# The Johannine Writings/Part II, Chapter I

CHAPTER I.
 AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND DATE AT WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.
 WHAT has been said in Part I. contributes a very great deal towards the  decision of the question, By whom and at what date was the Fourth  Gospel composed? But it may be pointed out that all this was based  solely on one definite view of the contents of the Gospel, and that  besides this another is possible according to which the contents  thoroughly deserve to be believed, have no connection with Gnosticism,  or were directed against it--and so forth. Far more certain, we are  told, are statements of men belonging to the oldest Christian times,  who were still in a position to know the exact answer to our question.  It will be seen whether they are more certain. In any case, we must  hear what they are.  __________________________________________________________________
 1. PAPIAS' TEACHER IN EPHESUS: JOHN THE ELDER.
 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote about 185, and nearly all the  Christian writers of later date are unanimous in saying that the Fourth  Gospel was composed by the Apostle John, who lived in Ephesus during  about the last third of the first century and took a leading position  in the eyes of all the Christian communities in the West of Asia Minor.  Irenaeus, who must have been born about 140, in his early youth stayed  at the house of the aged Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in Asia Minor, who  died in the year 156, and he often heard him speak of his teacher John.  He adds that Papias also, the companion of Polycarp, who was afterwards  bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, was a hearer of the Apostle John.
 But the latter statement is a mistake. Eusebius, the author of the  first History of the Church (ob. 340) has in an earlier work simply  repeated it from Irenaeus; in the History, however, which was written  later, he has corrected it and, in proof of his right to do so, appeals  to Papias own words in a work which, apart from this quotation, has  been almost entirely lost. We shall give this memorable passage in  order to show how a documentary statement may prove the incorrectness  of extremely important ideas which have not been doubted by any one for  centuries. Papias' book contained, as we know from its title,  "Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord" Jesus. In the Introduction  Eusebius found the following: "I shall not hesitate to gather up for  you, with the expositions (belonging to the same), as well all that I  once learnt well from the mouths of the elders and committed well to  memory, I myself guaranteeing the truth of it. . . . But whenever any  one came who had enjoyed intercourse with the elders, I inquired  (firstly) about the sayings of the Elders, (as to) what Andrew or Peter  said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or  any other of the disciples of the Lord (said), and (secondly) what  Aristion and John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord, say."
 Quite a number of important inferences may be drawn from this. (1)  Papias gathered his information partly from the persons whom he calls  "the Elders," partly from their disciples. (2) The Greek word which we  render "the Elders" is presbyter. We cannot use this Greek word itself,  because it would be understood to mean, as it does still in the  Reformed Churches, leaders of a Christian community. But such an office  is no guarantee that its holder could give what Papias needed--reliable  memoranda of the Life of Jesus based as far as possible on personal  observation; such a guarantee could only be given by persons of great  age. Papias was born about 70; even if he began to collect his  information at twenty years of age, the people who could tell him  anything which they had learned by experience from their association  with Jesus--that is to say, about the year 30--must have been already  well advanced in years. (3) Jesus twelve apostles would have been the  proper people to have spoken to, but Papias did not speak to any of  these. It would really be very unnatural for him to wish on his own  part to guarantee for the first time the truth of what he had heard  from such all-important persons. But, besides this, he expressly tells  us that he inquired about the sayings of the Elders from companions of  the Elders--inquired as to what Andrew and the six others first  mentioned said, and what Aristion and John the Elder say. It is clear  that only these two were still alive when Papias gathered his  information, and that those who are mentioned before them were no  longer living. But these are actually seven of Jesus twelve Apostles;  and there can be no idea of his having spoken personally to any of the  five others, since he would not in that case under any consideration  have failed to mention it. (4) We must therefore distinguish four  stages: the twelve Apostles whom Papias no longer knew, the elders whom  he still knew, their disciples, and lastly Papias himself. (5) Papias  distinguishes between two persons with the name John: the Apostle and  the person whom he calls "John, the Elder." Both belong to the  "disciples of the Lord," but each in a different sense. The Apostle was  a constant disciple of Jesus; the other was not; in fact, it may be  that he only heard Jesus a few times in his early youth. When the first  century came to an end, and the persons who could boast of a personal  acquaintance with Jesus died out, it became easier for the title of  honour, "disciple of the Lord," to be applied to one who, strictly  speaking, little deserved it. (6) Papias may very well have known this  second John. This need not be doubted on the ground that he inquired  about his sayings of other persons; this only became necessary when he  himself could no longer speak to him, either because he was living in a  remote place or because he had died. In all probability Papias wrote  his work between 140 and 160. At that time the John who had seen Jesus  could certainly no longer be living; he may very well have lived during  Papias youth.
 We must assume with the greater certainty that Papias really knew him,  because Irenaeus says that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John, and  yet, according to his own statements, he no longer knew the Apostle.  Here then we have the confusion of which Irenaeus was guilty: Papias  certainly had a John as his teacher; this, however, was not the  Apostle, but John the Elder.  __________________________________________________________________
 2. POLYCARP'S TEACHER IN EPHESUS: JOHN THE ELDER.
 The confusion might appear harmless. It affects Papias merely; but the  man with whom we are concerned, who told the young Irenaeus about his  former teacher, the Apostle John, was Polycarp. But why does Irenaeus  call Papias a companion of Polycarp, unless it be because both of them  in their early youth had the same teacher? Both lived in Asia Minor,  and when they were young there was only one John in Asia Minor. It was  left for a Christian writer in the third century to note that there  were statements about both John the Apostle and John the Elder which  indicated Ephesus as their dwelling-place; and because he knew of no  other way of adjusting these, he was obliged to think that the two men  lived there simultaneously. But no one belonging to the earlier period  has any knowledge of this, and it is clear from our records, every one  of which knows only of one head of the Christian Church in Asia Minor,  that there was no room for the two men at the same time. Irenaeus must  therefore have been as much mistaken about Polycarp's teacher as about  the teacher of Papias; and Polycarp was the disciple of John the Elder,  not of the Apostle.  __________________________________________________________________
 3. THE APOSTLE JOHN NOT IN EPHESUS.
 Another thing that lends the strongest support to this conclusion is  the fact that none of the Christian writers before Irenaeus knows  anything of a stay of the Apostle John in Asia Minor; and yet this same  John, who on the occasion of the meeting of Paul with the original  apostles at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1-10 and Acts xv.) appears by the side  of Peter and James (the brother of Jesus) as one of the three pillars  of the first community, is one of the most important persons in  primitive Christianity.
