the standpoint of the author
i. the gospel is put forward as the work of an eye-witness.
there are a number of passages in the gospel and first epistle of st. john which go to show that the author either was, or at least intended to give the impression that he was, an eye-witness of the life of christ. we will leave it an open question for the present which of these two alternatives we are to choose. and we will begin by collecting the passages, and justifying the description that has just been given of them.
the passages fall into groups; the first small but important, the others larger but, except in a few cases, more indefinite.
on the principles of criticism on which we are going, we shall assume that the gospel and first epistle that bear the name of st. john are by the same author, and that, so far as the authorship is concerned, what holds good for the one will hold good also for the other. the proof is not absolutely stringent. identity of style, and close resemblance of ideas, are compatible with duality of authorship, because one writer may imitate another. but in practice, unless the reasons for laying stress upon it are strong and clear, a refinement like this may be 75left out of account. 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 differences. this question of the relation of the gospel of st. john to the first epistle is a touchstone by which such minds may be distinguished. i allow that the two works may be assigned to different authors[33]. i allow it in the way in which on most questions, if we attempt a nice enumeration of conditions, there is usually some remote possibility to be allowed for. the quotation from dr. drummond on the de vita contemplativa that i gave in the last lecture may help us to measure how remote the other possibility is. as a practical person, dealing with these questions on a practical scale, i shall venture to assume that the gospel and the first epistle are by the same hand. it is of course open to any one to ignore arguments based on this assumption, if he prefers to do so.
i. passages which make a direct claim.
i am treading on very familiar ground, but i must ask you to forgive me if i begin by quoting the opening words of the first epistle:
‘that which was from the beginning, that which 76we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the father, and with his son jesus christ: and these things we write, that our joy may be fulfilled’ (1 john i. 1-3).
the prima facie view of this passage undoubtedly is that the writer is speaking as one of a group of eye-witnesses. but there are two ways in which this inference is turned aside.
1. harnack[34] and some others take it as referring not to bodily but to mystical vision.
2. others, again, think of the writer as speaking in the name of a whole generation, or of christians generally.
in regard to the first of these explanations we note that the word θε?σθαι is used twenty-two times in all the new testament, including the present passage; and in every one of bodily and not of mental or spiritual vision. and whatever sense we may put upon seeing or hearing, it is difficult to explain such a strong expression as ‘that which ... our hands have handled,’ where the writer seems to go out of his way to exclude any ambiguity, in any other sense than of physical handling.
in regard to the second explanation we observe 77that there is a contrast between ‘we’ and ‘you,’ between teachers and taught. the teachers are in any case a small body; and they seem to rest their authority, or at least the impulse to teach, on the desire to communicate to others what they had themselves experienced. i have therefore little doubt that the prima facie view of the passage is the right one. the writer speaks of himself as a member of a small group, like that of the apostles, but a group that may include all who had really seen the lord and who afterwards took up the work of witnessing to him.
the other passage, john i. 14, is more ambiguous: ‘the word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the father), full of grace and truth.’ if this had stood alone, it might have seemed an open question whether ‘we beheld’ was not used in a vague sense of christians generally—or even of the human race, as ‘tabernacled among us’ just before might mean ‘among men.’ but the more specific reference would be more pointed; and it is favoured by the analogy of the passage of which we have just been speaking as well as of those which follow.
in both the above cases the writer is speaking in his own person. this is not quite so clear in xix. 35, where, after describing the lance-thrust and the pierced side, the narrative goes on, ‘and he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he (?κε?νο?) knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.’ is the writer by these words objectifying, and as it 78were looking back upon himself, or is he pointing to some third person unnamed in the background? both views are antecedently possible. perhaps the latter is more consistent with the ordinary use of ?κε?νο?. if we accept it, then i should be inclined to think with zahn that ?κε?νο? points to christ. it would be just a formula of strong asseveration, like ‘god knoweth’ in 2 cor. xi. 11, 31, &c. there would be a near parallel in 3 john 12, ‘demetrius hath the witness of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, we also bear witness; and thou knowest that our witness is true.’ this view is the more attractive because it is in keeping with the habit of thought disclosed in the gospel. as the son appeals to the witness of the father, as it were dimly seen in the background, 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 presence, but who is present with him and with the church in spirit: ‘he who saw the sight has set it down in writing ... and there is one above who knows that he is telling the truth.’
this is the view that, after giving to it the best consideration i can, i am on the whole inclined to accept. i could not, however, agree that there is anything really untenable in what may be called the common view, that the asseveration is of a lower kind, and that the author is simply turning back upon himself and protesting his own veracity. the use of ?κε?νο? to take up the subject of a sentence is specially frequent and specially characteristic of this gospel; and as the author systematically speaks of himself in 79the third person, it seems to me that the word may also naturally refer to himself so objectified: ‘he who saw the sight has set it down ... and he is well assured that what he says is true.’
