,the ,criticism of the ,fourth ,gospel ,,the ,,morse ,,lectures ,,published ,,by ,,charles ,,scribner',s ,,sons ,,the ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel4 ,by ,,william ,,sanday1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d4 #hvo #a4ge net ,,the ,,place ,,of ,,christ ,,in ,,modern ,,theology4 ,by ,a4 ,m4 ,,fairbairn1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d4 #hvo #b4ej ,,the ,,religions ,,of ,,japan4 ,by ,,william ,,elliot ,,griffis4 #abmo #b4jj ,,the ,,whence ,,and ,,the ,,whither ,,of ,,man4 ,by ,professor ,,john ,m4 ,,tyler4 #abmo #a4ge ,,the ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel ,,eight ,,lectures ,,on ,,the ,,morse ,,foundation1 ,,delivered ,,in ,,the ,,union ,,seminary1 ,,new ,,york ,,in ,,october ,,and ,,november1 #aijd ,,by ,,william ,,sanday1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d41 ,,litt4,d4 ,,lady ,,margaret ,,professor1 ,,and ,,canon ,,of ,,christ ,,church1 ,,oxford ,,hon4 ,,fellow ,,of ,,exeter ,,college2 ,,fellow ,,of ,,the ,,british ,,academy ,,chaplain ,,in ,,ordinary ,,to ,,the ,,king ,,new ,,york ,,charles ,,scribner',s ,,sons #aije ,,to ,,my ,,american ,,friends ,,preface ,these lectures were delivered in accordance with the terms of the ,morse foundation in the ,union ,theological ,seminary1 ,new ,york1 between ,october #ab and ,november #d1 #aijd2 and they were afterwards repeated1 with some changes1 in ,oxford4 ,i have tried to improve their form both while they were being delivered and since4 ,but ,i have been content to state the case for the most part broadly and constructively1 and have not 7as ,i had at one time intended7 burdened the pages with notes and detailed discussions4 ,i am conscious of inadequate treatment throughout1 but especially perhaps in ,lecture ,,vii4 ,there has been a movement of thought going on ever since the lectures were begun2 and1 if ,i am not mistaken1 the burning point of the whole controversy has come to rest more and more upon the question discussed in this lecture4 ,but on neither side has the real issue been pressed home with any thoroughness4 ,critical writers are in the habit of assuming with very little proof that the theology of ,st4 ,john is simply a development of that of ,st4 ,paul1 and that the theology of ,st4 ,paul was from one end to the other the ,apostle's own creation4 ,i cannot think that this is a true representation of the facts2 it seems to me to ignore far too much the ,mother ,church and that which gave its life to the ,mother ,church4 ,at the same time ,i am quite aware that what ,i have given is rather a sketch for a possible answer to this question1 than a really satisfactory discussion of it4 ,there are not wanting signs that a fuller examination of the relations between the teaching of ,christ on the one hand and ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john on the other is the next great debate that lies before us4 ,in this debate the question of the genuineness and authenticity of the ,fourth ,gospel will be but an episode4 ,it is a matter of regret to me that the subject of these lectures should have been so predominantly controversial4 ,i cannot help feeling the deep cleft which divides me from many of the writers whose views ,i have discussed--a cleft that extends to matters more fundamental still than the criticism of the ,gospel4 ,i find it in some ways a relief to think of the division between us as greater even than it is4 ,where there is frank and open hostility1 the approaches that are made by the one side to the other are more highly valued4 ,and from this point of view there is much in the writings of those of whom ,i am obliged to think as opponents that greatly appeals to me4 ,as typical of this ,i may mention the pamphlet by ,freiherr von ,soden entitled ,die wichtigsten ,fragen im ,leben ,jesu4 ,i have referred to this pamphlet in a note on p4 #abi1 in terms that are not those of praise2 and it true that the critical portion of the pamphlet1 especially so far as it deals with the ,fourth ,gospel1 seems to me very defective4 ,i also cannot disguise from myself that the author explicitly denies what ,i should most wish that he affirmed 7op4 cit41 p4 #ib74 ,but1 when ,i have said this1 it is only just to add that ,i have read the concluding sections of his essay with warm respect and admiration4 ,and what is true of this essay is true of much beside4 ,i console myself by thinking that ,german criticism with which ,i have had to break a lance more often than with any other1 has a wonderful faculty for correcting itself4 ,only in the last few years we have had1 first the discussions started by ,wellhausen about the title ,son of ,man1 and then those set on foot by ,wrede in his book ,das ,messiasgeheimnis in den ,evangelien1 and in each case criticism seems to be working its way through to a view that is really right and reasonable4 ,in like manner the extravagant estimate of the apocalyptic element in the ,gospels which has been in vogue in recent years seems to be reducing itself to sounder dimensions4 ,in each case there is error2 but in each case the error is corrected1 and something is learnt and gained by the way4 ,may we not hope that on this question of the ,fourth ,gospel1 and the still more vital matters with which it is bound up1 by degrees the tension may be relaxed1 and there may be the same experience of permanent gain8 ,already one may see great potentialities of good in much that as it at present stands may well give cause for concern4 ,one common form of criticism that may be directed against this book ,i confess that ,i should rather deprecate4 ,even my friend ,dr4 ,cheyne1 whose sympathies are so large1 allows himself to write3 #8,apologetic considerations are brought in to limit our freedom4 ,the ,fourth ,gospel must be the work of the ,apostle ,john1 and must be in the main historical1 because the inherited orthodoxy requires it' 7,bible ,problems1 p4 #dj f474 ,does he really think that this is our only reason for holding those paradoxical positions8 ,or rather1 ,i would put my question in another way2 ,does he really think that #8the inherited orthodoxy' is nothing better than a taskmaster that stands over us with a whip1 to keep us from straying8 ,is that his view of the divine meaning in the history and development of nineteen centuries8 ,i have had occasion incidentally to define my attitude on this subject1 and ,i may perhaps refer to the pages on which ,i have done so 7pp4 #c-e2 comp4 pp4 #bcc-bce2 #bfb f474 ,i hope that this attitude is at least as consistent with an earnest pursuit of truth as that which appears to assume that orthodox or traditional opinions are always wrong4 ,again1 ,i am not conscious of that #8paralyzing dread of new facts' of which my friend speaks4 ,it may be true that new theories perhaps1 rather than new facts1 have a greater attraction for some of us than for others4 ,but1 as far as ,i am concerned1 if ,i have been silent in public on some of the no doubt important questions raised1 the cause has been chiefly want of time4 ,life is very short1 and very crowded1 and we are not all rapid workers1 or gifted with the power of facing in many directions at once4 ,and yet ,i have tried to keep pace with the progress of thought2 the problems which ,dr4 ,cheyne propounds are not unfamiliar to me2 and ,i am not without more or less deliberate views about them4 ,dr4 ,cheyne's book is enough to convince me that the problems are really urgent2 and ,i shall do my best to say what ,i have to say upon them as soon as ,i can4 ,perhaps it should be explained that the enumeration of books and writers does not profess to be exhaustive4 ,in the main ,i have confined myself to the more recent1 and to what may be called #8living' literature4 ,some few things may have dropped out because they did not happen to fall in with the method of treatment adopted4 ,of these the various writings of ,dr4 ,edwin ,a4 ,abbott are the most important that ,i can remember4 ,to the older works mentioned on pp4 #ab-ae there should have been added ,archdeacon ,watkin's ,bampton ,lectures for #ahij as a summary of earlier criticism4 ,the absence of reference to the elaborate work of ,dr4 ,joh4 ,kreyenbhl 7,das ,evangelium der ,wahrheit1 vol4 i1 #aijj2 vol4 ii1 #aije7 is due in part to the accidental loss of my copy of the first volume4 ,but it would be wrong to suggest that ,i should have had patience enough to discover what there is of sanity in its learned but fantastic pages4 ,it only remains for me to express my heartfelt thanks to those who so kindly invited me to deliver these lectures1 and to those who gave me such generous and considerate hospitality1 while they were being delivered4 ,my visit to ,america was deeply interesting to me4 ,i returned home1 not only with the feeling that ,i had made new and valued friends1 but also with a greatly strengthened hope and desire that ,american and ,english workers may long be found side by side--not as though either of them had already obtained1 or were already made perfect1 but pressing on1 if so be that they may apprehend that for which also they were apprehended by ,christ ,jesus4 ,i must also add a word of very sincere thanks to my friends ,dr4 ,lock1 who read the whole1 and ,mr4 ,ll4 ,j4 ,m4 ,bebb1 who read a part of the proofs of these lectures1 and to whose kindness and care ,i owe it that they are not more faulty than they are4 ,,oxford4 ,easter1 #aije4 ,,contents ,,lecture ,i ,,survey ,,of ,,recent ,,literature #a ,,lecture ,,ii ,,critical ,,methods4 ,,the ,,oldest ,,solution ,,of ,,the ,,problem ,,of ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel #db ,,lecture ,,iii ,,the ,,standpoint ,,of ,,the ,,author #gd ,,lecture ,,iv ,,the ,,pragmatism ,,of ,,the ,,gospel #aji ,,lecture ,v ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,the ,,narrative #adb ,,lecture ,,vi ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,logos1 ,,and ,,its ,,influence ,,on ,,the ,,gospel #ahe ,lecture ,,vii ,,the ,,christology ,,of ,,the ,,gospel #bje ,,lecture ,,viii ,,the ,,early ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,gospel #bcf ,,lecture ,i ,,survey ,,of ,,recent ,,literature ,the ,situation in ,november1 #aijc4 ,the subject of these lectures illustrates in a striking way the fluctuations and vicissitudes of critical opinion as presented before the public4 ,the facts remain the same1 and the balance of essential truth and error in regard to them also remains the same2 but the balance of published opinion is a different matter1 and in regard to this the changes are often very marked and very rapid4 ,in ,november last 7#aijc71 when ,i definitely accepted the invitation so kindly given me by your ,president1 and definitely proposed the subject on which ,i am about to speak1 the criticism of the ,fourth ,gospel had reached a point which1 in my opinion1 was further removed from truth and reality than at any period within my recollection4 ,there had followed one another in quick succession four books--or what were practically books--three at least of which were of conspicuous ability1 and yet all as it seemed to me seriously wrong both in their conclusions and in their methods4 ,to the year #aija belong the third and fourth editions1 published together1 of the justly praised and largely circulated ,introduction to the ,new ,testament of ,professor ,jlicher of ,marburg 7now translated into ,english by the accomplished daughter of ,mrs4 ,humphry ,ward71 the second volume of ,encyclopaedia ,biblica1 containing a massive article on #8,john1 ,son of ,zebedee1' by ,professor ,p4 ,w4 ,schmiedel of ,zrich1 and a monograph on the ,fourth ,gospel by ,m4 ,jean ,rville of ,paris4#a ,to these was added in the autumn of last year a complete commentary on the ,gospel by the ,abb ,loisy1 whose more popular writings were at the time attracting so much attention4 ,a profound dissent from the conclusion arrived at in these works was one of my main reasons in offering to discuss the subject before you4 ,the feeling was strong within me that in this portion of the critical field--and ,i do not know any other so vital--the time was one of trouble and rebuke2 that there was a call to me to speak2 and that1 however inadequate the response to the call might be1 some response ought to be attempted4 ,these were the motives present to my mind in the month of ,november when ,i chose my subject4 ,but by the beginning of the year 7#aijd7 the position of things by which they had been prompted was very largely changed4 ,the urgency was no longer nearly so great4 ,two books had appeared1 both in the ,english tongue1 which did better than ,i could hope to do the very thing that ,i desired--one more limited1 the other more extended in its scope1 but both maintaining what ,i believe to be the right cause in what ,i believe to be the right way4 ,these books were ,the ,gospels as ,historical ,documents1 ,part ,i1 by ,professor ,v4 ,h4 ,stanton of ,cambridge1 and ,the ,character and ,authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel by ,dr4 ,james ,drummond1 ,principal of ,manchester ,college4 ,i should be well content to rest the case1 as ,i should wish it to be stated1 on these two books1 especially the second4 ,but by the time when they appeared ,i was already committed to my task4 ,as ,i have said1 one of them is limited in its scope2 and the other--admirable as it is1 and heartily as ,i agree with its principles as well as with most of its details--is perhaps not quite so complete on all points as it is on some2 so that there may still be room for such a brief course of lectures as you ask of me1 partly to reinforce points already made1 and partly1 it may be1 in some small degree to supplement them4 99 99 99 99 99 ,what ,i have been saying amounts to a confession that my purpose is apologetic4 ,i propose to defend the traditional view1 or 7as an alternative7 something so near to the traditional view that it will count as the same thing4 ,it is better to be clear on this point at starting4 ,and yet ,i know that there are many minds--and those just the minds to which ,i should most like to appeal--to which this will seem to be a real drawback4 ,there is an impression abroad--a very natural impression--that #8apologetic' is opposed to #8scientific4' ,in regard to this there are just one or two things that ,i would ask leave to say4 7#a7 ,we are all really apologists1 in the sense that for all of us some conclusions are more acceptable than others4 ,no one undertakes to write on any subject with his mind in the state of a sheet of white paper4 ,we all start with a number of general principles and general beliefs1 conscious or unconscious1 fixed or provisional4 ,we all naturally give a preference to that which harmonizes best with these beliefs1 though all the time a process of adjustment may be going on1 by which we assimilate larger conclusions to smaller as well as smaller to larger4 7#b7 ,even in the strictest science it must not be supposed that the evidence will always point the same way4 ,the prima facie conclusion will not always be necessarily the right one4 ,it cannot be1 because it is very possible that it may conflict with some other conclusion that is already well established4 ,a balance has to be struck1 and some adjustment has to be attempted4 7#c7 ,if ,i defend a traditional statement as to a plain matter of fact1 ,i am the more ready to do so because ,i have found--or seemed to myself to find--as a matter of experience1 that such statements are far more often1 in the main1 right than wrong4 ,it is a satisfaction to me to think that in this experience1 so far as it relates to the first two centuries of ,christian history1 ,i have the distinguished support of ,professor ,harnack1 who has expressed a deliberate opinion to this effect1 though he certainly did not start with any prejudice in favour of tradition4 ,of course one sits loosely to a generalization like this4 ,it only means that the burden of proof lies with those who reject such a statement rather than with those who accept it4 7#d7 ,i cannot but believe that there is a real presumption that the ,christian faith1 which has played so vast a power in what appear to be the designs of the ,power that rules the world1 is not based upon a series of deceptions4 ,i consider that1 on any of the large questions1 that view is preferable which does not involve an abrupt break with the past4 ,it is very likely that there may be involved some modification or restatement1 but not complete denial or reversal4 ,to say this is something more than the instinct of continuity--something more than the instinct expressed in such words as-- #8,i could wish my days to be ,bound each to each by natural piety4' ,it is the settled belief that there is a ,providence that shapes our ends1 and that this ,providence never has wholly to undo its own work1 but that there is a continuous purpose running through the ages4 ,that is the sense--and ,i do not think more than that--in which ,i plead guilty to being an apologist4 ,i hope there is such a thing as #8scientific apology' or #8apologetic science1' and that this is entitled to fair consideration along with other kinds of science4 ,i would not for a moment ask that anything ,i may urge should be judged otherwise than strictly on its merits4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i began by saying that the nearer past1 the last three or four years1 has been distinguished by the successive appearance of a number of prominent books on the criticism of the ,fourth ,gospel1 which have been all on the negative side4 ,those ,i mentioned are not only negative1 but they have taken the more extreme form of negation4 ,not content with denying that the author of the ,gospel was the ,apostle ,st4 ,john1 they insist at once that the true author is entirely unknown1 and that whoever he was he stood in no direct relation to the ,apostle4 ,it has been the special characteristic of the last few years1 as compared with the preceding period1 that this more extreme position has been held by writers of note and influence4 ,if we take the period from #ahhi to #aijj--or even if we go further back1 say1 from #ahgj to #aijj1 the dominant tendency had been different4 ,opinion had seemed to gravitate more and more towards a sort of middle position1 in which the two sides in the debate could almost reach hands to each other4 ,there was a distinct recognition on the critical side of an element in the ,gospel of genuine and authentic history4 ,and1 on the other hand1 there was an equally clear recognition among conservative writers that the discourses of our ,lord in particular were reported with a certain amount of freedom1 not as they had been actually spoken but as they came back to the memory of the ,apostle after a considerable lapse of time4 ,while the critics could not bring themselves to accept the composition of the ,gospel by the son of ,zebedee himself1 they seemed increasingly disposed to admit that it might be the work of a near disciple of the ,apostle1 such as the supposed second ,john1 commonly known as #8the ,presbyter4' ,if this was the state of things six or seven years ago1 and if this description might be given of the general tendency of research in the decade or two preceding1 the same can be said no longer4 ,the threads that seemed to be drawing together have again sprung asunder4 ,the sharp antitheses1 that seemed in the way to be softened down and harmonized1 have asserted themselves again in all their old abruptness4 ,the alternatives are once more not so much between stricter and less strict history as between history and downright fiction1 not so much between the ,apostle and a disciple or younger contemporary of the ,apostle as between a member of the ,apostolic generation and one who was in no connexion with it4 ,i am speaking of the more pronounced opinions on either side4 ,whereas seven or eight or fifteen or twenty years ago the most prominent scholars were working towards conciliation1 at the present time1 and in the near past1 the most strongly expressed opinions have been the most extreme4 ,the old authorities1 happily for the most part1 still remain upon the scene1 and they have not withdrawn the views which they had expressed2 but other1 younger writers have come to the front1 and they have not shown the same disposition for compromise4 ,they know their own minds1 and they are ready enough to proclaim them without hesitation and without reserve4 ,the consequence is that the situation1 as we look out upon it1 presents more variety than it did4 ,there are many shades of opinion1 some of them strongly opposed to each other4 ,it is no longer possible to strike an average1 or to speak of a general tendency4 ,the only thing to be done is for each of us to state his view of the case as he sees it1 and to appeal to the public1 to the jury of plain men1 and to the rising generation1 to decide between the competing theories4 #a4 ,conservative ,opinion4 ,it must not be thought that conservative scholars have shown any weakening of confidence in their cause4 ,quite the contrary4 ,the latest period1 which has seen so much recrudescence of opposition1 has also seen not only the old positions maintained by those who had maintained them before1 but an important accession to the literature on the ,fourth ,gospel--from the hand of a veteran indeed1 but a veteran who had not before treated the subject quite directly4 ,i refer to ,zahn's monumental ,introduction to the ,new ,testament1 #b vols41 published in #ahii1 with which may be taken vol4 vi of the same writer's ,forschungen z4 ,gesch4 d4 neutest4 ,kanons published in #aijj4 ,it is no disparagement to other workers in the field of ,early ,christian ,literature to say that ,dr4 ,zahn is the most learned of them all4 ,we could indeed count upon our fingers several who know all that really needs to be known2 but ,dr4 ,zahn has a singular command of the whole of this material in its remotest recesses4 ,he keeps a keen eye not only on theological literature proper1 but on everything that appears in the world of scholarship that might have any bearing upon the questions at issue4 ,an indefatigable industry he shares with more than one of his colleagues2 but he is surpassed by none in the vigour and energy of mind with which he works up his knowledge4 ,and yet1 with all his masterly erudition1 and imposing as is the monument which he has erected of it1 ,i am afraid that ,i should have to call it in some ways a rather isolated monument4 ,there is something in ,dr4 ,zahn's work and in his position that is rather solitary4 ,he has indeed his fidus ,achates in ,professor ,haussleiter of ,greifswald1 and ,i do not doubt that his influence is widely felt among theologians of the ,right4 ,it is an encouragement to all who are like-minded to know that this strong tower of learning and character is with them4 ,but it is hardly to be expected that ,dr4 ,zahn's writings1 especially his greater writings1 should ever be popular4 ,those closely packed pages1 with long unbroken paragraphs and few helps to the eye and to readiness of apprehension1 are a severe exercise for the most determined student3 to any one else they must be forbidding4 ,and when such a student has made his way into them1 he is apt to find in them every quality but one4 ,the views expressed on all points1 larger and smaller1 testify unfailingly to the powers of mind that lie behind them1 but the one thing that they do often fail to do is to convince4 ,there has fallen upon the shoulders of ,dr4 ,zahn too much of the mantle of von ,hofmann3 if he were a little less original1 he would carry the reader with him more4 ,another veteran scholar1 who has continued his laborious and unresting work upon the ,fourth ,gospel during this period1 ,dr4 ,bernhard ,weiss#b1 suffers less from this cause4 ,not that the writings of ,dr4 ,weiss are much easier 7they are a little easier7 or more attractive in outward form4 ,but one has a feeling that the ,berlin ,professor is more in the main stream--that he is more in touch with other opinion on the right hand and on the left4 ,for this reason one finds him1 on the whole1 more helpful4 ,every question1 as it arises1 is thoughtfully weighed1 and a strong judgement is brought to bear upon it4 ,each edition of ,dr4 ,weiss' books is conscientiously revised and brought1 so far as can be reasonably expected1 up to date4 ,this untiring worker1 as he enters upon the decline of a long life1 has the satisfaction of looking back upon a series of volumes1 always sound and always sober1 which have contributed as much as any in this generation to train up in good and wholesome ways those who are to follow4 ,dr4 ,weiss' work upon the ,fourth ,gospel is distinguished at once by his steady maintenance of the ,apostolic authorship and by his steady insistence on the necessity of allowing for a certain freedom of handling4 ,this freedom in the treatment1 more particularly of the discourses1 ,dr4 ,weiss was practically the first writer to assert on the conservative side4 ,he has sometimes stated it in a way that ,i cannot but think rather exaggerated4 ,along with ,bernhard ,weiss it is natural to name ,dr4 ,willibald ,beyschlag1 of whose dignified conduct of the proceedings at the ,halle ,tercentenary reports reached us in ,england1 followed--as it seemed1 too soon--by the news of his death on ,nov4 #be1 #aijj4 ,beyschlag was a good average representative of the liberal wing of the defenders of the ,fourth ,gospel1 who also combine its data with those of the ,synoptics in reconstructing the ,life of our ,lord4 ,his style has more rhetorical ease and flow than that of ,weiss1 and he states his views with confidence and vigour2 but one feels that in his hands problems are apt to become less difficult than they really are4 ,for a reasonable middle position1 a compromise between extremes on both sides1 we may go to ,beyschlag as well as to any one2 but it may be doubted whether he really sounds the depths of the ,gospel#c4 ,in this respect writers like ,luthardt 7died ,sept4 #ba1 #aijb7 and ,godet 7died ,oct4 #bi1 #aijj71 who are nearer to the old-fashioned orthodoxy1 are more satisfactory4 ,of these writers we have fairly recent editions3 ,luthardt's ,kurzgefasster ,kommentar came out in a second edition in #ahid1 and a posthumous edition of ,godet's elaborate and weighty work began to appear in #aijb4 ,with such books as these we may group the reprint of the commentary by ,drs4 ,milligan and ,moulton 7,edinburgh1 n4 d47 and the two commentaries1 in ,the ,expositor's ,bible 7#ahia-b7 and in ,the ,expositor's ,greek ,testament1 #ahig1 by ,dr4 ,marcus ,dods4 ,in the same connexion may also be mentioned a little group of ,french writings1 headed by ,six ,leons sur les vangiles 7,paris1 #ahig71 by ,abb 7now ,monsignor7 ,pierre ,batiffol--slight1 but with a note of real distinction both in style and matter2 an ,introduction by ,abb ,jacquier 7,histoire des ,livres du ,n4 ,t41 ,paris1 #aijc71 and a commentary by ,pre ,calmes 7,paris and ,rome1 #aijd7--;both 7as it would seem7 sufficiently competent and modern but not specially remarkable4 ,besides these there are three works on the conservative side which ,english-speaking readers at least can never forget--the searching examination of the external evidence by ,dr4 ,ezra ,abbot 7,boston1 #ahhj1 reprinted in ,critical ,essays1 #ahhh72 articles in ,the ,expositor for the early months of #ahij by ,bp4 ,lightfoot 7reprinted with other matter bearing upon the subject in ,biblical ,essays1 #ahic72 and the classical commentary on the ,gospel 7first published as part of the ,speaker's ,commentary7 by ,dr4 ,westcott4 ,of these three works two stand out as landmarks in theological literature2 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's papers were somewhat slighter and less permanent in form1 consisting in part of ,notes for ,lectures1 though they bear all the marks of his lucid and judicious scholarship1 and though they are ,i think still specially useful for students4 ,an ,englishman addressing an ,american audience must needs pause for a moment over the first of these three names#d4 ,it is the more incumbent on me to do this because as a young man1 at a time when encouragement is most valued1 ,i was one of many who profited by ,dr4 ,ezra ,abbot's generous and self-denying kindness4 ,he opened a correspondence with me1 and sent me not only his own books but some by other writers that ,i might be presumed not to possess1 and it was touching to see the care with which corrections were made in these in his own finely formed hand4 ,i would fain not only pay a tribute of reverence to the memory of ,dr4 ,abbot1 but also1 if ,i may1 repay a little of my own debt by holding up his example to the younger generation of ,american scholars as one that ,i would earnestly entreat them to adopt and follow4 ,i do not know how far ,i am right1 but ,i have always taken the qualities of ,dr4 ,ezra ,abbot's work as specially typical of the ,american mind at its best4 ,his work reminds one in its exactness and precision of those fine mechanical instruments in which ,america has so excelled4 ,to set for oneself the highest possible standard of accuracy1 and to think no time and no pains misspent in the pursuit of it1 is a worthy object of a young scholar's ambition4 ,in like manner we1 in ,england1 have a standard proposed to us by ,dr4 ,westcott's famous ,commentary on ,st4 ,john4 ,it is the culminating product of a life that was also devoted to the highest ends4 ,it is characteristic of ,dr4 ,westcott that the ,commentary was1 ,i believe1 hardly altered in its later editions from the form in which it first appeared4 ,this was due to the thoroughness and circumspection with which the author had in the first instance carried out his task4 ,i believe that in spite of the lapse of time ,dr4 ,westcott's ,commentary remains1 and will still for long remain1 the best that we have on the ,fourth ,gospel1 as it is also 7with the article on ,origen7 the best and most characteristic work that its author bequeathed to the world4 ,in this connexion ,i must needs mention another ,american scholar and divine1 to whom ,i am also bound by personal ties of affectionate regard--the veteran ,dr4 ,george ,park ,fisher of ,yale4 ,it is matter for thankfulness that he has been able to give to the world1 carefully brought up to date1 a new edition of his ,grounds of ,theistic and ,christian ,belief 7#aijb74 ,the pages devoted to the ,fourth ,gospel are1 like the rest1 full of knowledge and suffused with sweet reasonableness and mild wisdom4 ,dr4 ,fisher's attitude is perhaps not exactly that of the younger men1 but it certainly is not any less near to the ideal4 ,if ,i were a tutor or professor in an ,american seminary1 there is no book that ,i should more warmly recommend to my pupils4 ,to imbibe its spirit would be the best training they could have4 ,i should think it especially excellent as a starting-point for further study4 ,it would implant nothing that would have to be unlearnt4 ,dr4 ,ezra ,abbot has in many ways found a worthy inheritor in ,dr4 ,drummond2 and it is perhaps true that the positive results which he obtained are adequately embodied in ,dr4 ,drummond's book1 though as a model for work of the kind the older essay can never become antiquated4 ,but1 speaking generally1 ,i should think it a great misfortune if the better examples of this older literature were thrust out of use by the newer and more advanced criticism4 ,i believe it to be one of the weak points in that criticism that it too much forgets what has been done4 ,it contents itself with an acceptance that is often grudging or perfunctory and always inadequate of results that have been really obtained4 ,the scheme of argument common to the older writers was to prove1 in gradually contracting circles1 7#a7 that the author of the ,gospel was a ,jew2 7#b7 that he was a ,jew of ,palestine2 7#c7 that he was a contemporary2 and 7#d7 an actual companion and eye-witness of the ministry of our ,lord4 ,we must expect the last two propositions to be matter for some controversy1 and ,i shall return to them later2 but it seems to me that scant justice is done to the argument as a whole4 ,since this paragraph was written ,i have come across some words of ,professor von ,dobschtz1 which are so much to the point that ,i am tempted to quote them3 #8,that the ,gospel not only shows a good knowledge of ,palestinian localities but also a thoroughly ,jewish stamp in thought and expression1 is one of the truths rightly emphasized by conservative theology which critical theology is already1 though reluctantly1 making up its mind to admit3 the ,hellenism of the ,fourth ,gospel1 together with its unity1 belongs to those only too frequent pre-conceived opinions1 on the critical side too1 which are all the more obstinately maintained the more unfounded they are#e4' ,would that all critical writers were so clear-sighted and so candid6 #b4 ,mediating ,theories4 ,the really crucial point in the argument relating to the ,fourth ,gospel is whether or not the author was an eye-witness of the events which he describes4 ,in any case1 if we are to take the indications of the ,gospel itself1 the author must be identified with #8the disciple whom ,jesus loved4' ,but it does not quite necessarily follow that this disciple is also to be identified with the ,apostle ,john1 the son of ,zebedee4 ,internally there seems to be a fair presumption that he is2 and externally1 the evidence seems to be clear from the time of ,irenaeus 7#ahj-ij7 onwards4 ,but neither the presumption in the one case1 nor the evidence in the other1 is so stringent as to exclude all possibility of doubt4 ,we shall have presently to consider the whole question upon its merits4 ,but in the meantime we note that in recent years the hypothesis has been definitely put forward that the author of the ,gospel was not the ,apostle ,john1 but another disciple--some would say a disciple of his--of the same name1 commonly known for distinction as #8the ,presbyter4' ,the existence of this second ,john1 if he really did exist1 rests upon a single line of an extract from ,papias1 a writer of the first half of the second century4 ,he too is called a #8disciple of the ,lord'2 so that he too may have been an eye-witness as fully1 or almost as fully1 as the ,apostle4 ,the hypothesis which ascribes the ,gospel to this ,john the ,presbyter has taken different forms1 some more and some less favourable to the historical truth and authority of the ,gospel4 ,from a conservative point of view the most attractive form of the hypothesis is that put forward by the late ,dr4 ,hugo ,delff1 of ,husum1 in ,hanover#f1 to some extent adapted and defended by ,bousset in his commentary on the ,apocalypse1 and by one or two others4 ,the theory is that the beloved disciple was not of the number of the ,twelve1 but that he was a native of ,jerusalem1 of a priestly family of wealth and standing4 ,we are expressly told that he was #8known to#g' the high priest 7,john xviii4 #ae72 and he seems to have had special information as to what went on at meetings of the ,sanhedrin 7vii4 #de-eb1 xi4 #dg-ec1 xii4 #aj ff474 ,these facts are further connected with the statement by ,polycrates1 ,bishop of ,ephesus1 towards the end of the second century1 that the ,john who lay upon the breast of the ,lord #8became1 or acted as1 priest and wore the frontlet of gold' 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 v4 #bd4 #b ff474 ,this ,john is claimed as one of the #8great lights' of the ,churches of ,asia4 ,the theory opens up interesting vistas1 the discussion of which must1 however1 be reserved4 ,it is consistent with the attribution of a high degree of authenticity to the ,gospel4 ,at the same time it ought to be said that ,delff himself regarded certain portions of our present ,gospel--more particularly those relating to the ,galilean ministry--as interpolations4 ,without going all the way with ,delff1 and without raising the question as to the identity of the beloved disciple1 other writers who have inclined towards a middle position took the view that the ,gospel was the work of ,john the ,presbyter1 whom some of them regarded as a disciple of ,john the ,apostle4 ,at the head of this group would stand ,harnack and ,schrer1 who have examined the external evidence very closely4 ,the assigning of the ,gospel to ,john the ,presbyter1 or to some unnamed disciple of the ,apostle1 was indeed the key to the compromise offered by those who came nearest to the traditional position at the end of the eighties and in the early nineties4 ,one of the very best of these attempts is by ,professor von ,dobschtz1 of ,jena1 in his brightly written ,probleme des apostolischen ,zeitalters#h 7,leipzig1 #aijd71 to which reference has been made4 ,dr4 von ,dobschtz goes with ,delff 7whom he does not mention7 so far as to describe the fourth ,evangelist as a native of ,jerusalem1 and to identify him with ,john of ,ephesus4 ,he does not1 however 7at least explicitly71 identify him with the beloved disciple2 and he treats him as rather the figure behind the author1 than the actual author1 of the ,gospel4 ,he also1 ,i cannot but think1 makes the mistake of questioning the unity of the ,gospel4 ,probably1 if we had his views in full--which as yet we have not--they would come under the next head1 and not under that of which we are now speaking4 ,in ,great ,britain a theory similar to ,harnack's has found expression in ,dr4 ,james ,moffatt's ,historical ,new ,testament 7,edinburgh1 #aija71 and in other quarters4 ,in ,america1 it is represented by ,professor ,mc,giffert1 and1 more or less nearly1 by ,professor ,bacon4 ,of the latter ,i hope to say a word presently2 the former1 if ,i might hazard the opinion1 has not yet said his last word on the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,while ,i recognize in what he has written many sound and true observations1 there seem to be two strains in his thought which are not as yet fully harmonized4 ,even ,professor ,harnack1 whose influence is greatest1 has not1 ,i venture to think1 been quite consistent in the view that he has taken4 ,the ,gospel may be assigned to the ,presbyter or to some other disciple1 and yet have different degrees of value ascribed to it as a historical document4 ,in this respect it seems to me that ,dr4 ,harnack has rather blown hot and cold3 in his ,chronologie d4 altchristlichen ,litteratur he blew hot2 in his more recent lectures 7,e4 ,tr4 ,what is ,christianity8 p4 #ai f471 and1 if ,i am not mistaken1 on ,monday last he blew cold#i4 ,a good deal turns on the description of ,john the ,presbyter by ,papias4 ,in the text of the extract as it stands both ,john the ,presbyter and ,aristion are called #8disciples of the ,lord4' ,there is some tendency among critical writers to get rid of these words as a gloss2 if they are retained1 they may be taken in a stricter or a laxer sense2 but if they really cover a relation such as that of the #8beloved disciple1' there could not be a better guarantee of authenticity4 ,however this may be--and the subject is one of which ,i hope to speak in more detail--in any case it must be somewhere within the limits marked out by ,delff on the one hand1 and ,harnack with his allies and followers on the other1 or else by means of the theories that ,i am just about to mention1 that an understanding must be reached between the two sides1 if that understanding is at all to take the form of compromise4 #c4 ,partition ,theories4 ,where two or more persons are concerned in the composition of a book1 the relation between them may be through a written document1 or it may be oral4 ,hitherto we have been going upon the latter assumption3 the mediating theories that we have been considering1 so far as they were mediating1 have treated the writer of the ,gospel1 whatever his name1 as a disciple or associate of ,st4 ,john the ,apostle2 and the information derived from him is supposed to have come by way of personal intercourse4 ,but it is quite conceivable that ,st4 ,john may have set down something on paper1 and that some later ,christian--disciple or not--took this and worked it up into our present ,gospel4 ,accordingly1 various attempts have been made at different times to mark off a ,gospel within the ,gospel1 an original authentic document derived from a first-hand authority--either the ,apostle or the ,presbyter--and certain added material incorporated in the ,gospel as we now have it4 ,many of these attempts are obsolete and do not need discussion4 ,it has already been mentioned that ,delff--without any clear necessity even from his own point of view--cuts out more particularly the ,galilean passages and some others with them as interpolations4 ,these additions to the ,gospel he regards as the work of the author of chap4 xxi#aj4 ,but the most systematic and important experiments in this direction are those of ,dr4 ,wendt and ,dr4 ,briggs4 ,after a preliminary sketch of his theory in the first edition of his ,lehre ,jesu 7#ahhf71 i4 #bae-cdb1 ,dr4 ,h4 ,h4 ,wendt brought out in #aijj an elaborate and fully argued analysis of the ,gospel1 carefully dissecting each section and assigning the parts either to the ,apostolic author or to the later redactor4 ,approximately similar results were obtained independently with a less amount of published argument1 by ,dr4 ,c4 ,a4 ,briggs in his ,general ,introduction to the ,study of ,holy ,scripture 7#ahii71 p4 #cbg1 and in his ,new ,light on the ,life of ,jesus 7#aijd71 pp4 #adj-eh4 ,a like theory has been put forward by ,professor ,soltau 7,zeitschrift f4 d4 neutest4 ,wissenschaft1 #aija1 pp4 #adj-i74 ,in my opinion all attempts of this kind are fore-doomed to failure4 ,the underlying motive is to rescue some portion of the ,gospel as historical1 while others are dismissed as untrustworthy4 ,at the same time it is allowed that the separation can only be made where there is a real break in the connexion4 ,on this ,schmiedel pertinently remarks3-- #8,there is much reason to fear that distrust of the authenticity of the substance often causes an interruption of the connexion to be imagined where in reality there is none4 ,many passages of the same sort as others1 which give ,wendt occasion for the separating process1 are left by him untouched1 when the result would not be removal of some piece held to be open to exception in respect to its contents2 the ground for exception which he actually takes1 on the other hand1 is often altogether non-existent#aa4' ,i look with considerable distrust on many of the attempts that are made to divide up documents on the ground of want of connexion4 ,i suspect that the standard of consecutiveness applied is often too ,western and too modern4 ,but the one rock on which it seems to me that any partition theory must be wrecked is the deep-seated unity of structure and composition which is characteristic of the ,gospel4 ,dr4 ,briggs turns the edge of this argument by referring the unity to the masterful hand of the editor4 ,it is1 no doubt1 open to him to do so2 but we may observe that1 if in this way he makes the theory difficult to disprove1 he also makes it difficult to prove4 ,i must needs think that both in this case and in ,dr4 ,wendt's the proof is quite insufficient4 ,i would undertake to show that the distinctive features of the ,gospel are just as plentiful in the passages excised as in those that are retained4 ,perhaps the most tangible point made by the two critics is the attempt to distinguish between the words for #8miracle'3 #8works' they would assign to the earlier writer1 and #8signs' to the later4 ,we remember1 however1 that the combination of #8signs' and #8wonders' occurs markedly in ,st4 ,paul1 e4 g4 ,rom4 xv4 #ai1 #b ,cor4 xii4 #ab1 and is indeed characteristic of early ,christian literature long before the ,fourth ,gospel was written4 ,another very original suggestion of ,dr4 ,briggs' which would be helpful if we could accept it1 is that we are not tied down to the chronological order of the ,gospel as we have it1 but that this too is due to the later editor1 who has arranged the sections of his narrative rather according to subject than to sequence in time4 ,i am prepared to allow that the narrative may not be always strictly in the order in which the events occurred2 and it is true that there are some difficulties which the hypothesis would meet4 ,at the same time we cannot but notice that the order is by no means accidental1 but that attention is expressly drawn to it in the ,gospel itself2 see 7e4 g4 ii4 #aa1 iv4 #ed1 xxi4 #ad74 ,and some incidents seem clearly to hang together which ,dr4 ,briggs has divided#ab 7e4 g4 i4 #bi1 #ce1 #dc1 where the connexion is natural historically1 as well as expressly noted by the ,evangelist74 ,i fear that the learned ,professor is seeking in a wrong direction for a solution of the problem of the ,gospel4 ,but ,i would be the last to undervalue the vigorous independence and the fearlessness and fertility in experiment that are conspicuous in all his writings4 ,perhaps ,i should be right in saying a few words at this point about ,professor ,b4 ,w4 ,bacon of ,yale4 ,his view is not as yet 7,i believe7 quite sufficiently developed in print for me to be clear how much he would refer to oral transmission and how much to a written source4 ,he distinguishes three hands in the ,gospel4 ,i gather that the first would be that of the ,apostle1 but he as yet stands dimly in the background4 ,then comes the main body of the ,gospel1 without the ,appendix4 ,this is ascribed to ,john the ,presbyter1 whom--rather by a paradox--,professor ,bacon would seek in ,palestine and not in ,asia ,minor4 ,lastly there is the editor who works over the whole4 ,the two articles lately contributed to the ,hibbert ,journal 7i4 #eaa ff41 ii4 #cbc ff47#ac are highly original1 very incisive1 and exceedingly clever4 ,my objection to them would be that they are too clever4 ,professor ,bacon has been to ,germany1 and learnt his lesson there too well4 ,at least ,i find myself differing profoundly from his whole method of argument4 ,the broad simple arguments that seem to me really of importance 7,irenaeus1 ,heracleon1 ,polycrates1 ,tatian1 ,clement of ,alexandria7 he puts aside1 and then he spends his strength in making bricks with a minimum of straw1 and even with no straw at all 7the argument from silence74 #d4 ,uncompromising ,rejection4 ,i began by saying that the tendency towards rapprochement which was characteristic of the eighties and nineties1 gave way towards the end of the century1 and has been succeeded in recent years by conspicuous instances of uncompromising denial1 at once of the apostolic authorship of the ,gospel and of its historical character4 ,the names of ,jlicher1 ,schmiedel1 ,wrede1 ,wernle1 ,jean ,rville and ,loisy are sufficient evidence of this4 ,we shall probably not be wrong in classing with these writers the eminent scholar ,dr4 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann of ,strassburg4 ,it is indeed characteristic of ,dr4 ,holtzmann's method to avoid anything like dogmatic assertion of his own opinion1 to work in with subtle skill a kaleidoscopic presentation of the opinions of others1 while himself remaining in the background4 ,he does indeed leave room for a rather larger amount of authentic tradition in the ,gospel than the other writers mentioned4 ,still1 in the main his position is sceptical1 both as to the ,asian tradition of ,st4 ,john1 and as to the historical character of the ,gospel4 ,it may be observed in passing that ,dr4 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann of ,strassburg should be carefully distinguished from his younger cousin ,oscar ,holtzmann1 who is now ,professor at ,giessen4 ,dr4 ,oscar ,holtzmann published a monograph on the ,fourth ,gospel in #ahhg1 and he has since brought out a ,life of ,christ which has lately been translated into ,english4 ,the two cousins occupy much the same general position2 the younger has not the distinction of the elder1 but he compensates to some extent by greater clearness and definiteness in the expression of his views4 ,another of the older writers1 ,dr4 ,o4 ,pfleiderer1 is even more thorough-going as an allegorist4 ,for him the ,gospel is from first to last a didactic work in the guise of history2 it is a #8transparent allegory of religious and dogmatic ideas#ad4' ,he would place the first draft of the ,gospel about the year #ace1 the last chapter and the ,first ,epistle about #aejae4 ,but ,i have long thought that this attractive writer1 though interesting and instructive as a historian of thought1 is a #8negligible quantity' in the field of criticism proper4 ,the other four ,german writers whom ,i have mentioned all belong to the younger generation4 ,dr4 ,schmiedel 7who though a ,swiss ,professor is1 ,i believe1 ,german by birth7 is the eldest1 and he is not yet quite fifty-three3 ,jlicher1 the next on the list1 is forty-seven4 ,and as they belong to the younger generation1 so also they may be said to mark the rise of a new ,school1 or new method of treatment1 in ,german ,theology4 ,the ,germany for which they speak is not the dreaming1 wistful1 ineffective1 romantic ,germany of the past1 but the practical1 forceful1 energetic and assertive ,germany of the present4 ,all1 as ,i have said1 are able writers2 and the type of their ability has much in common1 though they have also their little individual differences4 ,they have all a marked directness and lucidity of style4 ,what they think they say1 without hesitation and without reserve2 no one can ever be in any doubt as to their meaning4 ,they are all apt to be somewhat contemptuous1 not only of divergent views1 but of a type of mind that differs from their own4 ,of the four1 ,jlicher and especially ,wernle have the warmer temperament2 ,schmiedel and ,wrede are cold and severe4 ,wrede writes like a mathematician1 who puts ,q4 ,e4 ,d4 at the end of each step in the argument--though it would be a misfortune if the demonstration were taken to be as complete as he thinks it4 ,schmiedel is rather the lawyer who pursues his adversary from point to point with relentless acumen3 if we could grant the major premises of his argument1 there would be much to admire in his handling of the minor2 but the major premises1 as ,i think ,i shall show1 are often at fault4 ,jlicher is just the downright capable person1 who sees vividly what he sees and is intolerant of that which does not appeal to him4 ,wernle alternately attracts and repels2 he attracts by his real enthusiasm for that with which he sympathizes1 by his skill in presentation1 and his careful observance of perspective and proportion2 he repels by aggressiveness and self-confidence4 ,the two ,french writers also have something in common1 though they belong to different communions4 ,we are not surprised to find that both have an easy grace of style1 to which we might in both cases also give the epithet #8airy1' because both are fond of speaking in generalities which are not always in the closest contact with facts2 both are thorough-going allegorists1 and regard the whole ,gospel as a pure product of ideas and not literal history4 ,in spite of their difference of communion1 ,m4 ,loisy is on the critical side of his mind as essentially rationalist as his ,protestant confrre1 though he brings back1 by an act of faith which some of us would call a tour de force1 in the region of dogmatics what he had taken away in the field of criticism4 ,it seems to me that there is one word that requires to be said1 though ,i am anxious not to have my motive misunderstood in saying it4 ,i do not wish to do so in the least ad invidiam4 ,controversy is1 ,i hope1 no longer conducted in that manner4 ,i speak simply of an objective fact which has too important a bearing on the whole question to be ignored4 ,when ,i read an argument by ,professor ,schrer1 and try to reply to it1 ,i am conscious that we are arguing 7so to speak7 in the same plane4 ,i feel that the attitude of my opponent to the evidence is substantially the same as my own4 ,whatever the presuppositions may be deep down in his mind1 he at any rate keeps them in abeyance4 ,no doubt we differ widely enough as to detail2 but in principle ,i should credit my opponent with an attitude that is really judicial1 that tries to keep dogmatic considerations1 or questions of ultimate belief as much in suspense as possible1 and to weigh the arguments for and against in equal scales4 ,but when ,i pass over to the younger theologians1 ,i no longer feel that this is so2 we seem to be arguing1 not in the same1 but in different planes4 ,there is a far-reaching presupposition not merely far back but near the front of their minds4 ,i cannot regard them as fellow seekers in the sense that we are both doing our best to ascertain how far the events of the ,gospel history really transcended common experience4 ,i take it that on this point their minds are made up before they begin to put pen to paper4 ,they all start with the #8reduced' conception of ,christianity current in so many quarters1 that is akin to the ancient ,ebionism or ,arianism4 ,but so far as they do this their verdict as to the ,fourth ,gospel is determined for them beforehand4 ,the position is stated with great frankness by ,mr4 ,conybeare3 #8,it may indeed be said that if ,athanasius had not had the ,fourth ,gospel to draw texts from1 ,arius would never have been confuted4 ,had the fathers of the third1 fourth1 and fifth centuries not known this ,gospel1 or not embraced it as authentic1 the ,church would have remained semi-,ebionite1 and the councils of ,nice and ,ephesus would never have taken place#af4' ,this does not indeed quite correspond to the facts4 ,to make it do so1 we should have to blot out ,st4 ,paul1 and other parts of the ,new ,testament1 as well as ,st4 ,john4 ,but just so far as the reasoning holds good1 it is obvious that we may invert it4 ,if a writer starts with a conception