 We will point to one fact only. When Paul took fare well of those who  presided over the community at Ephesus (Acts xx. 29), he prophesied  that after his departure fierce wolves would force a way in and would  not spare the flock. This farewell address was not actually so  delivered by Paul, but was composed by the author of the Acts (between  about 105 and 130) in accordance with his own ideas a liberty which  every ancient historian took with the speeches of his heroes, and which  no one thought wrong, seeing that the most famous of the Greek  historians, Thucydides (about 400 B.C.), expressly declares (I. xxii.  1) that he followed this plan in his work because it would have been an  impossibility to have reported the exact words of the speeches as  delivered. But how could the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who  was as full of a feeling of veneration for the original apostles as he  was for Paul, have introduced into Paul's speech so unfriendly an  utterance about his successors, if he had any idea that the most  important and influential of these was the Apostle John? But, further,  if it be supposed that Paul actually made the utterance, without, of  course, having any idea of the person of his successor, how could the  author incorporate it in his book, and thus seriously impede his own  main purpose--that of showing the unanimity subsisting between Paul and  the original disciples--instead of quietly ignoring it, as he does so  much that is unfavourable to the original apostles and their adherents  (so we learn from the Epistles of Paul; e.g., Gal. ii. 11-21; i. 6 f.;  vi. 12 f.)?  __________________________________________________________________
 4. CONFUSION OF THE TWO JOHNS.
 But, as a boy, Irenaeus often heard Polycarp himself speak of his  teacher John; how, then, can a mistake have been possible as to which  John was meant? Well, the riddle explains itself. Both Johns were  "disciples of the Lord." As a rule, Polycarp only needed to say, "my  teacher John, the disciple of the Lord," and the young Irenaeus only  too easily made the mistake of supposing that he meant the apostle, who  was perhaps the only John of whom he had so far heard. In fact,  Irenaeus himself says regularly in his book, when he means the Apostle  John, as we have just conjectured that Polycarp did, "the disciple of  the Lord," whereas for Paul he always uses the expression "Apostle."
 Once a mistake of the kind had arisen, the statement would be believed  only too readily. The community in a city thought it a great honour to  have been founded by an apostle, or led by one for some time. In the  second century the idea grew up that the bishop of a community must  have been consecrated to his office through the laying-on of hands  either by an apostle or by a bishop who had received his own  consecration at the hands of an apostle. It was thought that the  capacity to fill the office of bishop, the so-called "charisma of  office," could be transferred from one person to another only through  this laying-on of hands by a consecrated person, and the first of such  a series must always be an apostle. Thus it was naturally of the  greatest importance to be able to show that in the past an apostle  himself laboured in the community. Every one believed that he attended  to the consecration of his successor; otherwise doubts might arise as  to whether a bishop was properly consecrated.
 We must not suppose that the confusion by which Ephesus was given an  apostle, instead of one who was not an apostle, as the leader of the  community is an isolated case. In the Acts of the Apostles (vi. 5) we  find included among the seven almoners of the community at Jerusalem a  Philip who, according to xxi. 8 f., was an evangelist, that is to say,  a missionary, and had four daughters who were endowed with the gift of  prophecy. At the end of the second century this same Philip was  identified with Philip the Apostle. Thus Hierapolis, where he is  supposed to have stayed at the end of his life, was provided with an  apostle as the head of the community.  __________________________________________________________________
 5. EARLY DEATH OF THE APOSTLE JOHN (IN PALESTINE).
 Where then, if it was not he but John the Elder who led the Church of  Asia Minor in Ephesus, did John the Apostle live, and why are we not  told another word about his fate since the meeting in Jerusalem we have  mentioned (Gal. ii. 1-10)? As regards this also Papias gives us  information, but this time in another sentence of his book which became  known to scholars only a few years ago: "John, the man of God, and his  brother James were killed by Jews." We are also told this about James  in the Acts of the Apostles (xii. 2); he was executed at Jerusalem in  the year 44 by Herod Agrippa I. Of the John who was head of the Church  in Ephesus we know the contrary: there is no other record but this,  that he died a natural death at a great age. But there is really no  contradiction here, if we realise that this was a different John from  John the Apostle. Besides, in Ephesus, where the Jews were closely  watched by a foreign power, they would hardly have dared to lay hands  on the bishop of the Christian community. It would be quite different  if the Apostle John, whom, as we learn from the story of Papias, they  killed, lived in Pales tine. And as a matter of fact at the meeting  with Paul (about 52) mentioned above, he, as well as Peter and James  (the brother of Jesus), declared this intention: they wished to go as  missionaries to the Jews (Gal. ii. 9).
