Tie InTeewaTIONAL GaITio+L COMMENTARY. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY on Tit GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN ny ‘Mosr Rev. anp Ricur Hon, J. H. BERNARD, D.D. Rev. A. H. McNeng, DD, (ev rwo vouumes) Vor, I NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 1929‘The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction ae Reseeed rated in be Und Stats of Amc PREFACE DR. BERNARD'S many friends will be glad at last to have this Commentary. Fortunately he had completed the manuscript of both volumes before his visible presence was taken from us in August 1927, so that I have been responsible only for seeing it through the Press. Dr. L. C, Purser saw the proofs as far as Chapter XIX, but I have been through the whole, trying to gather up the fragments that remained. ‘The Indices have been prepared by the Rev. R. M. Boyd, Rector of Shinrone T would thank him gretefully for his help, but he needs no thanks. A. H. McNEILE, Dusism, October 1928,CONTENTS Averwations 5 eet Inrsopverion hoe ‘Authorities forthe Tet |) Dislocations ofthe Text. 5s Structure of the Gospel 6 = Non-Johannine Glosses . 0 - Byangelisic Comments. : ‘The Apostle John the Beloved Disciple Did not dio by Martyrdom. Joka the Apostle and John the Presbyter « Muratorian Fragment and Latin Prefaces Gospel and Johanne Bpetes «+ Apocalypse . Sammary of Argument as to Authorship Esrly Citations. ee EvangelistaJew. 6 Notan Allegorist. 5 Hdea of Witness”, Philo and the Fourth Gospel 9s Use made of the Synoptists =. (Chronology of Jn, and of the Synoptists . Words of Jesus in Jn, and in the Synoptists Thetitle“Sonof Man”. Doctrine of Christ's Person + Doctrine of the Logos. + ‘Authority of the Old Testament . Doctrines of Life and Judgment . ©x CONTENTS Inrropuction—continued ‘The Kingdom of God and the New Birth . Eucharistic Doctrine ‘The Johannine Miracles. Commentaries. Noras on cue Gasex Text. ‘Tae “ Paricore De ApuLteRa” Ispex 1. General wy TL. Authors and Writings =» UL Greek Words. cii-chevi clxvi-chowi = dxxvi-choovi clxxxyi-elporvi om psa ps errs. 133-140 ABBREVIATIONS ist has been designated threnghout as Jy t0 atingunk’ him from John the son of Zebedee as well as from Sa arc he sbverton fmt intended to ay Fee PT genliag wit for she resbyc,ahoug the editor regards this a highly probable; * but itis convenient es Moana hh send te oer oe nett thou peging hi. peronalty. "A few other SoReviadone thar he teen adopted ae the following: DB... «Hastings! Distionary ofthe Bibl, 5 vols. ‘G898- 1904). DBD... « Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 3 v0l6 rand ed. (£893). DOG... . «Hastings! Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 2 Vols. (7308). Bh. Aubott's Distessarica, inch ‘ie Johannine Vocabuiary a Joburnine Grammar, Parts 1X. 2g091915). BB. 5. + + Cheyne’s Encyclopedia BiBlics, 4 vols. ERE. BSE Protpatio of Rei RE... + 4 Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion Sind Ethics, £2 ets. (3908-2027). ITS oe Soartah of Theological Studies (2900- 1929), Mouiton-Milligan . Vocsbulary, of the Greek Testament, Sflastrated from the papyzi by J. H. Moulton and G. Niligan (roug~ Tis is being completed by Dr. Milligan; fei indispensable. Gee p. Devi, Dit, 5INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I ‘QUE TEXT 8 ‘atone or te Text fis () Avrnonrmes rox THe Text Futt accounts of the meauscript material available for the text will be found in Gregory's Prolzgomena (:854), in. is Testhriid (1902, 1990), and in von Soden's Die Schriften des neuen Testaments (soa). During the last twenty-five several additional manuscripts and versions of first- ate value have come to light. Only a few of the more Enportnt authorities for the Gospel, im waole or in party ave named here, von Soden’s aotation being placed in " land the century (0 which each MS. is ascribed being given in Roman numerals. No attempt bas been made in these yolumes to print an apparatus eriticus. ‘Tischendot’s (x872) ip stil the most useful, von Soden’s (r9r3) being constructed fon the basis of a new classifcation of textual authorities, which fas not commanded geacral acceptance, Westcott and Hozt’s ‘Noses on Select Readings (3864) axe indispensable, although their docitine of the infedority of the (¢ Western’ Text ” is row regarded as too strongly stated. A. Souter’s brief critical apparatus is valuable, and his table of MS, author mimbly clear (ov, 7st. Grace, Oxford). Papyri ‘The casliest extant remains of Gospel manuscripts in Greek were written in Egypt on papyrus. | Of these some of ‘the most interesting were found at Oxyrhynchus, and have been published by Drs. Grenfell and Hunt. A few contain frag-xv THE TEXT [om x ments of the Fourth Gospel. They are generally in the form of 2 book or codex, and notin the form of rolls of papyrus. Most of those mentioned here present a text similar to that of B: Pap. Oxyrh. 208 (von Soden, ¢ 02) and x78: form fragments of Bre same MS the oldest extant text of Ja. (eet, fand are at the British Museum, ‘They give in a mnutiated form Jon 233g oH This) S. ws codes, made 1 Single quite of some twentycfive sheets Step. xxix ™ Pop Oath 1228, Glasgow, iii, This has @ good text of Pap: Onyrh, $47, British Museum, iv, contains Jn. 21°, ‘Pep. Oxyrh. r7bo, British Museum, i, contains Jn, 81+, Pap. Osyrh. 1596, British Museum, iv, contains Jn, 6612 17, ‘There are many other papyrus fragments, some of early date; the above are mentioned as specimens of the available material, Uncials Information as to most of these will be found in the text- books, We give brief references for those which have been recently brought to light: B . Faticanus (31). RL Sinaiiess @ 9), ACS Alecondrinus missing CREE puis. y, Paine. Conains ‘considerable fragments of Jn. D . Bese (85). Cambridge. ¥-vi, GrecoLatin, Ce. 3814-2018 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap Ihas been filled by a ninth-centary scribe (Dr), T . Borgianus(5),, Rome. ¥. Greco-Sabidie. Contains one Tn. seal G3) “Leningrad. vi. Contains oc, x TH. (39h brlsh Museu, vi, Graco Sobidic. Com tas c.g 48 with ow gaps, ‘For a cation b Gram sig Kenyon, cf J2.8. Apel 190, bash ee on gi 4S, W . Freer (c 014). Washington. iv-vi, Discovered in Egypt in 1906, The Gospels are in the order Mt,, Jn, Lk, Mk. Collation in Zhe Weshington tS. (of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912). 54] AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT w N . Purpureus Petropolitanus (© 19). d through ‘the Horesies of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Viena, and British Museum. vi.” Some piges ore missing. Eaied by HS Cronin in Cambridge Teste and Studies (3899). Le. Regius (€ 36). Paris. viii, Co. 1g arth axe Timing. ©. Korideshs (e050). Tillis, viivix. Discovered ot even Rann "wor, and edits bp jezrnann & Gregory (Leipzig, 7913). The text i akin to that of fame", fame, and the cursives 28, $65, 700,, See Lake and Blaks in Harvard Theol Review (ly 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels, Chao Z7:8, Ox sous, Api tnd July 1995 (70), Oxford and eningrad. inex. Con co 11.68 Brg 1g to end. A. Senpellensis (€ 96). St. Gall. ix-x, Groo-Latin, Secondary uncials are not specified here; nor has reference been made f0 two uy Pallet ul of the Bf azo Leng the British Museum respectively (ron Socden's «1 and e 3). Cursiver Of the vast mass of minuscues, omly a few need be men- tte following are notable: 3 (48), Pasi, ving are 8, the best of al the curives, kin'to BDL at many vob 3s 38 (Cy ay 15 3) Rome, Co, Een Brad, Sex; Too (e139), London, x, ed Hosk umeration. 600. fonder the “The twelve curives numbered 25,6 144 2995 346, S48, 188, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709, a72” dencended from & lost Gammon’ ancestor, Salmon directed Ferrar’s attention to 73, 6, 124, 346; and Ferrar began a collation, which was com- ploeed “anil published by . K. Abbott in 1877." The group {nay be cited as fam. 13, See above on, and forthe postion of 7-89 in this group, see note on the Pericope. 'Nos. 1, 118 131, 209 are also akin to each other and to ®, and mnay be cited as fam. + (ee K. Lake, Cod. 1 and sts Allies, 1902). Ancient Versions The Old Lagin MSS. ao cited under the letters ¢, 8 6/4» te, Jerome’s Vulgate being og. ‘The relative value of ‘the Cf. alao Rendel Haris, The Ferrar Group (1900).avi ‘THe TEXT font African and European texts of the O.L. is too intricate for discussion here, ‘The Old Syriac version probably goes back to. Tatian’s Diatessaron, ari in any case to sic. it sud én. We have it in two MSS.;" Spr. sin, of suc. ix, discovered at Mt. Sinai in 8p, and Sj, er. of ew fied by Cureton in 1898, both being accesible in Burkitt's indispensable Seangelion da Mepharres (goa)! The Peshita or Spine wulgate is See ¥. ‘The Coptic vss. have been fully edited in the Sahidie Bobairie texts by G. Homer (1901-1924). The Sehidic follows xB, but has a Western clement. The oldest MS.of Jr, in this version (ure, i) was dix covered in 1913 Sir H. Thompson in x924. SEP elle, anditsney nthe Bile Sctye Motee London, It is in codex form, made up of twenty-five sheets of Papyrus, folded together so a3 to make a single quire (cf. p. xiv stove.” 1 bas a good text like mB end ets the Perici de tera. ‘The text printed in this volume is similar to that followed by Westcott and Hort, and by Bernhard Weiss, although not identical with either, Tt is convenient to indioate here the ‘ore important instances in which the reading that as been adopted after due consideration of the evidence (of the mane scripts and of the context alike) difers from that by most recent critics, At 1 15% zo!” readings have been sug gested or adopted which have very little manuscript authority Gifsay), bat which must be judged on their own merisy eg emendations, Other weakly attested readings are at 10% ax 43? pit 18%, And at gt 14% 16! reasons ‘been given for following the seztus receptes rather than its ode rival. In each case, the vais have Leen examined fn the notes fn oc. (a) Distocations ov re Text sages in the Fourth Gospel which present ditsllen inet tasiional contests we etal inion hhas, during the lest half-century, been favourable, on the wholes the conclusion that, wheter by accidental tan position GF pages of the original, or by perverse editorial Feviscn, they have been removed fom thelr proper position 1 Bor harsacolstic rearrangements of the text in Syr sin, cp. av, re) DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT ait a ‘Of such instances of dislocation of the text, perhaps the eat cut a be adsl the tanopositon ofc ¢ and & ‘Tio fas siplen etic wo urge tha th ber ofthese Supers dhouil’be interchanged wee, Canon J.B Nori and his en a sere yan i 3¢ words “ these things (¢ ratre) Jesus went vy i thn other side of the ara ff Caloo™ aye oa Trosen We Journey from Terutlsm ba the author’ sn iii mst be dhe cae i de vents gfe @ are conseerive 1 those af c. 5. Se ee ee Ta Oe ee ag wevasunt Lnow the pot of deparere Ta 62 niger Garéours means the eastern side, in 6* the mesterm side; just as in Mk. 5! the same ise means the eastern side, and in 38 the western side, No doubt, for one who followed the Sranuty Toad feo Jerutlem novtawacd, We ether aide sould be eiher the sorte othe enter eos Ruts journey from Jerusalem through Samaria yer Galilee, Wrhich ‘oxtensiod either rowad the northern end af, oc acrom, lle te the uelghbouthood of Betsada Tula, would bs described very elli; by the sentence, ‘‘ He went away to ‘the other side of the sea.’ On the other band, the phrase is Stearate supp Hi vo ste fom Capers be $e Ber oe Towing immediatly on on thes al is clear. Poteet errs Jesus (4), who is in the neighbourhood, that is, near Br Ren ale of tie ake, at the ext thing recorded that “ after these things Jesus went away to the other side” (.e. the Kuntheaatere hoe) of the aie, wae, ded Gib ekdtags Tollgwed Hin becache ey beheld the signs Se Be don thom that were sek” Among the mere Hoteworthy of these was the ‘second sign” in Galilee, #2. tS otc some, 1 opening words of c. 7, “ After these things Jesus sae iy Citic fof He woul oe wate in Judna, beenuse Tre Joms sought tll im do nt fll ratraly pon ¢ Teomhale a6 is conipad watt Gellman discon oad shies why, han shouldbe fuct tat “Hlewalbed in Gallee™ bbe emphasised at'7!? And no hint has been given in c. 6 ae eRe ee Ds anindigaat at Eis edtts that they Sought to kil Him, On the other hand, the words of 7! come ‘naturally in succession to the narrative of c, § (but see below, “i. the Jounal of Phony, 172, p tor _Nott added ater saat tele of Phos, 2% so Nam ted er BBLS cas ?iit ‘THE TEXT {on . xix), which contains the controversy of the Jews consequent fon the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath, after ‘which it is expressly said that the Jews sought to kill Jesus G9. A “retirement from Jerusalem to Galilee was ‘quite avural em; but it was only for @ short time, and He went ‘back to Jerusalem to resume His ministry there at the Feast of Tabemacles (7). That no very tong interval of time elapsed between the controversies ofc. 7 and those of ¢. § is, ‘shown by the allusion in 7 to the heeling of s*, We cannot late between these two points a long ministry in Galilee, ‘narrative proceods smoothly if we adopt the order, c (Samaris and Galilee), c. 6 (Galile), c, 5 Clerusalem, a period 0 which we must assign, as we shall see, 7°; see p. xis), © 7? (a retirement to Galilee), ¢. 226% (another visit 10 Jerusalem) Wt should be added thet, if the traditional order of ce. 4-7 be followed, there is a dificulty in identifying the Feast mea- tloved at s!; the Passover, Pentecost, Dedication, Tabernacles, Prin, being advocated in um by various expositors. Bat if'we place c. 5 after ¢. 6, the identification is obvious. It is the Feast of tie Pastover, which has been mentioned at 6¢ as eee oF ‘Of independent evidence for this transposition of ce. $ and 6, thee i nae tht an berlin eo, ‘ feneus, 2g. a very eacly commentator on the Fourth Gospel, regards the feast of s# as the Passover, and does not mention the feast of , But, nevertheless, be takes cc. § amd 6 in their traditional order, and the Feeding of the Five Thosand ater te Hethng of te Maa at (Har. xxi. 3). Origen, too, has a phrase which, if i stood by itself, would farce te vow that fand part comseonve, Wc om menting on c. 4, he says (p. 250) that the feast of st was not ikl fp be Ge Eavorey, cane ‘aoriy ftermarde stated” (ner" dye Embiperad) Ene fy Ents dopr roe Tovdader, } orqroryis (9. Tn. other words, be says that 7% comes “shortly after” 5%, « quite reasonable statement if c. 6 precedes c. 5, but hardly defensible fc. 6, with its seventy-one Yee spats eon, Howe in he sme come Iealely Gp, 268, 69) be clealy taken eas following om 64 inthe ‘onder * ‘Tatian’s distribution of Johannine material in his joteszaron is rematkable.” He does not scruple to distur johannine order of incidents, aa we have them in the ‘traditional text; and, in particular, be adopts the order cc. 6 4°% 55, 7. He was probably led t0 this by internal evidence; $4} DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT =x but it is possible (although not likely) that he may be following the authority of texts or documents no longer eocessible to us. Tn any case, the evidence of the Diatessaron provides & corroboration, ualea! quantum, of the conclusion that cc. § fand 6 are not now in ther right order. ‘A second case of “dislocation” of the original text of Jn. bas. already been mentioned (p. xvii). If we remove, the section P= from its traditional postion, and append it to 1g, we shall find not only that its language is wore appropriate tebe gociann of c's, bat that 7 follows most marly upon. 74, “The allusion to the redaqare of Money (9) provates the font" How does thia one Jnow ypipmera”” (180); 4. ‘writings of the Law with their intezpretation. But there is rrothing in 7 which suggests any such query, for nothing has ‘been said in 7 as to the dearaed mature of th ‘which Jesus is giving. The more natural sequel o 7!is 7, where the Uizens of Jeruselom express surpase that such 8 teacher GR aa at at wae 8 the question,” Why seek ye to Kill me? "is very bru, nod & hardly consent af sa goin wth the favour {ble Teception from the people of which 7° tells, But it is ‘quite in place if the section 74 is a continuation of the con- Troversy ofc. 5; one of the consequences was that the Jews Aad fought to Kill Jesus (5¥). Indeed, the themes of 7% are ‘throughout the’seme ax in c. 5; ahd at 73%" Josus defends Himself, exactly as at ®, by explaining that His doctrine was ‘not His own, but given Him by the Father, whose will He came todo. ‘Again at 7! He reverts to what has been said at sf, about the untrustworthiness of those who seek only theit own glory. At 7 He turns against themselves their appeal to Noses as the exponent of the Larw, as He had done at s nd at 78 He makes diet reernce tthe cue of the impotent man at Be which, because it was wrought on'a Sabbath day, was the beginning of their quarrel with Him. It is very dificule to interpret 7 if we suppose St to refer t someting which had happened mats before i evidently present %0 the minds of His intellocutors, fesngs as aroused by it He describes in the present tense, Gemudiere . « » yohire, G-%), And, finally, the mention of Jost judgment at 79 brings ws back to si. Tris possible that the transference of the section 7 fromx THE Text fou its true position was due to the mistake of a copyist, who took the words ‘Is not this He whom they seek to kill? in 7 as requiting 73 in the immediate context, forgetting that si* 7* are both equally apposite. eeu mene TRE my by al ction ofthe et jarent has been accep nde Bacon,! Moffatt Bua many onber tice c ‘We proceed next to consider the difficulties presented by fe traditional order of on 15, 24,15) 1617, and some reasons vill be given for the conclus {he order adopted in this viz. 130% 15, 16, 138 14, 17, more neatly re- ‘the intention of the original writer ‘tis plain that “Arise, let us go hence,” at the end of e. 14 awkward in this postion, ifthe teachings of ce. 15, 16 foliow Snmediately. This suggests that cc. 15, 16 should precede ‘alten he up seom 09 he arpa pray bey ‘toed as the Laed eis the UlGen dead ep Vela te the house for Gethsemane, Again, “I will no such with you” (x43) is followed by two chay ‘father cone, the cadinal order of the et. nse i would 8 natural phrase, if the discourse were reaching its end, and 148541 were the final paragraph of farewell, ‘There aro several sayings in c. 16 which suggest that it shel cope fre 6 ea Tue Jer sre), «Noe of you ask where I am going.” But Peter asked ‘question (13%), and Thotnas implied that he would ike to know the answer (148 ‘These queries more naturally come after 16 than before it ‘Another point emerges on comparison of x6! with Mk. 14.” Both of these passages tll how Jesus wamed’ the Hera tht they omld soniye wat a eevee tt of faithfulness, in which they would fail.” All ye shall be made to stumble for it i writen, Twill smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall he sonttored abroad” (Mie x4), Phe hour is come when ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and Shall eave ie alone” jn 64, Now Ak place the Conident Ana ater th’ We shuld bape tus acts ouerae is. We ‘the same in Jn. and we find it very nearly, f 15°" is placed after 16%, for ‘he incident of Peter’s boast and rebuke is narrated in 13°, * Gospel aconding tot Jokn, p.85. The Fourth Gospel, inal eRe ss” PS tte Foal pei og su) DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT xxi ‘Again, 1 seems 19 came more maturlly ofr 10 than Bene dl. None Se GA der’ epee bowie se ticealgnatic wing A hte shleatd ye behold mc Ban Ci the eopunge of v6 sugges at the soya aa ro The hese wan cece wkin an replat te (6 1g). Se ao on for ie print of eyes 108 Beaune te Tae Ue traditional text begios abrupt, noni cere’ any sequence ih iat pectin henner Ba hs ee Tove elcUhcret i we pus 1 ace stage ifthe nau af which the Becurl’ ys See, Be find a complete explanation of che sacramental thoughts which appear in 151, Aad there are other clues which point Dike sehr oat 2 hin Branch o 28 ha an. clos ation fo gone ey fo saa a Be dhale The ponds get sau tor OF # “become, more forcible the nearer they are brought to Lore, AAN oly edie of 35% (where see note), nearer that 15! * can brought to 131% 34, to which Gy mipsel ay an alain, eles ain our so ioe the “fit Sentemeat Gf the duty of other (which has been adumbrated Te is not suggested here that we are to look for exact logical sequence, such as would be appropriate in & philosophical treatise, in the Last Discourses of Jesus as reported many years siter they were spolen. On the contrary, oc. 14-16 of th phoney, bed in tbe namo of an aged dsp, butt s, held in the memory of an aged disciple, but not evenly ut together fae oder in wha hey wee ally delivered. Yet, where sequence can be detected, i is ‘worthy of notice, ‘The teaching about the Paraclete seems to fall into shape more readily if we place ec. 15, 16 before ¢, 14, In. 15% 16% ‘we have the rapdsAyror described as the Advocate of Christ, Sonfuing the oui of he word and confounding fa i? isthe Tmeaning of epdrhres (Sea on SEDs and so fn the Lin fhe opines the aero * Secon 151; and ep. cui, # Se, Fst, note on 3H,wi ‘THE TEXT (oz Guide of Christin dstpos hag not appeaned. Then, at 26% we pass to & new the sapdudnres is to guide pots fo all teat clout Chee! and ht teva future ngs to then. He is now the Baraclete of the Churrh, not of Chriss. “Then, at 143, itis promised that He will abide ‘with the Church until che end of time, so that Chistian disciples ‘may not be left josavai, or without & Friend. Finally, at 14%, ‘we teturn to the idea that He will lead them to the truth, which ‘now described as ‘teaching ” them, and will always keep in their memory the words of Jesus Himself. At this point, for the first time, He fs explicitly identified with the “Holy Spirit” of God. ‘The only phrase which would be favoured by the tradi ‘onal order of chapters rather than by the order et, 15, 16, 14 fs, He shall give you another Paraclete,” at 14. “This, it ‘may be thought, is more naturally said at the first mention of the Paraclete