Supernatural Religion, Vol. 2 (of 3) / An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation

e must mention that, in the Clementines, the Apostle Peter is represented as maintaining that the Scriptures are not all true, but are mixed up with what is false, and that on this account, a

of Adam, a doctrine which, as Neander remarked, "

for pain and death are only accidents without permanent force-pain is merely the disturbance of harmony, and death nothing but the separation of soul from body.(1) The passions also must be classed amongst the things which are accidental, and are not always to exist; but these, although capable of abuse, are in reality beneficial to the soul when properly restrained, and carry out the will of God. The man w

uotation is not accidental, but is the point upon which the whole propriety of the quotation depends. In the Gospel of the Clementines the man is not blind from his birth, "that the works of God might be made manifest in him,"-a doctrine which would be revolting to the author of the Homilies,-but the calamity has befallen him in consequence of some error of ignorance on the part of his parents which brings its punishment; but "the power of God" is made manifest in healing the sins of ignorance. The reply of Jesus is a profess

the historical incident is, of course, no evidence whatever of dependence on the fourth Gospel, which, although it may be the only accidentally surviving work which contains the narrative, had no prescriptive and exclusive property in it, and so far from the partial agreement in the narrative proving the use of the fourth Gospel, the only

ven as distinct quotation substantially differs from the record in that work. We have already illustrated this on several occasions, and may once more offer an instance. If the first Synoptic had unfortunately perished, like so many other

t the author of the fourth Gospel made use of materials derived from oral tradition and earlier records for its composition.(1) It is equally undeniable that other gospels had access to the same materials, and made use of them; and a comparison of our three Synoptics renders very evident the community of materials, including the use of the one by the other, as well as the diversity of literary handling to which those materials were subjected. It is impossible with reason to deny that the Gos

rary existence of that work. If such quotations, moreover, could be traced with fifty times greater probability to the fo

trongly enunciated in the Clementines seem to us to exclude the supposition that the author can have made use of a work so fundamentally at variance with all his views as the fourth Gospel, and it is certain that, holding those opinions, he could hardly have regarded such a Gospel as an apostolic and authoritative document. Space will

more Jewish than Christian.(2) In the preliminary Epistle of the Apostle Peter to the Apostle James, when sending the book, Peter entreats that James will not give it to any of the Gentiles,(3) and James says: "Necessarily and rightly our Peter reminded us to take precautions for the security of the truth, that we should not communicate the books of his preachings, sent to us, indiscriminately to all, but to him

in fact given by Adam as a true prophet knowing all things, and it is called "Eternal," and neither to be abrogated by enemies nor falsified by the impious.(4) The author, therefore, protests against the idea that Christianity is any new thing, and insists that Jesus came to confirm, not abrogate, the Mosaic Law.(5) On the ot

name of "the Jews" indeed is used as an equivalent for the enemies of Christ.(2) The religion of Jesus is not only absolute, but it communicates knowledge of the Father which the Jews did not previously possess.(3) The inferiority of Mosaism is everywhere represented: "and out of his fulness all we received, and grace

author vehemently maintains as well against the ascription of divinity to Christ as against heathen Polythei

hat of the fourth Gospel.(2) The idea of a hypostatic Trinity seems to be quite unknown to him, and would have been utterly abhorrent to his mind as sheer Polytheism. On the other hand, the fourth Gospel proclaims the doctrine of a hypostatic Trinity in a more a

ughout, his absolutely divine nature is asserted both by the Evangelist, and in express terms in

et and Spirit" who from the beginning of the world, changing names and forms, passes through Time,"(3) and these men were thus essentially the same as Jesus.(4) As Neander rightly observes, the author of the Homilies "saw in Jesus a new appearance of that Adam whom he had ever venerated as the s

tain by what means

d this periodical

y a kind of transmi

very doubtful whet

of Jesus (though

ny rate he does not

ien, p. 209 f.; Ne

thought that he did

whilst thinking th

that case he equ

h to the other se

inen, p

On the other hand, the representation of Jesus as the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world,(3) is the very basis of the fourth Gospel. The passages are innumerable in which belief in Jesus is insisted upon as essential. "He that believeth in the Son hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him "(4)...."for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."(5) In fact,

the first-fruit of our Lord; the first of the Apostles to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ deservedly pronounced blessed; the called and chosen and companion and fellow-traveller (of Jesus); the admirable and approved disciple, who as fittest of all was commanded to enlighten the West, the darker part of the world, and was enabled to guide it aright," &C.(1) He is here represented as the Apostle to the

e after a single hour of instruction?(2) As Neander aptly remarks: "But if the author had known from the Johannine Gospel that the teaching of Christ had continued for several years, he would certainly have had particularly good reason instead of one year to set several

