CHAPTER XII.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
The fourth Gospel was, upon any theory, written later than the others, and it is not clear that it was published as soon as it was written. Both tradition and the internal evidence of the concluding chapter seem to point to the existence of somewhat peculiar relations between the Evangelist and the presbyters of the Asian Church, which would make it not improbable that the Gospel was retained for some time by the latter within their own private circle before it was given to the Church at large.
We have the express statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 269:1], who, if he was born as is commonly supposed at Smyrna about 140 A.D., must be a good authority, that the Apostle St. John lived on till the times of Trajan (98-117 A.D.). If so, it is very possible that the Gospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement of Rome wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither, considering its almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such a work would travel at first, should we be very much surprised if it was not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) and Hermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these two writers be of much moment, as in the Epistle of Barnabas the allusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few and slight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear and certain references either to the Old Testament or the New Testament at all.
And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to whether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, and that they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also by writers of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim. Dr.
Keim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johannean authorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point he seems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he is opposed.
"Volkmar," he says [Endnote 270:1], "has recently spoken of Barnabas as undeniably ignorant of the Logos-Gospel, and explained the early date a.s.signed to his Epistle by Ewald and Weizsacker and now also by Riggenbach as due to their perplexity at finding in it no trace of St. John. There is room for another opinion. However much it may be shown that Barnabas gives neither an incident nor a single sentence from the Gospel, that he is unacquainted with the conception of the Logos, that expressions like "water and blood," or the Old Testament types of Christ, and especially the serpent reared in the wilderness as an object of faith, are employed by him independently--for all this the deeper order of conceptions in the Epistle coincides in the gross or in detail so repeatedly with the Gospel that science must either a.s.sume a connection between them, or, if it leaves the problem unsolved, renounces its own calling. "The Son of G.o.d" was to be manifested in the flesh, manifested through suffering, to go to his glory through death and the Cross, to bring life and the immanent presence of the G.o.dhead, such is here and there the leading idea. Existing before the foundation of the world, the Lord of the world, the sender of the prophets, the object of their prophecies, beheld even by Abraham, in the person of Moses himself typified as the only centre of Israel"s hopes, and in so far already revealed and glorified in type before his incarnation, he was at last to appear, to dwell among us, to be seen, not as son of David but as Son of G.o.d, in the garment of the flesh, by those who could not even endure the light of this world"s sun. So did he come; nay, so did he die to fulfil the promise, in the very act of his apparent defeat to dispense purification, pardon, life, to destroy death, to overcome the devil, to show forth the Resurrection, and with the Resurrection his right to future judgment; at the same time, it is true, to fill up the measure of the sins of Israel, whom he had loved exceedingly and for whom he had done such great wonders and signs, and to prepare for himself again a new people who should keep his commandments, his new law. The mission that his Father gave him he has accomplished, of his own free will and for our sake--the true explanation of his death--did he suffer. "The Jews" have not hoped upon him, clearly as the typical design of the Old Testament and Moses himself pointed to him, and, in opposition to the spiritual teaching of Moses, they have been seduced into the carnal and sensual by the devil; they have set their trust and their hopes, not upon G.o.d, but upon the fleshly circ.u.mcision and upon the visible house of G.o.d, worshipping the Lord in the temple almost like the heathen. But the Christian raises himself above the flesh and its l.u.s.ts, which disturb the faculties of knowledge as well as those of will, to the Spirit and the spiritual service of G.o.d, above the ways of darkness to the ways of light; he presses on to faith, and with faith to perfect knowledge, as one born again, who is full of the Spirit of G.o.d, in whom G.o.d dwells and prophesies, interpreting past and future without being seen or heard; as taught of G.o.d and fulfilling the commandments of the new law of the Lord, a lover of the brethren, and in himself the child of peace, of joy, and of love. For this cla.s.s of ideas there is no a.n.a.logy in St. Paul, or even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel, much as the connection has. .h.i.therto been overlooked. Indeed, though it may still in places be questioned on which side the relation of dependence lies (it might be thought that Barnabas supplied the ideas, John the application of them, and the conception of the Logos crowning all), in any case the Gospel appeared at a date near to that of the Epistle of Barnabas. With more reason may it be said that it is not until we come to the Epistle of Barnabas that we find stiff scholastic theory a more predominant typology, an artificialised view of Judaism; besides the points of view always appear as something received and not originated--water and blood, new law, new people--and in the solemn manifestation of the Son of G.o.d immediately after the selection of the Apostles, in the great but fruitless exhibition of miracle and love for Israel, there is evidently allusion to history, that is, to John ii and xii."
