who know all that really needs to be known; but Dr. Zahn has a\nsingular command of the whole of this material in its remotest recesses.\nHe keeps a keen eye not only on theological literature proper, but on\neverything that appears in the world of scholarship that might have any\nbearing upon the questions at issue. An indefatigable industry he shares\nwith more than one of his colleagues; but he is surpassed by none in the\nvigour and energy of mind with which he works up his knowledge.\n\nAnd yet, with all his masterly erudition, and imposing as is the\nmonument which he has erected of it, I am afraid that I should have to\ncall it in some ways a rather isolated monument. There is something in\nDr. Zahn\u2019s work and in his position that is rather solitary. He has\nindeed his _fidus Achates_ in Professor Haussleiter of Greifswald, and I\ndo not doubt that his influence is widely felt among theologians of the\nRight. It is an encouragement to all who are like-minded to know that\nthis strong tower of learning and character is with them. But it is\nhardly to be expected that Dr. Zahn\u2019s writings, especially his greater\nwritings, should ever be popular. Those closely packed pages, with long\nunbroken paragraphs and few helps to the eye and to readiness of\napprehension, are a severe exercise for the most determined student: to\nany one else they must be forbidding. And when such a student has made\nhis way into them, he is apt to find in them every quality but one. The\nviews expressed on all points, larger and smaller, testify unfailingly\nto the powers of mind that lie behind them, but the one thing that they\ndo often fail to do is to convince. There has fallen upon the shoulders\nof Dr. Zahn too much of the mantle of von Hofmann: if he were a little\nless original, he would carry the reader with him more.\n\nAnother veteran scholar, who has continued his laborious and unresting\nwork upon the Fourth Gospel during this period, Dr. Bernhard Weiss[2],\nsuffers less from this cause. Not that the writings of Dr. Weiss are\nmuch easier (they are a little easier) or more attractive in outward\nform. But one has a feeling that the Berlin Professor is more in the\nmain stream\u2014that he is more in touch with other opinion on the right\nhand and on the left. For this reason one finds him, on the whole, more\nhelpful. Every question, as it arises, is thoughtfully weighed, and a\nstrong judgement is brought to bear upon it. Each edition of Dr. Weiss\u2019\nbooks is conscientiously revised and brought, so far as can be\nreasonably expected, up to date. This untiring worker, as he enters upon\nthe decline of a long life, has the satisfaction of looking back upon a\nseries of volumes, always sound and always sober, which have contributed\nas much as any in this generation to train up in good and wholesome ways\nthose who are to follow. Dr. Weiss\u2019 work upon the Fourth Gospel is\ndistinguished at once by his steady maintenance of the Apostolic\nauthorship and by his steady insistence on the necessity of allowing for\na certain freedom of handling. This freedom in the treatment, more\nparticularly of the discourses, Dr. Weiss was practically the first\nwriter to assert on the conservative side. He has sometimes stated it in\na way that I cannot but think rather exaggerated.\n\nAlong with Bernhard Weiss it is natural to name Dr. Willibald Beyschlag,\nof whose dignified conduct of the proceedings at the Halle Tercentenary\nreports reached us in England, followed\u2014as it seemed, too soon\u2014by the\nnews of his death on Nov. 25, 1900. Beyschlag was a good average\nrepresentative of the liberal wing of the defenders of the Fourth\nGospel, who also combine its data with those of the Synoptics in\nreconstructing the Life of our Lord. His style has more rhetorical ease\nand flow than that of Weiss, and he states his views with confidence and\nvigour; but one feels that in his hands problems are apt to become less\ndifficult than they really are. For a reasonable middle position, a\ncompromise between extremes on both sides, we may go to Beyschlag as\nwell as to any one; but it may be doubted whether he really sounds the\ndepths of the Gospel[3].\n\nIn this respect writers like Luthardt (died Sept. 21, 1902) and Godet\n(died Oct. 29, 1900), who are nearer to the old-fashioned orthodoxy, are\nmore satisfactory. Of these writers we have fairly recent editions:\nLuthardt\u2019s _Kurzgefasster Kommentar_ came out in a second edition in\n1894, and a posthumous edition of Godet\u2019s elaborate and weighty work\nbegan to appear in 1902. With such books as these we may group the\nreprint of the commentary by Drs. Milligan and Moulton (Edinburgh, n.\nd.) and the two commentaries, in _The Expositor\u2019s Bible_ (1891-2) and in\n_The Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament_, 1897, by Dr. Marcus Dods.\n\nIn the same connexion may also be mentioned a little group of French\nwritings, headed by _Six Le\u00e7ons sur les \u00c9vangiles_ (Paris, 1897), by\nAbb\u00e9 (now Monsignor) Pierre Batiffol\u2014slight, but with a note of real\ndistinction both in style and matter; an Introduction by Abb\u00e9 Jacquier\n(_Histoire des Livres du N. T._, Paris, 1903), and a commentary by P\u00e8re\nCalmes (Paris and Rome, 1904)\u2014both (as it would seem) sufficiently\ncompetent and modern but not specially remarkable.\n\nBesides these there are three works on the conservative side which\nEnglish-speaking readers at least can never forget\u2014the searching\nexamination of the external evidence by Dr. Ezra Abbot (Boston, 1880,\nreprinted in _Critical Essays_, 1888); articles in _The Expositor_ for\nthe early months of 1890 by Bp. Lightfoot (reprinted with other matter\nbearing upon the subject in _Biblical Essays_, 1893); and the classical\ncommentary on the Gospel (first published as part of the _Speaker\u2019s\nCommentary_) by Dr. Westcott. Of these three works two stand out as\nlandmarks in theological literature; Dr. Lightfoot\u2019s papers were\nsomewhat slighter and less permanent in form, consisting in part of\nNotes for Lectures, though they bear all the marks of his lucid and\njudicious scholarship, and though they are I think still specially\nuseful for students.\n\nAn Englishman addressing an American audience must needs pause for a\nmoment over the first of these three names[4]. It is the more incumbent\non me to do this because as a young man, at a time when encouragement is\nmost valued, I was one of many who profited by Dr. Ezra Abbot\u2019s generous\nand self-denying kindness. He opened a correspondence with me, and sent\nme not only his own books but some by other writers that I might be\npresumed not to possess, and it was touching to see the care with which\ncorrections were made in these in his own finely formed hand. I would\nfain not only pay a tribute of reverence to the memory of Dr. Abbot, but\nalso, if I may, repay a little of my own debt by holding up his example\nto the younger generation of American scholars as one that I would\nearnestly entreat them to adopt and follow. I do not know how far I am\nright, but I have always taken the qualities of Dr. Ezra Abbot\u2019s work as\nspecially typical of the American mind at its best. His work reminds one\nin its exactness and precision of those fine mechanical instruments in\nwhich America has so excelled. To set for oneself the highest possible\nstandard of accuracy, and to think no time and no pains misspent in the\npursuit of it, is a worthy object of a young scholar\u2019s ambition.\n\nIn like manner we, in England, have a standard proposed to us by Dr.\nWestcott\u2019s famous Commentary on St. John. It is the culminating product\nof a life that was also devoted to the highest ends. It is\ncharacteristic of Dr. Westcott that the Commentary was, I believe,\nhardly altered in its later editions from the form in which it first\nappeared. This was due to the thoroughness and circumspection with which\nthe author had in the first instance carried out his task. I believe\nthat in spite of the lapse of time Dr. Westcott\u2019s Commentary remains,\nand will still for long remain, the best that we have on the Fourth\nGospel, as it is also (with the article on Origen) the best and most\ncharacteristic work that its author bequeathed to the world.\n\nIn this connexion I must needs mention another American scholar and\ndivine, to whom I am also bound by personal ties of affectionate\nregard\u2014the veteran Dr. George Park Fisher of Yale. It is matter for\nthankfulness that he has been able to give to the world, carefully\nbrought up to date, a new edition of his _Grounds of Theistic and\nChristian Belief_ (1902). The pages devoted to the Fourth Gospel are,\nlike the rest, full of knowledge and suffused with sweet reasonableness\nand mild wisdom. Dr. Fisher\u2019s attitude is perhaps not exactly that of\nthe younger men, but it certainly is not any less near to the ideal. If\nI were a tutor or professor in an American seminary, there is no book\nthat I should more warmly recommend to my pupils. To imbibe its spirit\nwould be the best training they could have. I should think it especially\nexcellent as a starting-point for further study. It would implant\nnothing that would have to be unlearnt.\n\nDr. Ezra Abbot has in many ways found a worthy inheritor in Dr.\nDrummond; and it is perhaps true that the positive results which he\nobtained are adequately embodied in Dr. Drummond\u2019s book, though as a\nmodel for work of the kind the older essay can never become antiquated.\nBut, speaking generally, I should think it a great misfortune if the\nbetter examples of this older literature were thrust out of use by the\nnewer and more advanced criticism. I believe it to be one of the weak\npoints in that criticism that it too much forgets what has been done. It\ncontents itself with an acceptance that is often grudging or perfunctory\nand always inadequate of results that have been really obtained. The\nscheme of argument common to the older writers was to prove, in\ngradually contracting circles, (1) that the author of the Gospel was a\nJew; (2) that he was a Jew of Palestine; (3) that he was a contemporary;\nand (4) an actual companion and eye-witness of the ministry of our Lord.\nWe must expect the last two propositions to be matter for some\ncontroversy, and I shall return to them later; but it seems to me that\nscant justice is done to the argument as a whole.\n\nSince this paragraph was written I have come across some words of\nProfessor von Dobsch\u00fctz, which are so much to the point that I am\ntempted to quote them:\n\n    \u2018That the Gospel not only shows a good knowledge of Palestinian\n    localities but also a thoroughly Jewish stamp in thought and\n    expression, is one of the truths rightly emphasized by conservative\n    theology which critical theology is already, though reluctantly,\n    making up its mind to admit: the Hellenism of the Fourth Gospel,\n    together with its unity, belongs to those only too frequent\n    pre-conceived opinions, on the critical side too, which are all the\n    more obstinately maintained the more unfounded they are[5].\u2019\n\nWould that all critical writers were so clear-sighted and so candid!\n\n\n                         2. Mediating Theories.\n\n\nThe really crucial point in the argument relating to the Fourth Gospel\nis whether or not the author was an eye-witness of the events which he\ndescribes. In any case, if we are to take the indications of the Gospel\nitself, the author must be identified with \u2018the disciple whom Jesus\nloved.\u2019 But it does not quite necessarily follow that this disciple is\nalso to be identified with the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee.\nInternally there seems to be a fair presumption that he is; and\nexternally, the evidence seems to be clear from the time of Irenaeus\n(180-90) onwards. But neither the presumption in the one case, nor the\nevidence in the other, is so stringent as to exclude all possibility of\ndoubt. We shall have presently to consider the whole question upon its\nmerits. But in the meantime we note that in recent years the hypothesis\nhas been definitely put forward that the author of the Gospel was not\nthe Apostle John, but another disciple\u2014some would say a disciple of\nhis\u2014of the same name, commonly known for distinction as \u2018the Presbyter.\u2019\nThe existence of this second John, if he really did exist, rests upon a\nsingle line of an extract from Papias, a writer of the first half of the\nsecond century. He too is called a \u2018disciple of the Lord\u2019; so that he\ntoo may have been an eye-witness as fully, or almost as fully, as the\nApostle.\n\nThe hypothesis which ascribes the Gospel to this John the Presbyter has\ntaken different forms, some more and some less favourable to the\nhistorical truth and authority of the Gospel.\n\nFrom a conservative point of view the most attractive form of the\nhypothesis is that put forward by the late Dr. Hugo Delff, of Husum, in\nHanover[6], to some extent adapted and defended by Bousset in his\ncommentary on the Apocalypse, and by one or two others. The theory is\nthat the beloved disciple was not of the number of the Twelve, but that\nhe was a native of Jerusalem, of a priestly family of wealth and\nstanding. We are expressly told that he was \u2018known to[7]\u2019 the high\npriest (John xviii. 15); and he seems to have had special information as\nto what went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (vii. 45-52, xi. 47-53,\nxii. 10 ff.). These facts are further connected with the statement by\nPolycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, towards the end of the second century,\nthat the John who lay upon the breast of the Lord \u2018became, or acted as,\npriest and wore the frontlet of gold\u2019 (Eus. _H. E._ v. 24. 2 ff.). This\nJohn is claimed as one of the \u2018great lights\u2019 of the Churches of Asia.\n\nThe theory opens up interesting vistas, the discussion of which must,\nhowever, be reserved. It is consistent with the attribution of a high\ndegree of authenticity to the Gospel. At the same time it ought to be\nsaid that Delff himself regarded certain portions of our present\nGospel\u2014more particularly those relating to the Galilean ministry\u2014as\ninterpolations.\n\nWithout going all the way with Delff, and without raising the question\nas to the identity of the beloved disciple, other writers who have\ninclined towards a middle position took the view that the Gospel was the\nwork of John the Presbyter, whom some of them regarded as a disciple of\nJohn the Apostle. At the head of this group would stand Harnack and\nSch\u00fcrer, who have examined the external evidence very closely. The\nassigning of the Gospel to John the Presbyter, or to some unnamed\ndisciple of the Apostle, was indeed the key to the compromise offered by\nthose who came nearest to the traditional position at the end of the\neighties and in the early nineties.\n\nOne of the very best of these attempts is by Professor von Dobsch\u00fctz, of\nJena, in his brightly written _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters_[8]\n(Leipzig, 1904), to which reference has been made. Dr. von Dobsch\u00fctz\ngoes with Delff (whom he does not mention) so far as to describe the\nfourth Evangelist as a native of Jerusalem, and to identify him with\nJohn of Ephesus. He does not, however (at least explicitly), identify\nhim with the beloved disciple; and he treats him as rather the figure\nbehind the author, than the actual author, of the Gospel. He also, I\ncannot but think, makes the mistake of questioning the unity of the\nGospel. Probably, if we had his views in full\u2014which as yet we have\nnot\u2014they would come under the next head, and not under that of which we\nare now speaking.\n\nIn Great Britain a theory similar to Harnack\u2019s has found expression in\nDr. James Moffatt\u2019s _Historical New Testament_ (Edinburgh, 1901), and in\nother quarters. In America, it is represented by Professor McGiffert,\nand, more or less nearly, by Professor Bacon. Of the latter I hope to\nsay a word presently; the former, if I might hazard the opinion, has not\nyet said his last word on the Fourth Gospel. While I recognize in what\nhe has written many sound and true observations, there seem to be two\nstrains in his thought which are not as yet fully harmonized.\n\nEven Professor Harnack, whose influence is greatest, has not, I venture\nto think, been quite consistent in the view that he has taken. The\nGospel may be assigned to the Presbyter or to some other disciple, and\nyet have different degrees of value ascribed to it as a historical\ndocument. In this respect it seems to me that Dr. Harnack has rather\nblown hot and cold: in his _Chronologie d. altchristlichen Litteratur_\nhe blew hot; in his more recent lectures (E. Tr. _What is Christianity?_\np. 19 f.), and, if I am not mistaken, on Monday last he blew cold[9]. A\ngood deal turns on the description of John the Presbyter by Papias. In\nthe text of the extract as it stands both John the Presbyter and\nAristion are called \u2018disciples of the Lord.\u2019 There is some tendency\namong critical writers to get rid of these words as a gloss; if they are\nretained, they may be taken in a stricter or a laxer sense; but if they\nreally cover a relation such as that of the \u2018beloved disciple,\u2019 there\ncould not be a better guarantee of authenticity.\n\nHowever this may be\u2014and the subject is one of which I hope to speak in\nmore detail\u2014in any case it must be somewhere within the limits marked\nout by Delff on the one hand, and Harnack with his allies and followers\non the other, or else by means of the theories that I am just about to\nmention, that an understanding must be reached between the two sides, if\nthat understanding is at all to take the form of compromise.\n\n\n                         3. Partition Theories.\n\n\nWhere two or more persons are concerned in the composition of a book,\nthe relation between them may be through a written document, or it may\nbe oral. Hitherto we have been going upon the latter assumption: the\nmediating theories that we have been considering, so far as they were\nmediating, have treated the writer of the Gospel, whatever his name, as\na disciple or associate of St. John the Apostle; and the information\nderived from him is supposed to have come by way of personal\nintercourse. But it is quite conceivable that St. John may have set down\nsomething on paper, and that some later Christian\u2014disciple or not\u2014took\nthis and worked it up into our present Gospel. Accordingly, various\nattempts have been made at different times to mark off a Gospel within\nthe Gospel, an original authentic document derived from a first-hand\nauthority\u2014either the Apostle or the Presbyter\u2014and certain added material\nincorporated in the Gospel as we now have it. Many of these attempts are\nobsolete and do not need discussion. It has already been mentioned that\nDelff\u2014without any clear necessity even from his own point of view\u2014cuts\nout more particularly the Galilean passages and some others with them as\ninterpolations. These additions to the Gospel he regards as the work of\nthe author of chap. xxi[10]. But the most systematic and important\nexperiments in this direction are those of Dr. Wendt and Dr. Briggs.\n\nAfter a preliminary sketch of his theory in the first edition of his\n_Lehre Jesu_ (1886), i. 215-342, Dr. H. H. Wendt brought out in 1900 an\nelaborate and fully argued analysis of the Gospel, carefully dissecting\neach section and assigning the parts either to the Apostolic author or\nto the later redactor. Approximately similar results were obtained\nindependently with a less amount of published argument, by Dr. C. A.\nBriggs in his _General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture_\n(1899), p. 327, and in his _New Light on the Life of Jesus_ (1904), pp.\n140-58. A like theory has been put forward by Professor Soltau\n(_Zeitschrift f. d. neutest. Wissenschaft_, 1901, pp. 140-9).\n\nIn my opinion all attempts of this kind are fore-doomed to failure. The\nunderlying motive is to rescue some portion of the Gospel as historical,\nwhile others are dismissed as untrustworthy. At the same time it is\nallowed that the separation can only be made where there is a real break\nin the connexion. On this Schmiedel pertinently remarks:\u2014\n\n    \u2018There is much reason to fear that distrust of the authenticity of\n    the substance often causes an interruption of the connexion to be\n    imagined where in reality there is none. Many passages of the same\n    sort as others, which give Wendt occasion for the separating\n    process, are left by him untouched, when the result would not be\n    removal of some piece held to be open to exception in respect to its\n    contents; the ground for exception which he actually takes, on the\n    other hand, is often altogether non-existent[11].\u2019\n\nI look with considerable distrust on many of the attempts that are made\nto divide up documents on the ground of want of connexion. I suspect\nthat the standard of consecutiveness applied is often too Western and\ntoo modern. But the one rock on which it seems to me that any partition\ntheory must be wrecked is the deep-seated unity of structure and\ncomposition which is characteristic of the Gospel. Dr. Briggs turns the\nedge of this argument by referring the unity to the masterful hand of\nthe editor. It is, no doubt, open to him to do so; but we may observe\nthat, if in this way he makes the theory difficult to disprove, he also\nmakes it difficult to prove. I must needs think that both in this case\nand in Dr. Wendt\u2019s the proof is quite insufficient. I would undertake to\nshow that the distinctive features of the Gospel are just as plentiful\nin the passages excised as in those that are retained. Perhaps the most\ntangible point made by the two critics is the attempt to distinguish\nbetween the words for \u2018miracle\u2019: \u2018works\u2019 they would assign to the\nearlier writer, and \u2018signs\u2019 to the later. We remember, however, that the\ncombination of \u2018signs\u2019 and \u2018wonders\u2019 occurs markedly in St. Paul, e. g.\nRom. xv. 19, 2 Cor. xii. 12, and is indeed characteristic of early\nChristian literature long before the Fourth Gospel was written.\n\nAnother very original suggestion of Dr. Briggs\u2019 which would be helpful\nif we could accept it, is that we are not tied down to the chronological\norder of the Gospel as we have it, but that this too is due to the later\neditor, who has arranged the sections of his narrative rather according\nto subject than to sequence in time. I am prepared to allow that the\nnarrative may not be always strictly in the order in which the events\noccurred; and it is true that there are some difficulties which the\nhypothesis would meet. At the same time we cannot but notice that the\norder is by no means accidental, but that attention is expressly drawn\nto it in the Gospel itself; see (e. g. ii. 11, iv. 54, xxi. 14). And\nsome incidents seem clearly to hang together which Dr. Briggs has\ndivided[12] (e. g. i. 29, 35, 43, where the connexion is natural\nhistorically, as well as expressly noted by the Evangelist).\n\nI fear that the learned Professor is seeking in a wrong direction for a\nsolution of the problem of the Gospel. But I would be the last to\nundervalue the vigorous independence and the fearlessness and fertility\nin experiment that are conspicuous in all his writings.\n\nPerhaps I should be right in saying a few words at this point about\nProfessor B. W. Bacon of Yale. His view is not as yet (I believe) quite\nsufficiently developed in print for me to be clear how much he would\nrefer to oral transmission and how much to a written source. He\ndistinguishes three hands in the Gospel. I gather that the first would\nbe that of the Apostle, but he as yet stands dimly in the background.\nThen comes the main body of the Gospel, without the Appendix. This is\nascribed to John the Presbyter, whom\u2014rather by a paradox\u2014Professor Bacon\nwould seek in Palestine and not in Asia Minor. Lastly there is the\neditor who works over the whole.\n\nThe two articles lately contributed to the _Hibbert Journal_ (i. 511\nff., ii. 323 ff.)[13] are highly original, very incisive, and\nexceedingly clever. My objection to them would be that they are too\nclever. Professor Bacon has been to Germany, and learnt his lesson there\ntoo well. At least I find myself differing profoundly from his whole\nmethod of argument. The broad simple arguments that seem to me really of\nimportance (Irenaeus, Heracleon, Polycrates, Tatian, Clement of\nAlexandria) he puts aside, and then he spends his strength in making\nbricks with a minimum of straw, and even with no straw at all (the\nargument from silence).\n\n\n                      4. Uncompromising Rejection.\n\n\nI began by saying that the tendency towards _rapprochement_ which was\ncharacteristic of the eighties and nineties, gave way towards the end of\nthe century, and has been succeeded in recent years by conspicuous\ninstances of uncompromising denial, at once of the apostolic authorship\nof the Gospel and of its historical character. The names of J\u00fclicher,\nSchmiedel, Wrede, Wernle, Jean R\u00e9ville and Loisy are sufficient evidence\nof this.\n\nWe shall probably not be wrong in classing with these writers the\neminent scholar Dr. H. J. Holtzmann of Strassburg. It is indeed\ncharacteristic of Dr. Holtzmann\u2019s method to avoid anything like dogmatic\nassertion of his own opinion, to work in with subtle skill a\nkaleidoscopic presentation of the opinions of others, while himself\nremaining in the background. He does indeed leave room for a rather\nlarger amount of authentic tradition in the Gospel than the other\nwriters mentioned. Still, in the main his position is sceptical, both as\nto the Asian tradition of St. John, and as to the historical character\nof the Gospel.\n\nIt may be observed in passing that Dr. H. J. Holtzmann of Strassburg\nshould be carefully distinguished from his younger cousin Oscar\nHoltzmann, who is now Professor at Giessen. Dr. Oscar Holtzmann\npublished a monograph on the Fourth Gospel in 1887, and he has since\nbrought out a _Life of Christ_ which has lately been translated into\nEnglish. The two cousins occupy much the same general position; the\nyounger has not the distinction of the elder, but he compensates to some\nextent by greater clearness and definiteness in the expression of his\nviews.\n\nAnother of the older writers, Dr. O. Pfleiderer, is even more\nthorough-going as an allegorist. For him the Gospel is from first to\nlast a didactic work in the guise of history; it is a \u2018transparent\nallegory of religious and dogmatic ideas[14].\u2019 He would place the first\ndraft of the Gospel about the year 135, the last chapter and the First\nEpistle about 150[15]. But I have long thought that this attractive\nwriter, though interesting and instructive as a historian of thought, is\na \u2018negligible quantity\u2019 in the field of criticism proper.\n\nThe other four German writers whom I have mentioned all belong to the\nyounger generation. Dr. Schmiedel (who though a Swiss Professor is, I\nbelieve, German by birth) is the eldest, and he is not yet quite\nfifty-three: J\u00fclicher, the next on the list, is forty-seven. And as they\nbelong to the younger generation, so also they may be said to mark the\nrise of a new School, or new method of treatment, in German Theology.\nThe Germany for which they speak is not the dreaming, wistful,\nineffective, romantic Germany of the past, but the practical, forceful,\nenergetic and assertive Germany of the present. All, as I have said, are\nable writers; and the type of their ability has much in common, though\nthey have also their little individual differences. They have all a\nmarked directness and lucidity of style. What they think they say,\nwithout hesitation and without reserve; no one can ever be in any doubt\nas to their meaning. They are all apt to be somewhat contemptuous, not\nonly of divergent views, but of a type of mind that differs from their\nown. Of the four, J\u00fclicher and especially Wernle have the warmer\ntemperament; Schmiedel and Wrede are cold and severe. Wrede writes like\na mathematician, who puts Q. E. D. at the end of each step in the\nargument\u2014though it would be a misfortune if the demonstration were taken\nto be as complete as he thinks it. Schmiedel is rather the lawyer who\npursues his adversary from point to point with relentless acumen: if we\ncould grant the major premises of his argument, there would be much to\nadmire in his handling of the minor; but the major premises, as I think\nI shall show, are often at fault. J\u00fclicher is just the downright capable\nperson, who sees vividly what he sees and is intolerant of that which\ndoes not appeal to him. Wernle alternately attracts and repels; he\nattracts by his real enthusiasm for that with which he sympathizes, by\nhis skill in presentation, and his careful observance of perspective and\nproportion; he repels by aggressiveness and self-confidence.\n\nThe two French writers also have something in common, though they belong\nto different communions. We are not surprised to find that both have an\neasy grace of style, to which we might in both cases also give the\nepithet \u2018airy,\u2019 because both are fond of speaking in generalities which\nare not always in the closest contact with facts; both are\nthorough-going allegorists, and regard the whole Gospel as a pure\nproduct of ideas and not literal history. In spite of their difference\nof communion, M. Loisy is on the critical side of his mind as\nessentially rationalist as his Protestant _confr\u00e8re_, though he brings\nback, by an act of faith which some of us would call a _tour de force_,\nin the region of dogmatics what he had taken away in the field of\ncriticism.\n\nIt seems to me that there is one word that requires to be said, though I\nam anxious not to have my motive misunderstood in saying it. I do not\nwish to do so in the least _ad invidiam_. Controversy is, I hope, no\nlonger conducted in that manner. I speak simply of an objective fact\nwhich has too important a bearing on the whole question to be ignored.\n\nWhen I read an argument by Professor Sch\u00fcrer, and try to reply to it, I\nam conscious that we are arguing (so to speak) in the same plane. I feel\nthat the attitude of my opponent to the evidence is substantially the\nsame as my own. Whatever the presuppositions may be deep down in his\nmind, he at any rate keeps them in abeyance. No doubt we differ widely\nenough as to detail; but in principle I should credit my opponent with\nan attitude that is really judicial, that tries to keep dogmatic\nconsiderations, or questions of ultimate belief as much in suspense as\npossible, and to weigh the arguments _for_ and _against_ in equal\nscales. But when I pass over to the younger theologians, I no longer\nfeel that this is so; we seem to be arguing, not in the same, but in\ndifferent planes. There is a far-reaching presupposition not merely far\nback but near the front of their minds. I cannot regard them as fellow\nseekers in the sense that we are both doing our best to ascertain how\nfar the events of the Gospel history really transcended common\nexperience. I take it that on this point their minds are made up before\nthey begin to put pen to paper.\n\nThey all start with the \u2018reduced\u2019 conception of Christianity current in\nso many quarters, that is akin to the ancient Ebionism or Arianism. But\nso far as they do this their verdict as to the Fourth Gospel is\ndetermined for them beforehand. The position is stated with great\nfrankness by Mr. Conybeare:\n\n    \u2018It may indeed be said that if Athanasius had not had the Fourth\n    Gospel to draw texts from, Arius would never have been confuted. Had\n    the fathers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries not known this\n    Gospel, or not embraced it as authentic, the Church would have\n    remained semi-Ebionite, and the councils of Nice and Ephesus would\n    never have taken place[16].\u2019\n\nThis does not indeed quite correspond to the facts. To make it do so, we\nshould have to blot out St. Paul, and other parts of the New Testament,\nas well as St. John. But just so far as the reasoning holds good, it is\nobvious that we may invert it. If a writer starts with a conception of\nChristianity that is \u2018semi-Ebionite\u2019 or \u2018semi-Arian,\u2019 he is bound at all\ncosts to rule out the Fourth Gospel, not only as a dogmatic authority,\nbut as a record of historical fact.\n\nAnother characteristic is common to the writers of the School of which\nwe are speaking. The complexity of a critical hypothesis very rarely\nstands in the way of its adoption; but a very little psychological\ncomplexity acts as a deterrent. For instance, after quoting from B.\nWeiss some rather exaggerated language as to the freedom used by the\nevangelist in reproducing the discourses, Schmiedel goes on thus:\n\n    \u2018As compared with such a line of defence, there is a positive relief\n    from an intolerable burden as soon as the student has made up his\n    mind to give up any such theory as that of the \u201cgenuineness\u201d of the\n    Gospel, as also of its authenticity in the sense of its being the\n    work of an eye-witness who meant to record actual history[17].\u2019\n\nSo far from being an \u2018intolerable burden,\u2019 it seems to me that Weiss\u2019\ntheory is not only in itself perfectly natural, nay inevitable, but that\nit is also specially helpful as enabling us to account at one and the\nsame time for the elements that are, and those that are not, strictly\ngenuine in the report of the discourses.\n\nJ\u00fclicher writes to much the same effect as Schmiedel; and the passage\nwhich follows is indeed very characteristic of his habit of mind:\n\n    \u2018The defenders of the \u201cgenuineness\u201d of the Gospel indeed for the\n    most part allow that John has carried out a certain idealization\n    with the discourses of Jesus, that in writing he has found himself\n    in a slight condition of ecstasy, in short, that his presentation of\n    his hero is something more than historical. With such mysticism or\n    phraseology science can have no concern; in the Johannean version of\n    Christ\u2019s discourses form and substance cannot be separated, the form\n    to be assigned to the later writer, and the substance to Jesus\n    Himself: _sint ut sunt aut non sint!_...\u2019\n\nTo please Professor J\u00fclicher a picture must be all black or all white;\nhe is intolerant of half-shades that pass from the one into the other.\nAnd no doubt there are some problems for the treatment of which such a\nhabit is an advantage, but hardly those which have to do with living\nhuman personalities.\n\nThe French writers, like the German, have a certain resemblance to each\nother. To some of these points I shall have to come back in detail\nlater. I will only note for the present that they are both allegorists\nof an extreme kind. I would just for the present commend to both a\npassage of Wernle\u2019s:\n\n    \u2018This conception, however, of the Fourth Gospel as a philosophical\n    work, to which the Alexandrines first gave currency, and which is\n    still widely held to-day, is a radically wrong one. John\u2019s main\n    idea, the descent of the Son of Man to reveal the Father, is\n    unphilosophical.... So, too, the Johannine miracles are never\n    intended to be taken in a purely allegorical sense. The fact of\n    their actual occurrence is the irrefragable proof of God\u2019s\n    appearance upon earth[18].\u2019\n\nIf the miracles of the Fourth Gospel were facts there was some point in\nthe constant appeals that the Gospel makes to them; but there would be\nno point if these appeals were to a set of didactic fictions.\n\nWithin the last few months a monograph has appeared, which from its\ngeneral tendency may be ranged with the works of which we have been\nspeaking, though in its method it rather stands by itself, E. Schwartz,\n_Ueber den Tod der S\u00f6hne Zebedaei_ (Berlin, 1904). Dr. Schwartz is the\neditor of Eusebius in the Berlin series, and his point of view is\nprimarily philological. He writes in a disagreeable spirit, at once\ncarping and supercilious. The only generous words in his paper are a few\nin reference to the Church historian. He exemplifies copiously most of\nthe procedure specially deprecated in these lectures. His monograph has,\nhowever, a value of its own, from the precise and careful way in which\nhe has collected and discusses the material bearing upon the history of\nthe Evangelist and of the Gospel in the first and earlier part of the\nsecond century.\n\n\n\n\n                          5. Recent Reaction.\n\n\nFar as I conceive that all these writers have travelled away from the\ntruth, they followed each other in such quick succession that it would\nhave been strange if public opinion had not been affected by them. To\none who himself firmly believed in St. John\u2019s authorship of the Gospel,\nand in its value as a record of the beginning of Christianity, the\noutlook last autumn seemed as, I said, very black. A single book\ndispelled the clouds and cleared the air. Dr. Drummond\u2019s _Character and\nAuthorship of the Fourth Gospel_ is of special value to the defenders of\nthe Gospel for two reasons: (1) because it is the work of one who cannot\nin any case be accused of dogmatic prepossessions, as it would to all\nappearance be more favourable to his general position that the Gospel\nshould not be genuine or authentic; and (2) because the whole work is\nsomething more than a defence of the Gospel; it is a striking\napplication to a particular problem of principles of criticism in many\nrespects differing from those at present in vogue, and at the same time,\nas I cannot but think, a marked improvement on them.\n\nTo these points must be added the inherent qualities of the book\nitself\u2014the thorough knowledge with which it is written, its evident\nsincerity and effort to get at realities, its nervous directness and\nforce of style, its judicial habit of weighing all that is to be said on\nboth sides.\n\nPerhaps the most important and the most far-reaching of all the\ncorrections of current practice is a passage in the text with the note\nappended to it upon the _argument from silence_. The text is dealing\nwith the common assumption that because Justin quotes less freely from\nthe Fourth Gospel than from the other three, therefore he must have\nascribed to it a lower degree of authority.\n\n    \u2018But why, then, it may be asked, has Justin not quoted the Fourth\n    Gospel at least as often as the other three? I cannot tell, any more\n    than I can tell why he has never named the supposed authors of his\n    Memoirs, or has mentioned only one of the parables, or made no\n    reference to the Apostle Paul, or nowhere quoted the Apocalypse,\n    though he believed it to be an apostolic and prophetical work. His\n    silence may be due to pure accident, or the book may have seemed\n    less adapted to his apologetic purposes; but considering how many\n    things there are about which he is silent, we cannot admit that the\n    _argumentum a silentio_ possesses in this case any validity.\u2019\n\nTo this is added a note which raises the whole general question:\n\n    \u2018An instructive instance of the danger of arguing from what is not\n    told is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. He does not mention the\n    names of the writers of the Gospels, except John; he does not tell\n    us anything about any of them; he says nothing about the origin or\n    the date of the Gospels themselves, or about their use in the\n    Church. He quotes from them extremely little, though he quotes\n    copiously from the Old Testament. But most singular of all, in a\n    defence of Christianity he tells us nothing about Christ Himself; if\n    I am not mistaken, he does not so much as name Him or allude to Him;\n    and, if the supposition were not absurd, it might be argued with\n    great plausibility that he cannot have known anything about Him. For\n    he undertakes to explain the origin of the word Christian; but there\n    is not a word about Christ, and his conclusion is \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n    \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (_Ad Autol._ i. 12). In\n    the following chapter, when he would establish the doctrine of the\n    resurrection, you could not imagine that he had heard of the\n    resurrection of Christ; and instead of referring to this, he has\n    recourse to the changing seasons, the fortune of seeds, the dying\n    and reappearance of the moon, and the recovery from illness. We may\n    learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a\n    writer knows nothing of certain things, simply because he had not\n    occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing: or even\n    because he does not mention them when his subject would seem\n    naturally to lead him to do so[19].\u2019\n\nThe remarkable thing in this note is not only its independence and\nsagacity, but more particularly the trained sagacity which brings to\nbear upon the argument just those examples which are most directly in\npoint and most telling.\n\nProfessor Bacon, in the first of his recent articles (_Hibbert Journal_,\ni. 513), good-naturedly defends the present writer from the charge of\nwishing to discredit the argument from silence in general. And it is\ntrue that in the place to which he refers I had in mind only a\nparticular application of the argument. Still I am afraid that I do wish\nto see its credit abated. At least it is my belief that too much use is\nmade of the argument, and that too much weight is attached to it. There\nare two main objections to the way in which the argument is often\nhandled. (1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silent\u2014what\nextent of material does the argument cover? Often this extent is so\nsmall that, on the doctrine of chances, no inference can rightly be\ndrawn from it. And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most\nfallacious. Dr. Drummond\u2019s examples of this will I hope become\nclassical[20].\n\nDr. Drummond\u2019s book contains a multitude of passages like the above and\nexhibiting the same qualities. Many of them are a vindication of popular\njudgement as against the far-fetched arguments of professed scholars.\nThe excellence of his method seems to me to consist largely in this,\nthat he begins by making for himself an imaginative picture of the\nconditions with which he has to deal, not only of the particular piece\nof evidence which shows upon the surface, but of the inferential\nbackground lying behind it; that he thus escapes the danger of the\n_doctrinaire_ who argues straight from the one bit of evidence before\nhim to the conclusion; and that he also constantly tests the process of\nhis argument by reference to parallel conditions and circumstances in\nour own day which we can verify for ourselves.\n\nIf I were to express an opinion on the characteristic positions which\nDr. Drummond takes up, I think it would be that, whereas he seems to me\nto overstate a little\u2014but only a little\u2014the external evidence for the\nGospel, he at the same time somewhat understates the internal evidence.\nHe gives his decision against the Fourth Gospel sometimes where I cannot\nhelp thinking that a writer of equal impartiality would not necessarily\ndo so. It would also be unfair if I did not say that his general\nestimate of the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel is lower than I\nshould form myself.\n\nI have spoken of Dr. Drummond\u2019s book first because of its importance as\na landmark in the study of the Gospel, and because it covers the whole\nof the ground with which we are concerned. But another book preceded it\nby a week or two in the date of its publication, which as yet deals only\nwith a limited portion of this ground, and yet which, unless I am\nmistaken, presents qualities similar in general character to those of\nDr. Drummond, though perhaps the expression of them is rather less\nstriking. I refer to Dr. Stanton\u2019s _The Gospels as Historical\nDocuments_, Part I. Dr. Stanton\u2019s book is planned on a larger scale than\nDr. Drummond\u2019s in so far as it includes all four Gospels; but as yet he\nhas only dealt with the external evidence bearing upon their early use.\nAn important part of the volume is naturally that devoted to the Fourth\nGospel. Like Dr. Drummond, Dr. Stanton also presents a marked contrast\nas to method with the group of continental writers that we have just\nbeen considering. It was therefore a matter of special interest that his\nbook should be reviewed a few months after its appearance by Dr.\nSchmiedel in the _Hibbert Journal_ (ii. 607-12). It is not very\nsurprising that Dr. Stanton was moved to reply to his critic in the next\nnumber (pp. 803-7). There is a direct antithesis of contrasted and\ncompeting principles.\n\nIt may naturally be thought that I am a biased judge in such a case; but\nI confess that it seems to me that the advantage is very much on the\nside of my countryman. He shows without much difficulty that Dr.\nSchmiedel has seriously misrepresented him. Indeed one might say that\nthe critic\u2019s representation of views and arguments was not so much\nderived from the book he was reviewing as from his own internal\nconsciousness of what might be expected from an apologist. This,\nhowever, is the personal, and more ephemeral, aspect of the controversy.\nIt is of more general interest to note the critical assumptions made in\nthe course of the review. The writer admits that his opponent \u2018not\nunfrequently gives the impression of being animated by the sincere\nresolve to maintain nothing save only what can be assumed with\ncertainty.\u2019 \u2018With certainty\u2019 is characteristic; the writer attributes to\nDr. Stanton (in this case) what he would have aimed at doing himself. In\nthe eyes of the school to which Dr. Schmiedel belongs, I will not say\nexactly that all the data of which they approve are certain, but they\nare treated very much as if they were; in building up an argument upon\nthem, possibilities easily and imperceptibly glide into probabilities,\nand probabilities into certainties. Dr. Stanton disclaims the idea of\ndealing with certainties; he would only profess to adduce facts on a\nnicely graduated scale of probability, which by their cumulative weight\nwent some way to carry conviction.\n\n\u2018Concerning Barn. iv. 14, [Dr. Stanton] says (p. 33) with justice that\nthis is our earliest instance of the citation of a saying of Christ as\n\u201cscripture.\u201d In the year A.D. 130, the date upon which he rightly fixes\nfor the composition of the _Epistle of Barnabas_, this estimate of the\nGospels would have been in the highest degree surprising, since it is\nnot until A.D. 170 that the next examples of such an estimate make their\nappearance.\u2019 Dr. Schmiedel goes on (1) to have recourse to the\naccustomed expedient of suggesting that Barnabas is quoting, not from\nthe words of the Gospel which are identical, but from a passage in 4\nEzra which is quite different; and (2) if that expedient fails, to\nrepresent the quotation as a \u2018winged word,\u2019 though it is expressly\nintroduced by the formula \u2018it is written.\u2019\n\nHowever, it is not of either of these points that I wish to speak, but\nrather to call attention to what Dr. Schmiedel thinks would be \u2018in the\nhighest degree surprising.\u2019 Why so surprising? What substantial ground\nhave we for expecting anything else? In the first place Dr. Schmiedel\nbegins by exaggerating the significance of the phrase \u2018it is written,\u2019\nas though on its first extant occurrence it would necessarily imply full\ncanonical authority. And then he goes on to lay stress upon what is\nreally little more than the absence of literature. If we take the whole\nextant Christian literature between the years 130 and 170 A.D., it would\nnot fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far the greater part of\nthat is taken up with external controversy. What sort of argument can be\ndrawn from such a state of things as to the exact estimate which\nChristians formed of their own sacred books? No valid argument can be\ndrawn from it either way, and it is far better simply to confess our\nignorance. It is reasonable to suppose that there was a gradual\ndevelopment in the process by which the Gospels attained to the position\nthat we call canonical; but the data to which we have access do not\nallow us to map out its stages with any precision.\n\nIt seems to me to be a fundamental defect in the reasoning of Dr.\nSchmiedel and his school that they fail to see that the real question\nis, not simply, What is the evidence for this or that proposition? but,\nWhat is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body\nof that which once existed, and how far can we trust the inferences\ndrawn from it?\n\nI pass over some quite unwarrantable assumptions which Dr. Schmiedel\nmakes as to the apologetic point of view: such as that, \u2018if there can be\nshown to be resemblance between a canonical and a non-canonical writing,\nthe former is uniformly to be regarded as the earlier\u2019; and that\n\u2018Apocryphal Gospels would not have been used in the influential circles\nof the Church.\u2019 Apologists would lay down nothing of the kind, though in\na certain number of concrete cases they may think that the priority of a\ncanonical to a non-canonical writing does not need arguing, and though\nthey may also think that in some particular case the evidence for the\nuse of an Apocryphal Gospel by a Church writer is insufficient.\n\nDr. Schmiedel easily satisfies himself that he has refuted an argument\nbearing on the Fourth Gospel. Professor Stanton had rightly maintained,\n\u2018There must have been good grounds for believing that the Fourth Gospel\nwas founded upon the apostolic testimony in order to overcome the\nprejudice that would be created by the contrasts between it and the\nSynoptics.\u2019 He has shown, I think, in his reply, that the instances\nalleged against this are not relevant, and also that the part played by\nthe two ideas of Apostolicity and Catholicity in the forming of the\nCanon are not quite correctly stated by his opponent. But even if they\nhad been as stated the original contention would still have been left\nstanding, because agreement with previously accepted writings was part\nof the idea of Catholicity. It is a sound argument to say that a work so\nindependent as the Fourth Gospel must have come with good credentials to\nobtain the place which it held.\n\nLastly, when Dr. Schmiedel speaks so imposingly of \u2018the silence of the\nentire first half of the second century in regard to the sojourn of the\nApostle John in Ephesus,\u2019 I would once more ask him what this silence\namounts to. What is the total bulk of the literature on which the\nargument is based? Is it possible to draw from it an inference of any\nvalue at all[21]?\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  It is this last work that I consider an exception to the high standard\n  of ability in the group of which I am speaking. It is absolutely\n  one-sided. I do not doubt the writer\u2019s sincerity, but he is blissfully\n  unconscious that there is another side to the argument.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  _Einleitung in d. N. T._, 3rd ed., 1897; _Das Johannes-Evangelium_,\n  9th ed. (4th of those undertaken by Dr. Weiss), 1892.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  For Beyschlag\u2019s treatment of the Fourth Gospel see _Zur johanneischen\n  Frage_, reprinted from _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_ (Gotha, 1876);\n  _Neutest. Theologie_ (Halle a. S., 1891), i. 212-19; _Leben Jesu_ (3rd\n  ed., Halle, 1893).\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  English readers may be reminded that Dr. Ezra Abbot was an American\n  Unitarian who died in 1884. He was a leading member of the American\n  Committee which joined in the production of the Revised Version, and,\n  after serving as Assistant Librarian, became Professor of New\n  Testament Criticism in Harvard University in 1872. He was a scholar of\n  retiring habits, and was one of those who spend in helping and\n  improving the work of others time that might have been given to great\n  work of their own. His literary remains were religiously collected\n  after his death.