The author, authenticity, and analysis of the fourth Gospel

By Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M., D.S.ScR.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis
The Collegio Angelico, Rome

A. St. John the Evangelist.

B. Biography and Traditional Notices of St. John.

C. Analysis of the Gospel.

D. Points to be noted in the Study of the Gospel.

E. The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Narrative.

F. The Historical Accuracy of the Discourses.

G. The Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel from Sources Extrinsic to the Gospel.

H. The same shown from the Gospel itself.

I. The Authenticity of Particular Portions.

J. The Style of the Gospel: St. John's Greek.

K. The Theology of the Gospel.

L. Bibliography.

A. St. John the Evangelist.

It is essential to grasp the details of his life, scanty though they are, if we would appreciate John's Gospel. His parents were Zebedee and Salome, Galileans, Matt. iv. 21, x. 3, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40; they were apparently well to do,[1] Mark i. 20, John xix. 27. John was presumably younger than his brother St. James the Greater if we may judge by the order of their names in the lists of the Apostles. His Galilean origin explains many features in his life; for the Galileans were regarded as simple and illiterate, John vii. 52, Acts iv. 13. Hence a certain spontaneity and directness of character which is particularly noticeable in the case of this Evangelist; we see this in the promptness with which he obeyed the hint of the Baptist, i. 35-39, and with which he accepted the fact of Christ's resurrection, xx. 2-8. The master had given to the two brothers the title of Boanerges or "Sons of Thunder," Mark iii. 17, a title which in the Hebrew idiom signifies "the Voice of God," we see traces of a corresponding vehemence of speech and thought in such passages as Luke ix. 49, 54, and Mark ix. 37. And while John is essentially the Apostle of love he can yet be severe in his condemnations of heresy, Apoc. vi. 10 and throughout, cf. also I. John iv. 1, and II. John 10; see also the legend referred to below.

In the course of the Gospel story we can trace the gradual development of John's character: he is astonished at the draught of fish, Luke v. 10; he learns that the spirit of indignation is not that of Christ, Luke ix. 55; any false notions he may have cherished regarding the future kingdom of Christ are dissipated, Mark x. 35, Matt. xx. 20, and in the emphatic possumus with which the two brothers reply to the question Can ye drink of the chalice that I drink of? we can almost see the leap from the natural to the supernatural standpoint, to that vantage ground from which the author of the last Gospel looks out upon the world in the light of the Gospel. Throughout the Gospel-narrative St. John occupies a privileged position; he is one of the three especially chosen to witness the cure of Peter's wife's mother, Mark i. 29, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, Luke viii. 51, and the Transfiguration, Luke ix. 28; to the same three with Andrew the discourse touching the Last Things was delivered, Mark xiii. 3, and the same three are the intimate witnesses of the Agony in the garden, Mark xiv. 33. He was united in bonds of the closest friendship with Peter: together they prepared the Last Supper, Luke xxii. 8, it is Peter who urges John to inquire who the traitor may be, John xiii. 23-25, together they run to the tomb, John xx. 2-9, it is John who obtains for his friend admission to the court of the High Priest, xviii. 15-16, they head the list of the Apostles, Acts i. 13, he is with Peter when the latter works his miracle on the lame man, Acts iii.-iv. 23; St. Paul calls him one of the "pillars" of the Church, Gal. ii. 9. Above all he is "the Beloved Disciple," John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20; and, by a natural consequence, it is to him that Christ's Mother is committed at the last, John xix. 27, and the request made in simplicity of heart long ago, Mark x. 37, received a sublime fulfillment when he and his mother stood at the foot of the Cross. In the early days of the Church John was, as we have seen, with Peter when he cured the lame man, Acts iii.-iv. 23, and they two were sent by the Church into Samaria, viii. 14. But from this time on the Evangelist figures no more in the Apostolic pages. For his portrait as revealed in his Gospel, in his Epistles and in his Apocalypse see below.

Tradition has preserved for us several legends which are quite in harmony with John's character. Thus St. Irenaeus tells us that at Ephesus John encountered the heresiarch Cerinthus in the baths, whereupon he rushed out saying: "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, for Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is within";[2] this well accords with Luke ix. 54. That the Evangelist resided for long at Ephesus is as certain as anything can be, thus St. Irenaeus refers to it in the passage just quoted and in several other places; so also Clement of Alexandria[3] refers to it, and takes occasion to tell the beautiful and characteristic story of St. John's pursuit of a robber who had once been his disciple. To St. Jerome we owe the touching account of the Evangelist's declining years and of his oft-repeated words: "Little children, love ye one another!" and of how he excused himself for its constant repetition by saying: "It is the Lord's command and if it be done it is enough!"[4] Tertullian has preserved the tradition that at Rome St. John was let down into a cauldron of boiling oil but emerged unscathed,[5] and St. Jerome refers simply to "Ecclesiastical Histories" for this statement.[6]

One of the most beautiful of all the legends concerning him of whom the Lord had said, "What if I will have him to remain till I come?" is preserved by St. Augustine, who tells us that according to a persistent tradition John does not lie dead at Ephesus but merely sleeps in his tomb there, and that his breath as he sleeps gently stirs the soil above. "If we can believe," he says, "that Moses is not dead, since his tomb no man can find (Deut. xxxiv. 6), and he appeared at the Transfiguration with Elias, why should we not believe the same of John of whom it was said: 'So will I have him remain till I come.'" "It seems to me idle," concludes Augustine, "to fight against an opinion like this. Let those familiar with the spot go and see if it is true that the earth is thus stirred; and as a matter of fact I have heard the story from responsible men."[7]

B. The Main Divisions of the Gospel.

A. THE PROLOGUE, I. 1-18. THE ETERNAL WORD.

B. CHRIST'S SELF-REVELATION TO THE WORLD, 1-18—XII. 50.

I. He announces Himself, i. 19-iv. 54.

(a) Various testimonies to Him, i. 19-ii. 11.

i. That of the Baptist, i, 19-34.

ii. That of His disciples, i. 35-51.

iii. That of His own "signs," the water is changed into wine, ii. 1-11.

(b) The works of Christ, ii. 13-iv. 54.

i. In Judaea, Nicodemus, ii. 13-iii. 36.

ii. In Samaria, the Samaritan woman and the people of the city, iv. 1-42.

iii. In Galilee, the Ruler's son, iv. 43-54.

II. The PERIOD OF CONFLICT, v. i-xii. 50.

(a) Two great miracles which provoke the storm:

i. In Jerusalem, the healing of the paralytic on the Sabbath, v.

ii. In Galilee, the Feeding of the Five Thousand, vi.

(b) The Great controversy, vii-xii.

i. Various manifestations of faith and unfaith, vii-x.

(a) At the Feast of Tabernacles, vii-viii.

(b) At the Feast of the Dedication, ix-x.

ii. The Decisive Judgment, xi-xii.

(a) The Last "sign" is afforded the Jews: the raising of Lazarus, xi.

(b) The close of the Public Ministry, xii.

C. CHRIST'S REVELATION OF HIMSELF TO HIS DISCIPLES, XIII—XXI.

(a) The Last Supper, xiii-xvii.

i. His last acts of service to them, xiii. 1-30.
ii. His last discourses, xiii. 3i-xvi.

iii. Christ's Prayer to His Heavenly Father, xvii.

(b) The final conflict: victory through death, xviii-xix.

i. The Betrayal, xviii. 1-11.

ii. The various Trials, xviii. 12-xix. 16.

iii. His Crucifixion and Death, xix. 17-42.

iv. The Risen Life. xx.

(c) The Epilogue, xxi.

i. He appears to the disciples collectively; the miraculous draught of fishes, xxi. 1-14.

ii. His parting words to individual disciples, xxi. 15-23.

iii. Concluding words, xxi. 24-25.

Following on the analogy of the Synoptic Gospels we might feel tempted to partition out the various portions of the Gospel into:

A. The Prologue.

B. The Public Ministry.

C. The Private Ministry.

D. The Narrative of the Sacred Passion.

E. The Resurrection.

F. The Epilogue.

But a careful examination of the latter portion shows that the chapters which are assigned to the story of the Resurrection are especially concerned with the part played in it by the disciples, and in this sense these chapters, as well as chapters xviii-xix which depict the Sacred Passion, are the natural sequel to chapters xiii-xvii., viz. the revelation of Himself which Christ made to the disciples, just as these chapters, again, are the natural outcome of chapters i. 19-xii, the revelation made to the world in general.

C. Analysis of the Gospel.

I. THE PROLOGUE, I. 1-18.

The Word of God, i.e. the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, has come into this world. He was the true light; the Baptist who preceded Him was not the true Light but a burning and a shining lamp, v. 35.

II. THE BAPTIST'S EARLY TESTIMONY TO CHRIST; THE EVENTS PRECEDING THE FIRST PASSOVER, I. 19—II. 12.

(a) The Baptist's testimony before the Pharisees: I am not the Christ. ... I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, i. 19-28.

(b) "The next day": Behold the Lamb of God; John declares that he had seen the Holy Ghost descending upon Him, i. 29-34.

(c) "The next day" John repeats this testimony in the presence of two of his disciples, Andrew and, perhaps, John. They follow our Lord Who calls them. Simon comes to Him, and his name is changed to Peter, i. 35-42.

(d) "On the following day," on setting out for Galilee, He calls Philip and Nathaniel, i. 43-50.

(e) "On the third day," viz. from His setting out for Galilee, the marriage-feast at Cana, the miraculous change of the water into wine, ii. 1-11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

III. FROM THE FIRST TO THE SECOND PASSOVER, II. 13—IV. 54.

(a) After a few days at Capharnaum He goes to Jerusalem for the first Passover; He cleanses the temple, ii. 13-25.

(b) Nicodemus comes to Him by night; the doctrine of Baptism; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, iii. 1-21.

(c) He retires to Judaea; John is baptizing at Ennon near Salim. John's disciples complain to him of the progress Jesus is making; the Baptist's renewed testimony: He must increase but I must decrease, iii. 22-36.

(d) Owing to the opposition of the Pharisees He withdraws into Galilee, passing through Samaria, iv. 1-4.

(1) His conversation with the woman of Samaria, iv. 5-26.

(2) She returns into the city, 27-30.

(3) His conversation with the disciples: Lift up your eyes and see the countries, for they are white already to the harvest, 31-38.

(4) The conversion of the Samaritans, 39-42.

(5) After two days He goes into Galilee and cures the ruler's son who is lying sick at Capharnaum. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did when He was come out of Judea into Galilee, 43-54.

IV. FROM THE (?) SECOND TO THE THIRD PASSOVER, V. 1-47.

(a) He goes up to Jerusalem for a Feast, perhaps the Passover; at the pool called Probatica He heals the man who had been ill for eight and thirty years, v. 1-15.

(b) The Jews persecute Him because He had healed on the Sabbath, and also because He said God was His Father, making Himself equal to God, v. 16-18.

(c) The discourse He makes on this:

(1) Of the union between the Father and the Son; the Son shall call men to the resurrection and shall be their Judge, v. 19-30.

(2) Of the witnesses to His Sonship:

The Baptist, v. 33-35.

His own works, v. 36.

The Father, v. 37-44.

Moses, for he wrote of Me, v. 45-47.

V. FROM THE THIRD (?) PASSOVER TO THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, VI. 1-72.

(a) He crosses the Sea of Galilee; multiplies the loaves for 5,000 men; they attempt to make Him king, vi. 1-15.

(b) He comes walking on the sea to the disciples as they labor in rowing, vi. 16-21.

(c) The Jews follow Him to Capharnaum. The discourse in the synagogue and its results, vi. 1-72.

(1) On Faith, vi. 27-47, cp. vv. 29, 30, 35, 40, 47.

(2) On the Holy Eucharist as the Bread of Life, vi. 48-52.

(3) They resent this doctrine but He reiterates it, vi. 53-59.

(4) The effects of the sermon, vi. 61-72. Many leave Him, but He is content to reiterate His teaching. Peter's Confession of faith: Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ the Son of God. Christ then alludes to Judas who should betray Him.

VI. FROM THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES TO THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION, VII. 1—X. 21.

(a) The Feast of Tabernacles is at hand; He refuses to go up publicly, but later goes up in private, vii. 1-14.

(b) The Discourses on occasion of the Feast, vii. 15-39.

(1) They must do the will of God if they would have the power to believe in Him, vii. 17.