 Only, we must beware of misunderstanding the words of Papias as if he  meant that John and his brother James were killed at the same time. If  that were so, it would certainly be impossible to understand why only  the death of James is reported in the Acts of the Apostles. But besides  this, the idea that they died together does not suit the words of  Papias. No one has ever said that John the Baptist was killed by Jews;  every one says, by Herod Antipas (Mk. vi. 17-29). Similarly, if Papias  had meant to say that the two brothers had perished at the same time  and on the same pretext he would have said: they were killed by Herod  Agrippa 1. When he says, instead of this, "by Jews," it is most natural  to suppose that John at least perished in such a way that no such  notable person as a prince could be referred to as the author of his  death. The sooner we can suppose the death of John to have taken place  after the year 52, the easier it is to understand, on the one hand, why  we do not hear more of his work, and, on the other, how the John in  Ephesus, alongside of him, could become so prominent that in the end he  was confused with him.  __________________________________________________________________
 6. RESULT AS FAR AS THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS CONCERNED.
 The result as far as the Fourth Gospel is concerned is as follows. The  earlier the apostle died, the less easy it is to think that he wrote  the Gospel. It is almost universally admitted that the first three  Gospels were completed before the fourth; and of these the third at  least was not composed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in the  year 70 (provisionally we confine ourselves to a statement the truth of  which is recognised almost on all hands). But even if we do not suppose  that the Apostle died early, he cannot be regarded as the author of the  Gospel because, as we have seen, he did not live in Ephesus. The  Christian writers who look upon him as the author do not say that the  Apostle composed it, no matter where he lived, but they say, "the John  who was head of the Church of Asia Minor wrote it," so that the Apostle  may be held to be the author of the Gospel only if we can think of him  as living in Ephesus. If he lived elsewhere, we cannot say that these  writers regarded him as the author; for by the John who in their  opinion wrote the Gospel, they always mean the John in Ephesus.  Accordingly, their "testimony" to the effect that the Apostle was the  author is evidence, rather, that some one else was the author.  __________________________________________________________________
 7. THE TESTIMONY OP THE BELOVED DISCIPLE.
 But what about the author's own testimony? Does he not himself say that  he is the Apostle? This is surely a curious question! When a matter is  to be decided in other fields--when, for instance, the origin of  extra-canonical books is in question, or a trial is being held--scant  consideration indeed is paid to the personal testimony of the person  involved; but here forsooth this is to be decisive, and all arguments  against it, however plausible, are to be ignored. This is to take for  granted--is it not?--what, strictly speaking, should first be proved,  that a person whose book has been included in the Bible cannot have  said anything incorrect.
 But let us hear what this testimony is. The author nowhere refers to  the name John as being his own. The superscription "Gospel according to  John" is not due to him, but was first added when several Gospels were  put together in one book. [7] Neither, however, does he ever refer to  the Apostle John by this name. But he has him in mind when he says that  after the arrest of Jesus, "Simon Peter and another disciple "followed  him to the Palace of the High Priest (xviii. 15), and that "Peter and  the other disciple "went to the grave of Jesus (xx. 1-10). Here he  writes more fully (xx. 2), "Simon Peter, and that other disciple whom  Jesus loved," and the simple description, "one of the disciples whom  Jesus loved," is found already in xiii. 23, where it is said that at  Jesus' last supper he "reclined in Jesus bosom"; finally, we learn from  xix. 26, that "the disciple whom he loved" stood with Jesus mother at  the foot of the cross.
 In this circumlocution we see, it is said, the delicate and sensitive  way in which the Apostle John hinted that he was the author of the  Gospel, without expressly saying so. In reality, if he did this, he  would have shown himself to be an incredibly presumptuous person. Jesus  surely loved all his disciples! If the author had said of himself, "the  disciple whom Jesus specially loved," we could not acquit him of  presumption, even though this were really the case; but he says  outright, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," as if he loved him alone. It  is not really doing the Apostle any honour to insist that he must have  described himself in this way. On the other hand, it is quite easy to  understand that one of his devoted admirers may have so described him.  But if we examine further all that is told us about the beloved  disciple--the story, in particular, of his race with Peter to the grave  of Jesus is so incredible (p. 133 f.) that we cannot imagine it to have  been committed to writing by an eyewitness. And so here again this  "testimony" of the author to the effect that he is the Apostle becomes  evidence, rather, that some one else was the author.  __________________________________________________________________
 [7] The words are "Gospel according to John," not "Gospel of John";  similarly, "Gospel according to Mt., according to Mk., according to  Lk." But this does not mean that such a gospel was written by another  man with the help of communications from the person specially named.  The word "Gospel" in these cases means, rather, "Account of the Life of  Jesus," and the superscription means therefore "the Gospel History as  composed by Mt., Mk., Lk., or Jn."  __________________________________________________________________
 8. FURTHER WITNESS OF THE AUTHOR TO HIMSELF  (Jn. xix. 35).
 The most characteristic instance of the author testifying to  himself--an instance in which there is a real idea of bearing  testimony--is held to be that in xix. 34 f.: "one of the soldiers with  a spear pierced his side (the side of the crucified Lord), and  straightway there came out blood and water; and he that hath seen hath  borne witness, and his witness is true, and he knoweth that he saith  true, that ye also may believe." We must remember here that we were  told in verse 26 that the beloved disciple stood at the foot of the  cross; it is he therefore who is meant when reference is made to one  who saw the flowing of blood and water. But is it he himself who pens  the words?
 Searching inquiries have been instituted as to whether, in speaking of  himself in Greek, any one could say "he." But this is not the point.  Once the Apostle had begun by saying, instead of "I," "he that hath  seen," there was no other way to continue than by saying "he." So that  the question is: When the writer says "he that hath seen," does he mean  himself? This in itself would be quite possible, if he wished to avoid  the use of "I." Throughout the whole description of his wars (58-48  B.C.), Julius Caesar has never said "I did this and that," but always  "Caesar did this and that." But, if he wished to express himself  similarly, it would have been far more correct for the Fourth  Evangelist to say: "he that hath seen it, bears witness" (now, as he  writes it down). The expression, "he hath borne witness" would be far  more appropriate if the observer of what occurred told it orally and  another person recorded it in writing afterwards. Yet according to  Greek Syntax the expression might also mean: he wishes (hereby) to have  testified; and in this case it is still possible that what we read in  this passage was written down by the observer.
 It is decisive here that blood and water cannot by any means have  flowed separately from Jesus' wound so soon after his death (it was at  most two hours, but probably much less; see p. 127). It is therefore  doing no honour to the Apostle to insist that he is here bearing  personal testimony. On the other hand, we can very well under stand a  later writer, who had been orally assured that it really happened,  noting it down in good faith.
