{415}
priests and Pharisees speak of the Jewish people not as [------], but as [------], the term employed by the Jews to designate the Gentiles.(1) We need scarcely point out that the Jesus of the fourth Gospel is no longer of the race of David, but the Son of G.o.d. The expectation of the Jews that the Messiah should be of the seed of David is entirely set aside, and the genealogies of the first and third Synoptics tracing his descent are not only ignored, but the whole idea absolutely excluded.
Then the writer calls Annas the high priest, although at the same time Caiaphas is represented as holding that office.(2) The expression which he uses is: "Caiaphas being the high priest that year"[------]. This statement, made more than once, indicates the belief that the office was merely annual, which is erroneous. Josephus states with regard to Caiaphas, that he was high priest for ten years from A.D. 25--36.(3) Ewald and others argue that the expression "that year" refers to the year in which the
{416}
death of Jesus, so memorable to the writer, took place, and that it does not exclude the possibility of his having been high priest for successive years also.(1) This explanation, however, is quite arbitrary and insufficient, and this is shown by the additional error in representing Annas as also high priest at,the same time. The Synoptists know nothing of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to Annas: "for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year,"(2) is inadmissible. The a.s.sertion is a clear mistake, and it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and inst.i.tutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error equally committed by the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke iii. 2, the word of G.o.d is said to come to John the Baptist: "in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas"
[------], and again, in Acts iv. 6, Annas is spoken of as the high priest when Peter and John healed the lame man at the gate of the Temple which was called "Beautiful," and Caiaphas is mentioned immediately after: "and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest." Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the confusion in the narrative.
Annas had previously been high priest, as we know from Josephus,(3) but nothing is more certain than the fact that the t.i.tle was not continued after the office was resigned; aud Ishmael
{417}
Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the t.i.tle. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been committed by a native of Palestine,(1) and much less by an acquaintance of the high priest.(2)
There are also several geographical errors committed which denote a foreigner. In i. 28, the writer speaks of a "Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." The subst.i.tution of "Bethabara," mentioned by Origen, which has erroneously crept into the vulgar text, is of course repudiated by critics, "Bethany" standing in all the older codices. The alteration was evidently proposed to obviate the difficulty that, even in Origen"s time, there did not exist any trace of a Bethany beyond Jordan in Peraea. The place could not be the Bethany near
{418}
Jerusalem, and it is supposed that the writer either mistook its position or, inventing a second Bethany, which he described as "beyond Jordan," displayed an ignorance of the locality improbable either in a Jew or a Palestinian.(1) Again, in iii. 23, the writer says that "John was baptizing in aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." This aenon near to Salim was in Judaea, as is clearly stated in the previous verse. The place, however, was quite unknown even in the third century, and the nearest locality which could be indicated as possible was in the north of Samaria and, therefore, differing from the statements in iii. 22, iv. 3.(2) aenon, however, signifies "springs," and the question arises whether the writer of the fourth Gospel, not knowing the real meaning of the word, did not simply mistake it for the name of a place.(3) In any case, there seems to be here another error into which the author of the fourth Gospel, had he been the Apostle John, could not have fallen.(4)
{419}
The account of the miracle of the pool of Bethesda is a remarkable one for many reasons. The words which most pointedly relate the miraculous phenomena characterizing the pool, are rejected by many critics as an interpolation. In the following extract we put them in italics: v. 3.--"In these (five porches) lay a mult.i.tude of the sick, halt, withered, _waiting for the moving of the water. 4. For an angel went down at certain seasons into the pool and was troubling the water: he, therefore, who first went in after the troubling of the water was made whole of whatsoever disease he had_." We maintain, however, that the obnoxious pa.s.sage is no spurious interpolation, but that there is ample evidence, external and internal, to substantiate its claim to a place in the text. It is true that the whole pa.s.sage is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices, and by C: that A(1), L, 18, and others omit the last phrase of verse 3, and that D, 33, which contain that phrase, omit the whole of verse 4, together with 157, 314 and some other MSS.: that in many codices in which the pa.s.sage is found it is marked by an asterisk or obelus, and that it presents considerable variation in readings. It is also true that it is omitted by Cureton"s Syriac, by the Thebaic, and by most of the Memphitic versions. But, on the other hand, it exists in the Alexandrian Codex, C3, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, IT, V, r, A and other MSS(1), and it forms part of the Peschito, Jerusalem Syriac, Vulgate, Watkin"s Memphitic, aethiopic and Armenian versions.(2)
{420}
More important still is the fact that it existed in the ancient Latin version of Tertillian, who refers to the pa.s.sage;(1) and it is quoted by Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, Euthymius, and other Fathers. Its presence in the Alexandrian Codex alone might not compensate for the omission of the pa.s.sage by the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices and C, D, but when the Alexandrian MS. is supported by the version used by Tertullian, which is a couple of centuries older than any of the other authorities, as well as by the Peschito, not to mention other codices, the balance of external evidence is distinctly in its favour.
