# The Johannine Writings/Appendix

__________________________________________________________________
 APPENDIX  __________________________________________________________________
NOTE TO PAGE 248.
 PROF. SCHMIEDEL has kindly allowed me to add a note to his remarks on  p. 248, and to make them a subject for discussion. In doing so, I am  breaking through my general principle as Editor of these Volksbuecher,  which is not to express any opinion upon disputable passages.
 Personally it does not seem possible to me that at this decisive hour  when Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples for the last  time, he should have thought more of the bodily needs of his followers  than of the needs of their souls. He himself said, "Fear not those who  kill the body, but those who can kill the soul," &c. And are we to  suppose that in face of that calamity which was about to rush upon them  through his death, he thought these words no longer applied? It seems  to me that Jesus would be going against the spirit of his own words,  if, when he took that pathetic farewell of his disciples, he was silent  about the importance of his death for their souls, and in his kindly  anxiety thought only of the safety of their bodies. When Socrates went  to death, he explained to his disciples that he could not try to escape  it, since his death was necessary for the welfare of their souls--and  can Jesus at this supreme moment have thought only of the bodily  welfare of his followers?
 SCHIELE.
 The saying of Jesus (Mt. x. 28 = Lk. xii. 4 f.) quoted by the Editor of  the present series must not be taken by itself. It must be read in  connection with the following words: "but rather fear him which is able  to destroy both soul and body in hell." We see from this that Jesus was  thinking only of cases in which people are exposed either to death at  the hands of men or to eternal punishment at the hands of God. For  instance, in the Christian persecutions those who denied their faith  because they were afraid of the death which threatened them from men if  they confessed Christ, incurred the punishment of God.
 To whom then can the saying of Jesus apply? Schiele's objection is to  the idea that Jesus wished the disciples to be protected from the death  of the body. But, considering the position of the disciples at the  time, the saying which he has quoted cannot in any way apply to them.  They are not yet face to face with the question, whether they ought to  flee from or resign themselves to death at the hands of men. The  authorities would not feel obliged to lay hands upon them, until Jesus'  public ministry assumed such a character as to threaten the security of  the State. The advice to surrender the body rather than escape by  violating the will of God, was therefore, as far as the disciples were  concerned, not required by the circumstances of the case; consequently  there would be no question of Jesus "going against the spirit of his  own words," if he did not give it.
 Nor can the saying quoted have applied to Jesus himself. If he had  tried to avoid death by flight or by denying his belief in his  Messiahship, he would thus have violated the will of God which clearly  showed him that the moment had come to prove the truth of his cause by  resigning himself to death. But there would only be a question of  "going against the spirit of his own words" if, as far as he himself  was concerned, he disregarded the advice, not if he does not require  the disciples to follow it, to whom indeed the advice was not  appropriate.
 But if Schiele's meaning be that Jesus ought to have told the disciples  simply that he had decided, as far as he himself was concerned, to act  in the spirit of this saying and resign himself to death, it seems to  me quite obvious that he did this, and, to strengthen their minds,  added to this explanation all the consequences which it necessarily  implied, even if we are not told that he did so, Indeed, it will be  seen that this is implicit in what our records tell us about Jesus'  words on this evening.
 Let us therefore leave the words of Jesus which have been quoted, and  the citation of which does not seem to me to throw any light on the  question, and turn to Schiele's real objection.
 First, however, I will print in full, with his permission, an  explanation of the above note, which, at my request, he was kind enough  to give me. He writes as follows:
 Whatever Jesus may have hoped to achieve by all that he did for his  disciples, now at any rate they were directly confronted by a very  serious mental crisis; within a few hours they will all be offended  with him, they will all be doubtful about him, when they see that he  will allow him self to be killed. How shall they survive this mental  crisis? Jesus himself had already overcome the same crisis in his own  mind, when he submitted to the will of his Father and accepted death as  an obligation which could not be refused. Legend, making a justifiable  use of poetry, has represented Jesus as going through this struggle  quite alone in the hour of agony in Gethsemane--after the Passover meal  and immediately before the arrest. But who can doubt that Jesus, having  conquered himself and decided to face death, must already have prayed,  "not as I will, but as thou wiliest," before he prepared to eat the  last Passover with his disciples? That very thing which helped Jesus  himself in his agony, when his soul was troubled to the point of  despair, his death--submission to the will of God by dying--must in the  end have helped and saved the disciples also in their soul's  distraction--his divinely willed and self-willed death.