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  _Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters_, p. 92 f.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  The writings of Dr. Delff that bear upon the subject of the Fourth\n  Gospel are _Die Geschichte d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth_ (Leipzig, n.\n  d., but the preface is dated 1889); _Das vierte Evangelium\n  wiederhergestellt_ (Husum, 1890); _Neue Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik und\n  Erkl\u00e4rung des vierten Evangeliums_ (Husum, 1890).\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Bousset thinks that this may mean \u2018related to\u2019 the high priest\n  (_Offenb._ p. 46 n.); but this is questioned by Zahn (_Einl._ ii.\n  483).\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  This book is not to be confused with _Die urchristlichen Gemeinden_\n  published two years earlier, and now translated under the title\n  _Christian Life in the Primitive Church_.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Professor Harnack gave a lecture, which I was privileged to hear, at\n  the Union Seminary on October 10, 1904.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  _Das vierte Evang._ p. 12 ff.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  _Enc. Bibl._ ii. 2555.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  _New Light_, &c., p. 149.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  A third article, on the internal evidence, appeared in January of the\n  present year, iii. 353 ff.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  _Urchristentum_ (ed. 2, Berlin, 1902), ii. 389.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 450.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  _Hibbert Journal_, ii. 620.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  _Enc. Bibl._ ii. 2554.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  _Beginnings of Christianity_, ii. 166 ff.; cf. von Dobsch\u00fctz,\n  _Probleme_, p. 94.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  _Character_, &c., p. 157 f.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  An incidental passage in Dr. Dill\u2019s _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus\n  Aurelius_ (p. 120 f.) deserves to be set by the side of Dr.\n  Drummond\u2019s. He is speaking of the _Satiricon_ of Petronius. \u2018Those who\n  have attributed it to the friend and victim of Nero have been\n  confronted with the silence of Quintilian, Juvenal, and Martial, with\n  the silence of Tacitus as to any literary work by Petronius, whose\n  character and end he has described with a curious sympathy and care.\n  It is only late critics of the lower empire, such as Macrobius, and a\n  dilettante aristocrat like Sidonius Apollinaris, who pay any attention\n  to this remarkable work of genius. And Sidonius seems to make its\n  author a citizen of Marseilles. Yet silence in such cases may be very\n  deceptive. Martial and Statius never mention one another, and both\n  might seem unknown to Tacitus. And Tacitus, after the fashion of the\n  Roman aristocrat, in painting the character of Petronius, may not have\n  thought it relevant or important to notice a light work such as the\n  _Satiricon_, even if he had ever seen it. He does not think it worth\n  while to mention the histories of the Emperor Claudius, the tragedies\n  of Seneca, or the _Punica_ of Silius Italicus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  The two books of Drs. Drummond and Stanton were reviewed by M. Loisy\n  in the _Revue Critique_, 1904, pp. 422-4, and Dr. Drummond\u2019s by Prof.\n  H. J. Holtzmann in _Theol. Literaturzeitung_, 1905, cols. 136-9. Both\n  reviews were disappointing, though Dr. Holtzmann\u2019s contains the usual\n  amount of painstaking detail. It is natural that play should be made\n  with the real inconsistencies of Dr. Drummond\u2019s position; but his\n  weightier arguments are in neither case directly grappled with.\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE II\n   CRITICAL METHODS. THE OLDEST SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE FOURTH\n                                 GOSPEL\n\n\n           I. i. Defects in the Methods of current Criticism.\n\n\nIt is now rather more than eight years since Harnack wrote the famous\nPreface to his _Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur_. It was an\ninstance of the genial insight of the writer, and a keen diagnosis of\nthe criticism of the day.\n\nThe main outline of the Preface will be remembered. Looking back over\nthe period from which Science was just beginning to emerge, the writer\ncharacterized it as one in which all the early Christian literature\nincluding the New Testament had been treated as a tissue of illusions\nand falsifications. That time, he went on to say, was past. For Science\nit had only been an episode, during which much had been learnt and after\nwhich much had to be forgotten. His own researches, Harnack explained,\nwould be found to go in a reactionary direction even beyond the middle\nposition of current criticism. The results might be summed up by saying\nthat the oldest literature of the Church, in its main points and in most\nof its details, from the point of view of literary history, was\nveracious and trustworthy. In the whole New Testament there was probably\nonly a single writing that could be called pseudonymous in the strict\nsense of the term, the so-called Second Epistle of St. Peter; and, apart\nfrom the Gnostic fictions, the whole number of pseudonymous writings\ndown to Irenaeus was very small, and in one case (the Acts of Thecla)\nthe production of such a work was expressly condemned. In like manner\nthe amount of interpolation was also far less than had been supposed;\nand the tradition relating to this early period might in the main, and\nwith some reservations, be trusted.\n\nBaur and his school had thought themselves compelled, in order to give\nan intelligible account of the rise of Christianity, to throw over both\nthe statements in the writings themselves and those of tradition about\nthem, and to post-date their composition by several decades. They were\ndriven to do this by mistaken premises. Starting with the assumption\nthat all these writings were composed with a definite purpose, to\ncommend some sectional view of Christianity, they were constantly on the\nwatch for traces of that purpose, and they found them in the most\nunexpected places. The views of Baur and his followers had been\ngenerally given up; but the tendencies set on foot by them remained. The\nChristian writings were still approached in an attitude of suspicion;\nthey were cross-examined in the spirit of a hostile attorney; or else\nthey were treated after the manner of a _petit ma\u00eetre_, fastening upon\nall sorts of small details, and arguing from them in the face of clear\nand decisive indications. Baur thought that everything had a motive, and\nan interested motive. But, whereas he sought for the motive on broad\nlines, his more recent successors either gave themselves up to the\nsearch for minor incidental motives, or for interpolations on a large\nscale, or else they gave way to a thorough-going scepticism which\nconfused together probabilities and improbabilities as though they were\nall the same.\n\nHarnack went on to describe the results of the labours of the last two\ndecades (1876-96) as constituting a definite \u2018return to tradition.\u2019 This\nreturn to tradition he regarded as characteristic of the period in which\nhe was writing; indeed he looked forward to a time when the questions of\nliterary history which had excited so much interest would do so no\nlonger, because it would come to be generally understood that the early\nChristian traditions were in the main right.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis Preface of Harnack\u2019s attracted considerable attention, and probably\nnowhere more than in England. English students hailed it as the\nbeginning of a new epoch, and one in which they could be more at home.\nIt fell in with certain marked characteristics of the English mind. Even\nthe progressive element in that mind naturally works on conservative\nlines; it has been reluctant to break away from the past. The very\nadvances of freedom, so steady and so sure, have not been revolutionary;\nthey have been advances\n\n                     \u2018Of freedom slowly broadening down\n                     From precedent to precedent.\u2019\n\nBut it was not only the destructive conclusions of continental criticism\nwith which dissatisfaction was felt, and which gave an apologetic colour\nto much English work. The methods were in many ways not less distasteful\nthan the conclusions. Englishmen felt, whether they said so or not, that\nthere was something wrong. And therefore, when a scholar of Harnack\u2019s\ndistinction put their thoughts into words and pointed to the very\ndefects of which they seemed to be conscious, their hopes were raised\nthat at last a movement was begun which they could follow with sympathy,\nand in which they might perhaps to some extent bear a part.\n\nWhen I take upon myself to speak in this way of \u2018English students,\u2019 I of\ncourse do so with some reservations. I have in mind the rather\nconsiderable majority of the theological faculties in our Universities,\nand I might say the majority of the teaching staffs of all denominations\nthroughout Great Britain; for there are excellent relations, and a great\namount of solidarity, among British teachers of Theology in all the\nchurches. A good general representation of the average views would be\nfound (e. g.) in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_. No doubt there is\nalso the other type\u2014the type represented by _Encyclopaedia Biblica_.\nThere are not a few among us who are less dissatisfied with Continental\nmethods, and who pursue those methods themselves with ability and\nindependence. And beyond these there are very many more, especially\namong the cultivated and interested laity, who are acquainted in a\ngeneral way with what has been done on the Continent, and who are\nimpressed by what they take to be the results, though for the most part\nthey have not time to test the processes. I say advisedly that this\nclass is impressed by what it conceives to be results, because I imagine\nthat, while there is a feeling that Continental scholars are freer in\ntheir researches and less trammelled than our own, there is also some\nreserve owing to the consciousness that the results have not been fully\ntested. To this extent I should say that the intellectual posture of\nthis class was one of waiting\u2014serious and interested waiting\u2014rather than\nof complete committal either to one side or to the other.\n\nSince my visit to America I seem to be better able to speak of the\nsituation there, though closer acquaintance did but in the main confirm\nand define the opinion that I had previously formed. There are several\ndifferences between the conditions in the two countries. On the other\nside of the Atlantic there are probably greater inequalities of\ntheological instructedness. They have a greater number of Universities\nand Seminaries, in which the standard varies more than it does with us.\nAnd while on the one hand general culture and that kind of vague\nknowledge of the nature and tendencies of criticism which goes with\ngeneral culture is more widely diffused in these islands, on the other\nhand I should be inclined to think that a real first-hand knowledge of\ncritical work is more often to be found there than it is here. This is\ndue to the fact that a large proportion of the ablest professors and\nteachers have been themselves trained in Germany. And yet, in spite of\nthese differences and inequalities, there is a general tendency, which\nseemed to me to embrace the whole nation.\n\nIt was summed up in a few words by one of the Methodist Bishops (it will\nbe remembered that the Episcopalian Methodists are strong in America)\nwith whom I had some conversation. He had, I believe, been secretary of\nsome Board of Religious Education, and spoke with wide knowledge. I\nshould be afraid to say how many students had passed through his hands.\nAnd, speaking of these students, he said that their general attitude was\nthis: \u2018They want to keep their faith; and yet they also want to see the\nrealities of things.\u2019\n\nThe same description would, I believe, fit the teachers and professors\nas well as the students, including those trained in Germany. They too\nwant to keep their faith, and to help their students to keep their\nfaith. As compared with the state of things in Germany, there is a more\ngeneral and sustained effort to make their teaching positive and\nconstructive; and this constructive teaching takes, I suspect, in most\ncases very similar lines\u2014I should describe it as in the main\nRitschlianism of the Right. At the same time, they too want to see the\nreality of things; in other words, they want to teach by strictly\nscientific methods. And the only further remark that I should have to\nmake would be that they are perhaps a little inclined\u2014and it naturally\ncould not be otherwise\u2014to look at these methods through German\nspectacles.\n\nNow I would not hesitate to carry this generalization still further. We,\nin this country, have probably a greater number of cross currents; there\nis a greater number of _media_ that stand between the individual and his\nultimate aims and wishes, in the shape of loyalties to this or that\nchurch or party. And yet I think that, broadly speaking, we should not\nbe wrong in summing up what is really at the bottom of the minds and\nhearts of the whole Anglo-Saxon race in the same words: \u2018They want to\nkeep their faith; and yet they also want to see the realities of\nthings.\u2019\n\nIt is the equilibrium of these two propositions that is most\ncharacteristic. I fully believe that motives of the same kind are\npresent among the Germans as well as ourselves. I could easily name a\nnumber of German professors who, I feel sure, are as anxious to keep\ntheir faith as we are. At the head of the list I should put Harnack\nhimself, whose views have been so much discussed in this country. There\nis, however, a greater diversity of attitude among the professorial body\nas a whole. And so far as they were agreed\u2014I am speaking especially of\nthe widespread liberal branch\u2014they would, I think, all invert the order\nof the two propositions: they would give precedence to the desire to get\nat realities; and they would identify this getting at realities with the\nuse of scientific method. The reason is that in Germany, more than\nelsewhere, the prevalent standards of judgement are essentially\nacademic. The Universities give the lead and set the tone for the whole\nnation; and the Universities have now been accustomed for many\ngenerations to an atmosphere of free thought.\n\nNow it is far from my intention to undervalue, either the use of\nscientific method in general, or German science in particular. I have\nthe highest opinion of both. By far the greater part of the advance that\nhas been made in Theology\u2014and I believe that a great advance has been\nmade in our own country as well as elsewhere\u2014I would again appeal to\nHastings\u2019 _Dictionary_ as representing a sort of average\u2014has been due to\nthe stricter application of science; and a great part of this has been\nGerman science. Honour must be given where honour is due. We must not\nhold back the full recognition that at the present time Germany holds\nthe first place in Science, and that its output of scientific work is\nperhaps as great as that of all the rest of the world besides. I am not\nsure whether this is an exaggeration, but I hardly think it is.\n\nBut in all the more tentative forms of science, such as philosophy,\nhistory, and theology, there is, or at least has been so far, a double\nelement, one that is stable and permanent, and another that is more or\nless local and ephemeral.\n\nIf I proceed to offer some criticisms upon German critical methods, I am\nperfectly well aware that the Germans in turn would have something to\ncriticize in ours. At the present day discussion is not limited to any\none country, but is international. It is by scholars of different race\nand training comparing notes together that mistakes are corrected,\nmethods gradually perfected, and results established. I shall not\nhesitate therefore to point out where it seems to me that German methods\nhave gone wrong. And I feel that I can do this the more freely when a\nscholar of Harnack\u2019s high standing has set the example. The faults that\nwe seem to have noticed in German criticism are very much those which he\nhas indicated: it has been too academic, too _doctrinaire_, too\nartificial, too much made in the study and too little checked by\nobservation of the facts of daily life. The very excellences of the\nGerman mind have in some ways contributed to the formation of wrong\nstandards of judgement. More than other people the Germans have the\npower of sustained abstract thought, of thoroughness in mustering and\nreviewing all the elements of a problem, of thinking a problem out in\nsuch a way as not to leave gaps and inconsistencies. Hence they are too\nready to assume that all the rest of the world will do the same, that if\nan important piece of evidence is omitted in an argument it can only be\nbecause it was not known, that carelessness and oversights and\ninconsistencies are things that need not be reckoned with. And there is\nalso too great a tendency to argue as though men were all made upon one\npattern. There is a want of elasticity of conception. And, to sum up\nmany points in one, there is a great tendency to purism or\nover-strictness in the wrong place, and to over-laxity also in the wrong\nplace, to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.\n\nWhat one desiderates most is greater simplicity, greater readiness to\nbelieve that as a rule, in ancient times as well as modern, people meant\nwhat they said and said what they meant, and that more often than not\nthey had some substantial reason for saying it.\n\n\n         ii. Instances in which Criticism has corrected itself.\n\n\nThese are not merely _a priori_ reflections, but they are based upon\nexperience of the actual course that criticism has taken. By this time\ncriticism has a considerable history behind it. It has corrected some of\nits mistakes, and is able to look back upon the course by which it came\nto make them. In this way it should learn some wholesome lessons.\n\nI will take three rather conspicuous examples in which criticism has at\nfirst gone wrong and has afterwards come to set itself right, in the\nhope that they may teach us what to avoid in future. I imagine that they\nmay be found to throw some side-light upon the particular problem of the\nFourth Gospel.\n\nThe first example that I will take shall be from the criticism of the\nIgnatian Epistles. I may assume that the Seven Epistles are now\ngenerally allowed to be genuine, and written by Ignatius, bishop of\nAntioch, on his way to martyrdom at Rome sometime before the end of the\nreign of Trajan (i. e. before 117). This result is due especially to the\nlabours of two scholars, Zahn and Lightfoot. It is instructive to note\nwith what kind of argument they had to contend.\n\nBoth in their day had to stem a formidable current of opinion. Bishop\nLightfoot wrote in the Preface to his great work dated \u2018St. Peter\u2019s day,\n1885\u2019:\n\n    \u2018We have been told more than once that \u201call impartial critics\u201d have\n    condemned the Ignatian Epistles as spurious. But this moral\n    intimidation is unworthy of the eminent writers who have sometimes\n    indulged in it, and will certainly not be permitted to foreclose the\n    investigation. If the ecclesiastical terrorism of past ages has lost\n    its power, we shall, in the interests of truth, be justly jealous of\n    allowing an academic terrorism to usurp its place.\u2019\n\nI should not find it difficult to produce parallels to this kind of\nintimidation in the case of the Fourth Gospel. To look back in face of\nthem upon the issue of the Ignatian controversy is consoling.\n\nMuch was said in the course of the controversy about certain features of\nstyle and character as unworthy of an Apostolic father. It was enough to\nanswer with Bishop Lightfoot that \u2018objections of this class rest for the\nmost part on the assumption that an Apostolic father must be a person of\nideal perfections intellectually as well as morally\u2014an assumption which\nhas only to be named in order to be refuted[22].\u2019\n\nIt is true that the letters contained exaggerated language of humility,\nand also an exaggerated eagerness for martyrdom. Beside these general\nfeatures, there were a good many strange and crude expressions of other\nkinds. It is needless to say that it did not in the least follow that\nsuch expressions could not have been used by Ignatius. But if the\ncritics had been willing to study the letters a little deeper and with a\nlittle more sympathy, they might have found reason to change their\nestimate even of these acknowledged flaws.\n\nIn dealing with Ignatius it is always important to remember that we have\nto do with a Syrian and not a Greek. Certainly the language that he\nwrote was not in his hand a pliant instrument. It always cost him a\nstruggle to express his thought; and the expression is very often far\nfrom perfect. The figure of the writer that one pictures to oneself is\nrugged, shaggy (if one may use the word), uncouth; and yet there is a\nvirile, nervous strength about his language which is at times very\nimpressive. And even his extravagances differ in this from many like\nextravagances, that they are not in the least insincere. For instance,\nif we read through the letter to Polycarp, we shall see in it a really\ngreat personality. And Ignatius had a very considerable power of thought\nas well as of character. Outside the New Testament, he is the first\ngreat Christian thinker; and he is one who left a deep mark on all\nsubsequent thinking.\n\nI have little doubt that the strong expressions of humility that are\nfound from time to time in Ignatius are wrung from him by the\nrecollection of the life that he led before he became a Christian. They\nare doubtless suggested by St. Paul, and they spring from a feeling not\nless intense than his.\n\nThe humility of St. John is a different matter. But as very shallow and\nobtuse criticisms are sometimes passed upon it, the Ignatian parallel\nmay serve as a wholesome warning. I shall have occasion to return to\nthis point later.\n\nThe main arguments against the Ignatian authorship of the letters were\ndrawn from the seemingly advanced condition of things which they implied\nin the way of heretical teaching on the one hand, and church\norganization on the other. The objections on these grounds have been\nquite cleared up; and now the letters supply some of the most important\ndata that the historian has to go upon.\n\nIt will be remembered that Bishop Lightfoot began by converting himself\nbefore he converted others. He had been inclined to think at one time\nthat the shorter Syriac version represented the true Ignatius. He tells\nus himself how he came to give up this opinion. He says:\n\n    \u2018I found that to maintain the priority of the Curetonian letters I\n    was obliged from time to time to ascribe to the supposed Ignatian\n    forger feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill, and\n    self-restraint, which transcended all bounds of probability\u2019\n    (Preface to the First Edition).\n\nThis is another bit of experience that it may be worth while to bear in\nmind.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy second example is perhaps in this sense not quite so clear a case,\nthat there is not as yet as complete a _consensus_ in regard to it as\nthere is in regard to the Ignatian Letters. It is taken from the\ndiscussions which have been going on at various times in the last\ntwenty-five years as to the genuineness of the treatise _De Vita\nContemplativa_ which has come down to us among the works of Philo.\n\nA marked impression was made on the side of the attack by a monograph by\nLucius, _Die Therapeuten u. ihre Stellung in d. Gesch. der Askese_,\npublished in 1879. This, together with the acceptance at least of the\nnegative part of its result by Sch\u00fcrer, inaugurated a period during\nwhich opinion was on the whole rather unfavourable to the treatise. A\nreaction began with two articles by Massebieau in 1888, followed by the\nimportant and valuable work of Mr. F. C. Conybeare, _Philo about the\nContemplative Life_, Oxford, 1895. The success of this defence may be\nregarded as clenched by the accession of such excellent and impartial\nauthorities as Cohn and Wendland, who are bringing out the great new\nedition of Philo, and of Dr. James Drummond. It is true that Sch\u00fcrer\nreviewed Mr. Conybeare in an adverse sense so far as his main conclusion\nwas concerned, and that he still maintains his opinion in the third\nedition of his _Geschichte d. J\u00fcdischen Volkes_ (1898); but I must needs\nthink that his arguments were satisfactorily and decisively answered by\nDr. Drummond in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_ for 1896.\n\nOne or two points in this reply of Dr. Drummond have a general bearing,\nrelevant to our present subject.\n\nLucius had maintained that the treatise was of Christian origin, and\nthat it was composed not long before the time of its first mention by\nEusebius. The history of the text is opposed to this; and Dr. Drummond\nis quite right in saying \u2018the argument seems valid that Eusebius did not\nmake his extracts from a work which had been recently sprung upon the\nmarket, but from one which had already undergone a long process of\ntranscription.\u2019 I may point to Dr. Schmiedel\u2019s article in the\n_Encyclopaedia Biblica_ as one of many examples of reasoning similar to\nthat of Lucius in regard to the Fourth Gospel. It is a common thing\namong critics to think it unnecessary to allow any but the smallest\ninterval between the first production of a book and the date of its\nfirst mention in the literature that happens to be extant. I would not\nlay down an absolute rule. Circumstances vary in different cases. But I\nwould contend that in any case they need careful consideration, and that\nassumptions like those of Lucius and Schmiedel are highly precarious.\n\nThe next point I would notice is the argument from identity of thought\nand style. One of the striking features in Mr. Conybeare\u2019s book was the\nvast accumulation of parallels both in thought and expression between\nthe _De Vita Contemplativa_ and the certainly genuine works of Philo.\nDr. Sch\u00fcrer thinks that this might be due to imitation. On that head I\nshould like to quote Dr. Drummond:\n\n    \u2018The purely literary evidence will affect different men differently.\n    To those who have no difficulty in attributing to the forger a\n    boundless power of refined imitation it will carry little weight. To\n    others who act upon the proverb, _ex pede Herculem_, and believe\n    that successful forgery in the name of an author, if not of high\n    genius, at least of unusual ability and distinguished style, is an\n    exceedingly difficult art, this line of evidence will come with\n    almost overwhelming force. It is easy enough to imitate tricks of\n    style, or to borrow some peculiarities of phrase; but to write in a\n    required style, without betraying any signs of imitation; to\n    introduce perpetual variation into sentences which are nevertheless\n    characteristic; to have shades of thought and suggestion, which\n    remind one of what has been said elsewhere, and nevertheless are\n    delicately modified, and pass easily into another subject; in a\n    word, to preserve the whole flavour of a writer\u2019s composition in a\n    treatise which has a theme of its own, and follows its own\n    independent development, may well seem beyond the reach of the\n    forger, and must be held to guarantee the genuineness of a work,\n    unless very weighty arguments can be advanced on the other side.\u2019\n\nThis paragraph seems to be very much in point for those who, like\nSchmiedel, H. J. Holtzmann and Professor Bacon, would distinguish the\nauthor of the First Epistle of St. John from the author of the Gospel.\n\nOn this point it is also worth while to consider Dr. Drummond\u2019s replies\nto the inconsistencies alleged to exist between particular details in\nthe _De Vita Contemplativa_ and the other Philonic writings. There is\nalways a tendency in the critical school to make too much of these\nlittle _prima facie_ differences, which generally shrink a good deal on\ncloser examination.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy last example shall be taken from the _Vita Antonii_, ascribed to, and\nnow generally believed to be a genuine work of, St. Athanasius. The\n_Vita Antonii_ holds an important place in the literature of the\nbeginnings of Monasticism. As such it was involved in the wholesale\nscepticism on that subject which was pushed to its furthest limits by\nthe late Professor Weingarten in the seventies and eighties. How\ncomplete the reaction has been may be seen in the recent edition of the\n_Historia Lausiaca_ by Dom Cuthbert Butler. Among Weingarten\u2019s converts\nwas our English scholar, Professor Gwatkin; and I do not think that\nanything could speak more eloquently than just to transcribe the list of\nobjections brought against the _Vita Antonii_ by Professor Gwatkin in\nhis _Studies of Arianism_ (Cambridge, 1882). I proceed to give the more\nimportant of them in an abridged form:\n\n    \u2018In the rest of the works of Athanasius there is no trace of\n    Antony\u2019s existence. Considering the grandeur of the saint\u2019s\n    position, and his intimate relations with the bishop of Alexandria,\n    this fact alone should be decisive.\u2019\n\n    Observe the argument from silence, which is enlarged upon in the\n    remainder of the paragraph.\n\n    1. The treatise is addressed to the monks of the West, whereas\n    \u2018monasticism was unknown in Europe in the reign of Valentinian, and\n    at Rome in particular when Jerome went into the East in 373; and at\n    Milan it had only lately been introduced by Ambrose at the time of\n    Augustine\u2019s visit in 385.\u2019\n\n    2. \u2018Apart from its numerous miracles, the general tone of the _Vita_\n    is unhistorical. It is a perfect romance of the desert, without a\n    trace of human sinfulness to mar its beauty. The saint is an\n    idealized ascetic hero, the _mons Antonii_ a paradise of peaceful\n    holiness. We cannot pass from the _Scriptores Erotici_ to the _Vita\n    Antonii_ without noticing the same atmosphere of unreality in both.\n    From Anthanasius there is all the difference of the novel writer\n    from the orator\u2014of the _Cyropaedia_ from the _de Corona_.\u2019\n\n    3. \u2018Though Athanasius had ample room for miracles in the adventures\n    of his long life, he never records anything of the sort.... But\n    miracles, often of the most puerile description, are the staple of\n    the _Vita Antonii_, and some of them are said to have been done\n    before the eyes of Athanasius himself, who could not have omitted\n    all reference to them in the writings of his exile.\u2019\n\n    Again, the argument from silence.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n    4. \u2018Antony is represented as an illiterate Copt, dependent on memory\n    even for his knowledge of Scripture.\u2019 Yet he alludes to Plato,\n    Plotinus, &c., and in general reasons like a learned philosopher.\n\n    5. \u2018The _Vita Antonii_ has coincidences with Athanasius in language\n    and doctrine, as we should expect in any professed work of his....\n    But the divergences are serious\u2019....\n\n    6. It is implied throughout the _Vita Antonii_ that the monks were\n    extremely numerous throughout the East during Antony\u2019s lifetime. Now\n    there were monks in Egypt, monks of Serapis, long before; but\n    Christian monks there were none\u2019 (_Studies of Arianism_, pp. 100-2).\n\nNow I am not for a moment going to disparage this display of learning.\nIt is very clever; it is very scholarly: in the state of knowledge when\nit was written it was at least very excusable in its statements.\nAltogether it was as brilliant a piece of criticism as one would wish to\nsee. To this day the objections read quite formidably. And yet the\ninference drawn from them is pretty certainly wrong; indeed the whole\narray is little more than an impressive bugbear.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nWith such warnings from the past before our eyes, I think we should be\ninclined to scrutinize rather closely arguments of a like kind when they\nmeet us in the course of our present investigation.\n\n\n   iii. Examples of Mistaken Method as applied to the Fourth Gospel.\n\n\nAt this point we may go back to Harnack\u2019s Preface. And here I cannot\nhelp expressing my regret that it has not had more of the influence that\nit deserved to have, both in the country of its author and elsewhere. I\nam even tempted to go a little further, and express my regret that it\nhas not had more influence upon the author himself. I will henceforward\nconfine myself more strictly to the Fourth Gospel. And it seems to me\nthat, in his incidental treatment of this, Harnack has more than once\nforgotten his own precepts.\n\nHe expends endless ingenuity in trying to prove that there was a\nconfusion, in the minds of the Christian writers of the second century,\nbetween the Apostle St. John and a certain \u2018Presbyter\u2019 of the same name,\nwho really lived, as the Apostle was supposed to have lived, at Ephesus\nin the Roman province of Asia. An important difficulty in the way of\nthis proof is the explicit testimony of Irenaeus. To meet this\ndifficulty, the attempt is made to show that Irenaeus derived all his\nknowledge, or supposed knowledge, about St. John and his surroundings\nfrom two sources, a very brief intercourse in early youth with Polycarp,\nbishop of Smyrna, and the book of Papias, called _Expositions of the\nOracles of the Lord_. It is like Nero wishing that Rome had one neck, in\norder that it might be cut at a single stroke. By reducing the channels\nthrough which Irenaeus received his knowledge to these two, it became\nmore possible that if they happened in any way to lend themselves to the\nconfusion, that confusion should really take hold of his mind and\nexpress itself in his writings. The learning and ingenuity and skill\ndisplayed are admirable. But how futile, from the very first, to suppose\nthat all the information Irenaeus possessed about the greatest leader of\nthe Church of his own home came only through these two channels and no\nothers; indeed, that he was like the princess in the fairy tale, shut up\nin a tower and cut off from all communication with the outer world. We\nknow that two at least of his companions in the Gallic churches of\nVienne and Lyons came from the same region as himself. It is commonly\nsupposed that these churches had as a nucleus a little colony from Asia\nMinor. In his Fourth Book Irenaeus often refers to a certain Presbyter,\nwhom Harnack rightly shows to have been not a direct hearer of the\nApostles, but at one degree removed from them, a disciple of those who\nhad heard from the Apostles. It is natural, with Lightfoot, to identify\nthis Presbyter with Pothinus, Irenaeus\u2019 own predecessor in his see, who\nhad passed the age of ninety when he died in the persecution of the year\n177. In any case, Pothinus must have been a store-house of traditions\nand memories, to which Irenaeus would have constant access. We know also\nthat after the persecution Irenaeus was in Rome; and there is some\nreason to think that he had resided there more than twenty years\nbefore[23]. This was another great centre with which he was familiar,\nand to which news and traditions of the past came streaming in from\nevery quarter of the Christian world. And yet we are asked to believe\nthat Irenaeus was the victim of a confusion that in any number of ways\nmight have been corrected. As Dr. Drummond well says, \u2018Critics speak of\nIrenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or three\nvisits to Polycarp\u2019s lecture-room, and never known any one else. In\nfact, he must have known all sorts of men, of all ages, both in the East\nand the West, and among others his venerable predecessor Pothinus, who\nwas upwards of ninety at the time of his death. He must have had\nnumerous links with the early part of the century[24].\u2019\n\nAgain the same writer says:\n\n    \u2018The testimonies of Irenaeus, of Polycrates, and of Clement are\n    those on which we must mainly rely. In judging of the collective\n    force of the evidence, we must not forget that the second century\n    was a literary age. The churches freely communicated with one\n    another by letters, and there was an abundant theological literature\n    of which only a few fragments have survived. I see no reason why the\n    churches of Asia should not have had as well-grounded a certainty\n    that John had been once among them as we have that Goldsmith was\n    once in London[25].\u2019\n\nTo deal with all this body of evidence as Harnack deals with it is very\nlike \u2018arguing on the strength of a few particulars in the face of clear\nand decisive indications[26].\u2019\n\nHere is another instance of the very thing that Harnack himself\ncomplained of. He has made up his mind that chap. xxi of the Gospel\ncould not have been written until after the death of the author. But in\nver. 24 the editors of the Gospel say expressly that the Apostle who\nfigures so conspicuously in it was the author of the whole book (\u2018this\nis the disciple who beareth witness of these things, and wrote these\nthings\u2019). This, according to Harnack, only convicts them of a deliberate\nuntruth, contradicted by the verses immediately preceding. If we must\nneeds accuse the unfortunate editors of falsification, we might at least\ngive them credit for the sense to take care that their falsehood was not\nexposed by their own words, and almost (as it were) in the same breath.\nBut the fact is that the premiss, from which Harnack argues, is purely\ngratuitous, as I hope to show in the next lecture.\n\nPerhaps it is the same persons, the editors of the Gospel\u2014in any case it\nis the Presbyters who were closely connected with them\u2014who are charged\nwith another piece of dishonesty. Harnack sees that mere accident will\nnot account for the supposed confusion of John the Presbyter with John\nthe Apostle. He therefore does not shrink from imputing deliberate\nfraud.\n\n    \u2018The legend _purposely set on foot_ that the author of the Gospel\n    was the son of Zebedee, &c.[27]\u2019\n\n    \u2018But Papias, through the oral traditions about which he took so much\n    trouble, already stood under the influence of Presbyters, of whom\n    some _perhaps purposely_ started the legend that the Presbyter John\n    was the Apostle[28].\u2019\n\n    \u2018The John who had the encounter with Cerinthus, after what has been\n    said can only be the Presbyter. But in the confusion, \u201cthe\n    unconscious\u201d alone can hardly have been involved.\u2019\n\nThe dishonesty went beyond the confusion of the two persons. It is also\nseen in the definite ascription of the Gospel to the Apostle.\n\n    \u2018The twenty-fourth verse of the twenty-first chapter of the Fourth\n    Gospel, about which we have spoken, will always remain a strong\n    indication of the fact that in Ephesus the Fourth Gospel was\n    deliberately put out after the death of its author as a work of the\n    Apostle, and so that the Apostle and the Presbyter were deliberately\n    identified, as Philip the Evangelist was made to change places with\n    Philip the Apostle[29].\u2019\n\n_Facilis descensus._ When once we begin imputing fraudulent actions we\nmay very easily find that we have to go on doing so. It should, however,\nbe remembered that the ground for all this is no assured fact, but only\nthe exigencies of a complicated theory which, quite apart from this, has\na load of improbability to contend with.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nI will give one further example of a different kind. The tendency of the\ncriticism that has been, and still is largely in vogue, is to give what\nseems to me quite undue weight to the exceptional, the abnormal, the\neccentric, as compared with that which is normal and regular.\n\nIn the controversy over the Fourth Gospel one of the questions has been\nas to the exact degree of importance to be attached to the so-called\nAlogi, who, about the third quarter of the second century, denied St.\nJohn\u2019s authorship of the writings attributed to him, including the\nGospel, and by a piece of sheer bravado ascribed it to the heretic\nCerinthus.\n\nHarnack\u2019s account of this\u2014coterie perhaps rather than sect\u2014is just. \u2018The\nattack did not spread; it was soon defeated; but the memory of it\nlingered on, and the policy of the Church, auspiciously begun by\nIrenaeus, came to be that of teaching the absolute equality in rank and\nvalue of the four component parts of the Gospel[30].\u2019 But the point to\nwhich I wish to call attention is that the Church writers did not allow\nthe existence of these Alogi to prevent them from classing the Gospel\namong the Homologoumena, or books about the canonicity of which all\nChristians were agreed. Eusebius uses strong language. He says that both\nthe Gospel and the First Epistle were accepted without dispute by his\nown contemporaries as well as by the ancients (_H. E._ iii. 24. 17).\nAnd, if it is said that Eusebius was writing a century and a half after\nthe Alogi, when that little side-eddy of opinion had subsided and been\nforgotten, it is not Eusebius alone who ignores their existence in this\nmanner. Irenaeus is one of those who certainly knew about them; and yet\nhe regards the Four Gospels, our present four, as a sort of divine\ninstitution, deeply implanted in the nature of things, directly presided\nover and inspired by Christ the Word (_adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 9). A little\nlater Clement of Alexandria speaks of the same Four Gospels as specially\nhanded down among Christians (_Strom._ iii. 13. 93). And, again, a\nlittle later Origen describes them as \u2018alone unquestioned in the Church\nof God under heaven\u2019 (Eus. _H. E._ vi. 25. 4). Still earlier, a\ncontemporary of the Alogi, Tatian, gave effect to the same belief by\ncomposing his Diatessaron. And the Muratorian Fragment also endorses it.\n\nThis striking unanimity from all parts of the Christian world serves to\nreduce the Alogi to their right dimensions. The reason why they have\nbulked rather larger than they should do is, I believe, because they\nwielded the pen. It will be remembered that Dr. Salmon was for reducing\nthem to the single person of Caius of Rome. Schwartz also argues that\nnot more than a single writer _may_ be meant. He thinks that in any case\nEpiphanius had a book before him[31]. The Alogi were in any case a very\nephemeral phenomenon, chiefly significant in the history of the Canon,\nas marking the slight element of resistance to the establishment of the\ngroup of Four Gospels.\n\n\n      II. The Oldest Solution of the Problem of the Fourth Gospel.\n\n\nYou will think perhaps that I have been a long time in approaching the\ndirect treatment of the Fourth Gospel. It is quite true that I have\nthought well to begin the approach from a distance, as it were by sap\nand trench, before planting my guns\u2014such as they are. I have indeed the\nambition in this course of lectures not only to state a case in regard\nto the Fourth Gospel, but also at the same time to contribute, if I may,\nto the work so admirably initiated by Dr. Drummond, of commending by the\nway what I conceive to be sound principles of criticism, as contrasted\nwith others which I consider unsound. It happens that a discussion of\nthe Fourth Gospel specially lends itself to this purpose.\n\nIn accordance with what I have been saying, you will not expect of me\nany new and startling theory to account for the phenomena of the Fourth\nGospel. I am content to go back to the oldest categorical statement in\nrespect to it that history has handed down to us. It seems to me that\nthis statement, plain and direct as it is, really gives an adequate\nexplanation, if not exactly of everything, yet at least of all the\nsalient points that need explaining.\n\nEusebius (_H. E._ vi. 14. 7) has preserved for us the substance of a\npassage from the _Hypotyposes_, or _Outlines_, of Clement of Alexandria,\nwhich he says that Clement derived from the \u2018early Presbyters\u2019\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd), and which dealt among other things\nwith the order of the Gospels. After speaking of the other Evangelists,\nhe says that \u2018last of all John perceiving that the bodily (or external)\nfacts had been set forth in the (other) Gospels, at the instance of his\ndisciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit composed a spiritual\nGospel.\u2019\n\nA very similar tradition had been given by Eusebius in an earlier book\n(iii. 24). He heads the chapter, \u2018On the Order of the Gospels,\u2019 and in\nthe course of it he writes as follows:\n\n    \u2018Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and\n    John have left us written memoirs, and they are reported (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n    \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2[32]) to have been led to write under pressure of necessity.\n    Matthew, having previously preached to the Hebrews, when he was\n    about to go to other peoples, committed to writing the Gospel that\n    bears his name in his native tongue, and so by the written book\n    compensated those whom he was leaving for the loss of his presence.\n    And when Mark and Luke had by that time published their Gospels,\n    they say that John, having before spent all his time in oral\n    preaching, at last came also to write for some such reason as this.\n    The three Gospels first written having been by this distributed\n    everywhere, and having come into his hands, they say that he\n    accepted them, bearing witness to their truth, but (adding) that\n    there was only wanting to their record the narrative of what was\n    done by Christ at first and at the beginning of His preaching.\u2019\n\nAt this point Eusebius digresses to show that what was said was true.\nThe first three Evangelists began the main body of their narrative after\nJohn the Baptist was cast into prison; but St. John expressly tells us\nthat, at the time of the events related in his early chapters, John was\nnot yet in prison. Any one attending to this, Eusebius said, would no\nlonger suppose that the Gospels were at variance with each other, and\nwould see that John had reason for being silent as to the genealogy of\nour Saviour\u2019s human descent, as this had been already written by Matthew\nand Luke, and for beginning with His divinity, as though this had been\nreserved by the Holy Ghost for him as one greater than they. These last\nare the words of Eusebius, who is very probably influenced by his\nrecollection of the language of Clement. Unfortunately we cannot locate\nthe rest of the tradition. It would be only a guess to suppose that it\ncame from Hippolytus, at the time of his controversy with Caius. But in\nany case there is a good deal of evidence to show that the opening\nsections of the Gospels were being much canvassed towards the end of the\nsecond and at the beginning of the third century. The passage is in\ngeneral agreement with Clement, and avoids his mistake in saying that\nthe two Gospels containing the genealogies were the first to be written.\nReally Clement alone has all the essential points, which are these:\n\n    1. The Gospel is the work of St. John the Apostle\u2014for there is no\n    doubt that he is intended.\n\n    2. It was written towards the end of his life, after the publication\n    of the other three.\n\n    3. The three Gospels were in the hands of the Apostle, and he had\n    read and up to a certain point approved of them.\n\n    4. What he himself undertook to write was a Gospel, not a biography;\n    the difference is important.\n\n    5. In contrast with the other Gospels it was recognized as being in\n    a special sense \u2018a spiritual Gospel.\u2019\n\nI believe that these data will enable us to understand all the facts,\nboth those which are more favourable to the Gospel and those which are\nin a sense less favourable.\n\n1. The best of reasons is given for all those marks of an eye-witness\nwhich we shall see to be present in great number and strength. They\npoint to a first-hand relation between the author and the facts which he\nrecords. If the Gospel is not the work of an eye-witness, then the\nwriter has made a very sustained and extraordinary effort to give the\nimpression that he was one.\n\n2. By throwing the Gospel to the end of the Apostle\u2019s life, a\nconsiderable interval is placed between the events and the date of its\ncomposition. That means that the facts will have passed through a\nmedium. Unconsciously the mind in which they lay will have brought its\nown experience to bear upon them; it will have a tendency to mix up the\nplain statement of what was said and done with an element of\ninterpretation suggested by its own experience. And this will be done in\na way that we should call \u2018na\u00efve,\u2019 i. e. without any conscious\nself-analysis. The mingling of objective and subjective will take place\nspontaneously and without reflection. The details will not be given out\nexactly as they went in; and yet the writer will not be himself aware\nthat he is setting down anything but what he heard and saw.\n\n3. The relation of the Fourth Gospel to its predecessors accurately\ncorresponds to that described in the tradition. On the one hand their\ncontents are very largely assumed; and on the other hand the author does\nnot hesitate, where he thinks it necessary, to correct them. The\nrelation is easy and natural; it at once accounts for the selection of\nthe incidents narrated. The author evidently felt himself at liberty to\nselect just those incidents which suited his purpose.\n\n4. And that purpose, it is important to remember, was not by any means\npurely historical. The author was writing a Gospel, not a biography in\nthe modern sense of the word. His object was definitely religious, and\nnot literary. He tells us in set terms what he proposed to do: \u2018These\nthings are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the\nSon of God; and that believing ye may have life in His name.\u2019 He did not\nreally aim at a complete narrative of external events or an exhaustive\nstudy of a complex human character. He aimed at producing faith; and he\nsought to produce it by describing at length a few significant\nincidents, taken out of a much larger whole.\n\n5. The previous writings that came into his hands were also Gospels; and\nthey too were intended to produce faith. But in this direction the\nauthor of the Fourth Gospel felt that something more remained to be\ndone. Christendom had its Gospels, but not as yet exactly \u2018a spiritual\nGospel.\u2019 A \u2018spiritual Gospel\u2019 meant one that sought to bring out the\ndivine side of its subject. When St. Paul at the beginning of the\nEpistle to the Romans draws an antithesis between the Son of David\n\u2018according to the flesh\u2019 and the Son of God \u2018according to the spirit of\nholiness,\u2019 he is anticipating exactly this later contrast between the\nGospels of the bodily life and of the spirit. \u2018Spiritual\u2019 means \u2018indwelt\nby the Spirit of God.\u2019 And it was that side of the life of Christ in\nwhich the Spirit of God was seen living and working in Him that the\nfourth evangelist undertook specially to describe.\n\nIf, then, it is objected that the Gospel is onesided, that it gives\nundue prominence to this divine side, we begin by asking what is meant\nby undue, what standard of measurement marks it as undue. Obviously the\nstandard is that which we have just dismissed as altogether beside the\nmark, the standard of the modern biography. The Gospel does not in the\nleast profess to do what the modern biographer does; but what the writer\ndoes profess to do, he was perfectly within his right in doing. He\ndesired to set forth Christ as Divine. If that is to be onesided, of\ncourse he is onesided. Clement tells us why he did it. It was because he\nthought that the physical and external side, the human side of his\nsubject, had had justice done to it already. In this respect the older\nGospels were adequate, and he had no special wish to add to them. The\none thing he did feel called upon to add, and that he knew he could add,\nwas a fuller delineation of the divine side. He is not to be blamed for\ndoing the very thing which he proposed.