 We should add further, that in any case the flowing of water and blood  has some deeper mysterious meaning. It was a common Christian belief  that the blood of Jesus shed at his death was the means of bringing  salvation to man kind. Now, the individual Christian can partake of the  blood of Jesus in the Supper, and is reminded of the redemption which  has through his blood been granted to men. And water is used in baptism  for the purpose of initiating people into communion with those who have  been redeemed by the death of Jesus. Accordingly, the idea that the two  things which are necessary for the most important and holy of the  Christian ceremonies came into being at the death of Jesus is an  ingenious one. We can easily imagine that a preacher may have expressed  the idea in a veiled form, just as was done, if we have conjectured  rightly (p. 113 f.), in the case of the story of Lazarus, and that some  one in the audience jumped to the conclusion that it might be recorded  as an actual fact that blood and water flowed from Jesus wound.  __________________________________________________________________
 9. NO DECEPTION IN WRITING UNDER PSEUDONYMS.
 If what we have said indicates that it was not the Apostle, but another  who wrote the passage which speaks of testifying to the blood and  water, and at the same time wrote the whole Gospel, we do not of course  know as yet whether he wishes to be regarded merely as the reporter of  the testimony of a greater person, or whether he wishes it to appear  that he himself is this greater person, this eye witness. Even one who  at the outset does not hold the Biblical writers in particularly high  esteem, will readily be inclined to find the second supposition  unthinkable, be cause it would imply such an amount of dishonesty as  there is no reason to ascribe to the Evangelist, whose style is simple  and candid.
 But, as regards this matter, people quite ignore the fact that in those  days it was not considered wrong to compose a writing in the name of  another person. Among the Greeks and Romans it was quite common for  disciples to publish their works, not under their own name, but under  that of their masters; and we can see in what light this was regarded,  from the philosopher Iamblichus (about 300 A.D.), for example, who was  one of the followers of Pythagoras. We know even at the present time of  a list of sixty writings which have been fathered upon Pythagoras and  other old masters amongst his successors; and Iamblichus expressly  praises the later disciples of Pythagoras, because they have sacrificed  their own fame and given all the glory to their masters.
 As regards Christian writers, the story of the leader of a Church in  Asia Minor, who published the history of Paul and Thecla in the second  century under the name of the Apostle Paul, is specially instructive.  When he was reproached for doing so, he replied that he did it out of  love for Paul; and Tertullian, the Church writer and jurist at Carthage  (about 200), who tells us about it, does not think of charging him with  it as a sin, but only makes fun of him for his incapacity in the words:  "as if his work could do anything to increase the fame of Paul." The  man was deposed, not however because he had been guilty of anything  that we should call a forgery, but because he said in his book that  Thecla came forward to teach in public and baptized herself by jumping  into a ditch filled with water in view of death by wild beasts in the  Circus. Both things were contrary to the regulations of the Church (on  the first see 1 Cor. xiv. 34, "Let the women keep silence in the  churches"). They were not allowed; but there was no offence in the  publication of a writing in the name of another person.
 This way of looking at the matter makes it very easy for us to  understand how so many of the books of the New Testament were composed  in the name of Paul, of Peter, of James, &c. And strange as it may  appear, we must thoroughly accustom ourselves to it. To show that this  suggests itself even to a quite orthodox theologian, we will quote an  utterance by Professor Kahnis of Leipzig, who died in 1888. "If the  fifth book of Moses is not by Moses, it is by an impostor, says Dr.  Hengstenberg. To whom does Dr. Hengstenberg say this? Every one who has  been to a classical school knows that there are a great number of  writings in classical literature which are ascribed to persons with  famous names, and that specialists do not think there was any deception  in the practice." As regards the Second Epistle of Peter, even very  conservative theologians now admit that it was written one hundred and  twenty or more years after Jesus' death, although, in speaking of Jesus  transfiguration, its author assures us, quite as if he were the Apostle  Peter (i. 18): "and this voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven,  when we were with him on the holy mount." Why then should the same  thing not have happened in the case of the Fourth Gospel?
 Thus we need not shrink from crediting the author of the Fourth Gospel  with the wish to have his book regarded as the work of the Apostle  himself. We have, however, no absolutely definite ground for saying so.  The matter remains obscure. And perhaps it was meant to remain obscure.  The testimony we have been examining could, as a matter of fact, hardly  have been framed in a more enigmatic way than in the terms, "and his  witness is true, and he knoweth that he saith true." It is possible  therefore that the author, though he did not wish to say expressly that  his book was the work of the Apostle, had no objection to people  believing so. Even when he says in i. 14 "the Logos became flesh . . .  and we beheld his glory", it is not certain whether he means with our  bodily eyes (which, in view of what we have said above, would not need  to be regarded as a fraudulent assertion), or whether he wishes to  imply that those who were not privileged to do this saw his glory with  their spiritual vision by means of the stories of Jesus' life, and of  the blessings which proceeded from him even after his death.  __________________________________________________________________
 10. CHAPTER XXI AN APPENDIX FROM ANOTHER PEN.
 We could not, it is true, seriously impute this obscurity to him, if  the twenty-first chapter were due to the same author. But this is not  the case. For the same concepts quite different words are used here  from those found in the first twenty chapters. The appearance of the  risen Lord in chapter xxi. (14) is said to be the third; but three  others have already been mentioned in chapter xx. Peter is a fisher, as  in the Synoptics (Mk. i. 16), whereas Jn. (i. 35-41) knows him only as  a disciple of the Baptist. But, most important of all, in chapter xxi.  Peter appears in a much more favoured light than before; he even  receives the commission to feed Jesus sheep, that is to say, to guide  the Church, and is told that he is likely to have the honour of dying a  martyr's death. The beloved disciple, on the other hand, who has always  taken precedence of him in chapters i.-xx. (xiii. 24; xviii. 16; xix.  26; xx. 2-10), in chapter xxi. (22-24) has to content himself with a  humbler role: he is promised a long life, and is given the task of  writing the Gospel. This striking recognition of Peter is in all  likelihood due to the fact that offence had been taken because in  chapters i.-xx. he was made subordinate to the beloved disciple. Peter  had already won high esteem in the Christian Church, especially at  Rome, and the friends of the author of the Gospel must have feared, or,  as we shall see shortly, must have found, that for this reason the book  was gaining slight recognition. One of them therefore decided to reckon  with these circumstances by adding an appendix.