(2) He accuses them of not keeping the Law and of seeking to kill Him, vii. 19-20.

(3) Many refuse to believe that He is the Messias on the ground that they know His origin, whereas that of Christ is to be unknown, vii. 27.

(4) The Pharisees attempt to arrest Him, but His hour had not yet come; the multitude is divided; some would reject Him because He conies from Galilee, whereas the Christ is to come from Bethlehem; the disappointment of the rulers at the failure to arrest Him. Nicodemus claims that Christ should at least be heard in His own defense, vii. 28-53.

(d) He goes out to Mount Olivet, but in the morning returns to the temple, where a woman is brought to Him who has been taken in adultery; the Scribes and Pharisees endeavor to entrap Him, viii. 1-11.

(e) The disputation in the Treasury of the temple, viii. 12-20. He is the Light of the World; neither is His testimony concerning Himself unsupported, for the Father giveth testimony of Him.

(f) Once more He insists: I am from above ... if you believe not that I am He you shall die in your sin; and again He says in answer to their question: Who art Thou? The beginning, Who also speak to you. ... And they understood not that He called God His Father. He then foreshadows His crucifixion, viii. 21-29.

(g) Many believe in Him; He urges them to perseverance and tells them that then indeed the truth shall make them free. But His enemies retort that they are the Children of Abraham and have never been slaves. He urges them to do the works of Abraham. They then urge that they are the children of God, whereupon He tells them plainly: you are of your father the devil. He defies them to convince Him of sin, viii. 30-47.

(h) The Jews insist: Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil. But He answers: If any man keep My word he shall not see death for ever. In anger they retort: Art thou greater than our Father Abraham ... whom dost thou make Thyself? At His answer: Amen. Amen. I say to you, before Abraham was, I am, they attempt to stone Him but He hides Himself, viii. 48-59.

(i) Then, saying: As long as I am in the world I am the Light of the world, He cures a man who has been blind from his youth. The violent opposition of the Pharisees, ix. 1-38.

(j) He rebukes the blindness of the Pharisees, ix. 39-41.

(k) He sets forth the allegory of the good shepherd, x. 1-6; He applies it to Himself; He is the Door of the sheepfold, x. 7-10; He is the Good Shepherd, x. 11-18. The disputes of the Jews thereupon, x. 19-21.

VII. FROM THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION TO THE FOURTH (?) PASSOVER, X. 22—XI. 56.

(a) The disputation in Solomon's Porch, x. 22-38.

(1) The Jews say: If Thou be the Christ tell us plainly. He refers to His works as the proof: You do not believe because ye are not of My sheep ... no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father. I and the Father are one, x. 22-30.

(2) Upon this they attempt to stone Him, but He proves His right to call God His Father, x. 31-38.

(b) He retires to Salem; many believe in Him, x. 39-42.

(c) While there news is brought Him of the death of Lazarus, xi. 1-6.

(1) The disciples urge Him not to go into Judaea, but He tells them that this is to be for a great sign to them. Thomas says: Let us also go, that we may die with Him, xi. 7-16.

(2) He comes to Bethany; Martha's faith: Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. He says: I am the Resurrection and the Life; he that believeth in Me, although he be dead, shall live: and everyone that liveth and believeth in Me shall not die for ever. Mary comes and says, as her sister had said: Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died, xi. 17-33.

(3) He goes to the tomb; His prayer to His Father: Lazarus, come forth! Many believe in Him, xi. 34-45.

(d) The Chief Priests and the Pharisees therefore hold a council: If we let Him alone so, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our place and nation. Caiaphas says: You know nothing, neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. From that time they plot to put Him to death, xi. 46-53.

(e) Jesus retires to a city that is called Ephrem; the Passover is at hand and many Jews come up to Jerusalem; their discussions about Him. The Pharisees decide upon His apprehension, xi. 54-56.

(f) The last journey to Jerusalem, xii. 1-50.

(1) The supper at Bethany; Mary anoints His feet; Judas complains of the waste; the Priests thought to kill Lazarus also, xii. 1-11.

(2) His triumphant entry on Palm Sunday, xii. 12-19.

(3) The Greeks who wish to see Him; His discourse on that occasion, xii. 20-50.

He prays His Father to glorify Him; a voice from heaven answers; He foretells His crucifixion and urges the bystanders: Whilst you have the light believe in the light that you may be the children of light, xii. 23-36.

He hides Himself from them; the Evangelist's commentary on their unbelief in spite of His miracles; even those who did believe dared not confess Him, xii. 37-43.

Christ's last declaration in public: I am come a light into the world ... even as the Father said unto Me so do I speak, xii. 44-50.

VIII. THE LAST SUPPER, XIII—XVII.

(a) The discourse in the supper-room, xiii-xiv.

(1) He washes the feet of the disciples, xiii. 1-12.

(2) The discourse: He has done it to give them an example of humility, xiii. 13-20.

(3) He tells them that one of them is about to betray Him, xiii. 21-30.

(4) On Judas departure He holds an intimate discourse with them. The questions of Simon Peter, of Thomas, and of Philip. He promises them the Paraclete: Arise, let us go hence, xiii. 31-xiv. 31.

(b) On the way to Gethsemane, xv. 1-xvii. 26.

(1) He is the True Vine, therefore we must abide in Him, xv. 1-12.

(2) We are His friends, therefore we must love one another, xv. 13-17.

(3) The world will hate them, but it has hated Him first, xv. 18-21.

(4) On the sin of those who reject Him, xv. 22-25.

(5) The Holy Spirit shall give witness to Him, and you shall give testimony because you are with Me from the beginning, xv. 26-27.

(6) He foretells the persecutions which shall come upon them; the Paraclete however will strengthen them after His departure. The work of the Paraclete, xvi. 1-15.

(7) The disciples are distressed at His speedy departure; but He promises that He will come again, xvi. 16-24.

(8) He speaks plainly of Himself and not in proverbs; the disciples faith; He bids them have confidence: In the world you shall have distress, but have confidence. I have overcome the world, xvi. 25-33.

(c) Christ's prayer for His disciples, xvii. 1-26.

(1) He prays that His father may glorify Him, xvii. 1-5.

(2) That the disciples may be one as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me, xvii. 6-23.

(3) He prays that they, too, may be glorified, xvii. 24-26.

IX. THE SACRED PASSION, XVIII—XIX.

(a) The arrest in the garden. The soldiers fall to the ground when He addresses them. Peter cuts off the ear of the High Priest's servant, xviii. 1-12.

(b) He is led before Annas; Peter's first denial; Christ is struck in the face, xviii. 13-23.

(c) He is led before Caiaphas. Peter's second denial, xviii. 24-27.

(d) He is led before Pilate, xviii. 28-xix. 16.

(1) Pilate tries to avoid any decision, xviii. 29-32.

(2) Pilate interviews Him; Art Thou the king of the Jews? ... What is truth? xviii. 33-38.

(3) Pilate tries to release Him; I find no cause in Him, But they prefer Barabbas, xviii. 39-40.

(4) Pilate hopes to satisfy them by scourging Him; He is crowned with thorns. I find no cause in Him, xix. 1-4.

(5) Pilate brings Him forth crowned with thorns and wearing a purple garment. Ecce Homo! But they shout: Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Pilate again says I find no cause in Him. But they cry out that He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God, xix. 5-7.

(6) Pilate again interviews Him: Whence art Thou? He answers: Thou shouldest not have any power against Me unless it were given thee from above. Pilate (henceforth definitely strives to procure His release, but they cry out: If thou release this man thou art not Caesars friend! xix. 8-11.

(7) Pilate then yields; he brings Jesus forth and says: Behold your king! They shout: We have no king but Caesar! Whereupon Pilate sentences Him to be crucified, xix. 12-16.

(e) His crucifixion and death, xix. 16-30.

(1) He carries His own cross; the thieves go with Him, xix, 16-18.

(2) The title on the Cross; Pilate refuses to change it, xix. 19-22.

(3) The soldiers part His garments among them, xix. 23-24.

(4) His last words to His Mother, xix. 25-27.

(5) His thirst; It is consummated! He dies, xix. 28-30.

(f) After His death, xix. 31-42.

(1) His side is pierced that the Scripture may be fulfilled. There come forth blood and water, xix. 31-37.

(2) Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus take Him down from the Cross and bury Him, xix. 38-42.

X. THE RESURRECTION, XX—XXI.

(a) Mary Magdalen finds the stone rolled away; she tells Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. They run to the sepulcher and find it empty, xx. 1-10.

(b) He appears to Mary Magdalen who had waited without, xx. 11-18.

(c) He appears in the midst of the disciples and shews them His hands and His side. Thomas is not present, xx. 19-23.

(d) After eight days He appears to them when Thomas, who had refused to believe on their testimony, is with them. He convinces Thomas of the truth of His resurrection. Thomas adores Him: My Lord and my God! xx. 24-29.

(e) An epilogue; He did many signs which are not written in this book: But these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His Name, xx. 30-31.

(f) A fuller Epilogue or Appendix, xxi.

(1) The miraculous draught of fishes, xxi. 1-8.

(2) The meal by the lake-side; the renewal of the premises to Peter. Christ foretells the manner of Peter's death; on Peter asking Him what would be the fate of the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray Thee? Our Lord answered: If (So) I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? xxi. 9-23.

(3) Final testimony that it is this same disciple who hath written these things, and we know that his testimony is true, xxi. 24-25.

D. Points to be noted in the Study of the Fourth Gospel.

It is clear that a Gospel composed at the close of the first century must differ very considerably from the earlier Synoptic Gospels dating from the middle of the century; for the writer must have had a full acquaintance with the earlier narratives. 1 When, then, he undertook to furnish a further Gospel-narrative he must have bad in view a purpose very different from theirs. His outlook, too, on the story of Christ's life must needs have been very different from theirs since while they wrote during the infancy of the Church he wrote at a time when the Church was well established. They had had but a glimpse of what the Church was to be, he had seen it in the full vigor of its life. They had, it is true, grasped the full doctrine concerning Christ, but he had lived in that doctrine, had steeped his soul in it so to speak, and had meditated upon it for seventy years before he penned his story.[8]

The contents, then, of St. John's Gospel will be deter mined by these two main factors: his outlook a retrospective one and the purpose he had in view. Now St. John has in explicit terms told us what was the object of his Gospel: Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of PI is disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name, xx. 30-31.[9] And this purpose, which is so definitely stated, must serve as the key to the Gospel; it must have been the guiding principle in the Evangelist's selection of his facts, it must be our guide in our interpretation of those facts. Further, the Gospel must be stamped with the impress of St. John's own peculiar temperament, we must be able to trace in it the spirit of one whom the Lord Himself termed "a son of thunder," of one who "lay upon the Lord's breast," of one to whom had been committed the charge of the Virgin Mother.[10]

If we now approach the Gospel from the writer's stand point, viz. of one who would convince men of the Messiah- ship of Jesus of Nazareth and also of His Divinity, we can discern the method he has employed to bring about this end, and we can see why, out of the vast quantity of material at his disposal, xx. 30, xxi. 25, he has selected but few incidents and has developed those at such great length. For an analysis will show us that in order to produce the desired effect the Evangelist has really given us a drama[11] in which is set forth the growth of faith or its opposite in the minds of the men among whom Christ lived and taught. Hence the marvelous delineations of a series of individual characters set one against the other as portraying the growth in some cases swift, in others gradual of faith or unfaith. Thus we have the picture of the Apostles with their gradual acceptance of the faith in all its fullness, and incidentally we see how the Evangelist himself apparently accepted it from the outset, i. 34; we have the cautious Nicodemus and the spontaneous woman of Samaria; we have "the people" and the Hierarchy, vii. 48-9. Hence, too, the apparently disconnected scenes, the transitions from Judaea to Galilee and back again. It is ever the Christ revealing Himself with growing fullness, and men according to their dispositions accepting Him or rejecting Him with greater or less spontaneity.

But while the details of the story are thus selected for a purpose, the natural order of events is followed; for this natural order was but the order of progress in faith or unfaith.

Hence the Christ of the Fourth Gospel is not simply the Messias of the Old Testament as portrayed by St. Matthew; nor is He the Wonder-worker of St. Mark, nor again is He the Merciful Savior of men depicted by St. Luke. But He is the LIGHT OF THE WORLD enlightening every man that cometh into this world and according to their dispositions attracting them or repelling them. The Self-revelation of Christ, with the accompanying acceptance or rejection of Him by the men amongst whom He walked, is the note of the Fourth Gospel, and John has sketched it for us in order to secure his object that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His Name.[12]

With this key in our hands we can see how the Gospel falls naturally into two distinct parts: Christ's revelation of Himself to the world, and His revelation of Himself to His disciples.