of ,christianity that is #8semi-,ebionite' or #8semi-,arian1' he is bound at all costs to rule out the ,fourth ,gospel1 not only as a dogmatic authority1 but as a record of historical fact4 ,another characteristic is common to the writers of the ,school of which we are speaking4 ,the complexity of a critical hypothesis very rarely stands in the way of its adoption2 but a very little psychological complexity acts as a deterrent4 ,for instance1 after quoting from ,b4 ,weiss some rather exaggerated language as to the freedom used by the evangelist in reproducing the discourses1 ,schmiedel goes on thus3 #8,as compared with such a line of defence1 there is a positive relief from an intolerable burden as soon as the student has made up his mind to give up any such theory as that of the 8genuineness0 of the ,gospel1 as also of its authenticity in the sense of its being the work of an eye-witness who meant to record actual history#ag4' ,so far from being an #8intolerable burden1' it seems to me that ,weiss' theory is not only in itself perfectly natural1 nay inevitable1 but that it is also specially helpful as enabling us to account at one and the same time for the elements that are1 and those that are not1 strictly genuine in the report of the discourses4 ,jlicher writes to much the same effect as ,schmiedel2 and the passage which follows is indeed very characteristic of his habit of mind3 #8,the defenders of the 8genuineness0 of the ,gospel indeed for the most part allow that ,john has carried out a certain idealization with the discourses of ,jesus1 that in writing he has found himself in a slight condition of ecstasy1 in short1 that his presentation of his hero is something more than historical4 ,with such mysticism or phraseology science can have no concern2 in the ,johannean version of ,christ's discourses form and substance cannot be separated1 the form to be assigned to the later writer1 and the substance to ,jesus ,himself3 sint ut sunt aut non sint6444' ,to please ,professor ,jlicher a picture must be all black or all white2 he is intolerant of half-shades that pass from the one into the other4 ,and no doubt there are some problems for the treatment of which such a habit is an advantage1 but hardly those which have to do with living human personalities4 ,the ,french writers1 like the ,german1 have a certain resemblance to each other4 ,to some of these points ,i shall have to come back in detail later4 ,i will only note for the present that they are both allegorists of an extreme kind4 ,i would just for the present commend to both a passage of ,wernle's3 #8,this conception1 however1 of the ,fourth ,gospel as a philosophical work1 to which the ,alexandrines first gave currency1 and which is still widely held to-day1 is a radically wrong one4 ,john's main idea1 the descent of the ,son of ,man to reveal the ,father1 is unphilosophical4444 ,so1 too1 the ,johannine miracles are never intended to be taken in a purely allegorical sense4 ,the fact of their actual occurrence is the irrefragable proof of ,god's appearance upon earth#ah4' ,if the miracles of the ,fourth ,gospel were facts there was some point in the constant appeals that the ,gospel makes to them2 but there would be no point if these appeals were to a set of didactic fictions4 ,within the last few months a monograph has appeared1 which from its general tendency may be ranged with the works of which we have been speaking1 though in its method it rather stands by itself1 ,e4 ,schwartz1 ,ueber den ,tod der ,shne ,zebedaei 7,berlin1 #aijd74 ,dr4 ,schwartz is the editor of ,eusebius in the ,berlin series1 and his point of view is primarily philological4 ,he writes in a disagreeable spirit1 at once carping and supercilious4 ,the only generous words in his paper are a few in reference to the ,church historian4 ,he exemplifies copiously most of the procedure specially deprecated in these lectures4 ,his monograph has1 however1 a value of its own1 from the precise and careful way in which he has collected and discusses the material bearing upon the history of the ,evangelist and of the ,gospel in the first and earlier part of the second century4 #e4 ,recent ,reaction4 ,far as ,i conceive that all these writers have travelled away from the truth1 they followed each other in such quick succession that it would have been strange if public opinion had not been affected by them4 ,to one who himself firmly believed in ,st4 ,john's authorship of the ,gospel1 and in its value as a record of the beginning of ,christianity1 the outlook last autumn seemed as1 ,i said1 very black4 ,a single book dispelled the clouds and cleared the air4 ,dr4 ,drummond's ,character and ,authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel is of special value to the defenders of the ,gospel for two reasons3 7#a7 because it is the work of one who cannot in any case be accused of dogmatic prepossessions1 as it would to all appearance be more favourable to his general position that the ,gospel should not be genuine or authentic2 and 7#b7 because the whole work is something more than a defence of the ,gospel2 it is a striking application to a particular problem of principles of criticism in many respects differing from those at present in vogue1 and at the same time1 as ,i cannot but think1 a marked improvement on them4 ,to these points must be added the inherent qualities of the book itself--the thorough knowledge with which it is written1 its evident sincerity and effort to get at realities1 its nervous directness and force of style1 its judicial habit of weighing all that is to be said on both sides4 ,perhaps the most important and the most far-reaching of all the corrections of current practice is a passage in the text with the note appended to it upon the argument from silence4 ,the text is dealing with the common assumption that because ,justin quotes less freely from the ,fourth ,gospel than from the other three1 therefore he must have ascribed to it a lower degree of authority4 #8,but why1 then1 it may be asked1 has ,justin not quoted the ,fourth ,gospel at least as often as the other three8 ,i cannot tell1 any more than ,i can tell why he has never named the supposed authors of his ,memoirs1 or has mentioned only one of the parables1 or made no reference to the ,apostle ,paul1 or nowhere quoted the ,apocalypse1 though he believed it to be an apostolic and prophetical work4 ,his silence may be due to pure accident1 or the book may have seemed less adapted to his apologetic purposes2 but considering how many things there are about which he is silent1 we cannot admit that the argumentum a silentio possesses in this case any validity4' ,to this is added a note which raises the whole general question3 #8,an instructive instance of the danger of arguing from what is not told is furnished by ,theophilus of ,antioch4 ,he does not mention the names of the writers of the ,gospels1 except ,john2 he does not tell us anything about any of them2 he says nothing about the origin or the date of the ,gospels themselves1 or about their use in the ,church4 ,he quotes from them extremely little1 though he quotes copiously from the ,old ,testament4 ,but most singular of all1 in a defence of ,christianity he tells us nothing about ,christ ,himself2 if ,i am not mistaken1 he does not so much as name ,him or allude to ,him2 and1 if the supposition were not absurd1 it might be argued with great plausibility that he cannot have known anything about ,him4 ,for he undertakes to explain the origin of the word ,christian2 but there is not a word about ,christ1 and his conclusion is 7,ad ,autol4 i4 #ab74 ,in the following chapter1 when he would establish the doctrine of the resurrection1 you could not imagine that he had heard of the resurrection of ,christ2 and instead of referring to this1 he has recourse to the changing seasons1 the fortune of seeds1 the dying and reappearance of the moon1 and the recovery from illness4 ,we may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things1 simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing3 or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so#ai4' ,the remarkable thing in this note is not only its independence and sagacity1 but more particularly the trained sagacity which brings to bear upon the argument just those examples which are most directly in point and most telling4 ,professor ,bacon1 in the first of his recent articles 7,hibbert ,journal1 i4 #eac71 good-naturedly defends the present writer from the charge of wishing to discredit the argument from silence in general4 ,and it is true that in the place to which he refers ,i had in mind only a particular application of the argument4 ,still ,i am afraid that ,i do wish to see its credit abated4 ,at least it is my belief that too much use is made of the argument1 and that too much weight is attached to it4 ,there are two main objections to the way in which the argument is often handled4 7#a7 ,the critic does not ask himself what is silent--what extent of material does the argument cover8 ,often this extent is so small that1 on the doctrine of chances1 no inference can rightly be drawn from it4 ,and 7#b7 experience shows that the argument is often most fallacious4 ,dr4 ,drummond's examples of this will ,i hope become classical#bj4 ,dr4 ,drummond's book contains a multitude of passages like the above and exhibiting the same qualities4 ,many of them are a vindication of popular judgement as against the far-fetched arguments of professed scholars4 ,the excellence of his method seems to me to consist largely in this1 that he begins by making for himself an imaginative picture of the conditions with which he has to deal1 not only of the particular piece of evidence which shows upon the surface1 but of the inferential background lying behind it2 that he thus escapes the danger of the doctrinaire who argues straight from the one bit of evidence before him to the conclusion2 and that he also constantly tests the process of his argument by reference to parallel conditions and circumstances in our own day which we can verify for ourselves4 ,if ,i were to express an opinion on the characteristic positions which ,dr4 ,drummond takes up1 ,i think it would be that1 whereas he seems to me to overstate a little--but only a little--the external evidence for the ,gospel1 he at the same time somewhat understates the internal evidence4 ,he gives his decision against the ,fourth ,gospel sometimes where ,i cannot help thinking that a writer of equal impartiality would not necessarily do so4 ,it would also be unfair if ,i did not say that his general estimate of the historical trustworthiness of the ,gospel is lower than ,i should form myself4 ,i have spoken of ,dr4 ,drummond's book first because of its importance as a landmark in the study of the ,gospel1 and because it covers the whole of the ground with which we are concerned4 ,but another book preceded it by a week or two in the date of its publication1 which as yet deals only with a limited portion of this ground1 and yet which1 unless ,i am mistaken1 presents qualities similar in general character to those of ,dr4 ,drummond1 though perhaps the expression of them is rather less striking4 ,i refer to ,dr4 ,stanton's ,the ,gospels as ,historical ,documents1 ,part ,i4 ,dr4 ,stanton's book is planned on a larger scale than ,dr4 ,drummond's in so far as it includes all four ,gospels2 but as yet he has only dealt with the external evidence bearing upon their early use4 ,an important part of the volume is naturally that devoted to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,like ,dr4 ,drummond1 ,dr4 ,stanton also presents a marked contrast as to method with the group of continental writers that we have just been considering4 ,it was therefore a matter of special interest that his book should be reviewed a few months after its appearance by ,dr4 ,schmiedel in the ,hibbert ,journal 7ii4 #fjg-ab74 ,it is not very surprising that ,dr4 ,stanton was moved to reply to his critic in the next number 7pp4 #hjc-g74 ,there is a direct antithesis of contrasted and competing principles4 ,it may naturally be thought that ,i am a biased judge in such a case2 but ,i confess that it seems to me that the advantage is very much on the side of my countryman4 ,he shows without much difficulty that ,dr4 ,schmiedel has seriously misrepresented him4 ,indeed one might say that the critic's representation of views and arguments was not so much derived from the book he was reviewing as from his own internal consciousness of what might be expected from an apologist4 ,this1 however1 is the personal1 and more ephemeral1 aspect of the controversy4 ,it is of more general interest to note the critical assumptions made in the course of the review4 ,the writer admits that his opponent #8not unfrequently gives the impression of being animated by the sincere resolve to maintain nothing save only what can be assumed with certainty4' #8,with certainty' is characteristic2 the writer attributes to ,dr4 ,stanton 7in this case7 what he would have aimed at doing himself4 ,in the eyes of the school to which ,dr4 ,schmiedel belongs1 ,i will not say exactly that all the data of which they approve are certain1 but they are treated very much as if they were2 in building up an argument upon them1 possibilities easily and imperceptibly glide into probabilities1 and probabilities into certainties4 ,dr4 ,stanton disclaims the idea of dealing with certainties2 he would only profess to adduce facts on a nicely graduated scale of probability1 which by their cumulative weight went some way to carry conviction4 #8,concerning ,barn4 iv4 #ad1 ,dr4 ,stanton says 7p4 #cc7 with justice that this is our earliest instance of the citation of a saying of ,christ as 8scripture40 ,in the year ,a4,d4 #acj1 the date upon which he rightly fixes for the composition of the ,epistle of ,barnabas1 this estimate of the ,gospels would have been in the highest degree surprising1 since it is not until ,a4,d4 #agj that the next examples of such an estimate make their appearance4' ,dr4 ,schmiedel goes on 7#a7 to have recourse to the accustomed expedient of suggesting that ,barnabas is quoting1 not from the words of the ,gospel which are identical1 but from a passage in #d ,ezra which is quite different2 and 7#b7 if that expedient fails1 to represent the quotation as a #8winged word1' though it is expressly introduced by the formula #8it is written4' ,however1 it is not of either of these points that ,i wish to speak1 but rather to call attention to what ,dr4 ,schmiedel thinks would be #8in the highest degree surprising4' ,why so surprising8 ,what substantial ground have we for expecting anything else8 ,in the first place ,dr4 ,schmiedel begins by exaggerating the significance of the phrase #8it is written1' as though on its first extant occurrence it would necessarily imply full canonical authority4 ,and then he goes on to lay stress upon what is really little more than the absence of literature4 ,if we take the whole extant ,christian literature between the years #acj and #agj ,a4,d41 it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume1 and by far the greater part of that is taken up with external controversy4 ,what sort of argument can be drawn from such a state of things as to the exact estimate which ,christians formed of their own sacred books8 ,no valid argument can be drawn from it either way1 and it is far better simply to confess our ignorance4 ,it is reasonable to suppose that there was a gradual development in the process by which the ,gospels attained to the position that we call canonical2 but the data to which we have access do not allow us to map out its stages with any precision4 ,it seems to me to be a fundamental defect in the reasoning of ,dr4 ,schmiedel and his school that they fail to see that the real question is1 not simply1 ,what is the evidence for this or that proposition8 but1 ,what is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body of that which once existed1 and how far can we trust the inferences drawn from it8 ,i pass over some quite unwarrantable assumptions which ,dr4 ,schmiedel makes as to the apologetic point of view3 such as that1 #8if there can be shown to be resemblance between a canonical and a non-canonical writing1 the former is uniformly to be regarded as the earlier'2 and that #8,apocryphal ,gospels would not have been used in the influential circles of the ,church4' ,apologists would lay down nothing of the kind1 though in a certain number of concrete cases they may think that the priority of a canonical to a non-canonical writing does not need arguing1 and though they may also think that in some particular case the evidence for the use of an ,apocryphal ,gospel by a ,church writer is insufficient4 ,dr4 ,schmiedel easily satisfies himself that he has refuted an argument bearing on the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,professor ,stanton had rightly maintained1 #8,there must have been good grounds for believing that the ,fourth ,gospel was founded upon the apostolic testimony in order to overcome the prejudice that would be created by the contrasts between it and the ,synoptics4' ,he has shown1 ,i think1 in his reply1 that the instances alleged against this are not relevant1 and also that the part played by the two ideas of ,apostolicity and ,catholicity in the forming of the ,canon are not quite correctly stated by his opponent4 ,but even if they had been as stated the original contention would still have been left standing1 because agreement with previously accepted writings was part of the idea of ,catholicity4 ,it is a sound argument to say that a work so independent as the ,fourth ,gospel must have come with good credentials to obtain the place which it held4 ,lastly1 when ,dr4 ,schmiedel speaks so imposingly of #8the silence of the entire first half of the second century in regard to the sojourn of the ,apostle ,john in ,ephesus1' ,i would once more ask him what this silence amounts to4 ,what is the total bulk of the literature on which the argument is based8 ,is it possible to draw from it an inference of any value at all#ba8 ,footnote #a3 ,it is this last work that ,i consider an exception to the high standard of ability in the group of which ,i am speaking4 ,it is absolutely one-sided4 ,i do not doubt the writer's sincerity1 but he is blissfully unconscious that there is another side to the argument4 ,footnote #b3 ,einleitung in d4 ,n4 ,t41 #crd ed41 #ahig2 ,das ,johannes-,evangelium1 #ith ed4 7#dth of those undertaken by ,dr4 ,weiss71 #ahib4 ,footnote #c3 ,for ,beyschlag's treatment of the ,fourth ,gospel see ,zur johanneischen ,frage1 reprinted from ,theol4 ,studien und ,kritiken 7,gotha1 #ahgf72 ,neutest4 ,theologie 7,halle a4 ,s41 #ahia71 i4 #bab-ai2 ,leben ,jesu 7#crd ed41 ,halle1 #ahic74 ,footnote #d3 ,english readers may be reminded that ,dr4 ,ezra ,abbot was an ,american ,unitarian who died in #ahhd4 ,he was a leading member of the ,american ,committee which joined in the production of the ,revised ,version1 and1 after serving as ,assistant ,librarian1 became ,professor of ,new ,testament ,criticism in ,harvard ,university in #ahgb4 ,he was a scholar of retiring habits1 and was one of those who spend in helping and improving the work of others time that might have been given to great work of their own4 ,his literary remains were religiously collected after his death4 ,footnote #e3 ,probleme d4 apost4 ,zeitalters1 p4 #ib f4 ,footnote #f3 ,the writings of ,dr4 ,delff that bear upon the subject of the ,fourth ,gospel are ,die ,geschichte d4 ,rabbi ,jesus v4 ,nazareth 7,leipzig1 n4 d41 but the preface is dated #ahhi72 ,das vierte ,evangelium wiederhergestellt 7,husum1 #ahij72 ,neue ,beitrge zur ,kritik und ,erklrung des vierten ,evangeliums 7,husum1 #ahij74 ,footnote #g3 ,bousset thinks that this may mean #8related to' the high priest 7,offenb4 p4 #df n472 but this is questioned by ,zahn 7,einl4 ii4 #dhc74 ,footnote #h3 ,this book is not to be confused with ,die urchristlichen ,gemeinden published two years earlier1 and now translated under the title ,christian ,life in the ,primitive ,church4 ,footnote #i3 ,professor ,harnack gave a lecture1 which ,i was privileged to hear1 at the ,union ,seminary on ,october #aj1 #aijd4 ,footnote #aj3 ,das vierte ,evang4 p4 #ab ff4 ,footnote #aa3 ,enc4 ,bibl4 ii4 #beee4 ,footnote #ab3 ,new ,light1 c41 p4 #adi4 ,footnote #ac3 ,a third article1 on the internal evidence1 appeared in ,january of the present year1 iii4 #cec ff4 ,footnote #ad3 ,urchristentum 7ed4 #b1 ,berlin1 #aijb71 ii4 #chi4 ,footnote #ae3 ,ibid4 p4 #dej4 ,footnote #af3 ,hibbert ,journal1 ii4 #fbj4 ,footnote #ag3 ,enc4 ,bibl4 ii4 #beed4 ,footnote #ah3 ,beginnings of ,christianity1 ii4 #aff ff42 cf4 von ,dobschtz1 ,probleme1 p4 #id4 ,footnote #ai3 ,character1 c41 p4 #aeg f4 ,footnote #bj3 ,an incidental passage in ,dr4 ,dill's ,roman ,society from ,nero to ,marcus ,aurelius 7p4 #abj f47 deserves to be set by the side of ,dr4 ,drummond's4 ,he is speaking of the ,satiricon of ,petronius4 #8,those who have attributed it to the friend and victim of ,nero have been confronted with the silence of ,quintilian1 ,juvenal1 and ,martial1 with the silence of ,tacitus as to any literary work by ,petronius1 whose character and end he has described with a curious sympathy and care4 ,it is only late critics of the lower empire1 such as ,macrobius1 and a dilettante aristocrat like ,sidonius ,apollinaris1 who pay any attention to this remarkable work of genius4 ,and ,sidonius seems to make its author a citizen of ,marseilles4 ,yet silence in such cases may be very deceptive4 ,martial and ,statius never mention one another1 and both might seem unknown to ,tacitus4 ,and ,tacitus1 after the fashion of the ,roman aristocrat1 in painting the character of ,petronius1 may not have thought it relevant or important to notice a light work such as the ,satiricon1 even if he had ever seen it4 ,he does not think it worth while to mention the histories of the ,emperor ,claudius1 the tragedies of ,seneca1 or the ,punica of ,silius ,italicus4' ,footnote #ba3 ,the two books of ,drs4 ,drummond and ,stanton were reviewed by ,m4 ,loisy in the ,revue ,critique1 #aijd1 pp4 #dbb-d1 and ,dr4 ,drummond's by ,prof4 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann in ,theol4 ,literaturzeitung1 #aije1 cols4 #acf-i4 ,both reviews were disappointing1 though ,dr4 ,holtzmann's contains the usual amount of painstaking detail4 ,it is natural that play should be made with the real inconsistencies of ,dr4 ,drummond's position2 but his weightier arguments are in neither case directly grappled with4 ,,lecture ,,ii ,,critical ,,methods4 ,,the ,,oldest ,,solution ,,of ,,the ,,problem ,,of ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel ,i4 i4 ,defects in the ,methods of current ,criticism4 ,it is now rather more than eight years since ,harnack wrote the famous ,preface to his ,chronologie der altchristlichen ,litteratur4 ,it was an instance of the genial insight of the writer1 and a keen diagnosis of the criticism of the day4 ,the main outline of the ,preface will be remembered4 ,looking back over the period from which ,science was just beginning to emerge1 the writer characterized it as one in which all the early ,christian literature including the ,new ,testament had been treated as a tissue of illusions and falsifications4 ,that time1 he went on to say1 was past4 ,for ,science it had only been an episode1 during which much had been learnt and after which much had to be forgotten4 ,his own researches1 ,harnack explained1 would be found to go in a reactionary direction even beyond the middle position of current criticism4 ,the results might be summed up by saying that the oldest literature of the ,church1 in its main points and in most of its details1 from the point of view of literary history1 was veracious and trustworthy4 ,in the whole ,new ,testament there was probably only a single writing that could be called pseudonymous in the strict sense of the term1 the so-called ,second ,epistle of ,st4 ,peter2 and1 apart from the ,gnostic fictions1 the whole number of pseudonymous writings down to ,irenaeus was very small1 and in one case 7the ,acts of ,thecla7 the production of such a work was expressly condemned4 ,in like manner the amount of interpolation was also far less than had been supposed2 and the tradition relating to this early period might in the main1 and with some reservations1 be trusted4 ,baur and his school had thought themselves compelled1 in order to give an intelligible account of the rise of ,christianity1 to throw over both the statements in the writings themselves and those of tradition about them1 and to post-date their composition by several decades4 ,they were driven to do this by mistaken premises4 ,starting with the assumption that all these writings were composed with a definite purpose1 to commend some sectional view of ,christianity1 they were constantly on the watch for traces of that purpose1 and they found them in the most unexpected places4 ,the views of ,baur and his followers had been generally given up2 but the tendencies set on foot by them remained4 ,the ,christian writings were still approached in an attitude of suspicion2 they were cross-examined in the spirit of a hostile attorney2 or else they were treated after the manner of a petit matre1 fastening upon all sorts of small details1 and arguing from them in the face of clear and decisive indications4 ,baur thought that everything had a motive1 and an interested motive4 ,but1 whereas he sought for the motive on broad lines1 his more recent successors either gave themselves up to the search for minor incidental motives1 or for interpolations on a large scale1 or else they gave way to a thorough-going scepticism which confused together probabilities and improbabilities as though they were all the same4 ,harnack went on to describe the results of the labours of the last two decades 7#ahgf-if7 as constituting a definite #8return to tradition4' ,this return to tradition he regarded as characteristic of the period in which he was writing2 indeed he looked forward to a time when the questions of literary history which had excited so much interest would do so no longer1 because it would come to be generally understood that the early ,christian traditions were in the main right4 99 99 99 99 99 ,this ,preface of ,harnack's attracted considerable attention1 and probably nowhere more than in ,england4 ,english students hailed it as the beginning of a new epoch1 and one in which they could be more at home4 ,it fell in with certain marked characteristics of the ,english mind4 ,even the progressive element in that mind naturally works on conservative lines2 it has been reluctant to break away from the past4 ,the very advances of freedom1 so steady and so sure1 have not been revolutionary2 they have been advances #8,of freedom slowly broadening down ,from precedent to precedent4' ,but it was not only the destructive conclusions of continental criticism with which dissatisfaction was felt1 and which gave an apologetic colour to much ,english work4 ,the methods were in many ways not less distasteful than the conclusions4 ,englishmen felt1 whether they said so or not1 that there was something wrong4 ,and therefore1 when a scholar of ,harnack's distinction put their thoughts into words and pointed to the very defects of which they seemed to be conscious1 their hopes were raised that at last a movement was begun which they could follow with sympathy1 and in which they might perhaps to some extent bear a part4 ,when ,i take upon myself to speak in this way of #8,english students1' ,i of course do so with some reservations4 ,i have in mind the rather considerable majority of the theological faculties in our ,universities1 and ,i might say the majority of the teaching staffs of all denominations throughout ,great ,britain2 for there are excellent relations1 and a great amount of solidarity1 among ,british teachers of ,theology in all the churches4 ,a good general representation of the average views would be found 7e4 g47 in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible4 ,no doubt there is also the other type--the type represented by ,encyclopaedia ,biblica4 ,there are not a few among us who are less dissatisfied with ,continental methods1 and who pursue those methods themselves with ability and independence4 ,and beyond these there are very many more1 especially among the cultivated and interested laity1 who are acquainted in a general way with what has been done on the ,continent1 and who are impressed by what they take to be the results1 though for the most part they have not time to test the processes4 ,i say advisedly that this class is impressed by what it conceives to be results1 because ,i imagine that1 while there is a feeling that ,continental scholars are freer in their researches and less trammelled than our own1 there is also some reserve owing to the consciousness that the results have not been fully tested4 ,to this extent ,i should say that the intellectual posture of this class was one of waiting--serious and interested waiting--rather than of complete committal either to one side or to the other4 ,since my visit to ,america ,i seem to be better able to speak of the situation there1 though closer acquaintance did but in the main confirm and define the opinion that ,i had previously formed4 ,there are several differences between the conditions in the two countries4 ,on the other side of the ,atlantic there are probably greater inequalities of theological instructedness4 ,they have a greater number of ,universities and ,seminaries1 in which the standard varies more than it does with us4 ,and while on the one hand general culture and that kind of vague knowledge of the nature and tendencies of criticism which goes with general culture is more widely diffused in these islands1 on the other hand ,i should be inclined to think that a real first-hand knowledge of critical work is more often to be found there than it is here4 ,this is due to the fact that a large proportion of the ablest professors and teachers have been themselves trained in ,germany4 ,and yet1 in spite of these differences and inequalities1 there is a general tendency1 which seemed to me to embrace the whole nation4 ,it was summed up in a few words by one of the ,methodist ,bishops 7it will be remembered that the ,episcopalian ,methodists are strong in ,america7 with whom ,i had some conversation4 ,he had1 ,i believe1 been secretary of some ,board of ,religious ,education1 and spoke with wide knowledge4 ,i should be afraid to say how many students had passed through his hands4 ,and1 speaking of these students1 he said that their general attitude was this3 #8,they want to keep their faith2 and yet they also want to see the realities of things4' ,the same description would1 ,i believe1 fit the teachers and professors as well as the students1 including those trained in ,germany4 ,they too want to keep their faith1 and to help their students to keep their faith4 ,as compared with the state of things in ,germany1 there is a more general and sustained effort to make their teaching positive and constructive2 and this constructive teaching takes1 ,i suspect1 in most cases very similar lines--,i should describe it as in the main ,ritschlianism of the ,right4 ,at the same time1 they too want to see the reality of things2 in other words1 they want to teach by strictly scientific methods4 ,and the only further remark that ,i should have to make would be that they are perhaps a little inclined--and it naturally could not be otherwise--to look at these methods through ,german spectacles4 ,now ,i would not hesitate to carry this generalization still further4 ,we1 in this country1 have probably a greater number of cross currents2 there is a greater number of media that stand between the individual and his ultimate aims and wishes1 in the shape of loyalties to this or that church or party4 ,and yet ,i think that1 broadly speaking1 we should not be wrong in summing up what is really at the bottom of the minds and hearts of the whole ,anglo-,saxon race in the same words3 #8,they want to keep their faith2 and yet they also want to see the realities of things4' ,it is the equilibrium of these two propositions that is most characteristic4 ,i fully believe that motives of the same kind are present among the ,germans as well as ourselves4 ,i could easily name a number of ,german professors who1 ,i feel sure1 are as anxious to keep their faith as we are4 ,at the head of the list ,i should put ,harnack himself1 whose views have been so much discussed in this country4 ,there is1 however1 a greater diversity of attitude among the professorial body as a whole4 ,and so far as they were agreed--,i am speaking especially of the widespread liberal branch--they would1 ,i think1 all invert the order of the two propositions3 they would give precedence to the desire to get at realities2 and they would identify this getting at realities with the use of scientific method4 ,the reason is that in ,germany1 more than elsewhere1 the prevalent standards of judgement are essentially academic4 ,the ,universities give the lead and set the tone for the whole nation2 and the ,universities have now been accustomed for many generations to an atmosphere of free thought4 ,now it is far from my intention to undervalue1 either the use of scientific method in general1 or ,german science in particular4 ,i have the highest opinion of both4 ,by far the greater part of the advance that has been made in ,theology--and ,i believe that a great advance has been made in our own country as well as elsewhere--,i would again appeal to ,hastings' ,dictionary as representing a sort of average--has been due to the stricter application of science2 and a great part of this has been ,german science4 ,honour must be given where honour is due4 ,we must not hold back the full recognition that at the present time ,germany holds the first place in ,science1 and that its output of scientific work is perhaps as great as that of all the rest of the world besides4 ,i am not sure whether this is an exaggeration1 but ,i hardly think it is4 ,but in all the more tentative forms of science1 such as philosophy1 history1 and theology1 there is1 or at least has been so far1 a double element1 one that is stable and permanent1 and another that is more or less local and ephemeral4 ,if ,i proceed to offer some criticisms upon ,german critical methods1 ,i am perfectly well aware that the ,germans in turn would have something to criticize in ours4 ,at the present day discussion is not limited to any one country1 but is international4 ,it is by scholars of different race and training comparing notes together that mistakes are corrected1 methods gradually perfected1 and results established4 ,i shall not hesitate therefore to point out where it seems to me that ,german methods have gone wrong4 ,and ,i feel that ,i can do this the more freely when a scholar of ,harnack's high standing has set the example4 ,the faults that we seem to have noticed in ,german criticism are very much those which he has indicated3 it has been too academic1 too doctrinaire1 too artificial1 too much made in the study and too little checked by observation of the facts of daily life4 ,the very excellences of the ,german mind have in some ways contributed to the formation of wrong standards of judgement4 ,more than other people the ,germans have the power of sustained abstract thought1 of thoroughness in mustering and reviewing all the elements of a problem1 of thinking a problem out in such a way as not to leave gaps and inconsistencies4 ,hence they are too ready to assume that all the rest of the world will do the same1 that if an important piece of evidence is omitted in an argument it can only be because it was not known1 that carelessness and oversights and inconsistencies are things that need not be reckoned with4 ,and there is also too great a tendency to argue as though men were all made upon one pattern4 ,there is a want of elasticity of conception4 ,and1 to sum up many points in one1 there is a great tendency to purism or over-strictness in the wrong place1 and to over-laxity also in the wrong place1 to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel4 ,what one desiderates most is greater simplicity1 greater readiness to believe that as a rule1 in ancient times as well as modern1 people meant what they said and said what they meant1 and that more often than not they had some substantial reason for saying it4 ii4 ,instances in which ,criticism has corrected itself4 ,these are not merely a priori reflections1 but they are based upon experience of the actual course that criticism has taken4 ,by this time criticism has a considerable history behind it4 ,it has corrected some of its mistakes1 and is able to look back upon the course by which it came to make them4 ,in this way it should learn some wholesome lessons4 ,i will take three rather conspicuous examples in which criticism has at first gone wrong and has afterwards come to set itself right1 in the hope that they may teach us what to avoid in future4 ,i imagine that they may be found to throw some side-light upon the particular problem of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the first example that ,i will take shall be from the criticism of the ,ignatian ,epistles4 ,i may assume that the ,seven ,epistles are now generally allowed to be genuine1 and written by ,ignatius1 bishop of ,antioch1 on his way to martyrdom at ,rome sometime before the end of the reign of ,trajan 7i4 e4 before #aag74 ,this result is due especially to the labours of two scholars1 ,zahn and ,lightfoot4 ,it is instructive to note with what kind of argument they had to contend4 ,both in their day had to stem a formidable current of opinion4 ,bishop ,lightfoot wrote in the ,preface to his great work dated #8,st4 ,peter's day1 #ahhe'3 #8,we have been told more than once that 8all impartial critics0 have condemned the ,ignatian ,epistles as spurious4 ,but this moral intimidation is unworthy of the eminent writers who have sometimes indulged in it1 and will certainly not be permitted to foreclose the investigation4 ,if the ecclesiastical terrorism of past ages has lost its power1 we shall1 in the interests of truth1 be justly jealous of allowing an academic terrorism to usurp its place4' ,i should not find it difficult to produce parallels to this kind of intimidation in the case of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,to look back in face of them upon the issue of the ,ignatian controversy is consoling4 ,much was said in the course of the controversy about certain features of style and character as unworthy of an ,apostolic father4 ,it was enough to answer with ,bishop ,lightfoot that #8objections of this class rest for the most part on the assumption that an ,apostolic father must be a person of ideal perfections intellectually as well as morally--an assumption which has only to be named in order to be refuted#bb4' ,it is true that the letters contained exaggerated language of humility1 and also an exaggerated eagerness for martyrdom4 ,beside these general features1 there were a good many strange and crude expressions of other kinds4 ,it is needless to say that it did not in the least follow that such expressions could not have been used by ,ignatius4 ,but if the critics had been willing to study the letters a little deeper and with a little more sympathy1 they might have found reason to change their estimate even of these acknowledged flaws4 ,in dealing with ,ignatius it is always important to remember that we have to do with a ,syrian and not a ,greek4 ,certainly the language that he wrote was not in his hand a pliant instrument4 ,it always cost him a struggle to express his thought2 and the expression is very often far from perfect4 ,the figure of the writer that one pictures to oneself is rugged1 shaggy 7if one may use the word71 uncouth2 and yet there is a virile1 nervous strength about his language which is at times very impressive4 ,and even his extravagances differ in this from many like extravagances1 that they are not in the least insincere4 ,for instance1 if we read through the letter to ,polycarp1 we shall see in it a really great personality4 ,and ,ignatius had a very considerable power of thought as well as of character4 ,outside the ,new ,testament1 he is the first great ,christian thinker2 and he is one who left a deep mark on all subsequent thinking4 ,i have little doubt that the strong expressions of humility that are found from time to time in ,ignatius are wrung from him by the recollection of the life that he led before he became a ,christian4 ,they are doubtless suggested by ,st4 ,paul1 and they spring from a feeling not less intense than his4 ,the humility of ,st4 ,john is a different matter4 ,but as very shallow and obtuse criticisms are sometimes passed upon it1 the ,ignatian parallel may serve as a wholesome warning4 ,i shall have occasion to return to this point later4 ,the main arguments against the ,ignatian authorship of the letters were drawn from the seemingly advanced condition of things which they implied in the way of heretical teaching on the one hand1 and church organization on the other4 ,the objections on these grounds have been quite cleared up2 and now the letters supply some of the most important data that the historian has to go upon4 ,it will be remembered that ,bishop ,lightfoot began by converting himself before he converted others4 ,he had been inclined to think at one time that the shorter ,syriac version represented the true ,ignatius4 ,he tells us himself how he came to give up this opinion4 ,he says3 #8,i found that to maintain the priority of the ,curetonian letters ,i was obliged from time to time to ascribe to the supposed ,ignatian forger feats of ingenuity1 knowledge1 intuition1 skill1 and self-restraint1 which transcended all bounds of probability' 7,preface to the ,first ,edition74 ,this is another bit of experience that it may be worth while to bear in mind4 99 99 99 99 99 ,my second example is perhaps in this sense not quite so clear a case1 that there is not as yet as complete a consensus in regard to it as there is in regard to the ,ignatian ,letters4 ,it is taken from the discussions which have been going on at various times in the last twenty-five years as to the genuineness of the treatise ,de ,vita ,contemplativa which has come down to us among the works of ,philo4 ,a marked impression was made on the side of the attack by a monograph by ,lucius1 ,die ,therapeuten u4 ihre ,stellung in d4 ,gesch4 der ,askese1 published in #ahgi4 ,this1 together with the acceptance at least of the negative part of its result by ,schrer1 inaugurated a period during which opinion was on the whole rather unfavourable to the treatise4 ,a reaction began with two articles by ,massebieau in #ahhh1 followed by the important and valuable work of ,mr4 ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare1 ,philo about the ,contemplative ,life1 ,oxford1 #ahie4 ,the success of this defence may be regarded as clenched by the accession of such excellent and impartial authorities as ,cohn and ,wendland1 who are bringing out the great new edition of ,philo1 and of ,dr4 ,james ,drummond4 ,it is true that ,schrer reviewed ,mr4 ,conybeare in an adverse sense so far as his main conclusion was concerned1 and that he still maintains his opinion in the third edition of his ,geschichte d4 ,jdischen ,volkes 7#ahih72 but ,i must needs think that his arguments were satisfactorily and decisively answered by ,dr4 ,drummond in the ,jewish ,quarterly ,review for #ahif4 ,one or two points in this reply of ,dr4 ,drummond have a general bearing1 relevant to our present subject4 ,lucius had maintained that the treatise was of ,christian origin1 and that it was composed not long before the time of its first mention by ,eusebius4 ,the history of the text is opposed to this2 and ,dr4 ,drummond is quite right in saying #8the argument seems valid that ,eusebius did not make his extracts from a work which had been recently sprung upon the market1 but from one which had already undergone a long process of transcription4' ,i may point to ,dr4 ,schmiedel's article in the ,encyclopaedia ,biblica as one of many examples of reasoning similar to that of ,lucius in regard to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,it is a common thing among critics to think it unnecessary to allow any but the smallest interval between the first production of a book and the date of its first mention in the literature that happens to be extant4 ,i would not lay down an absolute rule4 ,circumstances vary in different cases4 ,but ,i would contend that in any case they need careful consideration1 and that assumptions like those of ,lucius and ,schmiedel are highly precarious4 ,the next point ,i would notice is the argument from identity of thought and style4 ,one of the striking features in ,mr4 ,conybeare's book was the vast accumulation of parallels both in thought and expression between the ,de ,vita ,contemplativa and the certainly genuine works of ,philo4 ,dr4 ,schrer thinks that this might be due to imitation4 ,on that head ,i should like to quote ,dr4 ,drummond3 #8,the purely literary evidence will affect different men differently4 ,to those who have no difficulty in attributing to the forger a boundless power of refined imitation it will carry little weight4 ,to others who act upon the proverb1 ex pede ,herculem1 and believe that successful forgery in the name of an author1 if not of high genius1 at least of unusual ability and distinguished style1 is an exceedingly difficult art1 this line of evidence will come with almost overwhelming force4 ,it is easy enough to imitate tricks of style1 or to borrow some peculiarities of phrase2 but to write in a required style1 without betraying any signs of imitation2 to introduce perpetual variation into sentences which are nevertheless characteristic2 to have shades of thought and suggestion1 which remind one of what has been said elsewhere1 and nevertheless are delicately modified1 and pass easily into another subject2 in a word1 to preserve the whole flavour of a writer's composition in a treatise which has a theme of its own1 and follows its own independent development1 may well seem beyond the reach of the forger1 and must be held to guarantee the genuineness of a work1 unless very weighty arguments can be advanced on the other side4' ,this paragraph seems to be very much in point for those who1 like ,schmiedel1 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann and ,professor ,bacon1 would distinguish the author of the ,first ,epistle of ,st4 ,john from the author of the ,gospel4 ,on this point it is also worth while to consider ,dr4 ,drummond's replies to the inconsistencies alleged to exist between particular details in the ,de ,vita ,contemplativa and the other ,philonic writings4 ,there is always a tendency in the critical school to make too much of these little prima facie differences1 which generally shrink a good deal on closer examination4 99 99 99 99 99 ,my last example shall be taken from the ,vita ,antonii1 ascribed to1 and now generally believed to be a genuine work of1 ,st4 ,athanasius4 ,the ,vita ,antonii holds an important place in the literature of the beginnings of ,monasticism4 ,as such it was involved in the wholesale scepticism on that subject which was pushed to its furthest limits by the late ,professor ,weingarten in the seventies and eighties4 ,how complete the reaction has been may be seen in the recent edition of the ,historia ,lausiaca by ,dom ,cuthbert ,butler4 ,among ,weingarten's converts was our ,english scholar1 ,professor ,gwatkin2 and ,i do not think that anything could speak more eloquently than just to transcribe the list of objections brought against the ,vita ,antonii by ,professor ,gwatkin in his ,studies of ,arianism 7,cambridge1 #ahhb74 ,i proceed to give the more important of them in an abridged form3 #8,in the rest of the works of ,athanasius there is no trace of ,antony's existence4 ,considering the grandeur of the saint's position1 and his intimate relations with the bishop of ,alexandria1 this fact alone should be decisive4' ,observe the argument from silence1 which is enlarged upon in the remainder of the paragraph4 #a4 ,the treatise is addressed to the monks of the ,west1 whereas #8monasticism was unknown in ,europe in the reign of ,valentinian1 and at ,rome in particular when ,jerome went into the ,east in #cgc2 and at ,milan it had only lately been introduced by ,ambrose at the time of ,augustine's visit in #che4' #b4 #8,apart from its numerous miracles1 the general tone of the ,vita is unhistorical4 ,it is a perfect romance of the desert1 without a trace of human sinfulness to mar its beauty4 ,the saint is an idealized ascetic hero1 the mons ,antonii a paradise of peaceful holiness4 ,we cannot pass from the ,scriptores ,erotici to the ,vita ,antonii without noticing the same atmosphere of unreality in both4 ,from ,anthanasius there is all the difference of the novel writer from the orator--of the ,cyropaedia from the de ,corona4' #c4 #8,though ,athanasius had ample room for miracles in the adventures of his long life1 he never records anything of the sort4444 ,but miracles1 often of the most puerile description1 are the staple of the ,vita ,antonii1 and some of them are said to have been done before the eyes of ,athanasius himself1 who could not have omitted all reference to them in the writings of his exile4' ,again1 the argument from silence4 99 99 99 99 99 #d4 #8,antony is represented as an illiterate ,copt1 dependent on memory even for his knowledge of ,scripture4' ,yet he alludes to ,plato1 ,plotinus1 c41 and in general reasons like a learned philosopher4 #e4 #8,the ,vita ,antonii has coincidences with ,athanasius in language and doctrine1 as we should expect in any professed work of his4444 ,but the divergences are serious'4444 #f4 ,it is implied throughout the ,vita ,antonii that the monks were extremely numerous throughout the ,east during ,antony's lifetime4 ,now there were monks in ,egypt1 monks of ,serapis1 long before2 but ,christian monks there were none' 7,studies of ,arianism1 pp4 #ajj-b74 ,now ,i am not for a moment going to disparage this display of learning4 ,it is very clever2 it is very scholarly3 in the state of knowledge when it was written it was at least very excusable in its statements4 ,altogether it was as brilliant a piece of criticism as one would wish to see4 ,to this day the objections read quite formidably4 ,and yet the inference drawn from them is pretty certainly wrong2 indeed the whole array is little more than an impressive bugbear4 99 99 99 99 99 ,with such warnings from the past before our eyes1 ,i think we should be inclined to scrutinize rather closely arguments of a like kind when they meet us in the course of our present investigation4 iii4 ,examples of ,mistaken ,method as applied to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,at this point we may go back to ,harnack's ,preface4 ,and here ,i cannot help expressing my regret that it has not had more of the influence that it deserved to have1 both in the country of its author and elsewhere4 ,i am even tempted to go a little further1 and express my regret that it has not had more influence upon the author himself4 ,i will henceforward confine myself more strictly to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,and it seems to me that1 in his incidental treatment of this1 ,harnack has more than once forgotten his own precepts4 ,he expends endless ingenuity in trying to prove that there was a confusion1 in the minds of the ,christian writers of the second century1 between the ,apostle ,st4 ,john and a certain #8,presbyter' of the same name1 who really lived1 as the ,apostle was supposed to have lived1 at ,ephesus in the ,roman province of ,asia4 ,an important difficulty in the way of this proof is the explicit testimony of ,irenaeus4 ,to meet this difficulty1 the attempt is made to show that ,irenaeus derived all his knowledge1 or supposed knowledge1 about ,st4 ,john and his surroundings from two sources1 a very brief intercourse in early youth with ,polycarp1 bishop of ,smyrna1 and the book of ,papias1 called ,expositions of the ,oracles of the ,lord4 ,it is like ,nero wishing that ,rome had one neck1 in order that it might be cut at a single stroke4 ,by reducing the channels through which ,irenaeus received his knowledge to these two1 it became more possible that if they happened in any way to lend themselves to the confusion1 that confusion should really take hold of his mind and express itself in his writings4 ,the learning and ingenuity and skill displayed are admirable4 ,but how futile1 from the very first1 to suppose that all the information ,irenaeus possessed about the greatest leader of the ,church of his own home came only through these two channels and no others2 indeed1 that he was like the princess in the fairy tale1 shut up in a tower and cut off from all communication with the outer world4 ,we know that two at least of his companions in the ,gallic churches of ,vienne and ,lyons came from the same region as himself4 ,it is commonly supposed that these churches had as a nucleus a little colony from ,asia ,minor4 ,in his ,fourth ,book ,irenaeus often refers to a certain ,presbyter1 whom ,harnack rightly shows to have been not a direct hearer of the ,apostles1 but at one degree removed from them1 a disciple of those who had heard from the ,apostles4 ,it is natural1 with ,lightfoot1 to identify this ,presbyter with ,pothinus1 ,irenaeus' own predecessor in his see1 who had passed the age of ninety when he died in the persecution of the year #agg4 ,in any case1 ,pothinus must have been a store-house of traditions and memories1 to which ,irenaeus would have constant access4 ,we know also that after the persecution ,irenaeus was in ,rome2 and there is some reason to think that he had resided there more than twenty years before#bc4 ,this was another great centre with which he was familiar1 and to which news and traditions of the past came streaming in from every quarter of the ,christian world4 ,and yet we are asked to believe that ,irenaeus was the victim of a confusion that in any number of ways might have been corrected4 ,as ,dr4 ,drummond well says1 #8,critics speak of ,irenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon1 paid two or three visits to ,polycarp's lecture-room1 and never known any one else4 ,in fact1 he must have known all sorts of men1 of all ages1 both in the ,east and the ,west1 and among others his venerable predecessor ,pothinus1 who was upwards of ninety at the time of his death4 ,he must have had numerous links with the early part of the century#bd4' ,again the same writer says3 #8,the testimonies of ,irenaeus1 of ,polycrates1 and of ,clement are those on which we must mainly rely4 ,in judging of the collective force of the evidence1 we must not forget that the second century was a literary age4 ,the churches freely communicated with one another by letters1 and there was an abundant theological literature of which only a few fragments have survived4 ,i see no reason why the churches of ,asia should not have had as well-grounded a certainty that ,john had been once among them as we have that ,goldsmith was once in ,london#be4' ,to deal with all this body of evidence as ,harnack deals with it is very like #8arguing on the strength of a few particulars in the face of clear and decisive indications#bf4' ,here is another instance of the very thing that ,harnack himself complained of4 ,he has made up his mind that chap4 xxi of the ,gospel could not have been written until after the death of the author4 ,but in ver4 #bd the editors of the ,gospel say expressly that the ,apostle who figures so conspicuously in it was the author of the whole book 7#8this is the disciple who beareth witness of these things1 and wrote these things'74 ,this1 according to ,harnack1 only convicts them of a deliberate untruth1 contradicted by the verses immediately preceding4 ,if we must needs accuse the unfortunate editors of falsification1 we might at least give them credit for the sense to take care that their falsehood was not exposed by their own words1 and almost 7as it were7 in the same breath4 ,but the fact is that the premiss1 from which ,harnack argues1 is purely gratuitous1 as ,i hope to show in the next lecture4 ,perhaps it is the same persons1 the editors of the ,gospel--in any case it is the ,presbyters who were closely connected with them--who are charged with another piece of dishonesty4 ,harnack sees that mere accident will not account for the supposed confusion of ,john the ,presbyter with ,john the ,apostle4 ,he therefore does not shrink from imputing deliberate fraud4 #8,the legend purposely set on foot that the author of the ,gospel was the son of ,zebedee1 c4#bg' #8,but ,papias1 through the oral traditions about which he took so much trouble1 already stood under the influence of ,presbyters1 of whom some perhaps purposely started the legend that the ,presbyter ,john was the ,apostle#bh4' #8,the ,john who had the encounter with ,cerinthus1 after what has been said can only be the ,presbyter4 ,but in the confusion1 8the unconscious0 alone can hardly have been involved4' ,the dishonesty went beyond the confusion of the two persons4 ,it is also seen in the definite ascription of the ,gospel to the ,apostle4 #8,the twenty-fourth verse of the twenty-first chapter of the ,fourth ,gospel1 about which we have spoken1 will always remain a strong indication of the fact that in ,ephesus the ,fourth ,gospel was deliberately put out after the death of its author as a work of the ,apostle1 and so that the ,apostle and the ,presbyter were deliberately identified1 as ,philip the ,evangelist was made to change places with ,philip the ,apostle#bi4' ,facilis descensus4 ,when once we begin imputing fraudulent actions we may very easily find that we have to go on doing so4 ,it should1 however1 be remembered that the ground for all this is no assured fact1 but only the exigencies of a complicated theory which1 quite apart from this1 has a load of improbability to contend with4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i will give one further example of a different kind4 ,the tendency of the criticism that has been1 and still is largely in vogue1 is to give what seems to me quite undue weight to the exceptional1 the abnormal1 the eccentric1 as compared with that which is normal and regular4 ,in the controversy over the ,fourth ,gospel one of the questions has been as to the exact degree of importance to be attached to the so-called ,alogi1 who1 about the third quarter of the second century1 denied ,st4 ,john's authorship of the writings attributed to him1 including the ,gospel1 and by a piece of sheer bravado ascribed it to the heretic ,cerinthus4 ,harnack's account of this--coterie perhaps rather than sect--is just4 #8,the attack did not spread2 it was soon defeated2 but the memory of it lingered on1 and the policy of the ,church1 auspiciously begun by ,irenaeus1 came to be that of teaching the absolute equality in rank and value of the four component parts of the ,gospel#cj4' ,but the point to which ,i wish to call attention is that the ,church writers did not allow the existence of these ,alogi to prevent them from classing the ,gospel among the ,homologoumena1 or books about the canonicity of which all ,christians were agreed4 ,eusebius uses strong language4 ,he says that both the ,gospel and the ,first ,epistle were accepted without dispute by his own contemporaries as well as by the ancients 7,h4 ,e4 iii4 #bd4 #ag74 ,and1 if it is said that ,eusebius was writing a century and a half after the ,alogi1 when that little side-eddy of opinion had subsided and been forgotten1 it is not ,eusebius alone who ignores their existence in this manner4 ,irenaeus is one of those who certainly knew about them2 and yet he regards the ,four ,gospels1 our present four1 as a sort of divine institution1 deeply implanted in the nature of things1 directly presided over and inspired by ,christ the ,word 7adv4 ,haer4 iii4 #aa4 #i74 ,a little later ,clement of ,alexandria speaks of the same ,four ,gospels as specially handed down among ,christians 7,strom4 iii4 #ac4 #ic74 ,and1 again1 a little later ,origen describes them as #8alone unquestioned in the ,church of ,god under heaven' 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 vi4 #be4 #d74 ,still earlier1 a contemporary of the ,alogi1 ,tatian1 gave effect to the same belief by composing his ,diatessaron4 ,and the ,muratorian ,fragment also endorses it4 ,this striking unanimity from all parts of the ,christian world serves to reduce the ,alogi to their right dimensions4 ,the reason why they have bulked rather larger than they should do is1 ,i believe1 because they wielded the pen4 ,it will be remembered that ,dr4 ,salmon was for reducing them to the single person of ,caius of ,rome4 ,schwartz also argues that not more than a single writer may be meant4 ,he thinks that in any case ,epiphanius had a book before him#ca4 ,the ,alogi were in any case a very ephemeral phenomenon1 chiefly significant in the history of the ,canon1 as marking the slight element of resistance to the establishment of the group of ,four ,gospels4 ,,ii4 ,the ,oldest ,solution of the ,problem of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,you will think perhaps that ,i have been a long time in approaching the direct treatment of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,it is quite true that ,i have thought well to begin the approach from a distance1 as it were by sap and trench1 before planting my guns--such as they are4 ,i have indeed the ambition in this course of lectures not only to state a case in regard to the ,fourth ,gospel1 but also at the same time to contribute1 if ,i may1 to the work so admirably initiated by ,dr4 ,drummond1 of commending by the way what ,i conceive to be sound principles of criticism1 as contrasted with others which ,i consider unsound4 ,it happens that a discussion of the ,fourth ,gospel specially lends itself to this purpose4 ,in accordance with what ,i have been saying1 you will not expect of me any new and startling theory to account for the phenomena of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,i am content to go back to the oldest categorical statement in respect to it that history has handed down to us4 ,it seems to me that this statement1 plain and direct as it is1 really gives an adequate explanation1 if not exactly of everything1 yet at least of all the salient points that need explaining4 ,eusebius 7,h4 ,e4 vi4 #ad4 #g7 has preserved for us the substance of a passage from the ,hypotyposes1 or ,outlines1 of ,clement of ,alexandria1 which he says that ,clement derived from the #8early ,presbyters' 7 71 and which dealt among other things with the order of the ,gospels4 ,after speaking of the other ,evangelists1 he says that #8last of all ,john perceiving that the bodily 7or external7 facts had been set forth in the 7other7 ,gospels1 at the instance of his disciples and with the inspiration of the ,spirit composed a spiritual ,gospel4' ,a very similar tradition had been given by ,eusebius in an earlier book 7iii4 #bd74 ,he heads the chapter1 #8,on the ,order of the ,gospels1' and in the course of it he writes as follows3 #8,nevertheless1 of all the disciples of the ,lord1 only ,matthew and ,john have left us written memoirs1 and they are reported 7 #cb7 to have been led to write under pressure of necessity4 ,matthew1 having previously preached to the ,hebrews1 when he was about to go to other peoples1 committed to writing the ,gospel that bears his name in his native tongue1 and so by the written book compensated those whom he was leaving for the loss of his presence4 ,and when ,mark and ,luke had by that time published their ,gospels1 they say that ,john1 having before spent all his time in oral preaching1 at last came also to write for some such reason as this4 ,the three ,gospels first written having been by this distributed everywhere1 and having come into his hands1 they say that he accepted them1 bearing witness to their truth1 but 7adding7 that there was only wanting to their record the narrative of what was done by ,christ at first and at the beginning of ,his preaching4' ,at this point ,eusebius digresses to show that what was said was true4 ,the first three ,evangelists began the main body of their narrative after ,john the ,baptist was cast into prison2 but ,st4 ,john expressly tells us that1 at the time of the events related in his early chapters1 ,john was not yet in prison4 ,any one attending to this1 ,eusebius said1 would no longer suppose that the ,gospels were at variance with each other1 and would see that ,john had reason for being silent as to the genealogy of our ,saviour's human descent1 as this had been already written by ,matthew and ,luke1 and for beginning with ,his divinity1 as though this had been reserved by the ,holy ,ghost for him as one greater than they4 ,these last are the words of ,eusebius1 who is very probably influenced by his recollection of the language of ,clement4 ,unfortunately we cannot locate the rest of the tradition4 ,it would be only a guess to suppose that it came from ,hippolytus1 at the time of his controversy with ,caius4 ,but in any case there is a good deal of evidence to show that the opening sections of the ,gospels were being much canvassed towards the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century4 ,the passage is in general agreement with ,clement1 and avoids his mistake in saying that the two ,gospels containing the genealogies were the first to be written4 ,really ,clement alone has all the essential points1 which are these3 #a4 ,the ,gospel is the work of ,st4 ,john the ,apostle--for there is no doubt that he is intended4 #b4 ,it was written towards the end of his life1 after the publication of the other three4 #c4 ,the three ,gospels were in the hands of the ,apostle1 and he had read and up to a certain point approved of them4 #d4 ,what he himself undertook to write was a ,gospel1 not a biography2 the difference is important4 #e4 ,in contrast with the other ,gospels it was recognized as being in a special sense #8a spiritual ,gospel4' ,i believe that these data will enable us to understand all the facts1 both those which are more favourable to the ,gospel and those which are in a sense less favourable4 #a4 ,the best of reasons is given for all those marks of an eye-witness which we shall see to be present in great number and strength4 ,they point to a first-hand relation between the author and the facts which he records4 ,if the ,gospel is not the work of an eye-witness1 then the writer has made a very sustained and extraordinary effort to give the impression that he was one4 #b4 ,by throwing the ,gospel to the end of the ,apostle's life1 a considerable interval is placed between the events and the date of its composition4 ,that means that the facts will have passed through a medium4 ,unconsciously the mind in which they lay will have brought its own experience to bear upon them2 it will have a tendency to mix up the plain statement of what was said and done with an element of interpretation suggested by its own experience4 ,and this will be done in a way that we should call #8nave1' i4 e4 without any conscious self-analysis4 ,the mingling of objective and subjective will take place spontaneously and without reflection4 ,the details will not be given out exactly as they went in2 and yet the writer will not be himself aware that he is setting down anything but what he heard and saw4 #c4 ,the relation of the ,fourth ,gospel to its predecessors accurately corresponds to that described in the tradition4 ,on the one hand their contents are very largely assumed2 and on the other hand the author does not hesitate1 where he thinks it necessary1 to correct them4 ,the relation is easy and natural2 it at once accounts for the selection of the incidents narrated4 ,the author evidently felt himself at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose4 #d4 ,and that purpose1 it is important to remember1 was not by any means purely historical4 ,the author was writing a ,gospel1 not a biography in the modern sense of the word4 ,his object was definitely religious1 and not literary4 ,he tells us in set terms what he proposed to do3 #8,these things are written1 that ye may believe that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god2 and that believing ye may have life in ,his name4' ,he did not really aim at a complete narrative of external events or an exhaustive study of a complex human character4 ,he aimed at producing faith2 and he sought to produce it by describing at length a few significant incidents1 taken out of a much larger whole4 #e4 ,the previous writings that came into his hands were also ,gospels2 and they too were intended to produce faith4 ,but in this direction the author of the ,fourth ,gospel felt that something more remained to be done4 ,christendom had its ,gospels1 but not as yet exactly #8a spiritual ,gospel4' ,a #8spiritual ,gospel' meant one that sought to bring out the divine side of its subject4 ,when ,st4 ,paul at the beginning of the ,epistle to the ,romans draws an antithesis between the ,son of ,david #8according to the flesh' and the ,son of ,god #8according to the spirit of holiness1' he is anticipating exactly this later contrast between the ,gospels of the bodily life and of the spirit4 #8,spiritual' means #8indwelt by the ,spirit of ,god4' ,and it was that side of the life of ,christ in which the ,spirit of ,god was seen living and working in ,him that the fourth evangelist undertook specially to describe4 ,if1 then1 it is objected that the ,gospel is onesided1 that it gives undue prominence to this divine side1 we begin by asking what is meant by undue1 what standard of measurement marks it as undue4 ,obviously the standard is that which we have just dismissed as altogether beside the mark1 the standard of the modern biography4 ,the ,gospel does not in the least profess to do what the modern biographer does2 but what the writer does profess to do1 he was perfectly within his right in doing4 ,he desired to set forth ,christ as ,divine4 ,if that is to be onesided1 of course he is onesided4 ,clement tells us why he did it4 ,it was because he thought that the physical and external side1 the human side of his subject1 had had justice done to it already4 ,in this respect the older ,gospels were adequate1 and he had no special wish to add to them4 ,the one thing he did feel called upon to add1 and that he knew he could add1 was a fuller delineation of the divine side4 ,he is not to be blamed for doing the very thing which he proposed4 ,the paragraph in ,clement of ,alexandria is stated by him to be derived from #8the early presbyters4' ,they were a good authority2 probably1 if not altogether identical with the group drawn upon by ,papias1 yet at least in part identical with it4 ,papias and ,irenaeus on the one hand1 and ,clement of ,alexandria on the other1 are just two branches of the same tree1 or at least two suckers from the same root4 ,that root is often called the ,school of ,st4 ,john4 ,it is from the ,school of ,st4 ,john that they ultimately derive their information about ,st4 ,john4 ,what authority could be better8 ,it is not possible to say how far the language of ,clement comes from the ,presbyters1 and how far it is his own4 ,the phrase #8a spiritual ,gospel' may be his own coinage1 an early effort of descriptive criticism1 putting into words what he felt to be the distinctive characteristic of the ,gospel4 ,in any case the phrase is a happy one2 it just expresses1 in the briefest compass1 that which really most differentiates the ,fourth ,gospel from the other three4 ,footnote #bb3 ,ignatius1 i4 #dje4 ,footnote #bc3 ,see the story in the ,moscow ,,ms4 of the ,martyrium ,polycarpi 7,lightfoot1 ,ignatius1 iii4 #djb71 which professes to be taken from #8the writings of ,irenaeus4' ,footnote #bd3 ,character and ,authorship1 p4 #cdh4 ,footnote #be3 ,ibid4 p4 #bac4 ,footnote #bf3 ,chronologie1 p4 ix4 ,footnote #bg3 ,ibid4 p4 #fgh4 ,footnote #bh3 ,chronologie1 p4 #fgi4 ,footnote #bi3 ,ibid41 p4 #fhj4 ,footnote #cj3 ,chronologie1 p4 #fie4 ,footnote #ca3 ,ueber d4 ,tod1 c41 p4 #ca4 ,footnote #cb3 ,on this phrase see ,hort1 ,judaistic ,christianity1 pp4 #agj-c4 ,,lecture ,,iii ,,the ,,standpoint ,,of ,,the ,,author ,i4 ,the ,gospel is put forward as the ,work of an ,eye-witness4 ,there are a number of passages in the ,gospel and ,first ,epistle of ,st4 ,john which go to show that the author either was1 or at least intended to give the impression that he was1 an eye-witness of the ,life of ,christ4 ,we will leave it an open question for the present which of these two alternatives we are to choose4 ,and we will begin by collecting the passages1 and justifying the description that has just been given of them4 ,the passages fall into groups2 the first small but important1 the others larger but1 except in a few cases1 more indefinite4 ,on the principles of criticism on which we are going1 we shall assume that the ,gospel and ,first ,epistle that bear the name of ,st4 ,john are by the same author1 and that1 so far as the authorship is concerned1 what holds good for the one will hold good also for the other4 ,the proof is not absolutely stringent4 ,identity of style1 and close resemblance of ideas1 are compatible with duality of authorship1 because one writer may imitate another4 ,but in practice1 unless the reasons for laying stress upon it are strong and clear1 a refinement like this may be left out of account4 ,of course there is the distinction which ,bacon noted between the minds that are quick to observe resemblances and those that are quick to observe differences4 ,this question of the relation of the ,gospel of ,st4 ,john to the ,first ,epistle is a touchstone by which such minds may be distinguished4 ,i allow that the two works may be assigned to different authors#cc4 ,i allow it in the way in which on most questions1 if we attempt a nice enumeration of conditions1 there is usually some remote possibility to be allowed for4 ,the quotation from ,dr4 ,drummond on the ,de ,vita ,contemplativa that ,i gave in the last lecture may help us to measure how remote the other possibility is4 ,as a practical person1 dealing with these questions on a practical scale1 ,i shall venture to assume that the ,gospel and the ,first ,epistle are by the same hand4 ,it is of course open to any one to ignore arguments based on this assumption1 if he prefers to do so4 i4 ,passages which make a direct claim4 ,i am treading on very familiar ground1 but ,i must ask you to forgive me if ,i begin by quoting the opening words of the ,first ,epistle3 #8,that which was from the beginning1 that which we have heard1 that which we have seen with our eyes1 that which we beheld1 and our hands handled1 concerning the ,word of life 7and the life was manifested1 and we have seen1 and bear witness1 and declare unto you the life1 the eternal life1 which was with the ,father1 and was manifested unto us72 that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also1 that ye also may have fellowship with us3 yea1 and our fellowship is with the ,father1 and with his ,son ,jesus ,christ3 and these things we write1 that our joy may be fulfilled' 7#a ,john i4 #a-c74 ,the prima facie view of this passage undoubtedly is that the writer is speaking as one of a group of eye-witnesses4 ,but there are two ways in which this inference is turned aside4 #a4 ,harnack#cd and some others take it as referring not to bodily but to mystical vision4 #b4 ,others1 again1 think of the writer as speaking in the name of a whole generation1 or of ,christians generally4 ,in regard to the first of these explanations we note that the word is used twenty-two times in all the ,new ,testament1 including the present passage2 and in every one of bodily and not of mental or spiritual vision4 ,and whatever sense we may put upon seeing or hearing1 it is difficult to explain such a strong expression as #8that which 444 our hands have handled1' where the writer seems to go out of his way to exclude any ambiguity1 in any other sense than of physical handling4 ,in regard to the second explanation we observe that there is a contrast between #8we' and #8you1' between teachers and taught4 ,the teachers are in any case a small body2 and they seem to rest their authority1 or at least the impulse to teach1 on the desire to communicate to others what they had themselves experienced4 ,i have therefore little doubt that the prima facie view of the passage is the right one4 ,the writer speaks of himself as a member of a small group1 like that of the ,apostles1 but a group that may include all who had really seen the ,lord and who afterwards took up the work of witnessing to ,him4 ,the other passage1 ,john i4 #ad1 is more ambiguous3 #8the ,word became flesh1 and dwelt among us 7and we beheld his glory1 glory as of the only begotten from the ,father71 full of grace and truth4' ,if this had stood alone1 it might have seemed an open question whether #8we beheld' was not used in a vague sense of ,christians generally--or even of the human race1 as #8tabernacled among us' just before might mean #8among men4' ,but the more specific reference would be more pointed2 and it is favoured by the analogy of the passage of which we have just been speaking as well as of those which follow4 ,in both the above cases the writer is speaking in his own person4 ,this is not quite so clear in xix4 #ce1 where1 after describing the lance-thrust and the pierced side1 the narrative goes on1 #8,and he that hath seen hath borne witness1 and his witness is true3 and he 77 knoweth that he saith true1 that ye also may believe4' ,is the writer by these words objectifying1 and as it were looking back upon himself1 or is he pointing to some third person unnamed in the background8 ,both views are antecedently possible4 ,perhaps the latter is more consistent with the ordinary use of 4 ,if we accept it1 then ,i should be inclined to think with ,zahn that points to ,christ4 ,it would be just a formula of strong asseveration1 like #8,god knoweth' in #b ,cor4 xi4 #aa1 #ca1 c4 ,there would be a near parallel in #c ,john #ab1 #8,demetrius hath the witness of all men1 and of the truth itself3 yea1 we also bear witness2 and thou knowest that our witness is true4' ,this view is the more attractive because it is in keeping with the habit of thought disclosed in the ,gospel4 ,as the ,son appeals to the witness of the ,father1 as it were dimly seen in the background1 so also it would ,i think be natural for the beloved disciple to appeal to the ,master who is no longer at his side in bodily presence1 but who is present with him and with the ,church in spirit3 #8he who saw the sight has set it down in writing 444 and there is one above who knows that he is telling the truth4' ,this is the view that1 after giving to it the best consideration ,i can1 ,i am on the whole inclined to accept4 ,i could not1 however1 agree that there is anything really untenable in what may be called the common view1 that the asseveration is of a lower kind1 and that the author is simply turning back upon himself and protesting his own veracity4 ,the use of to take up the subject of a sentence is specially frequent and specially characteristic of this ,gospel2 and as the author systematically speaks of himself in the third person1 it seems to me that the word may also naturally refer to himself so objectified3 #8he who saw the sight has set it down 444 and he is well assured that what he says is true4' ,in any case1 however1 ,i must needs think that the bearing witness is that of the written ,gospel1 and that the author of the ,gospel is the same as he who saw the sight4 ,the identity is1 it seems to me1 clenched by xxi4 #bd1 to which ,i shall come back in a moment4 ,at this point ,i may be permitted to interject a speculation--shall ,i call it a pious speculation8 it certainly does not profess to be more--as to the origin of the peculiar way the ,fourth ,evangelist has of referring to himself4 ,the idea can only be entertained by those who think that the writer was really a companion of the ,lord1 either an ,apostle or one very near to the ,apostles4 ,is it not possible that such a one may have been influenced by the way in which the ,master referred to ,himself8 ,it is characteristic of the ,synoptic ,christ that ,he constantly speaks of ,himself objectively as #8the ,son of ,man4' ,may we not suppose that the ,evangelist1 through long and familiar intercourse1 came insensibly and instinctively to adopt for himself a similar method of oblique and allusive reference8 ,it is of course not quite the same thing2 but there seems to be enough resemblance for the one usage to suggest the other4 ,the beloved disciple had a special reason for not wishing to obtrude his own personality4 ,he was conscious of a great privilege1 of a privilege that would single him out for all time among the children of men4 ,he could not resist the temptation to speak of this privilege4 ,the impulse of affection responding to affection prompted him to claim it4 ,but the consciousness that he was doing so1 and the reaction of modesty led him at the same moment to suppress1 what a vulgar egotism might have accentuated1 the lower plane of his own individuality4 ,the son of ,zebedee 7if it was he7 desired to be merged and lost in #8the disciple whom ,jesus loved4' ,there is nothing in the least unnatural in this2 it is a little complex perhaps1 but only with the complexity of life1 when different motives clash in a fine nature4 ,the delicacy of attitude corresponds to an innate delicacy of mind4 ,when one reads some of the criticisms on this attitude1 one is reminded of a sentence in an ,english classic1 ,cowper's indignant remonstrance at ,johnson's treatment of ,milton4 #8,as a poet1 he has treated him with severity enough1 and has plucked one or two of the most beautiful feathers out of his ,muse's wing1 and trampled them under his great foot#ce4' ,samuel ,johnson1 excellent person as he was1 is not the only critic who has had the misfortune to be born 7metaphorically1 if not physically7 with a #8great foot' and a heavy hand4 ,the ,gospel closes with a scene in which the writer refers in his usual oblique way to himself4 ,i cannot think that there is any real reason for the assumption1 which is so often and so confidently made1 that the last chapter is an appendix written after the author was dead4 ,on this point1 again1 ,i entirely agree with ,dr4 ,drummond1 #8,it is surely conceivable that the aged disciple1 feeling death stealing upon him1 might point out that no words of ,jesus justified the expectation which had arisen among some of his devoted friends#cf4' ,the complete identity of thought and style1 and the way in which this last chapter is dovetailed into the preceding 7#8,this is now the third time that ,jesus was manifested to the disciples'2 compare at the beginning of the ,gospel the counting up of the first ,galilean miracles1 ii4 #aa1 iv4 #ed71 seem to prove that the last chapter is by the same hand as the rest of the ,gospel#cg4 ,but at the very end another hand does take up the pen2 and this time the writer speaks in the name of a plurality2 #8,this is the disciple which beareth witness of these things1 and wrote these things3 and we know that his witness is true' 7xxi4 #bd74 ,the critics who assert that the ,gospel is not the work of an eye-witness1 and even those who say that the last chapter was not written by the author of the whole1 wantonly accuse these last words of untruth4 ,that is another of the methods of modern criticism that seem to me sorely in need of reforming4 ,i hope that a time may come when it will be considered as wrong to libel the dead as it is to libel the living4 ,i accept1 then1 this last verse as weighty testimony to the autoptic character of the ,gospel4 ,it is easy to see that the two concluding verses are added on the occasion of its publication by those who published it4 ,they1 as it were1 endorse the witness which it had borne to itself4 ii4 ,passages in which the impression conveyed is indirect4 ,we have been through the few salient passages which1 in spite of the criticism to which they have been exposed1 still proclaim in no uncertain terms the first-hand character of the work to which they belong4 ,i now go on to collect a number of passages which are more indirect in their evidence1 and just because of this indirectness have a special value1 because the evidence which they afford is unconscious and undesigned4 ,for the present ,i shall speak only of two groups3 first1 a series of passages in which the author seems to write as though from the inner circle of the disciples and companions of ,jesus2 and1 secondly1 another series in which he refers to the way in which impressions received at the time were corrected or interpreted by subsequent experience and reflection4 ,the ,gospel has not long opened before we begin to receive that subtle impression which is given when one who has himself taken part in a scene reproduces it as history4 ,i know that this kind of effect may be produced by imagination2 and ,i will not assume as yet that it may not be so produced in this instance2 ,i content myself for the present with pointing out that it exists4 ,when we take the last two paragraphs of the first chapter of the ,gospel 7i4 #ce-ea71 ,i think we shall feel as though we were being introduced to a little circle of neighbours and acquaintances4 ,two friends1 one of whom is called ,andrew1 and the other is unnamed1 are interested in what they have seen of ,jesus and in what the ,baptist had said about ,him1 and they ask leave to join ,him4 ,they remain for some hours in ,his company2 and it is clear that their interest is not diminished4 ,andrew finds his brother ,simon1 and he too is brought up and introduced4 ,jesus ,himself takes the initiative in inviting a fourth1 ,philip4 ,we are told expressly that ,philip was from the same city as the two before named2 and he in turn finds and introduces his friend ,nathanael4 ,there is just one of the five whose name is not given4 ,he is the silent spectator in the background4 ,what if it were he to whom we owe the story8 ,in any case there is this little group1 all apparently from the same locality1 who naturally enough find themselves together1 drawn at first by the preacher of repentance1 but leaving him to join one greater than he4 ,we pass over to the next chapter2 but that will give us more to say under the next head4 ,there are many points upon which we might pause1 but ,i will pass on to the middle of chap4 iii 7vers4 #bb-f74 ,there we have the description of what have now become two groups1 the disciples of ,jesus and the disciples of ,john1 in near proximity to each other1 and with easy intercourse between them4 ,the narrative seems to be written from the standpoint of the disciples4 ,the two principals are in the background1 but we follow the events of the day among their entourage4 ,there is a little discussion between some of ,john's disciples and a stranger 7,r4 ,v47 about a question naturally connected with baptism4 ,such a discussion might have interested at the time one who was near at hand and in friendly relation with those who took part in it4 ,but it would be hard to find any other motive that could suggest it to a ,christian at the end of the first century4 ,it is indeed quite possible and perhaps probable that ,baldensperger 7,der ,prolog des vierten ,evangeliums1 ,freiburg i4 ,b41 #ahih7 is right in supposing that among the motives present to the mind of the ,evangelist was that of marking the subordinate position of the ,baptist as compared with the ,messiah1 to whom he bore witness4 ,we can quite believe that at ,ephesus1 at the time when the ,gospel was written1 there still remained some who had only been baptized into the baptism of ,john1 like the disciples mentioned in ,acts xix4 #a-g4 ,there may be a certain amount of polemical or apologetic reference to such a sect as this4 ,the latter part of chap4 iii 7#8he must increase1 but ,i must decrease'7 may be of this character2 but the purely historical statements in vers4 #bb-f have in them nothing polemical2 they have far more the appearance of personal reminiscences1 introduced only because they came back to the memory of the writer4 ,it is a curious fact that the ,gospel contains several references to #8purifying'3 e4 g4 ii4 #f 7the waterpots at ,cana #8set there after the ,jews' manner of purifying'71 the present passage1 iii4 #bb2 the description1 in xi4 #ee1 of the ,jews going up to purify themselves before the ,passover1 and the statement 7xviii4 #bh7 that the accusers of our ,lord did not enter the praetorium #8that they might not be defiled1 but might eat the ,passover4' ,nothing is made of these allusions2 no argument is based upon them2 but they would be very natural if the ,evangelist began life as a disciple of the ,baptist and had been early interested in such questions4 ,turning to the discourse with the woman of ,samaria we observe how it is framed as it were in the movements of the disciples3 in ver4 #h they go into the city to buy provisions2 in ver4 #bg they return1 and are surprised to find their ,master engaged in conversation with a woman--contrary to the practice and maxims of the ,rabbis4 ,they are surprised1 but they do not venture upon any remonstrance4 ,they had left their ,master weary and way-worn1 and they find ,him refreshed4 ,they do not understand how refreshment of the mind carries with it that of the body2 and they speculate as to whether food had not been brought to ,him during their absence4 ,this is another scene in which the point of view seems to be that of the disciples1 and in which we1 as it were1 overhear their comments4 ,it has often been objected that there were no witnesses of the discourse with the woman1 and therefore that the narrative of it must be imaginary4 ,it is full of touches1 as we shall see presently1 which are so appropriate to the circumstances that ,i find it difficult to think of them as imaginary4 ,but how do we know that there were no witnesses of the discourse8 ,it would certainly be too much to assume that every allusion to the disciples in a body meant of necessity the whole number of the ,twelve4 ,we must remember by the way that the ,twelve were not yet chosen2 but in any case we must expect language to be rough and approximate4 ,if we are really to think of the author of the ,gospel as #8the disciple whom ,jesus loved1' we should doubtless be right in assuming that the love was ardently returned4 ,we may think of the ,apostle as a youth1 only just out of boyhood1 and with something of the fidelity of a dog for his master1 who does not like to be long out of his sight4 #8,sicut oculi servorum in manibus dominorum suorum1 sicut oculi ancillae in manibus dominae suae#83 we may picture to ourselves this gentle youth seated a pace or two away1 and not wishing to obtrude his presence1 but eagerly drinking in all that passed4 ,in chap4 v1 the disciples are not prominent2 but in chap4 vi1 before the feeding of the multitude1 we have one of those little dialogues which are so characteristic of this ,gospel1 bringing in two of the disciples who are both mentioned by name 7vi4 #e-aj74 ,at the end of the chapter 7vers4 #fj-ga7 we are again taken into the midst of the circle of the disciples4 ,we see some perplexed1 and some falling away1 and an echo reaches us of ,st4 ,peter's confession4 ,at the same time we have a premonitory hint1 such as we may be sure that other members of the ,twelve recalled after the fact1 that one of their number was a traitor4 ,about chap4 vii ,i shall have occasion to speak later4 ,i will only now point to the discussion with which it begins between ,jesus and ,his brethren 7vers4 #c-h74 ,this again--if it is not pure invention--is only likely to have been reported by one who was in the closest intimacy1 not only with the disciples of ,jesus but with ,his domestic circle4 ,and again we have to ask1 what motive there could be for invention4 ,if the ,gospel gives examples of belief1 and tries to promote belief1 it does not on that account suppress examples of unbelief1 even among the nearest relations4 ,this episode is ,st4 ,john's counterpart to ,mark iii4 #ba3 #8,his friends 7 ' 7 444 went out to lay hold on him3 for they said1 ,he is beside himself4' ,the next occasion on which we are reminded of the intimate personal side of our ,lord's ministry is the story of ,lazarus4 ,here we have two groups1 into the interior of which we are allowed some glimpses4 ,the family at ,bethany is one1 the company of the ,twelve is the other4 ,here once more we see what passed from within4 ,the passage1 vers4 #g-af1 is full of delicate portraiture4 ,we have the remonstrances of the ,twelve as a body2 moving in a higher plane than these1 we have the divine insight which sees what they cannot see1 and knows what it will do2 and lastly1 we have the impulsive1 despondent1 faithful ,thomas--a figure so clearly drawn in the few strokes that are allotted to it--fully recognizing and perhaps exaggerating the dangers1 and yet not letting its loyalty yield to them3 #8,let us also go1 that we may die with ,him4' ,parallel to this description of what passed among the ,twelve is the description further on of the interior of the household1 the different behaviour of the two sisters and their ,jewish sympathizers4 ,if this is not a picture constructed wholly by art1 it represents the recollections of one who had himself been present at the events of the day1 and who had moved freely to and fro1 and very probably talked them over after the day was done4 ,a natural sequel to this scene is the supper in the same house six days before the ,passover4 ,and1 as we might expect1 the attitude and standpoint of the narrator are still the same4 ,he shows the same intimacy with the members of the household and with his own companions4 ,he remembers the ungenerous short-sighted speech of ,judas ,iscariot1 to whom1 with natural antipathy1 he attributes the worst motives4 ,the incident of the coming of the ,greeks1 with its accurate singling out of the two friends ,philip and ,andrew and the account of the part played by them1 also reflects the standpoint of a bystander who is near the centre4 ,still more does this come out in the whole narrative of the ,last ,supper4 ,one or two episodes stand out as specially graphic and life-like4 ,the first is the whole description of the ,feet-washing 7vers4 #c-ab74 ,the other is the indication of the traitor 7vers4 #ba-cj74 ,bishop ,lightfoot noticed long ago the careful use of terms in this last passage4 ,in the book by which he prepared the way for the undertaking of a ,revised ,version of the ,new ,testament1 happily accomplished ten years later1 he called attention to the defects of the ,authorized ,version of ,john xiii4 #bc1 #be3 #8,it makes no distinction between the reclining position of the beloved disciple throughout the meal1 described by 1 and the sudden change of posture at this moment1 introduced by 4 ,this distinction is further enforced in the original by a change in both the prepositions and the nouns1 from to 1 and from to 4 ,st4 ,john was reclining on the bosom of his ,master and he suddenly threw back his head upon his breast to ask a question4' ,after referring also to xxi4 #bj1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot adds3-- #8,this is among the most striking of those vivid descriptive traits which distinguish the narrative of the ,fourth ,gospel generally1 and which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of ,jesus' life1 where the beloved disciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor#ch4' ,it has been objected that too high a place is given to the #8beloved disciple1' and that the stress laid on this is a mark of egotism4 ,but ,bishop ,westcott has shown 7ad loc47 that this criticism rests on a mistaken view of the order of precedence4 ,the place of honour was in the centre1 and the guests reclined on the left side4 ,peter occupies the second place behind his ,master4 ,the beloved disciple has the third place1 where his head would naturally be in his ,master's bosom4 ,when we realize this all the details of the narrative become plain4 ,what we have said of the ,last ,supper applies also to the last discourses which followed upon it4 ,there too we have the same distinct recollection of persons1 of the questions put by each1 and the replies which they received4 ,thomas and ,philip stand out in the dialogue of xiv4 #d-i4 ,but what is perhaps still more noticeable is the careful specification of ,judas 7not ,iscariot71 a disciple otherwise obscure and of little prominence1 in ver4 #bb4 ,if this is art1 it is art that is wonderfully like nature4 ,we notice also the disciples' comments1 evidently spoken in an undertone1 in xvi4 #ag4 ,what could be more easy or more natural than the description of ,gethsemane in xviii1 #a1 #b1 and the explanation that it was a familiar haunt of ,jesus and ,his disciples8 ,this is just such a reminiscence as we might expect from one who had been himself a disciple4 ,there is an #8undesigned coincidence' in the fact that the unnamed disciple is described as being #8known to the high priest1' and that the ,gospel1 of which he may be presumed to be the writer1 alone gives the name of the high priest's servant1 whose ear ,peter cut off1 as ,malchus1 and alone knows that one of the servants who questioned ,peter was his kinsman 7xviii4 #aj1 #ae1 #bf74 ,it was apparently because the unnamed disciple was a privileged person1 that he was not called upon to give an account of himself as ,peter was4 ,we need not go the whole length of the way with ,delff1 and may yet feel sure that it is not an accident that this same disciple1 who is so much at home in the high priest's house1 should also have special knowledge of persons like ,joseph of ,arimathaea and ,nicodemus1 both members of the ,sanhedrin4 ,other portions of chaps4 xviii and xix will come before us in other connexions4 ,the important passage xix4 #cd1 #ce has already been discussed in part1 and we shall have to return to it later4 ,the whole of chap4 xx is really significant for our purpose4 ,it is a record of events that immediately followed the ,resurrection1 and is told throughout from the point of view of the disciples4 ,the delicate precision of the narrative is specially noteworthy in vers4 #c-aj1 where again we have the unnamed disciple in the company of ,st4 ,peter4 ,the story is briefly told1 but there is enough detail to let us see the different characterization of the two men4 ,we shall not be wrong in thinking of the unnamed disciple as the younger of the two1 indeed in the first flush of youth4 ,he is fleet of foot and outstrips his companion2 but he is also of a finer and more sensitive mould1 and when he reaches the tomb a feeling of awe comes over him1 and he pauses for a moment outside4 ,the impetuous ,peter has fewer scruples1 and he hurries at once into the tomb1 and makes his examination of its contents4 ,the spell is broken1 and the young disciple also enters4 ,i shall have a word to say later of the effect on both disciples of what they see4 ,in the rest of the chapter the reader1 with the author1 is drawn a little aside and allowed to witness the events one by one2 first1 the appearance to ,mary ,magdalene1 and then the two appearances to the collected disciples1 when ,thomas is absent and afterwards when he is present4 ,a like point of view appears in the next chapter4 ,the narrator is himself never far away from the events he is recording4 ,towards the end of the chapter he is pushed forward into a prominence that is only faintly disguised4 ,in the scene on the lake there comes back to him the feeling that had first passed through his own mind as well as those of his companions4 ,they did not recognize the figure that in the grey dawn called to them from the shore4 ,the instinct of love was the first to awake that sensitive quick perception3 the old parts are again repeated2 it is the unnamed disciple who speaks and ,peter who acts4 ,but the two are friends2 and presently1 when ,peter has been rather hard pressed by his ,lord's searching inquiry and the prophetic forecast with which it ends1 a sudden impulse leads him to turn the conversation to his companion4 ,he would fain have the forecast extended to him4 ,his interest1 or curiosity1 is baffled by an ambiguous reply4 ,and here1 once more1 the writer steps in to prevent a wrong inference being drawn from its ambiguity4 ,so far we have been following a series of passages which place us at the standpoint of the disciples at the time of the events of which they were witnesses4 ,the writer for the moment revives in himself1 or seems to revive1 the old impression4 ,if it is not a spontaneous recurrence to the past1 it is at least successful in giving the appearance of spontaneity4 ,but there is another class of passages where the procedure is rather more complex2 where the writer not only throws himself back into the past1 but also looks back upon the past in the light of his subsequent experience4 ,there is no better example of this than the very first that meets us3 #8,and to them that sold the doves he said1 ,take these things hence2 make not my ,father's house a house of merchandise4 ,his disciples remembered that it was written1 ,the zeal of thine house shall eat me up4 ,the ,jews therefore answered and said unto him1 ,what sign shewest thou unto us1 seeing that thou doest these things8 ,jesus answered and said unto them1 ,destroy this temple1 and in three days ,i will raise it up4 ,the ,jews therefore said1 ,forty and six years was this temple in building1 and wilt thou raise it up in three days8 ,but he spake of the temple of his body4 ,when therefore he was raised from the dead1 his disciples remembered that he spake this2 and they believed the scripture1 and the word which ,jesus had said' 7,john ii4 #af-bb74 ,here we have two allusions to the disciples as #8remembering' something that had happened1 and combining it in their minds with an idea of interpretation4 ,bishop ,westcott distinguishes between the two occasions4 ,he thinks that the expulsion of the buyers and sellers recalled to the disciples at once the passage of the psalm 7,ps4 lxix4 #i73 he thinks that they applied it to the act while it was going on4 ,on the other hand ver4 #bb is explicit to the effect that the disciples did not bethink them of the saying1 and see what they conceive to be the meaning1 until after the ,lord was risen from the dead4 ,i am not so sure that any contrast is intended4 ,the tense 77 in the first instance is indefinite1 and allows us to think that the application of the psalm was an after-thought2 and the attitude of mind which was on the watch for fulfilments of scripture came later4 ,however this may be1 in the second instance at least1 we clearly have what professes to be a bit of autobiography--autobiography in which the writer speaks for his fellows as well as himself4 ,exactly similar to this is the comment on the ,triumphal ,entry1 and the passages of ,scripture which it too recalled3 #8,these things understood not his disciples at the first3 but when ,jesus was glorified1 then remembered they that these things were written of him1 and that they had done these things unto him' 7xii4 #af74 ,it is an apt description of a process that we may be sure was constantly going on in the minds of the first disciples4 ,it is a rather different kind of allusion when at the ,last ,supper the ,lord explains to ,peter in reference to the washing of the disciples' feet1 #8,what ,i do thou knowest not now2 but thou shalt understand hereafter4' ,this points to the interpretation which was to come1 not so much from ,scripture as from experience and reflection4 ,the last discourses contain many passages of this latter kind4 ,their general character is prophetic2 but the writer and his companions had lived to see the prophecies fulfilled4 ,it is very natural1 and we cannot be surprised if the effect of the fulfilment is traceable in the form given to the prediction4 ,the spirit in which the writer looks back upon the events that happened after the ,resurrection is that expressed in xiv4 #bi1 #8,and now ,i have told you before it come to pass1 that1 when it is come to pass1 ye may believe4' ,here is a retrospect3 #8,they shall put you out of the synagogues3 yea1 the hour cometh1 that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto ,god4444 ,but these things have ,i spoken unto you1 that when their hour is come1 ye may remember them1 how that ,i told you' 7xvi4 #b1 #d74 ,and this is another3 #8,behold1 the hour cometh1 yea1 is come1 that ye shall be scattered1 every man to his own1 and shall leave me alone' 7xvi4 #cb74 ,a later stage of the ,apostles' experience is reflected in the following3 #8,verily1 verily1 ,i say unto you1 that ye shall weep and lament1 but the world shall rejoice3 ye shall be sorrowful1 but your sorrow shall be turned into joy4 ,a woman when she is in travail hath sorrow1 because her hour is come3 but when she is delivered of her child1 she remembereth no more the anguish1 for the joy that a man is born into the world4 ,and ye therefore now have sorrow3 but ,i will see you again1 and your heart shall rejoice1 and your joy no one taketh away from you' 7xvi4 #bj-b74 ,the great salient fact that stood out in the experience of the first disciples was the outpouring of the ,holy ,spirit and its effect upon themselves4 ,this is vividly reflected in a series of passages3 #8,these things have ,i spoken unto you1 while yet abiding with you4 ,but the ,comforter1 even the ,holy ,spirit1 whom the ,father will send in my name1 he shall teach you all things1 and bring to your remembrance all that ,i said unto you4 ,peace ,i leave with you2 my peace ,i give unto you3 not as the world giveth1 give ,i unto you4 ,let not your heart be troubled1 neither let it be fearful' 7xiv4 #be-g74 #8,but when the ,comforter is come1 whom ,i will send unto you from the ,father1 even the ,spirit of truth1 which proceedeth from the ,father1 he shall bear witness of me3 and ye also bear witness1 because ye have been with me from the beginning' 7xv4 #bf1 #bg74 #8,howbeit when he1 the ,spirit of truth1 is come1 he shall guide you into all the truth3 for he shall not speak from himself2 but what things soever he shall hear1 these shall he speak3 and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come4 ,he shall glorify me3 for he shall take of mine1 and shall declare it unto you' 7xvi4 #ac1 #ad74 ,it might be said that these passages are a summary sketch of the mental history of the ,evangelist from the day of ,pentecost onwards4 ,they show him to us looking back upon the eventful time through which he had passed with ever broadening intelligence4 ,they contain the whole secret of the way in which he came to write the #8spiritual ,gospel4' 99 99 99 99 99 ,i am aware that the probative force of the phenomena which ,i have been reviewing will be differently estimated4 ,i should myself not have laid so much stress upon them if they had stood alone1 or if they had occurred in a different class of literature4 ,the novel writers and imaginative biographers of the present day make a point of keeping up the illusion of only allowing the supposed author to use the language appropriate to the exact situation in which he is placed at the time when he is conceived to be writing4 ,but the writers of the first century ,a4,d4 were not so scrupulous1 and what is natural to us would be very unusual with them4 ,still ,i do not deny that a