 And because the Gospel had gained such slight recognition, he took  occasion at the same time, in the appendix which he added, to assure  its readers once more that the author was the famous John. This he does  (xxi. 24) with more clearness and emphasis than the author himself:  "this (that is to say, the long-lived beloved disciple) is the disciple  which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we  know that his witness is true." We? Who? Here we have a hint that the  author of the appendix has perhaps been commissioned by a whole number  of the party of the Evangelist to write, or at least writes to voice  their sentiments and to promote the idea that the Gospel was composed  by the beloved disciple and for that reason deserves to be trusted  absolutely. But his very zeal has been the means of discrediting him in  the eyes of a serious critic. A witness, whose evidence must itself be  witnessed to in turn, cannot seem a very trustworthy person.  __________________________________________________________________
 11. THE REAL PICTURE OF JOHN THE APOSTLE.
 After all these "witnesses" on the part of badly informed writers, of  the author himself and of his friends who have intervened on his  behalf, it is at length time to seek for some point from which we can  learn better who wrote the Fourth Gospel. What information have we then  in the New Testament about the Apostle John which is really reliable?  We must not of course turn to the Fourth Gospel for our answer. The  most certain thing is the record of Paul, that John was one of the  three pillars of the Community in Jerusalem, and wished to confine his  missionary activity to the Jews (see pp. 174 and 177), the reason being  no doubt that, if he held intercourse with the Gentiles, he would  violate the Old Testament commandments about foods, cleanness, &c.,  which he thought ought still to be observed. This does not harmonise  well with the fact that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus calls the Law a "Law  of the Jews" and feels that he is quite superior to it. Further, the  whole view of the world here, familiar as it is with the ideas of the  greatest Greek thinkers, and the boldness with which, following the  example of Gnosticism, all that is traditional is swept away--all this,  which we have found in the Gospel, suits no one so little as this man  who had remained stationary and simply persisted in holding the  standpoint of the Old Testament. Add to this that according to Mk. i.  19 he was a fisherman, and according to Acts iv. 13 a man without  learning and culture. Nor is this altered by the fact that he, with his  brother James and with Peter, was one of the most intimate companions  of Jesus in the circle of the twelve disciples (Mk. v. 37; ix. 2; xiv.  33).  __________________________________________________________________
 12. MISTAKES AS TO THE CONDITION OF THINGS IN PALESTINE.
 One who writes under an assumed name often betrays himself by having  false ideas of the places or institutions of the country in which he  claims to be living. As far as places are concerned, it cannot be shown  with success that Jn. does this. But, as regards institutions, he has  been led to make as great a mistake as it is possible to imagine. By  telling us twice (xi. 49, 51, and xviii. 13) that Caiaphas was "high  priest that year" he assumes that the office changed hands every year.  As a matter of fact, the high priest held the office for life, and,  although it happened not infrequently that one was deposed, there was  never any question of a yearly vacation of office. This of course is a  fact which would have been as well known to a contemporary of Jesus in  Palestine, as the fact that the office of Emperor is hereditary is to a  German of to-day. In face of a mistake on such a matter, how can we  attach importance to the knowledge of places in the country, which  could easily be acquired even one hundred years after the events with  which they are associated?  __________________________________________________________________
 13. JOHN THE ELDER NOT THE WRITER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
 May we therefore speak of John the Elder in Ephesus as the author of  the Fourth Gospel? Support for this might, as a matter of fact, be  found in the consideration that Irenaeus and his successors virtually  supposed this, even though they believed that this John in Ephesus was  the Apostle. But the assumption will not bear closer examination. If he  was a disciple of Jesus, and consequently a man whose home was in  Palestine, he ought to have known more about the tenure of the  high-priest's office. But, above all, his standpoint was hardly less  Jewish-Christian than that of the Apostle. In fact when Polycarp (see  p. 173), who was a former disciple of his, visited Rome towards the end  of his life (154 or 155), and found that Easter was fixed at a quite  different time (the time at which we still fix it) from that of Asia  Minor, where he lived, he appealed to the practice of John (and  others). In Asia Minor what, according to the Jewish Calendar, was  always the 14th Nisan was duly celebrated, not in memory of the death  of Jesus--as the Fourth Gospel would require (p. 118)--but of the  institution of the Supper a practice which conflicts with the Fourth  Gospel, and is, as a matter of fact, supported by a special appeal to  Mt. The John who shared this practice as leader of the Church of Asia  Minor cannot have written the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, this would be  equally true of John the Apostle if he had been the leader of the  Church of Asia Minor.  __________________________________________________________________
 14. WHAT KIND OP PERSON WAS THE FOURTH EVANGELIST?
 If this means that we must give up the idea of naming some well-known  person as the author, we are, nevertheless, very well able to form a  clear idea of the writer of the Fourth Gospel. In seeking to do so, we  have come back, after making a long circuit, to our starting-point, for  we have to consult the Gospel itself. To have been able to write such a  book, the author must have been one of the leading spirits of his age.  He was familiar with the best that the Greek mind and the religions of  the whole world known to people of those days had produced. His own  mind was liberal enough to soar to the realm of these ideas, and to  refuse to allow itself to be cramped by anything traditional. He knew  how to gather into a common reservoir all the streams of thought that  flowed towards him from the most diverse sources. His great object was  to use all for the glorification of Jesus as he conceived him. Even  Gnosticism, the most dangerous movement of his time, was well known to  him--so much so that he had made many of its ideas his own. But he  recognised the danger in it and did all in his power to overcome it,  without giving up anything in Gnosticism which was really lofty and  emancipating.
