The case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. Here we have a combination of circ.u.mstantial evidence, which is greater than we had any right to expect beforehand, and which amounts in the aggregate to a very high degree of probability.
1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias "has employed testimonies from the first (former) Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter." The knowledge of the First Epistle almost necessarily carries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The ident.i.ty of authorship in the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged facts.
But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is not only an ident.i.ty of authorship, but also an organic connection between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the two books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written or (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and circ.u.mstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the Evangelist"s hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers--"He that saw, it hath borne record ... that _ye_ might believe." "These things are written that _ye_ might believe" [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we may suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the Presbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ"s earthly life, could guarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of the last chapter is, as it were, the endors.e.m.e.nt of these elders--"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and _we know_ that his testimony is true." After the narrative is thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles proper--the second and third--which bear the same Apostle"s name. It begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this hypothesis) has preceded--"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, of the Word of Life ... that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." The use of the plural here links on the opening of the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by a.s.sociating with himself the elders, who have certified to the authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name--"I write." The opening phrase of the Epistle, "That which was from the beginning," is explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word." The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the Epistle, "He that came by water and by blood," ill.u.s.trates and itself is ill.u.s.trated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, "There came forth water and blood." We understand at length, why in the Gospel so much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ"s healing power.
This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the Epistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved.
The Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written about A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this doc.u.ment more than once before I have done, I will here give an account of the pa.s.sage relating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards.
The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the pa.s.sage describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins with the closing sentence in the description of the Second Gospel--obviously St Mark--which runs thus: "At which however he was present, and so he set them down."
"The Third Book of the Gospel" is designated "according to Luke."
The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he compiled the Gospel in his own name. "Yet," he adds, "neither did _he_ (nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his narrative from the birth of John." Then he continues--
"The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal) disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, "Fast with me to-day for three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been revealed to each." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer, since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit, concerning the nativity, the pa.s.sion, the resurrection, His intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle ([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, "What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written unto you?" For so he avows himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order."
After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentions _two_ Epistles of St John as received in the Church.
I shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with Papias in this pa.s.sage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the account which the writer gives of the origin of St John"s Gospel [190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account; the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth.
But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject.
The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a ma.n.u.script in which it occupied this position.
But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his earlier editions:--
As Eusebius however does not quote the pa.s.sages from Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, a.s.sume from some similarity of wording that the pa.s.sages were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds [191:1].
In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to produce any justification of his a.s.sertion "as elsewhere." I stated, and I emphasized the statement, that "_Eusebius in no instance which we can test gives a doubtful testimony_." I warned him that, if I were not proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter.
In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.
Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, "Ad Phil. vii.; Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14," and I wrote:--
The pa.s.sage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp "has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of Peter." The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_, which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words "Watch unto prayer," which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single "supposed quotation," whereas the quotations from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.
I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St Peter, scattered through Polycarp"s Epistle. Some of these are verbal; almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies in his preface:--
I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ I. p.
483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I used the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1].
Accordingly, in the text, he subst.i.tutes for the latter sentence the words:--
Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions [192:2].
But the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the a.s.sertion "as elsewhere" still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and very far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was quite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were meant, as I a.s.sumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to the First Epistle of St Peter, as our author a.s.serts that it does. The charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he regrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled me to bring out the important fact that Eusebius may always be trusted in these notices relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by early writers.
2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in Eusebius supply for believing that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.
The extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence, which are all the more important because they are incidental. In the words, "What was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew," the first four names appear in the same order in which they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. As this order, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything but the natural order, the coincidence has a real significance. Moreover, three of these four hold a prominent place in the Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold in the others--Philip and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic Evangelists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said indeed that the position a.s.signed to the name of John by Papias in his enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this Apostle wrote a Gospel, or even that he resided and taught in Asia Minor, because so important a personage must necessarily have been named earlier. But this argument proves nothing because it proves too much. No rational account can be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged "in order of merit." Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have stood first; and John, as a pillar Apostle, would have been named next, or (if the James here mentioned is the Lord"s brother) at all events next but one. This would have been the obvious order in any case; but, if Papias had any Judaic sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is imaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the other hand, it is a remarkable fact that the two names, which are kept to the last and a.s.sociated together, are just those two members of the Twelve to whom alone the Church attributes written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of John and Matthew would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis, it is difficult to account for this juxtaposition.