The internal evidence is altogether on the side of the authenticity of the pa.s.sage. It is true that there are a considerable number of [------] in the few lines: [------] and perhaps [------]; but it must be remembered that the phenomena described are exceptional, and may well explain exceptional phraseology. On the other hand, [------] is specially a Johannine word, used v. 4 and six times more in the fourth Gospel, but only five times in the rest of the New Testament; and [------] with [------] occurs in v. 4, 6, 9, 14, and with [------] in v. 11, 15, vii. 23 and nowhere else. [------] also may be indicated as employed in v. 4, 7 and five times more in other parts of the Gospel, and only eleven times in the rest of the New Testament, and the use of [------] in v. 4 is thus perhaps naturally
{421}
accounted for. The context, however, forbids the removal of this pa.s.sage. It is in the highest degree improbable that verse 3 could have ended with "withered" [------], and although many critics wish to retain the last phrase in verse 3, in order to explain verse 7, this only shows the necessity, without justifying the arbitrary maintenance, of these words, whilst verse 4, which is still better attested, is excluded to get rid of the inconvenient angel. It is evident, however, that the expression: "when the water was troubled" [------] of the undoubted verse 7 is unintelligible without the explanation that the angel "was troubling the water," [------] of verse 4, and also that the statement of the verse 7, "but while I am coming, another goeth down before me"
[------] absolutely requires the account: "he, therefore, who first went in &c." [------] of verse 4. The argument that the interpolation was made to explain the statement in verse 7 is untenable, for that statement necessarily presupposes the account in the verses under discussion, and cannot be severed from it. Even if the information that the water was "troubled" at certain seasons only could have been dispensed with, it is obvious that the explanation of the condition of healing, given in verse 4, is indispensable to the appreciation of the lame man"s complaint in verse 7, for without knowing that priority was essential, the reason for the protracted waiting is inconceivable. It is also argued, that the pa.s.sage about the angel may have been interpolated to bring out^the presence of supernatural agency, but it is much more reasonable to believe that attempts have been made to omit these verses, of which there is such ancient attestation, in order to eliminate an embarra.s.sing excess of
{422}
supernatural agency, and get rid of the difficulty presented by the fact, for which even Tertullian(1) endeavoured to account, that the supposed pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. This natural explanation is ill.u.s.trated by the alacrity with which apologists at the present day abandon the obnoxious pa.s.sage.(2) The combined force of the external and internal evidence, however, cannot, we think, be fairly resisted.(3)
Now, not only is the pool of Bethesda totally unknown at the present day, but although possessed of such miraculous properties, it was not known even to Josephus, or any other writer of that time. It is inconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the phenomena could have been unknown and unmentioned by the Jewish historian.(4) There is here evidently neither the narrative of an Apostle nor of an eye-witness.
Another very significant mistake occurs in the account of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, which is said to have taken place (iv. 5) near "a city of Samaria
2 "The Biblical critic is glad that he can remove these words from the record, and cannot be called upon to explain them."--Rev. H. W. Watkins, M.A., in "A New Test. Commentary for English Readers," edited by Charles John Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, i. p. 416.
{423}
which is called Sychar." It is evident that there was no such place--and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty. The common conjecture has been that the town of Sichem is intended, but this is rightly rejected by Delitzsch,(1) and Ewald.(2) Credner,(3) not unsupported by others, and borne out in particular by the theory of Ewald, conjectures that Sychar is a corruption of Sichem, introduced into the Gospel by a Greek secretary to whom this part of the Gospel was dictated, and who mistook the Apostle"s p.r.o.nunciation of the final syllable. We constantly meet with this elastic explanation of difficulties in the Gospel, but its mere enunciation displays at once the reality of the difficulties and the imaginary nature of the explanation. Hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious earnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the city of Sichem, and that, by so slight a change in the p.r.o.nunciation, the Apostle called the place a city of Lies [------] a lie), a play upon words which he does not consider unworthy.(4) The only support which this latter theory can secure from internal evidence is to be derived from the fact that the whole discourse with the woman is ideal. Hengstenberg(5) conjectures that the five husbands of the woman are typical of the G.o.ds of the five nations with which the King of a.s.syria peopled Samaria, II. Kings, xvii.