Nor should it be forgotten in reading the Fourth Gospel that it is the work of the meditative theologian, of John "the Theologian" or "Divine" as he has always been called.[13] For him the human in Christ has almost merged into the divine, and though he sets out with the declaration "the Word was made Flesh," yet the figure he sets before us is that of the Son of God Who "walked with men." Hence the sudden transitions from the divine to the human and conversely; hence, too, some of those seeming contradictions which he is not afraid to set side by side, cp. xiii. 36 and xvi. 5 "quo vadis?"; xvii. 11-12 and xvii. 13, "in the world" "not in the world"; vii. 8 and 14 "I go not up" and "he went up"; x. 30 "the Father and I are one" and xiv. 28 "the Father is greater than I." The retrospective character of the whole Gospel is very marked: e.g. the references to the Feasts of the Jews as a thing of the past, at least for the writer, ii. 13, v. 1, vii. 2, etc.; the allusions to the Apostles and their contemporaries as though they had all passed away, i. 29-51, vi. 6, xi. 16, xiii. 6, xiv. 5, 8, 22, iii. 1-11, xviii. 10, xix. 38-39, xxi. 2, 19, 23, etc.; the same feature appears in all his reflections, ii. 24-25, xi. 2, xii. 37-43, xviii. 9, 13, 32, cf. also his remarks about the Apostles not understanding at the time, ii. 22, xii. 16, also the allusions to prophecies then unfulfilled, xiii. 19, xiv. 29. xvi. 4, 12-14.

The meditative character[14] of the Gospel appears particularly in the numerous "asides," e.g. ii. 24-25, iv. 2, 8, v. 13, vi. 65, 72, vii. 39, viii. 6, xi. 51-52, xii. 16-18, 33, 37-43, xviii. 9, 32. It is worth while noting too how certain threads are dropped and then taken up again at unexpected points, e.g. the judgment, v. 30 and xii. 47; blindness, ix. 1-41 and x. 21; the sheep and the fold, x. 1-16 and x. 26-27; the healing of the paralytic, v. 1-16 and vii. 21. We have already referred to certain key-words, but some ever-recurrent expressions should be noted for the light they throw on the dual nature of Christ, "light" and "the light of the world," i. 5, 7, 8, 9, iii. 19, viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 35-36, 46; the references to His "hour," ii. 4, iv. 21, 23, 35, v. 25, 28, vii. 6, 8, 30, viii. 20, ix. 4, xii. 23, 27, xiii. 1, xvi. 2, 32; the oft-repeated allusions to "Him that sent Me," e.g. iv. 34, v. 24, 37, vi. 29, 38, vii. 16, ix. 4, etc.

E. The Contrast between the Fourth Gospel and the Three Synoptic Narratives is Striking.

We have hinted above at some of the reasons for this remarkable difference in tone. But there has been a tendency of late years to make capital out of the so-called discrepancies between the Gospel as penned by John at the close of the first century and the picture of Christ and His work left us by those who wrote shortly after His death. Thus a recent writer sums up the difference in tone between the earlier and later narratives somewhat in this fashion:

THE SYNOPTIST NARRATIVES. 1. Practically "points for preachers." 2. Depict Christ the Man. 3. He begins in Galilee and is apparently unconscious of His mission. 4. He preaches the near approach of "the Kingdom." 5. He draws crowds to whom He is always compassionate. 6. He is surrounded by sinners, Pharisees, Publicans, lepers, etc. 7. Miracles abound. 8. Regular and intimate intercourse with His disciples. 9. He criticizes the Law and the Traditions. 10. His idea of "the Kingdom" is repudiated by the people. 11. Reiterated moral teaching by parables. 12. The question of His Divinity is avoided. 13. He at length reaches Jerusalem. 14. He is treated as a political agitator. 15. His glory only appears with His Resurrection. 16. The crisis develops naturally.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL NARRATIVE. A carefully planned mystical treatment of the Gospel story. A transcendental Being who moves automatically to His goal and with a foreknowledge of "His Hour." Alternately in Galilee and in Judaea. Amazing and difficult teaching. Is an isolated and unintelligible figure. They are notably absent. Miracles are few; none are given without an ulterior object. Only at the Last Supper. Practically never. It is never mentioned. No moral teaching and no parables. It is reiterated on every possible occasion. He goes there repeatedly. He dominates Annas and Pilate. His Cross is His throne. His acts are chosen by Himself as fulfillments of prophecy.[15]

Now while allowing for a certain exaggeration in this picture it must be conceded that it does, in the main, present a fair idea of the entirely different atmosphere which pervades the Fourth Gospel as compared with the Synoptic narratives. The natural explanation is, of course, that while the Synoptists write Matthew with an apologetic aim, Mark as a catechist, and Luke as an historian, John writes simply as a theologian. He writes with a different object, from a different standpoint, and after a long lapse of time. But modern critics seize on these points of difference and argue that John, writing, as he does, after a long interval and as a theologian, has allowed his meditative fancies to obscure the historical perspective of events seen dimly through the long vista of years. Consequently, so they maintain, he is not giving us history strictly so-called, and his "facts" are inevitably colored by his own subjective prepossessions. Moreover he has an axe to grind: he wishes to bring home the Divinity of Christ to his readers, consequently he so presents facts as to show forth the Divinity. In plain language he distorts them and colors them. It is claimed that an examination of any of the discourses, or even of the episodes, recounted by John will show that they serve but as pegs whereon to hang dogmatic teachings with which alone the Evangelist is concerned. To take an example: it is urged that in the story of the Samaritan woman, ch. iv. (a) her failure to understand Him and her crude answers are a deliberate parallel to Nicodemus action in ch. iii. (b) The conversation, as reported, was more calculated to throw dust in her eyes than to enlighten her. (c) All she understands is that He apparently claims to have at His command a supply of water better than that furnished by the well, (d) Thus the episode is merely ideal; it is a sketch of the Christian apostleship as it had displayed himself during St. John's long life. (e) Further, we are told to note that (i.) Many years have elapsed; (ii.) that the whole episode is replete with contradictions to the Synoptic narrative, e.g. the conversation with a Samaritan is opposed to Matt. x. 5, xv. 24, Luke ix. 52-53; the claim that God is His Father, iv. 21, 23, is contradictory of Matt. x. 32-33, xi. 25-27, xv. 13, xviii. 10, 19, xx. 23, etc. More especially is the claim to be the Messias opposed to the Synoptic tradition, cp. iv. 26, with Matt. xii. 6, 42, xix. 28, Mark i. 25, 44, iii. 12, viii. 30, ix. 8, xi. 28-33. (iii.) Thus the conversation, as reported, is meant for the readers of the Gospel and, as reported, is unintelligible to the supposed auditory, (iv.) It is further urged that the remarkable series of antitheses furnished by this Gospel lends color to this view; thus note (a) the water and the wine, ch. ii. (b) the temple of God and Christ's Sacred Humanity, ch. ii. (c) the natural and the supernatural birth, ch. iii. (d) the water of the well and that of eternal life, ch. iv. (e) the corporal food and the spiritual, chs. iv. and vi. (f) the material and spiritual harvest, ch. iv. It is an easy step after this to say that such details as iv. 35, where a precise date seems to be given, is a pure invention; also that the "grass" in vi. 10, and the date-mark in vi. 4 are similarly fictitious and merely inserted for "artistic" purposes.[16]

It requires no vivid imagination to see how disastrous such views as these must be. They deprive the Fourth Gospel not merely of all historical value but they even destroy the value of the dogmatic teaching it contains. Hence it is not surprising that the Decree Lamentabili sane of July 3, 1907, should have condemned the following propositions among others:

XIV. "In many of their narratives the Evangelists have not so much set forth the truth, as strung together statements which, even though false, would be more profitable to their readers."

XV. "Up till the period when the Canon was finally settled and defined the Gospels underwent additions and corrections; consequently there only remains in them a very slight and uncertain trace of Christ's teaching."

XVI. "John's narratives are not properly history; they are rather a mystical contemplation on the Gospel. The discourses in his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation; they are devoid of historic truth."

XVII. "The Fourth Gospel exaggerated the miracles; and this not merely to make them appear still more marvelous, but also to render them a more apt means for setting forth the work and the glory of the Incarnate Word."

XVIII. "John indeed claims the character of a witness to Christ; but as a matter of fact he is nothing more than a most excellent witness to the Christian life, or rather to the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century."[17]

Similarly in the Encyclical Pascendi Gregis, September 8, 1907, we find the following Modernist propositions condemned:

1. Faith is concerned with the scientifically unknowable.

2. Faith transfigures this unknowable by raising it above its true condition.

3. Faith disfigures this unknowable by attributing to it properties which it does not possess.

The three corollaries to these propositions are also condemned:

1. To history and science Christ is only a man; therefore history must, in treating of Him, eliminate the Divine element.

2. Similarly, history must subtract from the believer's picture of Christ all that raises Him above His historical conditions.

3. And further, the historian must discount in His acts and discourses all that is incompatible with His human character.[18]

The results of such principles are thus set forth in Pascendi Gregis:

44 Whatever survives the triple excision already described, the historian assigns to real history; all the rest he relegates to the history of faith, or to internal history. ... Hence there is a double Christ; one real, another who never had a real existence but belongs to faith; one who lived at a certain place and time, another who is found only in the pious meditations of faith; of this latter kind is the Christ presented to us in the Gospel of St. John; a work which, indeed, they describe as a mere meditation from beginning to end."[19]

The true spirit in which to approach the study of St. John's Gospel is that set before us by St. Augustine. He is never weary of comparing him to the eagle which soars aloft:

"I have told you, brethren, that John, the holy Evangelist, soars exceeding high, so high that the mind can hardly follow him."

He then dwells on the characteristics of the other Evangelists and concludes:

"There remains the eagle—that is John himself—the preacher of things sublime, gazing with unswerving eye on the light that is within and is eternal. ... See, then, what sublime things he should tell of who is likened to the eagle! Yet we, poor crawlers on the earth, weak and of small repute amongst men, we dare to handle these things and even to expound them; we even fancy that we are able to understand them when we think about them or can be understood when we speak of them!"[20]

F. The Historical Accuracy of St. John's Presentment of Christ's Discourses.

It is to be presumed that Christ spoke to His disciples in Aramaic; St. John's Greek narrative will then be a translation of what He said and, further, will be derived from the memory of one who stood at a distance of seventy odd years from the date of their actual happening. When, then, it is laid down, as above, that John has in no sense "manipulated" the history, are we meant to conclude that in these narratives we have Christ's actual words? There is no hint of this in any Ecclesiastical pronouncement touching the inspiration of the Gospels. Indeed the mere fact that John only gives a translation of what Christ said is sufficient to show the impossibility of maintaining that we have Christ's words as He actually spoke them. The fact that the all-important words of Consecration are given us in varying forms by the three Synoptists and by St Paul, though they were only spoken once, serves as an indication of the necessary liberty on this point. Inspiration is not revelation, neither is it dictation. But unless it ensures the substantial accuracy of the account it fails of its purpose; Jer. xxxvi. 32 serves as an excellent commentary on this. But what is "substantial accuracy"? St. Augustine has developed this point very fully in his treatise De Consensu Evangelistanim: thus, after pointing out that Matt. iii. 11 makes the Baptist speak of himself as unworthy so much as to carry Christ's shoes whereas the other Evangelists report John as saying that he was unworthy to loose them,[21] St. Augustine draws a first conclusion:

"If, then, we are asked what precise words the Baptist used. ... Whosoever grasps the fact that it is ideas in themselves which are necessary for arriving at a knowledge of the truth—no matter what words be used to express them—will realize that it is idle to waste time over such a question."[22]

He then dwells on the way in which the Evangelists tell us of the same events but in different words, and he concludes:

"Moreover, and this especially affects sound doctrine, we must realize that we have to look for and embrace the truth of things rather than of words when we note with approval that those who use not the same expressions yet stand in the same truth since they do not differ in things and ideas."[23]