, but on the strength of some supposed references it is claimed by apologists as evidence for the existence of the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf, who only devotes a dozen lines to this work, states his case as follows: "Although this short apologetic ep

ii. 11 ('But they are in the world'); 14 ('The world hateth them, for they are not of the world'); 16 ('They are not of the world as I

we shall take the liberty of putting the actual quotations in italics, and the rest must be taken as purely the language of Canon Westcott. We shall hereafter show also the exact separation which exists between phrases which are here, with the mere indication of some omission, brought together to form the supposed references to the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott

[---], and will give it to those who love Him.' God's will is mercy; 'He sent His Son as wishing to save [---].... and not to condemn' and as witnesses of this, 'Christians dwell in the world, though they are not of the world!(1) At the clo

composition dating from the middle of the second century, which it is not, and even if the indirect allusions were ten times mor

believe it to have been, at a much later perio

passages indicated, introduces this sentence (which occurs in chapter vi.) as the consequence of a passage following it in chapter vii. by the words "and as witnesses of this: Christians," &c.... The first parallel which is pointed out in the Gospel reads, John xvii. 11: "And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world [---], and I come to thee, Holy Father keep them,"&c. Now it must be evident that in mere direct point of language and sense there is no parallel here at all. In the Gospel, the disciples are referred to as being left behind in the world by Jesus who goes to

e, we must carefully examine the context. In chapter v. the author is speaking of the

d of their birth is a foreign land" [---], and so on. Now this epistle is in great part a mere plagiarism of the Pauline and other canonical epistles, whilst professing to describe the actual life of Christians, and the fifth and sixth chapters, particularly, are based upon the epistles of Paul and notably the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, from whi

-].

stians are in the world. The soul is dispersed throughout all the members of the body, and Christians throughout all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body but is not of the body, and Christians dwell in the world, but are not of the world. [---]. The invisible soul is kept in t

that hates it, and the members, and Christians love those who hate them "[---]. And so on with three or four sim

em in sense and also in language. The simile in connection with which the words occur is commenced at the beginning of the preceding chapter, where Christians are represented as living as strangers even in their native land, and the very essence of the passage in dispute is given in the two sentences: "They are in the flesh, but do not l

d the second: "They continue on earth but are citizens of heaven" [---], which recall Philip, iii. 20: "For our country

connection "And the world hated them, because they are not of the world" [---]. In the Epistle, in a passage quoted above, we have: "The flesh hates the soul, and wages war against it, although unjustly, because it is restrained from indulgence in sensual pleasures, and the world hates Christians, although in no way wronged by them, because they are opposed to sensual pleasures." [---].Now nothing could more clearly show that these analogies are mere accidental coincidence, and not derived from the fourth Gospel, than this passage. If the writer had really had the passage in the Gospel in his mind, it is impossible that he could in this manner have completely broken it up and changed its whole context and language. The phrase: "they

st of the flesh. 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are contrary the one to t

ence, however, which is given as quotation without any explanation, is purely a composition by Canon Westcott himself out of different materials which he finds in the Epistle, and is not a quotation at all. The actual passage in the Epistle, with its immediate context, is as follows: "This (Messenger-the Truth,

g, not condemning [---]. For he will send him to judge, and who shall abide his presence?"(4) The supposed parall

orld through him migh

expressed with more especial clearness and force, and close analogy with the language of the letter, in the Epistles of Paul, to which the letter more particularly leads us, as well as in other canonical Epistles, and in these we find analogies with the context quoted above, which confirm our belief that they, and not the Gospel, are the source of the passage-Rom. v. 8: "But God proveth his own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9. Much more then....... shall we be saved [---] through him from the wrath (to come).'" Cf. 16,17. Rom. viii. 1: "There is, therefore, now no co

God appointed us not to wrath, but to the obtaining salvation [---] through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Tim. i. 15. "This is a faithful saying.... that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" [---]. 1 Tim. ii. 3. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour [---]. 4. Who willeth all men to be saved "[---]. Cf. v. 5, 6. 2 Tim. i. 9. "Who saved us [---], and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according t

wn and already applied to Jesus before the Gospel was composed. The author knew that his statement would be understood without explanation. Although the writer of the Epistle makes use of the designation "Logos," he shows his Greek culture by giving the precedence to the term Truth or Reason. It has indeed been remarked(1) that the name Jesus or Christ does not occur anywhere in the Epistle. By way of showing the manner in which "the Word" is spoken of, we will give the entire passage, part of which is quoted above; the first and only one in the first ten chapters in which the term is used: "For, as I said, this was not an earthly invention which was delive

he sea [---], fire, air, abyss, the things in the heights, the things in the depths, the things in the space between. This (Messenger-the truth, the Word) he sent to them. Now, was it, as one of men might reason, for tyranny and to cause fear and consternation? Not so, but in clemency and gentleness, as a King sending his Son, a king, he sent; as God he sent (him); as towards men he sent, as saving he sent (him); as persuading," &c., &c.(1) The description here given, how God