24--41, and which they worshipped instead of the G.o.d of Israel, and as the actual G.o.d of the Samaritans was not recognized as the true G.o.d by the Jews, nor their
{424}
worship of him on Mount Gerizim held to be valid, he considers that under the name of the City of Sychar, their whole religion, past and present, was denounced as a lie. There can be little doubt that the episode is allegorical, but such a defence of the geographical error, the reality of which is everywhere felt, whilst it is quite insufficient on the one hand, effectually destroys the historical character of the Gospel on the other.(1) The inferences from all of the foregoing examples are strengthened by the fact that, in the quotations from the Old Testament, the fourth Gospel in the main follows the Septuagint version, or shows its influence, and nowhere can be shown directly to translate from the Hebrew.
These instances might be multiplied, but we must proceed to examine more closely the indications given in the Gospel as to the ident.i.ty of its author. We need not point out that the writer nowhere clearly states who he is, nor mentions his name, but expressions are frequently used which evidently show the desire that a particular person should be understood.
He generally calls himself "the other disciple," or "the disciple whom Jesus loved."(2) It is universally understood that he
{425}
represents himself as having previously been a disciple of John the Baptist (i. 35 ff.),(1) and also that he is "the other disciple" who was acquainted with the high priest (xviii. 15, 16),(2) if not an actual relative as Ewald and others a.s.sert.(3) The a.s.sumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests princ.i.p.ally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and also that he never distinguishes John the Baptist by the appellation [------], whilst he carefully distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always speaks of the Apostle Peter as "Simon Peter," or "Peter," but rarely as "Simon" only.(4) Without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, it is obvious that, supposing the disciple indicated to be John the son of Zebedee, the fourth Gospel gives a representation of him quite different from the Synoptics and other writings. In the fourth Gospel (i. 35 ff.) the calling of the Apostle is described in a peculiar manner. John (the Baptist) is standing with two of his disciples, and points out Jesus to them as "the Lamb of G.o.d," whereupon the two disciples follow Jesus and, finding out where he lives,
{426}
abide with him that day and subsequently attach themselves to his person. In verse 40 it is stated: "One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter"s brother." We are left to imagine who was the other, and the answer of critics is: John. Now, the "calling" of John is related in a totally different manner in the Synoptics--Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, sees "two brethren, Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers, and he saith unto them: Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets and followed him. And when he had gone from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the ship with Zebedee their father mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their father and followed him."(1) These accounts are in complete contradiction to each other, and both cannot be true. We see, from the first introduction of "the other disciple" on the scene, in the fourth Gospel, the evident design to give him the precedence before Peter and the rest of the Apostles. We have above given the account of the first two Synoptists of the calling of Peter, according to which he is the first of the disciples who is selected, and he is directly invited by Jesus to follow him and become, with his brother Andrew, "fishers of men." James and John are not called till later in the day, and without the record of any special address.
In the third Gospel, the calling of Peter is introduced with still more important details. Jesus enters the boat of Simon and bids him push out into the Lake and let down his net, and the miraculous draught of fishes is taken: "When Simon Peter
{427}
saw it, he fell down at Jesus" knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of fishes which they had taken." The calling of the sons of Zebedee becomes even less important here, for the account simply continues: "And so was also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon." Jesus then addresses his invitation to Simon, and the account concludes: "And when they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all, and followed him."(1) In the fourth Gospel, the calling of the two disciples of John is first narrated, as we have seen and the first call of Peter is from his brother Andrew, and not from Jesus himself. "He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him: We have found the Messias (which is, being interpreted, Christ), and he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on him and said: Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas;(2) thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)."(3) This explanation of the manner in which the cognomen Peter is given, we need not point out, is likewise contradictory to the Synoptics, and betrays the same purpose of suppressing the prominence of Peter.
The fourth Gospel states that "the other disciple," who is declared to be John, the author of the Gospel, was known to the high priest, another trait amongst many others elevating him above the son of Zebedee as he is depicted elsewhere in the New Testament. The
{428}
account which the fourth Gospel gives of the trial of Jesus is in very many important particulars at variance with that of the Synoptics. We need only mention here the point that the latter know nothing of the preliminary examination by Annas. We shall not discuss the question as to where the denial of Peter is represented as taking place in the fourth Gospel, but may merely say that no other disciple but Peter is mentioned in the Synoptics as having followed Jesus; and Peter enters without difficulty into the high priest"s palace.(1) In the fourth Gospel, Peter is made to wait without at the door until John, who is a friend of the high priest and freely enters, obtains permission for Peter to go in, another instance of the precedence which is systematically given to John. The Synoptics do not in this particular case give any support to the statement in the fourth Gospel, and certainly in nothing that is said of John elsewhere do they render his acquaintance with the high priest in the least degree probable. It is, on the contrary, improbable in the extreme that the young fisherman of Galilee, who shows very little enlightenment in the anecdotes told of him in the Synoptics, and who is described as an "unlettered and ignorant" man in the Acts of the Apostles, could have any acquaintance with the high priest. Ewald, who, on the strength of the word [------],(2) at once elevates him into a relation of the high priest, sees in the statement of Polycrates that late in life he wore the priestly [------], a confirmation of the supposition that he was of the high priest"s race and family.(3) The
{429}
evident Judaistic tendency, however, which made John wear the priestly mitre may distinguish him as author of the Apocalypse, but it is fatal to the theory which makes him author of the fourth Gospel, in which there is so complete a severance from Judaism.
