^ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Alfred C. Barnes BS2615 .T2T"l87r"'' '■"'™^ olin 3 1924 029 291 635 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924029291635 THE CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. AN ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN THE CHARACTEB OF THE FOUETH GOSPEL; ESPECIALLT IN ITS KELATION TO THE FIRST THEEE. BY THE LATE KEV. JOHN JAMES ^AYLER, B.A., MEMBER OP THE HI8TORICO-THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LEIPSIO, AND PRIXCIPAL OF MANCHESTER NE"W COLLEGE, LONDON. ^iXrj (Cat 'KporifxoTaTt) travTOtv ij a\r\Qtia' l-Traivtlv te %pv "^"^ ffvvaivuu a^ii6v(i}Qj £1 Ti o^QC^Q Xeyoiro, k%ETaZ,uv Sa Kai ^uvQvvnv^ u tl fu) ^aivoiro vyioJQ dvaysypa^fiivov, — Dionys. Alexandrm. ap. Euseb. H. E. vii. 24. '*acri Judicio perpende et, si tibi vera videntur, Dede manus, aut, si falsum est, accingerc contra." lAicret n. 1041-3, SECOND EDITION. WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON ; AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 1870. LONDON 1 G. NOBSIAN AND SON, PRINTBRS, MAIDEN LANB, COVENT GARDES THE REV. JOHN KENRICK, M.A,, F.S.A., ETC., FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS CLASSICAL AND HISTORICAL TUTOR IN MANCHESTER NE"W COLLEGE, YORK ; KNOWN TO THE LEARNED BY HIS ACUTE AND THOROUGH RESEARCHES INTO THE mSTORT AND MYTHOLOGY OP THE ANCIENT WORLD : NOT AS CLAIMING HIS ASSENT TO CONCLUSIONS WHICH HE MAY NOT ACCEPT, BUT AS A FEEBLE THOUGH SINCERE EXPRESSION OF THE LOVE OF SCHOLARLY HONESTY IN THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH, WHICH IT WAS THE CONSTANT AIM OF HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO INSPIRE, THIS ATTEMPT TO ELUCIDATE AN IMPORTANT CRITICAL QUESTION, IS, WITH EVERY SENTIMENT OF RESPECT AND GRATITUDE, INSCRIBED BY HIS FRIEND AND FORMER PUPIL, THE AUTHOE. PEEFACE. The conclusion wliich I have undertaken to maintain in the ensuing pages has not been hastily adopted. It is a result of the gx-adual triumph of what has seemed to me preponderant evidence over an earlier belief. For years I clung tenaciously to the opinion^ that the most spiritual of the gospels must be of apostolic origin. Twice I read through the '^ Probabilia " of Bretschneider^ and the con- viction still remained that, in the choice of difficulties which he has so forcibly stated, more truth would be lost by the admission than by the rejection of his theory. On investigating, however, more thoroughly the origin of the contents of our New Testament, I found how impossible it was, in every case but that of Paul, to establish satis- factory evidence of direct personal authorship : and I came at length to the full persuasion, that the one point of importance to ascertain respecting any particular book, was simply this ; — that, whoever might have written it, it be- longed to the first age, while the primitive inspiration was still clear and strong, — and that it could be regarded as a genuine expression of the faith and feeling which then prevailed. Not till I had decidedly embraced this view, was my mind open to admit the just inference from un- Vni PREFACE. deniable premises, and prepared to accept a legitimate result of honest criticism, without feeling that I had thereby re- linquished what the distinctest voice of my inward being assured me must still be spiritual truth. I rested therefore in the general conclusion, that evidence of the immediate and powerful action of the Divine Spirit in the apostolic age, was a matter of infinitely greater moment than the question of the personality of any of its human agents. The literature of this controversy respecting the Fourth Gospel has already become voluminous, especially in Ger- many. I do not profess to have made myself master of the whole of it; though it will be seen, that I am not un- acquainted with what has been contributed by some of the most eminent scholars to its elucidation. In particular I have derived great assistance from the learned researches of Hilgenfeld on the Paschal question. But what I wished, without attempting to compare and combine the divergent theories of others, was to examine anew for myself the ancient testimonies on which they have founded them; in order to arrive, if possible, from personal investigation, at an in- dependent conclusion. While engaged in this inquiry, I was unwilling to distract my attention by taking into view the bearing of contemporary researches in the same field ; and this must plead my excuse for omitting to notice some works which have recently appeared, both in this country and on the continent, by men whose names entitle what- ever they write to respectful consideration. If our con- clusions should prove substantially identical, they will have PREFACE. IX more weiglit^ as coining from independent witnesses . If they differ, they will help to correct and modify each other. From the n atur e of the pre s ent inve sti gation^ I have to ask the reader^'s indulgence for a frequent citation of original authorities which may be felt wearisome, and eyen look pedantic. But the question is one which can only be settled by a direct appeal to the statements of ancient writers ; and if those writers are quoted at all, they must be quoted in the language in which they wrote, as the appli- cability of a citation to the point at issue will often depend on the rendering of words, and the construction of phrases, which the supporter of a theory is always liable to the sus- picion, and even open unconsciously to the temptation, of attempting to wrest from their proper meaning to his own purpose. Those who are best qualified to form a judgment on the case, will wish to have the whole evidence set before them at once. Mere references, however exact, would have subjected them to an unreasonable expenditure of time and trouble in hunting through different books not always at hand, to ascertain whether the authorities have been rightly used or not. I have confined the citations for the most part to the foot-notes. When, for special reasons, I have thought it necessary in a few instances to introduce them into the text, an English translation is always subjoined. To some, perhaps, an apology may seem due for having appended to a purely critical disquisition, the practical and spiritual bearings of the question, which I have considered at some length, and traced to their probable consequences, X PREFACE. in the concludiBg section of tlie Essay. It will be objected possibly, tliat I have mixed up in one inquiry, matters which, are essentially distinct — the strictly critical and the properly religious. I think, however, tliat the artificial re- lation in which theology has been unhappily placed towards general science, has led to the drawing of too sharp and absolute a line of distinction between different spheres of mental activity. Our nature is a whole, all tlie elements of which, should work together in harmony. I do not believe, that the most rigid demands of the intellect and the clearest intuitions of the moral and spiritual sense, when both are rightly understood, will ever be found at variance. I know from personal experience, that it was an apprehen- sion of spiritual loss, which kept me for a long time from accepting the plain dictate of unbiassed scholarship. Not till I was aware of the gratuitous assumption on which that apprekension was based, did I become capable of admitting the full force of critical evidence. What I have found a relief to my own mind, I wished to suggest as possibly available for others also. After all, there are excellent men who will regret, I am well aware, that I should have ever raised the question mooted in these pages. Constantly engaged in the noble work of prac- tical Christianity, and grounding their benevolent ministry on the authority of the New Testament, such men look — not unnaturally, perhaps, from their point of view — on every attempt to invalidate the old traditional foundations of our Protestant theology, as an encroachment on the province PKEFACE. XI of religion itself, as some weakening of the blessed power, which they conceive the popular system specially carries with it^ of sustaining, warning, and comforting our weak, sinful, and suffering humanity. Words cannot express the reverence in which I hold the labours of such men as these. The chief value which I attach to critical studies arises from my belief, that they will ultimately procure a firmer standing point, a clearer vision, and a directer spiritual action for the preachers of the pure and everlasting Gospel of Christ. Men who are engaged in the practical adminis- tration of Christianity, draw out of its sacred books, by a sort of elective affinity, all those elements of a diviner life which belong to the essence of our spiritual being, which are imperishable and eternal, — and which qualify, at least, if they cannot wholly neutralize, the less pure and defensible adjuncts historically attached to them in the great tradition of the ages. With such men, the practical influence of Christianity is so overpoweringly strong, that it reduces all speculative difficulties to zero. Their disregard of these diffi- culties, which they do not pretend to deny, — arises from no want of sincerity, but from