Hebrews, and it is to these, and not to the fourth Gospel, that the account in the Epistle to Diognetus may be more properly traced. Heb. L 2. "The Son of God by whom also he made the worlds. 10. The heavens

n him all things subsist. 18. And he is the head of the body, the Church, who is the Beginning(1) [---]; the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might be the first. 19. Because he was well pleased that in him should all the fulness dwell. 20. And through him to reconcile all things unto himself," &c., &c. These passages might be greatly multiplied, but it is unnecessary, for the matter of the

in heaven [---] and will give it to those who love Him."(3) The context is as follows: "For God loved men [---] for whose sake he made the world, to whom he subjected all things that are in it, to whom he gave reason and intelligence, to whom alone h

ospel. We find parallels for the passage, however, in the Epistles from which the unknown writer obviously derives so much of his matter. Rom. v. 8: "But God giveth proof of his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 10.... through the death of his son." Chap. viii. 8, "God sending his son, &c. 29.... Them he also foreordained to bear the likeness of the image of his son, &c. 32. He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all," &c. 39. (Nothing can separate us) "from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Gal. ii. 20.... "by the faith of the Son o

--] and love towards men [---] of our Saviour God was manifested. 5... according to his mercy he saved us.... 6.... through J

erences, however, and specially the substitution of [---], distinctly oppose the claim. The words are a perfectly natural comment upon the words in Ephesians, from which it is obvious

who have loved him" [---]. This also we find in the Epistles to which the writer exclusively refers in this letter: James il 5, "heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him" [---

in heaven" in our Gospels is unfavourable to the argument that they

of them, and he uses no expressions and no terminology which warrants

hirteenth or fourteenth century, but it is far from certain that it was so old. The last two chapters are a falsification by a later writer than the author of the first ten. There is no internal evidence whatever in this brief didactic composition requiring or even suggesting its assignment to the second or third centuries, but on the contrary, we venture to assert that there is evidence, both internal and external, justifying the b

lides(2) renders it unnecessary for us to re-enter at any length into t

a subjectless [---]" he says,"are quotations made in some lost work by Basilides. We have shown that Hippolytus and other writers of his time were in the habit of quoting passages from works by the founders of sects and by their later followers without any distinction, an utte

in John x. 8,(5) the only one which can be pointed out. "We have distinctly proved that the quotations in question are not assignable to Valentinus himself, a fact which even apolo

er that Valentin us was acq

f the work at a late period in the second century, but would furnish no evidence of the slightest value regarding its apostolic origin, or towards establishing its historical value. On the other hand, if, as apologists assert, these heretics possessed the f

y use of the fourth Gospel, and the only ground upon which it is argued that he supplies evidence even of its existence is the vague general statement of Tertullian, that Marcion reject

ranted that Marcion, of whom he knew very little, must have actually rejected the four Gospels of his own Canon. Even Canon Westcott admits that: "it is uncertain whether Tertullian in the passage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what Marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own point of sight."(3) There is not the slightest evidence that Marcion knew the fourth Gospel,(4) and if he did, it is perfectly inex

en no evidence regarding the fo

o evidence that it was based upon our four Gospels, there is reason to believe that it may have been identical with the Gospel according to the

hendorf(3) and others point out one or two supposed references to passages in the fourth Gospel. The first of these in order, is one indicated by Canon Westcott,(4) but to which Tischendorf does not call attention: "God was in the beginning, but we have learned that the beginning is

also which was in him subsisted. But by the will of his simp

tting off, for that which is cut off is separated from the first: but that which is divided, receiving the choice of administration, did not render him defective from who

om which it cannot have been derived. Tatian himself(2) seems to assert that he derived

beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [---].(1)1 The expressions: "But we have learned that the Beginning [---] was the power of Reason," &c., "but the Reason [---] not proceeding in vain became the first-born work [---] of the Father. Him we know to be the Beginning [---] of the world," recall many early representations of the Logos, to which we have already, referred: Pro v. viii. 22: "The Lord created me the Beginning [---] of ways for his works [---], 23. Before the ages he established me, in the beg

