observer that, in the fourth Gospel, we are introduced to a perfectly new system of instruction, and to an order of ideas of which there is not a vestige in the Synoptics. Instead of short and concise lessons full of striking truth and point, we find nothing but long and involved dogmatic discourses of little practical utility. The limpid spontaneity of that earlier teaching, with its fresh ill.u.s.trations and profound sentences uttered without effort and untinged by art, is exchanged for diffuse addresses and artificial dialogues, in which labour and design are everywhere apparent. From pure and living morality couched in brief incisive sayings, which enter the heart and dwell upon the ear, we turn to elaborate philosophical orations without clearness or order, and to doctrinal announcements unknown to the Synoptics. To the inquiry: "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus replies, in the Synoptics: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself,... this do, and thou shalt live."(1) In the fourth Gospel, to the question: "What must we do, that we may work the works of G.o.d?" Jesus answers, "This is the work of G.o.d, that ye should believe in him whom he sent."(2) The teaching of Jesus, in the Synoptics, is almost wholly moral and, in the fourth Gospel, it is almost wholly dogmatic. If Christianity consist of the doctrines preached in the fourth Gospel, it is not too much to say that the Synoptics do not teach Christianity at all. The extraordinary phenomenon is presented of three Gospels, each professing to be complete in itself and to convey the good tidings of salvation to man,
{466}
which have actually omitted the doctrines which are the condition of that salvation. The fourth Gospel practically expounds a new religion.
It is undeniable that morality and precepts of love and charity for the conduct of life are the staple of the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics, and that dogma occupies so small a place that it is regarded as a subordinate and secondary consideration. In the fourth Gospel, however, dogma is the one thing needful, and forms the whole substance of the preaching of the Logos. The burden of his teaching is: "He that believeth on the Son, hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of G.o.d abideth on him."(1) It is scarcely possible to put the contrast between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel in too strong a light If we possessed the Synoptics without the fourth Gospel, we should have the exposition of pure morality based on perfect love to G.o.d and man. If we had the fourth Gospel without the Synoptics, we should have little more than a system of dogmatic theology without morality. Not only is the doctrine and the terminology of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel quite different from that of the Jesus of the Synoptics, but so is the teaching of John the Baptist. In the Synoptics, he comes preaching the Baptism of repentance(2) and, like the Master, inculcating principles of morality;(3) but in the fourth Gospel he has adopted the peculiar views of the author, proclaims "the Lamb of G.o.d which taketh away the sins of the world,"(4) and bears witness that he is "the Son of G.o.d."(5) We hear of the Paraclete for the first time in the fourth Gospel It is so impossible to ignore the distinct individuality
{467}
of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, and of his teaching, that even apologists are obliged to admit that the peculiarities of the author have coloured the portrait, and introduced an element of subjectivity into the discourses. It was impossible, they confess, that the Apostle could remember verbally such long orations for half a century, and at best that they can only be accepted as substantially correct reports of the teaching of Jesus.(1) "Above all," says Ewald, "the discourses of Christ and of others in this Gospel are clothed as by an entirely new colour: on this account also scepticism has desired to conclude that the Apostle cannot have composed the Gospel; and yet no conclusion is more unfounded. When the Apostle at so late a period determined to compose the work, it was certainly impossible for him to reproduce all the words exactly as they were spoken, if he did not perhaps desire not merely to recall a few memorable sentences but, in longer discussions of more weighty subjects, to charm back all the animation with which they were once given. So he availed himself of that freedom in their revivification which is both quite intelligible in itself, and sufficiently warranted by the precedent of so many great examples of antiquity: and where the discourses extend to greater length, there entered involuntarily into the structure much of that fundamental conception and language regarding the
{468}
manifestation of Christ, which had long become deeply rooted in the Apostle"s soul. But as certainly as these discourses bear upon them the colouring of the Apostle"s mind, so certainly do they agree in their substantial contents with his best recollections--because the Spruchsammlung proves that the discourses of Christ in certain moments really could rise to the full elevation, which in John only surprises us throughout more than in Matthew. To deny the apostolical authorship of the Gospel for such reasons, therefore, were pure folly, and in the highest degree unjust. Moreover, the circ.u.mstance that, in the drawing up of such discourses, we sometimes see him reproduce or further develop sayings which had already been recorded in the older Gospels, can prove nothing against the apostolical origin of the Gospel, as he was indeed at perfect liberty, if he pleased, to make use of the contents of such older writings when he considered it desirable, and when they came to the help of his own memory of those long pa.s.sed days: for he certainly retained many or all of such expressions also in his own memory."(1) Elsewhere, he describes the work as "glorified Gospel history," composed out of "glorified recollection."(2)
Another strenuous defender of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel wrote of it as follows: "Nevertheless, everything is reconcilable," says Gfrorer, "if one accepts that testimony of the elders as true. For as John must have written the Gospel as an old man, that is to say not before the year 90--95 of our era, there is an interval of more than half a century between the time
{469}
when the events which he relates really happened, and the time of the composition of his book,--s.p.a.ce enough certainly to make a few mistakes conceivable, even presupposing a good memory and unshaken love of truth.