their entire absorption for the time in a higher interest. The scholar's position is of quite another kind; and it is difficult for men so very differently placed, fully to understand each other. The scholar, as a scholar, lives aloof from the practical interests of the world, and dwells in a clear and quiet atmosphere of thought, where his mind cannot fail to discern the mingled elements of truth and falsehood that enter into the composite mass of 511 TKEFACE. tradition and arbitrary interpretation^ constituting tke popular tlieology — its groundless assumptions^ its illogical inferences, and its perverse apprehension of many statements of fact, wMcIl meant one thing to the simple age which first wrote them down, and mean quite another, with all the theories which have gathered round them, now. Yet he may feel as strongly as ever the deep beauty and intrinsic truth of the fundamental convictions and trusts which are imbedded in these old traditions, and which were infused into them at first, as they are still kept alive, by the Spirit of the Omnipresent God. What, then, is the scholar to do, when he has girded up his loins Hke a man to search for truth at all cost, and the demands of his intellectual and spiritual nature attack him with forces which he cannot at once bring into harmony ; when he feels that there is truth on both sides of his being, which he cannot as yet make one ? He can only go on trustingly and reverently, in the full behef that truth, wherever it leads him, is the voice of God; and that although the way for the moment may be per- plexed and difficult, if that voice be honestly hearkened to, it will certainly conduct him to rest and refreshment at last. He can only say^ in a far higher sense than blind old Samson, to the Invisible Power on which he leans — *' A little onward lend thy guiding hand To these dark steps, a little further on ; I'or yonder bank hath choice of sun or shade." The true principle of Protestantism, carried to its legi- timate extent, not only justifies but demands the fullest and most fearless investigation of the origin, authorship, and com- PREFACE. XUl position of tlie books which form our sacred Canon. Pro- testantism was avowedly a transference of authority from human councils to the direct utterances of the voice of God. But how are we to know what is the voice of God^ except by exploring the sources through which it is declared to have come to us^ and clearly understanding the conditions under which alone ifc can be credibly conveyed? One thing is certain, a true religion can never rest on false history. We must first test the historical foundations^ before any system, however fair and well-proportioned^ can be securely built on them. A Scripture utterance of divine truth cannot be interpreted like a legal instrument, merely by a literal acceptance of the words which it contains. We must go through the words to the Spirit which fills them from the Highest Mind, and which can only be interpreted by a kindred spirit within our own. The old Protestant con- fessions, broader than the theology which grew out of them, appeal to the witness of the Spirit in the last instance as the consummating evidence of divine authority. Luther, with a rough boldness of speech, which would have made our modern scripturalists stand aghast, maintained that the Spirit of Christ was the only decisive test of the apostolic origin : " Whatever does not teach Christ, cannot be apostolic, though it were taught by St. Peter and St, Paul ; and again, whatever preaches Christ, will be apostolic, though it were preached by Judas, Ananias, Pilate and Herod.'*^ ^ 1 Was Christum nicht lelirt, das isfc noch niclit apostolisch, wenn es gleich S. Petrus Oder Paulus lelirte ; wiederum was Chiistum predigt, das ware apostolisch, •wenns gleich Judas, Haiiuas, Pilatus und Ilerodes that ? XIV PREFACE. If the essence of Christianity be the self-consecration of the individual soul to God in the spirit of Christy then the Spirit^ as the living power which effectuates that union, must be above every written record of its utterance and working. It wrought with marvellous strength in Christ and his apostles : and it works to this day in all who Jbave any participation in their faith and love, and strive to prolong their mission to the world ; and thus it makes the true people of God one from age to age and over all the earth. But the Scriptures are invaluable from the witness which they bear to its earliest effusion and freshest operation. It is this consideration which has enabled me to reconcile an undiminished reverence for the religious teaching of the Fourth Gospel, with the entertainment of views very different from those usually held, respecting its date and authorship. Should my conclusion find acceptance, I shall feel satisfaction in the thought of having made a small con- tribution to that advancing tide of liberal opinion which is irresistibly bearing onward men^s minds to a more spiritual conception of Christianity, and to wider and nobler views of human duty and destination. If, on the other hand, it should appear that I have missed the truth, the copiousness, and, as I believe, the fidelity with which I have adduced the premises for my conclusions, will afford the readier means of my refutation. CONTEXTS. SECTION I. PAGE Statement of the Question , , . . . ! SECTION II. Tlie Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse . . _ _ . , .9 SECTION III. Historical Notices of the Apostle John .... . 15 SECTION IV. Comparison of foregoing notices with the Works ascribetl to John 25 SECTION V. Testimonies to the Apocalypse . . . . . . ^3 SECTION VI. Reaction against the Apocalypse . . . 42 SECTION VII. Testimonies to the Fourth Gospel . . . 54 SECTION VIII. Internal Indications of Age . . - ... .'83 SECTION IX. The Paschal Controversy . . . 99 SECTION X. Chronology of the Paschal Question . . : . . . 124 SECTION XI. Recapitulation and Result . . . ..... 143 SECTION XII. The Religious Bearing of the Question . . .... ... 157 EDITOR'S NOTE. Notwithstanding the thorongliness of the following trea- tise, the Author had designed, in a Second Edition, to strengthen his argument on some points, and on others to enlarge his exposition. In particular, he had intended to rewrite and expand the Supplementary Note on the chro- nology of the Paschal question; and, in the concluding Section, to answer objections advanced against his con- clusion by some of his English and American Eeviewers. It was almost the only purpose which his singularly com- plete life left unaccomplished. I had hoped to be able, with the aid of memoranda in his hand-writing, and the recollection of conversations which interpret them, to give some imperfect account of his latest thoughts on the subject of this book. But the materials which he has left are little more than slight marginalia; and I find it impossible to work them into any literary form without rendering hi m apparently responsible for judgments which can only be conjecturally his. "With the exception, therefore, of a single footnote, giving Yolkmar's correction of the Justin Martyr dates, this Second Edition is simply a revised reprint of the First. J. M. London, Feb. 26, 1870. THE CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. SECTION I. Statement of the Question. "man KANNMIT RECHTBEHAUPTEN,ALLE das UECHItlSTENTHUM BETREFFENDEN FRAGEN HABEN IIIREN EIGENTLICIIEN MITTELPUNICT IN DER EINEN FRAGl-: : WIE DER TIEF-EIKGREIFENDE -VVIDERSPRUCH ZU EOSEN 1ST, -WELCnER IN DEN EVANGELIEN SELEST UNLAUGBAR ZU TAGE LIEGT." — F. C. BAUR. " HOW THE UNDENIABLE CONTRADICTIONS OF THE EVANGELISTS ARE TO EE SOLVED, IS THE ONE QUESTION WHEREIN CENTRES EVERY OTHER RELATING TO PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY." Although the superstitious feeling witli whicli the mere letter of Scripture is often regardedj hinders people from per- ceiving as readily as they otherwise would^ the distinctive character of its several books^ yet, I presumCj no reader of ordinary attention can have failed to discover a marked dif- ference between our Three First Gospels, or as they are now conveniently designated, from the common view which they take of Christ^s ministry, the Synoptical Gospels — and the Fourthj which bears the name of John. This difference goes much deeper than mere diversity of style or individuality of conception — the mere omission, or insertion, or simple re- arrangement of particular facts and particular sayings ; for in these more superficial aspects, the Three First Gospels also differ very considerably from each other. The difference be- tween the Fourth Gospel and the other three affects the whole conception of the person and teaching of Christ, and the funda- mental distribution of the events of his public ministry. The 1 2 CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Synoptical Gospels,, notwithstanding their frequent divergency on collateral points, agree generally in their representation of that ministry as a whole j often coincide to the very letter for entire sentences together, especially in their report of the words of Christ himself; and evidently contain at bottom the common Palestinian tradition respecting him. They describe him as undergoing with many of