 For if Jesus does not struggle successfully and resolve to die, he--and  with him his cause--must be inwardly ruined. That is Jesus' own idea.  His death means salvation to him, and therefore to his cause  also--salvation to his disciples.
 As the death of the Passover lamb means salvation to the Israelites in  a critical hour, so in like manner in another critical hour the death  of Jesus means salvation to his disciples.
 He who will preserve the life of his body, shall lose it; he who loses  it, as Jesus now wills to lose it, will save it. By thus deciding in  favour of death and saving his own soul, Jesus' death is the salvation  of his cause and of his disciples.
 You will see from what I have said that I intentionally refrain from  championing any specific interpretation of the death of Jesus, or from  trying to maintain that it is possible to know in what special sense  Jesus attached importance to his death as a means of salvation. All  that I would claim is that, as Jesus thought of himself as the preacher  and bringer of salvation, he definitely decided to reconcile him self  to his death as an act of saving power.
 And naturally when we speak of this salvation, we must think of  salvation of the body as well as of the soul. If not, why should Jesus  have saved so many sick persons from bodily suffering? But there can be  no doubt that the significance of the salvation of the body as compared  with the salvation of the soul is secondary, and that, especially,  where it is a question of "care," care for the body will bear no  comparison with the cares that affect the soul: care for its salvation,  for forgiveness of its sins, for its child-like nature, for its  blessedness in the kingdom of God. So that in my opinion the meaning  also of Mt. x. 28a (whether with or without 28b) is simply: he who is a  disciple of Jesus, should not have any fear for his body. This is  Schiele's explanation.
 For my own part I can see no need to confine myself to such indefinite  statements and to base my answer to the question, What had Jesus in  mind when he celebrated the Supper? upon conjectures concerning such a  general term as salvation. The words spoken by Jesus have in fact been  handed down to us, and in a more reliable way than pretty well anything  else. For when Paul became a Christian a year or a few years after  Jesus' death, he already found that this ceremony was in existence and  that the words of Jesus relating to it were continually repeated. And  although changes, especially additions, forced their way into this  language, it is still so concise, that what Jesus himself said can  hardly have been briefer. As regards the meaning of his words, however,  the sanctity in which they were held protected them against any serious  alteration.
 Now if Jesus spoke them at a Paschal meal, it would be strange indeed  if he did not think of his death as being like that of a paschal lamb.  And Schiele does not dispute this. But according to the Old Testament,  by which we must certainly be guided here, the dying of the paschal  lamb does not involve salvation in such a general sense as he states,  but, as I have explained on p. 248 f., exemption from bodily death. Is  this idea really so unworthy of the mind of Jesus as Schiele supposes?
 If, by trying to escape from death, Jesus had at the same time brought  upon his disciples the risk of persecution, his whole cause might  easily have perished with them; but Jesus was absolutely sure that God  could not wish this, for he was convinced that this cause of his was  the cause of God. As soon, therefore, as Jesus saw reason to hope that  by dying himself he might save his followers from a similar fate--and  the whole situation justified this hope--he must have felt that it was  God's will also that he should do this. But if it was God's will, it  was something sacred to him, and he could not by any means regard it as  a matter of such slight importance as Schiele supposes--even if nothing  more profound, nothing of an essentially religious nature, was  included.
 Jesus' first task must have been to keep the disciples from that  despair which they would be only too likely to fall into as soon as he  was removed; this purpose was a great one, and was in accordance with  the divine plan as he understood it, even if no word of Jesus is given  us about the way in which it was to be carried out, apart from the  assurance that Jesus' death would preserve the bodily life of the  disciples. But is something more profound, something of an essentially  religious nature, really lacking? I have not thought it necessary to  say in so many words that when Jesus wished to preserve his disciples  from death, he did not do so in the sense that they did not need after  his death to remain faithful to his cause. He must therefore earnestly  have admonished them to continue faithful and to realise the magnitude  of the task that confronted them in the future. It is self-evident that  Jesus cannot have spoken only the two lines which have been preserved  to us. But even if we were to suppose that he did not add a single  word, must not Jesus mere announcement that he wished by going to his  death to preserve their lives, if apart from this they really loved  him, have served to ripen the idea which Paul expressed concisely (2  Cor. v. 15) at a later date, when he said that those who live no longer  live for themselves, but for him who died for their sake?