But Augustine is nothing if not thorough. Consequently he now proceeds to point out that these two expressions "to carry" and "to loose" "differ not merely in words or their order or mode of expression, but 'to carry shoes' and 'to loose the latchet of a shoe' are two distinct things."[24] After suggesting that John might have used both expressions and that one Evangelist remembered one, another another, Augustine lays down the following broad principles: "If, however, when John spoke of the Lord's shoes he intended nought else save to set forth Christ's excellence and his own lowliness, then whichever of these expressions he used, whether loosing the latchet or carrying the shoes, he held to the same idea, and whoso ever expressed this same feeling of lowliness in the words wherein he refers to the shoes did the same, and consequently did not fail to express the same intention. We have, then, a useful rule and one we should commit to memory when treating of the harmony of the Evangelists: there can be no question of lying, since even when one says something which he did not say of whom he narrates it he yet expresses the speaker's intention as much as he who does give his actual words. Thus we learn this profitable truth: that nought else is to be looked for save what he meant who speaks."[25] St. Augustine lays down precisely the same principles when discussing the apparently conflicting accounts of St. Peter's denials.[26] Nor can we argue that St. Augustine is here speaking of the words used by the Baptist or by Apostles and that he would not apply the same principles to our Lord's words. For when discussing Christ's prediction that Peter would deny Him "before cock-crow" he insists on the various forms in which this prediction is given in the Gospels, and concludes:

"If we look for the precise words which the Lord spoke to Peter, they cannot be found, and it is idle to seek them. For His meaning—which the words are meant to make known to us—can easily be gathered from the Evangelists words howsoever different they may be."[27]

This, then, is the meaning of "substantial accuracy": the written record infallibly sets before us what our Lord meant to say. It will be of interest to give here some words penned by Cardinal Newman in a private letter dated July 15, 1878:

"Everyone writes in his own style. St. John gives our Lord's meaning in his own way. At that time the third person was not so commonly used in history as now. When a reporter gives one of Gladstone's speeches in a newspaper, if he uses the first person, I understand not only the matter, but the style, the words, to be Gladstone's; when the third, I consider the style, etc., to be the reporter's own. But in ancient times this distinction was not made. Thucydides uses the dramatic method, yet Spartan and Athenian speak in Thucydidean Greek. And so every clause of our Lord's speeches in's. John may be in's. John's Greek, yet every clause may contain the matter which our Lord spoke in Aramaic. Again,'s. John might and did condense (as being inspired for that purpose) the matter of our Lord's discourses, as that with Nicodemus, and thereby the wording might be St. John's, though the matter might still be our Lord's."[28]

G. The Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel.

That the Fourth Gospel was written by John the "beloved disciple" the son of Zebedee, is as certain as anything well can be. It would be no exaggeration to say that no anonymous writing has come down to us with stronger attestation as to its authorship.[29] Yet by the irony of fate the assertion of such a view is thought to indicate a lack of scholarship!

The arguments for the view that it was John the Disciple, he who "leant on the Lord's breast," who wrote this Gospel are derived from the Gospel itself or from sources extrinsic to it. (a) The extrinsic argument is that from tradition, and tradition—it may be said at once—is absolutely unanimous in assigning this Gospel to John the Evangelist. For this unanimity can hardly be said to be disturbed by the one dissentient voice, that of the obscure sect of the Alogi who in the second century had the audacity to declare that the Fourth Gospel was written by Cerinthus, while at the very same time St. Irenaeus was expressly stating that it was written against him.[30] The English Deist, Evanson, 1792, was the first to deny the Johannine author ship. His views on different grounds were resuscitated by the Tubingen school. Since that date it has been the fashion to deny the Johannine authorship of the Gospel which, with the perversity of genius, see infra, has been attributed to the shadowy figure known as "John the Presbyter." English scholars such as Westcott, Lightfoot, and Sanday, have more than atoned for the indiscretions of their fellow-countryman, Evanson.[30] The solidity and the coherence of the tradition will be evident from a study of the following facts:

I. At the close of the second century we have at least four great writers for whom the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel is an incontrovertible fact. Origen wrote a famous Commentary on this Gospel; Clement of Alexandria, besides preserving for us several traditions about St. John,[31] expressly speaks of "the four Gospels delivered to us," in them he says that a certain passage quoted by Julius Cassianus the Docete is not given;[32] while Eusebius tells us that in his Hypotyposes Clement gave an account of the origin of the four Gospels, in this account he says: "And John, the last of them all (the Evangelists), when he noticed that in the Gospels compiled by the others were narrated the things pertaining to the body (i.e. Humanity) of Christ, being himself filled with the breath of the Divine Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel at the request of his acquaintances."[33] St. Irenaeus repeatedly speaks of the Gospel as by "John, the disciple of the Lord," by "John," or simply by "the disciple," or by "the Apostle."[34] He quotes it constantly, perhaps one hundred out of his five hundred quotations of the Gospels are taken from that of John; he also speaks of it as written by "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also lay upon His breast," adding that it was written at Ephesus.[35] Lastly, Tertullian quotes practically every chapter of this Gospel, and of some chapters nearly every verse; the idea that it was not by John the Apostle never enters into his mind.[36]

Now such consentient testimony as this on the part of the greatest writers of the period, a testimony, too, which hails from places so widely separated as Alexandria, Lyons and Carthage, can be based on no mere mushroom tradition. It means that at a period distant less than one hundred years from the Apostle's death, the unanimous tradition of East and West was that John the Evangelist wrote our Fourth Gospel. And this tradition did not concern some chance literary product; it had to do with one of the fundamental documents of the Faith, with one of the "four quarters of the globe" as Irenaeus would call them.[37] Nor can it be argued that a hundred years or eighty years is a long period, and that at a time when communication was not the easy matter it is now spurious traditions might grow up and be accepted with an uncritical readiness which is hardly to be blamed. No one familiar with the way in which apocryphal works are spoken of by the Fathers would speak of the second century as an uncritical age. Neither can the lapse of a century between the death of St. John and the four writers just named be regarded as a long period. For, according to Irenaeus[38] John died in the reign of Trajan, A.D. 98-117, and, according to the Paschal Chronicle, in the seventh year of Trajan, viz. A.D. 104.[39] Now St. Polycarp, John's disciple, died in A.D. 155 or 156, and, as he himself stated at the time of his martyrdom, he had served the Lord eighty-six years, therefore he was born in 69 or 70.[40] Irenaeus words touching Polycarp are instructive as showing us how intimate was the connection between John, Polycarp and Irenaeus himself:

"Polycarp was not only taught by Apostles and lived familiarly with many who had seen the Lord, but was also appointed by the Apostles in Asia to be Bishop of the Church at Smyrna. We ourselves saw him in our early youth, for he survived a long time, and when exceeding old he accomplished a most glorious and noble triumph and so departed this life. He ever taught what he had learnt from the Apostles and what the Church hands down; indeed these are the only true things."[41]

How close was Irenaeus intimacy with Polycarp can be gauged from his Letter to Florinus who was also a disciple of Polycarp but who had shown an inclination for the Valentinian tenets:

"When I was a boy," he writes to Florinus, "I saw thee in Asia with Polycarp. ... I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed ... and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, and concerning His miracles and His teaching, having received them from eye-witnesses of the Word of Life. Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. These things were told to me by the mercy of God, and I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper but in my heart."[42]

Thus Irenaeus was an attentive hearer of Polycarp who was over thirty years of age when John died and who survived him another fifty years. Nor is this all; for Irenaeus succeeded in the See of Lyons the venerable Pothinus who died a martyr at the age of ninety and upwards, A.D. 177, in the persecution at Vienne.[43] Eusebius tells us that Pothinus, too, had been "a hearer of Polycarp in his youth."[44] Thus Pothinus would have been about twenty years of age when John died in A.D. 104.[45] Consequently, while a gap of one hundred years separates the death of Irenaeus from that of John, this gap is bridged over in a singularly complete fashion since Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, and Irenaeus immediate predecessor in the See of Lyons was another disciple of Polycarp and, like him, had lived to an advanced age. Moreover it will have been noticed that in the above extracts St. Irenaeus mentions others who had "seen the Lord." These are, apparently, the "Elders" to whom he refers so constantly in his writings.[46] Once, indeed, he refers to the collective testimony of "all the Elders who were assembled in Asia with John the Lord's disciple."[47] The full force of the tradition touching the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will best be appreciated when the meaning of the "School of St. John" is grasped. As the following table will show, we find in Asia Minor a body of Apostles and their disciples who are at pains to transmit Apostolic doctrine to their hearers. St. Irenaeus is a conspicuous example. He was the successor of Pothinus at Lyons, he was trained by Polycarp, he passed from the East to the West, he was in touch with all the great men of the sub-Apostolic age, he voices tradition in the person of the "Elders" to whom he constantly makes appeal.

The "Elders" are frequently mentioned by Irenaeus: "One superior to me," ὁ κρείσσων; Adv. Hœr. I. Pref. 2, I. xiii. 3, III. xvii. 4; "A Presbyter, a disciple of the Apostles"; or some similar phrase, IV. xxvii. 1, xxxi. 1, xxxii. 1, V. v. 1, xxxvi. 1-2; "a certain person among the Presbyters," III. xxiii. 3; "one before me," IV. xli. 2; "those who saw John face to face," V. xx. 1, cp. xxxiii. 3; "a certain predecessor, V. xvii. 4. Various attempts have been made to identify these "Elders" but beyond saying that now Polycarp, now Papias, may be meant it is futile to dogmatize.[48]

THE SCHOOL OF ST. JOHN IN ASIA MINOR.

A.
John	St. Andrew[49]	St. Philip the Evangelist[50] (Hierapolis)	Aristion and Others[51]

B.
Polycarp[52] c. 69-155 (Smyrna)	Ignatius[53] d. 107 (?116) (Antioch of Syria)	Pothinus[54] d. 177 (Lyons)	Papias[55] c. 130-140 (Hierapolis)	Melito[56] c. 165-175 (Sardis)	Polycrates[57] c. 190 (Ephesus)

C.
Florinus[58]	Irenaeus[59] d. 202 (Lyons)	Claudius Apollinaris[60] c. 171-185 (Hierapolis)	The "Elders"

The important point to note, however, is what we may term the "collective" witness of Irenaeus. He does not stand alone, he represents a stream of tradition flowing from John throughout the Churches of Asia and to Antioch in the East and Lyons in the West. When, then, Irenaeus tells us that (a) the Fourth Gospel was written by John the disciple,[61] (b) that it was written at Ephesus,[62] (c) against the Nicolaitans and Cerinthus,[63] (d) that there must of necessity be four and only four Gospels,[64] and when finally he himself quotes the Fourth Gospel some seventy to eighty times it is evident that none but overwhelming arguments can avail against such declarations, they are the collective voice of precisely that portion of the Church which was in a position to know the facts about St. John.

All this serves to show us (a) the careful way in which traditions were preserved; (b) the closeness of the link between Irenaeus at the close of the second century and the death of St. John at the close of the first; (c) the intimate connection between Irenaeus testimony in Gaul and that of the whole body of John's disciples in Asia and Ephesus in particular. And this testimony of Irenaeus and the Asiatic Church is fully corroborated by that of the other second- century writers whose writings have come down to us. Thus, working backwards we have—

(a) Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, c. A.D. 180, writing of the Divine Generation of the Word: "Whence the Holy Scriptures teach us—as indeed do all those who are Divinely inspired, among whom John says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, etc."[65] Here the Fourth Gospel is quoted as "John" and is held as decisive of a deep theological question.

(b) St. Justin Martyr, c. A.D. 150, in his First Apologia and in his Dialogue with Trypho makes free use of the Synoptic Gospels. It is true that his use of St. John's Gospel is not so clear. It is to be noted, however, that he nowhere gives the names of the authors of the "Memoirs" as he calls the Gospels, for their names would have conveyed nothing to those for whom he wrote. His aim throughout is to set forth Christ's moral teaching and the claims of Christianity. The esoteric teaching of the Fourth Gospel did not serve his purpose. These "memoirs" he frequently mentions, they are called "Gospels," they are read on Sundays, they were compiled by the Apostles, though not in all cases.[66] But while Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel is not so clear as his use of the Synoptics the doctrine of the Logos or "Word" as given by Justin is absolutely Johannine in tone.[67] Still it must be remembered that a knowledge of this doctrine will not prove a knowledge of the written source from which we now derive it, i.e. of St. John's Gospel. At the same time there are at least two passages in Justin which seem to demand an acquaintance with our written Fourth Gospel, (i.) He twice quotes the words of Zacharias, xii. 10, They shall look upon me whom they have pierced[68] and in each case he quotes it in the precise form given to it by St. John xix. 37, viz. with ἐξεκέντησαν instead of κατωχρήσαντο the form preserved in the Septuagint.[69] The same form ἐξεκέντησαν is retained by St. John in Apoc. i. 7. (ii.) The second passage occurs in Justin's treatise on regeneration[70] where, apropos of Baptism, he quotes John iii. 3-5 at least in part. The fact that Justin does not name the author as John is only in keeping with the general character of his Apologetic writings.