his countrymen the initiatory baptism of John/ and not commencing his own public ministry till that of the Baptist was concluded ;^ confining his labours, in the first instance, exclusively to Galilee and the surrounding dis- tricts ; appealing with great effect to the Messianic expectations of his time, and gathering round him vast multitudes to listen to his teachings and witness his wonderful works, as he journeyed from town to town and from village to village to the extreme verge of northern Palestine ; gradually unfolding to the more devoted and confidential of his disciples both the height of his claims and the destiny which awaited him, as the consciousness of his divine mission grew and deepened in his own mind ; and only at the very close of his ministry, coming into direct coUi- sion with the sacerdotal and rabbinical party at Jerusalem which procured his execution by the Eoman government. If we except what is called the Sermon on the Mount, which contains apparently the substance of discourses delivered at various times on a hill-side near Capernaum, and that con- tinuous series of parables occurring between the 9th and 19th chapters of Luke's Gospel, where we have probably the insertion of a similar collection,^ — the teachings of Christ, as preserved in the Synoptical Gospels, are remarkable for their occasional character and aphoristic form, always called forth by some casual incident or encounter in the course of his missionary 1 Matth. iii. 15 ; Mark i. 9 ; Luke iii. 21. " Matih. iv. 12, 17 ; Mark i. 14. Tlie same fact is indicated, though not so dis- tinctly, by Luke. Compare iii. 20 with v. 33 and vii, 18. 3 The limits of this series, Bishop Marsh, in his Essay on the Origin of the Three rirst Gcspels (ch.xvii.) has fixed more definitely between ix. 51 and xviii. 14. He supposed it to contain the substance of a yvwixoXoyia or " collection of sayings " pre- TiouBly in existence. "We find here some most beautiful parables peculiar to Luke STATEMENT OP THE QUESTION. d wanderings, and never expanding into any connected and lengthened argumentation. His first appeal was made, as lie himself says (Matth. x. 6; xv. 24), '^to the lost sheep of the house of Israel f and although in the narrative of Luke, which was written under Pauline influence, we discern already the working of a broader and more cosmopolitan principle, yet generally we may say, that throughout the Synoptical Gospels the teachings of Christ assume the Law and the Prophets as their basis, and are intended to bring out the deep spiritual significance that was hidden in them.^ The Three First Gospels divide the pubhc ministry of Christ into two distinctly mai'ked and broadly separated periods, — that which was passed in Galilee, and that which was passed in Jerusalem. The first of these periods is introduced by the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism by John ; the second, by the transfiguration, which has all the appearance of being a renewal and a re- enforcement of the original consecration at baptism." This dis- tribution of events into two periods, with the initiations of the i In Mattheiv (x. 5) Christ says expressly to the twelve ; " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.*' Luke, notwith- standing his mention of the refusal of some Samaritans to receive him into their village, "because his face was set to go to Jerusalem" (ix. 53), does not, however, represent him as limiting his instructions to the seventy by any such prohibition as Matthew puts into the commission of the twelve, and even tells us that, on hb way to Jerusalem, *'he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee" (xvii. 11). It is observable, moreover, that in the sections peculiar to Luke, the great lessons of human brotherhood and devout thankfulness are enforced by the example of a Samaritan (x. 33 ; xvii. 16). Yet Luke says, as distinctly as Matthew himself: " It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (xvi. 17). Nowhere in Luke do we meet with such strong and apparently such exclusive language as occurs in John: kyw tifii r) 9vpa t<2p 7rpo/3arw2/* Trdvreg offoi. ijXOov irpb t/xou, KXcTrrat iiffiv Ka'i XyffTCLi. (x. 7, 8). 2 The words on the two occasions are nearly identical in all three Evangelists : Matth. iii. 17, and xvii. 5 ; Mark i. 11, and ix. 7 ; Luke iii. 22, and ix. 35. The transfiguration marks the turning point of the synoptical narrative, and divides it into two sections which differ perceptibly in character and significance from each other. Only Simon Peter and the two sons of Zebedee are admitted to the trans- figuration, as best qualified of all the twelve to enter into the higher meaning and inevitable conditions of the Messianic office, which Jesus was now beginning more undisguiaedly to assume. About this period of his ministry, we find him for the first time speaking quite openly of his death and resurrection. Compare Matth xvi. 21 ; xvii. 12, 22, 23 ; Mark ix. 9-12 ; x. 33, 34 ; Luke ix. 31, 44, 45. 4 CHARACTliE OF THE F0I3RTH GOSPEL. baptism and the transfiguration severally prefixed to eachj marks with the strongest characters the common type of the synoptical conception of the pubhc ministry of Christ. In all these respects the Fourth Gospel stands out in decided contrast and contradiction to the Three First. It omits all mention of the baptism of Jesus by John. It represents John as saying at once^ on seeing the Spirit descend on Jesus^ " Be- hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world^'^ (i. 29j comp. 31-34) ; and Andrew, after his first interview with Jesus, declaring to his brother Peter, " we have found the Messias '' (i. 41) ; a declaration shortly afterwards repeated more at full by Philip to Nathaniel, ^^ We have found him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph ^^ (i. 45). Instead of postponing the com- mencement of Christ's ministry tiU John was cast into prison, the Fourth Evangelist describes it as subsisting for some time side by side with that of John^ — the two preachers baptizing together in the same neighbourhood (John iii. 22, 23). Instead of cautiously advancing his claims, and only towards the close of his ministry distinctly announcing himself as the Christ — Jesus, in the Fourth Gospel, from the very first reveals his high character and ofi&ce by an unreserved disclosure of the Divine Word that was incarnate in him, and engaged in open discussion respecting his claims to authority with the Jews at Jerusalem and elsewhere^ (John i. ii. iii.). In no instance is the difference between the synoptical and the Johannine narrative more strik- ingly exemplified, than in the position which they respectively assign to the expulsion of the money-changers from the Temple. The Fourth Gospel puts it at the opening of Christ^s ministry, on the occasion of the first Passover, — with a view, no doubt, to establish his prophetic authority from the first in the face of the Jews, and to give him at once the vantage-ground which ' Tliis is irreconcileaLle with the later inquiry of the Baptist, recorded by Matth. xi. 3, and Luke vii. 19,— "Art thou he that shoukl come, or do wc look for another ?" 2 Compare Matthew xvi. 20. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. O he is described as occupying in his subsequent controversy with them through the sequel of the history. The only wonder is, how at such a time, after such an act, he should have escaped alive out of the hands of his enemies ; especially when we re- member what befel him for not stronger language or more violent proceedings during his last visit to Jerusalem. The SynoptistSj* with certainly far more semblance of probability, place this transaction at the end of his pubUc life, after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when he had already acquired a wide-spread prophetic fame, and numbers believed in him, and he had an enthusiastic multitude at his back to support his claims. In the Three First Gospels we have the picture, exceed- ingly vivid and natural, of a great moral and religious reformer, cautiously making his way through the prejudices and miscon- ceptions of his contemporaries, gradually obtaining their confi- dence and changing the direction of their hopes, and only reaching the full climax of his personal influence in the period immediately preceding his death. In the Fourth, on the con- trary, the unclouded glory of the Son of God shines out com- plete from the first, and is sustained undiminished till the words '' It is finished " announce its withdrawal from earth — saved through the whole intervening period from the extinction which seems every moment to threaten it, by the mysterious protection indicated in the significant phrase peculiar to this gospel, " My hour is not yet come." Interwrought inextricably with the texture of the synoptical narrative we meet with records of healing and restorative agency, which forms a large part of the daily work of the prophet of Nazareth ; and amidst which the casting out of demons and unclean spirits holds a conspicuous place. Instead of this, the Fourth Gospel presents us with a selection of just seven miracles,^ intended apparently to furnish 1 The Germans use tlie word Synoptiher. But sijnoptio {uvvotttikoq) more pro- perly denotes the work than the author. There is sufficient authority for the Greek Tcrb oTTriZoj (see Liddell and Scott's Lexicon) to justify the adoption of so convenient a derivative as Sijnoptist, to express the collective writers of the Three Eirst Gospels. =* {l)ii. 6-11 ; (2)iv. 46-54 ; (3J v. 5-9; (4) vi. 11-14 ; (5) vi. 19-21 ; (6) ix. 1-12; (7) xi. 1-46. 