Again, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of incidents in our Lord"s life which are related by an eye-witness without any intermediation between Christ and the reporter, he describes them as "coming from the Truth"s self" [193:1] ([Greek: ap" autes tes aletheias]). This personification of Christ as "the Truth" is confined to the Fourth Gospel.
3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenaeus, we meet with other evidence pointing to the same result. I refer to a pa.s.sage with which the readers of these articles will be familiar, for I have had occasion to refer to it more than once [194:1]; but I have not yet investigated its connection with Papias. Irenaeus writes [194:2]:--
As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Saviour shall be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say]
moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold; of whom the first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall dwell in paradise, and the third shall inhabit the city; and that therefore our Lord has said, "In my Father"s abode are many mansions" ([Greek: en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas]); for all things are of G.o.d, who giveth to all their appropriate dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is made unto all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be, worthy.
And this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length yielding His work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, "for He must reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet," etc. [194:3]
I am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this pa.s.sage. Our author now allows that the sentence with which we are mainly concerned is oblique, and that the words containing a reference to our Lord"s saying in St John"s Gospel are attributed to the elders who are mentioned before and after. He still maintains however, that "it is unreasonable to claim" the reference "as an allusion to the work of Papias," He urges in one place that there is "a wide choice of presbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of Irenaeus may with equal right be ascribed" [195:1]; in another, that "the source of the quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the exegesis of his own day" [195:2]. To the one hypothesis it is sufficient to reply that no such explanation is found in the only four Evangelists whom Irenaeus recognized; to the other, that when Irenaeus wrote there were no "disciples of the Apostles" living, so that he could have used the present tense in speaking of them.
This reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance.
Critics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the presbyters in Irenaeus must be accepted with reserve; that the reporter may unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and ill.u.s.trations into the account; and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence the quotations from the canonical writings which they contain. This caution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without limitation. The reports in Irenaeus are of two kinds. In some cases he repeats the _conversations_ of his predecessors; in others he derives his information from _published records_. The hesitation, which is prudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced in the other. We shall generally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two. Though there may be one or two doubtful instances, the language of Irenaeus is most commonly decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions of the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating oral teaching; for he writes, "The presbyter used to say," "The presbyter would entertain us with his discourse," "The old man, the disciple of the Apostles, used to dispute" [196:1]. On the other hand, when in the pa.s.sage before us he employs the present tense, "As the elders say,"
"The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say," he is clearly referring to some _doc.u.ment_. No one would write, "Coleridge maintains,"
or "Pitt declares," unless he had in view some work or speech or biographical notice of the person thus quoted.
We may therefore safely conclude that in the pa.s.sage before us Irenaeus is citing from some _book_. So far as regards the main question at issue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it matters little whether this book was the exegetical work of Papias or not. Indeed the supposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to my position, because it yields additional and independent testimony of the same date and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons combined make out a very strong case for a.s.signing the pa.s.sage to Papias. (1) It entirely accords with the _method_ of Papias, as he himself describes it in his preface [197:1]. Scriptural pa.s.sages are interpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the interpretations. It accords equally well with the _subject_ of his Expositions; for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological topics, and that he viewed them in this light. (2) The possibilities are limited by the language, which confines our search to written doc.u.ments.
So far as we know there was, prior to the time of Irenaeus, no Christian work which would treat the same subject in the same way, and would at the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words, "The elders, the disciples of the Apostles, say." (3) The connection with a previous pa.s.sage is highly important in its bearing on this question. In the thirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book Irenaeus gives the direct reference to Papias which has been considered already [197:2]; in the thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the pa.s.sage with which we are now concerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these two pa.s.sages is the same or different? Several considerations aid us in answering this question, and they all tend in the same direction.