than at @ point in the discourse. after Ho has sSrady been ued thor four dine. us (no note Je) is phrase is apposite here, , because Jesus has junt Been spealog of soba elles ab the Advonte ath God ‘who socurcs an answer to the prayers of the faithful, although ‘He has not explicitly claimed the title wapdudsros for Himself. If'may be added, in conclusion, that the consolations of 14% # seem to come more appropriately towards the end, than at the beginning, of the Farewell Discourse, The disciples hhave been assured that the world will one day be proved to Ihave been wrong in its rejection of Jesus (25% a6); they are ‘ay orev, at heyy cemalvy wil ein 7 Jere after His departure (164, which will turn theit grief info joy ia) Bae sone ay this, although itis not so (68), and are warned that they will fail in the impending hour of'eial G64). "This hurts them, and Peter asks why they cannot follow Jesus to death even now (13%); but he i fg armed that Be wil full at fe pinch (339). Then, and Zot uot then, ix explained to them tho great surance of ie fle death Bs the heavenly places ‘which Jesus wil prepare Gi). “Ibis isa consolatory promise of a quive iderent ind {icin any of those given in ec 1g, 16, fort Head the Hougbts of the disciples beyond this earthly life. ‘Ga grounds sich as thse, [follow Spitta*and Moffat in wetzot (ued. ered) Gata, todd, a" progres fa the sessile W'Pasat, ting eh Cat i a Sie? Sat heise no eccouat of the diference tween the Pazstct ol Shea a oa the brace of he Chr T2oMar tte sass bypekbees so to tho place of co 15,16 Moflatt, Introd. fo L4t, of NT, p. $56. * gs] DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT alii josing # dislocation of the text at 13% Wendt* and Paul * Euahine break at 3%, but wv. 35 and 361, seem to Bein complete i > ‘The position of the verses, 38%, provides another exarple of difictties of interpretation, probably due to « disturbance fof the textual order, “As the verses 39" stand jn the traditional text it would seem. at free sight that they were intended to be a continuation of the Baptis’s “ witness ” to our Lord, contained in wy. 27-305 fund many of the older commentators (eg. Meyer, Alford) held this 10 be the case. But most modem exegetes recognise in this section, as in 3, we have an evangelistic com- mentary on what as preceded. The style of 3 is un- ristaaly that of Jn when writing in his own perton, How fever, it dors not bear any cleat relation to what immediate precedes im the taditional text Abbott (Diet. ago f) Exdeavours, indeed, to interpret 3® of John Baptist; itis the Baptist, he holds, ‘that is said to have sealed his attestation thet God is true, But, if s, the words in v. 32, rv popriplay tired odes Ann Bivey, must also be interpreted ag Jn.’s Daraphrase of the Baptists account of the il success of Jesus’ Fis, thls is enelyInonwent with the report fie Baptists disciples about Jesus, mésres dpxarvas xpos atrér Hits Sl wou Jer ae assurance that Jesus Was, indeed, the Coming One, the Christ Himself (vv. 27-30)- . "An examination of the section 34% shows, on the contrary, that it i a continuation of Jr.'s commentary (ve. 16-21) upon the pronouncement of Jesus in vv. 11m15,._‘Thus v. 32, m both its Clauses, reproduces almost verbatim the words ascribed to jesus inV.'1T, and v. 31 goes back to v, 12. V. 36%" He that lieveth on the Son hath cferaal life,” has been said already av, 36; and the sombre warning to the unbeliever or dis- obodiont atv. 36° bas bren given before, although less ex plictly, at v. 1. ‘' He whom God hath sent” (¥. $4) recalls far. There is no saying in vv. 33-36 which naturally arises Dut of the section vv. 22-39, but everything in v¥. 31-36, on the other hand, goes back to vy. 11-24, Hence, it suggests itself that wv. 72-go are out of place; and this ‘conclusion has_becn reached by soversl scholars. Lewis proposed to transfer 3" to a position immediately 2 Gospel according to St Job, p Teed fanal Soniige5xiv ‘rae TEXT following 24, and this has been approved J.-M, Thompson? Garvie ete. ‘That 32 4 thought to recall 2, and the bridegroom far of 6. ut the equenee of sod rere ‘rabrain 3, would be strange Jo. "Nor cau it be said that there would ‘i esters soc 0 postion of To piace thos ree fore the Cleansing of the Temple and the subsequent * signs "> ‘a Jerusalem (a4) makes it dificult to explain the crowds who Rocked to the ministry of Jesus (9M). For, according to this larrangementof the text, Jesus has not been in Jerusalem at all, {td the mirace at Cand of Galle isthe only ‘sigan ” that has ‘Fitness of the Baptist, and. connects itself directly in the open- ing verses of c. 4 with the journcy, to Samaria. Tt may be ‘added that the sequence between 3 and ql is as natural ‘as that between 3% and qb # is unceal, z Another example of ‘dislocation ” may be found, if we mistake tot, inc. 10, the traditional order of verses being ical erpret athe onler we. t9-25, 4. 2028, 30 ‘suggesting itself a preferable.® First, as is pointed out in the note on zo, the introductory “Verily, verily” is employed to begin a now discourse on & ‘new (opie ina manner without parallel in the rest of the ‘There 1s no connexion between the end of c. 9 and the beginning of ¢, 10, which opens (as we 1 ze i) with the allegory of the conclusion they reached. Some suld that Jesus was mad; thers that He really had restored the man’s sight, and that 1 Iplyod, to NT, D. 553m Disarramgements, el, BD. 2 si] DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT av this could not be explained away by saying that He was 2 wegen, ‘Thote sno connecoa apparent fol and TARE apg ditional tet represents the allegory of the rolpherd el the sheep flowing (eter an undefined itera) BenJemnation of the Pharisees for refusing fo recognise in the cure ofthe blind man confirmation of Jems claus; and then abvoply at wv. 9-24, we tum back to the Pharisees st BeSitovte about ts very matter, The end of the story of Es ld en nv gon a trl Sows a "This controversy hed gone on for some weeks, end by the time that we nave reached tne end off, «couple of months ave Shpoed nee ent of Tables a 8 ney parsgragh pense by teing us that the Feast of Bedioaon (eee on 20) Tow arrived, ‘The hostle Jews ate devrmined to get @ Bia anon ie queen" Ac ings he Cite? * Go, End Jonun ele them tht tes unbelief ir de fo hee not betag oF if ook, aungaing a more. caua for ei want of ath af ie had cong before (so on so. Af they were is sherp, they ou heae Tyo go aon Him ado weal ma Eras teepiog (io™™). ows quite nesraly, the Shogery of te Shepherd and the sheep, introduced bp Ei agmuch av takes up abd eolarges the theme arendy Sotgested by Wr. 97-29, We pelioe,iben, that wy. 1-18 are ost of their true posi tion, witch wes lost ‘owing fo tome acident. The see who Placed then inmmetitey afer 9 nosioed no doute chat the Eegrnce of vag, goraeseligible and esata kim. Ta Ue Jeountbad said that His sheep were stein a and, and Eee von more strongly) tasty were safe in he Father's Sanae? {Pad my father are One is declaration which Rul be quite place here, ‘Dotti in even amore appro- ulate plage iit Clow fas we hove argued it shoud fallow) Petar J have authority to ny it down, sd authorty to take Hagia, Ihs commesdmengglid I receive fora may Father 12k iny vuther are One.” Wis this unity which explains the ming ioconistency of th assertion, "1 ly down of My- SEU tne former statement "the Son can do nothing of Hibself" Gand see on 108) “en inconsistency wich, aa the teat sande: pot reioved by dhe assertion of tity with tbe [Badace wich is esential fo te argument. e A sixth example of “dislocation” appears at x28, a section which comes in more naturally after 12, the verses rat following 129,avi ‘TSE TEXT fou x At y, 36° itis said that Jesus went away and “was hidden,” the noting the incredulity of His hearers in which he finds @ of Gv. 39-41), and adding that nevertheless many of the rulers were sccrelly believers, although BE pull and ound chttg'& Jue bogs gai public and ext jesus the ‘word pate being inconsistent with dxpiBy of v. 36% ‘And, moreover, the topies of w. 35, 36.re continued in wv, 44 &. ‘Thus the conerast between the Believer who walks in the light ad the uabelever wham darines gers cried on fom ¥, 35 10-¥, 46, But in w. 35) 96 it hes not yet i Wist iRc igi i to ie elrnce fr may Togo Back fo Bi cay fo erode rede, ba ie would tt be mggetnd anything in vv. 35, 36. We get the explanation in v. 46, 7 7'azn come as a Ligbt ino the world,” ete., an explanation which is not only natural, but necemsary, if wv" 35, 36 are to be Sntelligible in their original context, And then Jesus reverts to the theme, frequent throughout the Gospel, that His claim for attention is not ‘‘of Himself,” but because He is God's Sage There is no change of scene between v, 36* and v, 44. vom an tang te Saree Sano Beda atte at ‘To this argument, the evidence of Tatian’s Diatessaron seg tine es eee eet Seagal hee tr jes then verses from Mt, Lk., Jn. 12“, verses from Lk, Jn. 12 ee fa i eat lee fe eld a cts De ite Tiga arin 2 antes Fly wt Gloag rats eh pla es OED Ge ae es ele e Mention must be made here of a rearrangement of the text ine 18 which bas ben adopted By many good cris, bur wich isnot followed i the present commentary. ‘Tn 1893 F, Spitta,? taking the view that 6 dpyrepets of 18? most fran Caliph and ning, she repeion of he phrase Tarps denis eck Beqansyer in ve. 3, a6 suggested Thee pethape owing to the displacement of a leaf of papyrus, Ct Wendt, . 96, and MAE Lap 56 NE Yazon! FA? Routh Gp So8 Std Molt, Iwo fo he wr, Ti ind Lat, &, Urebrctntams, 1893, 9.58. $4) DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT ai the text of vv. 13-27 was in disorder, and that the original sequence Was vv. 13, 1924, 14-18, 25428, a5* being a copyist’s adhition, This conjectural zeoruion of the text was thought to be confirmed sborlly afterwards by the discovery of the Sinai Syriac codex, in which the verses are found in the order 15, 24, 14) 15, 19-23, 16-18, 5-28, Blass accepted this as the tre text! stating that the traditional order of verses was only a narrative ‘of blundering scribes.” Later, G. G. ‘and Mofast adopted the order wv. 13, 14) 19-24, 35-18, 25-28, which only differs from Spitta's in the place assigned to v.'r4, an unimportant variation. Te will be observed that while Spitta’s proposal and that of “Moffat involve only a transposition of sections of nearly equal dength—in Spitta’s case vw, 14-18 and 19-24, and in Moifatt’s, cease vv, 15-18 and z9-24—the Sinai Syriae, besides trensposing the sections vv. 16-18 and 19-23, also divorces v. 24 from its, ‘traditional place and inserts it after v. 13. Itis in the highest degree improbable that this double divergence of the normal text from the Sinai Syriac can be the result of accident; some~ thing more, therefore, is involved in the traditional, order than the mere displacement of a leaf of the exemplar? In other ‘words, there fsa presumption that the text of Syr. sin, has been. rearranged from harmonistic motives just as those of Spitta ‘and Moffatt have boen.