5 CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. a specimen of the various modes and occasions of ClirisVs mira- culous working, and closing with the greatest instance of all — ■ the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Among these miracles not one case occurs of the cure of a demoniac^ though cures of this description might almost be described as the characteristic feature of the miraculous element of the Synoptists. For the pithy sayings and popular parables of the Three First Gospels, the Fourth substitutes long argumentative discourses, reiterating incessantly (as if the writer was labouring with the weight of thoughts which he could not at once adequately express), in words but slightly varied, the same absorbing idea ; at times apparently encountering forms of error and anticipating objec- tions which, if the synoptic narration be true, could hardly yet have come into existence. We have not here the varied, inter- woven miscellany of history and doctrine^ of miracle and para- ble, which the Three First Gospels so graphically present, but one smooth, continuous flow of exhortation and disputation poured through the length and breadth of the book, with a few most exquisite narratives interspersed, standing out like islets of rare beauty in the broad expanse of some quiet lake. Instead of confining the earlier part of Christ^s ministry, with the Synoptists, exclusively to Galilee, and bringing him up for only one Passover to Jerusalem, when he met his fate, — the Fourth Gospel represents him as dividing his time almost equally from the first between Galilee and Jerusalem, and attending two if not three Passovers in the Holy City.'^ It must be obvious, I think, to every one who has carefully gone through the foregoing comparison, that the old theory which so long found favour in the Church, of John^s having written his gospel to fill up and complete the earlier three, does not meet the actual conditions of the case.^ John^s is not so ^ There is no uncertainty about two Passovers — those mentioned ii. 13, and xiii. 1. From comparing vi. -i with vii. 2, we know that a Passover must have inter- vencd,- which vii. 1 renders it probable Jesus had attended. 2 This theory was first broached by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 24), who says, " that John was induced to write, having previously confined himself aypa^qj icrj^vyi^ari, by ob- serving that the Three First Evangelists — the correctness of whose actual narrative he STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. 7 much anotlier, as in one sense a different gospel.^ It is im- possible to harmonize the two forms of the narrative. One excludes the other. If the Three First Gospels represent Christ^s pubhc ministry truly, the Fourth cannot be accepted as simple, reliable history. If we assume the truth of the Fourth, we must reject on some fundamental points the evidence of the Three First. The question is, which of these two narratives are we to take as our guide, and accept as authentic for the main facts of the life of Jesus ? Must we control the state- ments of the Synoptists by those of John, or those of John by the Synoptists ? The decision of this question will be followed by consequences of some moment. It will affect our whole con- ception of the person and doctrine of Christ ; modify to some extent our view of the religion origiually taught by himself; and must doubtless contribute to the settlement of some contro- confirmed — bad omitted all notice of Christ's public ministry previous to the imprison- ment of the Baptist, and had thu5 made it last but one year. It was this omission wh ich he specially proposed to supply ; and the simple recognition of this fact Eusebius thought sufficient to bring the Four Gospels into perfect harmony: olgKol iTrKjrrjaavridvKkTL dv So^at 8taipwv£iv dWijXoig ra evayysXia, rt^ to fiev Kara ^lojdvvrjv rd TrptHra twv rov XpiffTov Trpd^eojv 7r£piE;:^£ti', rd dk Xonrd ttjv bwl TtXsi rov ;^poj/oi' avT(^ yey€V7}fj.ivr]v 'nTTopLav.{13.) How superficial and inadequate this solution of the diffi- culty is, the foregoing comparison will show. Jerome (de Vir. III. i. 9) has copied this explanation of Eusebius, with still looser application to the facts of the case. Clement of Alexandria (cited by Eusehius, H.E. vi. 14) has suggested another theoiy, viz., "That whereas the three earlier gospels contained the corporeal side of the history (rd ffojfiaTiKa), John, at the earnest request of his friends, and under the influence of the Spirit, produced a spiritual gospel." (7.) This theory, rightly understood, is nearer the truth than that of Eusebius. When all the four gospels got a place in the canon, and the difference between the Fourth and the Three First was still undeniable, it was thought necessary to devise some mode of recon- ciling them, which should leave the historical authority of each untouched. The assumption of this necessity prevented, as it still prevents, the discoveiy of the true relation between them. 1 I do not think this language too strong for the particular fact which it is in- tended to express ; but I must not be understood as meaning to deny the uUimate ascription of all the gospels, the Fourth not less than the Three First, to a common spiritual source in Christ himself. Indeed, apart from the pre-supposition of some great spiritual power which had come into the world, quickening into intenser life the kindred elements of humanity, and diffusing among men a new religious awaken- ing far beyond the limits of its own living presence on earth, the origin of a work like the Fourth Gospel \iould be to me a still more inexplicable enigma than even the simpler narrative of the Synojitists. 8 CHAEACTEB OP THR FOURTH GOSPEL. versies whicli have long hopelessly divided Christendom. The question, therefore^ to the investigation of which the following pages are devoted, is not one of mere speculative and critical interest without obvious result, but carries with it a grave and practical import. To the early existence of the substance, at least, of two of our synoptical gospels — those of Matthew and ]\Iark — we have direct and very early, if not contemporary, testimony -j^ and Luke^s preface bears witness to the care which he took in sifting and tracing to their source, the various tradi- tions which he found current respecting the life of Jesus. All three agree in the main outlines of their narrative ; their style is marked with a strong character of simplicity and naturalness ; and their very differences attest the presence of some great underlying historical reality, which different traditions had variously caught up, and transmitted through divers media of conception and realization to those who first put the history into writing. Against such obvious claims to general trust on the part of the Synoptical Gospels, we ought to possess the most unanswerable evidence of direct apostolic origin, to supersede them as historical authorities by a book — in which all the traces of primitive tradition, even the characteristic words of the great Teacher himself, seem dissolved and washed away in the sweeping tide of the writer's own thought — where doctrine, not history, has evidently been the animating impulse. 1 In the fragments of Pfipias preserved by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 39). See also Routh's Reliquise Sacrse, Tom. i. p. 7 seq. Papias declared, he had conversed with those who had conversed with the apostles. SECTION II. On thG^ossihilifjj of the Fourth Oosj^el andthe A]^>ocahjpsG having the same author. In the New Testament are two booksj eacli of which has been ascribed by tradition^ and a certain amount of early testimony, to the apostle John — the Fourth Gospel and the Apocaly^^se. Can both of these have been the production of the same mind ? The settlement of that preliminary question has a direct bearing on the determination of the authenticity of either. It has been urged by those who aflB.rm the identity of authorship, that the difference of style and manner and under- lying tone of thought, which is perceptible on the most cursory reading, between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel, is simply the difference between a young and an old mind — between the sensuous -^e and briUancy of a yet unsubdued imagination, and the serener light of a spirit mellowed by years and experience.^ This explanation seems plausible, till we look more narrowly into the natm-e and grounds of the difference between the two writers. For it is a difference not resolvable into any conceivable amount of progressive development out of a common mental root, but a difference so marked and so characteristic as to imply a radical distinctness in origin. The writer of the Apocalypse has a mind essentially objective. He realizes his conceptions through vision. He transports himself ' Longinus explained on this ground the difference between the Hiad and the Odyssey, without doubting for a moment, that both were the production of Horaer. The Iliad was the fruit of his mature genius (bv uKfiy Trvevfiaroi; ypatftofikvi]), the Odyssey of his age— y^pac 5'o/iwg(he adds with graceful rhetoric) 'Ofjrjpov. (De Sublim. ix.) Modern criticism has not, however, ratified his judgment. 