THE 662ND ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, THE REV. ARTHUR H. FINN IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed, and signed, and the HON. SECRETARY announced the election of the following :—The Rev. Canon H. E. Nolloth, D.D., as a Member; and David Somerville, Esq., and the Rev. Prof. Julius R. Mantey, Th.D., as Associates. The CHAIRMAN then introduced the Rev. Harold Smith, M.A., D.D., to read his paper on "The Johannine Authorship of the Fourth Gospel." THE JOHANNINE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. By the REV. HAROLD SMITH, M.A., D.D. I.-External Evidence: (a) For the Book. E find at the close of the second century all four Gospels, WR bearing their present names, universally accepted as authoritative Scripture. This holds good all over the Christian world. 66 Irenaeus (c. 185 A.D.) gives, as is well known, rather fanciful reasons why there must necessarily be four Gospels,* neither more nor less. But it is clear that neither he nor his contemporaries first decided upon the number four, and then reached it either by addition or by subtraction of doubtful cases. Such a process has clearly sometimes taken place, e.g., in arriving at the exact number of 'Seven Penitential Psalms or Seven Deadly Sins." But Irenaeus has another passage where he points out that the Gnostics have strangely neglected the number five; he shows that this recurs constantly in nature (e.g., five fingers and five senses) and in Scripture (e.g., five books of the law, five wise virgins). Thus, if five Gospels† had been at all generally recognised he could quite as easily have shown that number to be determined by the fitness of things; so with three. Perhaps somewhat earlier, perhaps somewhat later, we have what is known as the "Muratorian Canon " (because first published by the Italian scholar Muratori, eighteenth century). This gives, in a very corrupt Latin text, a list of books recognised at Rome. It recognises four Gospels, declaring them to be harmonious in the main points, although various elements are taught in each. It gives an account of the origin of the Fourth Gospel, by "John, one of the disciples " (see later). Theophilus of Antioch, 180, quotes John i, 1-3, as the utterance of John, one of those inspired. The Gnostic Heracleon, who wrote a commentary on this Gospel, must have known it as John's. From a time considerably earlier than this we find this Gospel used and valued, though nothing is said of its authorship. In this, however, it shares with the other three Gospels, which are also used without being named. If later imagination had had anything to do with the naming, we should not have had Gospels ascribed to Matthew, Mark and Luke, all men of secondary importance. Therefore, there is nothing distinctive or suspicious in the absence of ascription of authorship to quotations or echoes of the Fourth Gospel; and, like the rest, its ascription comes from apparently authentic tradition, not imagination or conjecture. Justin Martyr (150-160) uses this Gospel as one of the "memoirs written by the Apostles and those who followed them.” He does not, indeed, quote from it nearly so often as from the rest; but has several clear echoes of it (e.g., on the new birth); and his doctrine, especially that of the Logos, is largely based on it. His use of it is like his use of St. Paul, whom he never formally quotes in his extant works. Any idea that Justin regarded this Gospel as of less value than the rest is overthrown by his disciple Tatian, who not only has several quotations from it in his Apology, but made, either in Greek or in Syriac, a harmony of the Four (Diatessaron), using our Fourth Gospel equally with the rest, and beginning with its Prologue," In the beginning was the Word." We find it highly valued among the Gnostics, especially the Valentinians. Ptolemaeus quotes and interprets the Prologue. Heracleon wrote a commentary upon a large part of it, if not the whole; we have only fragments of it in Origen's commentary, which itself has reached us very incomplete. Heracleon sometimes applies it to establish Valentinian teaching; but often his sayings are of interest and value, apart from coming from our oldest commentary on the Gospels. Thus he has some good notes on Chap. IV : The water which Jesus gives is of the Spirit and his power; this life is eternal and never decaying, for inalienable is the divine power and gift. Those who partake of what is supplied richly from above, themselves pour forth the things bestowed upon them unto the eternal life of others.' "The Saviour called His Father's will His own food, for it was His nourishment, refreshment and power." But still more significant than this use of the Gospel by Valentinians is the fact that their distinctive terminology seems based upon the language of this Gospel, especially the Prologue. Hence it must have held a recognised position by the time the Valentinians originated, say A.D. 130. There are quotations or echoes also in other Gnostic writers, including a book ascribed to Basileides. But there is the possibility that this comes from a later member of his school. The relation of the epistles of Ignatius to this Gospel is not clear. He has close affinities of language and ideas, but no definite quotations; and the echoes are not quite clear enough to make it certain that he was familiar with the book, and does not simply echo current teaching. The only second century rejection of the book comes from some writers, whom Epiphanius, perhaps following Hippolytus, nicknames the "Alogi"-a term signifying that they (1) rejected the Logos, and (2) were therefore irrational. They were strong opponents of the Montanists, with their doctrine of the Spirit, for which they appealed to this Gospel; and their Millenarianism, for which they appealed to the Apocalypse. The Alogi sought to cut the ground from under them by denying the authority of both books, ascribing them (or at least the Apocalypse) to the heretic Cerinthus. But they did not assert that either book was recent. Thus this Gospel can be traced back to 130, when it must have had already a recognised position; possibly to 115. The terminus a quo depends on the date of the circulation of the other Gospels. Tradition is clear that this was written after the rest; one form is that John knew and approved of them, but regarded them as incomplete. (b) For the Author. There is plenty of evidence that at the end of the first century there lived and died in "Asia "-more particularly at Ephesus-a great Christian teacher and ruler named John, a disciple of the Lord, who is repeatedly spoken of as " the beloved disciple" of this Gospel, and as its source or author. Thus Polycrates says that the "great lights fallen asleep in Asia " include " John, who leaned on the Lord's breast, who had been a priest wearing the sacred plate,* a witness (or martyr) and teacher; he sleeps at Ephesus." Irenaeus, speaking of his own intercourse with Polycarp, says I how he would relate his intercourse with John and with the others that had seen the Lord."