(c) The Muratorian Fragment dates probably from the middle of the second century;[71] its testimony to the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel is explicit:

Quarti Evangeliorum Johannis ex decipolis (discipulis).
Cohortantibus condiscipulis et eps suis
dixit: conjejunate mihi odie (hodie) triduo (triduum), et
quid cuique fuerit revelatum, alterutrum
nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte reve-
latum andreae ex apostolis, ut recognis-
centibus (recognoscentibus) cuntis (cunctis) Johannis

(Joannes) suo nomine

cunta (cuncta) discribret (describeret) et ideo licit

(licet) varia sin-

culis (singulis) evangeliorum libris principia
doceantur, Nihil tamen differt creden-
tium fidei, cum uno ac principali spu de-
clarata sint in omnibus omnia, de nativi-
tate, de passione, de resurrectione,
de conversatione cum decipolis (discipulis) suis,
ac de gemino ejus advento (adventu).

(d) St. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians fully bears out Irenaeus testimony; thus Phil. vii. contains a direct quotation from 1 John iv. 2-4, while we have reminiscences of John xiv. 6, xv. 16 in chs. i and xii. It is true that nowhere does Polycarp mention St. John as the author of the Gospel or the Epistle, but neither does he mention St. Peter as the author of 1 Peter which he so often quotes.

(e) Tatian's Diatessaron (q.v.) is proof of the existence of the Fourth Gospel which indeed Tatian quotes twice over in his Oratio adv. Gracos,[72] though in neither case does he name the author, but his apologetic aim made this unnecessary as well as undesirable.

(f) St. Ignatius of Antioch has many reminiscences of Johannine language in his Epistles, but in Philadel. vii. we have an unquestionable quotation of John iii. 8, though of course the author is not named.

(g) Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, is a witness of the greatest importance; Eusebius has preserved for us the following invaluable passage which introduces us to the vexed question of "John the Presbyter":

"I shall not hesitate to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have carefully learnt from the Elders and have carefully committed to memory, being positive of their truth. For I did not—as do many—take pleasure in those who say a great deal, but in those who teach the truth; nor again in those who tell of strange precepts, but rather in those who tell of precepts given by the Lord in the faith and springing from the truth itself.

"Further, if at any time there came any one who had been a follower of the Elders I would inquire about these Elders sayings, viz. what Andrew or Peter had been wont to say, or what Philip, or Thomas, or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples; what, too, Aristion and John the Elder were saying. For I did not think that what came from books would profit me so much as what came from the living and abiding voice."[73]

Thus Papias tells us that he himself had learnt many things from the Elders directly, also that whenever he met anyone who had been in communication with such Elders he took care to inquire what such men had gleaned from the Elders in the way of "sayings" of the various Apostles—and also: what Aristion and John the Elder were actually saying now. Papias thus carefully distinguishes between (a) the testimony he himself has derived directly from Elders, (b) that which he has derived indirectly from Elders regarding what Disciples already dead had said, and (c) the testimony—also indirectly obtained—regarding what living disciples, Aristion and the John the Elder, are actually saying.

In justification of the above interpretation of this much-disputed passage the following points should be noted:

1. St. Irenaeus speaks of Papias as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp."[74] These words are quoted by Eusebius,[75] but Eusebius immediately proceeds to point out that Irenaeus was mistaken, for he says: "Papias himself in the Preface to his Discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but he shows by the words he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends." In support of this statement Eusebius quotes the passage given above. But an analysis of Papias words as given by Eusebius will show that Papias has in mind three distinct categories: the Elders, the Followers of the Elders, and the Disciples of the Lord. By the Disciples are clearly meant Apostles, as is evident from the names given; not indeed that all Disciples were Apostles; Aristion, for example, in the same list, was not an Apostle. That the Elders are not Apostles will be admitted when it is noted that Irenaeus, who so constantly refers to the Elders, never includes the Apostles in that category. Thus to quote only two passages: "As I have heard from a certain Elder who had heard it from those who had seen the Apostles and from those who had been their disciples";[76] and again: "As the Gospel and all the Elders testify, those who were conversant with John in Asia, with John the disciple of the Lord, that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them till the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other Apostles."[77] Further, the change of tense, had been wont to say to were saying, indicates a clear distinction between dead and living Disciples, and it is this distinction of tense[78] with its consequences which Eusebius seems not to have noticed.

2. The consequences of this misunderstanding on Eusebius part have been far-reaching. For, as Eusebius immediately proceeds to point out, Papias mentions two Johns, one amongst the Apostles—clearly the Evangelist—and the other after an interval and in company with Aristion and called an Elder. Now Eusebius had in mind the views of Dionysius of Alexandria, whom he quotes in full,[79] and who had suggested that the Apocalypse was not by the author of the Fourth Gospel and the three Epistles, but was composed by some other person called John; in support of this theory Dionysius had referred to a tradition that there were at Ephesus two tombs bearing the name of John. Eusebius evidently thought that in the twofold mention of John in the passage quoted from Papias he had found the solution of the difficulty and that the "other John"—only guessed at by Dionysius—was actually referred to by Papias as "John the Elder" or "Presbyter."

3. This "John the Presbyter" has for years served as a kind of stalking-horse for all who would impugn the Johannine authorship whether of the Fourth Gospel and the Three Epistles or of the Apocalypse. Yet if the foregoing analysis of the passage of Papias is correct, then "John the Presbyter" is no more than a spectre raised by a guess on the part of Dionysius of Alexandria and by a piece of indifferent exegesis of Papias words by Eusebius. Thus we note that (a) no other John save the Evangelist was ever thought of as living at Ephesus, till the time of Dionysius. (b) The theory of two tombs at Ephesus is only known to Dionysius, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, and the two latter simply derived it from Dionysius. (c) The Second and Third Epistles of John commence with the words: " The Ancient (or Elder) to ... ," if, then, there really was a John the Presbyter distinct from the Evangelist he must surely have been the author of these two Epistles. Yet it is hard to dissociate them from the First Epistle which is certainly the work of the Evangelist. Moreover, it is almost inconceivable that two Epistles of such exceeding brevity should have found their way to universal and early acceptance unless the proofs of their Apostolic origin were irrefragable.

4. Further, the position assigned by Papias to this Presbyter should have shown Eusebius that he could not have been merely a disciple of the Apostles, for Eusebius himself quotes Papias in the same place as giving the said Presbyter's judicial view of Mark's Gospel. It is impossible to conceive of any one not in the position of an Apostle thus deciding upon the merits and demerits of one of the Gospels, and this decision accords remarkably with the testimony given both by Clement of Alexandria,[80] and in the Muratorian Canon, as to the origin of the Fourth Gospel.

5. Once more, we know from Irenaeus[81] that Papias actually was "a hearer of John"; and when we combine with this the practically universal statement of antiquity that John wrote the Apocalypse in extreme old age,[82] and the Gospel even after the Apocalypse, we can well understand his being called "the Elder" par excellence.

Elsewhere Eusebius shows us what was the early tradition of the Church:

"John's Gospel, known to all the Churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. ... Of all the disciples of the Lord only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, according to tradition, only wrote from necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue and thus compensated for the loss of his presence those whom he was obliged to leave. And they say that when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, John who had employed all his time in publishing the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write, and this for the following reasons: The three Gospels, having come into the hands of all, and into his own (John's), they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness, but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the outset of His ministry. And this is indeed true. For it is evident that the three Evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Savior for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. ... They say, therefore, that the Apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier Evangelists, and of the deeds performed by the Savior during that period, that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. ... One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, since the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of His life."[83]

We can trace the influence of Eusebius words in St. Jerome's account of John the Evangelist:

"The Apostle John, whom Jesus loved exceedingly, was the son of Zebedee and the brother of the Apostle James whom Herod put to death after the Lord's Passion. He wrote his Gospel last of all and, at the request of the Bishops of Asia, as an antidote to Cerinthus and other heretics, and particularly against the then current teaching of the Ebionites who asserted that Christ did not exist previous to Mary. Consequently John was compelled to declare His divine birth. Other reasons, too, are given for his writing: namely that having read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke he approved of the history as they had set it forth and declared that they had told the truth. But John perceived that they had only told the history of one year, that namely in which Christ suffered after John's imprisonment. Omitting, then, the year the events of which had been chronicled by the three previous Evangelists, John told the story of the time which preceded the Baptist's imprisonment, and this will be patent to anyone who reads the four Gospels carefully. This fact serves to explain the apparent want of agreement between John and the other three.

"John also wrote one Epistle the opening words of which are: That Which was from the beginning, Which we have heard, Which we have seen with our eyes, Which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; this Epistle is approved by all Ecclesiastics and learned men. The other two Epistles beginning respectively: The Ancient to the Lady Elect and her children, and The Ancient to the dearly beloved Gaius whom I love in truth, are attributed to John the Presbyter whose tomb is shown at Ephesus even at this day though some think that these are really both tombs of John the Evangelist; but we will discuss this question when we come to Papias, John's disciple. When, in his fourteenth year, Domitian inaugurated the second persecution after that of Nero, John was banished to the island of Patmos and there he wrote the Apocalypse as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus interpret it. Domitian, however was murdered and his acts were rescinded by the Senate on account of their excessive cruelty; so John returned to Ephesus in Nerva's reign and, remaining there till the reign of Trajan, he consolidated and governed all the churches of Asia until at length, worn out with old age, he died sixty-eight years after the Lord's Passion and was buried in the neighborhood of the same city of Ephesus."[84]

H. The Intrinsic Evidence for the Johannine Authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

The author nowhere names himself, cp. Apoc. i. 4, 9, xxii. 8; but he is "the disciple whom Jesus loved," xiii. 23, xix. 26-27, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20; he refers to himself as "another disciple," xviii. 15-16, xx. 3, 4, 8, cp. i. 35-40, xxi. 2; he apparently testifies that he himself was a witness to the final scene on Calvary, xix. 35, and either he or the Ephesian Elders testify that the author of this record was one with the "beloved disciple," xxi. 24. The question is whether it is possible to prove the identity of John the son of Zebedee with this writer who seems so determined to hide his identity. We made the reservation above "or the Ephesian Church" because of the statement in xxi. 24 "and we know that his testimony is true;" the plural we has been taken to imply that it was not the individual writer who penned these last words but the whole Church of Ephesus. A comparison, however, with the First Epistle shows how John habitually wrote "we know," i. 1-5, v. 15, 18, 19, 20; note, too, how he writes "we write" in 1 John i. 4, but "I write" in ii. 1, 12-14, 21, 26, v. 12.[85] If, then, it is really the author of the Gospel who identifies himself with "the beloved disciple" we have his own statement that he was one of the Apostles; if, however, it is felt that the last two verses of his Gospel form an appendix due to the Ephesian Elders, then we still have the earliest possible tradition touching the identity of the author with the "beloved disciple."