l, which point to a different source for Tatian's doctrine. It is sufficient th

join in contrast with the paral

n at the end of the world, receiving eternal death as a punishment. "Again, however, it does not die, though it be for a time dissolved, if it has acquired knowledge of God; for in itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it, and this, therefore, is (the meaning of) th

mentioned that the

d the doctrine

llel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo calls the Logos "the Light,"(2) and quoting in a peculiar form Ps. xxvi. 1: "For the Lord is my light [---] and my Saviour," he goes on to say that, as the sun divides day and night, so, Moses says, "God divides light and darkness" [---].(3) When we

last passage

-

the first chapters of Genesis than to the dogmatic prologue enunciating the doctrine of the Logos.(1) Under all these circumstances, the source from which the expression may have been derived cannot with certainty be ascertained and, as in the preceding instance, even if it be assumed that the words

grammatic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic passage of the fourth Gospel.(2) Neither Tischendorf nor Dr. Westcott refer to it. The fact is, however, that the epigrammatic form only exists when the phrase is quoted without its context. "

ween spirit [---] and soul [---], and it is unreasonable to assert that a man like Tati

o passages in St. Mark and St. John, but they are all anonymous."(5) The passages in which he speaks of the Logos, which are those referred to here, are certainly not taken from the fourth Gospel, and his doctrine is expressed in terminology which is different from that of the Gospel, and is deeply tinged with Platonism.(6) He appeals to Proverbs viii. 22, already so frequently quoted by us, for con

ays," is one in which he introduces a saying which is not found in our Gospels by the words: "The Logos again saying to us:" [---], &c. From the same source, which was obviously not our Canonical Gospels, we have, th

at the earliest a.d. 177-178, in which no direct reference is made to any writing of the New

Epistle from which the saying of Jesus, which of course apologists assert to be historical,

other Gospels may have contained the passage quoted in the Epistle. In no case could an anonymo

hat the date at which these heretics flourished places them beyond the l

was made)." [---].(3) Now the supposed quotation is introduced here in a parenthesis interrupting the sense, and there is every probability that it was added as an illustration by Epiphanius, and was not in the Epistle to Flora at all. Omitting the parenthesis, the sentence is a very palpable reference to

se heresiarchs, therefore, is of any value as a w

wn swords,"(3) and in another place he says that certain Christians "alter the Gospel from its first written form in three-fold, four-fold, and many-fold ways, and re-mould it in order to have the means of contradicting the arguments (of opponents)." (4) This is supposed to refer to the four Canonical Gospels. Apart from the fact that Origen replies to the first of these passages, that Celsus has brought

er the Canon of

es a legend with regard to the composition of the fourth Gospel which we may quote here, although its obviousl

ngeliorum libris principia docoantur nihil tamen diffort creden tium fidei cum uno ac principali spiritu de clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui tate de passione de resurrectione de conuersatione cum decipulis suis ac de gemino eius aduentu primo in humilitate dispectus quod fo... .u (3) secundum potestate regali... pre clarum

incipia) are taught by each book of the Gospels, nevertheless it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since, in all, all things are declared by one ruling Spirit concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning the intercourse with the disciples, and concerning his double advent; the first in lowliness of estate, which has taken place, the second in regal power and splendour,

unmistakably implies antecedent denial of its authority and apostolic origin. The writer not onl

king of John as "one of the disciples" (ex discipulis), and of Andrew as "one of the Apostles," the writer intends to distinguish between John the disciple, who wrote the Gospel and Epistle, and John the Apostle, who wrote the Apocalypse, and that it was for this reason that he sought to dignify him by a special revelation, through the Apostle Andrew, selecting him to write the Gospel. Credner, therefore, concludes that here we have an ancient ecclesiastical tradition ascribing the Gospel and first Epistle to one of the disciples of Jesus different from the Apostle John

