# The New International Encyclopædia/John, Gospel of

Edition of 1905. See also Gospel of John on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
​JOHN, Gospel of. The fourth Gospel, according to the usual arrangement of the New Testament books. In some ancient manuscripts, such ​as the Codex Bezæ, it stands in the second place, in others in the third, while in some circles it headed the list. Its usual position in ancient times was, however, the same as at present. The general character of this Gospel, its influence over Christian thought, and the high claims it makes for itself combine to render it one of the most conspicuous and important books of the whole Bible. The following discussion will consider: I. The contents of the Gospel; II. The critical questions centring about the work; III. The conclusions necessitated by the facts as to its authorship, date, and general purpose.
I. The Contents of the Gospel. In striking contrast to the first three, or Synoptic Gospels, the fourth Gospel states explicitly the apologetic motive controlling its author in writing it (cf.xx. 30–31). It is in the light of this statement that the outline of contents should be constructed. Understanding, then, that the author intended so to depict the person and work of Jesus that saving faith in Him as the Son of God would result to his readers, the contents may be outlined as follows: The Prologue (i. 1–18), in which the profound significance of the historic Christ is set forth; He was the divine Logos incarnate, the life and light of man, who alone has revealed God, but who, when He came to ‘His own,’ was not received, though to receive Him makes one a child of God. In the Prologue we find the fundamental ideas which the history following is intended to illustrate and prove: The divine glory of Jesus; the nature of the reception accorded Him, faith on the part of some with its necessary results, and unbelief on the part of others; and the significance of it all for the world. In accordance with these conceptions the contents are arranged thus: (1) The beginnings of faith in Jesus as Messiah (i. 19; iv. 54); how the first public appearances of Jesus in Judea and Galilee were received by many with faith and the reasons for this; incidentally, in accordance with the Prologue, it is noted that, even at the first, Jesus was met by unbelief. The whole section may be further subdivided: (a) The testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus (i. 19–34). (b) In consequence of this the first disciples are gained, and, in turn, lead others to the same step (i. 35–51). (c) The first miracle (at Cana) confirms the faith of these disciples (ii. 1–12). (d) At Jerusalem He asserts His authority, but is rejected (ii. 13–25). (e) In conversation with Nicodemus the nature of faith in Him is explained (iii. 1–21). (f) Further testimony by the Baptist (iii. 22–36). (g) The faith of the woman of Samaria (iv. 1–42). (h) The second miracle, in Galilee (at Cana), with faith as its result (iv. 43–54). (2) The great conflict of Jesus with the unbelief of the Jews (v.–xii.) is told in detail: (a) At a feast in Jerusalem, the evidence of a miracle is rejected by the Jews (chap. v.). (b) In Galilee, His claim to be the Bread of Life after the miracle of feeding the five thousand is rejected; by way of contrast, the faith of the disciples is noted (chap. vi.). (c) Further claims and testimony at Jerusalem, at the Feast of Tabernacles, are not accepted (vii. i.–x. 21). (d) Jesus’ claims, made at the Feast of Dedication, arouse only anger (x. 21–42). (e) Even the great miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead only serves to bring about the definite decision to put Jesus to death (chap. xi.). (f) The final assertion of His claim—on Palm Sunday in Jerusalem—is also rejected; Jesus withdraws (xii. 1–36, 44–50); reflections by the Evangelist (xii. 37–43); incidentally, in this whole section, many instances of faith are noted. (3) The self-revelation of Jesus to His disciples, in the conversations at the supper, and on the way to Gethsemane and in the mediatorial prayer (xiii.–xvii.). (4) The culmination of the life of Jesus (xviii.-xx.). (a) His resignation to the hostility manifested against Him; the narrative of the arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial (xviii.–xix.). (b) His glorification in His resurrection (xx.). The Gospel concludes with an Appendix (chap. xxi.), written mainly to correct a false understanding of certain words of Jesus. It is evident that we have here no ordinary biography; nor is it an attempt to give a full account of Jesus’ public ministry. Much is presupposed, as already known to the readers, and many months are passed over in silence. Only a few selected occasions are dealt with, and these are described from certain well-defined points of view. The happenings of but few days, not many more than twenty, are told. The interest of the writer was, evidently, not that of the mere historian. All this is in marked contrast with what we find in the first three Gospels. Because of these peculiarities, and of others which are revealed by a close study of the work, the fourth Gospel has been subjected, during the past hundred years, to a fire of criticism perhaps unparalleled in the history of literature.
II. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. The main question to which this Gospel gives rise is—can it be considered an historical source for our knowledge of Jesus Christ?