writer whose habit of mind it was to throw himself back into an assumed position1 might by the exercise of a special gift have been able to keep up the position so assumed4 ,but in the case before us1 we have the instances which ,i began by quoting where the author claims for himself or others claim for him that he is recording what he had himself heard and seen4 ,this at once puts in our hands a far simpler and easier hypothesis1 a hypothesis which really makes no demands upon our constructive powers at all4 ,whereas it is probable that not one ancient in a thousand1 or one in ten thousand1 would have written as the writer of the ,fourth ,gospel has done1 if he had not been an eye-witness2 it would have been only the natural way for him to write1 if he had been an eye-witness4 ,this latter hypothesis therefore seems much preferable to the other4 ,it is confirmed by the really remarkable consistency with which the point of view is carried out1 and by another large class of phenomena which will come before us in the next lecture4 ,,ii4 ,the ,identity of the ,evangelist4 ,before we pass on1 however1 it may be convenient at this point to consider1 on the assumption that the author of the ,gospel was really an eye-witness of the events1 what are the indications as to his personal identity4 ,if we confine ourselves to those contained in the ,gospel itself1 it would not follow with any stringency that he was the ,apostle ,john the son of ,zebedee4 ,the portion of the ,gospel that contributes most to the identification is the last chapter1 the scene by the ,sea of ,galilee1 where we are expressly told that the sons of ,zebedee were present 7xxi4 #b74 ,but we are also told that there were two other disciples of whom the author of the ,gospel may have been one4 ,if we begin by supposing--and the supposition is very natural--that in order to stand in the intimate relation in which he appears to have stood to ,christ1 the author must have been an ,apostle1 then by a process of elimination we should arrive at ,st4 ,john2 and it is no doubt an important fact that in this way internal and external evidence would converge upon the same result4 ,but if we look at some sides of the internal evidence1 and bring in only a select few of the indications from without1 another hypothesis that has been actually put forward would have great claims upon our attention4 ,it is not on the face of it certain that #8the disciple whom ,jesus loved' must have been one of the ,twelve4 ,he may have been what might perhaps be called a sort of supernumerary ,apostle4 ,i mean that he may have been one who although1 perhaps on account of his youth1 not actually admitted to the number of the ,twelve1 yet had all--and even more than all--of their privileges4 ,we have been led to think of the beloved disciple as a youth who1 so far as he could help it1 never left his ,master's side4 ,we should only have to subtract a couple of years1 and the young ,apostle of eighteen or twenty would become a stripling--highly favoured1 though not an ,apostle--of sixteen to eighteen1 or even fifteen to seventeen4 ,i am not sure that this point of the youthfulness that may be attributed to the beloved disciple was much brought out by the author of the theory4 ,and yet it would be a real advantage4 ,we are told that the ,john who wrote the ,gospel lived till the time of ,trajan 7i4 e4 till #ih ,a4,d474 ,in that case1 if he were born about #aa or #ab ,a4,d41 he need not have been more than eighty-six or eighty-seven at the time of his death2 the main body of the ,gospel might quite well have been written 7probably from dictation7 eight or ten years earlier1 and the ,appendix 7chap4 xxi7 added when the writer felt his strength beginning to fail4 ,all these would be quite reasonable dates2 whereas if the writer was a full adult in the years #bg-i1 that would make him rather old by the end of the century4 ,we must keep down the dates as much as we rightly can4 ,but it is time that ,i gave a fuller account of the theory of which ,i am speaking1 as it was put forward by its author--in some ways a rather eccentric person--the late ,dr4 ,delff of ,husum4 ,i will try at the same time1 as well as ,i can1 to balance the arguments for and against it4 ,dr4 ,delff is not content with distinguishing the beloved disciple from the ,apostle4 ,for him the former is no ,galilean at all but a native of ,jerusalem2 he is not a fisherman1 but a member of the higher aristocracy1 not only acquainted with the high priest but himself belonging to one of the high-priestly families4 ,it was through this connexion that ,polycrates1 bishop of ,ephesus1 came to make the remarkable statement about him that he wore the frontlet or golden plate 7 7 of the high priest 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ca4 #c74 ,it will be seen that this is a bold reconstruction2 but in this case the boldness has a good deal of justification4 ,there are a number of very tangible data which the theory works up into a coherent whole4 i4 ,the theory might be said to take its start from ,john xviii4 #ae1 #8,and ,simon ,peter followed ,jesus1 and so did another disciple4 ,now that disciple was known unto the high priest1 and entered in with ,jesus into the court of the high priest4' ,it is natural to suppose that the unnamed disciple here is the same whose presence is hinted at so mysteriously throughout the ,gospel4 ,but1 if that is so1 the relation in which he is said to stand to the high priest explains at once a series of facts4 ,it explains how it was that the ,evangelist came to know that the name of the high priest's servant1 whose ear had been cut off1 was ,malchus2 and also how it was that he came to recognize one of those who questioned ,peter as a kinsman of this ,malchus4 ,it explains again the special information that the ,evangelist seems to have about ,nicodemus1 a member of the ,sanhedrin1 who is mentioned by name in three different contexts in the ,gospel4 ,along with this it would explain the special information which the ,evangelist also seems to possess as to what went on at meetings1 and even secret meetings1 of the ,sanhedrin4 ,we have a graphic account of the debate at one such meeting in vii4 #de-eb1 and again in xi4 #dg-ec2 and the ,gospel has some precise details not found elsewhere as to the part played by ,annas1 as well as ,caiaphas1 in the preliminary examination of our ,lord4 ,this whole group of facts is in any case one of which we must take notice4 ,in any case it forms an important element in the portrait that we are to construct for ourselves of the ,evangelist1 even if we suppose him to be the son of ,zebedee4 ,there is no antecedent reason why ,zebedee and his sons should not have had friends1 and even friends in high places1 in ,jerusalem4 ,it would seem that ,zebedee himself was a person of substance3 he has #8hired servants' with him in the ship1 and ,salome--if that is the name of his wife--was one of those who contributed to the support of ,jesus and ,his disciples4 ,we must also remember that the practice of a trade or handicraft was not held to be derogatory among the ,jews as it was among the ,greeks and ,romans4 ,there is1 however1 also the other possibility that the acquaintance of the ,evangelist with the high priest is not to be taken too strictly1 but that it meant rather acquaintance with some member of his household4 ,the account of what happened to ,peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of what we should describe as the servants' hall4 ii4 ,another set of phenomena which ,delff's theory at once explains is the extent to which the ,gospel is concerned with events that happened in ,jerusalem and ,judaea4 ,delff himself carries out this with a logical severity that hardly seems necessary4 ,he cuts out all the ,galilean incidents in the ,gospel as later insertions4 ,even so he cannot be quite thorough enough1 because he leaves the latter half of chap4 i1 which introduces to us the unnamed disciple in the company of ,andrew and ,peter1 natives of ,bethsaida4 ,this disciple and ,peter were evidently friends3 they lodged together in ,jerusalem 7xx4 #b7 and go together to the tomb1 and they each take an affectionate interest in the other 7xxi4 #bj74 ,this last point is in agreement with the way in which ,peter and ,john are found acting together in the other ,gospels and in the ,acts 7,mark v4 #cg1 c42 ,acts iii4 #a1 #aa2 iv4 #ac2 viii4 #ad2 cf4 ,gal4 ii4 #i74 ,on the other hand the scene at the foot of the cross 7,john xix4 #bf1 #bg7 would seem to be rather in favour of the ,jerusalem theory1 especially if we are to connect the words1 #8,and from that hour the disciple took her unto his own 7home71' with the tradition that ,john had a house in ,jerusalem4 iii4 ,in another direction ,delff's theory fits in well with some portions of the patristic evidence4 ,we have seen how it would account for the curious expression used by ,polycrates 7circa #aie ,a4,d474 ,delff thinks that the beloved disciple must have actually performed the functions of the high priest4 ,the high priest only wore his full dress on the ,day of ,atonement1 but on an emergency his place might be taken for him by a substitute2 and it is in this capacity that ,john of ,ephesus is supposed to have acted4 ,that does not on the face of it appear very probable2 but we can more easily conceive that in the early days1 before liturgical details were settled1 and when the ,christian ,church had not yet wholly outgrown its ,jewish antecedents1 one who had the blood of high priests in his veins might on some solemn occasion 7e4 g4 at ,easter7 have assumed a part of his distinctive dress4 iv4 ,yet another alleged point in the testimony of ,papias would be explained on this theory1 and is not easily explained on the view which identifies the ,john who wrote the ,gospel with the son of ,zebedee4 ,since the publication of ,de ,boor's ,fragment 7,cod4 ,barocc4 #adbci7 we have two authorities instead of one for the express statement that ,papias in his second book asserted that both the sons of ,zebedee were #8slain by the ,jews4' ,when attention was first called to this statement1 the tendency among scholars was to explain it away1 to suppose that there had been some corruption of the text1 or some confusion between ,john the ,baptist and ,john the son of ,zebedee4 ,of course there may have been something of the kind2 and yet the statement is quite explicit as it stands1 and one does not like emending away just the words that cause a difficulty4 ,hence there is an increasing tendency among scholars to regard the statement as having some real foundation4 ,schwartz1 the editor of ,eusebius1 has lately put forth a monograph#dj1 the whole argument of which turns on the assumption that the statement is true4 ,if it were true1 the prediction of our ,lord in ,mark x4 #ch1 #ci1 will have been literally fulfilled3 both the sons of ,zebedee will have suffered #8red martyrdom1' and not one red and one white4 ,wellhausen is among those who think that this was probably the case4 v4 ,now ,schwartz assumes that if ,john perished by the sword like his brother ,james1 he did so at the same time and at the hands of ,herod ,agrippa ,i1 in the year #da4 ,of course he can only do this by throwing over the data in the ,acts1 which ,i do not think that he is warranted in doing4 ,i have little doubt that the ,john who was still a pillar of the ,church at the time referred to in ,gal4 ii4 #i was the son of ,zebedee4 ,but it is quite credible that he may have perished1 if not at the same time as ,james the ,elder1 yet about the same time as ,james the ,brother of the ,lord1 or in the troublous times which preceded the destruction of ,jerusalem4 vi4 ,if the younger son of ,zebedee had died in this or some other way1 there would be nothing to prevent us from supposing that the ,john who took up his abode at ,ephesus was the beloved disciple4 ,and it would really simplify the history1 and make everything more compact1 if we could suppose that the beloved disciple1 and the ,john who wrote the ,gospel and ,epistles1 and the ,john who appears to have called himself1 and to have been called by others #8the ,presbyter1' were one and the same person4 vii4 ,it is a remarkable fact that some of our best authorities1 while they leave no doubt as to the identification of the ,john who figured so conspicuously at ,ephesus with the beloved disciple1 abstain from expressions that would identify him with the son of ,zebedee4 ,irenaeus most often calls him #8the disciple of the ,lord1' which we remember is the very phrase used by ,papias of the ,presbyter4 ,he also more than once describes him as having lain upon the breast of the ,lord1 but he nowhere 7,i believe7 speaks of him as one of the ,twelve or as the son of ,zebedee4 ,polycrates uses the same designation1 #8,john who lay upon the breast of the ,lord'2 and the ,muratorian ,fragment speaks of him as #8one of the disciples'3 but neither of these witnesses ever calls him an ,apostle4 ,irenaeus1 however1 does perhaps hint at this title where he says that the ,church at ,ephesus1 #8having been founded by ,paul1 and ,john having resided among them until the time of ,trajan1 is a true witness of the tradition of the ,apostles' 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #bc4 #d74 ,clement of ,alexandria also and ,tertullian unequivocally call ,john an ,apostle4 viii4 ,if these expressions had stood alone1 there need be no great difficulty4 ,we may be pretty sure that the beloved disciple1 even if he had not been one of the original ,twelve1 would be called an ,apostle in the wider sense1 like ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,barnabas and ,james the ,brother of the ,lord4 ,and it would be only natural that he should seem to step into the place of the older ,john 7on the hypothesis of his martyrdom71 just as ,james the ,lord's ,brother in a manner stepped into the place of the older ,james4 ,it is worth while to bear in mind that the title #8,apostle' was used more freely in the early days of the ,church than we are in the habit of using it4 ,it was not till about the end of the second century that 7except in the case of ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,barnabas and one or two others7 it came to be as a rule narrowed down to the ,twelve4 ,in the earliest usage of all the word had its proper meaning of #8one who is sent on a mission4' ,but this usage was gradually lost sight of1 and it took the place of the primitive 4 ,in view of this history of the terms1 it will be understood how easily one who was in the position of the beloved disciple would come to be spoken of as an ,apostle1 and in time to be confused with the older ,apostles who bore the same name4 ,in such a process there would be no need1 as ,harnack does1 to bring in the hypothesis of fraud2 every step in the process would be really innocent and natural4 ,harnack of course gets into his difficulties by minimizing the designation #8disciple of the ,lord' as applied to ,john the ,presbyter1 who is also ,john of ,ephesus4 ,one who stood to the ,lord in the relation of the beloved disciple would have a right to the name ,apostle which the ,presbyter1 as ,harnack conceives him1 would not4 ix4 ,so far it would seem that a really strong case can be made out for distinguishing the ,evangelist from the son of ,zebedee and identifying him with the beloved disciple4 ,my wish is not to make out a case either way1 but to state the facts as impartially as ,i can4 ,from this point of view1 there seem to be two serious difficulties in the way of ,delff's hypothesis4 ,the first is that it puts asunder two sets of phenomena that we feel sure ought to be combined4 ,we have seen that the ,gospel represents the beloved disciple and ,st4 ,peter as close friends4 ,and we have also seen that the other ,gospels1 the ,acts and1 we might add1 the ,epistle to the ,galatians1 represent ,st4 ,peter and ,st4 ,john as constantly acting together4 ,it may indeed just be said that this joint action is a sort of official relation1 which is a different thing from the private friendship implied in the ,gospel4 ,and yet we cannot doubt that the more natural and obvious view would be to regard the later relation as the direct continuation of the earlier1 and so to identify the beloved disciple with the leading ,apostle4 ,delff's theory would make two pairs1 who would be too much the doubles of each other4 x4 ,and another difficulty1 or set of difficulties1 turns round the statement of ,de ,boor's ,fragment4 ,it is certainly strange that this statement appears in no other early authority1 and especially that no hint of it is found in ,eusebius4 ,i am not sure that this would weigh with me so much as it would with others1 because ,i always discount the argument from silence1 even where it is apparently strong1 as it is in the present instance4 ,but there is something more than silence4 ,the common tradition of the church did not ascribe to ,st4 ,john a violent death4 ,and we cannot escape the inference by saying that the common tradition relates to ,john of ,ephesus and not to the son of ,zebedee2 because the earliest authority for the tradition1 the ,apocryphal ,acts of ,john1 a second-century work1 without any ambiguity identifies the two4 xi4 ,we might perhaps sum up the whole case thus4 ,the ,life of the ,evangelist falls into three periods3 first1 the period covered by the ,gospel in which he appears as the beloved disciple2 then1 at the end of his career1 the period during which he appears as ,john of ,ephesus3 and1 between these two1 the period of some forty years which connects them together4 ,now we might say of ,delff's theory1 that it gives a quite satisfactory account of the first period1 and also in most ways of the last1 and that in particular it enables us to work in the statement as to the death of the two sons of ,zebedee2 but that its difficulties come out chiefly in regard to the connexion between the first stage of the history and the last4 ,on the other hand1 the common view gives what ,i think is really on the whole as good an account of the first period1 and raises no special difficulties as to the second1 but it does leave some obscurities which with our present knowledge it is difficult to clear away as to the third4 ,and it also leaves the alleged statement of ,papias an enigma for which we have no certain solution4 ,at the same time1 although the cohesion is on either view not quite complete1 it is in each case far too complete to be rejected in the interests of an agnosticism which only presents no target for objections because it has no tangible form or substance4 ,footnote #cc3 ,the division of opinion in this case is among the more radical critics themselves4 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann1 ,schmiedel1 and ,professor ,bacon are on the one side3 ,jlicher1 ,wrede1 and ,wernle are on the other2 and in each of these instances the opinion is thoroughly characteristic2 the subtle and acute minds are ranged against those that are stronger on the side of what we should call plain common sense4 ,footnote #cd3 ,chronologie1 c41 p4 #fgf4 ,footnote #ce3 ,letter to the ,rev4 ,william ,unwin1 dated ,oct4 #ca1 #aggi4 ,footnote #cf3 ,character1 c41 p4 #chg4 ,footnote #cg3 ,for the proof see especially ,lightfoot4 ,footnote #ch3 ,on a ,fresh ,revision of the ,new ,testament 7#ahga71 pp4 #gb1 #gc4 ,footnote #ci3 ,texte u4 ,untersuch4 v4 #b1 p4 #agj4 ,the other authority is a single ,,ms4 7but the oldest and most interesting7 of the ninth-century writer ,georgius ,monachus or ,georgius ,hamartolus 7ed4 ,de ,boor1 p4 #ddg 1 where the other ,,mss4 have 74 ,the question of the relation of the texts is judiciously discussed by ,de ,boor 7,preface1 pp4 lx-lxxi71 but the fuller statement of particulars is reserved for a third volume4 ,footnote #dj3 ,ueber den ,tod der ,shne ,zebedaei 7,berlin1 #aijd74 ,,lecture ,,iv ,,the ,,pragmatism ,,of ,,the ,,gospel ,different ,kinds of ,precision in ,detail4 ,i hope the title that ,i have given to this lecture is not an affectation4 ,the word #8,pragmatism' is more common in ,german than in ,english4 ,in ,english it is chiefly used as the name for a particular kind of philosophy which lays stress upon conduct or practice rather than theory4 ,but we want the word1 or something like it1 in criticism as well as in philosophy4 ,we want a word which shall express a tendency in a given writer or a given book1 without begging any questions as to the relation between this tendency in the mind of the writer and the facts that he professes to describe2 ,i mean the tendency to throw his thoughts into the form of concrete pictorial history1 whether that history is real or imagined4 ,it is in this sense that ,i use the word3 ,i use it to describe a very marked characteristic of the ,fourth ,gospel1 the abundance of detail--to all appearance precise detail--with which it presents its pictures4 ,but ,i do not as yet say anything further as to the nature of this detail or the inference to be drawn from it4 ,one of the most uncompromising critics of the ,gospel#da calls this apparent precision1 more especially in the notes of place and time1 a #8trump-card' in the hands of the defenders of the ,gospel4 ,he goes on to give a meagre list1 just of some of these notes of place and time1 and nothing else4 ,his only comment on them is that they #8fail to impart to the presentation life1 colour1 and movement4' ,as though life1 in the sense of active life1 and movement were the only guarantees of reality4 ,it is true that ,st4 ,john is not what we should call a dramatic writer2 his narrative has not rapidity of movement4 ,he is contemplative rather than energetic1 and yet he has a quiet intensity of vision that is in its way not less valuable4 ,he must be judged according to his type3 we do not 7e4 g47 apply to a ,maeterlinck the same sort of measure as to a ,stanley ,weyman4 ,wrede's is a specimen of what ,i consider poor criticism4 ,it is in striking contrast to that which ,dr4 ,drummond has devoted to the same subject4 ,dr4 ,drummond discusses in his judicial manner this phenomenon that ,i have called #8,pragmatism4' ,he begins by noting how the writer #8specifies particular days1 for no apparent reason except that he remembered them1 and sometimes even mentions the hour4 ,he often names the disciple who was the speaker1 even when the remark is not of great consequence4' ,we have said enough on this part of the subject4 ,but he not only specifies times and persons but also places1 with which he connects various incidents1 #8frequently for no discoverable reason beyond the fact itself4' ,then again there is1 generally speaking1 the graphic character of the work4 ,on this ,dr4 ,drummond has some discriminating remarks3-- #8,the ,gospel is sometimes spoken of as though it were a monotonous unfolding of the ,logos doctrine1 and brought before us a number of shadowy puppets1 marked by no distinguishing features4 ,i cannot but think that this view is partly owing to the prepossession of critical dogmatism1 but partly also to the identity of style and tone which1 wherever you may open the book1 at once betrays the author4 ,the simplicity is not the simplicity of ,genesis or ,homer1 in which we forget all but the persons and events that are brought before us2 the dramatic power is not that of ,shakespeare1 in which the author is hidden behind his own creations4 ,on the contrary1 everything seems more or less transfused with the individuality of the writer2 and ,i think this fact sometimes causes us to overlook the wonderful variety of character that passes before us1 and the graphic nature of some of the descriptions1 which imprints the scenes for evermore on the imagination' 7,the ,character and ,authorship1 c41 p4 #cgf74 ,i am not sure that we might not say that1 so far as the narrative is concerned1 the simplicity is really like that of ,genesis3 there is a ,biblical style of narration1 which descended down the centuries1 and which the writer has thoroughly assimilated4 ,but then his own personality must be added to this1 and there was much more in his mind besides the impulse of simple narration4 ,it is1 as we shall see1 the discourses1 and especially the longer discourses1 in which this personal element comes out most strongly1 and which make it seem so dominant4 ,but ,dr4 ,drummond is certainly right in laying stress on the #8variety of character that passes before us1 and the graphic nature of some of the descriptions4' ,but when he has said this1 ,dr4 ,drummond turns round upon himself1 and proceeds to discount the inference that might be drawn from these characteristics of the ,gospel4 ,while allowing that they fit in excellently with the external evidence1 he will not urge them as an independent proof of authorship1 because #8the introduction of names and details is quite in accordance with the usage of ,apocryphal composition4' ,this is true1 and the examples given are quite to the point4 ,the ,apocryphal ,gospels and ,acts are plentifully sprinkled with names4 ,we observe1 however1 that names of places are somewhat less common than names of persons2 and where there is any real precision in the use of place-names1 an inference in regard to the author may often be fairly deduced from it1 and as a matter of fact has in a number of cases been successfully so deduced#db4 ,it would be unsafe to draw a conclusion simply from the presence of precise details4 ,but all details are not alike2 and when they come to be critically tested1 they will soon be found to fall into two classes--one that admits of verification and is valuable1 and the other that is soon exposed as worthless4 ,one of the parallels for the ,fourth ,gospel specially put forward from this point of view was the ,apocryphal ,gospel of ,matthew1 and ,i took some little pains to test this in the pages of the ,expositor 7#ahib1 pp4 #agb ff474 ,it was quickly found to teem with anachronisms and confusions4 ,professing to describe the circumstances of the birth of the ,virgin ,mary1 it spoke of her father's almsgiving in terms borrowed from the practice of the ,christian ,church4 ,there were supposed to be schools for girls in the ,temple1 modelled upon the convent schools of the fifth century4 ,the father and mother of the ,virgin were represented as meeting at the #8,golden ,gate' of the ,temple4 ,a gate bearing that name may be seen at the present day2 but it probably owes its name to a corruption 7aurea 72 and though the modern gate1 which can be traced back to the time of ,heraclius1 is supposed to represent the ,beautiful ,gate of ,herod's ,temple1 it certainly occupies a different position4 ,the ,gospel contains a developed legend of the ,descent into ,egypt1 which is also garnished with topographical details4 ,these1 however1 cannot be worked into a consistent itinerary1 and an official title introduced into the story belongs rather to the period after ,constantine than to the time of ,augustus4 ,does the ,fourth ,gospel present anything at all analogous to this8 ,one or two mistakes have been attributed to the author which are not seriously maintained at the present time4 ,the only supposed anachronism that does not stand refuted is one recently put forward by ,furrer the eminent geographer4 ,in an interesting article on the topographical data in the ,gospel#dc he gives them in general the praise of accuracy4 ,he himself1 however1 regards the ,gospel as a work of the second century1 and he sees an indication of this in the name #8,sea of ,tiberias' for #8,sea of ,galilee' or #8of ,gennesaret4' ,dr4 ,furrer points out that this last form 7#8,sea of ,gennesar' or #8,gennesaritis'7 is found in the writers of the first century1 while #8,sea of ,tiberias' became the regular designation in the second century1 and from that time onwards4 ,it is found in the ,greek writer ,pausanias 7who wrote in the middle of the century1 under ,hadrian and the ,antonines71 and consistently in the ,talmud4 ,we may observe that in any case the ,gospel was written quite late in the first century2 and the way in which the name is introduced the first time it is mentioned would seem to point exactly to the period of transition from the one form to the other4 ,john vi4 #a runs thus3 #8,after these things ,jesus went away to the other side of the sea of ,galilee1 which is the sea of ,tiberias' 7 74 ,there is perhaps something a little awkward and unusual in the apposition1 which1 however1 does not justify the striking out of one of the two names as a gloss1 against all the authorities#dd4 ,another point made by ,furrer is that in xii4 #ba ,bethsaida is called #8,bethsaida of ,galilee1' whereas1 according to ,josephus1 ,galilee ended with the right bank of the ,jordan1 and ,bethsaida is on the left bank4 ,josephus1 however1 is by no means precise in his usage1 as he twice speaks of ,gamala as in ,galilee1 which is much further away on the other side of the lake4 ,professor von ,dobschtz treats as an anachronism the allusions 7,john ix4 #bb2 xii4 #db7 to expulsion from the synagogue as practised upon the followers of ,jesus during ,his lifetime4 ,but this is surely very gratuitous4 ,partly the argument goes upon the assumption that the extreme penalty must have been always inflicted4 ,partly it seems to imply that excommunication was too great a punishment for the disciples1 at the very time when death itself was threatened against the ,master4 ,i hardly know whether ,i ought to mention as a fourth example1 that is at the present time seriously alleged1 the notion that the phrase #8being high priest that year' 7xi4 #di1 #ea71 is derived from the fact that the ,asiarch acting as high priest in the worship of the ,emperor held office for a single year#de4 ,it is far more probable that the phrase is connected with the deep sense which the writer of the ,fourth ,gospel shows of the significance of particular times4 ,i take it to be the counterpart of the often recurring words1 #8the hour had not yet come1' #8the hour is come4' ,so that the four precarious examples really shrink up to one1 the first1 and that is explainable without any straining4 ,there is no anachronism2 but at the time when the ,evangelist wrote the usage was changing1 and he was aware of this1 and expressed the fact in his text4 ,and now let us consider what there is to be said on the other side--for the ,gospel from this same point of view of truth to a particular period4 ,is the ,fourth ,gospel in the main true to the period which it professes to describe8 ,this is a question that should not be difficult to answer4 ,it should be less difficult than in the case of most periods1 because as a rule one period shades gradually and imperceptibly into another1 and there is a more or less prolonged transition4 ,but the history of ,judaism and ,christianity in the first century of our era is not like this4 ,there we have one great catastrophe standing out in the boldest possible way and dividing what goes before from what comes after4 ,the destruction of ,jerusalem by ,titus completely altered the conditions of ,judaism1 and altered no less the conditions of ,christianity both in itself and in relation to ,judaism4 ,we have to remember that ,judaism as it existed up to that date--from the time of ,josiah to the year #gj ,a4,d4--had been the most centralized religion of the ancient world4 ,its system of worship1 its hierarchy1 and what remained to it of self-government1 all had a single centre in the holy place and the holy city1 the temple and ,jerusalem4 ,it is true that there was the newer institution of synagogues1 which was destined to play such an important part in the ,judaism of the future2 but this was as yet quite subordinate1 existing side by side with the temple worship1 but not consciously regarded as a substitute for it4 ,now with one single stroke the whole of this temple system1 the hierarchy1 and the ,sanhedrin1 as hitherto constituted1 came to an end4 ,it was not that it went on with modifications1 but it was destroyed root and branch4 ,at the same time ,christianity broke loose from ,judaism more thoroughly than it had ever done before4 ,henceforth the dominant forces in the ,church were ,gentile1 not ,jewish4 ,in particular the last shreds of the idea of a political ,messiah were thrown off4 ,these considerations supply us with abundant means of testing the picture of the time that we have in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,we can easily determine whether its features correspond to the state of things in the first half of the first century or at its end4 ,what we have chiefly to ask ourselves is1 does the ,fourth ,gospel presuppose a centralized religion or a de-centralized8 ,we may discuss this in relation to 7i7 the pilgrimages to ,jerusalem and the ,jewish feasts2 7ii7 the detailed ceremonies connected with those feasts2 7iii7 the temple itself2 7iv7 the state of sects and parties2 7v7 the ,messianic expectation4 i4 ,pilgrimages4 ,it is characteristic of the ,fourth ,gospel1 as compared with the common matter of the ,synoptics1 that it alone represents our ,lord as making a number of pilgrimages to ,jerusalem for the express purpose of attending the ,jewish feasts4 ,the ,synoptic narrative mentions only a single ,passover at the very end of our ,lord's public ministry1 which led to ,his arrest and death4 ,st4 ,john mentions three ,passovers as falling in the course of the ministry3 one soon after it may be said to have begun1 one in the middle1 and one at the end4 ,beside this there is an unnamed feast in v4 #a2 there is a ,feast of ,tabernacles which our ,lord attends in vii4 #b1 #aj2 and the ,feast of ,dedication is expressly mentioned in x4 #bb4 ,it is somewhat surprising that ,dr4 ,drummond1 who takes in general so favourable a view of the ,fourth ,gospel1 should seem to be in doubt as to these visits and these feasts1 and should sum up rather against them#df4 ,i must not stay now to go fully into the question of their historical character1 which will come before us again4 ,but1 speaking broadly1 ,i may point to the improbability that a pious ,jew1 within the ,holy ,land and not a member of the ,dispersion1 would neglect to attend the feasts for so long a time and in the course of a religious mission addressed directly to his countrymen4 ,i must needs think it wholly improbable4 ,and apart from this improbability1 we should have to account for the determined hostility of the authorities at ,jerusalem1 which had manifested itself before the last ,passover1 and which came to a head in proposals of betrayal so soon after its victim had set foot in ,jerusalem4 ,however this may be--and ,i reserve the fuller discussion for the present--in any case it must be allowed that the narrative of the ,fourth ,gospel is in the strictest accordance with the religious customs of the time to which it relates1 and not in accordance with those at the time when the ,gospel was written4 ,we must at least set down this fact as markedly to its credit4 ii4 ,ceremonies4 ,the effect of this is heightened when we further observe that the feasts are more than once not mentioned barely1 but with some little allusion that agrees well with what we know of them from other sources4 ,i will not lay much stress upon what is said of the first ,passover in chap4 ii1 because it might be thought that the account of the cleansing of the ,temple is simply derived from the ,synoptics1 although in them it appears at a later period4 ,it is1 however1 worth while to point out the specially graphic delineation in the ,fourth ,gospel 7the upsetting of the money-changers' piles of coin1 and the address to the sellers of doves1 whose commodities could not be overturned or driven out74 ,little touches of this kind acquire an increased importance from the fact that the marketing in the temple courts1 even if it survived the drastic treatment described in the ,gospel1 in any case did not survive the events of #gj ,a4,d4 ,there is nothing very special in connexion with the unnamed feast2 and the ,passover of vi4 #d is mentioned only by the way4 ,but in the account of the ,feast of ,tabernacles there is a precise touch in vii4 #cg1 #8on the last day1 the great day of the feast4' ,this shows accurate knowledge1 because the last day was kept as a sabbath with an #8holy convocation' 7,lev4 xxiii4 #cf74 ,whether1 as many have supposed1 our ,lord's words on this day 7#8,if any man thirst1 let him come unto me1 and drink'7 were suggested by the libations of water from ,siloam poured out during the feast1 is a question of association that is hardly capable of proof1 but may be true#dg4 ,there is nice accuracy in the picture presented by xi4 #ee-g3-- #8,now the passover of the ,jews was at hand3 and many went up to ,jerusalem out of the country before the passover1 to purify themselves4 ,they sought therefore for ,jesus1 and spake one with another1 as they stood in the temple1 ,what think ye8 ,that he will not come to the feast8 ,now the chief priests and the ,pharisees had given commandment1 that1 if any man knew where he was1 he should shew it1 that they might take him4' ,the strictest ritualistic purity was required of those who took part in the feast4 #8,every man1' said ,r4 ,isaac1 #8is bound to purify himself for the feast' 7,lightfoot1 ,hor4 ,hebr4 ad loc474 ,the purifying might take quite seven days1 and during this time the pilgrims to the feast would be standing about and often conversing among themselves1 and the rumours of the day would circulate freely among them4 ,there are several pointed allusions in the ,gospel to the laws of ,levitical purity4 ,the mention of the water-jars at the miracle of ,cana is one2 the dispute of ,john's disciples with a ,jew about purifying is perhaps another2 we have just had a third2 and a fourth is in xviii4 #bh1 where the ,sanhedrists are prevented from entering the praetorium1 in order not to incur defilement1 and so be prevented from eating the passover#dh4 ,these allusions are really1 if we think of it1 very striking4 ,they fit into the narrative with perfect ease and appropriateness2 and they are admirably natural if the author of the ,gospel was really ,st4 ,john1 a ,christian brought up as a ,jew1 and even as it would seem in some way personally connected with the priesthood1 who had been himself in the company of ,jesus1 had himself held intercourse with disciples of the ,baptist1 and himself moved about among the crowds and heard their comments4 ,it is a wholly different thing if we are to suppose that all these touches were thrown in by a ,christian of the third generation1 who could only arrive at them by study and imagination4 ,chwolson says expressly3 #8,after the destruction of the ,temple all the regulations about cleanness and uncleanness1 which were closely connected with the sacrificial system1 fell into disuse#di4' ,the last instance that ,i will notice is xix4 #ca1 which is full of the same truth of detail4 #8,the ,jews therefore1 because it was the ,preparation1 that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath 7for the day of that sabbath was a high day71 asked of ,pilate that their legs might be broken1 and that they might be taken away4' ,the exact nature of the #8high day' will depend upon the day of the month1 which is disputed4 ,i have little doubt that on ,st4 ,john's reckoning it would be ,nisan #ae1 the first day of the feast of unleavened bread1 which was to be marked by an #8holy convocation' 7,lev4 xxiii4 #g71 and which1 coinciding with the sabbath1 would make it a double sabbath4 ,it would also be the day for the offering of the peace-offering or ,chagigah4 ,this would be on the ,saturday morning3 when the ,jewish day began 7at sunset on ,friday7 the ,jews would be engaged on the paschal meal4 iii4 ,the ,temple4 ,the references to the ,temple in the ,fourth ,gospel are marked by the same minute accuracy4 ,there is a remarkable allusion in ii4 #bj1 where we might paraphrase the force of the aorist by saying in our own idiom1 #8it took forty-six years to build this temple4' ,the calculation is exact1 though we must suppose the word for temple 71 #8the holy place'7 to be used somewhat loosely4 ,the building of the ,temple appears to have been begun about #bj-ai ,b4,c4 ,the holy place or sanctuary proper is said to have been finished in eighteen months2 but the whole complex of buildings was not finished till the reign of ,nero4 ,reckoning forty-six years from #ai ,b4,c4 we should come to #bg ,a4,d41 which suits the chronology of the ,life of ,christ as well as any date could do4 ,it seems1 however1 very improbable that the date was arrived at by any elaborate process of calculation4 ,we are in the midst of a multitude of examples of the precise and accurate detail which is characteristic of the ,gospel2 and the most natural explanation seems to be that the actual words used stuck in the memory of the ,apostle1 and were reproduced by him just as they were spoken4 ,there are two other close specifications of locality in connexion with the ,temple4 ,one is the mention of #8the treasury' in viii4 #bj4 ,the name #8treasury' 77 was given to the thirteen boxes with funnel-shaped openings which stood round the women's court4 ,this court was not confined to women1 and was used indifferently by both sexes2 but it was the point beyond which women were not allowed to pass4 ,the other part of the ,temple mentioned is #8,solomon's porch' in x4 #bc4 ,it is explained that ,jesus was walking here because of the season of the year4 ,the time was the ,feast of the ,dedication1 which was held late in ,december1 when those who walked in the open court would be exposed to snow or rain4 ,these points relating to the ,temple are of more importance1 because at the time when the ,gospel was written the ,temple was a heap of ruins1 which had long ceased to be frequented for worship1 and of which an accurate knowledge could hardly be expected except from a few ,rabbinical students1 like the author of the tract ,middoth1 and those who had used the ,temple before its destruction4 iv4 ,sects and ,parties4 ,the fall of ,jerusalem in #gj ,a4,d4 made a great change in the ecclesiastical organization of the ,jewish people4 ,during the life of ,christ this too had been highly centralized4 ,both the great parties of ,pharisees and ,sadducees--especially the latter--had their head quarters in ,jerusalem4 ,jerusalem was the seat of the ,sanhedrin1 in which both parties were represented--the ,sadducees in the numerical majority and with the control of executive power1 but the ,pharisees in closer touch with the people and with the stronger religious influence4 ,in the ,gospel we have traces of both parties and in both characters1 official and extra-official4 ,we meet first with the ,pharisees1 and that in rather peculiar circumstances1 but in circumstances which we may be sure existed4 ,we are expressly told 7i4 #bd7 that the deputation sent to cross-examine ,john the ,baptist as to the nature of his mission was sent from the ,pharisees4 ,only one party was represented upon it1 so that it cannot have been sent by an act of the ,sanhedrin as a whole4 ,from the religious point of view the ,pharisees would be far more interested in the ,baptist and his doings than the ,sadducees4 ,at the same time the deputation consisted of official persons 7#8priests and ,levites from ,jerusalem1' i4 #ai71 who would carry with them a certain authority4 ,of the nature of their questions we shall have to speak presently4 ,in this part of our subject we are a little entangled in cross-division1 because the same sections of the narrative are interesting in more ways than one4 ,chap4 vii in particular will meet us under several heads2 but there is just one section of it that ,i must ask leave to quote in full1 as containing in a small compass a sketch that seems drawn from the life of the ,sanhedrin and its ramifications4 #8,the officers therefore came to the chief priests and ,pharisees2 and they said unto them1 ,why did ye not bring him8 ,the officers answered1 ,never man so spake4 ,the ,pharisees therefore answered them1 ,are ye also led astray8 ,hath any of the rulers believed on him1 or of the ,pharisees8 ,but this multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed4 ,nicodemus saith unto them 7he that came to him before1 being one of them71 ,doth our law judge a man1 except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth8 ,they answered and said unto him1 ,art thou also of ,galilee8 ,search1 and see that out of ,galilee ariseth no prophet' 7vii4 #de-eb74 ,the #8chief priests' in this ,gospel correspond to the ,sadducees in the ,synoptics2 the chief priests and ,pharisees together make up the ,sanhedrin4 ,this body had its own servants and apparitors1 whom it sent to arrest ,jesus2 and their report is discussed in a debate which we may be sure exactly reproduces the kind of thing that actually happened4 #8,hath any of the rulers believed on him1 or of the ,pharisees8' #8,but this multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed4' #8,doth our law judge a man1 except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth8' #8,art thou also of ,galilee8 ,search1 and see that out of ,galilee ariseth no prophet4' ,it is a perfect specimen of the kind of speeches that would be made1 and the kind of answers that would be given4 ,we again get an interior view of the meeting of the ,sanhedrin in xi4 #dg-ej4 #8,the chief priests therefore and the ,pharisees gathered a council1 and said1 ,what do we8 for this man doeth many signs4 ,if we let him thus alone1 all men will believe on him3 and the ,romans will come and take away both our place and our nation4 ,but a certain one of them1 ,caiaphas1 being high priest that year1 said unto them1 ,ye know nothing at all1 nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people1 and that the whole nation perish not4' ,here we are introduced to the politics of the time4 #8,the ,romans will come and take away both our place and our nation' was exactly the fear which constantly haunted the minds of the ,sadducean aristocracy1 but is expressed in such general terms as would appeal most to the ,pharisees as well4 ,the haughty ,caiaphas makes a speech which1 as reported to the ,evangelist1 he interprets in a sense that was very possibly not that of its author4 ,the high priest may have meant only that as an act of policy a single individual might be made a scapegoat4 ,but the ,evangelist1 who is himself a true prophet1 has so strong a sense of divine overruling in all that happened and of divine inspiration taking hold of men without their will1 that he sees in the words a profounder meaning than they were intended to have1 though not perhaps than they really had in the counsels of ,god and to an insight like his own4 ,another example of the same attitude of mind meets us a little lower down in another passage that has the same strong marks of verisimilitude4 #8,they led ,jesus therefore from ,caiaphas into the palace3 and it was early2 and they themselves entered not into the palace1 that they might not be defiled1 but might eat the passover4 ,pilate therefore went out unto them1 and saith1 ,what accusation bring ye against this man8 ,they answered and said unto him1 ,if this man were not an evil-doer1 we should not have delivered him up unto thee4 ,pilate therefore said unto them1 ,take him yourselves1 and judge him according to your law4 ,the ,jews said unto him1 ,it is not lawful for us to put any man to death3 that the word of ,jesus might be fulfilled1 which he spake1 signifying by what manner of death he should die' 7xviii4 #bh-cb74 ,there is an often-quoted statement in the ,talmud to the effect that the ,jews lost the power of capital punishment forty years before the great siege4 ,the ,evangelist sees in this a providential appointment designed to verify the ,lord's words1 and that ,his death might take the ,roman form 7crucifixion7 and not the ,jewish form 7stoning74 ,there is a singularly fine characterization in the whole narrative of the ,trial4 ,take for instance the following3 #8,upon this ,pilate sought to release him3 but the ,jews cried out1 saying1 ,if thou release this man1 thou art not ,csar's friend3 every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against ,csar4 ,when ,pilate therefore heard these words1 he brought ,jesus out1 and sat down on the judgement-seat at a place called ,the ,pavement1 but in ,hebrew1 ,gabbatha4 ,now it was the ,preparation of the passover3 it was about the sixth hour4 ,and he saith unto the ,jews1 ,behold1 your ,king6 ,they therefore cried out1 ,away with him1 away with him1 crucify him4 ,pilate saith unto them1 ,shall ,i crucify your ,king8 ,the chief priests answered1 ,we have no king but ,csar' 7xix4 #ab-ae74 ,the ,roman had sufficient sense of justice not to wish to condemn an innocent man4 ,but the accusers of ,jesus have a weapon that they use against him mercilessly4 ,they know that he was not in the best odour at ,rome4 ,his administration of his province through his own wilfulness and harshness1 had not been very successful4 ,it was in the later days of ,tiberius2 and ,tiberius thought something of the welfare of the provinces1 but thought still more of having in office instruments on whom he could depend for strict subservience to himself4 ,the accusers play their part with cynical adroitness3 #8,if thou release this man1 thou art not ,csar's friend2' #8,we have no king but ,csar4' v4 ,jewish ,ideas and ,dialectic4 ,we are in search of hints and allusions appropriate to the time4 ,the evidence is overwhelming that the author of the ,gospel was a ,jew1 and 7as ,i think7 also a ,jew of ,palestine4 ,the best critics admit this1 and it is hardly worth while to stay to prove it2 indeed it is incidentally proved by a large proportion of the examples ,i am giving4 ,but it is of more importance to prove that the author was a contemporary of the events he is describing4 ,now ,i will not say that the points ,i am going to urge exactly prove this4 ,they do1 however1 ,i believe1 justify us in saying that if the author was really an ,apostle1 a member of the original ,twelve1 or closely associated with them1 the indications in the ,gospel entirely correspond with such a position4 ,if the author was not an ,apostle1 then he must either have been in a position extremely similar to that of the ,apostles1 or else he must have taken great pains to convey the impression that he was in such a position4 ,the passages ,i am about to adduce all reflect with great vividness a state of things like that which must have existed in the time of our ,lord4 ,there is just one period in which the ,christian ,church stood in a relation to ,judaism which it never occupied again3 that was in its origin4 ,christianity arose out of the bosom of ,judaism4 ,the first disciples reached manhood as ,jews2 they were witnesses of the process by which ,christianity gradually broke loose from ,judaism2 they themselves underwent a process of conversion2 their ideas were modified little by little as they went on1 and in the end the new displaced the old4 ,but they had been as familiar with the attitude of their ,jewish opponents as they were with their own2 they knew the arguments to which the ,jews appealed1 the prejudices by which they were animated1 the language that they used4 ,i repeat1 there was one period to which this description applied1 and never another in the same degree4 ,the ,fourth ,gospel is full of instances of this4 ,let us turn to some of them4 ,the earlier chapters have been drawn upon rather freely in other connexions3 we will therefore begin with chap4 iv4 ,how perfect is the local colour of the story of the ,samaritan woman6#ej #8,the ,samaritan woman therefore saith unto him1 ,how is it that thou1 being a ,jew1 askest drink of me1 which am a ,samaritan woman8444 ,the woman saith unto him1 ,sir1 thou hast nothing to draw with1 and the well is deep3 from whence then hast thou that living water8 ,art thou greater than our father ,jacob1 which gave us the well1 and drank thereof himself1 and his sons1 and his cattle8' 7iv4 #i1 #aa1 #ab74 ,the standing feud between ,jews and ,samaritans is notorious1 and does not need illustrating4 #8,the well is deep' in the most literal sense2 the actual depth is about #ge feet4 ,but how appropriate and natural is the appeal to the patriarch ,jacob1 and the local tradition about him6 #8,the woman saith unto him1 ,sir1 ,i perceive that thou art a prophet4 ,our fathers worshipped in this mountain2 and ye say1 that in ,jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship4 ,jesus saith unto her1 ,woman1 believe me1 the hour cometh1 when neither in this mountain1 nor in ,jerusalem1 shall ye worship the ,father4444 ,the woman saith unto him1 ,i know that ,messiah cometh 7which is called ,christ73 when he is come1 he will declare unto us all things' 7vers4 #ai-ba1 #be74 ,the natural impression of the discourse to which she was listening upon the woman would be that her interlocutor was a prophet4 ,and her first impulse would be to put to ,him the burning question which divided ,jews and ,samaritans--,was the true centre of worship to be sought in ,jerusalem or on ,mount ,gerizim8 ,it was at one time contended that the ,samaritans had no ,messianic expectation2 but that is now given up4 ,the ,samaritans not only had such an expectation1 but have it to the present day4 ,the ,jews at ,capernaum in chap4 vi apply the ,pentateuchal history in very much the same way as the ,samaritan woman4 ,some of our modern critics1 who have a keen eye for anything to which exception can be taken1 and who do not appreciate the simplicity which is not peculiar to ,st4 ,john but characteristic of the ,biblical narrative generally1 will say that here we have a #8schematism1' a stereotyped formula1 which shows poverty of invention4 ,on the contrary1 ,i would describe it as a touch of nature so ingrained in the ,jewish habit of mind that it was sure to recur1 and harmonizes thoroughly with