MS! ■ ■ KfKwS : .', ii m mm mm , : m . ■'./; HHi 55$ Stffifl 88858 —ffiffl hbS&k Eaarcl m 365992 tf*# i$ ^RV OF PMNcifo Me ■ &5Z3 v.l COMMENTAK^ JUL 2 1959 * GOSPEL OF JOHN WITH AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL INTRODUCTION R GODET, DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY AND PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF THE! INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF NEUCHATEL. VOL. I. TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD FRENCH EDITION WITH A PREFACE, INTRODUCTORY SUGGESTIONS, AND ADDITIONAL NOTES BY ■ TIMOTHY DWIGHT, PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE. NEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS, Publishers, 18 and 20 Astor Place, 1890. [All Rights Reserved.'] Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 188«. By FUNK & WAGNALLS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. The Commentary on the Gospel of John which is now presented, in its third edition, to American readers, has been well known to New Testament scholars for twenty years. It was originally published in 1864-5, and immediately commanded attention. Ten or eleven years later an enlarged and greatly improved edition was issued, which was soon afterwards translated into English. The first volume of the third edition was given to the public in 1881 ; the second and third volumes have appeared during the present year (1885). Unlike most of the German commentators of recent days, Godet has, with each new edi- tion, not simply revised what he had written at an earlier date, but, in large measure, prepared a new work. This is very strikingly true of the introductory volume of this latest edition of the original, which covers the first two hundred and nineteen pages of this translation. It is also true, as the reader who compares the two with minute study will perceive, that in the commentary properly so called every paragraph has been subjected to careful examination, and even where the matter is not altogether new, sentences have been very largely re-written, with changes sometimes of importance to the thought and sometimes appar- ently only for purposes of style. That the work has been greatly im- proved by these new labors of the author will be admitted by all who read the second and third editions in connection with each other. It may be almost said, that as great a service has been rendered by the additions and revisions since the book was first issued as was rendered by its original publication. Among the commentaries on this Gospel, this may be ranked as one of the best — a book which every student and minister may well examine, both for the light which it throws upon this iy PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. most deeply interesting portion of the New Testament and for its sug- gestiveness to Christian thought. When the proposal was first made to publish a new translation in this country, it was supposed that it would be ready for publication at a considerably earlier date. But soon after the work was undertaken, it was ascertained that the second and third volumes of the third edition would appear in Switzerland in 1885, and it was accordingly deemed best to await their issue. Advance sheets were kindly forwarded by the author as soon as they were printed — the preparation of this Ameri- can edition being the result of consultation with him and having his approval. The present volume contains one half of the book, including the General Introduction (Vol. I.) of the original, and the Commentary as far as the end of the fifth chapter of the Gospel, or about four-fifths of Vol. II. The remainder of the translation, it is expected, will be published about the first of July, 1886. Of the work of the American editor a few words may be said. With reference to the translation I may be allowed to state two things : 1. That my endeavor has been rather to place before the reader the exact- ness of the author's thought, than to make prominent the matter of English style. In this sense, I have sought to give a literal, rather than an elegant rendering of the original. I have, however, as I trust, not altogether failed in making a readable book, which may represent faithfully in all respects what Godet gave to his French readers. 2. A translation of the first volume of the third edition of the French work (pp. 1-219 of this vol.) was published in connection with the Edinburgh translation of the second edition about two years ago. It was not in my hands, however, until my own translation was finished. In the final revision of my work, as the volume was about to be printed, I compared it with this translation, and in a few instances, of no special significance, I allowed myself to be affected by it in the choice of a word. For any- thing of this kind as connected with the English work in its second or third edition, or with the German translation of the second edition which was in my hands, but which being not altogether on the plan of my own, I used very little, I would make whatever acknowledgment may be due. The statement already made, however, will show that my work was done independently, and that if correspondences in phrase- PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. V ology with the English translation occur, they are due to the fact that a substantially literal conformity to the French has been attempted both by the English translator and myself. In the limited number of pages allowed me for additions to Godet's work, I have, at the end of the volume, inserted some introductory re- marks on a certain part of the internal argument for the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, and also some additional annotations on the first five chapters. I would ask the reader's considerate attention to all the suggestions contained in these additional pages. To the students and graduates of the Divinity School of Yale College I dedicate my part of this volume and the one which is to follow it, bearing with me always a most kindly feeling toward them and a most pleasant remembrance of their friendship for me. TIMOTHY DWIGHT. New Haven. Dec. 25^, 1885. PREFACE TO THE THIRD FRENCH EDITION. I am permitted for the third time to present to the Church thia Commentary on the book which seems to me to be its most precious jewel, on the narrative of the life of Jesus in which His most intimate friend has included his most glorious and most sacred recollections. I feel all the responsibility of this office, but I know also the beauty of it ; and I at once humble myself and rejoice. God has blessed the publication of this Commentary beyond all that I was able to imagine when I wrote it for the first time. To do some- thing, in my weakness, for the Church of France— the noblest branch, perhaps, which the tree that came from the grain of mustard-seed has put forth, but whose position seems to me more serious at this hour than in the days of bloody persecution, — this was all my ambition ; it ap- peared to me even to border upon presumption. And now I receive from many quarters testimonies of affectionate sympathy and intimate communion of spirit, and I see this work translated into German, Eng- lish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, and exerting its influence far beyond the circle which I had proposed to myself to reach. God has done, accord- ing to the expression of the apostle, more than all that I was able to ash or even to think. In the preceding edition, I had completely remodelled the treatment of the critical questions, by uniting all the discussions relative to the origin of the fourth Gospel in a special volume. This arrangement has been maintained; nevertheless, there is scarcely a page, scarcely a phrase of the preceding edition which has not been recast, and, as it were, composed anew. The reason of this fact is found, not only in the profound sense which I had of the imperfections of the previous work, V1H PREFACE TO THE THIRD FRENCH EDITION. but also in the appearance of recent works which I was obliged to take into the most special consideration. I allude particularly to the The- ologie johannique of M. Reuss, in his great work on La Bible (1879), to the essay of M. Sabatier in the Encyclopedic des sciences religieuses, t. vii. pp. 173-195 (1879), to the sixth volume of M. Renan's book on the Origines du christianisme (1879), and to the last edition of Hase's work, Geschichte Jem (1876). The result of this renewed study has been in my case the ever more firm scientific conviction of the authenticity of the writing which the Church has handed down to us under the name of John. There is a conviction of a different nature which forms itself in the heart on the simple reading of such a book. This conviction does not grow up; it is immediate, and consequently complete, from the first moment. It resembles confidence and love at first sight, that decisive impression to the integrity of which thirty years of common life and mutual devotion add nothing. Scientific study cannot form a bond like this ; what it can do is only to remove the hostile pressure which threatens to loosen or to break it. Truly, I can say that I have never felt this scientific assurance so con- firmed as after this- new examination of the proofs on which it rests and the reasons recently alleged against it. The reader will judge whether this is an amiable illusion ; whether the conclusion formulated at the end of this volume is indeed the result of a profound and impartial study of the facts, or whether it has only been reached because it was desired in advance. It seems to me that I can, with yet more confidence than before, submit my book to this test. May all that which passed from the heart of Jesus into the heart and the writing of John communicate itself abundantly to my readers, so that the wish of the Holy Apostle may be accomplished in them : " We write these things unto you, that your joy may be full." Neuchdlel, June 29th, 1881. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page Preface to the American Edition, . . . . . . iii Preface to the Third French Edition, vii Preliminaries, 1 Chap. I. The Evangelical Literature, 3 Chap. II. History of the Johannean Discussion, 8 The Adversaries, 8 The Defenders, 20 The Intermediate Positions, 26 Conclusion, 27 Book I. The Apostle St. John, 29 In his father's house, 29 As a follower of Jesus, 30 At the head of the Judseo-Christian Church, .... 35 In Asia Minor, 38 His Death, 51 Book II. The Fourth Gospel, -54 Chap. I. Analysis, 54 Chap. II. Characteristics, 66 \ 1. The narrative, 66 I. The governing idea, 66 II. The facts 68 III. The discourses, 93 A. Relation of the idea of the Logos to the discourses and the narrative, 94 B. Objections against the historical character of the dis- courses, . 97 Internal difficulties, 98 Relation of the discourses to the Prologue and I John, . 104 Differences from the Synoptics, 108 C. The Person of Jesus, 123 Conclusion, - .127 2 2. Relation to the Old Testament, 127 \ 3. The style, 134 Conclusion, 138 iz TABLE OF CONTEXTS Book III. Chap. I. The Origin, The Time, . From 160-170, . From 130-155, From 110-125, . Result, . Chap. II. The Author, \ 1. Testimonies, . \ 2. Objections, \ 3. Internal Proof, \ 4. Contrary Hypotheses, Chap. III. The Place, . Chap. IV. The Occasion and Aim, Summary and Conclusion, . Commentary. — Chapters I. — V., • Introductory Suggestions by the American Editor, Additional Notes by the American Editor, , Page 139 140 141 147 157 167 167 168 171 197 204 208 209 216 220 493 513 [The Authorized English Version and the Revised Version are designated in the Additional Notes by the letters A. V. and R. V.] PRELIMINARIES. VERY book is a mystery of which the author alone has the secret. The preface may, no doubt, lift a corner of the veil ; but there are books without a preface, and the writer may not tell the whole truth. It belongs to literary criticism, as it is understood at the present day,1 to solve the problem offered to the world by every work which is worthy of attention. For a book is not fully intel- ligible except so far as the obscurity of its origin is dissipated. The science which is commonly called Sacred Criticism or Introduction to the Old and the New Testament was instituted by the Church, to fulfill this task with regard to the books which contain the object of its faith and the standards of its development. By placing in a clear light the origin of each one of these writings and thus revealing its primal thought, it has as its office to shed upon their whole contents the ray of light which illumines their minutest details. According to Schleiermacher, the ideal of Sacred Criticism consists in putting the present reader in the place of the original reader,2 by procur- ing for him through the artifice of science, the preliminary knowledge which the latter, as a matter of course, possessed. However valuable a result like this may be, it seems to me that criticism should propose to itself a yet more elevated aim. Its true mission is to transport the reader into the very mind of the author, at the time when he conceived or elab- orated his work, and to cause him to be present at the composition of the book almost after the manner of the spectator who is present at the cast- ing of a bell, and who, after having beheld the metal in a state of fusion in the furnace, sees the torrent of fire flow into the mold in which it is to receive its permanent form. This ideal includes that of Schleier- macher. For one of the essential elements present to the mind of the author at the time when he prepares his work, is certainly the idea which i By Sainte-Beuve, for example. » Einleitung ins N. T., herausg. von Woldc, p. 7. 1 2 ' PRELIMINARIES. he forms of his readers, and of their condition and wants. To identify one- self with him is, therefore, at the same time to identify oneself with them. To attain this object, or, at least, to approach it as nearly as possible, Criticism makes use of two sorts of means : 1. Those which it borrows from the history, and especially from the literary history, of the time which witnessed the publication of the sacred writings, or which followed it ; 2. Those which it derives from the book itself. Among the former we rank, first of all, the positive statements which Jewish or Christian antiquity has transmitted to us respecting the com- position of one or another of our Biblical writings; then, the quotations or reminiscences of any passages of these books, which are met with in subsequent writers, and which prove their existence and influence at a certain date; finally, the historical facts to which these writings have stood in the relation of cause or effect. These are the external data. To the second class belong all the indications, contained in the book itself, respecting the person of its author, and respecting the circumstances in which he labored and the motive which impelled him to write. These are the internal data. To combine these two classes of data, for the purpose of drawing from them, if possible, a harmonious result — such is the work of Criticism. This is the task which we undertake with regard to one of the most im- portant books of the New Testament and of the whole Bible. Luther is reported to have said that if a tyrant succeeded in destroying the Holy Scriptures and only a single copy of the Epistle to the Romans and of the Gospel of John escaped him, Christianity would be saved. He spoke truly; for the fourth Gospel presents the object of the Christian faith in its most perfect splendor, and the Epistle to the Romans describes the way of faith which leads to this object, with an incomparable clearness. What need of more to preserve Christ to the world and to give birth ever anew to-the, Church ? The following will be the course of our study. After having cast a gen- eral glance at the formation of our Gospel literature, we shall trace the course of the discussions relative to the composition of the fourth Gospel. These will be the subjects of two preliminary chapters. Then, we shall enter upon the study itself, which will include the fol- lowing subjects : 1. The life of the apostle to whom the fourth Gospel is generally ascribed. 2. The analysis and distinctive characteristics of this writing. ^ GOSPEL LITERATURE. 3 3. The circumstances of its composition : Its date ; The place of its origin ; Its author ; The aim which the author pursued in composing it. After having studied each of these points, as separately as possible from one another, we shall bring together the particular results thus obtained in a general view, which, if we have not taken a wrong path, will offer the solution of the problem. Jesus has promised to His Church the Spirit of truth to lead it into all the truth. It is under the direction of this guide that we place ourselves. CHAPTER FIRST. A GLANCE AT THE FORMATION OF THE GOSPEL LITERATURE. Our first three Gospels certainly have a common origin, not only in that all three relate one and the same history, but also by reason of the fact that an elaboration of this history, of some sort, was already in exist- ence at the time of their composition, and has stamped with a common impress the three narratives. Indeed, the striking agreement between them which is easily observed both in the general plan and in certain series of identical accounts, and finally in numerous clauses which are found exactly the same in two of these writings, or in all the three — this general and particular agreement renders it impossible to question that, before being thus recorded, the history of Jesus had already been cast in a mold where it had received the more or less fixed form in which we find it in our three narratives. Many think that this primitive gospel type consisted of a written document — either one of our three Gospels, of which the other two were only a free reproduction, or one or even two writings, now lost, from which our evangelists, all three of them, drew. This hypo- thesis of written sources has been, and is still presented under the most varied forms. We do not think that in any form it can be accepted ; for it always leads to the adoption of the view, that the later writer sometimes willfully altered his model by introducing changes of real gravity, at other times adopted the course of copying with the utmost literalness, and that while frequently applying these two opposite methods in one and the same verse ; and, finally, at still other times, that he made the text which he used undergo a multitude of modifications which are ridiculous by 4 PRELIMINARIES. reason of being insignificant. Let any one consult a Synopsis,1 and the thing will be obvious. Is it psychologically conceivable that serious, believing writers, convinced of the supreme importance of the subject of which they were treating, adopted such methods with regard to it ; and, above all, that they applied them to the reproduction of the very teach- ings of the Lord Jesus ? — Common as, even at the present day, this manner of explaining the relation between our three Gospels is, we are convinced that Criticism will finally renounce it as a moral impossibility. The simple and natural solution of the problem appears to us to be indicated by the book of Acts, in the passage where it speaks to us of the teaching of the apostles,2 as one of the foundations on which the Church of Jerusalem was built (ii. 42). In this primitive apostolic teaching, the accounts of the life and death Of Jesus surely occupied the first place. These narratives, daily repeated by the apostles, and by the evangelists instructed in their school, must speedily have taken a form more or less fixed and settled, not only as to the tenor of each account, but also as to the joining together of several accounts in one group, which formed ordi- narily the subject-matter of a single teaching. What we here affirm is not a pure hypothesis. St. Luke tells us, in the preface of his Gospel (the most ancient document respecting this subject which we possess), of the first written accounts of the evangelic facts as composed " according to the story which they transmitted to us who were witnesses of them from the beginning, and who became ministers of the Word." These witnesses and first ministers can only have been the apostles. Their accounts conveyed to the Church by oral teaching had passed, therefore, just as they were, into the writings of those who first wrote them out. The pronoun us employed by Luke, shows that he ranked himself among the writers who were instructed by the oral testimony of the apostles. The primitive apostolic tradition is thus the type, at once fixed, and yet within certain limits malleable, which has stamped with its ineffaceable imprint our first three Gospels. In this way a satisfactory explanation is afforded, on the one side, of the general and particular resemblances which make these three writings, as it were, one and the same narrative ; and, on the other, of the differences which we observe among them, from those which are most considerable to those which are most insignificant. These three works are, thus, three workings-over — wrought independently of one another — of the primitive tradition formulated in the midst of the Palestinian churches, and ere long repeated in all the countries of the ; 'An edition presenting the three texts in three parallel columns. SAiJaxq ruv o.ito It is evident that this division cannot be this list wc have, in this new edition, taken fixed with absolute strictness, so varied are advantage of the excellent work of Mr. Cas- the different ways of viewing the subject.— par Rene Gregory (Leipsic, 1875), published In order to the revision and completion of as a supplement to Luthardt's Commentary. THE DISCUSSION — THE ADVERSARIES. 9 science of theologians, as well as the feeling of the Church, confirmed the conviction of the first Christian communities and their leaders, who saw in it unanimously the work of that apostle. Some attacks of little importance, proceeding from the English Deistic party, which flourished two centuries ago, opened the conflict. But it did not break out seriously until a century later. In 1792, the English theologian, Evanson, raised note-worthy objections, for the first time, against the general conviction.1 He rested especially on the differences between our Gospel and the Apocalypse. He ascribed the composition of the former of these books to some Platonic philosopher of the second century. The discussion was not long in being transplanted to Germany. Four years after Evanson, Eckermann 2 contended against the authenticity, while yet agreeing that certain Johannean redactions must have formed the first foundation of our Gospel. These notes had been amalgamated with the historical traditions which the author had gathered from the lips of John. — Eckermann retracted in 1807.3 Several German theologians continued the conflict which was entered upon at this time. The contradictions between this Gospel and the other three were alleged, also the exaggerated character of the miracles, the metaphysical tone of the discourses, the evident affinities between the theology of the author and that of Philo, the scarcity of traces in litera- ture proving the existence of this writing in the second century.* From 1801, the cause of the authenticity seemed already so far compromised that a German superintendent, Vogel, believed himself able to summon the evangelist John and his interpreters to the bar of the last judgment.5 However, it was yet only the first phase of the discussion, the time of the skirmishes which form the prelude of great pitched battles. It was also a German superintendent who opened the second period of the discussion. In a work which became celebrated and was published in 1820, Bretschneider brought together all the objections previously raised and added to them new ones.6 He especially developed with force the objection drawn from the contradictions in our Gospel as compared with the three pre- ceding ones, both with reference to the form of the discourses and in respect to the very substance of the Christological teaching. The fourth Gospel 1 The dissonance of the four generally re- (1812), etc. teived evangelists, etc. » Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger 2 Theologische Beitrdge, vol. v. 1796. von dem jiingsten Gcrieht. * Erklurung aller dunkeln Stellen des. N. T. * Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Jo- *Horst (1803), Cludius (1808), Ballenstadt hannis apostoli indole et origine. 10 PRELIMINARIES. must, according to his view, have been the work of a presbyter of Gentile, probably of Alexandrian origin, who lived in the first half of the second century. This learned and vigorous attack of Bretschneider called forth numerous replies, of which we shall speak later, and following upon which this theologian declared (in 1824) that the replies which had been made to his book were " more than sufficient," ' and (in 1828) that he had attained the end which he had proposed to himself: that of calling out a more searching demonstration of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel.' But the seeds sown by such a work could not be uprooted by these rather equivocal retractions, which had a purely personal value. From 1824, the cause of the unauthenticity was pleaded anew by Rettig? The author of the Gospel is a disciple of John. The apostle himself cer- tainly was not so far wanting in modesty as to designate himself as " the disciple whom Jesus loved." De Wette in his Introduction published for the first time in 1826, without positively taking sides against the authen- ticity, confessed the impossibility of demonstrating it by unanswerable' proofs. In the same year, Reuterdahl, following the footsteps of Vogel, assailed the tradition of John's sojourn in Asia Minor as fictitious.* The publication of Strauss' Life of Jesus, in 1835, had, at first, a much more decisive influence upon the criticism of the history of Jesus than upon that of the documents in which this history has been transmitted to us. Evidently Strauss had not devoted himself to a special study of the origin of these latter. He started, as concerning the Synoptics, from the two theories of Gieseler and Griesbach, according to which our Gospels are the redaction of the apostolic tradition, which, after having for a long time circulated in a purely oral form, at length slowly established itself in our Synoptics (Gieseler) ; and this, first, in the redactions of Matthew and Luke, then, in that of Mark, which is only a compilation of the two others (Griesbach). As to John, he allowed as valid the reasons alleged by Bretschneider: insufficient attestation in the primitive Church, con- tents contradictory of those of the first three gospels, etc. And if, in his third edition, in 1838, he acknowledged that the authenticity was less in- defensible to his view, he was not slow in retracting this concession in the following edition (1840). Indeed, the least evasion in regard to this point shook his entire hypothesis of mythical legends. The axiom which lies at its foundation: The ideal does not exhaust itself in one individual, •In Tzac h i rner'a Magazin fur christliche 3 Ephemerides exegeiico-thcologicce, I., p. 62 ff. Prediger. 4 jn his work de Fontibus historice Eusebi- * Uandbuch der Dogmatik, pp. viii. and 2C8. ance. THE DISCUSSION — THE ADVERSARIES. 11 would be proved false, provided that the fourth Gospel contained, in how- ever small a measure, the narrative of an eye-witness. Nevertheless, the immense commotion produced in the learned world by Strauss' work soon reacted upon the criticism of the Gospels. Christian Hermann Weisse drew attention especially to the close connec- tion between the criticism of the history of Jesus and that of the writings in which it has been preserved.1 He contended against the authenticity of our Gospel, but not without recognizing in it a true apostolic founda- tion. The Apostle John, with the design of fixing the image of his Mas- ter, which, in proportion as the reality was farther removed from him, came to be more and more indefinite in his mind, and in order to give himself a distinct account of the impression which he had preserved of the person of Jesus, had drawn up certain " studies " which, when ampli- fied, became the discourses of the fourth Gospel. To these more or lesa authentic parts, a historical framework which was completely fictitious was afterwards adapted. We can understand how, from this point of view, Weisse was able to defend the authenticity of the first Epistle of John. At this juncture there occurred in the criticism of the fourth Gospel a revolution like to that which was wrought at the same time in the mode of looking at the first three. Wilke then endeavored to prove that the differences which distinguish the Synoptical narratives from one another were not, as had been always believed, simple involuntary accidents, but that it was necessary to recognize in them modifications introduced by each author, in a deliberate and intentional way, into the narrative of his predecessor or predecessors.2 Bruno Bauer extended this mode of explain- ing the matter to the fourth Gospel.3 He claimed that the Johannean narrative was not by any means, as the treatise of Strauss supposed, the depository of a simple legendary tradition, but that this story was the product of an individual conception, the reflective work of a Christian thinker and poet, who was perfectly conscious of his procedure. The history of Jesus was thus reduced, according to Ebrard's witty expression, to a single line : "At that time it came to pass . . . that nothing came to pass." In the same year, L'utzelberger attacked, in a more thoroughly searching way than Reuterdahl, the tradition as to the residence of John in Asia 1 Die evangelische Oeschichte kritisch und * Der Vrevangelist, 183S. philosophisch bearbcitet, 1838. Die Evangelieiv- s Kritik der evangel. Oeschichte des Johannes, Frage, 1850. 1840. 12 PRELIMINARIES. Minor.1 The author of our Gospel was, in his view, a Samaritan, whose parents had emigrated to Mesopotamia, between 130 and 135, at the epoch of the new revolt of the Jews against the Romans, and he com- posed this Gospel at Edessa. The " disciple whom Jesus loved " was not John, but Andrew. — In a celebrated article, Fischer tried to prove, from the use of the term oi 'lovdaioi in our Gospel, that its author could not be of Jewish origin.* We arrive here at the third and last period of this prolonged conflict. It dates from 1844 and has as its starting-point the famous work published at that time by Ferdinand Christian Baur.3 The first phase had lasted twenty and odd years, from Evanson to Bretschneider (1792-1820) ; the second, also twenty and odd years, from Bretschneider to Baur ; the third has now continued more than thirty years. It is that of mortal combat. The dissertation which was the signal of it is certainly one of the most ingenious and brilliant compositions which theological science has ever produced. The purely negative results of Strauss' criticism demanded as a complement a positive construction ; on the other hand, the arbitrary and subjective character of that of Bruno Bauer did not answer the wants of an era eager for positive facts. The discussion was, therefore, as it were, involved in inextricable difficulties. Baur understood that his task was to withdraw it from that position, and that the only- efficacious means was to discover in the progress of the Church of the second century a distinctly marked historical situation, which might be, as it were, the ground whereon was raised the imposing edifice of the fourth Gospel. He believed that he had discovered the situation which he sought in the last third of the second century. Then, indeed, Gnosis was flourishing, the borders of which the narrative of our Gospel touches throughout all its contents. At that time thinkers were pre-occupied with the idea of the Logos, which is precisely the theme of our work. The need was felt more and more of uniting in one great and single Catholic Church the two rival parties which, until then, had divided the Church, and which a series of compromises had already gradually brought near together ; the fourth Gospel was adapted to serve them as a treaty of peace. An energetic spiritual reaction against the episcopate was rising : Montanism ; our Gospel furnished strength to this tendency, 1 Die Kirchliehe Tradition fiber den Apostel 3, 4 ; reproduced and completed in the later Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer Grund- writings of the same author : Kritische Unter- losigkeit nachgewicsen, 1840. suehungen fiber die canonischen Evangelien, 1847; » Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theol. II. 1840. and Das Christenthumunddie christliche Kircke 8 In Zeller's Theologische Jahrbiicher Hefte 1, der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853. THE DISCUSSION — THE ADVERSARIES. 13 by borrowing from Montanism the truth which it contained. Then, finally, the famous dispute between the churches of Asia Minor and those of the West on the subject of the Paschal rite burst forth. Now, our Gos- pel modified the chronology of the Passion in just such a way as to decide the minds of men in favor of the occidental rite. Here, then, was the situation fully discovered for the composition of our Gospel. At the same time, Baur, following the footsteps of Bruno Bauer, shows with a marvel- ous skill the well-considered and systematic unity of this work ; he explains its logical progress and practical applications, and thus overthrows at one blow the hypothesis of unreflective myths, on which the work of Strauss rested, and every attempt at selection in our Gospel between certain authentic parts and other unauthentic ones. In accordance with all this, Baur fixes, as the epoch of the composition, about the year 170 — at the earliest, 160 ; for then it was that all the circumstances indicated meet together. Only he has not attempted to designate the " great unknown " to whose pen was due this master-piece of high mystical philosophy and skillful ecclesiastical policy, which has exercised such a decisive influence on the destinies of Christianity. All the forces of the school co-operated in supporting the work of the master in its various parts. From 1841, Sclnvegler had prepared the way for it by his treatise on Montanism.1 In his work on the period which fol- lowed that of the apostles, the same author assigned to each one of the writings of the New Testament its place in the development of the con- flict between the apostolic Judaeo-Christianity and Paulinism, and set forth the fourth Gospel as the crowning point of this long elaboration.2 Zeller completed the work of his master by the study of the ecclesiastical testimonies, — a study whose aim was to sweep away from history every trace of the existence of the fourth Gospel before the period indicated by Baur.3 Koestlin, in a celebrated work on j)seudonymous literature in the primitive Church, endeavored to prove that the pseudepigraphical pro- cedure to which Baur ascribed the composition of four-fifths of the New Testament was in conformity with literary precedents and the ideas of the epoch.* Volkmar labored to ward off the blows by which the system of his master was unceasingly threatened by reason of the less and less con- trovertible citations of the fourth Gospel in the writings of the second 1 Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche den Ursprung des vierten Evangel 'turns, in the des JIten Jahrhunderts. Theologische Jahrbilcher, 1845 and 1847. * Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1846. * Ueber die pseudonymische Litteratur in der *DU aiisseren Zeugnisse ixber das Dasein und altesten Kirche, in the Theol. Jahrbiicher, 1851. 14 PRELIMINARIES. century — in those of Mareion and Justin, for example, and in the Clemen- tin' Homilies.1 Finally, Hilgenfeld treated, in a more profound way than Baur had done, the dispute concerning the Passover and its relation to the authenticity of our Gospel.2 Thus learnedly supported by this Pleiad of distinguished critics, devoted to the common work, although not without marked shades of difference, BauYs opinion might seem, for a moment, to have obtained a complete and decisive triumph. Nevertheless, in the midst of the school itself a divergence became manifest which, in many respects, was detrimental to the hypothesis so skillfully contrived by the master. Hilgenfeld abandoned the date fixed by Baur, and consequently a part of the advantages of the situation chosen by him. He carried back the composition of the Johannean Gospel thirty or forty years. According to him, this work was connected espe- cially with the appearance of the Valentinian heresy, about 140. The author of the Gospel proposed to himself to introduce this Gnostic teach- ing into the Church in a mitigated form. And as already about 150 " the existence of our Gospel could scarcely be any longer questioned," he put back its date even to the period from 130 to 140.3 In I860, J. R. Tobler, discovering, side by side with the ideal character of the narrative, a mass of geographical notices or of narratives truly his- torical, conceived -the idea of ascribing our Gospel to Apollos (according to him, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) who compiled it about the end of the first century from information obtained from John.4 Michel Nicolas advanced, in 1862, the following hypothesis : A Christian of Ephesus related in our Gospel the ministry of Jesus according to the accounts of the Apostle John; and this personage is the one who, in the two small Epistles, designates himself as the Elder (the presbyter), and the one whom history makes known to us under the name of John the Presby- ter.5— D'Eichthal accepted Hilgenfeld's idea of a relationship between our Gospel and Gnosis.6 The work which Stap published in the same year, in his collection of Critical Studies, is only a reproduction, without originality, of all the ideas of the Tubingen school.7 'Comp., in particular, Ursprung unserer the Zeitsehrift far wissensch. Theol. , 18G0. Boangelim, 1806. 6 Etudes critiques sur la Bible: Nouvcau Tes- * Der Pastahstreit der alten Kirche, 1860. lament. »Das Euangelium und die Brief e Johannis » Les Evangiles, 1863 ; 1. 1., pp. 25 ff., and else- naeh ihrem Lehrbegrijfe dargcstellt, 1849; die where. Evangelien, Wr>i ; das Urchristenthum, 1855. i Etudes historiques et critiques sur les ori- * Ueber den Ursprung des vierten Evang., in gines du christianisme, 1863. THE DISCUSSION — THE ADVERSARIES. 15 In 1864 two important books appeared. Wcizs'dcker, in his work on the Gospels,1 sought to bring out from our Gospel itself the proof of the distinction between the editor of this writing and the Apostle John, who served as a voucher for him. The former wished only to reproduce in a free way the impressions which he had experienced when hearing the apostolic witness describe the life of the Lord. The second book takes a more decided position : it is that of Scholten.2 The author of the fourth Gospel is a Christian of Gentile origin, initiated in Gnosticism and desirous of rendering that tendency profitable to the Church. He seeks, also, to restrain within just limits the Marcionite antinomianism and the Montanist exaltation. As to the Paschal dispute, the evangelist does not decide in favor of the Western rite, as Baur thinks ; he seeks rather to secure the triumph of Pauline spiritualism, which abolishes feast days in the Church altogether. According to these indications, the author wrote about 150. He succeeded in pre- senting to the world, under the figure of the mysterious personage designated as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the ideal believer — the truly spiritual Christianity which was capable of becoming the universal religion. — Reville has set forth and developed Scholten's point of view in the Revue des Deux-Mondes? Let us also remind the reader here of the work of Volkmar * (page 19), directed against Teschendorf personally, as much as against his book, When were our Gospels written f However deplorable is its tone, this work exhibits with learning and precision the point of view of Baur's school. The author fixes the date of our Gospel between 150 and 160. In 1867, appeared the History of Jesus, by Keim* This scholar ener- getically opposes, in the Introduction, the authenticity of our Gospel. He lays especial stress upon the philosophical character of this writing; then upon the inconsistencies of the narrative with the nature of things, with the data furnished by the writings of St. Paul, and with the Synoptic narratives. But, on the other hand, he proves the traces of its existence as far back as the earliest times of the second century. " The testimonies," he says, " go back as far as to the year 120, so that the com- position dates from the beginning of the second century, in the reign of Trajan, between 100 and 117." 6 The author was a Christian of Jewish 1 Untersuchungen uber die evangelische Oes- 3 La question des tvangiles, May, 1866. ehichte. * Der Ursprung unsercr Evangelien, 1866. » Das Evangelium nach Johannes (18G4), trans- B Oeschichte Jesu von Nazara. lated into German, by H. Lang, 1807. * Vol. I., p. 140. 16 PRELIMINARIES. origin, belonging to the Diaspora of Asia Minor, in full sympathy with the Gentiles and thoroughly acquainted with everything relating to Palestine. In a more recent writing, a popular reproduction of his great work, Keim has withdrawn from this early date, stating as the ground of this change reasons which, we may say, have no serious importance. He now, with Hilgenfeld, fixes the composition about the year 130.1 Of what consequence here is a period of ten years ? It would follow from the one of these last mentioned dates as well as from the other, that, twenty or thirty years after the death of John at Ephesus, the fourth Gospel was ascribed to this apostle by the very presbyters of the country where he had spent the closing portion of his life and where he had died. How can we explain the success of a forgery under such circumstances ? Keim felt this difficulty and made an effort to remove it. To this end he found no other means except to attach himself to the idea put forth by Reuterdahl and Lutzelberger, and to rate the sojourn of John in Asia Minor as a pure fiction. By this course, he goes beyond even the Tubingen school. For Baur and Hilgenfeld did not call in question the truth of that tradition. Their criticism even rests essentially on the reality of John's sojourn in Asia, first, because the Apocalypse, the Johannean composition of which serves them as the point of support for their onset upon that of the Gospel, implies this sojourn, and, then, because the argument which they both draw from the Paschal contro- versy falls to the ground as soon as the sojourn of the Apostle John in that country is no longer admitted. Now, on the contrary, when the criticism hostile to our Gospel feels itself embarrassed by this sojourn, it rejects it unceremoniously. According to Keim, that tradition is only the result of a half-voluntary misunderstanding of Irenreus, who applied to John the apostle what Poly carp had related in his presence of another personage of the same name. SchoUen reaches the same result by different means.2 This error in the tradition is explained, according to him, by the confounding of the author of the Apocalypse, who was not the apostle, but who had taken advantage of his name, with the apostle himself; in this way the sojourn of John in Asia, where the Apocalypse appears to have been composed, was imagined. However this may be, and whatever may be the explanation of the traditional misunderstanding, the discovery of this error "removes," says Keim, "the last point of support for the idea of the composition of the Gospel by the son of Zebedee." 3 1 Oeschichtc Jesu, naeh den Ergcbnissen heuti- * Der Apostel Johannes in Kleln-Asien, trans- fer Wmenschaft, fur weitere Kreise, 3d ed., lated into German by Spiegel, 1872. 1873. 8p 167< THE DISCUSSION — THE ADVERSARIES. 17 We see that two of the foundations of Baur's criticism, the authenticity of the Apocalypse and John's sojourn in Asia, are undermined at this hour by the men who have continued his work — this denial appearing to them the only means of making an end of the authenticity of our Gospel. In 1868, the English writer, Davidson, took his position among the oppo- nents of the authenticity.1 Holtzmann, like Keim, sees in our Gospel an ideal composition, but one which is not entirely fictitious. This book dates from the same epoch as the Epistle of Barnabas (the first third of the second century) ; it can be proved that the Church has given it a favorable reception since the year 150.2 Krenkel, in 1871, defended the sojourn of John in Asia ; he ascribes to this apostle the composition of the Apocalypse, but not that of the Gospel.3 The anonymous English work, Supernatural Religion, which has in a few years reached a very large number of editions, contends against the authenticity with the ordinary arguments.4 The year 1875 witnessed the appearance of two works of considerable importance. These are two Introductions to the New Testament — that of Hilgenfeld* and the third edition of Bleek's work, published with original notes by Mangold.6 Hilgenfeld gives a summary, in his book, of the whole critical work of past times and of the present epoch. With regard to John, he continues in certain respects to defend the cause to which he had consecrated the first fruits of his pen : — the non-authenticity of the fourth Gospel, which was composed, according to him under the influence of the Valentinian Gnosticism. Mangold accompanies the para- graphs in which Bleek defends the apostolic origin of our Gospel with very instructive critical notes, in which in most cases he seeks to refute that scholar. The external proofs would seem to him sufficient to confirm the authenticity. But it has not been possible, in his opinion, at least up to the present time, to surmount the internal difficulties. In 1876, a jurist, d'Uechtritz, published a book7 in which he ascribes our Gospel to a Jerusalemite disciple of Jesus — probably John the Presbyter — who assumed the mask of the disciple whom Jesus loved and composed this work under his name. This critic does not find the opinion justified, 1 Introduction to the Study of the N. T. Vol. 6 Historisch-Kritisrhc Einleitung in dax N. T. II. o Einleittmg in das N. T., von Fr. Bleek, 3 * Schenkel's Bibellexicon ; Vol. II., art. Ev. Aufl., von W. MangoM. naeh Joh., 1809. 7 Studicn eincs Laien iiber dc.n Umpnmg, di* * Dcr Apostel Johannes, 1871. Bcsehaffcnheit und die Bedentung des Evang, * Supernatural Religion, 1874. naeh Johannes. 18 PRELIMINARIES. ■which is so widely spread, that the representation of Jesus traced in the Synoptics is less exalted than the idea which is given us of Him in St. John. Four writers remain to be mentioned here — three French and one Ger- man, who, in our preceding edition, figured in the list of the defenders of the absolute or partial authenticity, and who have passed over into the opposite camp, Renan, Reuss, Sabatier and Hase. The first from the outset manifested a marked antipathy to the dis- courses ascribed to Jesus by the fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, he always set forth prominently the remarkable signs of authenticity connected with the narrative parts of this same writing. He showed himself disposed, accordingly, in the first editions of his Life of Jesus, to recognize as the foundation of the historical parts not only traditions proceeding from the Apostle John, but even " precise notes drawn up by him." In the truly admirable dissertation which closes the thirteenth edition, and in which he thoroughly discusses the question, analyzing the Gospel — one narrative after another — from this point of view, he shows that the contradictory appearances almost exactly balance each other, and ends by positively affirming nothing but this alternative : either the author is John or he has desired to pass himself off as John. Finally, in his last book, entitled VEglise chretienne* he arrives at the result which might have been fore- seen. The author was perhaps a Christian depositary of the traditions of the apostle, or, at least, of those of two other disciples of Jesus, John the Presbyter and Aristion, who lived at Ephesus about the end of the first century. We might even go so far, according to Renan, as to suppose that this writer is no other than Cerinthus, the adversary of John at Ephesus, at the same period. Reuss and Sabatier have likewise just finished their evolution in the same direction. In all his previous works,2 Reuss had maintained two scarcely reconcilable theses : the. almost completely artificial and fictitious character of the discourses of Jesus in our Gospel and the apostolic origin of the work. It was not difficult to foresee two things : 1. That one of these theses would end in excluding the other ; 2. That it would be the first which would prevail over the second. This is what has just hap- pened. In his ThcologieJohannique,3 Reuss declares his final judgment on 1 1879. toire de la theologie chretienne au siecle apostol- * ldcenzur Einleitung in das Ev. Joh. (Denk- ique, 1852. »chr. der theol. Gesellach. 7,11 Strask), 1840; a La Bible: Nouveau Testament, VI« partie, Gcschichte der N. Tchen Schriftcn, 1842: His- 1879. THE DISCUSSION — THE ADVERSARIES. 19 this subject : The fourth Gospel is not by the Apostle John. Nevertheless, Reuss is reluctant to allow that this work is by a forger. And it is not necessary to admit this, since the author expressly distinguishes himself from the Apostle John in more than one passage, and limits himself to tracing back to him the origin of the narratives contained in his book. We thus find again, point for point, the opinion of Weizsiicker mentioned above. Sabatier, in his excellent little work on the sources of the life of Jesus,1 had also maintained the authenticity of our Gospel. But, having once entered into the views of Reuss, with respect to the estimation of the dis- courses of Jesus, he was by a fatality obliged to follow him even to the end. He has just distinctly declared himself against the authenticity, in his article on the Apostle John, in the Eacyclopcdie des sciences religieuses :* An author whose constant inclination is to exalt the Apostle John cannot be John himself. It is one of his disciples who, believing that he was able to identify himself with him, has drawn up the Gospel history in the form which it had assumed in Asia Minor ; he thus gives to the Church the apocalypse of tlie Spirit, a counterpart of the Apocalypse, properly so called, written by the apostle. Since 1829, in the different, editions of his Manual on the Life of Jesus,5 Hase had supported the Johannean origin of the fourth Gospel. In 1866, he published a discourse in which he represented this work as the last product of the apostle's mind when it had reached its full maturity.* But this scholar has yielded to the same fatal law as the three preceding writers. In his History of Jesus,5 published in 1876, he gives up the authenticity, though not without painful hesitation. "Let us cast a glance," he says in closing the discussion, "at the eight reasons alleged against the Johannean origin: they have not proved to be decisive;6 nevertheless, it has not been possible to refute them all completely. . . . I thus see science driven to a conception fitted to reconcile the opposite reasons. A tradition different from that of the other Gospels, and already containing the notion of the Logos, had taken form in Asia Minor under the influence of the accounts given by John. It had remained in the purely oral state, so long as John lived." After his death (ten years after- wards, or perhaps more), this tradition was recorded by a highly gifted » Essai sur les sources de la vie de Jesus, *Das Evangelium des Johannes. Eine Rede 186G. an die Gemcinde. * Vol. vii., 1870, pp. 181-193. 6 Geschichte Jesu. * Das Leben Jem. Ein Lehrbuch fur Acade- «"Sie haben sich nicht als entseheidend mische Vorlesungen ; 5th ed., 18G5. erwiesen." 20 PRELIMINARIES. disciple of the apostle. He wrote as if the latter himself were writing. In this way it is, that the evangelist is able to appeal at once to the testi- mony of his own eyes (i. 14) and to that of another, different from himself. '• Who was the writer? The Presbyter John ? This is possible. But it may be also an unknown person. The first Epistle may have proceeded from the same author, writing under the mask of John ; but it may also have been from John himself and have served as a model for the style of the Gospel." This hypothesis is, according to this author, a compromise between the facts which are contradictory to each other. " I have not without a heavy heart/' he adds, " broken away from the belief in the entire authenticity of the Johannean writing." Finally, a little further on, he also says : " The time is come in German theology when he who even ventures to recognize in the fourth Gospel a source possessing an historical value compromises his scientific honor.1 It has not always been thus, even among those who are lacking neither in vigor nor in freedom of mind. But it may also change again : 2 the spirit of the times exercises a power even in science." What reflections do not these Bad avowals of the veteran of Jena suggest ! II. This persevering contest against the authenticity of the Johannean Gospel resembles the siege of a fortress, and things have reached the point where already many think they see the standard of the besieger floating victoriously over the ramparts of the place. Nevertheless, the defenders have not remained inactive, and the incessant transformations which the onsets have undergone, as the preceding exposition proves, leave no room for questioning the relative success of their efforts. Let us rapidly enumerate the works devoted to the defence of the authen- ticity. The oldest attack, that of the sectaries of the second century, called Alogi, did not remain unanswered; for it seems certain that the writing of Hippolytus (at the beginning of the third century), whose title appeals in the catalogue of his works 3 as 'Yirsp rov Kara 'Iwdvvov evayyeXlov xai ano- Kalvxpeuc, "Li behalf of the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse" was directed against them. The attacks of the English deists were repulsed in Germany and Hol- 1 The author here quotes an expression of men. ..." (p. 52). Keim. a Catalogue engraved on the pedestal of hi* *"Es kann aber auch anders kom- statue, discovered at Rome in 1561. THE DISCUSSION — THE DEFENDERS. 21 land by Le Clerc 1 and Lampe ; by the latter, in his celebrated Commen- tary on the Gospel of John.2 Two Englishmen, Priestley s and Simpson* immediately answered Evan- son. Storr and Siiskind resolved the objections raised soon afterwards in Germany,5 and this with such success that Eckermann and Schmidt de- clared that they retracted their doubts. Following upon this first phase of the struggle, Eichhorn (1810), Hug (1808), and Bertholdt (1813), in their well-known Introductions to the New Testament, Wegscheider in a special work,6 and others also, unanimously declared themselves on the side of the authenticity ; so that at the begin- ning of this century the storm seemed to be calmed and the question settled in favor of the traditional opinion. The historian Gieseler, in his admirable little work on the origin of the gospels (1818), pronounced his decision in the same way, and expressed the idea that John had composed his book for the instruction of Gentiles who had already made progress in the Christian religion.7 The work of Bretschneider, which all at once broke this apparent calm, called forth a multitude of replies, among which we shall cite only those of Olshausen," Crome,9 and Hauff.10 The first editions of the Commentaries of Lucke (1820) and Tholuck (1827) appeared also at this same period. In consequence of the first of these publications, Bretschneider, as we have already said, declared his objections solved ; so that once more the calm appeared to be restored, and Schleiermacher, with all his school, could' yield himself, without encountering any opposition worthy of notice, to the predilection which he felt for our Gospel. From the beginning of his scientific career, Schleiermacher, in his Reden uber die Religion, proclaimed the Christ of John to be the true historic Christ, and maintained that the Synoptic narrative must be subordinated to our Gospel. Critics as learned and independent as Schott and Credner likewise maintained at that time the cause of the authenticity ll in their Introductions. De Wette alone at that moment caused a somewhat discordant voice to be still heard. 1 Annotaliones ad Hammond. Nov. Test., 1 Historisch-Krit. Versueh Uber die Entste- 1714. hung und die fruhesten Schicksalc der schrift- * Commentarius in Evang. Johannis, 1727. lichen Evangelien. * Letters to a young man, 1793. 8 Die Echtheit der vier canonischcn Evangelien, * An essay on the authority of the New Testa- 1823. tnent , 1793. 9 Probabilia hand probabilia, 1824. 6 In Flatt'3 Magazine, 1798, No. 4, and 1800, i° Die Authentic und der hohe Werth des Evang. No. 6. Johannes, 1831. * Versueh einer vollstdndigen Einleit. in das " That of Schott in 1830 ; that of Credner Evang. des Johannes, 180C. in 1806. 22 PRELIMINARIES. The appearance of Strauss' Life of Jesus, in 1835, was thus like a thun- derbolt bursting forth in a serene sky. This work called forth a whole legion of apologetic writings ; above all, that of Tholuck on the credibility of the evangelical history,1 and the Life of Jesus by Neander.2 The con- cessions made to Strauss by the latter have been often wrongly interpreted. They had as their aim only to establish a minimum of incontrovertible facts, while giving up that which might be assailed. And it was this work which is so moderate, so impartial, and in whose every word we feel the incorruptible love of truth, which seems, for the moment, to have made upon Strauss the deepest impression, and to have drawn from him, with reference to the Gospel of John, the kind of retractation announced in his third edition.3 Gfroerer* although starting from quite another point of view as com- pared with the two preceding writers, defended the authenticity of our Gospel against Strauss. Frommann? on his side, refuted the hypothesis of Weisse. From 1837 to 1844, Norton published his great work on the evidences of the authenticity of the Gospels,6 and Guericke, in 1843, his Introduction to the New Testament.7 In the following years appeared the work of Ebrard on the evangelical history,8 the truth of which he valiantly defended against Strauss and Bruno Bauer, and the third edition of Lucke's Commentary (1848). But this last author made such concessions as to the credibility of the dis- courses and of the Christological teaching of John, that the adversaries did not fail soon to turn his work against the very thesis which he had desired to defend. We reach the last period, — that of the struggle maintained against Baur and his school. Ebrard was the first to appear in the breach.9 At his side a young scholar presented himself, who, in a work filled with rare patristic erudition and knowledge drawn from the primary sources, sought to bring back to the right path historical criticism, which, in the hands of Baur, seemed to have strayed from it. We mean Thiersch, whose work, modestly entitled an Essay, is still at the present day for beginners one of the most useful means of orientation in the domain of the history of the first two 1 Die Glaubwurdigkeit der evangel. Geschichte, 6 The Evidences of the Genuineness of the 1837. Gospels. 5 Das Lcbcn Jesu Christi, 1837. * Uistorisch-Kritische Einleitung in das N. T. s Edition of 1840. 8 Wisscnschaftliche Kritik der Evangel. Ge- 4 Geschichte des Urchristcnthums, 1S38. schichte, lsted.,1842; 3d ed., 1868. * Ueber die Echtheitund Integi-itat des Evang. 9 Das Evang. Joh. und die neueste Hypothest Joh., 1840. iiber seine Entstehung, 1845. THE DISCUSSION — THE DEFENDERS. 23 centuries.1 Baur did not brook this call to order which was addressed to him — to him, a veteran in science — by so young a writer. In an excite- ment of irritation, he wrote that violent pamphlet in which he accused his adversary of fanaticism, and which had almost the character of a de- nunciation.2 The reply of Thiersch was as remarkable for its propriety and dignity of tone as for the excellence of the general observations which are presented in it on the criticism of the sacred writings.3 The justness of some of Thiersch's ideas may be called in question, but it cannot be denied that his two works abound in ingenious and original points of view. A strange work appeared at this time. The author is commonly quoted in German criticism under the name of the Anonymous Saxon ; it is now known that he was a Saxon theologian, named Hasert, who was, at that time, one of the Thurgovian clergy. He defended the authenticity of our Gospels, but with the intention of showing, by this very authen- ticity, how the apostles of Jesus, the authors of these books, or rather of these pamphlets, had labored only to decry and traduce one another.* The most able and most learned reply to the works of Baur and Zeller was that of Bleek, in 1846.5 By the side of this work, the articles by Hauff deserve to be specially mentioned.6 In the following years, Weitzel and Sleitz, discussed with much care and erudition the argument drawn by Baur from the Paschal controversy, near the end of the second century.7 Following in the footsteps of Bindemann (1842), Semisch demonstrated the use of our four Gospels by Justin Martyr.8 The year 1852, saw the appearance of two very interesting works : that of the Dutch writer, Niermeyer, designed to prove by a subtle and thorough study of the writings ascribed to John, that the Apocalypse and the Gospel could and must have, both of them, been composed by him, and that the differences of contents and form, which distinguish them, are to be explained by the profound spiritual revolution which was wrought in 1 Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen & Beitrdge zur Evangelienkritik. Standpuncts fur die Kritik ' der neutest. * Einlgc Bemerkungen fiber die Composition Schrtften, 1845. des Johann. Evangehunis, in the Studien und * Der Kritikcr und der Fanatlker in der Kritlken, 184G. Person des Herm H. W. J. Thiersch, 1846. » Weitzel, Die christliche Passahfeier der *Emige Worte uber die Echtheit der neutest. drei crsten Jahrhunderte, 1848; Steitz in the Schriften, zur Erwiderung, etc., 1847. Studien und Kritlken, 185G and 1857. *D\e Evangehen, ihr Gexst, ihre Verfasser, 8 Die apostotischen Denkwiirdigkeiten dm und ihr Verhdltniss m etnander, 1845. Miirtyrcrs Justin, 1848. 24 PRELIMINARIES. the apostle after the destruction of Jerusalem.1 A similar idea was expressed, at the same time, by Hase} The second work is the Commen- tary of Luthardt on the fourth Gospel, the first part of which contains a series of characteristic portraitures of the principal actors in the evan- gelical drama, according to St. John, designed to render palpable the living reality of all these personages. These portraitures are full of acute and just observations. Ewald, like Hase, defends the authenticity, but does so, while according scarcely any historical credibility to the discourses which the apostle assigns to Jesus, and even to the miraculous deeds which he relates.3 This is an inconsistency which Baur has severely criticised in his reply to Hase. Such defences of a gospel, are almost equivalent to sentences of condemnation pronounced against it, or rather they destroy themselves. We can say almost the same of the opinion of Bunsen* who regards the Gospel of John as the only monument of the evangelical history pro- ceeding from an eye-witness, who declares even that otherwise " there ia no longer an historical Christ," and who yet remits to the domain of legend so decisive a fact as that of the resurrection. Bleek, in his Intro- duction to the New Testament,5 and Meyer, Hengstenberg, and Lange, in their Commentaries, have declared themselves in favor of the authen- ticity, as well as Astie 6 (who adopts Niermeyer's point of view), and the author of these lines.7 The Johannean question, in its relation to that of the Synoptic Gospels, has been treated in an instructive way by de Pressense? The study of the patristic testimonies has recently been made the object of two works, one of a popular character, and the other more exclusively scientific : the little treatise of Tischendorf on the time of the composition of our Gospels,9 and the Academic programme of Riggenbach 1 Over die echtheid der Johanneischen Sthrij 'ten, by Bruston, under the title: Etude critique etc., 1852. See the reviews of this work in the sur V evangrie de Jean, 18G4. Translation of Revue de theologic, June, July and Sept., 1856. Bleek's Introduction into English, in Clark's See also the articles Jean leprophUe and Jean For. Theol. Libr., 18G9. V evangellste, ou lacrise dclafoi chezunap6tre, 6 Explication deV evang'ile selon saint Jean, 1863. by M. Reville (Rev. de thiol., 1854). » Commentaire sur I' ivangile de St. Jean, 18G4; 2 Die TiXbinger-Schule. Sendscreiben an Baur, translated into German by Wunderlich, 18G9 ; 1855. Vom Evangehum des Johannes, 1866. the conclusion, since 1SG6, by Wirz, under the 3 Jahrbucher der biblischenWtssenschaft,185l, title: Prufung der Streitfragen uber das ite 1853, I860, 18G5. Die Johann. Schriften, 1861. Evang.— 2d ed., 1876. * In his lilbelwerk. 8 in the first book of his Vie de Jesus. *The chapters of Bleek relating to theGos- * Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasttl pel of John havo been translated into French 1865 ; 4th ed., 1866. THE DISCUSSION — THE DEFENDERS. 25 in 1866, on the historical and literary testimonies in favor of the Gospel of John.1 The solidity and impartiality of this latter work have been recognized by the author's opponents. We may add to these two writings that in which the Groningen pro- fessor, Hqfstede de Groot, has treated the question of the date of Basilidcs and of the Johannean quotations, especially in the Gnostic writers.'2 The cause of the authenticity has also been maintained by the Abbe" Deramey (1868).3 The tradition of the sojourn of John in Asia Minor has been valiantly defended against Keim by Steitz* and Wabmtz.* Wittichen, taking his position at a point of view which is peculiar to himself, gives up the sojourn of the Apostle John in Asia, but does this in order so much the better to support the authenticity of our Gospel, while he maintains that it was composed by the apostle in Syria for the purpose of combating the Ebionites who were of Essenic tendency. This work would thus date from the times which immediately followed the destruction of Jeru- salem. As for the John of Asia Minor, he was the presbyter, the author of the Apocalypse.6 We have here the antipode of the Tubingen theses. In two works, one by Zahn, the other by Riggenbach, the question of the existence of John the Presbyter, as a distinct personage from the apostle, has been treated. After a careful study of the famous passage of Papias relative to this question, they come to a negative conclusion.7 Leimbach' likewise, in a special study,8 does the same thing, and Professor Milligan, of Aberdeen, also, in an article in the Journal of Sacred Literature, entitled John the Presbyter (Oct. 1867). The historical credibility of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth Gospel has been defended against modern objections by Gess, in the first volume of the second edition of his work on the Person of our Lord,9 and more especially by H. Meyer in a very remarkable licentiate-thesis.10 The English 1 Die Zeugnisse fur das Evang. Johannis neu und Kritiken, 18GG, No. 2; Riggenbach: Jo- untersucht. hannes der Apostel und Presbyter, in the Jahr- * Basdides am Ausgang des apostolischen Zeit- biichcr fur dcutsche Theologic, 1SG8. alters ; German edition, 1808. 8 Das Papias-Fragment, 1875 (reply to the « Defense du quatrieme evangile. work : Das Papias- Fragment des Euscbius, by *Studien und Kritiken, 18(59. Weiffenbach, 1874.) 6 In the Bulletin thioloqique, 18G8. • Christi Person und Work. Neue Bear- • Der geschichthche Charakter des Evang. beitung. Part I. Christi Zeugniss, etc., 1870. Joh., 1868. 10 Les Discours du 4« iv. sont-ils des discoura 1 Zahn : Papias von Eierapolis, in the Studlen historiques de Jisus t 1872. 26 PRELIMINARIES. work of Sanday1 dates from the year 1872, and that of the superintendent Leuschner2 — a brave little work which especially attacks Keim and Scholten. We close this review by mentioning six recent and remarkable works, all of them devoted to the defense of the authenticity. Three are the products of German learning. The first is the critical study of Luthardt,3 forming in a special volume the introduction to the second edition of his Commentary on the fourth Gospel. The second is the brilliant work of Beyschlag in the Studien und Kritiken* which contains perhaps the most able replies to the modern objections. Bernhard Weiss (in the sixth edi- tion of Meyer's Commentary) has treated, in a manner at once profound and concise, the question of the origin of our Gospel. He vigorously defends the authenticity, without, however, maintaining strictly the his- torical character of the discourses.5 The French work is that of Nyegaard* It is a thesis devoted to the examination of the external testimonies relating to the authenticity. This same subject is specially treated by one of the two English works, that of Ezra Abbott, professor in Harvard University.7 This work seems to me to exhaust the subject. A complete acquaintance with modern discussions, profound study of the testimonies of the second century, moderation and perspicuity in judgment — nothing is wanting. The other English work is the Commentary of Westcott, professor at Cambridge.8 In the introduc- tion all the critical questions are handled with learning and tact. III. Pressed by the force of the reasons alleged for and against the authen- ticity, a certain number of theologians have sought to give satisfaction to both sides by having recourse to a middle position. Some have attempted to make a selection between the truly Johannean parts and those which have been added later. Thus Weisse, to whom we have been obliged to attribute an important part in the history of the struggle against the authenticity (page 19), would be disposed, neverthe- 1 The authorship and historical character of des Johann., Gth ed., 1880. the fourth Gospel, t Essai sur les critires externes de Vauthen- 1 Das. Evang. Joh. und seine neuesten Wider- ticite du quatrieme evanc/Ue, 1876. whcr. 7 The authorship of the fourth Gospel.— Ex- 8 Der Johann. Ursprung des vierten Evang., ternal evidences, Boston, 1880. 1°'*- 8 The Holy Bible, commented upon by a 1874 und 1875. company of English bishops and clergymen; 6 Kritisch-exeget. Sandbuch uber das Evang. N. T., vol. II., 1880. THE DISCUSSION — THE DEFENDERS. 27 less, to ascribe to John himself chap, i., 1-5 and 9-14, certain passages in chap, iii., and, finally, the discourses contained in chaps, xiv.-xvii. (while striking out the dialogue portions and narrative elements). Schiveizer has proposed another mode of selection.1 The narratives which have Galilee as their theatre must, according to him, be eliminated from the Johannean writing ; they have been added later to facilitate the agreement between the narrative of John and that of the Synoptics. Is not chap. xxi. for example, a manifest addition ? Schenkel had formerly proposed to regard the discourses as forming the primitive work, and the historical parts as added subsequently.2 But since the unity of the com- position of our Gospel has been triumphantly demonstrated, the division in such an external way has been given up. We are not acquainted with any more recent attempts of this kind. This long enumeration, which contains only the most noteworthy works, proves of itself the gravity of the question.3 Let us sum up the preceding exposition. We may do this by making the following scale, which includes all the points of view which have been mentioned. 1. Some deny all participation, even moral and indirect, on the part of the Apostle John in the composition of the work which bears his name. 1 Das Evang. Joh. nach seinem inneren Werth kritisch untersurht, 1841. The author has since then withdrawn his hypothesis. 2 Studien und Kritiken, 1840 (review of the work of Weisse). In his later works he makes of the Gospel an ideal composition, dating from 110 to 120. 8 Let us mention also various Review arti- cles which are not without importance. First, three remarkable articles of Weizsacker in the Jahrb. fur deutsche Theologie : Das Selbst- teugniss des Johann. Christus (1857) ; Bcitrdge zur Charakteristik des Joh. Ev. (1859) ; die Joh. LogosUhre (18G2). Then, four studies of Holtzmann in the Zeitsehrift fur wissenseh. Theol.: Barnabas und Johannes 1871, in which the author proves that the epistle of Barna- bas rests upon Matthew, but not upon John ; Eermas und Johannes (1875), in which he seeks to prove, in opposition to Zahn, that Hermas does not depend on John, but John is posterior to Hermas; the Shepherd is an essay of a novice which the fourth Gospel has, at a later time, perfected (Harnack, in 1876, refuted Holtzmann in the same journal, but without accepting Zahn's thesis); Johan- nes, Ignatius und Pohjearp (1877), in which he reduces to nothing the testimonies borrowed from the last two in favor of the Gospel of John; Papias und Johannes (1880), in which he seeks to show that the order of the apos- tles' names in the famous list of authorities in Papias does not rest, as Steitz has proved, upon the Gospel of John. The two works of Van Goens : L'apdtre Jean est-il Vautcur du IVe ivangile f and of Rambert, in reply to the foregoing, in the Revue de theologie et de philosophie, Lausanne, 187G and 1877.— The study of Weiffcnbach on the testimony of Papias (p. 37) and the reply of Ludemann (" Zur Erklarung des Papiasfragments ") in the Jahrb. fur protest. Theol., 1870. This last work closes with a general survey of the whole Johannean literature. — Finally, a criti- cal article of Hilgenfeld on Luthardt's Intro- duction to'the fourth Gospel and on my own, in the Jaltrb. fiir U>is,sen£ch. TbcQl., J88Q, 28 PRELIMINARIES. With the exception of certain elements borrowed from the Synoptics, this work contains only a fictitious history (Baur, Keim). 2. Others make our Gospel a free redaction of the Johannean traditions, which continued in Asia Minor after the sojourn of the apostle at Ephesus ; the author thought that he could innocently pass himself off as the Apostle John himself (Kenan, Hase). 3. A third party do not admit that the author wished to pass himself off as John ; they think, on the contrary, that he has expressly distin- guished himself from the apostle, whose stories served him as authorities (Weizsacker, Reuss). 4. The partisans of a middle course go a little further. They discover in the Gospel a certain number of passages or notes which are due to the pen of John himself and which'were amplified at a later time ( Weisse, Schweizer). 5. Finally, there come the defenders of the authenticity properly so called, who are yet divided on one point ; some recognize in the text as it Exists more or less considerable interpolations (the incident of the angel at Bethesda, chap. v. ; the story of the woman taken in adultery, chap, viii.), and the important addition of chap. xxi. ; others adopt as authentic the common text in its entirety. On which of the steps of this scale must we place ourselves in order to be with the truth? This is what the scrupulous examination of the facts alone can teach us. BOOK FIRST. THE APOSTLE ST. JOHN. i. JOHN IN HIS FATHER'S HOUSE. It appears from all the documents that John was a native of Galilee. He belonged to that northern population, with whose lively, laborious, independent, warlike character Josephus has made us acquainted. The pressure exerted on the nation by the religious authorities having their seat at Jerusalem did not bear with equal weight upon that remote country. More free from prejudice, more open to the immediate impres- sion of the truth, Galilean hearts offered to Jesus that receptive soil which His work demanded. Thus all His apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, seem to have been of that province, and it was there that He succeeded in laying the foundations of His Church. John dwelt on those shores of the lake of Gennesaret, which, in our day, present to the eye only a vast solitude, but which were then covered with towns and villages having in all, according to Josephus, many thou- sands of inhabitants. Did John, as is often said, have his home at Beth- saida? This is the conclusion drawn from Luke v. 10, where he is desig- nated, along with his brother James, as a partner of Simon, and from John i. 44, where Bethsaida is called the city of Andrew and Peter. But, notwithstanding this, John may have dwelt at Capernaum, which could not have been far removed from the hamlet of Bethsaida, since on coming out of the synagogue of that city Jesus enters immediately into Peter's house (Mark i. 29). The family of John contained four persons who are known to us : his brother James, who seems to have been his elder brother, since he is ordinarily named before him; their father Zebedce, who was a fisherman (Mark i. 19, 20), and their mother, who must have borne the name of Salome, for in the two evidently parallel passages, Matt, xxvii. 5G, and Mark xv. 40, where the women are mentioned who were present at the crucifixion of Jesus, the name Salome in Mark is the equivalent of the title : the mother of the sons of Zebedee in Matthew. Wieseler has sought to prove that Salome was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus ; from which it would follow that John was the cousin-german of our Lord.1 We cannot regard this hypothesis as having sufficient foundation, either 1 Studicn und Kritiken, 1840. 29 r4l^, ^ -$Q"^<_ being, — the purely ideal type of Paulinism.3 Scholten * also regards this unnamed disciple as a fictitious personage ; he is, in the writer's intention, the symbol of true Christianity, in opposi- tion to the Twelve and their imperfect conception of the gospel. Is it worth our while to refute such vagaries of the imagination ? In chap, xix., the author certainly makes of this disciple a real being, since it is he to whom Jesus entrusts His mother, and who receives her into his house ; unless we are ready also to interpret in a symbolic sense this mother who was thus entrusted to him, and to see in her nothing else than the Church itself. This explanation of the sense-would surpass in point of arbitrariness the master-pieces of allegorizing of which this passage has sometimes been the occasion among Catholic writers. In reading the fourth Gospel, we cannot doubt that the disciple whom Jesus loved was, in the first place, one of the Twelve, and then, one of the three who enjoyed especial intimacy with the Saviour. Of these three, he cannot be Peter, for that apostle is named severahtimes along with the beloved disciple. No more can he be James, who died too early (about the year 44, Acts xii.) for the report to have been spread abroad in the Church that he would not die (John xxi.). John is, therefore, the only one of the three for whom this 'title can be suitable. We reach the same result, also, by another way. In John xxi. 2, seven disciples are desig- nated : " Simon Peter, Thomas, called Didymus, Nathanael, of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples." Among these seven was the one whom Jesus loved, since he plays a part in the follow- ing scene (ver. 20 ff.) Now he cannot be Peter or Thomas or Nathanael, all three of whom are designated by name in the course of the Gospel and in this very passage, nor again one of the two last-mentioned disciples 1 Bupebius, v. 24 («V E^eVu «eKoi>T)Tai). 3 Schenkel's Bibellexicon, vol. iv. art. JVa- iRilgenfold'aZeitechriftfilrwitsenschaftlicke thanael. Theologie, 1868. 4 in the brochure : Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien. A FOLLOWER OF JESUS. 