A much more important point, however, is the designation of the author of the fourth Gospel, who is identified with the Apostle John, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." It is scarcely too much to say, that this suggestive appellation alone has done more than any arguments to ensure the recognition of the work, and to overcome doubts as to its authenticity. Religious sentimentality, evoked by the influence of this tender epithet, has been blind to historical incongruities, and has been willing to accept with little question from the "beloved disciple" a portrait of Jesus totally unlike that of the Synoptics, and to elevate the dogmatic mysticism and artificial discourses of the one over the sublime morality and simple eloquence of the other. It is impossible to reflect seriously upon this representation of the relations between one of the disciples and Jesus without the conviction that every record of the life of the great Teacher must have borne distinct traces of the preference, and that the disciple so honoured must have attracted the notice of every early writer acquainted with the facts. If we seek for any evidence, however, that John was distinguished with such special affection,--that he lay on the breast of Jesus at supper--that even the Apostle Peter recognised his superior intimacy and influence(1)--and that he received at the foot of the cross the care of his mother from the dying Jesus,(2)--we seek in vain. The Synoptic Gospels, which minutely record the details
{430}
of the last supper and of the crucifixion, so far from reporting any such circ.u.mstances or such distinction of John, do not even mention his name, and Peter everywhere has precedence before the sons of Zebedee.
Almost the only occasions upon which any prominence is given to them are episodes in which they incur the Master"s displeasure, and the cognomen of "Sons of thunder" has certainly no suggestion in it of special affection, nor of personal qualities likely to attract the great Teacher. The selfish ambition of the brothers who desire to sit on thrones on his right and on his left, and the intolerant temper which would have called down fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan village, much rather contradict than support the representation of the fourth Gospel. Upon one occasion, indeed, Jesus in rebuking them, adds: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."(1) It is perfectly undeniable that John nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the Synoptics as this designation in the fourth Gospel implies. In the lists of the disciples he is always put in the fourth place,(3) and in the first two Gospels his only distinguishing designation is that of "the brother of James," or one of the sons of Zebedee. The Apostle Peter in all of the Synoptics is the leader of the disciples. He it is who alone is represented as the mouth-piece of the twelve or as holding conversation with Jesus; and the only occasions on which the sons of Zebedee address Jesus are those to which we have referred, upon which
1 Luke ix. 55. These words are omitted from some of the oldest MSS., but they are in Cod. D (Bezae) and many other very important texts, as well as in some of the oldest Torsions, besides being quoted by the Fathers.
They were probably omitted after the claim of John to be the "beloved disciple" became admitted.
{431}
his displeasure was incurred. The angel who appears to the women after the resurrection desires them to tell his disciples "and Peter" that Jesus will meet them in Galilee,(1) but there is no message for any "disciple whom he loved." If Peter, James, and John accompany the Master to the mount of transfiguration, and are witnesses of his agony in the garden, regarding which, however, the fourth Gospel is totally silent, the two brethren remain in the back ground, and Peter alone acts a prominent part. If we turn to the Epistles of Paul, we do not find a single trace of acquaintance with the fact that Jesus honoured John with any special affection, and the opportunity of referring to such a distinction was not wanting when he writes to the Galatians of his visit to the "Pillar" Apostles in Jerusalem. Here again, however, we find no prominence given to John, but the contrary, his name still being mentioned last and without any special comment. In none of the Pauline or other Epistles is there any allusion, however distant, to any disciple whom Jesus specially loved. The Apocalypse, which, if any book of the New Testament can be traced to him, must be ascribed to the Apostle John, makes no claim whatever to such a distinction. In none of the Apocryphal Gospels is there the slightest indication of knowledge of the fact, and if we come to the Fathers even, it is a striking circ.u.mstance that there is not a trace of it in any early work, and not the most remote indication of any independent tradition that Jesus distinguished John or any other individual disciple with peculiar friendship. The Roman Clement, in referring to the example of the Apostles, only mentions Peter and Paul.(2) Polycarp, who is described as a disciple of the
{432}
Apostle John, apparently knows nothing of his having been especially loved by Jesus. Pseudo-Ignatius does not refer to him at all in the Syriac Epistles, or in either version of the seven Epistles.(1) Papias, in describing his interest in hearing what the Apostles said, gives John no prominence: "I inquired minutely after the words of the Presbyters: What Andrew, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say,"(2) &c.