the historical situation4 ,chap4 vii is full of the kind of materials of which we are in search2 but the greater proportion of them we will reserve for our next head4 ,i must1 however1 just refer in passing to the expression of the ,jews' surprise1 #8,how knoweth this man letters1 having never learned8' 7ver4 #ae74 ,it is just what would excite the astonishment of the populace that one who seemed to be a simple peasant1 and had not been a student in any of the current ,rabbinical schools1 should yet show himself so well able to deal with the profoundest questions that the ,rabbis were in the habit of discussing4 ,this seventh chapter places us in the midst of a society which1 with only a slight difference of method1 reminds us of the restless curiosity with which we are told that ,alexandrian ,christians canvassed the metaphysical problems involved in the ,arian controversy4 ,in ,palestine the dominant influence was ,rabbinism2 the one idea that the people had of learning was ,rabbinical learning2 and so entirely did the #8scribes and ,pharisees' cover the ground that the appearance of a teacher who was neither scribe nor ,pharisee was sure to be remarked upon4 ,a little lower down we have exactly the kind of argument to which the ,jewish people were accustomed4 #8,the multitude answered1 ,thou hast a devil3 who seeketh to kill thee8 ,jesus answered and said unto them1 ,i did one work1 and ye all marvel4 ,for this cause hath ,moses given you circumcision 7not that it is of ,moses1 but of the fathers72 and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man4 ,if a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath1 that the law of ,moses may not be broken2 are ye wroth with me1 because ,i made a man every whit whole on the sabbath8' 7vers4 #bj-c74 ,i do not think it can be doubted that arguments like this were just what would be constantly heard at the first beginnings of ,christianity4 ,but they belong to the time when it was just in the act of differentiating itself from ,judaism2 and ,i cannot easily imagine that they would be so clearly realized and so appropriately introduced later4 ,of the same kind is much of the discussion in ch4 viii4 ,i do not undertake to say that this discussion1 or other discussions in the ,fourth ,gospel1 are given exactly as they really happened4 ,i am quite prepared to believe that especially the part in them taken by our ,lord ,himself was a little different from that which ,he is represented as taking4 ,but1 if ,i think this1 it is because the narrative seems to me 7if it is not too much of a paradox to say so7 even too true to the time and circumstances in which the discussion took place4 ,no doubt our ,lord is represented as holding ,himself apart from and above the ,jewish controversialists4 ,i feel sure that ,he did this2 but1 with the ,synoptic ,gospels before me1 ,i suspect that ,he did it in a slightly different1 i4 e4 in a more reserved and--if ,i may be forgiven the expression--delicate way4 ,with thus much of preface ,i will just give a specimen of what ,i mean by truth to the time and circumstances4 #8,the ,jews answered and said unto ,him1 ,say we not well that thou art a ,samaritan1 and hast a devil8 ,jesus answered1 ,i have not a devil2 but ,i honour my ,father1 and ye dishonour me4444 ,the ,jews said unto him1 ,now we know that thou hast a devil4 ,abraham is dead1 and the prophets2 and thou sayest1 if a man keep my word1 he shall never taste of death4 ,art thou greater than our father ,abraham1 which is dead8 and the prophets are dead3 whom makest thou thyself8' 7vers4 #dh1 #di1 #eb1 #ec74 #8,thou art a ,samaritan1 and hast a devil'2 #8,abraham is dead1 and the prophets4' ,these are exactly the things that would be said1 and that we may be sure were said4 ,but ,i am not satisfied with the hypothesis that the author who wrote them was a ,jew of ,palestine4 ,i believe that he was1 and must have been1 an actual contemporary and eye-witness of what he is recording4 ,the same conclusion forces itself upon us all through the next chapter1 which is steeped in ,jewish ideas and customs2 and those not ,jewish ideas and customs in the abstract1 but in direct and close connexion with the ,jewish controversy as it existed in the time of our ,lord and centring in ,his person4 ,i single out a few of the verses that illustrate this most vividly4 #8,and as he passed by1 he saw a man blind from his birth4 ,and his disciples asked him1 saying1 ,rabbi1 who did sin1 this man1 or his parents1 that he should be born blind8 ,jesus answered1 ,neither did this man sin1 nor his parents3 but that the works of ,god should be made manifest in him4444 ,some therefore of the ,pharisees said1 ,this man is not from ,god1 because he keepeth not the sabbath4 ,but others said1 ,how can a man that is a sinner do such signs8 ,and there was a division among them4444 ,he therefore answered1 ,whether he be a sinner1 ,i know not3 one thing ,i know1 that1 whereas ,i was blind1 now ,i see4 ,they said therefore unto him1 ,what did he to thee8 how opened he thine eyes8 ,he answered them1 ,i told you even now1 and ye did not hear3 wherefore would ye hear it again8 would ye also become his disciples8 ,and they reviled him1 and said1 ,thou art his disciple2 but we are disciples of ,moses4 ,we know that ,god hath spoken unto ,moses3 but as for this man1 we know not whence he is4 ,the man answered and said unto them1 ,why1 herein is the marvel1 that ye know not whence he is1 and yet he opened mine eyes4 ,we know that ,god heareth not sinners3 but if any man be a worshipper of ,god1 and do his will1 him he heareth4 ,since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind4 ,if this man were not from ,god1 he could do nothing4 ,they answered and said unto him1 ,thou wast altogether born in sins1 and dost thou teach us8 ,and they cast him out' 7ix4 vers4 #a-c1 #af1 #be-cd74 ,notice in this the following essentially ,jewish ideas3 ,the connexion of sin with physical infirmity1 and the speculation as to how far back1 in a particular case1 this connexion went--whether it was confined to the individual affected himself1 or whether it went back to his parents2 the observance of the sabbath as indispensable to one who really had a divine mission2 in reply to this1 the plea that none but a righteous man could work miracles2 the relation of discipleship1 and the claim of the ,pharisees to be in the strict sense ,moses' disciples2 and finally1 the characteristic abuse of one who bore in his body the mark of having been born in sin1 and yet presumed to teach doctors of the ,law2 for such a one expulsion from the synagogue was a fitting penalty#ea4 vi4 ,the ,messianic ,expectation4 ,we have already more than once come across allusions to the ,messianic expectation as it existed in the time of ,christ4 ,but there are a few examples of this to which it is well that we should direct special attention4 ,the first is the series of questions put to the ,baptist by the deputation which came to test the nature of his mission4 ,they ask him who he is1 and he expressly denies that he is the ,christ4 ,is he then ,elijah8 ,he replies that he is not4 ,he is once more asked if he is the expected prophet like unto ,moses2 and to this too he answers1 ,no4 ,his questioners draw the natural inference1 and call upon him to explain what is his authority for administering this new rite of baptism1 if he had none of these credentials4 ,thereupon he discriminates between his own mission and that of his greater successor4 ,it may be contended that this passage was suggested by two parallel groups in the ,synoptics1 the speculations of ,herod ,antipas as to our ,lord--that ,he is the ,baptist risen from the dead1 or ,elijah1 or a prophet 7,mark vi4 #ad-af2 ,matt4 xiv4 #a1 #b2 ,luke ix4 #g1 #h71 and the preliminary of ,st4 ,peter's confession1 when the disciples are asked by their ,master as to the common opinion about ,him and they reply that some supposed ,him to be the ,baptist and others ,elijah1 and others again1 one of the prophets 7,mark viii4 #bg1 #bh2 ,matt4 xvi4 #ac1 #ad2 ,luke ix4 #ah1 #ai74 ,there are doubtless the two possibilities3 the questions attributed to the deputation in ,st4 ,john1 if we suppose that the author was really remote from the events1 would be suggested by passages like these2 if he was an eye-witness1 it would be more probable that they were taken directly from the life1 or at least from the personal knowledge of the writer that such ideas were commonly entertained at the time4 ,there are several reasons for thinking that this latter hypothesis is the easier and less artificial4 ,to suppose that the scene was a literary invention would involve the adaptation to the ,baptist of what was originally said of ,christ4 ,it is also against the supposition that the questions are borrowed from the ,synoptists1 that in one important point they run directly counter to the ,synoptic tradition4 ,when the ,baptist is asked if he is ,elijah1 he says that he is not1 whereas the ,synoptists persistently identify him with ,elijah1 and that upon the authority of ,christ ,himself 7,matt4 xi4 #ad2 xvii4 #aj-ac2 ,mark ix4 #aa-ac74 ,there is another noticeable divergence4 ,in ,st4 ,john the question relates to #8the prophet1' with direct reference to ,deut4 xviii4 #ae1 #ah2 in the ,synoptists the phrase used is #8a prophet1 as one of the prophets1' or #8one of the prophets4' ,these are the forms of the phrase in ,st4 ,mark1 which is fundamental4 ,on the second occasion ,st4 ,matthew substitutes #8,jeremiah or one of the prophets'2 on both occasions ,st4 ,luke has #8one of the old prophets is 7was7 risen again4' ,the difference between the two versions is rather marked1 though no doubt the ,synoptic idea ultimately goes back to ,deut4 xviii1 like the other4 ,for these reasons the hypothesis that ,st4 ,john is drawing from the life seems distinctly preferable4 ,allusion has already been made to some of the popular ideas and to the meeting of the ,sanhedrin in chap4 vii4 ,that chapter is especially important from our present point of view1 that of the ,messianic expectation4 ,we see there reproduced with wonderful vividness just such an undercurrent of criticism as we may be sure was constantly going on1 particularly in ,jerusalem4 #8,some therefore of them of ,jerusalem said1 ,is not this he whom they seek to kill8 ,and lo1 he speaketh openly1 and they say nothing unto him4 ,can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the ,christ8 ,howbeit we know this man whence he is3 but when the ,christ cometh1 no one knoweth whence he is4' #8,but of the multitude many believed on him2 and they said1 ,when the ,christ shall come1 will he do more signs than those which this man hath done8' #8,some of the multitude therefore1 when they heard these words1 said1 ,this is of a truth the prophet4 ,others said1 ,this is the ,christ4 ,but some said1 ,what1 doth the ,christ come out of ,galilee8 ,hath not the ,scripture said that the ,christ cometh of the seed of ,david1 and from ,bethlehem1 the village where ,david was8 ,so there arose a division in the multitude because of him4 ,and some of them would have taken him2 but no man laid hands on him4' #8,they answered and said unto him1 ,art thou also of ,galilee8 ,search1 and see that out of ,galilee ariseth no prophet' 7vers4 #be-g1 #ca1 #dj-d1 #eb74 ,it is to be observed that several of the points in the expectation thus depicted are of a somewhat recondite character4 #8,we know this man whence he is3 but when the ,christ cometh1 no one knoweth whence he is4' ,this point can be verified1 at least approximately4 ,there is a ,jewish saying that #8three things come wholly unexpected1 ,messiah1 a god-send1 and a scorpion#eb4' ,and ,justin ,martyr alludes to another tradition1 that the ,messiah would not even know his own mission until he was anointed by ,elijah#ec--the idea of this was perhaps suggested by the anointing of ,david4 ,again we note that the writer assumes the point of view of the crowd1 according to which ,christ was regarded as coming from ,nazareth in ,galilee1 though in any case he had before him the ,first and ,third ,gospels which placed ,his birth in ,bethlehem4 ,not a hint escapes the ,evangelist of his knowledge of this1 although the point is brought as an objection to our ,lord's ,messianic claims4 ,in other words1 the ,gospel reflects the real state of things in ,a4,d4 #bh1 not the ,christian beliefs of ,a4,d4 #ij4 ,we have to say the same of the test applied by the ,sanhedrin1 that a prophet was not to be looked for from ,galilee4 ,all these points agree beautifully with the time when ,jesus was moving about with ,his disciples among ,his countrymen1 a time of which the genuine recollection must have been long lost to all those ,christians who had not themselves actually lived in it4 ,the same comment would have to be made upon the language in which the ,evangelist more than once refers to ,christ's mission1 or rather the popular conception of it4 ,in vi4 #ae1 the people are represented as coming to take ,him by force and make ,him king2 and at the entry into ,jerusalem ,he is greeted as the ,king of ,israel1 and the prophecy of ,zechariah is applied to ,him1 #8,behold thy ,king cometh1 c4' ,in all this there are evident traces of the unreformed ,messianic idea1 as associated with political domination4 ,by the year #ij all such ideas must have entirely vanished1 and it must have required an effort of mind to recover them which one who had not been himself connected with the events would have had no incentive to make4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i am greatly mistaken if the mass of particulars collected in this lecture does not come home to the mind with great1 and even overwhelming1 force4 ,in me at least it inspires1 and has always inspired ever since ,i took up the study of the ,gospel1 a strong conviction that it could only be the work of one who had really lived through the events that he describes4 ,perhaps there is a little exaggeration in the phrase that it #8could only be' such a one4 ,it is the kind of rough approximate phrase that one is apt to use for practical common-sense purposes4 ,strictly speaking1 there is the other alternative1 of which we ought not wholly to lose sight1 that the author was a second-century ,christian1 perhaps of ,jewish descent and with some ,jewish training1 who by a tour de force threw himself back into the circumstances of the time and had a wonderful success in reproducing them4 ,dr4 ,drummond reminds us that there is this alternative4 #8,it is sometimes said that to produce an untrue narrative possessing such verisimilitude as the ,gospel would have been quite beyond the capacity of any writer of the second century3 such an author would be without example2 such a work would be a literary miracle4 ,in making this allegation people seem to forget that the book is in any case unique4 ,whether it be true history1 or the offspring of spiritual imagination1 or a mixture of both1 no one1 so far as we know1 could have written it in the second or any other century1 except the man who did write it2 and to assert that an unexampled1 unknown1 and unmeasured literary genius could not have done this or that appears to me extremely hazardous' 7p4 #cgh f474 ,perfectly true2 there doubtless is the possibility that #8an unexampled1 unknown1 and unmeasured literary genius' could have done what we find4 ,but as a rule1 where facts can be explained easily and naturally without having recourse to any such extraordinary assumption1 the world is content so to explain them4 ,the practical question is a balance of probabilities4 ,and even now1 as in the days of ,bishop ,butler1 probability is the very guide of life4 ,footnote #da3 ,wrede1 ,charakter und ,tendenz d4 ,johannesevangeliums 7,tbingen and ,leipzig1 #aijc71 p4 #be4 ,footnote #db3 ,an excellent example is the treatment of the ,acts of ,paul and ,thecla by ,professor ,w4 ,m4 ,ramsay in ,the ,church in the ,roman ,empire1 pp4 #cge-dbh4 ,footnote #dc3 #8,das ,geographische im ,evangelium nach ,johannes1' in the ,zeitschr4 f4 neuttest4 ,wiss41 #aijb1 pp4 #beg-bfe4 ,footnote #dd3 ,cf4 ,drummond1 p4 #cff f42 and the writer's ,sacred ,sites of the ,gospels1 p4 #ie4 ,footnote #de3 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann1 ad loc41 and ,einleitung1 ed4 #b1 p4 #dfi3 cf4 ,drummond1 p4 #dcg f4 ,footnote #df3 ,pp4 #db-f4 ,footnote #dg3 ,it is denied by ,holtzmann1 but approved by ,westcott4 ,footnote #dh3 ,for a discussion of the nature of this defilement see ,chwolson1 ,das letzte ,passamahl ,christi1 p4 #ef ff4 ,footnote #di3 ,op4 cit4 p4 #di4 ,footnote #ej3 ,it is very surprising that ,freiherr ,hermann von ,soden1 in a pamphlet published at the end of the year1 ,die wichtigsten ,fragen im ,leben ,jesu 7,berlin1 #aijd71 p4 #i1 should deny the existence of local colour in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,in proof he mentions some half-dozen points that occur in the ,synoptics but not in this ,gospel2 which only means that it is of a different type from the other three1 and does not repeat what was already found in them4 ,and yet1 even of these points1 several come back in another form4 ,it is true that the ,gospel does not describe the healing of a demoniac1 but it has many marked allusions to demoniacal possession 7see below1 p4 #acd74 ,it is true that it has not the name #8,sadducees'2 it speaks of them rather as #8chief priests'2 but it is well acquainted with their character and policy 7see above1 p4 #abf ff474 ,the ,gospel has no #8elders1' but it has #8rulers' or members of the ,sanhedrin1 whose position it perfectly understands4 ,in like manner it has no or 1 but it is fond of the title #8,rabbi1' and it makes pointed reference to ,rabbinical training 7see below1 p4 #acb74 ,the whole page of criticism1 coming from a writer of such eminence1 is most disappointing4 ,either the statements are very questionable as fact or they have not the slightest bearing on the authorship of the ,gospel4 ,why should not an ,apostle break off somewhat abruptly in his report of a discourse1 or glide imperceptibly from narrative into comment8 ,that is just what ,st4 ,paul does1 as we shall see 7p4 #afh1 below74 ,the truth is that the criticism of the ,fourth ,gospel on the liberal side has become largely conventional2 one writer after another repeats certain stereotyped formulae without testing them4 ,it is high time that they were really tested and confronted with the facts4 ,footnote #ea3 ,on the application of this penalty in the lifetime of ,christ1 see above1 p4 #aae4 ,footnote #eb3 ,sanhedr4 #ig a4 ,footnote #ec3 ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #h1 cf4 #aaj4 ,,lecture ,v ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,the ,,narrative ,the last lecture called attention to a multitude of little points that seem to lead to a definite conclusion4 ,they almost all belonged to the framework1 or setting of the narrative1 and not to its salient features4 ,i was conscious1 not seldom1 of stopping short just where we seemed to be coming to something of more importance1 and to which exception would be more likely to be taken4 ,i stopped short deliberately and of set purpose1 because ,i am myself of opinion that from the point of view of critical method1 it is just these small incidental details that are most significant4 ,they are the sort of details that an author throws in when he is off his guard4 ,from them1 far more than from his laboured arguments1 we may tell what is his real standpoint and attitude4 ,in regard to the abundant details which we have examined1 the ,evangelist had plentiful opportunities of tripping2 but in no single instance is he really convicted of doing so1 whereas in a vast number his record has been verified4 ,taking this ample verification of details with the direct claim considered in the last lecture but one1 we have reached a point at which the authentic character of the ,gospel1 its claim to come from an eye-witness if not from an ,apostle1 seems to be really well assured4 ,but the question that now meets us is1 how far this assurance is neutralized by the arguments brought against the ,gospel from a comparison of it with the ,synoptics and from certain points of general probability4 ,it is true that there are differences1 which may amount to discrepancies1 between the ,fourth ,gospel and its predecessors4 ,there is1 however1 this preliminary remark to be made1 before we discuss the differences in detail1 that whatever we may think in regard to them1 in any case the result must in one respect be favourable1 and not adverse1 to the ,gospel2 it must be favourable at least to its independence and authority4 ,for there are two things to be noticed in regard to these differences4 i4 ,the ,evangelist had the ,synoptic ,gospels before him2 and1 where he differs from them1 he does so deliberately4 ,either his intention is to correct them1 or at least he deliberately goes his own way4 ,it follows that he was a person who was conscious of writing with authority4 ,if he had not been1 and if he was only desirous of insinuating his own views under cover of a great name1 we may be pretty sure that he would have kept closely to the lines already marked out by works that had a considerable vogue and a considerable reputation4 ii4 ,and we are confirmed in this opinion by the further observation that the points on which he differs from his predecessors are for the most part and to all appearance indifferent for any particular purpose that he seems to have had in writing4 ,he has certainly not gone out of his way to exploit or insist upon them4 ,for anything that we can see the only reason that he had for his divergences was that to the best of his belief and knowledge the facts were really as he has stated them1 and not otherwise4 ,i4 ,alleged ,discrepancies with the ,synoptic ,narrative4 i4 ,the ,scene of the ,ministry4 ,one of the most obvious differences between the ,synoptic and the ,johannean narrative is that the scene of so much of the latter is laid in ,judaea and ,jerusalem4 ,the first comment that we have to make upon this is that the difference is not really so great or so significant as it seems4 ,from both sides it is subject to some discounting1 from the side of ,st4 ,john as well as from that of the ,synoptics4 ,i have already alluded to the fundamental mistake that is so often made of judging the ,gospel as though it were not a ,gospel1 but a biography4 ,if the author had been writing a biography like 7e4 g47 ,mr4 ,morley's ,life of ,gladstone1 he would have felt himself bound to cover the whole of the ground4 ,he would have had to sketch the whole of his hero's career4 ,he would have had to observe a due proportion between its different parts4 ,if the hero had spent part of his life in ,england1 and part of it in the ,colonies1 each of these should have had justice done to it4 ,but the author of the ,gospel was under no such obligation4 ,his object was not to write a complete and connected history4 ,the ,gospel is not a history1 but a series of scenes1 chosen with a view to a particular purpose of which ,i shall have to speak later4 ,for that purpose geography did not matter3 it was quite indifferent whether the scene was laid in ,judaea or in ,galilee4 ,but there was a sub-current in the author's mind which led him to supplement the work of his predecessors1 and to notice some things which they had omitted4 ,perhaps this was one of the reasons that led him to single out by preference ,judaean scenes4 ,and perhaps those scenes really lent themselves better to the object that he had in view4 ,the simple peasants of ,galilee needed moral teaching2 whereas the theologically minded inhabitants of ,judaea called out more of a theology4 ,if the writer of the ,gospel had his home 7or a home7 at ,jerusalem1 it would be only natural that he would give prominence to scenes enacted there4 ,but in any case it is to be observed that the ,gospel by no means excludes a ,galilean ministry1 but rather presupposes it4 ,we are expressly told 7in iv4 #dd7 of the reason which caused ,jesus to retire from ,judaea to ,galilee1 and it is rather implied that the stay there would be of considerable duration4 7#8,after the two days he went forth from thence into ,galilee4 ,for ,jesus himself testified1 that a prophet hath no honour in his own country4'7 ,again1 in vii4 #d1 the brethren of ,jesus taunt ,him with avoiding the head quarters of ,judaism4 ,their words imply that ,his work had been done in the obscurity of a province 7#8,no man doeth anything in secret1 and himself seeketh to be known openly'74 ,he had not as yet manifested ,himself to the world4 ,on the other hand1 when we come to examine the evidence of the ,synoptics we find that it too is by no means so clear as it might seem at first sight4 ,from the critical point of view what we have to deal with is not our ,gospels as we have them1 but the original documents out of which they are composed4 ,thus their evidence is really reduced to that of the main document1 which is common to all three and is practically identical with our present ,gospel of ,st4 ,mark4 ,the second leading document1 commonly known as the ,logia1 was a collection 7in the main7 of sayings with very few exact notes of place or time2 and one or two allusions in this would perhaps be better satisfied by a ,judaean ministry4 ,in any case that would be true of the special source1 or sources1 of ,st4 ,luke4 ,for instance1 the story of ,mary and ,martha 7,luke x4 #ch-db7 points to ,bethany2 and parables like those of the ,good ,samaritan and the ,pharisee and the ,publican would have more local colour if delivered in or near ,jerusalem4 ,going back to the ground-document1 we must remember that that too does not profess to be a biography3 it is in the strictest sense a ,gospel1 the main object of which is to produce belief4 ,if we may accept the well-attested tradition as to its origin--that it was put together from material supplied by the occasional preaching of ,st4 ,peter--completeness and consecutiveness are not what we should look for4 ,there can be little doubt that this ,gospel was really full of gaps1 into which there is nothing to prevent us from inserting such southward excursions as we find described in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,it is true that there is something rather strange in the fact that our ,second ,gospel should be so predominantly taken up with ,galilee4 ,nothing that we know quite serves to explain this4 ,but1 however that may be1 the unsolved problem has more to do with ,st4 ,mark than with ,st4 ,john4 ,the antecedent probabilities of the case are really in favour of ,st4 ,john's narrative and not against it4 ,it is not likely that a pious ,jew would neglect the command to appear before the ,lord in ,jerusalem4 ,neither is it likely that a religious reformer would be content to work and teach only in a province4 #8,it cannot be that a prophet perish out of ,jerusalem' 7,luke xiii4 #cc7 is a ,synoptic saying2 and it would be strange if the prophet only went to ,jerusalem to die4 ,it may be true that some of the traces of acquaintance with inhabitants of ,judaea1 such as the owners of the ass requisitioned for the public entry into ,jerusalem and of the upper room in which the last ,passover was eaten1 might be accounted for by visits paid to the south before the active ministry of ,jesus began4 ,but this would not hold so well of cases like those of ,judas ,iscariot and ,joseph of ,arimathaea1 whose relation to ,jesus is associated with ,his religious work4 ,of course the proof is not decisive2 but both these and many other indications would be better satisfied if the ministry had really been carried on in ,judaea as well as ,galilee4 ,in that case we should better understand why the ,pharisees sent emissaries to the north to watch what was going on 7,mark iii4 #bb1 vii4 #a71 and also how events gradually led up to the final crisis2 how the populace was worked up to the enthusiasm which greeted the public entry1 and how the hostility of the rulers was deepened until it could be satisfied with nothing short of death4 ,if the ,synoptic narrative had stood alone1 the catastrophe would be too sudden and abrupt4 ii4 ,the ,duration of the ,ministry4 ,the question as to the length of our ,lord's ministry is allied to that as to its place4 ,as to this1 however1 ,i should not be prepared to speak with quite so much confidence4 ,antecedently we have no sufficient means of saying whether a period of a little over one year or a little over two years would be more probable4 ,over such work a year is soon gone2 and the relation of the different ,synoptic documents to each other seems to show that all are but fragmentary and give an imperfect account of the events4 ,the plucking of the ears of corn 7or #8grain1' ,amer4 ,r4 ,v47 has been taken to point to the occurrence of a ,passover in the course of the ,galilean ministry1 because it would be at ,passover time that the grain was beginning to ripen4 ,we cannot press this very far2 the incident may have occurred 7if we have not to work in the ,johannean narrative as well7 near the beginning of the ministry4 ,on the other hand it is just possible that ,st4 ,john's story may be compressed within the shorter limits4 ,all turns on the reading of ,john vi4 #d1 where it is well known that there is strong patristic evidence for omitting #8the ,passover1' so that this feast1 like that in ver4 #a1 would be unnamed4 ,at the same time readings that rest entirely on patristic quotations are notoriously precarious2 and ,i should hesitate as much to lay stress on this point as on the other4 ,if ,i myself give the preference to the ,johannean reckoning1 it would be not because ,i thought that a clear case could be made out for it in itself1 but only on the ground of the general superiority of the ,fourth ,gospel in chronological precision4 iii4 ,the ,cleansing of the ,temple4 ,another well-known difference is that as to the place assigned to the cleansing of the ,temple4 ,in the ,fourth ,gospel this comes at the beginning of the ministry1 and in the ,synoptic ,gospels at the end4 ,really the opposition is only between one document and another4 ,the three ,synoptics have in this instance a single base1 which is practically our ,st4 ,mark4 ,in matters of chronology the authority of this document does not rank very high2 so that on external grounds it is possible enough that the ,fourth ,gospel should be preferred4 ,it is1 however1 often assumed that the internal grounds in this case outweigh the external4 ,it is held that so strong a measure as the expulsion of the buyers and sellers could only fall in the later period1 when the tension between the two sides was reaching its climax and the end was drawing near4 ,i am not sure that this is not to exaggerate the significance of the action4 ,it is really very much in the spirit of the ,old ,testament prophets4 ,compared 7e4 g47 to the slaughter of ,baal's prophets by ,elijah1 it may well seem a small thing4 ,i agree that the act was in the strict sense ,messianic rather than prophetic4 ,this ,i think comes out in the saying1 #8,make not my ,father's house a house of merchandise' 7,john ii4 #af74 ,and yet1 when we remember that the ,lord had not long before come up from ,his baptism in the ,jordan1 and still had the ,divine ,voice proclaiming ,his sonship as it were sounding in ,his ear1 it seems natural enough that ,he should mark the beginning of ,his ministry by some emphatic act4 ,the conscience of the bystanders would be on ,his side1 and one could well understand that they would be abashed and make no defence1 like the accusers of the woman taken in adultery4 ,for these reasons it seems to me that the inferiority of ,st4 ,john's version is not so self-evident as is supposed4 ,if it were1 how was it that the ,evangelist came to change the accepted story as it reached him8 ,at the same time ,i quite allow that memory may have played him false4 ,the point is not really of any great importance1 and ,i would not ask for more than that the question should be kept open4 iv4 ,the ,date of the ,last ,supper and of the ,crucifixion4 ,few subjects connected with the ,fourth ,gospel are more difficult and more complicated than this question of the date 7i4 e4 the day of the month7 of the ,last ,supper and the ,crucifixion4 ,as the texts stand there is a real difference between the dates assigned to these events in the ,synoptics and in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,there is agreement as to the day of the week4 ,in any case the ,last ,supper was eaten on the evening of ,thursday1 and our ,lord suffered on the afternoon of ,friday4 ,but according to the ,synoptics this ,thursday would be ,nisan #ad1 though on the ,jewish reckoning 7which counted the days from sunset to sunset7 the ,last ,supper would fall on the beginning of ,nisan #ae4 ,the ,supper itself would be the regular passover1 and the ,crucifixion will have taken place after the passover4 ,according to ,st4 ,john we are expressly told that the ,last ,supper was held #8before the passover' 7xiii4 #a71 on what we should call the evening of ,nisan #ac1 and the ,jews the beginning of ,nisan #ad2 and our ,lord will have suffered on the afternoon of the following day1 that still belonged to ,nisan #ad1 and ,his death will have taken place at the time devoted to the slaughter of the ,paschal lambs 7#c-e p4m474 ,it is said that this date is chosen for typological reasons1 to identify ,christ as the true ,paschal ,lamb4 ,if that is so1 the ,evangelist has at least not said a word to emphasize the point1 and to appreciate its significance we have to go to ,st4 ,paul 7#a ,cor4 v4 #g1 #8,for our passover also hath been sacrificed1 even ,christ'74 ,but the argument may just as well be inverted1 and ,st4 ,paul may be taken as corroborating the statement in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,it is indeed1 as ,i cannot but think in this as in other cases1 more probable that the fact gave rise to the idea1 than that the idea came first and was afterwards translated into fact4 ,there does not1 therefore1 seem to be any real presumption against the accuracy of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,probably1 if the truth were known1 the presumption so far as it went would be rather in its favour1 from the early date and excellent character of the evidence supplied by ,st4 ,paul4 ,but when we come to compare the two narratives in detail1 the favourable presumption is increased by the fact that1 whereas the ,fourth ,gospel is throughout entirely consistent with itself1 the ,synoptics are by no means so consistent4 ,an interesting point was raised by the late ,dr4 ,chwolson1 an eminent ,russian savant1 who was a great authority on things ,jewish--he was a ,jew by birth1 though he embraced ,christianity1 and became ,professor at ,st4 ,petersburg and a member of the ,imperial ,academy4 ,in an elaborate monograph1 ,das letzte ,passamahl ,christi und der ,tag seines ,todes 7,st4 ,petersburg1 #ahib71 ,dr4 ,chwolson tried with great learning and ingenuity to bring the ,synoptic narrative into harmony with that of ,st4 ,john4 ,the attempt was carefully examined by ,dr4 ,schrer#ed1 and ,i am not prepared to say that it was successful4 ,but ,i am not sure that one of the items in ,dr4 ,chwolson's criticism of the ,synoptic story was completely disposed of1 even though so formidable a triad as ,schrer himself1 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann and ,zahn agree in taking the other side4 ,the three ,synoptic ,gospels all place the ,last ,supper on the evening of #8the first day of unleavened bread1 when they sacrificed the passover' 7,mark xiv4 #ab3 cf4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #ag1 ,luke xxii4 #g74 ,chwolson challenges the accuracy of this expression and asserts that #8,from the ,mosaic writings down to the ,book of ,jubilees 7chap4 xlix71 ,philo1 ,flavius ,josephus1 the ,palestinian ,targum ascribed to ,jonathan ben ,uziel1 the ,mishnah1 the ,talmud1 the ,rabbinical writings of the ,middle ,ages1 indeed down to the present day1 the ,jews have always understood by the expression 8the first day of the feast of unleavened bread10 only the #aeth of the month1 never the #adth4' ,there is something of an answer to this criticism2 and it is perhaps made good that by a laxity of expression the ,synoptists might write as they have done4 ,of course the fundamental text is that of ,st4 ,mark1 and ,chwolson's ingenious solution by emending the text of ,st4 ,matthew is so much labour thrown away4 ,still the comprehensive statement as to ,jewish usage does not seem to be invalidated1 and the laxity of expression remains somewhat curious4 ,i can conceive it possible that the ,synoptists may be brought into closer agreement with ,st4 ,john--perhaps on the lines of a paper by the ,rev4 ,g4 ,h4 ,box 7,journ4 of ,theol4 ,studies1 ,april1 #aijb71 which ,i am glad to see is spoken of with some approval by ,dr4 ,drummond--on the hypothesis that the meal of which our ,lord and ,his disciples partook was really the ceremony of ,kiddsh1 a solemn #8sanctification' which preceded the weekly ,sabbath and great festivals like the ,passover4 ,but in any case the ,synoptic version is too much burdened by contradictions to be taken as it stands4 ,many of these have been often pointed out ,in ,mark xiv4 #b 7,matt4 xxvi4 #e7 we are expressly told that the ,sanhedrin determined to arrest ,jesus1 but #8not during the feast1' lest there should be a tumult among the people4 ,but1 according to the ,synoptic account1 it was on the most sacred day of the feast1 and after the ,passover had been eaten1 that the arrest was carried out4 ,further1 we observe that although the ,last ,supper is described as a ,passover1 there is no hint or allusion to its most characteristic feature1 the paschal lamb4 ,the events of the night would involve sacrilege for a devout ,jew4 ,on such a holy day it was not allowed to bear arms2 and yet ,peter is armed1 and the servants of the ,high ,priest1 if not themselves armed1 accompany an armed party4 ,then we have the hurried meeting of the ,sanhedrin who1 according to the ,synoptic version1 would have just risen from the paschal meal4 ,jesus is taken to the praetorium of the ,roman ,governor1 to enter which would cause defilement1 and that on the most sacred day of the feast4 ,simon of ,cyrene is represented as coming in from the country1 which though perhaps not necessarily implying a working day1 looks more like it than a day treated as a sabbath4 ,the haste with which the bodies were taken down from the cross is accounted for by the sanctity of a day that is about to begin1 not of one that is just ending 7,mark xv4 #db74 ,if it had been the latter1 ,joseph of ,arimathaea could not have #8bought' the linen cloth in which the body was laid4 ,we may add to the above a point specially brought out by ,mr4 ,box4 #8,in all the accounts it is noticeable that one cup only is mentioned which was partaken of by all2 whereas at the ,passover a special point is made of each man bringing his own cup to drink from4' ,it seems on the whole to be safe to say that if the two accounts are to be harmonized1 it is not ,st4 ,john who will need to be corrected from the ,synoptists1 but the ,synoptists who will have to be corrected by ,st4 ,john4 ,and the result of the investigation on which we have been engaged will be that1 of the four points commonly alleged against the ,gospel1 two are more or less clearly in its favour1 and the remaining two are not more than open questions on which either side may be right4 ,even if the investigation had been more adverse than it is1 it would by no means have followed that the ,fourth ,gospel was not the work of an eye-witness3 but its position appears to be strengthened rather than the reverse4 ,,ii4 ,the alleged ,want of ,development in ,st4 ,john's ,narrative4 ,more serious than any criticism in detail is the general objection that the narrative of the ,fourth ,gospel does not1 like the ground-document of the ,synoptics1 supply a reasonable and natural evolution of events4 ,it is said--and not without cause--that in the ,fourth ,gospel we see the end from the very beginning4 ,whereas in the ,synoptics1 and more particularly in ,st4 ,mark1 ,jesus does not at first put ,himself forward as the ,messiah1 and is not recognized as such even by ,his disciples before the ,confession of ,st4 ,peter1 or by the public before the triumphal entry into ,jerusalem2 in the very first chapter of ,st4 ,john ,he is twice over greeted as the ,messiah 7vers4 #da1 #de7 and twice described as the ,son of ,god 7vers4 #cd1 #di71 and the ,baptist also at this early stage already points to ,him as #8the ,lamb of ,god1 which taketh away the sin of the world' 7ver4 #bi1 cf4 #cf74 ,nor is it enough that ,his disciples are said to have believed on ,him from the first 7ii4 #aa71 but we are also told that in ,jerusalem at the ,passover #8many believed on his name' 7ii4 #bc74 ,in chap4 iii advanced teaching is given to ,nicodemus1 and ,john the ,baptist is represented as using very exalted language about ,him 7iii4 #ca-f74 ,in chap4 iv ,jesus reveals ,himself as the ,messiah to the ,samaritan woman 7ver4 #bf72 and we are not only told that many of the ,samaritans believed on ,him1 but that they actually acknowledged ,him as #8the ,saviour of the world' 7vers4 #ci-db74 ,in chap4 v ,he is accused of #8making himself equal with ,god' 7ver4 #ah74 ,in chap4 vi the people are so carried away by enthusiasm that they want to force ,him to place ,himself at their head 7ver4 #ae72 and once more very advanced teaching is imparted 7vers4 #bf-eh74 ,these earlier chapters are the more important because in the latter part of the ministry the advanced teaching that we find may seem more in place4 ,the difficulty that we have to deal with is threefold3 it relates partly to the anticipated confessions1 partly to the free use of the word #8believed1' and partly to the advanced character of the teaching4 ,this last point may be dealt with more appropriately when we come to speak of the teaching generally2 but the other two call for consideration at once4 ,before passing on to this1 ,i should like to say frankly that ,i am not going to deny or to minimize the facts4 ,i do not honestly believe that everything happened exactly as it is1 or seems to be1 reported4 ,but in saying this ,i must add that ,i also do not believe that1 even if the argument were made good to the full extent that is alleged1 it would at all decisively impugn the conclusion at which we have hitherto seemed to arrive--that the ,gospel is really the work of an eye-witness and of ,st4 ,john4 ,in looking back over a distant past it is always difficult to keep the true perspective2 the mind is apt to forget1 or at least to foreshorten1 the process by which its beliefs have been reached2 and when once a settled conviction has been formed it is treated as though it had been present from the beginning4 ,it would have been strange indeed if the aged disciple had nowhere allowed the cherished beliefs of more than half a lifetime to colour the telling of his story1 or to project themselves backwards into those early days when his faith was not as yet ripe but only ripening4 ,it would not in the least disturb our conclusion to admit1 that in the earlier chapters of the ,gospel there are a number of expressions that are heightened in character and more definite in form than those that were really used4 i4 ,anticipated ,confessions4 ,what has just been said will apply especially to the terms in which the first disciples who gathered round our ,lord are described as giving in their adhesion4 ,the author of the ,gospel was himself a convinced ,christian--a ,christian so convinced that he could hardly recall the time when he had been anything else4 ,it was natural to him to think of his comrades in the faith as he thought of himself4 ,and if he puts into their mouths stronger expressions than they actually used1 it was only a little antedating the fact4 ,but1 apart from this1 it is a question whether we ourselves do not read into the words more than they really contain4 ,there can be no doubt that the half-century1 or rather more1 before the fall of ,jerusalem was a time of high-strung expectation on the part of the ,jews4 ,the belief that the ,messiah was about to appear was widely diffused among all classes of the people4 ,it was this belief which gave a transient success to the many pretenders of whom we read in the ,acts and in the pages of ,josephus4 ,there was the feeling that the ,messiah might come at any moment1 and no ,jew would have been surprised if ,he had appeared in his own immediate neighbourhood4 ,vague rumours were everywhere about1 and we may be sure would readily attach themselves to individuals4 ,it is probable enough that among the crowds which gathered round the ,baptist this expectation was even more rife than elsewhere4 ,those who came to his baptism1 we may well believe1 were among the most earnest1 the most patriotic1 and the most sanguine spirits of the nation4 ,that little groups1 united by local ties1 would be readily formed1 and readily seek to attach themselves to one who seemed to possess the qualities of a leader1 would be only what we should expect4 ,and if their enthusiasm was easily aroused1 that would be all in harmony with their surroundings4 ,perhaps the most remarkable of all the anticipations in these early chapters is the announcement attributed to the ,baptist1 #8,behold1 the ,lamb of ,god1 which taketh away the sin of the world6' ,there is no doubt that the ,baptist had a prophetic gift4 ,in all our authorities he is represented as predicting the coming greatness of his successor4 ,but it was one thing to feel a dim presentiment of a mission higher than his own1 and another thing to predict for that mission at the very outset a form which it did indeed actually take1 but which it seems impossible that anything should have suggested at the moment4 ,it would be difficult to find a better example of what we may call the #8interpretative function' of the ,evangelist4 ,it is evident that the events of these first days made the deepest impression upon him1 an impression that no lapse of time could obliterate4 ,certainly something occurred which in later years gave its shape to this remarkable saying4 ,in the next chapter we have a similar saying1 the history of which is fully related3 #8,when therefore he was raised from the dead1 his disciples remembered that he spake this2 and they believed the scripture1 and the word which ,jesus had said4' ,in this case the whole process was consciously realized2 the ,evangelist distinguished in his own mind between the word as originally spoken and the sense which he was led to put upon it4 ,may we not suppose that in regard to the earlier saying a similar process went on1 but with just the difference that it was in great part unconscious1 and not conscious8 ,the ,baptist is represented as repeating his exclamation twice2 but on the second occasion the qualifying clause is dropped2 the words are only1 #8,behold1 the ,lamb of ,god6' ,is it not possible that this1 or something like it1 is all that was actually spoken8 ,perhaps not so much even as this2 but in some way or other we may believe that the ,baptist did1 as a matter of fact1 compare the ,figure approaching him to a lamb4 ,this comparison sank deep into the mind of one at least of his hearers2 and imperceptibly the words filled out with all the full religious significance of the lamb--the paschal lamb1 the lamb dumb before his shearers1 the suffering ,servant1 whose sufferings were also an atonement1 the ,lamb of ,god which taketh away the sin of the world4 ,this is a process which psychologically we can follow4 ,but here1 as in so many other places1 we can follow it far more easily1 if we take as our starting-point some actual phrase which the ,evangelist had heard and which had lodged in his mind1 than if we are compelled to regard it as pure invention4 ,we may well ask what conceivable train of thought could put it into the head of a second-century writer to introduce so strange and remote a thought at a point in his narrative with which it seems to have no natural connexion4 ii4 ,the ,use of the ,word #8,believe4' ,i have long suspected that one of the reasons for the apparent want of progressive development in the ,fourth ,gospel has been the ambiguity of its use of the word #8believe4' ,we are told from the first that disciples and others #8believed1' and it is natural enough that we should take the word in the full sense of complete conversion and acceptance of ,jesus as the ,messiah4 ,but there can be little doubt that to do so is to read into the word a great deal more than the writer intended4 ,we do not make sufficient allowance for the extreme simplicity of his vocabulary4 ,he has but one word to denote all the different stages of belief4 ,we must attend closely to the context if we would see when he means the first dawning of belief and when he means full conviction4 ,many times over he uses the word of what must have been a quite transient impression4 ,the impression might be confirmed and become rooted1 or it might pass rapidly away4 ,as applied to members of the ,twelve the word denotes successive stages of acceptance1 culminating--but even then only provisionally--in ,st4 ,peter's confession4 ,as applied to the ,samaritans and to the mixed crowds in ,galilee and ,jerusalem1 the word probably does not cover more than faint stirrings of curiosity and emotion which lightly came and lightly passed away4 ,one example of the use of the word is especially interesting4 ,the writer is speaking of the visit of ,peter and the unnamed disciple to the tomb1 and he tells how1 after ,peter had entered1 the other disciple also entered1 #8and he saw1 and believed' 7xx4 #h72 but he immediately adds3 #8,for as yet they knew not the scripture1 that he must rise again from the dead4' ,we might perhaps paraphrase3 #8,the wonder of the resurrection began to dawn upon them1 though they were not prepared for it4 ,at a later date they came to understand that prophecy had distinctly pointed to it1 and that the whole mission of the ,messiah would have been incomplete without it3 but as yet this was hidden from them4 ,they saw that something mysterious had happened1 and they felt that what had happened was profoundly important2 as yet they could not say more4 ,the first step towards a full belief had been taken1 though the full belief itself was still in the future4' iii4 ,traces of ,development in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,so far ,i have not questioned the indictment that the ,gospel is wanting in historical development4 ,all that ,i have done has been to urge some mitigating or qualifying considerations4 ,but ,i believe that the extent within which it can be said that there is no development1 and that the end appears from the beginning1 is often much exaggerated4 ,the unfavourable instances are observed and the favourable are neglected4 ,if1 instead of fixing our attention upon what is said of the disciples in the first few chapters1 we were to look at the attitude of those who are not disciples from chap4 vii onwards1 we should find a state of things differing somewhat from our expectations1 and one that really bears out the ,synoptic version of the great reserve and reticence with which the claims of ,christ were prosecuted4 ,use has already been made of the opening paragraph of chap4 vii to show that in the conception of the ,fourth ,evangelist as well as in that of his predecessors the ministry of ,christ had been in the main carried on in a province and not in ,judaea or ,jerusalem4 ,the evidence of the same passage1 and indeed of the whole chapter1 is not less clear that ,he did not go about definitely proclaiming ,himself as the ,messiah1 but that ,he left ,his claim to be inferred1 and doubtfully inferred1 from the indirect implications of ,his teaching4 ,the brethren of ,jesus insinuate that ,he shrank from putting ,his claims really to the test4 ,it was a paradox to suppose that ,he could work in secret1 and yet expect public recognition4 ,if ,he desired this ,he should go about the right way to obtain it2 ,he should come forward to the front of the stage1 where ,he could be seen and known 7vii4 #c1 #d74 ,on the other hand1 the answer which the brethren received implies that the time for this complete manifestation was not yet come2 it was to come before ,his work was finished1 but the hour had not yet struck4 ,again1 when ,jesus does at last go up to the feast1 the crowds begin to speculate about ,him2 but their speculations are as yet quite vague4 ,was ,he really a good man or a deceiver8 7ver4 #ab74 ,had ,he really a mission from ,god8 7vers4 #ae-ah74 ,only by degrees do some throw out the tentative question1 #8,can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the ,christ8#8 ,they throw out the question1 but they seem inclined for themselves to answer it in the negative 7vers4 #bf1 #bg74 ,others think that even the ,christ1 when ,he came1 would not do greater wonders 7ver4 #ca74 ,as these discussions went on1 some were emboldened to go further1 and expressed the belief that ,jesus was really that great ,prophet whom they were expecting4 ,yet others--but still tentatively--returned to the idea that ,he may be the ,christ4 ,but no sooner do they suggest this than they are met by the reply that the ,christ must be born at ,bethlehem1 and cannot come out of ,galilee4 ,thus there is a division of opinion1 and no advance is made 7vers4 #dj-c74 ,this tentative and interrogative attitude is not confined to the crowds4 ,even in the ,sanhedrin itself1 though the great majority scornfully reject ,him1 there is at least one 7,nicodemus7 who pleads that the accused should be heard before ,he is condemned4 ,he too is met by the same