It is necessary, in the first place, to note what indications the work itself contains as to its authorship. Such indications may be incidental and unintentional, or they may be explicit claims to which due consideration must be given. It has long been recognized that the writer’s knowledge of contemporary Judaism and of Palestine is remarkable. He shows himself perfectly at home in regard to numerous details of Jewish observances and belief, and had an intimate knowledge of the topography of Palestine and of Jerusalem. These facts can only be accounted for on the supposition that the writer was a Jew of Palestine by birth and education. It is almost inconceivable that a Gentile could have written as he did. At the same time he was a Jew whose break with formal Judaism was complete. He was no longer a Jew at heart. It may be said further that the Gospel seems to have been written by one who was an eye-witness of many of the events he recorded. Attention has often been called to the fact that the references to persons, such as Peter, Philip, Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, Mary, Martha, and others, brief as they are, betray the impressions made by such persons on one who had seen or heard them. They are remarkably lifelike and tally exactly with what is known of them from other sources. Many incidental touches in the narrative, such as “it was about the sixth hour”, “Jesus sat thus on the well” (iv. 6) are best explained as due to personal experience. In addition to such incidental indications of authorship by an eye-witness there are express statements to the same effect. In i. 14 it is said, “and we beheld his glory.” The ‘we’ seems to mean the author addressing his readers. In xix. 35 a somewhat similar note is found, “he who ​has seen has testified, and his testimony is true in order that ye may believe;” and in the appendix (xxi. 24), we find a brief notice by another hand, that “this is the disciple who testifieth [present participle] of these things and who wrote [aorist participle] these things.” It appears, then, that the work claims to be derived either wholly or in part from written records of an eye-witness. From the last citation it is evident that the claim is that the disciple mentioned in the immediately preceding section (xxi. 15 sqq.), i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved, is the witness and recorder referred to. That is, the Gospel proper, which closes with xx. 31, and the additional narrative of xxi. 1–23, were derived from the written and oral testimony of this disciple. Who was this disciple? While we find that he is nowhere named in the Gospel, we do find this remarkable peculiarity—that a certain prominent disciple, about whom the writer knows a great deal and with the details of whose life he is very familiar, is often referred to, but never by name. This disciple, with his brother, was one of the first to attach himself to Jesus (i. 35 sqq.), having previously been a disciple of John the Baptist. He became the most loved by Jesus of all His followers, had the place of honor at the Supper, was a witness of His Passion, and was intrusted by Jesus with the care of His mother. But, though so prominent, he is always spoken of as ‘that other disciple,’ ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ or by a similar expression. Yet the writer is not thus reticent about other persons. In fact, he delights in detailed mention of names of persons and places. We know from the Synoptic record that the three disciples who stand closest to Jesus were Peter, James, and John. How is it, then, that the two brothers, James and John, are never named in the fourth Gospel, while the names of other disciples are freely used? It is evident that ‘that other disciple’ means either James or John, and since James suffered martyrdom quite early (Acts xii. 1, 2), the only person whose known history satisfies all the conditions of the problem is John, son of Zebedee, disciple and Apostle, one of the ‘pillars’ of the early Church (cf. Gal. ii. 9). Such then is the evidence and claim of the Gospel itself, that, either altogether or to a large extent, it is derived from the written record of the Apostle John.
Turning now from the Gospel to the records of the early Church, the facts are these: Writers of the period 170–200 show great familiarity with the Gospel, quoting it frequently and often speaking of John the Apostle as the author. In addition to this there are several explicit statements of importance. Irenæus (c.130–200), whose early home was in Asia Minor, declares that it was by John the Apostle, who spent his last years in Ephesus and there wrote the Gospel to counteract the teachings of Cerinthus (Adv. Hær. ii. 22. 5; iii. 1, 1; iii. 4 and xi. 1). (See Cerinthus.) Polycrates, a bishop of Ephesus, in a letter to Victor of Rome, c.190, speaks of John, ‘who reclined on the breast of the Lord,’ as buried in Ephesus. Polycarp (born or converted about A.D. 69, martyred 155), Bishop of Smyrna, was known to Irenæus, who as a youth heard him tell of his intercourse with John and others who had seen Jesus (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., v. 20). In such statements we have the testimony of personal experiences carrying us back to John himself. Justin Martyr, writing c.150, who had already spent some time in Ephesus, uses the Gospel as one of the Apostolic memoirs, but says nothing about it in particular. Evidence for the existence and use of the Gospel before Justin is not entirely lacking, though not altogether certain. It is likely that it was known to Ignatius of Antioch (c.110–115), to the writer of the Epistle to Barnabas (c.125) and to the early Gnostic Basilides (c.125). External evidence then quite clearly points to the existence of the Gospel soon after A.D. 100, assigns it to John, and indicates Ephesus as the place where it was written. It must be admitted, however, that this evidence is not altogether satisfactory. Papias of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (c.70–140), author of a work containing early Christian traditions from which Eusebius has given extracts, speaks apparently of a certain John the Elder, in distinction from John the Apostle, also a disciple of Jesus, as a prominent Christian in Asia Minor. Furthermore, Ignatius, in his letters to Asia Minor Christians, does not mention John the Apostle as influential in Asia, nor does Polycarp, in his epistle that has come down to us. This silence is surprising, especially in view of Irenæus’s statement that Polycarp loved to talk about John, yet it does not seem to be sufficient to overthrow the strong positive evidence mentioned above. The general bearing of the evidence of the Gospel itself, coupled with the external testimony, is therefore to the effect that the fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle John, late in life, at Ephesus in Asia Minor.