10 CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. into an imaginary worlds and speaks as if it were constantly present to his sense — introducing its ever-sLifting scenes by "I saw/' " I looked/' '^ heard/' '' I stood." His colouring is warm and gorgeous^ and his lights and shadows are broadly contrasted. His whole book is pervaded with the glow^ and breathes the vehement and fierce spirit, of the old Hebrew prophecyj painting vividly to the mental eye^ but never appeal- ing directly to the spiritual perception of the soul. When we tm^n to the Fourth Grospel^ we find ourselves at once in another atmosphere of thought, full of deep yearnings after the unseen and eternal, ever soaring into a region which the imagery of things visible cannot reach ; even in its descriptions marked by a certain contemplative quietness, as if it looked at things without from the retired depths of the soul within. It exhibits but a slight tinge of Hebraic objectiveness, and throughout seems striving to express its sense of spiritual realities in the more abstract phraseology which the wide diffusion of Hellenic culture had rendered current in the world at the commencement of the Christian era. It has been said, indeed, that both writers are distinguished by a remarkable power of objective presentation. In a certain sense this is true. But in how different a way is it shown ? Compare, for instance, the awful description of the effect of opening the sixth seal, and that ghastly procession of the horses which precedes it, in the Apocalypse (vi. 12-17 and 1-8), where every word vibrates, as it were, with the throbbing pulse of an excited imagination, — and that marvellously graphic story of the man born blind, or the exquisite pathos with which the raising of LazarTis is narrated, in the Fourth Gospel (ix. and xi.), where all is so clear and yet so calm and still, as if the writer had looked the fading traditions of the past into distinctness, as enthusiasts for art have been said by dint of gazing to caU back into their original vividness the decaying colours and crumbling outlines of the Last Supper of Da Yinci on the wall of the refectory at Milan. We at once recognise in the authors P0T7RTH GOSrEL AND APOCALYPSE. 11 of the Apocalypse and tlie Gospel a genius essentially distinct.^ The language of the two writers is as different as their cha- racteristic modes of conception and thought. The style of the Apocalypse is perfectly barbarous — Hebrew done into Greek, with a constant violation of the most ordinary laws of con- struction.^ The Greek of the Fourth Gospel, without being classical, is still fluent, perspicuous, and grammatical. Some diversity of style, it is true, might be expected in the two works, owing to the different subjects of which they treat, even supposing them to have come from the same hand. But there are certain little peculiarities of expression and con- 1 This power of objective presentation, by ■which a scene is brought up distinctly before the reader's mind, has been assumed too readily as an evidence of autopsy. Unless supported by other testimony, it proves nothing but the peculiar genius of the ■writer — his way of realizing to himself the events which he has to record. How ex- tremely vivid, how true, how real, are many of the descriptions in the book of Genesis, in Homer, and in Herodotus ! We seem to see with our own eyes what they narrate. The men and women actually live and speak before us. Yet we know, that nothing but tradition, which lives through its very vividness, could have furnished the material of these stories. The oldest traditions in the world are the most picturesque. Tradition naturally produces vivid and picturesque narration. It is easy to per- ceive why it must be so. When men have a strong interest to throw their thoughts backward, and try to reproduce the vanished past, imagination is the faculty by which they arrest, and combine, and shape into definite form, and animate with a kind of secondary reality, the vague and floating rumours which dimly envelope their minds. The critical sifting of evidence is a process as yet unknown and inconceivable. The more distinct the picture which they can make out of their materials, the stronger is their assurance that it represents the ti-iith. They accept it as a divine inspira- tion. For memory and imagination have hardly as yet acquired a distinct exercise. All early tradition is poetry. Mnemosyne was the mother of the Muses. When Homer is about to lay some unusual stress on his memory, as in the recital of the forces which came to the war of Troy, he invokes the Muses. "EaTTere vvv fioi, Moucrai ^OXv^Tria Sw^ut^ Exov(Tai' ^Yfieig yap Qeai i(TTB^ Trdpeffre rf, ttm te TvavTa, 'HjueT^ 5k kXeoc olov dicovofiEVj ovSk n iSftev^ B. 484-6. Comparealso A. 21S. The power under given circumstances still operates in the heart of modem civilization. Sir Walter Scott has thus described in his own felicitous manner the marvellously reproductive faculty of Old Mortality. " One would have almost supposed he must have been their contemporary, and have actually beheld the passages which he related, so much had he identified his feelings and opinions with theirs, and so much had his narrations the circumstantiality of an eye-witness.*' Ch. I. " Vetustas res scribenti ncscio quo pacto antiquus fit animus, et qusedam religio tenet." Liv. Hist, xliii. 13(15). - Dionysius of Alexandria (Enseb. H. E. vii. 25) describes it as lSiu)^aci fili/ Bap^apiKOiQ ^()(j)fiETov, Kai ttov Kal (ToXottcf'^oiTrt. 12 CIIARACTEE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. struction^ clinging to the inmost texture of an author's style^ and resnlting from the very make and working of his own mind, which imprint themselves on everything that he writes, and the presence or absence of which supplies an unfailing criterion of authenticity. Such peculiarities in the Fourth Grospel are, among others, its constant use of "va with the con- junctive for the ordinary construction with the infinitive — its fondness for ovv as a connecting link in narration, and its employment of oSroc and kKslvog with a singular union of demonstrative and relative force. These peculiarities are wholly wanting in the Apocalypse.^ Some have insisted on the wide interval that probably separated the appearance of the two works, as affording time sufficient for a gradual change of views and the acquirement of a more complete mastery of the Greek language. The most probable date for the composition of the Apocalypse must be placed somewhere between 60 and 70 a.d. — the reign of Galba, and the destruction of Jerusalem.^ Now, supposing John to have been not more than 18 or 20 when he joined the ministry of Jesus, he must have been close upon 50, at the very least, when the Apocalypse was written — a time of life when men's views and habits of thought and expression are for the most part permanently fixed. If he wrote his Gospel, as is usually maintained, in extreme old age, at the very close of the century, this would leave an interval of little more than thirty years between the composition of the two works, I do not hesitate to say, that so complete a transformation of the whole genius of a writer between mature life and old age, as is implied in the supposition that John could be the author at once of the Apocalypse and the Gospel, is without a precedent in ' De Wette has given a full recital of the peculiarities of expression which dis- tinguish the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse from each other. (Einleit. ins N.T. § 105, c. b. § 189, b. c. d). 2 Ewald (Comra. in Apocal. § 7), De Wette (Einl. N.T., § 187), Lucke (Einl. § 67), Bleek (Beitr. p. 81) agree substantially in this date, which cames internal probability along with it. Newton put it as far back as the reign of Nero. Ircnxus carried it forward to tbe end of the reign of Doraitian. FOXTRTH GOSPEL AND APOCALYPSE. 