test2 #8out of ,galilee ariseth no prophet' 7vers4 #de-eb74 ,it is very clear that no sharply defined issue was set before the people4 ,they are left to draw their own conclusions2 and they draw them as well as they can by the help of such criteria as they have4 ,but there is no ,entweder-oder--either ,messiah or not ,messiah--peremptorily propounded by ,jesus ,himself4 ,nor does this state of things last only to the ,feast of ,tabernacles4 ,it still continues at the end of the ,december before the ,passion4 ,at the ,feast of the ,encaenia1 as ,jesus is walking in ,solomon's ,porch1 the ,jews are represented as coming round ,him and saying to ,him1 #8how long dost thou hold us in suspense 7 78 ,if thou art the ,christ1 tell us plainly' 7x4 #bd74 ,it is evident that up to this point1 so near the end1 the claim of ,jesus to be the ,christ had never been so plainly made as to be a matter of notoriety4 ,it is true that ,jesus replied1 #8,i told you1 and ye believed not4' ,the reference no doubt is to the rather enigmatical sayings found in this ,gospel4 ,but even from these it would seem that the inference was not direct and inevitable2 and our ,lord is represented as going on to appeal not to ,his words1 but to ,his works 7ver4 #be74 ,as to the nature of the sayings1 there will be more to be said later4 ,but the broad conclusion seems to be that the writer of this ,gospel is as clearly conscious as any of the ,synoptists of the real course of events1 and that he too was well aware that the ,messiah1 when ,he came1 had not forced a peremptory claim upon an unwilling people4 ,it may thus be seen that the anticipated confessions of the early chapters1 whatever we may otherwise think of them1 are really subordinate and 7so to speak7 accidental2 the main course of the ministry is not conceived differently in the ,fourth ,gospel and in the ,synoptics4 ,,iii4 ,the ,nature of the ,discourses4 ,another of the objections brought against the ,fourth ,gospel that is not without a certain amount of foundation is that from the nature of the ,discourses4 ,it is said with some degree of truth that the discourses put into the mouth of our ,lord in this ,gospel are different from those in the ,synoptics4 ,we notice at once that the parables1 which contribute so much to our conception of the outward form and manner of our ,lord's teaching1 have dropped out4 ,what ,st4 ,john calls by that name1 although similar1 is not exactly the same thing4 ,many of the discourses are longer2 for instance1 that which is apparently addressed to ,nicodemus in chap4 iii1 the discourse after the healing of the impotent man in chap4 v1 the discourse in the synagogue at ,capernaum in chap4 vi1 and the last discourses in chaps4 xiv-xvii4 ,and we observe further that the style of many parts of these discourses1 while it is not like that which we find in the ,synoptic ,gospels1 corresponds remarkably with the style of ,st4 ,john's ,epistles4 ,it is not the case that the speeches in the ,fourth ,gospel are systematically longer than those in the ,synoptics4 ,we perhaps have an impression that they are2 but1 if so1 it is not borne out by the facts4 ,for the proof of this ,i may refer to the statistics carefully worked out by ,dr4 ,drummond on p4 #bd4 ,there is no doubt that the speeches of our ,lord were1 as ,justin said1 #8short and concise4' ,they had nothing in common with the elaborate compositions and rounded periods of ,greek rhetoric4 ,the type on which they were modelled was wholly different4 ,we find the nearest parallel to it in the so-called #8,sayings of the ,jewish ,fathers' 7,pirke ,aboth74 ,each saying is a sort of aphorism2 and a longer discourse is only a string of aphorisms1 unless it takes the form of a simple narrative or description1 like the parables in the ,synoptic ,gospels or allegories1 like those of the ,good ,shepherd and the ,vine and its ,branches1 in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,one form of discourse1 that we may be sure must have been common1 is more fully represented in the ,fourth ,gospel than in the other three2 ,i mean the dialogue1 and in particular the controversial dialogue1 growing out of some natural occasion1 such as those of which ,i spoke in the last lecture1 the woman of ,samaria's appeal to the patriarch ,jacob1 the ,jews' demand for a sign like a gift of manna1 the practice of circumcising on the sabbath day1 the charge of demoniacal possession and the claim of the ,jews to be ,abraham's children4 ,instances like these must be set down to the credit of the ,gospel and not against it4 ,the longer discourses appear to grow out of the aphoristic sayings of which ,i have spoken4 ,of these again ,dr4 ,drummond has made an ample collection 7pp4 #ah-bj74 ,but it is true that the ,evangelist permits himself to dwell on such sayings1 to repeat and enforce them by expansions of his own1 which keep coming back to the same point4 ,it has often been remarked that we are constantly left in doubt where the words of our ,lord end and those of the ,evangelist begin4 ,probably the ,evangelist himself did not discriminate1 or even try to discriminate4 ,a modern writer1 in similar circumstances1 would feel obliged to ask himself whether the words which he was setting down were really spoken or not2 but there is no reason to suppose that the author of the ,gospel would be conscious of any such obligation4 ,he would not pause to put to himself questions1 or to exercise conscious self-criticism4 ,he would just go on writing as the spirit moved him4 ,and the consequence is that historical recollections and interpretative reflection1 the fruit of thought and experience1 have come down to us inextricably blended4 ,st4 ,paul was not a historian1 or we may be sure that he would have furnished abundant parallels for the sort of procedure that we find in ,st4 ,john4 ,he is not a historian1 but he does for once lapse into history1 and he does then furnish a parallel which has always seemed to me very exact and very illuminating4 ,you will remember in ,gal4 ii4 #aa ff4 the account of the dispute with ,st4 ,peter at ,antioch4 ,the first few verses are strictly historical2 but suddenly and without a word of warning the ,apostle glides into one of his own abstruse doctrinal arguments as to justification by works of law and by faith4 ,while therefore ,i quite allow that in any given instance there is need for close scrutiny to determine what belongs to the ,master and what to the disciple1 ,i entirely repudiate the inference that ,st4 ,john cannot have written the ,gospel4 ,psychologically1 the ,gospel is more intelligible if one like ,st4 ,john wrote it1 one who drew upon his own memories and was conscious of speaking with authority4 ,it is a mechanical and1 ,i believe1 really untenable view to suppose that the author has simply taken over certain ,synoptic sayings and adapted them to his own ideas4 ,we form for ourselves a far truer and more adequate conception if we think of these discourses as the product of a single living experience4 ,they are from first to last a part of the author's self4 ,the recollections on which they are based are his own1 and it is his own mind that has insensibly played upon them1 and shaped them1 and worked up in them the fruits of his own experience4 ,it is this that really constitutes the value of the ,gospel4 ,it is not a mere invention1 but it is the result of a strong first-hand impression of a wonderful ,personality4 ,it is a blending of fact and interpretation2 but the interpretation comes from one who had an unique position and unique advantages for getting at the heart and truth of that which he sought to interpret4 ,it is the mind of ,christ1 seen through the medium of one of the first and closest of ,his companions4 ,,iv4 ,the ,presentation of the ,supernatural4 i4 ,the treatment of ,miracle in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,i cannot regard anything that we have hitherto had to deal with as constituting a substantial set-off against the arguments previously urged for the authentic and autoptic character of the ,gospel4 ,it is otherwise when we come to its manner of presenting the ,supernatural4 ,it must be confessed that the miracles in the ,fourth ,gospel1 while in the main they run parallel to those in the ,synoptic ,gospels1 yet do appear to involve a certain heightening of the effect4 ,the courtier's servant is healed from a distance2 the impotent man had been thirty-and-eight years in his infirmity2 the blind man who was sent to wash in the pool of ,siloam had been blind from his birth2 ,lazarus had lain four days in the tomb4 ,not only do these details imply an enhancement of the supernatural1 but it seems that the author of the ,gospel valued them specially for that reason4 ,they fall in entirely with his purpose in writing4 ,he sees in them so many striking illustrations of the glory of the ,christ4 ,he had been himself keenly on the watch for the manifestations of that glory1 and he delighted to record them in the hope that they might impress his readers as they had impressed him4 ,we must not make too much of the details ,i have just mentioned4 ,there is no real difference of principle4 ,the healing of the centurion's servant is telepathic like that of the courtier's son4 ,the woman with the issue of blood had been ill for twelve years1 and had spent all her living on physicians4 ,from the way in which blind ,bartimaeus describes his sensations we should infer that he too had never had his sight4 ,death is death2 and ,jairus's daughter and the widow's son at ,nain were as dead as ,lazarus4 ,really1 on this point1 there is little to choose between the ,gospels1 as there is little to choose between the documents out of which the ,synoptics are composed4 ,a common form of objection is that which lays stress on the isolation of the narrative of the raising of ,lazarus4 ,so notable a miracle1 it is urged1 would have been sure to leave traces of itself in the other ,gospels4 ,and ,i quite allow that the argument from silence has more force here than in many of the other cases in which it is used4 ,and yet even here it is easily1 and ,i feel sure it is often1 much exaggerated4 ,the only document of which the author seems to have had the intention of making any sort of collection of miracles was the ground-document of the ,synoptics--we may say1 our present ,st4 ,mark4 ,neither the ,logia nor the special source or sources of ,st4 ,luke do more than mention incidentally a very few4 ,but when we think of the way in which ,st4 ,mark is said to have composed his ,gospel1 it is evident that his collection of miracles could not be in the least exhaustive4 ,he was dependent in the main upon the preaching of ,st4 ,peter1 the object of which was not historical or biographical1 but the edification of its hearers4 ,if it is true 7and it is as yet hardly proved7 that ,st4 ,mark had access also to the ,logia1 that was a collection of sayings rather than of acts4 ,so that there is no one source that we should expect to have anything like a complete enumeration of miracles4 ,on the other hand1 if we turn to what ,i have called the special source or sources of ,st4 ,luke1 how vividly do they bring home to us the incompleteness of the whole previous record6 ,st4 ,mark apparently tried to collect parables as well as miracles2 so also did the ,logia4 ,and yet neither of these documents has any trace of the ,prodigal ,son1 or the ,good ,samaritan1 or the ,pharisee and the ,publican1 or the ,rich ,man and ,lazarus1 or the ,rich ,man cut off before he could enjoy his wealth1 or the ,importunate ,widow1 or the ,unrighteous ,steward4 ,we should have thought it incredible beforehand that any one who professed to make collections with a view to a ,life of ,christ at all could have omitted1 ,i will not say all1 but any two or three of gems like these4 ,and yet we have two considerable works1 both including a collection of parables1 and yet in neither of them is there a vestige of any one of the group ,i have mentioned4 ,even the conspicuous example of the ,raising of ,lazarus does not shake me in my distrust of the argument from silence4 ii4 ,method of approaching the ,question of ,miracle4 ,and yet ,i can well understand the reluctance to accept narratives of miracle4 ,i can well understand a nineteenth or twentieth-century reader taking up the ,fourth ,gospel and saying at once and off-hand1 #8,the writer of this cannot have been an eye-witness of the events he describes4' ,i have little doubt that it is the same sort of off-hand impression which is really at work in the minds of many of the critics4 ,they acquire the impression in the course of a rapid perusal2 or rather it attaches itself to the recollection that they bring with them of what they learnt in their childhood4 ,they do not try to shake it off2 it is always there at the back of their minds2 and it colours1 and ,i must needs think discolours1 all the elaborate and learned study that they make of the ,gospels in maturer years4 ,this question of miracles has been occupying my mind for some time2 and ,i think that at once the most candid and the best procedure that ,i can follow in regard to it will be just to lay before you the provisional conclusions that ,i have reached as provisional1 as a stage in the investigation of a subject that does not at all profess to be final1 but that ,i hope contains something of truth and something that may be helpful to others as it has been to myself4 ,the one main principle in the treatment of miracle that ,i should like to urge would be the importance of keeping as distinct as we can two things1 the attitude of mind in regard to miracles of the contemporaries--those before whom they are said to have happened and on whose testimony they have come down to us--and our own attitude now in the twentieth century4 ,it seems to me that our difficulties are much increased1 and that we are prevented from realizing the full strength of the case for miracles1 by confusing these two things4 ,if we take first the attitude of the contemporaries1 it seems to me that several fixed points come out in regard to them on which we may really take our stand with great confidence4 7i7 ,the first point is that what these men fully believed to be miracles undoubtedly happened4 ,we have evidence on this head that is strictly first-hand1 the evidence of those who believed that they had wrought miracles themselves1 as well as that they had witnessed the working of miracles by others4 7ii7 ,the second point is that this evidence is absolutely bona fide4 ,our best example is1 ,i suppose1 ,st4 ,paul4 ,it is a good exercise to collect the allusions to miracles in the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 to #8signs and wonders1' to or #8acts of power1' to special gifts of the ,spirit4 ,there can be no doubt that ,st4 ,paul was possessed with the conviction that he was living in the midst of miracle4 ,this conviction lies behind and permeates all his thought in the same natural1 spontaneous1 inevitable way in which he performed1 or saw others perform1 the most ordinary functions of nature1 eating or drinking or sleeping or breathing4 7iii7 ,we observe further that these extraordinary phenomena of which he was conscious had for him the value of miracle4 ,the ancients conceived of miracle as a mark of the presence and co-operation of ,deity4 ,the man who could work miracles showed thereby that ,god was actively with him4 ,hence the working of miracles served to authenticate teaching2 it was the proof of commission from ,god4 ,it was in this sense that ,st4 ,paul appealed to his own miracles as the #8signs of an apostle' 7#b ,cor4 xii4 #ab71 and in this sense that he claimed that his preaching carried with it #8the demonstration of the ,spirit and of power' 7#a ,cor4 ii4 #d2 cf4 ,rom4 xv4 #ai74 7iv7 ,if we enlarge our view and look away from the performance of miracle by individuals to the great part which the belief in miracle has played in the history of mankind1 and more particularly in the history of the ,christian ,church1 we cannot1 ,i think1 fail to see that it must have had a providential function4 ,i do not hesitate to introduce teleology4 ,the history of the evolution of the world and of man is such that we are compelled to think of it as designed2 in other words we are compelled to think that the ,power which lies behind phenomena has had a purpose1 which is at least analogous to purpose in man4 ,there may be some paradoxical features in the carrying out of this purpose1 due to the peculiar conditions under which it has operated2 but these cannot obscure the broad lines of purposeful development2 and over a considerable tract of that development the belief in miracle has played a substantial part1 and a part that we can see to be deeply interwoven with some of the culminating events in the history of the human race4 ,some of us might be content to stop at this point2 we might be content to accept a belief that has been so ingrained in the mind of man and so important in its effects and associations simply as it stands4 ,but the curiosity of science is not easily satisfied1 and in the present day especially it goes on to press the further question1 ,after all1 what was it that really happened8 ,we can see clearly enough what ,st4 ,paul 7e4 g47 believed to have happened1 but how far did this belief of his correspond to the fact8 ,were these miracles that he assumes real miracles8 ,when we ask these questions1 it is well to remember that we are still in the region of relative ideas2 we do not mean so much ,what is the absolute reality of what happened8 as ,how should we describe it--we1 with our twentieth-century habits of thought and improved scientific categories8 ,it is here that we get on to the really difficult ground4 ,it is ground that by the nature of the case must be difficult1 because it means that we have to put a twentieth-century construction upon first-century records4 ,it is as if a present-day physician were dependent for his diagnosis of the facts upon ,galen or ,hippocrates2 or rather1 the real state of the case is worse still1 for that would be at least comparing science with science1 the science of one century with the science of another1 whereas the data that we have to go upon are not scientific 7in the sense of proceeding from experts71 but rather represent popular ideas and popular assumptions4 i4 ,in spite of these difficulties there are still1 ,i cannot but think1 some general considerations that may help us4 ,the first is that the cause must be in some degree commensurate with the effects4 ,christianity is in any case a very stupendous fact2 and it will not do to explain it as arising out of a series of trivial misunderstandings4 ii4 ,the evidence of the ,gospels is not quite equal in quality to that of the ,epistles4 ,it is the evidence of men reporting what they or others had seen1 not 7so far as appears7 that of men who had felt the current of miraculous energy actually thrill through themselves4 ,st4 ,paul had felt this2 it was part of the experience on which he looked back1 and which he felt to be intimately bound up with the whole success of his mission4 ,and yet we have to remember that the miracles of ,st4 ,paul and his companions and contemporaries are secondary1 whereas those of the ,gospels are primary4 ,they are like the waves caused by an earthquake1 but they are not themselves the earthquake4 ,if ,christ had not come first and done the things that never man did1 there would have been no ,day of ,pentecost1 no outpouring of the ,spirit1 no overmastering impulse that carried men like ,st4 ,paul from one end of the ,mediterranean to the other #8in the power of signs and wonders1 in the power of the ,holy ,ghost' 7,rom4 xv4 #ai74 iii4 ,the argument is therefore a fortiori4 ,the disciple is not above his master1 or the servant above his lord4 ,all these subordinate manifestations1 though we have in some ways better evidence for them1 do but point back to the one supreme manifestation1 the ,incarnation of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,we must never forget that behind the alleged miracles of the ,gospels we have the absolutely greatest spiritual force that the world has ever known4 ,if our knowledge is as yet very imperfect of the influence of spirit upon matter in general1 it is inevitably still more imperfect of this crowning instance of the spirit-world in contact with the material4 ,when we argue upwards from the analogy of the known to the unknown1 we must always leave a large margin for the interval between the point at which our common experience1 and even higher extraordinary experience1 ends1 and the point at which this highest of all human experiences begins4 ,even a strictly scientific method should be conscious of its own limitations2 when it has done all that it can do1 it should be aware that its ladders are still too short to scale the height that has to be scaled2 it must leave room for a venture of faith beyond the furthest horizon of sight4 iv4 ,we are not called upon to believe that anything is really contrary to1 or in violation of1 nature ,st4 ,augustine laid down1 some fifteen centuries ago3 #8,portentum ergo fit non contra naturam sed contra quam est nota natura' 7,de ,civitate ,dei1 xxi4 #h74 ,we can always exercise an act of faith1 that if we really knew what had taken place1 and if we really knew the highest laws of the universe1 there would not be any contradiction between them4 ,as it is1 there is a double margin of error3 it is difficult1 and in many cases impossible1 for us so to translate the language of the distant past into the idiom of the present as to be sure that we can realize what are the facts that we have to deal with2 and1 even if we had got the facts1 we should still have but a very imperfect knowledge of the causes by which they were determined4 v4 ,we speak1 therefore1 not of what we know1 but1 as ,i have said1 by an act of faith1 of that which would be if we knew4 ,in this attitude we make allowance for possible and probable defects in our sources3 we make allowance for all the disturbing influences that have brought them into the shape in which we see them4 ,but in doing this1 we have the consolation of feeling that any element of mistake that has come in under this head has been all of the nature of extension4 ,the miracles of primitive ,christianity are certainly not a series of fictions4 ,there certainly was among them a large nucleus of events that really had the character claimed for them1 that were really due to the operation of a ,divine cause1 and really bore witness to the presence of such a cause4 ,if there was anything beyond this of a less trustworthy character1 we may be sure that it was framed on the analogy of that which is verifiable1 or that would be verifiable if we possessed instruments and methods capable of dealing with it4 ,this principle of extensions is1 ,i believe1 of the first importance in the scientific reconstruction of primitive ,christianity4 ,it at once explains and covers the transition from that which is permanent to that which is not permanent4 ,it signifies #8the removing of those things that are shaken1 444 that those things which are not shaken may remain4' ,as1 for instance1 in the case of the belief in ,inspiration1 there is undoubtedly a reality underlying the popular belief both of ancient and of modern times1 so1 also1 in the case of miracle we may be sure that there is an inner reality1 which no criticism will ever dissolve1 though it may succeed in making us conscious that the descriptions of eighteen centuries ago no longer satisfy the thought of to-day4 iii4 ,the ,gospel embodies ocular ,testimony4 ,for these reasons ,i do not wish it to be supposed that ,i regard all difficulties as removed and every question as closed1 if ,i insist upon the conclusion that has so far seemed to be emerging from our study--the conclusion that the ,gospel is the work of an eye-witness of the events1 who is describing for us what he had himself actually seen4 ,i do not want to use any kind of argumentative coercion4 ,i fully believe that the author of the ,gospel occupied this position2 and yet ,i do not mean1 by asserting this1 to impose upon others the necessary consequence that everything happened 7i4 e4 that we can realize it to ourselves as having happened7 exactly as it is described4 ,for my own part ,i abstain from attempting to re-write the narrative4 ,i know that any such attempt is foredoomed to failure4 ,still more do ,i refuse to follow those who peremptorily dismiss all that they cannot understand4 ,i cherish and value very highly the assurance that we have to do with the work of an eye-witness4 ,and yet1 as ,i have said1 ,i accept the result with a certain reserve1 with the consciousness that there is something unexplained and which ,i perhaps myself shall never be able to explain4 ,this does not prevent me from making what ,i can of the easier incidents1 in which one seems to see one's way more clearly4 ,i will give an example4 ,one of the great passages discussed at the outset of our inquiries is typical and significant in the light which it throws on the mental attitude of the writer4 ,we are told how1 as he stood at the foot of the ,cross1 he saw the side pierced1 and blood and water flow from the wound4 ,it is in connexion with this that we have one of those solemn asseverations 7whether made by the writer for himself or by some one else for him7 of the truth1 resting upon his own ocular testimony1 of the fact that he is recording4 ,the whole incident evidently made a deep impression upon him1 for he goes on to quote it as a direct fulfilment of two distinct passages of ,scripture4 ,and again1 in his ,first ,epistle1 he refers to the peculiar phenomenon which he had seen as one that was fraught with mystical meaning4 ,now physicians tell us that what the ,evangelist actually saw was not1 strictly and literally1 what he has described4 ,the efflux from the side was not exactly blood and water1 though it might quite well have had an appearance like that of blood and water1 and the ,evangelist no doubt supposed it to be what he says4 ,the blood was real blood1 but that which looked like water was a sort of lymph or serum4 ,this would serve equally well to suggest the train of thought which the ,evangelist attached to it4 ,it is easy to understand how what was for him a strange phenomenon at first struck the eye and then dwelt in his mind1 and as he often returned to it and pondered over it1 at last took definite shape1 as a visible emblem1 divinely produced1 of a principle deeply rooted in the ,christian religion1 the principle that found expression in its two leading ,sacraments4 ,clearly here it is permissible to distinguish between the fact itself for which we have this explicit testimony1 and the train of speculation to which it gave rise4 ,the speculations are such as in all ages have naturally commended themselves to devout minds4 ,there have always been those who have had so strong a sense of the unity of things1 of the #8pre-established harmony' between the material and the spiritual1 that the #8outward shows' of external nature #8the earth and every common sight1' have seemed to reflect and symbolize that which is unseen4 ,we may well believe that there is broad fundamental truth underlying these dim intuitions1 though it may be another thing to say that in any particular case the harmony that is guessed is precisely that which the ,divine ,artificer intended4 ,but the point on which ,i should wish to lay stress is1 that the order of thought is from the observed fact to the idea1 and not backwards from the idea to a fact imagined to correspond with it4 ,and in regard to the ,fourth ,gospel1 ,i think we may lay down that the ,evangelist always starts from something that he has seen4 ,it is possible that his mind1 acting retrospectively on his memory of the physical impression1 may emphasize features in the impression that were not so distinct at the time when it was given4 ,but the notion that the ,gospel is a pure romance woven entirely out of the creations of the brain seems to me contrary to its whole character4 ,i do not wish at all to imply--,i desire expressly to guard myself against implying--that other miracles in the ,fourth ,gospel can be explained so simply as that of the pierced side4 ,on the wider question ,i have just said what ,i have to say4 ,but for my present purpose1 in its bearing upon the criticism of the ,fourth ,gospel1 ,i content myself with maintaining1 that ,st4 ,john's descriptions of the supernatural always start from facts that had come under his own personal observation1 or that of others who were very near to him4 iv4 ,a ,patristic ,parallel4 ,so far as the treatment of the supernatural has been made a ground of objection to the ,gospel1 ,i think we may take a warning from critical experience in another field4 ,i quoted in the second ,lecture several instances in which criticism has distinctly changed its mind and come back to a view far more in accordance with tradition than that which at one time prevailed4 ,one of these instances was taken from the literature of the beginnings of ,monasticism1 and more particularly from the ,vita ,antonii ascribed to ,st4 ,athanasius4 ,i pointed out how the whole class of literature to which this treatise belongs has been definitely set upon its feet again4 ,after being at one time very radically treated1 it is now widely accepted as in great part resting upon good first-hand authority4 ,one of the arguments alleged against the ,athanasian treatise turned upon the miracles contained in it4 ,but at the present time that argument would be differently stated4 ,whereas it used to run1 ,this treatise contains miracles of a kind that must be unhistorical1 and therefore it cannot be the genuine work of ,st4 ,athanasius2 now it would run1 ,this treatise is certainly a genuine work of ,st4 ,athanasius1 and therefore we must make of the miracles what we can3 a judicious estimate of them is given by ,dom ,cuthbert ,butler in his ,lausiac ,history of ,palladius 7#ahih71 pp4 #aib-f4 ,in like manner ,i should like to reverse the objection that is often brought against the ,fourth ,gospel and to say1 that there is strong reason for regarding it as a first-hand authority1 and that the recognition of this should be a postulate of any examination of its bearing upon the question of the supernatural4 ,i observe that at the ,church ,congress recently held at ,liverpool1 in the discussion on ,new ,testament ,criticism1 ,mr4 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt made use of an argument very similar to this1 and that exception was taken to it at the end of the debate by the ,bishop of ,salisbury1 on the ground that the miracles in the ,gospels and in the ,historia ,lausiaca are too different to be compared4 ,of course ,i perfectly acknowledge the difference4 ,i would not for a moment wish to press the argument for more than it is worth4 ,at the same time1 it seems to me that we must not despise the day of small things2 we must not reject an analogy simply because it is incomplete4 ,it rarely happens that an analogy entirely covers that with which it is compared4 ,many an argument is employed a minori ad maius2 and ,i do not doubt that it was in that sense that ,mr4 ,burkitt wished his words to be taken1 as ,i should wish mine4 ,footnote #ed3 ,theol4 ,literaturzeitung1 #ahic1 col4 #aha ff4 ,,lecture ,,vi ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,logos1 ,,and ,,its ,,influence ,,on ,,the ,,gospel ,the ,fourth ,gospel is like one of those great ,egyptian temples which we may see to this day at ,dendera or ,edfu or ,karnak--and we remember that the ,temple on ,mount ,zion itself was of the same general type--the sanctuary proper is approached through a pylon1 a massive structure overtopping it in height and outflanking it on both sides4 ,the pylon of the ,fourth ,gospel is of course the ,prologue2 and this raises at the outset two important questions3 ,i4 ,what are the affinities of its leading thought2 or1 in other words1 what is its place in the history of thought and the history of religion8 and ,,ii4 ,in what relation does the prologue stand to the rest of the ,gospel8 ,i need not say that both these points have been1 and are being still1 actively debated4 ,i4 ,affinities of the ,logos doctrine4 ,the preponderance of opinion at the present time doubtless leans to the view that there is some connexion between the ,logos of ,philo and the doctrine of the ,logos in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,but the question is as to the nature and closeness of that connexion4 ,on this many shades of opinion are possible4 #a4 ,partial parallels in ,o4 ,t4 and ,judaism4 ,if the ,logos of ,st4 ,john is not connected with that of ,philo1 the alternative must be that its origin is ,palestinian4 ,the directions in which we should look would be to the ,old ,testament1 the ,apocrypha1 and the ,memra of the ,targums4 ,and it is true that there are many places in these writings in which #8the ,word of ,god' is used with pregnant meaning4 ,ps4 xxxiii4 #f3 #8,by the word of the ,lord were the heavens made2 and all the host of them by the breath of ,his mouth4' ,cf4 #b ,esdras vi4 #dc3 #8,as soon as thy word went forth the work was done4' ,ps4 cvii4 #bj3 #8,he sendeth his word1 and healeth them1 and delivereth them from their destructions4' ,ps4 cxlvii4 #ae3 #8,he sendeth out his commandment upon earth2 his word runneth very swiftly4' ,ps4 cxlvii4 #ah3 #8,he sendeth out his word1 and melteth them2 he causeth his wind to blow1 and the waters flow4' ,isa4 xl4 #h3 #8,the grass withereth1 the flower fadeth3 but the word of our ,god shall stand for ever4' ,isa4 lv4 #aj1 #aa3 #8,for as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven1 and returneth not thither1 but watereth the earth1 and maketh it bring forth and bud1 and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater2 so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth3 ,it shall not return unto me void1 but it shall accomplish that which ,i please1 and it shall prosper in the thing whereto ,i sent it4' ,wisd4 ix4 #a3 #8,o ,god of the fathers1 and ,lord who keepest thy mercy1 who madest all things by thy word4' ,wisd4 xvi4 #ab3 #8,for of a truth it was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that cured them1 but thy word1 ,o ,lord1 which healeth all things4' ,wisd4 xviii4 #ae1 #af3 #8,thine all-powerful word leaped from heaven out of the royal throne1 a stern warrior1 into the midst of the doomed land1 bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment2 and standing it filled all things with death2 and while it touched the heaven it trode upon the earth4' ,this last passage goes furthest in the way of personification4 ,but in the other passages there is a tendency--we can hardly call it more--to objectify the #8word of ,god' and to treat it as though it had a substantive existence4 ,this is1 however1 still some way short of the ,logos both of ,st4 ,john and of ,philo4 ,rather more may be said of the ,memra of the ,targums4 ,these writings are indeed1 in their extant form1 of uncertain date4 ,and yet ,i suspect1 though ,i cannot prove1 that our present texts faithfully preserve the interpretative tradition of the synagogues4 ,the same tendencies were at work as far back as the beginning of the ,christian era1 and the probabilities are that they expressed themselves in the same way4 ,the ,jews were a conservative people2 and the #8tradition of the elders' went on continuously without any real break4 ,we are always hampered by our want of knowledge4 ,the works of ,philo bulk large upon our shelves1 and their contents naturally impress the imagination4 ,of the state of thought in ,syria and ,palestine we have far scantier information4 ,i believe it to be possible that a doctrine like that of the ,philonian ,logos was more widely diffused than we suppose4 ,after all ,philo grounded his use of the term largely upon the ,stoics2 and the ,stoics were spread all over the ,roman ,empire2 they were strong in ,asia ,minor4 ,at the same time we should not be justified in drawing too much upon conjecture1 where we have positive data in our hands4 ,so far as ,palestine goes1 we have traces of a tendency but not of a system4 ,in both ,philo and ,st4 ,john we have what might really be called a system4 ,this creates a presumption that the connexion between them is not accidental4 ,the example of ,st4 ,paul may show us what an active stimulus to thought had been given by ,christianity4 ,in his case we see what far-reaching consequences were drawn from concentrated reflexion upon single detached verses of the ,jewish ,scriptures4 ,we must not wholly put aside the possibility that the author of the ,fourth ,gospel let his thoughts work in the same manner4 ,we shall see presently that on some important topics he has certainly done so4 ,still1 if the doctrines of ,philo came in his way1 the easier hypothesis would be that he was influenced by them4 ,the work of construction would in that case be lighter for him2 he would find the half of it done ready to his hand4 #b4 ,the ,evangelist not a philosopher4 ,it is a distinct question in what form we are to conceive of ,philo's teaching as coming before him4 ,the author of the ,fourth ,gospel was a thinker1 but not a professed philosopher4 ,so far as we can judge from the writings of his that have come down to us1 we should not be inclined to credit him with much philosophical erudition4 ,the idea that we form to ourselves of the ,evangelist is not that of a great reader always poring over books4 ,i find it hard to think of him as sitting down to a deliberate study of the ,jewish scholar's voluminous treatises4 ,the mental habits of the two men are too different4 ,the ,evangelist has a shorter and more direct way of getting at the truth4 ,he was more like the old ,ionian philosophers1 who looked up to the sky and out upon the earth1 and set down the thoughts that rose in them in short loosely connected aphorisms4 ,the author of the ,fourth ,gospel did not look so much without as within3 he sank into his own consciousness1 and at last brought out to light what he found there4 ,he dwelt upon the past until it became luminous to him2 and then he took up the pen4 ,we will consider presently what sort of hypothesis we may form as to the process by which the ,evangelist came to assimilate ,philonian ideas1 if he did assimilate them4 ,but it may be well1 first1 to try to realize rather more exactly the extent of the agreement and difference between the two writers4 #c4 ,points of ,agreement with ,philo4 ,and1 first1 as to the agreement4 ,i have said that ,philo's philosophy1 in spite of its decorative exuberance and prolixity1 is yet at bottom a system4 ,and in the main outline of that system the ,evangelist coincides with him4 ,by the side of the ,eternal1 ,philo has what he himself called #8a second ,god' 7 1 ,grill1 ,entstehung d4 vierten ,evang4 p4 #aji72 and this second ,god he called #8the ,divine ,word4' ,the ,word was ,himself ,god 7 1 ibid474 ,the ,word was the agent or instrument 77 in creation 7ibid41 p4 #aaj74 ,the action of the ,word is not infrequently compared to that of ,light2 and although it is nowhere said that the ,word is ,life#ee1 there are contexts in which the ideas of light and life appear in connexion#ef4 ,in like manner there is a certain amount of parallelism for the idea of the ,word coming to his own and being rejected2 it is the ,word that makes the mind receptive of good2 there are some who may be fitly called #8sons of ,god1' and those for whom this title is too high may at least model themselves after the pattern of the ,word4 ,the parallels for the later part of the ,prologue are slighter1 until we come to the last verse 7ver4 #ah74 ,philo fully shares the conception of the transcendence of ,god1 and speaks of the ,logos as ,his #8prophet' and #8interpreter#eg4' ,there are many coincidences of idea in the attributes ascribed to the ,logos1 as existing in heaven1 as revealing the name of ,god1 as possessing supernatural knowledge and power1 as continually at work1 as eternal1 as free from sin1 as instructing and convincing1 as dwelling in the souls of men1 as high priest towards ,god1 as the source of unity1 of joy and peace1 as imparting eternal life1 as bridegroom1 father1 guide1 steersman1 shepherd1 physician1 as imparting manna1 the food of the soul#eh4 ,i am by no means clear that the case for the connexion of the ,logos of ,st4 ,john with the ,logos of ,philo is really much strengthened by these parallels4 ,if we ask ourselves whether they necessarily imply literary dependence1 ,i think we should have to answer in the negative4 ,we have to remember that ,philo and ,st4 ,john alike have the ,old ,testament behind them4 ,whatever is suggested by this may as well come from it directly1 and not through a further literary medium4 ,and1 when once we have the idea of the ,logos1 there are a number of epithets and metaphors that would go with it almost of themselves4 #d4 ,absence of ,philonian ,catch-words4 ,on the other hand1 when we examine the parallels adduced in detail1 we cannot help noticing that many catch-words of the ,philonian doctrine are entirely absent from the ,fourth ,gospel3 in many connexions 7,grill1 p4 #ajf72 7p4 #ajg72 7pp4 #ajf1 #ajg72 1 7p4 #ajf72 1 7sc4 71 7a term which occurs in ,st4 ,paul and in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 but not in ,st4 ,john72 1 7p4 #ajh72 1 7 7 7pp4 #aji f472 7p4 #aae72 7p4 #aab74 ,among these expressions are several that at an early date entered into ,christian literature1 but they are not found in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,it is probably to such examples as these that ,dr4 ,drummond refers when he speaks of #8the total absence of ,philo's special vocabulary not only in relation to ,god1 but in regard to the ,logos' 7,character1 c41 p4 #bd74 #e4 ,more fundamental differences4 ,it is of yet more importance that the conception of the ,logos in ,philo and in the ,fourth ,gospel presents great and fundamental differences4 ,i do not feel compelled to number among these that particular difference which is at once the most obvious and the most comprehensive4 ,it is of course true that the ,evangelist identifies the ,logos with the person of ,jesus ,christ1 whereas it is doubtful how far the ,philonian ,logos is to be regarded as in any sense personal4 ,we always need to remember that the whole category of personality was wanting at the time when ,philo wrote4 ,the question whether such a conception as that of the ,logos is personal1 naturally forces itself upon us2 we have a name for it1 and we are accustomed to think of things as either personal or impersonal4 ,philo1 on the contrary1 had neither the name nor the idea corresponding to the name4 ,hence we are not surprised to find his language fluctuating1 to find him sometimes write as though the ,logos were personal1 and sometimes as though it were not4 ,where there is no clearly drawn boundary line between two ideas1 it is easy to pass from one to the other without being aware of it4 ,with ,st4 ,john the conditions are different4 ,in any case it was he who took the decisive step of identifying the ,divine ,word with the person of ,christ4 ,having once done this1 his language necessarily became fixed2 the ambiguities which attached to ,philo's teaching were for him so far at an end4 ,the personal element in the ,johannean conception belongs not to the idea of the ,logos but to the historical ,christ2 the originality of the ,evangelist consists in uniting the ,christ of history with the idea of the ,logos1 but whether that idea were personal or impersonal as it came to him was of secondary importance4 ,the divergence is really more significant when we observe that the ,logos idea itself has a different content4 ,the central point in ,philo's conception is the philosophic idea of the ,divine reason2 the centre of ,st4 ,john's is the religious idea of the ,divine word1 ,divine utterance1 creative1 energizing1 revealing4 ,if we for a moment cease to think of the hypostatic and mediating aspect of the ,word and dwell rather on the attributes and functions associated with it1 we find ourselves naturally deserting ,philo and going back to the ,old ,testament4 ,when we glance over the string of passages quoted above1 we see in them a truer counterpart to the real meaning of the ,prologue4 ,ps4 xxxiii4 #f1 with #b ,esdras vi4 #dc2 ,ps4 cxlvii4 #ae1 #ah2 ,wisd4 ix4 #a1 bring out the creative activity of the ,word2 ,num4 xi4 #bc2 ,hos4 vi4 #e2 ,isa4 xl4 #h2 lv4 #aj1 #aa2 ,wisd4 xviii4 #ae1 #af1 bring out the broad providential1 governing and energizing activity2 ,ps4 cvii4 #bj2 ,wisd4 xvi4 #ab1 emphasize the redemptive activity in the narrower sense4 ,all these ideas really underlie the ,prologue1 though they do not all receive equally explicit expression4 ,the dominant thought of the ,prologue is the thought of creation1 revelation and redemption wrought by #8the living ,god'--that old comprehensive genuinely ,hebraic name--but wrought by ,him through ,his ,son1 who is also ,his ,word4 ,the phrase that has just been used brings us round to another aspect of the ,prologue1 which also takes us away from ,philo and back to the ,old ,testament1 or to sources still more immediately ,christian4 ,if there is any truth in the contention that the doctrine of the ,prologue governs the rest of the ,gospel1 it must be not directly as a doctrine of the ,logos1 but rather 7as has been pointed out especially by ,grill and ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann7 indirectly through those two great constituent conceptions of ,life and ,light which together make up1 and are embraced under1 the doctrine of the ,logos4 ,the antecedents of these two conceptions are to be sought far more in the ,old ,testament1 and on the direct line of ,christian development1 than in any language of ,philo's4 ,as has just been said1 #8the living ,god' is not only a strictly ,hebraic and ,old ,testament idea1 but one of the most fundamental of all the ideas of which the ,hebrew mind and the ,old ,testament have been the vehicles4 ,the ,prologue to the ,fourth ,gospel is essentially based upon this idea1 and works it out in a form that is also determined by the ,old ,testament4 ,the significant combination of ,life and ,light1 which is so characteristic of the ,prologue and which so runs through the ,gospel1 can hardly have any other ultimate source than ,ps4 xxxvi4 #i3 #8,with thee is the fountain of life2 in thy light shall we see light1' the first half of which has an important parallel in ,jer4 ii4 #ac1 #8my people have committed two evils2 they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters1 and hewed them out cisterns1 broken cisterns1 that can hold no water4' ,there is of course the difference that what in the ,old ,testament is ascribed directly to ,jehovah1 in the ,gospel is ascribed to the ,logos4 ,that is part of the ,evangelist's method1 which we may assume to be at work all through4 ,but not only does the combination of ,life and ,light belong essentially to the ,old ,testament and not to ,philo1 but each of these ideas taken separately has without doubt an ,old ,testament and not a ,philonic basis4 ,it is true enough that ,philo makes use of metaphors derived from #8,life' and #8,light1' and applies them to the ,logos1 as he is indeed profuse in metaphors of this character2 they are part of his literary embroidery4 ,it is also quite possible that the metaphors were in the first instance suggested to him by the same ,old ,testament passages4 ,but the use in the ,fourth ,gospel is far deeper and more pregnant with meaning4 ,it is also rightly urged that the use in the ,gospel1 more particularly of the conception of ,life1 is really incompatible with ,philo's system4 ,the teaching of ,philo is at bottom dualistic2 for him matter is evil1 and his object is to remove ,god from contact with it4 ,in ,st4 ,john there is no dualism4 ,the writer conceives of matter as penetrated with the divine4 ,alike ,god and the ,word of ,god work downwards and outwards1 through spirit to the material envelope and vesture of spirit4 ,there is no inconsistency between the spiritual and the material quickening1 both of which are taught distinctly in the ,gospel4 #8,as the ,father raiseth the death and quickeneth them1 even so the ,son also quickeneth whom he will' 7,john v4 #ba72 #8,as the ,father hath life in himself1 even so gave he to the ,son also to have life in himself' 7ver4 #bf74 ,both ,father and ,son are a principle of life which takes possession at once of soul and body1 which imparts alike ethical and spiritual vitality to the disciple of ,christ on earth1 and that eternal life which is not something distinct from this but really the continuation of it in the world to come4 ,no one can fail to see the powerful comprehensiveness of this idea1 which incorporates and assimilates with ease such ,jewish notions as that of the resurrection of the body1 where ,philo's dualism makes a break and condemns his system either to superficiality or inconsequence4 ,another point that would be of importance if the facts were really as is often alleged1 is the use of the term ,paraclete4 ,philo1 like ,st4 ,john1 has this term2 and if it were true that with him too it is a designation of1 or directly in connection with1 the ,logos1 that would greatly strengthen the case for the view that ,st4 ,john was really borrowing from him4 ,but the doubts on this head1 first raised by ,heinze1 and more recently enforced by ,dr4 ,drummond and ,dr4 ,grill1 appear to be perfectly valid#ei4 ,it is not the ,logos that is called ,paraclete1 but the ,cosmos#fj4 ,we observe that the ,cosmos1 which is compared to the high priest's vestments1 is also described as #8son 7of ,god74' ,this is very contrary to the usage of the ,evangelist1 for whom the ,cosmos 7in the sense in which he uses the word7 is far more the enemy of ,god than ,his son4 ,all these points together make up a wide divergence between ,philo's doctrine and that of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,they go far to justify ,harnack's epigrammatic saying that #8even the ,logos has little more in common with that of ,philo than the name1 and its mention at the beginning of the book is a mystery1 not the solution of one' 7,history of ,dogma1 i4 #ig74 ,we may discount the epigram a little1 as one has to discount all epigrams2 but when we have done this1 there remains in it a large and substantial truth4 iv4 ,possible avenues of connexion4 ,it does not follow that ,i would deny all connexion between the ,philonian ,logos and ,st4 ,john's4 ,my doubt is whether this connexion can have been literary4 ,i find it difficult to picture to myself the ,evangelist sitting down to master the diffuse tomes of ,philo4 ,where is the interest that would impel him to do this8 ,philo is a student and a philosopher4 ,he is a philosopher who operates with a sacred text1 and therefore has unlimited opportunity for applying and expounding his philosophy4 ,but the ,evangelist is interested in none of his theorems for their own sake4 ,there is only one thing that he seeks4 ,he wants a formula to express the cosmical significance of the ,person of ,christ4 ,when he has got that1 he is satisfied4 ,for the purpose of filling up his formula and working out its meaning1 he goes not to ,philo but to the ,old ,testament4 ,there1 and in his own experience1 he finds all the data that he needs4 ,i believe that there is a connexion between ,greek1 or ,hellenistic1 speculation and the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,but ,i can conceive of this best through the medium of personal intercourse and controversy4 ,how did ,st4 ,paul get his first knowledge of ,christianity8 ,doubtless through his own vehement attacks upon ,christians1 which he found so calmly and steadfastly resisted2 or1 it may be1 through the disputations in the synagogues and in the law courts1 of which he was the witness4 ,we may well believe that ,st4 ,john extended his knowledge in the same way4 ,partly he would learn from foe1 and partly from friend4 ,in a place like ,ephesus he would from time to time hold controversy with philosophers of the stamp of ,justin4 ,but1 apart from this1 in the ,christian community itself he would find germs of teaching such as had been planted by the ,alexandrian ,jew ,apollos4 ,we are left to conjecture2 and we have so few positive data to go upon1 that our conjectures are of necessity vague4 ,the ,evangelist need not have waited for his arrival in ,ephesus to come in contact with the idea of the ,logos1 not perhaps in its full ,philonian form but in a form that might lead up to the ,philonian4 ,philo 7as we have seen7 drew largely from the ,stoics2 and there were ,stoics in the cities of ,decapolis#fa4 ,at a centre like ,antioch they would be found in greater numbers2 and at such a centre it would be quite possible to fall in with a wandering disciple or disciples of ,philo4 ,i have long thought that it would facilitate our reconstruction of the history of early ,christian thought1 if we could assume an anticipatory stage of ,johannean teaching1 localized somewhere in ,syria1 before the ,apostle reached his final home at ,ephesus4 ,this would account more easily than any other hypothesis for the traces of this kind of teaching in the ,didach1 and in ,ignatius1 as well as in some of the earliest ,gnostic systems4 ,we cannot verify anything4 ,we have no materials for the purpose4 ,we can only deal a little with probabilities4 ,but behind all probabilities it is enough for us to know that there must have been many avenues by which the conception of the ,logos may well have reached the ,apostle besides that of the direct and systematic study of the writings of ,philo4 ,,ii4 ,relation of the ,prologue to the rest of the ,gospel4 #a4 ,view of ,harnack4 ,mention has been made above of ,harnack's view as to the relation of the ,prologue to the main body of the ,gospel4 ,he holds that the ,prologue is really separable from this1 that it is of the nature of a postscript1 or after-thought1 rather than a preface4 ,he regards it as not so much the statement of a programme to be worked out in the ,gospel as a sort of #8covering letter1' intended to commend the work to cultivated ,gentile or ,hellenistic readers4 ,this view has in its favour the obvious fact that the word 1 wherever it occurs in the body of the ,gospel1 is used in its ordinary and familiar sense1 and not in the special sense given to it in the ,prologue4 ,in face of this fact it seems at first sight difficult to treat the ,prologue as containing the leading idea that runs through and determines the character of the rest of the ,gospel4 ,and yet it is well known that many writers have so treated it--and conspicuously the two ,french scholars1 ,m4 ,jean ,rville and the ,abb ,loisy4 ,there are two ways of escaping the inference just referred to4 ,one is that of which ,i have just been speaking1 the method adopted by ,dr4 ,julius ,grill in his recent work on the origin of the ,fourth ,gospel1 to take as the leading idea1 not the ,logos but the combination of ,life and ,light which the ,evangelist gives as equivalent to the ,logos#fb4 ,the other is to follow in the track of ,m4 ,loisy1 and to treat the doctrine of the ,logos as a summary name for the whole #8theology of the ,incarnation#fc4' #b4 ,view of ,grill4 ,it is easy 7as ,i have said7 to bring under the head of ,life and ,light all the miracles in the ,gospel1 from the miracle at ,cana down to the ,raising of ,lazarus and even the miraculous ,draught of ,fishes in chap4 xxi4 ,both the first #8sign' and the last are instances of the assertion of creative power1 and the ,healing of the ,blind ,man in chap4 ix1 where this aspect is more subordinate1 illustrates the activity of ,christ as the ,light of the ,world1 a text on which the concluding paragraph of the chapter enlarges4 ,besides the miracles there are many other allusions to these ideas of ,life and ,light3 notably to the #8living water' in the discourse with the ,samaritan woman 7,john iv4 #aj-ad72 to the #8bread of life' in the discourse in the synagogue of ,capernaum 7vi4 #ca-eh72 in the comment apparently suggested by the libation at the ,feast of ,tabernacles 7vii4 #cg f472 in the sayings on ,light in viii4 #ab1 xi4 #i f41 as well as in chap4 ix4 ,there can be no doubt at all that these ideas of ,light and ,life are quite fundamental to the ,evangelist1 and that they fill a large place in his mind4 ,but to say this is not quite the same thing as to say that the ,gospel is constructed upon them4 ,the ,evangelist has told us in set terms on what the ground-plan of his ,gospel is constructed2 #8these 7things7 are written1 that ye may believe that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god2 and that believing ye may have life in his name' 7xx4 #ca74 ,there is no need to seek for any other definition of the object and plan of the ,gospel than this4 #c4 ,view of ,loisy4 ,the same verse may help us to form an estimate of the theory of ,m4 ,loisy4 ,so far as #8the theology of the ,incarnation' is meant to express the same thing1 the phrase is certainly justified4 ,and if ,m4 ,loisy intends it to be at the same time a paraphrase for the doctrine of the ,logos1 we can have no objection4 ,at least the only objection we need have would be that he is using a vaguer and more general term1 when he might use one that is both definite and characteristic4 ,as a rule1 one is more likely to get at the heart of a writer's meaning by laying stress on the peculiar and individual elements in his teaching1 and not on that which he shares with others4 ,but the question how far either ,m4 ,loisy or ,dr4 ,grill has succeeded in defining the root-idea of the ,gospel is after all only secondary4 ,the real issue is not as to the accuracy of the definition1 but as to the nature of the relation which is pre-supposed between the root-idea1 the principle which covers the plan and object of the ,gospel1 and the narrative of which the main body of the ,gospel consists4 ,if ,i may speak for a moment of the leading idea1 not of ,st4 ,john but of ,m4 ,loisy1 ,i am afraid that the tendency1 if not the purpose1 of his whole book is to convict the author of the ,gospel of writing fiction where he professes to write fact4 #8,the theology of the ,incarnation' is a euphemism which is meant to describe the ,gospel as from end to end allegory and symbol1 the product of an idea and not of reality4 ,m4 ,loisy1 we all know1 occupies a peculiar position4 ,his criticism is radical and destructive1 but he believes himself to bring back as faith what his criticism has destroyed4 ,few recent writers have left less of the ,fourth ,gospel standing as solid history2 but at the same time he is a dutiful son of his ,church1 and what the ,church accepts he also accepts as true4 ,there can hardly be any doubt that the ,church1 as far back as we can trace its convictions1 regarded the ,fourth ,gospel as strictly historical4 ,if it had not done so1 it is very questionable whether the ,church itself would have taken the shape it did4 ,there are many in these days who1 if they followed ,m4 ,loisy as a critic1 would find it very hard to follow him as a theologian4 ,they are not a little perplexed to understand how he himself can reconcile the two trains of his thinking4 ,that1 however1 is his own affair1 with which outsiders are not concerned4 ,but they are greatly concerned to know whether or not his criticism is sound4 ,there is no doubt at all that the ,fourth ,gospel expresses the ,evangelist's #8theology of the ,incarnation4' ,it expresses it1 but is it the product of it8 ,has it no more substantial foundation than an idea8 ,is it history1 or is it fiction8 ,that is the great and vital question to which we must address ourselves more directly in the next lecture4 ,footnote #ee3 ,rville1 ,la doctrine du ,logos1 p4 #fg4 ,footnote #ef3 ,grill1 p4 #bah4 ,footnote #eg3 ,ibid41 p4 #aad4 ,philo's word for #8interpreter1' however1 is not cognate with that used by ,st4 ,john4 ,footnote #eh3 ,ibid41 pp4 #aae-bf4 ,footnote #ei3 ,drummond1 ,philo ,judaeus1 ii4 #bcg-i2 ,grill1 pp4 #acc-f4 ,footnote #fj3 ,the main passage is ,vit4 ,mos4 iii4 #ad4 ,footnote #fa3 ,that accomplished scholar ,p4 ,wendland points to the tendency to attach the ,stoical idea of the specially to ,hermes and the ,egyptian ,thoth4 ,he quotes from ,cornutus 7temp4 ,nero7 1 4 ,hermes is the messenger of the gods1 and communicates their will to men2 and it is conceivable that the use of the term in connexion with him may have in some slight degree suggested1 or prepared the way for1 its use in connexion with the new revelation4 ,see ,christentum u4 ,hellenismus 7#aijb71 p4 #g4 ,footnote #fb3 ,entstehung d4 vierten ,evang4 i4 #d-ca1 #hg ff4 ,footnote #fc3 ,le ,quatrime ,evangile1 p4 #ih3 #8,les observations prcdentes et tout ce qu'on a remarqu touchant le caractre du quatrime ,evangile prouvent suffisamment que la thologie de l'incarnation est la clef du livre tout entier1 et qu'elle le domine depuis la premire ligne jusqu' la dernire4' ,,lecture ,,vii ,the ,christology of the ,gospel #a4 ,the ,gospel not a ,biography4 ,once more we fall back upon our main position4 ,the ,evangelist is writing a spiritual ,gospel1 and his whole procedure is dominated by that one fact4 ,his object is to set forth ,christ as ,divine1 not only as ,messiah but as ,son of ,god1 as an object of faith which brings life to the believer4 ,it follows that all criticism which does not take account of this--and how large a part of the strictures upon the ,gospel does not take account of it6--is really wide of the mark4 ,m4 ,loisy1 for instance1 brings a long indictment against the ,gospel for not containing things that it never professed to contain4 ,it never professed to be a complete picture of the ,life of the ,lord4 ,it never professed to show ,him in a variety of human relationships4 ,it never professed to give specimens of ,his ethical teaching simply as such4 ,it did not profess to illustrate1 and it does not illustrate1 even the lower side of those activities that might be called specially divine1 as 7e4 g47 the casting out of demons4 ,the ,gospel is written upon the highest plane throughout4 ,it seeks to answer the question who it was that appeared upon earth1 and suffered on ,calvary1 and rose from the dead and left disciples who revered and adored ,him4 ,and this ,evangelist takes a flight beyond his fellows inasmuch as he asks the question who ,christ was in ,his essential nature3 ,what was the meaning--not merely the local but the cosmical meaning--of this great theophany8 ,it is not surprising if in the pursuit of this object the ,evangelist has laid himself open to the charge of being partial or onesided4 ,those who use such terms are really1 as we have seen1 judging by the standard of the modern biography1 which is out of place4 ,the ,gospel is1 admittedly and deliberately1 not an attempt to set forth the whole of a life1 but just a selection of scenes1 a selection made with a view to a limited and sharply-defined purpose4 ,the complaint is made that it is monotonous1 and the complaint is not without reason4 ,the monotony was involved1 we might say1 from the outset in the concentration of aim which the writer himself acknowledges4 ,and in addition to this it is characteristic of the writer that his thought is of the type which revolves more than it progresses4 ,the picture has not that lifelike effect which is given by the setting of a single figure in a variety of circumstances4 ,the variety of circumstance was included among those bodily or external aspects 7 7 which the writer considered to have been sufficiently treated by his predecessors4 ,he described for himself a narrower circle4 ,and it was because he kept within that circle1 because he goes on striking the same chord1 that we receive the impression of repetition and monotony4 ,perhaps the intensity of the effect makes up for its want of extension4 ,but at any rate the ,evangelist was within his rights in choosing his own programme1 and we must not blame him for doing what he undertook to do4 ,we may blame him1 however1 if within his self-chosen limits the picture that he has drawn for us is misleading4 ,that is the central point which we must now go on to test4 ,the object of the ,gospel would be called in modern technical language to exhibit a ,christology4 ,is that ,christology true8 ,does it satisfy the tests that we are able to apply to it8 ,can we find a suitable place for it in the total conception that we form of the ,apostolic ,age8 ,does it belong to the ,apostolic ,age at all2 or must we1 to understand it1 come down below the time of the ,apostles8 ,to answer these questions we must compare the ,christology of the ,fourth ,gospel with that of the other ,apostolic writings1 and more particularly with that of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 of ,st4 ,paul1 and of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews4 ,it does not take us long to see that the ,christology of the ,fourth ,gospel has the closest affinity with this group of ,epistles--we may say1 with the leading ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul and with that other interesting ,epistle of which we know1 perhaps1 or partly know1 the readers but do not know the author4 ,it is worth while to bring in this because the unmistakable quotation from it in ,clement of ,rome proves it to belong to the ,apostolic ,age4 #b4 ,the ,christology of ,st4 ,john compared with that of ,st4 ,paul and of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews4 ,the meeting-point of all the authorities just mentioned--indeed we might say the focus and centre of the whole ,new ,testament--is the title #8,son of ,god4' ,but whereas the ,synoptic ,gospels work up to this title1 ,st4 ,john with ,st4 ,paul and the ,epistle to the ,hebrews work downwards or onwards from it4 ,what ,i mean is this4 ,the ,synoptic ,gospels show us how1 through the conception of the ,messiah and the titles equivalent to it1 by degrees a point was reached at which the faith of the disciples found its most adequate expression in the name #8,son of ,god4' ,the culminating point is of course ,st4 ,peter's confession represented at its fullest in the form adopted by ,st4 ,matthew1 #8,thou art the ,christ1 the ,son of the living ,god' 7,matt4 xvi4 #af74 ,in the ,synoptic ,gospels1 and we may say also in the historic order of events1 this confession is a climax1 gradually reached2 and we are allowed to see the process by which it was reached4 #8,son of ,god' is the highest of all the equivalents for #8,messiah4' ,and in the ,synoptic ,gospels we have unrolled before us1 wonderfully preserved by a remarkable and we may say truly providential accuracy of reproduction with hardly the consciousness of a guiding idea1 the historic evolution1 spread over the whole of the public ministry1 by which at its end the little knot of disciples settled upon this term as the best and amplest expression of its belief in its ,master4 ,we have seen that the ,fourth ,gospel is by no means wanting in traces of this evolution4 ,but these too are traces1 preserved incidentally and almost accidentally1 without any deliberate purpose on the part of the author3 they are the product of his historical sense1 as distinct from the special object and the large idea that he had before his mind in writing his ,gospel4 ,this special object and large idea presuppose the title as it were full-blown4 ,it was not to be expected that an evangelist sitting down to write towards the end of the first century should unwind the threads of the skein which1 some fifty or sixty years before1 had brought his consciousness to the point where it was4 ,to him looking back1 the evolutionary process was foreshortened2 and we have seen that as a consequence he allowed the language that he used about the beginning of the ministry to be somewhat more definite than on strictly historical principles it should have been4 ,that he should do so was natural and inevitable--indeed from the point of view of the standards of his time there was no reason why he should be on his guard against such anticipations4 ,if we distinguish between the gradual unfolding of the narrative and the total conception present to the mind of the writer throughout from the beginning1 we should say that this conception assumes for ,christ the fullest significance of ,divine ,sonship4 ,more than this3 we see1 when we come to study the ,gospel in detail1 that the writer not only assumes the full idea of ,sonship but has also dwelt upon it and thought about it and followed it out through all the logic of its contents4 ,we may say that it is not only he that has done so but practically all the thinking portion of the ,church of his time4 ,we may see this from the comparison of ,st4 ,paul and the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 not to speak of other ,new ,testament writers4 ,the ,synoptists hardly come under the head of thinkers4 ,they are content to set down facts and impressions without analysis and without reflection4 ,but long before ,st4 ,john sat down to write1 those who really were thinkers had evidently asked themselves what was the meaning and what was the origin of that title #8,son of ,god' by which the ,church was agreed to designate its ,master4 ,the more active minds had evidently pressed the inquiry far home4 ,they did not stop short at the ,baptism2 they did not stop short at the ,birth3 they saw that the ,divine ,sonship of ,christ stretched back far beyond these recent events2 they saw that it was rooted in the deepest depths of ,godhead4 ,it is true both of ,st4 ,paul and of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews--that is1 assuming that the ,epistle to the ,colossians is ,st4 ,paul's--that they have not only the doctrine of the ,son but the doctrine of the ,logos1 all but the name4 ,now ,i know that there are many who will not agree with me2 ,i know also that the position is not easy to prove1 though1 as we shall see1 ,i believe that there are a number of definite facts that at least suggest it4 ,but for myself ,i suspect so strongly as to be practically sure that in these processes of thought the apostolic theologians1 as we may call them1 were not altogether original4 ,they were not without a precursor2 they did not invent their ideas for the first time4 ,i believe that we shall most reasonably account for the whole set of phenomena if we suppose that there had been intimations1 hints1 ,anhaltspunkte1 in the discourses of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ ,himself4 ,we have as a matter of fact such hints or intimations in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the ,evangelist may have expanded and accentuated them a little--he may have dotted the i's and crossed the t's--but ,i believe that it is reasonable to hold that they had been really there4 ,the ,founding of ,christianity is in any case a very great phenomenon2 and it seems to me simpler and easier1 and in all ways more probable1 to refer the features which constitute its greatness to a single source1 to the one source which is really the fountain-head of all4 ,without that one source the others would never have been what they were4 ,the fact that ,st4 ,paul and the ,epistle to the ,hebrews had substantially arrived at a ,logos doctrine before any extant writing has mentioned the name1 seems to throw light on the order of thought by which the ,fourth ,evangelist himself arrived at his doctrine of the ,logos4 ,it is the coping-stone of the whole edifice1 not the foundation-stone4 ,it is a comprehensive synthesis which unites under one head a number of scattered ideas4 ,from this point of view it would be more probable that the ,prologue to the ,fourth ,gospel was a true preface1 written after the rest of the work to sum up and bind together in one mighty paragraph the ideas that are really leading ideas1 though scattered up and down the ,gospel4 ,whether it was actually written last does not matter4 ,what ,i mean is that the philosophic synthesis of the events recorded in the ,gospel came to the ,evangelist last in the order of his thought2 the order was1 history first and then philosophic synthesis of the history4 ,no doubt the synthesis was really complete before the ,apostle began to write his ,gospel2 the writing of the ,prologue may or may not have followed the order of his thought4 ,it may have been1 as ,harnack thinks1 a sort of commendatory letter sent out with the ,gospel2 or it may be that the ,gospel was written out in one piece upon a plan present from the first to the writer's mind4 ,the order of genesis and the order of production do not always coincide2 and it is really a very secondary consideration whether in any particular instance they did or not4 ,we do not know exactly at what stage in his career the ,evangelist grasped the idea of the ,logos4 ,we should be inclined to think comparatively late1 from the fact that it has not been allowed to intrude into the historical portion of the ,gospel4 ,the various ideas which are summed up under the conception of the ,logos appear there independently and in other connexions4 ,as we have just seen1 in ,st4 ,paul also and in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews the arch is fully formed before the key-stone is dropped into it4 ,whatever we may think about this1 there is a close parallelism between the whole theology1 including the ,christology1 of ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john4 ,both start from the thought of an ,incarnation 7,john i4 #ad2 ,rom4 viii4 #c2 ,gal4 iv4 #d2 ,phil4 ii4 #g1 #h2 ,col4 i4 #ae2 and with the latter part of the same verse1 cp4 ,col4 i4 #ai2 ii4 #i74 ,in both ,st4 ,john and ,st4 ,paul the union of the ,son with the ,father is not only moral but a union of essential nature 7cp4 ,john i4 #a1 #b1 #ad2 x4 #cj1 #ch2 xiv4 #aj1 #aa1 #bj2 xvii4 #ba1 #bc with #b ,cor4 v4 #ai2 ,col4 i4 #ac1 #ae1 #ai2 ii4 #i74 ,between the ,son and the ,father there is the bond of mutual love1 of a love supreme and unique 7that is the real meaning of in ,john i4 #ad1 #ah2 cp4 xvii4 #bc1 #bd1 #bf and ,rom4 viii4 #c1 #cb2 ,eph4 i4 #f2 ,col4 i4 #ac74 ,as a consequence of this relation between the ,son and the ,father1 which has its roots in the eternal past 7,john i4 #a1 #b2 xvii4 #e1 #bd71 there was also complete union of will in the work of the ,son upon earth 7,john v4 #cj2 vi4 #ch2 xiv4 #ca2 xvii4 #af3 cp4 ,phil4 ii4 #h2 ,heb4 v4 #g1 #h74 ,thus the acts of the ,son are really the acts of the ,father1 the natural expression of that perfect intimacy in which they stand to each other 7v4 #ai1 #bj2 viii4 #bi2 x4 #be1 #cg1 #ch74 ,the reciprocity between them is absolute1 it is seen in the perfection of their mutual knowledge 7vii4 #bi2 viii4 #ai2 x4 #ae2 xvii4 #be72 so that the teaching of the ,son is really the teaching of the ,father 7vii4 #af2 viii4 #bf1 #bh1 #ch2 xii4 #di1 #ej2 xiv4 #aj1 #bd2 xv4 #ae74 ,what the ,son is1 the ,father also is4 ,hence the life and character and words of the ,son1 taken as a whole1 constitute a revelation of the ,father such as had never been given before 7vi4 #df2 xiv4 #g-aj3 cp4 i4 #ad1 #ah7fd4 ,thus we are brought to another central idea of the ,fourth ,gospel1 the function of the ,son as revealing the ,father4 ,for this1 again1 we have a parallel in an impassioned passage of ,st4 ,paul3 #8,the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving1 that the light of the gospel of the glory of ,christ1 who is the image of ,god1 should not dawn upon them4 ,for we preach not ourselves1 but ,christ ,jesus as ,lord1 and ourselves as your servants for ,jesus' sake4 ,seeing it is ,god1 that said1 ,light shall shine out of darkness1 who shined in our hearts1 to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of ,god in the face of ,jesus ,christ' 7#b ,cor4 iv4 #d-f74 ,it may be true that this idea1 though central with ,st4 ,john1 is subordinate with ,st4 ,paul2 but it is distinctly recognized--just as1 conversely1 the doctrine of the ,atonement1 though clearly implied1 is less prominent with ,st4 ,john than with ,st4 ,paul4 ,the close resemblance between the teaching of ,st4 ,john and ,st4 ,paul does not end with the exposition of the character and mission of the incarnate ,son2 it is exhibited no less in what is said about the ,holy ,spirit4 ,the teaching of the ,fourth ,gospel on the subject of the ,spirit repeats in a remarkable way certain leading features in its teaching about the ,son4 ,the ,father is in the ,son 7as we have seen71 and the ,son is one with the ,father2 and yet the ,son is distinct 7in the language of later theology1 a distinct ,person7 from the ,father2 and in like manner the ,paraclete is #8another' than the ,son 7xiv4 #af71 and is sent by the ,son 7xv4 #bf2 xvi4 #g72 and yet in the coming of the ,spirit the ,son ,himself returns to ,his people 7xiv4 #ah2 cf4 iii4 #bh74 ,here again the parallel is quite remarkable between ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john4 ,if we take a passage like ,rom4 viii4 #i-aa we see that1 in this same connexion of the work of the indwelling ,spirit among the faithful1 ,he is described at one moment as the ,spirit of ,god1 at another as the ,spirit of ,christ1 and almost in the same breath we have the phrase1 #8,if ,christ is in you' as an equivalent for #8,if the ,spirit of ,christ is in you4' ,the latter phrase is fuller and more exact1 but with ,st4 ,paul1 as well as with ,st4 ,john1 it is ,christ ,himself who comes to ,his own in ,his ,spirit4 ,no writer that ,i know has worked out the whole of this relation with more philosophical and theological fulness and accuracy than ,dr4 ,moberly in his ,atonement and ,personality4 ,and ,i am tempted to quote one short passage of his 7where ,i should like to quote many71 because it seems to me to sum up in few words the fundamental teaching of ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john4 #8,christ in you1 or the ,spirit of ,christ in you2 these are not different realities2 but the one is the method of the other4 ,it is in the ,person of ,christ that the ,eternal ,god is revealed in manhood to man4 ,it is in the ,person of ,his ,spirit that the ,incarnate ,christ is ,personally present within the spirit of each several man4 ,the ,holy ,ghost is mainly revealed to us as the ,spirit of the ,incarnate#fe4' ,it is to the language of ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john that we go for proof that the ,holy ,spirit is a ,person2 but it is also from their language that we learn how intimately ,he is associated with the other ,divine ,persons4 ,we are led up to what is in later theological language called the doctrine of the ,holy ,trinity4 ,it is well known that some of the most important data for this doctrine are derived from the ,fourth ,gospel1 especially from the last discourse4 ,and whatever is found in ,st4 ,john may be paralleled in substance from ,st4 ,paul4 #c4 ,comparison with the ,synoptic ,gospels4 ,now ,i am not going to maintain that1 if one of us had been an eye-witness of the ,life of ,christ1 the profound teaching of which ,i have just given an outline would have seemed to him to bear the same kind of proportion to the sum total of ,his teaching that it bears in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,by the essential conditions of the case it could not be so4 ,it is this particular kind of teaching which the ,evangelist specially wishes to enforce2 and1 in order to enforce it1 he has singled out for his narrative just those scenes in which it came up--those and1 broadly speaking1 no others4 ,we have seen that in regard to this teaching there is a very large amount of coincidence between ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john4 ,we shall have presently to consider what is the nature and ground of this coincidence1 how it arose and what relation it implies between the two ,apostles4 ,but before going on to this1 we must first ask ourselves how far it can be verified by comparison with the ,synoptic ,gospels4 ,it is right to look for such verification1 however much we may be convinced that these ,gospels are an extremely partial and fragmentary representation of all that ,christ said and did4 ,even a modern biography1 contemplated perhaps during the life-time of its subject1 and actually begun soon after his death1 will only contain a tithe 7if he is a really great man7 of his more significant acts and sayings4 ,but those who attempted to write what we wrongly call ,lives of ,christ did not1 as it would seem1 for the most part even begin to do so or make preparations for beginning for some thirty years after the ,crucifixion1 when the company of the apostles and intimate disciples was already dispersed1 or at least in no near contact with the writers#ff4 ,we have only to ask ourselves what we should expect in such circumstances4 ,and ,i think we should find that our expectations were fully borne out if we were to compare together the contents of the oldest documents1 those of the ,logia with the ,mark-,gospel1 and those of the special source or sources of ,st4 ,luke with both4 ,the amount and value of the gleanings which each attempt left for those who came after tells its own story4 ,but if we do not expect that the ,synoptic ,gospels would be in the least degree exhaustive in the materials they have preserved for us from the ,life of ,christ1 we might be sure that their defects would be greatest in regard to the class of teaching with which we are at present concerned4 ,it is teaching of a kind that might perhaps haunt the minds of a few gifted and far-sighted individuals1 but would certainly fall through the meshes of the mind of the average man4 ,it was this very fact1 as we have seen1 which prompted the ,fourth ,evangelist to write his ,gospel4 ,the externals of the ,lord's ,life he recognized as having been adequately told2 but it was just the profoundest teaching and some of the most significant acts that had escaped telling1 and that he himself desired to rescue from oblivion4 ,we must therefore be content if we can verify a few particulars4 ,we must not from the outset expect to be able to do more4 ,and we must be still more content if these particulars show by their character that they are fragments from a much larger wreckage1 that they are what we might call chance survivals of what had once existed on a much larger scale4 ,we concluded our sketch of the ,christology of the ,fourth ,gospel by speaking of the data which it contained for the doctrine of the ,trinity4 ,these however are only data4 ,it is perhaps a little surprising that the only approach to a formulation of the doctrine of the ,trinity occurs not in ,st4 ,john but at the end of the ,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew 7xxviii4 #ai74 ,i am of course well aware that this part of the ,first ,gospel is vigorously questioned by the critics4 ,i am prepared to believe myself that the passage is a late incorporation in the ,gospel2 and antecedently ,i should not say that we had strong guarantees for its literal accuracy4 ,but then--this is an old story1 so far as ,i am concerned1 and ,i must apologize for introducing it1 but ,i cannot leave the point unnoticed--how are we to explain that other remarkable verse that occurs at the end of the second ,epistle to the ,corinthians 7#b ,cor4 xiii4 #ad78 ,this familiar three-fold benediction must have had antecedents2 it must1 ,i should say1 have had a long train of antecedents4 ,the most adequate explanation of it seems to me to be that the train of antecedents started from something corresponding1 something said at some time or other1 in the teaching of our ,lord#fg4 ,i fully believe that the hints and intimations of a ,trinity that we find scattered about the ,new ,testament have their origin ultimately in the teaching of ,christ4 ,apart from this1 how could the conception have been reached at so early a date8 ,for #b ,corinthians must in any case fall between #ec-eg ,a4,d4#fh ,let us work our way backwards through another of the hints4 ,we have seen that the coming of the ,paraclete is described in the ,fourth ,gospel as a return of ,christ to ,his own4 ,are there any parallels for this in the ,synoptic ,gospels8 ,not exactly1 because the two things are not brought into combination4 ,but we have on the one hand distinct predictions of the activity of the ,holy ,spirit after the departure of ,christ4 ,for instance3 #8,when they deliver you up1 be not anxious how or what ye shall speak4444 ,for it is not ye that speak1 but the ,spirit of your ,father that speaketh in you' 7,matt4 x4 #ai1 #bj74 ,and in ,st4 ,luke's version of the promise as to answers to prayer1 the ,holy ,spirit is spoken of as imparted to the believer3 #8,if ye then1 being evil1 know how to give good gifts unto your children1 how much more shall your heavenly ,father give the ,holy ,spirit to them that ask him8' 7,luke xi4 #ac74 ,the gift of the ,holy ,spirit in connexion with prayer is one of the topics in the ,last ,discourse as recorded by ,st4 ,john4 ,on the other hand there are in the ,synoptics remarkable allusions to the continued presence of ,christ with ,his people4 ,such is that which follows immediately upon the verse about ,baptism in the threefold ,name3 #8,lo1 ,i am with you alway1 even unto the end of the world4' ,and in ,matt4 xviii4 #bj1 #8,where two or three are gathered together in my name1 there am ,i in the midst of them#fi4' ,wendt connects this last passage with the instances in which acts done in the name of ,christ and for the benefit of ,his followers are spoken of as though they were done to ,him4 ,for instance1 #8,whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name1 receiveth me3 and whosoever receiveth me1 receiveth not me1 but him that sent me' 7,mark ix4 #cg2 cf4 ,luke x4 #af2 ,matt4 xxv4 #dj74 ,wendt goes on to dilute the meaning of these allusions4 ,he would make them mean no more than that such actions have the same value and the same reward as though they were done to ,christ4 ,but the ascending series is against this3 #8,whosoever receiveth ,me1 receiveth not ,me1 but ,him that sent ,me4' ,and once again we have to ask1 what is the origin of all those passages in the ,epistles1 where ,st4 ,paul speaks of the solidarity between ,christ and the whole body of the faithful1 so that in that extraordinary phrase the sufferings of ,his ,apostle actually fill up or supplement the sufferings of ,christ 7 1 ,col4 i4 #bd78 ,the existence of such passages suggests the probability--and indeed more than probability--that there were others like them1 but more directly didactic and expository1 which have not been preserved4 ,the ,fourth ,gospel contains some specimens of this teaching2 but that ,gospel and the ,synoptics together rather give specimens of a class of teaching than make any approach to an exhaustive record of all that our ,lord must have said on these topics4 ,we have seen that the ,synoptic ,gospels distinctly represent our ,lord as the ,jewish ,messiah4 ,they represent ,him as filled from the first with the consciousness of a mission that is beyond that of the ordinary teacher or prophet4 ,he taught as one having authority1 and not as the scribes4 ,the demoniacs recognized in ,him a presence before which they were awed and calmed4 ,he took upon ,himself to forgive sins1 with the assurance that those whom ,he forgave ,god also would forgive4 ,he called ,himself1 in one very ancient form of narrative1 #8,lord of the sabbath4' ,he did not hesitate to review the whole course of previous revelation1 and to propound in ,his own name a new law superseding the old4 ,he evidently regarded ,his work on earth as possessing an extraordinary value4 ,he was ,himself a greater than ,solomon1 a greater than ,jonah2 and1 what is perhaps more remarkable1 ,he seems to regard ,his own claim as exceeding that of the whole body of the poor 7#8,ye have the poor always with you 444 but ,me ye have not always'74 ,as ,his teaching went on1 ,he began to speak as though ,his relation to the human race was not confined to ,his life among them1 but as though it would be continued and renewed on a vast scale after ,his death2 ,he would come again in the character of ,judge1 and ,he would divide mankind according to the service which 7in a large sense7 they had rendered1 or not rendered1 to ,him4 ,these are a number of particulars which helped to bring out what there was extraordinary in ,his mission4 ,by what formula was it to be described and covered8 ,it was described under the ,jewish name #8,messiah1' with its various equivalents4 ,among those equivalents1 that which the apostolic generation deemed most adequate was #8the ,son of ,god4' ,one of the ,synoptic ,gospels says expressly that ,he applied this title to ,himself 7,matt4 xxvii4 #dc71 and it is quite possible that ,he did so1 but critical grounds prevent us from laying stress upon the phrase4 ,on two great occasions 7the ,baptism and ,transfiguration7 the title is given to ,him by a voice from heaven4 ,but only in a single passage 7,matt4 xi4 #bg2 ,luke x4 #bb7 is there anything like an exposition of what is contained in the title4 ,the mutual relation of the ,father and the ,son is expressed as a perfect insight on the part of each1 not only into the mind1 but into the whole being and character of the other4 ,different critics have dealt with this saying in different ways4 ,harnack1 in his famous lectures1 gave it the prominence that it deserves1 but at the same time reduced its meaning1 in accordance with his generally reduced conception of ,christianity4 ,his exegesis tended to limit the peculiar knowledge of the ,son to ,his special apprehension of the truth of ,divine ,fatherhood4 ,m4 ,loisy demurs to this4 ,he says3 #8,there is clearly involved a transcendental relation1 which throws into relief the high dignity of the ,christ1 and not a psychological reality1 of which one cannot see the possibility in respect to ,god4 ,the terms ,father and ,son are not here purely religious1 but they have already become metaphysical2 theological and dogmatic speculation has been able to take hold of them without greatly modifying their sense4 ,there is only one ,father and only one ,son1 constituted1 in a manner1 by the knowledge that they have of one another1 absolute entities the relations of which are almost absolute#gj4' ,perhaps this is a little exaggerated in the opposite direction to ,harnack4 ,still ,i believe it to be in the main right4 ,the mutual knowledge of the ,father and the ,son rests upon their essential community of nature4 ,but1 having recognized this1 ,m4 ,loisy goes on1 with what ,i cannot but think singular levity1 to cast doubt upon the passage4 ,he regards the whole context in ,st4 ,matthew as a sort of psalm based upon the last chapter 7li7 of ,ecclesiasticus2 and he ascribes it not to our ,lord1 but to the tradition of the early ,church4 ,this is far from being a favourable specimen of ,biblical criticism4 ,we have only to set the two passages side by side to estimate its value4 ,it is possible enough that there are reminiscences not only of this1 but of other passages of ,ecclesiasticus and of other books in the mind of speaker or writer#ga4 ,we might conceive of a defining phrase here or there being due to the ,evangelist and suggested by such reminiscences4 ,or we might conceive of ,christ ,himself going back in thought 7as well ,he might7 to the invitation of personified ,wisdom4 ,there would be nothing strange in either supposition4 ,the ,new ,testament everywhere takes up the threads of the ,old1 and is not confined to the ,jewish ,canon4 ,but in any case the materials thus supplied are entirely recast2 and the whole passage 7#8,come unto ,me1' c47 bears the inimitable stamp of one ,figure1 and only one#gb4 ,the truth is that in the ,synoptic ,gospels1 as well as in the ,fourth1 there is really a mysterious background1 though we see less of the attempt to pierce it4 ,these simple-looking sayings are not so simple as they seem4 ,to take1 for instance1 one upon which we have touched1 #8he that receiveth you1 receiveth ,me1 and he that receiveth ,me1 receiveth ,him that sent ,me4' ,the words are almost childlike in their simplicity1 and yet they lead up to the highest heights1 and down to the deepest depths4 ,no doubt we may rationalize it all away1 if we please4 ,we may shut out the mystery from our minds4 ,but we shall not keep it out for long4 ,just when we are safest1 there's a sunset-touch1 ,a fancy from a flower-bell1 some one's death1 ,a chorus-ending from ,euripides-- ,and that's enough for fifty hopes and fears ,as old and new at once as nature's self1 ,to rap and knock and enter in our soul4 ,there is a movement perhaps on a large scale1 like the ,bentham period in ,england in the first half of the nineteenth century1 or the sceptical and deistical period a hundred years earlier1 and it seems as though everything were to be made clear and intelligible1 and the conscience and soul of men were not to be troubled by phantoms any more4 ,and then there come #8,lake ,poets1' or an #8,oxford ,movement1' and the other world1 the old world1 all comes back again2 and the forces that try to restrain it are snapped like ,samson's withes4 ,the reason appears to be that these very clear outlines are always obtained by omissions or suppressions that are artificial1 and do not do justice to the wonderful richness and subtlety either of the human mind or of the powers that work upon it4 #d4 ,interpretation of these ,relations between the ,synoptic ,gospels1 ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john3 ,alternative ,constructions4 ,these comparisons that we have just been instituting between the ,synoptic ,gospels1 ,st4 ,paul1 and ,st4 ,john raise a very large question1 a question involving nothing less than our whole construction of the history of the ,apostolic ,age4 ,it is becoming more and more the custom with the left wing of critical writers to make the most fundamental part of ,christianity1 the pivot teaching of the ,new ,testament1 an invention of ,st4 ,paul's4 ,st4 ,john is only the chief of his disciples4 ,according to these writers primitive ,christianity1 the genuine ,christianity1 loses itself in the sands1 or is represented1 let us say1 deducting the stress on the ,mosaic ,law1 by the sect of the ,ebionites4 ,it is ,st4 ,paul who strikes out the new road2 and the writer whom we call ,st4 ,john follows him in it4 ,the attempt of this later writer to supply a historical basis for ,paulinism1 holds good only in appearance4 ,the teaching which it puts into the mouth of ,jesus is in no sense an antecedent of the teaching of ,st4 ,paul1 but a product of it4 ,here1 for instance1 is a trenchant statement of the position4 #8,the ,fourth ,gospel derived this importance1 lasting long beyond the time of his birth1 from its having bridged over the chasm between ,jesus and ,st4 ,paul1 and from its having carried the ,pauline ,gospel back into the life and teaching of ,jesus4 ,it is only through this gospel that ,paulinism attains to absolute dominion in the theology of the ,church4444 ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 the ,redeemer of the world1 is for ,john as well as ,paul the core and centre of ,christianity4 ,and1 moreover1 ,john's ,christology is ,pauline in all its important features--the ,son of ,god who was with ,god in heaven1 and was sent by ,god upon earth1 the ,mediator of creation1 the ,god of ,revelation of the ,old ,testament1 the ,son of ,man from heaven1 as ,paul1 too1 called ,him4 ,and the chief object of ,his coming into the world is the atonement by means of ,his death4444 ,the whole of the ,johannine theology is a natural development from the ,pauline4 ,it is ,paulinism modified to meet the needs of the sub-apostolic age4 ,two important consequences follow from this4 ,there is no ,johannine theology by the side of and independent of the ,pauline4 ,luther already felt this clearly1 and he understood something of the matter4 ,john and ,paul are not two theological factors1 but one4 ,were we to accept that ,st4 ,john formed his conception of ,christianity either originally or directly from ,jesus' teaching1 we should have to refuse ,st4 ,paul all originality1 for we should leave him scarcely a single independent thought4 ,but it is ,st4 ,paul that is original2 ,st4 ,john is not4 ,in ,st4 ,paul's letters we look1 as through a window1 into the factory where these great thoughts flash forth and are developed2 in ,st4 ,john we see the beginning of their transformation and decay4' ,wernle1 ,beginnings of ,christianity1 ii4 pp4 #bfb1 #bfd1 #bgd f4 7,e4 ,t474 ,nothing could be clearer4 ,and by reason of his clearness and boldness of statement ,wernle is an excellent representative of the whole school2 for what he asserts in set terms is really presupposed by a number of other writers who do not assert it4 ,it remains for us to ask1 ,is this construction of the early history of ,christianity tenable8 ,two ,preliminary ,remarks4 ,before ,i attempt to answer this question1 there are two remarks that ,i should like to make upon it4 i4 ,we observe here1 as in so many other cases1 that the theory reflects1 not so much the essential disposition and proportions of the facts as the state of the extant evidence4 ,hardly anything has come down to us from the early years1 at least for the first three decades1 of the ,mother ,church2 and from that which has come down to us1 the earlier chapters of the ,acts and the ,epistle of ,st4 ,james1 criticism would make considerable deductions4 ,i think that these deductions are greater than ought to be made1 but their existence cannot be ignored4 ,what we know of the ,mother ,church has to be pieced together by inference and constructive imagination4 ,on the other hand for ,st4 ,paul we have in any case an impressive body of certainly genuine epistles4 ,it is natural enough that the mind should be dominated by these1 and that the assumption should be made--for it is pure assumption--that the leading ideas of these epistles are an original creation4 ii4 ,but there is nothing really in the ,epistles themselves to bear out this assumption4 ,st4 ,paul does not write as though he were a wholesale innovator4 ,he does not write as though he were founding a new religion4 ,on the contrary1 he lays great stress in a familiar passage 7#a ,cor4 iii4 #aa7 on the fact that the foundation is already laid4 ,in another place 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #aa7 he speaks as though it made no difference whether he were the preacher or others1 the belief of ,christians was the same4 ,st4 ,paul has indeed his special views and his special controversies1 but they do not affect the main point4 ,he assumes that this is common to all ,christians4 ,this brings me to some of the points on which we have to test the theory1 as it is stated by ,wernle4 #e4 ,objections to the ,critical ,theory4 ,let us think for a moment what the theory involves4 ,it involves that the ,pauline ,gospel not only conquered the ,west1 but that it came flooding back in a great reflux-wave all over the ,east4 ,the ,east1 on this theory1 has no power of resistance2 it surrenders at discretion4 ,how does this accord with the evidence8 i4 ,in order that there should be this conquest and annexation of the whole ,church by the ,pauline ,gospel it is implied1 and it is of the essence of the theory to imply1 that there was a broad and well-marked difference between this ,pauline ,gospel and the general belief of the ,church1 more particularly of the ,mother ,church4 ,but ,st4 ,paul himself expressly disclaims any such difference2 he was anxious that there should not be any1 and he took steps to guard against the possibility that serious divergence might have come between them unawares4 ,he tells us that he compared notes with the leading apostles at ,jerusalem1 to make sure that he and they were preaching substantially the same thing3 #8,i laid before them the gospel which ,i preach among the ,gentiles1 but privately before them who were of repute1 lest by any means ,i should be running1 or had run in vain' 7,gal4 ii4 #b74 ,and again1 at the end of the conferences1 he tells us how ,james and ,peter and ,john gave to him and ,barnabas the right hands of fellowship1 as a pledge of their substantial agreement 7ibid4 ver4 #i74 ,it is true that there were points of discussion1 which in other sections of the ,church amounted to controversy1 between ,st4 ,paul and the ,judaean ,christians4 ,but the ,epistle to the ,galatians allows us to see the full extent of these debatable matters2 and1 by defining them1 it also defines the extent of the common ground of agreement4 ,what we should call the doctrine of the ,person of ,christ certainly comes under the latter head1 and not under the former4 ,the ,mother ,church was not ,ebionite1 or ,st4 ,paul would have been in still sharper antagonism to it than he was4 ii4 ,it was this substantial agreement between ,st4 ,paul and the leading ,apostles that saved the ,church from a formidable rupture4 ,such glimpses as we have of the ,judaean churches do not at all give us the impression that they would have submitted meekly to ,pauline dictation4 ,no doubt there was a considerable prejudice against ,st4 ,paul personally2 but it was a prejudice that turned upon other things altogether than his teaching about ,christ4 ,we have in ,acts xxi4 #bj-e a graphic description1 which is also full of verisimilitude1 of the kind of ways in which ,st4 ,paul came into collision with the ,jewish ,christians2 but his teaching about ,christ was not one of them4 iii4 ,we have seen that the confession that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 was common ground for all ,christians4 ,it was on this ground that ,st4 ,paul and the ,judaean churches felt themselves one4 ,they also felt themselves one in what we ought not to call the doctrine of the ,trinity1 but in those root-facts out of which the doctrine of the ,trinity afterwards came to be formulated4 ,there was doubtless still room for variety of speculation4 ,there was room for different interpretation of current terms and current beliefs4 ,the doctrine of the ,church had as yet a certain fluidity4 ,st4 ,paul might take one line1 and ,cephas another1 and ,apollos a third4 ,and yet ,christ was not divided4 ,there was a consciousness of union underlying these differences4 ,there was a sense1 that could not as yet be put adequately into words1 of certain great facts1 of certain fundamental beliefs1 by virtue of which the ,church was one4 iv4 ,it is out of this common ground1 and not out of the special features of the ,pauline theology1 that the teaching of the ,fourth ,gospel really sprang4 ,true1 there are resemblances and affinities between details in the theologies of the ,evangelist and the ,apostle4 ,but it does not follow that these were borrowed by the one from the other#gc4 ,if they had been1 we may be sure that there would have been clearer evidence of the fact4 ,somewhere in the group of ,johannean writings there would have been a side-glance at ,st4 ,paul that we should have understood4 ,as it is1 the two great ,apostolic cycles stand majestically apart4 ,there may be a connexion between them1 but it is a connexion in the main underground4 ,there is no direct affiliation1 but the parentage of both lies behind4 ,many a seed sprouted in the early years of the ,pentecostal ,church3 but it was not this apostle or that who made them grow2 the seeds were sown before ,pentecost1 and they had their watering and their growth and their increase from the same ,hand4 ,it is true that we cannot give chapter and verse for all this4 ,the books from which chapter and verse might have been taken were never written4 ,even in our own much-lettered age1 how many a pregnant thought is there that is not caught and fixed in writing6 ,and what sort of record should we have of the thought1 say1 of ,america or ,england for some fifteen years1 if the chronicle of it were compressed into a single document of the length of the first twelve chapters of the ,acts8 ,the best record of the thoughts that grew and fructified in those momentous early years is to be found not in the ,acts but in the ,gospels2 and the fact that it is to be sought there shows whence the impulse really came4 ,it may seem a truism to maintain that ,jesus ,christ was the real ,founder of ,christianity1 and that ,he founded it by what ,he was1 and not by what men imagined ,him to be4 ,of course to many ,christians it will seem a truism to say this2 the simple ,christian never thought otherwise2 but there are ,christians who are not simple1 and who may be encouraged to search with a closer scrutiny to see if the old account of the origin of ,christianity is not the best1 indeed the only account possible4 ,the ,new ,testament is scattered with hints1 which are not more than hints1 arrow-heads as it were pointing back to ,christ4 ,these are a profitable subject of study--none more profitable4 ,if we pay attention to these hints1 and if we look for the roots of ,st4 ,paul's teaching1 ,i do not think we shall say that ,christianity--the ,christianity of nineteen centuries--was his invention1 and that ,st4 ,john did but follow in his train4 #f4 ,larger ,objections4 ,the kind of study that ,i have just been recommending is strictly critical2 but the theory of which ,i have been speaking carries us out beyond the narrower ground of criticism into the wider field of history and teleology4 ,i may just for a moment in conclusion touch on this4 ,it may supply us with a warning that there is at least a strong presumption that the theory which fathers the teaching of ,st4 ,john upon that of ,st4 ,paul1 and ,st4 ,paul's teaching upon itself1 with no higher sanction behind1 cannot well be true4 ,such a theory would mean that quite a half1 and the most important half1 of the fundamental theses of historical ,christianity1 were a mere human invention which those who have had the wit to discover them to be a human invention may go on to treat as nothing better1--to bestow on them perhaps a certain amount of praise in relation to their time1 but to regard them as something that the world has outgrown4 ,this is a view that in the present day1 avowedly or unavowedly1 is very largely taken4 ,on this view there is a real nucleus of truth in biblical ,christianity1 but that nucleus in the light of modern science is seen to be very small indeed2 all the rest is surplusage4 ,the misfortune for the theory is that it is not only on the nucleus of truth1 but very largely upon the surplusage1 that nineteen centuries of ,christians have lived4 ,now ,i am quite prepared to believe that most great truths that do not come under the head of ,mathematics or ,physical ,science have had a certain amount of surplusage attached to them2 there has been husk and kernel1 flower and sheath4 ,i quite believe that men do #8rise on stepping-stones ,of their dead selves to higher things4' ,but ,i cannot help thinking that1 on the theory of ,wernle and his friends1 the surplusage is too great1 the dead self too large4 ,the course of history1 as this theory would describe it1 seems to me contrary to the analogy of what we otherwise know of the dealings of ,god with man4 ,if we look1 for instance1 at the ,old ,testament1 we see a gradual preparation for the coming of ,christ1 a gradual elevation and expansion of religious ideas1 on the whole a nearer approximation to truth4 ,all of us1 critics and non-critics1 would give substantially the same account of this2 we should all of us at least see in it progress4 ,but when we come to ,christianity1 ,wernle and his friends see in it a far larger proportion of what is not