Let us imagine, for instance, that to-day (in 1841) an old man of eighty to ninety years of age should write down from mere memory the occurrences of the American War (of Independence), in which he himself in his early youth played a part. Certainly in his narrative, even though it might otherwise be true, many traits would be found which would not agree with the original event. Moreover, another particular circ.u.mstance must be added in connection with the fourth Gospel.
Two-thirds of it consist of discourses, which John places in the mouth of Jesus Christ. Now every day"s experience proves that oral impressions are much more fleeting than those of sight. The happiest memory scarcely retains long orations after three or four years: how, then, could John with verbal accuracy report the discourses of Jesus after fifty or sixty years! We must be content if he truly render the chief contents and spirit of them, and that he does this, as a rule, can be proved. It has been shown above that already, before Christ, a very peculiar philosophy of religion had been formed among the Egyptian Jews, which found its way into Palestine through the Essenes, and also numbered numerous adherents amongst the Jews of the adjacent countries of Syria and Asia Minor. The Apostle Paul professed this: not less the Evangelist John. Undoubtedly, the latter allowed this Theosophy to exercise a strong influence upon his representation of the life-history of Jesus,"(1) &c.
{470}
Now all such admissions, whilst they are absolutely requisite to explain the undeniable phenomena of the fourth Gospel, have one obvious consequence: The fourth Gospel, by whomsoever written,--even if it could be traced to the Apostle John himself,--has no real historical value, being at best the "glorified recollections" of an old man, written down half a century after the events recorded. The absolute difference between the teaching of this Gospel and of the Synoptics becomes perfectly intelligible, when the long discourses are recognized to be the result of Alexandrian Philosophy artistically interwoven with developed Pauline Christianity, and put into the mouth of Jesus. It will have been remarked that along with the admission of great subjectivity in the report of the discourses, and the plea that nothing beyond the mere substance of the original teaching can reasonably be looked for, there is, in the extracts we have given, an a.s.sertion that there actually is a faithful reproduction in this Gospel of the original substance. There is not a shadow of proof of this, but on the contrary the strongest reason for denying the fact; for, unless it be admitted that the Synoptics have so completely omitted the whole doctrinal part of the teaching of Jesus, have so carefully avoided the very peculiar terminology of the Logos Gospel, and have conveyed so unhistorical and erroneous an impression of the life and religious system of Jesus that, without the fourth Gospel, we should not actually have had an idea of his fundamental doctrines, we must inevitably recognize that the fourth Gospel cannot possibly be a true reproduction of his teaching. It is impossible that Jesus can have had two such diametrically opposed systems of teaching,--one purely moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one expressed in
{471}
wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses; one clothed in the great language of humanity, the other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology;--and that these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the Synoptics, on the one hand, and the fourth Gospel, on the other.