13 tlie history of the huraan mindj and seems to me to involve a psychological impossibility. The case may be illustrated to the English reader from our own literature. Two of our greatest poets passed through remarkable mental changes. Milton^s earliest and latest poems are separated by the chasm of the civil wars ; and the stern Puritanism of the Samson Agonistes^ with the severity of its Hellenic form^ is strikingly distinguished from the joyous^ romantic spirit and the cavalier-like appreciation of every- thing graceful and gay, which pervade the Comus and the Arcades, many of his early sonnets, and those exquisite pendents, L^ Allegro and II Penseroso. Dryden underwent mutations more extraordinary still. He began life as a Puritan, and passing through the intermediate stage of Anglicanism, ended his days in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The Hind and Panther, in which he justified this last change, breathes, as may be supposed, a very different spirit from the lines in which he bewailed the death of Cromwell. Yet, if we compare the poems written at the opposite ends of the lives of these great men — notwithstanding the revolution of thought and feehng which came over them in the interval — every mind that has any sense of mental characteristics, will at once perceive that it is dealing at bottom with the same individual genius ; — that it is a case of growth and development, not of original difference ; — and will feel it to be utterly impossible that, even had they passed through changes of opinion more radical still, Milton could ever have written the Hind and Panther or the Veni Creator, and Dryden, the Paradise Lost or Samson Agonistes. No living writer has exhibited a more remarkable change of style in the course of his literary career than Mr. Carlyle ; yet, if we compare his Life of Schiller with his French Eievolution or his History of Frederic the Great — notwithstanding the great disparity of form — every reader of ordinary discernment will recognize the same fundamental characteristics of his peculiar genius in his eailier and his later 14 CHARACTER OF THE FOURTn GOSPEL. works. Apply this standard to the two books now under con- sideration ; and the conclusion will be irresistibloj that if the Apostle John be the author of the Apocalypse^ he cannot have written the Grospel : if he wrote the Gospel^ he cannot be the author of the Apocalypse. — We hare next, then, to inquire what is the tenour of early testimony on this point. Does it speak most decidedly in favour of the authenticity of the Gospel or of the Apocalypse ? Before adducing this testimony, it will be well to consider, in the first place, what is the im- pression conveyed to us, by the New Testament and the oldest ecclesiastical traditions, of the spirit and character of the Apostle John, and to compare it with the contents of the two books which bear his name. We shall thus be furnished with an additional criterion of the probability of his being the author of tbe one or the other. 15 SECTION m. Notices of the Apostle John in the Neiu Testament and the oldest ecclesiastical traditions. In citing tlie collective evidence of the New Testament on the character of the Apostle John^ we mnst^ of course^ exclude^ in the first instance^ such as might be furnished by the two books which are the subject of comparison ; since our purpose is to decide on the claims of each to a specific authorship, by testimony which is external to them both. This is the more necessary, as the popular conception of the Apostle, which has been invested with a kind of halo by religious poetry and art, and which influences the mind almost unconsciously in the question of authorship, is mainly derived from the Fourth Gospel itself. We gather from the synoptic narrative, that John was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, a Galileean fisherman of some substance on the Lake of Gennesaret — of whom we hear little, and who probably died soon after the con- version of his family. With their mother Salome, the two sons, James and John, appear to have shared enthusiastically in the Messianic hopes which were then rife and stirring throughout Palestine. It was probably the ardour of their religious temperament which attracted the notice of Jesus, drew him into close intimacy with them, and induced him to bestow on them the significant title of Sons of Thunder.^ Their nobler qualities were not, however, unmingled with the carnal and selfish aspirings of the popular Messianic faith, and with some fierceness of Jewish intolerance; and these tendencies were encouraged by their mother, who, on one ^ We learn this fact from Mark alone (iii. 1 7). He had it probably direct from Peter. 16 CHAKACTER OF THE FOURTH UOSPEL. occasion, preferred a particular request to our Lord that her sons might fill the two most conspicuous places in his future kingdom. (Matth. xx. 21 ; Mark x. 35.)^ It was the same two brothers who^ on the refusal of some Samaritans to admit Jesus and his followers into theii- village, were for invoking fire from heaven^ in the spirit of Elijah, to consume them, and received the significant rebuke, that their master^s mission was not to destroy, but to save. (Luke ix. 54-56.) Of John it is specially remarked by two of the evangelists (Mark ix. 38, 39; Luke ix. 49, 50), that about the same time, when he saw one casting out devils in Christ's name, he forbade him because he was not of their company; and how he was again reproved by Christ for his exclusiveness. It should be observed that these instances of intolerance occur when the brethren were no longer recent converts, towards the close of Christ^s ministry on his last journey to Jerusalem.^ Notwithstanding their infirmities, which were, perhaps, inseparable from their mental constitution, Jesus shewed his appreciation of their higher nature by admitting the sons of Zebedee, with Simon Peter, into closer familiarity with his inmost thoughts than the rest of the twelve. They were with him during the transfiguration (Matth. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2 ; Luke ix. 28). They, with Andrew and Peter, asked him privately, as he sate on the Mount of Olives, fronting the Temple, when and how the destruction of the city should be (Mark xiii. 3). John is sent with Peter to prepare the Passover (Luke xxii. 8). The same three are again present during the agony on Gethsemane (Matth. xxvi. 37 ; Mark xiv. 33). There is no further notice of the sons of Zebedee in the Synoptical Gospels ; but their mother, Salome, is mentioned among the women who waited on Jesus to the last — watching him as he expired on the cross, and after his burial bringing sweet spices to the sepulchre. (Matth. ' Luke has omitted all notice of this request, and of the indignation which it ex- cited in the minds of the ten. '■* Luckc has called attention to this fact. (Comment. Evang. Johan. § 2), HISTOEICAL NOTICES OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 17 xxvii. 56 ; Mark xy, 40^ xvi. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 66^ xxiv. 1.) Her deep lore and trust were unshaken by the great and terrible catastrophe which bad blighted her earlier expectations. Doubt- less, she had hoped with the two disciples who walked to Emmaus, " that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel." (Luke xxiv. 21.) When we get into the apostolic age, after the death of Jesus, we find John actively engaged with Peter in building up the primitive church in Jerusalem. The two names are cor- stantly associated through the earlier chapters of the book of Acts. How essentially Jewish in spirit their ministry was, we learn from the question proposed to the risen Jesus, with which they opened it : '*" Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?" (Acts i. 6) and from the course of action by which it was followed. When a persecution broke out against the more liberal movement originated by Stepheii, and those who shared in it were scattered abroad, it is remark- able that the apostles were left undisturbed in Jerusalem, as though it did not affect them.^ Again, after Samaria had been converted by Philip, one of Stephen^s followers,^ it is signi- ficant, that Peter and John, induced probably by a sort of con- servative precaution, go over the same ground, with the view, as it would seem, of correcting or neutralizing any mischievous efiPects that might have resulted from Philip-'s preaching.^ For it deserves notice, that, at this period, numbers of the Pharisees, changing the tactics which they had pursued in the life-time 1 The exccptionin the case of the apostles is expressed in the most decided manner: Travreg dteinrapjjaav — 7rXi)v rwv aTrooToXwr (Acts viii. 1). The author, writing from a later point of view, and witli the evident purpose, as his whole book shows, of reconciling the Petrine and Pauline tendencies of the primitive church, is betrayed into apparent inconsistency. He.says a great persecution attacked r-ifv Uic'Xrjaiav rrjv fv 'lepoffoXi'rjutnc (using the word hicKXijaia in its broader ultimate sense), and yet represents the acknowledged heads of that church as untouched by it. ^ Acts vi. 5 ; Comp. xxi. 8. 3 Acts viii. 5-13 (preaching of Philip with the baptism of Simon) ; ibid. 14-25 (preaching of Peter and John, with refusal of the Holy Spirit to Simon, for offering money); Acts viii. 26-40 (preachingof Philip along the coast of the Mediterranean) ; ix, 32-43 (preacliing of Peter through the same district). 2 18 CHAEACTER OF THE FOtJRTH GOSPEL. of Christy appear to have prudently sided witli tlie new re- ligion, wh-icli was already making way with the multitude, and to have now tried to influence its counsels and im^Due it with their own narrow spirit.^ There is not a trace in the history of John^s haying ever taken any part or shown any sympathy with the liberal movements either of Stephen or of Paul. On the contraryj all subsisting evidence from the book of Acts goes to show, that John was closely connected with the Jewish party, who formed, it should be recollected, the original nucleus of believers at Jerusalem. Of his brother James, so constantly associated with him in the gospel narrative, we hear nothing, except that he was put to death by Herod — very possibly in consequence of some opposition raised by his Messianic zeal to the Hellenizing tendencies of the king (xii. 2).