(i) The subject of the two pa.s.sages is the same. They both treat of the future kingdom of Christ, and both regard it from the same point of view as a visible and external kingdom. (ii) In the next place the authorities in the two pa.s.sages are described in similar terms. In the first pa.s.sage they are designated at the outset "the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord," while at the close we are told that "Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book: It is not clear whether these elders are the authorities whom Papias quotes, or the cla.s.s to whom Papias himself belongs, and whom therefore he represents. Since Irenaeus regards Papias as a direct hearer of St John, this latter alternative is quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable as the other. But this twofold possibility does not affect the question at issue. In the second pa.s.sage the authorities are described in the opening as "the elders" simply, and at the close as "the elders, the disciples of the Apostles." Thus the two accord. Moreover, in the second pa.s.sage "the elders" are introduced without any further description, as if they were already known, and we therefore naturally refer back to the persons who have been mentioned and described shortly before. (iii) The subject is continuous from the one pa.s.sage to the other, though it extends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 33-36). The discussion starts, as we have seen, from Christ"s saying about drinking the fruit of the vine in His kingdom [198:1]. The authority of the elders, recorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to support a literal interpretation of these words, as implying a material recompense of the believers. Irenaeus then cites those prophecies of Isaiah which foretell the reign of peace on G.o.d"s Holy Mountain (xi. 6 sq, lxv. 25 sq). This leads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of Israel and the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are interpreted literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth.
Creation thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be inferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah lxvi. 22). Then follows the pa.s.sage in question, which contains the interpretation, given by the elders, of Christ"s saying concerning the many mansions in His Father"s house. A few lines lower down Irenaeus refers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he had started; and after two or three sentences more the book ends.
These seem to be very substantial reasons for a.s.signing the words to Papias. And probably the two pa.s.sages which I have been considering do not stand alone. In an earlier part of this same fifth book Irenaeus writes [198:2]:--
Where then was the first man placed? In paradise plainly, as it is written "And G.o.d planted a paradise....;" and he was cast out thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore also the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was carried....) and that they who are translated remain there till the end of all things ([Greek: heos sunteleias]), preluding immortality.
On this pa.s.sage our author remarks:--
It seems highly probable that these "presbyters the disciples of the Apostles" who are quoted on paradise are the same "presbyters the disciples of the Apostles" referred to on the same subject (v.
36. ---- 1, 2), whom we are discussing [199:1].
With this opinion I entirely agree. "But," he adds, "there is nothing whatever to connect them with Papias." Here I am obliged to join issue.
It seems to me that there are several things. In the first place, there is the description of the authorities, "the elders, the disciples of the Apostles," which exactly accords with the statement in Papias" own preface [199:2]. Next there is the subject and its treatment. This latter point, if I mistake not, presents some considerations which strongly confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenaeus.
The elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is not a terrestrial paradise; it is some region beyond the limits of this world, to which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the abode, as Irenaeus says, of the righteous and the spiritual ([Greek: pneumatikoi]), of whom these two respectively are types; their translation preludes the immortality of the faithful in Christ. In the second pa.s.sage where paradise is mentioned by these elders, it is declared to be one of the "many mansions" in the Father"s house. But it is clear from this latter pa.s.sage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted must have contained much more about paradise. The intermediate position there a.s.signed to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom does not explain itself, and must have required some previous discussion. Is there any reason to think that Papias did directly occupy himself with this subject?
The work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, who (as we have seen) set a very high value on it [200:1]. He tells us in his "Hexaemeron" [200:2] that "the more ancient interpreters ... contemplated the sayings about paradise _spiritually_, and referred them to the Church of Christ." They "said that there was a certain _spiritual_ paradise" [200:3]. Among these "more ancient interpreters," of whom he gives a list, he names "the great Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of John the Evangelist, and Irenaeus of Lyons." Here the two are a.s.sociated together as dealing with this same subject in the same way. How much of the exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attributes to these ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in particular, it is impossible to say. But it may be observed that the expression "the delight of the paradise," in the saying of the elders reported by Irenaeus, is taken from the Septuagint of Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the Prince of Tyre is addressed, "Thou wast in the delight of the paradise of G.o.d;" and that Anastasius represents "the interpreters" (among whom he had previously mentioned Papias) as "especially confirming their views of a spiritual paradise" by appealing to this very pa.s.sage, "where G.o.d seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from heaven," the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as Satan, and the "stones of fire" the hosts of intelligent beings; and he immediately afterwards quotes in ill.u.s.tration our Lord"s words in Luke x. 18, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" [201:1]. "See," he concludes, "we have heard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of delight high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. xxviii.