progress but depravation and corruption1 not the gradual expansion and purification of true ideas1 but the wider dissemination of ideas that are false4 ,there are nearly fourteen centuries of the dissemination of these false ideas2 then comes a sudden spasmodic effort of partial relief2 and at last1 in the latter half of the nineteenth and in the twentieth centuries1 there is some sort of approach to a rediscovery of truth4 ,it seems to me difficult to describe this view of history as anything else than a systematic impeachment of ,divine ,providence4 ,i do not wish to press the point4 ,as ,i have said1 we have left behind the region of criticism1 and entered upon another that is not only very wide but that some of you may think rather outside my subject4 ,the ,christian1 it seems to me1 ought to have a comprehensive view of the purpose of ,god in history2 he ought to be able to adjust this to his fundamental beliefs4 ,and ,i would only ask you to consider how far this can be done on the theory ,i have been discussing4 ,footnote #fd3 ,a few sentences here are repeated from my article in ,hastings1 ,d4 ,b4 iv4 #ege4 ,footnote #fe3 ,atonement and ,personality1 p4 #aid4 ,compare the important and detailed exposition1 pp4 #aed-i1 #afh f41 #ahj-b4 ,footnote #ff3 ,i do not doubt that the most active period for the putting together of material for ,gospels was the decade #fj-gj ,a4,d4 ,at the beginning of this period ,st4 ,mark had not yet taken up his task2 and his ,gospel forms the base of the other two ,synoptics4 ,the ,matthaean ,logia perhaps by this time were collected4 ,footnote #fg3 ,i cannot regard this argument as at all invalidated by ,dr4 ,drummond's three sermons1 ,the ,pauline ,benediction 7,london1 #ahig74 ,at the same time ,i can quite accept the view that the ,apostle's words are #8the seed rather than the final expression of ,christian theology4' ,footnote #fh3 ,with the above may be compared ,dr4 ,hort's comment 7ad4 loc47 on #a ,st4 ,peter1 i4 #a1 #b1 and other ,trinitarian passages referred to in illustration3 #8,in no passage is there any indication that the writer was independently working out a doctrinal scheme3 a recognized belief or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed4 ,how such an idea could arise in the mind of ,st4 ,paul or any other apostle without sanction from a ,word of the ,lord1 it is difficult to imagine3 and this consideration is a sufficient answer to the doubts which have1 by no means unnaturally1 been raised whether ,matt4 xxviii4 #ai may not have been added or recast in a later generation4' ,footnote #fi3 ,compare the ,fifth of the ,oxyrhynchus ,logia4 ,footnote #gj3 ,l'vangile et ,l'glise1 p4 #gh f4 ,footnote #ga3 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann1 for instance1 points to ,is4 xiv4 #c2 xxviii4 #ab2 lv4 #a-c2 ,jer4 vi4 #af2 xxxi4 #b1 #be1 but especially ,ecclus4 iii4 #f2 vi4 #bd1 #be1 #bh1 #bi2 li4 #bc-cj4 ,footnote #gb3 ,contrast the treatment of the passage by ,m4 ,loisy with the way in which it is singled out by ,matthew ,arnold 7,literature and ,dogma1 p4 #bad f474 ,indeed the course of the most recent criticism has borne in upon me more and more that1 far from being a stumbling-block1 it is really the key to any true understanding of the ,christ of the ,gospels4 ,if we had not had the passage1 we should have had to invent one like it6 ,footnote #gc3 ,i do not of course mean to deny all influence of ,st4 ,paul upon ,st4 ,john in the shaping or formulating of ,christian ideas4 ,but the ultimate origin of those ideas goes further back than to ,st4 ,paul4 ,,lecture ,,viii ,,the ,,early ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,gospel ,i4 ,summary of the ,internal ,evidence4 ,all our discussions have for their object1 not the production of rounded and symmetrical theories but the ascertainment of truth4 ,we must take the data as we find them4 ,if they do not as they stand sustain a clear conclusion1 we cannot make them do so4 ,and it seems to me far better frankly to confess the fact than to strain the evidence one way or the other4 ,we may state the case with such indications of leaning as we please1 but always with the reservation that a slight change in the evidence1 the discovery or recovery of a single new fact1 might turn the scale4 ,this is1 ,i think1 the position of things in regard to some of the outlying parts of the problem of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,one broad conclusion seems to stand out from the evidence1 internal as well as external4 ,the author was an eye-witness1 an ,apostolic man--either in the wider sense of the word #8,apostle' or in the narrower4 ,so much seems to me to be assured2 but round that broad conclusion there arises a cluster of questions to which ,i cannot give a simple and categorical answer4 ,i will come back to these questions in a moment4 ,but ,i ought perhaps first to remind you of the point to which the previous argument has brought us1 and of the grounds on which the main proposition is based4 ,i take it to be a fundamental element in the question that in several places 7especially xix4 #ce1 xxi4 #bd2 cf4 i4 #ad1 #a ,john i4 #a-c71 the ,gospel itself lays claim to first-hand authority4 ,this is a different matter from ordinary pseudonymous writing4 ,the direct and strong assertions that the ,gospel makes are either true or they are a deliberate untruth4 ,between these alternatives ,i have no hesitation in choosing4 ,i do not think that we should have the right to make so grave an imputation as that implied in the second on anything but the clearest necessity4 ,but the first alternative appeared to me to be confirmed by a multitude of particulars3 first1 by a number of places in which the author of the ,gospel seems to write from a standpoint within the ,apostolic circle1 or in which he gives expression to experiences like those of an ,apostle2 and secondly by the very marked extent to which the narrative of the ,gospel corresponds in its details to the real conditions of the time and place in which its scene is laid1 conditions which rapidly changed and passed away4 ,this constitutes the internal argument for the authentic character of the ,gospel4 ,it is met and1 as ,i conceive1 strongly corroborated by the nature of the external evidence4 ,,ii4 ,the ,external ,evidence4 #a4 ,the ,position at the end of the ,second ,century4 ,in regard to this ,i would not spend time in refinements upon some of the scanty details furnished by the scanty literature of the first half of the second century4 ,i would rather take my stand on the state of things revealed to us on the lifting of the curtain for that scene of the ,church's history which extends roughly from about the year #agj to #bjj4 ,i would invite attention to the distribution of the evidence in this period3 ,irenaeus and the ,letter of the ,churches of ,vienne and ,lyons in ,gaul1 ,heracleon in ,italy1 ,tertullian at ,carthage1 ,polycrates at ,ephesus1 ,theophilus at ,antioch1 ,tatian at ,rome and in ,syria1 ,clement at ,alexandria4 ,the strategical positions are occupied1 one might say1 all over the ,empire4 ,in the great majority of cases there is not a hint of dissent4 ,on the contrary the four-fold ,gospel is regarded for the most part as one and indivisible4 ,just in one small coterie at ,rome objections are raised to the ,fourth ,gospel1 not on the ground of any special and verifiable tradition1 but from dislike of some who appeal to the ,gospel and from internal criticism of which we can take the measure4 ,just at this period of which ,i am speaking these dissentients appear and disappear1 leaving so little trace that 7as we have seen7 ,eusebius1 who is really a careful and candid person1 and has ancients like ,origen and ,clement behind him1 can describe the ,gospel as unquestioned both by his own generation and by preceding generations 7p4 #fe supra74 ,let us for the moment treat these great outstanding testimonies as we should treat the reading of a group of ,,mss4 ,the common archetype of authorities so wide apart and so independent of each other must go back very far indeed4 ,if we were to construct a stemma1 and draw lines from each of the authorities to a point x1 representing the archetype1 the lines would be long and their meeting point would be near the date at which according to the tradition the ,gospel must have been composed4 ,a tradition of this kind1 so wide-spread and so deep-rooted1 could not have arisen if it had not had a very substantial ground4 ,suppose we allow for a moment that it is something in itself a little short of absolutely decisive1 there comes in to reinforce it what we have just been speaking of as the result of internal criticism1 that the ,gospel is the work of an eye-witness1 a member of the circle which immediately surrounded our ,lord4 ,that is also a position which seems to me very strong4 ,i submit that this is a much fairer statement of the case than that 7e4 g47 which we find in ,schmiedel 7,enc4 ,bibl4 ii4 #beej73 #8,instead of the constantly repeated formula that an ancient writing is 8attested0 as early as by 7let us say7 ,irenaeus1 ,tertullian1 or ,clement of ,alexandria1 there will have to be substituted the much more modest statement that its existence 7not genuineness7 is attested only as late as by the writers named1 and even this only if the quotations are undeniable or the title expressly mentioned4' ,this is a characteristic example of the spirit in which the author writes--much more that of the lawyer speaking to his brief for the prosecution than of the scholar or historian4 ,the criticism is couched in general terms3 as far as it applies in particular to the ,gospel of ,st4 ,john the caveat is superfluous1 because all the three writers named1 ,irenaeus1 ,tertullian1 and ,clement of ,alexandria bear witness expressly to the genuineness of the ,gospel1 and not only to its existence4 ,the witness of ,heracleon is still more important4 ,to recognize a writing is one thing2 to recognize it as sacred is another2 to comment upon it as so sacred and authoritative that its contents can be interpreted allegorically is a third3 and all this is so early as c4 #agj4 ,but apart from this the whole form of the statement is unjust4 ,it leaves entirely out of account the extreme scantiness of the material from which evidence could be drawn in the period before the year #ahj4 ,to me the wonder is that the evidence borne to the ,new ,testament writings in the extant literature prior to this date should be as much as it is and not as little4 #b4 ,earlier ,evidence4 ,but ,dr4 ,schmiedel certainly understates that for the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,he assumes that no trace can be found of this earlier than #adj4 ,a single item of the evidence1 which he does not notice1 is enough to refute this4 ,i refer to our present conclusion of the ,gospel of ,st4 ,mark4 ,we may say with confidence that its date is earlier than the year #adj--whether we argue from the chronology of ,aristion1 its presumable author1 or from its presence in the archetype of almost all extant ,,mss41 or from the traces of it in writers so early as ,justin and ,irenaeus4 ,but ,i may take it for granted that the added verses imply not only the existence but up to a certain point the authority of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,but1 besides this1 ,dr4 ,schmiedel assumes the negative results of an inquiry1 which he has conducted very lightly1 and the scale on which he was writing compelled him to conduct lightly1 into the bearings of the literature older than #adj4 ,i am not so sure as he is that there is no allusion to the ,gospel in ,barnabas or ,hermas1 where it is found 7e4 g47 by ,keim1 or in the ,elders of ,papias1 where it is found 7e4 g47 by ,harnack4 ,the questions raised in these cases are too complex and too delicate to be quite worth discussing from the point of view of that legal proof which for ,schmiedel seems alone to have any value4 ,but ,ignatius and the ,didach are of more tangible importance4 ,i am inclined to think that justice has rarely been done from this point of view to ,ignatius4 ,it is not so much a question of close coincidence in expression4 ,there ,i should perhaps allow that ,dr4 ,schmiedel is within his rights in denying what ,dr4 ,drummond and ,dr4 ,stanton affirm4 ,the evidence of ,ignatius is obscured by the fact that1 unlike ,polycarp#gd1 he is not given to exact quotation4 ,polycarp is by far the weaker man2 it is natural to him to express his thoughts in the words of others4 ,but ,ignatius has a rugged strength of mind which digests and assimilates all that comes to it1 and if it reproduces the thoughts of others1 does so in a form of its own#ge4 ,but ,i do not think there can be any doubt that ,ignatius has digested and assimilated to an extraordinary degree the teaching that we associate with the name of ,st4 ,john4 ,if any one questions this1 ,i would refer him to the excellent monograph1 ,ignatius von ,antiochien als ,christ und ,theologe1 by ,freiherr von der ,goltz 7,texte und ,untersuchungen1 ,band xii74 ,it will be best to give the conclusion to which this writer comes in his own words1 as ,i agree with it largely but not quite entirely4 ,he says3 #8,the question is whether ,ignatius came to appropriate this world of thought through reading our ,fourth ,gospel1 or whether he must be held to be an independent witness to this mode of thinking4 ,up to a certain point the preceding investigation has already shown that the latter is the case4 ,although1 for instance1 certain details might seem to point to borrowing from the ,fourth ,gospel1 yet this peculiar religious ,modalism1 this mysticism1 this combination and accentuation of the same points1 this special form of faith in ,christ1 and1 in general1 this identical mode of thought and belief could not be simply transferred by means of a book to one who had not in other ways taken up the same ideas and made them his own4 ,there is also proof from various turns given to the thought1 as from his use of an independent terminology1 that the author is in possession of 8,johannean0 ideas as his own property4 ,so that in case we really came to the result that ,ignatius was acquainted with the ,fourth ,gospel1 we should have indeed to refer to that acquaintance the portrait that he draws of ,christ and some details1 but in spite of that we should have to hold fast the conclusion that in appropriating his general conception of things1 ,ignatius must have come under the prolonged influence of a community itself influenced by ,johannean thought' 7p4 #aci74 ,it will have been observed that the reason for thinking that the affinity of thought between ,ignatius and ,st4 ,john is not to be explained by the use of a book1 is not because of its slightness but because it is really too deep to be accounted for in that way4 ,it is true that the affinity goes very deep4 ,i had occasion a few years ago to study rather closely the ,ignatian letters1 and ,i was so much impressed by it as even to doubt whether there is any other instance of resemblance between a biblical and patristic book1 that is really so close4 ,allowing for a certain crudity of expression in the later writer and remembering that he is a perfervid ,syrian and not a ,greek1 he seems to me to reflect the ,johannean teaching with extraordinary fidelity4 ,this applies especially to his presentation of the doctrine of the ,incarnation1 to his conception of the ,logos1 and of the relation of ,christ at once to the ,father and to the believer4 ,in the writers of the next generation to ,ignatius e4 g4 in ,justin--the conception of the ,logos is infected by ,greek philosophy1 giving to it more or less the sense of reason1 whereas in ,ignatius the leading idea is1 as we have seen it to be in ,st4 ,john1 that of revelation4 ,nowhere else have we the idea of the fullness of ,godhead revealed in ,christ grasped and expressed with so much vigour4 ,what difference there is is of the nature of exaggeration4 ,it is not wrong to say that the language of ,ignatius tends towards ,modalism4 ,but it is just because he has grasped ideas1 for every one of which there are parallels in the ,fourth ,gospel1 with so much intensity4 ,i can quite allow that ,ignatius has so absorbed the teaching that we call ,st4 ,john's as it were in succum et sanguinem that the relation cannot be adequately explained by the mere perusal of a book late on in life4 ,there is something more in it than this4 ,von der ,goltz would explain it by the hypothesis that ,ignatius had resided for a considerable length of time in a #8,johannean' community like the churches of the province of ,asia4 ,there is however no hint of anything of the kind in the letters4 ,it is ,i think ,harnack who somewhere remarks that from the opening of the letter of ,ignatius to ,polycarp we should infer that the latter was a stranger to the writer4 ,it would be more natural to fall back on the tradition that ,ignatius was an actual disciple of ,st4 ,john4 ,but this tradition appears first in the ,martyrium ,colbertinum2 in other words there is no evidence for it before the fourth century4 ,indeed ,zahn has sketched in a plausible manner the process by which we may conceive it to have arisen#gf4 ,still there is ample room in the dark spaces of the lives both of ,ignatius and of ,st4 ,john for some more or less intimate connexion between them4 ,the alternative seems to me to be1 either to suppose something of this kind1 or else to think that ,ignatius had really had access to the ,johannean writings years before the date of his journey to ,rome1 and that he had devoted to them no mere cursory reading but a close and careful study which had the deepest effect upon his mind4 ,if the ,fourth ,gospel was really the work of ,st4 ,john1 the chronology would leave quite sufficient room for this hypothesis4 ,but in any case the phenomena of the ,ignatian letters seem to me to prove the existence1 well before the end of the first century1 of a compact body of teaching like that which we find in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,for even ,dr4 ,schmiedel1 ,i suppose1 would hardly wish us to invert the relationship1 and to say that the ,evangelist took his ideas from ,ignatius4 ,but if the substance of the ,fourth ,gospel existed before the end of the first century1 that is surely a considerable step towards the belief that the ,gospel existed in writing1 and the other reasons that we have for thinking that it had been written are so far confirmed4 ,a smaller item of proof tending in the same direction is supplied by the ,didach4 ,it is well-known that the very ancient ,eucharistic prayer contained in that document has the remarkable phrase #8to make perfect in love1'--#8,remember1 ,lord1 ,thy ,church to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in ,thy love1' which it is natural to compare with #a ,john iv4 #ag1 #ah2 ,john xvii4 #bc4 ,the coincidence cannot be wholly accidental1 though the question must be left open whether the phrase comes directly from a writing or only circulated orally#gg4 ,the problem is the same as that which has just met us in the case of ,ignatius1 though on a much smaller scale4 ,as far as it goes1 it helps to strengthen the conclusion that has just been drawn4 ,between ,ignatius and ,irenaeus we have ,papias1 ,justin1 and the greater ,gnostics4 ,in view more particularly of the discussion by ,schwartz1 ,i think it may be said that ,papias probably knew the ,gospel and recognized it as an authority4 ,that ,justin also used it ,i think we may take as at the present time generally admitted2 and from the extent to which he used it ,i do not think that any inference can be drawn4 ,professor ,bacon complains that the suggestions which have been put forward to account for the somewhat sparing use which he makes of it are not satisfactory#gh4 ,probably they are not in the sense of carrying conviction that any one of them is right to the exclusion of others4 ,there must always be this difficulty where we are quite in the dark1 and where the whole chapter of accidents is open before us4 ,it is no doubt a sounder method to fall back with ,dr4 ,drummond simply upon our ignorance#gi4 ,but to say that the negative side of ,justin's evidence in any sense cancels the positive seems to me untenable4 ,as to ,basilides and ,valentinus1 though there remains in my own mind a slight degree of probability that they really used the ,gospel1 ,i admit that this probability is not of a kind that can be strongly asserted where it is challenged4 ,at the same time ,i cannot think ,schmiedel's hypothesis at all probable that #8the ,fourth ,gospel saw the light somewhere between ,a4,d4 #acb and ,a4,d4 #adjhj1 and that although it was not used by the founders of the great ,gnostic schools1 it was at once adopted by their disciples4 ,this is an instance of the way in which ,dr4 ,schmiedel and his friends1 when they light upon a hypothesis that favours the negative side1 content themselves with stating it1 as if it must at once carry conviction2 and form no mental picture of the conditions with a view to ascertain whether the hypothesis is or is not probable4 ,we may be pretty sure that the ,fourth ,gospel did not come in surreptitiously in this way1 like a thief over the wall1 and at once obtain recognition without any examination of credentials4 ,i do not hesitate to say that this theory of the late origin of the ,gospel is not one that will work1 or bear to be consistently carried out4 ,on the other hand1 if we assume the traditional view1 all the evidence falls into line2 we have an adequate cause for the authority which from the first attached to the ,gospel2 and1 allowing for the scantiness and critical drawbacks of the materials from which our evidence is drawn1 we have a picture quite as satisfactory as we can expect of its gradually expanding circulation4 ,so far1 our course has been straightforward4 ,the salient points stand out in orderly succession1 and they all rest on solid foundations4 ,but when we come to closer quarters1 and try to reconstruct for ourselves the circumstances under which the ,gospel was written1 and which attended the first two or three decades of its history1 the case is otherwise4 ,many questions may be raised that cannot be categorically answered4 ,bricks cannot be made without straw2 and positive history cannot be written on the ground of mere surmises and possibilities4 ,all ,i would contend for is that no valid argument can be brought from the facts as they stand against the ,gospel2 it is another matter1 and will require longer time and perhaps further discoveries1 before we can paint on the canvas of history a picture strictly harmonious and coherent in all its parts4 ,,iii4 ,unsolved ,problems4 #a4 ,the relation of the ,gospel to the ,apocalypse4 ,of the questions that are still sub judice one of the most difficult is that of the relation of the ,gospel to the ,apocalypse4 ,the ,apocalypse is a book on which criticism is very far from having said its last word4 ,i should like to express myself about it with great reserve4 ,but ,i do not think that in any case an argument can be drawn from it against the ,gospel4 ,i will quote two very unprejudiced opinions4 ,harnack writes as follows3-- #8,i confess my adhesion to the critical heresy which carries back the ,apocalypse and the ,gospel to a single author1 always presupposing that the ,apocalypse is the ,christian working-up of a ,jewish apocalypse 7,i should be prepared to say of several ,jewish apocalypses--to me this seems beyond our power to unravel74 ,i mark off the ,christian portions very much as ,vischer has done1 and see in them the same spirit and the same hand which has presented us with the ,gospel#ha4#8 ,we remember that in ,harnack's view the author is not the ,apostle but the ,presbyter4 ,and then ,bousset1 who has written the commentary on the ,apocalypse in ,meyer's series1 though he does not go quite so far as ,harnack1 places the two works in close relation to each other4 ,after a careful examination of the language of the ,apocalypse he sums up thus3-- #8,it is certainly right when this ,johannean colouring of the language is set down to the account of the last redactor of the ,apocalypse 7,harnack1 ,spitta74 ,but here too it may be seen that this redactor has transformed the material before him more thoroughly than is commonly supposed4 ,the linguistic parallels adduced seem to justify the supposition that the ,apocalypse also proceeds from circles which stood under the influence of ,john of ,asia ,minor#hb4' ,there are many to whom these opinions will seem paradoxical1 but there is much to be said for them4 ,i quote them1 however1 only to show that the two problems must be worked out independently1 and that they need not necessarily clash with one another4 #b4 ,the date of ,papias4 ,the next question on which ,i will touch is the date of ,papias1 which has a subordinate but rather important bearing upon the group of questions with which he is connected4 ,i am by no means sure that the late date now commonly assigned to him is right 7c4 #ade-fj1 ,harnack74 ,it turns upon a statement in ,de ,boor's fragment1 supposed to be made by ,papias1 that some of those who were raised from the dead by ,christ lived till the time of ,hadrian4 ,a very similar statement is quoted by ,eusebius from the ,apology of ,quadratus 7,h4 ,e4 iv4 #c1 #b74 ,i suspect that there has been some confusion at work here4 ,experience shows that nothing is commoner than for the same story to be referred to different persons4 ,in the case of ,quadratus we have his own words in black and white1 whereas the attribution to ,papias is vague and may be only a slip of memory#hc4 ,on the other hand ,irenaeus expressly calls ,papias #8one of the ancients' 7 71 a phrase that ,i do not think he would have used of a time so near his own as #ade-fj4 ,besides1 when we look into the great passage1 ,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ci1 the standpoint appears to be that1 at latest of the third generation1 or more strictly where the second generation is passing into the third1 if we suppose that ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john were still alive4 ,the natural date for the extracts in this chapter seems to me to be circa #ajj4 #c4 ,the death of the ,apostle ,john4 ,de ,boor's ,fragment is more precise in its assertion1 #8,papias1 in his second book1 says that ,john the divine 7 7 and ,james his brother were slain by the ,jews4' #8,john the divine' is naturally questioned2 it is defended by ,schwartz1 but may quite well be due to the fragmentist4 ,the main arguments against the statement are the silence of the early writers1 especially ,eusebius1 and the possibility of confusion between ,john the ,baptist and ,john the ,apostle1 or between red martyrdom and white4 ,no doubt this is one of the better examples of the argument from silence1 and no doubt we must reckon with the possibility of mistake4 ,still ,i do not feel that the statement altogether loses its force4 ,i said something about it in ,lecture ,,iii2 ,i will at present only add that supposing it were true1 the language of ,papias about the two ,johns can be explained more satisfactorily4 #d4 ,the son of ,zebedee and the beloved disciple4 ,i cannot disguise from myself that if the elder ,john really perished at an earlier stage in the history1 the position of the younger becomes much clearer4 ,there would then be no difficulty in the way of identifying him at once with the beloved disciple and with the author of the ,gospel and ,epistles4 ,we should indeed have all the advantages of ,harnack's theory without its disadvantages4 ,we should not be compelled to attribute to the ,ephesian ,church any fraudulent intention or practice4 ,we should only have to regard the younger ,john as succeeding in a manner to the place of the elder1 much 7as ,i said7 in the way that ,james the brother of the ,lord succeeded to the place of the elder ,james4 ,i do not wish to prejudge the question4 ,but those who are familiar with its intricacies will1 ,i think1 agree with me that it would be a real gain to have only one claimant to the ,ephesian tradition#hd4 #e4 ,john of ,ephesus and his ,gospel4 ,we must in any case think of ,john of ,ephesus as #8the aged disciple1' for to our modern ears some such double name as that expresses most adequately the feeling that surrounded him4 ,he called himself by preference 1 but we have unfortunately no sufficient rendering for this in ,english4 #8,elder' and #8,presbyter' have both contracted the associations of office1 and of a rather formal kind of office that has lost too much of its original meaning1 for the natural authority of age was at first always conveyed in it4 ,i suppose that the ,apostle thought of himself most of all as a memory--the last and strongest link with those wonderful years4 ,it was this especially that gave him his sense at once of dignity and of responsibility4 ,when his disciples spoke of 1 ,i imagine that they meant1 as we might say1 #8the ,venerable'2 they looked up to him with a feeling of awe tempered with affection4 ,it was at ,ephesus1 the capital of ,proconsular ,asia1 that he whom we too may call #8the ,venerable' held his modest court1 and from thence that he went on circuit1 organizing and visiting the little congregations formed in the cities and greater towns of the province4 ,we have a glimpse of these activities in the famous story of the ,robber ,chief4 ,we are more concerned with the contemplative side of his life1 with that inward retrospect which occupied his mind4 ,i do not doubt that it is true that the other ,gospels1 as they came into circulation among the churches1 were brought to him1 and that he expressed his approval of them4 ,the story makes him speak with unique authority1 which has about it however nothing artificial1 but is just the natural deference for one who of all men living was in the best position to know the things of which he spoke4 ,his approval of the other ,gospels was calm and objective1 but critical4 ,i believe that the precious statements that ,papias has preserved for us about the compositions of ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,matthew are really fragments of his criticism4 ,i accept also as literally true the story that it was partly because he felt that there was something wanting in the older records1 and partly because of the urgency of those around him1 that the old man at last was himself impelled to write4 ,browning's #8,death in the ,desert' presents him at a later stage--at the last stage of all--but as an imaginative reproduction of the circumstances and frame of mind in which the ,gospel was written1 it is the best that ,i know4 ,at ,ephesus in ,asia the embers of the apostolic age glowed longer than elsewhere2 and we cannot wonder that here the torch should be lit which was to be handed on to later times4 ,if the devotion of disciples had to do with the writing of the ,gospel1 we may be sure that it also had to do with the commending and spreading of the ,gospel when written4 ,it is possible enough that they were the first to give it the name of #8the spiritual ,gospel4' ,as such it passed from hand to hand2 and again it is not surprising that those who prided themselves on superior spirituality and insight1 like the ,gnostics1 showed a special fondness for this ,gospel1 as we are told they did#he4 ,neither is it any more surprising that in an opposite quarter1 where a spirit like that of our own ,hanoverian ,bishops looked with jealousy upon every outbreak of enthusiasm1 there should be a movement of reaction against the ,gospel which seemed to encourage such manifestations 7the ,alogi74 ,the catholic ,church went calmly on its way1 and these partialities and inequalities soon found their level4 ,by the time of ,irenaeus there is a stable equilibrium2 no one of the four ,gospels is either before or after another4 ,and this is really the lesson taught by the ,muratorian ,fragment1 though the writer has to speak a little more apologetically--there are1 it is true1 differences1 but all are inspired by the self-same ,spirit4 ,the last trace in ancient times of the preference which from its birth had been given to the ,fourth ,gospel appears1 as we might expect1 in ,origen4 ,after describing in detail the different purposes which dominated the other ,gospels1 ,origen explains that ,providence reserved for him who had leaned upon the breast of ,jesus the greater and more mature discourse about ,him1 for none of the others had set forth ,his deity so unreservedly as ,john4 #8,so then we make bold to say that of all the ,scriptures the ,gospels are the firstfruits1 and the firstfruits of the ,gospels is that according to ,john the meaning whereof none can apprehend who has not leaned upon the breast of ,jesus1 or received at the hands of ,jesus ,mary to be his mother too#hf4' ,this is the kind of history that the extant materials and tradition sketch for us of the origin and early fortunes of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,from the moment that we leave behind the shade of obscurity which does just linger over the person of the author1 everything seems to me quite consistent and coherent and natural and probable4 ,can we say as much of the opposition to the ,gospel1 especially in its extremer form1 as represented by ,schmiedel or ,jean ,rville or ,loisy8 ,we certainly cannot give the epithets just used to the theory of these writers1 because there is really nothing to apply to them2 the ,gospel is for them a great ignotum1 and nothing more4 ,is not this in itself a rather serious objection8 ,as an ignotum the ,gospel is really too great to plant down in the middle of the history of the second century without creating a disturbance of all the surrounding conditions which we may be sure would have lasted for years4 ,imagine this solid mass suddenly thrust into the course of events1 as ,schmiedel would say1 somewhere about the year #adj1 between ,basilides and ,valentinus and their disciples1 as it were under the very eyes of ,polycarp and ,anicetus and ,justin and ,tatian1 without making so much as a ripple upon the surface4 ,of course nothing can be simpler than to say that the author of the ,gospel is unknown2 but the moment we come to close quarters with the statement1 and realize what it means1 we perceive its difficulty4 ,epilogue on the ,principles of ,criticism4 ,and now that we have come to the end of this brief sketch of the history of the ,gospel for the first hundred years or so of its existence1 ,i may perhaps turn in conclusion to the other object which has been present to my mind throughout this course of lectures1 and attempt to collect and state1 also in the most summary form1 some of the underlying principles of criticism which have from time to time found expression in the lectures and which ,i desire to submit for your consideration1 more especially where they differ from much current practice4 ,i consider them to be self-evident2 but their obviousness has at least not prevented them from being too often disregarded4 ,the main points would1 ,i think1 be as follows3-- #a4 ,in judging of the external evidence for any ancient writing1 it is always important to observe not only the details of the evidence itself 7date1 genuineness1 authority1 freedom from ambiguity1 the precise point attested71 but also the extent of the area from which it is drawn and the proportion which it bears to the extant literature of the period which it covers4 ,the first step should be an attempt to realize by an effort of the imagination the proportion between 7#a7 the whole of the extant evidence1 7#b7 the amount of the material that yields this evidence1 7#c7 the amount of the material1 once extant but now no longer extant1 which might have contributed evidence if we had it4 ,in other words1 what we have to consider is not only the actual1 positive evidence available1 but the distribution of this evidence and its relation to the real lie of the facts--no longer accessible to us but as they may be imaginatively reconstructed4 #b4 ,in particular1 when use is made of the argument from silence1 the first question to be asked is1 ,what is silent8 ,it may well be that the literature supposed to be silent is so small that no inference of any value can be drawn from it4 #c4 ,in any further use of the argument from silence full allowance should be made for common human infirmity in the persons who are silent--for oversight forgetfulness1 limited range of thought4 ,it is always desirable that the application of the argument from silence should be checked by comparison with verifiable examples from actual experience1 whether that experience is derived from ancient life or from modern4 #d4 ,the presumption is that plain statements of fact may be trusted1 unless there is a distinct and solid reason to the contrary4 ,even where there is a considerable interval of time between the fact and the statement1 it may be presumed that the writer who makes the statement had connecting links of testimony to which he had access and we have not4 ,in any case it is worth while to ask ourselves whether it is not probable that such connecting links existed4 #e4 ,in such plain statements the presumption further is that the writer meant what he says1 or appears to say4 ,not until this apparent sense has proved wholly unworkable is it right to tamper with his express language1 whether by emendation of the text or putting upon his words a sense that is not obvious and natural4 #f4 ,the imputation of conscious deception or fraud is to be strongly deprecated1 except with writers of ascertained bad character1 and even then the imputation should not be made without substantial reason4 #g4 ,all imputations of motive1 and especially of sinister motive1 should be carefully weighed1 and it should in particular be considered whether the supposed motive is one that was likely to be in operation under the historical conditions of the time and circumstances of the writer affected4 #h4 ,it should never be forgotten that human nature is a very subtle and complex thing--usually far more subtle and complex than any picture of it that we are likely to form for ourselves4 ,hence it is improbable that the enumeration of motives by the critical historian will really exhaust the possibilities of the case4 ,many seeming inconsistencies1 whether of character or of statement1 are really less than they seem1 and quite capable of conjunction in the same person4 #i4 ,where a simple cause suffices to explain a group1 especially a large group1 of facts1 it is better not to assume a cause that is highly exceptional and complicated4 ,this rule seems to apply to the indications of an eye-witness in the ,fourth ,gospel4 #aj4 ,such indications do not in the least exclude the natural effect of lapse of time and the unconscious action of experience and reflection on the mind of a writer who sets down late in life a narrative of events that had happened long before4 #aa4 ,in studying a narrative of this kind we should bear in mind1 as well as we can1 the whole career of the writer3 we should divide it into its successive stages1 and we should be constantly asking ourselves which stage of his experience is reflected in the shape that each portion of the narrative takes4 ,if the conception which results as a whole appears to be such as naturally starts from direct contact with the facts1 that will supply us with a much easier explanation than any which involves the wholesale use of fiction4 #ab4 ,there are different kinds of portraiture2 and it does not at all follow that a portrait to be real must be full of movement and action4 ,there are some minds that1 from peculiarity of mental habit1 although they preserve what they once saw or heard with great distinctness and fidelity1 nevertheless easily travel away from these recollections of observed fact and glide into a train of reflection which is almost soliloquy4 ,the author of the ,fourth ,gospel appears to be a writer of this kind4 #ac4 ,he himself lays so much stress upon ocular testimony that we must give him credit for such testimony1 even where it is not altogether easy for us to follow him4 #ad4 ,this applies particularly to his reports of miracle4 ,but in judging of these reports1 we must before all things bear in mind that the personal disciples of ,jesus and the whole first generation of ,christians certainly believed that they were living in the midst of miracle1 and certainly held that belief to be an important constituent in their conception of ,christ4 #ae4 ,if we would form an adequate idea of what we call #8the supernatural' in the dealings of ,god with men1 we must not begin by ruling out all that transcends our common experience4 ,we must keep it in our minds even where we feel that there are features of it that we do but imperfectly understand4 ,more light may be given to us by degrees4 #af4 ,all our ,gospels together present us with a view of the life and words of ,christ to which1 if we did but know it1 there would be much to be added4 ,the first ,christians were acquainted with many particulars under both heads which to us are entirely lost4 ,these particulars contributed in an important degree to the total impression which they formed of the ,person of ,christ4 #ag4 ,the conception was naturally fullest and most adequate in the ,mother ,church1 i4 e4 in the ,church in which the immediate followers of ,christ were for the longest time collected4 ,it was here1 and nowhere else1 that that conception of ,his ,person was formed which dominated all parts of the ,church1 and which carried with it certain corollaries as to the nature of ,god and his dealings with men that became a permanent body of belief4 #ah4 ,st4 ,paul no doubt developed certain portions and aspects of this body of belief1 but it is quite impossible and contrary to the evidence that he can have invented its main propositions4 #ai4 ,we may be sure that ,st4 ,john did not draw directly from ,st4 ,paul1 but1 firstly1 from his own recollections1 and in the second place1 from the store of common memories and common doctrine that was the possession of all ,christians and especially of those who had been nearest to the ,master4 #bj4 ,if we attempt a reconstruction of the main lines of the progress of the ,church in the early and in subsequent centuries1 such reconstruction ought to be worthy of its subject4 ,in other words1 it ought to be one in which we can really see the finger of ,god4 #ba4 ,the workings of ,divine ,providence1 as we have experience of them1 do not indeed always correspond to what we should antecedently expect4 ,they are such as belong to a world1 not of perfect1 but of imperfect beings4 ,the ,divine purpose as we see it1 does not take effect at once1 but by slow and gradually expanding degrees4 #bb4 ,in a world so mixed and chequered progress also has been mixed and chequered2 it has not been exactly what we1 with our limited faculties1 could at once recognize as ideal4 ,it has been progress by tentative experiment1 by gradual formulation1 by description1 at first rough and approximate1 but improved little by little as time went on4 ,any reconstruction of ,christian history which agrees with these broad conditions is legitimate1 ,i mean1 any reconstruction which recognizes the tentative1 experimental1 imperfect but gradually improved formulation of ,christian belief4 ,it is incumbent upon us1 in our own day1 to take our part in the attempt to formulate our conceptions of truth1 whether historical or doctrinal1 with all the accuracy in our power2 and we may be quite sure that future generations will improve upon anything that we leave behind us4 #bc4 ,any method of reconstructing history on these lines is1 as ,i have stated1 legitimate and worthy of a ,christian who is loyal to his faith4 ,but a view of history that cannot be expressed in terms fit to describe the operation of ,divine ,providence2 that sees in it nothing but huge blunders and gross deteriorations2 that regards the ,church of ,christ as built on fundamental untruth1 which only becomes worse and not better as the centuries advance2 such a view seems to me to be not loyal and not really ,christian4 ,footnote #gd3 ,see1 however1 the ,oxford ,society of ,hist4 ,theol41 ,n4 ,t4 in ,apost4 ,fathers 7#aije71 p4 #hd4 ,footnote #ge3 ,ibid41 pp4 #fd1 #fg1 #fi2 on the use of the ,fourth ,gospel1 pp4 #ha-hc 7a judicious estimate74 ,footnote #gf3 ,ignatius von ,antiochien1 pp4 #df ff4 ,footnote #gg3 ,strangely enough1 the ,oxford ,society's committee do not mention this phrase1 though it presents a stronger case than any of those on p4 #ca4 ,footnote #gh3 ,hibbert ,journal i4 #ebi4 ,footnote #gi3 ,character1 c4 #aeg4 ,footnote #hj3 ,hibbert ,journal ii4 #faj4 ,footnote #ha3 ,chronologie1 p4 #fge4 ,footnote #hb3 ,die ,offenbarung ,johannis1 p4 #bjh4 ,footnote #hc3 ,it is pointed out to me by ,dr4 ,v4 ,bartlet that the sentence in the ,fragment about the dead raised to life is really a new statement not connected with the sentences preceding which are referred to ,papias4 ,i am inclined to think that this is right1 and that the authority may be ,quadratus4 ,footnote #hd3 ,since this was written ,i have had the advantage of seeing in manuscript an argument by ,dom ,john ,chapman1 presenting in a more attractive shape than ,i have ever yet seen the view that the only ,john of ,ephesus was the son of ,zebedee4 ,all depends upon the truth of the story of this ,apostle's death4 ,it is one of those statements that we can neither wholly trust1 nor wholly distrust4 ,there is a real chance that it may be right1 and there is an equally real chance that it may be wrong2 the evidence1 as it seems to me1 does not warrant a positive assertion either way4 ,i should be much inclined to think that1 if the statement is true1 there was but one ,john at ,ephesus1 the beloved disciple who was also the ,presbyter2 and1 if the statement is false1 there was still but one ,john1 who was both ,presbyter and ,apostle4 ,but then there comes in the problem of the ,apocalypse1 which may require two ,johns6 ,footnote #he3 ,iren4 adv4 ,haer4 iii4 #aa4 #g4 ,footnote #hf3 ,comm4 in ,joan4 i4 #f4 ,,index ,abbot1 ,ezra1 #ab f41 #ae4 ,abbott1 ,edwin ,a41 xi4 ,alogi1 #fe f41 #bch1 #bee4 ,antioch1 #aii4 ,apocalypse1 #bdh-ej4 ,apocryphal ,acts1 #aab4 ,apocryphal ,gospels1 #aab f4 ,apologetics1 x1 #c-e1 #ch4 ,apostle1 the title1 #aje f4 ,apostolicity1 #da4 ,aristion1 #bda2 see also ,presbyters of ,papias4 ,arnold1 ,matthew1 #bbe4 ,athanasius1 ,vita ,antonii1 #eg ff41 #ahc4 ,augustine1 ,st41 #agh4 ,bacon1 ,benjamin ,w41 #ai1 #bd f41 #ce1 #eg1 #ge4 ,baldensperger1 ,wilhelm1 #hd4 ,barnabas1 ,epistle of1 #ch f41 #bda4 ,bartlet1 ,vernon1 #bej4 ,basilides1 #bdg1 #bef4 ,batiffol1 ,mgr4 ,pierre1 #ab4 ,baur1 ,ferdinand ,christian1 #dc4 #8behold1' meaning of1 #gf f4 #8believe1' #afa f4 ,bethsaida1 #aad4 ,beyschlag1 ,willibald1 #aj f4 ,bousset1 ,wilhelm1 #ag1 #bdi f4 ,box1 ,george ,h41 #aec4 ,briggs1 ,charles ,augustus1 #ba ff4 ,burkitt1 ,f4 ,crawford1 #ahc f4 ,butler1 ,dom ,cuthbert1 #eg1 #ahc4 ,caius1 #ff1 #fi4 ,calmes1 ,pre ,th41 #ab4 ,canonicity1 #ci4 ,catholicity1 #da4 ,ceremonies1 #aai ff4 ,chapman1 ,dom ,john1 #beb4 ,cheyne1 ,thomas ,kelly1 x f4 ,church1 the ,mother1 vii1 #bbh-cc1 #bfa4 ,chwolson1 ,daniel1 #aba1 #aeb f4 ,clement of ,alexandria1 #ff1 #fg ff41 #gb f41 #aje1 #bch ff42 see ,presbyters4 ,continuity1 #e1 #bcd f4 ,conybeare1 ,frederick ,c41 #bi1 #ee4 ,cosmos1 #aig4 ,criticism1 ,american1 #df ff4 -- ,english1 #dd ff4 -- ,french1 #bg f41 #ca4 -- ,german1 ix1 #bg f41 #dh ff4 -- ,principles of1 #db-fg1 #adb1 #beg-fc4 ,de ,boor's ,fragment1 #ajc f41 #ajg1 #bej ff4 ,delff1 ,hugo1 #ag f41 #ba1 #ij1 #ii1 #ajh4 ,demoniacal ,possession1 #acj1 #acc f4 ,development1 alleged want of1 #aee-fe1 #bji4 ,didach1 #aii1 #bda1 #bde f4 ,dill1 ,samuel1 #ce f4 ,dobschtz1 ,ernst von1 #ae f41 #ah f41 #aae4 ,dods1 ,marcus1 #aa4 ,drummond1 ,james1 #c1 #ae1 #cb ff41 #da1 #fg1 #ha1 #aaj ff41 #aae1 #ada1 #aff1 #aib1 #aig1 #bda1 #bdg4 ,dualism1 #aif4 ,ebionism1 #bi1 #bbf1 #bcj4 1 #gg ff4 ,encyclopaedia ,biblica1 #a f41 #de4 ,eusebius1 #fe1 #fg ff41 #bch f41 #bej f4 ,extensions1 ,principle of1 #agh4 ,feasts1 the ,jewish1 #aag f41 #aai ff42 see ,passover4 ,fisher1 ,george ,p41 #ad4 ,fourth ,gospel1 ,appendix to 7ch4 xxi71 #fc f41 #hj f4 -- as a #8spiritual ,gospel1' #fh1 #gj ff41 #if4 -- ,christology of1 #bje-ce4 -- ,criticism of1 #a-c1 #e-h1 #ae1 #be1 #cb1 #fj ff41 #fe f41 #fg ff4 -- ,discourses in1 #afe-i4 -- ,external ,evidence for1 #bch-dh4 -- ,internal ,evidence1 ,summary of1 #bch f4 -- ,geographical ,details in1 #aac f4 -- ,monotony of1 #bjf4 -- not a biography1 #gj f41 #bje-g4 -- ,object of1 #fh f41 #ga f41 #bje f4 -- ,relation to ,synoptics1 #fg ff41 #ga f41 #aag f41 #adc-ee1 #aff1 #baf-be4 -- ,author of1 #fg ff41 #gj ff41 #gi f41 #hb-ajh1 #abh1 #afg ff41 #ahh f41 #bjf1 #bdd f41 #bfj2 see ,st4 ,john1 ,apostle and ,presbyter4 ,furrer1 ,konrad1 #aac f4 ,galatians1 ,epistle to the1 #bcj4 ,georgius ,monachus 7,hamartolus71 #ajc4 ,godet1 ,frdric1 #aa4 ,goltz1 ,freiherr ,e4 von der1 #bdb-d4 ,grill1 ,julius1 #aij-b1 #aid-g1 #bjj f4 ,gwatkin1 ,henry ,m41 #eh f4 ,harnack1 ,adolf1 #ah ff41 #db ff41 #fj ff41 #gf1 #ajf1 #aig1 #bjj1 #bbc1 #bda1 #bdi1 #bej1 #beb4 ,hastings1 ,dictionary of the ,bible1 #de-i4 ,hebrews1 ,epistle to the1 #bjg-af4 ,heracleon1 #bd1 #bch1 #bdj4 ,hermas1 #bda4 ,holtzmann1 ,heinrich ,julius1 #da1 #eg1 #ge1 #aae1 #aid1 #bbd4 ,holtzmann1 ,oscar1 #be f4 ,ignatius of ,antioch1 #ea ff41 #aii1 #bda-e4 ,irenaeus1 #fj ff41 #fe f41 #gc1 #aje1 #bch ff41 #bea1 #bee4 ,jacquier1 ,abb ,e41 #ab4 ,jerusalem1 ,destruction of1 #aaf1 #abc f4 ,jewish ,ideas1 #ae1 #abh-cf4 ,john1 ,apocryphal ,acts of1 #ajh4 -- ,first ,epistle of1 #eg1 #gd ff4 -- ,school of ,st41 #gc1 #ha f41 #bec f42 see ,presbyters of ,papias1 ,presbyters of ,clement4 ,john the ,apostle1 #af ff41 #fj ff41 #ig-ajh1 #bdh-ef2 see also ,fourth ,gospel1 ,author of4 -- ,death of1 #ajc ff41 #ajg f41 #bea f4 ,john the ,presbyter1 #af ff41 #ai f41 #fj ff41 #ig-ajh1 #bdh-ef2 see also ,fourth ,gospel1 ,author of4 ,jlicher1 ,adolf1 #a1 #ca f41 #ge4 ,justin ,martyr1 #cc1 #aci1 #aff1 #bdf f41 #bef4 ,keim1 ,theodor1 #bda4 ,kreyenbuhl1 ,johannes1 xi4 ,last ,discourse1 #ij1 #id ff4 ,last ,supper1 #hh f41 #id1 #aej-e4 ,lazarus1 ,story of1 #hg f41 #agj-b4 ,light and ,life1 #aij f41 #bja4 ,lightfoot1 ,joseph ,b41 #ab1 #ea ff4 ,local ,colour1 #abi-cf4 ,logos1 ,doctrine of the1 #ahe-bjd1 #baa ff4 ,loisy1 ,abb ,alfred1 #b1 #bh1 #ca1 #da1 #bjj-d1 #bje1 #bbc f41 #bef4 ,lucius1 ,ernst1 #ed f4 ,luthardt1 ,christoph ,e41 #aa4 ,malchus1 #ij4 ,matthew1 ,apocryphal ,gospel of1 #aab f4 ,mc,giffert1 ,a4 ,cushman1 #ai4 ,memra1 #ahg4 ,messiah1 the title1 #bjh1 #bba f4 ,messianic ,expectation1 #aag1 #acf-dj1 #aeh f4 ,milligan1 ,william1 #aa4 ,ministry1 ,scene of the1 #add-h4 -- ,duration of1 #adh f4 ,miracle1 #afi-hd4 ,moberly1 ,robert ,campbell1 #bae4 ,moffatt1 ,james1 #ai4 ,moulton1 ,william ,f41 #aa4 ,muratorian ,fragment1 #ff1 #aje1 #bee4 ,origen1 #ff1 #bch1 #bee4 ,papias1 #fj1 #fd1 #gc1 #bdf1 #bej ff41 #bed2 see ,de ,boor's ,fragment4 ,paraclete1 #aif f41 #bai f4 ,passover1 #he1 #aag1 #aai f41 #aea-e2 see ,feasts4 ,paul1 ,st41 #afh1 #agd f41 #ahh1 #bfa4 -- ,st41 and ,st4 ,john1 ,relation of1 viii1 #afh1 #bjh-af1 #bbf-cc4 ,peter1 ,st41 and ,st4 ,john1 #ia f41 #ajj1 #ajb1 #ajg4 ,peter1 ,second ,epistle of1 #dc4 ,petronius1 ,satiricon1 #ce f4 ,pfleiderer1 ,otto1 #bf4 ,pharisees2 see ,sects and ,parties4 ,philip the ,evangelist1 #fd4 ,philo1 #ee1 #ahe-bjj4 -- ,de ,vita ,contemplativa1 #ed ff4 ,pilgrimages1 #aag f4 ,polycarp1 #fj1 #fb1 #bdb1 #bef4 ,polycrates1 #fb1 #ii f41 #ajb f41 #aje4 ,pothinus1 #fa f4 ,pragmatism1 #aji ff4 ,presbyter1 the title1 #bec4 ,presbyters of ,clement1 #fg1 #gb f4 -- of ,papias1 #fj f41 #fc f41 #bda4 ,purification1 #hd f41 #abj f4 ,quadratus1 #bej4 ,rabbinical ,schools1 #acb4 ,ramsay1 ,william ,m41 #aab4 ,rville1 ,jean1 #b1 #bh1 #ca1 #bjj1 #bef4 ,ritschlianism1 #dg4 ,roman ,government1 #abf ff4 ,sadducees2 see ,sects and ,parties4 ,salmon1 ,george1 #ff4 ,samaria1 ,woman of1 #he4 ,sanhedrin1 #ij f41 #ajj f41 #aaf1 #abd ff4 ,schmiedel1 ,paul ,w41 #b1 #bf f41 #cg ff41 #eg1 #ge1 #bci ff41 #bdg1 #bef4 ,schrer1 ,emil1 #ah1 #bh1 #ee f4 ,schwartz1 ,eduard1 #cb1 #ff1 #bdf4 ,sects and ,parties1 #abc ff4 ,silence1 ,argument from1 #cc ff41 #ci1 #aga f41 #bea4 ,soden1 ,freiherr ,hermann von1 viii f41 #abi f4 ,soltau1 ,wilhelm1 #ba4 ,son of ,god1 the title1 #bjh-bf1 #bca4 ,spirit1 the ,holy1 #bad f4 #8spiritual1' meaning of1 #ga f4 ,stanton1 ,vincent ,h41 #c1 #cg ff41 #bda4 ,stoics1 #aii4 ,style1 ,argument from ,identity of1 #ef f41 #gd f41 #ha4 ,supernatural1 the1 #afi-hd1 #bfj f4 ,synoptic ,gospels1 ,criticism of1 #aea ff41 #agj-b1 #bag f41 #bfa2 see ,fourth ,gospel1 ,relation to ,synoptics4 ,tatian1 #ff1 #bch ff4 ,temple1 the1 #aac1 #abb f4 ,temple1 ,cleansing of1 #adi f4 -- ,golden ,gate of1 #aac4 -- ,solomon's ,porch1 #abc1 #afd f4 -- ,treasury1 #abc4 ,tertullian1 #aje1 #bch ff4 ,textual ,history1 ,argument from1 #ee ff4 #8that year1' #aae4 ,thecla1 ,acts of ,paul and1 #dc1 #aab4 ,theophilus of ,antioch1 #cd1 #bch4 ,tiberias1 ,sea of1 #aad4 ,tradition1 #d1 #dd4 ,trinity1 ,doctrine of the1 #bae f41 #bah f41 #bca4 ,valentinus1 #bdg1 #bef4 ,ward1 ,miss ,janet1 #a4 ,watkins1 ,henry ,w41 xi4 ,weingarten1 ,hermann1 #eg4 ,weiss1 ,bernhard1 #i f41 #cj4 ,wellhausen1 ,julius1 ix4 ,wendland1 ,paul1 #aii4 ,wendt1 ,hans ,hinrich1 #ba ff41 #bbj f4 ,wernle1 ,paul1 #bg1 #ca1 #ge1 #bbg-ce4 ,westcott1 ,brooke ,foss1 #ac1 #ic4 ,wrede1 ,william1 ix1 #ge1 #aji f4 ,zahn1 ,theodor1 #h f41 #bde4 ,transcriber's ,notes3 ,missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected4 ,typographical errors were silently corrected4 ,inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book4 ,text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores 7italics74 ,footnotes have been moved to follow the lectures in which they are referenced4