JOHN
■ilV.)
JOHN
Schneider's views and the members of the Tiiliingen
School, in the wake of Fonliimml Christian Baur, de-
nied the authenticity of this (lospil, tlic majority of
the critics outside the Catliohi' Cliurih have denied
that the Fourth Gospel was authentic. On the ad-
mission of many critics, their chief reason lies in the
fact that John has too clearly uiul emphatically made
the true Divinity of the Redeemer, in the ^l nil nicl ;i-
physical sense, the centre of his narratiM. How-
ever, even Harnack has had to admit tluit, thmiKli
denying the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, he has
sought in vain for any satisfactory solution of the
Johannine problem: "Again and again have I at-
tempted to solve the prolilem with various possible
theories, but they led me into still greater difficulties,
and even developed into contradictions." ("Gesch.
der altchristl. Lit.", I, pt. ii, Leipzig, 1897, p. 678.)
For a survey of the history of the criticism of the
Fourth Gospel consult Jacquier, "Histoire des livTes
du N. T.", IV (Paris, 1908), pp. 23-51; also San-
day, "The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel" (Oxford,
1905); and Jackson, "The Fourth Gospel and Some
Recent German Criticism" (Cambridge, 1906).
A short examination of the arguments bearing on the solution of the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will enable the reader to form an inde- pendent judgment.
Direct Historical Proof. — If, as is demanded by the character of the historical question, we first consult the historical testimony of the past, we discover the universally admitted fact .that, from the eighteenth century back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of evidence, therefore, we may begin with the third century, and thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles.
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case and without the faintest indication of doubt named as the author of this Gospel. The earli- est of the extant manuscripts, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century, but the perfect unanimity of all the codices proves to every critic that the prototypes of these manuscripts, at a much earlier date, must have contained the same indi- cations of authorship. Similar is the testimony of the Gospel translations, of which the Syrian, Coptic, and Old Latin extend back in their earliest forms to the second century.
The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees with that of the above- mentioned sources. St. Dionysius of Alexandria (264-5), it is true, sought for a different author for the Apocalyp.se, owing to the special diflicultics which were being then urged by the Jlillcunarianists in Egypt; but he always took for granted as an un- doubted fact that the Apostle John was the author of the Fourth Ciospel. Equally clear is the testimony of Origen (d. 254). He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the Evangelists to compose his Gospel (Eusebius, "Hist, eccl.", VI, xxv, 6) , and at least a great portion of his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, in which he everywhere makes clear his conviction of the Apostolic origin of the work, has come down to us. Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215-6), relates as " the tradition of the old presbyters", that the Apostle John, the last of the Evangelists, "filled with the Holy Ghost, had written a spiritual Gospel" (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, xiv, 7). ^
Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenteus, Bishop of Lyons (d. about 202), linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John.
The native country of Irenieus (Asia Minor) and the
scene of his subseqiient miiiistrv ((!aul) render him a
witness of the Faith m I lot h t lie Ivistern and the ^^■est-
ern Church. He cites in his writings at least one hun-
dred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the re-
mark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In
speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he
.says of the last: " Later John, the disciple of the Lord
who rested on His breast, also wrote a CJospel, while he
was residing at Ephesus in A.sia" (Adv. Haer., Ill, i,
n. 2) . As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that
by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none
other than the Apostle John. (Concerning the im-
portance of Irenseus in the present question see
Gutjahr, " Die Glaubwurdigkeit des ireniiischen Zeug-
nisses iiber die Abfassung des 4. kanonischen Evan-
geliums", Graz, 1904.)
We find that the same conviction concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is expressed at greater length in the Roman Church, about 170, by the wTiter of the Muratorian Fragment (lines 9-34). Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (before 181) also cites the beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John (.\d Autolycum, II, xxii). Finally, according to the testimony of a Vatican manuscript (Codex Re- ginae Suecia; seu Alexandrinus, 14), Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great exegetical work an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John, during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle (J. Wordsworth, "Novum Testamentum la- tme", Oxford, 1889-98, I, p. 491).
It is scarcely necessary to repeat that, in the pas- sages referred to, Papias and the other ancient writers have in mind but one John, namely the Apostle and Evangelist, and not some other Presbyter John, to be distinguished from the Apostle. (See John the Evangelist, Saint.)
Indirect External Evidence. — In addition to the di- rect and express testimony, the first Christian centu- ries testify indirectly in various ways to the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel. Among this indirect evi- dence the most prominent place must be assigned to the numerous citations of texts from the Gospel, which demonstrate its existence and the recognition of its claim to form a portion of the canonical writings of the New Testament, as early as the beginning of the sec- ond century. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died under Trajan (98-117), reveals in the quotations, allusions, and theological views found in his Epistles, an inti- mate acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. In the writings of the majority of the other Apostolic Fa- thers, also, a like acquaintance with this Gospel can scarcely be disputed, especially in the case of Poly- carp, the "Martyrium of Polycarp", the "Epistle to Diognetus", and the "Pastor" of Hermas (cf. the list of quotations and allusions in F. X. Funk's edition of the Apostolic Fathers).
In speaking of St. Papias Eusebius says (Hist, eccl.. Ill, xxxix, 17) that he used in his work passages from the I'irst Epistle of St. John. But this Epistle necessarily presupposes the existence of the Gospel, of which it is in a way the introduction or com- panion work. Furthermore, St. Irenaeus (Adv. Hcer., V, xxxii, 2) cites a sentence of the "presbyters" which contains a quotation from John, xiv, 2, and, ac- cording to the opinion of those entitled to speak as critics, St. Papias must be placed in the front rank of the presbyters.
Of the second-century apologists, St. Justin (d. about 166), in an especial manner, indicates by his doctrine of the Logos, and in many passages of his apologies the existence of the Fourth Gospel. His disciple "Tatian, in the chronological scheme of his "Diatessaron", fol- lows the order of the Fourth Gospel, the prologue of which he emploj'S as the introduction to his work. In his "Apology" also he cites a text from the Gospel