From the Gospel itself it is possible to prove that (a) the author was a Jew, (b) a Jew of Palestine, (c) an eyewitness of what he narrates, (d) one of the Apostles, (e) the Apostle John himself. That he was a Jew is clear from his intimate acquaintance with Hebrew history and customs. Thus note, for example, his references to the Messias i. 19-25, iv. 25, vi. 14; to the relations between Jews and Samaritans, iv. 9, viii. 48; to the status of women, iv. 27; to the Jewish schools, vii. 15; to the Dispersion, vii. 35; to Abraham and the Prophets, viii. 52; to baptism and purification, i. 25, ii. 6, iii. 22, 25, xi. 55; to circumcision, vii. 22; to the Sabbath, vii. 22; to various Feasts, v. 1, vi. 4, vii. 2, x. 22; to the law of evidence, viii. 17-18. His diction, too, is colored by the Hebrew not the Greek Old Testament, e.g. Hosanna, xii. 13, a quotation from Ps. cxvii. 25 the LXX version of which has "save now" as a rendering of Hosanna, cp. Luke xix. 38; note, too, Alleluia in Apoc. xix. 1, 6. Again, his theological outlook is that of O.T., salvation is of the Jews, iv. 22, Moses wrote of Christ, v. 46, the serpent, the manna, the Paschal lamb, the pillar of fire, are, for him, all types. Note again how constantly he insists that the details of Christ's life were necessary and not merely accidental fulfilments of O.T. prophecy. Further, the style is that of the Hebrew O.T., thus note the parallelism which is so marked a feature of the allegories, e.g. x. 1-6, the simplicity of construction in the opening clauses of the Prologue, the Hebrew use of "and" where Greek would naturally employ another conjunction, e.g. v. 39-40, vii. 19, 30, 33, etc. That he was a native of Palestine seems to follow from his intimate acquaintance with the geography of Palestine in general and with the topography of Jerusalem. His references to Cana, ii. 1, xxi. 2, to Capharnaum, ii. 12, to Sychar, iv. 5, are precise; he knows the Sea of Galilee well, vi. 19, the banks of Jordan, i. 28, x. 40, Bethsaida of Galilee, xii. 21; he is at home in Jerusalem, he knows of the pool at the Probatica, v. 2, the precise distance between Bethany and Jerusalem, xi. 18, the brook Cedron, xviii. 1, Gabbatha, xix. 13, Golgotha, xix. 17, and Siloam, ix. 7. He even seems to refer to some of these places with an archaeological interest, v. 2 and xi. 18, and it is worth recalling that after the destruction in A.D. 70 few if any of them would have been recognizable. That he was an eyewitness of much that he records is evident from the vivid pen-pictures he has left us of many scenes, e.g. the cleansing of the temple, the feeding of the five thousand, and the details of the last days. Note, too, his precision in details of time, e.g. i. 29, 35, 43, ii. 1, iii. 24, iv. 6, 40, 43, 46, 52, v. 5, vi. 4, 22, vii. 2, xi. 6; similarly in numbers, i. 35, iv. 18, xix. 23. That he was one of the Apostles will follow from his familiarity with the feelings prevalent among the Apostolic body; he dwells on their belief, ii. 11, on their reminiscences, ii. 17, 22, on their wonderment, iv. 27; he knows of the questions they put and the remarks they made, e.g. iv. 31, 33, ix. 2, xi. 16, xiv. 5, 8, 22, xxi. 3; similarly he betrays a close knowledge of Christ's acts, habits, and mind, cf. ii. 24-25, iv. 1-3, vi. 72, vii. 10, xviii. 2, xxi. 25. That this Jew of Palestine who was an Apostle and an eyewitness of so much was also John the son of Zebedee may not be capable of rigid demonstration but nearly approaches it. For (a) who but John the son of Zebedee can be identified with "the beloved disciple?" It is impossible to believe that the bearer of this proud title did not form one of the select few who were chosen as witnesses of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, of the Transfiguration, of the declaration on the Last Things, and of the Agony in the garden. That Andrew was not this "beloved disciple" is clear from i. 40; that it was not Peter is necessitated by xxi. 20. It must then have been one of the sons of Zebedee; but the death of James, Acts xii., is incompatible with the statements in John xxi. 20-23. (b) He was Peter's friend, xiii. 24, xviii. 15-16, xx. 2-10, xxi. 20, but Acts iii.-iv., viii. 14 show us who Peter's friend was. (c] The author's silence about John the son of Zebedee is unintelligible save on the suppositon that he himself was John the son of Zebedee. Nor is he silent about himself only, neither his brother James nor their parents are mentioned, it is surely no mere accident that in xix. 25 "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" Matt, xxvii. 56, "Salome" in Mark xv. 40, is omitted. Thus the entire family is passed over in silence. Yet it is not the silence of anonymity, else the writer would not betray himself at every turn as he does when he is talking of the Baptist. For he always speaks of him simply as "John." Why not as "John the Baptist?" He is fond of adding explanatory titles: Simon is always "Simon Peter," Thomas is three times spoken of as Didymus, Judas as the Iscariot or also as "the son of Simon." The reason can only be that since everybody knew that the author was the other John there was no need to distinguish the son of Zachary and Elizabeth as "the Baptist."

The Date of the Fourth Gospel.—The evidence of the Gospel itself points to John the son of Zebedee as the author, and tradition, or evidence extrinsic to the Gospel, is unanimous on this point. But tradition is also practically unanimous in saying that it was written towards the close of the first century, see the quotations given above. And this is fully borne out by the Gospel itself. That it was written much later than the Synoptic Gospels is evident from the tacit fashion in which it supplements their narrative and even corrects impressions which might be derived from it. But that it was written in the second century is shown to be impossible by a multitude of small details which cumulatively and in conjunction with tradition are over whelming. A second-century author would have infinite difficulties to contend with; he would have to present him self as an intimate of Christ and the Apostolic band, indeed as one of their number. Moreover, with his second-century ideas he would have had to present the auditory as replete with the religious conceptions of the first century and of its early portion. Now the marvellous thing about St. John's narrative is that, whereas he opens with the doctrine of the Word of God and insists at every turn upon the Divinity of Christ, he yet shows us the populace steeped in the religious ideas proper to A.D. 30. Thus for Christians "the Christ" and "the Prophet" would be one and the same, cp. Acts iii. 22, vii. 37, with John vi. 14; but the Jews of the Fourth Gospel neither grasp the doctrine of the Word of God nor do they identify the Christ with "the Prophet," i. 21, 25, vii. 40. Further, St. Ignatius Epistles show us how lively was the contest in Asia at the opening of the second century touching the Episcopate, yet there is no trace of this in the Ephesian Gospel. Again, the Sadducees are nowhere mentioned in the Fourth Gospel. Would a second-century writer who was anxious to present himself as writing from the first-century standpoint have dared to omit all mention of them? The author of the Fourth Gospel does so because he knows that at that time the Sadducees were identified with the High Priestly party.[86] Once more, we have specimens of second-century Apocryphal Gospels; but what a gulf divides them from the Fourth Gospel! Lastly it is to be noted that the text of the Fourth Gospel was early corrupted. For Tertullian, writing about A.D. 210, not only reads "Qui natus est" instead of "qui nati sunt" in John i. 13, but maintains that the latter reading—which is in our present Greek and Latin texts—is simply due to a corruption of the text by the Valentinians.[87]

I. The Authenticity of some Disputed Passages.

(a) v. 3 "expecting ..." 4 end. Of this passage it may be said briefly that very ancient MSS. omit either the whole of ver. 4 or the concluding words of ver. 3 as well as ver. 4. Tiio; se Uncial MSS. which give the passage show a suspicious number of variants. The same must be said of the cursive MSS. in general, they either omit altogether or betray an abundance of variant readings. The MSS. of the Coptic and Syriac versions are, on the whole, against the passage. Several Old Latin MSS. omit, and the Vulgate MSS. pre sent the same features as do the majority of the MSS. referred to above: viz. remarkable variations.[88] The Patristic evidence is of an unusual type; Didymus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom, Theophylact and Euthymius, all have the passage; of the Latins St. Ambrose has it twice,[89] so too Ven. Bede; St. Augustine clearly had no knowledge of it.[90] The earliest witness to it is Tertullian,[91] and this shows the antiquity of the passage. Certainly ver. 7 demands some explanation such as is given in ver. 4. Is it con ceivable that the passage was so manifest a parenthesis that copyists excised it as therefore suspicious?

(b) vii. 53-viii. 11. The Story of the Woman taken in Adultery. St. Jerome says of this much disputed passage that he found it "in many MSS. both Greek and Latin,"[92] and he certainly retained it in his Vulgate Gospels, though many Old Latin MSS. omit it. Neither does it seem probable that he would have made use of it against the Pelagians had there been any real doubt as to its genuine character. St. Augustine quotes portions of it and then suggests that the reason why many removed this passage from their copies was a fear lest it should lead people to sin with impunity.[93] As a matter of fact it does not appear in any MS. known to us at present which dates earlier than the sixth century and there is considerable confusion in those MSS. which do give it. At the same time the antiquity of the story is guaranteed both by St. Jerome and St. Augustine as also by Eusebius who tells us that Papias had it and that it occurs in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.[94]
The evidence in detail is as follows:

(a) The Greek MSS. א, B, A, and C omit it; the two latter are defective here but the gap is too small to admit this section. L has a small space; MSS. of the ninth to tenth century as well as some sixty cursive MSS. omit it. Many MSS. of the Old Latin as also the Syriac versions and the oldest MSS. of the Coptic versions omit it.

(b) Two MSS., E and M, of the ninth to tenth century, as also fifty-eight cursive MSS. have the passage but mark it with an obelus as doubtful.

(c) Eleven Cursive MSS. assign it a place at the close of St. John's Gospel; the so-called "Ferrar-group" of Cursives, viz. Nos. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, place it after Luke xxi.

(d) The Patristic evidence is confusing: Papias, St. Jerome and St. Augustine witness to a very early tradition assigning it a place in the New Testament. But St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom. and Theophylact, who all commented on St. John's Gospel, have no comment on this passage. That St. Chrysostom, however, knew of this passage is clear from his Hom. LX. in Joan.[95] We have no remains of Origen's Commentary on John v. l.-viii. 19.

The fact that early MSS. known to St. Jerome had the passage, the further fact that our earliest MSS. omit it, and the evident un certainty on the part of the later MSS. as to the place to be assigned to it, enable us to conclude (a) that the passage is exceedingly ancient, (b) that its origin may well have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews[96], that the Ferrar MSS. may be correct in placing it after Luke xxi. where it fits in without, as in the case of St. John's Gospel, interrupting the sequence of events. If it is true that the passage is not in the style of St. John a point on which it is dangerous to dogmatize it will only follow that while tradition holds it to be a portion of the inspired Gospel it does not declare it to be a portion of St. John's Gospel. And more than this we are not called on to believe.

J. The Greek of St. John's Gospel.

St. John's style is exceedingly simple, construction is absent, be has a few connecting particles which serve his purpose; these he uses with a reiteration which might well cause monotony. Thus, taking one or two chapters at random, we notice in ch. vi. how he introduces each sentence almost alternately by οὖν and the enclitic δέ. The breaks in the discourses he indicates by νῡν, which is quite characteristic of his style, by καὶ ταῡτα εἰπὼν, e.g. xi. 43, or similar expressions, cf. xii. 16, 33, vi. 59, xi. 11, 28, viii. 20, xxi. 14, 22, 31. This very simplicity of style sometimes produces confusion, thus Origen remarks on iv. 42 "perchance the context does mean this; but John being of uncultured speech expressed but clumsily what he had in his mind."[97] The same features reappear in the three Epistles, sentence after sentence is introduced by καὶ, often, too, by ἐάν; note, too, the curious opening by ὁ with the participle, 1 John ii. 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, etc., or by πᾱς with the participle, ii. 23, iii. 4, 6, 9, 15, etc. In the Apocalypse considerably more than half the verses commence with καὶ.[98]

It is the same with the terminology employed by John; his thoughts revolve round a few definite terms, e.g. "truth" and "witness," "light" and "darkness," "knowledge" and "belief," "faith" and "works," "love," "glory," "abiding," "judgment," and "signs."