# See also on 4%. ‘The advantage claimed for these rearrangements is that they present a more coherent story. In the case of Syr, si the removal of v. 24 to a place after v. x3 enables us to get rid fof Annas altogether, except for a short halt at his house, As fn Me, everything is done by Calaphus, who, conducts dhe preliminary examination of Jesus (26*-*), as well as presiding ‘Rt the formal mecting of the Sanhedrim (27), Again, the ttle Aegeepete J hus strictly reserved for Caiaphas, who’ was the recognised high priest at the time, Annas having been deposed from office previously. And the bringing together of the sec- tons w. 15-18 and 25-27 is thought to be helpful in regard to an understanding of the story af Peter's denials ‘Ta the text as reconstructed by Spitta and Moffat, Jesus remains in the hovse of Annas for the preliminary cross- examination, after which (, 24) He is sent fo Caiaphes. But TEE Lie FF Oe En tan oat ie 1 Sides £0 wll ie Wat ween alan ECan foes cat it opprcs Serbs fut Buin, de Mop, TEE Wendt, Fouk Gospel, p. x64, and sce also Sehmiedel (E.B. seams SeY ROAR SEAL ME mae ‘Slimane fares eoomty.wi ‘THE TEXT [on this does not bring the narrative into harmony with Mt, unless wwe suppose that Calaphas (although in the house of Annas) Conducts the inquiry of vw. 29-233, and in that case v.24 is lumsy after v2 £ ‘Annas, as well (See on 72 149 183), In 18 is, but Caiephas was the dpyepet roi id secon, we a sin. as well 25 by Moffat, without removing a characteristic note of Johannine style (Gee note ei Zoe). Further, the separatioa of the later denials of Peter from his Sext brings (ut the interval of time (occupied by the cross-examination ef Yenu) wih caped nce Peter begs to wal nth courtyard ‘These considerations, which are given more fully in the notes, show, I believe, that the truditional order of verses in 281% iy more probably original than those which have been proposed in substitution for ie It inay be added that the ‘traditional order is followed by Ttian, who did not seruple But where manuscript evidence is wholly lacking, and internal ‘evidence alone is available, hypotheses as to tracsposition of only when the fststal Sodence sory seenge A ‘then the int idence is very strong. i however of obtaining oljocivecorseboration of Such hypotheses has been adopted curing recent years by several scholars, which must not be ignored. an rs tne ber of lnes of wring, or of Tee, in. single leaf (recto and versa) of a manuscript in codex form, wre should Know the lngth of section thst would bo invelved by the accidental displacement of a leaf. Let us count the letters in the various sections in which we have found traces of 1 See Moat, Ind fo Np 9, 1 So copeciliy Be J. Paul Qitort Journal, Api 1900), 8. Glan (Printing Tart of she. Gospels and cts, a) aad JO ME ‘Fhomplon (Esper, ah ee gat rss $a] DISLOCATIONS OF THE TEXT waix displacement, It is not possible to be cortain as to the exact ‘subers in the orginal, beeaae we canet be sure what con teactions were used. following figures, derived from ‘out printed text, will give at any rate the comparative lengtas of the sections: I. c,$=3630 letters? IH, pA Zy9g letters. TB. 3gthergt = yra0 levers, Iv. Vv. Let ux suppose that cach leaf of two pages (rc and 9730) cigs comin abet psn Tto wold ok be abuormal alt might bappen is a varity of ways eg. 8 cof lines, cach of xt Teters® would bave 74 eters hs fhe leaf would have 748 leners, The atte result srould be reached tne writing were in double columns, and ol were of 17 Hen Oy at Tampon tog, sre might have an aurangemeat of 95 lines of 1g ete ea Tow pig, which would pe us 7s eters tote leat “A eat night cary from yoo to uso letters of gu printed tet Te "ie Cat”. I te Gayinyncius Papyrus nombered sob and 2781 (ep pI), rbd gon back tho ea of he tied entary. "Tie MS asa Bat fom, contig of a single gue of cone 2g and it is demenstable® from the fragnsents whi ermaih that each page contained about 710 leery, and’ each leat iq20, On the other hand, the papyrus codex 1780 (see B. Zit) carat only aboot poo Teter & leat Both of these Provide eximples Of carly Gospel. manuscripts, writen on Depyrus the eaves beng fastened together fo, ag to make Pdex’ Sores are conservative people, and it ix probable fat the normal Gospel. book wes sila to this patter in fhe ar omtury, wheter fs size Wet, 75 ter for cach et and ake mo ae typothesis,leaviig as aa open question the dapostion {he lines of the tanwserpt of Ja, unde: consideration St Sppears at once that gf fl, and IV, occupy approminately Seg Tepe lmeade ge ahoutd nave 3795 ttn. *Colled is probably esiwed ftom a MS. having 11 lettery to the line (f.'8, Cronin, 1.8, 3912, p. 363) and the game may be gt (ak, Panis Tesh B93 " Thompaon aco finds trace of a unit of 208 letters; Cla, on the other and, atiacheo special algnccance toa unit of #60 to 167 ltt, ‘See Onyrhynchue Papyrs, wal (1899), and vol. xv. (2902). Zme ‘THE TEXT fox occupies neatly five leaves (750% 5=3750, which is slightly in xcess of 3690, o7 only 45 loters less than 3795, the number if the verse sas included); § TIL. has grao letters, which is only {zo letters in excess of four regular, leaves (750%4= 3000); Hi would not quite fil lah having only 598 letter, but ‘the quotation in this section would ‘up space that ‘would normally be occupied by text, and moreover on the, hy sis of dis ion, § VI. would conclude Part IT. of the Gospel after whic & Blank space would naturally be left ‘before entering om Part IIT. ‘These figures are remarkable. If the leaves on which the Gospel wan written became disarranged from any cause, & faulty rearrangement of them would produce in §§ 11, 1V., V» flmost exactly. the displacements of text to which intemal tvidence has pointed aad in §f I, JTL, VL, the figures would be close ta wiist we should expect. "The argument drawn out above stands quite apart from, and: of, the arguments based on internal evidence; tnd even i it fal to’ win aoceplance, the conclusions 08 to the Gislocations of the text in Jn, must be considered on theit own, (mm) Tas Somucrure oF TEx Goset ‘The Gospel falls into three parts, preceded by a Prologue and flowed by ng Append Part 1. (co. Ee with ¢. 6) begins at Bethany beyond orton, sx} oy 1 Get, thee 9 Jeri ar back famaria end Galice. 1€ deals with the ministry of a litle ‘more than one year. ‘Part Tr (ce 5,7; 813) has todo with the Jerusalem ministry of Jesus, and extends over secand year. "Par TIT, (ec, 23-20) i wholly concerned with the Passion and Resurrection "More at length, the structure may be exhibited as fllows: ‘THE PROLOGUE? ‘This (2199 is primary a Tipmn on the Logos, interspersed with caplanatary comments by tbe evangelist + Tho nit of abot so letters appear egnn in Tan's account of the cram tale ie 58 Ses Eien Reason ve been GERREE ute tSe open Oat ens sttion alo out of Hace, Bot ee ee be sus tbat |a did aoe coibertly plac the Clana TP eeaeL caf eke bedlaning of enue snotty) and Se han wecond= hg pew ny Malo plo TY et emanysome SC ee ee Spee ced ioe a pgaer anes HO? fae afer uns Rabingof Lacan. Se pone. ate me ayer | STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL mai Paur ‘The ministry of John the Be and the of the drs dicple of Jesus ts Ministry at Cana of Galilee (the first “ sign”), Cleansing ofthe Temple Jerwrlem: Petowed) Discourse with Nicodemus on the New Birth Evangelist’ commentary thereon. Somarts ets pba, ‘and the woman of Sychar, Reta to Gaite. Healing of the nobleman’s son, Feeding of the Five Thousand. ‘Return to Capernauns, Discourses on the Bread of Life. Becplesty of dadpls andthe defection of many. iy the Twelve stand fast. PART IL Cure of impotent man (Jerusalem: Passover) Saegumentsioat Sabbatscinerapce ‘The relation ofthe Son to the Father, ‘he threo wines to Joss aims, sigument with the Jewish doctor Selig Gai * aching of Jesus in the Temple (Jerusalem: Feastof Tibemacts) ruse ste His appeal tothe people: interven! Sistas” “SP PP tin His claim to be the Light of the World: i- ‘ignation of the Pharisees, Cure of blind man: his confession of Christ: Condemnation of the Phares, Consequent diversity of opinion about Jesus. ‘The Fst ofthe Dedeston’ "Dicaube aout the Jews! unbelief: other shepherds are fale se Sowa tre ne ne i rn ae nae ae Lezarus Guten): ‘another ‘The tupper at Bethony. ‘The triumphal entry to Jerusalem: the Greek couo aa agit we raed 1p 5, Tee go we wee guar ats THe Text fou. x. scan fe, Hs oy Mie Tae er PART MT ‘The Last Suppers the Feet-washing; its spiritual Teeson. Jesus foretells His betrayal: Judas departs, ‘The Last Discourses. Jeter avout Ama Jaw aa % Piers ae denial, Biehl eee Aama: Jea sat en to rphas. Peter's second and third denial ‘Jesus accused before Pilate; His frst examina- ‘tion by Pilate, who fails to secure His release, ‘The scourging and mockery: Pilate falls again to save Jesus, . His second exemination by Pilate, who fails a third time to seve Him, and’ pronounces sentence. ‘The Crucifixion: the soldiers. “Three sayings of Jesus from the Cross. “The piercing of His side: His burial. ‘The sepulehre found empty. ‘Appeatance of the Risen Lord to Mary Mag- ‘His first appearence to the disciples: their ‘The incredulity of Thomas dispelled at Bis inere a ‘second appearance to them. Colophon: scope and purpose of the Gospel, APPENDIX ‘Appearance of the Risen Christ by the Sen of “Gatien ” Prediction of Peter's martyrdom: a salsunder stood saying about John. Canetuing nes of ebcheniaton, iit) ‘The concluding sentences in each of these sections are noteworthy, as indicating the careful planning of the narrative, ‘The last words of the Prologue area summary of the theme fhe Gove, ie. the Mantestaton ofthe Father through 1s Son (i), Part I. is mainly occupied with the Ministry of the first year, which as largely ia Galle. Its happy progress it Teoorded, but this ends with the defection of many divciples (@™),__ Here is the first suggestion of feilure, Part IL, tells of the Ministry at Jerusalem, the success of which would be fimdamental, and’ of the Serco opposition which it provoked. Its climax is the final rejection of Jesus by the Jews, upon which the evangelist comments in i few sombre words (22°, Part Il. natrates the Passion, which seemed the end, and the Resurrection, which was really the victorious beginning. ‘The final words explain the purpose ofthe wating ofthe Gospel ‘The authentication at the end of the Appendix (ex has is own special signifcanes, "For the Appt seen 02 NON-JOHANNINE GLOSSES It is general that the story of the adulterous GS) enor Johannine, and har it was iterpolated by scribes at an early date. This is discussed in the note on tthe Pericope. ‘There are three of four other passages which ' hand other than that of Jn. and are probably due to ial revision, being added afier the Gospel was finished, ‘been STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL ex i ethaps before it was issued to the Church. Thus qt? is a passage which has been rewritten for the sake of clearness, but he style is not that of Ja. So 6 is an explanatory non- Johannine gloss, ‘The verse st is rejected by modern editors the text as insuficently attested, but linguistic evidence alone would mark it es non-Johannine. 