\n\nThe paragraph in Clement of Alexandria is stated by him to be derived\nfrom \u2018the early presbyters.\u2019 They were a good authority; probably, if\nnot altogether identical with the group drawn upon by Papias, yet at\nleast in part identical with it. Papias and Irenaeus on the one hand,\nand Clement of Alexandria on the other, are just two branches of the\nsame tree, or at least two suckers from the same root. That root is\noften called the School of St. John. It is from the School of St. John\nthat they ultimately derive their information about St. John. What\nauthority could be better?\n\nIt is not possible to say how far the language of Clement comes from the\nPresbyters, and how far it is his own. The phrase \u2018a spiritual Gospel\u2019\nmay be his own coinage, an early effort of descriptive criticism,\nputting into words what he felt to be the distinctive characteristic of\nthe Gospel. In any case the phrase is a happy one; it just expresses, in\nthe briefest compass, that which really most differentiates the Fourth\nGospel from the other three.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  _Ignatius_, i. 405.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  See the story in the Moscow MS. of the _Martyrium Polycarpi_\n  (Lightfoot, _Ignatius_, iii. 402), which professes to be taken from\n  \u2018the writings of Irenaeus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  _Character and Authorship_, p. 348.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 213.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _Chronologie_, p. ix.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 678.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  _Chronologie_, p. 679.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 680.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  _Chronologie_, p. 695.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  _Ueber d. Tod_, &c., p. 31.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  On this phrase see Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_, pp. 170-3.\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE III\n                      THE STANDPOINT OF THE AUTHOR\n\n\n      I. The Gospel is put forward as the Work of an Eye-witness.\n\n\nThere are a number of passages in the Gospel and First Epistle of St.\nJohn which go to show that the author either was, or at least intended\nto give the impression that he was, an eye-witness of the Life of\nChrist. We will leave it an open question for the present which of these\ntwo alternatives we are to choose. And we will begin by collecting the\npassages, and justifying the description that has just been given of\nthem.\n\nThe passages fall into groups; the first small but important, the others\nlarger but, except in a few cases, more indefinite.\n\nOn the principles of criticism on which we are going, we shall assume\nthat the Gospel and First Epistle that bear the name of St. John are by\nthe same author, and that, so far as the authorship is concerned, what\nholds good for the one will hold good also for the other. The proof is\nnot absolutely stringent. Identity of style, and close resemblance of\nideas, are compatible with duality of authorship, because one writer may\nimitate another. But in practice, unless the reasons for laying stress\nupon it are strong and clear, a refinement like this may be left out of\naccount. Of course there is the distinction which Bacon noted between\nthe minds that are quick to observe resemblances and those that are\nquick to observe differences. This question of the relation of the\nGospel of St. John to the First Epistle is a touchstone by which such\nminds may be distinguished. I allow that the two works may be assigned\nto different authors[33]. I allow it in the way in which on most\nquestions, if we attempt a nice enumeration of conditions, there is\nusually some remote possibility to be allowed for. The quotation from\nDr. Drummond on the _De Vita Contemplativa_ that I gave in the last\nlecture may help us to measure how remote the other possibility is. As a\npractical person, dealing with these questions on a practical scale, I\nshall venture to assume that the Gospel and the First Epistle are by the\nsame hand. It is of course open to any one to ignore arguments based on\nthis assumption, if he prefers to do so.\n\n\n                 i. Passages which make a direct claim.\n\n\nI am treading on very familiar ground, but I must ask you to forgive me\nif I begin by quoting the opening words of the First Epistle:\n\n    \u2018That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that\n    which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our\n    hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was\n    manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you\n    the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was\n    manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we\n    unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and\n    our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ:\n    and these things we write, that our joy may be fulfilled\u2019 (1 John i.\n    1-3).\n\nThe _prima facie_ view of this passage undoubtedly is that the writer is\nspeaking as one of a group of eye-witnesses. But there are two ways in\nwhich this inference is turned aside.\n\n1. Harnack[34] and some others take it as referring not to bodily but to\nmystical vision.\n\n2. Others, again, think of the writer as speaking in the name of a whole\ngeneration, or of Christians generally.\n\nIn regard to the first of these explanations we note that the word\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is used twenty-two times in all the New Testament, including the\npresent passage; and in every one of bodily and not of mental or\nspiritual vision. And whatever sense we may put upon seeing or hearing,\nit is difficult to explain such a strong expression as \u2018that which ...\nour hands have handled,\u2019 where the writer seems to go out of his way to\nexclude any ambiguity, in any other sense than of physical handling.\n\nIn regard to the second explanation we observe that there is a contrast\nbetween \u2018we\u2019 and \u2018you,\u2019 between teachers and taught. The teachers are in\nany case a small body; and they seem to rest their authority, or at\nleast the impulse to teach, on the desire to communicate to others what\nthey had themselves experienced. I have therefore little doubt that the\n_prima facie_ view of the passage is the right one. The writer speaks of\nhimself as a member of a small group, like that of the Apostles, but a\ngroup that may include all who had really seen the Lord and who\nafterwards took up the work of witnessing to Him.\n\nThe other passage, John i. 14, is more ambiguous: \u2018the Word became\nflesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only\nbegotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.\u2019 If this had stood\nalone, it might have seemed an open question whether \u2018we beheld\u2019 was not\nused in a vague sense of Christians generally\u2014or even of the human race,\nas \u2018tabernacled among us\u2019 just before might mean \u2018among men.\u2019 But the\nmore specific reference would be more pointed; and it is favoured by the\nanalogy of the passage of which we have just been speaking as well as of\nthose which follow.\n\nIn both the above cases the writer is speaking in his own person. This\nis not quite so clear in xix. 35, where, after describing the\nlance-thrust and the pierced side, the narrative goes on, \u2018And he that\nhath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)\nknoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.\u2019 Is the writer by\nthese words objectifying, and as it were looking back upon himself, or\nis he pointing to some third person unnamed in the background? Both\nviews are antecedently possible. Perhaps the latter is more consistent\nwith the ordinary use of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. If we accept it, then I should be\ninclined to think with Zahn that \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 points to Christ. It would be\njust a formula of strong asseveration, like \u2018God knoweth\u2019 in 2 Cor. xi.\n11, 31, &c. There would be a near parallel in 3 John 12, \u2018Demetrius hath\nthe witness of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, we also bear\nwitness; and thou knowest that our witness is true.\u2019 This view is the\nmore attractive because it is in keeping with the habit of thought\ndisclosed in the Gospel. As the Son appeals to the witness of the\nFather, as it were dimly seen in the background, so also it would I\nthink be natural for the beloved disciple to appeal to the Master who is\nno longer at his side in bodily presence, but who is present with him\nand with the Church in spirit: \u2018he who saw the sight has set it down in\nwriting ... and there is one above who knows that he is telling the\ntruth.\u2019\n\nThis is the view that, after giving to it the best consideration I can,\nI am on the whole inclined to accept. I could not, however, agree that\nthere is anything really untenable in what may be called the common\nview, that the asseveration is of a lower kind, and that the author is\nsimply turning back upon himself and protesting his own veracity. The\nuse of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 to take up the subject of a sentence is specially\nfrequent and specially characteristic of this Gospel; and as the author\nsystematically speaks of himself in the third person, it seems to me\nthat the word may also naturally refer to himself so objectified: \u2018he\nwho saw the sight has set it down ... and _he_ is well assured that what\nhe says is true.\u2019\n\nIn any case, however, I must needs think that the bearing witness is\nthat of the written Gospel, and that the author of the Gospel is the\nsame as he who saw the sight. The identity is, it seems to me, clenched\nby xxi. 24, to which I shall come back in a moment.\n\nAt this point I may be permitted to interject a speculation\u2014shall I call\nit a pious speculation? it certainly does not profess to be more\u2014as to\nthe origin of the peculiar way the Fourth Evangelist has of referring to\nhimself. The idea can only be entertained by those who think that the\nwriter was really a companion of the Lord, either an Apostle or one very\nnear to the Apostles. Is it not possible that such a one may have been\ninfluenced by the way in which the Master referred to Himself? It is\ncharacteristic of the Synoptic Christ that He constantly speaks of\nHimself objectively as \u2018the Son of Man.\u2019 May we not suppose that the\nEvangelist, through long and familiar intercourse, came insensibly and\ninstinctively to adopt for himself a similar method of oblique and\nallusive reference? It is of course not quite the same thing; but there\nseems to be enough resemblance for the one usage to suggest the other.\nThe beloved disciple had a special reason for not wishing to obtrude his\nown personality. He was conscious of a great privilege, of a privilege\nthat would single him out for all time among the children of men. He\ncould not resist the temptation to speak of this privilege. The impulse\nof affection responding to affection prompted him to claim it. But the\nconsciousness that he was doing so, and the reaction of modesty led him\nat the same moment to suppress, what a vulgar egotism might have\naccentuated, the lower plane of his own individuality. The son of\nZebedee (if it was he) desired to be merged and lost in \u2018the disciple\nwhom Jesus loved.\u2019\n\nThere is nothing in the least unnatural in this; it is a little complex\nperhaps, but only with the complexity of life, when different motives\nclash in a fine nature. The delicacy of attitude corresponds to an\ninnate delicacy of mind. When one reads some of the criticisms on this\nattitude, one is reminded of a sentence in an English classic, Cowper\u2019s\nindignant remonstrance at Johnson\u2019s treatment of Milton.\n\n    \u2018As a poet, he has treated him with severity enough, and has plucked\n    one or two of the most beautiful feathers out of his Muse\u2019s wing,\n    and trampled them under his great foot[35].\u2019\n\nSamuel Johnson, excellent person as he was, is not the only critic who\nhas had the misfortune to be born (metaphorically, if not physically)\nwith a \u2018great foot\u2019 and a heavy hand.\n\nThe Gospel closes with a scene in which the writer refers in his usual\noblique way to himself. I cannot think that there is any real reason for\nthe assumption, which is so often and so confidently made, that the last\nchapter is an appendix written after the author was dead. On this point,\nagain, I entirely agree with Dr. Drummond, \u2018It is surely conceivable\nthat the aged disciple, feeling death stealing upon him, might point out\nthat no words of Jesus justified the expectation which had arisen among\nsome of his devoted friends[36].\u2019 The complete identity of thought and\nstyle, and the way in which this last chapter is dovetailed into the\npreceding (\u2018This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the\ndisciples\u2019; compare at the beginning of the Gospel the counting up of\nthe first Galilean miracles, ii. 11, iv. 54), seem to prove that the\nlast chapter is by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel[37].\n\nBut at the very end another hand does take up the pen; and this time the\nwriter speaks in the name of a plurality; \u2018This is the disciple which\nbeareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know\nthat his witness is true\u2019 (xxi. 24). The critics who assert that the\nGospel is not the work of an eye-witness, and even those who say that\nthe last chapter was not written by the author of the whole, wantonly\naccuse these last words of untruth. That is another of the methods of\nmodern criticism that seem to me sorely in need of reforming. I hope\nthat a time may come when it will be considered as wrong to libel the\ndead as it is to libel the living.\n\nI accept, then, this last verse as weighty testimony to the autoptic\ncharacter of the Gospel. It is easy to see that the two concluding\nverses are added on the occasion of its publication by those who\npublished it. They, as it were, endorse the witness which it had borne\nto itself.\n\n\n\n\n       ii. Passages in which the impression conveyed is indirect.\n\n\nWe have been through the few salient passages which, in spite of the\ncriticism to which they have been exposed, still proclaim in no\nuncertain terms the first-hand character of the work to which they\nbelong. I now go on to collect a number of passages which are more\nindirect in their evidence, and just because of this indirectness have a\nspecial value, because the evidence which they afford is unconscious and\nundesigned. For the present I shall speak only of two groups: first, a\nseries of passages in which the author seems to write as though from the\ninner circle of the disciples and companions of Jesus; and, secondly,\nanother series in which he refers to the way in which impressions\nreceived at the time were corrected or interpreted by subsequent\nexperience and reflection.\n\nThe Gospel has not long opened before we begin to receive that subtle\nimpression which is given when one who has himself taken part in a scene\nreproduces it as history. I know that this kind of effect may be\nproduced by imagination; and I will not assume as yet that it may not be\nso produced in this instance; I content myself for the present with\npointing out that it exists.\n\nWhen we take the last two paragraphs of the first chapter of the Gospel\n(i. 35-51), I think we shall feel as though we were being introduced to\na little circle of neighbours and acquaintances. Two friends, one of\nwhom is called Andrew, and the other is unnamed, are interested in what\nthey have seen of Jesus and in what the Baptist had said about Him, and\nthey ask leave to join Him. They remain for some hours in His company;\nand it is clear that their interest is not diminished. Andrew finds his\nbrother Simon, and he too is brought up and introduced. Jesus Himself\ntakes the initiative in inviting a fourth, Philip. We are told expressly\nthat Philip was from the same city as the two before named; and he in\nturn finds and introduces his friend Nathanael. There is just one of the\nfive whose name is not given. He is the silent spectator in the\nbackground. What if it were he to whom we owe the story? In any case\nthere is this little group, all apparently from the same locality, who\nnaturally enough find themselves together, drawn at first by the\npreacher of repentance, but leaving him to join one greater than he.\n\nWe pass over to the next chapter; but that will give us more to say\nunder the next head. There are many points upon which we might pause,\nbut I will pass on to the middle of chap. iii (vers. 22-6). There we\nhave the description of what have now become two groups, the disciples\nof Jesus and the disciples of John, in near proximity to each other, and\nwith easy intercourse between them. The narrative seems to be written\nfrom the standpoint of the disciples. The two principals are in the\nbackground, but we follow the events of the day among their _entourage_.\nThere is a little discussion between some of John\u2019s disciples and a\nstranger (R. V.) about a question naturally connected with baptism. Such\na discussion might have interested at the time one who was near at hand\nand in friendly relation with those who took part in it. But it would be\nhard to find any other motive that could suggest it to a Christian at\nthe end of the first century.\n\nIt is indeed quite possible and perhaps probable that Baldensperger\n(_Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, Freiburg_ i. B., 1898) is right in\nsupposing that among the motives present to the mind of the Evangelist\nwas that of marking the subordinate position of the Baptist as compared\nwith the Messiah, to whom he bore witness. We can quite believe that at\nEphesus, at the time when the Gospel was written, there still remained\nsome who had only been baptized into the baptism of John, like the\ndisciples mentioned in Acts xix. 1-7. There may be a certain amount of\npolemical or apologetic reference to such a sect as this. The latter\npart of chap. iii (\u2018he must increase, but I must decrease\u2019) may be of\nthis character; but the purely historical statements in vers. 22-6 have\nin them nothing polemical; they have far more the appearance of personal\nreminiscences, introduced only because they came back to the memory of\nthe writer. It is a curious fact that the Gospel contains several\nreferences to \u2018purifying\u2019: e. g. ii. 6 (the waterpots at Cana \u2018set there\nafter the Jews\u2019 manner of purifying\u2019), the present passage, iii. 22; the\ndescription, in xi. 55, of the Jews going up to purify themselves before\nthe Passover, and the statement (xviii. 28) that the accusers of our\nLord did not enter the praetorium \u2018that they might not be defiled, but\nmight eat the Passover.\u2019 Nothing is made of these allusions; no argument\nis based upon them; but they would be very natural if the Evangelist\nbegan life as a disciple of the Baptist and had been early interested in\nsuch questions.\n\nTurning to the discourse with the woman of Samaria we observe how it is\nframed as it were in the movements of the disciples: in ver. 8 they go\ninto the city to buy provisions; in ver. 27 they return, and are\nsurprised to find their Master engaged in conversation with a\nwoman\u2014contrary to the practice and maxims of the Rabbis. They are\nsurprised, but they do not venture upon any remonstrance. They had left\ntheir Master weary and way-worn, and they find Him refreshed. They do\nnot understand how refreshment of the mind carries with it that of the\nbody; and they speculate as to whether food had not been brought to Him\nduring their absence. This is another scene in which the point of view\nseems to be that of the disciples, and in which we, as it were, overhear\ntheir comments.\n\nIt has often been objected that there were no witnesses of the discourse\nwith the woman, and therefore that the narrative of it must be\nimaginary. It is full of touches, as we shall see presently, which are\nso appropriate to the circumstances that I find it difficult to think of\nthem as imaginary. But how do we know that there were no witnesses of\nthe discourse? It would certainly be too much to assume that every\nallusion to the disciples in a body meant of necessity the whole number\nof the Twelve. We must remember by the way that the Twelve were not yet\nchosen; but in any case we must expect language to be rough and\napproximate. If we are really to think of the author of the Gospel as\n\u2018the disciple whom Jesus loved,\u2019 we should doubtless be right in\nassuming that the love was ardently returned. We may think of the\nApostle as a youth, only just out of boyhood, and with something of the\nfidelity of a dog for his master, who does not like to be long out of\nhis sight. \u2018_Sicut oculi servorum in manibus dominorum suorum, sicut\noculi ancillae in manibus dominae suae_\u2018: we may picture to ourselves\nthis gentle youth seated a pace or two away, and not wishing to obtrude\nhis presence, but eagerly drinking in all that passed.\n\nIn chap. v, the disciples are not prominent; but in chap. vi, before the\nfeeding of the multitude, we have one of those little dialogues which\nare so characteristic of this Gospel, bringing in two of the disciples\nwho are both mentioned by name (vi. 5-10). At the end of the chapter\n(vers. 60-71) we are again taken into the midst of the circle of the\ndisciples. We see some perplexed, and some falling away, and an echo\nreaches us of St. Peter\u2019s confession. At the same time we have a\npremonitory hint, such as we may be sure that other members of the\nTwelve recalled after the fact, that one of their number was a traitor.\n\nAbout chap. vii I shall have occasion to speak later. I will only now\npoint to the discussion with which it begins between Jesus and His\nbrethren (vers. 3-8). This again\u2014if it is not pure invention\u2014is only\nlikely to have been reported by one who was in the closest intimacy, not\nonly with the disciples of Jesus but with His domestic circle. And again\nwe have to ask, what motive there could be for invention. If the Gospel\ngives examples of belief, and tries to promote belief, it does not on\nthat account suppress examples of unbelief, even among the nearest\nrelations. This episode is St. John\u2019s counterpart to Mark iii. 21: \u2018His\nfriends (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) ... went out to lay hold on him: for they said,\nHe is beside himself.\u2019\n\nThe next occasion on which we are reminded of the intimate personal side\nof our Lord\u2019s ministry is the story of Lazarus. Here we have two groups,\ninto the interior of which we are allowed some glimpses. The family at\nBethany is one, the company of the Twelve is the other. Here once more\nwe see what passed from within. The passage, vers. 7-16, is full of\ndelicate portraiture. We have the remonstrances of the Twelve as a body;\nmoving in a higher plane than these, we have the divine insight which\nsees what they cannot see, and knows what it will do; and lastly, we\nhave the impulsive, despondent, faithful Thomas\u2014a figure so clearly\ndrawn in the few strokes that are allotted to it\u2014fully recognizing and\nperhaps exaggerating the dangers, and yet not letting its loyalty yield\nto them: \u2018Let us also go, that we may die with Him.\u2019\n\nParallel to this description of what passed among the Twelve is the\ndescription further on of the interior of the household, the different\nbehaviour of the two sisters and their Jewish sympathizers. If this is\nnot a picture constructed wholly by art, it represents the recollections\nof one who had himself been present at the events of the day, and who\nhad moved freely to and fro, and very probably talked them over after\nthe day was done.\n\nA natural sequel to this scene is the supper in the same house six days\nbefore the Passover. And, as we might expect, the attitude and\nstandpoint of the narrator are still the same. He shows the same\nintimacy with the members of the household and with his own companions.\nHe remembers the ungenerous short-sighted speech of Judas Iscariot, to\nwhom, with natural antipathy, he attributes the worst motives.\n\nThe incident of the coming of the Greeks, with its accurate singling out\nof the two friends Philip and Andrew and the account of the part played\nby them, also reflects the standpoint of a bystander who is near the\ncentre.\n\nStill more does this come out in the whole narrative of the Last Supper.\nOne or two episodes stand out as specially graphic and life-like. The\nfirst is the whole description of the Feet-washing (vers. 3-12). The\nother is the indication of the traitor (vers. 21-30).\n\nBishop Lightfoot noticed long ago the careful use of terms in this last\npassage. In the book by which he prepared the way for the undertaking of\na Revised Version of the New Testament, happily accomplished ten years\nlater, he called attention to the defects of the Authorized Version of\nJohn xiii. 23, 25:\n\n    \u2018[It] makes no distinction between the reclining position of the\n    beloved disciple throughout the meal, described by \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and\n    the sudden change of posture at this moment, introduced by \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd.\n    This distinction is further enforced in the original by a change in\n    both the prepositions and the nouns, from \u1f10\u03bd to \u1f10\u03c0\u03af, and from \u03c4\u1ff7\n    \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff3 to \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. St. John was reclining on the bosom of his\n    Master and he suddenly threw back his head upon his breast to ask a\n    question.\u2019\n\nAfter referring also to xxi. 20, Dr. Lightfoot adds:\u2014\n\n    \u2018This is among the most striking of those vivid descriptive traits\n    which distinguish the narrative of the Fourth Gospel generally, and\n    which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of Jesus\u2019 life,\n    where the beloved disciple was himself an eye-witness and an\n    actor[38].\u2019\n\nIt has been objected that too high a place is given to the \u2018beloved\ndisciple,\u2019 and that the stress laid on this is a mark of egotism. But\nBishop Westcott has shown (_ad loc._) that this criticism rests on a\nmistaken view of the order of precedence. The place of honour was in the\ncentre, and the guests reclined on the left side. Peter occupies the\nsecond place behind his Master. The beloved disciple has the third\nplace, where his head would naturally be in his Master\u2019s bosom. When we\nrealize this all the details of the narrative become plain.\n\nWhat we have said of the Last Supper applies also to the last discourses\nwhich followed upon it. There too we have the same distinct recollection\nof persons, of the questions put by each, and the replies which they\nreceived. Thomas and Philip stand out in the dialogue of xiv. 4-9. But\nwhat is perhaps still more noticeable is the careful specification of\nJudas (not Iscariot), a disciple otherwise obscure and of little\nprominence, in ver. 22. If this is art, it is art that is wonderfully\nlike nature. We notice also the disciples\u2019 comments, evidently spoken in\nan undertone, in xvi. 17.\n\nWhat could be more easy or more natural than the description of\nGethsemane in xviii, 1, 2, and the explanation that it was a familiar\nhaunt of Jesus and His disciples? This is just such a reminiscence as we\nmight expect from one who had been himself a disciple.\n\nThere is an \u2018undesigned coincidence\u2019 in the fact that the unnamed\ndisciple is described as being \u2018known to the high priest,\u2019 and that the\nGospel, of which he may be presumed to be the writer, alone gives the\nname of the high priest\u2019s servant, whose ear Peter cut off, as Malchus,\nand alone knows that one of the servants who questioned Peter was his\nkinsman (xviii. 10, 15, 26). It was apparently because the unnamed\ndisciple was a privileged person, that he was not called upon to give an\naccount of himself as Peter was.\n\nWe need not go the whole length of the way with Delff, and may yet feel\nsure that it is not an accident that this same disciple, who is so much\nat home in the high priest\u2019s house, should also have special knowledge\nof persons like Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, both members of the\nSanhedrin.\n\nOther portions of chaps. xviii and xix will come before us in other\nconnexions. The important passage xix. 34, 35 has already been discussed\nin part, and we shall have to return to it later. The whole of chap. xx\nis really significant for our purpose. It is a record of events that\nimmediately followed the Resurrection, and is told throughout from the\npoint of view of the disciples. The delicate precision of the narrative\nis specially noteworthy in vers. 3-10, where again we have the unnamed\ndisciple in the company of St. Peter. The story is briefly told, but\nthere is enough detail to let us see the different characterization of\nthe two men. We shall not be wrong in thinking of the unnamed disciple\nas the younger of the two, indeed in the first flush of youth. He is\nfleet of foot and outstrips his companion; but he is also of a finer and\nmore sensitive mould, and when he reaches the tomb a feeling of awe\ncomes over him, and he pauses for a moment outside. The impetuous Peter\nhas fewer scruples, and he hurries at once into the tomb, and makes his\nexamination of its contents. The spell is broken, and the young disciple\nalso enters. I shall have a word to say later of the effect on both\ndisciples of what they see.\n\nIn the rest of the chapter the reader, with the author, is drawn a\nlittle aside and allowed to witness the events one by one; first, the\nappearance to Mary Magdalene, and then the two appearances to the\ncollected disciples, when Thomas is absent and afterwards when he is\npresent.\n\nA like point of view appears in the next chapter. The narrator is\nhimself never far away from the events he is recording. Towards the end\nof the chapter he is pushed forward into a prominence that is only\nfaintly disguised. In the scene on the lake there comes back to him the\nfeeling that had first passed through his own mind as well as those of\nhis companions. They did not recognize the figure that in the grey dawn\ncalled to them from the shore. The instinct of love was the first to\nawake that sensitive quick perception: the old parts are again repeated;\nit is the unnamed disciple who speaks and Peter who acts. But the two\nare friends; and presently, when Peter has been rather hard pressed by\nhis Lord\u2019s searching inquiry and the prophetic forecast with which it\nends, a sudden impulse leads him to turn the conversation to his\ncompanion. He would fain have the forecast extended to him. His\ninterest, or curiosity, is baffled by an ambiguous reply. And here, once\nmore, the writer steps in to prevent a wrong inference being drawn from\nits ambiguity.\n\nSo far we have been following a series of passages which place us at the\nstandpoint of the disciples at the time of the events of which they were\nwitnesses. The writer for the moment revives in himself, or seems to\nrevive, the old impression. If it is not a spontaneous recurrence to the\npast, it is at least successful in giving the appearance of spontaneity.\n\nBut there is another class of passages where the procedure is rather\nmore complex; where the writer not only throws himself back into the\npast, but also looks back upon the past in the light of his subsequent\nexperience. There is no better example of this than the very first that\nmeets us:\n\n    \u2018And to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence;\n    make not my Father\u2019s house a house of merchandise. His disciples\n    remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house shall eat me\n    up. The Jews therefore answered and said unto him, What sign shewest\n    thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered\n    and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will\n    raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this\n    temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he\n    spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from\n    the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they\n    believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said\u2019 (John ii.\n    16-22).\n\nHere we have two allusions to the disciples as \u2018remembering\u2019 something\nthat had happened, and combining it in their minds with an idea of\ninterpretation. Bishop Westcott distinguishes between the two occasions.\nHe thinks that the expulsion of the buyers and sellers recalled to the\ndisciples at once the passage of the psalm (Ps. lxix. 9): he thinks that\nthey applied it to the act while it was going on. On the other hand ver.\n22 is explicit to the effect that the disciples did not bethink them of\nthe saying, and see what they conceive to be the meaning, until after\nthe Lord was risen from the dead. I am not so sure that any contrast is\nintended. The tense (\u1f10\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) in the first instance is indefinite,\nand allows us to think that the application of the psalm was an\nafter-thought; and the attitude of mind which was on the watch for\nfulfilments of scripture came later. However this may be, in the second\ninstance at least, we clearly have what professes to be a bit of\nautobiography\u2014autobiography in which the writer speaks for his fellows\nas well as himself.\n\nExactly similar to this is the comment on the Triumphal Entry, and the\npassages of Scripture which it too recalled:\n\n    \u2018These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when\n    Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were\n    written of him, and that they had done these things unto him\u2019 (xii.\n    16).\n\nIt is an apt description of a process that we may be sure was constantly\ngoing on in the minds of the first disciples. It is a rather different\nkind of allusion when at the Last Supper the Lord explains to Peter in\nreference to the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet, \u2018What I do thou knowest\nnot now; but thou shalt understand hereafter.\u2019 This points to the\ninterpretation which was to come, not so much from Scripture as from\nexperience and reflection.\n\nThe last discourses contain many passages of this latter kind. Their\ngeneral character is prophetic; but the writer and his companions had\nlived to see the prophecies fulfilled. It is very natural, and we cannot\nbe surprised if the effect of the fulfilment is traceable in the form\ngiven to the prediction. The spirit in which the writer looks back upon\nthe events that happened after the Resurrection is that expressed in\nxiv. 29, \u2018And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it\nis come to pass, ye may believe.\u2019\n\nHere is a retrospect: \u2018They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea,\nthe hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth\nservice unto God.... But these things have I spoken unto you, that when\ntheir hour is come, ye may remember them, how that I told you\u2019 (xvi. 2,\n4).\n\nAnd this is another: \u2018Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye\nshall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone\u2019\n(xvi. 32).\n\nA later stage of the Apostles\u2019 experience is reflected in the following:\n\u2018Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the\nworld shall rejoice: ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be\nturned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her\nhour is come: but when she is delivered of her child, she remembereth no\nmore the anguish, for the joy that a man is born into the world. And ye\ntherefore now have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart\nshall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from you\u2019 (xvi. 20-2).\n\nThe great salient fact that stood out in the experience of the first\ndisciples was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and its effect upon\nthemselves. This is vividly reflected in a series of passages:\n\n    \u2018These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you.\n    But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send\n    in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your\n    remembrance all that I said unto you. Peace I leave with you; my\n    peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let\n    not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful\u2019 (xiv. 25-7).\n\n    \u2018But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the\n    Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,\n    he shall bear witness of me: and ye also bear witness, because ye\n    have been with me from the beginning\u2019 (xv. 26, 27).\n\n    \u2018Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you\n    into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what\n    things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall\n    declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me:\n    for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you\u2019 (xvi. 13,\n    14).\n\nIt might be said that these passages are a summary sketch of the mental\nhistory of the Evangelist from the day of Pentecost onwards. They show\nhim to us looking back upon the eventful time through which he had\npassed with ever broadening intelligence. They contain the whole secret\nof the way in which he came to write the \u2018spiritual Gospel.\u2019\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am aware that the probative force of the phenomena which I have been\nreviewing will be differently estimated. I should myself not have laid\nso much stress upon them if they had stood alone, or if they had\noccurred in a different class of literature. The novel writers and\nimaginative biographers of the present day make a point of keeping up\nthe illusion of only allowing the supposed author to use the language\nappropriate to the exact situation in which he is placed at the time\nwhen he is conceived to be writing. But the writers of the first century\nA.D. were not so scrupulous, and what is natural to us would be very\nunusual with them. Still I do not deny that a writer whose habit of mind\nit was to throw himself back into an assumed position, might by the\nexercise of a special gift have been able to keep up the position so\nassumed. But in the case before us, we have the instances which I began\nby quoting where the author claims for himself or others claim for him\nthat he is recording what he had himself heard and seen. This at once\nputs in our hands a far simpler and easier hypothesis, a hypothesis\nwhich really makes no demands upon our constructive powers at all.\nWhereas it is probable that not one ancient in a thousand, or one in ten\nthousand, would have written as the writer of the Fourth Gospel has\ndone, if he had not been an eye-witness; it would have been only the\nnatural way for him to write, if he had been an eye-witness. This latter\nhypothesis therefore seems much preferable to the other. It is confirmed\nby the really remarkable consistency with which the point of view is\ncarried out, and by another large class of phenomena which will come\nbefore us in the next lecture.\n\n\n                  II. The Identity of the Evangelist.\n\n\nBefore we pass on, however, it may be convenient at this point to\nconsider, on the assumption that the author of the Gospel was really an\neye-witness of the events, what are the indications as to his personal\nidentity. If we confine ourselves to those contained in the Gospel\nitself, it would not follow with any stringency that he was the Apostle\nJohn the son of Zebedee. The portion of the Gospel that contributes most\nto the identification is the last chapter, the scene by the Sea of\nGalilee, where we are expressly told that the sons of Zebedee were\npresent (xxi. 2). But we are also told that there were two other\ndisciples of whom the author of the Gospel may have been one. If we\nbegin by supposing\u2014and the supposition is very natural\u2014that in order to\nstand in the intimate relation in which he appears to have stood to\nChrist, the author must have been an Apostle, then by a process of\nelimination we should arrive at St. John; and it is no doubt an\nimportant fact that in this way internal and external evidence would\nconverge upon the same result. But if we look at some sides of the\ninternal evidence, and bring in only a select few of the indications\nfrom without, another hypothesis that has been actually put forward\nwould have great claims upon our attention. It is not on the face of it\ncertain that \u2018the disciple whom Jesus loved\u2019 must have been one of the\nTwelve. He may have been what might perhaps be called a sort of\n_supernumerary_ Apostle. I mean that he may have been one who although,\nperhaps on account of his youth, not actually admitted to the number of\nthe Twelve, yet had all\u2014and even more than all\u2014of their privileges. We\nhave been led to think of the beloved disciple as a youth who, so far as\nhe could help it, never left his Master\u2019s side. We should only have to\nsubtract a couple of years, and the young Apostle of eighteen or twenty\nwould become a stripling\u2014highly favoured, though not an Apostle\u2014of\nsixteen to eighteen, or even fifteen to seventeen.\n\nI am not sure that this point of the youthfulness that may be attributed\nto the beloved disciple was much brought out by the author of the\ntheory. And yet it would be a real advantage. We are told that the John\nwho wrote the Gospel lived till the time of Trajan (i. e. till 98 A.D.).\nIn that case, if he were born about 11 or 12 A.D., he need not have been\nmore than eighty-six or eighty-seven at the time of his death; the main\nbody of the Gospel might quite well have been written (probably from\ndictation) eight or ten years earlier, and the Appendix (chap. xxi)\nadded when the writer felt his strength beginning to fail. All these\nwould be quite reasonable dates; whereas if the writer was a full adult\nin the years 27-9, that would make him rather old by the end of the\ncentury. We must keep down the dates as much as we rightly can.\n\nBut it is time that I gave a fuller account of the theory of which I am\nspeaking, as it was put forward by its author\u2014in some ways a rather\neccentric person\u2014the late Dr. Delff of Husum. I will try at the same\ntime, as well as I can, to balance the arguments for and against it.\n\nDr. Delff is not content with distinguishing the beloved disciple from\nthe Apostle. For him the former is no Galilean at all but a native of\nJerusalem; he is not a fisherman, but a member of the higher\naristocracy, not only acquainted with the high priest but himself\nbelonging to one of the high-priestly families. It was through this\nconnexion that Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, came to make the\nremarkable statement about him that he wore the frontlet or golden plate\n(\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) of the high priest (Eus. _H. E._ iii. 31. 3).\n\nIt will be seen that this is a bold reconstruction; but in this case the\nboldness has a good deal of justification. There are a number of very\ntangible data which the theory works up into a coherent whole.\n\ni. The theory might be said to take its start from John xviii. 15, \u2018And\nSimon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that\ndisciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into\nthe court of the high priest.\u2019 It is natural to suppose that the unnamed\ndisciple here is the same whose presence is hinted at so mysteriously\nthroughout the Gospel. But, if that is so, the relation in which he is\nsaid to stand to the high priest explains at once a series of facts. It\nexplains how it was that the Evangelist came to know that the name of\nthe high priest\u2019s servant, whose ear had been cut off, was Malchus; and\nalso how it was that he came to recognize one of those who questioned\nPeter as a kinsman of this Malchus. It explains again the special\ninformation that the Evangelist seems to have about Nicodemus, a member\nof the Sanhedrin, who is mentioned by name in three different contexts\nin the Gospel. Along with this it would explain the special information\nwhich the Evangelist also seems to possess as to what went on at\nmeetings, and even secret meetings, of the Sanhedrin. We have a graphic\naccount of the debate at one such meeting in vii. 45-52, and again in\nxi. 47-53; and the Gospel has some precise details not found elsewhere\nas to the part played by Annas, as well as Caiaphas, in the preliminary\nexamination of our Lord.\n\nThis whole group of facts is in any case one of which we must take\nnotice. In any case it forms an important element in the portrait that\nwe are to construct for ourselves of the Evangelist, even if we suppose\nhim to be the son of Zebedee. There is no antecedent reason why Zebedee\nand his sons should not have had friends, and even friends in high\nplaces, in Jerusalem. It would seem that Zebedee himself was a person of\nsubstance: he has \u2018hired servants\u2019 with him in the ship, and Salome\u2014if\nthat is the name of his wife\u2014was one of those who contributed to the\nsupport of Jesus and His disciples. We must also remember that the\npractice of a trade or handicraft was not held to be derogatory among\nthe Jews as it was among the Greeks and Romans. There is, however, also\nthe other possibility that the acquaintance of the Evangelist with the\nhigh priest is not to be taken too strictly, but that it meant rather\nacquaintance with some member of his household. The account of what\nhappened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of\nwhat we should describe as the servants\u2019 hall.\n\nii. Another set of phenomena which Delff\u2019s theory at once explains is\nthe extent to which the Gospel is concerned with events that happened in\nJerusalem and Judaea. Delff himself carries out this with a logical\nseverity that hardly seems necessary. He cuts out all the Galilean\nincidents in the Gospel as later insertions. Even so he cannot be quite\nthorough enough, because he leaves the latter half of chap. i, which\nintroduces to us the unnamed disciple in the company of Andrew and\nPeter, natives of Bethsaida. This disciple and Peter were evidently\nfriends: they lodged together in Jerusalem (xx. 2) and go together to\nthe tomb, and they each take an affectionate interest in the other (xxi.\n20).\n\nThis last point is in agreement with the way in which Peter and John are\nfound acting together in the other Gospels and in the Acts (Mark v. 37,\n&c.; Acts iii. 1, 11; iv. 13; viii. 14; cf. Gal. ii. 9). On the other\nhand the scene at the foot of the cross (John xix. 26, 27) would seem to\nbe rather in favour of the Jerusalem theory, especially if we are to\nconnect the words, \u2018And from that hour the disciple took her unto his\nown (home),\u2019 with the tradition that John had a house in Jerusalem.\n\niii. In another direction Delff\u2019s theory fits in well with some portions\nof the patristic evidence. We have seen how it would account for the\ncurious expression used by Polycrates (_circa_ 195 A.D.). Delff thinks\nthat the beloved disciple must have actually performed the functions of\nthe high priest. The high priest only wore his full dress on the Day of\nAtonement, but on an emergency his place might be taken for him by a\nsubstitute; and it is in this capacity that John of Ephesus is supposed\nto have acted. That does not on the face of it appear very probable; but\nwe can more easily conceive that in the early days, before liturgical\ndetails were settled, and when the Christian Church had not yet wholly\noutgrown its Jewish antecedents, one who had the blood of high priests\nin his veins might on some solemn occasion (e. g. at Easter) have\nassumed a part of his distinctive dress.\n\niv. Yet another alleged point in the testimony of Papias would be\nexplained on this theory, and is not easily explained on the view which\nidentifies the John who wrote the Gospel with the son of Zebedee. Since\nthe publication of De Boor\u2019s Fragment (Cod. Barocc. 142[39]) we have two\nauthorities instead of one for the express statement that Papias in his\nsecond book asserted that both the sons of Zebedee were \u2018slain by the\nJews.\u2019 When attention was first called to this statement, the tendency\namong scholars was to explain it away, to suppose that there had been\nsome corruption of the text, or some confusion between John the Baptist\nand John the son of Zebedee. Of course there may have been something of\nthe kind; and yet the statement is quite explicit as it stands, and one\ndoes not like emending away just the words that cause a difficulty.\nHence there is an increasing tendency among scholars to regard the\nstatement as having some real foundation. Schwartz, the editor of\nEusebius, has lately put forth a monograph[40], the whole argument of\nwhich turns on the assumption that the statement is true. If it were\ntrue, the prediction of our Lord in Mark x. 38, 39, will have been\nliterally fulfilled: both the sons of Zebedee will have suffered \u2018red\nmartyrdom,\u2019 and not one red and one white. Wellhausen is among those who\nthink that this was probably the case.\n\nv. Now Schwartz assumes that if John perished by the sword like his\nbrother James, he did so at the same time and at the hands of Herod\nAgrippa I, in the year 41. Of course he can only do this by throwing\nover the data in the Acts, which I do not think that he is warranted in\ndoing. I have little doubt that the John who was still a pillar of the\nChurch at the time referred to in Gal. ii. 9 was the son of Zebedee. But\nit is quite credible that he may have perished, if not at the same time\nas James the Elder, yet about the same time as James the Brother of the\nLord, or in the troublous times which preceded the destruction of\nJerusalem.\n\nvi. If the younger son of Zebedee had died in this or some other way,\nthere would be nothing to prevent us from supposing that the John who\ntook up his abode at Ephesus was the beloved disciple. And it would\nreally simplify the history, and make everything more compact, if we\ncould suppose that the beloved disciple, and the John who wrote the\nGospel and Epistles, and the John who appears to have called himself,\nand to have been called by others \u2018the Presbyter,\u2019 were one and the same\nperson.\n\nvii. It is a remarkable fact that some of our best authorities, while\nthey leave no doubt as to the identification of the John who figured so\nconspicuously at Ephesus with the beloved disciple, abstain from\nexpressions that would identify him with the son of Zebedee. Irenaeus\nmost often calls him \u2018the disciple of the Lord,\u2019 which we remember is\nthe very phrase used by Papias of the Presbyter. He also more than once\ndescribes him as having lain upon the breast of the Lord, but he nowhere\n(I believe) speaks of him as one of the Twelve or as the son of Zebedee.\nPolycrates uses the same designation, \u2018John who lay upon the breast of\nthe Lord\u2019; and the Muratorian Fragment speaks of him as \u2018one of the\ndisciples\u2019: but neither of these witnesses ever calls him an Apostle.\nIrenaeus, however, does perhaps hint at this title where he says that\nthe Church at Ephesus, \u2018having been founded by Paul, and John having\nresided among them until the time of Trajan, is a true witness of the\ntradition of the Apostles\u2019 (Eus. _H. E._ iii. 23. 4). Clement of\nAlexandria also and Tertullian unequivocally call John an Apostle.