HIP AND CHARACTER O

ings of the Fathers which we have examined even of a tradition that the Apostle John had composed any evangelical work at all, and the claim advanced in favour of the Christian miracles to contemporaneous evidence of extraordinary force and veracity by undoubted eye-witnesses so completely falls to the ground, that we might here well bring this part of our inquiry to a close. There are, however, so many peculiar circumstances

istory and character of the Apostle. It is asserted by the Church that John the son of Zebedee, one of the disciples of Jesus, is the composer of no less than five of our canonical writings, and it would be impossible to select any books of our New Testament presenting more distinct features, or more widely divergent views, than are to be found in the Apocalypse on the one hand, and the Gospel and three Epistles on the other. Whilst a strong family likeness exists between the Epistles and the Gospel, and they exhibit close analogies both in thought and language, the Apocalypse, on the contrary,

nd almost the first application of critical judgment to the Canonical books of the New Testament is the argument of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third century, that the author of the fourth Gospel could not be the writer of the Book of Revelation.(1) The dogmatic predilections which at that ti

y been conclusively done by others. Some apologetic writers,-greatly influenced, no doubt, by the express declaration of the Church, and satisfied by analogies which could scarcel

o the dilemma which may be expressed as follows, in the words of Llicke: "Either the Gospel and the first Epistle are genuine writings of the Apostle John, and in that case the Apocalypse is no genuine work of that A

neral, and in details so fragmentary and uncertain (zuruckweichend), that the Apostle John, if he really he the author of the Gospel and of the Epistle-which we here assume-cannot have composed the Apocalypse either before

e, or, if the Apocalypse be his work, that he is not the author of the other writings."(2) Ewald is equally positive: "Above all," he says, "we should err in tracing this work (the Gospel) to the Apostle, if the Apocalypse of the New Testament were by him. That this much earlier writing cannot have been composed by the author

, consider the point generally admitted, and proceed

hat Papias recognized the Apocalypse as an inspired work, and the inference drawn from this fact that he referred it to the Apostle, we at once proceed to Justin Martyr, who affirms in the clearest and most positive manner the Apostolic origin of the work. He speaks to Tryphon of "a certain man whose name was John, one of the Apostles of C

lic work.(3) Eusebius further states that Theophilus of Antioch made use of testimony from the Apocalypse of John;(4) but although, as Eusebius does not mention anything to the contrary, it is probable that Theophilus really recognized the book to be by John the Apostle, the uncritical haste of Eusebius renders his vague statement of little value. We do not think it worth while to quote the evidence of later writers. Although Iren?us, who repeatedly assigns the Apocalypse to John, the disciple of the Lord,(5) is cited by Apologists as a

eless more particularly to refer to later evidence, however, or quote even t

ese objections, it is obvious, are merely dogmatic, and do not affect to be historical. They are in fact a good illustration of the method by which the Canon was formed. If the doctrine of any writing met with the approval of the early Church, it was accepted with unhesitating faith, and its pretension to Apostolic origin was admitted as a natural consequence; but if, on the other hand, the doctrine of the writing was not clearly that of the community, it was rejected without furt

ppointed, and the hope of a Millennium began either to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed, the Apocalypse proportionately lost favour, or was regarded as an incomprehensible book misleading

at the same time be the author of the Apocalypse. Dogmatic predilection decided the question in favour of the apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel, and the reasoning by which that decision is arrived at has, therefore, no cri

a very few weeks, can so positively be affirmed. No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis and is now more universally accepted by all competent criti

he Johannine authorship of the Gospel, objects that the author, although he certainly calls himself John, does not assume to be an Apostle, but merely terms himself the servant [---] of Christ like other true Christians, and distinctly classes himself amongst the Prophets(4) and not amongst the Apostles.(5) We find, however, that P

nder the simple designation of "John," and when we consider the unmistakeable terms of authority with which he addresses the Seven Churches, it is scarcely possible to deny that the writer either was the Apostle, or distinctly desired to assume his personality. It is not necessary for us here to enter into any discus

e foundation stones of the wall of the future heavenly Jerusalem. He considers that no intelligent person could thus publicly glorify himself or anticipate the honour which God alone can bestow. "And can any one seriously believe,

ot a mere subjective sketch coloured according to the phantasy of the writer. Passing on, however, it must be apparent that the whole account of the heavenly city is typical, and that in basing its walls upon the Twelve, he does not glorify himself personally, but simply gives its place to the idea which was symbolised when Jesus is represented as selecting twelve disciples, the number of the twelve tribes, upon whose preaching the spiritual city was to be built up. The Jewish belief in a special preference of the Jews before all nations doubtless suggested this, and it forms a leadi

Jewish dogmatism, and it is of singular val

twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."(2) Ewald himself, in his distribution of the materials of our existing first Synoptic to the supposed original sources, assigns this passage to the very oldest Gospel.(3) What impropriety is there, and what improbability, therefore, that an Apostle, in an apocalyptic allegory, should represent the names of the twelve Apostles as inscribed upon the twelve foundation stones of the spiritual Jer