33 whom the author does not name, doubtless because they did not belong to the number of the Twelve. It only remains, therefore, to choose between the two sons of Zebedee ; and between these two, as we have just seen, no hesitation is possible. In the conduct of John, during the ministry of his Master, two features: strike us ; a modesty carried even to the extreme of reserve, and a vivacity reaching sometimes even to the point of violence. The fourth Gospel is fond of relating to us the striking sayings of Peter ; it speaks of the con- versations of Andrew and Philip with Jesus, of the manifestations of devo- tion or of incredulity in Thomas. In the Synoptics Peter speaks at every moment. But in the one narrative and the other John plays only a very secondary and obscure part. Three sayings only are ascribed to him in our Gospel, and they are all very remarkable for their brevity : " Master, where abidest thou?" (i. 38),— " Lord, who is it?" (xiii. 25),— "It is the Lord ! " (xxi. 7). — Moreover, of these three expressions the first was prob- ably uttered by Andrew ; and the second came from the mouth of John only at Peter's suggestion. What significance, then, has this fact, which is apparently so little in accord with the altogether peculiar relation of this disciple to Jesus ? That John was one of those natures which live more within themselves than without. While Peter occupied the fore- ground of the scene, John kept himself in the background, observing, con- templating, drinking in love and light, and satisfied with his character of silent personage which so well suited his receptive and profound nature. We can understand the charm which this character must have had for our Lord. He found in this relation, which remained their common secret, that complement which manly natures seek in family ties. Along with this feature which reveals a character naturally timid and contemplative, we meet certain facts in which John betrays a vivacity of impression capable of rising even to passion ; as when, with his brother, he proposes to Jesus to cause fire to descend from heaven on the Samar- itan village which has refused to receive Him (Luke ix. 54), or when he is irritated at the sight of a man who, without joining himself to the dis- ciples, takes the liberty of casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and forbids him to continue acting in this way (Luke ix. 49). We may bring into comparison with these two features that request for the first place in the Messianic kingdom, by which we discover the impure alloy which was still mingled with his faith. How can we explain these two apparently so opposite traits of charac- ter? There exist natures which are at once tender, ardent and timid; which ordinarily confine their impressions within themselves, and this the more in proportion as these impressions are the more profound. But if it happens that these persons once cease to be masters of themselves, the long restrained emotions then break forth in sudden explosions which throw all around them into astonishment. Was it not to this order of characters that John and his brother belonged? If it was so, could Jesus better describe them, than by giving them the surname of Boanerges, sons 3 34 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. of thunder1 (Mark iii. 17)? I cannot think, as the Fathers believed, that by this surname Jesus meant to mark the gift of eloquence which dis- tinguished them. No more am I able to admit that He wished to per- petuate thereby the remembrance of their passion in one of the cases indicated (Luke ix. 54). But, as electricity is slowly accumulated in the cloud, until it suddenly breaks forth in the lightning and the thunderbolt, so Jesus observed in these two loving and passionate beings, how the impres- sions were silently stored within until the moment when, as the result of some outward circumstance, they violently broke forth ; and this is what He meant to describe. St. John is often represented as a nature sweet and tender even to effeminacy. Do not his writings before and above all things insist upon love ? Were not the last preachings of the old man : "Love one another?'' This is true; but we must not forget the traits of a different nature which, both in the earlier and later periods of his life, reveal in him something decided, trenchant, absolute, and even violent? In thus estimating the character of John we believe ourselves to be in accordance with the truth, rather than Sabatier, where he closes his judg- ment of the apostle with these words : " It is worthy of remark, that the name of John does not occur in the Synoptics except in connection with censure." But are we to forget that, in one case, he accused himself (Luke ix. 49) ; that, in another, it was by excess of zeal for the honor of Jesus that he drew upon himself a reprimand (Luke ix. 54) ; and that, in the third case, the jealous indignation of his fellow-disciples sprung from the same cause as the ambitious petition of the two sons of Salome (Mark x. 41, comp. 42 ff.)? Are we, above all, to forget the place which, accord- ing to the Synoptics themselves, Jesus had given to John, as well as to Peter and James, in His most intimate friendship? Comp. also the inci- dent in Luke xxii. 8. The design of this manner of presenting the sub- ject is explained by what follows : " There is here," continues the writer, " a singular contrast to the image of the beloved disciple who leans upon Jesus' bosom, of that ideal disciple who conceals and reveals himself at the same time in the fourth Gospel." 2 It was, then, a stepping-stone to something further ! The biography was at the service of the criticism. If we take account of all the facts which have been pointed out, we shall recognize in John one of those natures passionately devoted to the ideal which, at the first sight, give themselves without reserve to the being who seems to them to realize it. But the devotion of such persons easily takes on somewhat of exclusiveness and intolerance. Everything which does not answer in sympathy completely to their enthusiasm irritates them and excites their indignation. They have no comprehension of what a dividing of the heart is, any more than they know how to have such a divided heart themselves. The whole for the whole ! Such is their motto. Where the complete gift is wanting, there is no longer anything to their view. Such affections do not exist without containing an alloy of egoism. A divine work is necessary to the end that the devotion which > Bone r6ges (W J1 ' J3). » Encyclopedic des Sciences rehgieuses, t. VII., p. 173. HEAD OF THE JEWISH CHURCH. 35 forms their basis may at last come forth purified and may appear in all its sublimity. Such was John — worthy, even in his very faults, of the intimate friendship of the best of men. III. JOHN AT THE HEAD OF THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ' John's part in the Church after the day of Pentecost was that which such antecedents lead us to expect. On that stage where Peter and James, the brother of John, the first martyr among the apostles, and where even mere assistants of the apostles, such as Stephen and Philip, and finally Paul and James, the Lord's brother, moved and acted, John appears only on two occasions : — when he goes up to the temple with Peter (Acts hi.), and when he accompanies this same apostle to Samaria, in order to finish the work begun by Philip (Acts viii.). And on each of these two occasions Peter is the one who plays the principal part ; John seems to be only his assistant. As we have already seen, the disciple whom Jesus loved was not a man of action ; he did not take the initiative as a conqueror; his mission, like his talent, was of a more inward character. His hour was not to strike until a later time, after the Cburch was founded. Meanwhile, a deep work, the continuation of that which Jesus had begun in him, was being wrought in his soul. That promise which he has him- self preserved for us — " The Spirit shall glorify me in you " was finding its realization in his case. After having given himself up, he found himself again in his glorified Master, and he gave himself up still more fully. But from this moment he had a particular task to fulfill — that which his dying Master had left as a legacy to him. To Peter, Jesus had en- trusted the direction of the Church ; to John, the care of His mother. Where did Mary live? It is scarcely probable that she felt any attrac- tion towards a residence in Jerusalem. Her dearest recollections recalled her to Galilee. Undoubtedly, it was there also, on the shores of the lake of Gennesaret, that John possessed that home where he received her and lavished upon her the attentions of filial piety. This circumstance like- wise serves to explain why, in those earliest times, he took little part in missionary work. Had he lived at Jerusalem, Paul would undoubtedly have seen him, as well as Peter and James, at the time of his first visit to that city after his conversion (Gal. i. 18, 19). Later traditions, yet traditions which nothing prevents us from regarding as well-founded, place the death of Mary about the year 48. After that time, John undoubtedly took a more considerable part in the direction of the Christian work. At the time of the assembly, commonly called the council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), in 50 or 51, he is one of the apostles with whom Paul confers in the capital, and the latter ranks him (Gal. ii.) among those who were regarded as the pillars of the Church.1 An important and much discussed question with respect to John presents itself at this point. i Gal. ii. 9 : " James, Cephas and John, who were thought to be pillars. 36 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. The Tubingen school ascribes to these three personages, James, Peter and John, who represented the Jewish-Christian Church at that time over against Paul and Barnabas, an opinion opposed to that of these last as to the matter of maintaining legal observances in the Church. The only dif- ference which it recognizes between the apostles and the false brethren privily brought in, of whom Paul speaks (Gal. ii. 4), — and it is not to the advantage of the former, — is this: the false brethren, the Pharisaical intruders, held their ground in opposition to Paul and attempted to make him yield, while the apostles, intimidated by his energy and by the eclat of his successes among the Gentiles, abandoned in fact their convictions, and agreed, in spite of these men, to divide with him the missionary work. Thus would be reduced to insignificance the import of that sign of co-operation which the apostles gave to Paul and Barnabas, in extending to them the right hand of fellowship at the moment when they separated from each other (ver. 9). We can readily understand the interest which attaches to this question. If such was really the personal conviction of John, it is obvious that he could not be the author of the fourth Gospel, or that he could be so only on the condition of having previously passed through the crisis of a com- plete transformation. Schurer himself, who is independent of the Tubingen point of view, says : l " The John of the second chapter of Galatians, who disputes with Paul respecting the law, cannot have written our fourth Gospel." But is it true that the abrogation of the law for the converted Gentiles was a concession which St. Paul was obliged to wrest from the apostles, contrary to their 'inward conviction ? Is it true, in general, that there was on the question of the law a fundamental difference between Paul and the Twelve ? This question has been discussed beyond measure during the last thirty years, and I do not think that, on the whole, the scale has turned in the direction of Baur's assertions. I will only take up here one decisive passage — the one which that school most habitually puts forward, and which, to the view of Hilgenfeld, is, as it were, its impregnable fortress. It is Gal. ii. 3, 4 : " But Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was not com- pelled to be circumcised, and that because of (tita de) the false brethren brought in privily ..." The following is the way in which Hilgenfeld reasons :— -Paul does not say : I did not yield to the false brethren ; but, I did not yield because of tliem. To whom, then, did he make resistance? Evidently to others than these. These others can only be the apostles. It was the apostles, therefore, who demanded the circumcision of Titus. Con- sequently they claimed, and John with them, the right to impose circum- cision on the Gentiles. The observation from which Hilgenfeld starts is correct; but the conclusion which he draws from it is false. The apostles asked of Paul the circumcision of Titus, and he would not yield to them be- cause of the false brethren. Such, indeed, is the fact. But what does it prove ? That the false brethren demanded this circumcision in an alto- i Theol. Liter.-Zcit, 1870, No. 14. , HEAD OF THE JEWISH CHURCH. 37 gether different spirit from the Twelve. They demanded it as an obliga- tion, while the apostles asked it of Paul only as a free concession in favor of the Christians of Jerusalem, who were offended at the thought of inter- course with an uncircumcised person. This is the reason why Paul was able to say : Apart from the false brethren, I might have yielded to the Twelve with that compliance (ry vnorayy, ver. 5) which every Christian should exhibit towards his brethren in the things which are in themselves indifferent. And this is what he really did every time that he put himself under the law with those who were under the law (1 Cor. ix. 20); comp. the circumcision of Timothy. But it was impossible for him at this time to act thus because of the false brethren, who were prepared to make use of that concession in order to turn it to account in relation to the Gentiles as an obligatory precedent. The Twelve understood this reason, and did not in- sist. If the case stands thus, the question is solved. As a matter of right, the Twelve did not impose the law upon the Gentiles. They personally observed it, with the Christians of Jewish origin, but not as a condition of salvation, since, in that case, they could not have exempted the Gentiles from it. They observed it until God, who had imposed this system upon them, should Himself put an end to it. Paul had anticipated them in knowledge on this point only : that to his view the cross was already for the Jews themselves the expected abrogation (Gal. ii. 19, 20). For those of the apostles who, like St. John, survived the fall of the temple, that event must naturally have removed the last doubt in relation to themselves and their nation. This view does not force us to establish a conflict between the epistles of Paul and the narrative of the Acts. It is likewise in accord with our Synoptic gospels, which are filled with declarations of Jesus containing what involves the abolition of the law. That sentence : " It is not that which entereth into the man which defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the heart of the man,"1 contains in principle the total abolition of the Levitical system. That other saying : " The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath,"2 saps the foundation of the Sabbath ordinance in its Mosaic form, and thereby the entire ceremonial institution of which the Sabbath was the centre. By comparing His new economy to a new gar- ment, which must be substituted as a whole for the old,s Jesus gives ex- pression to a view of the relation between the Gospel and the law beyond which the apostle of the Gentiles himself could not go. And it is the apostles who have transmitted all these words to the Church; and yet they did this, it is said, without at all comprehending their practical applica- tion ! Independently, then, of the epistles of Paul and the Acts, we are obliged to affirm that what is (wrongly) called Pnulinism must have ex- isted, as a more or less latent conviction, in the minds of the apostles from the time of Jesus' ministry. The death of Christ, the day of Pentecost, and the work of Paul could not fail to develop these germs. Irenseus has very faithfully described this state of things in these words: 1 Matt. xv. 18-20; Mark vii. 18-20. 2 Mark ii. 28. * Matt. ix. 1C and the parallels. ' 38 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. "They themselves (the apostles) persevered in the old observances, con- ducting themselves piously with regard to the institution of the law ; but, as for us Gentiles, they granted us liberty, committing us to the Holy Spirit." " IV. JOHN IN ASIA MINOR. After the council of Jerusalem, we lose all trace of John until the time when tradition depicts him as accomplishing his apostolic ministry in the midst of the churches of Asia Minor. It is not probable that he repaired to those remote countries before the destruction of Jerusalem. He undoubtedly accompanied the Jewish-Christian Church when it emigrated to Perea at the time when the war against the Romans broke out. This departure took place about the year 67 .2 Only at a later period, when, in consequence of the death of Paul, and perhaps of the death of his assist- ants in Asia Minor, Titus and Timothy, the churches of that region, which were so important, found themselves deprived of every apostolic leader, John removed thither. He does not seem to have been the only apostle or apostolic personage who made choice of this place of residence. History speaks of the ministry of Philip, either the apostle or the deacon, at Hierapolis ; we find, also, some indications of a sojourn of Andrew in Ephesus.3 As Thiersch says, " The centre of gravity of the Church was no longer at Jerusalem, and it was not yet at Rome ; it was at Ephesus." Like the circle of golden candlesticks,4 the numerous and flourishing churches founded by Paul in Ionia and Phrygia were the luminous point towards which the eyes of all Christendom were directed. " From the fall of Jerusalem," says Liicke, " even into the second century, Asia Minor was the most living portion of the Church." What excited an interest on behalf of these churches was not merely the energy of their faith ; it was the intensity of the struggle which they had to main- tain against heresy. " After my departure," St. Paul had said to the pastors of Ephesus and Miletus (Acts xx. 29, 30), " ravenous wolves shall enter in among you not sparing the flock ; and from among your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away the disci- ples after them." This prophecy was fulfilled. It is not surprising, there- fore, that John, one of the last survivors among the apostles, should have gone to supply in those regions the place of the apostle of the Gentiles, and to water, as Apollos had formerly done in Corinth, that which Paul had planted. The accounts of this residence of John in Asia are numerous and posi- tive. Nevertheless, Keim and Scholten, after the example of Vogel, Rcuterdahl, and especially Lutzelberger, have in these latter days contro- verted the truth of this tradition. The former thinks that the personage, named John, whom Poly carp had known, was not the apostle, but the 1 A 42 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. that moment with the position of Ignatius, when he wrote to the Ephe- sians on his way to Rome, is obvious. There was no similar comparison to be made with the life of John. Moreover, the eleventh chapter of this same letter furnishes, perhaps, an allusion to the presence of John at Ephesus : " The Christians of Ephesus," says Ignatius, " have always lived in entire harmony (cwyveaav) with the apostles, in the strength of Jesus Christ." Finally, we must not forget that Ignatius was from Syria, and that he had not been acquainted with John in Asia Minor. Polycarp, writing to Macedonian Christians, had no particular reason for recalling to them John's ministry at Ephesus. If he speaks to them of Paul, it is because this apostle had founded and several times visited their church ; and if he mentions Ignatius, it is because the venerated martyr had just passed through Philippi, at that very moment, as he was going to Rome. The similar objection, derived from the account of the death of Poly- carp, in the Acts of his martyrdom, by the church of Smyrna, is no more serious. Sixty years had passed since John's death, and yet that church could not have written a letter without making mention of him ! Hilgen- feld, moreover, rightly notices the title of apostolic teacher given to Polycarp (chap. 18), which recalls his personal relations with one or with several of the apostles. Keim and Scholten find the most decisive argument in the silence of Papias ; they even see in the words of this Father the express denial of all connection with the apostle. Irena3us, it is true, did not understand Papias in this way. He thinks, on the contrary, that he can call him a hearer of John ('ludwov anovoTi/g). But, it is said, precisely at this point is an error, which Eusebius has noticed and corrected by a more thorough study of the terms which Papias employed. The importance of the testi- mony of Papias in this question is manifest. Leimbach cites as many as forty-five writers who have treated this subject in these most recent times. We are compelled to study it more closely. First of all, what is the epoch of Papias, and what the date of his work? Iremcus adds to the title of hearer of John, which he gives to him, that of companion of Polycarp (Uo^vKapnov halpoq). This term denotes a contempo- rary. Now, the most recent investigations place the martyrdom of Poly- carp in 155 or 156,1 and this date appears to be generally adopted at the present day (Renan, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld). As Polycarp himself declares that he had spent eighty-six years in the service of the Lord, his birth must be placed, at the latest, in the year 70. If Papias was his contempo- rary, therefore, he lived between 70 and 160; and if John died about the year 100, this Father might, chronologically speaking, have been in con- tact with the apostle up to the age of thirty. Irenseus, at the same time, calls Papias a man of Christian antiquity {apxdioc avyp) ; Papias belonged, then, like Polycarp, to the generation which immediately followed the 1Waddinp;ton, Mhnoirea de VAcadimie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, tome xxvi., 2* partic, p. 232 ct suiv. IN ASIA MINOR. 43 apostles. There is, finally, in the very fragment which we are about to study, an expression which leads us to the same conclusion. Papias says that he informed himself concerning " that whichAndrew, and then Peter, Philip, etc., etc., said (e'nrev), and that which Aristion and John the Presby- ter, the disciples of the Lord, say (leyovotv)." This contrast between the past said and the present say is too marked to be accidental. It implies, as at the present day Keim, Hilgenfeld and Mangold acknowledge, that at the time when Papias wrote the two last-named personages were still living ; ' and, since they are both designated as personal disciples of Jesus, they can only, at the latest, have lived until about the year 110-120. It was, then, at this period also — at the latest — that Papias wrote. He was then thirty to forty years old.2 Now the following is the fragment quoted by Eusebius.* The question will be whether the personal relation of Papias with John the apostle is affirmed, as Irenseus thinks, or excluded, as Eusebius claims, by the terms employed in this much discussed passage. "Now I shall not fail to add to my explanations also (o-uy/caxardfat4 rdic ipfiTivsiaiq) all that which I have formerly very well learned and very well remembered from the elders (rzapa tuv npeoflvTepuv), while guaranteeing to thee the truth of the same. For I did not take pleasure, like the great mass, in those who relate many things, but in those who teach true things ; nor in those who spread abroad strange commandments, but in those who spread abroad the commandments given to faith by the Lord and that come5 from the truth itself. And if, at times, also, one of those who accompanied the elders came to me (« 6k nov nal napaKolovdrinug nq rdiq npeoftvrepoiG IWoi), I inquired about the words of the elders (jovg tuv izpeo- Jivrepuv avenpivov X6yovg) : what Andrew said, or Peter (ri 'Avdpeac fj ri TJe- Tpoq elrcev), or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John,6 or Matthew, or some' other of the disciples of the Lord (7 rig erepoc tuv tov Kvpiov nadrjTuv) ; then about what Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say (d re7 'Apioriuv nai 6 irpeajivTEpoq 'ludvvijg, oi tov Kvpiov fiadj]Tal, Xiyovatv) , for I iZahn and Riggenbach think that thi3 refer either to the commandments or to the present say may denote merely the perma- individuals themselves, nence of the testimony of these men ; Leim- 8 M. Renan has proposed to reject from the bach : that it arises from the fact that Papias text the words: or John. This is absolutely thinks that he still hears them speak.— All arbitrary, and in that case the conclusion of this would be possible only in so far as the Eusebius respecting the existence of a sec- contrast with the past tense had said did not ond John would lose its foundation, exist. 7 Papias here substitutes for the interroga- * There must be a resolute determination tive pronoun ri (employed in the preceding to create a history after one's own fancy, to clause) the relative pronoun a, because the place, as Volk mar ventures to do, the work of idea of interrogation is remote This o is Papias in 1651 also the object of aviKpivov, parallel with the a H. E. iii. 39. preceding object Aoyous (so also Holtzmann). ♦ This reading, (and not Ta£ ai), appears No one, I think, will be tempted to accept certain; see Leimbach. Leimbach's translation : ". . . or which (tw) of 6 The ambiguity of our translation repro- the disciples of the Lord [has related] that duces the possible meaning of the two read- which Aristion or John says . . ." The ings (napayivo/ifva^ and TrapaYieonepois) position of the t«, placed as it is after a, and according to which the words : and that come not after 'ApumW, is sufficient to refute this. 44 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. did not suppose that that which is derived from hooks could be as useful to me as that which comes from the living and permanent word." This passage is made up of two distinct paragraphs, of which the sec- ond begins with the words : "And if at times (now and then) also." Hilgenfeld and others think that the second paragraph is only the com- mentary on the first, and refers to the same fact. But this interpretation does violence to the text, as the first words prove : And if at times also (el 6k irov nai). This transition indicates an advance, not an identity. The two paragraphs, therefore, refer to different facts. In the former paragraph, Papias evidently speaks of what he has favor- ably received and remembered from the elders themselves — that is to say, by a communication from them to him personally. This is implied by the use of the preposition napa (from), the regular sense of which is that of direct communication; 2. By the adverb vote (formerly), which, by plac- ing these communications in a past already remote, shows that such a relation has for a long time been no more possible, and that it, conse- quently, belongs to the youth of the author. The essential question in relation to the meaning of this first paragraph is the following: Who arc1 these elders whom Papias heard in his youth? They cannot be, as Weiffe'fibach has maintained, the elders or presbyters appointed in the churches by the apostles. For how could Papias, the contemporary of Polycarp, one of the men of the older generation to the view of Irenffius, have been formerly (in his youth) instructed by these disciples of the apostles ! The anachronism resulting from this explana- tion is a flagrant one. No more, on the other hand, can these elders be, as has been claimed, simply and exclusively the apostles. In that case Papias would have used this term, and not the term elders. The title elders (npeopuTspoi, seniores) has, with the Fathers, as Holtzmann has well remarked, a relative meaning. For Irenseus and the men of the third Christian generation, the elders are the men of the second, the Polycarps and the Papiases ; for these latter, they are the men of the first— the apostles, first of all, and, besides them, every immediate witness and dis- ciple of the Lord. This clearly appears from the second paragraph in which Papias gives an enumeration of those whom he calls the elders; it includes seven apostles and two diseiples of the Lord who were not apostles, Aristioh and the presbyter John. As the Apostle John has been named among the seven, it appears to me impossible to identify with the apostle this presbyter having the same name, notwithstanding the reasons given by Zahn and Kiggenbach. He is a second John, who lived in Asia Minor, and whom the special surname of elder or presbyter was intended, per- haps, to distinguish from the apostle, who was called either simply John, or the Apostle John.1 And is It not evident that;the words r, r.t irtpot the ellipsis of the verb is inadmissible, are the conclusion and, as it were, the et » See the clear and precise setting-forth of tetera of the preceding enumeration ? More- this subject by Weiss : Commentar zum Evan- over, of what consequence is it which of the gelium Johannis (6th ed. of Meyer's Commen- disciptoasaidsuchorauohathingl Finally, tary). IN ASIA MINOR. 45 It follows from this, that, in the first paragraph, Papias declares that he had in former years heard personally from the immediate disciples of Jesus (apostles or non-apostles). He does not name them ; but we have no right to exclude from this number the Apostle John, and, because of this statement, to declare false, as Eusebius does in his History, the words of Irenseus : " Papias, a fellow-disciple of Polycarp and hearer of John." And this even more, since Irenteus, a native of Asia Minor, had probably been personally acquainted with Papias, and since Eusebius himself, in his Chronicon, affirms the personal connection of Papias, as well as that of Polycarp, with St. John.1 In the second paragraph, Papias passes from personal to indirect rela- tions. He explains how, at a later period, when he found himself pre- vented by distance or by the death of the elders from communicating with them, he set himself to the work of continuing to collect the mate- rials for his book. He took advantage of all the opportunities that were offered him by the visits which he received at Hierapolis, to question every one of those who had anywhere met with the elders ; and it is on occasion of this statement, that he designates the latter by name : " I asked him what Andrew, Peter . . . John, etc., said " (when they were alive) re- specting such or such a circumstance in the life of the Lord, " and what the two disciples of the Lord, Aristion and the presbyter John say " (at the present time). And why, indeed, even after having communicated directly in his youth with some of these men, may not Papias have sought to gather some indirect information from the lips of those who had enjoyed such intercourse more recently or more abundantly than himself? At all events, as it evidently does not follow from the first paragraph that Papias "had not been acquainted with John, so it does follow with equal clearness, from the second, that he was not personally instructed by John the Pres- byter ; and thus a second error of Eusebius is to be corrected. What becomes, then, of the modern argument (Keim and others), drawn from the passage of Papias, against the residence of John in Asia ? " Papias himself declares,'' it is said, " that he was not acquainted with any one of the apostles, while he affirms that he was personally acquainted with John the Presbyter. Irenseus, therefore, in speaking of him as the hearer of the Apostle John, has confounded the apostle with the pres- byter." The fact is : 1. That Papias affirms his having been acquainted with elders (among whom might be John the Apostle) ; 2. That he denies a personal acquaintance with John the Presbyter • and 3. That he expressly distinguishes John the Apostle from John the Presbyter. We see what is the value of the objection drawn from this testimony. But, it is said, Irenseus may have been mistaken when alleging that the John known to Polycarp was the apostle, whereas this person was actually only the presbyter. And this mistake of Irenseus may have led astray the whole tradition which emanates from him. Keim supports this asser- tion by the following expression of Irenseus in his letter to Florinus, when » Oomp. Zahn, Patr. apost. edition of Gebhardt, Ilarnack, etc. 46 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. he is speaking of his relations with Polycarp : " When I was yet a child (naiq in uv)," and by that other similar expression, in his great work, on the same occasion: "In our first youth (kv ry irpuri) yAinia)." But every one acquainted with the Greek language knows well that such expressions, in particular the word translated by child (naig), often denote a young man ; ' and could the youngest Christian, who was of such an age as to hear Polycarp, in listening to his narratives, confound a simple presbyter with the Apostle John? Besides, Polycarp himself came to Pome, a short time before his martyrdom ; he appealed in the presence of Anicetus to the authority of the Apostle John, in order to support the Paschal observance of Asia Minor. The misapprehension, if it had existed, would infallibly, at that time, have been cleared up. Finally, even if the testi- mony of Irenscus had been founded on an error, it could not have had the decisive influence on the tradition which is ascribed to it. For there exist other statements which are contemporaneous with his, and which are necessarily independent of it — such as those of Clement in Egypt and Polycrates in Asia Minor ; or even anterior to his — such as those of Apol- lonius in Asia, Polycarp at Rome, and Justin. It is consequently to attempt an impossibility, when we try to make the whole tradition on this point proceed from Irenaeus. Irenseus wrote in Gaul about 185; how could he have drawn after him all those writers or witnesses who go back in a continuous series from 190 to 150, and that in all parts of the world !J Scholten has acknowledged the impossibility of explaining the error in Keim's way.3 He thinks that it arose from the Apocalypse, which was attributed to the Apostle John, and which appeared to have been composed in Asia.* Mangold himself has replied, with perfect justice, that it is, on the con- trary, only the certainty of John's residence in Asia which could have brought the churches of that region to ascribe to him the composition of the Apocalypse.5 If Justin himself, while he resided at Ephesus, where he maintained his public dispute with Trypho, had not ascertained the cer- tainty of John's residence in that country, could he have conceived the idea of ascribing to him so positively a book, the first chapters of which manifestly imply an Asiatic origin ? Moreover, this tradition was so widely spread abroad throughout the churches of Asia Minor, that* Irenaeus says that he had been acquainted 1 John is called naU, by the Fathers, at the in the narrative of the Acts, and who, as a time when he becomes a disciple of Jesus. consequence, might be confounded with the 2 Against the testimony of Polycrates has apostle, and a man as obscure as the presby- heen alleged the error contained in his letter ter John. to Victor, as to the deacon Philip, who, he says, 3 He decides in favor of Steitz, who has was one of the Twelve. Steitz's hypothesis proved that the idea of John's residence in which regards the words, " who runs one of the Asia existed already when Apollonius and Ire- seven," as interpolated in the text of Acts xxi. nseus wrote. «, would overthrow the objection. But, in any *Keim does not altogether reject this expla- case, if there is an error (which cannot be nation. He says, " The Apocalypse came in fully proved) there remains a great difference also as a help." between an apostolic man, such as the evan- 5 Notes, in the 3d edition of Bleek'a Intro- gelist Philip, who had played so great a part duction, p. 168. IN ASIA MINOR. 47 with several presbyters, who, by reason of their personal relations with the Apostle John, testified to the authenticity of the number 666 (in opposi- tion to the variant 616). Finally, how can we dispose of the testimony contained in the letter to Florinus ? Scholten, it is true, has attempted to prove this document to be unauthentic. Hilgenfeld calls this attempt a desperate undertaking.1 We will add : and a useless one, even in case it is successful ; for the letter of Irenseus to Victor, which no one tries to dispute, remains and is sufficient. Besides, there is nothing weaker than the arguments by which Scholten seeks to justify this act of critical violence.2 There is but one true reason — that which arises from the admission : If the letter were authentic, the personal relation of Poly- carp to John the apostle could be no longer denied. Very well ! we may say, the authenticity of this letter remains unassailable, and, by the admission of Scholten himself, the personal relation of Poly carp to John cannot be denied. But it is claimed that, as the Apocalypse presupposes the death of all the apostles as an accomplished fact, and that in the year 6S,S the Apostle John could not have been still living about the year 100. And what, then, are the words of the Apocalypse from which the death of all the apostles is inferred ? They are the following, according to the text which is now established (xviii. 20) : "Rejoice thou heaven and ye saints and apostles and prophets (oi ayioi ml ol a-6a-oloi ml oi izpo^rj-ai) , because God has taken upon the earth the vengeance which was due to you." This passage assuredly proves that, at the date of the composition of the Apocalypse, there were in heaven a certain number of saints, apostles and prophets, who had suffered martyrdom. But these apostles are as far from being all the apostles as these saints are from being all the saints ! * Thus the objections against the unanimously authenticated historical fact of the residence of John in Asia,5 to which critical prejudices have given rise, vanish away. Tradition does not merely attest John's residence in Asia in a general way; it reports, in addition, many particular incidents which may indeed 1 Einleitung, p. 397. more distinctly observed. Hilgenfeld, Baur's 2 Thus he asks how Eusebius procured disciple, and Baur himself have need of John's that letter ; how the relation of Polycarp with residence in Asia, for H is the foundation of John is compatible with his death in 108 (we their argument against the authenticity of our ought to say 150) ; why Irenseus does not re- Gospel, which is derived from the Apocalypse call to Florinus his rank of presbyter of the and the Paschal controversy. What happens? Roman Church; and other arguments of like They find the testimonies which attest this force. fact perfectly convincing. Keim, on the con- 8 We do not here discuss this alleged date trary, for whom that residence is a very trou- of the Apocalypse; we believe that we have blesome fact (because the remote date which elsewhere demonstrated its falsity. (Etudes he assigns for the composition of our Gospel biblique, tome ii. 5« etude.) would be too near the time of that residence), * On the objection derived from the account declares these same testimonies valueless. of the murder of John by the Jews, in the What are we to think, after this, of the so Chronicle of Georgius Hamart61os, see page much vaunted objectivity of historico-critical 51. studies? Itisplain: — each critical judgment 6 In no question, perhaps, is the decisive is determined by a sympathy or an antipathy influence of the will on the estimate of facta which warps the understanding. 48 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. have been amplified, but which cannot have been wholly invented. In any case, these anecdotes imply a well-established conviction of the reality of this residence. There is, for example, the meeting of John with the heretic Cerinthus in a public bath, at Ephesus. " There are still living," says Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii. 4), "people who have heard Polycarp relate that John, having entered a bath-house at Ephesus and having seen Cerinthus inside, sud- denly withdrew, without having bathed, saying : Let us go but, lest the house fall down because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is there." This well attested incident recalls the vividness of impressions in the young apostle, who refused the right of healing in the name of Jesus to the be- liever who did not outwardly walk with the apostles, or who desired to bring down fire from heaven on the Samaritan village which was hostile to Jesus. Or, again, there is the incident, related by Clement of Alexandria, of the young man who was entrusted by John to a bishop of Asia Minor, and whom the aged apostle succeeded in bringing back from the criminal course upon which he had entered.1 This incident recalls the ardor of . 1 The following is the incident loaded with the rhetorical amplifications of Clement, as it is found in Quis dives salvus, c. 42: "Listen to that which is related (and it is not a tale, hut a true history) of the Apostle John: When he was on his return from Pat- mos to Ephesus, after the death of the tyrant, he visited the surrounding countries for the purpose of establishing bishops and consti- tuting churches. One day, in a city near to Ephesus, after having exhorted the brethren and regulated the affairs, he noticed a spirited and beautiful young man, and, feeling him- self immediately attracted to him, he said to the bishop : ' I place him on thy heart and on that of the Church.' The bishop promised the apostle to take care of him. He received him into his house, instructed him and watch- ed over him until he could admit him to bap- tism. But, after he had received the seal of the Lord, the bishop relaxed in his watchful- ness. -The young man, set free too sqon, fre- quented bad society, gave himself up to all sorts of excess, and ended by stopping and robbing passengers on the nighway. As a mettlesome horse, when he has once left the road, dashes blindly down the precipice, so he, borne on by his natural character, plunged into the abyss of perdition. Despairing hence- forth of forgiveness, he yet desired at least to do something great in this criminal life. He gathers together his companions in debauch- ery and forms them into a band of brigands, of whom he becomes the chief, and soon he surpasses them al4 in the thirst for blood and violence. "After a certain lapse [of time, John re- turned to this same city ; having finished all that he had to do there, he asks the bishop, ' Well, restore now the pledge which the Lord and I have entrusted to thee in the presence of the Church.' The latter, dismayed, thinks that it is a matter of a sum of money which had been entrusted to him : ' Not at all,' answers John, ' but the young man, the soul of thy brother!' The old man sighs, and bursting into tears, answers : ' He is dead ! ' — 'Dead ! ' replies the Lord's disciple ; ' and by what sort of death ? ' ' Dead to God ! He be- came ungodly and then a robber. He occu- pies, with his companions, the summit of this mountain.' On hearing these words, the apos- tle rends his garments, smites his head and cries out: 'Oh, to what a guardian have I entrusted the soul of my brother! ' He takes a horse and a guide, and goes directly to the place where the robbers are. He is seized by the sentinels, and, far from seeking to escape, he says : ' It is for this very thing that I am come; conduct me to your chief.' The latter, fully armed, awaits his arrival. But as soon as he recognizes in the one who is approach- ing the Apostle John, he takes to flight. John, forgetting his age, runs after him, crying : ' Why dost thou fly from me, oh my son, from me thy father? Thou in arms, I an unarmed old man? Have pity on me! My son, fear not! There is still hope of life for thee! I am willing myself to assume the burden of all before Christ. If it is necessary, I will die for thee, as Christ died for us. Stop ! Believe ! It is Christ who sends me ! ' The young man, on hearing his words, stops, with downcast eyes. Thon he throws away his arms, and IN ASIA MINOR. 