11! 3s undoubtedly ‘an explanatory oz parenthetical comment, but it i possible that itis added by Jn, although there are non-Jobannine touches of stylet cf, 22%. "There is also some doubt about the comment at xa! which reads as if it was not due to the original evan elist, but to some one who had the Synoptic, rather that the Johannine, story in his mind at this point, EVANGELISIIC COMMENTS. ‘These non-Jobannine glosses must not be confused with the comments which Jn, makes, as he proceeds, on his narra-wry APOSTLR JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL, [Gh 1 tive, and on the words which he records. These appear not cua pees ie Cpe tes he oe cy see on 1% 18, 18) and in the Appendix (2r!%). At 2% 7% 12 17% Ji chen en colts Pon f Jen whch be nl may be misunderstood, and at 6%“ he calls attention to a Ene pr ofthe ers #6) da edie Co. on ‘the Jews (788 inci (a Sear Kat ni Wh of he Jems aed 8 what FOL San at (a Te Het jal Ca aa er Qe tat neg Tie Sacadlny SER ia‘ cy by tae to Shmile dant nods eee (edhyee st)” "epee Se ty ot Cuapa ena ntcy oy ‘His general hat r, §5 to pass over without comment Gee on 1) any obvious mistake or misapprehension as to the ‘negates, we ery med hi ted t are nga okie nepal ab a pedo ‘ ‘The special interest of the ibg paragraph of Part IL. nas tele ed (pvc) He BS eget ‘the natrative of the ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem and His rejection there, by quoting, as part of his own comment, several verses from the O,T, wi show how Jewish unbelief had been foreordained in prophecy (12°), CHAPTER IT ‘THE APOSTLE JOHN AND THR FOURTH GOSPEL GE te te etn (cee Se en an an (9 EEE ae nt won tiny Jo (0) ESS ent on On Pa yy nn (6a) Sasi Gtatlns Or te Hosta Compal (® Joun Tux Arostus was THE Brioven Discirus Tax notes of Jon smear neque in the NT. He ‘ras, apparently, the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, the roprictor of fshing’boat on the Lake of Galilee and a man §4) THE APOSTLE WAS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE uy of suficient substance to employ servants (Mlk. 11°), His Shother, Salome, was a sister of the Virgia Mary (eee on 398 #00 that Jol wae e materoal cousin of Jesus.” With fie Erobier Jandy, he obeyed the call of Jeros to follow Hin as isp ie 1; andi probated ad bmn aac fo ths company at an even aller period (ee on Ja, 1%), Ih the carlzet Ist of the Twelve (M3!) James god John t are given the next place after Peter, but that i only doe to the ric in which they appens in Defers reminiseentes. Pete, James, and John are epecialy associated with Jesus three ties Wine Synoptic nareatve: (Meg 9¥ 14!) these incidents disclosing ther itimacy with Hin, ‘In the last week of His bostiy they are found, with Andsew, questioning Kim puvately (M139). 7 "fois was rebuked for his uncompromising temper of ex clusiveness (ME. o!, Lk, o®), a story which agrees with the Feportof Irene ttt Job would not say under te same root fs the heretic Cerinthus (eri. 3.4). Li (9) adds nother {hastraton of his intolerance, jaines and Jolm being desirous of invoking. the Divine vengeance ‘on those who would not receive their Master hospitably. Finally, the two. brothers fread the Sono the obo epore by we hat hen Mewia pgm es eee thy sole ven the two laces of honour as Hie vise (afl. roe 2, here "hel te atom tat mas fequett),_Tt fs clear that they regarded themselves as no way inferior to Peter; nor is he sopresented as specially ferred hy Se chim: Sor, agin, de Jens in He sey ‘iggest that they were gor ened to the chief place among the {Twelve (cf note on 13°). But He declares that earthly pre- eence Is reversed in His Kingdom, only asking of James and yoga oi Hy ad taped win ‘baptinn, They aacure Him that they exo, “ them that oot shall be (Mk, 12. “James is gencraly mentioned before John, but in Lk, aM so) Acts 18, the onder is Bete, John, James. Lk. pecially Secocates Peter with John. He notey (Lk. 20) that i was eer and John who were entmasted with the preparston for the Last Supper.” In Acts $+ 4, Peter and John together bear the brunt of Jewish howiitys ‘and, again, these tyo are flected by the apotles as delegates to confer the Samartans Gets 5. ‘As carly an the year 55, Paol mentions Peter and sett te et ‘And the title remains obscara (cf. D.C.G. 1. 216).mavi APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GosPEL [On 11 John, with James the Lord's brother, as the pillars of the Church iat Jerusalem (Gal. 2). Peter is, always represented as the sprkeszas bt Jt share with im the epesttin which Bsettedin Acts abing he Boe, vee etnias sng Mh ee gene Binal eo ‘atin i mn ao ne would tut the words employed dot suggest he wns at of earning or of Ierany git. "John the son of Zee fs not mentioned by name in the Foiith Gospel and the sons of Zebedee” cllecively appeat oni the Arent (a deg rg ppp gt Jet iy ae Sygate he wets ignorca by lie As bat been suid above, he tay be Ica at (nieve see not’); and we tow inguie # any cisaple we mentioned by Js wiicut beng Parred, who is spedally astocnied wih Peter as Jon BY ‘An woamed disciple is mentioned (08!) as baving, conpany min Peers oedTosus sles Hip arp bing ‘Exown tothe high priest, he was ednuted fo the inner cours while Peer bad to say outside,” This migh have been ohn the aon of Zebedee, but there is no eal sidence that if was tone ofthe Twelve (Ge note on 78%). "in thee patenge, however, an tmnamed friend of Peter is eacsted an "the diel. whom Jenin loved” First, the Beloved Discipchas a place next Jesin at the Last Sapper and Peter beckons to him tn discover the name ofthe tater, "Zhsy ist have been one of the Twelve! (sce on 13°), and 90 is ‘ienigeation with Yohn the ton of Zebedes is sggested, ec sagan, en ante ter ale whe eat fan tgetaer fot re Mt Kar epored fo be empty Gott) The ‘Below Dicipies agers to be Gt atte ort, 2s heaton to enter ihe Nr tached, and big bet” when bo sa tt was enpiy ae i dese. ly ibe two declae whore fate are, oad in seria agin eer deo 8 abe fe pee toy dial te tert, dppereuys faker at 0? hnow Joke ton of Zebedee to have bev. ‘The narrative ofthe Appendix Sipe te identideation it another way. The” Beloved Didple” must be one of the seven persoraindeated in 31% tnd among these the sons of Zebedee are expresly included, Sine ade, fr te ttn of. 93 wuld nt Bae Sanaa (Cricim of Fourth Gores 98}, and Sete ors. jen ney $i] JOHN DID NOT DIE BY MARTYRDOM = xtvii asm oi (te oo taf te Deore ie ‘were pot John the apostle, he must be either Thomas, Ni ‘or one of the two ianominati (see on 21* for the. "Now the constant tradition of the eatly a that the name tf the Beloted Ducige mas John,” lene (fer 2 £2) and Polyerates (ep, I Below) are plc about thie So ae the sgond-cantury dete of John (és ai ivi # to). 80 is Origen ( Buscbits, HE. Brag this paint on which ‘ould not have gone astray, and tiere is no other tradition. There can be no reasonable doubt that the name of the Beloved Disciple was Jobn, and therefore Thomas and Nathanael are excluded. Wf there was another John amang the two innominefi, we might im di a5 the Beloved Disp, but for ths theres e. °° ‘The only other mention ofthe Beloved Disciple in Jn, bat ies ain he or in Hinge Mati, wie te rosired de eo i iotg: ‘This (see on 19) is not inconsistent with his being the Pines coon peal s made is 198 for eve me had elapsed to permit ofa zesur tothe Cros, And when we find at 21 that it is the Beloved Disciple who is desi the disciple who bears witness of ehese things,” it i difficult to avoid the conclusion that the “witness ” of 19% is the same person (cf, p, Ixix below)? (o) Jouw ru Avoston pip wor surreR Dear By ‘Marryapow. Accepting the ientifcation of the Beloved Disciple with the apostle Join, the tradition of the early Church that John Ire to een od ge, which is suggested in ax (es ote ‘is consistent st every ‘This tradition has, however, been challenged; and some cst have Forwad the theory that John the apostle, the , died as a martyr early in his apostolic eareer > gen ar, sim eet oa eed SP Bomoseen nies ete Dr yh Rag Cuan, labo a ats maroc notice Sore aan ‘by Schwarte, Wellhawien, Schmicdat (BB. 2509), Matias (Tnird. p. 602), Bacon (Fou Gospel, Be 132),marviii APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL [oh. 11. while a diferent person, vie, Jobn the Beloved Disciple, lived To bean old man, and dled peazeullyat Ephasus Th aseventa- of eighth-ceotury Epitome of the History of Philip of Side (G. circa 430) the satement is found that ‘* Pepias in the second beak sys hae Toh, the “Pe and James his brother were ‘led jews” A. ninth-oentary water, George the Ett, proterpst of hn and clas the act tht beh oli a lm tien eth eine ofthe Lord's prediction, Mik. 10". Fou this story there is, however, pote author daa the ptoies of hip of ‘Side, while, century, the Christian Chuteh has always tment of Treas that John died « natural problem as to the death of John the apostle is s0 Jnportat in vew of te inferences which have, Been diam from it, that the method adopted by the epterier of Philip af Side ond alo Bis trustworthiness, must be examined fa A sie giana ein ae Lord ‘according to the flesh, beginning from (sy) the counsieal heioyof Eesti” The calecson ae {nto seven sections, all of which borrow toatter from Eusebius, but in one or two instances make use of tradition not found in that author's extant works. The sixth of these sections is concerned with Papias, and is printed in full in Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers,\p. 18, Much of the colledion is, in Rusebius; ‘and it must be borne in mind that the Epitezniser docs not’ profess to quote Papias at fist hand. He only Gree © summary ike a seres of ols) of what be found im ilip of Sido, who may or may not have had direct access to the writings of i nl oct Ka og the Epitomises, it an open we ‘ee mu) whether he covfectly represents Piaip of Side or Britt (Gospel History ond Transmdusion p. 252), Chaten (Renta Epa an oben” Ieee ty gions (ito per Ba) Sete en ap cst ein fhe a Sos Final fohowal i S654)" Lon Cee Robison Gk al Charan Si ans Gael, ‘Taave ‘the ieTited fom tis Oxlord Cols Berlcc tya by De Boor in Teste send Entrouchengen, 2 (3558) $4] JOHN DID Nor DIE By MARTYRDOM xaix (6, The Rpivominr begins: “ Papas bishop of Hierapots aie ras a Maar of fon ho Dice ‘ead sanpanion ef Helper, arose foe bk (yo) of Oa ot Lord ‘he det of Paging at doneryyednon, Hagen apes in, Eigebius i. 9. 