\n\nviii. If these expressions had stood alone, there need be no great\ndifficulty. We may be pretty sure that the beloved disciple, even if he\nhad not been one of the original Twelve, would be called an Apostle in\nthe wider sense, like St. Paul and St. Barnabas and James the Brother of\nthe Lord. And it would be only natural that he should seem to step into\nthe place of the older John (on the hypothesis of his martyrdom), just\nas James the Lord\u2019s Brother in a manner stepped into the place of the\nolder James.\n\nIt is worth while to bear in mind that the title \u2018Apostle\u2019 was used more\nfreely in the early days of the Church than we are in the habit of using\nit. It was not till about the end of the second century that (except in\nthe case of St. Paul and St. Barnabas and one or two others) it came to\nbe as a rule narrowed down to the Twelve. In the earliest usage of all\nthe word had its proper meaning of \u2018one who is sent on a mission.\u2019 But\nthis usage was gradually lost sight of, and it took the place of the\nprimitive \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2.\n\nIn view of this history of the terms, it will be understood how easily\none who was in the position of the beloved disciple would come to be\nspoken of as an Apostle, and in time to be confused with the older\nApostles who bore the same name. In such a process there would be no\nneed, as Harnack does, to bring in the hypothesis of fraud; every step\nin the process would be really innocent and natural. Harnack of course\ngets into his difficulties by minimizing the designation \u2018disciple of\nthe Lord\u2019 as applied to John the Presbyter, who is also John of Ephesus.\nOne who stood to the Lord in the relation of the beloved disciple would\nhave a right to the name Apostle which the Presbyter, as Harnack\nconceives him, would not.\n\nix. So far it would seem that a really strong case can be made out for\ndistinguishing the Evangelist from the son of Zebedee and identifying\nhim with the beloved disciple. My wish is not to make out a case either\nway, but to state the facts as impartially as I can. From this point of\nview, there seem to be two serious difficulties in the way of Delff\u2019s\nhypothesis.\n\nThe first is that it puts asunder two sets of phenomena that we feel\nsure ought to be combined. We have seen that the Gospel represents the\nbeloved disciple and St. Peter as close friends. And we have also seen\nthat the other Gospels, the Acts and, we might add, the Epistle to the\nGalatians, represent St. Peter and St. John as constantly acting\ntogether. It may indeed just be said that this joint action is a sort of\nofficial relation, which is a different thing from the private\nfriendship implied in the Gospel. And yet we cannot doubt that the more\nnatural and obvious view would be to regard the later relation as the\ndirect continuation of the earlier, and so to identify the beloved\ndisciple with the leading Apostle. Delff\u2019s theory would make two pairs,\nwho would be too much the doubles of each other.\n\nx. And another difficulty, or set of difficulties, turns round the\nstatement of De Boor\u2019s Fragment. It is certainly strange that this\nstatement appears in no other early authority, and especially that no\nhint of it is found in Eusebius. I am not sure that this would weigh\nwith me so much as it would with others, because I always discount the\nargument from silence, even where it is apparently strong, as it is in\nthe present instance.\n\nBut there is something more than silence. The common tradition of the\nchurch did not ascribe to St. John a violent death. And we cannot escape\nthe inference by saying that the common tradition relates to John of\nEphesus and not to the son of Zebedee; because the earliest authority\nfor the tradition, the Apocryphal Acts of John, a second-century work,\nwithout any ambiguity identifies the two.\n\nxi. We might perhaps sum up the whole case thus.\n\nThe Life of the Evangelist falls into three periods: first, the period\ncovered by the Gospel in which he appears as the beloved disciple; then,\nat the end of his career, the period during which he appears as John of\nEphesus: and, between these two, the period of some forty years which\nconnects them together. Now we might say of Delff\u2019s theory, that it\ngives a quite satisfactory account of the first period, and also in most\nways of the last, and that in particular it enables us to work in the\nstatement as to the death of the two sons of Zebedee; but that its\ndifficulties come out chiefly in regard to the connexion between the\nfirst stage of the history and the last.\n\nOn the other hand, the common view gives what I think is really on the\nwhole as good an account of the first period, and raises no special\ndifficulties as to the second, but it does leave some obscurities which\nwith our present knowledge it is difficult to clear away as to the\nthird. And it also leaves the alleged statement of Papias an enigma for\nwhich we have no certain solution.\n\nAt the same time, although the cohesion is on either view not quite\ncomplete, it is in each case far too complete to be rejected in the\ninterests of an agnosticism which only presents no target for objections\nbecause it has no tangible form or substance.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  The division of opinion in this case is among the more radical critics\n  themselves. H. J. Holtzmann, Schmiedel, and Professor Bacon are on the\n  one side: J\u00fclicher, Wrede, and Wernle are on the other; and in each of\n  these instances the opinion is thoroughly characteristic; the subtle\n  and acute minds are ranged against those that are stronger on the side\n  of what we should call plain common sense.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  _Chronologie_, &c., p. 676.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Letter to the Rev. William Unwin, dated Oct. 31, 1779.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  _Character_, &c., p. 387.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  For the proof see especially Lightfoot.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  _On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament_ (1871), pp. 72, 73.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  _Texte u. Untersuch._ v. 2, p. 170. The other authority is a single\n  MS. (but the oldest and most interesting) of the ninth-century writer\n  Georgius Monachus or Georgius Hamartolus (ed. De Boor, p. 447\n  [\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2] \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, where the other MSS. have \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf). The question of the relation of the texts is judiciously\n  discussed by De Boor (Preface, pp. lx-lxxi), but the fuller statement\n  of particulars is reserved for a third volume.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  _Ueber den Tod der S\u00f6hne Zebedaei_ (Berlin, 1904).\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE IV\n                      THE PRAGMATISM OF THE GOSPEL\n\n\n                Different Kinds of Precision in Detail.\n\n\nI hope the title that I have given to this lecture is not an\naffectation. The word \u2018Pragmatism\u2019 is more common in German than in\nEnglish. In English it is chiefly used as the name for a particular kind\nof philosophy which lays stress upon conduct or practice rather than\ntheory. But we want the word, or something like it, in criticism as well\nas in philosophy. We want a word which shall express a tendency in a\ngiven writer or a given book, without begging any questions as to the\nrelation between this tendency in the mind of the writer and the facts\nthat he professes to describe; I mean the tendency to throw his thoughts\ninto the form of concrete pictorial history, whether that history is\nreal or imagined. It is in this sense that I use the word: I use it to\ndescribe a very marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, the\nabundance of detail\u2014to all appearance precise detail\u2014with which it\npresents its pictures. But I do not as yet say anything further as to\nthe nature of this detail or the inference to be drawn from it.\n\nOne of the most uncompromising critics of the Gospel[41] calls this\napparent precision, more especially in the notes of place and time, a\n\u2018trump-card\u2019 in the hands of the defenders of the Gospel. He goes on to\ngive a meagre list, just of some of these notes of place and time, and\nnothing else. His only comment on them is that they \u2018fail to impart to\nthe presentation life, colour, and movement.\u2019 As though life, in the\nsense of active life, and movement were the only guarantees of reality.\nIt is true that St. John is not what we should call a dramatic writer;\nhis narrative has not rapidity of movement. He is contemplative rather\nthan energetic, and yet he has a quiet intensity of vision that is in\nits way not less valuable. He must be judged according to his type: we\ndo not (e. g.) apply to a Maeterlinck the same sort of measure as to a\nStanley Weyman.\n\nWrede\u2019s is a specimen of what I consider poor criticism. It is in\nstriking contrast to that which Dr. Drummond has devoted to the same\nsubject. Dr. Drummond discusses in his judicial manner this phenomenon\nthat I have called \u2018Pragmatism.\u2019 He begins by noting how the writer\n\u2018specifies particular days, for no apparent reason except that he\nremembered them, and sometimes even mentions the hour. He often names\nthe disciple who was the speaker, even when the remark is not of great\nconsequence.\u2019 We have said enough on this part of the subject. But he\nnot only specifies times and persons but also places, with which he\nconnects various incidents, \u2018frequently for no discoverable reason\nbeyond the fact itself.\u2019 Then again there is, generally speaking, the\ngraphic character of the work. On this Dr. Drummond has some\ndiscriminating remarks:\u2014\n\n    \u2018The Gospel is sometimes spoken of as though it were a monotonous\n    unfolding of the Logos doctrine, and brought before us a number of\n    shadowy puppets, marked by no distinguishing features. I cannot but\n    think that this view is partly owing to the prepossession of\n    critical dogmatism, but partly also to the identity of style and\n    tone which, wherever you may open the book, at once betrays the\n    author. The simplicity is not the simplicity of Genesis or Homer, in\n    which we forget all but the persons and events that are brought\n    before us; the dramatic power is not that of Shakespeare, in which\n    the author is hidden behind his own creations. On the contrary,\n    everything seems more or less transfused with the individuality of\n    the writer; and I think this fact sometimes causes us to overlook\n    the wonderful variety of character that passes before us, and the\n    graphic nature of some of the descriptions, which imprints the\n    scenes for evermore on the imagination\u2019 (_The Character and\n    Authorship_, &c., p. 376).\n\nI am not sure that we might not say that, so far as the narrative is\nconcerned, the simplicity is really like that of Genesis: there is a\nBiblical style of narration, which descended down the centuries, and\nwhich the writer has thoroughly assimilated. But then his own\npersonality must be added to this, and there was much more in his mind\nbesides the impulse of simple narration. It is, as we shall see, the\ndiscourses, and especially the longer discourses, in which this personal\nelement comes out most strongly, and which make it seem so dominant. But\nDr. Drummond is certainly right in laying stress on the \u2018variety of\ncharacter that passes before us, and the graphic nature of some of the\ndescriptions.\u2019\n\nBut when he has said this, Dr. Drummond turns round upon himself, and\nproceeds to discount the inference that might be drawn from these\ncharacteristics of the Gospel. While allowing that they fit in\nexcellently with the external evidence, he will not urge them as an\nindependent proof of authorship, because \u2018the introduction of names and\ndetails is quite in accordance with the usage of Apocryphal\ncomposition.\u2019\n\nThis is true, and the examples given are quite to the point. The\nApocryphal Gospels and Acts are plentifully sprinkled with names. We\nobserve, however, that names of places are somewhat less common than\nnames of persons; and where there is any real precision in the use of\nplace-names, an inference in regard to the author may often be fairly\ndeduced from it, and as a matter of fact has in a number of cases been\nsuccessfully so deduced[42]. It would be unsafe to draw a conclusion\nsimply from the presence of precise details. But all details are not\nalike; and when they come to be critically tested, they will soon be\nfound to fall into two classes\u2014one that admits of verification and is\nvaluable, and the other that is soon exposed as worthless.\n\nOne of the parallels for the Fourth Gospel specially put forward from\nthis point of view was the Apocryphal Gospel of Matthew, and I took some\nlittle pains to test this in the pages of the _Expositor_ (1892, pp. 172\nff.). It was quickly found to teem with anachronisms and confusions.\nProfessing to describe the circumstances of the birth of the Virgin\nMary, it spoke of her father\u2019s almsgiving in terms borrowed from the\npractice of the Christian Church. There were supposed to be schools for\ngirls in the Temple, modelled upon the convent schools of the fifth\ncentury. The father and mother of the Virgin were represented as meeting\nat the \u2018Golden Gate\u2019 of the Temple. A gate bearing that name may be seen\nat the present day; but it probably owes its name to a corruption\n(_aurea_ = \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1); and though the modern gate, which can be traced back\nto the time of Heraclius, is supposed to represent the Beautiful Gate of\nHerod\u2019s Temple, it certainly occupies a different position. The Gospel\ncontains a developed legend of the Descent into Egypt, which is also\ngarnished with topographical details. These, however, cannot be worked\ninto a consistent itinerary, and an official title introduced into the\nstory belongs rather to the period after Constantine than to the time of\nAugustus.\n\nDoes the Fourth Gospel present anything at all analogous to this? One or\ntwo mistakes have been attributed to the author which are not seriously\nmaintained at the present time. The only supposed anachronism that does\nnot stand refuted is one recently put forward by Furrer the eminent\ngeographer. In an interesting article on the topographical data in the\nGospel[43] he gives them in general the praise of accuracy. He himself,\nhowever, regards the Gospel as a work of the second century, and he sees\nan indication of this in the name \u2018Sea of Tiberias\u2019 for \u2018Sea of Galilee\u2019\nor \u2018of Gennesaret.\u2019 Dr. Furrer points out that this last form (\u2018Sea of\nGennesar\u2019 or \u2018Gennesaritis\u2019) is found in the writers of the first\ncentury, while \u2018Sea of Tiberias\u2019 became the regular designation in the\nsecond century, and from that time onwards. It is found in the Greek\nwriter Pausanias (who wrote in the middle of the century, under Hadrian\nand the Antonines), and consistently in the Talmud. We may observe that\nin any case the Gospel was written quite late in the first century; and\nthe way in which the name is introduced the first time it is mentioned\nwould seem to point exactly to the period of transition from the one\nform to the other. John vi. 1 runs thus: \u2018After these things Jesus went\naway to the other side of the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of\nTiberias\u2019 (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2). There is\nperhaps something a little awkward and unusual in the apposition, which,\nhowever, does not justify the striking out of one of the two names as a\ngloss, against all the authorities[44].\n\nAnother point made by Furrer is that in xii. 21 Bethsaida is called\n\u2018Bethsaida of Galilee,\u2019 whereas, according to Josephus, Galilee ended\nwith the right bank of the Jordan, and Bethsaida is on the left bank.\nJosephus, however, is by no means precise in his usage, as he twice\nspeaks of Gamala as in Galilee, which is much further away on the other\nside of the lake.\n\nProfessor von Dobsch\u00fctz treats as an anachronism the allusions (John ix.\n22; xii. 42) to expulsion from the synagogue as practised upon the\nfollowers of Jesus during His lifetime. But this is surely very\ngratuitous. Partly the argument goes upon the assumption that the\nextreme penalty must have been always inflicted. Partly it seems to\nimply that excommunication was too great a punishment for the disciples,\nat the very time when death itself was threatened against the Master.\n\nI hardly know whether I ought to mention as a fourth example, that is at\nthe present time seriously alleged, the notion that the phrase \u2018being\nhigh priest that year\u2019 (xi. 49, 51), is derived from the fact that the\nAsiarch acting as high priest in the worship of the Emperor held office\nfor a single year[45]. It is far more probable that the phrase is\nconnected with the deep sense which the writer of the Fourth Gospel\nshows of the significance of particular times. I take it to be the\ncounterpart of the often recurring words, \u2018the hour had not yet come,\u2019\n\u2018the hour is come.\u2019\n\nSo that the four precarious examples really shrink up to one, the first,\nand that is explainable without any straining. There is no anachronism;\nbut at the time when the Evangelist wrote the usage was changing, and he\nwas aware of this, and expressed the fact in his text.\n\nAnd now let us consider what there is to be said on the other side\u2014_for_\nthe Gospel from this same point of view of truth to a particular period.\nIs the Fourth Gospel in the main true to the period which it professes\nto describe?\n\nThis is a question that should not be difficult to answer. It should be\nless difficult than in the case of most periods, because as a rule one\nperiod shades gradually and imperceptibly into another, and there is a\nmore or less prolonged transition. But the history of Judaism and\nChristianity in the first century of our era is not like this. There we\nhave one great catastrophe standing out in the boldest possible way and\ndividing what goes before from what comes after. The destruction of\nJerusalem by Titus completely altered the conditions of Judaism, and\naltered no less the conditions of Christianity both in itself and in\nrelation to Judaism. We have to remember that Judaism as it existed up\nto that date\u2014from the time of Josiah to the year 70 A.D.\u2014had been the\nmost centralized religion of the ancient world. Its system of worship,\nits hierarchy, and what remained to it of self-government, all had a\nsingle centre in the holy place and the holy city, the temple and\nJerusalem. It is true that there was the newer institution of\nsynagogues, which was destined to play such an important part in the\nJudaism of the future; but this was as yet quite subordinate, existing\nside by side with the temple worship, but not consciously regarded as a\nsubstitute for it.\n\nNow with one single stroke the whole of this temple system, the\nhierarchy, and the Sanhedrin, as hitherto constituted, came to an end.\nIt was not that it went on with modifications, but it was destroyed root\nand branch.\n\nAt the same time Christianity broke loose from Judaism more thoroughly\nthan it had ever done before. Henceforth the dominant forces in the\nChurch were Gentile, not Jewish. In particular the last shreds of the\nidea of a political Messiah were thrown off.\n\nThese considerations supply us with abundant means of testing the\npicture of the time that we have in the Fourth Gospel. We can easily\ndetermine whether its features correspond to the state of things in the\nfirst half of the first century or at its end. What we have chiefly to\nask ourselves is, does the Fourth Gospel presuppose a centralized\nreligion or a de-centralized? We may discuss this in relation to (i) the\npilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Jewish feasts; (ii) the detailed\nceremonies connected with those feasts; (iii) the temple itself; (iv)\nthe state of sects and parties; (v) the Messianic expectation.\n\n\n                            i. Pilgrimages.\n\n\nIt is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, as compared with the common\nmatter of the Synoptics, that it alone represents our Lord as making a\nnumber of pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the express purpose of attending\nthe Jewish feasts. The Synoptic narrative mentions only a single\nPassover at the very end of our Lord\u2019s public ministry, which led to His\narrest and death. St. John mentions three Passovers as falling in the\ncourse of the ministry: one soon after it may be said to have begun, one\nin the middle, and one at the end. Beside this there is an unnamed feast\nin v. 1; there is a Feast of Tabernacles which our Lord attends in vii.\n2, 10; and the Feast of Dedication is expressly mentioned in x. 22.\n\nIt is somewhat surprising that Dr. Drummond, who takes in general so\nfavourable a view of the Fourth Gospel, should seem to be in doubt as to\nthese visits and these feasts, and should sum up rather against\nthem[46]. I must not stay now to go fully into the question of their\nhistorical character, which will come before us again. But, speaking\nbroadly, I may point to the improbability that a pious Jew, within the\nHoly Land and not a member of the Dispersion, would neglect to attend\nthe feasts for so long a time and in the course of a religious mission\naddressed directly to his countrymen. I must needs think it wholly\nimprobable. And apart from this improbability, we should have to account\nfor the determined hostility of the authorities at Jerusalem, which had\nmanifested itself before the last Passover, and which came to a head in\nproposals of betrayal so soon after its victim had set foot in\nJerusalem.\n\nHowever this may be\u2014and I reserve the fuller discussion for the\npresent\u2014in any case it must be allowed that the narrative of the Fourth\nGospel is in the strictest accordance with the religious customs of the\ntime to which it relates, and not in accordance with those at the time\nwhen the Gospel was written. We must at least set down this fact as\nmarkedly to its credit.\n\n\n\n\n                            ii. Ceremonies.\n\n\nThe effect of this is heightened when we further observe that the feasts\nare more than once not mentioned barely, but with some little allusion\nthat agrees well with what we know of them from other sources.\n\nI will not lay much stress upon what is said of the first Passover in\nchap. ii, because it might be thought that the account of the cleansing\nof the Temple is simply derived from the Synoptics, although in them it\nappears at a later period. It is, however, worth while to point out the\nspecially graphic delineation in the Fourth Gospel (the upsetting of the\nmoney-changers\u2019 piles of coin, and the address to the sellers of doves,\nwhose commodities could not be overturned or driven out). Little touches\nof this kind acquire an increased importance from the fact that the\nmarketing in the temple courts, even if it survived the drastic\ntreatment described in the Gospel, in any case did not survive the\nevents of 70 A.D.\n\nThere is nothing very special in connexion with the unnamed feast; and\nthe Passover of vi. 4 is mentioned only by the way. But in the account\nof the Feast of Tabernacles there is a precise touch in vii. 37, \u2018on the\nlast day, the great day of the feast.\u2019 This shows accurate knowledge,\nbecause the last day was kept as a sabbath with an \u2018holy convocation\u2019\n(Lev. xxiii. 36). Whether, as many have supposed, our Lord\u2019s words on\nthis day (\u2018If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink\u2019) were\nsuggested by the libations of water from Siloam poured out during the\nfeast, is a question of association that is hardly capable of proof, but\nmay be true[47].\n\nThere is nice accuracy in the picture presented by xi. 55-7:\u2014\n\n    \u2018Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many went up to\n    Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to purify\n    themselves. They sought therefore for Jesus, and spake one with\n    another, as they stood in the temple, What think ye? That he will\n    not come to the feast? Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had\n    given commandment, that, if any man knew where he was, he should\n    shew it, that they might take him.\u2019\n\nThe strictest ritualistic purity was required of those who took part in\nthe feast. \u2018Every man,\u2019 said R. Isaac, \u2018is bound to purify himself for\nthe feast\u2019 (Lightfoot, _Hor. Hebr._ ad loc.). The purifying might take\nquite seven days, and during this time the pilgrims to the feast would\nbe standing about and often conversing among themselves, and the rumours\nof the day would circulate freely among them.\n\nThere are several pointed allusions in the Gospel to the laws of\nLevitical purity. The mention of the water-jars at the miracle of Cana\nis one; the dispute of John\u2019s disciples with a Jew about purifying is\nperhaps another; we have just had a third; and a fourth is in xviii. 28,\nwhere the Sanhedrists are prevented from entering the _praetorium_, in\norder not to incur defilement, and so be prevented from eating the\npassover[48]. These allusions are really, if we think of it, very\nstriking. They fit into the narrative with perfect ease and\nappropriateness; and they are admirably natural if the author of the\nGospel was really St. John, a Christian brought up as a Jew, and even as\nit would seem in some way personally connected with the priesthood, who\nhad been himself in the company of Jesus, had himself held intercourse\nwith disciples of the Baptist, and himself moved about among the crowds\nand heard their comments. It is a wholly different thing if we are to\nsuppose that all these touches were thrown in by a Christian of the\nthird generation, who could only arrive at them by study and\nimagination. Chwolson says expressly: \u2018After the destruction of the\nTemple all the regulations about cleanness and uncleanness, which were\nclosely connected with the sacrificial system, fell into disuse[49].\u2019\n\nThe last instance that I will notice is xix. 31, which is full of the\nsame truth of detail.\n\n    \u2018The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies\n    should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that\n    sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be\n    broken, and that they might be taken away.\u2019\n\nThe exact nature of the \u2018high day\u2019 will depend upon the day of the\nmonth, which is disputed. I have little doubt that on St. John\u2019s\nreckoning it would be Nisan 15, the first day of the feast of unleavened\nbread, which was to be marked by an \u2018holy convocation\u2019 (Lev. xxiii. 7),\nand which, coinciding with the sabbath, would make it a double sabbath.\nIt would also be the day for the offering of the peace-offering or\nChagigah. This would be on the Saturday morning: when the Jewish day\nbegan (at sunset on Friday) the Jews would be engaged on the paschal\nmeal.\n\n\n                            iii. The Temple.\n\n\nThe references to the Temple in the Fourth Gospel are marked by the same\nminute accuracy.\n\nThere is a remarkable allusion in ii. 20, where we might paraphrase the\nforce of the aorist by saying in our own idiom, \u2018it took forty-six years\nto build this temple.\u2019 The calculation is exact, though we must suppose\nthe word for temple (\u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2, \u2018the holy place\u2019) to be used somewhat\nloosely. The building of the Temple appears to have been begun about\n20-19 B.C. The holy place or sanctuary proper is said to have been\nfinished in eighteen months; but the whole complex of buildings was not\nfinished till the reign of Nero. Reckoning forty-six years from 19 B.C.\nwe should come to 27 A.D., which suits the chronology of the Life of\nChrist as well as any date could do. It seems, however, very improbable\nthat the date was arrived at by any elaborate process of calculation. We\nare in the midst of a multitude of examples of the precise and accurate\ndetail which is characteristic of the Gospel; and the most natural\nexplanation seems to be that the actual words used stuck in the memory\nof the Apostle, and were reproduced by him just as they were spoken.\n\nThere are two other close specifications of locality in connexion with\nthe Temple. One is the mention of \u2018the treasury\u2019 in viii. 20. The name\n\u2018treasury\u2019 (\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) was given to the thirteen boxes with\nfunnel-shaped openings which stood round the women\u2019s court. This court\nwas not confined to women, and was used indifferently by both sexes; but\nit was the point beyond which women were not allowed to pass.\n\nThe other part of the Temple mentioned is \u2018Solomon\u2019s porch\u2019 in x. 23. It\nis explained that Jesus was walking here because of the season of the\nyear. The time was the Feast of the Dedication, which was held late in\nDecember, when those who walked in the open court would be exposed to\nsnow or rain.\n\nThese points relating to the Temple are of more importance, because at\nthe time when the Gospel was written the Temple was a heap of ruins,\nwhich had long ceased to be frequented for worship, and of which an\naccurate knowledge could hardly be expected except from a few Rabbinical\nstudents, like the author of the tract _Middoth_, and those who had used\nthe Temple before its destruction.\n\n\n                         iv. Sects and Parties.\n\n\nThe fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. made a great change in the\necclesiastical organization of the Jewish people. During the life of\nChrist this too had been highly centralized. Both the great parties of\nPharisees and Sadducees\u2014especially the latter\u2014had their head quarters in\nJerusalem. Jerusalem was the seat of the Sanhedrin, in which both\nparties were represented\u2014the Sadducees in the numerical majority and\nwith the control of executive power, but the Pharisees in closer touch\nwith the people and with the stronger religious influence. In the Gospel\nwe have traces of both parties and in both characters, official and\nextra-official.\n\nWe meet first with the Pharisees, and that in rather peculiar\ncircumstances, but in circumstances which we may be sure existed. We are\nexpressly told (i. 24) that the deputation sent to cross-examine John\nthe Baptist as to the nature of his mission was sent from the Pharisees.\nOnly one party was represented upon it, so that it cannot have been sent\nby an act of the Sanhedrin as a whole. From the religious point of view\nthe Pharisees would be far more interested in the Baptist and his doings\nthan the Sadducees. At the same time the deputation consisted of\nofficial persons (\u2018priests and Levites from Jerusalem,\u2019 i. 19), who\nwould carry with them a certain authority. Of the nature of their\nquestions we shall have to speak presently.\n\nIn this part of our subject we are a little entangled in cross-division,\nbecause the same sections of the narrative are interesting in more ways\nthan one. Chap. vii in particular will meet us under several heads; but\nthere is just one section of it that I must ask leave to quote in full,\nas containing in a small compass a sketch that seems drawn from the life\nof the Sanhedrin and its ramifications.\n\n    \u2018The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and\n    they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him? The officers\n    answered, Never man so spake. The Pharisees therefore answered them,\n    Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or\n    of the Pharisees? But this multitude which knoweth not the law are\n    accursed. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before,\n    being one of them), Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear\n    from himself and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto\n    him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee\n    ariseth no prophet\u2019 (vii. 45-52).\n\nThe \u2018chief priests\u2019 in this Gospel correspond to the Sadducees in the\nSynoptics; the chief priests and Pharisees together make up the\nSanhedrin. This body had its own servants and apparitors, whom it sent\nto arrest Jesus; and their report is discussed in a debate which we may\nbe sure exactly reproduces the kind of thing that actually happened.\n\u2018Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees?\u2019 \u2018But this\nmultitude which knoweth not the law are accursed.\u2019 \u2018Doth our law judge a\nman, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?\u2019 \u2018Art\nthou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no\nprophet.\u2019 It is a perfect specimen of the kind of speeches that would be\nmade, and the kind of answers that would be given.\n\nWe again get an interior view of the meeting of the Sanhedrin in xi.\n47-50. \u2018The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a\ncouncil, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. If we let\nhim thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come\nand take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them,\nCaiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing\nat all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man\nshould die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.\u2019\n\nHere we are introduced to the politics of the time. \u2018The Romans will\ncome and take away both our place and our nation\u2019 was exactly the fear\nwhich constantly haunted the minds of the Sadducean aristocracy, but is\nexpressed in such general terms as would appeal most to the Pharisees as\nwell. The haughty Caiaphas makes a speech which, as reported to the\nEvangelist, he interprets in a sense that was very possibly not that of\nits author. The high priest may have meant only that as an act of policy\na single individual might be made a scapegoat. But the Evangelist, who\nis himself a true prophet, has so strong a sense of divine overruling in\nall that happened and of divine inspiration taking hold of men without\ntheir will, that he sees in the words a profounder meaning than they\nwere intended to have, though not perhaps than they really had in the\ncounsels of God and to an insight like his own.\n\nAnother example of the same attitude of mind meets us a little lower\ndown in another passage that has the same strong marks of\nverisimilitude.\n\n    \u2018They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace: and it was\n    early; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they\n    might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. Pilate therefore\n    went out unto them, and saith, What accusation bring ye against this\n    man? They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an\n    evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee. Pilate\n    therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him\n    according to your law. The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for\n    us to put any man to death: that the word of Jesus might be\n    fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he\n    should die\u2019 (xviii. 28-32).\n\nThere is an often-quoted statement in the Talmud to the effect that the\nJews lost the power of capital punishment forty years before the great\nsiege. The Evangelist sees in this a providential appointment designed\nto verify the Lord\u2019s words, and that His death might take the Roman form\n(crucifixion) and not the Jewish form (stoning).\n\nThere is a singularly fine characterization in the whole narrative of\nthe Trial. Take for instance the following:\n\n    \u2018Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out,\n    saying, If thou release this man, thou art not C\u00e6sar\u2019s friend: every\n    one that maketh himself a king speaketh against C\u00e6sar. When Pilate\n    therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on\n    the judgement-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew,\n    Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about\n    the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! They\n    therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.\n    Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests\n    answered, We have no king but C\u00e6sar\u2019 (xix. 12-15).\n\nThe Roman had sufficient sense of justice not to wish to condemn an\ninnocent man. But the accusers of Jesus have a weapon that they use\nagainst him mercilessly. They know that he was not in the best odour at\nRome. His administration of his province through his own wilfulness and\nharshness, had not been very successful. It was in the later days of\nTiberius; and Tiberius thought something of the welfare of the\nprovinces, but thought still more of having in office instruments on\nwhom he could depend for strict subservience to himself. The accusers\nplay their part with cynical adroitness: \u2018If thou release this man, thou\nart not C\u00e6sar\u2019s friend;\u2019 \u2018We have no king but C\u00e6sar.\u2019\n\n\n                     v. Jewish Ideas and Dialectic.\n\n\nWe are in search of hints and allusions appropriate to the time. The\nevidence is overwhelming that the author of the Gospel was a Jew, and\n(as I think) also a Jew of Palestine. The best critics admit this, and\nit is hardly worth while to stay to prove it; indeed it is incidentally\nproved by a large proportion of the examples I am giving. But it is of\nmore importance to prove that the author was a contemporary of the\nevents he is describing. Now I will not say that the points I am going\nto urge exactly prove this. They do, however, I believe, justify us in\nsaying that if the author was really an Apostle, a member of the\noriginal Twelve, or closely associated with them, the indications in the\nGospel entirely correspond with such a position. If the author was not\nan Apostle, then he must either have been in a position extremely\nsimilar to that of the Apostles, or else he must have taken great pains\nto convey the impression that he was in such a position. The passages I\nam about to adduce all reflect with great vividness a state of things\nlike that which must have existed in the time of our Lord.\n\nThere is just one period in which the Christian Church stood in a\nrelation to Judaism which it never occupied again: that was in its\norigin. Christianity arose out of the bosom of Judaism. The first\ndisciples reached manhood as Jews; they were witnesses of the process by\nwhich Christianity gradually broke loose from Judaism; they themselves\nunderwent a process of conversion; their ideas were modified little by\nlittle as they went on, and in the end the new displaced the old. But\nthey had been as familiar with the attitude of their Jewish opponents as\nthey were with their own; they knew the arguments to which the Jews\nappealed, the prejudices by which they were animated, the language that\nthey used. I repeat, there was one period to which this description\napplied, and never another in the same degree. The Fourth Gospel is full\nof instances of this. Let us turn to some of them.\n\nThe earlier chapters have been drawn upon rather freely in other\nconnexions: we will therefore begin with chap. iv. How perfect is the\nlocal colour of the story of the Samaritan woman![50]\n\n    \u2018The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou,\n    being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a Samaritan woman?... The\n    woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the\n    well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou\n    greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank\n    thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle?\u2019 (iv. 9, 11, 12).\n\nThe standing feud between Jews and Samaritans is notorious, and does not\nneed illustrating. \u2018The well is deep\u2019 in the most literal sense; the\nactual depth is about 75 feet. But how appropriate and natural is the\nappeal to the patriarch Jacob, and the local tradition about him!\n\n    \u2018The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.\n    Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in\n    Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto\n    her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this\n    mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.... The\n    woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (which is called\n    Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things\u2019 (vers.\n    19-21, 25).\n\nThe natural impression of the discourse to which she was listening upon\nthe woman would be that her interlocutor was a prophet. And her first\nimpulse would be to put to Him the burning question which divided Jews\nand Samaritans\u2014Was the true centre of worship to be sought in Jerusalem\nor on Mount Gerizim? It was at one time contended that the Samaritans\nhad no Messianic expectation; but that is now given up. The Samaritans\nnot only had such an expectation, but have it to the present day.\n\nThe Jews at Capernaum in chap. vi apply the Pentateuchal history in very\nmuch the same way as the Samaritan woman. Some of our modern critics,\nwho have a keen eye for anything to which exception can be taken, and\nwho do not appreciate the simplicity which is not peculiar to St. John\nbut characteristic of the Biblical narrative generally, will say that\nhere we have a \u2018schematism,\u2019 a stereotyped formula, which shows poverty\nof invention. On the contrary, I would describe it as a touch of nature\nso ingrained in the Jewish habit of mind that it was sure to recur, and\nharmonizes thoroughly with the historical situation.\n\nChap. vii is full of the kind of materials of which we are in search;\nbut the greater proportion of them we will reserve for our next head. I\nmust, however, just refer in passing to the expression of the Jews\u2019\nsurprise, \u2018How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?\u2019 (ver.\n15). It is just what would excite the astonishment of the populace that\none who seemed to be a simple peasant, and had not been a student in any\nof the current Rabbinical schools, should yet show himself so well able\nto deal with the profoundest questions that the Rabbis were in the habit\nof discussing. This seventh chapter places us in the midst of a society\nwhich, with only a slight difference of method, reminds us of the\nrestless curiosity with which we are told that Alexandrian Christians\ncanvassed the metaphysical problems involved in the Arian controversy.\nIn Palestine the dominant influence was Rabbinism; the one idea that the\npeople had of learning was Rabbinical learning; and so entirely did the\n\u2018scribes and Pharisees\u2019 cover the ground that the appearance of a\nteacher who was neither scribe nor Pharisee was sure to be remarked\nupon.\n\nA little lower down we have exactly the kind of argument to which the\nJewish people were accustomed.\n\n    \u2018The multitude answered, Thou hast a devil: who seeketh to kill\n    thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all\n    marvel. For this cause hath Moses given you circumcision (not that\n    it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye\n    circumcise a man. If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath,\n    that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me,\n    because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?\u2019 (vers. 20-3).\n\nI do not think it can be doubted that arguments like this were just what\nwould be constantly heard at the first beginnings of Christianity. But\nthey belong to the time when it was just in the act of differentiating\nitself from Judaism; and I cannot easily imagine that they would be so\nclearly realized and so appropriately introduced later.\n\nOf the same kind is much of the discussion in ch. viii. I do not\nundertake to say that this discussion, or other discussions in the\nFourth Gospel, are given exactly as they really happened. I am quite\nprepared to believe that especially the part in them taken by our Lord\nHimself was a little different from that which He is represented as\ntaking. But, if I think this, it is because the narrative seems to me\n(if it is not too much of a paradox to say so) even too true to the time\nand circumstances in which the discussion took place. No doubt our Lord\nis represented as holding Himself apart from and above the Jewish\ncontroversialists. I feel sure that He did this; but, with the Synoptic\nGospels before me, I suspect that He did it in a slightly different, i.\ne. in a more reserved and\u2014if I may be forgiven the expression\u2014delicate\nway.\n\nWith thus much of preface I will just give a specimen of what I mean by\ntruth to the time and circumstances.\n\n    \u2018The Jews answered and said unto Him, Say we not well that thou art\n    a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil;\n    but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour me.... The Jews said unto\n    him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the\n    prophets; and thou sayest, if a man keep my word, he shall never\n    taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is\n    dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?\u2019 (vers.\n    48, 49, 52, 53).\n\n\u2018Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil\u2019; \u2018Abraham is dead, and the\nprophets.\u2019 These are exactly the things that would be said, and that we\nmay be sure were said. But I am not satisfied with the hypothesis that\nthe author who wrote them was a Jew of Palestine. I believe that he was,\nand must have been, an actual contemporary and eye-witness of what he is\nrecording.\n\nThe same conclusion forces itself upon us all through the next chapter,\nwhich is steeped in Jewish ideas and customs; and those not Jewish ideas\nand customs in the abstract, but in direct and close connexion with the\nJewish controversy as it existed in the time of our Lord and centring in\nHis person. I single out a few of the verses that illustrate this most\nvividly.\n\n    \u2018And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his\n    disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his\n    parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did\n    this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be\n    made manifest in him.... Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This\n    man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. But others\n    said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a\n    division among them.... He therefore answered, Whether he be a\n    sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now\n    I see. They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened\n    he thine eyes? He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not\n    hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his\n    disciples? And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple;\n    but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God hath spoken unto\n    Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is. The man\n    answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know\n    not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes. We know that God\n    heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do\n    his will, him he heareth. Since the world began it was never heard\n    that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were\n    not from God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him,\n    Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they\n    cast him out\u2019 (ix. vers. 1-3, 16, 25-34).\n\nNotice in this the following essentially Jewish ideas: The connexion of\nsin with physical infirmity, and the speculation as to how far back, in\na particular case, this connexion went\u2014whether it was confined to the\nindividual affected himself, or whether it went back to his parents; the\nobservance of the sabbath as indispensable to one who really had a\ndivine mission; in reply to this, the plea that none but a righteous man\ncould work miracles; the relation of discipleship, and the claim of the\nPharisees to be in the strict sense Moses\u2019 disciples; and finally, the\ncharacteristic abuse of one who bore in his body the mark of having been\nborn in sin, and yet presumed to teach doctors of the Law; for such a\none expulsion from the synagogue was a fitting penalty[51].\n\n\n                     vi. The Messianic Expectation.\n\n\nWe have already more than once come across allusions to the Messianic\nexpectation as it existed in the time of Christ. But there are a few\nexamples of this to which it is well that we should direct special\nattention.\n\nThe first is the series of questions put to the Baptist by the\ndeputation which came to test the nature of his mission. They ask him\nwho he is, and he expressly denies that he is the Christ. Is he then\nElijah? He replies that he is not. He is once more asked if he is the\nexpected prophet like unto Moses; and to this too he answers, No. His\nquestioners draw the natural inference, and call upon him to explain\nwhat is his authority for administering this new rite of baptism, if he\nhad none of these credentials. Thereupon he discriminates between his\nown mission and that of his greater successor.\n\nIt may be contended that this passage was suggested by two parallel\ngroups in the Synoptics, the speculations of Herod Antipas as to our\nLord\u2014that He is the Baptist risen from the dead, or Elijah, or a prophet\n(Mark vi. 14-16; Matt. xiv. 1, 2; Luke ix. 7, 8), and the preliminary of\nSt. Peter\u2019s confession, when the disciples are asked by their Master as\nto the common opinion about Him and they reply that some supposed Him to\nbe the Baptist and others Elijah, and others again, one of the prophets\n(Mark viii. 27, 28; Matt. xvi. 13, 14; Luke ix. 18, 19).\n\nThere are doubtless the two possibilities: the questions attributed to\nthe deputation in St. John, if we suppose that the author was really\nremote from the events, would be suggested by passages like these; if he\nwas an eye-witness, it would be more probable that they were taken\ndirectly from the life, or at least from the personal knowledge of the\nwriter that such ideas were commonly entertained at the time. There are\nseveral reasons for thinking that this latter hypothesis is the easier\nand less artificial. To suppose that the scene was a literary invention\nwould involve the adaptation to the Baptist of what was originally said\nof Christ. It is also against the supposition that the questions are\nborrowed from the Synoptists, that in one important point they run\ndirectly counter to the Synoptic tradition. When the Baptist is asked if\nhe is Elijah, he says that he is not, whereas the Synoptists\npersistently identify him with Elijah, and that upon the authority of\nChrist Himself (Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 10-13; Mark ix. 11-13). There is\nanother noticeable divergence. In St. John the question relates to\n\u2018_the_ prophet,\u2019 with direct reference to Deut. xviii. 15, 18; in the\nSynoptists the phrase used is \u2018a prophet, as one of the prophets,\u2019 or\n\u2018one of the prophets.\u2019 These are the forms of the phrase in St. Mark,\nwhich is fundamental. On the second occasion St. Matthew substitutes\n\u2018Jeremiah or one of the prophets\u2019; on both occasions St. Luke has \u2018one\nof the old prophets is (was) risen again.\u2019 The difference between the\ntwo versions is rather marked, though no doubt the Synoptic idea\nultimately goes back to Deut. xviii, like the other. For these reasons\nthe hypothesis that St. John is drawing from the life seems distinctly\npreferable.\n\nAllusion has already been made to some of the popular ideas and to the\nmeeting of the Sanhedrin in chap. vii. That chapter is especially\nimportant from our present point of view, that of the Messianic\nexpectation. We see there reproduced with wonderful vividness just such\nan undercurrent of criticism as we may be sure was constantly going on,\nparticularly in Jerusalem.\n\n    \u2018Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he whom they\n    seek to kill? And lo, he speaketh openly, and they say nothing unto\n    him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ?\n    Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when the Christ cometh,\n    no one knoweth whence he is.\u2019\n\n    \u2018But of the multitude many believed on him; and they said, When the\n    Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man\n    hath done?\u2019\n\n    \u2018Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said,\n    This is of a truth the prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But\n    some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the\n    Scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from\n    Bethlehem, the village where David was? So there arose a division in\n    the multitude because of him. And some of them would have taken him;\n    but no man laid hands on him.\u2019\n\n    \u2018They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search,\n    and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet\u2019 (vers. 25-7, 31,\n    40-4, 52).\n\nIt is to be observed that several of the points in the expectation thus\ndepicted are of a somewhat recondite character. \u2018We know this man whence\nhe is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.\u2019 This\npoint can be verified, at least approximately. There is a Jewish saying\nthat \u2018three things come wholly unexpected, Messiah, a god-send, and a\nscorpion[52].\u2019 And Justin Martyr alludes to another tradition, that the\nMessiah would not even know his own mission until he was anointed by\nElijah[53]\u2014the idea of this was perhaps suggested by the anointing of\nDavid.\n\nAgain we note that the writer assumes the point of view of the crowd,\naccording to which Christ was regarded as coming from Nazareth in\nGalilee, though in any case he had before him the First and Third\nGospels which placed His birth in Bethlehem. Not a hint escapes the\nEvangelist of his knowledge of this, although the point is brought as an\nobjection to our Lord\u2019s Messianic claims. In other words, the Gospel\nreflects the real state of things in A.D. 28, not the Christian beliefs\nof A.D. 90. We have to say the same of the test applied by the\nSanhedrin, that a prophet was not to be looked for from Galilee.\n\nAll these points agree beautifully with the time when Jesus was moving\nabout with His disciples among His countrymen, a time of which the\ngenuine recollection must have been long lost to all those Christians\nwho had not themselves actually lived in it. The same comment would have\nto be made upon the language in which the Evangelist more than once\nrefers to Christ\u2019s mission, or rather the popular conception of it. In\nvi. 15, the people are represented as coming to take Him by force and\nmake Him king; and at the entry into Jerusalem He is greeted as the King\nof Israel, and the prophecy of Zechariah is applied to Him, \u2018Behold thy\nKing cometh, &c.\u2019 In all this there are evident traces of the unreformed\nMessianic idea, as associated with political domination. By the year 90\nall such ideas must have entirely vanished, and it must have required an\neffort of mind to recover them which one who had not been himself\nconnected with the events would have had no incentive to make.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am greatly mistaken if the mass of particulars collected in this\nlecture does not come home to the mind with great, and even\noverwhelming, force. In me at least it inspires, and has always inspired\never since I took up the study of the Gospel, a strong conviction that\nit could only be the work of one who had really lived through the events\nthat he describes. Perhaps there is a little exaggeration in the phrase\nthat it \u2018could only be\u2019 such a one. It is the kind of rough approximate\nphrase that one is apt to use for practical common-sense purposes.\nStrictly speaking, there is the other alternative, of which we ought not\nwholly to lose sight, that the author was a second-century Christian,\nperhaps of Jewish descent and with some Jewish training, who by a _tour\nde force_ threw himself back into the circumstances of the time and had\na wonderful success in reproducing them. Dr. Drummond reminds us that\nthere is this alternative.\n\n    \u2018It is sometimes said that to produce an untrue narrative possessing\n    such verisimilitude as the Gospel would have been quite beyond the\n    capacity of any writer of the second century: such an author would\n    be without example; such a work would be a literary miracle. In\n    making this allegation people seem to forget that the book is in any\n    case unique. Whether it be true history, or the offspring of\n    spiritual imagination, or a mixture of both, no one, so far as we\n    know, could have written it in the second or any other century,\n    except the man who did write it; and to assert that an unexampled,\n    unknown, and unmeasured literary genius could not have done this or\n    that appears to me extremely hazardous\u2019 (p. 378 f.).\n\nPerfectly true; there doubtless is the possibility that \u2018an unexampled,\nunknown, and unmeasured literary genius\u2019 could have done what we find.\nBut as a rule, where facts can be explained easily and naturally without\nhaving recourse to any such extraordinary assumption, the world is\ncontent so to explain them. The practical question is a balance of\nprobabilities. And even now, as in the days of Bishop Butler,\nprobability is the very guide of life.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Wrede, _Charakter und Tendenz d. Johannesevangeliums_ (T\u00fcbingen and\n  Leipzig, 1903), p. 25.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  An excellent example is the treatment of the Acts of Paul and Thecla\n  by Professor W. M. Ramsay in _The Church in the Roman Empire_, pp.\n  375-428.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  \u2018Das Geographische im Evangelium nach Johannes,\u2019 in the _Zeitschr. f.\n  neuttest. Wiss._, 1902, pp. 257-265.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Cf. Drummond, p. 366 f.; and the writer\u2019s _Sacred Sites of the\n  Gospels_, p. 95.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  H. J. Holtzmann, ad loc., and _Einleitung_, ed. 2, p. 469: cf.\n  Drummond, p. 437 f.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Pp. 42-6.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  It is denied by Holtzmann, but approved by Westcott.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  For a discussion of the nature of this defilement see Chwolson, _Das\n  letzte Passamahl Christi_, p. 56 ff.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Op. cit. p. 49.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  It is very surprising that Freiherr Hermann von Soden, in a pamphlet\n  published at the end of the year, _Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben\n  Jesu_ (Berlin, 1904), p. 9, should deny the existence of local colour\n  in the Fourth Gospel. In proof he mentions some half-dozen points that\n  occur in the Synoptics but not in this Gospel; which only means that\n  it is of a different type from the other three, and does not repeat\n  what was already found in them. And yet, even of these points, several\n  come back in another form. It is true that the Gospel does not\n  describe the healing of a demoniac, but it has many marked allusions\n  to demoniacal possession (see below, p. 134). It is true that it has\n  not the name \u2018Sadducees\u2019; it speaks of them rather as \u2018chief priests\u2019;\n  but it is well acquainted with their character and policy (see above,\n  p. 126 ff.). The Gospel has no \u2018elders,\u2019 but it has \u2018rulers\u2019 or\n  members of the Sanhedrin, whose position it perfectly understands. In\n  like manner it has no \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af or \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, but it is fond of the\n  title \u2018Rabbi,\u2019 and it makes pointed reference to Rabbinical training\n  (see below, p. 132). The whole page of criticism, coming from a writer\n  of such eminence, is most disappointing. Either the statements are\n  very questionable as fact or they have not the slightest bearing on\n  the authorship of the Gospel. Why should not an Apostle break off\n  somewhat abruptly in his report of a discourse, or glide imperceptibly\n  from narrative into comment? That is just what St. Paul does, as we\n  shall see (p. 168, below).\n\n  The truth is that the criticism of the Fourth Gospel on the liberal\n  side has become largely conventional; one writer after another repeats\n  certain stereotyped formulae without testing them. It is high time\n  that they were really tested and confronted with the facts.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  On the application of this penalty in the lifetime of Christ, see\n  above, p. 115.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  _Sanhedr._ 97 a.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  _Dial. c. Tryph._ \u00a78, cf. 110.\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE V\n                     THE CHARACTER OF THE NARRATIVE\n\n\nThe last lecture called attention to a multitude of little points that\nseem to lead to a definite conclusion. They almost all belonged to the\nframework, or setting of the narrative, and not to its salient features.\nI was conscious, not seldom, of stopping short just where we seemed to\nbe coming to something of more importance, and to which exception would\nbe more likely to be taken. I stopped short deliberately and of set\npurpose, because I am myself of opinion that from the point of view of\ncritical method, it is just these small incidental details that are most\nsignificant. They are the sort of details that an author throws in when\nhe is off his guard. From them, far more than from his laboured\narguments, we may tell what is his real standpoint and attitude. In\nregard to the abundant details which we have examined, the Evangelist\nhad plentiful opportunities of tripping; but in no single instance is he\nreally convicted of doing so, whereas in a vast number his record has\nbeen verified.\n\nTaking this ample verification of details with the direct claim\nconsidered in the last lecture but one, we have reached a point at which\nthe authentic character of the Gospel, its claim to come from an\neye-witness if not from an Apostle, seems to be really well assured. But\nthe question that now meets us is, how far this assurance is neutralized\nby the arguments brought against the Gospel from a comparison of it with\nthe Synoptics and from certain points of general probability. It is true\nthat there are differences, which may amount to discrepancies, between\nthe Fourth Gospel and its predecessors.\n\nThere is, however, this preliminary remark to be made, before we discuss\nthe differences in detail, that whatever we may think in regard to them,\nin any case the result must in one respect be favourable, and not\nadverse, to the Gospel; it must be favourable at least to its\nindependence and authority. For there are two things to be noticed in\nregard to these differences.\n\ni. The Evangelist had the Synoptic Gospels before him; and, where he\ndiffers from them, he does so deliberately. Either his intention is to\ncorrect them, or at least he deliberately goes his own way.\n\nIt follows that he was a person who was conscious of writing with\nauthority. If he had not been, and if he was only desirous of\ninsinuating his own views under cover of a great name, we may be pretty\nsure that he would have kept closely to the lines already marked out by\nworks that had a considerable vogue and a considerable reputation.\n\nii. And we are confirmed in this opinion by the further observation that\nthe points on which he differs from his predecessors are for the most\npart and to all appearance indifferent for any particular purpose that\nhe seems to have had in writing. He has certainly not gone out of his\nway to exploit or insist upon them. For anything that we can see the\nonly reason that he had for his divergences was that to the best of his\nbelief and knowledge the facts were really as he has stated them, and\nnot otherwise.\n\n\n         I. Alleged Discrepancies with the Synoptic Narrative.\n\n\n                     i. The Scene of the Ministry.\n\n\nOne of the most obvious differences between the Synoptic and the\nJohannean narrative is that the scene of so much of the latter is laid\nin Judaea and Jerusalem.\n\nThe first comment that we have to make upon this is that the difference\nis not really so great or so significant as it seems. From both sides it\nis subject to some discounting, from the side of St. John as well as\nfrom that of the Synoptics.\n\nI have already alluded to the fundamental mistake that is so often made\nof judging the Gospel as though it were not a Gospel, but a biography.\nIf the author had been writing a biography like (e. g.) Mr. Morley\u2019s\n_Life of Gladstone_, he would have felt himself bound to cover the whole\nof the ground. He would have had to sketch the whole of his hero\u2019s\ncareer. He would have had to observe a due proportion between its\ndifferent parts. If the hero had spent part of his life in England, and\npart of it in the Colonies, each of these should have had justice done\nto it. But the author of the Gospel was under no such obligation. His\nobject was not to write a complete and connected history. The Gospel is\nnot a history, but a series of scenes, chosen with a view to a\nparticular purpose of which I shall have to speak later. For that\npurpose geography did not matter: it was quite indifferent whether the\nscene was laid in Judaea or in Galilee. But there was a sub-current in\nthe author\u2019s mind which led him to supplement the work of his\npredecessors, and to notice some things which they had omitted. Perhaps\nthis was one of the reasons that led him to single out by preference\nJudaean scenes. And perhaps those scenes really lent themselves better\nto the object that he had in view. The simple peasants of Galilee needed\nmoral teaching; whereas the theologically minded inhabitants of Judaea\ncalled out more of a theology. If the writer of the Gospel had his home\n(or a home) at Jerusalem, it would be only natural that he would give\nprominence to scenes enacted there. But in any case it is to be observed\nthat the Gospel by no means excludes a Galilean ministry, but rather\npresupposes it.\n\nWe are expressly told (in iv. 44) of the reason which caused Jesus to\nretire from Judaea to Galilee, and it is rather implied that the stay\nthere would be of considerable duration. (\u2018After the two days he went\nforth from thence into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a\nprophet hath no honour in his own country.\u2019) Again, in vii. 4, the\nbrethren of Jesus taunt Him with avoiding the head quarters of Judaism.\nTheir words imply that His work had been done in the obscurity of a\nprovince (\u2018No man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be\nknown openly\u2019). He had not as yet manifested Himself to the world.\n\nOn the other hand, when we come to examine the evidence of the Synoptics\nwe find that it too is by no means so clear as it might seem at first\nsight. From the critical point of view what we have to deal with is not\nour Gospels as we have them, but the original documents out of which\nthey are composed. Thus their evidence is really reduced to that of the\nmain document, which is common to all three and is practically identical\nwith our present Gospel of St. Mark. The second leading document,\ncommonly known as the _Logia_, was a collection (in the main) of sayings\nwith very few exact notes of place or time; and one or two allusions in\nthis would perhaps be better satisfied by a Judaean ministry. In any\ncase that would be true of the special source, or sources, of St. Luke.\nFor instance, the story of Mary and Martha (Luke x. 38-42) points to\nBethany; and parables like those of the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee\nand the Publican would have more local colour if delivered in or near\nJerusalem.\n\nGoing back to the ground-document, we must remember that that too does\nnot profess to be a biography: it is in the strictest sense a Gospel,\nthe main object of which is to produce belief. If we may accept the\nwell-attested tradition as to its origin\u2014that it was put together from\nmaterial supplied by the occasional preaching of St. Peter\u2014completeness\nand consecutiveness are not what we should look for. There can be little\ndoubt that this Gospel was really full of gaps, into which there is\nnothing to prevent us from inserting such southward excursions as we\nfind described in the Fourth Gospel. It is true that there is something\nrather strange in the fact that our Second Gospel should be so\npredominantly taken up with Galilee. Nothing that we know quite serves\nto explain this. But, however that may be, the unsolved problem has more\nto do with St. Mark than with St. John.\n\nThe antecedent probabilities of the case are really in favour of St.\nJohn\u2019s narrative and not against it. It is not likely that a pious Jew\nwould neglect the command to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem.\nNeither is it likely that a religious reformer would be content to work\nand teach only in a province. \u2018It cannot be that a prophet perish out of\nJerusalem\u2019 (Luke xiii. 33) is a Synoptic saying; and it would be strange\nif the prophet only went to Jerusalem to die. It may be true that some\nof the traces of acquaintance with inhabitants of Judaea, such as the\nowners of the ass requisitioned for the public entry into Jerusalem and\nof the upper room in which the last Passover was eaten, might be\naccounted for by visits paid to the south before the active ministry of\nJesus began. But this would not hold so well of cases like those of\nJudas Iscariot and Joseph of Arimathaea, whose relation to Jesus is\nassociated with His religious work. Of course the proof is not decisive;\nbut both these and many other indications would be better satisfied if\nthe ministry had really been carried on in Judaea as well as Galilee. In\nthat case we should better understand why the Pharisees sent emissaries\nto the north to watch what was going on (Mark iii. 22, vii. 1), and also\nhow events gradually led up to the final crisis; how the populace was\nworked up to the enthusiasm which greeted the public entry, and how the\nhostility of the rulers was deepened until it could be satisfied with\nnothing short of death. If the Synoptic narrative had stood alone, the\ncatastrophe would be too sudden and abrupt.\n\n\n                   ii. The Duration of the Ministry.\n\n\nThe question as to the length of our Lord\u2019s ministry is allied to that\nas to its place. As to this, however, I should not be prepared to speak\nwith quite so much confidence. Antecedently we have no sufficient means\nof saying whether a period of a little over one year or a little over\ntwo years would be more probable. Over such work a year is soon gone;\nand the relation of the different Synoptic documents to each other seems\nto show that all are but fragmentary and give an imperfect account of\nthe events. The plucking of the ears of corn (or \u2018grain,\u2019 Amer. R. V.)\nhas been taken to point to the occurrence of a Passover in the course of\nthe Galilean ministry, because it would be at Passover time that the\ngrain was beginning to ripen. We cannot press this very far; the\nincident may have occurred (if we have not to work in the Johannean\nnarrative as well) near the beginning of the ministry.\n\nOn the other hand it is just possible that St. John\u2019s story may be\ncompressed within the shorter limits. All turns on the reading of John\nvi. 4, where it is well known that there is strong patristic evidence\nfor omitting \u2018the Passover,\u2019 so that this feast, like that in ver. 1,\nwould be unnamed. At the same time readings that rest entirely on\npatristic quotations are notoriously precarious; and I should hesitate\nas much to lay stress on this point as on the other. If I myself give\nthe preference to the Johannean reckoning, it would be not because I\nthought that a clear case could be made out for it in itself, but only\non the ground of the general superiority of the Fourth Gospel in\nchronological precision.\n\n\n                   iii. The Cleansing of the Temple.\n\n\nAnother well-known difference is that as to the place assigned to the\ncleansing of the Temple. In the Fourth Gospel this comes at the\nbeginning of the ministry, and in the Synoptic Gospels at the end.\nReally the opposition is only between one document and another. The\nthree Synoptics have in this instance a single base, which is\npractically our St. Mark. In matters of chronology the authority of this\ndocument does not rank very high; so that on external grounds it is\npossible enough that the Fourth Gospel should be preferred.\n\nIt is, however, often assumed that the internal grounds in this case\noutweigh the external. It is held that so strong a measure as the\nexpulsion of the buyers and sellers could only fall in the later period,\nwhen the tension between the two sides was reaching its climax and the\nend was drawing near. I am not sure that this is not to exaggerate the\nsignificance of the action. It is really very much in the spirit of the\nOld Testament prophets. Compared (e. g.) to the slaughter of Baal\u2019s\nprophets by Elijah, it may well seem a small thing. I agree that the act\nwas in the strict sense Messianic rather than prophetic. This I think\ncomes out in the saying, \u2018Make not my Father\u2019s house a house of\nmerchandise\u2019 (John ii. 16). And yet, when we remember that the Lord had\nnot long before come up from His baptism in the Jordan, and still had\nthe Divine Voice proclaiming His sonship as it were sounding in His ear,\nit seems natural enough that He should mark the beginning of His\nministry by some emphatic act. The conscience of the bystanders would be\non His side, and one could well understand that they would be abashed\nand make no defence, like the accusers of the woman taken in adultery.\n\nFor these reasons it seems to me that the inferiority of St. John\u2019s\nversion is not so self-evident as is supposed. If it were, how was it\nthat the Evangelist came to change the accepted story as it reached him?\nAt the same time I quite allow that memory may have played him false.\nThe point is not really of any great importance, and I would not ask for\nmore than that the question should be kept open.\n\n\n        iv. The Date of the Last Supper and of the Crucifixion.\n\n\nFew subjects connected with the Fourth Gospel are more difficult and\nmore complicated than this question of the date (i. e. the day of the\nmonth) of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. As the texts stand there\nis a real difference between the dates assigned to these events in the\nSynoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. There is agreement as to the day of\nthe week. In any case the Last Supper was eaten on the evening of\nThursday, and our Lord suffered on the afternoon of Friday. But\naccording to the Synoptics this Thursday would be Nisan 14, though on\nthe Jewish reckoning (which counted the days from sunset to sunset) the\nLast Supper would fall on the beginning of Nisan 15. The Supper itself\nwould be the regular passover, and the Crucifixion will have taken place\nafter the passover. According to St. John we are expressly told that the\nLast Supper was held \u2018_before_ the passover\u2019 (xiii. 1), on what we\nshould call the evening of Nisan 13, and the Jews the beginning of Nisan\n14; and our Lord will have suffered on the afternoon of the following\nday, that still belonged to Nisan 14, and His death will have taken\nplace at the time devoted to the slaughter of the Paschal lambs (3-5\np.m.).\n\nIt is said that this date is chosen for typological reasons, to identify\nChrist as the true Paschal Lamb. If that is so, the Evangelist has at\nleast not said a word to emphasize the point, and to appreciate its\nsignificance we have to go to St. Paul (1 Cor. v. 7, \u2018For our passover\nalso hath been sacrificed, even Christ\u2019). But the argument may just as\nwell be inverted, and St. Paul may be taken as corroborating the\nstatement in the Fourth Gospel. It is indeed, as I cannot but think in\nthis as in other cases, more probable that the fact gave rise to the\nidea, than that the idea came first and was afterwards translated into\nfact.\n\nThere does not, therefore, seem to be any real presumption against the\naccuracy of the Fourth Gospel. Probably, if the truth were known, the\npresumption so far as it went would be rather in its favour, from the\nearly date and excellent character of the evidence supplied by St. Paul.\nBut when we come to compare the two narratives in detail, the favourable\npresumption is increased by the fact that, whereas the Fourth Gospel is\nthroughout entirely consistent with itself, the Synoptics are by no\nmeans so consistent.\n\nAn interesting point was raised by the late Dr. Chwolson, an eminent\nRussian _savant_, who was a great authority on things Jewish\u2014he was a\nJew by birth, though he embraced Christianity, and became Professor at\nSt. Petersburg and a member of the Imperial Academy. In an elaborate\nmonograph, _Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes_ (St.\nPetersburg, 1892), Dr. Chwolson tried with great learning and ingenuity\nto bring the Synoptic narrative into harmony with that of St. John. The\nattempt was carefully examined by Dr. Sch\u00fcrer[54], and I am not prepared\nto say that it was successful. But I am not sure that one of the items\nin Dr. Chwolson\u2019s criticism of the Synoptic story was completely\ndisposed of, even though so formidable a triad as Sch\u00fcrer himself, H. J.\nHoltzmann and Zahn agree in taking the other side. The three Synoptic\nGospels all place the Last Supper on the evening of \u2018the first day of\nunleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover\u2019 (Mark xiv. 12: cf.\nMatt. xxvi. 17, Luke xxii. 7). Chwolson challenges the accuracy of this\nexpression and asserts that \u2018From the Mosaic writings down to the Book\nof Jubilees (chap. xlix), Philo, Flavius Josephus, the Palestinian\nTargum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uziel, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the\nRabbinical writings of the Middle Ages, indeed down to the present day,\nthe Jews have always understood by the expression \u201cthe first day of the\nfeast of unleavened bread,\u201d only the 15th of the month, never the 14th.\u2019\nThere is something of an answer to this criticism; and it is perhaps\nmade good that by a laxity of expression the Synoptists might write as\nthey have done. Of course the fundamental text is that of St. Mark, and\nChwolson\u2019s ingenious solution by emending the text of St. Matthew is so\nmuch labour thrown away. Still the comprehensive statement as to Jewish\nusage does not seem to be invalidated, and the laxity of expression\nremains somewhat curious.\n\nI can conceive it possible that the Synoptists may be brought into\ncloser agreement with St. John\u2014perhaps on the lines of a paper by the\nRev. G. H. Box (_Journ. of Theol. Studies_, April, 1902), which I am\nglad to see is spoken of with some approval by Dr. Drummond\u2014on the\nhypothesis that the meal of which our Lord and His disciples partook was\nreally the ceremony of _Kidd\u00fbsh_, a solemn \u2018sanctification\u2019 which\npreceded the weekly Sabbath and great festivals like the Passover.\n\nBut in any case the Synoptic version is too much burdened by\ncontradictions to be taken as it stands. Many of these have been often\npointed out In Mark xiv. 2 (Matt. xxvi. 5) we are expressly told that\nthe Sanhedrin determined to arrest Jesus, but \u2018not during the feast,\u2019\nlest there should be a tumult among the people. But, according to the\nSynoptic account, it was on the most sacred day of the feast, and after\nthe Passover had been eaten, that the arrest was carried out. Further,\nwe observe that although the Last Supper is described as a Passover,\nthere is no hint or allusion to its most characteristic feature, the\npaschal lamb. The events of the night would involve sacrilege for a\ndevout Jew. On such a holy day it was not allowed to bear arms; and yet\nPeter is armed, and the servants of the High Priest, if not themselves\narmed, accompany an armed party. Then we have the hurried meeting of the\nSanhedrin who, according to the Synoptic version, would have just risen\nfrom the paschal meal. Jesus is taken to the _praetorium_ of the Roman\nGovernor, to enter which would cause defilement, and that on the most\nsacred day of the feast. Simon of Cyrene is represented as coming in\nfrom the country, which though perhaps not necessarily implying a\nworking day, looks more like it than a day treated as a sabbath. The\nhaste with which the bodies were taken down from the cross is accounted\nfor by the sanctity of a day that is about to begin, not of one that is\njust ending (Mark xv. 42). If it had been the latter, Joseph of\nArimathaea could not have \u2018bought\u2019 the linen cloth in which the body was\nlaid.\n\nWe may add to the above a point specially brought out by Mr. Box. \u2018In\nall the accounts it is noticeable that _one_ cup only is mentioned which\nwas partaken of by _all_; whereas at the Passover a special point is\nmade of each man bringing his own cup to drink from.\u2019\n\nIt seems on the whole to be safe to say that if the two accounts are to\nbe harmonized, it is not St. John who will need to be corrected from the\nSynoptists, but the Synoptists who will have to be corrected by St.\nJohn. And the result of the investigation on which we have been engaged\nwill be that, of the four points commonly alleged against the Gospel,\ntwo are more or less clearly in its favour, and the remaining two are\nnot more than open questions on which either side may be right. Even if\nthe investigation had been more adverse than it is, it would by no means\nhave followed that the Fourth Gospel was not the work of an eye-witness:\nbut its position appears to be strengthened rather than the reverse.\n\n\n      II. The alleged Want of Development in St. John\u2019s Narrative.\n\n\nMore serious than any criticism in detail is the general objection that\nthe narrative of the Fourth Gospel does not, like the ground-document of\nthe Synoptics, supply a reasonable and natural evolution of events. It\nis said\u2014and not without cause\u2014that in the Fourth Gospel we see the end\nfrom the very beginning. Whereas in the Synoptics, and more particularly\nin St. Mark, Jesus does not at first put Himself forward as the Messiah,\nand is not recognized as such even by His disciples before the\nConfession of St. Peter, or by the public before the triumphal entry\ninto Jerusalem; in the very first chapter of St. John He is twice over\ngreeted as the Messiah (vers. 41, 45) and twice described as the Son of\nGod (vers. 34, 49), and the Baptist also at this early stage already\npoints to Him as \u2018the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the\nworld\u2019 (ver. 29, cf. 36). Nor is it enough that His disciples are said\nto have believed on Him from the first (ii. 11), but we are also told\nthat in Jerusalem at the Passover \u2018many believed on his name\u2019 (ii. 23).\nIn chap. iii advanced teaching is given to Nicodemus, and John the\nBaptist is represented as using very exalted language about Him (iii.\n31-6). In chap. iv Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan\nwoman (ver. 26); and we are not only told that many of the Samaritans\nbelieved on Him, but that they actually acknowledged Him as \u2018the Saviour\nof the world\u2019 (vers. 39-42). In chap. v He is accused of \u2018making himself\nequal with God\u2019 (ver. 18). In chap. vi the people are so carried away by\nenthusiasm that they want to force Him to place Himself at their head\n(ver. 15); and once more very advanced teaching is imparted (vers.\n26-58).\n\nThese earlier chapters are the more important because in the latter part\nof the ministry the advanced teaching that we find may seem more in\nplace. The difficulty that we have to deal with is threefold: it relates\npartly to the anticipated confessions, partly to the free use of the\nword \u2018believed,\u2019 and partly to the advanced character of the teaching.\nThis last point may be dealt with more appropriately when we come to\nspeak of the teaching generally; but the other two call for\nconsideration at once.\n\nBefore passing on to this, I should like to say frankly that I am not\ngoing to deny or to minimize the facts. I do not honestly believe that\neverything happened exactly as it is, or seems to be, reported. But in\nsaying this I must add that I also do not believe that, even if the\nargument were made good to the full extent that is alleged, it would at\nall decisively impugn the conclusion at which we have hitherto seemed to\narrive\u2014that the Gospel is really the work of an eye-witness and of St.\nJohn.\n\nIn looking back over a distant past it is always difficult to keep the\ntrue perspective; the mind is apt to forget, or at least to foreshorten,\nthe process by which its beliefs have been reached; and when once a\nsettled conviction has been formed it is treated as though it had been\npresent from the beginning. It would have been strange indeed if the\naged disciple had nowhere allowed the cherished beliefs of more than\nhalf a lifetime to colour the telling of his story, or to project\nthemselves backwards into those early days when his faith was not as yet\nripe but only ripening. It would not in the least disturb our conclusion\nto admit, that in the earlier chapters of the Gospel there are a number\nof expressions that are heightened in character and more definite in\nform than those that were really used.\n\n\n                      i. Anticipated Confessions.\n\n\nWhat has just been said will apply especially to the terms in which the\nfirst disciples who gathered round our Lord are described as giving in\ntheir adhesion. The author of the Gospel was himself a convinced\nChristian\u2014a Christian so convinced that he could hardly recall the time\nwhen he had been anything else. It was natural to him to think of his\ncomrades in the faith as he thought of himself. And if he puts into\ntheir mouths stronger expressions than they actually used, it was only a\nlittle antedating the fact.\n\nBut, apart from this, it is a question whether we ourselves do not read\ninto the words more than they really contain. There can be no doubt that\nthe half-century, or rather more, before the fall of Jerusalem was a\ntime of high-strung expectation on the part of the Jews. The belief that\nthe Messiah was about to appear was widely diffused among all classes of\nthe people. It was this belief which gave a transient success to the\nmany pretenders of whom we read in the Acts and in the pages of\nJosephus. There was the feeling that the Messiah might come at any\nmoment, and no Jew would have been surprised if He had appeared in his\nown immediate neighbourhood. Vague rumours were everywhere about, and we\nmay be sure would readily attach themselves to individuals. It is\nprobable enough that among the crowds which gathered round the Baptist\nthis expectation was even more rife than elsewhere. Those who came to\nhis baptism, we may well believe, were among the most earnest, the most\npatriotic, and the most sanguine spirits of the nation. That little\ngroups, united by local ties, would be readily formed, and readily seek\nto attach themselves to one who seemed to possess the qualities of a\nleader, would be only what we should expect. And if their enthusiasm was\neasily aroused, that would be all in harmony with their surroundings.\n\nPerhaps the most remarkable of all the anticipations in these early\nchapters is the announcement attributed to the Baptist, \u2018Behold, the\nLamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!\u2019 There is no doubt\nthat the Baptist had a prophetic gift. In all our authorities he is\nrepresented as predicting the coming greatness of his successor. But it\nwas one thing to feel a dim presentiment of a mission higher than his\nown, and another thing to predict for that mission at the very outset a\nform which it did indeed actually take, but which it seems impossible\nthat anything should have suggested at the moment. It would be difficult\nto find a better example of what we may call the \u2018interpretative\nfunction\u2019 of the Evangelist. It is evident that the events of these\nfirst days made the deepest impression upon him, an impression that no\nlapse of time could obliterate. Certainly something occurred which in\nlater years gave its shape to this remarkable saying. In the next\nchapter we have a similar saying, the history of which is fully related:\n\u2018When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered\nthat he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which\nJesus had said.\u2019 In this case the whole process was consciously\nrealized; the Evangelist distinguished in his own mind between the word\nas originally spoken and the sense which he was led to put upon it. May\nwe not suppose that in regard to the earlier saying a similar process\nwent on, but with just the difference that it was in great part\nunconscious, and not conscious? The Baptist is represented as repeating\nhis exclamation twice; but on the second occasion the qualifying clause\nis dropped; the words are only, \u2018Behold, the Lamb of God!\u2019 Is it not\npossible that this, or something like it, is all that was actually\nspoken? Perhaps not so much even as this; but in some way or other we\nmay believe that the Baptist did, as a matter of fact, compare the\nFigure approaching him to a lamb. This comparison sank deep into the\nmind of one at least of his hearers; and imperceptibly the words filled\nout with all the full religious significance of the lamb\u2014the paschal\nlamb, the lamb dumb before his shearers, the suffering Servant, whose\nsufferings were also an atonement, the Lamb of God which taketh away the\nsin of the world.\n\nThis is a process which psychologically we can follow. But here, as in\nso many other places, we can follow it far more easily, if we take as\nour starting-point some actual phrase which the Evangelist had heard and\nwhich had lodged in his mind, than if we are compelled to regard it as\npure invention. We may well ask what conceivable train of thought could\nput it into the head of a second-century writer to introduce so strange\nand remote a thought at a point in his narrative with which it seems to\nhave no natural connexion.\n\n\n                   ii. The Use of the Word \u2018Believe.\u2019\n\n\nI have long suspected that one of the reasons for the apparent want of\nprogressive development in the Fourth Gospel has been the ambiguity of\nits use of the word \u2018believe.\u2019 We are told from the first that disciples\nand others \u2018believed,\u2019 and it is natural enough that we should take the\nword in the full sense of complete conversion and acceptance of Jesus as\nthe Messiah. But there can be little doubt that to do so is to read into\nthe word a great deal more than the writer intended. We do not make\nsufficient allowance for the extreme simplicity of his vocabulary. He\nhas but one word to denote all the different stages of belief. We must\nattend closely to the context if we would see when he means the first\ndawning of belief and when he means full conviction. Many times over he\nuses the word of what must have been a quite transient impression. The\nimpression might be confirmed and become rooted, or it might pass\nrapidly away. As applied to members of the Twelve the word denotes\nsuccessive stages of acceptance, culminating\u2014but even then only\nprovisionally\u2014in St. Peter\u2019s confession. As applied to the Samaritans\nand to the mixed crowds in Galilee and Jerusalem, the word probably does\nnot cover more than faint stirrings of curiosity and emotion which\nlightly came and lightly passed away. One example of the use of the word\nis especially interesting. The writer is speaking of the visit of Peter\nand the unnamed disciple to the tomb, and he tells how, after Peter had\nentered, the other disciple also entered, \u2018and he saw, and believed\u2019\n(xx. 8); but he immediately adds: \u2018For as yet they knew not the\nscripture, that he must rise again from the dead.\u2019 We might perhaps\nparaphrase: \u2018The wonder of the resurrection began to dawn upon them,\nthough they were not prepared for it. At a later date they came to\nunderstand that prophecy had distinctly pointed to it, and that the\nwhole mission of the Messiah would have been incomplete without it: but\nas yet this was hidden from them. They saw that something mysterious had\nhappened, and they felt that what had happened was profoundly important;\nas yet they could not say more. The first step towards a full belief had\nbeen taken, though the full belief itself was still in the future.\u2019\n\n\n            iii. Traces of Development in the Fourth Gospel.\n\n\nSo far I have not questioned the indictment that the Gospel is wanting\nin historical development. All that I have done has been to urge some\nmitigating or qualifying considerations. But I believe that the extent\nwithin which it can be said that there is no development, and that the\nend appears from the beginning, is often much exaggerated. The\nunfavourable instances are observed and the favourable are neglected.\nIf, instead of fixing our attention upon what is said of the disciples\nin the first few chapters, we were to look at the attitude of those who\nare not disciples from chap. vii onwards, we should find a state of\nthings differing somewhat from our expectations, and one that really\nbears out the Synoptic version of the great reserve and reticence with\nwhich the claims of Christ were prosecuted.\n\nUse has already been made of the opening paragraph of chap. vii to show\nthat in the conception of the Fourth Evangelist as well as in that of\nhis predecessors the ministry of Christ had been in the main carried on\nin a province and not in Judaea or Jerusalem. The evidence of the same\npassage, and indeed of the whole chapter, is not less clear that He did\nnot go about definitely proclaiming Himself as the Messiah, but that He\nleft His claim to be inferred, and doubtfully inferred, from the\nindirect implications of His teaching. The brethren of Jesus insinuate\nthat He shrank from putting His claims really to the test. It was a\nparadox to suppose that He could work in secret, and yet expect public\nrecognition. If He desired this He should go about the right way to\nobtain it; He should come forward to the front of the stage, where He\ncould be seen and known (vii. 3, 4). On the other hand, the answer which\nthe brethren received implies that the time for this complete\nmanifestation was not yet come; it was to come before His work was\nfinished, but the hour had not yet struck.\n\nAgain, when Jesus does at last go up to the feast, the crowds begin to\nspeculate about Him; but their speculations are as yet quite vague. Was\nHe really a good man or a deceiver? (ver. 12). Had He really a mission\nfrom God? (vers. 15-18). Only by degrees do some throw out the tentative\nquestion, \u2018Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the\nChrist?\u2018 They throw out the question, but they seem inclined for\nthemselves to answer it in the negative (vers. 26, 27). Others think\nthat even the Christ, when He came, would not do greater wonders (ver.\n31). As these discussions went on, some were emboldened to go further,\nand expressed the belief that Jesus was really that great Prophet whom\nthey were expecting. Yet others\u2014but still tentatively\u2014returned to the\nidea that He may be the Christ. But no sooner do they suggest this than\nthey are met by the reply that the Christ must be born at Bethlehem, and\ncannot come out of Galilee. Thus there is a division of opinion, and no\nadvance is made (vers. 40-3). This tentative and interrogative attitude\nis not confined to the crowds. Even in the Sanhedrin itself, though the\ngreat majority scornfully reject Him, there is at least one (Nicodemus)\nwho pleads that the accused should be heard before He is condemned. He\ntoo is met by the same test; \u2018out of Galilee ariseth no prophet\u2019 (vers.\n45-52).\n\nIt is very clear that no sharply defined issue was set before the\npeople. They are left to draw their own conclusions; and they draw them\nas well as they can by the help of such criteria as they have. But there\nis no _Entweder-oder_\u2014either Messiah or not Messiah\u2014peremptorily\npropounded by Jesus Himself.\n\nNor does this state of things last only to the Feast of Tabernacles. It\nstill continues at the end of the December before the Passion. At the\nFeast of the Encaenia, as Jesus is walking in Solomon\u2019s Porch, the Jews\nare represented as coming round Him and saying to Him, \u2018how long dost\nthou hold us in suspense (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2)? If thou art the\nChrist, tell us plainly\u2019 (x. 24). It is evident that up to this point,\nso near the end, the claim of Jesus to be the Christ had never been so\nplainly made as to be a matter of notoriety. It is true that Jesus\nreplied, \u2018I told you, and ye believed not.\u2019 The reference no doubt is to\nthe rather enigmatical sayings found in this Gospel. But even from these\nit would seem that the inference was not direct and inevitable; and our\nLord is represented as going on to appeal not to His words, but to His\nworks (ver. 25). As to the nature of the sayings, there will be more to\nbe said later. But the broad conclusion seems to be that the writer of\nthis Gospel is as clearly conscious as any of the Synoptists of the real\ncourse of events, and that he too was well aware that the Messiah, when\nHe came, had not forced a peremptory claim upon an unwilling people. It\nmay thus be seen that the anticipated confessions of the early chapters,\nwhatever we may otherwise think of them, are really subordinate and (so\nto speak) accidental; the main course of the ministry is not conceived\ndifferently in the Fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics.\n\n\n                   III. The Nature of the Discourses.\n\n\nAnother of the objections brought against the Fourth Gospel that is not\nwithout a certain amount of foundation is that from the nature of the\nDiscourses. It is said with some degree of truth that the discourses put\ninto the mouth of our Lord in this Gospel are different from those in\nthe Synoptics. We notice at once that the parables, which contribute so\nmuch to our conception of the outward form and manner of our Lord\u2019s\nteaching, have dropped out. What St. John calls by that name, although\nsimilar, is not exactly the same thing. Many of the discourses are\nlonger; for instance, that which is apparently addressed to Nicodemus in\nchap. iii, the discourse after the healing of the impotent man in chap.\nv, the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in chap. vi, and the last\ndiscourses in chaps. xiv-xvii. And we observe further that the style of\nmany parts of these discourses, while it is not like that which we find\nin the Synoptic Gospels, corresponds remarkably with the style of St.\nJohn\u2019s Epistles.\n\nIt is not the case that the speeches in the Fourth Gospel are\nsystematically longer than those in the Synoptics. We perhaps have an\nimpression that they are; but, if so, it is not borne out by the facts.\nFor the proof of this I may refer to the statistics carefully worked out\nby Dr. Drummond on p. 24. There is no doubt that the speeches of our\nLord were, as Justin said, \u2018short and concise.\u2019 They had nothing in\ncommon with the elaborate compositions and rounded periods of Greek\nrhetoric. The type on which they were modelled was wholly different. We\nfind the nearest parallel to it in the so-called \u2018Sayings of the Jewish\nFathers\u2019 (_Pirke Aboth_). Each saying is a sort of aphorism; and a\nlonger discourse is only a string of aphorisms, unless it takes the form\nof a simple narrative or description, like the parables in the Synoptic\nGospels or allegories, like those of the Good Shepherd and the Vine and\nits Branches, in the Fourth Gospel.\n\nOne form of discourse, that we may be sure must have been common, is\nmore fully represented in the Fourth Gospel than in the other three; I\nmean the dialogue, and in particular the controversial dialogue, growing\nout of some natural occasion, such as those of which I spoke in the last\nlecture, the woman of Samaria\u2019s appeal to the patriarch Jacob, the Jews\u2019\ndemand for a sign like a gift of manna, the practice of circumcising on\nthe sabbath day, the charge of demoniacal possession and the claim of\nthe Jews to be Abraham\u2019s children. Instances like these must be set down\nto the credit of the Gospel and not against it.\n\nThe longer discourses appear to grow out of the aphoristic sayings of\nwhich I have spoken. Of these again Dr. Drummond has made an ample\ncollection (pp. 18-20). But it is true that the Evangelist permits\nhimself to dwell on such sayings, to repeat and enforce them by\nexpansions of his own, which keep coming back to the same point. It has\noften been remarked that we are constantly left in doubt where the words\nof our Lord end and those of the Evangelist begin. Probably the\nEvangelist himself did not discriminate, or even try to discriminate. A\nmodern writer, in similar circumstances, would feel obliged to ask\nhimself whether the words which he was setting down were really spoken\nor not; but there is no reason to suppose that the author of the Gospel\nwould be conscious of any such obligation. He would not pause to put to\nhimself questions, or to exercise conscious self-criticism. He would\njust go on writing as the spirit moved him. And the consequence is that\nhistorical recollections and interpretative reflection, the fruit of\nthought and experience, have come down to us inextricably blended.\n\nSt. Paul was not a historian, or we may be sure that he would have\nfurnished abundant parallels for the sort of procedure that we find in\nSt. John. He is not a historian, but he does for once lapse into\nhistory, and he does then furnish a parallel which has always seemed to\nme very exact and very illuminating. You will remember in Gal. ii. 11\nff. the account of the dispute with St. Peter at Antioch. The first few\nverses are strictly historical; but suddenly and without a word of\nwarning the Apostle glides into one of his own abstruse doctrinal\narguments as to justification by works of law and by faith.\n\nWhile therefore I quite allow that in any given instance there is need\nfor close scrutiny to determine what belongs to the Master and what to\nthe disciple, I entirely repudiate the inference that St. John cannot\nhave written the Gospel.\n\nPsychologically, the Gospel is more intelligible if one like St. John\nwrote it, one who drew upon his own memories and was conscious of\nspeaking with authority. It is a mechanical and, I believe, really\nuntenable view to suppose that the author has simply taken over certain\nSynoptic sayings and adapted them to his own ideas. We form for\nourselves a far truer and more adequate conception if we think of these\ndiscourses as the product of a single living experience. They are from\nfirst to last a part of the author\u2019s self. The recollections on which\nthey are based are his own, and it is his own mind that has insensibly\nplayed upon them, and shaped them, and worked up in them the fruits of\nhis own experience.\n\nIt is this that really constitutes the value of the Gospel. It is not a\nmere invention, but it is the result of a strong first-hand impression\nof a wonderful Personality. It is a blending of fact and interpretation;\nbut the interpretation comes from one who had an unique position and\nunique advantages for getting at the heart and truth of that which he\nsought to interpret. It is the mind of Christ, seen through the medium\nof one of the first and closest of His companions.\n\n\n               IV. The Presentation of the Supernatural.\n\n\n           i. The treatment of Miracle in the Fourth Gospel.