 His chief pattern was Philo, and he perhaps had some thing else in  common with him in the fact that he was of Jewish extraction. If he had  not been, he would hardly have attached so much importance to the  fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies (see p. 128 f.), and would  hardly have made Jesus say "salvation is of the Jews" (iv. 22). He  cannot of course have received his wide culture in Palestine.  Accordingly, we must seek his home outside of this country, and  preferably in a great city which would gather up all the wisdom of the  known world. Ephesus would suit the requirements admirably, and if the  Gospel came into existence here, it would be very easy for it to be  ascribed to a person who had taken a very prominent position in the  city at an earlier date, John the Elder whether or not it was done in  such a way that he was sup posed to be the Apostle. Ephesus will  suggest itself again when we inquire into the origin of the  "Revelation" of Jn.; and in itself it is rather likely that all the  five writings which are supposed to have been composed by John the  Apostle would have come into existence amongst the same circle of men  of kindred spirit, and so in one and the same locality. But we cannot  rely upon all these considerations, nor need we think it important to  be able to say where the Gospel was written.  __________________________________________________________________
 15. DATE AT WHICH THE FOURTH GOSPEL WAS COMPOSED.
 More pressing is the question, When did it come into existence? And, as  regards this, we must of course look once more for statements outside  the Gospel. When were the first three Gospels written, which, by almost  general agreement, were all known to the writer of the Fourth? If we  may voice our own conviction, it would suffice to say that the Third  Gospel cannot have come into existence until about the year 100,  because the author was well acquainted with the writings of the Jewish  historian Josephus who composed his chief work in the year 93 or 94.  Others, who place the Gospel of Lk. (and so the Gospels of Mk. and Mt.  also) earlier, think that, when this estimation is taken into  consideration, the Gospel of Jn. may have been composed as early as  about the year 100. But here again we have to remember that the  Gnosticism with which the Fourth Evangelist is familiar, and which he  vigorously opposes, did not force its way into the Christian  communities until about the year 100. We learn this from Hegesippus,  who wrote his "memorials" about the year 180, and as he was of a great  age was still able to afford correct information on the matter. Jn., on  the other hand, already had to do with a more developed form of  Gnosticism (p. 205). Only, he does not seem to be acquainted with the  forms which appeared after about the year 140.  __________________________________________________________________
 16. THE APOSTLE IS NOT MENTIONED AS THE AUTHOR UNTIL AFTER THE YEAR 170.
 The most important and decisive point is to know from what date we have  reliable external evidence, as we say, concerning the Fourth Gospel; in  other words, statements by writers which imply that they knew the book  as the work of such and such an author, or at least that they wrote out  passages from him, so that there can be no mistake that they really had  the book lying before them. This, in fact, is the point on which those  who claim that the Gospel was composed by John the Apostle have staked  everything. Many of them have undertaken no less a task than to prove  by such external testimony that the author ship has been placed so much  beyond doubt that it is not permissible even to take into consideration  the counter arguments drawn from other considerations, for instance  from an examination of the Gospel itself.
 Unfortunately it is quite impossible here to go into this point with  all the thoroughness that is really required. If we thought of doing  so, we should have to give verbatim an almost endless number of  passages from all the writers of the second century, in order to enable  the reader to decide whether or not they betray a knowledge of the  Fourth Gospel. We should be obliged, further, in the case of all these  writers to state when they wrote, or rather, since in most cases the  matter is not certain, to make inquiry and try to fix the most likely  date. Ten years earlier or later here mean a very great difference.  Finally, we should be obliged to find out their habits: whether to a  greater or less extent they incorporate in their works passages from  other books; whether they are accustomed to do this exactly word for  word or merely from memory; whether they state regularly from what book  they draw, or simply write down the words without saying that they have  borrowed them; whether they use books which we no longer possess. All  this may be important when it is a question whether a passage in their  writings which resembles one in the Fourth Gospel is taken from this or  not. Instead of going into all these troublesome and wearisome  questions, it must suffice here to state the results briefly, and to  show by a few examples how they have been attained.
 First then we have to establish the fact that before the year 170 no  writer can be found who ascribes the Fourth Gospel to John the Apostle.  As regards this matter, we must note further that the year 170 is the  very earliest that can be specified, for the statement we have in mind  that belongs to this time reads simply: as to the day of Jesus' death  "the Gospels seem to be at variance." The name, therefore, of John the  Apostle is not mentioned. But it is clear from the words that this  writer (Claudius Apollinaris) puts the Fourth Gospel, which introduces  the variance (for the first three are quite agreed; see p. 118 f.), on  the same level as the others.  __________________________________________________________________
 17. VALUE OF THESE "EXTERNAL EVIDENCES."
 But if from this date it is almost generally regarded as the work of  the Apostle, in order to be able to determine the value of this  assertion, we must know in the first place the general idea which  leading persons of the time had of the books of the New Testament.
 On this point Irenaeus (about 185) is specially instructive. To prove  that there are just four true Gospels (there were still many others in  existence), he points to the fact that there are four quarters of the  world and four winds; since, then, the Church is scattered over the  whole earth and the Gospel constitutes its pillar and support and the  spirit of its life, it is appropriate that the pillars which on all  (four) sides blow upon it with the airs of imperishability should be  four in number--in other words, the four Gospels. Such was the idea of  so distinguished a person as Irenaeus; when it was a question of  deciding whether the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Apostle, he  took his stand on the fact that the quarters of heaven and the chief  winds are four in number. To understand how he could do this while  speaking of the spirit of life, as well as of the winds, we must be  aware that in Greek "wind "and "spirit "are represented by the same  word (pneuma). So that by means of a play upon words, to sustain which  he has further to think of pillars (i.e., the Gospels) as blowing, he  is prepared to decide a question of such great importance. Surely we  are justified in practically ignoring the proof which a person of this  stamp brings forward to show that such and such a person was the author  of a book in the New Testament.