5), woo is avowedly quot from Hehe 3p) Th contort in oom (9 $ ive i Jey wim: eres Papin ws eng te the Apoealypees Th tle. dmaayer cannot ‘have 1 Papise, de not appent boone th fora cetary. The ae preset When ee Baa wor Tit of tne apotles ftr Petr and fom, Paiig Tei Thome) tad Matthews be indnded among the daipes of the Lord, Ariston and atothcr Jon Closer dep), ors tleo ie called nperPirgox” This agai i abbreviated from Eiebis Gi. 3p) Andrew and Jase being omitted. "The ext gecooy begining dy wver eerdey probably does net reproducystnfements of Papias, buts « comusent of the Bpitontsey, although Lightfoot rakes i diferent. So ah ee tat 1 fobn is the author of te to short tnd catholic pistes whisa are published in th nem of Johns Decause the Angsios {ie. the early Church leaders) only scoop! the tat pit Same, tom Ive rol hoe Sy Ipc ait be hfe "Jotm the prshyer a)" opis Ebtcll would never have spoken of the loys at authors Iho peed judgment on the Jobuntine whtines, The come Tren orient mes mn inter age, when questions fanthor- ap cny bad sien ray be nd ance ocbius Git 363) The Epiombee deprecates the des Tee ipllomeprocntes Papas leo goe wing abou plese Pup ge * the Mieania, tod from him renee also.” “This also faracs from Purebhes (99.12), who says im connexon with that Popias was aman of fed inteligence. “The reference et ae ‘We pass by the ent sentence, vz, about the maryrdom of Join and James, unt the rest of the Epitome haa been examined, i)" The afrestd Papias sated on the anthorty of the ua of hp ht apna wh nee es Imbulvers, drank vipers The bame of Chr, und wes prseved somes? reproduced from Eusebiay Gi 35.3). uses does not ve an nena he Ets en ep din ere tis bss a TES ae ae Pepi labgaagx APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL [h. IE. mention the nature of the poison (cf. [Mk] 1649, and he cites Philip's daughters not as the authority for this story, but for something similar to the next. {@) ‘He relates also other wonderful things, and parti- ularly the story about the mother of Manatmus, who was raised from the dead” Boscblus (5p 9 noes tat Fapias bad a tory about a resurrection from the dead, and it is no doubt thin to which the Epitomiser refers, giving, however, the ‘additional detail of the name of the resuscitated person, (G/) The last note is: “about those raised from the dead by Chiié, that they lived uotil the time of Hadrian.” The Fyiotise does tot sy exprely that his comes from Pop although it is among the Papias memoranda. Tt may have boon ailded only because of its similarity to (¢)._In any on twas told by Quadratus in bis Apology addressed to Hadrian, (usebius iv, 3.3) chat some of those raised by Christ survived fo our own tines.” It is hardly doubtful that the Kpitomiser isha again borowing from Busebiue ‘We observe, then, that the peragraphs a, 5, , ¢,f give no information about Papias or his wzitings that isnot in Busebi ‘except in rogard to the name Manas, which may be a detail, fof independent tradition, If these memoranda weze directly taken from Fapias’ writiogs, it is hardly credible that Philip, ‘of Side should have chosen exactly thooe points as notable ‘which had already heen selected by Eusebius. In short itis, doubtful that Philip of Side knew anything about Bapias ‘except what he found in Easebius.* ‘We now go back to the fragment of importance : (2) Tardae wg Beriog hg Ms du Heder 5 eos a Tefen § "AS in (@) the title dieAdyor ‘bas been added by the Epitomiser (or by Philip)s it could not have been used Phpias, “The statement then is that “John and James bis ‘brother were killed by Tews.” Now Tames the son of Zebedee ‘was not kiled by Jews, but by Herod (Acts #24), and Christisn istorians have never laid the guilt of his death upon the Jews. ‘It's impossible to believe that Pepias had any different tradi tion on the subject. Again, if Papias said that John the som of Zebedee was killed by Jews, we should have expected in the Zpiiome incredulity would bave been indicated. The > paiips 7, Socrates, say3 of Mim that he was a laborious student who ad amasied tiny books, but thot Me tear tars being beth lotsa and tnexact, i Sitaclogy (Soerulen, eck ety wi o7) "Thay ageees well ce aan BE See Eee Exo ioor “Either lip cris epitomeet wana bluaderer $8) JOHN DID Nor pie BY MARTYRDOM a Epitomiser believed (see p. xxxix above) that John wrote the ‘Apocalypse, but this would have been impossfble hal John inllered martyrdom at the hands of the Jews. Nevertheless the Epitomiser adds no adverse comment upon the belief ‘With which he seems to eredit Papias here, as he does in para- @).. This statement, then, both in regard to John and $b ames, provokes the suspicion that it is a mistepresentation (or corruption of what Papias said. hate, shown clewbere* that the due to the coupon fs found in Jerome's version of the Cironicte of Eusebius; ‘Jacobs, Ger dominl que omnes Jas apelabent fudacis lapidibus opprimitur.”” If we wit mc pis pri ft pe rari wa te iio is baued’ on Ruseiut we find tht he Grock tot of vnicle at this point was: 8 aBAd3n rod mypiou "Tdaofes 4 lvouartde id carrie Bicurs Moe td "Ioan dupetrau® Now the story of the martyrdom of James the ast reproduced in Buscbius? History infull from Hegesippus, lb cng ce (Hg. 28 20), both wre specially sing the fact that he wan led by Jews, | When ‘Eusebius comes to record this in his Chronicfe he'uses the very words ascribed in our Epitome to Papias tmd.‘Tovdeiay Reese iis, Bohemia St ned of the maryedan of James the Great a phrase which really to the martyr dimer Juser ie fu vist that the Epitomics expels asigs his satement toPapias, and appears to specify (for the only time in his record) fhe actoal deck of the “Eerree from which his, menor: fandum is derived. "It isin the second Aéyer, this term being used bby him, as in paregraph (2), for a volute or section of Papias? ‘work. "But these sections ‘were called Pia, not Adyon, by Irenzus (¥. 3g. 4) as well as by Maximus Confessor * Geventh gen) who shows dec souaintance with the “Benya. No doubt Adyormay be only slip on theppart ofthe Bpitemiser for the more accurate PiBAtov.t But it iS. suspicious * that -Adyos is the very term used by Eusebius tnot by Papias) for the divisions of hs, History, and the Rpitomiser knew this (oe . xxvii), Is itnot then probable that when the Epitomiser ives & 18 Beordpg yy as his reference, be is quoting from the 2 Studia Sera p27. Sol restored im Migoe's tnt ef alse Schoone's edition of the Chrome 134. Siglo apace Fathers pp 20 5. a Em Sec th Fie eo gas on eerptrre nae was frat pointed out by W. Lockton (Theology, Aug. 1922,ali APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL [oh 11, second Méyos of Ruschius (whose third book be has been using freely) rather than from the second @yENor of Papias, which there is no good evidence that he had ever seen?! In other ‘words, the Epitomiser is going back to the story of the martyr~ dom of James the Just, told in Eus, i 23, a5 well as briefly in Hus Cleon, na rin the worded Toile dpi, may apis said somet ‘martyrdom of James the Just by the Jews, as Hegesippus did; but itis doubtful chat the Epitomiser has any more ultinate authority, than Eusebius, ‘Tdcoflor 8 &30gé¢ airod is in fome way corrupted. ftom ‘Idvopes § éBhdas rot nupiov. “lures 5 Gearépee is not an. expression that Paplas could have used, Ibis ‘not possible to Giscover with ceriainty how this double dlunder i the Epstome arose, Lightfoot * suggested that a whole line hed dropped out, the fates of John and James his Brother being contrasted in the original sentence, ‘I made a different soggestion in 1908," viz, that the sentence in Eusebius” Chronicle, 4 ahagie of epi Téaafn had eon corrupted by scribes into b a8aAgie aired col TéxuBos, a bad Greck sentence, but one which would suggest that both the sons of Zebedee were intended. All that cam, however, be sald with ‘confidence is that the sentence as found in the Epitome is corrupt, and that no historical inference can be drawn from a sentence in a late epitome of the work of a careless and ‘Sanding historian. To base upen De Boor fragment an strgument for the martyrdom of Jobn the son of Zebedee is, as ‘Harnack bas said, an uncritical caprice.” « 3 Another argument in support ofthe iden tat Jon died a amass deal ane boca Uned on the eviceace of cca etna Syriac Martyroogy (bt )* we find th ina ore 411 an) we find the entries: * Dec. 26, Stephen, chief martyr, ete. ‘Des. 27. John and James, che apostles, at Jerusnlem. Dee. 28. At Rome, Pani and Peter, the chief of the ‘Lara's apostles. 1 de og eoryp No eal the phrase sed sioner te peevls) Bale e'merly copying the futona ot Ppt Side Supernatural Religion, 9.22. te i reerrng to te passage in ‘George the’ Sinner, but the Suggestion is applicats also to Do Boor's ECE Staite Sees 5.273, The Litatwiens, 909 96 «Brinted by Wrlht in ihe Joumal of Saered Lioratne ct Siudea Sao, 278: $2] JOHN DID NoT DIE BY MARTYRDOM it Also in the Calendar of Carthage (505 4.0.) we find : Dec. 26.§ Sephari mar ee. 27. S. Tokannis Bapeisae et Jocobl apostli quem erodes ove, Dec. 28, Sanctorum Infantum quos Herodes oecdit, It ig argued that, as John Baptist is commemorated in the same Calendar on June 24, the enury S, Zoheants Dopfistee here must be a mere misttke for S. ohannis Buangelistor, whose day & Des. 27 in later Calendars. of the West. And the conclusion is draten ehat, in the Syriac Martyrology und fn the Corthage Calendar alle, John is commemorated as @ martyr, "This argument misconceives the principle on which the carly Calendars were constructed, ‘the Syriag ey ‘ay be compared with a passage in Aphralat (t344): © After ‘Chust was the faichful martyr Stephen whom the Jews stoned, ‘Simon also end Paul were perfect martyrs. And James and Jol walked ia the footsteps of ter Master Christ” Tt ‘ill be noticed that itis not said explicitly here that James and Jolm sullered a martyr’s death. Now the selection of Stephen, eter, James, Jol, Paul, as the greet leaders whose memory was colebrated after ‘Chiistmas, is specially mentioned by Gregory of Nye (circa 38s) as customary. “He explains * that they were commemorated as "leaders of the a chorus” (9p drovvohus.dppovias opya); and adds. that they endured the combat with diferent Kinds of martyrdom Goodipas Bt 108 japrepiov spirae draBNfoarres, Peter being crucified) James bebcaded, and John’s witness being felled, fest inhi tal when Fung into the cauldron of boiling cl, exc seeoncly in his continual willingness to die for Christ. ‘Tue praise of the proto-mmartyr is followed, Gregory says, by & ‘commemoration of apostles, "for neither are martyrs ‘without ‘poses, nor are apostles separated. from them,” The in- serton of names in the Church Calendars did not depend on their tile of mipres in the restricted meaning of one who ‘sulered death for bis Christan witness. And the same Dlncple is emulated by Gregory of Nazis about the same Hime in his panegyric oh St, Basil the Great? He compares Basil to the great men of the O.T, ard NT, saentioning in order John the Baptist, “tho zeal of Petcr, the intensity of Paul. the ‘ofty utterance (ueyeképaver} of the sons of 2 De Perseeutens, 25 (ok Nicene and Post-Nicons Fathers, vol xii, P41) * Part, Gr xvi. cols, 789, 725, 729. GE Nicene ond Bost Micone Fathers, Val We B49.xlig APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL (Ob. I. Zebedee, the f and simplicity of all the disciples,” dling that he GA not suber Seepen's fate, although wing to face it, Like Aphrahat, he mentions the five great leaders, siaking platy tht he pre-eminence of Por, ‘Seo, James, fand John, which made them worthy of special cotmenioration, did fof rest on their martyrdom, for this is orly mentioned in the care of Stephen, ‘Thus the evidence for John’s death by martyrdom, which : derived from the evidence of Church Calendars, must be dismissed, for Calendars included the names of great leaders, ‘whether they were “red ” martyrs or no = © A third, and minor, plea in support of the theory that John the apostle died a martyrs death i bused on a statement suet by Clemen of Alexandra (Sern, i 9) frm the {het Hercoon, wile xprenlytentosing Mashew, Pall, feracleon, while expressly Tent thew, PAllp, ‘Thomas, and Levi among many who did not ule death By ‘dees not mention John the apostie, who would hhave been entitled to the first place had Heracleon ‘own of his petal end ut ths vo misuntersend Herccoy wha ‘combating the extravagant claims sometimes made on lela onfescorg We mul diag, he sayy, thee who have been called to make public confession of their faith before a magistrate from those who have only made their Christian confesion in peaceful ways of life. For instance, wwe Must place Matthew, Philip, ‘Thomas, etc, in the lauet ‘oategory, "Heracleon dots not elim these apostles as con femora the wien” "And he dogs not pt ohn teapots nize he inherf eneral Christian tradi Hon thar John Aad made confession and had. ben oxled fo Patmos. 