in any case, however, i must needs think that the bearing witness is that of the written gospel, and that the author of the gospel is the same as he who saw the sight. the identity is, it seems to me, clenched by xxi. 24, to which i shall come back in a moment.
at this point i may be permitted to interject a speculation—shall i call it a pious speculation? it certainly does not profess to be more—as to the origin of the peculiar way the fourth evangelist has of referring to himself. the idea can only be entertained by those who think that the writer was really a companion of the lord, either an apostle or one very near to the apostles. is it not possible that such a one may have been influenced by the way in which the master referred to himself? it is characteristic of the synoptic christ that he constantly speaks of himself objectively as ‘the son of man.’ may we not suppose that the evangelist, through long and familiar intercourse, came insensibly and instinctively to adopt for himself a similar method of oblique and allusive reference? it is of course not quite the same thing; but there seems to be enough resemblance for the one usage to suggest the other. the beloved disciple had a special reason for not wishing to obtrude his own personality. he was conscious of a great privilege, of a privilege that would single him out for all time among the children of men. he could not 80resist the temptation to speak of this privilege. the impulse of affection responding to affection prompted him to claim it. but the consciousness that he was doing so, and the reaction of modesty led him at the same moment to suppress, what a vulgar egotism might have accentuated, the lower plane of his own individuality. the son of zebedee (if it was he) desired to be merged and lost in ‘the disciple whom jesus loved.’
there is nothing in the least unnatural in this; it is a little complex perhaps, but only with the complexity of life, when different motives clash in a fine nature. the delicacy of attitude corresponds to an innate delicacy of mind. when one reads some of the criticisms on this attitude, one is reminded of a sentence in an english classic, cowper’s indignant remonstrance at johnson’s treatment of milton.
‘as a poet, he has treated him with severity enough, and has plucked one or two of the most beautiful feathers out of his muse’s wing, and trampled them under his great foot[35].’
samuel johnson, excellent person as he was, is not the only critic who has had the misfortune to be born (metaphorically, if not physically) with a ‘great foot’ and a heavy hand.
the gospel closes with a scene in which the writer refers in his usual oblique way to himself. i cannot think that there is any real reason for the assumption, which is so often and so confidently made, that the last chapter is an appendix written after the author 81was dead. on this point, again, i entirely agree with dr. drummond, ‘it is surely conceivable that the aged disciple, feeling death stealing upon him, might point out that no words of jesus justified the expectation which had arisen among some of his devoted friends[36].’ the complete identity of thought and style, and the way in which this last chapter is dovetailed into the preceding (‘this is now the third time that jesus was manifested to the disciples’; compare at the beginning of the gospel the counting up of the first galilean miracles, ii. 11, iv. 54), seem to prove that the last chapter is by the same hand as the rest of the gospel[37].
but at the very end another hand does take up the pen; and this time the writer speaks in the name of a plurality; ‘this is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true’ (xxi. 24). the critics who assert that the gospel is not the work of an eye-witness, and even those who say that the last chapter was not written by the author of the whole, wantonly accuse these last words of untruth. that is another of the methods of modern criticism that seem to me sorely in need of reforming. i hope that a time may come when it will be considered as wrong to libel the dead as it is to libel the living.
i accept, then, this last verse as weighty testimony to the autoptic character of the gospel. it is easy to see that the two concluding verses are added on the 82occasion of its publication by those who published it. they, as it were, endorse the witness which it had borne to itself.
ii. passages in which the impression conveyed is indirect.
we have been through the few salient passages which, in spite of the criticism to which they have been exposed, still proclaim in no uncertain terms the first-hand character of the work to which they belong. i now go on to collect a number of passages which are more indirect in their evidence, and just because of this indirectness have a special value, because the evidence which they afford is unconscious and undesigned. for the present i shall speak only of two groups: first, a series of passages in which the author seems to write as though from the inner circle of the disciples and companions of jesus; and, secondly, another series in which he refers to the way in which impressions received at the time were corrected or interpreted by subsequent experience and reflection.