Nevertheless, by some modern critics this view is pronounced untenable. The more important reasons for such an opinion are: (1) The character of the teachings in the fourth Gospel and the representation there given of Jesus’ life and words are, on the one hand, so different from what we have in the first three Gospels, and, on the other hand, fit in so well with the doctrinal developments of the first half of the second century, that it seems necessary, apart from the question of authorship, to consider it a product of early second-century thought. Such a position practically necessitates giving up the Johannine authorship. (2) The evident use made of the Synoptic Gospels by the fourth does not accord with Apostolic authorship of the latter. (3) The vagueness in the recorded tradition of Asia Minor makes it possible that it was ‘John the Elder,’ rather than John the Apostle, who worked there, and that soon after his death, by an easy confusion, much of his activity was ascribed to John the Apostle, who may not have lived in Ephesus at all. (4) Certain particulars in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor, especially the appeal of Polycarp to the authority of John in the Quartodeciman controversy, which is said to contradict the statements in the Gospel, show that early in the second century the Gospel was not recognized in that region as of Apostolic origin. The two latter of these arguments rest on such uncertain grounds that much weight should not be attached to them. The Quartodeciman controversy in its early stages was concerned with the question of the proper time to begin the observance of Easter, the Christian Passover, and did not touch the question of the particular day of the month when Jesus ate the last supper. Polycarp claimed that John had taught them to celebrate the Passover regularly on the 14th of Nisan, the usual Jewish day. Even if, with many, we should hold that the fourth Gospel places the last ​per on the 13th of Nisan, Polycarp might easily have made his appeal to John and also considered him the author of the Gospel. The third argument presents a possibility, but not a probability. It may be said with confidence that such a confusion of ideas among men who had personal knowledge of the facts is altogether unlikely. It does not appear to have been noticed by the advocates of this theory that the confusion of John the Presbyter and John the Apostle must then have antedated the Gospel itself; for not only xxi. 23, but the whole book, rests on the supposition or claim that the Apostle John is its authority. But this involves improbabilities that are fatal to the supposition. There must have been substantial reasons for the claim of the Gospel to be Johannine and for the ready acceptance of it as such by the leaders of the Church in Asia Minor. In other words, the activity of John in Asia Minor and the conviction that the Gospel rests on him as its authority is the only reasonable explanation of its history as known to us.
If the external attestation and the claim of the book itself point unmistakably to the above conclusion, just as certainly do the contents appear to lead another way. How can a book so different from the Synoptic Gospels and with such advanced theological ideas be ascribed to John, the Galilean fisherman? We have here a problem with several elements. There is the question of fact—what is the actual relation of the fourth to the first three Gospels? There is also the element of authorship—to what extent does the book claim to be by John himself—altogether, or only in part? And finally, there is the question of the personal qualifications and capacities of John—what he was able to produce. To say that the theology or philosophy of the book is such that John could not have written it, is to take a purely hypothetical and even arbitrary position. We do not know, and have no means of knowing, what John could have produced. Some one wrote the book and he was a gifted man. He may as well have been John as any other Christian Jew. That the book marks a stage of thought supplementary to the primitive Apostolic and Pauline developments is not to be denied. The existence of such further development is largely due to this book. The book created, did not result from it. If it was by John it simply reflects the growth of his own religious experience. He had lived close to the Master, he had seen the origin and progress of the Church, he had known Paul, and at last had lived for some time in the speculative atmosphere of Ephesus. This book gives his final judgments, his memory of Jesus, his impressions of Him after these years of experience.