"The Epistle of Barnabas," Dr. Keim adds, "after the lucid demonstration of Volkmar--in spite of Hilgenfeld and Weizacker, and now also of Riggenbach--was undoubtedly written at the time of the rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about the year 120 A.D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), at latest 130."
It is not to be expected that this full and able statement should carry conviction to every reader. And yet I believe that it has some solid foundation. The single instances are not perhaps such as could be pressed very far, but they derive a certain weight when taken together and as parts of a wider circle of ideas. The application of the type of the brazen serpent to Jesus in c. xii.
may have been suggested by John iii. 14 sqq., but we cannot say that it was so with certainty. The same application is made by Justin in a place where there is perhaps less reason to a.s.sume a connection with the fourth Gospel; and we know that types and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure. A stronger case, and one that I incline to think of some importance, is supplied by the peculiar combination of "the water and the cross" in Barn. c. xi; not that here there is a direct and immediate, but more probably a mediate, connection with the fourth Gospel. The phrase [Greek: ho uios tou theou] is not peculiar to, though it is more frequent in, and to some degree characteristic of, the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John.
[Greek: Phanerousthai] may be claimed more decidedly, especially by comparison with the other Gospels, though it occurs with similar reference to the Incarnation in the later Pauline Epistles. [Greek: "Elthein en sarki] is again rightly cla.s.sed as a Johannean phrase, though the exact counterpart is found rather in the Epistles than the Gospel. The doctrine of pre-existence is certainly taught in such pa.s.sages as the application of the text, "Let us make man in our image," which is said to have been addressed to the Son "from the foundation of the world" (c. v).
Generally I think it may be said that the doctrine of the Incarnation, the typology, and the use of the Old Testament prophecies, approximate, most distinctly to the Johannean type, though under the latter heads there is of course much debased exaggeration. The soteriology we might be perhaps tempted to connect rather on the one hand with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and on the other with those of St. Paul. There may be something of an echo of the fourth Gospel in the allusion--to the unbelief and carnalised religion of the Jews. But the whole question of the speculative affinities of a writing like this requires subtle and delicate handling, and should be rather a subject for special treatment than an episode in an enquiry like the present. The opinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it will be safest and fairest to say that, while the round a.s.sertion that the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is not justified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not sufficiently clear to be pressed controversially.
A similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shepherd of Hermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side.
Here again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott [Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with the Gospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be relied upon. The imagery of the shepherd and the flock, as perhaps of the tower and the gate, may, be as well taken from the scenes of the Roman Campagna as from any previous writing. The keeping of the commandments is a commonplace of Christianity, not to say of religion. And the Divine immanence in the soul is conceived rather in the spirit of the elder Gospels than of the fourth.
There is a nearer approach perhaps in the identification of "the gate" with the "Son of G.o.d," and in the explanation with which it is accompanied. "The rock is old because the Son of G.o.d is older than the whole of His creation; so that He was a.s.sessor to His Father in the creation of the world; the gate is new, because He was made manifest at the consummation of the last days, and they who are to be saved enter by it into the kingdom of G.o.d" (Sim. ix.
12). Here too we have the doctrine of pre-existence; and considering the juxtaposition of these three points, the pre- existence, the gate (which is the only access to the Lord), the identification of the gate with the incarnation of Jesus, we may say perhaps a _possible_ reference to the fourth Gospel; _probable_ it might be somewhat too much to call it. We must leave the reader to form his own estimate.