5a ry paprpiay "Iyrod (Rev. M)._Whether Hieracleon were right or wrong as tthe fortunes ofthe aposties ‘whom he names is not to the point. But, om his view, itis Gertrin that he could not have excluded John from those who Dove Public witness to their faith, - The example of John would [Rot ave served his purpose on any view of the apostle’s end, Tubmit that Schmiedel’s argument based on Hleraclean must be set aside, A ror a fae discussion, may refer to Spulis Sooo, pp. 275 “The Ligue has Uren acetal Uy Tisaace fiat Ea ong Toe Fah by Fd Bobion Ci Chara of Jobs Coop eB i shen! Fehon §4L) THE APOSTLE AND THE PRESBYTER av > Lastly, the idea that Mk. ro: contains a prediction of Jomn’s death by siclence eats upon a forgetfuiness of the JGhext and. a” misunderstanding’ of the. words ciuployed. (None of the apostles Believed at the time that Jerus was Jong to die, and the afimoation of James and John that they Seid drink’ His cup and be baptized with His baptism did ‘Bot contemplate death for themselves any more than for Him, Hie knew this, and imew, to, that « prediction of violent death for them both was a prediction which they could not have Understood, (2) The present tenses xine, Baxrdopat, do not point to what was suil in the future for Jems, but to that Maistry of sorrow which had alveady begun for Him. (3) To Pasi te cup alr OT mem r,often decisis of accepting tubulation appointed by God (Pa. x1°73, Isa, 52", Jer, 2p4)." It always involves pain, but not noctsazily « Violent death, “() BarrZeodae means here “to be over ‘wheimed ” as it were with a flood of calamity, the verb being Used thus Tes. a (LX), Ps. 698 (S } and Ps. gs phe imag o.oo ate mint belg ovrhelmed des of misfortune (which do not always end in, death), cf, Ba gt OH 38 @). Baoa Herndon 8, Merl Greek ‘an Aramaic exp ing “1 am being overwhelmed,” i¢, by the deep waters of God's a (cf. Lk, 129), (6) To suppose that Birrope owas carries allusion to a baptism of blood” is an Snncionisa naygested by the patristic notion that death by Snartyrdom wes Like beptlsm, in that it too brought remission of sins, This idea is found nowhere in the feven while struggling to relate Mk. 10% to a ‘lood,” regards Jobn’s banishment to Patmos and James’ execution by Herod. as equally folilments of Christ's saying that they would dink His cup and be baptized with His baptism! (@) The plain meaning of Mk, ro™# is that they should both endure tribulation and pain even as He was enduring ity and soit came to pass? (a) Jon ram Avosrim anp Joun THe PrespyTer In the preceding section (x) of tbis chapter we have reached the conclusion thatthe evidence alleged in favour of the martyr- ‘dom of John the apostle by Jews i worthless. We continue te follow the tradition of the second century, that be died in 1 Geo Fai, Herapla, imag, * Comin. in Met, tom. vi 6. Llave treated HEC 20*"® more flly ia JES, ABE 3937.wii APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTIL GOSPEL [Oh. IL extreme old age at Epherus, where he was busied. ‘The fst allusion to his long life is found in the Appendix to the Fourth Goypel (ia, srt, «passage which ie harmonious with the entlest tradition. ‘There ig no doubt as to the belief of the second cet a which was followed by all Christendom, that Jobn the apos Was the stfhor of the Fourth Gospel, at any gate in the sense ‘that his apostolic witness was behind it. Papias, Irenaeus, Clemest of Alexandria, Osgen, Hippolytus, ertlian, and others are clear as to this, as we shall sce; and most of them Sueribed to John the uportle the authorship of the Apocalypse and of the Johannine Wpisties as well. We shall examine in Semal the evidence of Irenaeus, Polyeraes, and Papiss, as much perder mod which they, "We sl End thieves compelled by Papias to recognise the existence of fo Johns, bot af wliom lived at Ephesus at the end of the frst centty; aluhough the lerature of the szcond century, butside Paplas, betrays no knowledge of that. " ‘The evidence of second-century writers cannot ‘be, inter: dunt we have apprehended the meanings which they Etrch to the words opoile,prehyler, disciple.” Moat of ot tnidence as 0 this terminology must come frm Irena, as fie Is eatant of the wings of Papiae and Polycaie, while Tustin has not much ta tll about Jon. A TRENEUS ‘The term “apostles” stands primarily for the Twelve, eee arene CE headhy Baal 8 tensa, Hert a9, 1) i. 20, 1). As in Acts 2 1 Cor. @, the esbential ‘condition is that an “* apostic” has ‘seen the Lord,” and can. therefore give bis testimeny at first hand. Clement of ‘Alex- fandria speaks of Bamabas as. an dxderokoe (Sirom. i. 6), wile in anober place (Sirom, i, ao) he calls hi drorrohny ‘a5. companion of apostles, ‘Tertullian distinguishes apostoliet ‘rom opevod in the tune way (de Pras. 3 ae. Mare... ‘Ap in Aats 154 the distinction tniween drdrvohs and peofiirepas is clearly marked, the aposties being the origina [idle while the present were those who caied on tbe work. “Ireneus vies the term xperBércpo to designate those ‘who, whether officially or unoficially, had succeeded to_ the Position of leadership which the apostles held. Thus Wuapropter eis qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudize ortet, bis qui successionem habent ab apostolis” (iv. 26, 2); Birgu, vay dxovrdhor padrad (Og 03 ‘*prabytert GulTocheet adcpltn domiatcderat 35.9) sdloane su] IRENAUS ai resbyteti apostolorum discipuli,” eto. (v. 36. 25 ef. Demonstr, 3. Again, the term nperrgrs i sometimes, sed Ines of men ofthe sir Christin generation: quem jum audiui a quodam presbytero, qui audicrat ab is qui postoor uiderant’e ab His qui aigiserant” Gv. 37-1), Tht {nto sy, presbytes are ett diciles of poate, or dncpen of shir ‘ciples ‘sey ape the leaders of the Chute in the aecond and third generations. There is no example, in the Titersture of the second century, of the equation wpecirepai= driorohon “The term “the Lord's disciples” is used sometimes, as it is stil, in the widest sense, Those who leave all and follow ‘Jesus are thus described by Irenzeus (i. 8. 3), while the phrase Biseipuli Chriti is sed tore generally sill (¥. a2. 1). But ‘the (erm is also applied in a stricter sense to those who were among the /irst disciples, « circle including, but wider than, ‘that of the Twelve. Thus Irenzus in one place distinguishes the “apostles” from the ‘disciples of the Lord.” Com- menting on Acte 4% be says, abrax guvel fy duchies - ebro ural ray dnvoridum, tras qhuval roy wary play (ii 22. 9). Among. the company present on ‘ecasion were others besides the Twelve, snd the disciples of the Lord” would have included those who were aaPyrat although not of the inner circle. Some of these early disciples, {including some who had actuaity seen and heard Jesus in the flesh, may well have outlived the original apostles; end “Ariston and the presbyter John” are described by Papias fs of roi xuplow paDrrat, some of the apostles being descri by him in the same way. ‘To this passage from Papias we shall return presently (p. li), "We must collect now what Trengus says about John (as distinct ftom John the Baptist), The tile “the disciple of the Lord ” in the singular is applied by Lrenzeus to no one but John; and be speaks a dozen times of “John the disciple f the Lord.” 2g. this is the designation of the author of the Pro- 2: Sy ils 14,1, 3), 98 of the uthor 16, 3), Jn. 9% and zo! being about this Gli, 1. 1): “Tadras 6 trie tke 7o elayythuoy, é "Bplay ris “Aviat SarpBow. In this passage “Jolin the disciple of the Lord” is he who ‘ay on His breast,” and " gave out ” the Gospet at Bi the ‘verb dione being used rather then fypafe.! Trenseus mentions John the disciple of the Lord as the author of 1. and Tl. G. 36. 3, Si 36. §); and as the seer of the 1 See pix below, Es.xvii APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL [On. x2 Apocalypse, the vision being seen towards the end of Domitan's’relgn (iv. do. 4, ¥. 26." $0. 3). He cites Papins a2 his authority fora Chiisstic prophecy, introducing icin the we Ree Loners; we ase Jobn th dhefple ofthe Lordy TEE cast Rey Bed Beard from bis how the Lord used 13 TAS Gaternitg those times and to aay.” ete. (7 33.3 and ing ete a ery es dor Tadvespmon Bt ba ts pyster re, yp eee tral Tne talk of Tense 9 aereribe the Buoy Die a Jo, he dil of te Lond ate Mele ore-emizently ended to that deiganton, Tle explicitly TEn2 hina the author of Corpel, Fist and Second. Epistle, ‘And, speaking of 3 observance SE EPs lowe be aon : ‘of our Lard, ad af other opestles with whiora be had associated ” ‘Eusebius, ZH. v. 24. 16), explaining in another place that John was’ one of those who had seen the Lord (Kus. 27.2. ¥. 20. 6), "We have already seen that apastle for Trenseus (as for other writers) means one of the Twelve, or some one of similar ‘the disciple of the the son of Zebedee, And Irenveus makes no sttompt 10 dis- tinguih two Jens. He mentions the csly preaching of Fler Mohn (il 12. 3, “Petrus cum Iobanné”), and describes resent with Him (ii 12.153 ef, also 22.9). Treneus became bishop of Lyons about #77 a.D., and his agueat work on Heresiea was writen about 380. He tals in is inet Fionn (a, 22 0 20) hat von tor be Bad ‘often seen Polycarp, bi mpm (bor about 70 4.0., Shanryred in 133), who had been a diseiple of Jobo, and who {ed to tell what he ad heard from him and other apostles fut] POLYCRATES tix about our Lord. Trenseus was born about 230, and lived until zor ot thereabouts, having left Asia, Minor'for Rome and the West not later than 155 Its dificult to suppose thet be ‘bad misunderstood what Polycarp had been accustomed to tell about John, or that Polyearp could have beon mistaken ag to the cazeer of John the apostle. Irenaeus tells the story of John’s horror of Cerinthus and his doctrine (il. 3. 