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 history. i know that this kind of effect may be produced by imagination; and i will not assume as yet that it may not be so produced in this instance; i content myself for the present with pointing out that it exists.
when we take the last two paragraphs of the first chapter of the gospel (i. 35-51), i think we shall feel 83as though we were being introduced to a little circle of neighbours and acquaintances. two friends, one of whom is called andrew, and the other is unnamed, are interested in what they have seen of jesus and in what the baptist had said about him, and they ask leave to join him. they remain for some hours in his company; and it is clear that their interest is not diminished. andrew finds his brother simon, and he too is brought up and introduced. jesus himself takes the initiative in inviting a fourth, philip. we are told expressly that philip was from the same city as the two before named; and he in turn finds and introduces his friend nathanael. there is just one of the five whose name is not given. he is the silent spectator in the background. what if it were he to whom we owe the story? in any case there is this little group, all apparently from the same locality, who naturally enough find themselves together, drawn at first by the preacher of repentance, but leaving him to join one greater than he.
we pass over to the next chapter; but that will give us more to say under the next head. there are many points upon which we might pause, but i will pass on to the middle of chap. iii (vers. 22-6). there we have the description of what have now become two groups, the disciples of jesus and the disciples of john, in near proximity to each other, and with easy intercourse between them. the narrative seems to be written from the standpoint of the disciples. the two principals are in the background, but we follow the events of the day among their entourage. 84there is a little discussion between some of john’s disciples and a stranger (r. v.) about a question naturally connected with baptism. 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 it. but it would be hard to find any other motive that could suggest it to a christian at the end of the first century.
it is indeed quite possible and perhaps probable that baldensperger (der prolog des vierten evangeliums, freiburg i. b., 1898) 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 messiah, to whom he bore witness. we can quite believe that at ephesus, at the time when the gospel was written, there still remained some who had only been baptized into the baptism of john, like the disciples mentioned in acts xix. 1-7. there may be a certain amount of polemical or apologetic reference to such a sect as this. the latter part of chap. iii (‘he must increase, but i must decrease’) may be of this character; but the purely historical statements in vers. 22-6 have in them nothing polemical; they have far more the appearance of personal reminiscences, introduced only because they came back to the memory of the writer. it is a curious fact that the gospel contains several references to ‘purifying’: e. g. ii. 6 (the waterpots at cana ‘set there after the jews’ manner of purifying’), the present passage, iii. 22; the description, in xi. 55, of the jews going 85up to purify themselves before the passover, and the statement (xviii. 28) that the accusers of our lord did not enter the praetorium ‘that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.’ nothing is made of these allusions; no argument is based upon them; but they would be very natural if the evangelist began life as a disciple of the baptist and had been early interested in such questions.
turning to the discourse with the woman of samaria we observe how it is framed as it were in the movements of the disciples: in ver. 8 they go into the city to buy provisions; in ver. 27 they return, and are surprised to find their master engaged in conversation with a woman—contrary to the practice and maxims of the rabbis. they are surprised, but they do not venture upon any remonstrance. they had left their master weary and way-worn, and they find him refreshed. they do not understand how refreshment of the mind carries with it that of the body; and they speculate as to whether food had not been brought to him during their absence. this is another scene in which the point of view seems to be that of the disciples, and in which we, as it were, overhear their comments.
it has often been objected that there were no witnesses of the discourse with the woman, and therefore that the narrative of it must be imaginary. it is full of touches, as we shall see presently, which are so appropriate to the circumstances that i find it difficult to think of them as imaginary. but how do we know that there were no witnesses of the discourse? 86it would certainly be too much to assume that every allusion to the disciples in a body meant of necessity the whole number of the twelve. we must remember by the way that the twelve were not yet chosen; but in any case we must expect language to be rough and approximate. if we are really to think of the author of the gospel as ‘the disciple whom jesus loved,’ we should doubtless be right in assuming that the love was ardently returned. we may think of the apostle as a youth, only just out of boyhood, and with something of the fidelity of a dog for his master, who does not like to be long out of his sight. ‘sicut oculi servorum in manibus dominorum suorum, sicut oculi ancillae in manibus dominae suae‘: we may picture to ourselves this gentle youth seated a pace or two away, and not wishing to obtrude his presence, but eagerly drinking in all that passed.
in chap. v, the disciples are not prominent; but in chap. vi, before the feeding of the multitude, we have one of those little dialogues which are so characteristic of this gospel, bringing in two of the disciples who are both mentioned by name (vi. 5-10). at the end of the chapter (vers. 60-71) we are again taken into the midst of the circle of the disciples. we see some perplexed, and some falling away, and an echo reaches us of st. peter’s confession. at the same time we have a premonitory hint, such as we may be sure that other members of the twelve recalled after the fact, that one of their number was a traitor.