The tradition of Justin Martin applies solely to the system of the Synoptics: "Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him: for he was no Sophist, but his word was the power of G.o.d."(1)
We have already pointed out the evident traces of artificial construction in the discourses and dialogues of the fourth Gospel, and the more closely these are examined, the more clear does it become that they are not genuine reports of the teaching of Jesus, but mere ideal compositions by the author of the fourth Gospel. The speeches of John the Baptist, the discourses of Jesus, and the reflections of the Evangelist himself,(2) are marked by the same peculiarity of style and proceed from the same mind. It is scarcely possible to determine where the one begins and the other ends.(3) It is quite clear, for instance, that the author himself, without a break, continues the words which he puts into the mouth of Jesus, in the colloquy with Nicodemus, but it is not easy to determine where. The whole dialogue is artificial in the extreme, and is certainly not genuine, and this is apparent not only from the replies attributed to the "teacher of Israel," but to the irrelevant manner in which the reflections loosely ramble from the new birth to the dogmatic statements in the thirteenth and following verses, which are the never-failing resource of the
{472}
Evangelist when other subjects are exhausted. The sentiments and almost the words either attributed to Jesus, or added by the writer, to which we are now referring, iii. 12 ff., we find again in the very same chapter, either put into the mouth of John the Baptist, or as reflections of the author, verses 31--36, for again we add that it is difficult anywhere to discriminate the speaker. Indeed, while the Synoptics are rich in the abundance of practical counsel and profound moral insight, as well as in variety of ill.u.s.trative parables, it is remarkable how much sameness there is in all the discourses of the fourth Gospel, a very few ideas being constantly reproduced. Whilst the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics is singularly universal and impersonal, in the fourth Gospel it is purely personal, and rarely pa.s.ses beyond the declaration of his own dignity, and the inculcation of belief in him as the only means of salvation. There are certainly some sayings of rare beauty which tradition or earlier records may have preserved, but these may easily be distinguished from the ma.s.s of the work. A very distinct trace of ideal composition is found in xvii. 3: "And this is eternal life, to know thee the only true G.o.d, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." Even apologists admit that it is impossible that Jesus could speak of himself as "Jesus Christ." We need not, however, proceed further with such a.n.a.lysis. We believe that no one can calmly and impartially examine the fourth Gospel without being convinced of its artificial character. If some portions possess real charm, it is of a purely ideal kind, and their attraction consists chiefly in the presence of a certain vague but suggestive mysticism. The natural longing of humanity for any revelation regarding a future state has not been
{473}
appealed to in vain. That the diffuse and often monotonous discourses of this Gospel, however, should ever have been preferred to the grand simplicity of the teaching of the Synoptics, ill.u.s.trated by such parables as the wise and foolish virgins, the sower, and the Prodigal Son, and culminating in the Sermon on the Mount, each sentence of which is so full of profound truth and beauty, is little to the credit of critical sense and judgment.
The elaborate explanations by which the phenomena of the fourth Gospel are reconciled with the a.s.sumption that it was composed by the Apostle John are in vain, and there is not a single item of evidence within the first century and a half which does not agree with internal testimony in opposing the supposition. To one point, however, we must briefly refer in connection with this statement. It is a.s.serted that the Gospel and Epistles--or at least the first Epistle--of the Canon ascribed to the Apostle John are by one author, although this is not without contradiction,(1) and very many of those who agree as to the ident.i.ty of authorship by no means admit the author to have been the Apostle John.
It is argued, therefore, that the use of the Epistle by Polycarp and Papias is evidence of the apostolic origin of the Gospel. We have, however, seen, that not only is it very uncertain that Polycarp made use of the Epistle at all, but that he does not in any case mention its author"s name. There is not a particle of evidence that he ascribed the Epistle, even supposing he knew it, to the
{474}
Apostle John. With regard to Papias, the only authority for the a.s.sertion that he knew the Epistle is the statement of Eusebius already quoted and discussed, that: "He used testimonies out of John"s first Epistle,"(1) There is no evidence, however, even supposing the statement of Eusebius to be correct, that he ascribed it to the Apostle.
The earliest undoubted references to the Epistle, in fact, are by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, so that this evidence is of little avail for the Gospel. There is no name attached to the first Epistle, and the second and third have the superscription of "the Presbyter,"
which, applying the argument of Ewald regarding the author of the Apocalypse, ought to be conclusive against their being written by an Apostle. As all three are evidently by the same writer, and intended to be understood as by the author of the Gospel, and that writer does not pretend to be an Apostle, but calls himself a simple Presbyter, the Epistles likewise give presumptive evidence against the apostolic authorship of the Gospel.
There is another important testimony against the Johannine origin of the fourth Gospel to which we must briefly refer. We have pointed out that, according to the fourth Gospel, Jesus did not eat the Paschal Supper with his disciples, but that being arrested on the 13th Nisan, he was put to death on the 14th, the actual day upon which the Paschal lamb was sacrificed. The Synoptics, on the contrary, represent that Jesus ate the Pa.s.sover with his disciples on the evening of the 14th, and was crucified on the 15th Nisan. The difference of opinion indicated by these contradictory accounts actually prevailed in various Churches, and in the
{475}
second half of the second century a violent discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Pa.s.sover of the Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th Nisan,--the day on which, according to the Synoptics, Jesus himself celebrated the Pa.s.sover and inst.i.tuted the Christian festival,--whilst the Roman Church as well as most other Christians,--following the fourth Gospel, which represents Jesus as not celebrating the last Pa.s.sover, but being himself slain upon the 14th Nisan, the true Paschal lamb,--had abandoned the day of the Jewish feast altogether, and celebrated the Christian festival on Easter Sunday, upon which the Resurrection was supposed to have taken place. Polycarp, who went to Rome to represent the Churches of Asia Minor in the discussions upon the subject, could not be induced to give up the celebration on the 14th Nisan, the day which, according to tradition, had always been observed, and he appealed to the practice of the Apostle John himself in support of that date.
Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus the statement of the case: "For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it (the 14th Nisan), because he had ever observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and with the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted."(1) Towards the end of the century, Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, likewise appeals to the practice of "John who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord," as well as of the Apostle Philip and his daughters, and of Polycarp and others in support of the same day: "All these observed
{476}
the 14th day of the Pa.s.sover, according to the Gospel, deviating from it in no respect, but following according to the rule of the faith."(l) Now it is evident that, according to this undoubted testimony, the Apostle John by his own practice, ratified the account of the Synoptics, and contradicted the data of the fourth Gospel, and upon the supposition that he so long lived in Asia Minor it is probable that his authority largely contributed to establish the observance of the 14th Nisan there.
We must, therefore, either admit that the Apostle John by his practice reversed the statement of his own Gospel, or that he was not its author, which of course is the natural conclusion. Without going further into the discussion, which would detain us too long, it is clear that the Paschal controversy is opposed to the supposition that the Apostle John was the author of the fourth Gospel.(2)
We have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence during a century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth Gospel that it was composed by the son of Zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the strongest reason for believing that he did not write it. The first writer who quotes a pa.s.sage of the Gospel with the mention of his name is Theophilus of Antioch, who gives the few words: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with G.o.d," as spoken by "John," whom he considers amongst the divinely inspired [------]
{477}
[------],(1) though even he does not distinguish. him as the Apostle.
We have seen the legendary nature of the late traditions regarding the composition of the Gospel, of which a specimen was given in the defence of it in the Canon of Muratori, and we must not further quote them.
The first writer who distinctly cla.s.ses the four Gospels together is Irenaeus; and the reasons which he gives for the existence of precisely that number in the Canon of the Church ill.u.s.trate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments. "But neither can the Gospels be more in number than they are," says Irenaeus, "nor, on the other hand, can they be fewer. For as there are four quarters of the world in which we are, and four general winds [------], and the Church is disseminated throughout all the world, and the Gospel is the pillar and prop of the Church and the spirit of life, it is right that she should have four pillars, on all sides breathing out immortality and revivifying men.
From which it is manifest that the Word, the maker of all, he who sitteth upon the Cherubim and containeth all things, who was manifested to man, has given to us the Gospel, four-formed but possessed by one spirit; as David also says, supplicating his advent: "Thou that sittest between the Cherubim, shine forth." For the Cherubim also are four-faced, and their faces are symbols of the working of the Son of G.o.d.... and the Gospels, therefore, are in harmony with these amongst which Christ is seated. For the Gospel according to John relates his first effectual and glorious generation from the Father, saying: "In the
1 Ad Autolyc, ii. 22. Tischendorf dates this work about a.d. 180. Wann wurden, a. s. w., p. 16, anm. 1.
{478}
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d," and "all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made." On this account also this Gospel is full of all trustworthiness, for such is his person.(1) But the Gospel according to Luke, being as it were of priestly character, opened with Zacharias the priest sacrificing to G.o.d.... But Matthew narrates his generation as a man, saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," and "the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise," This Gospel, therefore, is anthropomorphic, and on this account a man, humble and mild in character, is presented throughout the Gospel. But Mark makes his commencement after a prophetic Spirit coming down from on high unto men, saying: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet;" indicating the winged form of the Gospel; and for this reason he makes a compendious and precursory declaration, for this is the prophetic character....
Such, therefore, as was the course of the Son of G.o.d, such also is the form of the living creatures; and such as is the form of the living creatures, such also is the character of the Gospel. For quadriform are the living creatures, quadriform is the Gospel, and quadriform the course of the Lord. And on this account four covenants were given to the human race.... These things being thus: vain and ignorant and, moreover, audacious are those who set aside the form of the Gospel, and declare the aspects of the Gospels as either more or less than has been said."(2) As such principles of criticism presided
1 The Greek of this rather unintelligible sentence is not preserved. The Latin version reads as follows: Propter hoc et omni fiducia plenum est Evangelium istud; talis est enim persona ejus.
{479}
over the formation of the Canon, it is not singular that so many of the decisions of the Fathers have been reversed. Irenaeus himself mentioned the existence of heretics who rejected the fourth Gospel,(1) and Epiphanius(2) refers to the Alogi, who equally denied its authenticity, but it is not needful for us further to discuss this point. Enough has been said to show that the testimony of the fourth Gospel is of no value towards establishing the truth of miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.
END OF VOL. II.