A somewhat greater force, but not as yet complete cogency, attaches to the evidence of the Ignatian letters. A parallel is alleged to a pa.s.sage in the Epistle to the Romans which is found both in the Syriac and in the shorter Greek or Vossian version. "I take no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of this life. I desire bread of G.o.d, heavenly bread, bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of G.o.d, who was born in the latter days of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire drink of G.o.d, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever-abiding life" [Endnote 275:1] (Ep. ad Rom. c. vii). This is compared with the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapter of St. John. It should be said that there is a difference of reading, though not one that materially influences the question, in the Syriac. If the parallel holds good, the peculiar diction of the author must be seen in the subst.i.tution of [Greek: poma] for [Greek: posis] of John vi. 55, and [Greek: aennaos zoae] for [Greek zoae aionios], of John vi. 54. [The Ignatian phrase is perhaps more than doubtful, as it does not appear either in the Syriac, the Armenian, or the Latin version.] Still this need not stand in the way of referring the original of the pa.s.sage ultimately to the Gospel. The ideas are so remarkable that it seems difficult to suppose either are accidental coincidence or quotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or the author of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind, though not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remote suggestions.
The next supposed allusion is from the Epistle to the Philadelphians: "The Spirit, coming from G.o.d, is not to be deceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and it searcheth that which is hidden" [Endnote 275:2]. This is obviously the converse of John iii. 5, where it is said that we do not know the way of the Spirit, which is like the wind, &c. And yet the exact verbal similarity of the phrase [Greek: oiden pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei], and its appearance in the same connection, spoken of the Spirit, leads us to think that there was--as there may very well have been--an a.s.sociation of ideas.
This particular phrase [Greek: pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei] is very characteristically Johannean. It occurs three times over in the fourth Gospel, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. The combination of [Greek: erchesthai] and [Greek hupagein] also occurs twice, and [Greek: pou [opou] hupago [-gei, -geis]] in all twelve times in the Gospel and once in the Epistle ([Greek: ouk oide pou hupagei]); this too, it is striking to observe, not at all elsewhere. The very word [Greek: hupago] is not found at all in St. Paul, St. Peter, or the Epistle to the Hebrews. Taken together with the special application to the Spirit, this must be regarded as a strong case.
Neither do the arguments of "Supernatural Religion" succeed in proving that there is no connection with St. John in such sentences as, "There is one G.o.d who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word" (Ad Magn. c. viii), or who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. c. ix). In regard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true that Philo also has "the eternal Word," which is even the "Son" of G.o.d; but the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not only did the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person never enter into Philo"s mind, but "there is no room for it in his system" [Endnote 276:1].
It should be said that these latter pa.s.sages are all found only in the Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we saw above, are in any case evidence for the first half of the second century, while they _may_ be the genuine works of Ignatius.
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very much with the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which it is so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through the so-called first Epistle. That this Epistle is really by the same author as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but I imagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be.
The evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1].
We may set side by side the two pa.s.sages which are thought to be parallel.
_Ep. ad Phil_. c. vii.
[Greek: Pas gar hos an mae h.o.m.ologae Iaesoun Christon en sarki elaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae h.o.m.ologae to marturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuae ta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maete anastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana.]
1 _John_ vi. 2, 3.
[Greek: Pan pneuma ho h.o.m.ologei Iaesoun Christon en sarki elaeluthota ek tou Theou estin. Kai pan pneuma ho mae h.o.m.ologei tou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to tou antichristou, k.t.l.]
This is precisely one of those pa.s.sages where at a superficial glance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, but where a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite.
The suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded, that both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the early Church against various heretics" [Endnote 277:2]. But if such a formula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise from St. John"s Epistle. This pa.s.sage of the Epistle of Polycarp is the earliest instance of the use of the word "Antichrist" outside the Johannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occurs five times. Here too it occurs in conjunction with other characteristic phrases, [Greek: h.o.m.ologein, en sarki elaeluthenai, ek tou diabolou]. The phraseology and turns of expression in these two verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of the Epistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be the original work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardly do otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp.
There is naturally a certain hesitation in using evidence for the Epistle as available also for the Gospel, but I have little doubt that it may justly so be used and with no real diminution of its force. The chance that the Epistle had a separate author is too small to be practically worth considering.
This then will apply to the case of Papias, of whose relations to the fourth Gospel we have no record, but of whom Eusebius expressly says, that "he made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John."
There is the less reason to doubt this statement, as in _every_ instance in which a similar a.s.sertion of Eusebius can be verified it is found to hold good. It is much more probable that he would overlook real a.n.a.logies than be led astray by merely imaginary ones--which is rather a modern form of error. In textual matters the ancients were not apt to go wrong through over-subtlety, and Eusebius himself does not, I believe, deserve the charge of "inaccuracy and haste" that is made against him [Endnote 278:1].