4) Polycarp’s authority, although he does not say that he got it directly from him, "Tle alleges in another place (Gi 14.1) that John's purpose in his Gospel (fer euangelié annntiotionem), and expecially in the Prologue, wes to combat the heretical census, thes, only kuows of one Jon at Ephesus, whom I spent of 25 Jon te Beloved Disciple ami gn apostle; he im as the author of the Gospel and the Apocalypse, ‘swell as of Epp. 1. TL, ve B, POLYGRATES ‘We possess pert of a letter writen by Polyerates, bishop of Ephesus, to Pope Victor, about 190 4.0. on the subject of te iva of Lanter Parte dled the Qtarodecina prsctco# aot on} ‘as ‘in accordance with the Gospel,” bat ies ie adlon ef he Chr fA. Age, ‘cordogy, te bop hy mandng te prea lights” Gaya Toad foe Eek Ba Ramee ,* John, Polycarp, Thraseas, Saguris, Papeirius, Seer eal on in Dis Ch, Bier Hndateb inn nace te sot TORRE ATi ols ADlnctmans olbate, Eater 0 ued ay deena rete cae, Bee RELL Cite ae see eth reeves ts i i fo ‘Chr Ricldea tne bart Supper, ee ‘and the ‘ike No concave ‘on or again ther reliance onthe Pouch Seitioa he Gopi or Sioned Donumnls tp. srsesgn for a8 a Hidoied Doruments 1 pp. 39, 1 2 Stpnbleaccomat of dhe mater Pp. 87 1 Fotycinies aa been thovght {o have coafused Fhiip the apoatio ‘he evangelut, but of his there is‘bellber evidence not @1 APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL 0b, XL and Mei seninen: persone whose example should conand tinue aera “ Ta ee a olin where he did ce TRRP Ean re even a ml where he dled dat of Pile Brana, Ne ne oe nig ner Alex, Strom. iv. 9). Polycarp of Smyrna, Thrascas of Eumenia, and Sagaris ag! RP Smee ane eames od Sagucs sep mmedy Serta a ery eg me, tee named at Laodicea. On Papcirius the Blessed and Melito Teed ST at ase Make tad ice lie sate Dost crates, 5 jing more to say of John, who feat Ine cay a Eli ‘elem at who g mene immedi gts Tata 3 at Harn shea verbation Jn._ 13%, viz, drareaby evi 13 aris [rod "hnact), thus identifying hits with the Beloved Disciple. He, as bishop of ee eerste, fear op ey jant eet wat a By Polycrates John is called wdprin, We have already carlos! deste Sse th tte hal" Pnn Me tate to his death by martyrdom at the hands of the Jews in early days (p. xxxvilif). But Polycratos cannot mean that John the apostle was adpres in this sense, for, if that were so, he would. Be emeaane cm ise hs geno ke wed Cait ot hae be cl aaa ee pe a sould ot hare ere, dc feet of the ead a oe tnt weer ems Be li hat ams Str we ee tat no second century (or even later) as having come to a violent end pia Sarr Sa Fayre et tie the Jotn to whom he tefers as heving’ ended his Lie by sausrden the fact that he was ycpres would have been mentioned last, after fpr eear aca in Ce aie cal thee eee ak nets cae of of their Christian course. They were bishops bufor they pee 5, and to have written pipres kai érioxoros bave been Both come and ambiguous, is hae Hen that wast sppied to Joh of Brena by Pagrus rt eat ics Pied Ma of Babes Bar Pte ie ian ual eed Sec ee 2 Not as les important pena than Pili, Bt because he came to Aaie Mor ator an Phils Pot ecaate he sau) POLYCRATES i of John in later literature as a “martyr,” the idea going back to Rev. 1 (see p, liv). | But the famous persoa to whom Poly- crates refers, vie. the Beloved Disciple, is specially noted in the Fourth Gospel for his papropia, “This is the disciple which {s"true™ Jn. 218), Te was because of the This puprpia that the recollections of John were Te ‘with fuck veneration, and were certified as authentic Ephesian Church when the Fourch Gospel was fst ished? THe was the witness to whom solemm appeal is also ‘at Ja. ag (Cf. 3 Jn. 42). To the Ephesian Church, his Gospel was fast put orth, John the Beloved Disciple, final auvborty for the farts'which it xeeerds, was Pre- eminently uégrs after @ fashion that no. other’ Ephesian Christian could ever be. es also calls John of Ephesus Sérmadoe. This ipa Bl hh might fy be ued of any Gisian acer ut itis perhaps significant thae the second-contury ets Joba have this tide as applied to Jobe the apcstle® Riedie ree Paes meres ner (Caso § 73). Te does net appear ‘any other apostle is described in the apocryphal Acta, or else- where, as 5 dddexador, the Teacher,” par excellence ® Like Trenzus, Polyceates does not suggest tbat there were ‘too eminent Christian leaders called Joba in Ephesus at the end of the frst century. Had there been a second John of doch wide sepuaion tt bis mane and postr werd knows find respected at Rone, we should have expected the bishop of To include nr also among the ° great lights, lhe mentions in his lelier 9 Pope Victor. “Te dors not follow, however, that 7 had ‘ever heard of 2 second John, ‘That might be true of Ireneus, but the traditions of the 3 of can be inferred from the ce of Polyoentes is that, if there were at Eiphegus fn the Ses century a John other than Jobin the Beloved Disciple, he was not adduced as an authority cn te Fschlcontrves. argument, based’ on lence is generally precarious, In this instance, Dolyerates docs not mention at al te rame of Claudius Apoltinass ef Elirapalis, whe took a active part u i elle 2 Jaicner (iivod to 7, cexplaing "Witmer "and “ Tydeher"a inisorenivty fo he apomsypes ead the Spode. ine feng Ace Joos eed Por, ge te sem tile daseeko tsp. toy ode aby of PSE * ron the stateurn’ of Folycraen shat the Beloved Disciple wore ‘the prely wont, se Aaaltonal Note oa Ja. 36ti APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL [Oh IL ‘at Leodicea, in supporting the Quartodeciman practice, about year 165, and wrote on the subject. It could not be argued thai Polyerttes did not know of him, although it is not clear ‘why he does not name him as one of the ‘great Fights ” of et Equally, we mut oot infer that bed ‘not know of & ‘second John, whore existence, as we shall see, Papias had ‘mentioned (p. lil) half a century before. 0, too, olgerates docs no: spank (ot least in the extant feogment) of John the Beloved Disciple as the actual writer of the Fourth Gospel, Tt is remarkable that Polycrates does er sncy og zal Forme tA Ming the fa that th: Fourth Gospel was there; bul, agsin, no ‘argument built on omissions of this kind can be conclusive, ‘To the fact, however, we shall return presently. PAPTAS. Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, was bom asst fora ed gat a6 ag ts of eon preceding ennus. A fragment ol his deylar mypuxiy Eenyioas tells of the, sources from eich be gatberl in be Lord aa cen presbyter Job (6-mpeePrpox ‘Twdrm), the Lord's disciples, say (éqoou). For T did not expect t9 gain so much from books as from a living and abiding voice” ® us. 21.£. il 30). (@) The opening sentence claims for Papias that he had had opportunity of leaming directly from rperBirepe, 4.8. frorn falowers ofthe aposties..Papias was hardly of en age to begin ccllecting information until the year go or 8s at earliest. The ‘only apostle alive at that time was John, and Papias might, indeed, 29 a man of twenty, have heard him speak. Treneus calls Papas “ledrroy dxouarfy (v. 33. 4), which means that Trenweus believed him fo have been hearer of John the apostic 2 is posible that Apolinris wos alive at the time of writing, and that Polyeraten uly Gites the authority of thowe Who had passed ‘randation (od. Wright and M'Lcnn, 1898) has vgs cnn et a at, ‘ewan probally fom traditions of Wi iad that the story of ‘he aulorogs womsa was derived. gut] PAPIAS Bi p.xlvii), But Papias does not say so, as Eusebius (1.2. fit 39. 2) is careful to point out. peaAirepo in the opening penx does ot stand for ingorohr (end never dors, ee Talvii abore), but for those who were followers ofthe apostles, Rijestians of ‘the second. generation. Such ‘men as these had naturally met and conversed with, although he was me J preteds to nyt be bad alo vied ie to say 30 seized every oppor- ers ‘making inquiry 0: ther followers Ge, Christians of generation) as to anything they could report about the sayings of afost/s, vir, Peter, John, and the rest, And (@) at seit dur wt rigs wee apie oe of fhe Lond il ving’ at he te when he oye of the, epuale, belay itsed themechos © dcp of the Lord.” t Of the outer citde of the original pabyraf, some of the younger people must have survived the original Twelve. ‘Themselves in time reckoned as presbyters, and being specially sespected in the next generation as those who had seen Jesus jn the Mesh, cme who were only boys atthe Cracifixion, ved TE be ere’y, ty name, and g jn his writings ” 49.7, 14). That is a diferent matter, tod ere ioahng to decane. Gt tne Jon who men tioned est by Papas along with Peter and the rest, Buses says that Papias clearly identified him with the evangelist ‘and he adds later in the chapter 17) that Papiss hed Teed Uentinnonies "froma the frst Kpistle of Tobn.* _. "Eusebius is, in our view, right in holding that Papias dis. tinguished the apostle John from “the presbyter John.” 1 Bacon, The Fourth Cosbd, p. 112, would emend ol oso ‘hee 1 ol retrer uadyral’ Lattald (Di beiden ohaw. vomliv APOSTLE JOHN AND FOURTH GOSPEL (Gh. TL. ‘For the sayings of the first John, Papias apparently had to make inquiry sf a time when John had passed away; but for the sayings of the second Jon he was able to inquire while John ‘was yet alive. In both eases his informants were the followers ‘of the presbyters who had succeeded the apostles, Iv is implied ‘that the apostle John died before the presbyter John. Probably the former lived to a great age, 2s Irenarus implies (cl, p. alvii) ‘but that a yet younger disciple of Jesus, who may only have bbeen a child during his Master's public ministry, outlived the seed pel ay nn quted by Another passage from the iEnrjeus of Papias, quot Eusebius UES. isp. 19) bogie with the words sat woo $ pooBiirepes fheye exh. Here the context in Rusebius shows Tat a rpeoporspos ig none other than John the presbyter, some cof whose traditions Papias had received, That is, the designa- ton é mperBirepos is treated as sulliciently identifying John the presbyter, although his name is not given. To this we shall return (see p.Inii). Je goncide ing Papas knew of the presbyter Job, as

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5796)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (537)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (895)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (838)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (400)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1891)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (589)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (345)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (440)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (599)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1091)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1016)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1713)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1840)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2519)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (821)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4610)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1938)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4201)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John Le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)