49 love in the young disciple who, at the first meeting with Jesus had given himself up wholly to Him, and whom Jesus had made His friend. Clement says that the apostle returned from Patmos to Ephcsus after the death of the tyrant. Tertullian {De praeseript. haer. c. 36) relates that that exile was preceded by a journey to Rome ; and he adds the following detail : " After the apostle had been plunged in boiling oil and had come out of it safe and sound, he was banished to an island." According to Irenseus it would seem that the tyrant was Domitian.1 Some scholars claim that a reminder of this punishment undergone by John may bo found in the epithet witness (or martyr) which is given him by Polycrates. But perhaps there is in that narrative simply a fiction, to which the words addressed by Jesus to the two sons of Zebedee may have given rise : " Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with," words the literal realization of which is sought for in vain in the life of John. As to the exile in Patmos, it might also be supposed that that story is merely an inference drawn from Apoc. i. Nevertheless, Eusebius says : " Tradition states (16yoq ixEL) ', " arjd as history proves the fact of exiles of this sort under Domitian, and that precisely for the crime of the Christian faith,2 there may well be more in it than the product of an exegetical combina- tion. This exile and the composition of the Apocalypse are placed by Epiphanius in the reign of Claudius (from the year 41 to the year 54). This date is positively absurd, since at that epoch the churches of Asia Minor, to which the Apocalypse is addressed, had no existence. Kenan has supposed 3 that the legend of the martyrdom of John might have arisen from the fact that this apostle had had to undergo a sentence at Rome at the same time as Peter and Paul. But this hypothesis is not sufficiently supported. Finally, according to Augustine, he drank a cup of poison without feeling any injury from it, and according to the anti-Montanist writer, Apollonius, (about 180), John raised to life a dead man at Ephesus (Eusebius, v. 18) ; two legends, which are perhaps connected with Matt. x. 8 and Mark xvi. 18. Steitz has supposed that the latter was only an alter- ation of the history of the young brigand rescued by John from perdition. Clement of Alexandria thus describes the ministry of edification and organization which the apostle exercised in Asia: "He visited the churches, instituted bishops and regulated affairs." Rothe, Thiersch and Neander himself* attribute to the influence exerted by him the very stable constitution of the churches of Asia Minor in the second century, begins to tremble and weep bitterly. And so earnestly and powerfully, by fasting and when the old man comes up, he embraces his by his discoursing, that he is at length able to knees and asks him for pardon with deep restore him to the flock as an example of groanings; these tears arc for him as if a true regeneration." second baptism; only he refuses and still ' For in Adv. Ilacr. v. 33, he places the corn- conceals his right hand. The apostle hcoom- position of the Apocalypse under Domitian. ing himself surety for him before tho Sa- 2 Eusebius, II. E. iii. 18. viour, with an oath promises him his pardon, * V Antiehriit, p. 27 ff. falls on his knees, prays, and finally, taking *Gr.srhkhte dcr Pflanzung dcr christlichen him by the hand, which he withdraws, leads Kirclie, Vol. II., p. 430. him back to the Church, and there strives 4 50 BOOK I. THE APOSTLE JOHN. of which we already find traces in the Apocalypse {the angel of the Church), and, a little later, in the epistles of Ignatius. History thus establishes the fact of a visit to these churches made by an eminent apos- tle, such as St. John was, who crowned the edifice erected by Paul. But the most beautiful monument of the visit of John in these regions is the maturity of faith and Christian life to which the churches of Asia were raised by his ministry. Polycrates, in his enthusiastic and symbolic lan- guage, represents to us St. "John at this period of his life, as wearing on his forehead, like the Jewish high-priest, the plate of gold with the inscription, Holiness to the Lord. " John," he says, " who rested on the bosom of the Lord, and who became a priest wearing the plate of gold, both witness and teacher." The attempt has been made to find in this passage an absurdity, by taking it in the literal sense ; but the thought of the aged bishop is clear : John, the last survivor of the apostolate, had left in the Church of Asia the impression of a pontiff Avhose forehead was irradiated by the splendor of the holiness of Christ. It is not impossible that, in these three titles which he gives him, Polycrates alludes to the three principal books which were attributed to him : in that of priest wearing the sacerdotal frontlet, to the Apocalypse ; in that of witness, to the Gospel; in that of teacher, to the Epistle. The hour for work had struck in the first place for Simon Peter ; he had founded the Church in Israel and planted the standard of the new cove- nant on the ruins of the theocracy. Paul had followed : his work had been to liberate the Church from the restrictions of expiring Judaism and to open to the Gentiles the door of the kingdom of God. John succeeded them, he who had first come to Jesus, and whom his Master reserved for the last. He consummated the fusion of those heterogeneous elements of which the Church had been formed, and raised Christianity to the relative perfection of which it was, at that time, susceptible. According to all the traditions,1 John had never any other spouse than the Church of the Lord, nor any other family than that which he salutes by the name of " my children " in his epistles. Hence the epithet virgi- nal (!> TvapQhwq), by which he is sometimes designated (Epiphanius and Augustine). We find in John Cassian an anecdote which well describes the memory which he had left behind him in Asia.2 ' Tertnllian, Dc Monngamin, e. 17 ; Ambro- said the young man. Why is it not bent as piaster on 2 Cor. xi. 2 : " All the apostles, ex- usual? In order not to take away from it, by cept John and Paul, wore married." bending it too constantly, the. elasticity which 2 We transcribe it here from Hilgenfeld's it should possess at the moment'when I shall Jntroihiction p. 405 : " It is reported that the shoot the arrow. Do not be shocked then, blessed Evangelist John one day gently young man, at this short relief which we caressed a partridge, and that a young man give to our mind, which otherwise, losing its returning from the ehasp,on seeing him thus engaged, asked him, with astonishment, how give to our mind, wmen otnerwise, losing its spring, could not aid us when necessity de- I mands it. This incident is, in any case, a I BO illustrious a man eould give himself up to testimony to the calm and serene impression so trivial an occupation? What dost thou which the qld age of John had left in the carry in thy hand? answered John. A bow, Church." HIS DEATH. 51 V. THE DEATH OF ST. JOHN. All the statements of the Fathers relative to the end of John's career, agree on this point, that his life was prolonged even to the limits of ex- treme old age. Jerome (Ep. to the Gal. vi. 10) relates that, having attained a very great age, and being too feeble to be able any longer to repair to the assemblies of the Church, he had himself carried thither by the young men, and that, having no longer strength to speak much, he contented/ himself with saying : " My little children, love one another." And when' he was asked why he repeated always that single word, his reply was : " Because it is the Lord's commandment, and, if this is done, enough is done." According to the same Jerome, he died, weighed down by old age, sixty-eight years after the Lord's Passion — that is to say, about the year 100. Irenseus says " that he lived until the time of Trajan :" that is, until after the year 98. According to Suidas, he even attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. The letter of Polycrates proves that he was buried at Ephesus (ovrog iv 'E^to-u KEKolfi^rai). There were shown also in that city two tombs, each of which was said to be that of the apostle, (Eusebius, H. E. vii. 25 ; Jerome, de vir. ill, c. 9), and it is by means of this fact that Eusebius tries to establish the hypothesis of a second John, called the presbyter, a contemporary of the apostle. The idea had also been conceived, that John would be exempt from the necessity of paying the common tribute to death. The words that Jesus had addressed to him (John xxi. 22) were quoted : " If I will that he tarry till I come, what is it to thee? " And we learn from St. Augustine that even his death did not cause this strange idea to pass away. In the treatise 124, on the Gos- pel of John, he relates that, according to some, the apostle was still living — peacefully sleeping in his grave, the proof of -which was furnished by the fact that the earth was gently moved by his breathing. Isidore of Seville ' relates that, when he felt that the day of his departure was come, John caused his grave to be dug; and, bidding his brethren farewell, he laid himself down in it as if in a bed — which, he says, leads some to allege that he is still alive. Some have gone even further than this, and alleged that he was taken up to heaven, as Enoch and Elijah were.2 A more important fact would be that which is related in a fragment of the chronicle by Georgius Hamartolos (ninth century), published by Nolte.3 "After Domitian, Nerva reigned during one year, who, having recalled John from the island, permitted him to dwell at Ephesus (airklvaev o'utelv iv 'E0e amble : one the conclusion : the eighth is a supplement. The permanent basis of the history which is related is the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God (xx. 30, 31). On this basis there ap- pear, at first in a confused way (i. 19-iv.), then more and more plainly, those two decisive moral facts : unbelief and faith ; the unbelief which rejects the object of faith in proportion as it reveals itself more com- pletely (v.-xii.), and the faith which apprehends it with an increasing eagerness (xiii.-xvii.) ; the unbelief which even goes so far as to try to de- stroy it (xviii.-xix.), and the faith which ends by possessing it in its glori- ous sublimity (xx.). This exposition would, of itself, be sufficient to set aside every hypoth- esis which is opposed to the unity of the work. The fourth Gospel is j indeed, according to the expression of Strauss, " the robe without seam ! for which lots may be cast, but which cannot be divided." It is the admirably graduated and shaded picture of the development of unbelief and of faith in the Word made flesh. i"This conclusion resembles," says M. or for the initiated " (p.'535). We do not sub* Renan, " a succession of private notes, which scribe to the last words, have a meaning only for him who wrote them 5 66 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. CHAPTER SECOND. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Before approaching the questions which relate to the way in which our Gospel was composed, it is fitting that we should give an exact account not only of the contents of the work, but also of its nature, of its tendency, and of its literary characteristics. This is the study to which we are now to devote ourselves. It is the more indispensable, since in modern times very different ideas on these various subjects have been brought out from those which were previously current. Thus Reuss maintained even in his earliest works, and still maintains, that the tendency of the fourth Gospel is not historical, but that it is purely theological. The author has inscribed a speculative idea at the beginning of his book ; we see from his own narrative, and from comparing it with that of the Synoptics, that he is not afraid to modify the facts in the service of this idea, and he develops it most prominently in the discourses which he puts into the mouth of Jesus, and which form the largest part of his book. Baur shares in this view. The fourth Gospel is, according to him, an entirely speculative work. The few truly historical elements which may be found in it are facts borrowed from the Synoptical tradition. Keim also, in his Life of JesuS, denies all historical value to this work. Another point which the two leaders of the schools of Strasburg and of Tubingen have sought to demonstrate, is the anti-Judaic tendency of our Gospel. It was generally believed that this work connected itself with the revelations of the Old Testament and with all the theocratic dispensa- tions by a respectful and sympathetic faith. These two critics have endeavored to prove that, to the author's view, the bond between Judaism and the Gospel has no existence, and that there reigns in his book, on the contrary, a sentiment hostile to the entire Israelitish economy. We shall seek, therefore, first of all to elucidate the following three points, so far as it shall be possible to do this without encroaching upon the questions of the authenticity and aim of the Gospel, which are reserved for the Third Book. 1. The distinctive features Of the Johannean narrative and its relations to that of the Synoptic Gospels. 2. The attitude assumed by this work with reference to the Old Testament. 3. The forms of idea and style which are peculiar to it. 1 1. THE NARRATIVE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Our examination here must bear upon three points : the general idea of the book ; the facts ; the discourses. I. The ruling idea of the work. At the beginning of this narrative is inscribed a general idea, the notion of the incarnate Logos, which may indeed be called the ruling idea of the CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE FACTS. 67 entire narrative. This feature, it is asserted, profoundly distinguishes our Gospel from the Synoptical writings. The latter are only collections of isolated facts and detached sayings accidentally united together, and their historical character is obvious ; while this speculative notion, placed here at the beginning of the evangelical narrative, immediately betrays a dogmatic tendency and impresses on th« whole book the stamp of a theological treatise. Reusa even goes so far as to claim that the term goapd cannot be applied to this work in the sense in which it is given to the other three, as designating a history of the ministry of Jesus. It is neces- sary to go back to the wholly spiritual sense which this term had at the beginning, when, in the New Testament, it denoted the message of salva- tion in itself considered, without the least notion of an historical setting forth of it. This general estimate seems to me to rest upon two errors. A ruling idea, formulated in the prologue, certainly presides over the narrative which follows, and sums it up. But is this feature peculiar to the fourth Gospel ? It is found again in the first Gospel, which is opened by these words, containing, as we have seen, an entire programme : " Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." It is unnecessary to show again how this notion of the Messianic royalty of Jesus and of the fulfillment by Him of all the promises made to Israel in David, and to the world in Abraham, penetrates into the smallest details of Matthew's nar- rative. The same is true of the Gospel of Mark, which opens with these words : " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." This is the formula which sums up the whole narrative that is to follow: Jesus, realizing, in His life as Messiah-King, the wisdom and power of a being who has come from God. St. Luke has not himself expressed the idea which governs his book ; but it is nevertheless easy to discover it : the Son of man, the perfect representative of human nature, bringing gratui- tously the salvation of God to all that bears the name of man. If, then, the fourth Gospel also has its primal idea — that of the Son of God having appeared in the form of the Son of man — this feature by no means consti- tutes, as is claimed, a "capital difference " between this work and the other three. The central idea is different from those of these latter three : that is all. Each of them has its own idea, because no one of the four writers has told his story solely for the purpose of telling it. They tell their story, each one of them, in order to set in relief one aspect of the person of Jesus, which they present especially to the faith of their readers. They all pro- pose, not to satisfy curiosity, but to save. The second error connected with the estimate of Reuss is this : a general idea, placed at the head of a narrative, cannot fail to impair its historical character. This is not so. Would the description of the life and conquests of Alexander the Great become a didactic treatise, because the author gave as an introduction to the history that great idea which his hero was called to realize : the fusion of the East and the West, long separated and hostile, into one civilized world? Or would the author of a life of Napoleon com- promise the fidelity of his narrative because he placed it under the control 68 EOOK n. THE GOSPEL. of this idea: the restoration of France after the revolutionary tempest? Or must one, in order to relate in conformity with the actual truth the life of Luther, give up bestowing upon him the title : The reformer of the Church? Every great historic fact is the expression, the realization of an idea; and this idea constitutes the essence, the greatness, even the truth of the fact. T< i make this prominent even at the beginning is not to render the fact sus- picious; it is to render it intelligible. The presence of an idea at the be- ginning of a narrative does not, then, exclude its historical character. The only question is to determine whether this idea is the true one, whether it is evolved of itself from the fact, or whether it is imported into it. Hase expresses himself thus on this point : " The nerve of the objection would be cut if Jesus was really, iii the metaphysical sense, that which our Gospel teaches (the Word made flesh). I dare not affirm it." And borrowing the avowal which Goethe puts in the mouth of Faust : " I know the message in- deed," he says, " but I lack the faith." Well and good ! This lack of faith is an individual matter. But the writer confesses that the beaming of an idea across a fact does not resolve it into a myth. A fact without an idea is a body without a soul. A notion like this has no place except in the materialist system. The prologue of the Johannean gospel has, therefore, in itself nothing incompatible with the strictly historical character of the narrative which is to follow. No, not necessarily, it is said ; but is there not reason to fear that the idea, when once it has taken possession of the author's mind, will influence more or less profoundly the way in which he considers and sets forth the facts? Might if not even happen that, in all good faith, he should invent the situations and events which seemed to him most fitted to place in a clear light the idea which he has formed? Let us see whether it is thus in the case with which we are concerned. II. The facts. Baur claimed that excepting the small number of materials borrowed from the Synoptics, the facts related here are only creations of the genius of the author, who sought to set forth in this dramatic form the internal dialectics of the idea of the Logos. Reuss, without going quite so far, regards the narrative sometimes as freely modified on behalf of the idea, sometimes as wholly created for its use. Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the Greeks of chap, xii., are only fictitious personages, placed on the scene by the author in order to afford the opportunity of putting into the mouth of Jesus the conception of His person which he has formed for himself. The history related in this Gospel has so little reality, that even from the beginning (chap, v.) it seems to have reached its end : the Jews wish already to put Jesus to death (v. 16) ! The visits to Jerusalem, which form the salient points of the narration, are fictitious scenes, the theatre of which has been chosen with the design of contrasting the light (Jesus) with the darkness (the Jewish authorities), and of furnishing to CHARACTERISTICS — THE FACTS. 69 Christ the opportunity of testifying of the divinity of His person. For this same reason, the miracles of the fourth Gospel are made more won- derful than those of the Synoptics ; and, besides, they are presented, no longer as works of compassion, but as signs of the divinity of Jesus. The author thus interweaves them into his theory of the Logos. The account of the Last Supper is omitted, because, from his idealistic point of view, the author is satisfied with having set forth the spiritual essence of it in chap. vi. The scene in Gethsemane is left out, because it would present the Logos in a state little worthy of His divine greatness. No healing of a demoniac is related, because the unclean spirits are too ignoble adversaries for such a being. No mention is made of the miracu- lous birth, because that prodigy is thrown into the shade by the greater miracle of the incarnation, etc., etc. It is thus that the study of the narrative, both in itself and in a comparison of it with that of the Synoptics, reveals at every step the alterations due to the influence of the idea upon the history. In order to study this grave question with the scrupulous fidelity which it demands, we must begin by verifying the essential characteristics of the narrative which we have to estimate. The first is certainly the potent unity of the story. The narration begins and ends precisely at the point determined by the plan of the work. The author, as we have seen, proposes to relate the gradual and simultaneous development of unbelief and faith under the sway of the increasing manifestations of the Christ as the Son of God. His narrative has, thus, as its starting-point the day on which, for the first time, Jesus was revealed as such by the testimony which John the Baptist, without naming Him as yet, bore to Him in presence of the deputation of the Sanhedrim — a day which was, as a consequence, also that of the first glimmering of faith in Jesus in the hearts of His earliest disciples. On the other hand, the end of the narrative places us at the moment when faith in Christ, fully revealed by His resurrection, attained its height, and, if we may so speak, its normal level in the profession : " My Lord and my God," coming from the lips of the least credulous of the disciples. Between these two extreme points the history moves in a connected and progressive way, both on the side of Jesus, who, on each occasion and especially at each feast, adds to the revelation of Himself a new feature in harmony with a newly given situation (iii. 14: the brazen ser- pent; iv. 10 : the living water; v. 19 : the Son working with the Father; vi. 35: the bread of life ; vii. 37 : the rock pouring forth living water; viii. 56 : the one in whom Abraham rejoices ; ix. 5 : the light of the world ; x. 11 : the good shepherd; xi. 25 : the resurrection and the life ; xii. 15 : the humble king of Israel; xiii. 14: the Lord who serves; xiv. 6: the way, the truth and the life; xv. 1 : the true vine; xvi.28: He who has come from the Father and returns to the Father ; xvii. ."> : Jesus the < Jhrist ; xviii. 37 : the king in the kingdom of truth ; xix. 30 : the true Paschal lamb; xx. 28 : our Lord and God), — and with respect to faith, which in creases by appropriating to itself each one of these testimonies in acts and 70 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. words, and of which the progress is frequently marked by forms of ex- ipression such as this : "And his disciples believed on him " (ii. 11 ; comp. vi. GS, G9; xi. 15; xvi. 30, 31; xvii. 8; xx. 8, 29),— and with reference to Jewish unbelief, the hostile measures of which succeed each other with an increase of violence all whose stages we can verify (ii. 18, 19 : refusal to participate in the Messianic reformation ; v. 16-18 : first explosion of hatred and desire for murder; vii. 32: first active measure, in the order given to the officers to arrest Jesris ; viii. 59 : a first attempt to stone Him ; ix. 22: excommunication of everyone who acknowledges Him as the ! Messiah ; x. 31 : new and more decided attempt to stone Him ; xi. 53 : meeting of the Sanhedrim in which the death of Jesus is in principle de- termined upon, so that there remains nothing further except to discover the ways of carrying it into execution ; xi. 57 : first official measure in this direction through the public summoning of witnesses against Jesus ; xiii. 27 : contract of the rulers with the traitor ; xviii. 3 : request for a detach- ment of Roman soldiers to effect the arrest ; xviii. 13 and 24 : sittings for examination in the house of Annas and for judgment in that of Caiaphas ; xviii. 28 : demand for execution addressed to Pilate ; xix. 12 : last means of intimidation employed to obtain his consent ; xix. 16 : the execution). — Such is the history which the fourth Gospel traces out. And yet Reuss can seriously put this question : " Is there anywhere the least trace of a progress, a development, in any direction ? " (p. 23) ; and Stap can affirm that " the denouement might be found on the first page as well as on the last; " and, finally, Sabatier can speak of " shufflings about on one spot," which mark the course of our Gospel ! Is not the Synoptic narrative, rather, the one against which this charge might be made ? For in that narrative Jesus passes suddenly from Galilee to Jerusalem, and dies in that city after only five days of conflict. Is this a sufficient preparation for such a catastrophe ? — Reuss takes offence at the fact that, in v. 16, it is said that they already seek to put Him to death. But he may read pre- cisely the same thing in the Gospel of Mark — the one which, in his view, is the most primitive type of the narration — iii. 6 : " Then the Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians against him to put him to death." This is said after one of the first miracles, and at the beginning of the Galilean ministry. The strong unity of the Johannean narrative appears, finally, in the precise and complete data by means of which the course of Jesus' minis- try is, in some sort, marked out, so that, by means of this work, and this work only, can we fix its principal dates and make anew the outline of it. .' Here are the data which it furnishes us, ii. 12, 13 : a first Passover, at , which Jesus inaugurates His public work ; it is followed by a working for ' several months in Judea, and finally by a return to Galilee by way of Samaria, about the month of December in that same year ; chap. v. : a feast at Jerusalem, doubtless that of Purim, in the following spring and a month before the Passover ; vi. 4 : the second Passover, which Jesus can- ■ not go to Jerusalem to celebrate, so great is the hostility towards Him, and which He passes in Galilee ; vii. 2 : the feast of Tabernacles, in the CHARACTERISTICS — THE FACTS. 71 autumn of this second year, to which Jesus is only able to go incognito and, f as it were, by surprise ; x. 22 : the feast of Dedication, two months later, in * December, when, again, He makes but one appearance in Jerusalem ; finally, xii. 1 : the third Passover, when He dies. Here is a series of dates outlined by a steady hand, with natural intervals, which gives us sufficient information as to the course and duration of our Lord's ministry, and which affords us the means of tracing out a rational delineation of it. The only story which does not enter organically into this so strongly united whole is that of the adulterous woman, which logically appertains neither to the development of unbelief, nor to that of faith, and which would thus be suspicious to a delicate ear, even if the external testimonies did not as positively exclude it as they do. But, at the same time, this narrative, so thoroughly one, so consecutive, so graduated, forming such a beautiful whole, is found to be astonishingly fragmentary. It begins in the middle of John the Baptist's ministry, with- out having described the first part of it. It stops with the scene concerning Thomas, without any mention being made of the subsequent appearances in Galilee, or of the ascension itself. — In vi. 70 : Jesus says to the apostles : " Have not I chosen you, the Twelve?" And yet there has not been up to this time a single word said of the foundation of the apostolate; the reader is acquainted with only five of the disciples, from the first chapter onward. — At ver. 71, Judas Iscariot is named as a perfectly well-known I personage ; and yet it is the first time that he is introduced on the scene. — j xiv. 22 ; the presence of another Judas among the Twelve is supposed to be known ; and yet it has not been mentioned. — xi. 1, Bethany is called the village of Mary and Martha, her sister ; and yet the names of these two women have not as yet been given. — xi. 2, Mary is designated as she " who had anointed the Lord with ointment; " and yet this incident, supposed to] be known to the reader, is not related until afterwards. — ii. 23, those are? spoken of who believed at Jerusalem on seeing the miracles ivhich Jesus did; . iii. 2, Nicodemus makes allusion to these miracles, and iv. 45, it is saidj that the Galileans received Jesus on His return because they liad seen the miracles which He did at Jerusalem ; and yet not one of these miracles is related. We have seen that from the first Passover to Jesus' return to Galilee, chap, iv., seven or eight months elapsed (from April to December). Now, of all that occurred during this time — in this long sojourn in Judea — with the exception of the single conversation with Nicodemus, we know only one fact : the continuance of the baptism of John the Baptist by the side of that of Jesus and the last testimony given by the forerunner (iii. 22 ff). — From the return of Jesus to Galilee, chap, iv., to His new journey to Jerusalem, chap. v. (feast of Purim), three months elapsed, which the author sums up in this simple expression : after these things, v. 1.— Between this journey to Jerusalem and the second Passover, chap, vi., there is a whole month of which we know nothing except this single statement, vi. 2: "And a great multitude followed him, because they saw the miracles which he did on the sick." Of these numerous miracles which attracted 72 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. the crowds not one is related ! — Between this Passover, chap, vi., and the feast of Tabernacles, chap, vii., — that is to say, during the six months from April to October, — many things certainly occurred ; we have only these two lines thereupon, vii. 1 : "And after that Jesus walked in Galilee; for He would not walk in Judea." — Between this feast and x. 22 (December), two months, and then, from that time to the Passover, three months, of which nothing (except the resurrection of Lazarus) is reported! — Thus, of I two years and a half, we "have twenty months touching which there is complete silence ! ' In xviii. 13, it is said that Jesus was led to the house of Annas first; this expression gives notice of a subsequent session in another place. The account of this session is omitted. It is indicated, indeed (ver. 24 : "And Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, the high-priest"), but not related; and yet it is one of the most indispensable links of the history, since in the sitting in the house of Annas a simple examination was carried on, and in order to a capital execution an official session of the Sanhedrim was absolutely necessary, at which the sentence should be pronounced according to certain definite forms. The subsequent appearance before Pilate, when the Jews endeavored to obtain from him the confirmation of the sentence, leaves no doubt as to the fact that it had actually been pro- nounced. Now all this is omitted in our narrative, as well the session in the house of the high-priest Caiaphas as the pronouncing of the sentence. How are we to explain the omission of such facts ? — In iii. 24, these words : " Now John had not yet been cast into prison," imply the idea in the mind of the reader that, at that moment, he had already been arrested. But there is not a word in what precedes which was fitted to occasion such a misapprehension. Is not such a mode of narrating as this a perpetual enigma? On one side, a texture so firm and close, and on the other as many vacant places as full ones, as much of omission as of matter? Is there a supposition which can in any way explain two such contradictory features of one and the same narrative. Yes ; and it is in the relation of our fourth Gospel to the three preceding ones that we must seek this solution, as we shall attempt to show. The relation of the Johannean narrative to that of the Synoptic Gos- pels may be characterized by these two features : Constant correlation, on the one hand, and striking independence, and even superiority, on the other. 1. There is no closer adaptation between two wheels fitted to each other in wheelwork, than is observed, on a somewhat attentive study, between the two narratives which we are comparing. The full parts of the one answer to the blanks of the other, as the prominent points of the latter to the vacant spaces of the former. John begins his narrative with 1 How, in the face of such facts, can a writer the materials furnished by the Synoptics wlio respects himself, write the following might be placed." (Stap. Etudes historiquet lines: "John, we know(l), does not present et critiques, p 259.) any trace of gaps, or vacant spaces in which CHARACTERISTICS — THE FACTS. 73 the last part of the ministry of John the Baptist, without having described the first half of it, without even having given an account of the baptism of Jesus; just the reverse of what we rind in the Synoptics. He relates the call of the first believers on the banks of the Jordan, without men- tioning their subsequent elevation to the rank of permanent disciples on the shores of the lake of Gennesaret ; again, the reverse of the Synoptic narrative. He sets forth a considerably long ministry in Judea, anterior to the Galilean ministry, which the Synoptics omit; then, when he reaches the period of the Galilean ministry so abundantly described by his predecessors, he relates, in common with them, only a single scene belonging to it— that of chap. vi. (we shall see with what motive he makes this exception), and, as for all the rest of these ten to twelve months of Galilean labor, he limits himself to indicating the framework and the compartments of it, without filling them otherwise than by the two brief summaries, ver. 1 of chap. vi. and ver. 1 of chap. vii. These compartments, left vacant, can only be naturally explained as references to other narratives with which the author knows his readers to be ac- quainted. But, while he passes on thus without entering into the least detail respecting the entire Galilean ministry, he dwells with partiality upon the visits to Jerusalem, which he describes in the most circumstan- tial way, and the omission of which in the Synoptics is so striking a blank in their narrative. In the last visit to Jerusalem, he omits the embar- rassing questions which were addressed to Jesus in the temple, but he relates carefully the endeavor of the Greeks to see Him, which is omitted by all the other narratives. In the description of the last meal, he gives a place to the act of washing the disciples' feet, and omits that of the institution of the Lord's Supper ; and in the account of the trial of Jesus, he takes notice of the appearance in the house of Annas, which is omitted by all the others, and, in exchange, passes over in silence the great session of the Sanhedrim in the house of Caiaphas, at which Jesus was condemned to death. In the description of the crucifixion, he calls to mind three expressions of Jesus, which are not reported by his prede- cessors, and he omits the four mentioned by them. Among the appear- ances of the risen Lord, those to Mary Magdalene and Thomas, omitted or barely hinted at by the Synoptics, are described in a circumstantial way; one only of the others is recalled, and it is given with quite peculiar details. Could the closely fitting relation of this Gospel to the Synoptics which we have pointed out be manifested more evidently? We do not by any means conclude from this that John related his story in order to complete them — he set before himself, surely, a more elevated aim — but we believe we may affirm that he wrote completing them.; that to complete was, not his aim, but one of the guiding principles of his narration. There was on the author's part a choice, a selection, determined by the narratives of his predecessors. If his work left us in any doubt on this point, the declara- tion which closes it must convince us : " Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book (ev ry /3(vcr. 42.) If one desires to find a speaking proof of the truly historical character of the teaching of Jesus in our Gospel, it is precisely in these dialogues that it must be sought. To open a commentary is enough to convince us that we have here living manifestations of the Palestinian Ju- daism which was contemporary with Jesus. Besides, this dialogue-form is not constant ; barely indicated in chaps, hi., iv., a little more developed in v • Reuss, Theol. joh., p. 9. CHAEACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 101 chap, vi., it is altogether dominant in chaps, vii., viii. — a thing which is perfectly suited to the situation, since here is the culminating point of the conflict between the Lord and His adversaries at Jerusalem. We find scarcely any traces of it in chap, x., where Jesus begins to withdraw from the struggle. It reappears in an emphatic way only in chap, xiv., where it is again rendered natural by the situation. It is the last moment of con- versation between Jesus and His own ; they take advantage of it to express freely the doubts which each one of them still has in his heart. Let one picture to himself a Christian of the second century crying out, with the simplicity of Philip : " Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us ! " or, with the pretence of sharing in the ignorance of Thomas, setting himself to say : "We know not whither thou goest, and how shall we know the way?" or asking with Judas : " Why wilt thou make thyself known to us, and not to the world? " or murmuring aside like the disciples (xvi. 17) : " What is this that he saith : A little while, and ye shall not see me ; and again a little while, and ye shall see me ? We cannot tell what he saith." The situation which gave rise to these questions and these doubts existed but for a moment, on that last evening in which John's narrative places them. From the days which followed all these mysteries had received their solu- tion through the great facts of salvation which were from this time forward accomplished. These objections and questions, which it is claimed arc to be placed in the second century, carry therefore their date in themselves and belong in their very nature to the upper chamber ; it is, consequently, the same with the answers which correspond to them. Certain historical contradictions are also alleged. The following are the two principal ones. Chap. x. 26, in the account of the visit of Jesus at the feast of the Dedication, in December, the evangelist places in His mouth this reproach : " Ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you," which is supposed to be a quotation of the words addressed to the Jews, some months before, at the feast of Tabernacles (comp. the allegories of the Shepherd, the Door, and the Good Shepherd, in the first part of the same chapter). He forgets, therefore, as he makes Jesus speak thus, that the audience had entirely changed from the one feast to the other. But why changed ? we will ask. It was not to pilgrims who were strangers, that Jesus had spoken so severely some months before. It was to a group of Pharisees who asked Him, mocking, (ix. 40) : " And arc we also blind? " They spoke thus in the name of their whole party, and this party, wc know, had its seat at Jerusalem. I do not say certainly that at the feast of the Dedication it was the same individuals who found themselves again face to face with Jesus ; but it was indeed the same class of persons, the Pharisees of Jerusalem, together with the population of that city which was entirely governed by their spirit. Besides, every one knows that the words: as I said unto you, on which all the complaint rests, are omitted in six of the principal majuscules, particularly in the Sinaitic and Vatican. Another similar argument is drawn from the discourse of Jesus, reported in xii. 44 ff. It is " a recapitulation of the evangelical theology," says 102 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. Reuss ; and the author puts it into the mouth of Jesus here, without thinking that, according to his own narrative, Jesus has just "withdrawn and disappeared from the public view." Here is a fact, adds this critic, which is well fitted " to give us a just idea of the nature of the discourses of Jesus " in this work.1 Baur had already concluded from this passage that the historical situations are for the author nothing but mere forms. It is not the evangelist's fault if his narrative is thus judged. He had counted on readers who would not doubt his common sense. He had just expressly concluded the narrative of the public ministry of Jesus by this solemn sentence : " And departing, he did hide himself from them " (ver. 36). And yet he is said to put into His mouth, immediately after- wards, a solemn address "to the people ! No ; from ver. 37 the author has himself begun to speak ; he gives himself up to the sorrowful contempla- tion of the unsuccessfulness of such an extraordinary ministry. He proves by the facts the inefficacy of the numerous miracles of Jesus to overcome the unbelief of the people (vv. 37-43). Then, in ver. 44, he passes, in this same recapitulation, from the miracles to the teachings, which, as well as the miracles, had remained inefficacious before such obduracy ; and in order to give an understanding of what the entire preaching ministry accomplished by Jesus in Israel had been, he sums it up in the discourse, vv. 44-50, which is, in relation to the discourses of Jesus, what ver. 37 was to His miraculous activity, a simple summary : " And yet he cried aloud !" Then follows the summary, thus announced, of all the solemn testimonies which had remained fruitless. This passage, also, is distinguished from all the real discourses, in that it does not | contain a single new idea ; for every word, two or three parallels can be cited in the preceding discourses. Reuss, therefore, is unfortunate in proposing to draw from this discourse, which is not one in the intention of the evangelist himself, the true standard for the estimate of all those which, in this work, are put into the mouth of our Lord. Finally, objection has also been made to the truth of the discourses by reason of the impossibility that the author should have retained them in memory up to the time, no doubt quite late in his life, when he wrote them out. Reuss abandons this objection. He thinks that the words of Jesus, so far as the author either heard them himself or borrowed them from "the tradition, "must have been throughout his life the subject of his meditations, and must have been impressed the more deeply on his mind the longer he fed upon them."2 In fact, if the question is of the earnest discussions carried on at Jerusalem (chaps, vii. viii.), how should they not have been distinctly impressed on the memory of the one who witnessed them with such lively anxiety ? As for the discourses which are some- what extended, like those of chap. v. and vi., x., xv.