It is well to note the extent to which St. John has monopolized some of these expressions; thus μαρτυρεῑν occurs 33 times in the rest of N.T., but 48 times in the Johannine writings, i.e. 34 in the Gospel, 11 in the Epistles, 3 in Apocalypse; æμαρτυρία 14 times in John's Gospel, 8 in the Epistles, 9 in Apocalypse; 7 in rest of N.T.; μαρτύρίον however occurs 18 times in N.T. and but once in Apoc. xv. 5; so too μάρτυς 4 times in Apocalypse, 6 in rest of N.T.; δοξάξειν 22 in the Gospel, 2 in Apocalypse, 35 in rest of N.T.; δόξα is of frequent occurrence in N.T. but John uses it 19 times in his Gospel and 17 times in the Apocalypse; πιστεύειν occurs 97 times in the Gospel and 10 times in 1 John as against 140 occurrences in the rest of N.T.; curiously enough the noun πίστις never occurs in the Gospel but 4 times in the Apocalypse and 1 in 1 John v. 4, against 231 in rest of N.T.; though insistence on "works" is very marked throughout the Pauline Epistles this is not the case with the Synoptic Gospels wherein the term "works" only occurs 9 times, St. John has it 28 times in his Gospel, 5 in his Epistles, and 19 times in Apocalypse.[99] Only once does St. John speak of "portents" τέρατα iv. 48, but he refers to "signs," σημεῑα, 17 times in his Gospel and 7 times in Apocalypse. It is the same with κρίνειν and κρίσις so frequently on the lips of St. Paul, so unfrequent in the Synoptics, yet John uses κρίσις 11 times in his Gospel, 1 in 1 John iv. 17 and 4 times in Apocalypse, κρίνειν 19 times in the Gospel but neither in the Epistles nor in Apocalypse; ἀληθεία occurs 23 times in his Gospel, and 20 times in his Epistles; ἀληθής 13 times in the Gospel and 3 times in his Epistles, yet only once in Matt. xxii. 16 and Mark xii. 14, and 5 times in the rest of N.T.; ἀληθινός 8 times in his Gospel, 4 in Epistles, 9 times in Apocalypse, yet only twice in the rest of N.T.; the adverb ἀληθϖς occurs 11 times in John's Gospel, 1 in 1 John ii. 5, and 9 times in the rest of N.T.; φϖς occurs 22 times in his Gospel, 6 in 1 John, 3 in Apocalypse; φιλεῑν occurs 11 times in his Gospel, twice in Apocalypse; ἀγάπη 7 times in his Gospel, 21 in Epistles, twice in Apocalypse; ἀγαπᾱν 31 each in Gospel and Epistles and 4 in Apocalypse; lastly the truly Johannine word μένειν occurs 40 times in John's Gospel, 26 in his Epistles, and once in Apocalypse, and this always in the mystical sense of our "abiding" with God or of His "abiding" with us.

K. The Theology of the Gospel.

The Relation of the Son to the Father:

He is the Son, i. 18, 34, 49, iii. 16, 18, 35, v. 19-28, 36-38, 43, 45, vi. 40, 70, viii. 27, 35-36, ix. 35-36, xi. 4, 27, xix. 7, xx. 31; He is pre-existent, i. 18, 27, 30, iii. 13, 31, vi. 38, 42, 50-51, viii. 23, 38, 56-58, xvii. 5, 21-26, etc.; He came down from heaven, iii. 13, 31, vi. 38, 42, 50-51, 59, viii. 23, 42, xi. 27, xii. 47, xvi. 27-30, xvii. 14, 16; God is His Father, ii. 17, iii. 35, etc.; He ascends to Him, vi. 63, vii. 33-36, viii. 14, 21, xii. 8, xiii. 3, 36, xiv. 2-5, 13, 28, xvi. 7, 9, 16-19, 28, xix. 17; He is One with the Father, x. 30, 33, 36, xii. 44-45, xiv. 6, 7, 9, 21, xv. 23-24, xvi. 3, 15, 27, xvii. 10-11, 21-23; the Father is greater than He, xiv. 28; the Son is in the Father, x. 38, xiv. 10, n, 20, xvi. 32; the Father is in the Son, x. 38, xiv. 10-11; He is dependent on the Father, v. 19, 30, vi. 37, 58, vii. 17, viii. 18, 26, 28, 29, 38, 40, ix. 4, x. 18, 29, 32, xii. 44, 49-50, xiv. 10, 24, xvii. 2, 6-8, 9-17; He is sent by the Father, iii. 34, iv. 34, v. 23, 24, 3> 36-38, vi. 29, 38-40, 44, 58, vii. 16, 28-29, viii. 16, 26; He is rom the Father, vii. 29, viii. 14, 42, xiii. 3, xvi. 27, xvii. 8, 29, 42, ix. 4, x. 36, xii. 44, 49, xiv. 24, xvii. 3, 18, 23, xx. 21; He is loved by the Father, v. 20, x. 17, xv. 9, xvii. 23-24, 26; He loves the Father, xiv. 31, xv. 10; He knows the Father, vii. 29, viii. 38, 40, 55, x. 15, xv. 15, xvii. 25; He honours the Father, viii. 49; is known by the Father, x. 15; obeys the Father, x. 18, xiv. 31, xv. 10; He glorifies the Father, viii. 54, xi. 4, 28, xii. 16, 23, xiii. 31-32, xvii. i, 5; and is glorified by the Father, xiii. 31-32, xiv. 13, xv. 8, xvii. i, 4; He pleases the Father, viii. 29; he is sealed by the Father, vi. 27, x. 36; the Father testifies to the Son, v. 37, viii. 18; the Father hears the Son, xi. 22, 41-42; the Father gives all to Him, xii. 3; the Father grants all that we ask in the Name of the Son, xiv. 13-14, xv. 7, 16, xvi. 23-24; the Father honours those who believe in the Son, xii. 26.

The Son in His Relation to us:

He is the source of life, i. 4, v. 21, 25-26, 40, vi. 58, xiv. 6; the Light of the world, i. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, iii. 17-21, v. 35, viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 35 36, 46; became Incarnate, i. 14, etc.; is full of grace and truth, i. 14, 16-17; i's tne Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world, i. 29, 36; is sinless, viii. 46, ix. 16, 24-25, 31; is the Christ, i. 41, iv. 25-26, 29, vi. 70, vii. 26-27, 31, 41-42, ix. 22, xi. 27, xvii. 3, xx. 31; is the Son of Man, i. 51, iii. 13-14, v. 27, vi. 27, 63, viii. 28; possesses Divine knowledge, i. 42, 47, 49, ii. 24-25, iv. 17-19, 50, v. 6, 14, vi. 6, 15, 65, 71-72, vii. 15-16, 20, viii. 6, 37, 40, ix. 3, x. 24, xi. 4, 14, xiii. 10-11, 18-19, 21, 26-27, 38, xiv. 29, xvi. 4-5, 30, xviii. 4, xxi. 6, 18-19; came to save the world, iii. 17, iv. 42, xii. 47; was weary, iv. 6; He lays down His life, x. 15, 17; is to be crucified, iii. 14, viii. 28, xii. 32-34; is to die, xi. 50-51, xii. 7; our Redeemer, vi. 52; His hour is His own, ii. 4, vii. 6, 8, 30, viii. 20; He comes in His own Name, v. 43, vi. 38; divers testimonies to Him, that of the Father, v. 37, viii. 18; of the Holy Spirit, xv. 26, xvi. 14; of Moses, v. 45-47; of the Scriptures, v. 39; of the Baptist, i. 19, 36, iii. 28-30, v. 33; of His own works, v. 36, x. 25, 37-38, xiv. 12; of the Apostles, xv. 27; He testifies to Himself, v. 31, viii. 13-14, 18; His words are spirit and life, vi. 64, 69; He draws all to Himself, vi. 35, 39, 45, vii. 37, xiv. 6; He is to be honoured, v. 23; is the Way, the Truth and the Life, xiv. 6; is to rise again, x. 17-18; is to come again, xiv. 18, 28, xvi. 16-19, 22; is to be our Judge, v. 22, 27, 30, viii. 16, 26, ix. 39, cp. viii. 15, xii. 47; is the Bread of Life, vi. 35, 41, 48-57; His Blood is to be drunk, vi. 54-57; He abides in us, vi. 57; and we in Him, xiv. 20, 23, xv. 4-7; He gives eternal life, iii. 15, 16, 36, iv. 14, 36, v. 24, 29, vi. 27, 40, 52-55, 59, 69, viii. 51-52, x. 28, xvii. 2; is the cause of our Resurrection, v. 25-29, vi. 39-40, 44, 55, xi. 25; divers Names belonging to Him, the Prophet, i. 21, vi. 14, vii. 40; the Beginning (?), viii. 25; the Only-begotten of the Father, i. 14, 18, iii. 16, 18; Rabbi, i. 38, iv. 31, vi. 25; Rabbouni, xx. 16; the King of Israel, i. 49, xii. 13; the King of the Jews, xviii. 33-37, xix. 3, 15, 19-21; the Bridegroom, iii. 29; the Door, x. 7, 9; the Shepherd, x. u, 14; the Vine, xv. i; the Master, xi. 18; xiii. 13-14, xix. 16; the Lord, xiii. 13-14, 25, xx. 2, 13, 18, 25, 28, xxi. 7, 12, 15, 17, 20-21; God, xx. 28; His love for us, xiii. 34, xv. 9-10; He will show us the Father, xvi. 25; He sends the Paraclete, xv. 26, xvi. 7; we can do nothing without Him, xv. 4-5; He has overcome the world, xvi. 33; He gives power to forgive sins, xx. 22-23 > He declares our future resurrection, xi. 23.

The Holy Spirit:

Descends on Christ, i. 32-33; His share in the work of our regeneration, iii. 5, 6, 8; is not given by measure, iii. 34; is "sent," xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26; abides in us, xiv. 16-17; is the Spirit of Truth, xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13; will teach all things, xiv. 26, xvi. 13; is sent in Christ's Name, xiv. 26; will remind the disciples of all things, xiv. 26; is sent by Christ, xv. 26, xvi. 7; He proceeds from the Father, xv. 26; testifies to the Son, xv. 26; is dependent on the Father, xvi. 13; and on the Son, xvi. 14; glorifies the Son, xvi. 14; and will glorify Him, xvi. 14; He will convince the world of sin, of justice and of judgment, xvi. 8-11; is bestowed on the Apostles, xx. 22.

L. Bibliography.

MacRory, St. John, Dublin, 1900. Fouard, St. John and the Close of the Apostolic Age, tr. by Griffiths, Longmans, 1905. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, Sanday, Oxford University Press, 1905. Calmes, Evangile selon S. Jean, in the series Etudes Bibliques, Lecoffre, 1906. The Greek text of Origen's Commentary on St. John can be had in handy form, ed. Brooke, Cambridge University Press, 2 vols., 1896. Sanday, The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, also The Gospels in the Second Century, 1876. Westcott, The Gospel of St. John, in the Speaker's Commentary and reprinted separately 1881. Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Study of the N.T., has a capital discussion of the Johannine question, 1885. See, too, Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, collected 1893. Drummond, An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1903. Belzer, Das Evangelium des Heiligen Joannes, uberstezt und Erklärt, 1905. Lepin, L'Origine du Quatrième Evangile, 1907, with a discussion in R.B. October, 1907 and January, 1908. For an uncompromising review of Loisy's Quatrième Evangile see R.B. July, 1904, 431-6; also Lagrange in R.B. April, 1910. The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel, H. A. Watson, Hulsian Lecture, 1915-1916.
_______________________________________

1 St. Jerome, Ep. CXXVII. 5; P.L. XXII.

2 Adv. Hœr. III. iii. 4.

3 Quis Dives, XLII.; cf. H.E. III. xiii. 5, also Origen, Tom. III. in Genesim, ed. Delarue, II. 24.

4 Com. on Galat. vi. 10, P.L. XXVI. 463.

5 De Prœscriptionibus, XXXVI.; cf. s.v. Apocalypse.

6 Com. in Matt. xxi. 23, P.L. XXVI. 143; but cf. Adv.Jovin. I. xxvi., P.L. XXIII. 247, where he refers to Tertullian for this statement.

7 Tract. in Joan. CXXIV. 2.

8 See Origen, Tom. X. 18 in Joan., P.G. XIV. 363; R.B. 1894, p. 53; 1899, p. 232, 1900, January-July, 1901, p. 512; Expository Times, April, May, October, 1907, February and March, 1911, January, 1916, etc. Cp. Eusebius, H.E. III. xxiv. ut supra, and St. Jerome, Vir. Illustr. IX., P.L. XXIII. 623.

9 Thus note Origen: "We dare to say that the first-fruits of all the Scriptures are the Gospels, but that the first-fruits of the Gospels are given us in the Gospel of John. And none can understand the meaning of this Gospel save the man who has lain on Jesus breast or who from Jesus has received Mary." Prol. to Comment. in Joannem, vi., P.G. XIV. 31; and Tom. XIII. 53 in Joan, P.G. XIV. 500. Similarly St. Augustine: "John's goal, however, is more especially the Lord's Divinity wherein He is equal to the Father; and his aim is, especially in his Gospel, to set before men that same Divinity as far as he thought sufficient for men. Hence John far transcends the other three.