\n\n\nI cannot regard anything that we have hitherto had to deal with as\nconstituting a substantial set-off against the arguments previously\nurged for the authentic and autoptic character of the Gospel. It is\notherwise when we come to its manner of presenting the Supernatural. It\nmust be confessed that the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, while in the\nmain they run parallel to those in the Synoptic Gospels, yet do appear\nto involve a certain heightening of the effect. The courtier\u2019s servant\nis healed from a distance; the impotent man had been thirty-and-eight\nyears in his infirmity; the blind man who was sent to wash in the pool\nof Siloam had been blind from his birth; Lazarus had lain four days in\nthe tomb.\n\nNot only do these details imply an enhancement of the supernatural, but\nit seems that the author of the Gospel valued them specially for that\nreason. They fall in entirely with his purpose in writing. He sees in\nthem so many striking illustrations of the glory of the Christ. He had\nbeen himself keenly on the watch for the manifestations of that glory,\nand he delighted to record them in the hope that they might impress his\nreaders as they had impressed him.\n\nWe must not make too much of the details I have just mentioned. There is\nno real difference of principle. The healing of the centurion\u2019s servant\nis telepathic like that of the courtier\u2019s son. The woman with the issue\nof blood had been ill for twelve years, and had spent all her living on\nphysicians. From the way in which blind Bartimaeus describes his\nsensations we should infer that he too had never had his sight. Death is\ndeath; and Jairus\u2019s daughter and the widow\u2019s son at Nain were as dead as\nLazarus. Really, on this point, there is little to choose between the\nGospels, as there is little to choose between the documents out of which\nthe Synoptics are composed.\n\nA common form of objection is that which lays stress on the isolation of\nthe narrative of the raising of Lazarus. So notable a miracle, it is\nurged, would have been sure to leave traces of itself in the other\nGospels. And I quite allow that the argument from silence has more force\nhere than in many of the other cases in which it is used. And yet even\nhere it is easily, and I feel sure it is often, much exaggerated. The\nonly document of which the author seems to have had the intention of\nmaking any sort of collection of miracles was the ground-document of the\nSynoptics\u2014we may say, our present St. Mark. Neither the _Logia_ nor the\nspecial source or sources of St. Luke do more than mention incidentally\na very few. But when we think of the way in which St. Mark is said to\nhave composed his Gospel, it is evident that his collection of miracles\ncould not be in the least exhaustive. He was dependent in the main upon\nthe preaching of St. Peter, the object of which was not historical or\nbiographical, but the edification of its hearers. If it is true (and it\nis as yet hardly proved) that St. Mark had access also to the _Logia_,\nthat was a collection of sayings rather than of acts. So that there is\nno one source that we should expect to have anything like a complete\nenumeration of miracles.\n\nOn the other hand, if we turn to what I have called the special source\nor sources of St. Luke, how vividly do they bring home to us the\nincompleteness of the whole previous record! St. Mark apparently tried\nto collect parables as well as miracles; so also did the _Logia_. And\nyet neither of these documents has any trace of the Prodigal Son, or the\nGood Samaritan, or the Pharisee and the Publican, or the Rich Man and\nLazarus, or the Rich Man cut off before he could enjoy his wealth, or\nthe Importunate Widow, or the Unrighteous Steward. We should have\nthought it incredible beforehand that any one who professed to make\ncollections with a view to a Life of Christ at all could have omitted, I\nwill not say all, but any two or three of gems like these. And yet we\nhave two considerable works, both including a collection of parables,\nand yet in neither of them is there a vestige of any one of the group I\nhave mentioned. Even the conspicuous example of the Raising of Lazarus\ndoes not shake me in my distrust of the argument from silence.\n\n\n           ii. Method of approaching the Question of Miracle.\n\n\nAnd yet I can well understand the reluctance to accept narratives of\nmiracle. I can well understand a nineteenth or twentieth-century reader\ntaking up the Fourth Gospel and saying at once and off-hand, \u2018The writer\nof this cannot have been an eye-witness of the events he describes.\u2019 I\nhave little doubt that it is the same sort of off-hand impression which\nis really at work in the minds of many of the critics. They acquire the\nimpression in the course of a rapid perusal; or rather it attaches\nitself to the recollection that they bring with them of what they learnt\nin their childhood. They do not try to shake it off; it is always there\nat the back of their minds; and it colours, and I must needs think\ndiscolours, all the elaborate and learned study that they make of the\nGospels in maturer years.\n\nThis question of miracles has been occupying my mind for some time; and\nI think that at once the most candid and the best procedure that I can\nfollow in regard to it will be just to lay before you the provisional\nconclusions that I have reached as provisional, as a stage in the\ninvestigation of a subject that does not at all profess to be final, but\nthat I hope contains something of truth and something that may be\nhelpful to others as it has been to myself.\n\nThe one main principle in the treatment of miracle that I should like to\nurge would be the importance of keeping as distinct as we can two\nthings, the attitude of mind in regard to miracles of the\ncontemporaries\u2014those before whom they are said to have happened and on\nwhose testimony they have come down to us\u2014and our own attitude now in\nthe twentieth century. It seems to me that our difficulties are much\nincreased, and that we are prevented from realizing the full strength of\nthe case for miracles, by confusing these two things.\n\nIf we take first the attitude of the contemporaries, it seems to me that\nseveral fixed points come out in regard to them on which we may really\ntake our stand with great confidence.\n\n(i) The first point is that what these men fully believed to be miracles\nundoubtedly happened. We have evidence on this head that is strictly\nfirst-hand, the evidence of those who believed that they had wrought\nmiracles themselves, as well as that they had witnessed the working of\nmiracles by others.\n\n(ii) The second point is that this evidence is absolutely bona fide. Our\nbest example is, I suppose, St. Paul. It is a good exercise to collect\nthe allusions to miracles in the Epistles of St. Paul, to \u2018signs and\nwonders,\u2019 to \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 or \u2018acts of power,\u2019 to special gifts of the\nSpirit. There can be no doubt that St. Paul was possessed with the\nconviction that he was living in the midst of miracle. This conviction\nlies behind and permeates all his thought in the same natural,\nspontaneous, inevitable way in which he performed, or saw others\nperform, the most ordinary functions of nature, eating or drinking or\nsleeping or breathing.\n\n(iii) We observe further that these extraordinary phenomena of which he\nwas conscious had for him the value of miracle. The ancients conceived\nof miracle as a mark of the presence and co-operation of Deity. The man\nwho could work miracles showed thereby that God was actively with him.\nHence the working of miracles served to authenticate teaching; it was\nthe proof of commission from God. It was in this sense that St. Paul\nappealed to his own miracles as the \u2018signs of an apostle\u2019 (2 Cor. xii.\n12), and in this sense that he claimed that his preaching carried with\nit \u2018the demonstration of the Spirit and of power\u2019 (1 Cor. ii. 4; cf.\nRom. xv. 19).\n\n(iv) If we enlarge our view and look away from the performance of\nmiracle by individuals to the great part which the belief in miracle has\nplayed in the history of mankind, and more particularly in the history\nof the Christian Church, we cannot, I think, fail to see that it must\nhave had a providential function. I do not hesitate to introduce\nteleology. The history of the evolution of the world and of man is such\nthat we are compelled to think of it as designed; in other words we are\ncompelled to think that the Power which lies behind phenomena has had a\npurpose, which is at least analogous to purpose in man. There may be\nsome paradoxical features in the carrying out of this purpose, due to\nthe peculiar conditions under which it has operated; but these cannot\nobscure the broad lines of purposeful development; and over a\nconsiderable tract of that development the belief in miracle has played\na substantial part, and a part that we can see to be deeply interwoven\nwith some of the culminating events in the history of the human race.\n\nSome of us might be content to stop at this point; we might be content\nto accept a belief that has been so ingrained in the mind of man and so\nimportant in its effects and associations simply as it stands. But the\ncuriosity of science is not easily satisfied, and in the present day\nespecially it goes on to press the further question, After all, what was\nit that really happened? We can see clearly enough what St. Paul (e. g.)\nbelieved to have happened, but how far did this belief of his correspond\nto the fact? Were these miracles that he assumes real miracles?\n\nWhen we ask these questions, it is well to remember that we are still in\nthe region of relative ideas; we do not mean so much What is the\nabsolute reality of what happened? as How should we describe it\u2014we, with\nour twentieth-century habits of thought and improved scientific\ncategories?\n\nIt is here that we get on to the really difficult ground. It is ground\nthat by the nature of the case must be difficult, because it means that\nwe have to put a twentieth-century construction upon first-century\nrecords. It is as if a present-day physician were dependent for his\ndiagnosis of the facts upon Galen or Hippocrates; or rather, the real\nstate of the case is worse still, for that would be at least comparing\nscience with science, the science of one century with the science of\nanother, whereas the data that we have to go upon are not scientific (in\nthe sense of proceeding from experts), but rather represent popular\nideas and popular assumptions.\n\ni. In spite of these difficulties there are still, I cannot but think,\nsome general considerations that may help us. The first is that the\ncause must be in some degree commensurate with the effects. Christianity\nis in any case a very stupendous fact; and it will not do to explain it\nas arising out of a series of trivial misunderstandings.\n\nii. The evidence of the Gospels is not quite equal in quality to that of\nthe Epistles. It is the evidence of men reporting what they or others\nhad seen, not (so far as appears) that of men who had felt the current\nof miraculous energy actually thrill through themselves. St. Paul had\nfelt this; it was part of the experience on which he looked back, and\nwhich he felt to be intimately bound up with the whole success of his\nmission.\n\nAnd yet we have to remember that the miracles of St. Paul and his\ncompanions and contemporaries are secondary, whereas those of the\nGospels are primary. They are like the waves caused by an earthquake,\nbut they are not themselves the earthquake. If Christ had not come first\nand done the things that never man did, there would have been no Day of\nPentecost, no outpouring of the Spirit, no overmastering impulse that\ncarried men like St. Paul from one end of the Mediterranean to the other\n\u2018in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost\u2019\n(Rom. xv. 19).\n\niii. The argument is therefore _a fortiori_. The disciple is not above\nhis master, or the servant above his lord. All these subordinate\nmanifestations, though we have in some ways better evidence for them, do\nbut point back to the one supreme manifestation, the Incarnation of our\nLord Jesus Christ. We must never forget that behind the alleged miracles\nof the Gospels we have the absolutely greatest spiritual force that the\nworld has ever known. If our knowledge is as yet very imperfect of the\ninfluence of spirit upon matter in general, it is inevitably still more\nimperfect of this crowning instance of the spirit-world in contact with\nthe material. When we argue upwards from the analogy of the known to the\nunknown, we must always leave a large margin for the interval between\nthe point at which our common experience, and even higher extraordinary\nexperience, ends, and the point at which this highest of all human\nexperiences begins. Even a strictly scientific method should be\nconscious of its own limitations; when it has done all that it can do,\nit should be aware that its ladders are still too short to scale the\nheight that has to be scaled; it must leave room for a venture of faith\nbeyond the furthest horizon of sight.\n\niv. We are not called upon to believe that anything is really contrary\nto, or in violation of, nature St. Augustine laid down, some fifteen\ncenturies ago: \u2018Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam sed contra quam\nest nota natura\u2019 (_De Civitate Dei_, xxi. 8). We can always exercise an\nact of faith, that if we really knew what had taken place, and if we\nreally knew the highest laws of the universe, there would not be any\ncontradiction between them. As it is, there is a double margin of error:\nit is difficult, and in many cases impossible, for us so to translate\nthe language of the distant past into the idiom of the present as to be\nsure that we can realize what are the facts that we have to deal with;\nand, even if we had got the facts, we should still have but a very\nimperfect knowledge of the causes by which they were determined.\n\nv. We speak, therefore, not of what we know, but, as I have said, by an\nact of faith, of that which would be _if_ we knew. In this attitude we\nmake allowance for possible and probable defects in our sources: we make\nallowance for all the disturbing influences that have brought them into\nthe shape in which we see them. But in doing this, we have the\nconsolation of feeling that any element of mistake that has come in\nunder this head has been all of the nature of _extension_. The miracles\nof primitive Christianity are certainly not a series of fictions. There\ncertainly was among them a large nucleus of events that really had the\ncharacter claimed for them, that were really due to the operation of a\nDivine cause, and really bore witness to the presence of such a cause.\nIf there was anything beyond this of a less trustworthy character, we\nmay be sure that it was framed on the analogy of that which is\nverifiable, or that would be verifiable if we possessed instruments and\nmethods capable of dealing with it.\n\nThis principle of _extensions_ is, I believe, of the first importance in\nthe scientific reconstruction of primitive Christianity. It at once\nexplains and covers the transition from that which is permanent to that\nwhich is not permanent. It signifies \u2018the removing of those things that\nare shaken, ... that those things which are not shaken may remain.\u2019 As,\nfor instance, in the case of the belief in Inspiration, there is\nundoubtedly a reality underlying the popular belief both of ancient and\nof modern times, so, also, in the case of miracle we may be sure that\nthere is an inner reality, which no criticism will ever dissolve, though\nit may succeed in making us conscious that the descriptions of eighteen\ncenturies ago no longer satisfy the thought of to-day.\n\n\n               iii. The Gospel embodies ocular Testimony.\n\n\nFor these reasons I do not wish it to be supposed that I regard all\ndifficulties as removed and every question as closed, if I insist upon\nthe conclusion that has so far seemed to be emerging from our study\u2014the\nconclusion that the Gospel is the work of an eye-witness of the events,\nwho is describing for us what he had himself actually seen. I do not\nwant to use any kind of argumentative coercion. I fully believe that the\nauthor of the Gospel occupied this position; and yet I do not mean, by\nasserting this, to impose upon others the necessary consequence that\neverything happened (i. e. that we can realize it to ourselves as having\nhappened) exactly as it is described. For my own part I abstain from\nattempting to re-write the narrative. I know that any such attempt is\nforedoomed to failure. Still more do I refuse to follow those who\nperemptorily dismiss all that they cannot understand. I cherish and\nvalue very highly the assurance that we have to do with the work of an\neye-witness. And yet, as I have said, I accept the result with a certain\nreserve, with the consciousness that there is something unexplained and\nwhich I perhaps myself shall never be able to explain.\n\nThis does not prevent me from making what I can of the easier incidents,\nin which one seems to see one\u2019s way more clearly. I will give an\nexample. One of the great passages discussed at the outset of our\ninquiries is typical and significant in the light which it throws on the\nmental attitude of the writer. We are told how, as he stood at the foot\nof the Cross, he saw the side pierced, and blood and water flow from the\nwound. It is in connexion with this that we have one of those solemn\nasseverations (whether made by the writer for himself or by some one\nelse for him) of the truth, resting upon his own ocular testimony, of\nthe fact that he is recording. The whole incident evidently made a deep\nimpression upon him, for he goes on to quote it as a direct fulfilment\nof two distinct passages of Scripture. And again, in his First Epistle,\nhe refers to the peculiar phenomenon which he had seen as one that was\nfraught with mystical meaning.\n\nNow physicians tell us that what the Evangelist actually saw was not,\nstrictly and literally, what he has described. The efflux from the side\nwas not exactly blood and water, though it might quite well have had an\nappearance like that of blood and water, and the Evangelist no doubt\nsupposed it to be what he says. The blood was real blood, but that which\nlooked like water was a sort of lymph or serum. This would serve equally\nwell to suggest the train of thought which the Evangelist attached to\nit. It is easy to understand how what was for him a strange phenomenon\nat first struck the eye and then dwelt in his mind, and as he often\nreturned to it and pondered over it, at last took definite shape, as a\nvisible emblem, divinely produced, of a principle deeply rooted in the\nChristian religion, the principle that found expression in its two\nleading Sacraments.\n\nClearly here it is permissible to distinguish between the fact itself\nfor which we have this explicit testimony, and the train of speculation\nto which it gave rise. The speculations are such as in all ages have\nnaturally commended themselves to devout minds. There have always been\nthose who have had so strong a sense of the unity of things, of the\n\u2018pre-established harmony\u2019 between the material and the spiritual, that\nthe \u2018outward shows\u2019 of external nature \u2018the earth and every common\nsight,\u2019 have seemed to reflect and symbolize that which is unseen. We\nmay well believe that there is broad fundamental truth underlying these\ndim intuitions, though it may be another thing to say that in any\nparticular case the harmony that is guessed is precisely that which the\nDivine Artificer intended. But the point on which I should wish to lay\nstress is, that the order of thought is from the observed fact to the\nidea, and not backwards from the idea to a fact imagined to correspond\nwith it. And in regard to the Fourth Gospel, I think we may lay down\nthat the Evangelist always starts from something that he has seen. It is\npossible that his mind, acting retrospectively on his memory of the\nphysical impression, may emphasize features in the impression that were\nnot so distinct at the time when it was given. But the notion that the\nGospel is a pure romance woven entirely out of the creations of the\nbrain seems to me contrary to its whole character.\n\nI do not wish at all to imply\u2014I desire expressly to guard myself against\nimplying\u2014that other miracles in the Fourth Gospel can be explained so\nsimply as that of the pierced side. On the wider question I have just\nsaid what I have to say. But for my present purpose, in its bearing upon\nthe criticism of the Fourth Gospel, I content myself with maintaining,\nthat St. John\u2019s descriptions of the supernatural always start from facts\nthat had come under his own personal observation, or that of others who\nwere very near to him.\n\n\n                       iv. A Patristic Parallel.\n\n\nSo far as the treatment of the supernatural has been made a ground of\nobjection to the Gospel, I think we may take a warning from critical\nexperience in another field. I quoted in the second Lecture several\ninstances in which criticism has distinctly changed its mind and come\nback to a view far more in accordance with tradition than that which at\none time prevailed. One of these instances was taken from the literature\nof the beginnings of Monasticism, and more particularly from the _Vita\nAntonii_ ascribed to St. Athanasius. I pointed out how the whole class\nof literature to which this treatise belongs has been definitely set\nupon its feet again. After being at one time very radically treated, it\nis now widely accepted as in great part resting upon good first-hand\nauthority. One of the arguments alleged against the Athanasian treatise\nturned upon the miracles contained in it. But at the present time that\nargument would be differently stated. Whereas it used to run, This\ntreatise contains miracles of a kind that must be unhistorical, and\ntherefore it cannot be the genuine work of St. Athanasius; now it would\nrun, This treatise is certainly a genuine work of St. Athanasius, and\ntherefore we must make of the miracles what we can: a judicious estimate\nof them is given by Dom Cuthbert Butler in his _Lausiac History of\nPalladius_ (1898), pp. 192-6. In like manner I should like to reverse\nthe objection that is often brought against the Fourth Gospel and to\nsay, that there is strong reason for regarding it as a first-hand\nauthority, and that the recognition of this should be a postulate of any\nexamination of its bearing upon the question of the supernatural.\n\nI observe that at the Church Congress recently held at Liverpool, in the\ndiscussion on New Testament Criticism, Mr. F. C. Burkitt made use of an\nargument very similar to this, and that exception was taken to it at the\nend of the debate by the Bishop of Salisbury, on the ground that the\nmiracles in the Gospels and in the _Historia Lausiaca_ are too different\nto be compared. Of course I perfectly acknowledge the difference. I\nwould not for a moment wish to press the argument for more than it is\nworth. At the same time, it seems to me that we must not despise the day\nof small things; we must not reject an analogy simply because it is\nincomplete. It rarely happens that an analogy entirely covers that with\nwhich it is compared. Many an argument is employed _a minori ad maius_;\nand I do not doubt that it was in that sense that Mr. Burkitt wished his\nwords to be taken, as I should wish mine.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  _Theol. Literaturzeitung_, 1893, col. 181 ff.\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE VI\n       THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS, AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE GOSPEL\n\n\nThe Fourth Gospel is like one of those great Egyptian temples which we\nmay see to this day at Dendera or Edfu or Karnak\u2014and we remember that\nthe Temple on Mount Zion itself was of the same general type\u2014the\nsanctuary proper is approached through a pylon, a massive structure\novertopping it in height and outflanking it on both sides. The pylon of\nthe Fourth Gospel is of course the Prologue; and this raises at the\noutset two important questions: I. What are the affinities of its\nleading thought; or, in other words, what is its place in the history of\nthought and the history of religion? and II. In what relation does the\nprologue stand to the rest of the Gospel? I need not say that both these\npoints have been, and are being still, actively debated.\n\n\n                  I. Affinities of the Logos doctrine.\n\n\nThe preponderance of opinion at the present time doubtless leans to the\nview that there is some connexion between the Logos of Philo and the\ndoctrine of the Logos in the Fourth Gospel. But the question is as to\nthe nature and closeness of that connexion. On this many shades of\nopinion are possible.\n\n\n               1. Partial parallels in O. T. and Judaism.\n\n\nIf the Logos of St. John is not connected with that of Philo, the\nalternative must be that its origin is Palestinian. The directions in\nwhich we should look would be to the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and\nthe _Memra_ of the Targums. And it is true that there are many places in\nthese writings in which \u2018the Word of God\u2019 is used with pregnant meaning.\n\n    Ps. xxxiii. 6: \u2018By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and\n    all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.\u2019 Cf. 2 Esdras vi.\n    43: \u2018As soon as thy word went forth the work was done.\u2019\n\n    Ps. cvii. 20: \u2018He sendeth his word, and healeth them, and delivereth\n    them from their destructions.\u2019\n\n    Ps. cxlvii. 15: \u2018He sendeth out his commandment upon earth; his word\n    runneth very swiftly.\u2019\n\n    Ps. cxlvii. 18: \u2018He sendeth out his word, and melteth them; he\n    causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow.\u2019\n\n    Isa. xl. 8: \u2018The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of\n    our God shall stand for ever.\u2019\n\n    Isa. lv. 10, 11: \u2018For as the rain cometh down and the snow from\n    heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and\n    maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and\n    bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my\n    mouth: It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish\n    that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I\n    sent it.\u2019\n\n    Wisd. ix. 1: \u2018O God of the fathers, and Lord who keepest thy mercy,\n    who madest all things by thy word.\u2019\n\n    Wisd. xvi. 12: \u2018For of a truth it was neither herb nor mollifying\n    plaister that cured them, but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all\n    things.\u2019\n\n    Wisd. xviii. 15, 16: \u2018Thine all-powerful word leaped from heaven out\n    of the royal throne, a stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed\n    land, bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment; and\n    standing it filled all things with death; and while it touched the\n    heaven it trode upon the earth.\u2019\n\nThis last passage goes furthest in the way of personification. But in\nthe other passages there is a tendency\u2014we can hardly call it more\u2014to\nobjectify the \u2018word of God\u2019 and to treat it as though it had a\nsubstantive existence. This is, however, still some way short of the\nLogos both of St. John and of Philo.\n\nRather more may be said of the _Memra_ of the Targums. These writings\nare indeed, in their extant form, of uncertain date. And yet I suspect,\nthough I cannot prove, that our present texts faithfully preserve the\ninterpretative tradition of the synagogues. The same tendencies were at\nwork as far back as the beginning of the Christian era, and the\nprobabilities are that they expressed themselves in the same way. The\nJews were a conservative people; and the \u2018tradition of the elders\u2019 went\non continuously without any real break.\n\nWe are always hampered by our want of knowledge. The works of Philo bulk\nlarge upon our shelves, and their contents naturally impress the\nimagination. Of the state of thought in Syria and Palestine we have far\nscantier information. I believe it to be possible that a doctrine like\nthat of the Philonian Logos was more widely diffused than we suppose.\nAfter all Philo grounded his use of the term largely upon the Stoics;\nand the Stoics were spread all over the Roman Empire; they were strong\nin Asia Minor. At the same time we should not be justified in drawing\ntoo much upon conjecture, where we have positive data in our hands. So\nfar as Palestine goes, we have traces of a tendency but not of a system.\nIn both Philo and St. John we have what might really be called a system.\nThis creates a presumption that the connexion between them is not\naccidental.\n\nThe example of St. Paul may show us what an active stimulus to thought\nhad been given by Christianity. In his case we see what far-reaching\nconsequences were drawn from concentrated reflexion upon single detached\nverses of the Jewish Scriptures. We must not wholly put aside the\npossibility that the author of the Fourth Gospel let his thoughts work\nin the same manner. We shall see presently that on some important topics\nhe has certainly done so. Still, if the doctrines of Philo came in his\nway, the easier hypothesis would be that he was influenced by them. The\nwork of construction would in that case be lighter for him; he would\nfind the half of it done ready to his hand.\n\n\n                  2. The Evangelist not a philosopher.\n\n\nIt is a distinct question in what form we are to conceive of Philo\u2019s\nteaching as coming before him. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a\nthinker, but not a professed philosopher. So far as we can judge from\nthe writings of his that have come down to us, we should not be inclined\nto credit him with much philosophical erudition. The idea that we form\nto ourselves of the Evangelist is not that of a great reader always\nporing over books. I find it hard to think of him as sitting down to a\ndeliberate study of the Jewish scholar\u2019s voluminous treatises. The\nmental habits of the two men are too different. The Evangelist has a\nshorter and more direct way of getting at the truth. He was more like\nthe old Ionian philosophers, who looked up to the sky and out upon the\nearth, and set down the thoughts that rose in them in short loosely\nconnected aphorisms. The author of the Fourth Gospel did not look so\nmuch without as within: he sank into his own consciousness, and at last\nbrought out to light what he found there. He dwelt upon the past until\nit became luminous to him; and then he took up the pen.\n\nWe will consider presently what sort of hypothesis we may form as to the\nprocess by which the Evangelist came to assimilate Philonian ideas, if\nhe did assimilate them. But it may be well, first, to try to realize\nrather more exactly the extent of the agreement and difference between\nthe two writers.\n\n\n                   3. Points of Agreement with Philo.\n\n\nAnd, first, as to the agreement. I have said that Philo\u2019s philosophy, in\nspite of its decorative exuberance and prolixity, is yet at bottom a\nsystem. And in the main outline of that system the Evangelist coincides\nwith him.\n\nBy the side of the Eternal, Philo has what he himself called \u2018a second\nGod\u2019 (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 Grill, _Entstehung\nd. vierten Evang._ p. 109); and this second God he called \u2018the Divine\nWord.\u2019 The Word was Himself God (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, ibid.). The Word was the agent or instrument (\u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) in\ncreation (ibid., p. 110).\n\nThe action of the Word is not infrequently compared to that of Light;\nand although it is nowhere said that the Word is Life[55], there are\ncontexts in which the ideas of light and life appear in connexion[56].\nIn like manner there is a certain amount of parallelism for the idea of\nthe Word coming to his own and being rejected; it is the Word that makes\nthe mind receptive of good; there are some who may be fitly called \u2018sons\nof God,\u2019 and those for whom this title is too high may at least model\nthemselves after the pattern of the Word. The parallels for the later\npart of the Prologue are slighter, until we come to the last verse (ver.\n18). Philo fully shares the conception of the transcendence of God, and\nspeaks of the Logos as His \u2018prophet\u2019 and \u2018interpreter[57].\u2019\n\nThere are many coincidences of idea in the attributes ascribed to the\nLogos, as existing in heaven, as revealing the name of God, as\npossessing supernatural knowledge and power, as continually at work, as\neternal, as free from sin, as instructing and convincing, as dwelling in\nthe souls of men, as high priest towards God, as the source of unity, of\njoy and peace, as imparting eternal life, as bridegroom, father, guide,\nsteersman, shepherd, physician, as imparting manna, the food of the\nsoul[58].\n\nI am by no means clear that the case for the connexion of the Logos of\nSt. John with the Logos of Philo is really much strengthened by these\nparallels. If we ask ourselves whether they necessarily imply literary\ndependence, I think we should have to answer in the negative. We have to\nremember that Philo and St. John alike have the Old Testament behind\nthem. Whatever is suggested by this may as well come from it directly,\nand not through a further literary medium. And, when once we have the\nidea of the Logos, there are a number of epithets and metaphors that\nwould go with it almost of themselves.\n\n\n                  4. Absence of Philonian Catch-words.\n\n\nOn the other hand, when we examine the parallels adduced in detail, we\ncannot help noticing that many catch-words of the Philonian doctrine are\nentirely absent from the Fourth Gospel: \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in many connexions\n(Grill, p. 106); \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 (p. 107); \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (pp. 106, 107);\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f05\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd (p. 106); \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\n(sc. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (a term which occurs in St. Paul and in\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews, but not in St. John); \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (p. 108); \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5) \u03c6\u03c5\u03cd\u03b9\u03c2\n(pp. 109 f.); \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 (p.\n115); \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 112).\n\nAmong these expressions are several that at an early date entered into\nChristian literature, but they are not found in the Fourth Gospel.\n\nIt is probably to such examples as these that Dr. Drummond refers when\nhe speaks of \u2018the total absence of Philo\u2019s special vocabulary not only\nin relation to God, but in regard to the Logos\u2019 (_Character_, &c., p.\n24).\n\n\n                    5. More fundamental differences.\n\n\nIt is of yet more importance that the conception of the Logos in Philo\nand in the Fourth Gospel presents great and fundamental differences.\n\nI do not feel compelled to number among these that particular difference\nwhich is at once the most obvious and the most comprehensive. It is of\ncourse true that the Evangelist identifies the Logos with the person of\nJesus Christ, whereas it is doubtful how far the Philonian Logos is to\nbe regarded as in any sense personal. We always need to remember that\nthe whole category of personality was wanting at the time when Philo\nwrote. The question whether such a conception as that of the Logos is\npersonal, naturally forces itself upon us; we have a name for it, and we\nare accustomed to think of things as either personal or impersonal.\nPhilo, on the contrary, had neither the name nor the idea corresponding\nto the name. Hence we are not surprised to find his language\nfluctuating, to find him sometimes write as though the Logos were\npersonal, and sometimes as though it were not. Where there is no clearly\ndrawn boundary line between two ideas, it is easy to pass from one to\nthe other without being aware of it.\n\nWith St. John the conditions are different. In any case it was he who\ntook the decisive step of identifying the Divine Word with the person of\nChrist. Having once done this, his language necessarily became fixed;\nthe ambiguities which attached to Philo\u2019s teaching were for him so far\nat an end. The personal element in the Johannean conception belongs not\nto the idea of the Logos but to the historical Christ; the originality\nof the Evangelist consists in uniting the Christ of history with the\nidea of the Logos, but whether that idea were personal or impersonal as\nit came to him was of secondary importance.\n\nThe divergence is really more significant when we observe that the Logos\nidea itself has a different content. The central point in Philo\u2019s\nconception is the philosophic idea of the Divine reason; the centre of\nSt. John\u2019s is the religious idea of the Divine word, Divine utterance,\ncreative, energizing, revealing. If we for a moment cease to think of\nthe hypostatic and mediating aspect of the Word and dwell rather on the\nattributes and functions associated with it, we find ourselves naturally\ndeserting Philo and going back to the Old Testament. When we glance over\nthe string of passages quoted above, we see in them a truer counterpart\nto the real meaning of the Prologue. Ps. xxxiii. 6, with 2 Esdras vi.\n43; Ps. cxlvii. 15, 18; Wisd. ix. 1, bring out the creative activity of\nthe Word; [Num. xi. 23; Hos. vi. 5]; Isa. xl. 8; lv. 10, 11; Wisd.\nxviii. 15, 16, bring out the broad providential, governing and\nenergizing activity; Ps. cvii. 20; Wisd. xvi. 12, emphasize the\nredemptive activity in the narrower sense. All these ideas really\nunderlie the Prologue, though they do not all receive equally explicit\nexpression. The dominant thought of the Prologue is the thought of\ncreation, revelation and redemption wrought by \u2018the living God\u2019\u2014that old\ncomprehensive genuinely Hebraic name\u2014but wrought by Him through His Son,\nwho is also His Word.\n\nThe phrase that has just been used brings us round to another aspect of\nthe Prologue, which also takes us away from Philo and back to the Old\nTestament, or to sources still more immediately Christian. If there is\nany truth in the contention that the doctrine of the Prologue governs\nthe rest of the Gospel, it must be not directly as a doctrine of the\nLogos, but rather (as has been pointed out especially by Grill and H. J.\nHoltzmann) indirectly through those two great constituent conceptions of\nLife and Light which together make up, and are embraced under, the\ndoctrine of the Logos. The antecedents of these two conceptions are to\nbe sought far more in the Old Testament, and on the direct line of\nChristian development, than in any language of Philo\u2019s. As has just been\nsaid, \u2018the living God\u2019 is not only a strictly Hebraic and Old Testament\nidea, but one of the most fundamental of all the ideas of which the\nHebrew mind and the Old Testament have been the vehicles. The Prologue\nto the Fourth Gospel is essentially based upon this idea, and works it\nout in a form that is also determined by the Old Testament. The\nsignificant combination of Life and Light, which is so characteristic of\nthe Prologue and which so runs through the Gospel, can hardly have any\nother ultimate source than Ps. xxxvi. 9: \u2018With thee is the fountain of\nlife; in thy light shall we see light,\u2019 the first half of which has an\nimportant parallel in Jer. ii. 13, \u2018my people have committed two evils;\nthey have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out\ncisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.\u2019 There is of course\nthe difference that what in the Old Testament is ascribed directly to\nJehovah, in the Gospel is ascribed to the Logos. That is part of the\nEvangelist\u2019s method, which we may assume to be at work all through. But\nnot only does the combination of Life and Light belong essentially to\nthe Old Testament and not to Philo, but each of these ideas taken\nseparately has without doubt an Old Testament and not a Philonic basis.\nIt is true enough that Philo makes use of metaphors derived from \u2018Life\u2019\nand \u2018Light,\u2019 and applies them to the Logos, as he is indeed profuse in\nmetaphors of this character; they are part of his literary embroidery.\nIt is also quite possible that the metaphors were in the first instance\nsuggested to him by the same Old Testament passages. But the use in the\nFourth Gospel is far deeper and more pregnant with meaning. It is also\nrightly urged that the use in the Gospel, more particularly of the\nconception of Life, is really incompatible with Philo\u2019s system. The\nteaching of Philo is at bottom dualistic; for him matter is evil, and\nhis object is to remove God from contact with it. In St. John there is\nno dualism. The writer conceives of matter as penetrated with the\ndivine. Alike God and the Word of God work downwards and outwards,\nthrough spirit to the material envelope and vesture of spirit. There is\nno inconsistency between the spiritual and the material quickening, both\nof which are taught distinctly in the Gospel. \u2018As the Father raiseth the\ndeath and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom he will\u2019\n(John v. 21); \u2018As the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to\nthe Son also to have life in himself\u2019 (ver. 26). Both Father and Son are\na principle of life which takes possession at once of soul and body,\nwhich imparts alike ethical and spiritual vitality to the disciple of\nChrist on earth, and that eternal life which is not something distinct\nfrom this but really the continuation of it in the world to come. No one\ncan fail to see the powerful comprehensiveness of this idea, which\nincorporates and assimilates with ease such Jewish notions as that of\nthe resurrection of the body, where Philo\u2019s dualism makes a break and\ncondemns his system either to superficiality or inconsequence.\n\nAnother point that would be of importance if the facts were really as is\noften alleged, is the use of the term Paraclete. Philo, like St. John,\nhas this term; and if it were true that with him too it is a designation\nof, or directly in connection with, the Logos, that would greatly\nstrengthen the case for the view that St. John was really borrowing from\nhim. But the doubts on this head, first raised by Heinze, and more\nrecently enforced by Dr. Drummond and Dr. Grill, appear to be perfectly\nvalid[59]. It is not the Logos that is called Paraclete, but the\nCosmos[60].\n\nWe observe that the Cosmos, which is compared to the high priest\u2019s\nvestments, is also described as \u2018son (of God).\u2019 This is very contrary to\nthe usage of the Evangelist, for whom the Cosmos (in the sense in which\nhe uses the word) is far more the enemy of God than His son.\n\nAll these points together make up a wide divergence between Philo\u2019s\ndoctrine and that of the Fourth Gospel. They go far to justify Harnack\u2019s\nepigrammatic saying that \u2018even the Logos has little more in common with\nthat of Philo than the name, and its mention at the beginning of the\nbook is a mystery, not the solution of one\u2019 (_History of Dogma_, i. 97).\nWe may discount the epigram a little, as one has to discount all\nepigrams; but when we have done this, there remains in it a large and\nsubstantial truth.\n\n\n                   iv. Possible avenues of connexion.\n\n\nIt does not follow that I would deny all connexion between the Philonian\nLogos and St. John\u2019s. My doubt is whether this connexion can have been\nliterary. I find it difficult to picture to myself the Evangelist\nsitting down to master the diffuse tomes of Philo. Where is the interest\nthat would impel him to do this? Philo is a student and a philosopher.\nHe is a philosopher who operates with a sacred text, and therefore has\nunlimited opportunity for applying and expounding his philosophy. But\nthe Evangelist is interested in none of his theorems for their own sake.\nThere is only one thing that he seeks. He wants a formula to express the\ncosmical significance of the Person of Christ. When he has got that, he\nis satisfied. For the purpose of filling up his formula and working out\nits meaning, he goes not to Philo but to the Old Testament. There, and\nin his own experience, he finds all the data that he needs.\n\nI believe that there is a connexion between Greek, or Hellenistic,\nspeculation and the Fourth Gospel. But I can conceive of this best\nthrough the medium of personal intercourse and controversy. How did St.\nPaul get his first knowledge of Christianity? Doubtless through his own\nvehement attacks upon Christians, which he found so calmly and\nsteadfastly resisted; or, it may be, through the disputations in the\nsynagogues and in the law courts, of which he was the witness. We may\nwell believe that St. John extended his knowledge in the same way.\nPartly he would learn from foe, and partly from friend. In a place like\nEphesus he would from time to time hold controversy with philosophers of\nthe stamp of Justin. But, apart from this, in the Christian community\nitself he would find germs of teaching such as had been planted by the\nAlexandrian Jew Apollos. We are left to conjecture; and we have so few\npositive data to go upon, that our conjectures are of necessity vague.\nThe Evangelist need not have waited for his arrival in Ephesus to come\nin contact with the idea of the Logos, not perhaps in its full Philonian\nform but in a form that might lead up to the Philonian. Philo (as we\nhave seen) drew largely from the Stoics; and there were Stoics in the\ncities of Decapolis[61]. At a centre like Antioch they would be found in\ngreater numbers; and at such a centre it would be quite possible to fall\nin with a wandering disciple or disciples of Philo. I have long thought\nthat it would facilitate our reconstruction of the history of early\nChristian thought, if we could assume an anticipatory stage of Johannean\nteaching, localized somewhere in Syria, before the Apostle reached his\nfinal home at Ephesus. This would account more easily than any other\nhypothesis for the traces of this kind of teaching in the _Didach\u00e9_, and\nin Ignatius, as well as in some of the earliest Gnostic systems.\n\nWe cannot verify anything. We have no materials for the purpose. We can\nonly deal a little with probabilities. But behind all probabilities it\nis enough for us to know that there must have been many avenues by which\nthe conception of the Logos may well have reached the Apostle besides\nthat of the direct and systematic study of the writings of Philo.\n\n\n        II. Relation of the Prologue to the rest of the Gospel.\n\n\n                          1. View of Harnack.\n\n\nMention has been made above of Harnack\u2019s view as to the relation of the\nPrologue to the main body of the Gospel. He holds that the Prologue is\nreally separable from this, that it is of the nature of a postscript, or\nafter-thought, rather than a preface. He regards it as not so much the\nstatement of a programme to be worked out in the Gospel as a sort of\n\u2018covering letter,\u2019 intended to commend the work to cultivated Gentile or\nHellenistic readers.\n\nThis view has in its favour the obvious fact that the word \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\nwherever it occurs in the body of the Gospel, is used in its ordinary\nand familiar sense, and not in the special sense given to it in the\nPrologue. In face of this fact it seems at first sight difficult to\ntreat the Prologue as containing the leading idea that runs through and\ndetermines the character of the rest of the Gospel. And yet it is well\nknown that many writers have so treated it\u2014and conspicuously the two\nFrench scholars, M. Jean R\u00e9ville and the Abb\u00e9 Loisy.\n\nThere are two ways of escaping the inference just referred to. One is\nthat of which I have just been speaking, the method adopted by Dr.\nJulius Grill in his recent work on the origin of the Fourth Gospel, to\ntake as the leading idea, not the Logos but the combination of Life and\nLight which the Evangelist gives as equivalent to the Logos[62]. The\nother is to follow in the track of M. Loisy, and to treat the doctrine\nof the Logos as a summary name for the whole \u2018theology of the\nIncarnation[63].\u2019\n\n\n                           2. View of Grill.\n\n\nIt is easy (as I have said) to bring under the head of Life and Light\nall the miracles in the Gospel, from the miracle at Cana down to the\nRaising of Lazarus and even the miraculous Draught of Fishes in chap.\nxxi. Both the first \u2018sign\u2019 and the last are instances of the assertion\nof creative power, and the Healing of the Blind Man in chap. ix, where\nthis aspect is more subordinate, illustrates the activity of Christ as\nthe Light of the World, a text on which the concluding paragraph of the\nchapter enlarges.\n\nBesides the miracles there are many other allusions to these ideas of\nLife and Light: notably to the \u2018living water\u2019 in the discourse with the\nSamaritan woman (John iv. 10-14); to the \u2018bread of life\u2019 in the\ndiscourse in the synagogue of Capernaum (vi. 31-58); in the comment\napparently suggested by the libation at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii.\n37 f.); in the sayings on Light in viii. 12, xi. 9 f., as well as in\nchap. ix.\n\nThere can be no doubt at all that these ideas of Light and Life are\nquite fundamental to the Evangelist, and that they fill a large place in\nhis mind. But to say this is not quite the same thing as to say that the\nGospel is constructed upon them. The Evangelist has told us in set terms\non what the ground-plan of his Gospel is constructed; \u2018these (things)\nare written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of\nGod; and that believing ye may have life in his name\u2019 (xx. 31). There is\nno need to seek for any other definition of the object and plan of the\nGospel than this.\n\n\n                           3. View of Loisy.\n\n\nThe same verse may help us to form an estimate of the theory of M.\nLoisy. So far as \u2018the theology of the Incarnation\u2019 is meant to express\nthe same thing, the phrase is certainly justified. And if M. Loisy\nintends it to be at the same time a paraphrase for the doctrine of the\nLogos, we can have no objection. At least the only objection we need\nhave would be that he is using a vaguer and more general term, when he\nmight use one that is both definite and characteristic. As a rule, one\nis more likely to get at the heart of a writer\u2019s meaning by laying\nstress on the peculiar and individual elements in his teaching, and not\non that which he shares with others.\n\nBut the question how far either M. Loisy or Dr. Grill has succeeded in\ndefining the root-idea of the Gospel is after all only secondary. The\nreal issue is not as to the accuracy of the definition, but as to the\nnature of the relation which is pre-supposed between the root-idea, the\nprinciple which covers the plan and object of the Gospel, and the\nnarrative of which the main body of the Gospel consists. If I may speak\nfor a moment of the leading idea, not of St. John but of M. Loisy, I am\nafraid that the tendency, if not the purpose, of his whole book is to\nconvict the author of the Gospel of writing fiction where he professes\nto write fact. \u2018The theology of the Incarnation\u2019 is a euphemism which is\nmeant to describe the Gospel as from end to end allegory and symbol, the\nproduct of an idea and not of reality.\n\nM. Loisy, we all know, occupies a peculiar position. His criticism is\nradical and destructive, but he believes himself to bring back as faith\nwhat his criticism has destroyed. Few recent writers have left less of\nthe Fourth Gospel standing as solid history; but at the same time he is\na dutiful son of his Church, and what the Church accepts he also accepts\nas true. There can hardly be any doubt that the Church, as far back as\nwe can trace its convictions, regarded the Fourth Gospel as strictly\nhistorical. If it had not done so, it is very questionable whether the\nChurch itself would have taken the shape it did. There are many in these\ndays who, if they followed M. Loisy as a critic, would find it very hard\nto follow him as a theologian. They are not a little perplexed to\nunderstand how he himself can reconcile the two trains of his thinking.