-xvii., the hearer's memory found, in every case, a point of support in a central idea which was clearly formulated at the beginning, and which unfolded itself after- wards in a series of particular notions subordinated to this primal idea. ip. 50. « P. «. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 103 Thus in chap, v., the first part of the apologetic discourse of Jesus is con-] tained, as if in its germ, in that very striking saying of ver. 17 : " My Father worketh hitherto, and [consequently] I also work." This idea of the necessary co-operation of the Son with J I is Father is developed in a first cycle under two aspects: The Son beholding the Father, and the Father revealing His work to the Son, vv. 19, 20. Then, this first cycle, which is also very summary in its character, becomes the starting-point of a new, more precise development, in which is unfolded, even to its most concrete applications, the work of the Son in execution of the thought of the Father. This work consists in the two divine acts of quick ening and judging (vv. 21-28), acts which are taken up each one of them successively, and followed out through all their historical phases even to their complete realization, at first spiritual, then external and material (vv. 24-29). — It is nearly the same in the second part of this discourse (vv 30— 17), in which everything is subordinated to this principal thought " There is another [the Father] that beareth witness of me," and in whie is set forth the three-fold testimony of the Father on behalf of the Son with a final forcible application to the hearers. — In chap, vi., it is easy t> see that everything — discourse and conversation — is likewise subordinated I to a great idea, — that which naturally arises from the miracle of the pre- ceding day : " I am the bread of life." This affirmation is developed in a series of concentric cycles, which end finally in this most striking and concrete expression : " Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye will not have life in yourselves." In chap, xvii., in the second part of the sacerdotal prayer, which contains the intercession of Jesus for His dis- ciples, His thought follows the same course. The general idea : " I pray for them," soon divides itself into those two more particular ones which become, each of them, the centre of a subordinate cycle: "Keep them" , (jripricov), ver. 11, that is to say : " Let not the work be impaired which I have accomplished in them," and : " Sanctify them " (dytaaov), ver. 17, that is to say : " Perfect and finish their consecration." — In these several cases, ; if the thoughts of Jesus really were unfolded in this form, which best suits the nature of religious contemplation, we can readily understand how it was not difficult for an attentive hearer to reproduce such sayings. It was enough for him to fix his attention strongly on the central thought, dis- tinctly engraved upon his memory, and then inwardly to repeat the same process of evolution which, from this germ, had produced the discourse. He thus recovered again the subordinate ideas, from which he reached even the most concrete details. Jesus, however, did not always speak in this way; we have the proof of this in our Synoptics, and in the fourth Gospel itself. This method was natural when a theme of great richness was indicated to Him by the situation, as in chaps, v. and vi. But we do not find anything of the kind either in the conversation with Nicodemus, or in those of chap. xiv. — which proves that we need not see in this a style peculiar to the evangelist. The following is, probably, what happened in the last mentioned cases. The conversation with Nicodemus certainly continued much longer than the few moments which we use in reading CkVi II 104 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. it, and the last conversations of Jesus with the disciples, having rilled a great part of the evening, must have lasted some hours. It must there- fore he admitted (unless all this was invented) that a work of condensation was wrought in the mind of the narrator, in which the essential thoughts gradually became separated from the secondary thoughts and transitions, and then were directly, and without a connective, joined to one another, as they actually appear to us in the account given by John. There remain for us, therefore, of these conversations only the principal points. Nothing could be more simple than this process. The conclusion of this study, therefore, is that there is no serious intrinsic difficulty to prevent us from admitting the historical truth of the teachings of Jesus contained in our Gospel. II. But a more serious objection is drawn from the correspondence of these discourses with those of John the Baptist, and with the author's own teachings in the prologue and in his first epistle. Jesus, in St. John, speaks just as John the Baptist does (comp. i. 15, 29, 30; iii. 27-36), just as the evangelist himself does in his own writings. Is there not here an evident proof that the discourses — those of Jesus, like those of John the Baptist — are his own composition ? There can be no question here of style, as to its grammatical and syntactic forms ; how, indeed, is it possible that the style should not be that of the evangelist? Neither Jesus nor John the Baptist spoke in Greek ; and to reproduce their discourses in a tolerable way in that language, whose genius is precisely the opposite of that of the Aramaean language, in which the Saviour and His forerunner spoke, a literal translation was impossible. The author was obliged in any case, therefore, to go underneath the words to the thoughts, and then to clothe these again with a new expression borrowed from the language in which he was relating them. In such a work of assimilation and reproduction, why might not the language of John the Baptist have taken a coloring like that of the language of Jesus, and the language of both the coloring of the evangelist's style? The question here is not of the external forms of speech ; it is of the faithful preserva- tion of the thoughts. In translating the words of John and Jesus, is it to be supposed that the author altered their meaning? Was there anything of his own added ? Or did he even compose with entire freedom ? It is supposed that an affirmative answer can be given. First of all, the discourse of John the Baptist, iii. 27-36, is alleged. Reuss grants, no doubt, that two expressions of this discourse proceed from the forerunner — that which forms the opening of it : "I am not the Christ," and the word which is its centre : " He must increase, but I must decrease." * Moreover, continues the critic, " there is hot in all the remainder a word which does not find a place quite as well, or rather a hundred times better, in the mouth of a Christian wholly imbued with the dominant ideas of this book, and which is not reproduced elsewhere, as to its essence, in the discourses ascribed to Jesus Himself."2 But what! can it be that 1 Reuss' Translation. s Pp. 48, 49. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 105 these words made up the whole of the Baptist's answer to his disciples, who were bitterly accusing Jesus of ingratitude ! Let it be allowed us to believe that he developed them somewhat, and, in particular, to place in the number of the authentic expressions that word of inimitable beauty (ver. 29) : " He that hath the bride is the bridegroom ; the friend of the bridegroom who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice ; and this my joy is fulfilled." Men did not invent after this fashion in the second century, as our Apocryphal books bear witness ! Let us go still further : if we admit the narrative of the Synoptics, according to which the forerunner had heard the voice of the Father saying to Jesus : " Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I am well pleased," is it impossible to admit that the same man should have uttered these words, which the evangelist puts into his mouth (ver. 35) : " The. Father loveth the Son, and hath put all things into his hand ? " If it is also true — still according to the Synoptics — that John saw the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus in the form of a dove, that is, in His organic and indivisible plenitude, is it incredible that he should have expressed himself with regard to Jesus as he does, according to John, in ver. 34 : " He speak- eth the words of God ; for God giveth him the Spirit without measure (or : the Spirit giveth them to him without measure)?" And if John the Baptist expresses himself at the beginning of his ministry as the Synoptics make him speak : " Brood of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire ! " (Matt. iii. 7-10), is it not very natural that he should close his public activity with this warning : " He that refuseth to obey the Son, the wrath of God abideth on him." Here is the last echo of the thunders of Sinai, which is in its appropriate place in the mouth of the last representative of the old covenant. But the objection falls back on the saying : " He testifieth of what he hath seen and heard, and no man receiveth his testimony," and it asks how it can be that John the Baptist should so literally repeat the declaration of Jesus Himself in His conver- sation with Nicodemus (ver. 11) : " Verily, I say unto thee, we speak that which we know and testify that which we have seen, and ye receive not our testimony." He was not present, however, at that conversation ! No ; but it may well be that something of it had been reported to him ; and, even if it was otherwise, what meaning would the words of the Baptist have which we were just now calling to mind : " The friend of the bride- groom who standeth and heareth, rejoiceth exceedingly because of the bridegroom's voice ; and this my joy is fulfilled ? " He hears the voice of the bridegroom ! Some word of Jesus, then, has come to his ears. And is it not natural indeed, that, while John and Jesus were baptizing in each other's neighborhood (vv. 22, 23), those of the apostles who had been dis- ciples of the forerunner should have taken a few steps to go and salute their former master, and should have reported to him what Jesus did and said? The discourse of John the Baptist is thus explained from beginning to end. And the word to which Reuss reduced it, ver. 30, was simply its central idea. Indeed, all that precedes (vv. 27-29), is the development of 106 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. the second proposition : " I must decrease," and all that follows, w. 31-36, is that of the first : " He must increase." But is it possible to regard as historical the words put into the mouth of John the Baptist in the prologue, i. 15, and repeated afterwards in the narrative itself, i. 30 : " He who cometh after me was before me ? " Could John know and declare the divine pre-existence of Jesus ? If this declara- tion had been mentioned only in the prologue, which is the composition of the evangelist, the doubt would be possible. But the author expressly places it again, at a little later point, in its historical context (ver. 30). He relates how it was at Bethany that the forerunner uttered it, on the day which followed that of the, deputation of the Sanhedrim. There would be a singular affectation, not to say, palpable bad faith, in these subsidiary indications of time and place, if the words were the invention of the au- thor. Besides they have a seal of originality and of mysterious concise- ness which is foreign to the later fictions. And why should they not be authentic ? When John the Baptist began his ministry, we know that the programme of his work was the double prophecy of Isaiah xl. 3: "A voice crying in the wilderness : Prepare ye the way of the Lord," and of Malachi iii. i : " Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me " (Matt. iii. 3 ; x. 10 ; Mark i. 2, 3 ; Luke i. 17 ; vii. 27). Now, in the second of these two passages, always so closely bound to- gether, He who seyids the messenger (Jehovah) is none other than He who is Himself soon to follow him (Jehovah as Messiah) ; this is unan- swerably proved by the words, before me, in the prophetic utterance. If John the Baptist was acquainted with this passage, could he not under- stand— what do I say ? — could he fail to understand, that the one coming after him (the Messiah) was the one sending him, and consequently his predecessor on the scene of history, the invisible theocratic King. The question comes back, then, to this : Did John the Baptist know how to read? The resemblance in matter and form between the prologue and the dis- courses of Jesus does not constitute a difficulty which is any more serious. For, on the one hand, we have seen that the matter of the teachings of the prologue is, in great part, only a resumd of these very discourses; and, on the other, it is impossible that, in translating them from Aramaic into Greek, the author should not, in a certain measure, have clothed them in his own style. The conformity indicated is, therefore, a fact which is easily explained. Is the conformity between the discourses and the first Epistle to be con- sidered more compromising for the authenticity of the former? As to the form, the resemblance is explained by the causes already pointed out, when speaking of the prologue. But even from this external point of view, H. Meyer has discovered a kind of impoverishment in the vocabulary of the epistle, as compared with that of the discourses.1 Some thirty substantives, some twenty verbs — this is the wrhole linguistic fund of the epistle. What , l Les discours du IV." evangile, p. 94. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 107 a difference from the discourses, so rich in living and original words, and in striking and varied images ! There are also, on the other hand, certain particular expressions which appertain to the epistle and which are foreign to the Gospel, such as to be bom of God (ii. 29; hi. 9; iv. 7; v. 1; comp. the prologue, Gosp. i. 18); the anointing of the Spirit (ii. 20, 27); the title of Paraclete applied to Jesus (ii. 1). As to the matter, we discover even much more remarkable differences between the epistle and the Gospel, which prove that the author observed very carefully the line of demarcation between his own thoughts and the teachings of Jesus. We shall set forth three points, especially, which hold an important place in the epistle, and which are not mentioned anywhere in the discourses: 1. The expiatory value of the Lord's death (Ep. i. 7, 9; ii. 2; iv. 10; v. 6); 2. The coming of Antichrist (ii. 18, 22 ; iv. 1-3) ; 3. The expectation of the Parousia (i. 18, 28 ; iii. 2). These three notions, while connecting our epistle closely with the Synoptic Gospels, distinguish it profoundly from the Johannean discourses. The attempt has been, not long since, made to explain this difference by ascribing the epistle to an- other author than the Gospel. This hypothesis has not been able to main- tain itself, even in the midst of the school in which it arose. The disciples of Baur, such as Hilgenfeld, Ludemann, etc., are agreed in rejecting it. How then can we explain this singular difference? Several critics have been led to think that the author of the two works was still imbued with his old Jewish ideas when he composed the epistle, and that he rose only at a later time to the sublime spirituality which distinguishes the Gospel.1 The epistle would, thus, be older than the Gospel. We do not believe that this hypothesis can be sustained. The discourses contained in the Gospel are distinguished from the teachings of the epistle by a force of thought and a vigor of expression, which indicate for them a date anterior to the composition of this latter work. Besides, the man who, in the epistle, ad- dresses himself not only to the children and young men, but also to fatliers of families and to all the members of the churches, calling them " my little children" (ii. 1, 18, 28; v. 21), cannot have been otherwise than far ad- vanced in age. It is not under such conditions that a man rises from the style of the epistle to that of the Gospel, from the somewhat slow and even hesitating step of the one to the straightforward and powerful flight of the other.2 A further proof that the composition of the discourses preceded that of the epistle, is the fact that all the ideas which in the discourses are presented in a form which is historical, occasional, actual, applicable to particular circumstances and hearers, reappear in the epistle in an abstract form as general Christian maxims, and, in some sort, as the elements of a religious philosophy. Jesus said in the Gospel : " God so loved the world," or " Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world." The epistle says : " God is love." Jesus said : " The Father whose offspring you are is 1 Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 738; Ludemann, *Sabatier himself acknowledges (p. 189) zur Eiklarung de» Papias-FragmenU, in the that the epistle is poorer, more feeblo than Jahrb./ur prot. TheoL, 1879. the discourses in the Gospel. 108 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. the devil, and you do the works of your father." The epistle says : " He that commits sin is of the devil." Jesus said : " You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." The epistle says: "It is not we who have loved God; it is He who has loved us." Jesus said : " I am the light of the world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." The epistle says: "God is light . . . the true light now shineth." Jesus said: "I have a witness greater than that of men." The epistle says : "If we receive the witness of men, that of God is greater." Is itnot evident that these aphorisms of the second work are nothing but the generalization of the special affirmations, full of reality, which belong to the first? The Gospel is history; the epistle is the spirit of history. It is consequently contrary to all sound criticism to place the latter before the former. The difference between these two works must, therefore, be explained in another way. It is an indisputable fact that the ideas which we have pointed out as clearly distinguishing the epistle from the Gospel, apper- tain to the Synoptic teaching, and consequently form a part of the apos- tolic beliefs and of the doctrine of the Church in general. Here, then, was the matter from which the author drew when writing the epistle. But when he wrote out the five or six discourses which he has preserved for us, he did not allow himself to go beyond their original purport, nor to introduce into them, as Reuss claims, the whole of his theology. He lim- ited himself to that which he had heard on those particular occasions. The epistle forms thus a natural link of connection between the Johannean teachings and those of the Synoptics. And the more closely it attaches itself to the latter in the substance of the ideas, the more does it become a confirmation of the historical character both of the one and the other. Far then from giving us grounds of suspicion, the comparison of the dis- courses with the author's own compositions is converted into a proof of the fidelity with which he has reproduced the former, and the author seems nowhere to have crossed the line of demarcation between what he had heard and what he himself composed. III. We here reach the most difficult side of the question with which we have to do. We possess in the first three Gospels three documents, perfectly harmonious and of undisputed value, containing the teachings of Jesus. These teachings appear therein in a simple, popular, practical form ; they are what they must have been in order to charm the multi- tudes and win their assent. How could the abstruse and theological dis- courses of the fourth Gospel have proceeded from the same mind and the same lips ? " We must choose," says Renan : " if Jesus spoke as Matthew would have Him, He could not have spoken as John would have Him." "* Now," he adds, " between the two authorities no critic has hesitated, or will hesitate." Is the contrast thus indicated really as inexplicable as is asserted ? It is to the study of this question that we are going to devote the following pages. As to the contents of the teachings, three points, especially, appear to distinguish the discourses of John from those of the Synoptics : 1. The CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 109 difference in the part assigned to the person of Jesus in the matter of salvation; 2. The Johannean notion of the existence of Jesus, as a divine being, anterior to His earthly life; 8. The omission in John of every expression relating to His visible return, as judge of the world. With regard to the part of Jesus in the matter of salvation, it is alleged that, while the Christ of the Synoptics simply announces the kingdom of God — the good tidings of the near coming of that glorious state of things, — the Christ of John can only preach Himself, and tell what He is as related to God and what He is as related to the world. While the Synoptic teach- ings bear upon the most varied moral obligations, beneheence, humility, veracity, detachment from the world, watchfulness, prayer — in a word, upon the righteousness of the kingdom, according to the expression of Jesus Himself, — in John, on the contrary, every duty is reduced to the attach- ing of oneself to that being come from heaven, in whom God reveals and gives Himself. In the Synoptics, Jesus is the preacher of salvation ; in John, He is salvation itself, eternal life, everything. Is the difference thus pointed out as considerable as it is said to be, and is the contrast inexplicable ? No, this cannot be ; for the central position which the person of Christ occupies in the Johannean teaching is also decidedly ascribed to Him in that of the first three Gospels. The moral precepts which Jesus gives in the latter are placed in intimate relation with His own person ; and among the duties of human life, that which takes precedence of all the rest is, in them as in John, faith in Christ the indispensable condition of salvation. Let the reader judge for himself. "Sell that thou hast and give to the poor . . . , then follow me" says Jesus to the rich young man (Matt. xix. 21). The second of these com- mands explains the first; the one is the condition, the other the end.. "Verily I say unto you that, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. xxv. 40). It is the sympa- thy for Him, Jesus, which constitutes the worth of this help, and which is, if we may so speak, the good work in the good work (comp. x. 42). Jesus adds (xxv. 41), as He turns towards the condemned : " Depart from me, ye cursed!" Perdition is the rupture of all union with Him. To receive Him is to receive God, He declares to His disciples (Matt. x. 40). The most indisputable proof that one possesses the humble disposition which is necessary in order to enter into the kingdom, is that of receiving a child in the name of Jesus; that is, as if one were receiving Jesus Himself; and the offense which will infallibly destroy him who has the unhappiness to occasion it, is this — that it is caused to one of these little ones who believe in Him (Matt, xviii. 5, 6) ; so true is it that the good in the good is love for Him, and the crime in the crime is the evil which one does to Him. The infallibly efficacious prayer is that of two or three persons praying in His name (Matt, xviii. 20). Real watchfulness consists in waiting for Him, the returning Lord, and the condition of the entrance with Him into His glory is the being ready to receive Him at His coming (Luke xii. 3G). If the foolish virgins are rejected, it is for not having fulfilled their duty towards Him (Matt. xxv. 12). To confess Him here below is the way to be ac- 110 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. knowledged by Him above, as also to deny Him is to pronounce one's own sentence (Matt. x. 32, 33; Mark viii. 38). The most intimate and sacred relations of human life must remain constantly subordinated to the bond which unites the believer to Jesus, so that the believer must be ready to break them, "to hate father, mother, child, wife, his own life," if the su- preme bond requires this sacrifice (Matt. x. 37). Otherwise one would not be worthy of Him, which is equivalent to being ranked among the workers of iniquity, and being excluded with them (Matt. vii. 23; xxv. 12). Not to have turned to account the gifts entrusted by Him for working in His cause, for increasing His wealth here below, — to have been His unprofitable servant, — this is enough f,o cause one to be cast into the outer darkness, where there are only weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. xxv. 30). The most decisive act of the moral life, the indispensable condition to being able to find one's life again in the future, — to give oneself, to lose oneself — this act can be accomplished only for His sake (Matt. x. 39). Could Jesus describe otherwise the relation of man to God Himself? There is one fact in the Gospel history omitted by John, but preserved by the three Synoptics, which shows, more clearly than all the sayings can do, how Jesus really made the whole religious and moral life of His own consist in personal union with Himself. It is the institution of the Holy Supper, together with those two declarations which explain it: "This is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins;" and, "The Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many " (Matt. xxvi. 28; xx. 28). To incorporate Jesus into oneself, is to appropriate life to oneself. Jesus is not only the preacher of salvation ; He is also, as in John, salvation itself. The part of Jesus in the matter of salvation, therefore, does not fundamentally differ in the two teachings ; and so the Church has never experimentally felt the contrast indicated. Herein only, as it seems to me, is the difference and its origin. The Synoptics, with a partiality for them — we have seen the reason of this — traced out the popular and daily preachings of Jesus, in which He sought to awaken the moral life of His hearers and to stimulate the spiritual instincts which alone could lead them to Him. Now, these hearers were Jews, brought up from infancy in the expectation of the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus, like John the Baptist, takes, therefore, this glorious hope for the starting-point of His teaching, while endeavoring to spiritualize it and to set forth holiness as the essential char- acteristic of that future state of things. With this purpose, He emphasizes forcibly the moral qualities which its members must possess. But this was only the propaedeutic and elementary teaching, the general basis (which was common to Him with the law and the prophets) of the special and truly new preaching which He brought to the world. This preaching had reference to the part played by His person in the work of salvation and hi the establishment of the kingdom. And when He comes to this subject in the Synoptics, He insists, no less than in the fourth Gospel, on the vital importance of faith in Him, and on the concentration of salvation in His person and work. Without the first form of teaching, He would have found His hearers only deaf. Without the second, He would never have CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE DISCOURSES. Ill carried them on to the point to which He desired to raise them. While describing to us particularly the first, the Synoptics have nevertheless faithfully preserved the second ; and it is in this that we especially dis- cover, as we have just now done, the common matter, as between them and John. But there is a point on which the fourth Gospel seems to pass decidedly beyond the contents of the Synoptic teaching. It is that of the divine pre-existence of Jesus. Must we recognize here an idea imported by the author of the fourth Gospel into the Lord's teaching, or should we re- gard this notion as a real element in the testimony of Jesus respecting Himself? Three sayings, in the Gospel of John, in particular, evidently contain this notion : " What will happen when you shall see the Son of man ascending up where he was before " (vi. 62). " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am " (viii. 5S). " And now, Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had u'ith thee before the world was " (xvii. 5) ; or indeed, as Jesus says in ver. 24, " because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." Beyschlag, Weizsiicker, Ritschl, and others attempt to give to this pre-existence only an ideal sense : Jesus felt and recognized Himself as the man whom God had from eternity foreseen, loved, chosen, and destined to be the Saviour of man- kind, and the feeling of this eternal predestination formulated itself in Him as the consciousness of His personal pre-existence. But this attempt at explanation stops far short of the meaning of the words which we have just quoted. " Where He was before " can only designate an existence as real, as personal, as the present existence of Him who thus speaks. And in the other two declarations, the comparison with Abraham (" before Abraham was," literally, became, yevkadai), and with the world (" before the world was "), two perfectly real beings, does not allow us to ascribe to Him who is compared with them, in the point of precedence, a less real exist- ence than theirs. The sole question, consequently, is whether Jesus Himself spoke in this way, or whether some other person attributed to Him such assertions. Let us, first of all, recall to mind the fact that the idea of the divinity of the Messiah was one of the fundamental points of the doctrine of the prophets. Only an exegesis thoroughly determined not to bow before the texts can deny this. If the critics will have it so, we will not insist upon the second Psalm, although, according to our conviction, the words : " Thou art my Son," and these : " Kiss the Son," cannot denote anything else than the participation of the Messiah in the divine existence, and the obligation on the part of men to worship Him. But what cannot be denied is the titles of Mighty God and Eternal Father which Isaiah gives to "the child who is born to us" (ix. 5) ; the contrast which Micah institutes (v. 2) between the earthly birth of the ruler of Israel, at Bethlehem, and His higher origin which is from eternity ; the identification, in Zechariah, of Jehovah with the suffering Messiah, in that expression which is tortured in yain: "They shall look on me whom they have pierced " (xii. 10); 112 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. finally and above all, that promise which Malaehi puts in the mouth — of whom '? of Jehovah or of the Messiah ? evidently of both, since it iden- tities them, as we have already seen : " Behold, I send my messenger (the forerunner), and he shall prepare the way before vie, and the Lord whom ye seek, the angel of the covenant whom ye desire, shall suddenly enter into his temple ; behold, he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts " (hi. 1). The coming of the Messiah is the coming of the Lord, of Adonai, a name which is given only to God ; it is the coming of the angel of the covenant, of that angel of the Lord of whom the Pentateuch speaks many times, and whom Isaiah calls " the angel of his presence " (lxiii. 9), of that mysterious being in whom the Lord appears, ever since the earliest times, when He wishes to manifest Himself in a manner apprehensible to I the senses, and of whom God says (Num. xxiii. 21): "My name (my mani- fested essence) is in Him." It is this mysterious being who, in these words of Malaehi — which may be called the culminating point of Messianic prophecy — declares Himself to be at once the Messiah who is to follow the forerunner and the God who sends Him, and who is worshiped at Jeru- salem. And let it not be said that we put into this passage things which are not in it, or which, at least, were not yet seen in it in the time of Jesus. We have already had the proof of the contrary. That saying of John the Baptist : " He who cometh after me was before me," was derived by him from this source through the illumination of the Spirit. But we possess yet another proof— it is the words which Luke puts into the mouth of the angel, when he announces to Zachariah the birth of John the Baptist : " He (John) shall turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. . . ." He shall go be- fore him . . . Before whom ? The preceding words say expressly : " before the Lord, their God." And if we could doubt that these words are a repro- duction of those of Malaehi, this doubt would fall away before the follow- ing words : " in the spirit and power of Elijah," which are literally taken from the following chapter of the same prophet (iv. 5, 6). No man in Israel, therefore, to whom the prophecies were familiar, could refuse to ascribe to the person of the Messiah a superhuman nature. There would be, consequently, even from the natural point of view, nothing surprising in the fact that Jesus, who proclaimed Himself the Messiah, should, at the same time, have affirmed His divine pre-existence. A second instructive fact presents itself to us in the New Testament. The pre-existence of Christ is not only taught in the discourses of John ; it is taught in the epistles of Paul. According to 1 Cor. viii. 6, as according to John's prologue, it is Christ who created all things. According to the same epistle, x. 4, the invisible rock which led Israel in the wilderness, and which delivered Israel, was Christ. According to Col. i. 15-17, He is "the first-born before the whole creation;" He is "before all things;" it is "by Him that all things are created, the heavenly and the earthly; all is by Him and for Him, all subsists in Him." And it is not only St. Paul who enunciates this idea. The epistle to the Hebrews which, by its desti- CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 113 nation even, testifies to the faith of the primitive Palestinian Church,1 declares that it is Christ who made the world, whom the angels worship, who laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens, who is always the same, and is as much more exalted than Moses as the one who has built the house is greater than the house itself (i. 2, 6, 10, 12; hi. 3). More than this : the same idea is found again in the Apocalypse, that Judaizing book as it is claimed. Jesus is therein, as Jehovah Himself is in Isaiah, called the first and the last; that is to say, as the author himself explains it, the beginning and the end (iipxv Kal.reXoc) of the whole creation;2 all creatures fall down before the Lamb seated on the throne, as well as before the Father. It is not then either to any individual (whether the true, or the pseudo-John), or to any school (that of Ephesus), or to any semi-Gnostic party, or to any Church of Asia Minor, that the doctrine of the divinity and pre-existence of the Christ belongs ; it is to the Church represented in all its parts by the authors and the readers of the writings which we have just quoted.3 If it is so, this idea, so generally received, of the person of Christ must have rested upon positive testimonies which proceeded from the mouth of Jesus, such as those which we find in the fourth Gospel. The first three Gospels themselves, far from contradicting this result, confirm it. We have already shown that these writings attribute to the person of Christ absolutely the same central position, as related to the hu- man soul, which the Old Testament ascribes to God. For whom were ab- solute trust and love reserved by Moses and the prophets? Jesus claims them for Himself in the Synoptics, and this even in the name of our sal- vation. Would Jewish monotheism, which was so strict and so jealous of the rights of God, have permitted Jesus to take a position like this, if He had not had the distinct consciousness that in the background of His hu- man existence there was a divine personality ? He cannot, as a faithful Jew, wish to be for us that which in the Synoptics He asks to be, except so far as He is what He declares Himself to be in John.4 A large number of particular facts in the same writings add their force to this general conclusion. We have just seen how, in Luke, He who comes after the forerunner is called, in the preceding words, the Lord their God. In 1 We cannot allow any critical probability taught respecting the person of Jesus a doc- to the opinion which seeks in Italy or in any trine according to which He was the Son of other country than Palestine the persons to God who had come from heaven to renew whom this epistle was addressed. mankind, the one whom God made use of as »i. 17; ii. 8; xxii. 13. Hilgenfeld claims that His instrument ID the creation of the world, the Jesus of the Apocalypse is only the first And we do not find any trace of an opposition created among the angels (iii. 14). Rutcomp. which this teaching had encountered in the xxii. 9, lfi, which positively excludes this primitive aposfoNe circles, and which gavo it idea; xxii. 11 proves that apxv, >>'• 14, Blgni- the character of a peculiar view." fies not beginning, but origin, unless tc'Aos *8ehultz writes these words in his recent must signify that Jesus is the end of the ex- work on the divinity of Jesus Christ: "The istenee of the universe, in the sense of de sentiment of religious dependence is not ad- llartmannl missible except before the. only true God .. . 3 Here is what Weizsacker himself says (p. We should not how religiously except before 222): "At the time when the primitive apos- that which is really divine." {Die Lchre von tolic tradition was still represented by a dcr Guttkcit Christi, pp. 04o, 511.) whole series of witnesses, the Apostle Paul 114 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. Mark, the person of the Son is placed even above the most exalted crea- tures: "Of that day knovveth no one, not even the angels who are in hea- ven, nor even the Son [during the time of His humiliation], but the Father only " (xiii. 32). In Matthew, the Son is placed between the Father and the Holy Spirit, the breath of God : " Baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (xxviii. 