 But we will take a few more cases as tests of the care fulness of  Irenaeus and those of his contemporaries who agreed with him in  claiming that the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Apostle; they  will serve to test their critical powers as well. Irenaeus regards the  James who is said in Acts xv. to have been present at the  already-mentioned (p. 174) meeting with Paul as one of the three  pillars of the Church at Jerusalem as that brother of John and personal  disciple of Jesus whose execution has been recorded three chapters  further back (xii. 2). In the Gospel of Lk. again he thinks that the  discourses of the Apostle Paul concerning the Life of Jesus are  committed to writing just as those of Peter are in the Gospel of  Mk.--and this in spite of the fact that Paul never met Jesus, and  continued to persecute the Christians even after Jesus' death. Dealing  with the question of eternal happiness, Irenaeus is able to tell us  that there will be vines with 10,000 stems, on each stem 10,000  branches, on each branch 10,000 shoots, on each shoot 10,000 clusters,  on each cluster 10,000 berries, and that every berry will yield 900 to  1000 litres of wine. The most important point, however, is not the size  of these vines, but Irenaeus statement, that Jesus himself prophesied  this; the aged men whom he so often mentions had told him so, and had  added that they had heard it from John the Apostle. And this Irenaeus  believes, although he assures us so emphatically that this same person  wrote the Fourth Gospel which makes Jesus appear so superior to all  such expectations.
 Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned and most venerated  teachers in the Church (about 200), quotes as an utterance of the  Apostle Paul(!) the words, "take also the Greek books, read the Sibyl  and see how it reveals one God and the future, and read Hystaspes, and  you will find in them the Son of God described much more clearly."  Hystaspes was the father of Darius, the Persian king who reigned from  521 to 485 B.C. The words of Clement give us some idea of the kind of  fabrication that was put forth in his name. The credulous Clement also  quotes the book of Zoroaster of Pamphylia in which he recorded after  his resurrection all that had been taught him in the under world by the  gods. The jurist Tertullian (about 200) is able to tell us that in the  official account of Jesus condemnation which Pilate sent to the Emperor  Tiberius, he mentioned, amongst other things, the eclipse of the sun at  the time of Jesus' death, the guarding of the sepulchre, the  resurrection of Jesus and his ascension, and that in his inmost  convictions he was already a Christian. If Tertullian is not giving  free rein to his imagination here, but has used some book ("Acts of  Pilate"), we shall be glad to think that the author of it was a  Christian.
 But enough. We can see clearly the kind of people we have to deal with  when the witnesses in support of the usual statements about the origin  of the New Testament books are brought forward. Instead of insisting so  emphatically that the fact that the Fourth Gospel was composed by John  the Apostle is already borne witness to by Irenaeus, Tertullian,  Clement of Alexandria and others, it ought in truth to be said that no  one did so until they bore witness to it--or, rather, asserted it.  __________________________________________________________________
 18. THE GOSPEL NOT USED BEFORE 140.
 Of rather a different nature are the cases in which passages from the  Fourth Gospel are merely cited without its being said who wrote them.  As regards these, it can be shown that before the year 140 there is  evidence of none to which we have strict right to appeal. Sayings and  expressions which resemble some in this Gospel, are indeed found in  Christian writings after about the year 100 not infrequently. But it is  a very strange idea that this resemblance must always be accounted for  by supposing that the writers had read the Fourth Gospel. Because the  Gospel has first made us acquainted with these sayings and expressions,  there is no need to suppose that the circum stances were the same as  early as about the year 100. On the contrary, why may not the Fourth  Evangelist have been acquainted with the writings in question? Or, to  mention a suggestion which in many cases is more likely, the discourses  of the travelling teachers of the times, of whom there were very many,  may have given currency to a number of catchwords, phrases, and whole  sentences, which became the common property of all more or less  cultured Christians. No one could say where he first heard them. Any  one who wrote a book made use of them without suspecting that the  question from what other book he took them would ever be asked. It may  be that the Fourth Evangelist availed himself of them, and stamped them  with his own particular genius; and we of the present day may easily be  misled into supposing that he must have been the first to coin them,  and that all other writers who use them must have written subsequently.
 It is particularly easy to think this when a whole sentence is in  question, which contains in itself an independent and important  thought. We have an example in Jn. xiv. 2, "in my Father's house (that  is to say, in heaven) are many mansions." Those people of great age to  whom Irenaeus often appeals, have handed down to him as a saying of  Jesus the words, "in my Father's domains are many mansions." Besides  this, we learn from Jn. alone (xiv. 2) that Jesus made this statement,  and the conclusion is drawn that the "elders" also can only have become  acquainted with it from the Gospel. And since they have been referred  to by Irenaeus as people who speak not from a more recent age, but from  their own recollection of the distant past, the Gospel must already  have been in existence at a very early date. This is a typical example  of the kind of proof it is not permissible to use. We refrain from  reckoning with the possibility that Jesus may really have made the  statement, and that the elders were just as likely as the Fourth  Evangelist to have learned it orally. But in their case, as well as  that of Jn., the belief may also have grown up erroneously that he made  the statement. This assertion would then have been repeated, and so  finally have found its way into the Fourth Gospel. It was certainly the  kind of saying that was likely to have been passed on from mouth to  mouth, for it contains the comforting assurance that after one's death  one might look forward with certainty to finding a refuge in heaven.  Another indication that the saying became current in this way may be  found in the fact that the versions in Jn. and Irenaeus are not word  for word identical.  __________________________________________________________________