" says Ewald, elsewhere, pursuing the same argumen

sert that, in writing a serious history of the life and teaching of Jesus, full of marvellous events and astounding doctrines, the omission of his name by an Apostle can not only not be recognized as genuine modesty, but must be condemned as culpable neglect. It is perfectly incredible that an Apostle could have written such a work without attaching his name as the guarantee of his intimate acquaintance with the events and statements he records. What would be thought of a historian who published a history wi

an Allegory, represent the names of the Twelve as written on the foundat

he rest of the Twelve, assumes to himself alone a pre-eminence in the favour and affection of his Master, as well as a distinction amongst his fellow disciples, of which we first hear from himself, and which is anything but corroborated by the three Synoptics? The supposed author of the fourth Gospel, it is true, does not plainly mention his name, but he distinguishes himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and represe

lf as the author of the Apocalypse was the Apostle. On the contrary, the tone of authority adopted throughout, and the evident certainty that his identity would e

rusalem; its twelve gates are dedicated to the twelve tribes of Israel; God and the Lamb are the Temple of it; and the sealed of the twelve tribes have the precedence over the nations, and stand with the Lamb on Mount Zion (xiv. 1) having his name and his Father's written on their foreheads. The language in which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New Testament, as its contents are th

ons of the author of the Apocalypse or of the Evangelist. John and his brother James are represented by the Synoptics as being the sons of Zebedee and Salome. The

them, even as Elijah did?"(3) A remarkable episode will have presented itself already to the mind of every reader, which the second Synoptic Gospel narrates as follows: Mark x. 35, "And James and John the sons of Zebedee come unto him saying unto him: Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask thee. 36. And he said unto them: What would ye that I should do for you? 37. They said unto him: Grant that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory. 38. But Jesu

le modesty."(1) After the death of Jesus, John remained in Jerusalem,(2) and chiefly confined his ministry to the city and its neighbourhood.(3) The account which Hegesippus gives of James the brother of Jesus who was appointed overseer of the Church in Jerusalem will not be forgotten,(4) and we refer to it merely in illustration of primitive Christianity. However mythical elements are worked up into the narrative, one point is undoubted fact, that the Christians of that community were but a sect of Judaism, merely superadding to

Gentiles, the three [---] elect to continue their ministry to the circumcision.(1) Here is John, therefore, clearly devoted to the Apostleship of the circumcision as opposed to Paul, whose views, as we gather from the whole of Paul's account, were little more than tolerated by the [---]. Before leaving New Testament data, we may here point out the statement in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter and John were known to be "unlettered and ignorant men"(2) [---]. Later tradition mentions one or two circumstances regarding John to wh

mitre and petalon of the high priest [---],(1) a tradition which agrees with t

iction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of Galilee, and the fierce and intolerant spirit which pervades the book is precisely that which formerly forbade the working of miracles, even in the name of the Master, by any not of the immediate circle of Jes

to any of the othe

e well to mention

which assigned to

odex gives as the s

]" and we know tha

, of all the Apostl

ed unmarried, whenc

nection with this

to virginity in th

naohap. Zeit, ii. p

836, p. 32 f.; Craf

2

of Ewald regarding

would be singularly

of John and his br

of the glorified Jes

e modesty" which th

thor of the fourth G

Syno

of the Apocalypse, indeed, derive a new significance when we remember the opposition which the Apostle of the Gentiles met with from the Apos

y of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by him, is considered, it is very comprehensible. In the Apocalypse, we find undeniable traces of it which accord with what Paul himself says, and with the undoubted tradition of the early Church. Not only is Paul silently excluded from the number of the Apostles, which might be intelligible when the typical nature of the number twelve is considered,

be apparent to every unprejudiced person that the Apocalypse singularly corresponds in every respect-language, construction, and thought-with what we are told of the character of the Apo

east, that with the exception of one o

ament which is supporte

latter part of his life in that city. We may merely mention, in passing, that a historical basis for the tradition has occasionally been disputed, and has latterly again been denied by some able critics.(2) The evidence for this, as for everything else connected with the early ages of Christianity, is extremely unsatisfactory. Nor need we trouble ourselve

writings to which we have referred, with that of the author of the fourth Gospel, and to contrast the peculi

e Apostle of Circumcision who merely tolerates Paul, we find a mind which has so completely detached itself from Judaism that the writer makes the very appellation of "Jew" equivalent to that of an enemy of the truth. Not only are the customs and feasts of the Jews disregarded and spoken of as observances of a people with whom the writer has no concern, but he anticipates the day when neither on Mount Gerizim nor yet at Jerusalem men shall worship the Father, but when it shall be recognized that the only true worship is that which i