 Thus I cannot really think that my meaning is correctly represented by  the words, "Jesus thought only of the bodily welfare of his followers,  in his kindly anxiety he thought only of the safety of their bodies."  Salvation of the body (or rather, preservation of bodily life) and  salvation of the soul are, I think, in the present case inseparably  united.
 Moreover, Schiele could not have written the twofold "only," if he had  also given due consideration to the words which immediately follow the  passage to which he has added his note. One who thinks that the idea of  a sacrifice like that of the paschal lamb is not deep enough for Jesus,  might very well, I think, discover the profundity, which he misses  here, in the idea which I have there tried to find in the words of  Jesus as preserved to us, namely, that his death was the sacrifice  offered at the making of a covenant by which the disciples were to be  united to God more closely than ever before.
 I think therefore that my explanation, which closely follows the  records, is, as regards the religious value of the character of Jesus,  by no means inferior to that of Schiele, and, moreover, that it is  really not so very different from his.
 In particular, I agree with him when he says that care for the soul  must always take precedence of care for the body. Only, care for the  preservation of the disciples lives was of the utmost importance,  since, without it, there was danger that, when his followers were  extirpated, his cause would perish with them.
 And as for the forgiveness of the sins of the disciples, which Schiele  includes amongst the absolutely important objects of care, in my  opinion Jesus cannot in any case have thought his death necessary for  this, for he had previously on many occasions assumed, and even  declared, that God would forgive sins without this (p. 247).
 Nor would I venture to declare that the account according to which  Jesus' prayer that he might be saved from death, and his resignation to  the will of God which followed subsequently, first took place in  Gethsemane and so after the celebration of the Supper, is a legend.  True, even at the Supper, Jesus looked upon his death as the will of  God, but only in the event of the authorities laying hands on him. If  they omitted to do this, he on his part would not only have had no  reason to bring it about, but would even have been obliged to think  that his death was contrary to the will of God. For, according to all  the assumptions that were made with regard to the Messiah, it was the  will of God that he should establish the divine rule triumphantly upon  earth, and not at the price of suffering and death. Thus even while  Jesus was in Gethsemane he may at first have been filled with the  desire to be preserved from death, and there is no need to think that  this involved the danger that his cause would be inwardly ruined. It is  enough that Jesus succeeded in gaining such self-control that, when the  authorities really interfered, he submitted with resignation.
 Once more then I have no reason to dissent from the Gospels here and to  reverse the order of the two events, the Supper and the prayer of  Jesus. The fact as to when and where they heard Jesus utter that prayer  must have stamped itself indelibly on the memory of the disciples. If,  however, as Schiele assumes at the end of p. 263, after the Supper  Jesus again uttered that earnest petition, that the cup of death might  pass from him, when he had before this meal already won his victory  over the fear of death and prayed "not as I will, but as thou wiliest,"  his figure hardly gains that completeness which is meant to be gained  for it by the whole of this assumption.
 Moreover, a legend which arose in the first instance amongst  worshippers of Jesus would never have assigned this wavering attitude  of Jesus in his prayer to so late an hour as that of Gethsemane, since  it might so easily cast a shadow upon him. In this matter the feeling  of the Fourth Evangelist was correct; see above, p. 27.
 SCHMIEDEL.  __________________________________________________________________
NOTE TO PAGE 250.
 THE following are the explanations that are given in the New Testament  of the death of Jesus. We have grouped them according to their  similarity or dissimilarity, not according to the persons who have put  them forward.
 1. Since, as we have shown above (p. 247), until quite a short time  before his death, Jesus did not regard it as an eventuality ordained by  God for the salvation of mankind, and since he was obliged to think  that, being the Messiah, he was destined triumphantly to establish the  kingdom of God, (a) in view of the Baptist's end and of the  machinations of his own enemies (Lk. xiii. 31-33; Mk. xii. 6-8), he can  at most have believed that possibly, but by no means necessarily, God  would assign him the cup of death as the decisive stroke. (b) The idea  which approaches this most nearly is that found in the speeches of  Peter in Acts (iii. 13-15, 17; v. 30) according to which the execution  of Jesus was a sin on the part of the Jews, though an unwitting one.  (c) Chapter iii. 18 implies only a slight advance upon this: Jesus'  death was ordained by God in fulfilment of the predictions of the  prophets. This does not by any means include the idea that its purpose  was the salvation of mankind; in that case, the expression could not  have been directly preceded by iii. 13-17.