It may not be necessary to hold that John wrote the book as it lies before us. Prof. H. H. Wendt, of Jena, strongly advocates the view that the Gospel was written by a disciple of John, who quoted largely from memoranda by the Apostle. By this hypothesis many minor difficulties in the interpretation are solved, especially of passages where the opinion of the Evangelist seems not altogether in harmony with the words of Jesus he is reporting.
However this may be, the question of the relation of the fourth Gospel to the first three demands very careful consideration. There can be no doubt of the fact that it was written on the supposition that its readers were acquainted with a Gospel history substantially identical with that in the Synoptics. Its own record is fragmentary, and presupposes many things as well known. At the same time its attitude toward this already current history is one of independence. It follows neither the chronological outline nor the table of contents of the older record. That was occupied mainly with Jesus’ ministry in Galilee; this devotes large space to Judea. That gave the record of Jesus’ work among the people; this is largely concerned with His relations to the Jews or to His own disciples. In this the speeches and conversations of Jesus hold the supreme place, and their phraseology and general content are quite different from what we have in the other record. And when the fourth Gospel crosses the path of the others, as it does at certain points, there are marked differences in the details presented. In the one, the consciousness of His divine origin, the open declaration of His Messiahship (at least to certain individuals and circles), and the insistence on the eternal value of His personality and of the truth He proclaimed were characteristic of Jesus’ ministry from first to last; in the other these matters were held in reserve until the later portion of His ministry or not expressed in the terminology of the fourth Gospel. Yet the difference is, after all, one more of form than of substance. It must be admitted that the words and teachings of Jesus in the fourth Gospel passed through the mental and spiritual laboratory of the Evangelist before he set them down. In form, they may savor more of the disciple than of the Master; in substance, they reveal the living and abiding impression made by personal contact with Jesus on one of the richest spiritual natures the world has known. If John gives us an overstatement, with equal truth it may be said that the Synoptics may give us an understatement; the cold historical truth lies midway between both delineations.
III. General Conclusions. In view of all the facts of the case, the fourth Gospel may be said to be the work, in substance at least, of the Apostle John, written toward the end of his life at Ephesus primarily for Christian circles, to give them an adequate conception of Jesus. The work was written when speculation was rife. Gnosticism was beginning to manifest itself. Terms such as “Logos,” adapted from Alexandrian Jewish philosophy, were being used in Christian circles. The central truths of Jesus’ unique personal significance were in danger of being obscured. To counteract such teachings John wrote his Gospel, prefacing it with the prologue in which he stated his conviction that the one truth that gave life and reality to ideas and speculation concerning the Logos was this, that Jesus Christ was the Logos incarnate, in whom grace and truth, the fullness of the knowledge of God was manifest and placed within man’s reach. The Gospel so written concluded with xx. 31, and may have been known for a time to a limited circle without the concluding chapter. But later, possibly not long before John’s death or very soon after the work was published, and in order to correct a wrong impression concerning Jesus’ words to Peter in reference to John, the last chapter was added, concluding with the guarantee of the Apostle’s authorship of the entire work. No sooner was the work known than it met with acceptance, copies quickly finding their way all over the Christian world. A small sect, later called the ​Alogi, objected to it, not because they had any more correct knowledge of its origin, but because of its teachings, ascribing it to Cerinthus, according to tradition a bitter opponent of John in Ephesus. By 160–170 it was known and used along with the earlier three Gospels throughout the Christian Church.
Bibliography The literature of the fourth Gospel is very extensive. Fairly complete lists will be found in Luthardt, Saint John, the Author of the Fourth Gospel (trans. by Gregory, Edinburgh, 1875), and in Watkins, Modern Criticism Considered in Its Relation to the Fourth Gospel, Bampton Lectures, 1890 (London, 1890). Besides the New Testament Theologies of Weiss, Beyschlag, Bevan, Holtzmann, and Stevens; the works on the Apostolic Age by Lechler, Hausrath, Weizsäcker, Bartlett, and McGiffert; the Commentaries of Meyer, Weiss, Godet, H. Holtzmann, O. Holtzmann, and Westcott; the various Lives of Christ, and the larger Introductions to the New Testament, especially those by Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Salmon, and Th. Zahn, attention may be called to Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century (London, 1876); Gloag, Introduction to the Johannine Writings (London, 1891); Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion (London, 1889); Ezra Abbot, External Evidence of the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1891); Wendt, The Gospel According to John (trans., New York, 1902); Lowrie, The Doctrine of Saint John (London, 1899).