^ "When Paul went up the second time to Jerusalem, to confer with the apostles about the treatment of heathen converts, he found John there (as he tells us himself, Gal. ii. 9) — associated with Peter, whose irresolution and fearfulness about the vexed question of eating with Gentiles he so sharply reproves — and with James the Less, the recognised head of the Jewish party and their first bishop, — enjoying with them the distinction of being considered " a pillar" of the church, and not occupying, be it observed, a neutral position, but thrust into conspicuous prominence as one of the acknowledged chiefs of the then Jewish Church, whose mission was exclusively to the circum- 1 See especially Acts xv. 5, Comp. vi. 7, and the part taken by Gamaliel in the Sanhedrim, y. 34-39. The Sadduceea were now the great open opponents of Christianity. 2 It has been objected (National Review, No. ix. Art. v. p. 112) that the subordinate position which John occupies in relation to Peter throughout the earlier chapters of Acts, is inconsistent with the supposition of his being a leadino- member of the Jewish pai-ty at Jenisalem, and the author of the Apocalypse, which so yividly reflects its spirit. But the fact is easily explained, If we keep in mind the evident principle of the construction of the book of Acts— that of balancing and harmonizing the rival claims of Peter and Paul— which made it impossible to put any one on the same level with Peter in the first part of the history. It is sufficient for our purpose to remark that everywhere in Acts, John is closely associated with the Jewish party. HISTORICAL NOTICES OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 19 cision.^ So far^ then^ as tlie New Testament throws any light on the character and history of the Apostle John^ it exhibits him as a Jewish Christian. This conclusion is remarkably con- firmed by a passage in Iren^us^ referring to this very conference with Paul at Jerusalem — which may be thus translated: "the apostles themselves^ by raising the question whether disciples ought still to be circumcised or not^ clearly showed that they still worshipped the Grod of their fathers^^ — aiid^ therefore^ by implication still observed the old law.^ The book of Acts (iv. 1 3), in speaking of Peter and John^ describes them as "un- lettered and unlearned men"^ — that is, as persons who had not, like Paul, been trained iu the higher rabbinical discipline, and who might thereby have acquired some tincture of Hellenic culture, but who merely possessed such rudiments of Hebrew education as could be furnished by an ordinary Galilsean school attached to the synagogue- John's name never once occurs in the latter half of Acts. On Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, at the end of his third missionary journey, not later than 60 a.b. — both he and Peter would seem to have been away ; as only James the Less is mentioned (sxL 18). Had they been in the ^ There is a latent irony in Paul's language, — 6l Sokovvt€q (ttvXol — as though he did not recognise tliem as such himself^ from tlieir failure to perceive tlie breadth of the foundations of the true gospel. 2 The passage exists only in the Latin version, " Tpsi autem (/.€. th=e apostks at Jerusalem, including John) ex eo quod cpasrerenfc : an oporteret circumcidi adhuc discipulos necne, manifeste ostenderunt, non hahuisse se alterius Dei conterapla- tionena" (Iren. adv. Httr. III. xii. 14). To apprehend the complete force of this passage, we must notice its place in the argument of Irenaeus. He is replying to the Gnostics, who contended that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the Christians. To refute them, he appeals to the practice of ths apostles themselves, who, after their conversion, still observed the usages of the Jewish law. That this in his meaning, is clear from what he adds in the next section : " Hi circa Jacobum apostoli gentibus quidem libere agere permittebant, concedentes nos Spirltui Dei : ipsi vero eundem scientes Deam, perseverahant in pristmis observationihus." The sense of the whole passage is well given by Stieren : ' ' Ipsi legis prseceptis satisfacere anxie studebant, quum lis persuasum esset, Deum legis et evangelii esse unum eun- demque." Liicke expresses himself more strongly than 1 have ventured to do : " So lange Johannes in Jerusalemwar,meintlren£eus, habe er mit den iibrigen Aposteln das mosaische Gesetz noch streng beobacbtet" (Comment. § 2, p. 16, 2te Aufl.). 20 CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL, city, it is Hardly conceivable, how persons of such eminence should not have taken part in the proceedings on so important an occasion, and how, if they had been present, it should not have been noticed. When John finally quitted Jerusalem, and to what place he immediately transferred his residence, there are no data extant for determining. Dr. Lardner (Works, vi. p. 170) andDe Wette (Einl. N. T. § 108 a. b.) agree in thinking it not unlikely, that the apostle removed into Asia on the break- ing out of th^ war in Judea. This in itself would appear not improbable ; but we have just seen that he could not have been in Jerusalem as late as 60 a.d. — and connected as he was with the Jewish party, he could hardly have settled at Ephesus, till the influence of Panics ministry there had ceased. On the other hand, the imprisonment of that apostle for two years at Csesarea (Acts xxiv. 27), and his subsequent removal to E,ome, may have separated him so completely from the Asiatic churches, as to leave room for the planting of another church on the ground originally broken up by him. Some have doubted whether John ever resided at Ephesus at all. But the tradition of antiquity seems to be too clear, constant and uniform to admit of such entii^e scepticism. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in the latter half of the second century, in a letter to Victor of Borne on the paschal controversy, says distinctly that John described particularly as 6 Itti to orfi^oc rov Kvpiov ava'ire See Rettig (Theologische Studien und Kritiken, for 1831, p. 769) who cites the Chronicon Paschale as his authority, and notices the coincidence of this date "with that of the accession of his successor in Hierapohs, furnished from an independent source. '*= Ov yap TO, BK Tutv /3t/3\iw^' rotjovrov fit utptKtlv viriKa^x^avov, oaov to. Tzapa ^wffjjt; 0wv^c K«^ fiEvovffijQ. Jip. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. 3 Rettig (ubi supr.) has determined the limits of their literary activity by a very exhaustive process of reasoning, as fuHingsomewhcrc between 470 a.d. and theopening years of the sixth century. TESTIMONIES TO THE APOCALYPSE. 29 book of Papias they produce this testimony^ nor furnish any evidence of his opinion respecting authorship. When Papias wrotCj inspiration and credibility did not necessarily imply an apostoHc source. They simply intimated- that^ in the judgment of the writer, the work was imbued with an apostolic spirit^ and felt to be conducive to faith and edification. But re- moteness and indirectness of allusion is not the only cir- cumstance which detracts from the value of this testimony. EusebiuSj who was familiar with the writings of Papias^ and has quoted from them at some lengthy never once alludes to anything that he had written on the Apocalypse. This is the more remarkable, as he was much interested in the subject, and would have been glad, it might be thought, of some early testimony to fix his opinions respecting it ; as he vacillated, we know, in his views of the authorship of the Apocalypse, and was half inclined to ascribe it to the presbyter John.^ In consequence of too much having been made of this slight and indirect testimony of Papias, and the groundless assumption that he must have written a commentary on the Apocalypse, which has perished,- — there has been perhaps a not unnatural tendency on the other side to depreciate it below its actual worth. It is not at all improbable, that Papias may have alluded to and cited the Apocalypse in the only work which we know him to have written, his '^ Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord" (Xojiwv KvpiuKi^v £^i77>)<7££c) ; nor does there seem any reason to i-eject the cautious inference of Rettig, that possibly Papias ascribed the book to a John, perhaps even John the Divine, without our being thereby justified in assuming that Papias claimed the apostle as its author.^ To Papias we may, ' H. E. iii. 39, p. 283. Tom. i. ed. Heinichen. 2 The whole question of the value of this testimony of Papias, contained in the ■writings of the two Cappadocian bishops, especially in its bearing on the authenticity of the Apocalypse, has been discussed with great thoroughness and impartiality by Rettig, in the article already referred to in the " Theologische Studien und Kritiken." I think, however, he attaches too much weight to the silence of Eusebius. It is quite evident, that the historian thoroughly disliked the chiliastic notions of Papias, and did not know what to make of their seeming to be sanctioned by a book so old and of 30 CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. perliaps^ add the still earlier testimony of Clement of Eome^ who^ in a passage of his first epistle to the Corinthians^ appears to me distinctly to allude to^ if he does not actually cite^ the Apocalypse.