 2. Jesus' death implied a purpose as regards his own person, (a) Heb.  v. 7 f., he is to learn obedience by his suffering; (b) Jn. xii. 23 f.  5 xvii. 1, 5, he had to return to heaven, whence he had come down; (c)  xvii. 19 a, he had to sanctify, that is to say consecrate, himself for  this return by means of death.
 3. Jesus by his death fulfilled a purpose with reference to the final  condition of the world, (a) Jn. xiv. 2 f., xii. 32, xvii. 24, he had to  prepare for his friends a place for their future abode in heaven; (b)  Heb. ix. 21-24, x. 19 f., he had to consecrate, by the sprinkling of  his blood, that sanctuary which, on the analogy of the earthly temple,  the author conceives as existing in heaven. Here for the first time in  our list of interpretations we come upon the idea that Jesus' death was  an offering, and, in this instance, an offering of initiation.
 4. From another point of view his death is regarded as a sacrifice of  exemption from an unmerited misfortune. (a) Thus Jesus himself  explained his death at the celebration of the Supper, by representing  it as a paschal offering (see above, p. 248). On this perhaps rests  also the idea that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep  (Jn. x. 11, 15), as well as that reflection of Caiaphas (xi. 50) which  is intended to represent a truth not only from his own point of view  but also from a higher standpoint: it is better that one man should die  for the people, and that the whole people should not perish. Moreover,  it must be remembered here that Jn. describes Jesus' death in such a  way as to make all the details agree exactly with the commands about  the paschal lamb, his manifest purpose being to suggest that Jesus was  the true passover lamb, by whose death these commands were once and for  all fulfilled and abrogated (see pp. 126-130). (b) In Col. i. 24, Paul  is represented as one who continues the work of Jesus Passion, since as  the vicar of Jesus he fills up the gaps left in Jesus' sufferings. That  is to say, by giving up his life, Jesus was able to concentrate the  fury of his living enemies upon himself, and could thus divert it from  his followers, but he could not at the same time ward off the fury of  all their future enemies. To divert this, others had to sacrifice  themselves later, and Paul is felt by the author to be the only such  offering that needs to be taken account of, the Apostle being an object  of veneration to him. (Paul himself cannot have written this; he would  never have admitted that Jesus left gaps in his sufferings, and that he  himself was so far on a level with Jesus as to be able to fill them.)
 5. Again, it has been interpreted as a covenant sacrifice. (a) In this  way also Jesus explained his death at the celebration of the Supper  (see above, p. 248 f.). (b) The Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 15-20; x.  29) makes a markedly different use of this idea, since it has in mind,  not, as Jesus had, the general nature of a covenant, but in quite a  special sense the Old Testament ordinances regarding the ceremonial  observed when God solemnised his covenant with the people of Israel on  Sinai.
 6. Before we consider the idea of atonement in its most prominent  application, as a reconciliation with God, we must view it (a) in a  quite different aspect, that is to say as a reconciliation between the  Jews and the Gentiles by the admission of both into the Christian body.  To effect this was the purpose of Jesus' death according to Eph. ii.  13-16; it was therefore a peace-offering, (b) Similarly it is said in  Jn. xi. 52, in extension of the idea of Caiaphas referred to above (4  a), that Jesus' death must have been not merely for the Jewish people,  but also for the bringing together and uniting of the dispersed  children of God. Here, however, the special point is not the removal of  the conflict between Jews and Gentiles, but, more generally, the  founding of the Church as one which was to embrace the whole world.  Perhaps we may include here also what in Jn. xvii. 19b is added as  another purpose in addition to that of consecrating himself by his  death for entrance into heaven: his disciples are by this means  initiated in the truth. At least, the continuation, xvii. 20-23, in  which Jesus prays that his disciples may all be united in communion  with God and with himself points to this explanation of the obscure  words.
 7. In Eph. v. 25 f., the death of Christ is represented as a means of  sanctification or consecration of the Church, and this consecration is  imparted to its members by baptism. Baptism, however, is regarded as a  bath which effects purification from sin. Here, then, for the first  time in our list of explanations we meet with the idea that the death  of Jesus meant the removal of sin; but the Old Testament pattern  presupposed is always a kind of offering which (as above, 2 c) produced  sanctification, that is to say, consecration, and so such a condition  of purity as is necessary if people are to regard themselves as  consecrated to God.