19). In the parable of the vine-dressers, Jesus Himself represents Himself, in contrast with the servants sent before Him, as the son and heir of the Master of the vineyard (Matt. xxi. 37, 38). It will be in vain to subject the question of Jesus (Matt. xxii. 45) : " If David calls the Christ his Lord, how is he his son?" to all imaginable manipulations; the thought of Jesus will ever come forth simple and clear for him who does not try to find difficulties where there are none. If, on one side, the Christ is the son of David by His earthly origin, on the other side He is, nevertheless, his Lord, in virtue of His divine personality. This is what Micah had said already (v. 2). And how, if He did not have the consciousness of His divinity, could 'Jesus speak of His angels (Matt. xiii. 41), of His glory (xxv. 31), finally, of His name under the invocation of which believers are gathered together? The Old Testament did not authorize any creature thus to appropriate to him- self the attributes of Jehovah. Now the notion of His pre-existence was for Jesus implicitly included in that of His divinity. Undoubtedly, we do not find in the Synoptics any declaration as precise as those which we have' just now quoted from the Johannean discourses. But do we not discover in the Gospel of Luke the immense quantity of, materials which would be entirely wanting to us if we possessed only those of Matthew and' Mark ; for example, the three parables of grace (Luke xv. ; the lost sheep, the lost drachma, the prodigal son) ; those of the unfaith- ful steward and of the wicked rich man (Luke xvi.) ; those of the unjust judge, and of the publican and the Pharisee (Luke xviii.); the story of Zaccha3us; the incident of the converted thief, and so many other treasures which Luke has rescued from the oblivion where the other redactions of the tradition had left them, and which he alone has preserved to the Church ? How, then, can we make of the omission of these few sayings in our first three Gospels an argument against their authenticity? If pictures so impressive, narratives so popular, as those which we have just recalled had not entered into the oral preaching of the Gospel, or into any of its written redactions, how much more easily could three or four expressions of a very elevated and profoundly mysterious character have been oblit- erated from the tradition, to reappear later as the reminiscences of a hearer who was particularly attentive to everything in the teaching of Jesus which concerned His person? The dogmatic interest which these declarations have for us did not exist to the same degree at that time; for the impres- sion of the person of Jesus, contemplated daily in its living fullness, filled all hearts and supplied all special vacancies. Let us not forget, moreover, that of these three sayings one is found in the discourse which follows the multiplication of the loaves, a discourse which the Synoptics omit alto- gether ; the second, in a discourse pronounced at Jerusalem, and which is CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 115 likewise omitted in them, together with the entire visit of which it forms a part; the third, in the sacerdotal prayer of which they have also given no report. As to John, according to his plan he must necessarily call them to mind, if he wished, as appears from xx. 30, 31, to give an account of the signs by which he had recognized in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, and which might contribute to produce the same assurance of faith in his readers. These culminating points of the testimony of Jesus respecting His person could not be wanting in such a picture. There remains the difference in the eachatological ideas. In the Synoptics, a visible return of the Lord, a final external judgment, a bodily resurrection of believers, a reign of glory; in John, no other return of Christ than His coming into the hearts in the form of the Holy Spirit ; no other resurrec- tion than that of the soul through regeneration ; no other judgment than the separation which is effected between believers and unbelievers through the preaching of the Gospel ; no other reign than the life of the believer in Christ and in God. " This entire Gospel is planned," says Hilgenfeld, " so as to present the historical coming of Christ as His only appearance on the earth."1 — But is this exclusive spiritualism which is attributed to the fourth Gospel indeed a reality ? John certainly emphasizes the return of Jesus in the spirit. But is this in order wholly to supersede and to deny His visible return ? No, according to him, the first is the preparation for the second : " I will come again," here is the spiritual return. Then he adds : "And I will take you unto myself, that where I am (in my Father's house, where there are many mansions, and where Jesus Himself is now going), you may be also with me," xiv. 3 ; here is, in some sense, a consum- mation. "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (xxi. 23.) And in the first epistle : " My little children, abide in Him, to the end that, when he shall appear, we may have boldness" (ii. 28). "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him " (iii. 3). — The spiritual judgment which John teaches is likewise, according to him, the preparation for the external judgment in which the economy of grace will end. " It is not I who will accuse you before the Father, it is Moses in whom you hope." " The hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth ; those who have done good, to a resurrection of life ; those who have done evil, to a resurrection of judgment " (v. 45 and 28, 29). Here, surely, an exter- nal judgment and a bodily resurrection are duly proclaimed. Scholten thinks, it is true, that these verses must be an interpolation. For what reason? They are not wanting in any manuscript, in any version. No; but the critic has decreed a priori what the fourth Gospel must be in order that it may be the antipode of the other three. And as these verses pre- sent an obstacle to this sovereign decision of his criticism, he takes his scissors and cuts them out. This is what at the present time is called scirnce. Moreover, little is gained by these violent proceedings. Four times successively in chap, vi., indeed, Jesus returns to these troublesome » Einl., p. 728. 116 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. facts of the last day and the resurrection of the dead : " That I may not lose anything of what the Father hath given me, but that I may raise it up at the last day" (ver. 39); "that whosoever beholdeth the Son and believeth on Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day " (ver. 40) ; " no man can come unto me, except the Father draw him ; and I will raise him up at the last day " (ver. 44) ; " he who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood . . . ; I will raise him up at the last day " (ver. 54). It will be confessed that considerable boldness is needed to maintain that a book, in which such a series of affirmations is found, does not teach either a last judgment or the resurrection of the body. But the critics count, and unfortunately with good reason, upon a public which does not examine critically. The truth is that, in conformity with his custom, the author of the fourth Gospel speaks less of external results than of spiritual preparations, because the popular preaching, arid as a consequence the Synoptics, did just the reverse. Without omitting the coming of the Holy Spirit and His action in the heart (Luke xxiv. 48, 49 ; Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Luke xii. 11, 12, etc.), the first Gospels had transmitted to the Church, in all its details, the teaching of Jesus respecting the destruction of Jerusalem and His visible return at the end of time (Matt, xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke xxi. and xvii.). John had nothing to add on these various points. As for ourselves, in reading the conclusions which the critics draw from his silence, we cannot conceal a feeling of astonishment ; here are men who maintain that the great discourse of Jesus on the end of time, in the Synoptics, was never spoken by Him ; that it is only a composition of some Jewish or Jewish- Christian author in the year 67 or 68 ; and the same men dare to allege the absence in John of this unauthentic discourse, as a reason against the trustworthiness of this Gospel! Should criticism become a matter of jugglery? It is impossible, then, to detect an essential difference, that is to say, one bearing on the matter of the teaching, between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. But what is to be thought of the entirely different form in which Jesus expresses Himself in the Johannean discourses and the Synoptic preachings? Here, brief moral maxims, strongly marked, popular, easy to be retained ; -there, discourses of a lofty and in a sense theological, import. Here, as Keim says, " the jewel of the parable ; " there, not a single picture of this kind. In a word, there the simple and practical spirit; here a mystic, exalted, dreamy hue. As to the paral>!e, it is in fact wanting in John, at least in the form in which we find it in the first Gospels ; but we must recall to mind the fact, that nothing was more adapted than this kind of discourse to form the substance of the popular evangelization in the earliest times of the Church. All that could be recalled of such teachings was, therefore, successively put in circulation in the tradition, and passed from thence into the first evangelical writings. What could have been the object of the author of the fourth Gospel in suppressing these teachings with which CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 117 he must have been acquainted, and which would have given credit to his book, on the supposition that his narrative was a fiction ? But if he was simply recounting the history, what purpose would it serve to repeat that which every one could read in writings which were already within the reach of all ? He could only have been led to take a different course if the parables had been a necessary land-mark in the history of the apos- tolic faith which he had it in mind to describe ; but this was evidently not the case. Moreover, if we do not find in the fourth Gospel the parable in , the form of a complete story, we do find it in a form closely allied to this,! that of allegory.1 Here is the analogue of what are called, in the Synoptics,) the parables of the leaven or of the grain of mustard-seed ; thus, the pictures of the Shepherd, the Door, and the Good Shepherd (chap, x.), or that of the woman who suddenly passes from the excess of grief to that of joy (xvi. 21), or again that of the vine and the branches (xv. 1 ff.). It; is still the figurative and picturesque language of Him who, in the first?, Gospels, spoke to the people in these terms : " What went ye out into the ■ wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind ? (Matt. xi. 7.)| This question very nearly recalls the saying of Jesus in our Gospel (v. 35) ; "John was a lamp which shineth and burnetii ; and ye were willing to > rejoice for a season in his light." Let the following similitudes, also, be I compared : The Spirit is like the wind which blows where it wills, and the I presence of which we know only because we hear the sound of it (iii. 8). ,' The unbeliever is like the evil doer who seeks the night to accomplish his evil works (vv. 19, 20). Spiritual emancipation is the formula of manu- ' mission which the son of the house pronounces upon the slaves (viii. 36), etc. Each of these figures is a parable in the germ, which the author could have developed as such, if only he had wished to do so. As to the elevated, mystical character of the discourses of Jesus, the lan- guage forms a contrast, it is true, with the simple, lively, piquant cast of the Synoptic discourses. But let us notice, first of all, that this contrast has been singularly exaggerated. Sabatier himself acknowledges this : " A com- parison of these discourses with those of the Synoptics proves that, at the foundation, the difference between them is not so great as it appears to be at the first view." How can we fail to recognize the voice which strikes us so impressively in the Synoptics, in those brief and powerful words of the Johannean Christ, which seem to break forth from the depths of another world? " My Father worketh hitherto and I also work." "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days." "Apart from me ye can do nothing." "Except the grain be cast into the earth anddie.it abideth alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit." "He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father." "The prince of this world cometh, but he hath nothing in me." There is a fact which is beyond dispute : we discover at least twenty-seven sayings of Jesus in John which are found in almost exactly 1 It is remarkable that, in x. C, John uses for employed in the Synoptics to designate the characterizing this kind of comparisons the parables properly so-called. same word, irapoi/iia, which is so frequently 118 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. the same form in the Synoptics (see the list in the note).1 Very well ! no one can maintain that these sayings in the least degree harmfully affect either the texture of John's text or that of the Synoptic text. This fact proves, indeed, that the difference which has been pointed out has been singularly exaggerated. If, in fact, sayings of such an original cast as those of Jesus can, simultaneously and without surprising us in the least degree, occupy a place in the two sorts of documents, this fact proves that these documents are fundamentally homogeneous. Several expressions are especially alleged by the critics which belong to John's style and which are foreign to the Synoptics, — for example, the terms light and darkness; or expressions in use in the latter which are wanting in the former, like the kingdom of heaven (or of God), for which John substitutes the less Jewish and more mystical term eternal life. But the contrast of light and darkness is found, also, in the Synoptics, as witness 1 John. ii. 19: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it np." iii. 18: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is con- demned already." iv. 44 : " For Jesus Himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own coun- try." v. 8 : " Jesus saith unto him, Arise, take up thy bed and walk:" vi. 20: "It is I; be not afraid." vi. 35 : " He that cometh to me shall not hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." vi. 37 : " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." vi. 4G: "Not that any man hath seen the i Father, save He which is from God, He hath | seen the Father." Compare i. 18: "No man ; hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten I Son, which is in tlie bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." xii. 8 : " For the poor always ye have with you ; but me ye have not always." xii. 25 : " He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." xii. 27: "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this I' hour; but for thi9 cause came I unto this hour." xiii. 3: "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands." The Synoptics. Matt. xxvi. Gl (xxvii. 40): "This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Mark xiv. 58 and xv. 29). Mark xvi. 16: "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matt. xiii. 57: "Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house" (Mark vi. 4 and Luke iv. 24). Matt. ix. 6: "Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house" (Mark ii. 9; Luke v. 24). Matt. xiv. 27 : " It is I ; be not afraid " (Mark vi. 50). Matt. v. 6, Luke vi. 21 : " Blessed are they that hunger and thirst: for they shall be filled." Matt. xi. 28, 29 : " Come unto me, all ye that labour and arc heavy laden . . . and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matt. xi. 27 : " No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any mf.n the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him " (Luke x. 22). Matt. xxvi. 11 : " For ye have the poor al- ways with you ; but me ye have not always" (Mark xiv. 7). Matt. x. 39: "He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" (xvi.25; Markviii.35; Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33). Matt. xxvi. 38: "Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death " (Mark xiv. 34 rf.). Matt. xi. 27 : " All things have been delivered unto me of my Father." CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 119 Luke xi. 34-36 and Matthew vi. 22 and 23. Is it not already very common in the Old Testament? And as to the Johannean expression eternal life, it is employed in the Synoptics as the equivalent of the kingdom of God, ab- solutely as it is in John. We call to witness the examples quoted in the note, which have been very happily brought forward by Beyschlag.1 John John. xiii. 10: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him." xiii. 20 : " He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." xiii. 21 : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." xiii. 38: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice." xiv. 18: "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you ; " and 23 : " We will make our abode with him." xiv. 28: " My Father is greater than I." xiv. 31 : " Arise, let us go hence." xv. 20 : " If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." xv. 21 : " But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake." xvi. 32: "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone." xvii. 2: "As Thou gavest Him authority over all flesh." xviii. 11 : " Put up the sword into the sheath." xviii. 20 : "I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple." xviii. 37 : " Pilate therefore said unto Him : Art thou a king then ? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been born." xx. 23 : " Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven . . . ," etc. The Synoptics. Matt. x. 24: "A disciple is not above his] master, nor a servant above his lord." Matt. x. 40; "He that receiveth you, re- ceiveth me; and he that receiveth me, re ceiveth Him that sent me" (Luke x. 16). Matt. xxvi. 21 : "Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me" (Mark xiv. 18). Matt. xxvi. 34: "Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" (Mark xiv. 30; Luk« xxii. 34). Matt, xxviii. 20 : " I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Mark xiii. 32; "That day knoweth no one, not even the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Matt. xxvi. 46: "Arise, let us be going." Matt. x. 2"> : " If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household." Matt. x. 22: "Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." Matt. xxvi. 31: "For it is written, I will ' smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." Matt, xxviii. 18: "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." Matt. xxvi. 52: "Put up again thy sword into its place." Matt. xxvi. 55: "I sat daily in the temple teaching." Matt, xxvii. 11 : "And the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the king of the Jews? (; And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest." Matt, xviii. 18 (xvi. 19): "What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . . ," etc. !The two verses placed in parallel lines are taken in each case from the same Gospel and from the same narrative : Matt, xviii. 3 : " Ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. xix. 17 : " If thou wouldest enter into life." Matt. xxv. 34 : " Inherit the kingdom prepared for you." Mark ix. 45: "It is good for thee to enter into life." Matt, xviii. 8: "It is good for thee to en- ter into life." Matt. xix. 23: " It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. xxv. 46 : " But the righteous into eter- nal life." Mark ix. 47 : " It is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God." 120 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. moreover, in the conversation with Nieodemus, twice uses (iii. 3, 5) the term kingdom of God (or of heaven, in the Sinaitic MS.). What is there left, after all this, which suffices to establish, in respect to the form, an insoluble contrast between the words of Jesus in John and His language in the Synoptics? A certain. difference remains; I do not deny this. It consists in that altogether peculiar tone of holy solemnity, and, if I may venture to speak thus, of heavenly suavity, which dis- tinguishes not only our Gospel, but also the first Epistle of John, from all the other products of human thought, and which makes of these writings a literature by itself; with this difference, however, which has been already pointed out, that, while, the course of thought is steady and of a strictly logical tenor in the Gospel, the subjects are treated in the epistles in a softer, more hesitating, and more diffuse way. — In order to explain the real contrast between the fourth Gospel and the preceding ones, we must first of all, as we have seen, take into account the influence exercised on the form of the discourses by the peculiar style of the translator, and by the work of condensation which was the condition of this reproduction. But, after this, there is still left a certain, in some sort, irreducible remnant, which demands a separate examination. It is said that the unexplained remainders in science are the cause of great discoveries. We are not ambitious of making a great discovery ; but we would like, nevertheless, to succeed in giving, a little more clearly than has been given hitherto, an account of the difference with which we are concerned. The question is whether this particular tone, which might be called the Johannean timbre, was foreign to Jesus, in such a degree that our evan- gelist was the real creator of it and, of his own impulse, attributed it to the Saviour ; or whether it appertained to the language of Jesus Himself, at I least in certain particular moments of His life. We have seen that the \ scenes related in our Gospel represent only a score of days, or even of \ moments, distributed over an activity of two years and a half. And it is consequently permitted us to ask whether these scenes, chosen evidently with a design, did not have an exceptional character which marked them out for the author's choice. He has made a selection among the facts, that is certain, and himself declares this (xx. 30, 31). Why might he not alsoJiave made one among the discourses? The selection in this case must have been with reference to the design of his work, which was to show that " Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." If it is so, he was natu- rally obliged to choose, from among the numerous teachings of Jesus, the few words of an especially elevated character, which had, most of all, con- tributed to make him understand for himself the sublime richness of the being whom he had the happiness to see and to hear. We have an expression which the author places in the mouth of Jesus, and according to which Jesus Himself distinguished between two sorts of discourses which were included in His teaching. He says to Nieodemus, iii. 12: "If I have told you earthly things (™ tniyeia) and ye believe not, how shall ye believe when I tell you heavenly things (ra eivovpavta.)?" In expressing Himself thus, Jesus recalled to Nieodemus the teachings which CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 121 He had given since His arrival in Jerusalem. What proved, indeed, that His hearers had not been laid hold of by them (had not believed), is the fact that Nicodemus himself was able to put forward, as the proof of the divine superiority of the Lord's teaching, only His miracles (ver. 2). What were those teachings of Jesus, in which He spoke of earthly things? His preachings in Galilee, such as we rind them in the Synoptics, may give us an idea of them. It was the earth, — that is, human life, with all its differ- ent obligations and relations — considered from the heavenly point of view. It was, for example, that lofty morality which we find developed in the Sermon on the Mount : human life as related to God. But from this elementary moral teaching Jesus expressly distinguishes that which He calls the teaching of heavenly things. The object of the latter is no longer the earth estimated from the heavenly point of view ; it is heaven itself with its infinite richness. This heaven — Jesus lived in it continually while acting upon the earth. He says this Himself in the following verse : " No man hath ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven, the . Son of man who is in heaven " (ver. 13). In the intimate and uninterrupted relation which He sustained to the Father, He had access here below to the divine thoughts, to the eternal purposes, to the plan of salvation, and He was able, in certain' hours, to unfold to those who surrounded Him, friends or enemies, as He did in the progress of this nocturnal conversation with the pious councilor, the facts appertaining to this higher domain of the heavenly things. He would not have fully accomplished His mission, if He had absolutely concealed from the world what He was Himself for the heart of His Father, and what His Father was for Him. How could men have comprehended the infinite love of which they were the objects on heaven's part, if Jesus had not explained to them the infinite value of the gift which God made to them in His person. Does not love measure itself by the cost of the gift, by the greatness of the sacrifice? On the other hand, this revelation of the heavenly things could not be the habitual object of the Lord's teachings. Scarcely would one or two disciples have followed Him, if He had stayed upon these heavenly heights ; the yet gross mass of the people who asked only for a Messiah after their own carnal heart — a king capable of every day giving them bread in the proper sense of the word (vi. 15, 34), would have remained strangers to His influence, and would soon have left Him alone with His two or three initiated ones. It is undoubtedly for the same reason, that these teachings respecting the heavenly things remained, in general, outside of the limits of the first apostolical preaching and the oral telling of the Gospel story. Nevertheless, even if this was the course of things, it is improbable that every trace of this mode of teaching, more lofty in matter and tone, would have completely disappeared from the Synoptic narrative. And, indeed, two of our evangelists — those who, along with John, have labored most to transmit to us the teachings of Jesus — Matthew and Luke, have preserved for us the account of a moment of extraordinary emotion in the Lord's life which presents us the example naturally looked for. It is # 122 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. in Luke especially, that we must seek the faithful representation of it (chap. x.). Jesus has sent into the fields and villages of Galilee seventy of His disciples, weak spiritual children, to whom He has entrusted the task of making the population understand the importance of the work which is being accomplished at this time, and the nearness of the kingdom. They return to Him filled with joy, and inform Him of the complete success of their mission. At this moment, the evangelist tells us, " Jesus rejoiced in His spirit, and said : I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes! Yea, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me by my Father, and no one knoweth who the Son is but the Father, nor who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal him." In reading these words, we ask ourselves whether it is indeed from St. Luke or St. Matthew that we are reading, and not from St. John. What does this fact prove? That, according to the Synoptics themselves, in certain exceptional moments of elevation, the language of Jesus really assumed that sweet tone, that mystic tinge, as it has been called — is it not more correct to say, heavenly ? — of which we find in them but one single example, and of which six or seven discom-ses in John bear, in greater or less degree, the impress. This passage of Luke and Matthew has been called an erratic block of Johannean rock strayed into the Synoptic ground. The figure is quite just; what does it prove? The smallest fragment of granite deposited on the calcareous slopes of Jura, is for the geologist the unde- niable proof that somewhere in the lofty Alpine summits the entire rock is in its place. 'Otherwise this block would be a monstrosity for science. The same is true of this fragment of Johannean discourse in the Synoptic Gospels. It is fully sufficient to prove the existence, at certain moments, of this so-called Johannean language in the teaching of Jesus. The real difference between John and the Synoptics, on this most decisive point, amounts to this : while these last have handed down to us but a single example of this form of language, John has preserved for us several examples selected with a particular purpose. As, on the one hand, it is certain from the very nature of things, that the peculiar style of the translator has colored that of the Preacher whose discourses he reproduces, on the other hand, the passage of the Synoptics, which we have just quoted, places beyond doubt the fact that the language of the Lord Himself had stamped its impression deeply on the soul of the evangelist, and exercised a decisive and permanent influence on his style. There was here, therefore, if I may venture to express myself thus, a reflex action, the secret of which, undoubtedly, no one will ever com- pletely disclose. Moreover, the discourses of Jesus in the fourth Gospel bear in them- selves, for every one who has eyes to see them, the seal of their true origin, and, notwithstanding all the assertions of learned men, the Church will always know what it should think of them. An intimate, filial, unchanging communion with the God of heaven and earth, like that CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 123 which here reveals itself by the mouth of Jesus, must be lived in order to be thus expressed — what shall I say, in order to our having even a glimpse of it. The i?iventor of such discourses would be more than a genius of the first rank ; he would need to be himself a Son of God, a Jesus equal to the true one. Criticism gains only one more embarrassment by such a supposition. C. The Johannean notion of the Person of Jesus. Is it possible for us to go back even to the single source from which flow forth, like two diverging streams, the two forms of Jesus' teaching which we have just established. First of all, let us set aside the opinion, at pres- ent somewhat widespread, which holds that a dualism can be discerned even in the teaching of our Gospel. Two scholars, Baur and Reuss, have claimed that the author of this work did not hold a real incarnation of the Logos ; that, according to him, the divine being continued in Jesus in the possession and exercise of His heavenly attributes, in such a way that His humanity was only a passing and superficial covering, which did not modify, in any respect, the state which He had possessed before coming to the earth. Starting from this point of view, Eeuss finds in our Gospel a series of contradictions between certain words of Jesus, which he believes to be authentic, and that conception which is exhibited in the amplifica- tions due to the pen of the evangelist. While in the former, Jesus dis- tinctly affirms His inferiority to the Father, the author of our Gospel, filled with his own notion of the Logos, presents Him as equal with God. It is difficult to conceive a more complete travesty of the Johannean nar- rative. We have already shown that no Gospel sets forth with more pro- nounced features than this one the real humanity of Jesus, body, soul and spirit. The body is exhausted (iv. G) ; the soul is overwhelmed in trouble (xii. 27); the spirit itself is agitated (xiii. 21) and groans (xi. 83). What place remains in such a being for the presence of an impassible Logos? More than this : according to the prologue, which is certainly the work of the evangelist, the Logos Himself, in His state of divine pre-existence, tends towards God as to His centre (i. 1) ; He dwells in God, as a first-born Son in the bosom of His Father (i. 18). Where in this representation is the place for a being equal with God? No; the subordination of the Son to the Father is affirmed by the evangelist as distinctly as it could have been by Jesus when speaking of Himself; and as for His real humanity, it is emphasized by this same evangelist more strongly than by any one of the Synoptics. There is, then, no trace of a twofold contradictory theology in our Gos- pel.1 This supposition is already, in its very nature, in the highest degree improbable. It implies a fact which it is very difficult to admit. This fact is, that so profound a thinker as the one who composed this work, the most powerful mind of his epoch, could, without being in the least degree 1 As Beyschlag now claims ; cotnp. also tho thesis of Jean Reville, La doctrine du Logos, 1881, 124 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. aware of it, simultaneously teach two opposite conceptions respecting the subject which occupied the first place in his thoughts and in his heart. The idea which the evangelist formed of the person of Christ, and which is in perfect accord with even the smallest historical or didactic details of the entire narrative, is clearly formulated by the author in the prologue : " The Word was made flesh," — which evidently signifies that the being whom he calls the Word divested Himself of His divine state and of all the attributes which constituted it, in order to exchange it for a completely human state, with all the characteristics of weakness, ignor- ? ance, sensibility to pleasure and pain, which constitute our peculiar mode f of life here below.1 Tins mode of conceiving of the person of Christ during His sojourn on the' earth is not peculiar to John ; it is also that of Paul, who tells us in Philippians : " He who was in the form of God . . . emptied himself, taking upon him the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men" (ii. 6, 7); and also in Second Corinthians: "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, for your sakes became poor, that ye, through his poverty, might become rich " (2 Cor. viii. 9). The same teaching is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, though it would require too much space to show this here.2 Here is the key to all the Christological ideas of the New Testament. It is, in particular, the explanation of that double form of teaching Avhich we find in the mouth of Christ, in John and in the Synoptics. Up to His baptism, Jesus had lived in a filial communion with God; that saying of the child of twelve years is the proof of this : " Must I not be in that which belongs to my Father? " (Luke ii. 49.) But He had not as yet the distinct consciousness of His eternal, essential relation to the Father ; His communion with Him was of a moral nature ; it sprang from His pure conscience and His ardent love for Him. In this state, He must, indeed, have had a presentiment that He was the physician of sinful humanity, as the Messiah. But an immediate divine testimony was necessary, in order that He should be able to undertake the redemptive work. This testimony was given to Him at His baptism ; at that moment the heavens were opened to Him ; the heavenly things, which He was to reveal to others, were unveiled to Him. At the same time the mystery of His "own person became clear to Him; He heard the voice of the Father which said to Him : " Thou art my beloved Son." From that day He knew Himself perfectly ; and knowing Himself as the only-begotten Son, the object of all the Father's love, He knew also how greatly the Father loved the world to which He was giving Him : He knew fully, as man, the Father himself, the Father in all the riches of the meaning of this word. Thus it was that, from this day onward, He carried heaven in His heart, while living on the earth. He had, then, if we may so speak, 1 The same expression is used (ii. 9), to ex- attributes, press the change of the water into wine: one scomp, Heb. i. 3; ii. 17, 18; v. 6-8; Apoe. i. same substance, but clothed with different 1, 18 ; iii. 12, 21 ; v. 6. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 125 two sources of information : one, the experience of the earthly things which He had learned to know during the thirty years of life which He had just passed here on earth as a mere man ; the other, the permanent intui- tion of the heavenly things winch had just unveiled themselves to Him at the hour of the baptism. How can we be surprised, therefore, that Jesus spoke alternately of the one and the other, according to the wants of His hearers, rinding in the first the common ground which was needed by Him to excite their interest and gain their attention, deriving from the second the matter of the new revelation, by means of which He was to transform the world? On the one side, there were the moral obligations of man, his relations to things here below, treated from a divine point of view, as we see particularly in the Synoptics; on the other, the higher mystery of the relation of love between the Father and the Son, and of the love of both towards a world sunk in sin and death, a world to which j the Father gives the Son and the Son gives Himself. It seems to me that, by placing ourselves at this point of view, we may see springing up, as if by a sort of moral necessity, the two modes of teaching which till science, but not the Church, with astonishment. Do we not know young persons or mature men who, after having led a per- fectly moral life, see all at once opening before them, through the mysterious act of the new birth, the sanctuary of communion with Christ, the life of adoption, the inward enjoyment of the fatherly love of God ? Their language assumes then, at certain moments, a new character which astonishes those who hear them speak thus, and ask themselves whether it is, indeed, the same man. There is in their tone something elevated, something sweet, which was previously strange to them. The words are, as it were, words coming from a higher region. We are tempted to cry out with the poet : Ah ! qui n'oublierait tout a cette voix celeste ! , Ta parole est un chant . . . but without adding, with him, ou rien d'huraain ne reste.1 For this divine language is, nevertheless, the most human language which can be spoken. Then, when this moment of exaltation has passed, and the ordinary life resumes its own course, the ordinary language returns with it, although ever grave, ever holy, ever dominated by the immediate relation with God which henceforth forms the background of the entire life. Such experiences are not rare; they serve to explain the mystery of the twofold teaching and the twofold language of the Word made flesh, from the moment when He had been revealed to Himself by the testimony of the Father.'2 1 Ah, who would not all forget in that celes- s Regarded from this point of view, the faci tial voice. of the incarnation, while still presenting to hu- Thy speech is a song .... whero nothing man reason profound mysteries, does notscem of man remains. to us to contain uusolvable contradictions. 126 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. But, even if we cannot reach in thought the sublime point where, in the person of Christ, the two converging lines of the humanity which rises to the highest point, and the divinity which humbles itself mc:t profoundly, meet together, do we not know that, in mathematics, no one refuses to acknowledge the reality of the point where the two lines called asymptotes meet when infinitely produced, and that the operations are carried on with reference to this point as with reference to a positive quantity ? Weiss rightly says : J "It is necessary, indeed, to consider that the appearance of Jesus in itself, as the realization of a divinely human life, was much too rich, too great, too manifold, not to be presented in a different way according to the varied individualities which received its rays, and according to the more or less ideal points of view at which these rays were reflected ; while, however, this difference could not be prejudicial to the unity of the fundamental impression, and of the essential character in which this personality made itself known." Criticism has often compared the difference with which we are con- cerned to that which is presented by the two representations of the person of Socrates, traced by Plato and Xenophon. At the outset, the historians of philosophy turned to the side of Xenophon, thinking that they could recognize the true historical type in the simple, practical, varied, popular Socrates of the Memorabilia. At that time, the Socrates of Plato was re- garded as only a mouth-piece chosen by that author in order to set forth his own theory of ideas. Xenophon was the historian, Plato the philoso- pher. But criticism has changed its mind ; Schleiermacher, above all, has taught us that, if the teaching of Socrates had not contained speculative elements, such as Plato attributes to him, and elements as to which the other writer is completely silent, no account could be given either of the relation which so closely united the school of Plato to the person of Soc- rates, or of the extraordinary attractive power which the latter exercised over the most eminent and most speculative minds of his time, or of the profound revolution effected by him in the progress of Greek thought.2 With Xenophon alone, there remains a vacancy — a vacancy which we can- not fill except with the aid of Plato. This fact arises, on the one hand, from the special aim of Xenophon's book, which was to make a moral defense of his master ; on the other, from the circumstance that Xenophon, a practical man, Jacked the philosophical capacity which was necessary for the apprehension of the higher elements of the Socratic teaching. Zeller also acknowledges that Xenophon did not comprehend the scientific value of Socrates ; " that Socrates cannot have been that exclusive and unscientific moralist for which he was so long taken," while the starting- point for criticism was made from the work of Xenophon only. " There is," he says, "in the exposition of each of the two writers, a surplus (Ueberschuss) which can without difficulty be introduced into the com- mon portrait." No doubt, Plato has put into the mouth of Socrates his 1 Introduction to his Commentary on the a Scholars like Brandis and Hitter hold this Gospel of John, p. 33. opinion. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 127 own theory of ideas. But it was only the development of the teaching of Socrates himself; and it must be admitted that where he puts Socrates on the stage as an historical personage (in the Apology and the Symposium, for example), he does not take this course.1 This parallel presents, mutatis mutandis, several remarkable correspond- ences in detail. But it offers, above all, this fundamental analogy that, in the case of Socrates as in that of Jesus, we find ourselves in the pres- ence of two portraits of an historical personage, the perfect synthesis of which it is impossible to make. Now, if philosophy is still seeking after the fusion of the two portraits of the wisest of the Greeks, are we to be sur- prised that theology has not yet succeeded in effecting that of the two pictures of Christ. Is the richness of the former, a man whose influence on the moral history of his people was so serious, but so transient, to be compared to the richness of Him whose appearance has renewed and is constantly renewing the world ? And if there was in the former that which furnishes matter for two portraits, both of them true and yet not reducible to a single one, why should we be surprised to see the same phenomenon reappearing with regard to Him who could have ex- claimed in Greece : " A greater than Socrates is here," as He did exclaim in Judea : "A greater than Solomon is here." "No one knoweth the Son but the Father," says Jesus in the Synoptics. The point of convergence of the two representations — the Johannean and the Synoptic, is accordingly the consciousness which the Son had of Him- self. We shall, undoubtedly, not be successful in reconstructing it per- fectly here on earth. We behold one sun in the arch of heaven ; and yet what a difference between its burning reflection on the slopes of the Alpine glaciers and its. calm and majestic image in the waves of the ocean ! The source of light is one, but the two mirrors are different. We conclude : 1. The primal idea of the Johannean work did not by any means nec- essarily impair its historical character. 2. The truthfulness of the narrative appears manifestly from the com- parison of the story with that of the Synoptics, to which it is invariably Buperior in the cases where they differ. 3. The truthfulness of the account of the discourses, which is supported by such strong positive reasons, does not in fact encounter any insur- mountable difficulty. The fourth Gospel is, therefore, a truly historical work. g 2. THE RELATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO THE RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Modern criticism believes itself able to prove a tendency in the fourth Gospel decidedly hostile to Judaism. Baur thinks that the author of this book desired to introduce anti-Jewish Gnosticism into the Church ; that he ' 1 Philos. der Griechcn, liter Th., 3d ed., pp. 85 ff. ; 151, 165. 128 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. was a Docetist and dualist, professing the non-reality of the body of Jesus and the eternal contrast between darkness and light. Without going as far as this, Reuss says, ' that he speaks of the Jews as of a class of for- eigners, with whom he had no connection;" that" all that preceded Jesus belongs, according to him, to a past without any value, and can only serve to lead men astray and cause them to miss the gate of salvation " (x. 8).1 Eenan also attributes to the evangelist a " lively antipathy " to Judaism. Hilgenfeld, finally, is the one who has gone, and still goes, the farthest in the affirmation of this thesis. He originally ascribed our Gospel to some Gnostic writer of the second century ; he has since softened this assertion ; he thinks that the author, while belonging to the Church, "nevertheless goes a considerable distance along with Gnosticism." According to the fourth evangelist, " Judaism belonged, as much as paganism, to the dark- ness which preceded the Gospel ;" the religion of the Old Testament pos- sessed " only an imperfect and dim prefiguration of Christianity." The knowledge of the true God was wanting to it as much as to Samaritan paganism.2 What is alleged in justification of such judgments? In the first place, some particular terms, familiar to the evangelist, such as this : the Jews, an expression which he employs in a sense always hostile to that people ; or that other expression : your law, a term in which a feeling of disdain for the Mosaic institution ancTthe Old Testament betrays itself. But the un- favorable sense attached in our Gospel to the name, the Jews, to designate the enemies of the light, proceeds not from a subjective feeling of the evangelist, but from the fact itself — that is to say, from the position taken towards Jesus from the beginning (John ii.) by the mass of the nation and by their rulers. The author uses this term also, when there is occasion for it (which is rare), in an entirely neutral sense, as in ii. 6 ("the purification of the Jews") and xix. 40 ("the custom of the Jews to embalm bodies"); or even in a favorable sense, as in the passages iv. 22 ("salvation is from the Jews") and xi. 45 ("many of the Jews who came to Mary believed on him "). We may also cite here the use of the name Israelite, applied as a title of honor to Nathanael (i. 48). In the Apocalypse, which is affirmed to be an absolutely Judaizing work, the Jews who obstinately resist the Gospel ,are designated in a much more severe way : "Those who say they are Jews and who.are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (ii. 9; comp. iii. 9).3 The great crisis which had cast Israel out of the kingdom of God, and which had made it henceforth a body foreign and even hostile to the Church, had begun already during the ministry of Jesus. This is what the author sets forth by this term : the Jeivs, which is contrasted in his narrative With the term : the disciples. In making Jesus say your law, the evangelist cannot have had the intention of disparaging the Mosaic institution, any 1 Thiol. joh.,Tpp. 82 and 19. 8 Ewald (Comment, in Apoe. Joh. ad. h. ].): *Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis, "John, in a piquant way, calls the Jews aa 1849 ; comp. with his more recent article in assembly, not of God, but of Satan, as Jesut the Zeitschrift fur wissensctiajitiche Theologie Himself does (John viii. 37-14)." 1865, and Einleitung, pp. 722 ff. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 129 more than In making Jesus say: "Abraham your father" (viii. 56), he dreamed of depreciating that patriarch. He exalts him, on the contrary, in that very verse, by setting forth the joyous sympathy winch he experi- ences in a higher state of existence for Himself and His work : " Abraham rejoiced in expectation of seeing my day, and he saw it and was glad." In the same way, x. 34, after having used the expression : your law, He im- mediately adds, in connection with the passage of the O. T. which he has just quoted, these words : "And since the Scripture cannot be broken," making the law thus a divine and infallible revelation. Elsewhere He de- clares that " it is the Scriptures which testify of him " (v. 39) ; that the sin of the hearers consists in "not having the word of God abiding in them" (ver. 3S), and even that the real cause of their unbelief towards Him is nothing else than their unbelief with respect to the writings of Moses (vv. 46, 47). The evangelist who makes Jesus speak thus evidently does not seek to disparage the law; the contradiction would be too flagrant. Jesus, therefore, in using the expression your law, means: "that law which you yourselves recognize as the sovereign authority," or: "that law which you invoke against me, and in the name of which you seek to condemn me." It must be remarked that He could not say "our law," because His per- sonal relation to that institution was too widely different from that of the ordinary Jews to be included under the same pronoun ; just as He could not say, when speaking of God : " our Father," but only " my Father," and "your Father" (xx. 17). It has been remarked that Jesus never speaks in this Gospel of the law as the principle on which the life of the new community is to rest. This is true; but this is because He supposes the law to have become the inter- nal principle of the life of believers through the fact of their communion with Him. Critics also allege the freedom with which Jesus, in His cures, was ready to violate the Jewish Sabbath. Hilgenfeld even discovers the intention of abolishing that institution in the words of v. 17: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I also work." As to the Sabbath cures, they are found in the Synoptics as well as in John ; and there, as here, it is these acts which be- gin to excite the deadly hatred of the Jews against Him (Luke vi. 11). But we formally deny the position that by these healings Jesus really violated the terms of the Mosaic command. He transgressed nothing else than that hedge of arbitrary statutes by which the Pharisees had thought fit to surround the fourth commandment. Jesus remained, from the beginning to the end, in our Gospel as in the others, the minister of the circumcisioti (Rom. xv. 8), — that is to say, the scrupulous observer of the law. As to the words of v. 17, they are by no means contrary to the idea of the Sabbath rest; they only mean: "As the Father labors in the work of the salvation of humanity — and this work evidently suffers no interruption at any mo- ment whatsoever, still less on the Sabbath day than on any other— the Son cannot fold His arms and leave the Father to labor alone." This declara- tion does not contradict the Sabbatic rest when properly understood. Hilgenfeld alleges also the two following passages : iv. 21, and viii. 44. 130 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. In the first, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman : " The hour cometh when ye shall no longer worship the Father either in this mountain or at Jerusalem," which proves, according to him, that Jesus wished to set Himself in opposition to the Jews no less than to the Samaritans, and that consequently, when he says in the following verse : " Ye worship that which ye know not," this judgment applies to the former as well as to the latter. The Jewish religion would therefore be, according to these words of Jesus, as erroneous as all'the rest. — But there is enough in the follow- ing words : " because salvation comes from the Jews," to refute this explanation ; for, instead of because, the author would have been obliged in that case to have said although: "Although the Jews are as ignorant as you and all the others, it has pleased God to make salvation come forth from the midst of them." The because (uti) has no meaning unless Jesus in the preceding words had accorded to the Jews a knowledge of God superior to that of the Samaritans." This fact proves that the words : " We worship that which we know " apply not only to Him, Jesus, personally, but to Him conjointly with all Israel.1 The true meaning of the words of ver. 21 is explained by ver. 23 (which resumes ver. 21) : " Your worship, as for you Samaritans, will not be confined to this mountain Gerizim, nor will it, any more, be transported and localized anew at Jerusalem." Indeed, this second alternative must have appeared to the woman the only one possible, when once the first was set aside. In the passage viii. 44, Jesus says to the Jews, according to the ordinary construction: " You are of a father, the devil." Hilgenfeld translates, as is no doubt grammatically possible : " You are of the father of the devil." This father of the devil is, according to him, the God of the Jews, the Creator of the material world, who in some of the Gnostic systems (Ophi- tes, Valentinians) was actually presented as the father of the demon. This is not all ; Jesus says at the end of the same verse : " When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, because he is a liar, and his father," which is ordinarily understood in this sense : because he is a liar and the father of the liar (or of the lie). But Hilgenfeld explains : because he (the devil) is a liar, as also, his father (is a liar). And he finds here a sec- ond time the father of the devil, who is called " a liar as well as his son," because, throughout the entire Old Testament, the God of the Jews made Himself pass for the supreme God, while He was only an inferior divin- ity.— The author of this explanation is astonished that it could have been regarded as monstrous, and claims " that no one has yet advanced the first reasonable word against it." He must, nevertheless, acknowledge the following facts : 1. The father of the devil is a personage totally for- eign to the Biblical sphere, and the author of our Gospel would have greatly compromised the success of his fraud by introducing him on the stage. 2. The notion of two opposite and personal Gods, of whom the second is another being than the devil, is so opposed to the Israelitish and ' lit waa 'only through placing Himself in tans), that He could say toe in speaking of opposition to a foreign people (the Samari- Himself and the other Jews, as He does here. CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 131 Christian monotheism professed by the author (v. 44), that it is impossi- ble to admit such a teaching here. 3. What Jesus, according to the entire context, wishes to prove to the Jews, is that they are the children of the devil, but not his brothers, as would follow from Hilgenfeld's translation : " You are born of the father of the devil." In this whole passage the matter in hand is that of contrasting filiation with filiation, father with father. " Ye do that which ye have seen with your father," Jesus said, ver. 38. The Jews replied to Him : " We have only one father, God " (ver. 41). And Jesus' answer is the echo of theirs: "Ye are born of a father, [who is] the devil." The first epistle offers a decisive parallel (iii. 10). " In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." 4. Finally, let us remark, that if the first words of the verse are applied to the father of the devil, it is necessary to apply to this same per- sonage the whole series of the following propositions, even inclusive of the last. These words : " because he is a liar as well as his father," would signify, then (according to the explanation of Hilgenfeld) : the father of the devil is a liar and his father none the less so. After having seen the father of the devil make his appearance, we should find ourselves here in the presence of his grandfather ! All this phantasmagoria vanishes away before a single comma introduced between the two genitives Trarp6g (of a father) and rov 6ia[36hw (of the devil), which makes the second substantive appositional with the former, and not its complement. The necessity of this explanation from the grammatical standpoint appears from the opposi- tion to ver. 41 : "We have one father [who is] God," and religiously from ii. 16, where the temple of the God of the Jews, in Jerusalem (which, accord- ing to Hilgenfeld, ought to be the house of the devil's father), is called by Jesus " the house of my Father." It is certainly, therefore, according to, our Gospel, the only true God (xvii. 3) who is worshiped at Jerusalem. Hilgenfeld and Reuss rest also upon the words of x. 8 : " All those who came before me are thieves and robbers ; " they think that Jesus meant to characterize by these two terms all the eminent men of the Old Cove- nant. Who then ? The patriarchs and Moses, the psalmists and the prophets ? And that in a book in which the author makes Jesus say, that to believe Moses is implicitly to believe in Him (v. 46, 47) ; in which He Himself declares that Isaiah beheld in a vision the glory of the Logos before His incarnation, and foretold the unbelief of the people towards the Messiah (xii. 38, 41) ; in which the words of a psalmist are quoted as the word of God which cannot be broken (x. 34, 35) ; in which Abraham is represented as rejoicing exceedingly at the sight of the coming of the Christ (viii. 56) ! No ; the quoted expression applies simply to the actual rulers of the nation, who already for a considerable period were in posses- sion of power at the time when Jesus was accomplishing His work in Israel. This is clearly indicated by the present : elal, are, and not, were, as the word has sometimes been rather thoughtlessly translated. "Those who came before me are thieves and robbers." Reuss maintains that, in general, no expression in this work connects the Church in a more special way with Judaism : and Hilgenfeld affirms 132 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. that this work " breaks every bond between Christianity and its Jewish roots." And yet the second of these scholars cannot help acknowledging what tbe first tries in vain to deny : that in the declaration of i. 11 : " He came to his own, and his own received him not," the author really speaks of the Jews, considering them, he himself adds — " as the people of God or of the Logos." ' No doubt, he endeavors afterwards to escape from the consequences of this conclusive fact, but by means of subterfuges which do not deserve even to be mentioned. Moreover, let the following facts be weighed: The temple of Jerusalem is " the house of the Father" of Jesus | Christ (ii. 16) ; salvation comes from the Jews (iv. 22) ; the sheep whom Jesus gathers from the theocracy constitute the nucleus of the true Messianic flock (x. 16); the Paschaf lamb slain at Jerusalem prefigures the sacrifice of the Messiah, even in the minute detail that the bones of both are to be preserved unbroken (xix. 36); the most striking testimony of the Father on behalf of Jesus is that which is given to Him by the Scriptures of the Old Covenant (v. 39). Finally, the author himself declares that he wrote his book to prove that Jesus is not only the Son of God, as he is so often made to say, but, first of all, the Christ, the Messiah promised to the Jews (xx. 30, 31).2 The Messianic character of Jesus is expressly pointed out before His divine character. From end to end, our Gospel makes the appearance and work of Jesus the final evolution, the crowning of the Old Covenant. As to all the passages which Hilgenfeld alleges with the design of proving that Jesus denies to Judaism all true knowledge of God (vii. 28; viii. 19 ; xv. 21 ; xvi. 25, etc.), they do not prove anything whatever ; it is not to the Jewish religion as such, it is to the carnal and proud Jews who surround Him, that this often repeated reproach is addressed, that they did not know God, the God who nevertheless had revealed Himself to them. The prophets had all spoken in the same way, and had distin- guished from the mass of the people (this people, Is. vi. 10) the elect, " the holy remnant " (vi. 13). They surely were not, for this reason, anti-Jewish. The charge of dualism, directed against our Gospel by Hilgenfeld par- ticularly, falls before this simple remark of Hase:3 "A moral relation is thereby falsely translated into a metaphysical relation." Is it necessary to find asdualistic notion in that saying of Jesus : " To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom ;' but to them it is not given " (Matt. xiii. 11) ? or, in that other, ver. 38 : " The good seed are the children of the kingdom ; the tares are the children of the evil one?" or, again, in the contrast which St. Paul makes, 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, between the psychical man who cannot understand spiritual things, and the pneumatic man who judges all things? Who ever dreamed, because of such words, of imputing to Jesus and to Paul the idea of two human races, one proceeding from God, the other from the devil. The Scriptures teach throughout that a holy power and > Einlcitunfl, p. 723. striking out this term, the Christ ; eomp. Sa- 2 It is curious to observe how, in the cita- batier, Encydop., p. 184. There are other tion of this passage, our critics are sometimes examples of this. guilty of an inconsiderate inaccuracy in 8 Geschlchte Jesu, p. 44. , CHARACTERISTICS — THE DISCOURSES. 133 an evil power act simultaneously on the heart of man, and that he can freely surrender himself to the one or the other. The more emphatic the choice is in the one direction or the other, the more is the man given up to the moral current which bears him away, and thus it may happen that on the path of evil a man becomes incapable of discerning and feeling any longer the attraction of what is good. Here is the incapacity which Jesus so often charges upon the Jews; it is their own act; otherwise, why reproach them with it, and to what purpose call them again to repentance and to a renewal by faith ? This hardness is only relative, because it is voluntary ; Jesus declares this most expressly in that so profound expla- nation of Jewish unbelief (v. 44) : " How can ye believe, ye who receive your glory one from another, and seek not the glory which comes from God only?" If, then, they cannot believe, it is because they will not, because they have made themselves the slaves of a good which is opposite to the benefits which faith procures, — of human glory. This dualism is moral, the effect of the will, not metaphysical or of nature. By teaching otherwise, the author would contradict himself; for has he not said in the prologue that " all things were made by the Logos, and that nothing, not even a single thing, came into being without Him ?" Undoubtedly, Hil- genfeld claims that the existence of the darkness, i. 5, not having been explained as caused by anything, implies the eternity of the evil principle ; but following upon that which precedes (the creation, the primitive state), it is altogether natural to find here the appearance of evil in humanity — the fall, as it is related after the creation in the story of Genesis, which the author follows, as it were, step by step. Baur found in our Gospel the spirit of Gnostic Docetism, which would be, no less than dualism, in contradiction to the spirit of the Old Testament. But every one seems, at the present day, to have abandoned this opinion, ' and we believe that we can remit to exegesis the charge of proving the emptiness of it.1 In order to maintain it, we must torture the meaning of that expression in which the whole work is summed up : " The Word was made flesh," and must reduce the force of it to this idea : The Word was clothed with a bodily appearance. The fourth Gospel throughout repels this mode of explaining the incarnation, which is also, up to a certain point, that which Reuss attributes to it. A being who is fatigued, who is thirsty, whose soul is troubled at the approach of suffering, and who must be preserved by extraordinary circumstances from the breaking of his bones ; a being who rises from the dead, and who says : " Touch me not," or, again : " Reach hither thy finger," has certainly a real and material body, or the author does not know what he is saying. Hilgenfeld discovers, finally, in the opposition of our Gospel to Chilva-wi a proof of its anti-Judaic spirit. " The entire Gospel," says this writer, " is planned in such a way as to present the historical coming of Christ as His only appearance on the earth." But, first, it is false to regard Chiliasm, the expectation of a final reign of Christ over mankind, as the mark of a 1Sce on (he passages vii. 10 and viii. 59. 134 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. Judaistic tendency. Hase rightly says : " This was the belief of nearly the whole Church in the second century, and even till far on in the third." But further, as the same author adds, "our Gospel, while turning the attention away from everything which delights the senses, does not con- tradict that hope." We have seen this, indeed ; with many repetitions, mention is made of a glorious resurrection of the body which is promised to believers, and of a hist day. But here, as in all things, John makes it his study to set forth the spiritual preparation on which the Synoptics had not dwelt, rather than the outward results described by the latter in so lively and striking a way. We have, in this chapter, developed only the points which are related to the characteristics of our Gospel, without touching upon that which comes into the question of its origin, — of its composition by this author or by that. It is in studying this last subject that we shall seek for the origin of the notion and the term Logos. . What concerned us at this point was to thoroughly establish the relation of our Gospel to the Old Covenant. This relation is a double one, as we have proved : on the one side, the Johannean Gospel fully recognizes the divinity of the Old Testament, law and prophets ; on the other, it sees in the work and teaching of Christ a decided superiority to the old revelations. The God of Israel is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the patriarchal and prophetic revelations only made Him known imperfectly. It is the only-begotten Son, repos- ing in His bosom, who has come to reveal Him to us. "The law was given by Moses;" it prepared its faithful subjects to receive Jesus Christ; but it is only in Him that there is accorded to the believer a divine " full- ness of grace and truth " (i. 16-18). The Word had in Israel His home, long since prepared on the earth ; but the new birth through which a man obtains the life of God is impossible except through faith in the Word who has come in the flesh (i. 12, 13). The evangelist began by recognizing in Jesus the promised Christ ; thence he rose to the knowledge of the Son of God (i. 41 ; vi. 69; xvi. 28, 29). The expression in xx. 31, sums up this development. I 3. THE STYLE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. It remains for us to study our Gospel from a literary point of view. Tholuck, in the introduction to his brief commentary, has well set forth the unique character of the evangelist's language. There is nothing analo- gous to it in all literature, sacred or profane ; childlike simplicity and transparent depth, holy melancholy and vivacity no less holy; above all, the sweetness of a pure and gentle love. " Such a style could only ema- nate," says Hase, " from a life which rests in God and in which all oppo- sition between the present and the future, between the divine and human, has wholly come to an end. Let us try to state precisely the peculiarities of this style.1 'It is impossible to treat this subject with does in the Introduction to his Commentary, more acuteness and delicacy than Luthardt 2d ed., 1875, Vol. I., pp. 14-62. CHARACTERISTICS — THE STYLE. 135 1. The vocabulary, upon the whole, is poor. It is, in general, the same expressions which reappear from one end to the other : liglit (c) twenty- J three times ; glory, to be glorified (Jc^a, do^ea^ai) forty-two times ; life, to live (,"7, Zw) fifty-two times ; to testify, testimony {uaprvpelv, paprvpia) forty- seven times ; to know (yivuoKeiv) fifty-five times; world (i<6opos) seventy-eight times ; to believe {juoTeveiv) ninety-eight times ; work (ipyov) twenty-three times ; name (dvopa) and truth (afafteia) each twenty-five times ; sign (arjpe'tov) seventeen times. Not only does the author not hesitate to repeat these words in his work, but he does this, and with reiteration, in sentences which are very closely allied to one another. At the first glance, this gives to his style a monotonous character ; but only at the first glance. These expres- sions soon compensate the reader for their small number by their intrinsic richness. They are not at all, as one thinks at the first sight, purely abstract notions, but powerful spiritual realities, which can be contem- plated under a multitude of aspects. If the author possesses in his vocabulary only a small number of terms, these words may be compared to pieces of gold with which great lords make payments. This feature is in harmony with the oriental mind, which loves to plunge into the infinite. The Old Testament already is familiar with these so rich expres- sions and their deep meaning: light, darkness, truth, falsehood, glory, name, life, death. 2. Certain favorite forms, which, without precisely offending against the laws of the Greek language, are nevertheless foreign to that language, • betray a Hebraistic mode of thinking. Thus, to designate the most inti- i mate spiritual union, the use of the term to know ; to indicate moral dependence with respect to another being, the terms to be in (eh for ever (e'f T°v «*&•**); finally, Hebrew words changed into Greek terms, as in the formula : Amen, amen (aprjv, apijv), which is found only in John. 3. The construction is simple ; the ideas are rather placed in juxtapo- sition, than organically fitted together after the manner of Greek construc- tion. This peculiar feature is especially observed in some striking ex- amples (i. 10; ii. 9; iii. 19; vi. 22-24; viii. 32; xvii. 25), where it would not have been difficult to compose a truly syntactical sentence, as a Greek writer certainly would have done. With this altogether Hebraic form are also closely connected the very frequent anacolittha, according to which the dominant idea is first placed at the beginning by means of an absolute substantive, and then repeated afterwards by a pronoun construed in accordance with the rules ; comp. vi. 39 ; vii. 38 ; xvii. 2. We know that these cases are still more frequent in the Apocalypse. 4. Notwithstanding the abundance of particles belonging to the Greek language, the author only makes use of now (61), more frequently of and (nai), then (ovv), and as (, which is so common, is almost unknown in his work. I think that it appears only once (xix. 24). The 136 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. and and then take the place of the vav conversive which is, in some sort, the only Hebrew particle. The then sets forth the providential necessity which in the author's view binds the facts together. The and is frequently used in cases where we should expect the particle of opposition but; thus : " The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not " (i. 5) ; or again : " And they have seen and have hated both me and my Father" (xv. 24). " We speak that which we know, and ye receive not our testimony " (iii. 11). Luthardt acutely observes that this form is the sign ! of a mind which has risen above the first emotion of surprise or indigna- tion produced by an unforeseen result, and which has come to contemplate it for the future with the calmness of indifference, or with a grief which has no bitterness. The use of the particle as (comp. for example, chap, xvii.) is inspired by the necessity of setting forth the analogies; this feature is one of the most characteristic ones of the mind which created this style. This tendency goes even so far as to identify the earthly symbols of divine things with these latter : " I am the true vine; I am the good shepherd." To the eyes of him who writes thus, the reality is not the earthly phenomenon, but the divine, invisible fact; the sensible phenomenon is the copy. The author also very frequently uses the conjuction in order that (Iva) in a weakened sense, and one which, as it seems, is tantamount to the simple notion of the Latin ita ut, so that; nevertheless, we think, with Meyer, that this is only apparently the case. The question in these cases is of a divine purpose. And here also there is revealed a peculiarity of the author's turn of mind : the teleological tendency, which belongs to the spirit of sacred historiography. That which, to the eyes of men, seems only an historical result, appears, from a more elevated point of view, as the real- ization of the design of God. 5. A singular contrast is observed in the narrative forms. On the one hand, something slow, diffuse, — for example, that form so frequent in the dialogues: "He answered and said;" or the repetition of proper names, John, Jesus, where a Greek writer would have used the pronoun (a thing which also appertains to the oriental stamp of style : Winer, Gram. N. T., I 65) ; or again that dragging construction, in virtue of which, after the statement of a fact, a participle with its dependent words comes in unex- pectedly, with the purpose of bringing out in a clearer light one of the aspects of the fact mentioned (comp. i. 12; iii. 13; v. 18 ; vi. 71 ; vii. 50) ; or finally, instead of the finite verb, the heavier form of the verb to be joined with a participle, a form which, in certain cases, is undoubtedly founded on reasons, as in the classical style, but which is too frequently employed here not to be, as Thiersch has observed, a reproduction of the analogous form belonging to the Aramaic language; — and on the other hand, the frequent appearance of short clauses which break the sentence as if by an abrupt interruption : " And Barabbas was a robber " (xviii. 40) ; " now it was night " (xiii. 30); " it was the tenth hour" (i.40); <; it was the Babbath " (v. 9) ; " Jesus loved Martha and Mary " (xi. 5) ; " Jesus wept " (xi. 35). Here are jets of an internal fire which, by its sudden outbursts, CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE STYLE. 137 breaks the habitual calmness of serene contemplation. Such indeed is the Semite; an exciting recollection may draw him all at once out of the majestic repose with which he ordinarily thinks it fit to envelop himself. 6. In the manner in which the ideas are connected together, we remark three characteristic features: Either, as we have seen, a brief, summary word is placed as a centre, and around it is unrolled a series of cycles, which exhaust more and more, even to its most concrete applica- tions, the primary thought. Of there is a whole series of propositions without external connection, as in the first twenty verses of chap, xv., which all follow one another by asyndeton ; it seems as if each thought had its whole value in itself and deserved to be weighed separately. Or, finally, there is a bond of a peculiar nature which results from the repeti- tion, in the following clause, of one of the principal words of the preced- ing, for example, x. 11; xiii. 20; xvii. 2, 3, 9, 11, 15, 1G ; and, above all, i. 1-5. Each clause is, thus, like a ring linked with the preceding ring. The first two forms are repugnant to the Hellenic genius, the third is bor- rowed from the Old Testament (Psalm cxxi., and Gen. i. 1 fT.). 7. We have already called attention to the figurative character of thef style; let us here add its profoundly symbolic character; thus the expres- sions to draw, to teach, in speaking of God ; to see, to hear, in speaking of the relation of Christ to the invisihle world ; to be hungry, thirsty, in the spiritual sense. It is always the oriental and especially the Hebraic stamp. 8. We will only cite two more features ; the parallelism of the clauses, which is known to be the distinctive mark of the poetic style among the Hebrews, and the refrain, which is likewise in use among them. At all times when the feeling of the one who speaks is elevated, or his soul is stirred by the contemplation of a lofty truth to which he is bearing testimony, these two forms appear in the Old Testament. It is exactly the same in John. For the parallelism, see iii. 11 ; v. 37 ; vi. 35, 55, 56 ; xii. 44, 45; xiii. 1G; xv. 20; xvi. 28; for the refrain, iii. 15, 1G; vi. 39, 40, 44 ; comp. Gen. i. : " And the evening was," etc. ; Amos i. and ii. ; and elsewhere, especially in the Psalms. What judgment shall we pass, then, on the style and literary character of this work ? On the one hand, Penan tells us : " This style has nothing that is Hebraic, nothing Jewish, nothing Talmudic." And he is right, if by style we understand only the wholly external forms of the language. We do not find in the fourth Gospel, as in certain parts of Luke (in the first two chapters, for example, after i. 5), Hebraisms, properly so called, imported just as they are into the Greek text (thus the vav conversivc), nor, as in the translation of the LXX., Hebrew terms of expression roughly Hellenized. On the other hand, a scholar, who has no less pro- foundly studied the genius of the Semitic languages, Ewald, expresses himself thus : "No language can be, in respect to the spirit and breath which animate it, more purely Hehraic than that of our author." And he is equally right, if we consider the internal qualities <>f the style; the whole of the preceding examination has sufficiently proved this. In the language of John, the clothing only is Greek, the body is Hebrew ; 138 BOOK II. THE GOSPEL. or, as Luthardt says, there is a Hebrew soul in the Greek language of this evangelist. Keim has devoted to the style of the fourth Gospel a beauti- ful page ; he sees in it " the ease and flexibility of the purest Hellenism adapted to the Hebraic mode of expression, with all its candor, its simplicity, its wealth of imagery, and sometimes, also, its awkwardness. No studied refinement, no pathos ; everything in it is simple and flowing as in life; but everywhere at the same time, acuteness, variety, progress, scarcely indicated features which form themselves into a picture in the mind of the reflective reader. Everywhere mysteries which surround you and are on the watch for you, signs and symbols which we should not take in the literal sense, if the author had not affirmed their reality, accidents and small details which are found, all at once, to be full of meaning; cordiality, calmness, harmony; in the midst of struggles, grief, zeal, anger, irony ; finally, at the end, at the farewell meal, on the cross, and in the resurrection, peace, victory, grandeur." From this study of the historiographical, theological and literary characteristics of our Gospel, it follows : 1. That the narrative of the fourth Gospel bears, both with respect to the facts, and the discourses, the seal of historical trustworthiness. 2. That, while marking the advance of the Gospel beyond the religion of the Old Testament, it affirms the complete harmony of the two covenants. 3. That though Greek in its forms, the style is, nevertheless, Hebrew in its substance. BOOK THIRD. THE ORIGIN OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. We come to the principal subject of this study, the mode of composi- tion of the work which occupies our attention. This subject includes the following four points : 1. The epoch at which this book was composed ; 2. The author to whom it is to be attributed ; 3. The place where it had its origin ; 4. The purpose which presided over its composition. The means which we have at command for resolving these various questions are, besides the indications contained in the work itself, the information which we draw from the remains of the religious literature of the second century, from the canonical collections of the churches of that epoch, and from the facts of the primitive history of Christianity. The remains of the literature of the second century are few in number; they resemble the fragments of a shipwreck. They are, first, the letter of Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, about the end of the first century or at the beginning of the second, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, belonging to the same period. After this come the letters of Ignatius, of the earlier part of the second century, provided we admit their authenticity either in whole or in part, and the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, of a little later date, but with the same reservation. The Shepherd of Hernias, the letter to Diognetus, and a homily which bears the name of the Second Epistle of Clement follow next in order. The date of all these works is variously fixed. We come next to the writings of the Apologists about the middle of the century ; Justin Martyr with his three principal works ; Tatian, his disciple ; Athenagoras with his apology, mes- sage addressed to Marcus Aurelius ; Theophilus and his work addressed to Autolycus ; Melito and Apollinaris with the few fragments which remain of their writings ; finally, Irenxus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage, who form the transition to the third century. All these writers belong to the orthodox line. Parallel with them we find in the heretical line Basilides and his school ; Marcion ; then Valentinus, with his four principal disciples, Ptolemy, Heracleon, Marcus, and Theodo- tus, all of them authors of several works, some fragments of which we read in Irenams, Clement and Hippolytus ; the work of the last-mentioned author, recently discovered and entitled Philosophumena, is particularly im- portant. Finally, let us mention the Jewish-Christian romance called Clementine Homilies. 