the Gospel under trial has too frequently influenced

eloved disciple, and possessed of characteristics quite different from those we meet with in the writings to which we have referred, is worthless and a mere petitio principii. We can, therefore, appreciate the state of the case when, for instance, we find an able man like Credner commencing his inquiry as to who was the author of the fourth Gospel, with such words as the following: "Were we entirely without historical data regarding the author of the fourth Gospel, who is not named in the writing itself, we should still, from internal grounds in the Gospel itself-from the nature of the langu

a city like Ephesus proves that philosophical speculation not merely attracted him, but that he also knew how to maintain his place amongst philosophically cultivated Greeks."(1) It is almost impossible to proceed further in building

uliar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels. It may be remarked that the connection which Credner finds between the language and the Apostle John arises out of the supposition, that long residence in Ephesus had enabled him to acquire that fecility of composition in the Greek

her, and he had not at that time any intention of leaving, but, on the contrary, his dedication of himself to the ministry of the circumcision is distinctly mentioned by the Apostle.(3) The "unlettered and ignorant" fisherman of Galilee, therefore, had obviously attained an age when habits of thought and expression have become fixed, and when a new language cannot without great difficulty be acquired. If we consider the Apocalypse to be his work, we find positive evidence of such marked

en of the circumcision. Attempts have been made to trace the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel to the purely Hebraic source of the Old Testament, but every impartial mind must perceive that here there is no direct and simple transformation of the theory of Wisdom of the Proverbs and Old Testament Apocrypha, and no mere development of the later Memra of the Targums, but a very advanced application to Christianity of Alexandrian philosophy, with which we have become familiar through the writings of Philo, to which reference has so frequently been made. It is quite true that a decided step bey

h we maintain could not have been attai

e writes at all times as one who not only is not a Jew himself, but has nothing to do with their laws and customs. He speaks everywhere of the feasts "of the Jews," "the passover of the Jews," "the manner of the purifying of the Jews," "the Jews' feast of tabernacles," "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," "the Jews' preparation day," and so on.(2) The Law of Moses is spoken of as "your law," "their law," as of a people with which the writer was not

e that the characte

pposition that it wa

unte

t that the Jesus of the fourth Gospel is no longer of the race of David, but the Son of God. The expectation of the Jews that the Messiah should be of the seed of

ing the high priest that year"[---]. This statement, made more than once, indicates the belief that the office was merely annual, which is erroneous. Josephus states w

as high priest that same year,"(2) is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and institutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error equally committed by the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke iii. 2, the word of God is said to come to John the Baptist: "in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" [---], and again, in Acts iv. 6, Annas is spoken of as the high priest when Peter and John healed the lame man at the

id not subsequently bear the title. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have

"Bethabara," mentioned by Origen, which has erroneously crept into the vulgar text, is of course repudiated by critics, "Bethany" standing in all the older codices. The alteration w

uch water there." This ?non near to Salim was in Judaea, as is clearly stated in the previous verse. The place, however, was quite unknown even in the third century, and the nearest locality which could be indicated as possible was in the north of Samaria and, therefore, differing from the statements in iii. 22, iv. 3.(2) ?non, howev

fter the troubling of the water was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." We maintain, however, that the obnoxious passage is no spurious interpolation, but that there is ample evidence, external and internal, to substantiate its claim to a place in the text. It is true that the whole passage is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices, and by C: that A(1), L, 18, and others omit the last phrase of verse 3, and that D, 33, which contain that phrase, omit the whole of verse 4, together with 157, 314

er Fathers. Its presence in the Alexandrian Codex alone might not compensate for the omission of the passage by the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices and C, D, but when the Alexandrian MS. is supported by the version

d may well explain exceptional phraseology. On the other hand, [---] is specially a Johannine word, used v. 4 and six times more in the fourth Gospel, but only five times in the rest of the New Testament; and [---] with [---] occurs in v. 4, 6, 9, 14, and wi

t the explanation that the angel "was troubling the water," [---] of verse 4, and also that the statement of the verse 7, "but while I am coming, another goeth down before me" [---] absolutely requires the account: "he, therefore, who first went in &c." [---] of verse 4. The argument that the interpolation was made to explain the statement in verse 7 is untenable, for that statement necessarily presupposes the account in the verses under discussion, and cannot be severed from it. Even if the information that the water was "troubled" at certain seasons only could have been dispen

pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. This natural explanation is illustrated by the alacrity with which apologists at the present

known even to Josephus, or any other writer of that time. It is inconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the phenomena could have