 8. The stricter idea of a sin-offering, without which forgiveness of  sins is not possible, is applied to Jesus' death, (a) without any  qualification as regards the predecessors of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 3, in  Jesus' words at the Supper, but only in Mt.'s version (xxvi. 28), so  that the words were certainly not spoken by Jesus himself (see above,  p. 247 f.), and then in Eph. i. 7, Jn. i. 29, 36, for example, (b) With  clear reference to the sacrificial ordinances of the Old Testament, in  the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus is designated a sin-offering (v. 1, 3;  vii. 27; ix. 26, 28). Here it is to be noted that in such an offering  the sacrificial beast does not bear the punishment which is strictly  deserved by the person who offers it. On the contrary, on the great Day  of Atonement, for instance, the ceremonial of which the author has  chiefly in view, the sins of the people are transferred by the  laying-on of hands, not to the goat which is sacrificed, but to the  other which is driven into the wilderness (Lev. xvi.). (c) Paul assumes  the contrary, and so the strictest form of the idea of sin-offering  (see above, p. 249), especially in Rom. iii. 25 f.: hitherto God has  not forgiven sins, but neither has he punished them, that is to say not  in such a way as would have been commensurate with the sin, to wit, by  the death of sinners, that is to say of all men. In order now to show  that his justice, which requires some kind of equivalent, whether it be  punishment or propitiation, is nevertheless operative, he brings about  not indeed the punishment on sinners, but the reconciliation in Christ,  by imposing upon him, as the representative of men, the penalty of  death which they themselves had really deserved, (d) Quite peculiar is  the teaching of the Epistle to the Colossians (i. 20), to the effect  that the reconciliation thus produced extends to the heavenly powers,  that is to say, to the angels (this also, no less than the passage  mentioned under 4 b cannot have been written by Paul; on the contrary,  according to 1 Cor. xv. 24-26, Christ is still obliged to contend with  these angels throughout a long period of his exaltation in heaven).
 9. The blood of Christ shed at his death is compared, not with an  offering, but with a ransom to be paid (a) when Paul says that men have  been redeemed by it (1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23; Rom. iii. 24), and to wit  from the curse of the Law (Gal. iii. 18). As the person to whom the  ransom must here be paid, it is not so much God who is thought of as  the Law of the Old Testament, which, according to Gal. iii. 19, was  really imparted not by God himself but by subordinate angels, and so  does not give pure expression to the will of God. Paul seems to think  of it as a kind of independent being which on its own authority  pronounces the curse upon sinners and does not acquit them without  payment of a ransom. Now a ransom cannot strictly bear punishment; but  that even on this view of the matter Christ does this in Paul's  opinion, as the representative of mankind, is clear from Gal. iii. 13:  "Christ redeemed us thus from the curse of the Law, having become a  curse for us," that is to say an object for the curse, (b) In place of  the half-personified Law appears in Heb. ii. 14 f. the wholly  personified devil who has the power of torturing men for their sins  while they are dying, and before this of keeping them in continual fear  of death.
 10. The attainment of everlasting happiness means, however, not merely  forgiveness of past sins, but, quite as much, the averting of future  sins; and this again (a) Paul ascribes to Christ's death in which he  finds all the salvation that has ever been brought to mankind. The  reason for the experience that again and again without fail man is led  to commit sin, he finds in the fact that his body consists of flesh  (Rom. vii. 14-25), that is to say, of that same matter which, according  to Greek philosophy, is evil by nature (p. 149). Since he regards  Christ as the pattern upon which all men have been modelled (1 Cor. xi.  3), he believes further that everything which has happened to him is  entirely reproduced of itself in men as well, at least in so far as  they attach themselves to him (1 Cor. xv. 21 f., 48 f., Rom. vi. 3-11).  And thus in Rom. viii. 3 f., he next reaches the idea, which to us is  quite unacceptable, but with him was quite a serious conviction, that  by the slaying of Christ's flesh on the cross, the flesh in his  followers was slain likewise, not in the sense that they suffered  bodily death, but that the impulse in them was dead which again and  again drove them to sin. (b) The First Epistle of Peter gathers up this  idea in a far more simple and appropriate way (iv. 1; i. 18; ii. 24):  by fixing one's attention on the death of Jesus, one is brought to arm  oneself with the same frame of mind as his, and to shrink from sin. As  a result, but not as a real explanation of the death of Christ, this  already occurred to Paul also (2 Cor. v. 14 f.). (c) But this frame of  mind is represented in the New Testament, not as something which people  can produce in themselves of their own accord, but as a being possessed  by a new, independent being, the Holy Spirit in the hearts of  believers. And so in Jn. (xv. 26; xvi. 7) the idea is put in the form  that Christ died on purpose that the Holy Spirit might be able to come  down from heaven and take up His abode in believers. Chap. vii. 39  shows that in Jesus' life-time this was regarded as impossible (see  above, p. 253 f.).