about chap. vii i shall have occasion to speak 87later. i will only now point to the discussion with which it begins between jesus and his brethren (vers. 3-8). this again—if it is not pure invention—is only likely to have been reported by one who was in the closest intimacy, not only with the disciples of jesus but with his domestic circle. and again we have to ask, what motive there could be for invention. if the gospel gives examples of belief, and tries to promote belief, it does not on that account suppress examples of unbelief, even among the nearest relations. this episode is st. john’s counterpart to mark iii. 21: ‘his friends (ο? παρ’ α?το?) ... went out to lay hold on him: for they said, he is beside himself.’
the next occasion on which we are reminded of the intimate personal side of our lord’s ministry is the story of lazarus. here we have two groups, into the interior of which we are allowed some glimpses. the family at bethany is one, the company of the twelve is the other. here once more we see what passed from within. the passage, vers. 7-16, is full of delicate portraiture. we have the remonstrances of the twelve as a body; moving in a higher plane than these, we have the divine insight which sees what they cannot see, and knows what it will do; and lastly, we have the impulsive, despondent, faithful thomas—a figure so clearly drawn in the few strokes that are allotted to it—fully recognizing and perhaps exaggerating the dangers, and yet not letting its loyalty yield to them: ‘let us also go, that we may die with him.’
88parallel to this description of what passed among the twelve is the description further on of the interior of the household, the different behaviour of the two sisters and their jewish sympathizers. if this is not a picture constructed wholly by art, it represents the recollections of one who had himself been present at the events of the day, and who had moved freely to and fro, and very probably talked them over after the day was done.
a natural sequel to this scene is the supper in the same house six days before the passover. and, as we might expect, the attitude and standpoint of the narrator are still the same. he shows the same intimacy with the members of the household and with his own companions. he remembers the ungenerous short-sighted speech of judas iscariot, to whom, with natural antipathy, he attributes the worst motives.
the incident of the coming of the greeks, with its accurate singling out of the two friends philip and andrew and the account of the part played by them, also reflects the standpoint of a bystander who is near the centre.
still more does this come out in the whole narrative of the last supper. one or two episodes stand out as specially graphic and life-like. the first is the whole description of the feet-washing (vers. 3-12). the other is the indication of the traitor (vers. 21-30).
bishop lightfoot noticed long ago the careful use of terms in this last passage. in the book by which he prepared the way for the undertaking of a revised 89version of the new testament, happily accomplished ten years later, he called attention to the defects of the authorized version of john xiii. 23, 25:
‘[it] makes no distinction between the reclining position of the beloved disciple throughout the meal, described by ?νακε?μενο?, and the sudden change of posture at this moment, introduced by ?ναπεσ?ν. this distinction is further enforced in the original by a change in both the prepositions and the nouns, from ?ν to ?π?, and from τ? κ?λπ? to τ? στ?θο?. st. john was reclining on the bosom of his master and he suddenly threw back his head upon his breast to ask a question.’
after referring also to xxi. 20, dr. lightfoot adds:—
‘this is among the most striking of those vivid descriptive traits which distinguish the narrative of the fourth gospel generally, and which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of jesus’ life, where the beloved disciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor[38].’
it has been objected that too high a place is given to the ‘beloved disciple,’ and that the stress laid on this is a mark of egotism. but bishop westcott has shown (ad loc.) that this criticism rests on a mistaken view of the order of precedence. the place of honour was in the centre, and the guests reclined on the left side. peter occupies the second place behind his master. the beloved disciple has the third place, where his head would naturally be in his master’s bosom. when we realize this all the details of the narrative become plain.
90what we have said of the last supper applies also to the last discourses which followed upon it. there too we have the same distinct recollection of persons, of the questions put by each, and the replies which they received. thomas and philip stand out in the dialogue of xiv. 4-9. but what is perhaps still more noticeable is the careful specification of judas (not iscariot), a disciple otherwise obscure and of little prominence, in ver. 22. if this is art, it is art that is wonderfully like nature. we notice also the disciples’ comments, evidently spoken in an undertone, in xvi. 17.
what could be more easy or more natural than the description of gethsemane in xviii, 1, 2, and the explanation that it was a familiar haunt of jesus and his disciples? this is just such a reminiscence as we might expect from one who had been himself a disciple.
there is an ‘undesigned coincidence’ in the fact that the unnamed disciple is described as being ‘known to the high priest,’ and that the gospel, of which he may be presumed to be the writer, alone gives the name of the high priest’s servant, whose ear peter cut off, as malchus, and alone knows that one of the servants who questioned peter was his kinsman (xviii. 10, 15, 26). it was apparently because the unnamed disciple was a privileged person, that he was not called upon to give an account of himself as peter was.
we need not go the whole length of the way with delff, and may yet feel sure that it is not an accident that this same disciple, who is so much at home in the high priest’s house, should also have special knowledge 91of persons like joseph of arimathaea and nicodemus, both members of the sanhedrin.