\nThat, however, is his own affair, with which outsiders are not\nconcerned. But they are greatly concerned to know whether or not his\ncriticism is sound. There is no doubt at all that the Fourth Gospel\nexpresses the Evangelist\u2019s \u2018theology of the Incarnation.\u2019 It expresses\nit, but is it the product of it? Has it no more substantial foundation\nthan an idea? Is it history, or is it fiction? That is the great and\nvital question to which we must address ourselves more directly in the\nnext lecture.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  R\u00e9ville, _La doctrine du Logos_, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Grill, p. 218.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Ibid., p. 114. Philo\u2019s word for \u2018interpreter,\u2019 however, is not cognate\n  with that used by St. John.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Ibid., pp. 115-26.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Drummond, _Philo Judaeus_, ii. 237-9; Grill, pp. 133-6.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  The main passage is _Vit. Mos._ iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  That accomplished scholar P. Wendland points to the tendency to attach\n  the Stoical idea of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 specially to Hermes and the Egyptian\n  Thoth. He quotes from Cornutus (_temp._ Nero) \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f41\n  \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af. Hermes is the\n  messenger of the gods, and communicates their will to men; and it is\n  conceivable that the use of the term \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in connexion with him may\n  have in some slight degree suggested, or prepared the way for, its use\n  in connexion with the new revelation. See _Christentum u. Hellenismus_\n  (1902), p. 7.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  _Entstehung d. vierten Evang._ i. 4-31, 87 ff.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  _Le Quatri\u00e8me Evangile_, p. 98: \u2018Les observations pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes et tout\n  ce qu\u2019on a remarqu\u00e9 touchant le caract\u00e8re du quatri\u00e8me Evangile\n  prouvent suffisamment que la th\u00e9ologie de l\u2019incarnation est la clef du\n  livre tout entier, et qu\u2019elle le domine depuis la premi\u00e8re ligne\n  jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la derni\u00e8re.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE VII\n                     The Christology of the Gospel\n\n\n                     1. The Gospel not a Biography.\n\n\nOnce more we fall back upon our main position. The Evangelist is writing\na spiritual Gospel, and his whole procedure is dominated by that one\nfact. His object is to set forth Christ as Divine, not only as Messiah\nbut as Son of God, as an object of faith which brings life to the\nbeliever.\n\nIt follows that all criticism which does not take account of this\u2014and\nhow large a part of the strictures upon the Gospel does not take account\nof it!\u2014is really wide of the mark. M. Loisy, for instance, brings a long\nindictment against the Gospel for not containing things that it never\nprofessed to contain. It never professed to be a complete picture of the\nLife of the Lord. It never professed to show Him in a variety of human\nrelationships. It never professed to give specimens of His ethical\nteaching simply as such. It did not profess to illustrate, and it does\nnot illustrate, even the lower side of those activities that might be\ncalled specially divine, as (e. g.) the casting out of demons.\n\nThe Gospel is written upon the highest plane throughout. It seeks to\nanswer the question _who_ it was that appeared upon earth, and suffered\non Calvary, and rose from the dead and left disciples who revered and\nadored Him. And this Evangelist takes a flight beyond his fellows\ninasmuch as he asks the question who Christ was in His essential nature:\nWhat was the meaning\u2014not merely the local but the cosmical meaning\u2014of\nthis great theophany?\n\nIt is not surprising if in the pursuit of this object the Evangelist has\nlaid himself open to the charge of being partial or onesided. Those who\nuse such terms are really, as we have seen, judging by the standard of\nthe modern biography, which is out of place. The Gospel is, admittedly\nand deliberately, not an attempt to set forth the whole of a life, but\njust a selection of scenes, a selection made with a view to a limited\nand sharply-defined purpose. The complaint is made that it is\nmonotonous, and the complaint is not without reason. The monotony was\ninvolved, we might say, from the outset in the concentration of aim\nwhich the writer himself acknowledges. And in addition to this it is\ncharacteristic of the writer that his thought is of the type which\nrevolves more than it progresses. The picture has not that lifelike\neffect which is given by the setting of a single figure in a variety of\ncircumstances. The variety of circumstance was included among those\nbodily or external aspects (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac) which the writer considered to\nhave been sufficiently treated by his predecessors. He described for\nhimself a narrower circle. And it was because he kept within that\ncircle, because he goes on striking the same chord, that we receive the\nimpression of repetition and monotony. Perhaps the intensity of the\neffect makes up for its want of extension. But at any rate the\nEvangelist was within his rights in choosing his own programme, and we\nmust not blame him for doing what he undertook to do.\n\nWe may blame him, however, if within his self-chosen limits the picture\nthat he has drawn for us is misleading. That is the central point which\nwe must now go on to test. The object of the Gospel would be called in\nmodern technical language to exhibit a Christology. Is that Christology\ntrue? Does it satisfy the tests that we are able to apply to it? Can we\nfind a suitable place for it in the total conception that we form of the\nApostolic Age? Does it belong to the Apostolic Age at all; or must we,\nto understand it, come down below the time of the Apostles? To answer\nthese questions we must compare the Christology of the Fourth Gospel\nwith that of the other Apostolic writings, and more particularly with\nthat of the Synoptic Gospels, of St. Paul, and of the Epistle to the\nHebrews.\n\nIt does not take us long to see that the Christology of the Fourth\nGospel has the closest affinity with this group of Epistles\u2014we may say,\nwith the leading Epistles of St. Paul and with that other interesting\nEpistle of which we know, perhaps, or partly know, the readers but do\nnot know the author. It is worth while to bring in this because the\nunmistakable quotation from it in Clement of Rome proves it to belong to\nthe Apostolic Age.\n\n\n2. The Christology of St. John compared with that of St. Paul and of the\n                        Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\n\nThe meeting-point of all the authorities just mentioned\u2014indeed we might\nsay the focus and centre of the whole New Testament\u2014is the title \u2018Son of\nGod.\u2019 But whereas the Synoptic Gospels work up to this title, St. John\nwith St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews work downwards or onwards\nfrom it. What I mean is this. The Synoptic Gospels show us how, through\nthe conception of the Messiah and the titles equivalent to it, by\ndegrees a point was reached at which the faith of the disciples found\nits most adequate expression in the name \u2018Son of God.\u2019 The culminating\npoint is of course St. Peter\u2019s confession represented at its fullest in\nthe form adopted by St. Matthew, \u2018Thou art the Christ, the Son of the\nliving God\u2019 (Matt. xvi. 16). In the Synoptic Gospels, and we may say\nalso in the historic order of events, this confession is a climax,\ngradually reached; and we are allowed to see the process by which it was\nreached. \u2018Son of God\u2019 is the highest of all the equivalents for\n\u2018Messiah.\u2019 And in the Synoptic Gospels we have unrolled before us,\nwonderfully preserved by a remarkable and we may say truly providential\naccuracy of reproduction with hardly the consciousness of a guiding\nidea, the historic evolution, spread over the whole of the public\nministry, by which at its end the little knot of disciples settled upon\nthis term as the best and amplest expression of its belief in its\nMaster. We have seen that the Fourth Gospel is by no means wanting in\ntraces of this evolution. But these too are traces, preserved\nincidentally and almost accidentally, without any deliberate purpose on\nthe part of the author: they are the product of his historical sense, as\ndistinct from the special object and the large idea that he had before\nhis mind in writing his Gospel. This special object and large idea\npresuppose the title as it were full-blown. It was not to be expected\nthat an evangelist sitting down to write towards the end of the first\ncentury should unwind the threads of the skein which, some fifty or\nsixty years before, had brought his consciousness to the point where it\nwas. To him looking back, the evolutionary process was foreshortened;\nand we have seen that as a consequence he allowed the language that he\nused about the beginning of the ministry to be somewhat more definite\nthan on strictly historical principles it should have been. That he\nshould do so was natural and inevitable\u2014indeed from the point of view of\nthe standards of his time there was no reason why he should be on his\nguard against such anticipations. If we distinguish between the gradual\nunfolding of the narrative and the total conception present to the mind\nof the writer throughout from the beginning, we should say that this\nconception assumes for Christ the fullest significance of Divine\nSonship.\n\nMore than this: we see, when we come to study the Gospel in detail, that\nthe writer not only assumes the full idea of Sonship but has also dwelt\nupon it and thought about it and followed it out through all the logic\nof its contents. We may say that it is not only he that has done so but\npractically all the thinking portion of the Church of his time. We may\nsee this from the comparison of St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nnot to speak of other New Testament writers. The Synoptists hardly come\nunder the head of thinkers. They are content to set down facts and\nimpressions without analysis and without reflection. But long before St.\nJohn sat down to write, those who really were thinkers had evidently\nasked themselves what was the meaning and what was the origin of that\ntitle \u2018Son of God\u2019 by which the Church was agreed to designate its\nMaster. The more active minds had evidently pressed the inquiry far\nhome. They did not stop short at the Baptism; they did not stop short at\nthe Birth: they saw that the Divine Sonship of Christ stretched back far\nbeyond these recent events; they saw that it was rooted in the deepest\ndepths of Godhead. It is true both of St. Paul and of the Epistle to the\nHebrews\u2014that is, assuming that the Epistle to the Colossians is St.\nPaul\u2019s\u2014that they have not only the doctrine of the Son but the doctrine\nof the Logos, all but the name.\n\nNow I know that there are many who will not agree with me; I know also\nthat the position is not easy to prove, though, as we shall see, I\nbelieve that there are a number of definite facts that at least suggest\nit. But for myself I suspect so strongly as to be practically sure that\nin these processes of thought the apostolic theologians, as we may call\nthem, were not altogether original. They were not without a precursor;\nthey did not invent their ideas for the first time. I believe that we\nshall most reasonably account for the whole set of phenomena if we\nsuppose that there had been intimations, hints, _Anhaltspunkte_, in the\ndiscourses of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. We have as a matter of fact\nsuch hints or intimations in the Fourth Gospel. The Evangelist may have\nexpanded and accentuated them a little\u2014he may have dotted the i\u2019s and\ncrossed the t\u2019s\u2014but I believe that it is reasonable to hold that they\nhad been really there. The Founding of Christianity is in any case a\nvery great phenomenon; and it seems to me simpler and easier, and in all\nways more probable, to refer the features which constitute its greatness\nto a single source, to the one source which is really the fountain-head\nof all. Without that one source the others would never have been what\nthey were.\n\nThe fact that St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews had substantially\narrived at a Logos doctrine before any extant writing has mentioned the\nname, seems to throw light on the order of thought by which the Fourth\nEvangelist himself arrived at his doctrine of the Logos. It is the\ncoping-stone of the whole edifice, not the foundation-stone. It is a\ncomprehensive synthesis which unites under one head a number of\nscattered ideas. From this point of view it would be more probable that\nthe Prologue to the Fourth Gospel was a true preface, written after the\nrest of the work to sum up and bind together in one mighty paragraph the\nideas that are really leading ideas, though scattered up and down the\nGospel. Whether it was actually written last does not matter. What I\nmean is that the philosophic synthesis of the events recorded in the\nGospel came to the Evangelist last in the order of his thought; the\norder was, history first and then philosophic synthesis of the history.\nNo doubt the synthesis was really complete before the Apostle began to\nwrite his Gospel; the writing of the Prologue may or may not have\nfollowed the order of his thought. It may have been, as Harnack thinks,\na sort of commendatory letter sent out with the Gospel; or it may be\nthat the Gospel was written out in one piece upon a plan present from\nthe first to the writer\u2019s mind. The order of genesis and the order of\nproduction do not always coincide; and it is really a very secondary\nconsideration whether in any particular instance they did or not.\n\nWe do not know exactly at what stage in his career the Evangelist\ngrasped the idea of the Logos. We should be inclined to think\ncomparatively late, from the fact that it has not been allowed to\nintrude into the historical portion of the Gospel. The various ideas\nwhich are summed up under the conception of the Logos appear there\nindependently and in other connexions. As we have just seen, in St. Paul\nalso and in the Epistle to the Hebrews the arch is fully formed before\nthe key-stone is dropped into it.\n\nWhatever we may think about this, there is a close parallelism between\nthe whole theology, including the Christology, of St. Paul and St. John.\nBoth start from the thought of an Incarnation (John i. 14; Rom. viii. 3;\nGal. iv. 4; Phil. ii. 7, 8; Col. i. 15; and with the latter part of the\nsame verse, cp. Col. i. 19; ii. 9). In both St. John and St. Paul the\nunion of the Son with the Father is not only moral but a union of\nessential nature (cp. John i. 1, 2, 14; x. 30, 38; xiv. 10, 11, 20;\nxvii. 21, 23 with 2 Cor. v. 19; Col. i. 13, 15, 19; ii. 9). Between the\nSon and the Father there is the bond of mutual love, of a love supreme\nand unique (that is the real meaning of \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 in John i. 14, 18; cp.\nxvii. 23, 24, 26 and Rom. viii. 3, 32; Eph. i. 6; Col. i. 13). As a\nconsequence of this relation between the Son and the Father, which has\nits roots in the eternal past (John i. 1, 2; xvii. 5, 24), there was\nalso complete union of will in the work of the Son upon earth (John v.\n30; vi. 38; xiv. 31; xvii. 16: cp. Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 7, 8). Thus the\nacts of the Son are really the acts of the Father, the natural\nexpression of that perfect intimacy in which they stand to each other\n(v. 19, 20; viii. 29; x. 25, 37, 38). The reciprocity between them is\nabsolute, it is seen in the perfection of their mutual knowledge (vii.\n29; viii. 19; x. 15; xvii. 25); so that the teaching of the Son is\nreally the teaching of the Father (vii. 16; viii. 26, 28, 38; xii. 49,\n50; xiv. 10, 24; xv. 15). What the Son is, the Father also is. Hence the\nlife and character and words of the Son, taken as a whole, constitute a\nrevelation of the Father such as had never been given before (vi. 46;\nxiv. 7-10: cp. i. 14, 18)[64].\n\nThus we are brought to another central idea of the Fourth Gospel, the\nfunction of the Son as revealing the Father. For this, again, we have a\nparallel in an impassioned passage of St. Paul:\n\n    \u2018The god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving,\n    that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the\n    image of God, should not dawn upon them. For we preach not\n    ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants\n    for Jesus\u2019 sake. Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out\n    of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the\n    knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ\u2019 (2 Cor.\n    iv. 4-6).\n\nIt may be true that this idea, though central with St. John, is\nsubordinate with St. Paul; but it is distinctly recognized\u2014just as,\nconversely, the doctrine of the Atonement, though clearly implied, is\nless prominent with St. John than with St. Paul.\n\nThe close resemblance between the teaching of St. John and St. Paul does\nnot end with the exposition of the character and mission of the\nincarnate Son; it is exhibited no less in what is said about the Holy\nSpirit. The teaching of the Fourth Gospel on the subject of the Spirit\nrepeats in a remarkable way certain leading features in its teaching\nabout the Son. The Father is in the Son (as we have seen), and the Son\nis one with the Father; and yet the Son is distinct (in the language of\nlater theology, a distinct Person) from the Father; and in like manner\nthe Paraclete is \u2018another\u2019 than the Son (xiv. 16), and is sent by the\nSon (xv. 26; xvi. 7); and yet in the coming of the Spirit the Son\nHimself returns to His people (xiv. 18; cf. iii. 28).\n\nHere again the parallel is quite remarkable between St. Paul and St.\nJohn. If we take a passage like Rom. viii. 9-11 we see that, in this\nsame connexion of the work of the indwelling Spirit among the faithful,\nHe is described at one moment as the Spirit of God, at another as the\nSpirit of Christ, and almost in the same breath we have the phrase, \u2018If\nChrist is in you\u2019 as an equivalent for \u2018If the Spirit of Christ is in\nyou.\u2019 The latter phrase is fuller and more exact, but with St. Paul, as\nwell as with St. John, it is Christ Himself who comes to His own in His\nSpirit.\n\nNo writer that I know has worked out the whole of this relation with\nmore philosophical and theological fulness and accuracy than Dr. Moberly\nin his _Atonement and Personality_. And I am tempted to quote one short\npassage of his (where I should like to quote many), because it seems to\nme to sum up in few words the fundamental teaching of St. Paul and St.\nJohn.\n\n    \u2018Christ in you, or the Spirit of Christ in you; these are not\n    different realities; but the one is the method of the other. It is\n    in the Person of Christ that the Eternal God is revealed in manhood\n    to man. It is in the Person of His Spirit that the Incarnate Christ\n    is Personally present within the spirit of each several man. The\n    Holy Ghost is mainly revealed to us as the Spirit _of the\n    Incarnate_[65].\u2019\n\nIt is to the language of St. Paul and St. John that we go for proof that\nthe Holy Spirit is a Person; but it is also from their language that we\nlearn how intimately He is associated with the other Divine Persons.\n\nWe are led up to what is in later theological language called the\ndoctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is well known that some of the most\nimportant data for this doctrine are derived from the Fourth Gospel,\nespecially from the last discourse. And whatever is found in St. John\nmay be paralleled in substance from St. Paul.\n\n\n                3. Comparison with the Synoptic Gospels.\n\n\nNow I am not going to maintain that, if one of us had been an\neye-witness of the Life of Christ, the profound teaching of which I have\njust given an outline would have seemed to him to bear the same kind of\nproportion to the sum total of His teaching that it bears in the Fourth\nGospel. By the essential conditions of the case it could not be so. It\nis this particular kind of teaching which the Evangelist specially\nwishes to enforce; and, in order to enforce it, he has singled out for\nhis narrative just those scenes in which it came up\u2014those and, broadly\nspeaking, no others.\n\nWe have seen that in regard to this teaching there is a very large\namount of coincidence between St. Paul and St. John. We shall have\npresently to consider what is the nature and ground of this coincidence,\nhow it arose and what relation it implies between the two Apostles. But\nbefore going on to this, we must first ask ourselves how far it can be\nverified by comparison with the Synoptic Gospels. It is right to look\nfor such verification, however much we may be convinced that these\nGospels are an extremely partial and fragmentary representation of all\nthat Christ said and did. Even a modern biography, contemplated perhaps\nduring the life-time of its subject, and actually begun soon after his\ndeath, will only contain a tithe (if he is a really great man) of his\nmore significant acts and sayings. But those who attempted to write what\nwe wrongly call Lives of Christ did not, as it would seem, for the most\npart even begin to do so or make preparations for beginning for some\nthirty years after the Crucifixion, when the company of the apostles and\nintimate disciples was already dispersed, or at least in no near contact\nwith the writers[66]. We have only to ask ourselves what we should\nexpect in such circumstances. And I think we should find that our\nexpectations were fully borne out if we were to compare together the\ncontents of the oldest documents, those of the _Logia_ with the\nMark-Gospel, and those of the special source or sources of St. Luke with\nboth. The amount and value of the gleanings which each attempt left for\nthose who came after tells its own story.\n\nBut if we do not expect that the Synoptic Gospels would be in the least\ndegree exhaustive in the materials they have preserved for us from the\nLife of Christ, we might be sure that their defects would be greatest in\nregard to the class of teaching with which we are at present concerned.\nIt is teaching of a kind that might perhaps haunt the minds of a few\ngifted and far-sighted individuals, but would certainly fall through the\nmeshes of the mind of the average man. It was this very fact, as we have\nseen, which prompted the Fourth Evangelist to write his Gospel. The\nexternals of the Lord\u2019s Life he recognized as having been adequately\ntold; but it was just the profoundest teaching and some of the most\nsignificant acts that had escaped telling, and that he himself desired\nto rescue from oblivion.\n\nWe must therefore be content if we can verify a few particulars. We must\nnot from the outset expect to be able to do more. And we must be still\nmore content if these particulars show by their character that they are\nfragments from a much larger wreckage, that they are what we might call\nchance survivals of what had once existed on a much larger scale.\n\nWe concluded our sketch of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel by\nspeaking of the data which it contained for the doctrine of the Trinity.\nThese however are only data. It is perhaps a little surprising that the\nonly approach to a formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity occurs not\nin St. John but at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew (xxviii. 19). I\nam of course well aware that this part of the First Gospel is vigorously\nquestioned by the critics. I am prepared to believe myself that the\npassage is a late incorporation in the Gospel; and antecedently I should\nnot say that we had strong guarantees for its literal accuracy. But\nthen\u2014this is an old story, so far as I am concerned, and I must\napologize for introducing it, but I cannot leave the point unnoticed\u2014how\nare we to explain that other remarkable verse that occurs at the end of\nthe second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor. xiii. 14)? This familiar\nthree-fold benediction must have had antecedents; it must, I should say,\nhave had a long train of antecedents. The most adequate explanation of\nit seems to me to be that the train of antecedents started from\nsomething corresponding, something said at some time or other, in the\nteaching of our Lord[67]. I fully believe that the hints and intimations\nof a Trinity that we find scattered about the New Testament have their\norigin ultimately in the teaching of Christ. Apart from this, how could\nthe conception have been reached at so early a date? For 2 Corinthians\nmust in any case fall between 53-57 A.D.[68]\n\nLet us work our way backwards through another of the hints. We have seen\nthat the coming of the Paraclete is described in the Fourth Gospel as a\nreturn of Christ to His own. Are there any parallels for this in the\nSynoptic Gospels? Not exactly, because the two things are not brought\ninto combination. But we have on the one hand distinct predictions of\nthe activity of the Holy Spirit after the departure of Christ. For\ninstance:\n\n    \u2018When they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall\n    speak.... For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father\n    that speaketh in you\u2019 (Matt. x. 19, 20).\n\nAnd in St. Luke\u2019s version of the promise as to answers to prayer, the\nHoly Spirit is spoken of as imparted to the believer:\n\n    \u2018If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your\n    children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy\n    Spirit to them that ask him?\u2019 (Luke xi. 13).\n\nThe gift of the Holy Spirit in connexion with prayer is one of the\ntopics in the Last Discourse as recorded by St. John. On the other hand\nthere are in the Synoptics remarkable allusions to the continued\npresence of Christ with His people. Such is that which follows\nimmediately upon the verse about Baptism in the threefold Name: \u2018Lo, I\nam with you alway, even unto the end of the world.\u2019 And in Matt. xviii.\n20, \u2018Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in\nthe midst of them[69].\u2019 Wendt connects this last passage with the\ninstances in which acts done in the name of Christ and for the benefit\nof His followers are spoken of as though they were done to Him. For\ninstance, \u2018Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my\nname, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but\nhim that sent me\u2019 (Mark ix. 37; cf. Luke x. 16; Matt. xxv. 40). Wendt\ngoes on to dilute the meaning of these allusions. He would make them\nmean no more than that such actions have the same value and the same\nreward as though they were done to Christ. But the ascending series is\nagainst this: \u2018Whosoever receiveth Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that\nsent Me.\u2019\n\nAnd once again we have to ask, what is the origin of all those passages\nin the Epistles, where St. Paul speaks of the _solidarity_ between\nChrist and the whole body of the faithful, so that in that extraordinary\nphrase the sufferings of His Apostle actually fill up or supplement the\nsufferings of Christ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\nCol. i. 24)?\n\nThe existence of such passages suggests the probability\u2014and indeed more\nthan probability\u2014that there were others like them, but more directly\ndidactic and expository, which have not been preserved. The Fourth\nGospel contains some specimens of this teaching; but that Gospel and the\nSynoptics together rather give specimens of a class of teaching than\nmake any approach to an exhaustive record of all that our Lord must have\nsaid on these topics.\n\nWe have seen that the Synoptic Gospels distinctly represent our Lord as\nthe Jewish Messiah. They represent Him as filled from the first with the\nconsciousness of a mission that is beyond that of the ordinary teacher\nor prophet. He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes.\nThe demoniacs recognized in Him a presence before which they were awed\nand calmed. He took upon Himself to forgive sins, with the assurance\nthat those whom He forgave God also would forgive. He called Himself, in\none very ancient form of narrative, \u2018Lord of the sabbath.\u2019 He did not\nhesitate to review the whole course of previous revelation, and to\npropound in His own name a new law superseding the old. He evidently\nregarded His work on earth as possessing an extraordinary value. He was\nHimself a greater than Solomon, a greater than Jonah; and, what is\nperhaps more remarkable, He seems to regard His own claim as exceeding\nthat of the whole body of the poor (\u2018Ye have the poor always with you\n... but Me ye have not always\u2019). As His teaching went on, He began to\nspeak as though His relation to the human race was not confined to His\nlife among them, but as though it would be continued and renewed on a\nvast scale after His death; He would come again in the character of\nJudge, and He would divide mankind according to the service which (in a\nlarge sense) they had rendered, or not rendered, to Him.\n\nThese are a number of particulars which helped to bring out what there\nwas extraordinary in His mission. By what formula was it to be described\nand covered? It was described under the Jewish name \u2018Messiah,\u2019 with its\nvarious equivalents. Among those equivalents, that which the apostolic\ngeneration deemed most adequate was \u2018the Son of God.\u2019 One of the\nSynoptic Gospels says expressly that He applied this title to Himself\n(Matt. xxvii. 43), and it is quite possible that He did so, but critical\ngrounds prevent us from laying stress upon the phrase. On two great\noccasions (the Baptism and Transfiguration) the title is given to Him by\na voice from heaven. But only in a single passage (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x.\n22) is there anything like an exposition of what is contained in the\ntitle. The mutual relation of the Father and the Son is expressed as a\nperfect insight on the part of each, not only into the mind, but into\nthe whole being and character of the other.\n\nDifferent critics have dealt with this saying in different ways.\nHarnack, in his famous lectures, gave it the prominence that it\ndeserves, but at the same time reduced its meaning, in accordance with\nhis generally reduced conception of Christianity. His exegesis tended to\nlimit the peculiar knowledge of the Son to His special apprehension of\nthe truth of Divine Fatherhood. M. Loisy demurs to this. He says:\n\n    \u2018There is clearly involved a transcendental relation, which throws\n    into relief the high dignity of the Christ, and not a psychological\n    reality, of which one cannot see the possibility in respect to God.\n    The terms Father and Son are not here purely religious, but they\n    have already become metaphysical; theological and dogmatic\n    speculation has been able to take hold of them without greatly\n    modifying their sense. There is only one Father and only one Son,\n    constituted, in a manner, by the knowledge that they have of one\n    another, absolute entities the relations of which are almost\n    absolute[70].\u2019\n\nPerhaps this is a little exaggerated in the opposite direction to\nHarnack. Still I believe it to be in the main right. The mutual\nknowledge of the Father and the Son rests upon their essential community\nof nature. But, having recognized this, M. Loisy goes on, with what I\ncannot but think singular levity, to cast doubt upon the passage. He\nregards the whole context in St. Matthew as a sort of psalm based upon\nthe last chapter (li) of Ecclesiasticus; and he ascribes it not to our\nLord, but to the tradition of the early Church.\n\nThis is far from being a favourable specimen of Biblical criticism. We\nhave only to set the two passages side by side to estimate its value. It\nis possible enough that there are reminiscences not only of this, but of\nother passages of Ecclesiasticus and of other books in the mind of\nspeaker or writer[71]. We might conceive of a defining phrase here or\nthere being due to the Evangelist and suggested by such reminiscences.\nOr we might conceive of Christ Himself going back in thought (as well He\nmight) to the invitation of personified Wisdom. There would be nothing\nstrange in either supposition. The New Testament everywhere takes up the\nthreads of the Old, and is not confined to the Jewish Canon. But in any\ncase the materials thus supplied are entirely recast; and the whole\npassage (\u2018Come unto Me,\u2019 &c.) bears the inimitable stamp of one Figure,\nand only one[72].\n\nThe truth is that in the Synoptic Gospels, as well as in the Fourth,\nthere is really a mysterious background, though we see less of the\nattempt to pierce it. These simple-looking sayings are not so simple as\nthey seem. To take, for instance, one upon which we have touched, \u2018he\nthat receiveth you, receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me, receiveth\nHim that sent Me.\u2019 The words are almost childlike in their simplicity,\nand yet they lead up to the highest heights, and down to the deepest\ndepths. No doubt we may rationalize it all away, if we please. We may\nshut out the mystery from our minds. But we shall not keep it out for\nlong.\n\n              Just when we are safest, there\u2019s a sunset-touch,\n              A fancy from a flower-bell, some one\u2019s death,\n              A chorus-ending from Euripides\u2014\n              And that\u2019s enough for fifty hopes and fears\n              As old and new at once as nature\u2019s self,\n              To rap and knock and enter in our soul.\n\nThere is a movement perhaps on a large scale, like the Bentham period in\nEngland in the first half of the nineteenth century, or the sceptical\nand deistical period a hundred years earlier, and it seems as though\neverything were to be made clear and intelligible, and the conscience\nand soul of men were not to be troubled by phantoms any more. And then\nthere come \u2018Lake Poets,\u2019 or an \u2018Oxford Movement,\u2019 and the other world,\nthe old world, all comes back again; and the forces that try to restrain\nit are snapped like Samson\u2019s withes.\n\nThe reason appears to be that these very clear outlines are always\nobtained by omissions or suppressions that are artificial, and do not do\njustice to the wonderful richness and subtlety either of the human mind\nor of the powers that work upon it.\n\n\n 4. Interpretation of these Relations between the Synoptic Gospels, St.\n             Paul and St. John: Alternative Constructions.\n\n\nThese comparisons that we have just been instituting between the\nSynoptic Gospels, St. Paul, and St. John raise a very large question, a\nquestion involving nothing less than our whole construction of the\nhistory of the Apostolic Age.\n\nIt is becoming more and more the custom with the left wing of critical\nwriters to make the most fundamental part of Christianity, the pivot\nteaching of the New Testament, an invention of St. Paul\u2019s. St. John is\nonly the chief of his disciples. According to these writers primitive\nChristianity, the genuine Christianity, loses itself in the sands, or is\nrepresented, let us say, deducting the stress on the Mosaic Law, by the\nsect of the Ebionites. It is St. Paul who strikes out the new road; and\nthe writer whom we call St. John follows him in it. The attempt of this\nlater writer to supply a historical basis for Paulinism, holds good only\nin appearance. The teaching which it puts into the mouth of Jesus is in\nno sense an antecedent of the teaching of St. Paul, but a product of it.\n\nHere, for instance, is a trenchant statement of the position.\n\n    \u2018The Fourth Gospel derived this importance, lasting long beyond the\n    time of his birth, from its having bridged over the chasm between\n    Jesus and St. Paul, and from its having carried the Pauline Gospel\n    back into the life and teaching of Jesus. It is only through this\n    gospel that Paulinism attains to absolute dominion in the theology\n    of the Church.... Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer of the\n    world, is for John as well as Paul the core and centre of\n    Christianity. And, moreover, John\u2019s Christology is Pauline in all\n    its important features\u2014the Son of God who was with God in heaven,\n    and was sent by God upon earth, the Mediator of creation, the God of\n    Revelation of the Old Testament, the Son of Man from heaven, as\n    Paul, too, called Him. And the chief object of His coming into the\n    world is the atonement by means of His death.... The whole of the\n    Johannine theology is a natural development from the Pauline. It is\n    Paulinism modified to meet the needs of the sub-apostolic age. Two\n    important consequences follow from this. There is no Johannine\n    theology by the side of and independent of the Pauline. Luther\n    already felt this clearly, and he understood something of the\n    matter. John and Paul are not two theological factors, but one. Were\n    we to accept that St. John formed his conception of Christianity\n    either originally or directly from Jesus\u2019 teaching, we should have\n    to refuse St. Paul all originality, for we should leave him scarcely\n    a single independent thought. But it is St. Paul that is original;\n    St. John is not. In St. Paul\u2019s letters we look, as through a window,\n    into the factory where these great thoughts flash forth and are\n    developed; in St. John we see the beginning of their transformation\n    and decay.\u2019 Wernle, _Beginnings of Christianity_, ii. pp. 262, 264,\n    274 f. (E. T.).\n\nNothing could be clearer. And by reason of his clearness and boldness of\nstatement Wernle is an excellent representative of the whole school; for\nwhat he asserts in set terms is really presupposed by a number of other\nwriters who do not assert it. It remains for us to ask, Is this\nconstruction of the early history of Christianity tenable?\n\n\n                        Two Preliminary Remarks.\n\n\nBefore I attempt to answer this question, there are two remarks that I\nshould like to make upon it.\n\ni. We observe here, as in so many other cases, that the theory reflects,\nnot so much the essential disposition and proportions of the facts as\nthe state of the extant evidence. Hardly anything has come down to us\nfrom the early years, at least for the first three decades, of the\nMother Church; and from that which has come down to us, the earlier\nchapters of the Acts and the Epistle of St. James, criticism would make\nconsiderable deductions. I think that these deductions are greater than\nought to be made, but their existence cannot be ignored. What we know of\nthe Mother Church has to be pieced together by inference and\nconstructive imagination. On the other hand for St. Paul we have in any\ncase an impressive body of certainly genuine epistles. It is natural\nenough that the mind should be dominated by these, and that the\nassumption should be made\u2014for it is pure assumption\u2014that the leading\nideas of these epistles are an original creation.\n\nii. But there is nothing really in the Epistles themselves to bear out\nthis assumption. St. Paul does not write as though he were a wholesale\ninnovator. He does not write as though he were founding a new religion.\nOn the contrary, he lays great stress in a familiar passage (1 Cor. iii.\n11) on the fact that the foundation is already laid. In another place (1\nCor. xv. 11) he speaks as though it made no difference whether he were\nthe preacher or others, the belief of Christians was the same. St. Paul\nhas indeed his special views and his special controversies, but they do\nnot affect the main point. He assumes that this is common to all\nChristians.\n\nThis brings me to some of the points on which we have to test the\ntheory, as it is stated by Wernle.\n\n\n                 5. Objections to the Critical Theory.\n\n\nLet us think for a moment what the theory involves. It involves that the\nPauline Gospel not only conquered the West, but that it came flooding\nback in a great reflux-wave all over the East. The East, on this theory,\nhas no power of resistance; it surrenders at discretion. How does this\naccord with the evidence?\n\ni. In order that there should be this conquest and annexation of the\nwhole Church by the Pauline Gospel it is implied, and it is of the\nessence of the theory to imply, that there was a broad and well-marked\ndifference between this Pauline Gospel and the general belief of the\nChurch, more particularly of the Mother Church. But St. Paul himself\nexpressly disclaims any such difference; he was anxious that there\nshould not be any, and he took steps to guard against the possibility\nthat serious divergence might have come between them unawares. He tells\nus that he compared notes with the leading apostles at Jerusalem, to\nmake sure that he and they were preaching substantially the same thing:\n\u2018I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but\nprivately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be\nrunning, or had run in vain\u2019 (Gal. ii. 2). And again, at the end of the\nconferences, he tells us how James and Peter and John gave to him and\nBarnabas the right hands of fellowship, as a pledge of their substantial\nagreement (ibid. ver. 9).\n\nIt is true that there were points of discussion, which in other sections\nof the Church amounted to controversy, between St. Paul and the Judaean\nChristians. But the Epistle to the Galatians allows us to see the full\nextent of these debatable matters; and, by defining them, it also\ndefines the extent of the common ground of agreement. What we should\ncall the doctrine of the Person of Christ certainly comes under the\nlatter head, and not under the former. The Mother Church was not\nEbionite, or St. Paul would have been in still sharper antagonism to it\nthan he was.\n\nii. It was this substantial agreement between St. Paul and the leading\nApostles that saved the Church from a formidable rupture. Such glimpses\nas we have of the Judaean churches do not at all give us the impression\nthat they would have submitted meekly to Pauline dictation. No doubt\nthere was a considerable prejudice against St. Paul personally; but it\nwas a prejudice that turned upon other things altogether than his\nteaching about Christ. We have in Acts xxi. 20-5 a graphic description,\nwhich is also full of verisimilitude, of the kind of ways in which St.\nPaul came into collision with the Jewish Christians; but his teaching\nabout Christ was not one of them.\n\niii. We have seen that the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son\nof God, was common ground for all Christians. It was on this ground that\nSt. Paul and the Judaean churches felt themselves one. They also felt\nthemselves one in what we ought not to call the doctrine of the Trinity,\nbut in those root-facts out of which the doctrine of the Trinity\nafterwards came to be formulated. There was doubtless still room for\nvariety of speculation. There was room for different interpretation of\ncurrent terms and current beliefs. The doctrine of the Church had as yet\na certain fluidity. St. Paul might take one line, and Cephas another,\nand Apollos a third. And yet Christ was not divided. There was a\nconsciousness of union underlying these differences. There was a sense,\nthat could not as yet be put adequately into words, of certain great\nfacts, of certain fundamental beliefs, by virtue of which the Church was\none.\n\niv. It is out of this common ground, and not out of the special features\nof the Pauline theology, that the teaching of the Fourth Gospel really\nsprang. True, there are resemblances and affinities between details in\nthe theologies of the Evangelist and the Apostle. But it does not follow\nthat these were borrowed by the one from the other[73]. If they had\nbeen, we may be sure that there would have been clearer evidence of the\nfact. Somewhere in the group of Johannean writings there would have been\na side-glance at St. Paul that we should have understood. As it is, the\ntwo great Apostolic cycles stand majestically apart. There may be a\nconnexion between them, but it is a connexion in the main underground.\nThere is no direct affiliation, but the parentage of both lies behind.\nMany a seed sprouted in the early years of the Pentecostal Church: but\nit was not this apostle or that who made them grow; the seeds were sown\nbefore Pentecost, and they had their watering and their growth and their\nincrease from the same Hand.\n\nIt is true that we cannot give chapter and verse for all this. The books\nfrom which chapter and verse might have been taken were never written.\nEven in our own much-lettered age, how many a pregnant thought is there\nthat is not caught and fixed in writing! And what sort of record should\nwe have of the thought, say, of America or England for some fifteen\nyears, if the chronicle of it were compressed into a single document of\nthe length of the first twelve chapters of the Acts?\n\nThe best record of the thoughts that grew and fructified in those\nmomentous early years is to be found not in the Acts but in the Gospels;\nand the fact that it is to be sought there shows whence the impulse\nreally came. It may seem a truism to maintain that Jesus Christ was the\nreal Founder of Christianity, and that He founded it by what He was, and\nnot by what men imagined Him to be. Of course to many Christians it will\nseem a truism to say this; the simple Christian never thought otherwise;\nbut there are Christians who are not simple, and who may be encouraged\nto search with a closer scrutiny to see if the old account of the origin\nof Christianity is not the best, indeed the only account possible. The\nNew Testament is scattered with hints, which are not more than hints,\narrow-heads as it were pointing back to Christ. These are a profitable\nsubject of study\u2014none more profitable. If we pay attention to these\nhints, and if we look for the roots of St. Paul\u2019s teaching, I do not\nthink we shall say that Christianity\u2014the Christianity of nineteen\ncenturies\u2014was his invention, and that St. John did but follow in his\ntrain.\n\n\n                         6. Larger Objections.\n\n\nThe kind of study that I have just been recommending is strictly\ncritical; but the theory of which I have been speaking carries us out\nbeyond the narrower ground of criticism into the wider field of history\nand teleology. I may just for a moment in conclusion touch on this. It\nmay supply us with a warning that there is at least a strong presumption\nthat the theory which fathers the teaching of St. John upon that of St.\nPaul, and St. Paul\u2019s teaching upon itself, with no higher sanction\nbehind, cannot well be true. Such a theory would mean that quite a half,\nand the most important half, of the fundamental theses of historical\nChristianity, were a mere human invention which those who have had the\nwit to discover them to be a human invention may go on to treat as\nnothing better,\u2014to bestow on them perhaps a certain amount of praise in\nrelation to their time, but to regard them as something that the world\nhas outgrown. This is a view that in the present day, avowedly or\nunavowedly, is very largely taken. On this view there is a real nucleus\nof truth in biblical Christianity, but that nucleus in the light of\nmodern science is seen to be very small indeed; all the rest is\nsurplusage. The misfortune for the theory is that it is not only on the\nnucleus of truth, but very largely upon the surplusage, that nineteen\ncenturies of Christians have lived.\n\nNow I am quite prepared to believe that most great truths that do not\ncome under the head of Mathematics or Physical Science have had a\ncertain amount of surplusage attached to them; there has been husk and\nkernel, flower and sheath. I quite believe that men do\n\n                          \u2018rise on stepping-stones\n                  Of their dead selves to higher things.\u2019\n\nBut I cannot help thinking that, on the theory of Wernle and his\nfriends, the surplusage is too great, the dead self too large. The\ncourse of history, as this theory would describe it, seems to me\ncontrary to the analogy of what we otherwise know of the dealings of God\nwith man. If we look, for instance, at the Old Testament, we see a\ngradual preparation for the coming of Christ, a gradual elevation and\nexpansion of religious ideas, on the whole a nearer approximation to\ntruth. All of us, critics and non-critics, would give substantially the\nsame account of this; we should all of us at least see in it progress.\nBut when we come to Christianity, Wernle and his friends see in it a far\nlarger proportion of what is not progress but depravation and\ncorruption, not the gradual expansion and purification of true ideas,\nbut the wider dissemination of ideas that are false. There are nearly\nfourteen centuries of the dissemination of these false ideas; then comes\na sudden spasmodic effort of partial relief; and at last, in the latter\nhalf of the nineteenth and in the twentieth centuries, there is some\nsort of approach to a rediscovery of truth. It seems to me difficult to\ndescribe this view of history as anything else than a systematic\nimpeachment of Divine Providence.\n\nI do not wish to press the point. As I have said, we have left behind\nthe region of criticism, and entered upon another that is not only very\nwide but that some of you may think rather outside my subject. The\nChristian, it seems to me, ought to have a comprehensive view of the\npurpose of God in history; he ought to be able to adjust this to his\nfundamental beliefs. And I would only ask you to consider how far this\ncan be done on the theory I have been discussing.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  A few sentences here are repeated from my article in Hastings, _D. B._\n  iv. 575.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  _Atonement and Personality_, p. 194. Compare the important and\n  detailed exposition, pp. 154-9, 168 f., 180-2.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  I do not doubt that the most active period for the putting together of\n  material for Gospels was the decade 60-70 A.D. At the beginning of\n  this period St. Mark had not yet taken up his task; and his Gospel\n  forms the base of the other two Synoptics. The Matthaean _Logia_\n  perhaps by this time were collected.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  I cannot regard this argument as at all invalidated by Dr. Drummond\u2019s\n  three sermons, _The Pauline Benediction_ (London, 1897). At the same\n  time I can quite accept the view that the Apostle\u2019s words are \u2018the\n  seed rather than the final expression of Christian theology.\u2019\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  With the above may be compared Dr. Hort\u2019s comment (ad. loc.) on 1 St.\n  Peter, i. 1, 2, and other Trinitarian passages referred to in\n  illustration: \u2018In no passage is there any indication that the writer\n  was independently working out a doctrinal scheme: a recognized belief\n  or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed. How such an idea could\n  arise in the mind of St. Paul or any other apostle without sanction\n  from a Word of the Lord, it is difficult to imagine: and this\n  consideration is a sufficient answer to the doubts which have, by no\n  means unnaturally, been raised whether Matt. xxviii. 19 may not have\n  been added or recast in a later generation.\u2019\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Compare the Fifth of the Oxyrhynchus _Logia_.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  _L\u2019\u00c9vangile et L\u2019\u00c9glise_, p. 78 f.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  H. J. Holtzmann, for instance, points to Is. xiv. 3; xxviii. 12; lv.\n  1-3; Jer. vi. 16; xxxi. 2, 25, but especially Ecclus. iii. 6; vi. 24,\n  25, 28, 29; li. 23-30.