 19. USED WITHOUT RECOGNITION IN THE YEARS 140-170.
 Most noteworthy are the writers between the specified years 140 and  170, who really cite passages from the Fourth Gospel, but do not say  who composed it. The most important is Justin, who wrote about 152 and  was subsequently martyred. From the Synoptics he introduces over one  hundred passages, but from Jn. only three, and these are so far from  following Jn.'s language exactly that in every case it can be thought  that he took them from another book, and that the Fourth Evangelist may  have done the same. We assume, however, that Justin took them from  Jn.'s work. But why, then, are there so few, and why is nothing said  about this work being the composition of a personal disciple of Jesus?  Referring to the "Revelation" of Jn., he says positively that it was  composed by the Apostle; but he says nothing about the Gospel. And yet  he attaches so much importance to the "memorials of the Apostles and  their companions," as he calls the Gospels; and shares with the Fourth  the doctrine of the Logos. We can only understand this on one  supposition: Justin did not consider the Fourth Gospel to be the work  of the Apostle. In that case, it must in his age still have been quite  new; otherwise it would long ago have won general recognition.  Obviously Justin finds in it some passages which are beautiful and  worth mentioning, but, compared with the rich use made of the  Synoptics, he uses it with great caution, and almost with hesitation.  __________________________________________________________________
 20. CONCLUSION AS TO THE "EXTERNAL EVIDENCES."
 When therefore we sum up the results of our examination of the external  evidence for the Fourth Gospel, we find that the lesson it teaches is  the opposite of what those who believe that it was written by the  Apostle think it ought to teach. Instead of proving that this was  written very early, it proves that it was composed at a very late date.  If the work in question were that of an obscure person, we can perhaps  understand that it may have been in existence for decades without  attracting attention or gaining recognition. But think of it! A work by  the disciple whom Jesus loved! And, besides, a work containing  disclosures of such paramount importance! It could not have failed to  be greeted on its first appearance with the greatest joy, and to be  greedily devoured; we could not fail to find an echo of it in all  Christian writers. Instead of that, from the date at which it must have  been published by the Apostle, that is to say, at latest from 90-100,  until 140, there is not one certain instance of the use of the book; we  do not find the Apostle recognised as the author until after 170, and  in the meantime we do find it clearly realised that it was not by him.  Indeed, we have to add further that after 160 or 170 it was positively  stated by some who were good Churchmen, and later by the Presbyter  Gaius in Rome at the beginning of the third century, to have been  composed by a heretic. The result therefore of examining the external  evidence means that we cannot place the origin of the Gospel earlier  than very shortly before the first appearance of this evidence, and so  very shortly before 140.  __________________________________________________________________
 21. MENTION OF BAR COCHBA S INSURRECTION IN JN. v. 43 .
 Let us now return to a consideration of the Gospel itself, and ask  whether we cannot really get the best information as to the date at  which it was composed in the same way that we have obtained it in  considering the questions who was its author, and whether the work is  reliable. Here then our attention is arrested by Jesus' words to the  Jews in v. 43, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not:  if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." In the  year 132 Simon, having taken the name Bar Cochba, came forward,  proclaimed himself the Messiah, and became among the Jews the leader of  a fanatical rising against the Roman rule, with the result that in the  year 135 the Jewish nation finally lost its in dependence. The  Christians, as we can well understand, declared against the new Messiah  from the first, and in consequence were fiercely persecuted so long as  he retained any power. If the Fourth Evangelist had had experience of  all this, may he not have thought that it would be under stood and  would make an impression if he put into Jesus mouth a prophecy of these  events? In that case he would have written between 132 and 140. If it  had not been that for other reasons we have already been led to assign  the composition of his book to about this date, we might not have had  the boldness to appeal to this passage; but, such being the case, we  seem to be really justified in doing so.  __________________________________________________________________
 22. THE FOURTH GOSPEL NOT THE WORK OF SEVERAL AUTHORS.
 We have reserved a question for discussion last, which, it might be  thought, ought to have been dealt with first. Can it be that the Fourth  Gospel is not by one and the same author? If not, whenever any  assertion is made with regard to the author, it must of course be  stated very care fully to what part it refers. But the question is not  of serious importance. We have mentioned that the story of the woman  taken in adultery (vii. 53-viii. 11) and chap. xxi. are later additions  (pp. 39 and 186 f.; see also p. 209). But this does not make the least  difference to our explanation of the Gospel as a whole.
 The case would be altered, only if we were obliged to partition the  first twenty chapters in large part between two or more authors. The  attempt to do this as a rule rests upon the supposition that one half  is due to a trust worthy historian and an eye-witness, the other to a  badly informed contributor. In an earlier part of this volume (p. 110  f.), we have already realised how far such assumptions are from making  anything contained in the Gospel really credible. But in conclusion we  will try to show the contradictions in which people involve themselves  when they make a division of the kind.
 One of the most recent of these attempts explains that the eye-witness  Peter, whose record Mk. preserves in his Gospel, tells us that on the  last evening of Jesus' life he celebrated the Supper with his  disciples; and the eye-witness John that he washed their feet. Peter  therefore knew nothing of the washing, and John nothing of the Supper.  The eye-witness Peter--we are told further as regards--Jesus' idea of  the judgment of the world, preserved the record that it would begin for  all men on one and the same day at the end of the world; the  eye-witness John recorded that for those who believed in Jesus it would  never take place (v. 24), and it is the badly informed contributor who  has added the version in v. 28 f. which agrees with the statement of  Peter. The eye-witness Peter, we are told, finally, left a record which  suggests that .Jesus never betrayed that he was conscious of having  lived a life with God in heaven before his earthly life; the  eye-witness John is able to tell us that Jesus said "before Abraham  was, I am," "Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I  had with thee before the world was" (viii. 58; xvii. 5); and he wrote  in the Prologue the sentences in which Jesus is described as the Logos  who was with God before the be ginning of the world. In face of such  contradictions, it is really no use bringing forward passages here in  which the context is said to have been interrupted by some intervention  on the part of the contributor. We have already found out the  carelessness of the Evangelist (pp. 76-78, 81-83) and it sufficiently  explains the contradictions which appear in his book, even if no one  else helped to compose it.  __________________________________________________________________  __________________________________________________________________