other portions of chaps. xviii and xix will come before us in other connexions. the important passage xix. 34, 35 has already been discussed in part, and we shall have to return to it later. the whole of chap. xx is really significant for our purpose. it is a record of events that immediately followed the resurrection, and is told throughout from the point of view of the disciples. the delicate precision of the narrative is specially noteworthy in vers. 3-10, where again we have the unnamed disciple in the company of st. peter. the story is briefly told, but there is enough detail to let us see the different characterization of the two men. we shall not be wrong in thinking of the unnamed disciple as the younger of the two, indeed in the first flush of youth. he is fleet of foot and outstrips his companion; but he is also of a finer and more sensitive mould, and when he reaches the tomb a feeling of awe comes over him, and he pauses for a moment outside. the impetuous peter has fewer scruples, and he hurries at once into the tomb, and makes his examination of its contents. the spell is broken, and the young disciple also enters. i shall have a word to say later of the effect on both disciples of what they see.
in the rest of the chapter the reader, with the author, is drawn a little aside and allowed to witness the events one by one; first, the appearance to mary magdalene, and then the two appearances to the collected disciples, when thomas is absent and afterwards when he is present.
92a like point of view appears in the next chapter. the narrator is himself never far away from the events he is recording. towards the end of the chapter he is pushed forward into a prominence that is only faintly disguised. 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 companions. they did not recognize the figure that in the grey dawn called to them from the shore. the instinct of love was the first to awake that sensitive quick perception: the old parts are again repeated; it is the unnamed disciple who speaks and peter who acts. but the two are friends; and presently, when peter has been rather hard pressed by his lord’s searching inquiry and the prophetic forecast with which it ends, a sudden impulse leads him to turn the conversation to his companion. he would fain have the forecast extended to him. his interest, or curiosity, is baffled by an ambiguous reply. and here, once more, the writer steps in to prevent a wrong inference being drawn from its ambiguity.
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 witnesses. the writer for the moment revives in himself, or seems to revive, the old impression. if it is not a spontaneous recurrence to the past, it is at least successful in giving the appearance of spontaneity.
but there is another class of passages where the procedure is rather more complex; where the writer not only throws himself back into the past, but also 93looks back upon the past in the light of his subsequent experience. there is no better example of this than the very first that meets us:
‘and to them that sold the doves he said, take these things hence; make not my father’s house a house of merchandise. his disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house shall eat me up. the jews therefore answered and said unto him, what sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? jesus answered and said unto them, destroy this temple, and in three days i will raise it up. the jews therefore said, forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? but he spake of the temple of his body. when therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which jesus had said’ (john ii. 16-22).
here we have two allusions to the disciples as ‘remembering’ something that had happened, and combining it in their minds with an idea of interpretation. bishop westcott distinguishes between the two occasions. he thinks that the expulsion of the buyers and sellers recalled to the disciples at once the passage of the psalm (ps. lxix. 9): he thinks that they applied it to the act while it was going on. on the other hand ver. 22 is explicit to the effect that the disciples did not bethink them of the saying, and see what they conceive to be the meaning, until after the lord was risen from the dead. i am not so sure that any contrast is intended. the tense (?μν?σθησαν) in the first instance is indefinite, and allows us to think that the application of the psalm was an after-thought; 94and the attitude of mind which was on the watch for fulfilments of scripture came later. however this may be, in the second instance at least, we clearly have what professes to be a bit of autobiography—autobiography in which the writer speaks for his fellows as well as himself.
exactly similar to this is the comment on the triumphal entry, and the passages of scripture which it too recalled:
‘these things understood not his disciples at the first: but when jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him’ (xii. 16).
it is an apt description of a process that we may be sure was constantly going on in the minds of the first disciples. 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’ feet, ‘what i do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt understand hereafter.’ this points to the interpretation which was to come, not so much from scripture as from experience and reflection.
the last discourses contain many passages of this latter kind. their general character is prophetic; but the writer and his companions had lived to see the prophecies fulfilled. it is very natural, and we cannot be surprised if the effect of the fulfilment is traceable in the form given to the prediction. the spirit in which the writer looks back upon the events that happened after the resurrection is that expressed in 95xiv. 29, ‘and now i have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe.’
here is a retrospect: ‘they shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto god.... but these things have i spoken unto you, that when their hour is come, ye may remember them, how that i told you’ (xvi. 2, 4).
and this is another: ‘behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone’ (xvi. 32).
a later stage of the apostles’ experience is reflected in the following: ‘verily, verily, i say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. a woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but when she is delivered of her child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for the joy that a man is born into the world. and ye therefore now have sorrow: but i will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from you’ (xvi. 20-2).