In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth Gospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again emphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2]. We will examine some of the instances which are adduced on this side.
And first, in his account of John the Baptist, Justin has two particulars which are found in the fourth Gospel and in no other.
That Gospel alone makes the Baptist himself declare, "I am not the Christ;" and it alone puts into his mouth the application of the prophecy of Isaiah, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Justin combines these two sayings, treating them as an answer made by John to some who supposed that he was the Christ.
_Justin, Dial_. c. 88.
To whom he himself also cried: "I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying [Greek: ouk eimi o Christos, alla phonae boontos]; for there shall come one stronger than I," &c.
_John_ i. 19, 20, 23.
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ [Greek: oti ouk eimi ego o Christos]... I am the voice of one crying [Greek: ego phonae boontos] in the wilderness," &c.
The pa.s.sage in Justin does not profess to be a direct quotation; it is merely a historical reproduction, and, as such, it has quite as much accuracy as we should expect to find. The circ.u.mstantial coincidences are too close to be the result of accident. And Dr.
Keim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar"s notion that Justin has merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of the two phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question. To refer the pa.s.sage to an unknown source such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews--all we know of which shows its affinities to have been rather on the side of the Synoptics--when we have a known source in the fourth Gospel ready to hand, is quite unreasonable [Endnote 280:1].
No great weight, though perhaps some fractional quant.i.ty, can be ascribed to the statement that Jesus healed those who were maimed from their birth ([Greek: tous ek genetaes paerous] [Endnote 280:2]). The word [Greek: paeros] is used specially for the blind, and the fourth Evangelist is the only one who mentions the healing of congenital infirmity, which he does under this same phrase [Greek: ek genetaes], and that of a case of blindness (John ix.
1). The possibility urged in "Supernatural Religion," that Justin may be merely drawing from tradition, may detract from the force of this but cannot altogether remove it, especially as we have no other trace of a tradition containing this particular.
Tischendorf [Endnote 280:3] lays stress on a somewhat remarkable phenomenon in connection with the quotation of Zech. xvi. 10, "They shall look on him whom they pierced." Justin gives the text of this in precisely the same form as St. John, and with the same variation from the Septuagint, [Greek: opsontai eis hon exekentaesan] for [Greek: epiblepsontai pros me anth hon katorchaesanto]--a variation which is also found in Rev. i. 7.
Those who believe that the Apocalypse had the same author as the Gospel, naturally see in this a confirmation of their view, and it would seem to follow that Justin had had either one or both writings before him. But the a.s.sumption of an ident.i.ty of authorship between the Apocalypse and the Gospel, though I believe less unreasonable than is generally supposed, still is too much disputed to build anything upon in argument. We must not ignore the other theory, that all three writers had before them and may have used independently a divergent text of the Septuagint. Some countenance is given to this by the fact that ten MSS. of the Septuagint present the same reading [Endnote 281:1]. There can be little doubt however that it was in its origin a Christian correction, which had the double advantage of at once bringing the Greek into closer conformity to the Hebrew, and of also furnishing support to the Christian application of the prophecy. Whether this correction was made before either the Apocalypse or the Gospel were written, or whether it appeared in these works for the first time and from them was copied into other Christian writings, must remain an open question.
The saying in Apol. i. 63, "so that they are rightly convicted both by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself, that they knew neither the Father nor the Son" ([Greek: oute ton patera oute ton uion egnosan]), certainly presents a close resemblance to John xvi. 3, [Greek: ouk egnosan ton patera oude eme]. But a study of the context seems to make it clear that the only pa.s.sage consciously present to Justin"s mind was Matt. xi. 27. Dr. Keim thinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary oh the Matthaean text; but the coincidence may be after all accidental.
But the most important isolated case of literary parallelism is the well-known pa.s.sage in Apol. i. 61 [Endnote 281:2].
_Apol_. i. 61.
For Christ said: Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to return into the wombs of those who bare them is evident to all.
[Greek: Kai gar ho Christos eipen, An mae anagennaethaete, ou mae eiselthaete eis taen Basileian ton ouranon. Hoti de kai adunaton eis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaenai, phaneron pasin esti.]
_John_ iii. 3-5.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born over again (or possibly "from above"), he cannot see the kingdom of G.o.d. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother"s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born of Water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of G.o.d.