of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, which is

itic is glad that

rd, and cannot be c

atkins, M.A., in "A

" edited by Charles

loucester and Br

the Apostle's pronunciation of the final syllable. We constantly meet with this elastic explanation of difficulties in the Gospel, but its mere enunciation displays at once the reality of the difficulties and the imaginary nature of the explanation. Hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious earnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the city of Sichem, and that, by so slight a change in the pronunciation, the Apostle called the place a city of Lies [---] a lie), a play upon words which he doe

defence of the geographical error, the reality of which is everywhere felt, whilst it is quite insufficient on the one hand, effectually destroys the historical character of the Gospel on the other.(1) The inferences from all of the foreg

t point out that the writer nowhere clearly states who he is, nor mentions his name, but expressions are frequently used which evidently show the desire that a p

ly to avoid directly naming John, and also that he never distinguishes John the Baptist by the appellation [---], whilst he carefully distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always speaks of the Apostle Peter as "Simon Peter," or "Peter," but rarely as "Simon" only.(4) Without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, it is obvious that, supposing the disciple indicated to b

straightway left their nets and followed him. And when he had gone from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the ship with Zebedee their father mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their father and followed him."(1) These accounts are in complete contradiction to each other, and both cannot be true. We see, from the first introduction of "the other disciple" on the scene, in the fourth Gospel, the evident design to give him the precedence before Peter and the rest of the Apostles. We have above

tation to Simon, and the account concludes: "And when they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all, and followed him."(1) In the fourth Gospel, the calling of the two disciples of John is first narrated, as we have seen and the first call of Peter is from his brother Andrew, and not from Jesus himself. "He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him: We have found the Messias

hor of the Gospel, was known to the high priest, another trait amongst many others elev

.(1) In the fourth Gospel, Peter is made to wait without at the door until John, who is a friend of the high priest and freely enters, obtains permission for Peter to go in, another instance of the precedence which is systematically given to John. The Synoptics do not in this particular case give any support to the statement in the fourth Gospel, and certainly in nothing that is said of John elsewhere do they render his acquaintance with the high priest in the least degree probable. It is, on the contrary, improbable in the extrem

inguish him as author of the Apocalypse, but it is fatal to the theory which makes hi

to accept with little question from the "beloved disciple" a portrait of Jesus totally unlike that of the Synoptics, and to elevate the dogmatic mysticism and artificial discourses of the one over the sublime morality and simple eloquence of the other. It is impossible to reflect seriously upon this representation of the relations between one of the disciples and Jesus without the conviction that every record of the life of the great Teacher must have borne distinct traces of the preference,

ambition of the brothers who desire to sit on thrones on his right and on his left, and the intolerant temper which would have called down fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan village, much rather contradict than support the representation of the fourth Gospel. Upon one occasion, indeed, Jesus in rebuking them, adds: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."(1) It is perfectly undeniable that John nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the Synoptics as this designation in the fourth Go

many other very important texts, as well as in some of the oldest Torsions, besides being quoted by the

ance with the fact that Jesus honoured John with any special affection, and the opportunity of referring to such a distinction was not wanting when he writes to the Galatians of his visit to the "Pillar" Apostles in Jerusalem. Here again, however, we find no prominence given to John, but the contrary, his name still being mentioned last and without any special comment. In none of the Pauline or other Epistles is there any allusion, however distant, to any disciple whom Jesus specially loved. The Apocalypse, which, if any book of the New Testament can be traced to him, must be

les.(1) Papias, in describing his interest in hearing what the Apostles said, gives John no prominence: "I inquired minutely after the words of the Presbyters: What Andrew, or what Peter said,

ls and of the other New Testament writings on the point, and indeed their data of a positive and unmistakeable character, oppose rather than support the correctness of the later and mere personal assertion. Those who abandon sober criticism, and indulge in mere sentimental rhapsodies on the impossibility of the author of the fo

versally repudiated

addressed to John,

e whom Jesus loved,

nt, "John was bani

s.,

loved," and it has even been maintained that not John the son of Zebedee, but Andrew the brother of Simon

ought to a conclusion by verses 30, 31 of chapter xx., and critics are universally agreed at least that, whoever may be its author, chapter xxi. is a supplement only added after an interval. By whom was it written? As may be supposed, critics have given very different replies to this i

last two verses of the preceding chapter. In this supplement (v. 20), "the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on his

last chapter, and which, although more audaciously minute in its positive and arbitrary statement of details than any other with which we are acquainted,

, was composed by the Apostle about the year 80, with th

nds until his death, and only then to be published as his legacy to the wh