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 themselves. this is vividly reflected in a series of passages:
‘these things have i spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you. but the comforter, even the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that i said unto you. peace i leave with you; my peace i give unto you: not as the world 96giveth, give i unto you. let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful’ (xiv. 25-7).
‘but when the comforter is come, whom i will send unto you from the father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the father, he shall bear witness of me: and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning’ (xv. 26, 27).
‘howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. he shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you’ (xvi. 13, 14).
it might be said that these passages are a summary sketch of the mental history of the evangelist from the day of pentecost onwards. they show him to us looking back upon the eventful time through which he had passed with ever broadening intelligence. they contain the whole secret of the way in which he came to write the ‘spiritual gospel.’
i am aware that the probative force of the phenomena which i have been reviewing will be differently estimated. i should myself not have laid so much stress upon them if they had stood alone, or if they had occurred in a different class of literature. 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 writing. but the writers of the first century a.d. were not so scrupulous, and what is natural to us would be 97very unusual with them. still i do not deny that a writer whose habit of mind it was to throw himself back into an assumed position, might by the exercise of a special gift have been able to keep up the position so assumed. but in the case before us, 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 seen. this at once puts in our hands a far simpler and easier hypothesis, a hypothesis which really makes no demands upon our constructive powers at all. whereas it is probable that not one ancient in a thousand, or one in ten thousand, would have written as the writer of the fourth gospel has done, if he had not been an eye-witness; it would have been only the natural way for him to write, if he had been an eye-witness. this latter hypothesis therefore seems much preferable to the other. it is confirmed by the really remarkable consistency with which the point of view is carried out, and by another large class of phenomena which will come before us in the next lecture.
ii. the identity of the evangelist.
before we pass on, however, it may be convenient at this point to consider, on the assumption that the author of the gospel was really an eye-witness of the events, what are the indications as to his personal identity. if we confine ourselves to those contained in the gospel itself, it would not follow with any stringency that he was the apostle john the son of zebedee. the portion of the gospel that contributes 98most to the identification is the last chapter, the scene by the sea of galilee, where we are expressly told that the sons of zebedee were present (xxi. 2). but we are also told that there were two other disciples of whom the author of the gospel may have been one. 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 christ, the author must have been an apostle, then by a process of elimination we should arrive at st. john; and it is no doubt an important fact that in this way internal and external evidence would converge upon the same result. but if we look at some sides of the internal evidence, and bring in only a select few of the indications from without, another hypothesis that has been actually put forward would have great claims upon our attention. it is not on the face of it certain that ‘the disciple whom jesus loved’ must have been one of the twelve. he may have been what might perhaps be called a sort of supernumerary apostle. i mean that he may have been one who although, perhaps on account of his youth, not actually admitted to the number of the twelve, yet had all—and even more than all—of their privileges. we have been led to think of the beloved disciple as a youth who, so far as he could help it, never left his master’s side. we should only have to subtract a couple of years, and the young apostle of eighteen or twenty would become a stripling—highly favoured, though not an apostle—of sixteen to eighteen, or even fifteen to seventeen.
99i 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 theory. and yet it would be a real advantage. we are told that the john who wrote the gospel lived till the time of trajan (i. e. till 98 a.d.). in that case, if he were born about 11 or 12 a.d., he need not have been more than eighty-six or eighty-seven at the time of his death; the main body of the gospel might quite well have been written (probably from dictation) eight or ten years earlier, and the appendix (chap. xxi) added when the writer felt his strength beginning to fail. all these would be quite reasonable dates; whereas if the writer was a full adult in the years 27-9, that would make him rather old by the end of the century. we must keep down the dates as much as we rightly can.
but it is time that i gave a fuller account of the theory of which i am speaking, as it was put forward by its author—in some ways a rather eccentric person—the late dr. delff of husum. i will try at the same time, as well as i can, to balance the arguments for and against it.
dr. delff is not content with distinguishing the beloved disciple from the apostle. for him the former is no galilean at all but a native of jerusalem; he is not a fisherman, but a member of the higher aristocracy, not only acquainted with the high priest but himself belonging to one of the high-priestly families. it was through this connexion that polycrates, bishop of ephesus, came to make the remarkable 100statement about him that he wore the frontlet or golden plate (τ? π?ταλον) of the high priest (eus. h. e. iii. 31. 3).
it will be seen that this is a bold reconstruction; but in this case the boldness has a good deal of justification. there are a number of very tangible data which the theory works up into a coherent whole.