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Contrast the treatment of the passage by M. Loisy with the way in\n  which it is singled out by Matthew Arnold (_Literature and Dogma_, p.\n  214 f.). Indeed the course of the most recent criticism has borne in\n  upon me more and more that, far from being a stumbling-block, it is\n  really the key to any true understanding of the Christ of the Gospels.\n  If we had not had the passage, we should have had to invent one like\n  it!\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  I do not of course mean to deny all influence of St. Paul upon St.\n  John in the shaping or formulating of Christian ideas. But the\n  ultimate origin of those ideas goes further back than to St. Paul.\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE VIII\n                    THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL\n\n\n                  I. Summary of the Internal Evidence.\n\n\nAll our discussions have for their object, not the production of rounded\nand symmetrical theories but the ascertainment of truth. We must take\nthe data as we find them. If they do not as they stand sustain a clear\nconclusion, we cannot make them do so. And it seems to me far better\nfrankly to confess the fact than to strain the evidence one way or the\nother. We may state the case with such indications of leaning as we\nplease, but always with the reservation that a slight change in the\nevidence, the discovery or recovery of a single new fact, might turn the\nscale.\n\nThis is, I think, the position of things in regard to some of the\noutlying parts of the problem of the Fourth Gospel. One broad conclusion\nseems to stand out from the evidence, internal as well as external. The\nauthor was an eye-witness, an Apostolic man\u2014either in the wider sense of\nthe word \u2018Apostle\u2019 or in the narrower. So much seems to me to be\nassured; but round that broad conclusion there arises a cluster of\nquestions to which I cannot give a simple and categorical answer.\n\nI will come back to these questions in a moment. But I ought perhaps\nfirst to remind you of the point to which the previous argument has\nbrought us, and of the grounds on which the main proposition is based.\n\nI take it to be a fundamental element in the question that in several\nplaces (especially xix. 35, xxi. 24; cf. i. 14, 1 John i. 1-3), the\nGospel itself lays claim to first-hand authority. This is a different\nmatter from ordinary pseudonymous writing. The direct and strong\nassertions that the Gospel makes are either true or they are a\ndeliberate untruth. Between these alternatives I have no hesitation in\nchoosing. I do not think that we should have the right to make so grave\nan imputation as that implied in the second on anything but the clearest\nnecessity. But the first alternative appeared to me to be confirmed by a\nmultitude of particulars: first, by a number of places in which the\nauthor of the Gospel seems to write from a standpoint within the\nApostolic circle, or in which he gives expression to experiences like\nthose of an Apostle; and secondly by the very marked extent to which the\nnarrative of the Gospel corresponds in its details to the real\nconditions of the time and place in which its scene is laid, conditions\nwhich rapidly changed and passed away.\n\nThis constitutes the internal argument for the authentic character of\nthe Gospel. It is met and, as I conceive, strongly corroborated by the\nnature of the external evidence.\n\n\n                       II. The External Evidence.\n\n\n           1. The Position at the end of the Second Century.\n\n\nIn regard to this I would not spend time in refinements upon some of the\nscanty details furnished by the scanty literature of the first half of\nthe second century. I would rather take my stand on the state of things\nrevealed to us on the lifting of the curtain for that scene of the\nChurch\u2019s history which extends roughly from about the year 170 to 200. I\nwould invite attention to the distribution of the evidence in this\nperiod: Irenaeus and the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in\nGaul, Heracleon in Italy, Tertullian at Carthage, Polycrates at Ephesus,\nTheophilus at Antioch, Tatian at Rome and in Syria, Clement at\nAlexandria. The strategical positions are occupied, one might say, all\nover the Empire. In the great majority of cases there is not a hint of\ndissent. On the contrary the four-fold Gospel is regarded for the most\npart as one and indivisible. Just in one small coterie at Rome\nobjections are raised to the Fourth Gospel, not on the ground of any\nspecial and verifiable tradition, but from dislike of some who appeal to\nthe Gospel and from internal criticism of which we can take the measure.\nJust at this period of which I am speaking these dissentients appear and\ndisappear, leaving so little trace that (as we have seen) Eusebius, who\nis really a careful and candid person, and has ancients like Origen and\nClement behind him, can describe the Gospel as unquestioned both by his\nown generation and by preceding generations (p. 65 _supra_).\n\nLet us for the moment treat these great outstanding testimonies as we\nshould treat the reading of a group of MSS. The common archetype of\nauthorities so wide apart and so independent of each other must go back\nvery far indeed. If we were to construct a _stemma_, and draw lines from\neach of the authorities to a point _x_, representing the archetype, the\nlines would be long and their meeting point would be near the date at\nwhich according to the tradition the Gospel must have been composed. A\ntradition of this kind, so wide-spread and so deep-rooted, could not\nhave arisen if it had not had a very substantial ground. Suppose we\nallow for a moment that it is something in itself a little short of\nabsolutely decisive, there comes in to reinforce it what we have just\nbeen speaking of as the result of internal criticism, that the Gospel is\nthe work of an eye-witness, a member of the circle which immediately\nsurrounded our Lord. That is also a position which seems to me very\nstrong.\n\nI submit that this is a much fairer statement of the case than that (e.\ng.) which we find in Schmiedel (_Enc. Bibl._ ii. 2550):\n\n    \u2018Instead of the constantly repeated formula that an ancient writing\n    is \u201cattested\u201d as early as by (let us say) Irenaeus, Tertullian, or\n    Clement of Alexandria, there will have to be substituted the much\n    more modest statement that its existence (not genuineness) is\n    attested only as late as by the writers named, and even this only if\n    the quotations are undeniable or the title expressly mentioned.\u2019\n\nThis is a characteristic example of the spirit in which the author\nwrites\u2014much more that of the lawyer speaking to his brief for the\nprosecution than of the scholar or historian. The criticism is couched\nin general terms: as far as it applies in particular to the Gospel of\nSt. John the _caveat_ is superfluous, because all the three writers\nnamed, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria bear witness\nexpressly to the genuineness of the Gospel, and not only to its\nexistence. The witness of Heracleon is still more important. To\nrecognize a writing is one thing; to recognize it as sacred is another;\nto comment upon it as so sacred and authoritative that its contents can\nbe interpreted allegorically is a third: and all this is so early as\n_c._ 170. But apart from this the whole form of the statement is unjust.\nIt leaves entirely out of account the extreme scantiness of the material\nfrom which evidence could be drawn in the period before the year 180. To\nme the wonder is that the evidence borne to the New Testament writings\nin the extant literature prior to this date should be as much as it is\nand not as little.\n\n\n                          2. Earlier Evidence.\n\n\nBut Dr. Schmiedel certainly understates that for the Fourth Gospel. He\nassumes that no trace can be found of this earlier than 140. A single\nitem of the evidence, which he does not notice, is enough to refute\nthis. I refer to our present conclusion of the Gospel of St. Mark. We\nmay say with confidence that its date is earlier than the year\n140\u2014whether we argue from the chronology of Aristion, its presumable\nauthor, or from its presence in the archetype of almost all extant MSS.,\nor from the traces of it in writers so early as Justin and Irenaeus. But\nI may take it for granted that the added verses imply not only the\nexistence but up to a certain point the authority of the Fourth Gospel.\n\nBut, besides this, Dr. Schmiedel assumes the negative results of an\ninquiry, which he has conducted very lightly, and the scale on which he\nwas writing compelled him to conduct lightly, into the bearings of the\nliterature older than 140. I am not so sure as he is that there is no\nallusion to the Gospel in Barnabas or Hermas, where it is found (e. g.)\nby Keim, or in the Elders of Papias, where it is found (e. g.) by\nHarnack. The questions raised in these cases are too complex and too\ndelicate to be quite worth discussing from the point of view of that\nlegal proof which for Schmiedel seems alone to have any value. But\nIgnatius and the _Didach\u00e9_ are of more tangible importance. I am\ninclined to think that justice has rarely been done from this point of\nview to Ignatius. It is not so much a question of close coincidence in\nexpression. There I should perhaps allow that Dr. Schmiedel is within\nhis rights in denying what Dr. Drummond and Dr. Stanton affirm. The\nevidence of Ignatius is obscured by the fact that, unlike Polycarp[74],\nhe is not given to exact quotation. Polycarp is by far the weaker man;\nit is natural to him to express his thoughts in the words of others. But\nIgnatius has a rugged strength of mind which digests and assimilates all\nthat comes to it, and if it reproduces the thoughts of others, does so\nin a form of its own[75]. But I do not think there can be any doubt that\nIgnatius has digested and assimilated to an extraordinary degree the\nteaching that we associate with the name of St. John. If any one\nquestions this, I would refer him to the excellent monograph, _Ignatius\nvon Antiochien als Christ und Theologe_, by Freiherr von der Goltz\n(_Texte und Untersuchungen_, Band xii). It will be best to give the\nconclusion to which this writer comes in his own words, as I agree with\nit largely but not quite entirely. He says:\n\n    \u2018The question is whether Ignatius came to appropriate this world of\n    thought through reading our Fourth Gospel, or whether he must be\n    held to be an independent witness to this mode of thinking. Up to a\n    certain point the preceding investigation has already shown that the\n    latter is the case. Although, for instance, certain details might\n    seem to point to borrowing from the Fourth Gospel, yet this peculiar\n    religious Modalism, this mysticism, this combination and\n    accentuation of the same points, this special form of faith in\n    Christ, and, in general, this identical mode of thought and belief\n    could not be simply transferred by means of a book to one who had\n    not in other ways taken up the same ideas and made them his own.\n    There is also proof from various turns given to the thought, as from\n    his use of an independent terminology, that the author is in\n    possession of \u201cJohannean\u201d ideas as his own property. So that in case\n    we really came to the result that Ignatius was acquainted with the\n    Fourth Gospel, we should have indeed to refer to that acquaintance\n    the portrait that he draws of Christ and some details, but in spite\n    of that we should have to hold fast the conclusion that in\n    appropriating his general conception of things, Ignatius must have\n    come under the prolonged influence of a community itself influenced\n    by Johannean thought\u2019 (p. 139).\n\nIt will have been observed that the reason for thinking that the\naffinity of thought between Ignatius and St. John is not to be explained\nby the use of a book, is not because of its slightness but because it is\nreally too deep to be accounted for in that way. It is true that the\naffinity goes very deep. I had occasion a few years ago to study rather\nclosely the Ignatian letters, and I was so much impressed by it as even\nto doubt whether there is any other instance of resemblance between a\nbiblical and patristic book, that is really so close. Allowing for a\ncertain crudity of expression in the later writer and remembering that\nhe is a perfervid Syrian and not a Greek, he seems to me to reflect the\nJohannean teaching with extraordinary fidelity. This applies especially\nto his presentation of the doctrine of the Incarnation, to his\nconception of the Logos, and of the relation of Christ at once to the\nFather and to the believer. In the writers of the next generation to\nIgnatius e. g. in Justin\u2014the conception of the Logos is infected by\nGreek philosophy, giving to it more or less the sense of reason, whereas\nin Ignatius the leading idea is, as we have seen it to be in St. John,\nthat of revelation. Nowhere else have we the idea of the fullness of\nGodhead revealed in Christ grasped and expressed with so much vigour.\nWhat difference there is is of the nature of exaggeration. It is not\nwrong to say that the language of Ignatius tends towards Modalism. But\nit is just because he has grasped ideas, for every one of which there\nare parallels in the Fourth Gospel, with so much intensity.\n\nI can quite allow that Ignatius has so absorbed the teaching that we\ncall St. John\u2019s as it were _in succum et sanguinem_ that the relation\ncannot be adequately explained by the mere perusal of a book late on in\nlife. There is something more in it than this. Von der Goltz would\nexplain it by the hypothesis that Ignatius had resided for a\nconsiderable length of time in a \u2018Johannean\u2019 community like the churches\nof the province of Asia. There is however no hint of anything of the\nkind in the letters. It is I think Harnack who somewhere remarks that\nfrom the opening of the letter of Ignatius to Polycarp we should infer\nthat the latter was a stranger to the writer.\n\nIt would be more natural to fall back on the tradition that Ignatius was\nan actual disciple of St. John. But this tradition appears first in the\n_Martyrium Colbertinum_; in other words there is no evidence for it\nbefore the fourth century. Indeed Zahn has sketched in a plausible\nmanner the process by which we may conceive it to have arisen[76]. Still\nthere is ample room in the dark spaces of the lives both of Ignatius and\nof St. John for some more or less intimate connexion between them. The\nalternative seems to me to be, either to suppose something of this kind,\nor else to think that Ignatius had really had access to the Johannean\nwritings years before the date of his journey to Rome, and that he had\ndevoted to them no mere cursory reading but a close and careful study\nwhich had the deepest effect upon his mind.\n\nIf the Fourth Gospel was really the work of St. John, the chronology\nwould leave quite sufficient room for this hypothesis. But in any case\nthe phenomena of the Ignatian letters seem to me to prove the existence,\nwell before the end of the first century, of a compact body of teaching\nlike that which we find in the Fourth Gospel. For even Dr. Schmiedel, I\nsuppose, would hardly wish us to invert the relationship, and to say\nthat the Evangelist took his ideas from Ignatius. But if the substance\nof the Fourth Gospel existed before the end of the first century, that\nis surely a considerable step towards the belief that the Gospel existed\nin writing, and the other reasons that we have for thinking that it had\nbeen written are so far confirmed.\n\nA smaller item of proof tending in the same direction is supplied by the\n_Didach\u00e9_. It is well-known that the very ancient Eucharistic prayer\ncontained in that document has the remarkable phrase \u2018to make perfect in\nlove,\u2019\u2014\u2018Remember, Lord, Thy Church to deliver it from all evil and to\nperfect it in Thy love,\u2019 which it is natural to compare with 1 John iv.\n17, 18; John xvii. 23. The coincidence cannot be wholly accidental,\nthough the question must be left open whether the phrase comes directly\nfrom a writing or only circulated orally[77]. The problem is the same as\nthat which has just met us in the case of Ignatius, though on a much\nsmaller scale. As far as it goes, it helps to strengthen the conclusion\nthat has just been drawn.\n\nBetween Ignatius and Irenaeus we have Papias, Justin, and the greater\nGnostics. In view more particularly of the discussion by Schwartz, I\nthink it may be said that Papias probably knew the Gospel and recognized\nit as an authority. That Justin also used it I think we may take as at\nthe present time generally admitted; and from the extent to which he\nused it I do not think that any inference can be drawn. Professor Bacon\ncomplains that the suggestions which have been put forward to account\nfor the somewhat sparing use which he makes of it are not\nsatisfactory[78]. Probably they are not in the sense of carrying\nconviction that any one of them is right to the exclusion of others.\nThere must always be this difficulty where we are quite in the dark, and\nwhere the whole chapter of accidents is open before us. It is no doubt a\nsounder method to fall back with Dr. Drummond simply upon our\nignorance[79]. But to say that the negative side of Justin\u2019s evidence in\nany sense cancels the positive seems to me untenable.\n\nAs to Basilides and Valentinus, though there remains in my own mind a\nslight degree of probability that they really used the Gospel, I admit\nthat this probability is not of a kind that can be strongly asserted\nwhere it is challenged. At the same time I cannot think Schmiedel\u2019s\nhypothesis at all probable that \u2018the Fourth Gospel saw the light\nsomewhere between A.D. 132 and A.D. 140[80], and that although it was\nnot used by the founders of the great Gnostic schools, it was at once\nadopted by their disciples. This is an instance of the way in which Dr.\nSchmiedel and his friends, when they light upon a hypothesis that\nfavours the negative side, content themselves with stating it, as if it\nmust at once carry conviction; and form no mental picture of the\nconditions with a view to ascertain whether the hypothesis is or is not\nprobable. We may be pretty sure that the Fourth Gospel did not come in\nsurreptitiously in this way, like a thief over the wall, and at once\nobtain recognition without any examination of credentials.\n\nI do not hesitate to say that this theory of the late origin of the\nGospel is not one that will work, or bear to be consistently carried\nout. On the other hand, if we assume the traditional view, all the\nevidence falls into line; we have an adequate cause for the authority\nwhich from the first attached to the Gospel; and, allowing for the\nscantiness and critical drawbacks of the materials from which our\nevidence is drawn, we have a picture quite as satisfactory as we can\nexpect of its gradually expanding circulation.\n\nSo far, our course has been straightforward. The salient points stand\nout in orderly succession, and they all rest on solid foundations. But\nwhen we come to closer quarters, and try to reconstruct for ourselves\nthe circumstances under which the Gospel was written, and which attended\nthe first two or three decades of its history, the case is otherwise.\nMany questions may be raised that cannot be categorically answered.\nBricks cannot be made without straw; and positive history cannot be\nwritten on the ground of mere surmises and possibilities. All I would\ncontend for is that no valid argument can be brought from the facts as\nthey stand against the Gospel; it is another matter, and will require\nlonger time and perhaps further discoveries, before we can paint on the\ncanvas of history a picture strictly harmonious and coherent in all its\nparts.\n\n\n                        III. Unsolved Problems.\n\n\n            1. The relation of the Gospel to the Apocalypse.\n\n\nOf the questions that are still _sub judice_ one of the most difficult\nis that of the relation of the Gospel to the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse\nis a book on which criticism is very far from having said its last word.\nI should like to express myself about it with great reserve. But I do\nnot think that in any case an argument can be drawn from it against the\nGospel. I will quote two very unprejudiced opinions. Harnack writes as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n    \u2018I confess my adhesion to the critical heresy which carries back the\n    Apocalypse and the Gospel to a single author, always presupposing\n    that the Apocalypse is the Christian working-up of a Jewish\n    apocalypse (I should be prepared to say of several Jewish\n    apocalypses\u2014to me this seems beyond our power to unravel). I mark\n    off the Christian portions very much as Vischer has done, and see in\n    them the same spirit and the same hand which has presented us with\n    the Gospel[81].\u2018\n\nWe remember that in Harnack\u2019s view the author is not the Apostle but the\nPresbyter.\n\nAnd then Bousset, who has written the commentary on the Apocalypse in\nMeyer\u2019s series, though he does not go quite so far as Harnack, places\nthe two works in close relation to each other. After a careful\nexamination of the language of the Apocalypse he sums up thus:\u2014\n\n    \u2018It is certainly right when this Johannean colouring of the language\n    is set down to the account of the last redactor of the Apocalypse\n    (Harnack, Spitta). But here too it may be seen that this redactor\n    has transformed the material before him more thoroughly than is\n    commonly supposed. The linguistic parallels adduced seem to justify\n    the supposition that the Apocalypse also proceeds from circles which\n    stood under the influence of John of Asia Minor[82].\u2019\n\nThere are many to whom these opinions will seem paradoxical, but there\nis much to be said for them. I quote them, however, only to show that\nthe two problems must be worked out independently, and that they need\nnot necessarily clash with one another.\n\n\n                         2. The date of Papias.\n\n\nThe next question on which I will touch is the date of Papias, which has\na subordinate but rather important bearing upon the group of questions\nwith which he is connected.\n\nI am by no means sure that the late date now commonly assigned to him is\nright (c. 145-60, Harnack). It turns upon a statement in De Boor\u2019s\nfragment, supposed to be made by Papias, that some of those who were\nraised from the dead by Christ lived till the time of Hadrian. A very\nsimilar statement is quoted by Eusebius from the _Apology of Quadratus_\n(_H. E._ iv. 3, 2). I suspect that there has been some confusion at work\nhere. Experience shows that nothing is commoner than for the same story\nto be referred to different persons. In the case of Quadratus we have\nhis own words in black and white, whereas the attribution to Papias is\nvague and may be only a slip of memory[83]. On the other hand Irenaeus\nexpressly calls Papias \u2018one of the ancients\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1), a phrase\nthat I do not think he would have used of a time so near his own as\n145-60. Besides, when we look into the great passage, Eus. _H. E._ iii.\n39, the standpoint appears to be that, at latest of the third\ngeneration, or more strictly where the second generation is passing into\nthe third, if we suppose that Aristion and the Presbyter John were still\nalive. The natural date for the extracts in this chapter seems to me to\nbe _circa_ 100.\n\n\n                   3. The death of the Apostle John.\n\n\nDe Boor\u2019s Fragment is more precise in its assertion, \u2018Papias, in his\nsecond book, says that John the divine (\u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) and James his\nbrother were slain by the Jews.\u2019 \u2018John the divine\u2019 is naturally\nquestioned; it is defended by Schwartz, but may quite well be due to the\nfragmentist. The main arguments against the statement are the silence of\nthe early writers, especially Eusebius, and the possibility of confusion\nbetween John the Baptist and John the Apostle, or between red martyrdom\nand white. No doubt this is one of the better examples of the argument\nfrom silence, and no doubt we must reckon with the possibility of\nmistake. Still I do not feel that the statement altogether loses its\nforce. I said something about it in Lecture III; I will at present only\nadd that supposing it were true, the language of Papias about the two\nJohns can be explained more satisfactorily.\n\n\n            4. The son of Zebedee and the beloved disciple.\n\n\nI cannot disguise from myself that if the elder John really perished at\nan earlier stage in the history, the position of the younger becomes\nmuch clearer. There would then be no difficulty in the way of\nidentifying him at once with the beloved disciple and with the author of\nthe Gospel and Epistles. We should indeed have all the advantages of\nHarnack\u2019s theory without its disadvantages. We should not be compelled\nto attribute to the Ephesian Church any fraudulent intention or\npractice. We should only have to regard the younger John as succeeding\nin a manner to the place of the elder, much (as I said) in the way that\nJames the brother of the Lord succeeded to the place of the elder James.\n\nI do not wish to prejudge the question. But those who are familiar with\nits intricacies will, I think, agree with me that it would be a real\ngain to have only one claimant to the Ephesian tradition[84].\n\n\n                   5. John of Ephesus and his Gospel.\n\n\nWe must in any case think of John of Ephesus as \u2018the aged disciple,\u2019 for\nto our modern ears some such double name as that expresses most\nadequately the feeling that surrounded him. He called himself by\npreference \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, but we have unfortunately no sufficient\nrendering for this in English. \u2018Elder\u2019 and \u2018Presbyter\u2019 have both\ncontracted the associations of office, and of a rather formal kind of\noffice that has lost too much of its original meaning, for the natural\nauthority of age was at first always conveyed in it. I suppose that the\nApostle thought of himself most of all as a memory\u2014the last and\nstrongest link with those wonderful years. It was this especially that\ngave him his sense at once of dignity and of responsibility. When his\ndisciples spoke of \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, I imagine that they meant, as we might\nsay, \u2018the Venerable\u2019; they looked up to him with a feeling of awe\ntempered with affection.\n\nIt was at Ephesus, the capital of Proconsular Asia, that he whom we too\nmay call \u2018the Venerable\u2019 held his modest court, and from thence that he\nwent on circuit, organizing and visiting the little congregations formed\nin the cities and greater towns of the province. We have a glimpse of\nthese activities in the famous story of the Robber Chief. We are more\nconcerned with the contemplative side of his life, with that inward\nretrospect which occupied his mind. I do not doubt that it is true that\nthe other Gospels, as they came into circulation among the churches,\nwere brought to him, and that he expressed his approval of them. The\nstory makes him speak with unique authority, which has about it however\nnothing artificial, but is just the natural deference for one who of all\nmen living was in the best position to know the things of which he\nspoke. His approval of the other Gospels was calm and objective, but\ncritical. I believe that the precious statements that Papias has\npreserved for us about the compositions of St. Mark and St. Matthew are\nreally fragments of his criticism. I accept also as literally true the\nstory that it was partly because he felt that there was something\nwanting in the older records, and partly because of the urgency of those\naround him, that the old man at last was himself impelled to write.\nBrowning\u2019s \u2018Death in the Desert\u2019 presents him at a later stage\u2014at the\nlast stage of all\u2014but as an imaginative reproduction of the\ncircumstances and frame of mind in which the Gospel was written, it is\nthe best that I know.\n\nAt Ephesus in Asia the embers of the apostolic age glowed longer\nthan elsewhere; and we cannot wonder that here the torch should be\nlit which was to be handed on to later times. If the devotion of\ndisciples had to do with the writing of the Gospel, we may be sure\nthat it also had to do with the commending and spreading of the\nGospel when written. It is possible enough that they were the\nfirst to give it the name of \u2018the spiritual Gospel.\u2019 As such it\npassed from hand to hand; and again it is not surprising that\nthose who prided themselves on superior spirituality and insight,\nlike the Gnostics, showed a special fondness for this Gospel, as\nwe are told they did[85]. Neither is it any more surprising that\nin an opposite quarter, where a spirit like that of our own\nHanoverian Bishops looked with jealousy upon every outbreak of\nenthusiasm, there should be a movement of reaction against the\nGospel which seemed to encourage such manifestations (the Alogi).\nThe catholic Church went calmly on its way, and these partialities\nand inequalities soon found their level. By the time of Irenaeus\nthere is a stable equilibrium; no one of the four Gospels is\neither before or after another. And this is really the lesson\ntaught by the Muratorian Fragment, though the writer has to speak\na little more apologetically\u2014there are, it is true, differences,\nbut all are inspired by the self-same Spirit.\n\nThe last trace in ancient times of the preference which from its birth\nhad been given to the Fourth Gospel appears, as we might expect, in\nOrigen. After describing in detail the different purposes which\ndominated the other Gospels, Origen explains that Providence reserved\nfor him who had leaned upon the breast of Jesus the greater and more\nmature discourse about Him, for none of the others had set forth His\ndeity so unreservedly as John.\n\n    \u2018So then we make bold to say that of all the Scriptures the Gospels\n    are the firstfruits, and the firstfruits of the Gospels is that\n    according to John the meaning whereof none can apprehend who has not\n    leaned upon the breast of Jesus, or received at the hands of Jesus\n    Mary to be his mother too[86].\u2019\n\nThis is the kind of history that the extant materials and tradition\nsketch for us of the origin and early fortunes of the Fourth Gospel.\nFrom the moment that we leave behind the shade of obscurity which does\njust linger over the person of the author, everything seems to me quite\nconsistent and coherent and natural and probable. Can we say as much of\nthe opposition to the Gospel, especially in its extremer form, as\nrepresented by Schmiedel or Jean R\u00e9ville or Loisy? We certainly cannot\ngive the epithets just used to the theory of these writers, because\nthere is really nothing to apply to them; the Gospel is for them a great\n_ignotum_, and nothing more. Is not this in itself a rather serious\nobjection? As an _ignotum_ the Gospel is really too great to plant down\nin the middle of the history of the second century without creating a\ndisturbance of all the surrounding conditions which we may be sure would\nhave lasted for years. Imagine this solid mass suddenly thrust into the\ncourse of events, as Schmiedel would say, somewhere about the year 140,\nbetween Basilides and Valentinus and their disciples, as it were under\nthe very eyes of Polycarp and Anicetus and Justin and Tatian, without\nmaking so much as a ripple upon the surface. Of course nothing can be\nsimpler than to say that the author of the Gospel is unknown; but the\nmoment we come to close quarters with the statement, and realize what it\nmeans, we perceive its difficulty.\n\n\n                Epilogue on the Principles of Criticism.\n\n\nAnd now that we have come to the end of this brief sketch of the history\nof the Gospel for the first hundred years or so of its existence, I may\nperhaps turn in conclusion to the other object which has been present to\nmy mind throughout this course of lectures, and attempt to collect and\nstate, also in the most summary form, some of the underlying principles\nof criticism which have from time to time found expression in the\nlectures and which I desire to submit for your consideration, more\nespecially where they differ from much current practice. I consider them\nto be self-evident; but their obviousness has at least not prevented\nthem from being too often disregarded. The main points would, I think,\nbe as follows:\u2014\n\n1. In judging of the external evidence for any ancient writing, it is\nalways important to observe not only the details of the evidence itself\n(date, genuineness, authority, freedom from ambiguity, the precise point\nattested), but also the extent of the area from which it is drawn and\nthe proportion which it bears to the extant literature of the period\nwhich it covers. The first step should be an attempt to realize by an\neffort of the imagination the proportion between (1) the whole of the\nextant evidence, (2) the amount of the material that yields this\nevidence, (3) the amount of the material, once extant but now no longer\nextant, which might have contributed evidence if we had it. In other\nwords, what we have to consider is not only the actual, positive\nevidence available, but the distribution of this evidence and its\nrelation to the real lie of the facts\u2014no longer accessible to us but as\nthey may be imaginatively reconstructed.\n\n2. In particular, when use is made of the argument from silence, the\nfirst question to be asked is, What is silent? It may well be that the\nliterature supposed to be silent is so small that no inference of any\nvalue can be drawn from it.\n\n3. In any further use of the argument from silence full allowance should\nbe made for common human infirmity in the persons who are silent\u2014for\noversight forgetfulness, limited range of thought. It is always\ndesirable that the application of the argument from silence should be\nchecked by comparison with verifiable examples from actual experience,\nwhether that experience is derived from ancient life or from modern.\n\n4. The presumption is that plain statements of fact may be trusted,\nunless there is a distinct and solid reason to the contrary. Even where\nthere is a considerable interval of time between the fact and the\nstatement, it may be presumed that the writer who makes the statement\nhad connecting links of testimony to which he had access and we have\nnot. In any case it is worth while to ask ourselves whether it is not\nprobable that such connecting links existed.\n\n5. In such plain statements the presumption further is that the writer\nmeant what he says, or appears to say. Not until this apparent sense has\nproved wholly unworkable is it right to tamper with his express\nlanguage, whether by emendation of the text or putting upon his words a\nsense that is not obvious and natural.\n\n6. The imputation of conscious deception or fraud is to be strongly\ndeprecated, except with writers of ascertained bad character, and even\nthen the imputation should not be made without substantial reason.\n\n7. All imputations of motive, and especially of sinister motive, should\nbe carefully weighed, and it should in particular be considered whether\nthe supposed motive is one that was likely to be in operation under the\nhistorical conditions of the time and circumstances of the writer\naffected.\n\n8. It should never be forgotten that human nature is a very subtle and\ncomplex thing\u2014usually far more subtle and complex than any picture of it\nthat we are likely to form for ourselves. Hence it is improbable that\nthe enumeration of motives by the critical historian will really exhaust\nthe possibilities of the case. Many seeming inconsistencies, whether of\ncharacter or of statement, are really less than they seem, and quite\ncapable of conjunction in the same person.\n\n9. Where a simple cause suffices to explain a group, especially a large\ngroup, of facts, it is better not to assume a cause that is highly\nexceptional and complicated. This rule seems to apply to the indications\nof an eye-witness in the Fourth Gospel.\n\n10. Such indications do not in the least exclude the natural effect of\nlapse of time and the unconscious action of experience and reflection on\nthe mind of a writer who sets down late in life a narrative of events\nthat had happened long before.\n\n11. In studying a narrative of this kind we should bear in mind, as well\nas we can, the whole career of the writer: we should divide it into its\nsuccessive stages, and we should be constantly asking ourselves which\nstage of his experience is reflected in the shape that each portion of\nthe narrative takes. If the conception which results as a whole appears\nto be such as naturally starts from direct contact with the facts, that\nwill supply us with a much easier explanation than any which involves\nthe wholesale use of fiction.\n\n12. There are different kinds of portraiture; and it does not at all\nfollow that a portrait to be real must be full of movement and action.\nThere are some minds that, from peculiarity of mental habit, although\nthey preserve what they once saw or heard with great distinctness and\nfidelity, nevertheless easily travel away from these recollections of\nobserved fact and glide into a train of reflection which is almost\nsoliloquy. The author of the Fourth Gospel appears to be a writer of\nthis kind.\n\n13. He himself lays so much stress upon ocular testimony that we must\ngive him credit for such testimony, even where it is not altogether easy\nfor us to follow him.\n\n14. This applies particularly to his reports of miracle. But in judging\nof these reports, we must before all things bear in mind that the\npersonal disciples of Jesus and the whole first generation of Christians\ncertainly believed that they were living in the midst of miracle, and\ncertainly held that belief to be an important constituent in their\nconception of Christ.\n\n15. If we would form an adequate idea of what we call \u2018the supernatural\u2019\nin the dealings of God with men, we must not begin by ruling out all\nthat transcends our common experience. We must keep it in our minds even\nwhere we feel that there are features of it that we do but imperfectly\nunderstand. More light may be given to us by degrees.\n\n16. All our Gospels together present us with a view of the life and\nwords of Christ to which, if we did but know it, there would be much to\nbe added. The first Christians were acquainted with many particulars\nunder both heads which to us are entirely lost. These particulars\ncontributed in an important degree to the total impression which they\nformed of the Person of Christ.\n\n17. The conception was naturally fullest and most adequate in the Mother\nChurch, i. e. in the Church in which the immediate followers of Christ\nwere for the longest time collected. It was here, and nowhere else, that\nthat conception of His Person was formed which dominated all parts of\nthe Church, and which carried with it certain corollaries as to the\nnature of God and his dealings with men that became a permanent body of\nbelief.\n\n18. St. Paul no doubt developed certain portions and aspects of this\nbody of belief, but it is quite impossible and contrary to the evidence\nthat he can have invented its main propositions.\n\n19. We may be sure that St. John did not draw directly from St. Paul,\nbut, firstly, from his own recollections, and in the second place, from\nthe store of common memories and common doctrine that was the possession\nof all Christians and especially of those who had been nearest to the\nMaster.\n\n20. If we attempt a reconstruction of the main lines of the progress of\nthe Church in the early and in subsequent centuries, such reconstruction\nought to be worthy of its subject. In other words, it ought to be one in\nwhich we can really see the finger of God.\n\n21. The workings of Divine Providence, as we have experience of them, do\nnot indeed always correspond to what we should antecedently expect. They\nare such as belong to a world, not of perfect, but of imperfect beings.\nThe Divine purpose as we see it, does not take effect at once, but by\nslow and gradually expanding degrees.\n\n22. In a world so mixed and chequered progress also has been mixed and\nchequered; it has not been exactly what we, with our limited faculties,\ncould at once recognize as ideal. It has been progress by tentative\nexperiment, by gradual formulation, by description, at first rough and\napproximate, but improved little by little as time went on. Any\nreconstruction of Christian history which agrees with these broad\nconditions is legitimate, I mean, any reconstruction which recognizes\nthe tentative, experimental, imperfect but gradually improved\nformulation of Christian belief. It is incumbent upon us, in our own\nday, to take our part in the attempt to formulate our conceptions of\ntruth, whether historical or doctrinal, with all the accuracy in our\npower; and we may be quite sure that future generations will improve\nupon anything that we leave behind us.\n\n23. Any method of reconstructing history on these lines is, as I have\nstated, legitimate and worthy of a Christian who is loyal to his faith.\nBut a view of history that cannot be expressed in terms fit to describe\nthe operation of Divine Providence; that sees in it nothing but huge\nblunders and gross deteriorations; that regards the Church of Christ as\nbuilt on fundamental untruth, which only becomes worse and not better as\nthe centuries advance; such a view seems to me to be not loyal and not\nreally Christian.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  See, however, the Oxford Society of Hist. Theol., _N. T. in Apost.\n  Fathers_ (1905), p. 84.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Ibid., pp. 64, 67, 69; on the use of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 81-83 (a\n  judicious estimate).\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  _Ignatius von Antiochien_, pp. 46 ff.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Strangely enough, the Oxford Society\u2019s committee do not mention this\n  phrase, though it presents a stronger case than any of those on p. 31.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  _Hibbert Journal_ i. 529.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  _Character, &c._ 157.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  _Hibbert Journal_ ii. 610.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  _Chronologie_, p. 675.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  _Die Offenbarung Johannis_, p. 208.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  It is pointed out to me by Dr. V. Bartlet that the sentence in the\n  Fragment about the dead raised to life is really a new statement not\n  connected with the sentences preceding which are referred to Papias. I\n  am inclined to think that this is right, and that the authority may be\n  Quadratus.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Since this was written I have had the advantage of seeing in\n  manuscript an argument by Dom John Chapman, presenting in a more\n  attractive shape than I have ever yet seen the view that the only John\n  of Ephesus was the son of Zebedee. All depends upon the truth of the\n  story of this Apostle\u2019s death. It is one of those statements that we\n  can neither wholly trust, nor wholly distrust. There is a real chance\n  that it may be right, and there is an equally real chance that it may\n  be wrong; the evidence, as it seems to me, does not warrant a positive\n  assertion either way. I should be much inclined to think that, if the\n  statement is true, there was but one John at Ephesus, the beloved\n  disciple who was also the Presbyter; and, if the statement is false,\n  there was still but one John, who was both Presbyter and Apostle. But\n  then there comes in the problem of the Apocalypse, which _may_ require\n  two Johns!\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Iren. _adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  _Comm. in Joan._ i. 6.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n\n\n Abbot, Ezra, 12 f., 15.\n\n Abbott, Edwin A., xi.\n\n Alogi, 65 f., 238, 255.\n\n Antioch, 199.\n\n Apocalypse, 248-50.\n\n Apocryphal Acts, 112.\n\n Apocryphal Gospels, 112 f.\n\n Apologetics, x, 3-5, 38.\n\n Apostle, the title, 105 f.\n\n Apostolicity, 41.\n\n Aristion, 241;\n   _see also_ Presbyters of Papias.\n\n Arnold, Matthew, 225.\n\n Athanasius, _Vita Antonii_, 57 ff., 183.\n\n Augustine, St., 178.\n\n\n Bacon, Benjamin W., 19, 24 f., 35, 57, 75.\n\n Baldensperger, Wilhelm, 84.\n\n Barnabas, Epistle of, 38 f., 241.\n\n Bartlet, Vernon, 250.\n\n Basilides, 247, 256.\n\n Batiffol, Mgr. Pierre, 12.\n\n Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 43.\n\n \u2018behold,\u2019 meaning of, 76 f.\n\n \u2018believe,\u2019 161 f.\n\n Bethsaida, 114.\n\n Beyschlag, Willibald, 10 f.\n\n Bousset, Wilhelm, 17, 249 f.\n\n Box, George H., 153.\n\n Briggs, Charles Augustus, 21 ff.\n\n Burkitt, F. Crawford, 183 f.\n\n Butler, Dom Cuthbert, 57, 183.\n\n\n Caius, 66, 69.\n\n Calmes, P\u00e8re Th., 12.\n\n Canonicity, 39.\n\n Catholicity, 41.\n\n Ceremonies, 119 ff.\n\n Chapman, Dom John, 252.\n\n Cheyne, Thomas Kelly, x f.\n\n Church, the Mother, vii, 228-33, 261.\n\n Chwolson, Daniel, 121, 152 f.\n\n Clement of Alexandria, 66, 67 ff., 72 f., 105, 238 ff.;\n   _see_ Presbyters.\n\n Continuity, 5, 234 f.\n\n Conybeare, Frederick C., 29, 55.\n\n Cosmos, 197.\n\n Criticism, American, 46 ff.\n\n \u2014 English, 44 ff.\n\n \u2014 French, 27 f., 31.\n\n \u2014 German, ix, 27 f., 48 ff.\n\n \u2014 Principles of, 42-67, 142, 257-63.\n\n\n\n De Boor\u2019s Fragment, 103 f., 107, 250 ff.\n\n Delff, Hugo, 17 f., 21, 90, 99, 108.\n\n Demoniacal Possession, 130, 133 f.\n\n Development, alleged want of, 155-65, 209.\n\n _Didach\u00e9_, 199, 241, 245 f.\n\n Dill, Samuel, 35 f.\n\n Dobsch\u00fctz, Ernst von, 15 f., 18 f., 115.\n\n Dods, Marcus, 11.\n\n Drummond, James, 3, 15, 32 ff., 41, 67, 81, 110 ff., 115, 141, 166,\n    192, 197, 241, 247.\n\n Dualism, 196.\n\n\n Ebionism, 29, 226, 230.\n\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 77 ff.\n\n _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, 1 f., 45.\n\n Eusebius, 65, 67 ff., 238 f., 250 f.\n\n Extensions, Principle of, 178.\n\n\n\n Feasts, the Jewish, 117 f., 119 ff.;\n   _see_ Passover.\n\n Fisher, George P., 14.\n\n Fourth Gospel, Appendix to (ch. xxi), 63 f., 80 f.\n\n \u2014 as a \u2018spiritual Gospel,\u2019 68, 70 ff., 96.\n\n \u2014 Christology of, 205-35.\n\n \u2014 Criticism of, 1-3, 5-8, 15, 25, 32, 60 ff., 65 f., 67 ff.\n\n \u2014 Discourses in, 165-9.\n\n \u2014 External Evidence for, 238-48.\n\n \u2014 Internal Evidence, Summary of, 238 f.\n\n \u2014 Geographical Details in, 113 f.\n\n \u2014 Monotony of, 206.\n\n \u2014 not a biography, 70 f., 205-7.\n\n \u2014 Object of, 68 f., 71 f., 205 f.\n\n\n \u2014 Relation to Synoptics, 67 ff., 71 f., 117 f., 143-55, 166, 216-25.\n\n\n \u2014 Author of, 67 ff., 70 ff., 79 f., 82-108, 128, 167 ff., 188 f., 206,\n    244 f., 260;\n   _see_ St. John, Apostle and Presbyter.\n\n Furrer, Konrad, 113 f.\n\n\n Galatians, Epistle to the, 230.\n\n Georgius Monachus (Hamartolus), 103.\n\n Godet, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric, 11.\n\n Goltz, Freiherr E. von der, 242-4.\n\n Grill, Julius, 190-2, 194-7, 200 f.\n\n Gwatkin, Henry M., 58 f.\n\n\n Harnack, Adolf, 18 ff., 42 ff., 60 ff., 76, 106, 197, 200, 223, 241,\n    249, 250, 252.\n\n Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, 45-9.\n\n Hebrews, Epistle to the, 207-16.\n\n Heracleon, 24, 238, 240.\n\n Hermas, 241.\n\n Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, 41, 57, 75, 115, 194, 224.\n\n Holtzmann, Oscar, 25 f.\n\n\n Ignatius of Antioch, 51 ff., 199, 241-5.\n\n Irenaeus, 60 ff., 65 f., 73, 105, 238 ff., 251, 255.\n\n\n Jacquier, Abb\u00e9 E., 12.\n\n Jerusalem, Destruction of, 116, 123 f.\n\n Jewish Ideas, 15, 128-36.\n\n John, Apocryphal Acts of, 108.\n\n \u2014 First Epistle of, 57, 74 ff.\n\n \u2014 School of St., 73, 81 f., 253 f.;\n   _see_ Presbyters of Papias, Presbyters of Clement.\n\n\n John the Apostle, 16 ff., 60 ff., 97-108, 248-56;\n   _see also_ Fourth Gospel, Author of.\n\n \u2014 Death of, 103 ff., 107 f., 251 f.\n\n\n John the Presbyter, 16 ff., 19 f., 60 ff., 97-108, 248-56;\n   _see also_ Fourth Gospel, Author of.\n\n J\u00fclicher, Adolf, 1, 31 f., 75.\n\n Justin Martyr, 33, 139, 166, 246 f., 256.\n\n\n Keim, Theodor, 241.\n\n Kreyenbuhl, Johannes, xi.\n\n\n Last Discourse, 90, 94 ff.\n\n Last Supper, 88 f., 94, 150-5.\n\n Lazarus, Story of, 87 f., 170-2.\n\n Light and Life, 190 f., 201.\n\n Lightfoot, Joseph B., 12, 51 ff.\n\n Local Colour, 129-36.\n\n Logos, Doctrine of the, 185-204, 211 ff.\n\n Loisy, Abb\u00e9 Alfred, 2, 28, 31, 41, 200-4, 205, 223 f., 256.\n\n Lucius, Ernst, 54 f.\n\n Luthardt, Christoph E., 11.\n\n\n Malchus, 90.\n\n Matthew, Apocryphal Gospel of, 112 f.\n\n McGiffert, A. Cushman, 19.\n\n _Memra_, 187.\n\n Messiah, the title, 208, 221 f.\n\n Messianic Expectation, 117, 136-40, 158 f.\n\n Milligan, William, 11.\n\n Ministry, Scene of the, 144-8.\n\n \u2014 Duration of, 148 f.\n\n Miracle, 169-84.\n\n Moberly, Robert Campbell, 215.\n\n Moffatt, James, 19.\n\n Moulton, William F., 11.\n\n Muratorian Fragment, 66, 105, 255.\n\n\n Origen, 66, 238, 255.\n\n\n Papias, 60, 64, 73, 246, 250 ff., 254;\n   _see_ De Boor\u2019s Fragment.\n\n Paraclete, 196 f., 219 f.\n\n\n Passover, 85, 117, 119 f., 151-5;\n   _see_ Feasts.\n\n Paul, St., 168, 174 f., 188, 261.\n\n \u2014 St., and St. John, Relation of, viii, 168, 208-16, 226-33.\n\n Peter, St., and St. John, 91 f., 100, 102, 107.\n\n Peter, Second Epistle of, 43.\n\n Petronius, _Satiricon_, 35 f.\n\n Pfleiderer, Otto, 26.\n\n Pharisees;\n   _see_ Sects and Parties.\n\n Philip the Evangelist, 64.\n\n Philo, 55, 185-200.\n\n \u2014 _De Vita Contemplativa_, 54 ff.\n\n Pilgrimages, 117 f.\n\n Polycarp, 60, 62, 242, 256.\n\n Polycrates, 62, 99 f., 102 f., 105.\n\n Pothinus, 61 f.\n\n Pragmatism, 109 ff.\n\n Presbyter, the title, 253.\n\n\n\n Presbyters of Clement, 67, 72 f.\n\n\n \u2014 of Papias, 60 f., 63 f., 241.\n\n Purification, 84 f., 120 f.\n\n\n Quadratus, 250.\n\n\n Rabbinical Schools, 132.\n\n Ramsay, William M., 112.\n\n R\u00e9ville, Jean, 2, 28, 31, 200, 256.\n\n Ritschlianism, 47.\n\n Roman Government, 126 ff.\n\n\n Sadducees;\n   _see_ Sects and Parties.\n\n Salmon, George, 66.\n\n Samaria, Woman of, 85.\n\n Sanhedrin, 90 f., 100 f., 116, 124 ff.\n\n Schmiedel, Paul W., 2, 26 f., 37 ff., 57, 75, 239 ff., 247, 256.\n\n Sch\u00fcrer, Emil, 18, 28, 55 f.\n\n Schwartz, Eduard, 32, 66, 246.\n\n\n Sects and Parties, 123 ff.\n\n Silence, Argument from, 33 ff., 39, 171 f., 251.\n\n Soden, Freiherr Hermann von, viii f., 129 f.\n\n Soltau, Wilhelm, 21.\n\n Son of God, the title, 208-26, 231.\n\n Spirit, the Holy, 214 f.\n\n \u2018spiritual,\u2019 meaning of, 71 f.\n\n Stanton, Vincent H., 3, 37 ff., 241.\n\n Stoics, 199.\n\n Style, Argument from Identity of, 56 f., 74 f., 81.\n\n Supernatural, the, 169-84, 260 f.\n\n Synoptic Gospels, Criticism of, 151 ff., 170-2, 217 f., 261;\n   _see_ Fourth Gospel, Relation to Synoptics.\n\n\n Tatian, 66, 238 ff.\n\n Temple, the, 113, 122 f.\n\n Temple, Cleansing of, 149 f.\n\n \u2014 Golden Gate of, 113.\n\n \u2014 Solomon\u2019s Porch, 123, 164 f.\n\n \u2014 Treasury, 123.\n\n Tertullian, 105, 238 ff.\n\n Textual History, Argument from, 55 ff.\n\n \u2018that year,\u2019 115.\n\n Thecla, Acts of Paul and, 43, 112.\n\n Theophilus of Antioch, 34, 238.\n\n Tiberias, Sea of, 114.\n\n Tradition, 4, 44.\n\n Trinity, Doctrine of the, 215 f., 218 f., 231.\n\n\n Valentinus, 247, 256.\n\n\n Ward, Miss Janet, 1.\n\n Watkins, Henry W., xi.\n\n Weingarten, Hermann, 57.\n\n Weiss, Bernhard, 9 f., 30.\n\n Wellhausen, Julius, ix.\n\n Wendland, Paul, 199.\n\n Wendt, Hans Hinrich, 21 ff., 220 f.\n\n Wernle, Paul, 27, 31, 75, 227-35.\n\n Westcott, Brooke Foss, 13, 93.\n\n Wrede, William, ix, 75, 109 f.\n\n\n Zahn, Theodor, 8 f., 245.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the lectures in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Eight Lectures on the Morse Foundation, Delivered in the Union Seminary, New York in October and November 1904","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":75385}