16)"
From the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena on the Apocalypse, bearing the names of Oec.u.menius and Arethas, which was published by Cramer [201:2], and here I find fresh confirmation. On Rev. xii. 9, the compiler of this commentary quotes the same pa.s.sage of St Luke to which Anastasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there was a twofold fall of Satan--the one at the time of the creation of man, the other at the Incarnation; and he proceeds--
Seeing then that Michael, the chief captain [of the heavenly hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as Ezekiel says, that "he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst of the stones of fire," that is to say, the angelic ranks, because "iniquities were found in him" (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the coming of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more completely. This is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers, especially of Papias ([Greek: kai pateron paradosis kai Papiou]), a successor of the Evangelist John who wrote this very Apocalypse with which we are concerned. Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning the war in these express words: "It so befell that their array,"
that is, their warlike enterprise, "came to nought; for the great dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil, was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his angels" [201:3].
I turn again to Anastasius; and I read in him that "the above-mentioned interpreters" gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the teaching of divers heretics, among whom he especially mentions the Ophites who "offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the ground that by his counsels, and by the transgression committed by the woman, the whole race of mankind had been born" [202:1]. This notice again confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of Papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the Gnostics. Thus everything hangs together, and we seem to have restored a lost piece of ancient exegesis. If this restoration is uncertain in its details, it has at least materially strengthened my position, that the two sayings of the elders respecting paradise, quoted by Irenaeus, must be attributed to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenaeus cites by name in the intermediate pa.s.sage relating to the millennial kingdom. I must add my belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of Irenaeus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are borrowed from the exegetical work of Papias. It is the unpardonable sin of Papias in the eyes of Eusebius, that he has misled subsequent writers, more especially Irenaeus, on these eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony to the debt of Irenaeus. Literary property was not an idea recognized by early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to concern themselves with their obligations to others, or with the obligations of others to them. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they had all literary things in common. Hippolytus, in his chief work, tacitly borrows whole paragraphs, and even chapters, almost word for word, from Irenaeus. He mentions his name only twice, and does not acknowledge his obligations more than once [202:2]. The liberties, which Hippolytus takes with his master Irenaeus, might well have been taken by Irenaeus himself with his predecessor Papias.
4. Eusebius tells us that Papias "relates also another story concerning a woman accused of many sins before the Lord," and he adds that it is "contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."
The story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, which appears in the common texts of the Fourth Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11. In the oldest Greek MS which contains this pericope, the _Codex Bezae_, the words "taken in adultery" are read "taken in sin." In the _Apostolic Const.i.tutions_ [203:1], where this incident is briefly related, the woman is described as "having sinned." And again Rufinus, who would possibly be acquainted with Jerome"s translation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, boldly subst.i.tutes "a woman, an adulteress," for "a woman accused of many sins," in his version of Eusebius.
But it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where it stands. All considerations of external evidence are against it. It is wanting in all Greek MSS before the sixth century; it was originally absent in all the oldest versions--Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic; it is not referred to, as part of St John"s Gospel, before the latter half of the fourth century. Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is expressed in language quite foreign to St John"s style, and it interrupts the tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating Christ"s discourses on the last day, that great day, of the feast" of Tabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the ceremonial--the pouring out of the water from Siloam upon the altar, and the illumination of the city by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple area. Each in succession furnishes Him with imagery ill.u.s.trating His own person and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one topic follows directly upon the other. He states first, that the streams of _living water_ flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He speaks "again" ([Greek: palin]), and declares that He is the _light of_ _the world_ (viii. 12 sq). But the intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative, introducing a change of time, of scene, of subject.
On the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though misplaced here, must be authentic in itself. Its ethical pitch is far above anything which could have been invented for Him by His disciples and followers, "whose character and idiosyncrasies," as Mr Mill says, "were of a totally different sort" [204:1]. They had neither the capacity to imagine nor the will to invent an incident, which, while embodying the loftiest of all moral teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in its moral tendencies.
But, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St John"s Gospel? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion [204:2] that it was originally written on the margin of some ancient ma.n.u.script, to ill.u.s.trate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man." This hint he has not followed up, but it seems to me to be highly valuable. The pericope in question occurs, in most authorities which contain it, after vii. 52; in one MS however it stands after vii. 36; and in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel.
This is just what might have been expected if it was written, in the first instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three columns on a page. When transferred from the margin to the text, it would find a place somewhere in the neighbourhood, where it least interfered with the narrative, or, if no suitable place appeared, it would be relegated to the end of the book. It should be added, that some good cursives give it at the end of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke--the most appropriate position, historically, that could be found for it. Whether this was an independent insertion in St Luke, or a transference from St John made on critical grounds, it is not easy to say.