i. the theory might be said to take its start from john xviii. 15, ‘and simon peter followed jesus, and so did another disciple. now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with jesus into the court of the high priest.’ it is natural to suppose that the unnamed disciple here is the same whose presence is hinted at so mysteriously throughout the gospel. but, if that is so, the relation in which he is said to stand to the high priest explains at once a series of facts. it explains how it was that the evangelist came to know that the name of the high priest’s servant, whose ear had been cut off, was malchus; and also how it was that he came to recognize one of those who questioned peter as a kinsman of this malchus. it explains again the special information that the evangelist seems to have about nicodemus, a member of the sanhedrin, who is mentioned by name in three different contexts in the gospel. along with this it would explain the special information which the evangelist also seems to possess as to what went on at meetings, and even secret meetings, of the sanhedrin. we have a graphic account of the debate at one such meeting in vii. 45-52, and again in xi. 47-53; and the gospel has some precise details not found 101elsewhere as to the part played by annas, as well as caiaphas, in the preliminary examination of our lord.
this whole group of facts is in any case one of which we must take notice. in any case it forms an important element in the portrait that we are to construct for ourselves of the evangelist, even if we suppose him to be the son of zebedee. there is no antecedent reason why zebedee and his sons should not have had friends, and even friends in high places, in jerusalem. it would seem that zebedee himself was a person of substance: he has ‘hired servants’ with him in the ship, and salome—if that is the name of his wife—was one of those who contributed to the support of jesus and his disciples. 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 romans. there is, however, also the other possibility that the acquaintance of the evangelist with the high priest is not to be taken too strictly, but that it meant rather acquaintance with some member of his household. 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’ hall.
ii. 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 judaea. delff himself carries out this with a logical severity that hardly seems necessary. he cuts out all the galilean incidents in the gospel as later insertions. even so he cannot be quite thorough 102enough, because he leaves the latter half of chap. i, which introduces to us the unnamed disciple in the company of andrew and peter, natives of bethsaida. this disciple and peter were evidently friends: they lodged together in jerusalem (xx. 2) and go together to the tomb, and they each take an affectionate interest in the other (xxi. 20).
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 (mark v. 37, &c.; acts iii. 1, 11; iv. 13; viii. 14; cf. gal. ii. 9). on the other hand the scene at the foot of the cross (john xix. 26, 27) would seem to be rather in favour of the jerusalem theory, especially if we are to connect the words, ‘and from that hour the disciple took her unto his own (home),’ with the tradition that john had a house in jerusalem.
iii. in another direction delff’s theory fits in well with some portions of the patristic evidence. we have seen how it would account for the curious expression used by polycrates (circa 195 a.d.). delff thinks that the beloved disciple must have actually performed the functions of the high priest. the high priest only wore his full dress on the day of atonement, but on an emergency his place might be taken for him by a substitute; and it is in this capacity that john of ephesus is supposed to have acted. that does not on the face of it appear very probable; but we can more easily conceive that in the early days, before liturgical details were settled, and when the christian church had not yet wholly outgrown its 103jewish antecedents, one who had the blood of high priests in his veins might on some solemn occasion (e. g. at easter) have assumed a part of his distinctive dress.
iv. yet another alleged point in the testimony of papias would be explained on this theory, and is not easily explained on the view which identifies the john who wrote the gospel with the son of zebedee. since the publication of de boor’s fragment (cod. barocc. 142[39]) 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 ‘slain by the jews.’ when attention was first called to this statement, the tendency among scholars was to explain it away, to suppose that there had been some corruption of the text, or some confusion between john the baptist and john the son of zebedee. of course there may have been something of the kind; and yet the statement is quite explicit as it stands, and one does not like emending away just the words that cause a difficulty. hence there is an increasing tendency among scholars to regard the statement as having some real foundation. schwartz, the editor of eusebius, has lately put forth a monograph[40], the whole 104argument of which turns on the assumption that the statement is true. if it were true, the prediction of our lord in mark x. 38, 39, will have been literally fulfilled: both the sons of zebedee will have suffered ‘red martyrdom,’ and not one red and one white. wellhausen is among those who think that this was probably the case.
v. now schwartz assumes that if john perished by the sword like his brother james, he did so at the same time and at the hands of herod agrippa i, in the year 41. of course he can only do this by throwing over the data in the acts, which i do not think that he is warranted in doing. i have little doubt that the john who was still a pillar of the church at the time referred to in gal. ii. 9 was the son of zebedee. but it is quite credible that he may have perished, if not at the same time as james the elder, yet about the same time as james the brother of the lord, or in the troublous times which preceded the destruction of jerusalem.