^ Our next testimony is more direct and explicit. It is that of Justin Martyr^ whose period of literary activity occurs between 139 and 160 a.d., and the time of whose death is assigned by Semischj following the Chronicon Paschale^ to the year 166.^ He was a contemporary^ thereforcj of Papias. Justin was born aheathen at Flavia Neapolisj the ancient Sychem, in Samaria^ and was conyerted to Christianity, it has been supposed, at Ephesus, where the scene of his celebrated dialogue with the Jew Trypho is laid. It is certain that he passed the latter years of his life in Eome, where he suffered martyrdom. From the places with which the few notices of his personal history are associated, it is evident that he must have been familiar with the traditions which were then current among the Christians, and at Ephesus with those more particularly which related to the apostle John. To him also we are indebted for the account such high traditional authoritj as the Apocalypse. He was one of that class of philo- sophical Christians (in his time rapidly increasing under the influence of « court), who, like the Alexandrine Jews under the Ptolemies, had grown ashamed of the homely and popular faith of their forefathers. I can hardly doubt, that he would have taken, if he could, from the Apocalypse the credit of an apostolic source: and had he found any clear indication in Papias, that it had been written by the presbyter John, or any other John than the apostle, it is difficult to believe, that he would not have men- tioned it If any inference can be drawn from the silence of Eusebius,it seems to me as much in favour of Papias's attesting the apostolic origin of the book, as against it. The passages from Andreas and Arethas about Papias are cited by Kirchhof er (Quel- lensammlung zur Gesch. d, N. T. Canons xxxiii. Papias). See his note on them, p. 300. * The passage runs thus (I. ad Cor, xxxiv.), and has a close verbal agreement with Apocal. xxii. 12: TrpoXeytirffuV (a form of scriptural citation) i8ov 6 Rvpiog^ kuI 6 fiiffBog avTOu irpb TrpoaoJTTOV ahrov^ airo^ovvai tKaffrtp Kara, rh epyov avrov. There may in both writers be a remoter reference to the LXX. Isaiah xl. 10, and Ixii. 11, But it is remarkable, that Clement and the Apocalypse much riiore nearly resemble each other, especially in the concluding words of the sentence, than either of them Isaiah. I cannot but think the passage furnishes a proof that the Apocalypse was known and read in the time of Clement. The death of Clement is usually placed about 100 A.D. If my inference be correct, this is the oldest witness to the exis- tence of the Apocalypse as a part of Scripture. 2 Otto (de Justin. Martyr. Scriptis ct Doctrinn, p. 6), following the same authority, puts it at 165 A.D. TESTIMONIES TO THE APOCALYPSE. 31 — still circulating in Samaria wlien lie was young — of tlie kind of rural industry in wHcb the early years of Jesus had been engaged.^ Although^ therefore^ the testimony of Justin re- presents^ after all^ only a tradition^ it was^ it must be re- memberedj a fresh and living tradition. In the Dialogue with Trypho (c, 81) we find the following passage. Justin is argu- ing with the Jew in support of the evidence which his own Scriptures furnished — especially the prophets, Ezekiel and Isaiah — on behalf of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and of the reign of a thousand years on earth with Christ — and against those false Christians, as he regarded them, who denied that doctrine, and contended for the immediate transition of the soul at death into the heavenly world.^ He then, as it were, clenches his argument by adducing the direct evidence of a Christian himself in these words : '"'' Among us, too, a certain man named John, one of the apostles of Ghristj in a revelation made to him, prophesied that the believers in our Christ should fulfil a thousand years in Jerusalem — and that after that, there would be the general and final resurrection and judgment of all men together." This language is so express, that Eettig, under the influence of pre-conceived theory, was disposed to reject the words, eTc twv aTrooroXtov rov Xjoto-rov, as a later interpolation. Liicke, who agrees with Rettig respecting the authorship of the Apocalypse, has shown that such criticism is indefensible ; and Eusebius, whose tendencies run all in the same direction, admits that Justin distinctly affirms John the apostle to have written the Apocalypse.^ This explicit testi- mony deserves the more notice, as it is the only passage in the works of Justin, where any book of the New Testament is cited with the name of its author. ^ ra T^KTOviK^ ^97^ — dporpa Kai t,vya. Dial. u. Tryph. c. 88. 2 liiia T(^ airoOvrjUKetv raf ^vxdg dvaXafifidvEffOai sig rbv ovpavov. It should be noticed here, that Chiliasm in the age of Justin was orthodoxy ; and that the view of the Puture Life entertained in later centuries by Channing and others, was then considered not merely heresy, but an absolute denial of Christianity : pj) ii7roXa/3j)r£ avTOVQ XptdTiavovQ. (c. 80.) ^ H. E. iv. 18. ffar)T(I}v TrepL Tov ^wrripo^ koI 7ra<7rjQ rric; TrtoTEWc VfJ-i^v. Easeb. ibid.) — actually travelling into the East for fuller information, and to familiarize himself with the scene of the old prophetic action and preaching. Polycrates, who flourished a little later at Ephesas, speaks of him as leading a singularly ascetic and holy life {tov iifvov^ov, TOV sv aylio irv^vfiaTi iravTa TToXiTavcrafj-^vov* Euseb. H. E. V. 24). Putting all these indications together, we may perhaps not unreasonably conclude, that Melito adhered to the primitive type of the Christian faith, and was anti-Pauline in his tendencies ; that he was a Chiliast, like most of his con- temporaries in that part of Asia, and possibly, as we seem to gather from the description of his asceticism, inclined to the Ebionitism, of which James the Just, the firstbishop of Jerusalem, is the standing ecclesiastical type. He represents, therefore, the class of minds among which the Apocalypse would be sure to find a welcome reception ; which cherished its peculiar doctrine, and accepted it with reverence as an authoritative expression of apostolic truth. So far as it goes, his witness may be allowed 1 It is mentioned in a liat of several otliei* works ascribed to liim (Euseb, H. E. iv. 2G). TESTIMONIES TO THE APOCALYPSE. 33 to contribute its atom of probability to the director evidence of the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse. At all events^ it throws no weight into the opposite scale. ^ We learn from Eusebius (H. E. iv. 24) that Theophilus of Antioch (author of the treatise "To Autolycus") in a work (now lost) in reply to the heresy of Hermogenes, had cited witnesses from the Apocalypse of John.^ This Hermogenes appears to have been an anti-Montanist ; if so^ he was opposed to the doctrines contained in the Apocalypse. Theophilus must, therefore, have cited the book against him, as a New Testament authority already widely acknowledged; and this justifies us in assuming that it was at that time received and respected, not only by Theophilus himself, but in the church of Antioch generally. Such is the inference of Liicke, no partial witness (Einl. Offenb. Johan. § 37. 2.), who further thinks it probable that Theophilus, with Justin Martyr, regarded the apostle John as its author. In the last instance, we saw the Apocalypse alleged probably against an anti-Montanist. In the next, we find it used by an anti-Montanist himself. Apollonius, who flourished in the reign of Commodus and Septimius Severus, wrote a very strong treatise against the Phrygian or Montanist heresy, in which we are told by Eusebius (H. E. v. 18) that "he made use of witnesses from the Apocalypse of John.^'' As, in imme- diate connexion with this statement, we are told that he gives an account of John^s having raised, by divine power, a person from the dead in Ephesus, the probability is that Apollonius must have meant by John, the apostle. Had he intended any other John, Eusebius would certainly have noticed it. The fifth book of Eusebius^s Ecclesiastical History (1-3) contains the celebrated letter of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia (whence they had ' Tlie subsisting fragments of Melito have been collected by Routh, Eeliquioe Sacra, Tom. I. p, 113-153. 2 Theophilus flourished in the reign of Marcus Aurelias, 161 a.d.; — 180 a.d. 3 34 CHAEACTER OF THE FOUKTH GOSPEL. originally emigrated to the banks of tlie Ehone), giving an account of the dreadful persecution whicli they had undergone in the reign of Marcus Aurelius^ al)out 177 a.d. Now^ in this letter not only are characteristic phrases literally quoted from the Apocalypse — e.g., aKoXovOwv n^ opviw ottov av viraytj (xiv. 4) — but Christ himself is called TTfo-roc kui a\i}9ivi)^ fxaprvq, TTpuiTOTOKOQ Twv v^KpCjv (1. 5j lii. 14)^ and sentences are given as if from memory^ where the sense is retained^ though the expres- sion is slightly varied — e.g,, 6 avo/iOQ avofin