† Elsewhere, giving the origins of the Gospels, he says: John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, also published a * πέταλον Eus. v, 24. 66 † Eus. v, 20. 66 Gospel while living in Ephesus of Asia." He also gives, on the authority of Polycarp, the story of John rushing out of the bathhouse at Ephesus on meeting Cerinthus there.* Clement of Alexandria may have gained his knowledge of Christianity in Asia from one of his teachers, an Ionian. He gives the story of John and the young robber as a true story of John the Apostle," who, when on the death of the tyrant he removed from Patmos to Ephesus, went also to the surrounding districts in one place appointing bishops, in another setting in order whole churches, in another ordaining a ministry." 66 The Leucian Acts of John-one of the oldest of the apocryphal Acts, perhaps belonging to the second century-also put John at Ephesus. 66 The Muratorian Canon gives no place, but associates John with Andrew. The fourth Gospel comes from John, one of the disciples. At the instance of his fellow disciples and bishops he said: Fast with me to-day for three days, and let us tell one another whatever may be revealed to each of us. The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write all in his own name, and that all should certify." It is perhaps worth noting that the character of John as revealed in the two reasonably authentic stories told of him by Irenaeus and Clement is close to that of the Apostle. Later stories are of not nearly the same value. But while there was a general agreement that this John was the author of the Gospel, and, no doubt, he was commonly identified with the Apostle, yet Clement is the first to state this definitely. Others simply call him the "disciple of the Lord." This of itself would raise no difficulty. It might be thought sufficient to use the title given in his Gospel, where the term "apostle " is practically absent (only in xiii, 16). And as the son of Zebedee is the only disciple bearing that name in the N.T. (unless John Mark be so reckoned,, further distinction would be thought unnecessary. It is not as with two named James or two named Philip. But there are two points of external evidence against this identity : one long known, the other discovered only of late. (1) There is some appreciable evidence for the existence of another John, distinct from the Apostle. The two may then easily have been confused, as seems to have been the case with the two Philips, the Apostle and the Deacon. We are told definitely by Polycrates that Philip the Apostle settled at Hierapolis, near Laodicea. But the mention of his daughters by Papias, Polycrates and Proclus seems to identify him with the Deacon. So, it is said, it may have been with John. * III, iii, 2, p. 177. The oldest piece of evidence is Eusebius' extract from the preface of Papias' Exposition of the Lord's Oracles. He says he had collected what he could from those who had followed the elders (i.e., the Apostles), inquiring what Andrew said, or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples; "and what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, say. Notice that he uses the present tense of these two last; this suggests that they were living and accessible when Papias collected his sayings; Eusebius thinks that from his frequent quotation of them he may have known them personally. But, as Eusebius notices, he has two mentions of "John." Are they one, or two? The title elder proves nothing, as it is used of both (as is that of "disciple "). If one and the same man, the Apostle, is meant, we have rather a clumsy piece of composition. Eusebius maintains that two Johns are implied. He desires to find a second John to whom to ascribe the Apocalypse, for which he does not care, and perhaps also the two minor catholic epistles; but moderns would identify him—and not the Apostle--with John of Ephesus, the writer or source of the Fourth Gospel. On the other hand, the juxtaposition of John and Matthew may be suggested by both being evangelists. 66 (2) Comparatively lately it has been noticed that there is some evidence that John the Apostle suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Jews, presumably, but not certainly, in Palestine. This is stated, in the best MS. of Georgius Hamartolus, a writer of the ninth century, and in what probably is an epitome of Philip of Side, of the fifth century, to have been stated by Papias in his second book-(the two writers may not be independent). But it is very strange that if Papias really said this, Irenaeus and Eusebius should have ignored it; it would seem that either he did not really say it, or they did not credit him. These two writers are not remarkable for accuracy; Georgius combines the martyrdom of John with his return from Patmos and residence in Asia. On the work of Philip of Side, a presbyter of Constantinople in the earlier part of the fifth century, and thought at one time very likely to become Bishop, we have a contemporary criticism by Socrates the historian. His Christian History was a most voluminous work, dragging in all kinds of irrelevant matters in order to display the author's learning; it was written in an elaborate but obscure style, and constantly shifted from one period to another, so confusing the sequence. Some of the fragments we possess do not show much accuracy. There are, however, various other writings (e.g., the Syriac Martyrology) which speak of the martyrdom of John the Apostle. These would have more weight if they did not come from the period when every leader of the earlier generation was supposed to have been a martyr, at least if he was to be honoured properly. Mark x, 39, may be used on both sides; it is held by some that it shows that |