139 140 BOOK III. THE ORIGIN. The canonical collections of this epoch with which we are acquainted are three in number : That of the Syrian Church in the translation called Peschito ; that of the Latin Church in the translation which bears the name of Itala, and the so-called fragment of Muratori, which represents the canon of some Italian or African Church about the middle of the second century. It is by means of all these documents, as well as of the indications con- tained in the Gospel itself, that we must choose between the following four principal dates which at the present day are assigned by criticism to the composition of our Gospel. CHAPTER FIRST. THE TIME. The traditional opinion, in attributing this book to the Apostle John, by this very fact places its composition in the first century, towards the end of the apostolic age. At the opposite extreme to this traditional date is that for which Baur, the chief of the Tubingen school, has decided. According to him, our work was composed between 160 and 170 ; he places its origin in special connection with the Paschal controversy which broke out at that epoch. The disciples of Baur have gradually moved back the date of the com- position as far as the period from 130 to 155 : Volkmar, about 155 ; Zeller and Scholten, 150; Hilgenfeld, 130-140; thus, a quarter of a century, nearly, earlier than Baur thought. This arises from the fact that several of these writers place the composition of our Gospel in connection with the efflorescence of Gnosticism, about 140. Many critics, at the present day, make a new step backward. Holtz- mann believes our Gospel to be contemporaneous with the Epistle of Barnabas ; Schenkel speaks of 115-120 ; Nicolas, Renan, Weizsiicker, Reuss, Sabatier, all regarding the fourth Gospel as a product of the school in which the Johannean traditions were preserved at Ephesus, fix its com- position in the first quarter of the second century. This was also the opinion of Keim, when he published, in 1867, his great work, VHistoire de Jesus de Nazara ; he indicated as the date the years 100-120 (p. 146), and more precisely 110-115 (p. 155). More recently, in his popular editions, he has come back to the date of Hilgenfeld (130). Here are four situations proposed, which we must now submit to the test of facts. Shall we begin with that which is most advanced, or that which is most remote ? In our preceding edition, we adopted the former of these two courses. A want of logic has been noticed in this, since, in short, the facts which speak against the earliest dates give proof a fortiori against the most recent ones, and yet they are not pointed out until after the discussion of the latter has already taken place.1 This is true ; but 1 Review in the Chretien ivangilique, by Prof. Ch. Porret THE TIME — 160-170. 141 we have confidence enough in the logic of our readers to hope that they will themselves make this reckoning, and that when, for example, they reach, in the discussion of the date 140, a fact which proves it too late, they will not fail to add this fact to those hy which the dates more recent than this had been already refuted. We continue to prefer the course which is chronologically regressive, because, as Weizsiicker has been willing to acknowledge, it gives more interest to the exposition of the tacts. On the progressive path, every fact giving proof in favor of an earlier date ren- ders the discussion respecting the more recent dates unnecessary. 160-170.— (Baur). Eusebius declared, in the first part of the fourth century, " that the Gos- pel of John, well-known in all the churches which are under heaven must be received as in the first rank " (Hist. Eccl., iii. 24) ; and he consequently reckoned it among the writings which he calls Homologoumena, that is to say, universally adopted by the churches and their teachers. When speak- ing thus, he had before his eyes the entire literature of the preceding cen- turies collected together in the libraries of his predecessor Pamphilus, at Caesarea, and of the bishop Alexander, at Jerusalem. This declaration proves that in studying these writings he had found no gap in the testi- monies establishing the use of our Gospel by the Fathers and the churches of the first three centuries. It is necessary to recall to mind here with what exactness and what frankness Eusebius mentions the least indica- tions of a wavering in opinion with regard to the Biblical writings ; for example, he does not fail to mark the omission of any citation from the Epistle to the Hebrews in the principal work of Irenaeus (an omission which ' we can ourselves also verify), although that epistle takes rank, according to him, among the fourteen epistles of St. Paul. Let us suppose that he had found in the patristic literature up to the date 160-170 an entire blank in relation to the existence and use of our Gospel, would he have been able in all good faith to express himself as he does in the passage quoted? Origen, about 220, places the Gospel of John in the number of the four "which are alone received without dispute in the Church of God which is under heaven " (Euseb. H. E., vi. 25). Would this place have been thus unanimously accorded to it, if it had been known only after 170? Undoubtedly, Eusebius and Origen are not the bearers of the tradition; but they are the founders of criticism who grouped the information from the preceding centuries and evolved from it the preceding summations of the case. Clement of Alexandria, the master of Origen, is already in a little dif- ferent position ; he collected the items of information which were trans- mitted to him by the presbyters whose line of succession is connected with the apostles (anb rtiv avknadev Trpeofivripuv). In speaking thus, he is thinking / especially of Pantoenus, a missionary in India, who died in 189. The fol-J lowing is the information which had come to him through those venerable ' witnesses : " John received the first three Gospels, and observing that the 142 BOOK III. THE ORIGIN. corporeal things (the external facts) of our Lord's life had been recorded therein, he, being urged by the prominent men of the Church, wrote a spiritual Gospel " (Euseb. H. E.,-vi. 14). Could Clement, who wrote about 190, have spoken thus of a work which had been in existence only twenty or twenty-five years? He must, for this to be so, have invented this tra- dition himself. Let us add that in another passage (Strom, iii., p. 465), when quoting a saying of Jesus contained in an uncanonical gospel, called the Gospel of the Egyptians, he makes this reservation : " that we do not find this saying in the four Gospels which have been transmitted tons7' (ti> rolg irapadedo/iivoig yiuv Terrapaiv evayychioii;). The contrast which Clement here establishes, clearly shows, that, from the standpoint of tradition, there was a radical difference between the Gospel of John and a gospel such as that of the Egyptians. Tertullian, born about 160, frequently cites our Gospel as being an authority in the whole Church. Would this be possible if this Father and this work were born in the same year, the one in Asia, the other in Africa ? Let us notice that he quotes it according to a Latin translation of which he says (Ad. Prax.) : " It is in use among our people (In usu est nostrorum)." And not only was it in use and so held in respect, that Tertullian did not feel free to turn aside from it, even when he was not in accord with it,1 but also this Latin translation had already taken the place of another earlier one of which Tertullian says (De Monogam, c. 11) " that it has fallen into disuse (In usum exiii)!'' And yet all this could have occurred between the birth of this Father and the time when he wrote! Irenasus wrote in Gaul, about 185, his great work Against Heresies. More than sixty times he quotes our Gospel in it with the most complete conviction of its apostolic origin. He who acts thus respecting it was born in Asia Minor about the year 130, and had spent his youth there in the school of Polycarp, the friend and disciple of St. John. How could he, without bad faith, have dated from the apostolic age a Gospel which had not been in existence more than fifteen to twenty years at the moment when he was writing, and which he had never heard spoken of in the churches where he had spent his youth and which must have been the cradle of this work ? In 177, Irenseus drew up, on the part of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, a letter to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, for the purpose of giving them an account of the terrible persecution which had just smitten them under Marcus Aurelius. This letter has been pre- served to us by Eusebius (H. E., v. 1). It says, speaking of one of the martyrs, "Having the Paraclete within him;" and in another place: " Thus was the word uttered by our Lord fulfilled, that the time shall come when he who killeth you will think that he doeth God service." These are two quotations from John (xiv. 26 and xvi. 2). Thus, about ten years after the time of composition indicated by Baur, quotations were taken in Gaul from our Gospel as if from a writing possessing canonical authority ! About 180, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, addresses to his heathen *R6nsch, Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen ltala und der catholischen Vulgata, 1869, pp. 2-4. THE TIME — 1G0-170. 143 friend Autolycus an apology for Christianity ; he quotes in it the prologue of John, expressing himself thus (ii. 22) : " This is what the holy writings and all the men animated by the spirit teach us, among wlwm John says " (John i. 1 follows). Can it be admitted, that only hfteen to twenty years after the appearance of our Gospel, the bishop of Antioch spoke in this way? He so fully placed it in the rank of the other three, which were received everywhere and at all times, {hat he had published a Harmony of the Gospels, which Jerome describes to us (Be Vir. 25) as " uniting in a single work the words of the four Gospels (quatuor evangeliorum in unum opus dicta compingens).'' The adversaries of the authenticity bring forward the circumstance, it is true, that here is the first instance in Which the author of our Gospel is designated by name. But what does so accidental a fact prove ? Irenams is the first ecclesiastical writer who names St. Paul as the author of the Epistle to the Romans. Would it be necessary to conclude, from this fact, that the belief in the apostolic authorship of the Epistle to the Romans began only at that moment to dawn on the mind of the Church? As it was not up to that time the custom to quote textually, so also it was not the custom to quote with a designation of the author. Apoll maris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, about 170, contended against the opinion of persons who celebrated tbe Holy Passover Supper on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, at the same time that the Jews ate their Passover meal ; for, as they alleged, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus had eaten the Passover on that evening with His disciples, and He had not been crucified until the next day. Apollinaris made reply to this in two ways : l 1. That this view "was in contradiction to the law ; " since, according to the law, the Paschal lamb was slain on the 14th, and not on the 15th ; it was consequently on that day that the Christ must die; 2. That if this view was well founded, " the Gospels would contradict each other." This second remark can only refer to the account in tbe Gospel of John, which places the death of Jesus on the 14th, and not the 15th, as the Synoptics appear to do. Thus, in 170, Apollinaris rested upon the fourth Gospel as on a perfectly recognized authority, even on the part of his ad- versaries, and yet at this same epoch, according to Baur, it began to circu- late as an altogether new work ! This critic has endeavored, to be sure, to wrest this passage from its natural meaning ; but this attempt has been unanimously discarded. Besides, the same Apollinaris in still another passage, also, adduces the fourth Gospel. He calls Jesus, " The one whose sacred side was pierced and who poured forth from His side water and blood, the word and the Spirit; " 2 comp. John xix. 34. At the same period Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote also on the same subject. Otto (in the Corpus apologet., vol. ix.) has published a fragment from this Father, in which it is said that " Jesus, being at once perfect God and man, proved his divinity by his miracles in the three years which 1 Chronicon paschale (ed, Dlndorf I., p. 14): cracria^eii/ SoKtl tear' avTOu? ra tvayyikia. , o6ev aavy.fytavo'i re von narpl ruv bXuv)." The relation between Justin and John on this capital point is so evident that Volkmar has been obliged finally to acknowledge it ; but he extricates himself by an expedient which not a little resembles a clown's trick. According to him, it is not Justin who has imitated John ; it is a pseudo-John who, writing about 155, has imitated Justin, whose writings were in circulation since 147-150. Justin had drawn the first lineaments of the Logos theory; the false John has developed and per- fected it. " But," answers Keim to this supposition, " who can seriously think of making out of the genial and original author of the fourth Gospel the disciple of a mind so mediocre, dependent, disposed to the work of compiling, and poor in style, as the Martyr? " We will add : The theology of the former is the simple expression of his religious consciousness, of the immediate effects produced on him by the person of Jesus, while, as Weizsacker has clearly shown,2 the characteristic trait of Justin is to serve 1 Qoztt. gelehrte Anzeigen, 5 u. 12, Jan. 1881. * Jahrb. fur deutsche Theol., 18C7. THE TIME — 130-155. 151 as an intermediary between Christian thought and the speculations which were prevailing at his epoch outside of Christianity. Justin teaches us that the Logos comes from the Father as a tire is kindled by another lire, without the latter being diminished; he explains to us that he differs from the Father in number, but not in thought, etc., etc. How can one venture to affirm that Justin surpasses John in simplicity ? The truth is that John is the witness, and Justin the theologian. John's prologue — it is there only that there is any question of the Logos in our Gospel — is the primordial revelation, in its simple and apostolic form; the writings of Justin present to us the first effort to appropriate this revelation to oneself by the reason. Besides, let us listen to Justin himself, Dial. 105 : " I have previously shown that it was the only begotten Son of the Father of all things, his Logos and his power, born of him and afterwards made man by means of the Virgin, as we have learned through the Memoirs." Justin himself tells us here from what source he had derived his doctrine of the Logos ; it was from his Apostolic Memoirs. Hilgenfeld has claimed that Justin did not appeal to the Memoirs except for the second of the two facts mentioned in this passage : the miraculous birth ; but the two facts indicated depend equally, through one and the same conjunction (brt that), on the verbal ideas ; I have shown, and as we have learned. Moreover, the principal notion, according to the entire context, is that of the only begotten Son (fiovoyevfe) which belongs to the first of the two depend- ent clauses.1 Our conclusion is expressly confirmed by what Justin says (Dial. 48) ; he speaks of certain Christians who were not in accord with him on this point, and he declares that, if he does not think as they do, it is not merely because they form only a minority in the Church, but " be- cause it is not by human teachings that we have been brought to believe in Christ [in this way], but by the teachings of the holy prophets and by those of Christ himself (rolg did. roe TrpotpTjrciv KrjpvxOclai Kal 6C avTov didax- deim)." Now, where can we find, outside of the Gospel of John, the teachings of Christ respecting His pre-existence ? Comp. also Apol. i. 46 : " That Christ is the first-born Son of God, being the Logos of whom all the human race is made participant — this is wliat has been taught us (cdi6dxdq/iEv)." We see from this us, which applies to Christians in gen- eral, and by the term taught, that Justin was hy no means the author of the doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos, but that, when calling Jesus by this name, he feels himself borne along by the great current of the teaching given in the Church, and of which the source must necessarily be found in the writings, or at least in one of the writings, of the apostles of which he made use. 5. The use of our Gospel by Justin appears, finally, from several par- ticular quotations, Dial. 88 : "And as men supposed that he [John the Baptist] was the Christ, he himself cried out to them : I am not the Christ, 1 This is clearly brought out by Drummond, all this development is occasioned by the Theological Review (vol. xiv. pp. 178-182, comp. expression novoytvij? in Ps. xxii., of which Ezra Abbot, p. 43) by recalling the fact that Justin is here giving the explanation. 152 BOOK III. THE ORIGIN. but I am the voice of one crying (ovk elpl 6 Xpicrrbg, uvfj fiouv-og)." Comp. John i. 20, 23. Hilgenfeld acknowledges this quotation. Dial. 69, Justin says that Jesus healed those who were blind from birth (robg Ik yzvnfjq nripovg) ; the Gospel of John alone (ix. 1) attributes to Him a healing of this kind ; the same term ek yevcTTjg is used by John. Another interesting passage is found in Dial. SS : " The apostles have written that, when Jesus came out of the water, the Holy Spirit shone above him like a dove." This is the only case where Justin uses the expression, the apostles have written. It evidently applies to the two Gospels of Matthew and John. Dial. 29, Justin proves that Christians are no more bound to the Jewish Sabbath, and he does this by calling to mind the fact that God governs the world on that day as well as on the others. In c. 27, he also points out the fact that infants are circumcised on the eighth day, even though it falls upon a Sabbath (nav f/ i/fiipa tuv oajifiaTuv). We easily recognize here the relation to John v. 17 and vii. 22, 23. Apol. i. 52, Justin quotes the words of Zach. xii. 10: " They shall look on Him whom they pierced (nai tote bipov-ai slg bv kZeK£VT7]oav)." In this form it differs both from the terms of the Hebrew text (" they shall look on me whom they . . . ") and from that of the LXX : " They shall look on me because they have mocked me." Now we read this same passage in the fourth Gospel exactly in the form in which Justin quotes it (John xix.) : bfovrat Eig bv i^EKEVT7jaav. Some think, no doubt, that Justin may have derived this passage from the book of the Apocalypse, where it is likewise quoted, i. 7 : " And every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him." But Justin's text is more closely connected with that of the Gospel. Other grounds are alleged, it is true, such as the possibility of an ancient variation of text in the LXX. j1 we shall, therefore, not insist much upon this fact. Here, on the other hand, is an important, and even decisive passage. Apol. i. 61, Justin relates to the senate that when a man has been con- vinced of the truth of the Gospel, " he is led to a place where there is water, to be regenerated like the believers who (have) preceded him ; and that he is bathed in the water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit; " for Christ said : " Unless ye are born again (av pi) avayEwqdrjTe), ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible," continues Justin, " for those who have once been born to enter again into the womb of those who gave them birth, is evident to all." The relation to John iii. 3-5 is manifest ; it appears especially from the last words, which reproduce, without any sort of necessity and in the most clumsy way, the meaning of the objection of Nicodemus in John's narrative (ver.4). Many, however, deny that Justin wrote thus under the influence of John's narrative. They allege these two differences: instead of the term employed by John, avudev yEvvriQfjvai (to be bom from above or anew), Justin says avajEvvrjdijvai. (to be born again) ; then, for the expression Kingdom of God, he substitutes Kingdom, of htavtn. But these two changes do not have the importance » See Abbott himself, p. 46. THE TIME— 130-155. 153 which some critics attribute to them. As to the first, Abbot proves that it is found also in Irenaeus, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Ephrem, Chry- sostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Anastasius Sin., as well as in most of the Latin authorities (renasci), all of whom made use of the Gospel of John and yet quote this passage as Justin does. Undoubtedly, it is because the term avudev yzvvr)Qfjvat was obscure, and subject to discussion, and because it is read only once in the Scriptures, while the other is clearer and more common (1 Pet. i. 3, 23 ; ii. 2). As to the expression Kingdom of heaven, it arises in Justin evidently from the Gospel of Matthew, which, from a mass of proofs, was much the most read in the earliest times of the Church, and in which this term is habitually employed. Abbot proves that this same change occurs in the quotation of this passage in the Greek and Latin Fathers, all of whom had John in their hands. But the following is a more serious objection, namely : that this same saying of Jesus ia found quoted in the Clementine Homilies (ix. 26) with precisely the same alterations as in Justin, which seems to prove that the two authors bor- rowed from a common source other than John ; for example, from the Gospel of the Hebrews. Here is the passage from the Clementines ; the reader can judge : " This is what the true prophet has affirmed to us with an oath : Verily I say unto you that unless you are born again of living water (eav fit) avayEvvr]BrjTe iSan ^uvtl), in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." We see that the difference between Justin and the Clementines, as Abbot says, is much greater than that between these two works and John. The reason is, because the text of the Clementines is influenced not only, like that of Justin, by Matt, xviii. 3, but especially by Matt, xxviii. 19 (the formula of baptism).1 Let us, finally, recall a quotation from the first Epistle of John which is found in Justin. Dial. c. 123, he says: ''All at once we are called to be- come sons of God, and we are so," which recalls 1 John iii. 1 (according to the reading adopted at the present day by many critics) : " Behold, what love God has had for us, that we should be called children of God; and we are so." Hilgenfeld acknowledges this quotation. How is it conceivable that, in the face of all these facts, Reuss can express himself thus (p. 94) : " We conclude that Justin did not include the fourth Gospel among those which he cites generally under the name of Memoirs of the Apostles." What argument, then, is powerful enough to neutralize to his view the value of the numerous quotations which we have just alleged? " Justin," he says, " did not have recourse to our Gos- pel, as would have been expected, when he wished to establish the histor- ical facts of which he was desirous to avail himself." But do we not know that there is nothing more deceptive in criticism than arguments 1 The author of the Recognitions quotes the expression and of the Spirit, to the end thus: "Amen dico vobis, nisi quia denuo of glorifying so much the more the baptism renatus fuerit ex aqua, non introibit in peg- of water, in conformity with the ritual tend- na coelorum." He quotes, combining Mie tucy of that time. third and fifth verses of John ; he only omits 154 BOOK III. THE OivlGIX. drawn from what a writer should have said or done, and has not done or said? Abbot cites curious examples of this drawn from contemporary history. We have already recalled to mind the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was, in the earliest times of the Church, the source which was most generally used. This is also the case with Justin, who uses Luke much less frequently than Matthew, and Mark much less even than Luke. John is used more than Mark.1 For ourselves, we think we have proved : 1. That the fourth Gospel existed in the time of Justin and formed a part of his apostolic Memoirs ; 2. That it was publicly read in the churches of the East and West as one of the authentic documents of the history and teachings of Jesus ; 3. That, as a consequence, it possessed already at that period, conjointly with the other three, a very ancient notoriety and a general authority equal to that of the Old Testament. Now it is impossible that a work which held this position in the Church in 140, should have been composed only about the year 130.2 In the same year 140, when Justin came to settle at Eome, there also arrived in that city one of the most illustrious representatives of the Gnostic doctrines, Valentinus. After having carried on a school for quite a long time in that capital, he went away to end his career in Cyprus, about 160. We already know some of his principal disciples, Ptolemy, Heracleon, Theodotus, and we know how much favor the fourth Gospel had in their schools ; history confirms this saying of Irenseus respecting them : " making use, in the most complete way, of the Gospel of John." It is, therefore, very probable that their master had given them an exam- ple on this point. Tertullian sets Valentinus in opposition to another Gnostic, Marcion, remarking that the former accepted the sacred collec- tion as a whole, not making up the Scriptures according to his doctrine, but rather adapting his doctrine to the Scriptures.3 We are acquainted with his system ; he presented as emanating successively from the eternal and divine abyss pairs of JEons (principles of things), of which the first four formed what he called the Ogdoad (the sacred eight). The names of these ^Eons were : Logos, Light, Truth, Grace, Life, Only begotten Son, Par- i The other general objections which are for example, we have no reason to occupy raised by A. Thoma in.Hilgenfeld's Zeitkhrift ourselves with it here. (1875), and by the work called Supernatural 2To Justin is sometimes ascribed the Let- Religion, are refuted by Abbot (pp. Gl-76). ter to Diognetus, in which the fourth Gospel They do not concern us here, since Thoma has left its deeply marked imprint. In our himself admits that Justin was acquainted view, as in that of Reuss, this letter must with and in almost every chapter used " the date approximative^ from the year 130. But, Gospel of the Logos ;" he only claims that he independently of those who, like Overbeck, did not recognize it as apostolic and truly bring it down to the fourth century, others historical. This is of little importance to us, place it only under Marcus Aurelius, in the since the question here is only whether the second half of the century. Comp. Draeseke, Gospel existed in Justin's time and was used Jahrb. far protest. Theol., 2 Heft., 1881. Under by him.— As to the question whether the few these condition's, we refrain from alleging facts of the evangelical history cited by Jus- the passages or expressions which are bor- tin, which are not found in our Gospels, are rowed from John, borrowed from the oral tradition or from 8 De praescr. haeret, ch. 38. some lost work, the Gospel of the Hebrews THE TIME — 130-155. 155 aclete. The influence of John's prologue is easily recognized here, since all these names are found united together in that passage, with the excep- tion of the last, which appears only later in the Gospel, and which is used in the epistle. It has been asked, it is true, whether perhaps it may not be the evangelist who composed his prologue under the influence of the Valentinian Gnosis, and Hilgenfeld has thought that his aim may have been to cause this new doctrine to penetrate the Church, by mitigating it. We have already seen to what forced interpretations (of John viii. 44, for example, and other passages), this scholar has been led from this point of view. Let us add that the terms by which Valentinus designates his iEons receive in his system an artificial, strained, mythological sense, while in the prologue of John they are taken in their simple, natural and, moreover, Biblical meaning; for they, all of them, belong already to the language of the Old Testament. It certainly is not John who has trans- formed the divine actors of the Gnostic drama into simple religious ideas ; it is very evidently the reverse which has taken place : "Everything leads us to hold," says Bleek, " that the Gnostics made use of these expressions, which they drew from a work which was held in esteem, as points of sup- port for their speculative system." "John," says Keim in the same line, 11 knows nothing of those ./Eons, of that Pleroma, of those masculine and feminine pairs, and of all that long line of machinery which was designed to bring God into the finite ; it is he, therefore, undoubtedly, who is the earliest, and who, as Irena-us indicates, laid the foundation of the edifice." Hilgenfeld claims that the Logos of John is only a concentration of the series of ^Eons of Valentinus. Hase replies to him, that we can maintain, and with as good right at least, that it is the single Logos of John which was divided by the Gnostics into their series of ^Eons. In the Philoso-< phumena (vi. 35), Hippolytus relates of Valentinus the following : " He says ((j>r/ai) that all the prophets and the law spoke according to the Demiurge, the senseless god, and that this is the reason why the Saviour said : "All those who came before me are thieves and robbers." This is an express quotation from John x. 8. Criticism replies : Perhaps it was not Valen- tinus himself who expressed himself thus, but one of his successors. Let us admit it, notwithstanding the very positive words He says of Hippoly- tus. The Ogdoad, with its Johanncan names, which form the basis of the whole Valentinian system, remains nevertheless ; and it would be very strange that the chief of the school should not have been the one who laid the foundation of the system. We do not think, therefore, that an impartial criticism can deny in the case of Valentinus himself the use of the fourth Gospel.1 Two years before Valentinus, in 138, Marcion arrived in Rome ; he came 'The following is what Heinrici says in ance of the system. The use which the his well-known work, Die Valentinianische Valentinians made of the Gospel of John and Onosis uixd die heiligc Schrift : " The Valentin- the Kpistles to the Colossians and the Ephe- ians thus used the Scripture as a universally sians proves that these writings were recog- recognized authority; it possessed this an- nized and used as apostolic writings already thority, therefore, previously to the appear- in the first half of the second century,'1 156 BOOK III. THE ORIGIN. from Pontus, where his father was bishop, and where he had been brought up in the Christian beliefs. Tertullian makes an allusion to his Christian past, when he apostrophizes him thus (De came Christi, c. 2) : " Thou who, when thou wert a Christian, didst fall away, rejecting that which thou hadst formerly believed, as thou dost acknowledge in a certain letter." To what did this rejection (rcscindendo) with which Tertullian reproaches him, and which had attended upon his spiritual falling away, refer? The answer is given us by two other passages from the same Father. In the woi'k specially designed to refute the doctrines of Marcion, Tertullian relates (Adv. Marc. iv. 3), that Marcion, "in studying the Epistle to the Galatians, discovered that Paul charged the apostles with not walking in the truth, and that he took advantage of this charge to destroy the confidence which men had in the Gospels published under the name of the apostles and apostolic men, and to claim belief on behalf of his own Gospel Avhich he substituted for these." We know, indeed, that Marcion had selected by preference the Gospel of Luke, and that, after having mutilated it in order to adapt it to his system, he gave it to his churches as the rule of their faith. Now, what does the conclusion which he drew from Galatians ii. prove? The apostles mentioned in that chapter are Peter and John. If Marcion inferred from that passage the rejection of their Gospels, it must be that he had in his hands a Gospel of Peter — was this Mark ? — and a Gospel of John. He rejected from this time those books of the Canon which had been handed down to him by his father, the bishop of Sinope. In the De came Christi, chap. 3, we read a second expression which leads to the same result as the preceding : " If thou hadst not rejected the writings which are contrary to thy system, the Gospel of John would be there to convince thee." In order that Marcion should reject this writing, it certainly must have been in existence, and Marcion must have previously possessed it. And let us notice, that he rejected it, not on the ground that it was not apostolic ; but, on the contrary, that it was so. For to his thought the twelve apostles, imbued with Jewish prejudices, had not understood Jesus ; so their Gospels (Matthew, Mark, John) must be set aside. Paul alone had understood the Master, and the Gospel of Luke, his companion, must alone be an authority. — Volkmar has made the author, of the fourth Gospel a partisan of Marcion, who sought to intro- duce his doctrines into the Church. But what is there in common between the violent hatred of Marcion against the Jewish law and the God of the Jews, and a Gospel in which the Logos, in coming to Israel, comes to His own, and, in entering into the temple of Jerusalem, declares that He is in the house of His Father? And how can it be reasonably maintained that a writer whose thought strikes all its roots into the soil of the Old Testa- ment, is the disciple of a master who rejected from the New everything that implied the divinity of the Old? In saying this, we have answered the question of the same author, who asks why, if John existed before Marcion, the latter did not choose to make his Gospel rather than Luke the Gospel of his sect. The ancient heretic was more clear-sighted than the modern critic ; he understood that, in order to use John, he must THE TIME — 110-125. 157 mutilate it, in some sort, from one end to the other, and he preferred to reject it at one stroke rescindendo, as Tertullian says. At the same period in which Justin, Valentinus and Marcion met each other in Rome, a fanatical sect arose in Asia Minor, Muntanism. Its leader wished to make a reaction against the laxness of Christendom and the mechanical course of the oilicial clergy. Montanus announced the near coming of the Christ, and pretended to cause the descent upon the Church of the Spirit who was promised for the last days, and whom he called the Paraclete, evidently in accordance with the promise of Jesus in John xiv. 16, 26, etc. He even identified himself with this Spirit, if it is true, as Theodoret affirms, that he gave himself the titles of Paraclete, Logos, Bridegroom. But it is not only these expressions, borrowed from John, it is the whole spiritualistic movement, it is that energetic reaction against the more and more prevailing ritualism, which implies the exist- ence in the Church of a writing which was an authority, and was capable of serving as a point of support for so energetic a movement. Thus, then, in 140, Justin, the martyr belonging to the orthodox Church, Valentinus, the Egyptian Gnostic, Marcion, who came from Pontus, Mon- tanus, in Phrygia, are acquainted with and, excepting Marcion, use with one consent, the Gospel of John, in order to found upon it their doctrine and their churches ; would all this be possible, if that work had only been in existence for a decade of years? The date 130-140 falls before these facts, just as the date 160-170 vanished in presence of those which were previously alleged. Let us come to the third position attempted by criticism in our days. 110-125. (Reuss, Nicolas, Rt nan, Sabatier, Weizsacker, Hase.) History offers us here four points for our guidance : The Gnostic Basil- ides, and the three apostolic Fathers, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius. Finally, we shall interrogate the appendix of our Gospel, chap, xxi., which, while connected with the work, does not properly form a part of it. Basilides flourished at Alexandria about 120-125; he died a little after 132. Before teaching in Egypt, he is said to have labored in Persia and Syria. In the work Archelal et Manetis disputatio, it is said : "A certain Basilides, more anciently still, was a preacher among the Persians a little after the time of the apostles." According to Epiphanius (Haer. xxiii. 1-7; xxiv. 1), he had also labored at Antioch. His activity, consequently, goes back as far as the earliest period of the second century. He himself claimed that he taught only what had been taught him by the Apostle Matthias according to the secret instructions which he had received from the Lord. That this assertion should have any shadow of probability, it is certainly necessary that he should have been able to meet with that apostle somewhere ; a fact which carries us back for the period of his birth to a quite early time in the first century.1 xSee Hofatede de Groot, Basilides und seine Zcit. 158 BOOK III. THE ORIGIN. In a homily on Luke, attributed to Origen, it is said that " Basilides had the boldness already to write a gospel according to Basilides." l The word already proves that Basilides was regarded as belonging to the earliest times of Gnosticism. As to the expression : a gospel according to Basilides, it is very doubtful whether it is necessary to understand thereby an evan- gelical narrative designed to come into competition with our Gospels. By this term, indeed, Basilides himself understood, not a simple narration, but " the knowledge of supersensible things " (f/ tuv vTrepKoa/xiuv yvuoig) {Philos. of Hippolytus, vii. 27). We are told, also, that his narrative of the birth of Jesus accorded entirely with that of our Gospels (Philos., ibid.), and history does not present the least trace of an apocryphal Basilidian gos- pel. But we know from Eusebius (H. E. iv. 7. 7), that this Gnostic wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel (rig to evayyiTaov), which were refuted in a striking way by a Christian writer, named Agrippa Castor, whose work was still in the hands of Eusebius.* ' The real nature of this work of Basil- ides appears from a quotation which Clement of Alexandria makes from it in the Stromata (Bk. iv.), where he expresses himself thus : " Basilides says in the twenty-third book of his exegetical dissertations. . . . "3 It was, therefore, a work of explanations; but on what text? The answer appears first, from the expression of Eusebius : "twenty-four books on (elg) the Gospel," and second, from the passage from the Philosophumena (vii. 22), according to which Basilides is said to have expressed himself as fol- lows : " Here is what is said in the Gospels (to leydfievov iv rolg hayyeXioig)." From all this we conclude that this Gnostic set forth his theory respecting the origin of things in the form of exegetical explanations, having refer- ence to the text of the Gospels which were received at his time in the churches. But the question for us to determine is whether he also worked upon the fourth Gospel. Now, we have two passages which seem to leave no doubt on this point ; one is that we have just mentioned (Philos. vii. 22) : "Here, says he [Basilides], is what is said in the Gospels: It was the true light which lighteneth every man coming into the world ; " the other, a little further on, eh. 27 : " Let everything have its own appro- priate time, says he [Basilides], is what the Saviour sufficiently declares when he says : My hour is not yet come." — These two quotations are evi- dently connected with John i. 8 and ii. 4. The criticism which is opposed to the authenticity of our Gospel is obliged to make all efforts to escape the consequences of these Johannean quotations in Basilides ; for they amount to nothing less than the carry- ing back of the composition of the fourth Gospel even into the first cen- tury. In fact, men only quote in this way a book which has already a recognized authority. It has been claimed, therefore, that, in mentioning these quotations from Basilides, Hippolytus did not distinguish the writ- ings of the master from those of his later disciples. The term he says, it is claimed, related simply in his thought to the adversary, whoever he 1 Ambrose and Jerome have repeated this by Agrippa Castor," etc. statement. • s'Ev rui tinotTTi? rpirta riav e£i)yr)TiK