For these latter seem as it were to walk with Christ the Man upon earth, while John passes beyond the clouds which enshroud the entire earth, he reaches even to the empyrean whence with clear and steady gaze he can see God the Word Who in the beginning was God with God, by Whom God made all things. Thence, too, he knew Him as made Flesh, that He might 'dwell amongst us'; he knew that He received flesh, not that He was changed into flesh." De Consensu, I. iv., P.L. XXXIV. 1045; cf. also St. Irenaeus, Adv. Hœr. III. xi. i. Indeed this "mystical" character of St. John's Gospel is everywhere recognized by the Fathers, e.g. St. Ambrose, "mystica magis scripsit," apropos of xix. 25, De Institutione Virginis, vii. 46, P.L. XVI. 332; cf. Ep. Ixiii. (109), ibid. 1270.

10 Cp. St. Jerome, Ep. CXXVII.5, P.L. XXII. 1091; also his Prologue to his Comment. in Matth., P.L. XXVI. 18-19 5 Adv. Jovin. I. xxvi., P.L. XXIII. 247.

11 The dramatic character of the Fourth Gospel falls into line with the same feature in the Apocalypse. Thus the seven Churches, the seven seals, trumpets, plagues, and vials of the Apocalypse find their counterpart in the seven "signs" which precede the Sacred Passion in the Gospel, viz. the "sign" of the wine and water, ii. 1-12; of the healing of the Ruler's son, iv. 46-54; of the cure of the paralytic— sickness and sin, v. 1-15; of the Bread of Life, vi. 1-15; of the walking on the sea, vi. 16-21; of the man born blind, ix. 1-41; of the death and resurrection of Lazarus, xi. 1-56. Note, too, throughout both books the constant postponement of the climax; also the manner in which the first vision in the Apocalypse and the dramatic Verbum carofactum est in the Gospel influence the whole of what follows.

12 John "sets forth the Divinity of Christ more clearly than do the rest," Origen, Prol. 6 in Comment. in Joan., P.G. XIV. 30.

13 "Joannes Theologus," Paschal Chronicle, P.G. XCII. 591, and 1078 "Joannes Theologus et consanguineus Christi."

14 See Expositor, September, 1915.

15 Loisy, Autour d' un Petit Livre, pp. 90-92.

16 Loisy, Onairiem: Evangile, p. 351; cp. Expositor, December, 1911, Expository Times, December, 1910.

17 Denzinger, Enchiridion, 2014-2018, ed. 1911.

18 English Translation, p. 9; Denzinger, l.c. 2076.

19 Ibid. p. 35; Denzinger, 2097.

20 Tract. XXXVI. in Joan., cp. Tract. XL. i, XLVIII. 6, etc.

21 De Consensu, II. xii. (25-26), P.L. XXXIV. 1088-1090.

22 De Consensu, II. xii. (27), P.L. XXXIV. 1088-1090.

23 Ibid. (28).

24 Ibid. (29).

25 Ibid. (29), cf. III. ii. (5), P.L. XXXIV. 1160.

26 Ibid. III. i-ii. 1157-1162.

27 De Consensu, III. ii. (8), 1162; cp. III. iv. (14), 1166.

28 Quoted by Plummer, St. John in the Cambridge Greek Testament, p. 100, Cambridge, 1896.

29 See Westcott in the Speaker's Commentary; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 1-11, 1893; Sanday, The Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, etc.

30 The Alogi are described by St. Augustine "tanquam sine Verbo λόγος enim Græce verbum dicitur), quia Deum Verbum recipere noluerunt, Joannis Evangelium respuentes, cujus nec Aṕocalypsim accipiunt, has videlicet Scripturas negantes esse ipsius," De Hœr. XXX., P.L. XLII. 31. Cp. Origen, Tom. 11. 3 in Joan., P.G. XIV. in. On the identity of this "sect" (?) see Chapman, John the Presbyter, p. 53 note, also R.B. October, 1897, 516-534. For the folly of denying the authenticity of St. John's Gospel see St. Epiphanius, Hœr. LI., P.G. XLI. 887.

31 Cf. supra, Quis Dives, xlii.; H.E. III. xxiii. 5-19.

32 Strain. III. xiii., P.G. VIII. 1194.

33 H.E. VI. xiv. 7; cf. St. Jerome, Prol. to Comment. in Matth., also Muratorian Frag.; St. Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, I. ii. (29), P.L XVI. 740.

34 E.g. Adv. Hœr. I. ix. 2; II. xxii. 3, 5; III. i. I, xi. I, 9, xvi. 5; IV. xx. ii; V. xviii. 2; cp. Chapman, O.S.B., John the Presbyter, p. 42, Clarendon Press, 1911.

35 Adv. Hœr. III. i. i; P.G. VII. 845.

36 Adv. Marcionem, IV. 2.

37 Adv. Hœr. III. xi. 8; P.G. VII. 885.

38 Ibid. II, xx. 5.

39 Cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 53 note; also Expository Times, November, 1910, p. 91.

40 Martyrium Polycarpi, ix ed. Hefele, p. 283.

41 Adv. Hœr. III. iii. 4; P.G. VII. 851-2.

42 H.E. V. xx. 4-7,

43. Ibid. V. i. 29.

44 Ibid. V. v. 8.

45 See above.

46 Adv. Hœr. I. Prol. 2, P.G. VII. 439; I. xv. 6, 627; II. xxii. 5, 785; III. xvii. 4, 931; IV. xxxi. i, 1068; xxvii. I; xxxii. i; xli. 2; V. v. i. Cp. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 59-62; Chapman, John the Presbyter, 15- 16; Turner, Studies in Early Church History, p. 191, Clarendon Press, 1912.

47 II. xxii. 5, P.G. VII. 785.

48 See Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 1893, pp. 51-80; Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, 1892, pp. 137-246; Chapman, John the Presbyter, 1911, pp. 13-16: Westcott, St. John, xxx-xxxi., etc.

49 The Muratorian Fragment, line 14, "Eadem noctc revclatum Andreæ ex Apostolis ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret."

50 H.E. III. xxx-xxxi., xxxix. 9.

51 H.E. III. xxxix. 4 and 14.

52 Visited Rome twice (?), H.E. IV. xiv. i and 5. Appointed by the Apostles as Bishop of Smyrna, H.E. IV. xiv. 3. For his letter to Florinus describing Polycarp's doctrine and his intimacy "with John and those who had seen the Lord "see H.E. V. xx. 5-7, cp. Adv. Hœr. III. iii. 4. His Epistle to the Philippians, vii. and viii., has more than a mere reminiscence of i John iv. 2-6.

53 Eusebius, Chron. II. A.D. 99-101; John's "notable hearers were Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, Polycarp of Smvrna and Ignatius of Antioch," P.G. XIX. 551.

54 Over ninety years of age when he died a martyr at Lyons, H.E. V. i. 29-31.

55 "Papias, an ancient man, a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp," Adv. Hœr. V. xxxiii. 4, quoted in H.E. III. xxxix. i.

56 H.E. IV. xxvi., V. xxiv. 5.

57 Bishop of Ephesus, H.E. III. xxxi. 2, V. xxii. For his letter to Pope Victor see H.E. V. xxiv.

58 H.E. IX. xx.

59 He succeeded Pothinus at Lyons, H.E. V. v. 8. His Treatise Adversus Hœreses was written between A.D. 175 and 190.

60 H.E. IV. xxvi. and xxvii.

61 Adv. Hœr. III. xi. i.

62 Ibid. III. i. i.

63 Ibid. III. xi. i.

64 Ibid. III. xi. 8.

65 Ad Autolycum, II. 22, P.G. VI. 1087. For Theophilus cf. St. Jerome, Vir. Illustr. XXV., P.L. XXIII. 643, also Prol. to his Comment. in Matth., also Ep. CXXI. vi. ad Algasiam, where Jerome gives us the interesting information that Theophilus "welded into one work the sayings of the four Evangelists and left us in this a remarkable memorial of his great gifts," P.L. XXII. 1020.

66 Cp. I. Apol. 33, 61, 66, 67; Dial. 88, 101-107, in.

67 Cp. I. Apol. 5, 21, 23, 46, 63; Dial. 100.

68 I. Apol. 52, P.G. VI. 406, and Dial. 14, ib. 506.

69 Swete gives one MS. of Zacharias which has the same form as in Justin and in St. John, Cambridge Septuagint.

70 I. Apol. 61, P.G. VI. 419.

71 See above, p. 81.

72 Oratio, xiii. John i. 5; Oratio xix. John i. 3; P.G. VI. 834, 850.

73 H.E. III. xxxix. 3-4, P.G. VII. 295.

74 Adv. Hœr. V. xxxiii. 4.

75 H.E. III. xxxix. 1.

76 Adv. Hœr. IV, xxvii. 1.

77 Adv. Hœr. II. xxii. 5.

78 See Chapman, John the Presbyter, for this analysis, pp. 1-41. Note that the Latin rendering of Papias εῑπεν is dicere soliti essent, this well brings out the force of the tenses.

79 H.E. VII. xxv.

80 H.E. VI. xiv. 7.

81 Adv. Hœr. V. xxxiii. 3. Cp. H.E. III. xxxix. 1.

82 But see s.v. Apocalypse, Vol. III.

83 H.E. III. xxiv.

84 Vir. Illustr. IX. P.L. XXIII. 623.
85 Note how St. Augustine, De Consensu, II. xii. (25), P.L. XXXIV, 1089, speaks of the writer of John. xxi. 24, as "ipse Joannes."

86 Acts. iv. i, v. 17; Josephus, Ant. XX. ix. 1.

87 De Carne Christi, XV. and XIX.

88 See the evidence in Wordsworth and White Novum Testamentum Latine, 1898; these editors retain ver. 3, "expectantium aquæ motum," but omit ver. 4 from the Vulgate.

89 E.g. De Sacramentis, II. 2., P.L. XVI. 443: "Quid lectum est heri? Angelus, inquit, secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam," etc.

90 Thus, Tract. xvii. 3, P.L. XXXV. 1528, he sees the need for some explanation: "a quo turbabatur non videbatur. Credas hoc angelica virtute fieri sol ere"; and again, Sermo CXXV. 3, P.L. XXXVIII. 690, "Homines aquam videbant: sed ex motu aquas turbatæ intelligebant præsentiam angeli;" also Enar. in Ps. LXXXIII. 10, "benedictione Dei turbabatur aqua, tanquam angelo descendervte."

91 De Baptismo, v. "piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat."

92 Adv. Pelagianos. II. 17, P.L. XXIII. 553.

93 De Oonjugiis Adulterinis, II. 6-7, P.L.XL. 474; see also St. Ambrose, Ep. xxv., P.L. XVI. 1039-42, where he comments on the whole episode; Westcott and Hort, II. 82, do scant justice to this fact, while Hammond, Textual Criticism, 5th ed. 1890, p. 107, simply says "Ambrose alludes to it."

94 H.E. III. xxxix. 16; Eusebius does not say that Papias derived it from this Gospel though this may be meant; his words strictly only mean that it was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, whether by Papias or by Eusebius is not clear.

95 P.G. LIX. 334. "For the Lord received with much kindliness the Chananean woman, the Samaritan, too, wicked and impure, and that other prostitute whom the Jews condemned He received and healed, and He allowed his feet to be washed by the tears of an impure woman." Hom. LII. closes with vii. 51; Hom. LIII. opens with viii. 20.

96 See Von Kasteren, S.J. in R.B. January, 1911, p. 96. See also R.B. October, 1898, July, 1899, p. 478, July, 1908. For the Detroit MSS. which omit it, see above, p. 218; also R.B. April, 1911, for the earliest Syriac version of the passage.

97 Tom. XIII. 53 in Joan. P.G. XIV. 500.

98 St. Jerome's words on the presumed "rusticity" of the Evangelist are worth noting: "Men marvelled that Peter and John knew the Law where they had not learned letters. Yet what others are wont to gain by practice and daily meditation on the Law was suggested to them by the Holy Spirit; they were, as it is written, "taught of God." ... Was John a rustic, a fisherman, a man of no learning? Whence, then, prithee, came that pronouncement: "In the beginning was the Word?" Ep. LIII. 3-4, P.L. XXII. 543. And again: "A Hebrew of the Hebrews, from the Lord's breast he drew his wisdom ... he cared not overmuch what the Greek Scriptures (litteræ) contained but he interpreted word for word as he read in the Hebrew." In Zach. xii. 10, P.L. XXV. 1514.

99 Cf. St. Augustine, De Fide et Operibus, xiv. (22-23) P.L. XL. 211.