vi. if the younger son of zebedee had died in this or some other way, there would be nothing to prevent us from supposing that the john who took up his abode at ephesus was the beloved disciple. and it would really simplify the history, and make everything more compact, if we could suppose that the beloved disciple, and the john who wrote the gospel and epistles, and the john who appears to have called himself, and to have been called by others ‘the presbyter,’ were one and the same person.
vii. it is a remarkable fact that some of our best 105authorities, while they leave no doubt as to the identification of the john who figured so conspicuously at ephesus with the beloved disciple, abstain from expressions that would identify him with the son of zebedee. irenaeus most often calls him ‘the disciple of the lord,’ which we remember is the very phrase used by papias of the presbyter. he also more than once describes him as having lain upon the breast of the lord, but he nowhere (i believe) speaks of him as one of the twelve or as the son of zebedee. polycrates uses the same designation, ‘john who lay upon the breast of the lord’; and the muratorian fragment speaks of him as ‘one of the disciples’: but neither of these witnesses ever calls him an apostle. irenaeus, however, does perhaps hint at this title where he says that the church at ephesus, ‘having been founded by paul, and john having resided among them until the time of trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles’ (eus. h. e. iii. 23. 4). clement of alexandria also and tertullian unequivocally call john an apostle.
viii. if these expressions had stood alone, there need be no great difficulty. we may be pretty sure that the beloved disciple, even if he had not been one of the original twelve, would be called an apostle in the wider sense, like st. paul and st. barnabas and james the brother of the lord. and it would be only natural that he should seem to step into the place of the older john (on the hypothesis of his martyrdom), just as james the lord’s brother in a manner stepped into the place of the older james.
106it is worth while to bear in mind that the title ‘apostle’ was used more freely in the early days of the church than we are in the habit of using it. it was not till about the end of the second century that (except in the case of st. paul and st. barnabas and one or two others) it came to be as a rule narrowed down to the twelve. in the earliest usage of all the word had its proper meaning of ‘one who is sent on a mission.’ but this usage was gradually lost sight of, and it took the place of the primitive μαθητ??.
in view of this history of the terms, it will be understood how easily one who was in the position of the beloved disciple would come to be spoken of as an apostle, and in time to be confused with the older apostles who bore the same name. in such a process there would be no need, as harnack does, to bring in the hypothesis of fraud; every step in the process would be really innocent and natural. harnack of course gets into his difficulties by minimizing the designation ‘disciple of the lord’ as applied to john the presbyter, who is also john of ephesus. one who stood to the lord in the relation of the beloved disciple would have a right to the name apostle which the presbyter, as harnack conceives him, would not.
ix. 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 disciple. my wish is not to make out a case either way, but to state the facts as impartially as i can. 107from this point of view, there seem to be two serious difficulties in the way of delff’s hypothesis.
the first is that it puts asunder two sets of phenomena that we feel sure ought to be combined. we have seen that the gospel represents the beloved disciple and st. peter as close friends. and we have also seen that the other gospels, the acts and, we might add, the epistle to the galatians, represent st. peter and st. john as constantly acting together. it may indeed just be said that this joint action is a sort of official relation, which is a different thing from the private friendship implied in the gospel. 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 earlier, and so to identify the beloved disciple with the leading apostle. delff’s theory would make two pairs, who would be too much the doubles of each other.
x. and another difficulty, or set of difficulties, turns round the statement of de boor’s fragment. it is certainly strange that this statement appears in no other early authority, and especially that no hint of it is found in eusebius. i am not sure that this would weigh with me so much as it would with others, because i always discount the argument from silence, even where it is apparently strong, as it is in the present instance.
but there is something more than silence. the common tradition of the church did not ascribe to st. john a violent death. and we cannot escape the inference by saying that the common tradition relates 108to john of ephesus and not to the son of zebedee; because the earliest authority for the tradition, the apocryphal acts of john, a second-century work, without any ambiguity identifies the two.
xi. we might perhaps sum up the whole case thus.
the life of the evangelist falls into three periods: first, the period covered by the gospel in which he appears as the beloved disciple; then, at the end of his career, the period during which he appears as john of ephesus: and, between these two, the period of some forty years which connects them together. now we might say of delff’s theory, that it gives a quite satisfactory account of the first period, and also in most ways of the last, and that in particular it enables us to work in the statement as to the death of the two sons of zebedee; but that its difficulties come out chiefly in regard to the connexion between the first stage of the history and the last.
on the other hand, the common view gives what i think is really on the whole as good an account of the first period, and raises no special difficulties as to the second, but it does leave some obscurities which with our present knowledge it is difficult to clear away as to the third. and it also leaves the alleged statement of papias an enigma for which we have no certain solution.
at the same time, although the cohesion is on either view not quite complete, 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 substance.