 We have omitted many passages, for instance even passages from the  First Epistle of Jn., which reveal nothing specially characteristic, as  well as those the explanation of which is not certain. Thus, for  example, the description of Christ as the true witness (Rev. i. 5; iii.  14) might mean that he gave his life as security for his conviction,  and this would be one of the most appropriate interpretations of his  death; but it might also contain a thought which had no reference at  all to his death (see above, p. 229). On Mk. x. 45, another passage  which admits of several interpretations, see above, p. 249.
 In spite, however, of the limited number of passages which we have  dealt with, we can observe how many explanations of the death of Christ  are often found side by side in one and the same New Testament book.  Thus the Epistle to the Hebrews contains four such, the Fourth Gospel  some seven or eight. We can also easily perceive that several of them,  but by no means all, can be reconciled with one another. Finally, it  must not be forgotten also that the New Testament contains a book which  gives a rather detailed exposition of the author's conception of  Christianity, and yet does not mention Jesus' death, and indeed hardly  mentions his person--we mean, the Epistle of James.  __________________________________________________________________
BOOKS RECOMMENDED.
 Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, last volume (2nd ed. 1877;  E. T. 1895); Weizsaecker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, 2nd ed. 1892 (3rd  ed. unchanged; E. T. 1894 f.); Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, 2nd ed.  2nd vol. 1902 (E. T. 1906); in briefer form in his Entstehung des  Christentums, 1905 (E. T. 1906); Wernle, Die Anfaenge unsrer Religion,  2nd ed. 1904 (E. T., 1903-1).
 Most akin to the fundamental points in our own conception of the Life  of Jesus are: Neumann, Jesus, wer er geschichtlich war, 1904 (in Neue  Pfade zum alten Gott, No. 4; Engl. transl. Jesus, A. & C. Black, 1906),  and Huehn, Geschichte Jesu und der aeltesten Christenheit, 1905 (which  is the last part of Huehn's Hilfsbuch zum Verstaendnis der Bibel,  1904-1905), both written in popular style. For separate sections see  also my essays on Mt. xi. 27 (for pp. 61-66) in Protestantische  Monatshefte, 1900, pp. 1-22, on the Last Supper (for pp. 117-130,  247-249, 261-269), ibid. 1899, pp. 125-153, on the empty grave of  Jesus, ibid. 1908, pp. 12-29 (for pp. 130-134), and on the "Revelation"  of Jn. (for pp. 218-232) my popular lecture, ibid. 1903, pp. 45-63.
 [See also in the Encyclopaedia Biblica Schmiedel's articles, JOHN SON  OF ZEBEDEE, GOSPELS, 108-156, especially 131-145, MARY, SIMON PETER,  5-23, RESURRECTION, MINISTRY, S:S: 1-6, and CLOPAS.
 A. Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 1906; Stevens and Burton,  A Harmony of the Gospels, 1896; S. D. Waddy, A Harmony of the Four  Gospels, 1895.
 O. Cone, Gospel-Criticism and Historical Christianity, 1891; The Gospel  and its Earliest Interpretations, 1893; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic  Age, 1897; B. W. Bacon, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1900; J.  Moffatt, The Historical New Testament, 1901; P. Gardner, Exploratio  Evangelica, 2nd ed. 1907.
 J. J. Tayler, An attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth  Gospel, 1867; Gloag, Introduction to Johannine Writings, 1891; J.  Drummond, An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth  Gospel, 1903; J. Warschauer, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel, 1903; B.  W. Bacon in Hibbert Journal, April 1903, Jan. 1904, 1905; E. F. Scott,  The Fourth Gospel: its purpose and theology, 1906.]  __________________________________________________________________