JOHN
441
JOHN
Christ, the very point to which St. John devotes special
attention throughout his Gospel, began to disseminate
their heresy about the end of the first century; (6) fi-
nally, we have direct evidence concerning the date of
composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue"
to the Fourth Gospel, which was probably written
about the year 200 or a little later, says concerning the
date of the appearance of the Gospel: "He [sc. the
Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of
Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the
Island of Patmos" (J. Wordsworth, "Novum Testa-
mentum latine ", I, O.xford, 1889-99, 486). The ban-
ishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last year of
Domitian's reign (i. e. about 95). A few months be-
fore his death (IS Sept., 96), the emperor had discon-
tinued the persecution of the Christians and recalled
the exiles (Eusebius, "Hist, eecl.", Ill, xx, nn. 5-7).
This evidence would therefore refer the composition of
the Gospel to A. d. 96 or one of the years immediately
following.
The place of composition was, according to the above-mentioned prologue, the province of Asia. Still more precise is the statement of St. Irenseus, who tells us that John wrote his Gospel "at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. haer.. Ill, i, 2). All the other early references are in agreement with these statements.
The first readers of the Gospel were the Christians of the second and third generations in Asia Minor. There was no need of initiating them into the elements of the Faith; consequently John must have aimed rather at confirming against the attacks of its oppo- nents the Faith handed down by their parents.
V. Critical Questions Concerning the Text. — As regards the text of the Gospel, the critics take spe- cial exception to three passages, v. 3'j, 4; vii, 53-viii, ll;xxi.
( 1 ) The fifth chapter tells of the cure of the para- lytic at the pool of Bethsaida in Jerusalem. According to the Vulgate the text of the second part of verse three and verse four runs as follows: "... waiting for the moving of the water. And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under." But these words are wanting in the three oldest manu- scripts, the Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (N), and Codex Bezae (D), in the original text of the palimpsest of St. Ephraem (C), in the Syrian transla- tion of Cureton, as well as in the Coptic and Sahidic translations, in some minuscules, in three manuscripts of the Itala, in four of the Vulgate, and in some Arme- nian manuscripts. Other copies append to the words a critical sign which indicates a doubt as to their au- thenticity. The passage is therefore regarded by the majority of modern critics, including the Catholic exe- getes, Schegg, Schanz, Belser, etc., as a later addition by Papias or some other disciple of the Apostle.
Other exegetes, e. g. Corluy, Cornely, Knabcnbauer, and Murillo, defend the authenticity of the passage, urging in its favour important internal and external evidence. In the first place the words are foimd in the Codex Alexandrinus (.\), the emended t'odex Eph- raemi (C), in almost all minuscule manuscripts, in .six manuscripts of the Itala, in most of the codices of the Vulgate, including the best, in the Syrian Peshito, in the Syrian translation of Philoxenus (with a critical mark), in the Persian, Arabic, and Slavonic transla- tions, and in some manuscripts of the .Armenian text. More important is the fact that, even before the date of our present codices, the words were found by many of the Greek and Latin Fathers in the text of the Gos- pel. This is clear from Tertullian [De bapt., i (before 202)], Didymus of Alexandria fDe Trin., II, xiv (about 381)], St. John Chrysostom, St. CVril of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine [Sermo xv (al. xii), De verbis Evangelii S. Joannis), although the last-rnen-
tioned, in his tractate on the Gospel of St. John, omits
the passage.
The context of the narrative seems necessarily to presuppose the presence of the words. The sul> sequent answer of the sick man (v. 7), "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me", could scarcely be intelligible with- out verse 4, and the Evangelist is not accustomed to omit such necessarj' information from his text. Thus both sides have good grounds for their opinions, and no final decision on the question, from the standpoint of the textual critic, seems possible.
(2) The second passage (vii, 53-viii, 11) contains the story of the adulteress. The external critical evidence seems in this case to give still clearer decision against the authenticity of this passage. It is wanting in the four earliest manuscripts (B, A, C, and vS) and many others, while in many copies it is admitted only with the critical mark, indicative of doubtful authenticity. Nor is it found in the Syrian translation of Cureton, in the Sinaiticus, the Gothic translation, in most codices of the Peshito, or of the Coptic and Armenian transla- tions, or finally in the oldest manuscripts of the Itala. None of the Greek Fathers have treated the incident in their commentaries, and, among Latin writers, Ter- tullian, Cyprian, and Hilary appear to have no knowl- edge of this pericope.
Notwithstanding the weight of the external evi- dence of these important authorities, it is possible to adduce still more important testimony in favour of the authenticity of the passage. As for the manu- scripts, we know on the authority of St. Jerome that the incident "was contained in many Greek and Latin codices" (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii), a testimony sup- ported to-day by the Codex Beza? of Canterbury (D) and many others. The authenticity of the passage is also favoured by the Vulgate, liy the Ethiopian, Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and by many manuscripts of the Itala and of the Armenian and Syrian te.xt. Of the commentaries of the Greek Fa- thers, the books of Origen dealing with this portion of the Gospel are no longer extant; only a portion of the commentary of St. C>'ril of Alexandria has reached us, while the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel must be considered a treatment of se- lected passages rather than of the whole text. Among the Latin Fathers, Sts. Ambrose and Augustine in- cluded the pericope in their text, and seek an explana- tion of its omission from other manuscripts in the fact that the incident might easily give rise to offence (cf . especially Augustine, "De coniugiis adulteris", II, vii).
It is thus much easier to explain the omission of the incident from many copies than the addition of such a passage in so many ancient versions in all parts of the Church. It is furthermore admitted by the critics that the style and mode of presentation have not the slightest trace of apocryphal origin, but reveal throughout the hand of a true master (von Sodcn, " Die Schriften des N. T.", I, Berlin, 1902, p. 52:». Too much importance should not be attached to vari- ations of vocabulary, which may be found on compar- ing this passage with the rest of the Gospel, since the correct reading of the text is in many places doubtful, and any such differences of language may be easily harmonized with the strongly individual style of the Evangelist.
It is thus possible, even from the purely critical standpoint, to adduce strong evidence in favour of the canonicity and inspired character of this pericope, which by decision of the Council of Trent, forms a part of Holy Writ.
(3) Concerning the last chapter of the Gospel a few remarks will suffice. The last two verses of the twentieth chapter indicate clearly indeed that the Evangelist intended to terminate his work here:
