JOBAB

JOEL

Laien '81 (a useful companion to his critical essays ; see below).

E. Riuss, in L a sainte Bi6le, Anc. Test. vi. ('78), and Hiu6
(translation), '88. G. H. B. Wright, '83 (see above). A. E.
Davidson, Comilzentary, vol. i. '62 (philological), '84 (in Cambridge Bible). W. Volck, in KGK, '89. G. H. Gilbert The
Poetry of j o b , part i., a rhythmical translation in three-ioned
lines ; part ii. interpretative essays (Chicago, '89). G. Hoffmann ('91 . t r a h a t i o n , etc.). C. Siegfried, '93 (see Text). Fr.
Baethgen 'in Kau. H S '94. and Hi06 (translation) '99. G.
Bickell, 'job,' in Dicht≥ der Uebriier, ii, '82 ( t r h a t i o n ;
should go with C a m . VT Metv. ; see ahove, a ) ; Das B. 306
nach AnZeitunK der Sirophik u. der Septuaginta, '94 (translation ; should go with Bi.'s later Heb. edition ; see a). K.
Budde, '96. B. Duhm, '97. The last two writers seem to mark
a new stage in exegetical study.
(a') Articles and other contdrtions.-A.
Schultens, ' Animadversiones philologicae in librum Jobi,' in Opera minora,
9-92(1769). Fr. Biittcher, in Exeg.-krit. Aehrenlese, '49, and
Neue exer.-kvit. Aehrenl. (Abthl. 2). '65. I. A. Froude. Short
Studies 0% Grent Su6jccts,'l 2368T67): S: Hoekstra,' 'Job de
knecht van Jehovah,' Th. T 5 I 8 ('71). H. Gritz, Die Integritit der Kap. 27 u. 2 8 in Hiob,' MGT! 21 2 4 1 8 ('??). J.
Wellh. J D T , 71, p. 5 5 2 8 A. Kuenen, Job en de lijdende
knecht van Jahveh,'
7 - 4 9 2 3 ('73). Godet, essay in &'udes
BibZiques, '74. W. H. Green, The Argument of the Book of
unfolded, '73. Studer, 'Uber die Integritat des B.H.'/PT,
75, p. 668 8 J. Barth, Beitruge ZWY Erkliil;/ms des B . 306,
' ' Die Capp.
'76. K. Budde, Beitriige ZUY Krit. des B . H .
27 u. 28 des B.H.,'ZATWZ 1 9 3 8 ('82).
Fr. d k e b r e c h t , D e r
Wewz'e#unkt des B.H.,' '79 (subtle; obscure in style). J.
Derenbourg ' Reflexions detachees ' RE] 118('80). T. R.
Cheyne, ' bb and the Second Par; of Isaiah ' Projh. 1s.W 2
2 5 9 8 (:E+!
; 102 and Sofomon '87.
Gril1,)Zur Kriti! der
Conzposzhon des B . H . go (driginali J, Meinhold, Das
Problem des B.H.' Neue Jahr6b. J: deutsche Thkol., '92, p.
6 3 8 H. Gunkel Schiipfung u. Chaos, 3 6 -3 8 48-70 92, '95 (important). L. La;,
Die Compositiondes B . H . , '95. C. H. H .
Wright Bi6ZicaZ Essays, 1-33, 186. G. G. Bradley, Lectures
o n j o d , "87. Seyring, Die A6hlrBngigkeit fL'r Spriiche Sal. Cap.
1-9 won H i d , '89. D. B. Macdonald, The original form of
the Legend of Job,' J B L , 1 4 6 3 8 ('95). H. L. Strack, ' D i t
Prioritat des B.H. gegeniiberden Einleitungsreden z.d. Spr. Sal.
St.Kr., '96, p. 6 0 9 8 J. Ley, 'Die dramat. Anlage der Hiobdichtung,' Neaejahrb6.J: PhiZos. n. Padagogik, '96 (z), 1 2 6 8 ;
' Charakteristik der drei Freunde Hiohs ' St.Kr., 1900, p. 3 3 1 3
S . R. Driver 'Sceptics of the OT,' Conienrp. Rev., '96, p. ' 2 5 7 4
T. K. CheyAe, 'The Book of Job and its Latest Commentator,
Exjfs., '97a, p. 401 8;
1976, p. 2 2 8 ; Jew. ReZ. Liye, '98,
passrm. R. G. Moulton, 96 (in Modern Reader's Bible).
Among the Introductions see especially those of Driver, Cornill, and Wildeboer.
T. K. C.

chizedek, B m h w p BpC1Jrmp. A son of the second

Phinehas (b. Eli) was probably called Jochebed (see
ICHABOD). This would hardly have been so if tradition
attached the same name to Moses' mother. We may
safely assume, however, that Jochebcd was a name
current in the family of Aaron and Moses from the
Sinaitic period, and perhaps it is the lohg looked-for
key to the mysterious name ~ppv'(Jacob) which has
doubtless been worn down in popular use from some
longer name, which we need not suppose to have
included the divine title eL Cp JACOB, I.

/ob

(a$', i u B b B [BADFL]).
One of the thirteen tribes called sons of JOKTAN
(Gen. 1029, rwpu8 [E] ; I Ch. 1 2 3 om. B, wpup [A]).
Its precise seat is unknown, but there may be an echo
of the name in that of the Yuhaidab (XXW), a tribe
mentioned in two of Glaser's inscriptions (Skizze, 2303),
which seems to have been subject to the SabEan king.
C p Di.'s note.
JOBAB
I.

2. b. Zerah, an Edomite king whose city was Bozrah (Gen.

36 33f: ropd [A in v. 331 coj3aK [E] ; I Ch. 144f: rwapap [B in
n. 44 dnlyl). identified 'with Job in the appeAdix to the '26
version of t i a t book (42 17 6). Cu schol. in Field's Hex. on

On the name see Nestle, Eig. 7 7 8 ; Gray, HPN 156,and cp

N AMES , ITZ. Q ' s representation of Jocbebed as Amram's
cousin (Ex. 620) is interesting; a d&ih could not marry her
nephew, according to Lev. 1 8 x 2 20 19. But perhaps @ is
right : nz could easily disappear after 12. Cp KINSAIP, 5,
M ARRIAGE , 2.
T. K. C.

JODA.

(3J:

I. I Esd. 558

( I ~ A [A])=Ezra
A
39, JUDAH

( d a [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3 26 RV, AV J UDA .

ALOGIES

See GENE-

ii., $3f:

7 ~ [Ginsb.,
'
misprint?] ; IUAA
JOED (7& [sa.],
[B, omitting preceding yiocl, iubh [ALl, -AB
pp
on the name, Ki.'s note z Ch. 929, SBOT),a Benjamite
(Neh. 1 1 7 ) .

[PI,

JOEL (>ai' ; IWHA [BKAL]).

b. Pethuel (Joel 1 I ), see next art.
2. The eldest son of Samuel the prophet ; see S AMUEL .
In
the parallel passage I Ch. 6 28 [13l, for ;I.XN~
i)j8;1(AV the
firstbornvashni and Abiah) we must read ;I'XR ?IV;Il
5
N
l
113231
... - :
(cp RV 'the firstborn Joel and the second Abiah'). The comparison of the two texts illustrates, in an interesting manner, the
ways in which errors have found their way into MT. According to the Chronicler (I Ch. 6 33 [r8] and 15 17), Joel is the father
of the singer HEMAN(9.v.).
3. The brother of Nathan of Zobah I Cb. 11 38 (so @A&, hut
'26B in both Ch. and S followed by Bertieau Keil Gesenius 'the
son of Nathan') an$ one of David's herobs. i n z S. 23 j6 his
name appears as
(see IGAL). The correct reading is
doubtful since in S. QL reads LO+ ('26BA, however read yaah).
For ZOBAH, however, Marquart (Fund. 21) 'would read
; I ? ~ ~ ~ = 3 in
~ yBenjamin.
l 3 ~
4. A Simeonite prince (I Ch. 475).
5. I n I Ch. 5 4 8 Joel would seem to have dropped out of the
preceding verse, or else we must insert here the name of one of
the sons of Reuben. Pesh. reads here CARMI,which is probably
right.
6. A Gadite chief ( I Ch. 5 12).
7. A Kehnthite, I Ch. 6 36 [211. In v. 24 [91 his name appears
as SHAUL b.v.l H e is mentioned aeain in 2Ch. 2 0 1 ~ . See
GENEALOG~ES i: 5 7 (iii., c).
8. b. I Z R A H(9.v.X
I A ~ I Ch. 7 3 (paqh [Bl).
9. A Gershonite chief ( I Ch. 15 7 II), descended from Ladan
Cp I O below.
I Ch. 238).
( io. b. Jehieli a Gershonite temple treasurer ( I Ch. 26 22).
' Toe1 ' was o e r h k s looked uDon as a farourite Gershonite name :
C G GENEALbGIEgi., $ 7 (iii.,.6. n.).
11. b. Pedaiah a Manassite captain ( I Ch. 2720).
12. One of thd b'ne NEBO
in list of those with foreign wives
(see E ZRA i., 5 5 end), Ezra 1 0 4 3 = 1 Esd. 9 35, J.UEL (ou+ [Bl,
rouqh [AI).
.
13. b. Zichri, in list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
E ZRA ii., 5 5 6 , 6 15 [ I I u ) , Neh. 119.
I.

h:

~~

114, 9 13).

Very possibly Jobab is not always correct.

Joab or Jonadab

is more probable (cp HOBAB)

; n is often omitted or misread.
T. K.

JOCHEBED

c.

(723', probably ' Yahwe is [my tribe's]

glory,' cp 5s 38, 80 ; i u x a B e A [BAFL]) was, according

to P, the dCd& (?@I)
or aunt of Amram, who took her
to wife ; their children were Aaron, Moses, and Miriam
(Ex.6 2 0 [PI, Nu. 2659f [R], - B e e [A]). The tradition
(a)that the mother of Moses was a ' daughter of Levi'
(ie., a woman of the tribe of Levi) was certainly, and
the tradition (a) that her name was Jochebed was possibly,
earlier than P, because ( I ) the phrase ' daughter of Levi '
is used of Moses' mother in Ex. 21 (E), and ( 2 )names
compounded with Jeho- (Jo-) were apparently regarded
by P as of somewhat later origin (see Nu. 1 3 1 6 ) . It is
noteworthy, however, that the narrators nowhere call
Moses and Aaron b'n8 Amrani; we cannot be sure
that in the earlier tradition Moses was not like Mel2491

JOEL. The second book among the minor prophets

is entitled ' T h e word of Yahwe that came to Joel the
1. scarcity son of Pethuel,' or, as the LXX (iwvX rdv
PuOouvh [BKAQ]), Latin, Syriac. and
of data. TOG
other versions read, ' of Bethuel.' Nothing is recorded as to thedateor occasionof the prophecy,
which presents several peculiarities that aggravate the
difficulty always felt in interpreting an ancient book
when the historical situation of the author is obscure.
Most Hebrew prophecies contain pointed references to
the foreign politics and social relations of the nation at
the time. I n the book of Joel there are only scanty
allusions to Phcenicians, Philistines, Egypt, and Edom.
couched in terms applicable to very different ages, while
the prophet's own people are exhorted to repentance
without specific reference to any of those national sins
of which other prophets speak. The occasion of the
prophecy, described with great force of rhetoric, is no
1 This is actually supplied by 6%

2492

JOEL

JOEL

known historical event, b u t a plague of locusts, p e r h a p s

repeated i n successive seasons ; and even here t h e r e are
features in t h e description which h a v e led m a n y expositors to seek a n allegorical interpretation.
T h e most
remarkable p a r t of the book is t h e eschatological picture
with which i t closes ; a n d the w a y i n which the plague
of locusts a p p e a r s to be t a k e n as foreshadowing the
final judgment- the great d a y o r assize of Yahwk, in
which Israel's enemies are destroyed- is so unique as
greatly to complicate the exegetical problem.
I t is not
therefore surprising t h a t t h e m o s t virrious views a r e still
held as to the d a t e a n d m e a n i n g of the book. Allegorists
a n d literalists still contend over the first and still m o r e
over the second chapter, a n d whilst t h e largest n u m b e r
of recent interpreters accept Credner's view t h a t the
prophecy was written i n the reign of Joash of J u d a h , a
rising a n d powerful school of critics follow t h e view
suggested b y Vatke (Bid. TheoZ. 462$), a n d reckon Joel
a m o n g the post-exilic prophets.
O t h e r scholars give
yet other d a t e s ; see the particulars i n t h e elaborate
work of Merx (see below, 5 8). The followers of Credner
are literalists ; the opposite school of m o d e r n s includes
some literalists ( a s D u h m ) , whilst others (like Hilgenfeld,
a n d , i n a modified sense, M e r x ) a d o p t the old allegorical
interpretation which treats the locusts as a figure for t h e
enemies of Jerusalem.
The reasons for placing Joel either earlier or l a t e r
than the great series of .
prophets
extending
.
- from t h e
Alternative time when A m o s first proclaimed the
a p p r o a c h of t h e Assyrian d o w n to the
dates.
Babylonian exile are cogent.

masters but not invaders, and under them the enemies of the
Jews were their neigbhours, just as appears in Joel.1
T h o s e , however, w h o place o u r prophet i n the
minority of K i n g Joash, d r a w a special a r g u m e n t f r o m
t h e mention of Phoenicians, Philistines, a n d E d o m i t e s
( 3 [4] 4f. IS), pointing to the revolt of E d o m u n d e r
J o r a m ( z K. 820)) a n d the incursion of t h e Philistines
i n t h e s a m e reign ( 2 C h . 2116 221). T h e s e were
recent events i n t h e time of Joash, and i n like m a n n e r
the Phoenician slave t r a d e in Jewish children is carried
b a c k t o an early d a t e b y the reference i n A m o s (19).
This argument is specious rather than sound. Edom's
hostility to Judah was incessant but the feud reached its full
intensity only after the time of DLuteronomy (237 [SI), when the
Edomites joined the Chaldeans, drew profit from the overthrow
of the Jews, whose land they partly occupied, and exercised
barbarous cruelty towards the fugitives of Jerusalem (Obad.
passim, Mal. 1zf: Is. F3). The offence of shedding innocent
blood charged 011 them by Joel, is natural after these events,
but hardly so in connection with the revolt against Joram.
As regards the Philistines, it is impossible to lay much
weight on the statement of Chronicles, unsupported as it is by
the older history, and in Joel the Philistines plainly stand in
one category with the Phcenicians, a s slave dealers, not as
armed foes. Gaza in fact was a slave emporium as early as the
time of Amos (16), and continued so till Roman times.
T h u s , if any inference a s t o date c a n be d r a w n f r o m
chap. 3 [4], i t m u s t rest on special features of t h e trade
i n slaves, which w a s always an important p a r t of the
commerce of t h e Levant.
I n the time of Amos the slaves collected by Philistines and
Tyrians were sold en masse to Edom, and presumably went to
Egypt or Arahia. Joel complains that they were sold to the
Grecians (Javan, Ionians).z It is probable that some Hebrew
and Syrian slaves were exported to the Mediterranean coasts
from a very early date, and Is. 11TI already speaks of Israelite
captives in these districts as well as in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the
East.
T h e traffic i n this direction, however, hardly b e c a m e
extensive till a later date.
In Deut.2868 Egypt is still the chief goal of the maritime
slave trade, and in Ezek. 2713 Javan expozts slaves to Tyre,
not conversely. Thus the allusion to Javan in Joel better
suits a later date, when Syrian slaves were in special request in
Greece.3 The name of Javan is not found in any part of the
O T certainly older than Ezekiel. In Joel it seems to stand as
a general representative of the distant countries reached by the
Mediterranean (in contrast with the southern Arabians,
Su6euzs, chap. 3 [4]8), the furthest nation reached by the
fleets of the Red Sea. This is precisely the geographical
standpoint of the post-exile author of Gen. 104, where Javan
includes Carthage and Tartessus ; cp JAVAN.
Finally, the allusion to E g y p t i n Joel3 14119, m u s t
o n Credner's theory b e explained of t h e invasion of
Shishak a century before Joash. From this t i m e d o w n
to t h e last period of t h e Hebrew monarchy Egypt was
not t h e e n e m y of Judah.
If t h e a r g u m e n t s chiefly relied o n for an early d a t e
are so precarious or c a n even be turned against their
4. Probable inventors, there are others of a n u n a m biguous k i n d which m a k e for a date in
late date* t h e Persian period. It appears f r o m
chap. 3 I$ t h a t Joel wrote after t h e Exile.

In Joel the enemies of Israel are the nations collectively, and

among those specified by name neither Assyria nor Chaldza
finds a place. This circumstance might if it stood alone he
explained by placing Joel with Zephaniah in the brief int&val
between the decline of the empire of Nineveh and the advance
of the Babylonians. It is further obvious however that Joel
has no part in the internal struggle betwien spirit& YahwBworship and idolatry which occupied all the prophets from Amos
to the captivity. H e presupposesanation ofYahw8-worshippers,
whose religion has its centre in the temple and priesthood of
Zion which is indeed conscious of sin and needs forgiveness and
an :utpouring of the spirit hut is i o t visibly divided as the
kingdom of Judah was, detween the adherents of ;piritual
prophecy and a arty whose national worship of YahwS involved
for them no funimental separation from the surrounding nations.
T h e book, therefore, m u s t h a v e been written before
the ethico-spiritual a n d t h e popular conceptions of Yahw&
came into conscious antagonism, or else after t h e fall of
the s t a t e a n d t h e restoration of t h e c o m m u n i t y of Jerusalem t o religious rather t h a n political existence had decided t h e contest in favour of the prophets, and of the
l a w i n which their teaching was ultimately crystallized.
T h e considerations which h a v e given currency to an
e a r l y d a t e for Joel are of various kinds. The absence
o! all mention of the one great oppres3.
sing world - power seems m o s t n a t u r a l
date' before 'the westward m a r c h of Assyria
involved Israel i n the general politics of Asia. T h e
p u r i t y of t h e style also is urged, a n d a comparison of
A m o s 1z Joel 3 [a] 16, and A m o s 9 13 Joel S [4]18 has
b e e n t a k e n as proving t h a t A m o s k n e w o u r book.
The last argument might be inverted with much greater
probability, and numerons points of contact between Joel and
other parts of the O T ( e g . , JoelZzExod.lOr4 Joel23 Ezek.
36 35 Joel 3 [41 I O Mic. 43) make it not incredible that the
purity of his style-which is rather elegant than original and
strongly. marked -is in large measure the fruit of literary
culture. The absence of allusion to a hostile or oppressing
empire may be fairly taken in connection with the fact that the
prophecy gives no indication of political life at Jerusalem.
When the whole people is mustered in I13 f:, the elders or
sheikhs of the municipality and the priests of the temple are
the most prominent figures. The king is not mentioned,-which
on Credner's view is explained by assuming that the plague
fell in the minority of Joash, when the priest Jehoiada held the
reins of power,-and the princes, councillors, and warriors
necessary to an independent state and so often referred to by
the prophets before the Exile, i r e altogether lacking. The
nation has only a municipal organisation with a priestly aristocracy, precisely the state of things that prevailed under the
Persian empire. That the Persians do not appear as enemies
of Yahwh and his people is perfectly natural. They were hard
a493

The phrase, ' t o bring back the captivity' ( n n q Illd), would

not alone suffice to prove this, for it is used in a wide sense,
and perhaps means rather to 'reverse the calamity' ;4 hut the
dispersion of Israel among the nations, and the allotment of the
Holy Land to new occupants, cannot fairly be referred to any
calamity less than that of the captivity.
W i t h this t h e whole standpoint of t h e prophecy
agrees. To Joel J u d a h and t h e people of Yahwk a r e
synonyms ; N o r t h e r n Israel has disappeared.
Now it is true that those who take their view of the history
from Chronicles, where the kingdom of Ephraim is always
treated as a sect outside the true religion, can reconcile this
1 In the AV of 217 it appears that subjection to a foreign
power is not a present fact but a thing feared. The parallepm,
however, and v. 19 justify the now prevalent rendering, that
the heathen should make a mock of them.'
2 The hypothesis of an Arabian Javan, applied to Joe13[416
hy Credner, Hitz., and others, may he viewed as explqded.
See St. De Populo Javan Giessen Programme, '80 (reprmted
in Akademische Reden u. h6haimd/ungcn, '99, 1258).
3 Cp Movers, Phhzizisches A Ztwthum,iii. 1 7 0 5
4 See Ewald on Jer. 4847, and Kuenen, Th. T,1873, p. 519s
[Di. on Job428 etc.].

2494

JOEL

JOEL

fact with an early date. In ancient times, however, it was not

s o ; and under Joash, the contemporary of Elisha, such a
limitation of the people of Yahwi: is wholly inconceivable. The
earliest prophetic hooks have quite a different standpoint ; otherwise, indeed, the books of northern prophets and historians could
never have been admitted into the Jewish canon.
Again,
the significant fact that there is no mention of a king and princes,
but only of sheikhs and priests, has a force not to he invalidated
by the ingenious reference of the book to the time of Joash's
minority and the supposed regency of Jehoiada.1
Moreover the assumption that there was a period before the prohetic conflicts of the eighth century when spiritual prophecy
ad unchallenged sway, when there was no gross idolatry
or superstition, when the priests of Jerusalem, acting in accord with prophets like Joel, held the same place as heads
of a pure worship which they occupied after the Exile (cp
Ewald, Proplzeterr,I89), is not consistent with history. It rests
on the old theory of the antiquity of the Levitical legislation, so
that in fact almostz all who place that legislation later than
Ezekiel, are agreed that the book of Joel is also late.
In
this connection one point deserves special notice. The religious
significance of the plague of drought and locusts is expressed in
chap. 1g in the observation that the daily meal-offeringand drinkoffering arecut off, and the token of newblessing is the restoration
of this service chap. 2 14. In other words, the daily offering is
the continual) symbol of gracious intercourse between Yahwi:
and his people and the main office of religion. This conception,
which finds its parallel in Dan.811 113% 1211, is quite in
accordance with the later law (cp the importance attached to
the meal-offering and burnt-offering in Neh. 1033 [34]).
Such is the historical basis which we seem to he able to lay
for the study of the exegetical problems of the hook.

In the new prosperity of the land the union of YahwB and his
people shall he sealed anew, and so Yahwe will proceed to
pour down further and higher blessings. The aspiration of
Moses (Num.1129), and the hope of earlier prophets (Is.3215
5921 ; cp Jer. 3133), shall he fully realised in the outpouring of
the Spirit on all the ,Jews and even upon their servants (cp Is.
615 with 5 6 6 3 ) ; and then the great day of judgment, which
had seemed to overshadow Jerusalem in the now averted
plague, shall draw near with awful tokens of blood and fire and
darkness.

The style of Joel is clear, and his language presents

little difficulty
the occurrence of several unique
. beyond
.
5. First part. words, which in part may very well-be
due to errors of the text. On the
other hand, the structure of the book, the symbolism,
and the connection of the prophet's thoughts, have
given rise to much controversy.
It seems safest to
start from the fact that the prophecy is divided into
two well-marked sections by chap. 218rga.
According to the Massoretic vocalisation, which is in harmony
with the most ancient exegetical tradition as contained in 6,
these words are historical : 'Then Yahwi: was jealous
and answered and said unto his people, Behold,' etc. Such is
the natural meaning of the words as vocalised, and the proposal
of Merx to change the vowels so as to transform the perfects
into futures and make the priests pray that Yahwi: will answer
and deliver'the gracious promises that fill the rest of the book:
is an exegetical monstrosity not likely to find adherents.

. ..

Thus the book falls into two parts. In the first the
prophet speaks in his own name, addressing himself to
the people in a lively description of a present calamity
caused by a terrible plague of locusts which threatens
the entire destruction of the country, and appears to
be the vehicle of a final consuming judgment (the day
of Yahwk).
There is no hope save in repentance and prayer ; and in
c h a p . 3 1 ~the prophet, speaking now for the first time in
Yahwb's name calls the people to a solemn fast at the sanctuary,
and invites th'e intercession of the priests. The calamity is
described in the strongest colours of Hebrew hyperbole, and it
seems arbitrary to seek too literal an interpretation of details,
e.g., to lay weight on the four names of locusts (see LOCUST),
or to take chap. 120 of a conflagration produced by drought
when it appears from23 that the ravages of the locusts them;
selves are compared to those of fire.

When due allowance is made for Eastern rhetoric,

there is no occasion to seek in this section anything
else than literal locusts.
Nay the allegorical interpretation which takes the locusts
to be gostile invaders breaks througd the laws of all reasonable

writing; for the poetical hyperbole which compares the invading

swarms to an army ( 2 4 ~ 3would be inconceivably lame if a
literal army were already concealed under the figure of the
locusts. Nor could the prophet so far forget himself in his
allegory as to speak of a victorious host as entering the con.
quered city like a thief (29).

The second part of the book is YahwZs answer to the

people's prayer. The answer begins with a promise of
6. Second part. deliverance from famine, and of fruitful seasons compensating for the
ravages of the locusts.

The terrors of that day are not for the Jews but for
their enemies.
The worshippers of Yahwe on Zion shall be delivered (cp
Obad. D. 17, whose words Joel expressly quotes in chap. 232
[3 51) and it is their heathen enemies, assembled before Jerusalem
to w& against Yahwi:, who shall be mowed down (see JEHOSHAPH A T , VALLEY OF) by no human arm but by heavenly warriors
(' thy mightyones, 0 Yahwi:,'3 [41 II).' Thus definitely freed from
the profane foot of the stranger (cp Is. 52 I), Jerusalem shall abide
a holv citv for ever. The fertilitv of the land shall be such as
was iong'ago predicted in Am.9r3, and streams issuing from
the temple, as Ezekiel had described in his picture of the
restored Jerusalem (Ezek. 47), shall fertilise the barren Wady of
Acacias (cp ABEL-SHITTIM).

Egypt and Edom, on the other hand, shall become

desolate, because they have shed the blood of Yahwi's
innocents. Cp the similar predictions against Edom,
Is. 349f: (Mal. 1 3 ) , and against Egypt, Is. 195f: Ezek.
29. Joel's eschatological picture appears indeed to be
Llrgely a combination of elements from older unfulfilled
prophecies.
The central feature, the assembling of the nations to judgment
is already found in Zeph. 38, and in Ezekiel's prophecy con!
cerning Gog and Magog, where the wonders of tire and blood
named in Joe1230[331 are also mentioned (Ezek.3822). The
other physical features of the great day, the darkening of the
lights of heaven, are a standing figure of the prophets from
Amos ( 5 8 89) downwards. It is characteristic of the prophetic
eschatology that images suggested by one prophet are adopted
by his successors, and gradually become part of the permanent
scenery of the last times; and it is a proof of the late date of
oel that almost his whole picture is made up of such features.
n this respect there is a close parallelism, extending to minor
details, between Joel and the last chapters of Zechariah.

That Joel's delineation of the final deliverance and

glory attaches itself directly to the deliverance of the
nation from a present calamity is quite in the manner
of the prophetic perspective. On the other hand, the
fact that the calamity which bulks so largely is natural,
not political, is characteristic of the post-exile period.
Other prophets of the same age speak much of dearth and
failure of crops, which in Palestine, then as now, were aggravated by bad government, and were far more serious to a small
and isolated community than they could ever have been to the
old kingdom. I t was indeed by no means impossible that
Jerusalem might have been altogether undone by the famine
caused by the locusts ; and so the conception of these visitants
as the destrpying army, executing Yahwe's final judgment, is
really much more natural than appears to us a t first sight,
and does not need to he explained away by allegory.

The chief argument relied upon by those who still

find allegory at least in chap. 2, is the expression
ylgsfl, 'the northerner,' in 220.
In
7* Verse 220' view of the other points of affinity between
Joel and Ezekiel, this word inevitably suggests Gog and
Magog, and it is difficult to see how a swarm of locusts
could receive such a name, or if they came from the
N. could perish, as the verse puts it, in the desert
between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. The
verse remains a crux interpreturn, and no exegesis
hitherto given can be deemed thoroughly satisfactory ;
but the interpretation of the whole book must not be
made to hinge on a single word in a verse which might
be altogether removed wvthout affecting the general
course of the prophet's argument.
The whole verse is perhaps the addition of an allegorising
glossator. The prediction in 2,. 19, that the seasons shall hmceforth he fruitful, is given after Yahwi: has shown his zeal and
pity for Israel, not of course by mere words, but by acts, as
appears in D. 2 0 3 , where the verbs are properly perfects, re-

1 Stade (0). cit.17 [AKad. Reden 1423) not unreasonably

guestions whether z K. 121-3[2-4] impliks the paramount political
influence of Jehoiada.
2 Reuss (La G i b k , and Gesclz. Heil. ?CAY. A T , $ 2 1 0 ~ 3 ,
though with hesitation, adhered to the earher date.

1 [See the commentaries. In Criticu Gdilica it is proposed

to make D. 25 precede D. 20, and in D. 20, for the enigmatical
qigs?-mi to read i';?-n$;
igo-ny, 'and both its rear and its
+n, 'my great
van' (will I remove, etc.), referring to h:?
army,' which precedes. I t is held that many examples occur of
just siich corruption and contraction, and just such misplacement, as is here supposed. The sense appears good.
ED.]

2495

2496

JOELAH

JOHN THE BAPTIST

cording that Yahwb has already done great things, and that
vegetation has already revived. In other words, the mercy
already experienced in the removal of the plague is taken as a
pledge of future grace not to stop short till all Gods old promises
are fulfilled. In this context u. 20 is out of place. Ohserve also
that in v. 25 the 1ocustsare spoken of in the plain language of
chap. 1. [See PROPHETIC LITERATURE, and on the relation
between passages of Joel and Amos, see AMOS, B$ 8, IO. On
the argument as to date drawn from the language of Joel, see
Holzingers article cited below.]
Ew. Propheten, 1 ; Hitz., Keil, Pusey, v. Orelli, We.,
Nowack, GASm., in their comm. on the Minor Prophets ; and
8. Literature. ,separate comm. by Credner (31), Wiinsche
(72), Dr. (in Cambridge B G k , 97). See.also
Kue. Ond.2, 5 68f: Merx (Die Projhetie des 1 o d s u. ihre
AusZeger, 79) gives an elaborate history of interpretation from
the LXX down to Calvin and appends the Ethiopic text edited
b y Di. Of older comm. the most valuable is Pocockes (Oxford,
1691). Bocharts Hieroz. may also be consulted ; cp also Dav.
Expositor, March 88; Gray, i6id., Sept. 93.; H. T. Fowler,
J B L 16146.153; Oort, Godgereerde Bijdragen, 66, pp. 2-15)
TAT,76, p. 362 8 ;Matthes, did., 85 pp. 34-66 129-160; 87,
pp. 357-381 ; Gritz, Die ebzheitliche Charakter der Propltetie
Joels, 73;Holzinger, Z A T W , 89, pp. 89-131.
W. R. S.-S.

R. D.

JOELAH (?;K~), b. JEROHAM

[5] one of Davids
warriors ( I Ch. 127, ~ A I A[BK], UHAA
[AL]). See

DAVID,3 11, ( a iii.).

yr*appears to he the error of a scribe who began to write y1yp
(see v. 6); read therefore a$!, Elah (cp 98, where Elah and

5. b. Meshelemiah a porter ( I Ch. 26 3 : m v a s [Bl, cora6av [LI).

6. A captain, te&. Jehoshaphat ( z Ch. 1715), perhaps the
one whose son Ishmael is mentioned in 2 Ch. 23 I .
7. EV JOHANAN, an Ephraimite (2 Ch. 28 12 Loavou [Bl).
8. One of the hne Bebai in list of those with foreign wires
(see E ZRA i., $ 5 end), Ezra 10z8=1 Esd. 929, JOHANNES,
RV
JOANNES ( L ~ U Y V[HA]).
~P
9. b. K A I ~ E A(T.u.),
~ . ~ a captain who revealed to Gedaliah
Isrlmaels conspiracy. H e took a l e d i n g part in the attempt
made to renew the Jewish commonwealth after the destruction
of Jerusalem ( 2 K. 2523, Jer. 408-16Lwavvav [AQ v ~ .8, 13 16 ;
A v . 15 ; N* z-. 161, a v v a v [C V. IS], 41 11-16 i o a v v a v [Q W . IT
13f: 16; AQ vu. 14 16 N* v . 141, Laova [b] Laoavav [ R ? ] in
v. 16; 42 1-8 LWUYVQV [Au. I ;Q vu. I 81, 432-S,LWUVUQU [Q021. 24f.l).
I n Jer. 408, he is mentioned along with his brother J ONATHAN
(q.7,., no. 7).
IO. b. JOSIAH (I Ch. 3 15).
QdL reads i w a x a s , i.e., 1 n ~ i a 7 ;
probably this is right (see Ritz. GVI 246, and cp JEHOAHAZ).
IT. b. Elioenai (?), a descendant of Zerubbabel ( I Ch. 324
i o a v a p [AI).
12. A name introduced into the list of high priests in I Ch. 6 9f.
[535j.] (rwavas [BA ; I3 only in 6,91). See GENEALOGIES i., 5 7
(iv.).
73, 14. A Benjamite (I Ch. 124) and a Gadite (ib. v. 12, LWQY
[Bl), two of Davids warriors (DA;ID, $ IT).
15. A representative of the bne Azgad in Ezras caravan (see
E ZRA i. 5 2 , ii. 5 15 [I] d), Ezra81z=1 Esd. 838, J OHANNES
RV J OANNES (iwavqs [BI .YU?S [AI).

. JOHANNES ( I W A N N H C [A]),
J OHANAN , 8 15.

Esd. 838 929.

See

Jeroham again occur close together). Ki., however, suggests

&y; ; but this, though supported by many MSS (Kenn.), and
.T.I<. C.
perhaps by PBB, is less natural.

JOHN ( I W A N N H C [AKV, Ti. W H I ; W H in Jn.142

2 1 1 5 8 I W ~ N H C ; for details, see J OHN , S O N OF
ZEBEDEE,1 I ).

JOEZER (V@, YahwB is help, cp .1!$.h

Ph.
$
l T U h , and NAMES, 5 28), one of Davids warriors, a

B 3.2.

Korahite(1 Ch. 1 9 6 IUZAPA [BK], -zAAp [AI, ICZPAAP

.[L]). See D AVID , 5 11, ( a iii.).
JOGBEHAH (nc??:; Nu. KAI y y w c a ~A ~ T A C
YBAL]; JUdg. IersBaA [B], 5 B N A N T I A C Z ~ B E E[AI,
5 B N A N T ~ A C NAB [L]), one of the cities fortified by
.Gad (Nu. 3235). The indications given in the story
of Gideon (Judg. 8 11) are sufficient to show that it is the
modern Kh. AjZhit (so GASm. HG 585 and Baed.(3)
172 ; usually el-Jubeihgt), 3468 ft. above sea level,
.some 6 m. NNW. fromAmmHn (Kabbath Ammon)
.on the road to es-Salt.
The identification is not Conders. I t had been critically
defended by Dietrich, Beitrage zur bibl. Geog., in Merxs
Archiv, 346-349 (1867-69), but even before him had been
accepted by Knobel and Ewald (against Gesenius and Bertheau).
Cp. N OBAH , KENATH.
T. K. C.

(3Y,

JOGLI
led into exile), father of BUKKI
,(Nu. 3422 [PI, erAa [Bl, EKAI [AIAl,EKAI [Fl,
E K ~ I[L]).
JOHA (K@, abbrev. from l;?l, $51 ; or more prob.ably an error for LXV-z.e., TnKl, Joahaz; cp some
of es forms below).
I. h. Beriah in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (?a,
9 ii. 8 ) ;
I Ch. 816 ( r o a x a v [Bl, maxa R a i Le<a [A],
2. One of Davids heroes (I c.1. 114; ; L.See DAVID, $ TI.

KaL

ioLa

[LI).

:-[BRA], ?ha [Ll).

JOHANAN (Q@ [nos. 9-15],a shorter form of

I?$?:

[nos. 1-8, E V nearly always JEHOHANAN].

YahwB is gracious; cp Q&?$, h J n , etc., and see
NAMES, $3 28, 84. With one exception [no. 91, the
.name occurs only in late writings. CWUYUY [BKAL],
~ W Y U P[BL] ; for details see J OHN , S O N OF Z EBEDEE ).

Father of Mattathias

(T

Macc. 21).

See MACCABEES i.,

Surnamed Caddis or Gaddis, son of Mattathias (I Macc.

22). See MACCABEES i.
3.
3. Son of Acco, fathk; of EUPOLEMUS
[q.u.], I Macc.817
2 Macc. 4 11.
4. Surnamed Hyrcanus, son of Simon ( I Macc.1353 etc.).
See MACCABEES i.. 5 7.
5. An envoy fro; the Jevs to Lysias (z Macc. 1117)
6. A member of the high-priestlyfamily(Acts 4 6) otherwise unknown. D substitutes Jonathas, that is, Jonathan (on the form
of the name see J O H N , S ON OF ZFBEDEE,5 I), son of the high
priest ANNAS,and himself high priest in 36-37 A.D. ; he still held
a prominent position in 50-52 A.D. and was assassinated at the
instigation of Felix the Roman procurator (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5 3
xx. S 5 BJ ii 1 2 sf 13 3) Blass gives Jonathan in the text
of Acts46, ndt onl; in his edition based upon D but also in the
other edition which according to him, was made by Luke. Thus
his hypothesis (A&
5 17) finds no confirmation here, for it
cannot be supposed that Luke would of his own proper motion
have substituted a false name for the true. Yet confusion of the
names through the carelessness of copyists is hardly more prohable. I t remains for us to suppose that perhaps a John otherwise unknown to us was really intended ; in this case the insertion of Jonathan in D rests, like so much else in this codex, on
learned coniecture.
7. Surniked M ARK [T.u.].
8. Father of Simon Peter (Jn.142 2115-17 RV); AV Jona,
Jonas. See BAR-JONA.
9. The divine. the description of the recipient of the Revelation in the titleof the Apocalypse in EV, following T R ,
drroKahu$rs I o a v v o u TOV Baohoyou. So 14, 91. Other slightly
different short descriptions occur, as well as longer ones, e g . ,
a r o K . LW. TOU Bsohoyov K a c r v a ~ y ~ h r u ~(Q)
o u and a very long
eulogistic one in 7. The Divine, lit. The Theologue, intimates that John was specially devoted to thqpresentation of the
Loeos-doctrine. This form of the title (which is not accepted
bymodern editors) claims the same origin for the Apocalypse as
for the Fourth Gospel, in opposition to the ancient theory of a
second John (see APOCALYPSE, $ 14 ; and on John the Elder,
J OHN , S ON OF ZEBEDEE).
I O and 11. John the Baptist ; and John the son of Zebedee ;
see below.

JOHN THE BAPTIST

(IUANHC

o BA~TICTHC

Priest temp. Joiakim (see E ZRA ii., $5 66, II), Neh. 12 13.
h. Eliashib, a high-priest (Ezra 106, cwvav [Nc.~], AV
JOHANAN, cp Neh. 1222 3, I$).
In I Esd. 9 I called JOANAN,
RV JONAS ( m v a [Bl, om. L); perhaps the same as J ONATHAN
b. Joiada (Neh. 12 IT ; but cp Meyer, Gntst. SI), and possibly
also the high-priest Johanan who murdered his brother Jeshua
in the temple in the time of an Artaxerxes (Jos. Ani. xi. 71).
If so, Johanan was the uncle, not the brother, of Jeshua (so
Marq.).
3. A priest in procession (see E ZRA ii., $ 13 g) Neh. 1241
(om. BN-A).
4. b. Tobiah, the Ammonite, who married the daughter of
Meshullam (Neh. 618 ; r o v a e a v [WaA]).

[Ti. WH]). The forerunner of Jesus is only less interesting to biblical students than Jesus himself. Twice
already his life and work have been referred to (I SRAEL ,
3 92 ; JESUS, 5 6 ) ; it is our present object, to supplement these references by a more connected treatment
without undue repetition.
Long before the time of John the Baptist there was a
great ascetic prophet who sought his inspiration in the
desert, and cried Repent ye with fear1. public less impartiality before kings and common
appearance*men. His life was a guiding star to
many in the days of John-an age not unlike, his own,
when alien influences again threatened to extinguish

2497

2498

I.

2.

JOHN THE BAPTIST

JOHN THE BAPTIST

pure Hebrew religion. Not to speak of the ESSENES

[q.".], there was the hermit teacher of Josephus
called Banus, who lived in the desert, covered himself
with leaves, sustained life with fruits, and bathed frequently, by day and by night, in cold water for religious
purity (Jos. Et. 1 2).
The same historian also
mentions 'John surnamed the Baptist,' who 'was a
good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue,
both as to justice towards one another, and piety towards
God, and so to come to baptism (pas.rcup@uuvrhvai) ;
for baptism (T+JV ~ ~ T T L U W
would
)
be acceptable to God,
if they made use of it, not in order to expiate some sins,
but for the purification of the body, provided that the
soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness' (Ant.xviii. 52). That this is acompletestatement,
no one can believe. The hostility of Antipas, recorded
by Josephus himself, is a proof that something more
dangerous to established governments than plain moral
exhortations had fallen from the lips of the desert
preacher. What that was, may be learned from the
synoptic gospels.
Shortly before the beginning of the public ministry of
Jesus, Johanan (so let us call him) appeared in the wilderness of Judw.,' announcing in the old prophetic phraseology the approach of the Messianic judgment and the
necessity of immediate turning to God. As he moved
about, the number of his followers increased, and he led
them to the Jordan (cp B ETHABARA ), there to give them
as representatives of a regenerate people the final purification which attested the reality of their inward change.'l
It is said to have been the opinion of doctors of the law
that the waters of the Jordan were not pure enough for
sacred uses.3 Johanan, however, was not to be damped
by this ; he was no formalist, or he would not have
deserted Jerusalem, and called the Pharisees and the
Sadducees 'broods of vipers.' At the same time it is
worthy of remark that according to Jn. 1 2 8 323 Johanan
had baptised converts at Bethany or Bethabara beyond
Jordan-Le., probably, at Beth-nimrah, which is 136
m. E. of Jordan-and at Ahon, 'near Salim ' (to be
emended 'Jerusalem ')-ie., perhaps, 'Ain KErim, which
is a short distance W. of J e r ~ s a l e m . ~
As regards his mode of life, Johanan was an ascetic,
but not such a one as the hermit Banus of whom
2. Mode of life, Josephus tells us, nor yet a preacher
of Essenism (as Gratz sumoses). His
object was not to make mere ascetics, but to prepare as
many as possible for the Messianic judgment, in which
only a 'remnant' would escape. His own asceticism
was a consequence of his life in the desert ; he was not
primarily an ascetic but a prophet after the manner of
Elijah. Hence ' locusts ' (or rather ' caroh-beans ' ) 6
and wild honey were his food, and a cloak of ' camel's
hair'6 with a broad leather waist-cloth was his dress.

According to Lk., he adapted, not indeed his standard,

but his practical requirements, to the different classes
represented in the multitude before him. Certainly the
meaning of the primitive tradition was not that anyone
who liked might receive the symbolic rite ; a course of
teaching is presupposed (cp Lk. 3 7 ) . False ideas had
to be corrected. The true and the false children of
Abraham had to be distinguished. The true Messianic
doctrine had to be made plain. The relative imperfection
of the highest spiritual gifts at present attainable had to
be inculcated.
The relation of Johanan's ideas to those of his time
is considered elsewhere (see I SRAEL , 92, J ESUS , 6).
3. Relation What we have to do now is to grasp the
peculiarity of this great teacher and his
to Jesus. relation to Jesus. On both these subjects
Jesus himself will enlighten us. But something we can
gather from the recorded fragments of his sermons,
which all may be, and of which the most important part
n u t he, his own ; something too from the scanty details
of his history. ' Fragments ' is the word which criticism
entitles us to use. The sermon given in Mt. 37-12 is
even more devoid of unity than the Sermon on the
Mount. Let us pause a moment to see where we stand.
Exhortation, if not also individual teaching, must, as
we have seen, have preceded the symbolic act of plunging his converts individually into the stream of Jordan.
But if Matthew is to be followed, the exhortations, which
follow the record of the baptisms, were addressed to
'many of the Pharisees and Sadducees' (Mt. 3 7 ) ; this
however, is impossible.

A 1

1 WH read in Mk. 1 4 By&ve~o'Iwdvqr 6 j 3 a r r i & w Bu

+jpo
K V ~ ~ U U O;
Y Ti. mi ~ ~ p d u u o vTreg.
.
[rail ~ ~ p d u u o v . R 3
renders T i ' s text 'John came, k h o haptised in the wildefness
and preached.' But surely the revised text is correct. eu TO
Bp+g must go with Z y Q v e ~ o(see Mk. 933) which cannot mean
' came (rrapcyCvvo), and the view that b parrrirwu is a synonym
of 6 #amcur$< (Mk.624f: 828) is most improbable.
The
article slipped in through the influence of the familiar phrase
b parr7'UTtjF.
a No other exegesis seems reasonable; Jos., as we have seen
sanctions 11. The true ba tism is spiritual (Ps. 517191). But ii
needs an outward symbo?, and Johanan remembering Ezek.
3625, and having prophetic authority, called those who would
know themselves to be purified to baptism. 'It is no doubt true
that baptism was regularly required of Gentile&we&tes (see
B APTIS M, 5 I), but Johanan's baptism had no connection with
ceremortiaZ uncleanness.
3 Neub. GJogv. 31.
4 See BETHANY 2 . SALIM. Schick ( z D P V 2 2 8 1 8 ['gg])
actually thinks t h i t tde 'wilderness of Judrea ' where Johanan
preached was the traditional spot, near the hermit'sfountain ('Ain
el-Hahls). H e also accepts the traditional birthplace of the
Baptist (Mur zakuryd).
5 See HUSKS.
6 Does 'camel's hair' mean the tough harsh cloth woven from
the rough hair of the camel (cp Jerome)? Or does 4 ~ ~ like
5 ,
(perhaps) l$
in z?
K. 18, mean the skin with the hair 1 D in Mk.

2499

For these reasons a. T I (except indeed K a : m p l ) is out of

harmony with D. 7. Verses I I J , must once have been independent ; Mk. 1 7
evidently gives a more original form.
Verses 8f: are also not free from difficulty. Verse g must have
come from another context (cp Jn. 838f:); 7171. 76 1 0 8 may have
The
stood together as an address to Pharisees (cp Mt. 1 2 -3J).
difficult mi v v p i in D. 11 (not in Mk. 1 8 Acts 15) is e;idently due
to the assimilation of D. TI to D. IO and v. 12 by the editor.1 It
was found in his text of Mt. by Lk. (3 16), but this only proves
the antiquity of the alteration.

Artless simplicity, then, characterised Johanan's

teaching. Jesus too was simple, but in another sense ;
he had a natural art in the expression of his thoughts.
This simplicity corresponded to the fundamental note of
Johanan's character ; he was too untrained to see far into
the complexities of character. H e knew himself to b e
a ' voice ' of God, and this was enough ; but he did not
know that to represent God fully a prophet must understand human nature. Easily therefore could Johanan
rise above the fear of man. H e does not hesitate to
exasperate the Pharisees by his plain-speaking. Was
he more reticent or respectful towards Antipas? We
may well doubt this, That the tetrarch considered him
a dangerous demagogue (Jos. Ant. xiii. 5 2 ) was hardly
the whole reason for Johanan's arrest and subsequent
execution in the fortress of MACHAZRUS
[ p . ~ . ] . There
was probably some personal offence as well, though the
story told in the primitive tradition (Mt. and Mk.)2 is
not free from chronological and other difficulties (see
C HRONOLOGY , 149 ; H ERODIAN FAMILY, 2), and may
be merely what a later generation (accustomed to think
of Johanan as a second Elijah) substituted for history.
May we believe that Jesus of Nazareth was numbered
among the disciples of Johanan? An affirmative answer
has been given ; but it is as unlikely as the connected
view that the baptisms of Johanan were private ceremonial lustrations (cp Mk. 7 1-8). Primitive tradition
(Mt., Mk., Lk. ) said that Jesus came to Johanan for
baptism. Certain17 this appears plausible ; if Johanan
~~

3 6 reads ~v8e8opevor8sppqv KaFqhov, 'clothed with camel's skin,'

omitting the rest, which Jiilicher and Nestle approve,
1 See Bakhuvzen. Toebassinr vu% de c o n i e c t u r a a Z - k r .
11 J('8o).

'

Mt. 145 and Mk. 620 differ. The former passage states that
Antipas would have put Johanan to death were it not that
Johanau was reverenced by the people as a piophet ; the latter,
that Antipas himself reverenced Johanan, and was unwilling ta
put him to death. Mt. seems to-draw from two SOU~COS.
3 Brandt, Die Evang. Gesch. 458f:
2500

JOHN THE BAPTIST

JOHN THE BAPTIST

was a true prophet, how could Jesus absent himself from

the gathering of those who had turned to God and uho
reverenced his messenger ? That Jesus had seen and
heard Johanan is probable from the clear impression
which he had of the great prophet's character and from
the prophet's message of inquiry to Jesus. That Jesus,
however, whose views of truth were so much deeper
than Johanan's, gained any fresh insight into the will of
God from his ' forerunner,' is altogether incredible.
At any rate, Jesus saw in the Baptist a great character
and an unrivalled prophet.
W e have gained much
.~
Jesus,srefer- already by limiting our view to the
best attested traditional statements ;
enceS to him. we may gain still more by steeping
ourselves in those sayings of Jesus which b e 2 the most
distinct marks of genuineness. The highest authority
shall tell u s what Johanan was, and how he stood
related to Jesus.
a. Mt. 112-6 Lk. 7 1 7 8 23. The authenticity of this
saying of Jesus is proved by Lk's. failure to comprehend
it (see NAIN). It is certain that Jesus claimed to be
the forerunner of the kingdom of heaven ; certain too
that he rested his claim on such works as these-' the
blind receive their sight, the lepers are cleansed, the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have
the glad tidings brought to them,' and that he conceived
it possible that moral marvels of this sort would not
seem to all to be adequate credentials. Further, it is
probable that the occasion assumed for the utterance of
this speech is on the whole correct; the only strong
doubt can be as to the words ' i n prison' (Mt.
l l z ) , which imply a freedom of intercourse between
Johanan and his disciples not likely to have been granted
by the suspicious Antipas. If, however, we omit these
words1 (which are responsible for a good deal of
erroneous speculation respecting the weakening effect of
confinement upon the character), all is plain.
The
prophet Johanan (before his imprisonment) sends a n
embassy to one in whom he recognises a spiritual
superior, and whose answer he will regard as final. H e
has heard of the wonderful works of Jesus, which mainly
consist, as Jesus himself has said, in the conversion of
sinners (Mt. 913)~
and asks, Does Jesus, on the ground
of his unparalleled success in this holy work, claim to
be the Messiah ? The answer virtually is, ' I claim to
be what I am ; and what I am my works show.' Jesus
is more anxious to ' d o the works of God' than to
receive any official title ; he lays bare an infirmity of the
time, from which even Johanan has not escaped.

Jesus has a telling word for both classes. To the common

people he says, ' Yea, verily ; ye have been rewarded.
The sight of Johanan was worth a journey. Not the
reed-like Jonah, but the thunder-prophet Elijah was his
symbol. Yea, he is the second Elijah, the messenger
who is the Lord's pioneer ' (Mal. 3 I cp 45 [323]). To
the Pharisees, 'Have ye, then, seen no sign? The
fault is yours ; the sign, the only permitted sign, has
been given. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites,
so shall also [Johanan] be to this generation ' (Lk. 1130,.
see below).
The Ninevites will prove the guilt of this
evil class-the Pharisees-for they turned to God at the
preaching of Jonah, and surely a greater than Jonah is
here. 'Ihe queen of Sheba will prove the guilt of this
evil class, for she came from afar to hear the wisdom of
Solomon, and snrely a greater than Solomon is here.'
(The reader will be on his guard; we have had to go
behind the traditional text. But even the best of the
current explanations of that text [see J ONAH ,
81 is
not perfectly satisfactory, and there is some probability
that a testimony to John has been converted by the
reporters of tradition into a testimony of Jesus to himself.
That 'Jonah' and ' Joannes ' or Johanan may be
identical, is clear from MI. 1617 (see B AR - J ONA ; also
J OHN , SON OF ZEBEDEE, I).

*.

The difficulty of the harmonistic point of view (which recognises all references to Johanan in our four Gospels as equally
authoritative) comes out very clearly in the following passage
from Bp. Ellicott :-'The exact purpose of this mission will
perhaps remain to the end of time a subject of controversy, but
i t has ever been fairly, and, as it would seem, convincingly
urged, that he whose eyes, scarce sixteen months before, had
beheld the descending Spirit, whose ears had heard the voice of
paternal love and benediction, and who now again had but
recently been told of acts of omnipotent power, could himself
have never really doubted the truth of his own declaration that
this was indeed "the Lamb of God that taketh away the &in of
the world ' (Leciures on fhe Lzye of OILY Lord Jesus Chrisf,
3183f: ['62]). Bp. Ellicott agrees with Cyril of Alexandria that
the nrimary object of Johanan's mission was fully to convince
his disciples of the Messiahship of Jesus.
6. Mt. 117-10 Lk.724-27. c. Mt. 1239-42 L k . l l z g - 3 a .

The special advantages of this theory-which, except the

interpretation of uwa in Mt.12jg Lk.llzg is due to Brandt,
Euanz. Gesch. 459, n. 2-are (r) that it accounts for the reference
to the Queen of Sheba as well as to the Ninerites, (2) that it
makes the 'sign' a new one, and (3) that it relieves Jesus from
the appearance of self-laudation. The play upon the names
NJnl' Johanna and
Jonah is in the familiar Hebrew style.
pot, also that ' Jonah',and 'Solomon' in (c) correspond to the
reed' and 'those luxuriously clad' (cp Mt. 629) in (6).
d. Mt. 1111-15 Lk. 7 2 8 1 6 16. A still more decisive

word on Johanan, spoken some time after his martyrdom.

A prophet has hitherto been the highest style of man, and
there has been no greater prophet than Johanan. Since
his days, however, a change has taken place.
The
prophets and the law lead up to the second ElijahJohanan ; and in Johanan's person the old order of things
passes away. Then comes a difficult saying-especially
difficult in Mt.'s form. Already for some time the
'kingdom of heaven' has been the prize of spiritual
athletes ; the ' violent take it by force.'
But can Jesus have meant this? Surely not. Nor can he
refer to blameworthy acts of zealots. The passage can be
emended with certainty by the aid of Lk. Read, rhayyeAi<r~ar
for BiqwaL, and continue, Ka'r Irlv.rsr 61s
~AT~<OUULV
(in
Lk., Kai a& 61s a++ BArri<a). How the scribe's errors arose is
obvious. The sense is 'Every one ho es for a share in the
Messianic blessings, hu; without having Yistened to John's call
to repentance, no one will be admitted to it.'
Resch supposes that the original word was ~13,
but if so,
B'aralshouldcorrespond t o p ~ mand
, so we arrive a t the sense
'the law-breakers take it by force. Marshall (Crit. l i e u . 6 48
['96]) accepts this (only Aramaizing the passage), hut is it at all
likely that Jesus would have been understood to mean the
publicans and harlots?
e. Mt. 111 8 3 L k . 7 3 3 3 Johanan kept a perpetual
fast (cp Mt. 914 Mk. 218) ; Jesusabstainedfrom fasting.

1 Why does not Johanan come himself? Because he bas no

leisure to leave his sacred work. So apparently Schleiermacher
and Bleek; on the other side, see Keim, /esu von Nuznru,
2356, n. 3.

It was said of Johanan that he had a 6ucp6vrov (see

D EMON ), ;.e., that his inspiration was of questionable
origin, that he was a false prophet.
f. Mt. 1712 Mk. 913. After Jesus had definitely
assumed the Messianic title, he threw a fresh light on
the prophecy in Mal. 4 5 by explaining Elijah to be a
symbolic term for Johanan. Nor need any wonder at
the abrupt termination of the second Elijah's ministry.
If the ' Son of man ' must suffer many things, ' as it is
written of him,' the forerunner could not hope for a
better fate. But his work is not yet finished. Before
the ' Son of man ' comes again, Elijah verily will come,
and will restore all things.' Which Elijah ? Or shall it be
a greater incarnation of zeal and spiritnal energy than
either the first or the second? Cp Rev. 113 (the I two
witnesses ').
g. Mt. 2 1 3 1 3 (not in Mk. or Lk.). The Pharisees
paid no heed to Johanan's insistence on righteousness
of life, but the tax-collectors and harlots turned to God

2501

2502

'I

Among those who complied with the call of Johanan

were both Pharisees (Mt. 37) and common people.
The former were repelled by Johanan's teaching and by
the want of a sign in corroboration of his statement that
the Messiah was at hand ; the latter recognised Johanan
as a prophet. So 'all the people that heard him, and the
tax-collectors, recognised Gods claims, being baptized
with Johanan's baptism, whereas the Pharis'ees and
men of the law frustrated the connsel of God concerning
themselves, being not baptized by Johanan ' (Lk. 7 z g J ).

JOHN THE BAPTIST

JOHN, SON O F ZEBEDEE

and will enter his kingdom (cp H ARLOT ).

Cp Lk.
7 2 9 5 (quoted already).
It is plain that Jesus felt a greater sympathy with
Johanan than with any other of his contemporaries. The
6. Comparison probability is that the latter was much
older ; it was therefore too much
with Jesus. the
to expect that within the narrow limits
allotted to the activity of each, Johanan should come
over to the side of Jesus. For both, a martyr's death
was indicated by circumstances. Though neither of
them favoured the violent plans of zealots and revolutionists, secular rulers could not help suspecting them,
and the spiritual rulers hated them for their hostility to
forma1ism.l It was to each doubtless a comfort to
know that the other existed and was doing the ' works
of God. ' Primitive tradition rightly accentuates the
inferiority of Johanan to Jesus, and the later Johannine
recast of tradition still further emphasises it.
Between
these two versions of tradition stands the beautiful
narrative of Lk. 15-80, which honours the forerunner
only less than the Saviour himself is honoured in the
still more exquisite and infinitely suggestive story that
follows it.
The study of the non-primitive traditions of the life of
Johanan belongs to another department (cp JOHN, S O N
OF Z EBEDEE, 17). W e should do a great injustice to
the idealising historian of the Fourth Gospel if we
separated his statements respecting the forerunner from
the rest of his gospel, and contrasted them with earlier
traditions. An idealised picture may give much food
for thought, and only the coldest of rationalists could
disparage it ; nor need we admit any idealisation in the
words of Jn. 535 ' H e was a burning and a shining
lamp.' See J ESUS , 5 27.
W e hear of disciples of John in Mt. 9 14 (Mk. 2 18
Lk.533), 1 1 2 (Lk.718$), 1412 (Mk.629), Jn.325.
6. Disciples They seem to have followed his strict
mode of life, and to have been his faithful
of John. assistants,
as Elisha was to Elijah. According to Jn. 325 RV, ' there arose a questioning on the
part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying';

but the statement is very obscure, and the text seems tu

be in confusion.
Bentley proposed to emend 'with a Jew' 01.d ' I o d a i o u ) into
'with [those] of Jesus' ( p d [ ~ i ) v ] ( ' I q u ? i i ) . Bqt 'of Jesus' may
more easily he obtained from purlfcation ( [ ~ a O a p ] ~ ~ p o u ) .
' A Jew about purif [ ] ' ( ~ o d a ~ ox ve p ~KaBap) is perhaps a corruption of 'beyond the Jordan' ( d p a v TOO 'IopSa'uov), words which
intruded by accident from v. 26. If so, we should read simplk,
There arose a dispute between John's disciple and those of
'Jesus.' (Transposition and corruption of letters go together.)

InActsl825 192J wealsoappear tomeet withdisciples

of J o h n ; but they are there represented as having
become believers in Jesus the Messiah (note pa81/rui
and mu7duuvrEs). One of them is the Alexandrian
Jew Apollos, and one may assume that their presence
at Eplesus was connected with the arrival of Apollos at
the same city. W e are not told that Apollos was
rebaptized by Paul's companions ; but we may infer
this from the fact of the rebaptism of the other
Johannine Christians (if we may call them so) related in
Acts 19 5. What can have led Paul to ask the strange
question, ' Did ye receive the holy spirit when ye
believed?' which drew the not less strange answer,
' Nay, we did not even hear that there is a "holy spirit"'?
That disciples of John knew nothing of the 'holy spirit,'
in the strict sense of the word, is of course impossible
(see Mt. 3 TI). ' Holy spirit ' (?~veGpu
&-yiov) must here
be used in a ' pregnant sense,' as in Jn. 7 39 ; it means
the abiding presence of the Spirit, which was accompanied by special gifts for the individual, and the
mediation of which was an apostolic privilege (Acts
8 14-16). I t is difficult not to see here a disposition on
the part of the author of Acts to magnify Paul at. the
expense of Apollos and his companions. The original
report respecting Apollos which was used in Acts 18 24-28
may have been without the closing words of Acts 18 25
( ' knowing only the baptism of John '). See APOLLOS.
A reference to the later sect of disciples of John is
quite out of place.
Cp Volter, ' Die Apokalypse des Zacharias,' Th. T
T. K. C.
30 ['96It PP. 2 4 4 8

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

CONTENTS
Name, $

I.

A.-THE

APOSTLE AND THE PRESBYTER.

John son of Zebedee in N T $ 2 .

The Presbyter John, hot thekpostle John, in Ephesus, $03-7.
Other later traditions, $ 8l:

B. -THE APOCALYPSE.
a. Authorship of the book as a whole, $ IO.
6. Authorship of single parts 5 11.
Relation to Fourth Gospel a i d Johannine Epistles,

$8 12-15.

C-FOURTHGOSPEL.
Method of enquiry, $ 16.
I. Comparison with Synoptists, 80 17.37.

a. Warrative 0017.26.
The Ba&t
$ 17.
Scene of puilic life of Jesus, $ 18.
Order of principal events, 0 19.
Miracles.
8 M.
~.~
Date of dr;&ixion, $$ 21-24.
Character of discourses of Jesus $ 25.
Figure of Jesus (apart from Proiogue), $ 26.
8. Teachina of Jesus, $0 27-10.
Universality of salvatioi, $ 27.
Eschatology, 0 28.
Dualism 0 20.
Utterangees regarding himself, 0 30.
c. Other points of comparison, $30 31-37.
The Logos, $31.
Purpose of Prologue, $ 32.
Divisions into triads, $ 33.
Credibility of certain details, $ 34.
~~~~

'Johannine' tradition $ 35.

Dependence on Synoitists, $ 36.
Concluding comparison, $3 37.
11. Other questions bearing on authorship, $0 38-55.
Geographical and historical accuracy, $ 38.
Nationality of author, $ 39.
Chap.21 0 4 0 .
Personalltestimony of author of chaps. 1-20, $ 41.
External evidences, $8 42-49.
Gnosticism and Fourth Gospel, $ 50.
Relation to Montanism, $ 57.
Jn. 5 43 as an indication of date, 0 52.
Place of writing, 0 53.
The Paschal controversy, $ 54.
Conclusion as to authorship, $ 55.
111. Partition-hypotheses $ 56.
IV. Permanent value of Gospel, $62.
D.-FIRST EPISTLE.
Polemic against false doctrine, $ 57.
Contact with Gnosis 58.
Author not the same'as author of Fourth Gospel,
Priority in time, 0 60.
Character of polemic of Epistle, 8 61.
Permanent value of Gospel and Epistle, $ 62.
E.-sECOND

AND

T HIRD

5 59.

EPISTLES.

Address, $ 63.
Purpose, 5 64.
Authors and dates, $ 65.
Literature, 5 66.

1 A report appears to have been current that the Baptist had

risen from the dead in the person of Jesus (Mt.142 1614). The
people therefore were more struck by the resemblances of the
iwo-than by their differences.

Instead of the form I W A N N H C WH everywhere,

Name. exceptinActs46135 Rev. 228,give IWANHC.
Besides the MSS, especially 3, W H rely on
Christian inscriptions (App. 159; p. 166 in ed. of '96). As

2503

2504

JOHN, SON OF'ZEBEDEE

against these however we can cite at least, one inscription
from HarrSn'of 568
which ha; 'IwBvqs (Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage ArchbZ. 2 3 [Asie Mineure, etc.], no. 2464).'
The Hebrew name is pFi9 (see JOHANAN) or, as the case may
spelling which makes no difference for the Greek
be, ]$",-a
transliteration. The L X X with literal fidelity, sometimes in all
the MSS, sometimes in a t least several good MSS, and rarely
in Ja alone, gives 'Ioavav ( z K. 2523; also 6 times in Ch., 8
times in Ezra-Neh -md 74 times in Jer. 40-43 (LXX 47-50).
As variants we &'d : in 2 K. Iova [B], Iovav [L] ; in I Ch.
6gJ Ioavas [ B A : Ioavav in 6 9 A is to he regarded as the
accusative] ; in I Ch.3 24 Ioavap [A : cp NaBap, Kaiuap, Lk.
337 37, etc., see WinerP), 5 5 27~1,Iwvav [L] ; in z Ch. ?8 12Iwavar
[B: or more prohahly I w a q s : what we have IS the gen.
Iwavou] ; in I Ch. 12 12 Iovav [AI, Ioav [B : defective] ; in bzra
8 12 Neh. 6 18 Iovau [BL] in Ezra106 Iovav [Nc.a L] ; in I Esd.
9 1 (=Ezral06) Iovas iB]; in I Esd.838 [41l (=Ezra 812)
Iwavvqc [A], I w a q s [B]. I n Jer. in all 14 places, especially in
Aand Q, sometimes also in N*, Iwavvav, as also 47 [40115 Ioavvas
[Q], 47 [4018 Iwvav [Bl, 50[4314 Iwvav[N*]. I n I Ch. 263 alone
Ioavav does not occur at all but only Iovav [AI or Iwuas [BI ;
in like manner in I Esd. 9 2; (=EzralOzE) only Iwauvqs [HA],
Iovav [L]. In I and 2 Macc. Iwavqs is invariably found (not
Iwavqp, as in B these two books are wanting).
In the NT Ioavav is found in Lk. 3 27. The same name
(I@),
however, underliesnot only the N T Ioav(vhs, hut certainly
also the Iovap of Mt.1617, since in Jn.142 (or in another
numeration 143) 21 15-17we find Ioav(v)qs for the same person
-the father of d m o n Peter.
Of the various equivalents Iwvav comes nearest the most
original form (Ioavav) so far as the consonants Ioavas so far as
the vowels are concerned whilst the second ;has disappeared
The same thing has
in the Grmcising of the'termination.
happened also in the forms Iovas and Iova in which, moreover
by the coalescence of the vowels the disbnction between thi;
name and that of 'Iwvds= @, Jonah, has disappeared. The
variant ' I o d B a p for 'Iwdv(v)qs in 'D (Acts 46) is a transliteration
of .]n$-: Josephus gives the same name as 'IovBBqr (Ant.
xiii. 12, and often; cp J OHN , 6, col. 2498. Ioavqs is in strict
analogy aud the form is therefore possible.

LD.

J6anEs is, however, but an artificial Graecism, and we

have various indications that the Jews inclined to retain
the doubled n in names derived from the root 13".
So,
especially, in the feminine"Avva ( I S.1 z etc. ), and also
in the mascu1ine"Avvas (Lk. 32 Jn. 1813 24 Acts 46), for
which Josephus gives "Avavos ; also in the variants
Iwavvav and Iwavuas in Jer. (the last also in T R of
Lk. 327 and in the marginal reading of T R to Jn. 21
15-17) ; again, in the variant A v v a v which I Ch. 1143 [HI
Jer. 42 [35] 4 [K] and I Esd. 530 [A](11 Ezra 2 46 Neh.
749) give for Avau (I;:),
and rCh. 1914[KL]zf. [Llfor
Avav ( p p ) ; and, lastly, in the variant AWWYwhich B
It
gives in 2 S. 101-4 for Hanun (Avwv, A, in vu. 3 , f ) .
is thus, to begin with, extremely improbable that the
feminine Iwavva of Lk. 8 3 2410 ought to be written
with a single v as is done by W H , for the biblical
is an abbreviation of this name (Dahnan, Gmmm.
142, n., 9 ) . This consideration gives a corresponding
,
is found also
probability to the spelling I o a v v ~ s which
in Jos. (Ant.x. 94, 5 168, and often).
Dalman (Z.C.) conjectures even that ]$> had already come to
be pronounced 'Ioxavvav, JoLannan (cp Jerome in yes. S 14 :
Joannm). Of the shortened Aramaic form ta?V adduced by
Kautzsch (Bi6l.-aranz. Gramm. IO) Dalman tells us that it
occurs only in the Babylonian Talmud.

A,-JOHN T H E APOSTLE AND JOHN T H E

ELDER IN HISTORY AND IN LEGEND
The call of the two sons of Zebedee to the discipleship

is related in Mk. 1193 Mt. 4 2 1 5 Lk. 510f: (GOSPELS,

2*

'On

Of

1 3 7 ~;) in the Fourth Gospel it is

conjectured that John is meant

!sually

Zebedee in NT*by the unnamed companion of Andrew

who from being a disciple of the Baptist joins the company of Jesus (135-40). In the Synoptics John (with his

brother James) takes next to Peter the place of greatest

prominence among the disciples.
These three alone are witnesses of the transfiguration of Jesus
(Mk. 9 2 = Mt. 17 I =Lk. 9 28). According to Mk. 5 37= Lk. 8 51 at
least they alone were present a t the raising of Jairus' daughter ;
accoiding to Mk. 1433=Mt. 2637, also they alone were in close
touch with Jesus at Gethsemane. I t i6 only hlk. (1zg 133) who
tells us that these three were present along with Andrew at the
healing of Peter's mother-in-law, and that it was they who, as
they looked at Jerusalemfrom the Mount of Olives, asked Jesus
the question as to the time of the destruction of the temple. I t is
Lk. only (22 E) who relates that the arrangements for the Last
Supper were entrusted to Peter and John. Mk. 10 35-41 records
that the two brothers asked of Jesus that they might sit, one cn
his right hand and the other on his left hand in his glory. In
Mt.2020 this request is attributed to the: mother, who is
conjecturally identified with the Salome named in Mk. 1540 16 I
(see,CLopns, 5 2). In Mt. 2024, however the indignation of the
ten IS against (asppi) the two brothers ; th)e mother would seem
therefore to have been introduced by Mt. to exonerate them.
According to Mk. 938=Lk. 949 it is John who reports to Jesus
the attempt of the disciples to forbid the man who was casting
out devils in the name of Jesus without being a follower. With
James, according to Lk. 954 John would fain have called down
fire from heaven upon the gamaritan village which would not
receive Jesus as he was journeying to Jerusalem.

Interpreters are very ready to bring into connection

with the incident in Lk. 954,,just referred to, the name
'Sons of thunder.' According to Mk. 317, this name
had already been given to the two brothers on their call
to the discipleship. In that case, however, the bestowal
of the designation would have been anticipatory, 5ust as
Simon in like manner, according to Mk. 316, received
the name of Peter at his call, although his confession at
Caesarea Philippi offers a more fitting occasion. Mt.
(1618) alone, however, transfers it to this period, connecting it with an incident that is certainly unhistorical
(G OSPELS , 1 136). On the real obscurity of the
designation of the sons of Zebedee see B OANERGES.
Of all the incidents in the Synoptic Gospels -enumerated above, only the last three (brothers' request ; man
casting out devils ; fire from heaven) can be regarded as
throwing light on the character of John ; and the third
of these is recorded only by Lk., in whom some critics
have been disposed to see a certain prejudice against
the original apostles (G OSPELS , 114). None of the
three traits can be said, however, to be inconsistent with
the most trustworthy of all the references to John which
we possess. According to Gal. 29, John was one of
the three pillars ' of the church at Jerusalem, Peter and
James the brother of Jesus being the other two. John
must thus in any case be reckoued as supporting the
Jewish-Christian view of things, although we have no
means of knowing whether he was of the stricter school
of James or of the milder one of Peter (see C OUNCIL ,
13). According to Acts31-11 he and Peter healed a
lame man, according to 4 13 19 the same two made their
defence before the synedrium, according to 814 they
both went to Samaria to put the apostolic seal upon the
mission work of Philip here. This last statement,
however, as well as the healing of the lame man, is not
without its difficulties (see ACTS,
4, 16).
Since the time of Irenaens ecclesiastical tradition has
been unanimous in holding that after Paul's departure
3. sojourn in from Asia Minor John the apostle took
his abode in Ephesus, where he held
Ephesus. up
a leading position throughout the whole
churchof Asia Minor. Irenseus himself vouchesfor this in
manyplaces: ii. 333[225];' iii. 1 z [ r ] 34; v.301 333,f ;
fragm. nos. 2 and 3 ; to be found also in Eus. HE iii. 2s ;
v. 84-6; iv. 143-7 ; v. 2412-17 204-8. In thelast-cited passage (the letter to Florinus) Irenaeus appeals expressly
to the fact that in his youth (as T U % ; in his early youth,
~p6q
~ A L Kaccording
~ ,
to iii.34)he hadheard his teacher
Polycarp in Smyrna tell much about the apostle Johtl
who in turn had been Polycarp's teacher.
Besides
Polycarp he names also Papins the companion (bTaipos)
of Polycarp as having been a hearer of the apostle.

1 According to Blass (Philol. of .?Le Gospels, 75-77) D gives

to 'Iwavvqs in Mt Jn and Mk. the same degree of preference
which it accords 'Io&q~ in Lk. and Acts, although in D Mk.
stands between Lk. and Acts. The exemplar he used for the
writings of Lk. must therefore have been different from that
which lay before him when he copied Mt., Jn. and Mk.

1 The references to Irenaens in this article are in the first

instance, to Harvey ; those in square brackets are'to Massoet,
the edition current in Germany.

2505

2506

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

T h e same apostle is intended also by Polycrates of
Ephesuswhenin his letter tovictor, bishopof Rome, about
196 A . D. (Eus. HE iii. 31 3 v. 2 4 3 ) he relates of John who
lay on the bosom of the Lord, and wore the high-priestly
$etalon, that he was buried in Ephesus. Even Justin
must have held the Ephesian John to be the apostle of
that name if he assumed, or remembered, that the
Apocalypse (which he ascribes to the apostle), must, on
account of the authority over the churches of Asia
Minor claimed by its author, have been written by a
distinguished church-leader of that province. Yet the
rap' $,ub du4p T l E (Dial. 81) with which he introduces
the apostle John designates him merely as a Christianthe contrast being with a psalmist-and implies nothing
a s to the place of his residence.
The testimony of, Papias (see GOSPELS, $5 67 fl),
bishop of Hierapolis in Asia is, as we understand it,
this : ' But as many things also as I once
counter- well learned from the mouths of the
elders and well committed to memory I
shall not hesitate to set down Tor commit
to writing] for thee, together with the ;nterpretations [appropriate to them], guaranteeing their truth.
For I took pleasure not, as the many do, in those
who speak much, but in those that teach the things that
are true ; nor in those who bring to remembrance the
foreigri commandments, but in those who bring to
remembrance the commandments that were given by
the Lord to faith and have come to us from the truth
itself. But if anywhere anyone also should come who
had companied with the elders I ascertained [first of all]
the sayings of the elders [' as to this' : not, ' to wit '1
what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip or
what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or
any other of the disciples of the Lord [had said] and
[secondly] what Aristion and John the Elder the disciples
of the Lord say. For I supposed that the things [to be
derived] from books were not of such profit to me as
the things [derived] from the living and abiding utterance. '
( a ) According to this declaraiion Papias himself had
once spoken with the 'elders.'
Otherwise the third
sentence ( ' But if anywhere,' etc.) would only he an
otiose repetition of the first ; moreover the 'from the
mouths of' ( r a p d ) in the first sentence denotes direct
intercourse. Besides speaking with them he spoke also
with their disciples (or the disciples of others)-at a
later period, of course, when he was separated by
distance from the elders themselves.
(a) The elders may indeed be officials of the church ;
hut if they are, it is not in virtue of this attribute that
they come into Papias's consideration ; for their official
position does not as such in any way qualify them to
make valuable communications relating to events of the
life of Jesus. For this function the persons best qualified
would be apostles ; but these are excluded. It would
be arrogance on the part of Papias were he to undertake
to guarantee the truth of any communications of theirs.
It will be necessary, furthermore, to pay due attention
to the distinction implied by Papias when he used ' he
had said ' (&rev) in the one case and 'they say' (X&-youaiu)
in the other. H e means by it that of the nine persons
named only the last two were still alive, the first seven,
namely the apostles, were not, and this applies not merely
to the time of his writing, but also to the time when he
was collecting his notes (cp ' I ascertained '). Lastly, we
have in I r e n a i s a very close analogy to guide us to what
we ought here to understand by elders. Irenzus says
(v. 3 3 3 ) : quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt qui
Johannern discipulum domini viderunt ; v. 51 ol rpecr@LrEpoi TDU d r o a ~ 6 h w ufiaBvral; v. 36 I : presbyteri,
apostolorum discipuli ; iv. 422 [27 I] even : quemadmodum audivi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab

*'
frt!$tl&.

' pS

the elders recalled, who saw John the disciple of the

Lord.
2

' The elders who were disciples of the apostles.

2507

his qui apostolos viderant et a b his qui didicerant.1

Thus 'elders' must be taken to mean persons of
advanced age who may or may not have been elders of
the church, but in no case were apostles, and who were
a guarantee for correct tradition only in virtue of their
years. Cp GOSPELS, p 71.
(c) From this it follows that the third sentence of the
fragment under discussion must not be interpreted as if
it meant ' I asked the companions of the elders as to
the words of the elders, t o wit what Andrew, etc., had
said ; ' hut : ' I inquired of them about the sayings of
the elders as to what Andrew, etc., had said. ' Thus
we have to distinguish four steps : the apostles, the
elders, the companions of the elders, Papias.
( d ) John the Elder is distinguished by Papias from
John the Apostle, to whom, if we are to judge by the
place assigned to him in the narrative, Papias cannot
have attributed any special importance. It is difficult
to understand how any person can be bold enough to
deny this distinction. Some indeed who formerly did so
are now in point of fact beginning to see how impossible
it is, but as a consequence allow themselves to be led
to a step which is just as audacious,-the deletion,
namely, of the words or what John ' (4 T L 'Iwduuvs).
So Haussleiter (TheoL Lit.-BZa& '96, 465-468), on the
ground of a casual conjecture of Renan's ( L Antechrist,
562) ; Zahn (Fomch. 6145f.) is almost inclined to agree.
No plausible ground whatever can be alleged for such
a step.
It is said that the three words destroy the symmetrical
enumeration of the apostles in pairs. But there are only two
pairs ; at the beginning Andrew and Peter as being brothers
and at the end precisely John and Matthew, the 'what'(.ri) bein;
repeated before 'Iwkvuqs while it is omitted before ' I ~ K ~ @ o P .
Were this not so, James and John would, as being brothers,
constitute a pair, and this would be again a reason why ' l w i v v q f
should not he regarded as breaking the symmetry. Over and
above all this, however, it is by no means certain whether Papias
intended to give the names in pairs at all.

( e ) It is difficult to come to any satisfactory conclusion

regarding this John the Elder. If ' elder ' as applied to
him has the same meaning as elsewhere, we should be
compelled to say that he had enjoyed no personal acquaintance with Jesus ; so also of Aristion, who stands
in the same category with him; but this personal
acquaintance is claimed for them by the added words
' the disciples of the Lord ' (oi TOG K U ~ L O U pu0qTaL).
This expression has been used immediately before, in the
stricter sense, of the apostles ; in the case of Aristion
and John the Elder it is clearly used in a somewhat
wider meaning, yet by no means so widely as in Acts
91, where all Christians are so called ; for in that case
it would be quite superfluous here. A personal yet
not long-continued acquaintance with Jesus, therefore,
will be what is meant. Such acquaintance would seem
to be excluded if Papias as late as 140 or 145-160 A.D.
(at which date according to Harnack he wrote his book ;
cp 5 48e) had spoken with both. This, however, he
does not say ; his expression may quite well be taken
as referring to an earlier time. This is not precluded
by the fact that he inquires of other men as to the
utterances of these two also ; this was only to be expected if he was no longer able to meet them personally
at the later date even if he had heard them at the
earlier.
It would effectually simplify matters if we might with Edwin
Abbott (Ex& '95 1333'346 ; previously, Renan, Aleteclrr. 345,
n. 2) read 'the disciples of the Lord's disciples' (0; TGV 700
yu lou pmOq70u pab'grai) or with Bacon (JRL,'98, 176-183),
t i e disciples of these (02 m v 1 ~ w upaBqra9 or if, as in GOSPELS,
$ 70 (3), we were to delete o l TOG K U P ~ O UWaOqral. Such a course,
however. must he admitted to be bold. and it does not seem
too diffi&tto s;ip&th&
Papias in his' youth had spoken with
two personal disciples of Jesus and yet, even while they were
still alive, had received further utterances of theirs from their
disciples. By this supposition we avoid conflict with the statement of Eusebius (HE iii. 39 7 ) that Papias called himself a hearer
~

1 ' As I have heard from a certain elder who had heard it from
those who had seen the apostles and from those who had learned
from them'.-' Those who hadseen' and 'those who had learned
denote the same persons.

2508

JOHN, SON O F ZEBEDEE

on his own part cannot possibly have written anything about
of Aristion and John the Elder, although it is permissible to
John's death by martyrdom. Zahn expressly concedes that the
doubt whether Eusebius took this piece of information from any
excerptors
(or if one made use of the other the older excerptor)
words of Papias other than those already quoted a b o v e ( G o s ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
had found in Papias that John was put t d death by the Jews ;
70).
but
maintains
that Papias was here certainly referring to the
(f)On the other hand, owing to this difficulty it
I t must be admitted that Papias would not have use&
. Haptist.
seems preferable to take the words Ci T E 'Aprudwv
the expression ' the divine' (6 Bsohiyos) here ; according to Zahn
Myouurv as directly dependent on dv&prvov, so that
i t was uot applied to the apostle earlier than the fourth century.
On the other hand it is hardly conceivable that in Papias the
they do not mean ' I sought to learn of the disciples of
expression could hive allowed a confusion of the Baptist with
the elders the words of the elders as to what Aristion
the apostle.

..

and John the Elder said.' On this last construction we

( k ) A more serious question is this-whether Papias
should have two intermediate links between these two
was speaking of John of Asia Minor or of John the
men and Papias, as between the apostles and Papias.
apostle (if we assume the two to be distinct). Now,
The other interpretation is therefore preferable : ' I
the tradition that John of Asia Minor did not suffer
sought to learn of the disciples of the elders the sayings
death by martyrdom becomes so firmly established
of Aristion and of John the Elder which they had
soon after the time of Papias ( 3 ) that it is difficult to
personally received from them.'
believe Papias himself can have said the opposite.
(9) At this point the assumption, that Papias in his
Moreover, in Ephesus the Jews could hardly have had
youth knew the apostles also, as well as Aristion and
the power and the courage to put to death a Christian
John the Elder, becomes tempting. In that case, howbishop. It is quite another matter, however, if what
ever, he would have referred expressly to them and not
Papias meant to say was that John the apostle, as distinct
have spoken thus vaguely about ' elders.'
from the Ephesian John, was put to death by the Jews
( h ) In a MS of the Chronick of George the Monk
somewhere else-say, for example, in Palestine, where
(=Georgios Hamartblos) iii. 1341 it is stated that 'John
this would have been least difficult of accomplishment.
That the saying does not refer merely to John's brother
the apostle after he had written his gospel suffered
JFmes is made probable also by the vague expression ' b y Jews
martyrdom, for Papias in the second book of the X6yta
(uab 'IouSaiwv). If James alone had been in question it would
KupiuKd says that he was put to death by the Jews, thus
more naturally have run that he was put to death by Herod
Agrippa, as of the Baptist it would have been said that Herod
plainly fulfilling along with his brother the prophecy
Antipas had caused him to be put to death. The vagueness is
of Christ regarding them and their own confession and
most easily accounted for if John met his death at the hands of
common agreement concerning him." Mk. 1038 f. is
other Jews who could not be further specified. Papias need not
here intended ; it is in fact cited immediately afterwards
have meant, of course, that John's death happened a t the same
time with that of his brother James.
in the MS, which proceeds to state that Origen also in his
( I ) It must be conceded that the unacquaintance
commentary on Matthew says he has learned from the
shown by all church fathers down to the time of Philip
successors of the apostles that John had been a martyr.
of Side (or his excerptors) with the statement of Papias
When this passage was first brought into notice by
de Muralt in his edition of Georgios ('59, p. xvii f.) now in question is very remarkable. Eusebius, however, who had read Papias with great care, may easily
and afterwards more widely by Nolte ( T ~ 6Quartulschr.,
.
have set it down among the ' things strange' (or ' para'62, p. 466), critics were severely censured for accepting
doxical, sapd8oga) and ' partaking of the legendary '
as true a statement coming from the ninth century
(puOiK6mpu) which according to HE iii. 3 9 6 I I he had
while they rejected so many that came from the
often discovered in him.
second. The statement in the Georgios Hamartblos
According to Zahn, Eusebius would hardly have allowed it to
MS, however, found some confirmation when the
escape him, as it was fitted to be of service to him in connection
following words from an epitome, dating from the
with his view that the Apocalypse was written not by John the
apostle but by John the Elder. But Eusebius referred the
seventh or the eighth century and probably based on
Fourth Gospel and the First Johannine Epistle also to the
the Chronich of Philip of Side (circa 430 A . D . ) , were
Ephesian John, and thus the statement in question would have
published by de Boor (Texte u. Untersuchungen, been
a very two-edged one if he had employed it against the
v. 2, '88, p. 170): 'Papias says in his second book that
apostolic origin of the Apocalypse.
Irenaeus, moreover, and others were already so deeply
John the Divine [ L e . , the apostle] and his brother
imbued with the belief that the Ephesian John was the
James were slain by the Jews' ( I I a d a s Bv T$ Geurdppy
ibYA+,
iiTL '
~ 6 eEoh;yos
~
Kai
d ' I ~ ~K W ~6 O~ Sapostle
~ that we
~ may with most probability suppose them
to have regarded as a mere oversight, and therefore to
dGeX+bs adroii b ~ 'Iou8alwv
b
dvgpC0vuav).
(i) It has been attempted in a great variety of ways have passed over in silence, a contrary allegation in
to weaken the force of this passage.
Papias whom they in other things valued highly.
For the same reason we cannot follow Zahn in the further
argument against the gxistence in Papias of the statement as
to the death of the apostle-that as earlyas the second century
the fables about the cup of poison and the bath of boiling oil
(8 8J) had already heen invented in order to supply a fulfilment
of the prophecy in Mk 10 38f: These fables were current concerning the Ephesian John, whose peaceful death had long been
accepted ; it was therefore necessary that those martyrdoms by
which Mk. 1038f: might seem to have heen fulfilled should not
be represented as martyrdoms to the death. Thus they could
not in any way have heen rendered superfluous by the statement
of Papias. at most the rise of the legends might have been
checked dy it-onfy however, as has been shown, on the
assumption, which will not work, that finding them in Papias
led to the abandonment of the belief in the peaceful death of
John the apostle who was identified with the Ephesian John.

Lightfoot (Ess. on Supwnat. KeZ. 211f:) supposed that what

Georgios actually wrote may have run in the original somewhat in this way : ' Papias says that John [was condemned by the
Roman emperor(and sent) to Patmos, for hea;ring witness (to the
truth) while James] was slain by the Jews. Harnack (Gesch.
d. a2tcb. Lift. ii. [ = Chronologie] 1665-667) concurs : the words
interpolated by Lightfoot must have been omitted by an oversight, and the nlention in Georgios of the brother of John
rightly suggested to some later copyist that something was
missing, but he wrongly supplied the omission in the way we
6 147-151), on the other hand
read in de Boor. Zahn (FoYsc?~.
points out that in Georgios the complete passage on John':
martyrdom and on Papias occurs only in a single MS : in twenty.
six others its place, from the words paprvplov KaT$.$lw.raL, is
taken by the expression Zu dp& cuOra6uaTo. H e regards it
ether written hy Georgios or
therefore as an interpolation.
by an interpolator, however, the exact citation of the second
Book of Papias shows that there was at least some warrant in
Papias for the statement. So far as Origen is concerned the
assage, it is true, is incorrect. Origen (tom. in Mt. 16; ed.
fbelarue, 3 7 1 9 5 ) does not say he has derived his information
from the successors of the apostles but only that " tradition
teaches," and does not speak of the Aartyrdom of death hut only
of that of banishment. What follows from this, however, is only
that this excerptor of Origen has not read accurately, not that he

1 , , paprupiou Kaq.$iwTaL. llaaiac yip 6, '16paaihaws

& i u ~ o n o s a&&r~$c r o d ~ o uy s v 6 p e ~ o si v T o 6uTfpw h6yw T ~
KupraK2v h o y i w v + ~ U K E L $TL &ab 'Iou8aiwv' &y&d@; aAq&uas
G$haS$ PET; TOO &SsA+oJ 7 % TOO
~
X P L U T Or e~p i a k b "pippquw K a i 7%" Gaur2v bpohoyiav aepi T O ~ T O Ural uuyKaTd0Euia'.

2509

( m )Lastly, the most serious difficulty of all is found

in Jn. 21. Here in 71. 23 it is presupposed that John,
unlike Peter, is not to die a martyr's death. But again
the question comes to be, which John is intended. If
it be the case that the Ephesian John constituted the
centre of the circle from which the Fourth Gospel
emanated, it is only natural that in the appendix, chap.
21, his end should be referred to. What we have to ask
here is merely how it could have come about that the
apostle Johnshould have been indicated in the Fourth
Gospel as its guarantor. On this point see 5 41.
The result obtained from Papias is strongly supported
2510

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

by the fact that, apart from the writers named in
8. Silence of all 3 , no ecclesiastical writer of the
second century betrays any knowledge
other ecclesirsstjcal
writers. of a residence of the apostle John
in Ephesus.
Ignatius in his epistle
to the Romans (43) mentions the apostles who had for
them a special importance, viz. Peter and Paul : in that
to the Ephesians (122) he names only Paul, not John.
Polycarp (32 91 113) speaks to the Philippians only of
Paul and the ' other apostles,' not of his teacher John.
Justin and Hegesippus in like manner tell nothing about
John. I n the Muratorian fragment, lines 9-16, John is
found in the company of his fellow-disciples (and
bishops) in writing his gospel. He thus seems to be
thought of as still living in Jerusalem. In'Acts 2OzqJ
those who were to come into the church of Ephesus
after Paul's departure would assuredly not have been
designated as evil wolves if the apostle John had been
his successor there. The passage may with confidence
be taken to be a vaticinium ex eventu, and even were it
not so, theauthor of Acts would, in hisgreat regard for the
original apostles, certainly have toned it down if he had
known that one of them had succeeded Paul. Since
the epistle to the Ephesians does not come from the pen
of Paul, it is also important to notice that only Paul is
mentioned while yet in 220 the apostles and prophets as
a whole are designated as forming the foundation of
the church. So also with the Pastoral Epistles, where
Ephesus is touched on in I Tim. 1 3 2 Tim.118, and
with the epistles of Peter, of which the first is addressed
to Asia Minor (1I) and the second to the readers of the
Special mention is due to the Gnostic
first (31).
Heracleon cited by Clement of Alexandria (Sirom.
iv. 9 71, p. 59.5). H e says that Matthem., Philip,
Thomas, Levi, and many others do not belong to the
number of those who for their open profession of the
Christian faith had suffered the martyr's death. The
apostle John is not named here, and yet he would have
been entitled to the first place in the list had Heracleon
known the tradition as to his peaceful end.
Identity of name has led to confusion in other wellknown cases also, with the regular result-in accordance
B, similar with the tendencies of that age-that a
confusions non-apostolic person, held in high esteem
of persons. in some particular locality, came to be
regarded as an apostle. The Philip who
had four virgin daughters endowed with the gift of
prophecy is expressly designated in Acts 21 8f: as an
evangelist and as one of the Seven (deacons) of Acts 65.
Polycrates of Ephesus (circa 196 A. D .) holds him for
the apostle of that name and states that he was buried
in Hierapolis (a$. Eus. HEiii. 313,v. 242). Clement of
Alexandria falls into the same confusion (Strom.iii. 652,
p. 535), only adding that Philip gave his daughters in
marriage. Even Eusebius, who yet himself clears away
th- error of Irenreus that Papias had personally known
John and other apostles (HEiii.395-7), affirms in the
very same chapter (I 9) not only that this Philip was
the apostle (so also iii. 312) but also, further, that
Papias knew him personally (for another view see
GOSPELS, 72,n. I). The elder whom in iv. 432 [a7 I]
Irenaeus has designated as a disciple of the disciples
of the apostles (for the text, see 4 6) he soon afterwards
(iv. 491 [321]) calls a senior, apostolorum discipulus.
The James who in Acts1513 takes part in the Council
of Jerusalem he takes to be (iii. 1218 [IS]) the same as
the son of Zebedee whose death has been already
recorded in Actsl2z.
For further instances of the
same sort, see 49 6.
In view of such gross carelessness on the part of the
leading authorities for ecclesiastical tradition, the less
Conclusion hesitation need be felt in giving exas to John of pression to the result which has been
Asia Minor. gained with ever-increasing security
from the continued examination of
their utterances.

.,

2511

When set forth in 1840 by Liitzelberger (Did hirckZi2e

Tradition 72ber den Ajostel johannes), and even at a later
date by Keim and Scholten, it was treated as hypercriticism
and was resisted even by such critics as Hilgenfeld and Krenkel
( D e r A$ostrl/ohannes, '71, 133-178). It is now maintained by
Bousset (see APOCALYPSE, $ rsJ, and cp Meyer's Komm. snr
Ajoca&pseP), '96,pp. 34-48) and by Harnack (Gesch. der
altchrist. Litt. ii. [=Chronologiel 1 ['g7] 659-662) who yet are
so conservative as to attrihute the contents & the Fourth
Gospel, a t least in part, to reports of an eye-witness, or even
of the apostle John himself (8 556~).

(u)There were two Johns-the apostle and the Elder.

The name ' elder ' attached to the person of the latter in
a pre-eminent degree. I n the circle of his adherents he
was named ' the Elder,' KUT' @ox+, perhaps so much
so that his proper name, John, was even found superfluous. H e was a ' disciple of the Lord ' (puQ?++r703
K U P ~ O U ) in the wider sense of the word (I4 e ) . It was
he who, towards the end of the first century, acquired
the leading position in Ephesus of which we read, and
he it was that was heard by Polycarp, who spoke of him
to the youthful Ireneus. In speaking of him Polycarp
was wont to call him a ' disciple of the Lord.' This is the
expression which is responsible for the misunderstanding
of Irenaeus that he was an apost1e.l This conjecture,
however bold it may appear, is confirmed by the fact,
also established by Zahn, that Irenreus regularly calls
this John ' disciple of the Lord' while yet he always
applies the word 'apostle' to Paul. Similarly Polycrates, the other chief witness for the Ephesian residence
of the apostle John, designates the latter not as ' apostle '
but only as 'witness and teacher' ( p d p ~ u sKUL ~ L ~ ~ U K U
(cp the passages of Eusebius cited in $ 3).
Eusebius in his Chronick (ad annum Ahrah. 2114' ed.
Schane, ii. p. x62) still copied the error of Irenzeus, that PHpias
had been a disciple of the apostle John. Had he not subsequently noticed it as he was composing his Ecclesiastical
Histovy and preserved for us the most important words of
Papias, we should have been for ever condemned to remain
under the dominion of this mistake.

(6) Eusebius, however, did not draw the further consequence which follows for Polycarp also, from his
discovery of the error of Irenzus. Irenreus calls Papias
the hearer of John and companion of Polycarp. Now,
as he regards Polycarp also as a hearer of the apostle,
it cannot be open to doubt that he regards the two a s
companions for the reason that both were hearers of
one and the same master. What has now been ascertained as regards Papias will in that case hold good for
Polycarp also; his master was not the apostle, as
Eusebius still ( H E iii. 36 I ) assumes, but the Elder.
(c) Confusion was introduced into the question by
Dionysius of Alexandria, who (in Eus. HE vii. 25 16)
took the statement that two graves of ' J o h n ' at
Ephesus were spoken of as basis for the conjecture that
therefore two prominent men of the name of John had
been contemporaries in that city (in reality of course
there may very readily have been two places to which,
according to different traditions, the grave of the one
John was conjecturally assigned). By the one John he
understood the apostle, by the other some John of Asia
Minor. Eusebius ( H E iii. 3 9 5 3 ) carried the hypothesis
further, that this second John was John the Elder.
The conservative theologians, also, are rightly agreed
in pronouncing against the contemporary presence of
two Johns in Ephesus, inasmuch as the contemporary
activity of two men of such outstanding rank is nowhere
affirmed, and indeed is excluded by the universal tradition
of one Ephesian John. All the more remarkable is their
error in declaring the one Ephesian John to have been
the apostle, and in eliminating the Elder alike from the
words of Papias and from history. Both Johns existed ;
but this established fact can be harmonised with the
leading position of the one in Ephesus where he brooks
no rival only on the hypothesis that the apostle carried
1

How little need there is for scruple in attributing to Irenaeus

a misunderstanding even of the words of Polycarp is taught by

the following circumstance : the one detail which he gives as

from the mouth of Polycarp about John (the encounter of John
with Cerinthus, see $ E), Irenaeus on his own showing had not
himself heard, but had come to know it indirectly.

2512

~ O S )

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

o n his labours, a n d closed his life, elsewhere. B u t in
this case it is b y no m e a n s difficult to suppose that h e
died a martyr's death. As regards most of the apostles,
we know nothing either of their later activities, or of
the manner in which they came b y their death. T h e
sooner the veneration of the church concentrated itself
u p o n the John of Asia Minor, all the more readily
could the son'of Zebedee pass into oblivion.
I n proportion as this confusion gained currency
does it become easy to understand how a n a b u n d a n c e
8, other later of tradition should gather a r o u n d the
e of John, b y which essentially
traditions. nt haemTohn
of EDhesus was understood.
(a) IrenFns is our earliest auth'ority for the statement that
John lived in Ephesus down to the reign of Trajan (8 3). He
further records (Si. 34 [3] a@.Eus. HEiii. 286=iv. 146) that
John, when he went to'take a bath in Ephesus, and saw
Cerinthus within. rushed awav from the room without hathinr.
uttering the words 'Let us flek, lest the room should,indeed fzi
in for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. Clement
od Alexandria (Quis d i a s a h . 4295gf: ; also up. Eus. HEiii.
235-19) is our authority for the pretty story that John had converted a certain youth and after he had relapsed and become a
rnhber won him backby ailowing himself to he made a captive
hy the'robher-hand and thus coming into touch, with him again.
We owe tn Jerome (on Gal. 610) the story that in advanced age
John was still able once and again in the congregation to say,
'filioli diligite alterutrum.'
( 6 ) 'khe most important of the remaining traditions are these :
lnhn remained a virzin till his death : when he intended
harmine. or when h& father wished him to marrv. he was
warnkd against it by a divine voice. H e was cokpelled to
drinka cup of poison, and was plunged into a cauldron of
boiling oil, hut in both cases passed the ordeal unharmed.
After one or other of these experiences he was banished in
the reign of Domitian to the isle of Patmos ; under Nerva he
was allowed to return to Ephesus. A large number of miracles
of most various kinds are ascribed to him. At last he caused a
grave to he dug for himself, laid himself down in it and died.
On the following day his body was no longer to be found.
Lipsjus (Apocr. AposteZgesch. 1348-542. '83, a n d elsewhere) refers all t h e traditions enumerated in 8 6 t o a
9. credibility work t h a t still survives in fragments ( o r
catholic redactions),l the Acta Johannis
of these
formed a p a r t of t h e ?r~pploSo~
traditions, which
TGV d ~ o u r b h w v ( ' W a n d e r i n g s of t h e
apostles ') ascribed to Leucius (Charinus), of Gnostic
origin, a n d d a t i n g from somewhere ,between 160 a n d
170 A.D. Zahn, w h o in his edition of the Acta 3ohannis
i n 1 8 8 0 h a d sought t o establish t h e year 1 3 0 A.D. as
its date, h a d already in his Gesch. d. Kanons, 2856-865,
'92, accepted the view of Lipsius as t o the date, a n d
after the publication of further portions of this text h a s
also conceded t h a t it h a d its origin in t h e school of the
Gnostic Valentinus (Forsch. 6 14-18, a n d already i n Neue
kirck.2. Ztschr., '999 pp. 191-218).
For the spirit in which this work is conceived we may perhaps
point to the story to the effect that John once in an inn found
his bed swarming with vermin. He ordered them out of the
chamber for the night. To the great astonishment of his
companions, who had ridiculed him, on the following morning
they saw the whole hand of banished inmates waiting before
the chamber door till John should allow them to return.
In the case of several of the other stories the m a n n e r
of their origin is very transparent. Lifelong virginity
is the ideal of m a n h o o d in the Apocalypse (Rev. 1 4 4 ) ,
of which ' J o h n ' is the author. A martyrdom was
foretold for him as well as for his brother J a m e s by
Jesus according t o Mk. 1038J = Mt. 2 O z z f . T o the
figurative baptism ' of which Jesus here speaks the
b a p t i s m i n boiling oil corresponds in a literal sense as
exactly as possible, just as the ' c u p ' corresponds t o t h e
draught of poison. Of John's drinking of that c u p
without h a r m tradition preserved a precedent in w h a t
was related of Justus Barsabbas, regarding whom
Papias told a like story (up. Ens. HE iii. 399). T h e
banishment t o P a t m o s is o p e n t o very grave suspicion
1 In the ecclesiastical redaction, the miracle of the boiling
oil was according to Lipsius transferred from Ephesus to
Rome ; ;hat of the cup of poiso& on the other hand, from Rome
to Ephesus.
a James, Texts and Studies v. 1, '97, pp. 1-25 ; cp 144-154, as
also Acta apost. ajocr. ed. iipsius et Bonnet, ii. 1, '98, pp.

160.216.

"513

t h a t it arose out bf a misunderstanding of Rev. 19.

T h e words ' I was o n t h e isle of P a t m o s for the w o r d
of G o d a n d t h e testimony of Jesus' b y no m e a n s
necessarily imply a banishment ; it is also possible that
they m a y be intended t o describe a voluntary journey
either in flight after having freely declared the w o r d
of G o d a n d the testimony concerning Jesus, or f o r
missionary purposes.

B.-AUTHORSHIP

OF THE A P O C A L I l P S E

C o m i n g now t o the question whether the apostle

John (or, o n the other assiimption, the Elder) was t h e
lo. Authorship author of all the five N?' writings
t o J o h n , as regards t h e Apoof the whole. ascribed
calypse we must in the first instance
proceed o n t h e assumption that the book is a unity.
(a)O n this assumption the spirit of t h e entire book can
be u r g e d as an a r g u m e n t for the apostle's authorship : its
eschatological contents, i t s Jewish-Christian character,
i t s view of the Gentiles w h o a r e becoming Christians a s
proselytes who a r e being a d d e d to the twelve tribes of
Israel ( 7 9-17) while yet the whole people of G o d continues
t o be represented as n u m b e r i n g twelve times twelve
t h o u s a n d (141), its violent irreconcilable hostility t o the
enemies in the outside world (1118 148-11 1 6 6 186-8) a5
well as t o the false teachers within the churches(261ff:
20-22).
T h e fiery prophetic utterance w-hich the writer
employs need not surprise us even i n advanced old age,
in a m a n who, w e a r e to suppose, h a d cherished thoughts
like these all his life long. N o r need w e wonder at his
calling himself not a n apostle but only a minister of
Christ a n d a prophet (1I 229) ; for a n apocalypse, it i s
only these last two attributes that come into account.
(6) O n t h e other h a n d , the reference to t h e sojourn in
P a t m o s (19) must not be taken as positive evidence for
the apostle's authorship (J 9). T h e technical erudition
manifested n o t only i n an intimate acquaintance with
t h e contents of t h e OT, but also in hold applications of
these t o new conditions, a n d in a n a r r a n g e m e n t of the
entire apocalyptic material in a manner which m a y not
indeed be exempt from criticism, but yet certainly i s
everywhere skilful, is n o t easily accounted for in the
case of o n e who h a d formerly been a fisherman, a n d
w h o in Acts 413 is described- and certainly correctlyas ' a n unlearned a n d ignorant m a n ' (&vOpw?ros dypdpparos Kai B r h p ) .
(c) But, above all, in the case of sn eye-witness of
the life of Jesus o n e would have expected a livelier
i m a g e of the personality of Christ than the Apocalypse
offers.
The Apocalypse designates Jesus on the one hand it must he
conceded in the genuine manner of primitive Chrihanity as
the f a i t h h witness (15 314) which, in accordance with b ~ ; .
17 6, we may interpret as refekng to his martyr-death (cp 3 ZI),
although it also remains possible that the word denotes his
witness to truth by oral revelation ; it calls him the Holy and
True (3 7 14 19 11) ; it alludes to his Judzan origin and Davidic
descent (5 5 22 16); it claims for him that he has the Holy
Spirit, only in the form that he possesses the seven spirits
of God (3 I 5 6 ) into which the spirit of God is divided according
to 1 4 4 5 5 6 ; and in 14r4f: it represents him in his exalted
state as an angel, not as any higher heing. On the other hand,
it not only ascribes divine honours to him after his exaltation
(15 5 8 14, etc.Fwhich need not surprise us ;-not only praises
him in a doxology which is comparable to those given to God
(16 5 ~ z f :7 IO 12); it also assumes his pre-existence as a matter
of course and in that pre-existence it gives him the predicate, A
and a, which is given to God himself (2213, c 117 2 8 as
also I s 216); indeed in the very same verse (314yin which it
assignes to him the humblest attribute, it also gives him, the
highest-that of 'the beginning of the creation of God ' (apxil
n)r K T ~ C E O P 703 Be&). Even if this is to he taken passively, in
the sense that he is the first creature created by God, it represents
a high claim ; hut it can also he meant in the active sense, thus
designating him as a self-active principle in the creation of
the world, as in I Cor. 8 6 Col. 116-18 Heh. 1z and elsewhere.
The figures under which the author represents the appearance
of Christ are partly taken from the OT (as 113-20), and partly
dependent on N T theological theories (as 56). In order to
realise how little the author was in possession of any concrete
living image of thdpersonality of Jesus we have only to look at
any picture professedly based on 113-20 or try to visualise to
our own imaginations what is described 'in 5 6f: 6 I&-how a

2514

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

lamh standing as though it had been slain, having seven horns
and seven eyes, comes and takes out of the hand of God a book
and opens the seals thereof.

when we consider his time, must be regarded as notably

scientific. The authorship of the Apocalypse is in this
case, however, prejudged to a certain extent only when
( d )Finally, the Apocalypse speaks (18 20) of the twelve
the Gospel and the Epistles are attributed to the apostle,
apostles in a quite objective way, without any hint that
and conversely.
the author himself is one of them, and in 21 14it describes
The difference between the Apocalypse and the
them as the foundations of the Church of the latter days
13. ( b )Language. Fourth Gospel so far- -as language
in a way which does not speak for the modesty of the
and style are concerned can hardly
author if he himself was of their number.
be stated too strongly.
Grammatically, the Greek of the Gospel if not particularly
( e ) Most of these difficulties, however, disappearas soon
good, is at least from the point of view 'of that period not
as we think of the Elder, not of the apostle, as the author
open to positive objection ; the Apocalypse on the other hand
of the book ; and the attitude of authority towards the
exhibitsthe most flagrant solecisms. For example, the apposition
churches of Asia Minor assumed in 2 5 also speaks for
to any case whatever is given in the nominative 1 and there is no
hesitation in adding the article to a verbal ford or in making a
the former-always on the assumption that it was he,
nominative
dependent on the preposition bxd ( i d b &v Kai 6
not the apostle, who held this position there,
$v Kai 6 ipxdpevos, 14). The Gospel displays a Hehraizing
If, however, it has to be conceded that the Apocalypse
character only in the syntax of its sentences (simple co-ordinais not a unity-and it is hardly likely that it will long be
tion), the Apocalypse to a very much greater extent. As for
the vocabulary we single out only a few expressions : the Gospel
ll. Ofparts. possible to resist this conclusion-then
has JrRiu~qs,the Apocalypse geu8$s ; similarly the Gospel and
the question alters itself to this ; whether
Apocalypse have, respectively, I&, i8o6 ; K ~ U ~ C OOS I, K O U ~ E;~the
the apostle or the Elder was the last editor of the whole
Gospel has Lpxov 706 K ~ U ~ OorV roqpds for the devil, while from
the detailed enumeration of all the predicates of the devil in
book or the original author of any portion of it. Here
Rev. 12 g, these two expressions are absent. the Gospel has
all that can be said is that the John of Asia Minor, by
muT&cv
(almost TOO times) and 6poAoy&, the.Apocalypse &av
whom, as we have seen, it is easier to suppose the Elder
+v paprupiav 'ItprooO. Equally worthy of notice is the absence
in the Apocalypse of certain particles which are o,f very frequent
than the apostle to be meant, comes into consideration
occurrence in the Gospel : rraS& piv, pivrot w a v ~ o r ewdwom
first of all as possible author of the Epistles to the Seven
&s in the temporal sense, i'va referring bkck to a' demon!
Churches in 2 5 These, however, have only a loose constrative (as Jn. 15 12).
Withal the difference between the
nection with what properly forms the body of the book
spheres of thought in the two 'writings is vividly illustrated
when it is noted how favonriteideas in the one are totally absent
which contains the prophecies concerning the last times
from the other-such ideas as ' Lord God Almighty ' ( K ~ ~ L bO 9S ~ b s
(41-235);it isonlywith211-225 that theyshowobservable
b Iravroxpdrwp) or 'patience ' (+mpovrj) in the Gospel, +ds in a
contact in some isolated expressions. That they should
secondary meakng, uaoria, 5;% aidvios, ;fpara, B&u9a~,& ~ L V
;v TLVL,
brdhAvu9ar (said of men) in the Apocalypse.
have arisen separately is hardly likely, for in that case all
This observation, however, must be extended much
the sevenwould not have been written-as we must neverthelesssupposethemto havebeen-in one corpus, buteach
Even where it cannot
14. (c) Sphere more widely.
one would have been addressed to its proper destinaof Thought. be traced in the mere vocabulary, the
tion. They become more intelligible when regarded as
thouxht-substance in the two writings
is in many ways fundimentally different.
a preliminary writing prefixed to the rest of the hook
(a)So, for example, in what is the main thing so
after it had been completed, and designed to introduce
to a particular circle of readers the more strictly
far as the Apocalypse is concerned-the eschatology.
It is only in isolated passages, and these moreover not
apocalyptic book. If this be so, we do best in assignfree from the suspicion of interpolation, that the Gospel
ing them to the redactor of the whole ; but in that case
still shows the conception-so familiar to the Apocawe must be all the more cautious how we attribute to him
definite portions of the rest of the book-to attempt
lypse as to the whole of primitive Christendom-of a
general Judgment at the end of time, and a bodily
which, moreover, we have no means a t our disposal.
resurrection (1 286). On the other hand, special
But, further, not even the Epistles to the Seven
Churches can with certainty be ascribed to the Elder ; features of the Apocalypse, such as those of the detailed
events before the end of the world and those of the millenthey may have been written by another in his name.
The one question left, if we take into account what is
nium, are in the same degree foreign to the Gospel as is
the doctrine of the return of Christ with a heavenly host
said under APOCALYPSE, is as to whether the author
for the destruction of his enemies in battle (1911-ZI),
12, Author of of the Apocalypsemay be identical with
Apoc. also the author of the Fourth Gospel and and the presupposition that the state of blessedness
author of Gasp. of the Johannine Epistles. The a n ~ w e r will be established upon earth-if even upon a renewed
earth (Rev. 204-6 21 I Io)-wbich is directly contradicted
to this question becomes important
Epp. ? in our investigation of the Apocalypse by Jn. 14 zf., where this state is to be looked for in heaven.
(and
a ) General.
The First Epistle comes a degree nearer to the expectaif the authorship of the Gospel and
tions of primitive Christendom (1 5 9 ) ; but the main
Epistles is more easily determined than t h a t of the
idea of the Apocalypse, that a definite personality will
Apocalypse, and vice versa. A glance at the four
come forward as Antichrist, is even there ( I Jn. 2 18 22
possibilities here will be instructive. Apart from tlieo43) mentioned only for the purpose of saying that the
logians who feel themselves bound to the strictest
prediction has been fulfilled by the rise of gnosticism,
conservatism, B. Weiss stands alone in attributing the
in other words the idea is gently set aside.
Gospel and the Epistles as well as the Apocalypse to
(a) The Universality of salvation is for the Gospel a
the apostle; the Gospel and the Epistles, or at least
matter of course (1 27). I n the Apocalypse, on the
the First Epistle, but not the Apocalypse, are attributed
other hand, one can still clearly perceive how the
to the apostle by the 'mediating' school, as they formerly
Jewish people continues to be regarded as the chosen
were by the rationalists ; the Apocalypse, but not the
race, and the believing Gentiles are ranked with it, not
Gospel and the Epistles, by the earlier representatives
on principle but only in consequence of their having
of the Tiibingen school down to Hilgenfeld and Krenkel
acquitted themselves also as good Christians under
(Der AposteZJohannes, '71) ; by all the later critics not
persecution ( 7 1 4 3 , IOU). 'Jew' in Rev.29 39 is a
one of the Johannine writings is given to the apostle,
name of honour, in the Gospel it carries some note of
the Apocalypse even having been already assigned
depreciation ( 19).
to another author before its unity had been given up.
(c) As regards the Person of Christ the metaphysical
W e find a critic of so early a date as De Wette writing
expressions cited in I O C approximate the point of view
I ' In N T criticism nothing is more certain than that the
of the Fourth Gospel; but this approximation is not
apostle John, if he was author of the Gospel and the
Epistles, did not write the Apocalypse, and conversely. "
1 E.g. 220 312 914 1412. By this the ' A v r k a of 213
The same thing had already been argued by Dionysius
instead of ' A v h a s is shown to be the correct reading. Cp
of Alexandria (up. Eus. HE 715) in a manner that,
WH, APP.
I

2575

2516

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

nearly so great as to amount to equivalence. The
difference lies not merely, as might perhaps be suggested, in this-that the Gospel has to speak for the
most part of Christ on the earth whereas the Apocalypse
is speaking of him as exalted in heaven.
Even as
regards the pre-existence of which both speak it has to
be remarked that the Apocalypse has here only adopted
certain expressions without allowing them to have any
very noticeable effect upon the general view of things,
whilst the Gospel is completely dominated by the idea of
the Logos.

think of the Gospel as the earlier bf the two. The only relatively conceivable hypothesis is that which postulates the other
order and a transition from the ideas of the Apocalypd to those
of the Gospel. As however it is impossible to assign the Apocalypse toany date e h e r thaA68 the Gospel must on the assumption of apostolic authorship bel& to aperiod after the authors
sixtieth year-a period within which the acquirement of unobjectionable Greek not to speak of so revolutionary a change
in the whole world of ideas, even if conceivable in his earlier
years, becomes a psychological impossibility.

Great importance has been attached to the fact that in Rev.

1 9 13 Christ is expressly called the word of God (6 h6yor 70;
BsoG). Even if this fact is to be recognised we must not forget
that it by no means necessarily involves full coincidence with
the thought of the Gospel. Such coincidence would even in
fact he very unlikely, since elsewhere in the Apocalypse we do
not find the faintest trace of Alexandrian ideas. Here accordingly it might seem necessary to resort in the first instance to the
explanation which we are constrained to reject in the case of
the Gospel ( 31)-namely that the expression the word of
God is taken from the O T or the Palestinian theology. Only,
even where they were not prepared to give up the unity of the
Apocalypse altogether scholars ought long ago to have perceived that 19 136 and his name is called The Word of God is
a gloss. .Immediately before we are told (19 12) that no one
knoweth his name but he himself. How could the author
proceed immediately to give his name? But nothing could
have been more natural than that a n old reader who believed
himself to be in possession of the name (possibly from the
Fourth Gospel) should have written the answer to the riddle on
the margin ; the next copyist took it for an integral part of the
text that had been accidentally omitted and accordingly inserted
it. Indeed, we must perhaps go even further. In 19 II also we
find a name of Christ : the Faithful and True in 19 16 another:
King of kings and Lord of lords ; of this la& we are expressly
told that it was written upon his mantle and upon his thigh.
This does not harmonise with a. IZ and must probably also be
regarded as an interpolation.

the least favourable position is taken by those who hold them to

have been written more or less contemporaneously: but hardly
less favourable is that of those who, in order to be able to maintain
the date 95-96 A . D . , assigned by Irenieus to the Apocalypse,

The question whether the Fourth Gospel was written

by John the apostle, which we shall here, for convenience
sake, in accordance with the accepted
16.
of enquiry. phraseology, call the question of its
genuineness (although the . apostles
authorship is claimed for it only by tradition), -cannot
be determined apart from the question of its historicity.
It would be utterly unscientific to begin by confining
ourselves to a proof that the tradition of the Johannine
authorship was not open to fatal objection and then
-supposing this to be made out-forthwith to claim
for the contents of the Fourth Gospel a strictly historical
character throughout without further question. Even
defenders of the genuineness have conceded the possibility of more or less serious lapses of memory in the
a.ged apostle (J 55 d ) . The question of the historicity,
therefore, is ultimately the more important of the two,
if we bear in mind what must be the final object of all
enquiry into the gospels, namely the elucidation of the
life of Jesus. As a matter of fact there have been
scholars who have maintained that the Fourth Gospel
was not the work of the apostle and yet is trustworthy
throughout, or that it rests upon coniniunications received from the apostle or some other eye-witness
and therefore is partly trustworthy partly not (I 55 d 6).
The question of historicity becomes, on any such
hypotheses as these last, not merely an end in itself but
also a means of determining the authorship. The same
remark applies when the complete genuineness is under
consideration. Unimportant deviations from historicity,
on the view just mentioned, do not make belief in the
genuineness impossible ; but serious deviations do.
As regards the historicity, our most important line
of research is that of comparison with the synoptists.
I n proportion as tradition concerning the authorship is
uncertain, must we rely all the more upon this means
of arriving at knowledge. Of course we must not
begin by postulating for the synoptists the higher degree
of historicity any more than by making a similar
claim for the Fonrth Gospel. The immediate object of
the comparison must be to ascertain what the differences
are ; if any of these are found to be irreconcilable, we
shall then have to ask, in the first place, which of the
two representations deserves the preference, and then,
next, whether the less preferable can have come from
an eye-witness. At the same time, it is obvious that
the comparison must not in the main deal with details
merely, for in every single detail some error may well
be regarded as excusable ; rather must it pass in review
t h e plan and character of the two sets of writings viewed
broadly and as a whole.
Such a comparison will, at the very outset, disclose a
fundamental divergence in the picture presented of one
l,. The of the most prominent subordinate figures
Ba~tist.in the gospel narrative. In the synoptists
John the Baptist is a personality of real
interest even quite apart from his relation to Jesus.
Brief as are the synoptists notices concerning John,
they still contain a complete life-history full of dramatic
crises. It is not his tragical death alone that compels
the readers sympathy ; we are interested in him quite
as much by reason of his uncertainty as to whether or
not he ought tb recognise in Jesus the Messiah (Mt.
I1 zJ). See J O H N THE BAPTIST. That he was reluctant to baptise Jesus is plainly an addition of Mt.

2.97

2518

( d ) Among the various points of connection, therefore, which in spite of all differences we are able to
trace between the Apocalypse and the Gospel the use of
the name logos cannot be reckoned as one. Nor do
those which are left by any means amount to a proof
of identity of authorship.
In both writings Christ
appears as the lamb ; hut the Apocalypse invariably
uses dpvlov, the Gospel invariably (except in 2 1 7 5 )
dpv6s. In the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21 24 22 135) bread,
water, and light are mentioned as the highest blessings ;
in the Gospel (Jn. 648 414 812)Christ himself is represented as bread, water, and light ; and so far as light
is concerned Rev. 21 23 bas already led the way in this.
Baur found himself able to speak of the Gospel as the
spiritualised Apocalypse.
Thoma could call it the
Anti-Apocalypse ( Z W T 77,pp. 289-341). By this
is not meant that the two writings as regards their inner
substance are actually very near one another ; the long
journey that has to be travelled in clearing up the lilies
of connection and effecting this spiritualisation of ideas
shows only how far apart the two really are.
The attempt even to carry the Gospel and the
Apocalypse back to one and the same circle or one and
15. Conclusion. the same school, though suggested
by the tradition which assigns them
to one and the same author, is therefore a bold one.
I t will be much more correct to say that the anthor of
the Gospel was acquainted with the Apocalypse and
took help from it so fnr as was compatible with the
fundamental differences in their points of view. On
account of the dependence thns indicated it will be safe
to assume that the Apocalypse was a valued book in
the circles in which the author of the Gospel moved,
and that he arose in that environment and atmosphere.
So far therefore it is possible for criticism to recognise
in a qualified way the justice of the tradition as to the
origin of the two writings in a common source ; but the
complete difference in trend of thought must on no
acount be lost sight of.
Of those who still maintain oneness of authorship for the two,

C.-THE

FOURTH GOSPEL

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

( 3 1 4 3 ) ; Mk. and Lk. know nothing of it. According
to Mk., Jphn did not, even in the very act of baptising,
receive any revelation of the exalted dignity of Jesus
(GOSPELS, 137 a , end) ; and this is undoubtedly the
true state of the case, for no one would have invented
such a representation, if the descent of the Holy Spirit
and the heavenly voice as described in Lk. and even
in Mt. had been noticeable to every one.
In the Fourth Gospel, however, it is precisely the
representation of Mt. that is fundamental ; in fact it is
essentially heightened. From the very first John knows
not only the high dignity of Jesus and his destiny to
become the redeemer of the whole world ( 1 2 7 29), but
even his pre-existence (11530). The title of Messiah
is implicitly offered to him, in order that he may refuse
it in the most categorical manner (119-23 328). The
effect is a diminution of John's personal significance to
such an extent that the only function left him is that of
bearing testimony to Jesus (16-8 15 23). Even his baptising work is felt to be important, not as being of valne to
those who sought baptism, but as being a means of
making Jesus known (12631). Of his preaching of repentance absolutely no mention at all is made. Yet in
his baptism Jesus receives nothing which he did not
previously possess ; on the contrary, it is not related at
all, and there is a good reason for the omission (# 26).
The descent of the Spirit is alone mentioned, yet not
as a divine gift hcstowed on Jesus but only as a token
for the Baptist whereby he is able to recognise Jesus ns
the Messiah ( 1 3 2 J ) .
His question at a later datc,
whether Jesus really be the Messiah (Mt. I l z J ) , is in
the Fourth Gospel impossible. I n short, in place of
the personality-powerful, yet limited in its horizon and
therefore exposed to tragic conflicts (and in all these
respects a personality that cannot have been invented)whom we have in the synoptists, we find in the Fourth
Gospel nothing more than a subsidiary figure introduced
to make known the majesty of Jesus-a figure endowed
with supernatural knowlcdge indeed, but always monotonously the same and historically quite colourless.
'Turning now to what we are told concerning Jesus
himself. we are struck first bv the difference betweeri
Scene of the synoptists and the Fourth Gospel as
to the scene of Jesus' public activity.
life Whilst in the synoptists Jesus does not
Of Jesus'
come to Tudaea save for the Passover at
which he suffered, in the Fourth Gospel J u d z a is the
scene of by far the greater part of his ministry. Into
Galilee he makes only comparatively brief excursions
(21-12 443-51 61-714). Indeed, according to 444, when
fairly interpreted, JudEa, not Galilee, is represented as
his home. If indeed, especially in view of Mt. 2337
Lk. 1334, it cannot be definitely said that the synoptists
leave no room for earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, what
has just been stated seems to admit of the explanation
that the Fourth Gospel is designed as a supplement
to the synoptists.
This view, however, cannot be
carried out. T o begin with, the Fourth Gospel does
not confine itself to giving supplementary matter ; it
repeats synoptic narratives such as those of the Feeding
of the Multitudes, the Walliing on the Sea, and
the Healing of the Nobleman's Son (another version
of that of the servant [or son] of the centurion at
Capernaum [ zoc]). Further, so long a sojourn of
of Jesus in Judaea as is depicted in the Fourth Gospel
is in no way reconcilable with the representation of
the synoptists, and still less is the representation that
before his last passover Jesus had stayed in Jerusalem
a t least from the preceding winter onwards (1022).
No less divergent are the representations of the
19. Order of synoptists and the Fourth ~~~~~l as to
in the
principal the order of the principal
events in public life of Jesus. The cleansing of
public life. the temple, which, according to the
synoptists, was in his ,.losing
days, is
placed in Jn. ( 2 13-22) at the beginning of his ministry. It

s thus quite divested of the importance it has in the other

iccount as bringing the hatred of the authorities to the
:xplosive point ; it has no outward consequences.
\Tor is the harmonistic expedient of any avail-that the
:leansing happened twice and with qnite opposite
~esultson the two occasions. The conflict of Jesus
nrith the Jews arises, it is true, in Jn. at the very
seginning of his ministry ; hut all attempts to lay hold
3f him prove failures, without any explanation being
Tiven. beyond the very vague and general one that his
lour was not yet come (73044 82059 1039 1236). The
,epresentation, however, that thus between Jesus and
.he Jews-Le., not only the ruling classes but also his
xdinary Jewish audiences-a relation of complete antipathy subsisted from the outset, does not harnionise
with what we gather from the synoptists. Jn. alludes
to the hearers of Jesus as ' t h e Jews' (21820 5 16 641
and often) as if Jesus were not himself one sprung from
their midst ; he speaks of feasts of the Jews (213 5 I 64
7 2 1155); he represents Jesus as saying 'your law'
(817 1034, cp 1 5 z 5 ) , as if Jesus had nothing to do with
either feast or law ; and as early as 1 1 1 the full condemnation of the entire people is already pronbunced,
and so again 82124 1238-40. Nor is this cancelled,
though it is repeatedly said that many believed in him ;
Jesus could not otherwise have found opportunity to
carry on and develop his message.
As regards Jesus' relations with his disciples, the confession of Peter (Jn. 668f. Mk. 829) is wholly deprived
of its importance as a new discovery and as an achievement if Jesus already at the calling of the first disciples
(1414549) or even earlier still hy the Baptist himself
(16-8 15 23 26 29-34) had been acknowledged as Son of
God. Finally-to confine ourselves only to points of
first importance-the Raising of Lazarus brings into
the narrative of John, as compared with that of the
synoptists, not only a wholly new event, but also a
wholly new reason for the persecution of Jesus (1145-53)
which resulted in his death. In the synoptists the
immediate cause of his arrest and condemnation was
his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his cleansing of
the temple.
(u)As compared with the miracle narratives of the
synoptists, those of' the Fourth Gospel are essenti20. The .ally enhanced. None of the sick mentioned
~iracles.by the syiioptists as having been healed hy
Jesus is recorded to have lain under his
infirmity for thirty-eight years (Jii. 55). The blind man
who is healed has been blind from his birth (91). Jesus
walks across the whole lake, not over a portion of it
only (62.). Lazarus is not raised on the day of his
death, like the daughter of Jairus or the son of the
widow of Nain, but after four days have elapsed.
This last point has a special significance. According to
Jewish belief (Lightfoot Nor. Hebr. and Wettstein [both on Jn.
11391) the soul of the d6parted lingers about the body for three
days ready to return into i t if possible. on the fourth day it
definhvely takes its departure because it Lees that the countenance has whollychanged. For the samereason the identification
of the hody of a person whom one has known in life i s held t o
be possible only for the first three days ; after that the change
is too great to admit of it. A further testimony to the prevalence
of this view coming from a time very near that of Jesus, but
unknown to the scholars mentioned ahove, will be found in the
Rest offhe Words o j B a m c h , 9.1 This is also the teasou why
1 97-13 : 'As Jeremiah was standing in the temple he became
a s one that gives up the ghost, Baruch and Abimelech (his
companions) wept. . and the people saw him lying dead. and
wept bitterly. Thereupon they would have him buried, when,
behold a voice was heard 'Bury not him who is yet alive, for
his s o d will again enter in;o his body. And . . they remained
near his hody for three days while they spake of this thing, and
remained in uncertainty as to the hour a t which be should arise.
But after three days his soul came into his hody and he lirted
up his voice in the midst of them all and said ' Praise ye God,'
etc. Thus the Greek text in Harris(Rest of Words ojBaruch,
'89). T h e Ethiopic text (Dillm. Ckrvst. aath. '66, German b y
Prretorius IZWT, '72, pp. ~30.~471,
and by Kiinig [Sf.u. KY.'77
318-3381)concludes more briefly : 'they remained about him fo;
three days until his soul returned (or, should return) $to his
body. And a voice was heard in the midst of them all Praise

..

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

Jesus on receiving word of the sickness of Lazarus does not
hurry to his side at once but lingers for two whole days. Thus
his love for Lazarus andthe sisters of Lazarus is displayed not
by the speed with which Jesus hastens to their relief, but contrariwise by the delay which gives room for the working of a
special and seemingly impossible miracle.

(6) No satisfactory explanation can ever be given as

to why the synoptists should have nothing to say concerning this greatest of all miracles ( 37u), or yet of that
which is expressly described as the first of his miracles
at Cana, or of the healing of the man born blind, or
of the miracle at Bethesda. The presence of all the
disciples is expressly mentioned, both at Bethany and
at Cana. On the other hand it is quite easy to understand why many miracles related by the synoptists are
absent from the Fourth Gospel. The latter offers only
one example of each class of miracle ; its aim is accordingly directed towards a careful selection. Healings of
demoniacs, however, are wholly left out-in other
words, precisely the kind of miracle which, according
to GOSPELS (5 144), could most confidently be ascribed
to Jesus and which in point of fact are alone ascribed
to him by criticism.
(c) The selection of miracles, notwithstanding the fact
that Jesus is stated in 223 62 7 3 1 1 1 4 7 2030 to have
wrought very many miracles, becomes intelligible most
easily if each of the miracles particularised be held to
have a symbolical meaning. Such a meaning is expressly assigned to the raising of Lazarus ( l l z 5 J ) , to
the healing of the man born blind ( 9 5 3 9 ) , and to the
feeding of the five thousand in the elucidation in 6 2 6 J
30-63, where it is interpreted as having a veiled reference
to the eucharist. With this clue it is no longer difficult
to see that the miracle of walking upon the water which
comes immediately afterwards is intended to signify
that exaltation of Jesus above the limitations of space
which is necessary in order to render possible the
presence of his glorified body at every celebration of the
eucharist. That the wine of Cana as compared with
the water is intended to symbolise the superiority of the
new religion over the old is equally plain. The thirtyeight years of the sick man at Bethesda show that he is
an emblem of the Jewish people who had to wander for
thirty-eight years in the wilderness (Dt. 2 1 4 ) ; the five
porches can without difficulty be interpreted as meaning
the five books of Moses. Cp 5 35 6-e. Lastly, in the
case of the nobleman (446-54) the symbolical meaning
of the narrative becomes evident as soon as attention is
directed to its divergences from the story of the centurion
of Capernaum in Mt. (85-13) and Lk. (71-IO),which by
almost universal agreement lies at its foundation (see
GOSPELS, 3 178).
T h e centurion of the synoptists is a Gentile who excels, and
puts to shame, the Jews by his faith.

The nobleman of Jn, is

ye God
etc. Jeremiahs return to life is it will he seen, not
directl;stated here ; the words Praise yd God, etc., are not
according to this account attributed to Jeremiah but to a voice.
I t is not till I 19 that the) Ethiopic text, in agreement with the
Greek, names Jeremiah as the speaker. Which of the two texts
is the more original it is not quite easy to determine, because
the passage beginning with the words Praise ye God is, or a t
least contains a Christian interpolation, whilst the rest of the
book, containhg as it does no Christian ideas of any kind, but
on the other hand laying stress on such Judaic conceptions as
the removal of non-Jewish women, and that of the sacrifice at
Jerusalem, must be held to be Jewish. Yet it will not he too
bold to conjecture that the Ethiopic translator would hardly
have passed over the bringing back to life of Jeremiah if be had
found ir in the text before him, and thus we may venture to
bold that here, as in other places also (Harris, 29J), he represents the more original form. We find him then, giving quite
explicit expression to the belief that for the ;pace of three days
the return of the soul to the body was considered possible. But
even the Greek text does not bear the interpretation that this
limit can be exceeded. After three days merely indicates the
extreme limit within which the return to life could possibly be
expected.
Those critics who do not regard the resurrection of Jesus as
an a c t i d fact cite 2 K. 205 Hos. 6 2 Jon. 2 I [I 171 as explaining
why the resurrection was assigned to precisely the third day
after the death of Jesus. It is not impossible that these passages
may have had their influence also on the Jewish belief with
which we are now dealing.
I

81

2521

in the service of Herod Antipas and m p t therefore be regarded

as a Jew since the contrary i$ not stated. H e also is distinguished dy his faith, not, however, as being a heathen, but as
being one who trusts the word of Jesus without looking for signs
and wonders. At the outset, even he is reproached by Jesus as
unable to believe without these. H e has given no occasion for
such a reproach. If, therefore, the reproach is not to he held to
he unjust he must be taken as representing the Jewish people
who really deserve it. H e clears himself, however, of t h i
reproach. This being so, he represents, not the entire nation
but only those better members of the nation who intercede fo;
the (spiritually) diseased portion of their people. In the days
of the fourth evangelist, in which it was no longer possible with
ones own eyes to see miracles wrought by Jesus, belief in the
hare word of the Christian preacher came to be of the greatest
importance, and an example of such belief is therefore here put
forth. By the sou of the centurion, then, we are to uiiderstand
the spiritually and religiously diseased part of the nation. This
is the reason why the sufferer is not as in Lk. called the servant
(SoBho~)of the intercessor, but his son-a point which had been
left doubtful by the ambiguous expression (flak) of Mt.
(d). The individual miracles (211 454 6214 916 1218),

and indeed the miracles of Jesus as a whole (223 32

731 1147 1237), are expressly spoken of as signs
( q p k ) ,though the Jesus of the synoptists is represented as having declined on principle to work signs
(GOSPELS, 5 1403). In Jn. 218 630 Jesus is asked, as
in Mk. 8 II and parallels, to work miracles to attest his
mission ; in Jn., however, he does not decline as in the
other case, but on the contrary promises (219)precisely
the miracle of his resurrection. Belief that rests on
mere miracles he often depreciates ( 4 4 8 , etc.) ; but in
536, 626 102538 1411 he actually attaches to them a
decisive importance.
One of the most important differences between the
synoptists and Jn. is that relating to the date of the
crucifixion.
( u ) According to Mk. 1412-16 Mt. 26 17-19 Lk. 2 2 7 - 1 5
the Last Supper of Jesus was the Jewish Passover meal
21, Date of which was partaken of on the evening
Crucifixion. of the 14th of Nisan. In strict Jewish
reckoning this evening belongs to the
15th of Nisan with which the Feast of Unleavened
Bread began. Since, however, the leaven was removed
from Jewish houses during the day-time of the 14th of
Nisan, we can easilyunderstand how it is that Mk. l i r z
Mt. 2617 (cp Lk. 221 7 ) have come to speak of the 14th
Nisan as being the first of the days of unleavened bread.
It is equally certain that, according to Jn., the Last
Supper was on the 13th of Nisan (13129 1828 1 9 1 4 3 1 ) .
If the synoptists are to be brought into harmony with
the Johannine reckoning, the day on which the paschal
lamb was wont to be slaughtered (Mk. 1412 Lk. 227)
must have been the 13th, not the 14th of.Nisan. If on
the other hand Jn. is to be brought into harmony with
the synoptists, then at the eating of the Paschal lamb
the feast can not yet have begun (13129) and to eat
the passover (1828) must be taken as meaning the
meals taken during, the seven days to the exclusion of
that at which the paschal lamb was eaten. The incredibly violent attempts that used to be made to bring
about a reconciliation between the two representations
no longer call for serious argument.
(6) Some notice, however, must be taken of two
attempts still made by scholars of repute to maintain
the Johannine reckoning while conceding its inconsistency with that of the synoptists.
According to R. Weiss and Beyschlag the date of the Last
Supper was on the 13th of Nisan but nevertheless it was held
as a passover meal. It is arguedthat since the afternoon of the
14th of Nisan did not give time enough for the slaughter of the
many lambs (in 65 A.D., according to Jos. BJvi. 9 3, 0 424, there
were 256,500 of them), some portion of them were slaughtered
on the afternoon of the 13th, and thus it was possible for Jesus to
keep the passover a day before the regular time. This theory,
however, about the slaughtering of the lambs is not only in
flattest contradiction to the express words of Mk. 14 12 Lk. 22 7,
according to which there was only one day on which the
lambs were slaughtered, but also rests upon pure imagination.
The slayghtering of the lambs was not the business of the
priests ; it was the duty of the representative of each passoverguild (Philo, Vii. Mos. 3 29, and Decal. 30 ap. Mangey, 2 169
and 206). Each such re resentative had t h k only one lamb to
slaughter, and all that t i e priests had to do was to receive the
2522

JOHN, SON O F ZEBEDEE

biood in a howl and pour it out by the altar. Moreover, time
enough was secured on 14th Nisan hy beginning the work pf
slaughtering, not towards sundown as Dt. 166 enjoined, hut !n
the afternoon-ahout 2 or 3 o'clock according to /UBI!.
65, or,
49 IO^: 19, Jos. BJvi. 93, 5 423 cp Ant. xiv. 43,
according to later Jewish authdrities, even so early as from
12.30 or 1.30.
Apart from this, however, an anticipatory
particjpation in the passover meal would have been a direct
violation of the law according to which any one who was unable
to take part in the feast on the appointed day was hidden
postpone it till the following month(Nu. 9 10.13, cp z Ch. 30 1-22).
So far, moreover, as Jesus is concerned, such an anticipation
would he intelligible only on the assumption that he knew
beforehand quite definitely that he would not live to see the
legally appointed evening (cp Prof. MonafshefZe, 1899, pp.

140.143).

(c) According to Spitta (Urchristentltum 1Z Z I - Z Z S )

the
pasage of Mk. on which the reckoning of the synoptists is
based (14 12-16) is a later interpolation. According to 142, he
contends, it was the intention of the authorities that Jesus
should he made away with before the feast. As we are not
told that this scheme failed, Mk. must have followed the
I t is, however, quite sufficient that
ohannine chronolo,-y.
k., in
.. fact, informs us that nevertheless Jesus was not put
to death before the feast. This tells us really all that Spitta
finds lacking.
Nor is Spitta on better ground when he
urges that Mk.14 17 does not connect itself with v. 16-that
Jesus could not come with the twelve if two of them had been
sent on before to make ready the passover. As a matter of fact
we cannot avoid supposing that the two had in the interval
returned to reuort that the vrevarations had been made. Over
and above this, Spitta has io assume that the interpolation in
Mk. already lay before Mt. and Lk., and further that there
must have dropped out from Jn. a leaf in which the Last Supper
of Jesus was described in agreement with the synoptic account
(5 23 e), and, conversely, Spitta has to set down Jn. 6 51-59 as a
later insertion. So many are the changes required in order to
make his hypothesis work.

iL

As the discrepant accounts do not admit of reconciliation, it remains that we should choose between
them. Now, according to the synop22. Difficulties
tists the crucifixion occurred on the
of synoptic first day of the seven-days' feast, and
chronology. this first day was in sanctity almost
equal to a Sabbath.
( a ) A judicial process in solemn form involving a
capital charge could not, according to the Mishna, be
begun on a day before a Sabbath, and thus also could,
not have been begun on the 14th of Nisan, for between
the first and the second sitting, if a condemnation was
to be arrived at, a night had to intervene. Any formal
sentence of death, however, was beyond the competency
of the synedrium, as the power of life and death lay in
the hands of the Roman procurator. Brandt, one of
the most acute and the most learned of the opponents
of the synoptic (and the Johannine) chronology, who
admits as historical nothing more than the bare fact
that Jesus was crucified about the passover season, has
conceded in his EvnngeZische Geschichte (pp. 55, 303, '93)
that, legally considered, the proceedings before the
synedrium would be unexceptionable if they were
regarded merely as a preliminary enquiry to prepare
the case for Pilate's hearing. And it must further
be taken into account here hdw urgently time pressed.
The project to make away with Jesus before the feast
having failed, it was all the more necessary to get rid
of him at the beginning of the feast before the people
should have had time and opportunity to declare in his
favour. Of Pilate one could rest assured that even on
the feast-day he would not hesitate to repress any
tumult. If he desecrated the day by an execution, the
responsibility would not lie on the synedrium.
( a ) That Simon of Cyrene came ' from the country '
(drr'dypoi?, Mk. 1521 Lk. 2326) byno means implies that
he had been working there. Many passover pilgrims,
to the number of whom he would, as a Cyrenian, appear
to have belonged, spent the night outside the city and
simply came into it ' from the country.'
(c) The burial of Jesus would always have been more
lawful on the 15th of Nisan than on the following
Sabbath, which was held to be of superior sanctity;
but in any case it w a s unavoidable, in accordance with
Dt. 2122f:
( d ) The prohibition against leaving the festal chamber

2523

m the night of the passover (Ex. 1222) was, from all

hat we can gather (see Keim, Gesch. /esu won ~'Vuzaru,
observed in Jesus' time. Very many
ilgrims had their lodging during the feast outside the
valls of Jerusalem. The prohibition in question thereore could no longer be enforced. With reference to
:ertain other inconvenient passover precepts also the
zbbins found a way of escape by deciding that they
vere enjoined only for the passover in Egypt, not for
hat in Palestine.
( e ) That the women prepared ointments is stated
inly by Lk. (2356) ; according to Mk. ( 1 6 ~they
)
bought
iintnients only after the Sabbath was ended. Joseph,
t is true, according to Mk. 1546, bought a linen cloth.
What we have to ask, however, in case such a pur:hase was forbidden by traditional prescription, is
vhether in the synoptic tradition recollection must on
his account have gone wrong altogether as to the day
if the death of Jesus, or whether it is not easier to
iuppose that a narrator who was no longer acquainted
Nith the enactments of the law on the subject, fell into
:rror on a single point-that' of the purchase effected
In a feast day.
(f)The question as regards the swords carried by the
:ompany who arrested Jesus is similar (Mk. 144348 Mt.
264755 Lk. 2252). According to the Mishna (ShabbZth
5 24) it was unlawful to carry on the Sabbath day (and
therefore, also, certainly, on the day of the passover)
breastplate, helmet, greaves, sword, bow, shield (sling ?)
3r lance. It is equally certain, however, that the
exercise of police functions on Sabbath, especially
among the crowds present at the passover, was not
allowed to be suspended by any such prohibition. It is
not said that no kind of weapon whatever was to be
allowed. Here also, no doubt, Rabbinical casuistry
was equal to the occasion. Is it then imperative that
we should suppose the statement about the swords to be
correct and therefore that about the day to be incorrect ?
Or is it not, in point of fact, quite easy to imagine that
a narrator who was not accurately acquainted with the
precepts of the Jewish law inadvertently gave to his true
account of an armed company having been sent such a
turn as implied that they were armed with swords ?
(9)
It is directly attested that the disciples of Jesus
had swords among them (Mk. 1447 Mt. 265rf. Lk.
2249f:). W e may venture to suppose that they had
provided themselves with these on the preceding days,
already seeing cause to fear danger for Jesus and themselves. I t was certainly not without reason that Jesus
according to Mk. 1119 Mt. 2117 Lk. 2137 passed his
nights, not in the city, but (presumably) in various
places outside its walls-for otherwise his betrayal by
Judas would hardly have been necessary. There is
nothing to surprise us if the disciples did not lay their
swords aside on the day when the danger was greatest.
After having learned in so many other points to claim
emmcipation from the law, they can hardly have felt
themselves bound to follow it with slavish literality
precisely on this particular occasion.
In the case of the Tohannine date of the crucifixion
we are in a position-to give the unifying conception
It is indicated
23. Explanation which underlies it.

:z91 f:) no longer

of the Johannine In [zj

it is said that the
date*
reason why the bones were not broken
was in order that a scripture might be fulfilled. The
scripture in question (Ex. 1246 Nu. 9 12)has reference to

the paschal lamb. Jesus then is presented as the antitype to the paschal lamb in such a manner that this
precept finds literal fulfilment in him.
(6) But not this precept only. According to 1914
Jesus is at midday still before Pilate ; his death thus
takes place in the afternoon, exactly at the time
when ( s e e s 21 6) the paschal lambs were wont to he
slaughtered. However tempting it may be to suppose
that the discrepancy with Mk. 1525 arises from a mere
2524

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

oversight, the I' of Mk., which denoted the third hour,
being misread by Jn. for a F representing the number
six, or conversely (GOSPELS, 5 14a), it loses, when
taken in connection with the other divergences of Jn.
from the synoptists, all its attractiveness.
(6) The anointing of Jesus happened, according to
Jn. 121,six days before the passover, according to Mk.
121=Mt. 262 at most two days before it. This discrepancy also is significant. According to Ex. 123 the
paschal lamb must be chosen on the 10th of Nisan.
The evening on which it is eaten belongs, according to
Jewish reckoning, to the 15th of Nisan. The 10th of
Nisan is thus the fifth day before the passover. Now,
the turn of expression in Jn. 121 (EV, ' six days before
b SpepGv 706 r d q a
the passover ') is Roman : ~ p 85
according to the analogy of ante diem tertium CaZendas
ibfuias. The Latin phrase of course denotes the 29th
of April, both the first and the last days being included
according to the Roman mode of reckoning. Applying
the same principle to Jn. 121 we find that the 10th of
Nisan is indicated. Here again, accordingly, Jesus is
seen to be the antitype of the paschal lamb. For
Greek examples see Winer, 61 5 end.
( d ) The synoptists do not mention the lance-thrust,
just as they pass over the omission to break the bones
of thecrucified Jesus. In Jn. ( 1 9 3 4 3 7 ) the lance thrust
also is mentioned as a fulfilment of a scripture : they
shall look on him whom they have pierced.' The meaning of the quotation is not at first sight plain, nor yet its
connectionwith the statement that blood and water flowed
from the wound. In spite of all efforts, no one has yet
been able to show that blood and water actually do flow
from a wound of this kind. But blood and water are
mentioned together also in I Jn. 56, where it is said that
Jesus Christ came by water and blood. By the water
here, so far as the person of Jesus is concerned, we can
hardly understand anything else than his baptism ; by
the blood the atoning blood which he shed on the cross.
The sequel in w. 7-9 shows, however, that what is
being spoken of is not merely the experience of his own
life, but also that which he brings to believers. In that
case the water denotes their baptism, and the meaning
of the blood is best found in Jn. 653-56. It is the
. eucharistic blood. Jesus comes (I Jn. 5 6 ) by the two
sacraments which signify, partly reception into the
Christian church, partly the continual renewal of a
Christian standing. Now, the reference to water does
not come into connection with the idea of the paschal
lamb ; but that to blood does. The reference to water
thus carries us beyond the suggestions connected with
the paschal lamb, indeed, but only shows all the more
clearly that the account of the history is here dominated
throughout by ideas.
(e) That the Last Supper as related in the Fourth
Gospel cannot have been a paschal meal is self-evident,
and would not of itself give occasion to any doubts
Serious doubts, however,
regarding Jn.'s chronology.
must arise when it is observed how the evangelist
connects the interpretation of the Supper with his
narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand ( 6 1 - 6 3 )
and thus makes it to have been given a year earlier than
the date at which the event happened according to the
synoptists.
How impossible this version of the facts is can best be seen
from the attempts to render it harmless. Many deny that the
eucharist is intended a t all in chap. 6 ; hut in view of the
words in m.516-56, and of the allusion, otherwise quite pointless, to thirst as well as hunger in v. 35, such a denial is quite
useless. Spitta, accordingly, would delete vu. 51-59 ($ 21.c);
but 2,. 35, which he leaves untouched, raises its protest against
such a critical proceeding. Arthur Wright ( A Sy%ojsi.isof the
Gospels in Greek, '96) assumes that Jesus instituted the ordinance of the Supper as earlyas the first passover of his ministry,
at the second gave the exposition now found in Jn. 6, and a t
the third and last only added perhaps the command to continue
its celebration. This is logical enough, hut so gratuitous as to
require no refutation.

The next surprising thing in this connection is that

Jn. reports absolutely nothing regarding the celebration

2525

at the last supper. Spitta supposes the dropping out

of a leaf which contained the missing account so exactly
-neither more nor less-that the hiatus arising from
want of connection remained unperceived. Not only
is this hypothesis very bold ; it wholly fails to nicct
the case. One must go further, and confess that it
is impossible to point to the place where the missing
leaf ought to have come in.
Jn. introduces in
place of the celebration something quite new, namely
the foot-washing. This is not accidental; it is a
manifestation of love, and the action takes place in the
course of the meal. The meal thus takes the character
of a love-feast, an ugapl and thereby becomes an
excellent substitute for ,the supper ; in the primitive
church, it is well known, agapC and Eucharist went
together. When the matter is viewed in this light there
is no further occasion to seek for a place in the gospel
where the account of the institution of the Eucharist
may originally have stood.
(f)
Thus we may take as lying at the foundation of
the whole representation in the Fourth Gospel the idea
which is thrown out by Paul only casually ( I Cor.
fj7k: 'as our passover Christ was sacrificed,' 7 b r d q a
qpwv pTd67 XpwrAs. Jn. carries it out in all its details.
T h e more completely the precepts relating to the
paschal lamb could be shown to have been fulfilled in
Jesus, the more perfectly could it be held to have been
demonstrated that the religion which rested on the passover as its foundation had been, by the will of God, set
aside and its place taken by another.
It may perhaps be matter of surprise that the 'pneumatic'
evangelist should attach weight to so literal a fulfilment of the
Old Testament. Yet this is what he does also elsewhere. From
Ps. 22 19we find that Mk. 15 24 Mt. 27 35 Lk. 23 34 have taken
only the one detail that the soldiers divided the raiment of Jesus
amongst themselves by lot. I t is only Jn. (1923,t) who not
ouly cites the passage ver6atim, hut also finds in the two
menihers of the verse two separatefacts,-viz., the dividing of the
upper garment, and the casting of lots over the seamless undergarment. So also it is he who brings Ps.6922 into connection
with the fact stated hy the synoptists(Mk. 1536 Mt.2748 Lk.
2336) that .they gave Jesus to drink on the cross, and who expressly signalises the act as a fulfilment of a scripture (19 2s).
It is he too (2 17) who quotes from the same Psalm-tke 69th
-a citation not found in any of the synoptists, claiming that it
found its fulfilment in Jesus, and gives four other citations, also
not met with in the synoptists-in each case, moreover, with
Mt.'s formula 'thaL it might be fulfilled,' etc 'Iva rAqpwSfj
K.T.A. (1238 l$18 1525 1712), as in 1924 28. It ii he, too, who
(without having been preceded hy the synoptists) sees a type of
Christ in the Serpent in the wilderness (314), a type of the
Eucharist in the manna(Ggrf: 49f: 58), as also indeed he finds a
type in Siloah (97), translating it by &suTaA&os
(cp GOSPELS,
68 48 56).

The position of the question, then, is this. In the

case of the synoptists
no one has ever yet been able to
.~
24. The synoptic suggest any reason why they should
and Johannine have wished to change the date of
The utmost
date confronted. that
the death
of Jesus.
has been
said has been thisthat the disciples had no longer retained a precise recollection of the day. It is difficult to understand how
any one who adopts such a view can possibly attach
any credence whatever to anything the synoptists
say.
This view, so damaging to the synoptists, is
not at all the result, as such a view ought to be, of
careful examination of their work or of appreciative
consideration of the position of the authorities on
whom they relied-on whose memories nothing surely
could have imprinted itself so indelibly as the events
of those last days.
It owes its origin simply and
solely to preference for the Fourth Gospel. Only in
one case would it be compulsory to adopt it-if the
synoptic date were proved to be impossible. But this
it is far from being ; the difficulties on which emphasis
is laid are in part only seeming, and in part admit
of explanation by a very excusable error of tradition
(I 22). In the Fourth Gospel on the other hand it can
be shown, point by point, that the representation of the
history had to be given exactly as we find it there if it was
to serve to set forth the given ideas. The sole question,
2526

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

the words No one knoweth [better: hath known]
I am the Son. And the final clause
in Mt. and Lk. fits thisame sense admirably and he to whom
the Son will reveal it. What the Son will ieveal is, according
to the true reading, not at all the essence of the Father, nor yet
so to say his own essence which might again bring us back to
the Johannine theology,but simply the knowledge that he is
the Messiah.
Peters confession and the answer of Jesus to it (Mt. 16 16f:
and 11s) do not come into conflict with this as oue might he apt
to suppose. Altogether unassisted and out of his own inner
consciousness merely, Peter could never have reached the
intuition that Jesus was the Messiah ; some hints he must have
received from Jesus himself. Or, since Jesus forbade his
disciples to make known the confession of Peter it is open to u s
to suppose that he uttered the words of Mt. 11 2; somewhat later
and in presence of another audience to which Peter did not
belong.
Taken in this sense the passage not only does not contain the
The difference i n character between t h e synoptic and
Johannine Christology; it is simply a purely synoptist repre:
t h e Johannine discourses of Jesus c a n h a r d l y be oversentation of the rise of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus : in
stated.
the course of his earthly development he arrived at the knowledge
that God is not the austere god of the Old Testament law but a
( a ) A s r e g a r d s style- the synoptists give s h o r t sayfather
such as is presented to us in the prophets (Is. G3 16), the
i n g s , the F o u r t h Gospel l o n g expositions.
The F o u r t h
salms (Ps. G86 10313), and other later writings (Ecclus. 23 I 4
25. Character Gospel h a s no parables- not even in
h d . 2 16 11IO 1 4 3 etc.). In his relation to the divine Father
of discourses chaps. 15 o r 10. In 106 t h e s a y i n g of Jesus feels himself to be a son of God,-in the first instance in
is called, not a parable ( ~ a p a - the Old Testament ethical sense, inasmuch a s be submits his
of Jesus. Jesus
will in all things to that of the Father. But in this respect he
@A$), b u t a p r o v e r b (rraporpla : s e e found
himself so isolated in the circle of his contemporaries that
P ARABLE).
T h i s is very appropriate.
T h a t Jesus
he saw himself to hdcalled to the responsibility of leadership.
Thus it was that he felt himself to be the son KQT ;&&.
s h o u l d be a I d o o r is an i d e a t h a t it is impossible to
for the text itself, no codex, however old and good, can
visualise.
By i t i s expressed- not b y m e a n s of an beAs
a sufficient witness against the extra-canonical reading, since
image d r a w n f r o m life, b u t b y m e a n s of an artificial
even the oldest of them is some two centuries younger than it.
thought-allegory- the conception t h a t Jesus, or, m o r e
The attempt has been made to discredit the reading as being
a falsification of the Gnostics, who denied that under the Old
strictly speaking, faith i n Jesus, is the only m e a n s whereb y o n e c a n enter into the C h u r c h and so into blessedness.
In t h e F o u r t h Gospel t h e discourses of Jesus
are distinguished so little from those of t h e Baptist or
f r o m those of the evangelist himself t h a t commentators on
s u c h a passage, for example, a s 327-36 a r e utterly a t varia n c e o n t h e question as t o where the one e n d s and the
o t h e r begins.
( d ) I n t h e synoptics the m a i n subject of the discourses
.of Jesus is furnished b y t h e question h o w the k i n g d o m
of G o d c a n b e entered : i n J n . , on the o t h e r h a n d , the
Old Testament all knowledge of God as the Father. For it
leading t h e m e i s Jesus himself- his person a n d h i s
was not in their case that Jesus was at all concerned to deny
dignity, on which i n the synoptists he h a s e x t r a such knowledge ; it was in the case of his contemporaries that
he did so; this was sufficient foundation for the unique claim he
,ordinarily little to say. Accordingly, i n Jn., the exmade.
pression kingdom of G o d occurs only twice ( 3 3 5).
Finally, we must point out that the opening words of Mt. 11
I n M t . 1125-30, it i s true, it has been t h o u g h t b y scholars
27=Lk. 1022 All things
father must not be explained
that we h a v e o n e passage which p a r t a k e s of the characcordilg to Mt.2818. There stands expressly the word
power.
In our present context however, power would be
a c t e r of t h e Johannine discourses of Jesus, a n d t h u s
quite unsuitable, for we are concerhed only with the knowl&e
guarantees the authenticity of these throughout. T h i s ,
that God is a father. The yoke of Jesus in Mt. 11zgf: is conhowever, considering its isolated character, the p a s s a g e
trasted with the yoke of the Law, the yoke of the Pharisees
i n question could n o t be held t o d o , even if it really
(cp Mt. 23 4 and the expressionjkpm ZeeiS in the Apoc. Bar. 41 3);
they are the wise and prudent from whom according to
w e r e Johannine i n character. Moreover, s u c h a c h a r 1125 God has hidden what he has through Jesus revealed to
a c t e r d o e s not i n point of fact belong to it, as becomes
infants namely the fatherhood of God. Now the doctrine of
a p p a r e n t a s soon as t h e m o s t ancient r e a d i n g is t a k e n
the Phkisees iscalled tradition of the elders (rrapd8ou~sTQY
W
~ S U ~ P V T ~ in
~ P Mk.
O V ) 7 4 s 13 etc., and in this we have explained
i n t o account.
how anything that Jesus taught was said to be delivered to
All the church-fathers and heretics of the second century, of
him. I n this way vanishes the last appearance of there being
whose reading of this passage we have any knowledge a t all
in our passage Johannine ideas.
hear witness wholly or in part to the following text : All thing;
have been delivered to me by my father, and no one hath known
(c) T h e occasion which leads t o t h e prolongation of
(Cyvu) the father but the son, nor the so: but the father and he
t h e discourses of Jesus i n t h e F o u r t h Gospel is often
to whomsoever the son will reveal it. Even Irenzxs, who
s o m e misunderstanding of his words on t h e p a r t of the
severely censures the sect of the Marcosians on account of this
reading, himself adopts it twice or (according to the Syriac
listeners. S u c h misunderstanding m a y sometimes s e e m
translation) thrice: we must therefore suppose that so it stood
intelligible i n s o m e degree- as for e x a m p l e when Jesus
writteii in his bible.
s p e a k s of himself as t h e b r e a d which c a m e d o w n f r o m
According to the text just quoted the knowledge of the Father
by the Son is not something which is spoken of in the present tense
heaven (6 41J), o r says t h a t he will give t h e m his flesh
only, so that according to the Johannine manner of thinking it
t o e a t ( 6 5 2 ) , t h a t A b r a h a m h a d a l r e a d y s e e n him (856,f),
could be regarded as having existed from all eternity; it issomea n d t h e like. B u t it would be difficult t o understand
thing that, as the aorist indicates, came into being at a definite
h o w Jesus by such disquisitions c a n h a v e w o n over t o
moment of time, and before this particular moment did not as
yet exist. This moment of time is of course to he sought for
himself t h e lowly o n e s a m o n g t h e people o r comforted
within the period of the earthly life of Jesus. Further, in the
t h e weary a n d heavy-laden. T h i s he d i d by preaching
true text the first place is not assigned to the knowledge of the
(according to t h e synoptics) t h a t t h e divine compassion
Son by the Father which again in the Johannine theology could be
regarded as existing from all eternity; the first in order is thisi s g r e a t a n d that a l l that G o d d e m a n d s is a p u r e heart,
that Jesus has recognised the Father in God, on which follows
n o t b y disquisitions of t h e kind referred t o o r metathe second that the Father has recognised the Son. Of course,
physical questions i n a l a n g u a g e that c a n n o t b e called
however, this does not mean here that mysterious interpenetrative knowledge which dogmatic theology ascribes to the
popular.
I n o t h e r places the misunderstandings of t h e
first person of the Trinity in relation to the second. what it
hearers are h a r d l y comprehensible (see, for example,
means is simply this : N o one except God has hitherio known
8 19 zz. 27). It may, i n fact, be a l m o s t generalised as a
that I am the Messiah : you all have not as yet perceived it.
prevailing law for t h e F o u r t h Gospel t h a t at t h e beginThe same thing is very fitly expressed in the parallel text Lk.

therefore i s whether we shall m a k e u p o u r minds t o

recognise t h a t this is w h a t t h e F o u r t h Gospel does.
T h i s decision we must, however, make, unless t h e
synoptic representation is to r e m a i n an insoluble riddle.
Nor is such a decision, i n view of t h e entire c h a r a c t e r
o f t h e F o u r t h Gospel, in t h e least difficult. Elsewhere
also i t devotes itself t o t h e representation of ideas (see
z o c ) , and a s regards t h e d a t e of t h e crucifixion the
coincidences with t h e precepts regarding the paschal lamb
are so s t r o n g t h a t o n t h e assumption of literal historicity
the position of H e n g s t e n b e r g is inevitable- that G o d ,
or Jesus, with conscious intention, so ordered t h e events
as t o m a k e t h e m literally correspond t o those precepts.

1022, in

who the Son is, that is that

. ..

2527

2528

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

ning of a discourse or a portion of a discourse Jesus
utters a saying meant to be taken in a spiritual sense
but expressed in an intentionally ambiguous form which
i s understood by the hearers in the physical and so
made unintelligible (e.g. 219 33 41013f: 32 733J 1123
[ 5 6 b l 36 [I
2 6 d ] 1.232 147). But it is not easy to
suppose that this was invariably what actually happened.
( d ) Nor is there any help in the conjecture that the
Fourth Gospel reproduces the style of the discourses of
Jesus as they were during the later period of his ministry,
the synoptics that of his earlier ones. Not only does
such a theory directly conflict with the actual text,
where in Jn. we have characteristic discourses which
are assigned to his earliest period and in the synoptic
discourses equally characteristic belonging to his latest ;
the discrepancy in character between the two kinds of
discourse is so great, that a transition from the one to
the other by the same speaker is psychologically unthinkable. A consciousness of approaching departure
may very well have influenced the tone and character
of the discourses of the last days ; but if that had led to
a sudden communication of things never treated before,
surely this would a t least have been made in the hearing
of the disciples alone, and not, as we are expressly told,
in the Fourth Gospel, in the presence of the people.
( e ) One of the most striking phenomena of the discburses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is that their
themes, which are few to begin with, are repeated on
the most diverse occasions to the point of tedium.
T h e monotony is probably felt by every reader. It is
carried so far that a discourse which had been left unfinished on a certain occasion is continued on another
to other hearers. In 721-24 Jesus justifies himself at
the Feast of Tabernacles, in the autumn, for having
healed on the Sabbath-day the sick man at the pool of
Bethesda (59 16) more than half a year before, at a
feast before the preceding passover (51 64). In 10
26-28 at the Feast of Dedication he continues the discourse about his sheep which he had begun at another
time in 101-16.
The attempt has been made to account for such phenomena
by supposing that the order of the several parts of the gospel
Lad been lost by copyists. cp for example Bacon JBL, '94, pp.
64-76, Strayer and Turue; 3Th. Studies rgoo, p'p. 137.140 and
i41J Such attempts have) a certain justkcation when they seek
to remove the difficulty that after the charge (1431) ' Arise let us
gohence' Jesusuttersthediscourses thatfillchaps. 15-17; hdteven
here the attem ts at rearrangement are by no means convincing.
Much more [opeless are such attemptselsewhere. I t has been
suggested that 7 15-24 should follow directlyon547. But a t 547
the subject of the Sabbath has been dropped for some time ; a t
5 17,f it is passed from with a clearly marked transition(' not only
hut also'). Immediatelyafter 516, therefore, would be the
place for the passage from chap. 7 and the passage must he not
7 15-24 hut only 719-24 (so Bertlihg, Si. KY '80, pp. 35r-353).
Even, however, if a better order were obtained at one place by
transpositions we should furthermore have to inquire how the
original order came to he disturbed. If one could venture to
suppose that a leaf which accidental& began and ended exactly
with a complete sentence became detached from the papyrus roll
to which it had been fastened and was then inserted at a wrong
place, the hypothesis becomes of course impossible as soon as it
1s found necessary to apply it to a series of cases. T o obtain a
better order, however, 733J, e.g., should be contiguous with
133336 or 7375 with 410145, or 812 with 1246, or 815 with
1247, dhilst the intervening verses 8131: are the continuation of
531J
These are hut a few examples out of an almost endless
mass. There hardly remains anything therefore hut t o attribute this state of things to a peculiarit;in the au6or.

. ..

The representation of Jesus throughout the entire

Fourth Gospel is in harmony with the utterances of
the Johannine Christ regarding his
26, The
Origin (25
I
of Jesus, apart ( a ) Hisbaptismis
not related(l3zf: ),
from the
becaiise it seemed to interfere with his
dignity ; so also his temptation in the
wilderness, his prayer in Gethsemane, and his forsaken
cry on the cross are passed over in silence. The place
of the prayer in Gethsamane is taken by the words spoken
at a much earlier period (l227), which, however, cannot
be worse misinterpreted than they are when punctuated
(as in Ti., Treg., and W H ) : ' Now is my soul troublecl,
2529

and what shall I say 7 Father, save me from this hour.'

T o the Johannine Christ the thought of asking the
father for deliverance from death could never have
suggested itself; his surrender of his life is in fact
voluntary (1017J). The meaning accordingly is : 'Shall
I, peradventure, say : Father, save me from this hour?'
It is only thus that the sequel comes in with any appropriateness : ' Nay, for this cause came I unto' this
hour, therefore will I rather say : Father, glorify thy
name'-by this, that thou sufferest me to go to my
death. Cp 1811. Some trace 'of a weakness in the
crucified one might perhaps be discerned in the words
(1928) ' I thirst' ; but it is expressly observed that they
werespoken only that a scripture might be fulfilled.
His prayer at the grave of Lazarus is uttered, according to 1142, only on the people's account. He shows
his omniscience in 1 4 8 224 f.416-18664 71 1111-14 13
II 18.
Jesus addresses to Philip the question, 'Whence
shall we buy bread?' ( 6 5 J ) only to try him.
(6) His enemies cannot lay hands on him ; as often as
they setabouthisarrest (73044 82059 10391236) orseelc
toslay him(5r6-r872532 lO31,cp 71983740), theattempt
fails. The expression ( 6 ~ p d p ~
which
)
we read in 859
1236 must, in view of his dignity, be interpreted not as
meaning that ' he hid himself,' but as meaning that he
became invisible in a supernatural way (cp GOSPELS,
$ 56, n. I ) . At his arrest theentire Roman cohort falls
to the ground (186). Of his own initiative he gives
himself up. Judas has no need to betray him with a
kiss, and stands doing nothing. Of his own initiative,
by dipping the sop and giving it to Judas, Jesus had
already brought it about that Satan entered into Judas,
and had charged him to hasten his work (1326f.).
Jesus acknowledged to Pilate that he was King, not of
the Jews, but of something higher, of Truth (1837).
There is no need for Simon of Cyrene to carry the
cross ; Jesus carries it himself (19 17).
( c ) Immediately after his resurrection Jesus will not
allow Mary Magdalene to touch him (20 17) as she and
the other Mary touch his feet in Mt. 289 ; he does not
taste food as in Lk. 2442f. (nor yet in Jn: 21 x z f . ) ; on
the contrary, he enters by closed doors (201926) and
imparts the Holy Spirit (2022), which according to
Acts 21-13 was first poured out on the disciples at
Pentecost. According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus can
impart the Holy Spirit because he and the Holy Spirit
are one, because his second coming is identical with
the coming of the Holy Spirit (0 28 a ) , and because
that coming became possible at the monient of Jesus'
glorification (739). In short, to the Christ of the
Fourth Gospel the saying of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(.Fi8), that he learned obedience through the things
that he suffered, has become inapplicable ; so even that
of the Epistle to the Philippians (27). that he emptied
himself of the divine ; what applies to him is the saying of the Epistle to the Colossians (29), that in him
dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily.
( d ) Over against this we find hardly any really human
traits, and such as do manifest themselves are intended
in another sense than at first sight appears.
What is principally relied on as evidence of truly human
characteristics in the Johannine Christ is his weeping at the
grave of Lazarus (1135). From the very fact that the Jews are
said to have seen in his tears a proof of his love for Lazarus the
reader might have been led to conjecture that this is no: the
author's view of them, for the Jews are always represented as
understanding Jesus wrongly ($25 c). The evangelist has taken
further measures, however, to obviate an), suchmisunderstanding.
Even in v. 33 he tells us that Jesus was moved with indignation
in the spirit because he saw Mary weeping and the Jews also
weeping with her. And again in a. 38 Jesus is moved with indignation in himself a t the words of the Jews, 'Could this man
not have caused that Lazarus also should not diel' I t is clear,
then that the tears of Jesus as well as his anger were caused by
the dnbelief in his miraculous power.

We turn now to some leading points in the doctrine

of Jesus as recorded in Jn., with a view to comparison
with the synoptists. Salvation is spoken of as destined
for all men (10 16 1 1 5 2 , cp 316, K ~ U ~ O S ) . In the
2530

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

synoptists this doctrine is brought into the mouth
n n ~~"
of Jesus only by later insertions (see
Y1. L U W
109 n 6, 112 6) : it was
universality of aGOSPELS
, to the defence of which
doctrine
even Paul had to devote the whole of
his converted life. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other
hand, it presents itself as a matter settled from the very
beainning without possibility of dispute. Lk. had made
use of the Samaritans in order to set forth the relations
of Jesus with non-Jews, or, in other words (according to
his view), with heathen (GOSPELS, ~ o g a ) . Jn. not
only does the like (41-42; in particular, 35-38 are not
confined to Samaria) ; he goes farther, representing
Greeks also as coming to Jesus (1220-32). He does not
state what passed at the interview, or what the result
was ; the narrative closes abruptly. This makes it all
the more clear that the interview is simply to show that
Greeks had so come ; the passage thus may be regarded
as pointing to the spread of the gospel among the
Gentiles. The counterpart of this is that Jesus hardly
at all comes into conflict with his opponents as regards
the validity of the Mosaic law in any of its precepts.
To him it is simply the law of the Jews (I
19). All
this shows to what a height the Johannine Christ has
risen above those difficulties with which Jesus, Paul,
and even the synoptists had still to contend.
(a)The Christ of the synoptists speaks of the final judgment as one completed act to take place at the end of
28. Escha- the present dispensatibn ; the Johannine
Christ says (524) : ' h e that believeth
tology.
shall not come into iudgment.' He
regards the judgment, where he really ;pe& of it, as a
process which is accomplished in the course of man's
life on earth ; he takes the word 'judgment ' ( KPIULS)in
an etymological sense, according to which on the one
hand it means a decision by which the individual makes
his choice whether he is to choose Christ or turn away
from -him (319); on the other hand, as a separation
between men who do the one thing and those who do
the other (1231 ; cp substantially, 111f:).Whilst the
Christ of the synoptists, moreover, announces in a quite
literal sense his coming again with the clouds of heaven,
the Johannine Christ identifies his second advent with
the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers
(1416-18167 13).
(6) It must not be overlooked that alongside of
this the synoptic view also is met with. Passages like
143 ZI 1616-22 are capable of being so taken ; and so
also as regards the final judgment the synoptic representation is quite clearly expressed in 5 2 8 J ; only
we must not regard such expressions as the decisive
ones, since they can easily be merely the prolonged
effect of the older view. So much is certain-that the
spiritualised representation which is characteristic of the
Fourth Gospel could not have been possible to the
Jesus of the synoptists. So strong is the contradiction
between the two that many find the only possible solution in the supposition that 528f: is a gloss.

...

A like supposition can hardly he upheld with regard to those

passages in which the second advent is described in synoptical
terms. Here the only supposition open to us is that the evangelist has retained the old form of expression but iniported a
new meaning into it, and made the new meaning secure a g i n s t
misunderstanding by means of a variety of expressions in which
he formulates his own view. As regards the resurrection of
believers, we find it expressed in 5 ( 2 5 ? ) z8J 6 3.96 406 446 5+6
quite in the manner with which the synoptists have made
ns familiar. These passages, however, admit with particular
facility the assumption that they are glosses. I n their present
connection they are in part superfluous, in part even disturbing
to the, sense, being attached to sentences that state the very
opposite.

(c) Alongside of the second advent passages just

referred to we find a spiritualised view, according to
which resurrection is a n event happening within the
earthly life of the believer: ' he who believeth
hath already passed ( ~ ( E T u @ P ~ K from
E P ) death unto
life' (524, cp85rf:). The same view is met with also
among the gnostics. In 2 Tim. 218 we find quoted

...

2.531

as theirs the declaration that the resurrection is past

already. By this they meant that the resurrection in
the case of each individual is when by the revelation
of which Christ is the means he reaches the intuition
that his soul is of divine origin and his body oiily
a prison of the soul, and when, in accordance with
this, as a true gnostic, he despises what is earthly and
cherishes the consciousness of his divine origin. Jn.
has given no specially gnostic expression to his view of
the resurrection, and in the other leading passage
(11zsf: ) it is possible that there is nothing more than an
expression of the doctrine of immortality : ' He that
believeth on me, even though he die, shall yet live, and
whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die.'
Only, in this utterance, the last words have already
ceased to speak of the physical death which is the suhject of the first. That any one would escape physical
death the author could not possibly afirm. Nor would
the proposition have had any interest for him. What
is important for him is the conception of a life which
begins already upon this earth and is endowed with
such intensity that it cannot be interrupted by the circumstance of physical death. If he calls it ' eternal ' he
means by that word not merely its endless duration, but
before and above all, its inextinguishable power even
already upon earth. Its opposite is a condition of the
soul which is also to be met with in the course of man's
earthly life-that of spiritual death. This idea of life
is quite remote from the sphere of thought of the Christ
of the synoptists.
(d) Th: fact however, that in order to set forth the Johannine
idea of eterrh life' the raising of Lazarus from a physical
death is used, was fitted to conceal the novelty of the idea from
theologians. I n reality the raising of Lazarus is quite unsuited
to express that idea. It is not Lazarns's faith on Jesus which
gives him the inward strength to continue his life in fellowship
with God and with Christ ; on the contrary for his resurrection
one of the most stupendous of physical nhracles is required ;
and this resurrection itself does not guarantee to him an endless
continuance of his physical life, but sooner or later he must,
it need hardly be said, die a second time without the prospect
of a new miraculous raising by Jesus.

(a)The Christ of the synoptists has already placed

Satan over against God ; but in the Fourth Gospel this
29.
antithesis is made nmch sharper (844).
Moreover, it is of much wider reach.
Over against one another stand the things that are
above and the things that are beneath ( ~ &hv u and
~d K ~ T W ,S Z ~ )in, other words, heaven and earth (r?,
3 3 1 , or K ~ U ~ O823
S 1519 171416). The same antithesis
is denoted by that between light and darkness ( 1 5
31gf:), truth and error (1417), lifeanddeath(6.y 53f:).
It subsists accordingly, not between two personalities
merely, God and the devil, but between two worlds, the
higher and the lower, and in the passages quoted it is
conceived as absolute. It recurs again in the world of
men as the antithesis between 'spirit' (?rveDpa) and
'flesh' (uhpt) ( 3 6 ) . The important point to notice is
that in a number of passages one class of men is regarded as belonging to the one order and the other
class to the other, and a transition from the one to the
other seems to be excluded. Chap. 3 6 has no meaning
unless it is intended to convey that what is born of the
flesh is and remains flesh, and what is born of the spirit
is and remains spirit. In accordance with this view are
the extraordinarily blunt sentences (843), 'Ye cannot
hear my word ' (because ye are of your father the devil) ;
cp 3 2 7 64465 1237-40, as also 179 : ' I pray not for the
world. ' -If only such sentences as these were met with
in the Fourth Gospel, it would be a gnostic book ; for
they embody the separation of mankind into two classes
-the ' pneumatic ' on the one hand, and the ' psychic '
on the other-and the declaration, made only by the
gnostics, that none but the pneumatic can attain to
salvation.
This view, had it gained the upper
hand, would have been the death of the Christian
church, for it excludes from her pale all the intellectually weak.

dualism.^

2.53%

JOI-IN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

(a) In the Fourth Gospel it i s not carried out with blasphemy against himself can be forgiven (Mt. I 2 3 1 3
Lk. 1210; see GOSPELS, 116 d).
thoroughness. Side by side with it stand such utterances
of a universal Christianity as ( 1 9 ) the light lighteth
In the Prologue Jesus is identified with the Logos.
every man ; cp 1.7 3 1 5 3 or 1 2 9 6 3 3 1 2 4 7 3 1 7 , accord(a)Formerly scholars used to be generally
that the
. agreed
ing to which Christs mission is to save the world, or
31.
. Logos-idea had been taken over from
g
os
e
T
h
L
o
1231 1 6 1 1 , according to which he is to overcome Satan.
Philo. It was not until the TubinZen
It is nevertheless not conceivable that such universal ideas
school had begun to draw from this inferences unfavourembody the original meaning of the Johannine doctrine
able to the genuineness of the gospel that this conccsof Jesus. For ^in that case it would he iocompresion was withdrawn. It is correct to say that in the
hensible how Jn. should ever have attributed the opO T we can observe some tendencies to ascribe to a
posite ideas also to Jesus. The actual state of the case
second divine being side by side with the supreme G o d
can only be stated thus : the gnostic ideas were the
a certain independent existence. T o the category indicated belong the angel of Yahwi: (Gen. 167-13 22
starting-point, but were not held with rigorous strictness, and were allowed to become toned down by asso11-18 31 11-13 Ex. 3 2 - 6 14 f: Judg. 611-23 Zech. 111-13 3.
ciation with those of universal Christianity. This is
I$), the spirit of God (Gen. l a Is. 112 Joel31 [1!28]),
shown often even by the very language employed ; for
the face of God (Ex. 3 3 1 4 Dt. 4 3 7 ) , the name of G o d
example, in 15 19 : because ye are not of the world, but
(Ex. 2321 Nu. 6 2 7 Ps. 543 Prov. 1810 Is. 3 o z 7 ) , the glory
I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world
(~23)
of Yahwi: (Ex. 2416f. I K. S I I ) , and the wisdom
of God (Job 28 12-28 ; Prov. 8 22-31 ; Bar. 3 28-38 ; Ecclus.
hateth you. If the disciples are not of the world then
11-102 4 1 - 1 2 ; Wisd. 722-85 9 4 9 ) ; also(but1east of all)
they are, according to the antithesis strictly taken,
the very word of God (Gen. 1 3 6 etc., Ps. 3 3 6 Wisd.
already of God and need not, nay, cannot, be chosen
out of the world. If, however, they can, then in the
l S 1 5 j ) . In the Targums the Word of God, in parsecond clause we find no longer the mutually exclusive
ticular (,memcru),is often substituted where the original
antithesis between God and the world, but rather the
has YahwA. All this, however, is very far indeed from
sufficing really to explain the Logos-idea of the Fourth
idea of the world as denoting the sum-total of all
Gospel. Its foundation lies in the idea that God is unhumanity, and that a certain number out of the total
known and must remain unknown if he is not revealed.
are capable of arriving at eternal blessedness.
Jesus attributes to himself pre-existence in the most
The O T nowhere goes so far. The idea rests rather upon
the dualism between God and matter which we find in
comDrehensive manner (,8 -5 8,) : before Abraham came
Plato. The Stoics added to this the idea that the Logos,
30. Sayings of into being, I am. The present tense
Jesus regard- expresses not only a priority to Abra- as having proceeded from God, while at the same time not
ing himself. ham in time, but also the further idea in the fullest sense of the word a divine being, has for
its function to exercise upon the world that operation of
that the condition of Tesus was at no
time any other than it is at the moment of speaking-in
God which, strictly speaking, was impossible to God as
the absolute good over against the world as the absolute
other words, that he has existed from all eternity. Cp
evil. Philo appropriated this Stoical idea, and brought
further, 175. In view of these utterances it is quite
pointless to interpret the oneness with the Father which
it into connection with some ideas of the OT. Thereby
he gave it a development which, as an intermediate
Jesus attributes to himself in 1 0 3 0 3 8 149-11 1 2 4 5 1721
and often, as purely a moral oneness, that is to say as
stage, prepared the way directly for the Fourth Gospel.
depending merely on the determination of Jesus to
(6) If Philo had not existed, we should have been compelled to trace the Logos-idea of Jn. to the other sources
submit.his.own will entirely to the will of God. A prewe have named. In that case, however, we should have
existent person has clearly come into being in a way
which-fundamentally distinguishes him from all merely
been.constrained to ascribe to the evangelist a very large
human persons. The expression only begotten (povo- measure of independence.
As, however, Philo was
Y E Y ~ S )applies to him in the quite literal sense that he is
some twenty-five years older than Jesus, and his writings
the only Son of God, begotten by God, while all men
were already known to the author of Hebrews, if not
have been created not begotten by him, and therefore
even to Pau1,l it is nothing less than wilful blindness t o
it must be understood in this meaning, not in the
facts to deny the derivation of the Johannine Logos-idea
weakened seuse in which a son of a human father can
from Philo, and to refuse to admit anything save an O T
origin. Apart from this, the object in view-to avoid
be called only begotten if he has no brother. Herein,
further, lies the reason why Jn. never, like Jesus (e.g.,
the necessity of deriving an idea of such importance in
Mt. 5 9 4 5 ) and Paul (e.g.,Rom. 8 1 4 ) ~speaks of men :.i the N T from an extra-canonical source-is attained
only if the O T Apocrypha are shut out as well as Philo ;
sons ( d o l ) , but always only as children ( T ~ K Y U c) l
God, as in Rom. 8 1 6 3 , and knows of but one s o n but these are precisely the writings that contain far
(uILE) of God. Only begotten (povoyeri/s) thus ex- more important and exact anticipations of the Logospresses more than own son (16ros uibs) by which
idea than any in the OT.
expression Paul (Rom. 8 3 2 ) distinguishes Jesus from all
A more serious consideration is demanded by the
men, or the son of his love (6 uibs ~ i ciyrimp
fact that in the Fourth Gospel theview of the universe from
j ~ ah0)
(Col. 113), and more than the simple .son (uIbs) which
which the Logos-idea proceeds is not quite consistently
the Epistle to the Hebrews applies, both with and withcarried out. According to that view God himself should
never at all come into relations with the world without
out the article, to Jesus (128 etc.) ; for the Epistle to
mediation of the Logos. Instead of this, we read for
the Hebrews does not hesitate also at the same time
example in316 that he loves the world; cp 6 4 0 1 6 2 7 1 7 6 .
to speak of men as sons (viol) of God (210 125-8).
Jesus oneness with God would remain firmly established
This position, however, is nothing more than a mitigain virtue of his mode of origin, quite apart from the
tion of strict philosophical dualism such as is inevitable
question whether he realises this oneness in the moral
in thought that is based at one and the same time on
the OT and on Christianity ; but, had it been the startsphere by any determination of his own. It accords
ing-point, it would be impossible to see how the author
moreover with this view of his origin, that in his person
could ever have come to think of a Logos as neeclfd
upon earth God can be seen ( 1 2 4 5 1 4 9 ) . According to
3 13 he is even continually at the same time in heaven and
in order to mediate between God and the world.
on earth. It is in harmony too with the same view that
( d ) It is quite a mistake to argue that the Fourth Gospel
cannot have drawn from Philo because it represents the
the only demand made upon men is that they should
Logos as having been made flesh (114). It is indeed
believe in Jesus, and that it is declared that no man
true that the Philonic Logos can never be made flesh ;
can come to the father but through him ( 1 4 6 ) . The
Christ of the synoptists never speaks thus of his own
1 Cp Vollmer, Die alttestanzentl. Citate bei Pnulus, 1895,
person ; on the contrary, we find him declaring that
PP. 83-98.

(0

2533

2534

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

it is superfluous to ask whether it he a person at all, for
it belongs to the essence of the Logos that at one and
the same time as a power working on the world it
possesses a distinct existence over against God and yet
in accordance with its original meaning it remains an
impersonal idea of God. When, however, the Logosidea came to be brought into connection with Christianity
it was inevitable that Jesus should be identified with the
Logos; for in Christianity Jesus has the position of a
revealer of God, the position which in Philo is assigned
to the Logos. In this a quite fundamental modification
of the Logos-idea is involved. But from this fact the
proper conclusion is, not that the earlier form does not
lie at the foundation of the later, but rather that there
is all the less reason why we should not recognise the
fact in proportion as the modification which Christianity
has wrought upon the Logos-idea has been profound.
One might suppose it .to be self-evident that the
evangelist in his prologue had the intention of pro32. Purpose pounding the fundamental thoughts which
of prologue. he was about to develop in the subsequent
course of his gospel. The view of Har,
189-231)
nack (2tschr.J Theol. 21. Kirche, ~ 8 9 2 pp.
-that the prologue is not the expression of the evangelists own view hut is designed merely to produce a
favourable prepossession on behalf of the hook in the
niindsofeducated readers-is in itself remarkable enough.
But, apart from this, Harnack, in working it out; has to
interpret the Gospel itself, apart from the prologue, in
a way which does not correspond with the facts. Thus,
he maintains that Jesus is presented in the gospel as
mainly ideally, not really pre-existent ; that in so far as
he is presented as really pre-existent, it is on the ground
not of his being son of God but of his being Messiah ;
that Jesus is son of God only in the ethical, not in the
metaphysical sense ; the figure of Jesus presented is an
expresslyhuman one and shows at no point divine features
inconsistent with this character (see, as against this, $5
26 30). Further, he draws from the facts unsound
conclusions.
Harnack rightly holds that where Jesus is represented as son
of God he is not only one with God but also subordinated to
him (e.g., 14z8), hut he infers from t i i s that his sonship is to he
understood in the ethical not the metaphysical sense. To this it
must he replied that eve; a son of God who from all eternity has
been begotten in a supernatural wayremains from the very nature
of the case subordinate to the father. Precisely this generation
before all time is held b y Harnack it is true to he excluded b y
reason of the fact that i t is the earthly Christwho is called only
begotten(povoyevrjs) (114 18 3 16 18). It isself-evident, however
that thisditle could not be withheld from the earthly Christ if i;
had belonged to him already before his earthly existence ; for the
earthly Christ shows in the Fourth Gospel the same attributes
of Godhead as we should ascribe to him in his pre-existent state
(see 8 26).

merely that 114 the Logos was made flesh seems to

have little importance for, the author since the thought
never recurs, and that the prologue thus stands apart
and aloof from the proper contents of the gospel itself.
The entire gospel is nothing else but an elaboration of
the thought, we saw his glory. Thus the incarnation
of the Logos must be one of its weightiest thoughts if
we are not to deny the doctrine of the pre-existence of
Christ to the gospel altogether.
T h e only fact worth noting is that pointed ont by Harnack

that apart from the prologue the word Zugos occurs in its quite
usual sense, eight times of the speech of other speakers, nine
times of an individual utterance of Jesus, eleven times of his
preaching a s a whole, in addition to the seven times where it is
used in the expression word of God (Adyos 70; BsoG) meaning
the tidings of salvation. This also, however, admits of explanation. As soon as the narrative passes over from the pre-existent
to the earthly life of Jesus the place of the title logos must be
taken hy those designations (Jesus, 6 I~roGs,and the like) which
are fitted to express his human manifestation. I n this part of
the book, therefore, it can cause hut little confusion if the word
logos is used in its ordinary meaning. We too are in the habit
3f continually using one and the same word, now in its ordinary
and now in its technical sense, as soon as we are sure we shall be
understood. I n the Fourth Gospel no passage can be pointed
to where uncertainty as to the sense in which logos is used is
possible ; everywhere it is made clear by some addition such as
this word, my word, his word, or the like.

The perception that the prologue is deliberately intended as a ureuaration for the entire contents of the
33. Divisions gospel has reached its ultimate logical
result in the proposition that the entire
intotriads. coseel is a conceDtion at the root of
which lies neither history nor even tradition of another
kind, hut solely the ideas of the prologue. Upon this
proposition rests the brilliant analysis of the gospel
by Baur, with which, significantly enough, theologians
so strictly dogmatic as Luthardt and Hengstenberg find themselves in accord--these two, however,
we must hasten to add, in the helief that the artificial
arrangement which is rendered necessary by the carrying
out of that central thought is at the same time in accordance with history,-God, or Christ, having so ordered
the history that it should suhserve the expression of
those ideas. In setting forth these ideas the division
into triads is used as a principal means. It manifests
itself partly in single sentences such as 1I or l z o
(GOSPELS, 5 49), partly in the manner in which the
various parts of the book are grouped as a whole.
Alreadv. however, it has come to be very generally
-

1 Still less would this he the case if in 1IS an only begotten

God (pouoyevlls Beds) were to be read, as in fact Harnack himself would read. The external testimony is indecisive as between
this reading and the only begotten son (6 povoysv?p v&).
On
philological grounds the first reading would require a t least to
have the article prefixed, as indeed it has in extracts from
Theodotus in Clem.Al. p. 968 in a statement about the Valentinians in K C and in the minuscule codex 33 further in many
(though not in all) places in Clem.Al. (p. 695,ed. Potter), Orig.
(489438, ed. de la Rue), Dionys. Alex. (qu 10 contra Paul.
Suntosat. in Bihliothecre Bigniane nuctarium, ed. Fron to
Ducaeus, I, Paris, 1624, p. 301), Didymus (de trinit. 1 2 6 25),
Epiphan. (pp. 612 817f: ed. Petav.), Gregor. Nyss. (de trinit.
end, ed. Morell, Paris, 1618, 2447, and in Mignes Patrol:
~ 7 - e c a ,vel. 44. PP. 3 3 6 ~ 10454 vel. 45, PP. 469d 493a
5;oc 5816 729d 772c 8 0 1 a c 8 4 1 4 Basil (de spzr. suncto
15, p. 12,ed. Garner.), Cyril. Alex. (,,mm. in joh., pp. 104:
!076 ed. Aubert, Paris, 1638,cpp. iogcin Puseysed. ; thesnur.
p. 13;6 ; dial. quod unus, p. 7 6 8 ;~adv. Nesforium, p. god, b
povoyev+ Bcbs hriyos ; and in Const. upost. iii. 17 vii. 43 I (in the

latter place twice). Hort( 7woD.ss.,76)bas laid no weight upon

this question ; nor yet has Harnack. I t is nevertheless a very
important one. Hort (p. 18) renders : An only-begotten who is
God, even H e who,etc. ; Harnack(Theol. Lt.-Ztg., 76, p. 545)
has einen Gott hat Niemand j e gesehen ; ein eingeborner Gott
. hat Kunde gebracht. It is not permissible, however, to
supply the indefinite article to Be6v here (a god), if it is remembered how often elsewhere the word, in spite of the absence
of the definite article, denotes the One God. I t would in the
present case he equivalent to denying altogether the authors
possession of the Christian belief in God, if we held that he
admitted even in thought the possibility of there being other
gods, and that he placed them on a level with the true God
with reference to their invisibility. But even apart from this,
from a linguistic point of view also, the antithesis between Beds
without qualificati n and povoyfvils Beds is quite inappropriate
and unintelligible$ Instead of the B d s without qualification
some more precise designation was needed. Such designation,
however is not met with anywhere in the Johannine writings.
Thefihdetermination lies in theconsideration that the thought
of a n only begotten God (povoyevbs 066s) is not Johannine,
and that whether with or without the article. I n 1Jn. 5 2 0 we
find the true God, b dA$wbs Be&, as a designation of God (not
of Christ ; the meaning is : being in his son Jesus Christ, we are.
in the True ; this [last] is the true God, etc.). T o designate
God, however, in contradistinction to this designation of Christ,
the true God ( b dXqbwbs Beds, I Jn. 5 20) would not he a t all a
good antithesis. Jn. 20 28 ought not to be referred to in this
connection for the reason that when Thomas there addresse:
Jesus withthe possessive pronoun as M y Lord and my God
the expression says much less than it would without the pronoun.
Thus the highest utterance regarding Jesus to which the Fourth
Gospel anywhere rises is in 1IC the word was God (bsbs 4. b
Adyos). But this does not mean more than that the Logos was
of divine essence; the passage, therefore, gives no warrant for
designating Jesus as only begotten God (pova evils e&), by
which designation he would become a second 6 o d ( S E ~ T E P O S
Beds) in the sense of the Alexandrian churchifathers.

2535

2536

Nor is it any more to the point to say that the prologue, for its part, does not intend to describe theessence
of Jesus in his pre-existence, because at its conclusion it
makes the transition to something lower, namely, to the
historical person of the only begotten (povoyevSs).
It is only on the assumption of Harnack alluded to
above that only begotten ( p o v o y a v ~ s )is something
lower than word (hjyos).l Lastly, it is in appearaucc

..

'

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

acknowledged that it is impossible to explain in this

way the arrangement of the entire gospel.
It may perhaps he enough to point out that chaps. 2-6 are
arranged according to the following scheme :-chap. 2, two narratives (the miracle a t Cana and the cleansing of the temple) ; 3 I4 42, discourses of Jesus which serve to interpret these narratives;
4 43-5 16, two miracles of healing ; 5 17-47, a discourse of Jesus
on the healing of the Jewish people ; 6 1-21,the feeding of the
five thousand and the walking upon the water (on the connection
see $ 20 c) ; 6 22-71, the disconrse relative to this on Jesus as
the bread of life. I n 7 28-11 44 the arrangement is in two respectthe opposite of this ; we have always one narrative, not two, and
the interpretative discourse precedes instead of following. Thus
8 12-59 treats of Jesus as the light of the world, in chap. 9 the
narrative of the healing of the man born blind follows ; 10 22-42
treats of Jesus as the life of the world (cp z. 28) ; in 111-44 the
raising of Lazarus follows. If we could regard as well-founded
Hausrath's conjecture (NTZiche 2eiige.rcA. iii. 6 0 3 3 2nd ed. iv.
424) that in the place where we now find the story of the woman
takin in adultery there originally stood a miraculous narrative
similar to those in chaps. 9 and 11, to which 72s-52 was th:
introductory interpretation then we should have in chaps. 7-11
a triad of narratives assoiiated with interpretative discourses.
We cannot, however, he sure of this.

Moreover, it has to be pointed out that chaps. 17 1-27

101-21 do not admit of being taken up into this scheme,
and that a similar method of grouping is still less applicable to the other parts of the gospel. The evangelist,
therefore, has at many points heen working with material
laid to his hand, and has utilised it to gite expression to
his ideas, but has not heen purely creative.
A perception of this fact leads to the question how
far the material which lay before the evangelist
- goes
._
34. Credibility back to authentic tradition.
If one
cannot claim this for the whole of the
of certain material (see JJ 35 37), the next exDedienr is to search for details that
are trustworthy.
( u ) Sayings of Jesus such as those in 7 1 7 or 1317
would cause no difficulty if we read them in the synoptic
gospels. I t does not necessarily follow from this, however, that they are authentic. They might also conceivably be summings up, by which the evangelist attributes to Jesus that which in reality is for himself the
product of his own reflection absorbed in the contemplation of Jesus. In other passages an explanation of this
kind is at once suggested by the Johannine phraseology.
T h e Jesus of the synoptists, instead of 141s 21 23 15 IO,
would be much more likely to have said ' if ye love me,
keep Gods commandmetits,' or perhaps even ' if ye love
the father, keep his commandments.' It might be
regarded as a real word of Jesus when he is made to say
(530) that he can do ncthing of himself or ( 335 5 2 0 ) that
he has nothing save what the father has first given or
shown him. This, however, can equally well be merely
an expression for the metaphysical oneness between God
and the Logos, and indeed the expression 'show'
points directly to this. It is very conceivable that in
actual fact there arrived in the life of Jesus such a
moment as that described in chap. 8 , when he became
convinced that Jerusalem had no response to make to
his demand for faith. This same thought, however, is
equally inevitable if the history of Jesus be conceived of
purely in accordance with Johannine ideas, for it simply
carries out what is said in 1IT, and Jerusalem is of course
the central point at which it had to be decided whether
Jesus was to find faith or not.
( b ) The supposition that precise statements about
some particular event having occurred or some particular
'disconrse having been pronounced on a definite day
(1293543 21 44043 622 7 1 4 3 7 1212) or even at a definite
hour ( 1 3 9 46) could only have come from an eye-witness
is very tempting. Many scholars, therefore, give precedence to such passages in their consideration, and then
propose to extend to the whole gospel the conclusion
based upon these-that it is an eye-witness who is speaking throughout. .4fter what has heen said in preceding
sections this is, however, indefensible. It has also to be
observed, further, that the evangelist himself will sometimes be found in one place to contradict his own quite
precise statements. According to 7 27 the people know

2537

whence Jesus is, according to 9 29 they do not. In 5 31

fesus says that if he bear witness of himself his witness
is not true ; in 8 1 4 he says the opposite. In 3 2 6 we
read that all the people flocked to Jesus, in 3 3 2 that no
m e received his testimony. According to 3 2 2 26 4 I Jesus
baptizes ; according to 4 2 only his disciples do so. In
the instances just cited we learn something of the evangelist's method of composition. What would we expect
of an ordinary author who wished to avoid saying anything out of place if, when he came to write (say) 4 2 ,
he found that in 3 22 26 he had erroneously stated that
Jesus himself had baptized ? Unquestionably he wocld
go back upon these passages and alter them. This is
not what Jn. does. Thus he does not attach importmce
to the literal exactness of what he says. In order to be
able to contrast Jesus and John and compare the waxing
influence of the one with the waning influence of the
other he thought it fitting in 322-26 to represent both as
baptizing.
(c) In 1 2 9 3 5 f : the mention of a particular day is
coupled with the statement that the Baptist declai-ed
Jesus to be the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the
world, in 135-42 it is coupled further with the three
other statements that Andrew and another unnamed
person had transferred themselves from the discipleship
of John to become disciples of Jesus, that Simon was led
by Andrew to Jesus, and that he forthwith received from
Jesus the name of Peter. All four statements are irreconcilable with what we read in the synoptists ( J 2, Mk.
116-20). It cannot, therefore, be said to be too bold a
conjecture if we suppose that these precise statements
of day and hour were for the evangelist only a mode of
representation, adopted in order to break up a narrative
or discourse into connected parts, the individual parts
being attached to different points of time (SQ, especially,
129 35 43 2 I 6 2 2 12 12 1 3 9 ) . The sixth hour in 4 6 has
54 y). The
perhaps a symbolical meaning (GOSPELS,
statement that at the time of the feeding of the five thousand the passover was at hand (64) was necessary in
order to call attention to the fact that the interpretation
of the eucharist was to be connected with this narrative.
The view, therefore, that this verse is a gloss is just as
mistaken as the other view that it contains an authentic
statement of historical fact.
(d) How little importance the evangelist attaches to details of
the sort is shown for example also in such a matter as this, that
in 6 15 Jesus again goes up into the mountain which he has not
left since 6 3 (the first verse corresponds to the beginning of
Mt.'s second narrative of feeding, the second to the close of his
first [I529 1423=Mk.646]), or this, that at the close of a discourse which, according to ti 24J, was begun by the seashore
(perhaps in Capernaum) and not interrupted, we are told in 6 59
that it was spoken in the synagogue at Capernaum.

Even if such detailed statements as we have had

under consideration fail us on examination. it is vet held
35. 6Johanniae, to be possible to discover true historical data in other portions, which,
tradition.
as comDared with the svnoutists. are
either new or (even) deGberately at variance with the
synoptical account.
(a)The attempt to do so may well be made, for the
entire contents of the gospel do not admit of being
derived from ideas alone. In that case, however, we
must be specially on our guard against the error of
supposing that a tradition, because different from that
of the synoptists, is eo ipso historical. The true use of
a recourse to Johannine tradition lies rather in this,
that it may enable us to see how in the conrse of oral
transmission the mistaken statements found in the
Fourth Gospel could have arisen.
(6) Should, for example-to take the most pregnant
instance-the evangelist have freely invented the whole
narrative of the raising of Lazarus in order to give expression to his idea of the life-giving power of Jesus,
he is by no means open indeed to the charge of unveracity in the moral sense of the expression (for his right to
use an allegorical method of expressing his thoughts
cannot be gainsaid when we remember the character of

2538

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

his writing), but certainly his procedure in this direction
cannot but seem very bold. The difficulties which this
view might suggest are almost completely obviated if we
suppose that the story of Lazarus had taken shape in
successive stages so that the evangelist himself had
only a few touches left to add.
Bruno Bauer long ago perceived that the story is a development of the parable of Lazarus in Lk. 16 19-31. Following this
clue we can imagine that some preacher, after relating that
pxable, in order to open it up to his hearers, may have added
the remark: 'This Lazarus actually did rise from the dead'
<cp GOSPELS, 5 rog I). A hearer df this sermon-so let us further
sippose-gave the notes of it in a shorter form to a third person
who gathered from it as a statement of historical fact tha;
Lazarus had risen. Cp LAZARUS.And so in further transmission piece after piece might be added to the narrative, until a t
h t hut little remained for the evangelist to do. Cp GOSPELS,

B 59.

(c) I n somewhat similar fashion we picture to ourselves the

rise of the story of the sick man of Bethesda. Some preacher
or other likened the Jewish people to a man who had been sick
for thirty-eight years (the duration of the wandering in the
wilderness, Dt. 214). The house in which he lay, he might add
had five ' porches'-the five books of Moses-but healing, never;
theless, he was not able to find. As often as the water which
possessed the healing virtue began to move there was no one
b y to help him to go down to it, till J e s d came and asked :
'Wilt thou be made whole?'
( d ) I f , further, a preacher was discoursing upon a healing of
t h e blind recorded in the synoptists, and interpreted the blind
as representing the Jewish nation, it could easily occur to him
t o say : this blind man was hlind from his birth. In this very
manner the discourse of Stephen in Acts? seeks to show that
the Jewish nation from the first had misknown the will of God.
A slightly inattentive hearer might readily infer from such a
mode of speaking that Jesus had on some occasion literally
h-aled a man horn blind. Now, in Mk. 8 23-25 we have a
nnrrative which tells us how a blind man was made to see by
Jesus not all a t once hut gradually. In expounding this, a
preacher might easily iay : those who are spiritually blind come
only gradually to a recognition of Jesus their healer. T h i s
thought finds its expression in Jn. 9 17 31-33 38 in this form : he
who has been made whole in the first instance takes Jesus
merely for a prophet and a good man sent from God, and only
i n the end does he reach the intuition that be is the Son of
Man. A further point of connection with the narrative of Mk.
8 23-25 is to he found in the fact that in Jn. 9 6 Jesus makes use
of saliva. All that is new is found in the use made of the
saliva, and in the washing in the pool of Siloam.
(e) The synoptics supply us with no parallel that can be
immediately taken as foundation for the narrative of the marA g e at Cana. If, however, the view set forth under GOSPELS
(s.142) be upheld, that synoptical miracles can sometimes have
originated in parables misunderstood, the same can, without
any difficulty whatever, be also maintained here. The time of
the Messiah's coming resembles a wedding (Mk. 2 19 Jn. 3 29
Rev. 19 7). At such a time there is no fasting; the Messiah
brings wine instead of water (Mk. 1425). By the wine was
u,iderstood the new religion which he substituted for the old.
Already in Mk.222 we find it likened to new wine. Here
ayain, Philo (Leg-. AZZeg. 3 26 ;ed. Mangey, 1103) presents himsek
most appropriately. The Logos which appears under the form
of Melchizedek brings wine instead of water, and gives drink
to souls so that a divine intoxication befalls them. By the
mother of Jesus, on this interpretation, we may understand (in
accordance with Rev. 121-5) the community of the people of
*God. I t recognises that in the old religion it finds no wine;
that is to say, that it fails in spiritual power, and, if unable
'itself to remedy matters, it knows at least thus much, that in
:such a situation it must turn to Jesus.
(f)Let us takeoneotherexample-that ofthefoot-washing. In
L k . 2226fi we read t$at Jesus immediately after the last,supper
,said to his disciples, I am among you as he that serves. This
a preacher could very easily amplify to some such effect as this :
"Yes, Jesus did actually wait upon his disciples; instead of
remaining a t table as would have hefitted his exalted dignky he
arose and washed their feet. The expression in such a case
.was meant figuratively; but the figure was particularly apt
because the washing of the feet is the lowliest service. This
made it all the more fitted to edify, and made it all the more
.easy to believe as a literal fact when someone thought he was to
undLrstand it so.

(g)In other cases the author must be assigned a

larger share in the construction of his narratives (cp,
e.,?., 5 20 c, end). It must not be forgotten, however,
that even in the cases discussed in the preceding paragraphs the author of the gospel, even when a narrative
.of the kind had reached him in almost a finished state,
always gave it its last touches and adapted it so as to
subserve the expression of his thought. It will never be
possible to learn with absolute certainty how far he treated
materials presented to him with freedom, and how far he
himself framed narratives or portions of narratives in,
2539

order to give his thoughts pictorial expression. The

interpretation attempted above must, however, in any
case, be welcomed, if the desire is felt to avoid imputing
to the author any larger degree of arhitrariness in free
invention than is absolutely necessary.
Do what we
will it will never be possible to say these narratives were
to the author not vehicles for conveying spiritual truth
but unadulterated histories ; indeed, how far he himself
may have regarded thein as narratives of actual occurrences remains one of the most difficult of questions, in
fact, strictly speaking, insoluble.
( h ) There remain some Johannine narratives for
which we cannot indicate any basis in the synoptics.
The Nathanael incident (145-51), that of Nicodemus
( ~ I - z I ) ,of the Samaritan woman ( 4 1 - 4 2 ) , of the Greeks
at the feast (12zof: ), of the beloved disciple and Jesus'
mother at the cross (1926f:), of the beloved disciple
and Peter at the grave (202-IO),not to mention less
important points, are by many regarded as historical.
After so many things peculiar to the Fourth Gospel have
been found to he untrustworthy, however, one should really
hesitate to maintain the narratives just enumerated, all the
more when they fall in with a tendency that could easily have
led to their rise. Now the story abont the Greeks not only
contains no concrete touches, hut also serves a purpose that
can he recognised with great clearness. Such a purpose can
be recognised also in the story of the Samaritan woman in as
far as the Samaritans represent the Gentiles ($ 27). In concreteness, on the other hand, the story of the Samaritan woman
is as far from being lacking as, for example, that of the raising
of Lazarus. It would be a great mistake, however, to see in
that a guarantee of historicity. A painter who sets himself to
give expression to an idea by depicting an event is not blamed
hut praised when his lively imagination lays on the colours as
stronglyas possible. A writer who does the same will be praised
in like manner ; hut his narrative will not on that account be
regarded as historical. Nicodemus is a representative of a very
large class of men. They are interested in Jesus ; hut their
helief in him rests mainly on his wonderful works; for the
deeper things he has to offer they have very little understanding.
The preference given to the beloved disciple over Peter at the
grave corresponds exactly with the tendency that finds further
expression in 21 15-23 (8 40). Jesus' committing to him the care
of his mother serves the same purpose. The attempt to identify
Nathanael with one of the twelve disciples is hardly likely to
succeed. It has even been thought to find in him a veiled
representation of the apostle Paul.1 In that case proof that
he is not historical would be needless. However that may be
(see N ATHANAEL), it is further to he coniidered that the story
of Nathanael is connected with an account of the call of the
first disciples which cannot he harmonised with that of the
synoptists (5 34 c ) ; and for all the narratives mentioned above
it is necessary to hear in mind the significance of the silence of
the synoptists. That, silence will occupy our attention in a twofold respect (Is 36-37).

The evangelist's acquaintance with the synoptists,

here presupposed,- needs no proof here. Illustrative
36. Dependence jnstances are-given in 3 34 a, d , and
in abundance in GOSPELS, $9 20, 32,
on the
44.% It is also conceded on all
synoptists. 36,
hands. even bv the most conservative
theologians, who further declare that John's intention
was to supplement the synoptists. It will be enough
here to say in a single word how impossible it is to
take the matter the other way. A story like that of
the sick man at Bethesda, or that of the man born
blind, or that of Lazarus, going so far beyond the
synoptists in respect of the greatness of the miracle
involved, those writers could by no possibility have
passed over; just as little could they have passed
over such an incident as that of the foot-washing, the
theme of which is actually touched on in Lk. 2227
(5 35 VI), or the scene at the cross between the'
~

__

1 The arguments that can be adduced in support of this are

the following : Like Nathanael Paul refuses to believe in Jesus
till he is convinced miraculously. Paul was an Israelite in the
fullest sense (Gal. 113 3). H e disclaims guile, for example, in
z Cor. 12 16-18 and in I Thess. 2 3 even with the word 66hoc itself.
H e was marked out to be an apostle from the mother's womb
(Gal.1 rj). The name Nathanael (='God has given') is explained as the counterpart of Saul (='asked').
2 See, further, especially, Holtzmann, 2tschr.f: miss. Theol.,
'69, pp. 62-65 155-178,446-456 ;WeizsLcker, Untersuch. &ydie
;Euan,.Gesch., '64, pp. 278-284 ;Tboma, Genesis a'es/oh.-E?iang-.,
82 : Jacohsen. Untersuch. uber dasjoh.-Evang., '84 ; Wernle,
Synojtische Frage, '99, pp. 234-248 and 253.256.

2540

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

beloved disciple and the mother of Jesus, or that at the
grave between the beloved disciple and Peter and
between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. That Jesus, too,
from the very outset had been recognised as the Messiah
would have been exactly what, in their veneration for
Jesus, they would have wished to be able to say. The
first step in this direction is, in fact, taken by Mt. himself, when he makes Jesus appear as the Messiah even
before the confession of Peter (GOSPELS, 145h).
The considerations just mentioned, however, carry
us still further.
(a)
. . We shall he safe in asserting- not only that
37. Comparison the synoptists cannot have been acwith synoptics quainted with the Fourth Gospel,
also that they were not aware of
summed up. but
the existence of other sources, written
or-oral, containing all these divergences from their own
account which are exhibited in this gospel.
I n the case of the Lazarus-narrative, to confine ourselves here
to a single instance, among the explanations of the silence of the
synoptists which have been boldly offered are the following: that
among the multitude of the other raisings from the dead they
could easily have forgotten this one or that they were not acute
enough to perceive its outstandin; importance in its bearing
upon the life of Jesus, that they felt themselves wanting in the
delicacy and keenness of feeling that were required for the right
telling of it or that they felt themselves insufficiently informed
o n the details, that they kept silence out of regard to the
still surviving relatives of Lazarus, that, as having happened
before the arrival of the Galilaean pilgrims to the feast, or as
having already become in Jerusalem so well known as no longer
t o he talked about, they had never heard of it, that their plan
of writing, apart from the events of the week of the crucifixion
allowed them to include only Galilaean incidents, or even thai
in view of a later gospel to he written by another evangelist
(John) they confined themselves to these. A glance at this
series of explanations is sufficient to show how hopeless is the
task of those who seek to establish the superiority of the Johannine gospel to those of the synoptists in historical accuracy.

'

(6) In all points, then, which in substance are

common to all the four gospels, the synoptists everywhere excel in simplicity, naturalness, intelligibility.
Although one might be tempted to give the preference
to the fourth as regards the scene of the activity of
Jesus, one is precluded from doing so as soon as it is
perceived how by the action of Jesus in Jerusalem the
coilflict with the Jewish authorities is brought on at a
much earlier period than is historically conceivable.
Although, as regards the miracle-narratives, one might
say on the authority of 2030f. that Jn. seeks only to
supplement those given by the synoptists, it must still
he conceded that the relations of Jesus with the demoniacally-possessed-relations nowhere touched on in Jn.
---areyet, historically, the best-attested of all, and enable
us best to conceive how actual wonders of healing sick
persons might be wrought by Jesus. Beyond all doubt,
the character in which the Johannine miracles are brought
forward-as signs (szod )-would render quite impossible,
if the miracles were historical, the rise of a tradition that
Jesus had expressly refused to work any signs, and that
he had forbidden the miracles he actually wrought to be
made known (GOSPELS,
140a, 141, 133d). Had
Jesus really possessed that exalted consciousness of
his pre-existence and divine dignity which is attributed
to him in the Fourth Gospel, the declaration that
blasphemy against him was capable of forgiveness (Mt.
l231f. Lk. 1210) could never have been attributed
to him.
( c ) As regards Jesus' discourses, nothing is more
natural than that their popular character, often taking
concrete shape in the form of parables, should have won
for him the love of the people ; on the other hand, the
constant repetition of metaphysical propositions concerning his own person, of imperious demands for the
faith of his hearers could never have done so, and in
point of fact, according to the Fourth Gospel, they
actually had the opposite effect, so that one is really at
a loss to understand how, in spite of it all, so many
should have turned to him-which nevertheless is
certainly historically true, as the triumphal entry into
2.541

Jerusalem proves. If Jesus had actually proclaimed the

universality of salvation as we find it in In. 3 1 6 f : 10 16,
it would be an insoluble mystery how any could be
regarded as disciples of his who affirmed they had
been forbidden by Jesus to go in the way of the
Gentiles or enter a city of the Samaritans (Mt. 105),
and who persisted in raising such formidable opposition
to the mission of Paul to the Gentiles. If Jesus expressed himself in such highly spiritualised terms as we
have seen (28
I a c) regarding the final judgment, his own
second coming, and the resurrection of his followers,
we should be irresistibly forced to treat as grave
errors those reports by the synoptists according to which
he predicted all these things in their literal sense. So
far as the date of the crucifixion is concerned, Jn. by
reason of the inherent probability of his date seems to
come into consideration as a witness of equal or even
higher authority than the synoptists ; yet even here the
date he gives is explicable only as a deliberate divergence from that of the synoptists, not conversely.
But we have said enough and more than enough. A
book which begins by declaring Jesus to be the Zogor of
God and ends by representing a cohort of Roman soldiers
as falling to the ground at the majesty of his appearance
(186), and by representing 100 pounds of ointment as
having been used at his embalming (193g), ought by
these facts alone to be spared such a misunderstanding
of its true character, as would be implied in supposing
that it meant to be a historical work.
If Ahon, Salim ( 3 ~ 3 ) Sychar
,
(45), Rethesda ( 5 z ) ,
Bethanv, bevond
Tordan (128). etc.., have never vet been
<
"
38. Geographical satisfactorily identified (see special
and historical articles), the fact ought not to be
urged as necessarily proving defective
correctness. information
on the Dart of the author.
Neither ought exception tobe takento the nameGabbatha
(19 13). The evangelist, too, has unquestionably given
correctly (18 I) the name of the nd&Z between Jerusalem
and the Mt. of Olives ( ' brook Kidron ' ; xdpappor TOG
K ~ G p r j v in
) spite of his copyists and the whole body of
approved modern editors (see K ID R O N ). The forty and
six years of 1220 rest upon sound reckoning inasmuch
as the building was begun by Herod the Great in 20-19
B.C.
There are therefore nineteen years hefore and
twenty-seven years after the beginning of our era.
The passover at which Jesus is represented to have
uttered the words in question will be, if the forty-sixth year
was not yet ended, that of 27 A . D . ; if it was ended, which
suits the expression better, that of 28 A.D., and Jesus'
death, since in the Fourth Gospel two passovers follow
( 6 4 121),atpassoverin3oA,D.-adatebymanysupposed
to be correct. Also the statement that during forty-six
years the building continued in process can be justified.'
All this, however, weighs but little against the serious
mistake by which in 1 1 4 9 1815 Caiaphas is called
the 'high-priest of that year' (GOSPELS, 132). This
of itself betrays unfamiliarity on the part of the evangelist with the conditions subsisting in Palestine in the
time of Jesus (cp 53 ; also GOSPELS, 5 46).
Notwithstanding this, the writer may still have been
a Jew. He alone makes use of the Aramaic names
IbIi~~uulas,I'appaOa, etc., and rightly
39. Nationality explains Z ~ h w a p(a distortion of the
of the
Heb. Mi??) as meaning ~ T E U T U ~ ~ ~ Y
However small the weight he attaches
to the Mosaic law on its enacting side, and however
depreciatory the words he attributes to Jesus in this
regard (0 ~ g ) all
, the more noteworthy is the deference
with which he regards it as a book of prophecy. It is
in this aspect that he says of i t (1035) that the scripture
cannot be broken; on this view of it depends his
citation of predictions and types-even of such as he
did not find in the synoptists ( 23 [f])-and his declara1 Cp the passages in Jos. collected by E. A. Abbott (Class.
Rev., '94, pp. 89-93), who, however, prefers to explain them of
I

the temple of Zeruhbabel.

2.542

O S .

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

tion (539) that the scriptures testify of Jesus whilst the
Jews diligently search them (6ppeuv8re is indicative) in the
belief that in them, if understood in the Jewish way,
eternal life is to be found. From the historical point of
view, he recognises also that salvation comes from the
Jews (402). In this attitude-partly of acceptance,
partly of rejection-towards the OT, the evangelist
occupies much the same position as that of Paul or of
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. A born
Gentile would not easily have attached so great a value
to the prophetic significance of the OT. This consideration, taken in combination with the authors defective
acquaintance with the conditions in Palestine in the
time of Jesus, points to the conclusion that he was by
birth a Jew of the Dispersion or the son of Christian
parents who had been Jews of the Dispersion.
Before passing on to the direct utterances of the author
regarding himself, it will be necessary to take account
4 s 20305 constitutes a
40. Chap. 21. of chap. 21.
formal and solemn conclusion, 21 is
beyond question a later appendix. W e may go on to
add that it does not come from the same author with the
rest of the book.
The appearance of the risen Jesus is the third (21 14) only if
that to Mary Magdalene (20 11-17) is not included in the reckoning ; but originally it was certainly meant to be included, the
number three playingagreat part in the Fourth Gospel. Further
the narrative of 21 1-14 is governed by the intention to do justic;
to what is said in Mt. and Mk., according to which the appearances of the risen Jesus were in Galilee. The writer of chap. 20
on the other hand is plainly, with deliberate purpose, following
Lk., who restricts those appearances to Jerusalem. The phraseology indeed shows dependence on that of chaps. 1-20 a t many
points (as, for example, by o t v and the asyndeta); but It
shows divergences also, such as 5lr+v
with the infinitive and
;pXwBaL oliv instead of &KOAO&ZV and other alternative synonyms (v. 3) ; lrpwia instead of lrpot (v. 4) ; lrarsia for TeKvia (v. 5 ) ;
i u x d s i v for S h m s 6 a i (v. 6) d(esd<cv for ; p w ~ & (a. 12); dye Beis
for B u a u r k (v. 14) ; c#kped for B c w (v. IS) and the like. {eter
appears in the character of a fisierman, ai iii the synoptists; in
1 3 5 40 he is a disciple of John. Among the seven disciples who
are present (v. z) are numbered the (sons) of Zebedee -an
expression that never occurs elsewhere in the gospel. The
parousia of Jesus is expected in v. 12 in a literal sense (as against
28 a). That Nathanael belonged to Cana (21 z ) is certainly the
result of a false combination of 1 4 6 and 2 I. The purpose of the
second half of the chapter is to bring the dignity of Peter into
somewhat greater prominence than it had received in the gospel.
The unnamed disciple indeed is always placed even higher than
h e ; but the purpose of rehabilitating Peter is plain. This
circumstance also makes against the identity of the author of
this chapter with the author of the rest of the book.

The second half of the chapter has, however, a second

main purpose-that, namely, of accrediting the gospel
by v. 24 f. This cannot be an independent appendix to
WV. 1-23, else these verses, until they had received this
addition, would have been without any proper close.
Now the testimony is given by more than one person,
and must, in the eyes of the critic, for that very reason
lose the importance which in the intention of its writer
it is designed to have. A witness whose testimony in
turn requires to be attested cannot be regarded as a very
authoritative person. The fact is here betrayed that
doubt has been thrown on his testimony. The same
thing is betrayed also in the Muratorian fragment
(Z. 14J), where it is said that, after consultation on
the part of John with his fellow-disciples and bishops,
and after a three days fast together, it was revealed to
Andrew that John should write the whole recognoscentibus cunctis suo nomine.
Chap. 21 2 4 3 points back ( a ) to 1935. The elaborate
investigations that have been made on the question
whether any one can designate-himself
41.
of author of by B K E ~ Y O S ( that ) are not only inde1-20
cisive as regards any secure grammatical
ing himself. result ; they do not touch the kernel of
the question at all.
Once it has been said,-he who saw has testified and his testimony is true, there is nothing surprising- when the sequel runs
and that one knows that he spraks true even when in all these
1 Although the phrase in 3 Jn.
not open to criticism.

12 is almost identical

2543

it is there

words the author is meaning himself. The question that ought

to have been discussed is not as to whether the author could (or
but as to
would) intend to denote himself or another by &&OS,
the person whom he intended by he who saw (6 & o ~ ~ K & s )I .f
he meant himself, then the present tense would have been more
appropriate than the perfect has testified (ppapTfpVKE) in the
?eye, I who saw it now bear witness to it herehy that 1write
it. Yet also the perfect is defensible in the meaning,he(i.e., I)
has testified it, and with this you must rest satisfied. I t woul:
have been appropriate also to say he who witnesses has seen
(6 p a p r u p L v B & ~ C Z K E V ); but this was not necessary in order t o
express the meaning that the writer was an eye-witness. The
knows (o&v) seems to indicate that the author really wishes
to be regarded as an eye-witness, otherwise the preferable phrase
would be and that man a s s ~ ~ ethat
s he speaks true.
At the
same time, such a mode of expression would he too tautological
or even too obviously a weakening when coming immediately
after the words and his testimony is true.

Thus we obtain nothing from this central passage

except this, that we must leave quite, undecided the
question whether the writer is intending to present himself or some other person as the eye-witness. Indeed,
this very vagueness seems to be intentional on the
authors part. W e must seek to arrive at .a. definite
conclusion by some other road. Here is one. For
every one who grants that at the spear-thrust blood
certainly but not water could have flowed from the
pierced side, it is also firmly established that no eyewitness could actually have seen the circumstance
attested. If, therefore, the authors intention is to
point to himself as such a witness, he presents himself
in a much less favourable light than if he were merely
reproducing information derived from another which he
had received in good faith. H e is therefore spared a
reproach if he is supposed to be reproducing. Such a
reproach need not in itself hinder us from supposing him
to present himself as an eye-witness; in view of the
mysteriously allusive character of the entire book
absolute freedom must be allowed the writer in this
matter, especially as we are dealing with a point the
central importance of which, in the eyes of its author,
is evident from the very circumstance of his offering a
special attestation of it at all.
(6) But the supposed other testimony to himself-the
designation of the unnamed disciple as the disciple whom
Jesusloved (1323 1926 202; cp 217 zoz4)-speaks quite
decisively against the view that it wds written by the
person who is intended by that expression. One can
hardly understand how it is possible to have sympatby
for a writer who claims for himself such a degree of
superiority as is implied in this designation. The designation is quite intelligible on the other hand when coming
from the pen of one of his admirers. Our research then
has brought us thus far at least that there are great disadvantages in regarding the apostle as the author of the
gospel. On the other hand, so far as it has gone, it has
given us no assurance as to whether the actual writer
intends to inform us regarding the beloved disciple and
the eye-witness as if he were a third person, or whether
he does not desire to produce the appearance that h e
himself is the person.
(c) Should this last be the actual fact, no charge of moral
obliquity is involved, such as might seem to be implied if the
principles of modern law as to intellectual and literary property
were to be invoked. Classical antiquity furnishes us with a
great number of examples of cases in which a pupil published
his works not in his own name but in that of his master and
the neo-Pythagorean Iamblichus (circa 300 A.D.), to d t e a
single instance, expressly commends the Pythagoreans-of
whose writings some sixty are still known which were falsely
attributed to Pythagoras and other ancient masters of that
school-in that, renouncing the desire for personal fame, they
were willing that all the praise of their work should go to their
master. The presbyter of Asia Minor who in the second century
had composed the Acts of Paul and Thecfa in Pauls name,
when he was challenged for this explained that his motive was
his regard for Paul (idse amore Paufifecisse); and Tertullians
remark (de Bapt. 17) implies depreciation indeed yet no moral
censure : quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans -the reason he
gives for the deposition of the author being his contradiction
of ,,Cor. 1434 in having introduced Thecla as teaching a n d
baptizing.

( d )A definite reason, however, for assuming.the same

thing for the Fourth Gospel would be found onlyif 21 24f.

5544

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

had come from the author of the rest of the book. AS
we have not to suppose this, it remains open to suggest
that the author of the appendix by this addition intended
to go yet one step further than the author of chaps. 1-20
himself had gone. At the same time the vagueness
with which the author has expressed himself in 1935 is
worthy of remark. It can very well be due to the
purpose of saying what was capable of more than one
'meaning, so that one reader might believe that the
author was speaking of the eye-witness as a third person,
whilst another might believe he had himself in his mind.
The fact that the name of the beloved disciple and eye-witness
is not mentioned anywhere throughout the entire gospel is on
the other hand, not decisive. The suppression of his n k e
would he just as natural as a consequence of the delicacy due
to his person if the author, distinct from him, introduced him as
a mysterious magnitude, as it would have been if he himself
had written the book.

The external evidences for the Fourth Gospel constitute that portion of the field in which conservative
42. External theology has hitherto believed itself to
evidences for have gained its securest successes. It
has deemed -it practicable to preclude
genuineness* all discussion of internal reasons against
the genuineness merely by showing how early an attestation the gospel received, Careful examination shows
how mistaken this belief is. As, however, a full discussion of the leading passages would carry us too far
into detail, we must content ourselves here with merely
giving results, on all points upon which some measure
of agreement has been attained.
W e must make a strict distinction between testimonies
expressly favourable to the apostolic authorship and
those which only vouch for the existence of the Fourth
Gospel without conveying any judgment as to its authorship. The only authors belonging to the first category
(apostolic authorship) down to the end of the second
century (in the third century this view becomes a matter of
course) are Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria (who, moreover, appeals to oi dv&KaOev ?rpeupd.repoL), Tertullian,
Theophilus ad Autolyci~m,and the Muratorian fragment (which still, however, deems it necessary to give a
circumstantial justification for its recognition of the
gospel; see 5 40). Earlier than any of these church
fathers, namely about 170 A . D . , we must place the
expresssion of Claudius Apollinaris in the Chronicon
Paschab, urauid@v BOKE? r b edayy&hia ( ' the gospels
seem to contradict one another' ; the reference is to
the date of the crucifixion ; see 54 a). Here, although
the name of John is not mentioned, we may presume
that there is implied a recognition of the Fourth Gospel
as being on a level with the synoptics with which it is
not in agreement about the date in question, and thus
as being genuine.
Coming now to testimonies to recognition of the
gospel, though
- the author is not named, we find the
Fourth Gospel taken into account in
43'
Tatian's Diatessaron (roughly, between
160 and 180 A . D . ) as on a level with
the svnoDtists. Yet this verv attemDt
to bring together all t<e f&r gospels into a siigle whoie
even of itself shows to how small an extent each in* dividual gospel was regarded by this author as authorita. tive. So also when gnostics make use of the Fourth
Gospel. Moreover, it cannot be asserted of Valentinus
himself (who flourished from 135 to 160) that he does
so, but only of his school (so Irenzeus, i i i . l l ~ o [ ~ ] ) .
In the PhiZosophoumena the citation-formula is often
'[he] says' ($@ ; so, e.g., 634J 7 2 5 f : alongside
5 16 6 29 8 9) ; but it has been shown that this expression
has the collective meaning and has no different force
from '[they] say' ($ad).' Athenagoras, the epistle to
the church of Lugdunum (ap. Eus. H E v. 115) (both
about 178), the epistle to Diognetus (later), go, in like
manner, no further.
In z Pet. 114 Jn. 21 is already
I

i:iggi

presupposed; but 2 Pet. cannot be dated earlier than

the close of the second century, since it already reckons
the ,Pauline Epistles as part of holy scripture ( 3 15 f.),
and has no testimony to its own existence earlier than
in the third century.
As for evidence to the existence of Jn., without any
further judgment being pronounced, mere quotationsfroni
44. For exist- the Fourth Gospel are enough, if the
passages are such as cannot Rossibly
have been derived from some other
judgment. source. But the two cases, in which
the book is cited as an authoritative
43, and in which it is not cited a s
writing, as in
such, are very different. In the latter case, it is not
only possible but probable that the author making the
quotation did not regard the book as authoritative.
The ecclesiastical writers incorporate in their writings
passages from a multitude of works which never gained
ecclesiastical recognition. Thus, even those works which
ultimately did gain this recognition need not necessarily
haye already been in enjoyment of it at the time at which
they were used by the writers in question.

enci;z:p

This remark applies, according to a now fairly general consensus of opinion, to the case of Justin (civca 152). Alongside of
more than one hundred quotations from the synoptists, he has only
three which offer points of contact with the Fourth Gospel (for
the actual words, see GOSPELS, 55 101-104). But in nocase is the
verbal coincidence with it so exact as to exclude the possibility
of their having emanated from another source, which, if we
choose, we may suppose to have been accessible to the evangelist
also. Yet, even apart from this, we cannot fail to recognise that
the Fourth Gospel was by no means on the same plane with the
synoptics in Justin's eyes, and that his employment of it Is not
only more sparing hut also more circumspect. This is all the
more remarkable since Justin certainly champions one of its
leading conceptions (the Logos-idea), lays great weight upon the
' Memorabilia of the Apostles,' and expressly designates the
Apocalypse as a work of theapostle (Dial. 81,ApoL 166f: etc.).
So also with the Acta Johanuis referable to Leucius ( 5 8f;),
Corssenl sought to show that the Acta did not make use of the
Fourth Gospel but that on the contrary the gospel made use of
the Acta or at'least wakacquainted w i d the traditions contained
in i t ; and Hilgenfeldz inclines substantially to the same view
even after James3 had published new fragments and sought to
prove from these the acquaintance of the author of the A c t a
with the Fourth Gospel, Evenif we grant this, Corssenstill will
be right in his assertion that the Acta diverge from the Fourth
Gospel in the freest and most far-reaching manner, and thus by
no means give it a position of authority.
Here also belong the Pseurio.C/emeutiue HomiZies (end of 2nd
cent.), and Celsus (&ca 178).

Most of the early Christian writings which were held

to bear testimony to the Fourth Gospel-and of these
precisely the oldest and therefore most important-in
reality do not justify the claim based upon them.
( a ) They show manifold agreements with Jn. ; but
these consist only of single, more or less characteristic
words or formulas, or other coinci45. Mere
dences which might ,equally well have
agreements, passed into currency by the channel
not implying of oral tradition. The great number
dependence. of such agreements does in very deed
prove that the Johannine- formulas and catch-words
were very widely diffused, and that the Johannine ideas
had been, so to speak, for decennia in the air. W e
run great danger of allowing ourselves to be misled if,
however, merely because it so happens that such phrases
and turns of expression first became known and familiar
to ourselves through the Fourth Gospel, we were at
once to conclude that the writers in question can have
taken them froni that source alone. The true state of
the case may very easily be quite the opposite; the
words and phrases circulated orally ; as they circulated
they received an ever more pregnant, pointed, memorable
form, and the writer of the Fourth Gospel, not as the
first but as the last in the series of transmitters, set
them down in a form and in a connection which excelled

1 Cp T226.TheoL / a h & 1853, pp. 148-rg1 ;JBL,1892, pp.

133-159 ; Bentley on Hor. Sat. 1.4 7sf:

1 Monarchianische ProZoge ZM den 4 EuaqeZien (= Texte U.

Uutersuch. xv. l), 117134.
2 ZWT, ~ g w pp.
, 1-61.
3 Texts and Studies, V. 1, '97>1.25, cp 144-154and ix.-xxviii.;
cp Acta apost. apocr. edd. Lipsius et Bonnet, 11. I, '98, pp.
150-216.

2545

2546'

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

that of the others, and thus his work came to appear as
if it were the source of the others.
(6) T o the class of early Christian writings here referred
to belong the two epistles of Clement of Rome (the first
probably 93-97 A . D . , perhaps not till 112-117, at the
latest 120-125 ; the second, roughly, 160-180), the
Epistle of Barnabas (130 or 131 ; see ACTS, 16), the
Shepherd of Hermas (about 140), the Teaching of the
,
Apology
Twelve Apostles (between 130 and I ~ o ) the
.of Aristides (probably under A4ntoninus Pius, 138-161
A . D . ) , as also the so-called Oxyrhynchus Logia, the
Coptic Gospel-fragment discussed by Jacobi (GOSPELS,
J 156, n and d ) , and the Gospel of Peter (see PETER).
(c) Also the seven epistles of Ignatius. The question
as to the genuineness of these need not be gone into
here since even Harnack (01.
cit., p. 396, n. 3) does not
regard it as probable that Ignatius had read the Johannine writings even though, in itself considered, the thing
seems to him very easily possible.
( d ) A single word of comment is required only in
connection with the saying of the elders cited in Iren.
v. 36 I : it was on this account that the Lord declxed,
a ' In my Father's (domains) are many places of abode
'
(8rd TO^ EipVKPvar rbv K ~ P L O V ,Bv 70;s 700 aarp6s pou
fiovlts d v a r aoXXds).
Even if we abstain from remarking that here the saying is quoted in proof of
the doctrine that in the state of blessedness there will
be various degrees, it has at any rate to be observed
that it by no means coincides verbally so closely with
Jn. 142 as necessarily to be a quotation. But what is
chieHy to be noted is that in its substance it is so well
adapted as a 'winged word' to pass from mouth to
mouth that we cannot refrain from thinking Harnack far
too precipitate in basing upon this word alone (no other
can be pointed to) the proof, regarded by him as secure,
that these elders were acquainted with the Fourth Gospel
(see 48 [f]).As to who these elders were, see ibidem.
How doubtful was the recognition of the Fourth
,Gospel is shown with most clearness bv the fact that
46. Denials of within the church an entire school
could regard it as not genuine and
genuineness. even
attribute it to Cerinthus. Two
theologians in so many other respects so divergent
in their views as Zahn and Harnack are agreed that
the 'Alogi,' who assigned the work to Cerinthus
from 160 or 170 onwards are identical with the unnamed gainsayers of the genuineness who are mentioned
in Iren. iii. 11 12 [g], and that in other respects their
standpoint was a correct churchly and catholic one. On
the similar attitude of Gaius of Rome as late as the beginning of the third century see GOSPELS, 82, last footnote.
For those who hold I Jn. to be later than Jn. a n
evidence of the existence of the gospel is found where47. Polycarp ever the existence of the epistle can be
~s indirect shown. This appears to be the case
in the Epistle of Polycarp (7 I ) : ' For
witness' every one who does not confess that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is an antichrist ' (TEE
-yip, 8s %v p~ bpoXoy?j 'I7JuoOv Xprflrbv ev U a p K i &XTJXuOPvar, (iv~ixprur6sQ U T W ) . This has points of contact
with I Jn. 4 z J , as also with 2 Jn. 7 ; in neither case,
however, is the verbal coincidence so close that the
passage can be regarded as an actual quotation. Immediately after the words quoted Polycarp adds two
parallel sentences of his own. Here again, moreover,
the expression partakes so largely of the nature of a
' winged word ' that there is no necessity for regarding
it as having been taken from a written source at all, not
to speak of the Johannine epistles. It is certainly very
significant that Eusebius notes indeed of the Epistle of
Polycarp that it contains quotations from the First
Epistle of Peter, but makes no similar statement regarding the Johannine epistles. This makes it all the more
strange that Harnack (op. cit. 6 5 8 ) , relying upon the
fact we have mentioned, makes the claim that thereby
the existence of the epistle can be securely established.

H e even goes so far as to say 'securely even for the

close of the reign of Trajan.' I n fact he assigns the
epistle of Polycarp approximately to the year 115 A . D .
Even should the seven Ignatian Epistles be genuine and
of this date, it would by no means be thereby proved that
the Epistle of Polycarp must have been written so early.
According to a very probable reckoning Polycarp died
on 23rd Feb. 155. Moreover the meagre, mainly
ethical, character of the contents of the Epistle of
Polycarp is so little in harmony with the central
thought of the Ignatian Epistles-directed as thesc
are to the glorification of martyrdom and of the
episcopate, as also to the elaboration of christologicnl
ideas-that the separation of those parts of the Epistle
of Polycarp in which the Ignatian epistles are recommended (chaps. 9 13 along with a few other sentences)
a separation which has been proposed from the most
various quarters-seems to be in the highest degree
plausible.
Here also Papias stands on the same level with
Polvcaro. f a ) According to Eusebius (HI? iii. 39171
48. Papias Papias ' made use of testimonies from the
witness. First Epistle of John, and likewise from
that of Peter ' (> K P y n n 7 a r 6 ' a h b s uaoruoiars
cirb 77js '~wciuvourporbpas errrcro~?jsK a i cia6 rijs &ou
bpoiws). W e know what ' made use of testimonies '
( K P X p V r a L paprupiars) in Eusebius means.
He uses
the same expression in iv. 149 with reference to Polycarp's quotations from I Pet. In the Epistle of Polycarp we can control the statement by observing that
the name of Peter is not mentioned there. W e have
therefore no ground for supposing that Papias used the
name of John either. Moreover, we can hardly set aside
the doubt dhether in Papias we have to do with real
quotations at all and not rather again with 'winged
words,' sbch as have been spoken of in $1 45d 46,
which prove nothing so far as the present question is
concerned. ' Cp GOSPELS, 72, n. 2.
Even d.ss&ing, however, that they prove Papias's acquaintance with I Jn., we must all the more on that account take
exception to the proposition of Harnack (u). cit. 658), that
' Papias's acquaintancewith the Fourth Gospel must be clear to
every one who looks upon I Jn. and the gospel as a unity.
Such
a statement would be justified only if the two wrihgs in question
had constituted a single book. The theory, however, that the
epistle was written at the same time as the gospel and was
incorporated with it as an appendix has long since been
abandoned. If the two existed only'in a separate state, acquaintance with the one is no proof at all of acquaintance with
the other.
(6) W e have, moreover, the strongest evidence to
show that Papias never wrote in his work anything with
reference to the Fourth Gospel.
Eusehius (HEiii. 3 3) pledges himself in his history to mention
without fail which of the disputed biblical writings the ecclesiastical authors of each period had made use of and what they
said about the acknowledged writings and all that they said
about those which were not such (for the original text, see
GOSPELS, 9 66). As regards the acknowledged writings-among
which he reckoned the Fourth Gospel-he dispenses himself
accordingly merely from the duty of collecting the quotations
from them, not from that of collecting the sayings of the church
fathers concerning them. This programme he has carried out
with great care. In Papias, whom he read with special attention
he did not find any saying of the kind indicated either regardin;
Lk. or regarding Jn. But as Papias did makesuch a statement
regarding Mt. and Mk and as he made use of the gospels as
well as of oral cornmudkitions for the preparation of his work,
it would be exceedinelv remarkable if he had made use of Lk.
and Jn. and yet noGhere expressed himself regarding their
character (cp GOSPELS, $967, 74, 82 [I]).
(c) The case would be different, it is true, if n Latin
prologue in Wordsworth, N T Latine, 1491, were correct :

2547

2548

"

I>,

in extremis quinqoe libris retulit.

W e may rest assured, however, that this mention of
Papias proceeds upon an error ; for otherwise Eusebius would certainly have told us of it.
Moreover there would still remain the question whether by the
John whom he would thus have designated as the writer of the

JOHN, SON O F ZEBEDEE

gospel we should understand John the apostle which for the
writer of the prologue was a matter of course,'or the John of
Asia Minor-in that case certainly John the Elder.

( d ) A similar question must be raised in connection

with the statements of Armenian writers to the effect
that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.
In what Conybeare cites in The Guardiu~of 18th July 1894
(p. 1123)) Papias is expressing himself regarding the nature of
the aloe ; hut that he is here dealing with the aloe met with in
Jn. 1939 does not appear from the words of the Armenian writer.
( e ) Even if all that has been alleged as to Papias's

acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel were indisputable,

his testimony would not carry us beyond what has
already been long known and recognised from other
soi.irces. According to a fragment published by De
Boor ( 5 4 h ) ,the work of Papias contained the statement
that the individuals who had been raised from the dead
by Christ survived till the reign of Hadrian (&os
'AGp~avoO#<wv, Lc. 170). As there is no reason why
the attribution of this statement to Papias should be
disputed, *Papias must have written it not earlier than
between 140-160 (Harnack, op. czt. 357). At that date,
however, the Fourth Gospel was known to other writers
also, and Papias's acquaintance with it would add
nothing to what we previously knew.
(f)
,The case would be otherwise only if Harnack
were right in what he says about the ' elders ' of Irenaeus
(op. cit. 333-340).
Harnack ( I ) asserts that Irenreus had not personally heard
the elders whose sayings he quotes and (2) conjectures that
Irenaus had taken all of these sa$ings from the writing of
Papias. The first assertion has a certain probability by reason of
the vagueness with which Irenaus speaks of those ' elders ; the
conjecture, on the other hand, is mere hypothesis. The sole
passage which we can control even speaks to the contrary effect.
I n v. 3 3 3 5 Irenaus first introduces the saying about the great
grape-cluster of the blessed days to come in the following terms :
' quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt qui Joannem discipulum
Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo: quemadmodum de temporibns
illis docebat dominus et dicehat. After telling what they had
said, he proceeds 'these things, moreover, Papias also, who was
a hearer of John knd a companion of Polycarp, a man of the older
time, testifies in writing in the fourth of his hooks' ( r a 3 r a 68 K a i
T I a d a c i, 'Iwduuov p2u d K O U U 7 t S , I I O A U K L ~ ~ WSZ
O VAraipor ysyoviuc,

LpXaios bvi)p, ;yypLi'rpwc ; m p a p m p e i Zv $ ~ e r d p v72" a t r o i ,

p~pALwv). Harnack IS of opinion that the K a l hefe'and the &i-,
in 2 r ~ p a p m p S'certainly ought not to be pressed but it is not

permissible, in favour of a n hypothesis, to ignord the force of

these words which plainly distinguish the written communication
of Papias from an oral communication that had reached Irenaus.
Harnack, however, pursues this forbidden path still further, and
asserts that Irenaus had taken the formulze which he uses in
citing the elders verbatim from the work of Papias. By this
means Harnack arrives at the result that these elders had
already presented themselves to the mind of Papias as invested
with those dignified attitudes of venerable antiquity which they
undoubtedly had to judge by his language, for Irenaeus. According to this, we should have to carry their date as far back before
140-160, the time at which Papias lived, as we should have to
carry them back, according to the text of Irenaus, before 185,
the approximate date of Irenaeus's work.

seem to contradict one another ' of Claudius Apollinaris

( u ~ a u ~ d & vB O K E ~T$ ~6ayykX4a)( 5 42 and 546). No
mention of the Fourth Gospel which we can recognise
as such carries us back further than to 140 A.D. As
late as 152 (Acad. 1st Feb. 1896, p. 98), Justin, who
nevertheless lays so great value upon the ' Memorabilia
of the Apostles,' regards Jn.-if indeed he knows it at
all-with distrust and appropriates from it but a very
few sayings. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that
conservative theology still cherishes the belief that the
external evidence supplies the best possible guarantee
for the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, we find owselves compelled not only to recognise the jnstice of
the remark of Reuss that 'the incredible trouble which
has been taken to collect external evidences only serves
to show that there are really none of the sort which were
really wanted,' but also to set it up even as a fundamental principle of criticism that the production of the
Fourth Gospel must be assigned to the shortest possible
date before the time at which traces of acquaintance
with it begin to appear. Distinct declarations as to its
genuineness begin certainly not earlier than about 170
A.D.

( 5 42).

(6) Furthermore, it is not usually remembered bow

small is the value which all such testimonies possess.
According to Irenreus (ii. 33 3 [22 51) 'the gospel and all the
elders personally acquainted with John in Asia' bore witness that
Jesus, a t the time of his teaching, was more than forty years old
-and this as a tradition from John, some of them also giving it
as a tradition from other apostles. This can rest only on Jn. 8 57.
It is irreconcilable with Lk. 323. In iii. 32 [ 3 ] , Irenreus asserts
that Clement of Rome had enjoyed personal intercourse with the
apostles, although he might have learned from Clement's own
(first) epistle (44 2J) that the opposite was the case. I n iii. 11T I
[ 8 ] Irenaeus, too, finds the rationale for the ' four gospels in the
fact that there are four quarters of the globe and four winds
( r u d p a m ) ; since further, the church extends over all the world,
while its 'pillars a)nd grounds ' and spirit of life ( n v s 8 p a {wijs) are
the gospel, it is fitting thar she should have four pillars, breathing
out ( r k o c m a q ) immortalityon every side, and vivifying men afresh.
Such is the sort ofverbal trifling with which he favours his readers
in place of history. The Muratorian fragment calls the hook of
Acts 'Acta omnium apostolornm,' and John, in respect of his
seven epistles (Rev. 2 A), the ' predecessor Pauli (A?. 34,. 48).
Clement of Alexandria (Strow.vi. 5 43, p. 761 J ) quotes the
apostle Paul as saying : ' Take also the Greek hooks, read the
Sibyl as she reveals one God and the future; and, taking
Hystaspes read and ye will find the son of God much more
clearly deskbed.' In Sfroi~z.
v. 14 104, p. 7.11, Clement cites with
entire belief the hook of Zoroaster, in which, after his resurrection from the dead, here orts what he had learned in the underworld from the gods. Justin (AjoL i. 35 48) is able to tell his
readers that the Acta Pilati contained the partition of the
garment of Jesus, his healings, and his raisings of the dead.
Tertullian (Apol. ZT) adds to these the eclipse of the sun.. the
watch a t the grave, the resurrection, the forty days in Galilee,
and the ascension, and closes with these words : 'ea omnia super
Christ0 Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus,
&sari turn Tiberio nuntiavit.' Compare 5 6.

This supposition, however, of a borrowing by Irenaens

from Papias ver6atim is a mere hypothesis : and yet
this supposition, and its application to the presumed
quotation from Jn. 142 ( 5 454, is, along with what
has been adduced (5 47) from Polycarp, the sole basis
on which Harnack rests his proposition (09.cit. 680)
' that the gospel was not written later than circa 110,
is an assured historical truth.'
( a ) If we were dealing with a book attribnted to an
undistinrruished man, such as, for examDle. the eDistle of
49. Estimate Jude, it could not be held to be very
surprising that proofs of acquaintance
of external with it do not emerge until some conevidence* siderable time after its Droduction.
The case is very different, however, with a gospel
written by an eye-witness. Papias noticed defects in
the gospel of Mk. ; the third evangelist noticed them in
the writings of all his predecessors (cp GOSPELS, $5 65,
153). The writing of an eye-witness would immediately
on its publication have been received with the keenest
interest, however violently it may have conflicted with
the gospels hitherto known. It would at least by these
contradictions have attracted attention and necessarily
have given occasion to such remarks as that ' the gospels

It is surely unnecessary to multiply examples. When

the church fathers bring before us such Statements as
these, no one believes them ; but when they ' attest ' the
genuineness of a book of the Bible, then the Conservative
theologians regard the fact as enough to silence all
criticism. This cannot go on for ever. Instead of the
constantly repeated formula that an ancient writing is
' attested' as ear& as by (let us say) Ireneus, Tertullian.
or Clement of Alexandria, there will have to be substituted the much more modest statement that its existence
(not genuineness) is attested only as Zate as by the
writers named, and even this only if the quotations are
undeniable or the title expressly mentioned.
If no trace of the Fourth Gospel can be found earlier
than 140 A. D.,there cannot be the slightest
difficulty in
50. Gnosticism doing justice to its relations with
Gnosticism. According to Heee,!&el.
sippns (ap. Eus. HEiii. 3 2 7 , f ) profound Deace reigned in the entire
church till the reign of Trajan ; b<t after the sacred
choir of the apostles had died out and the race of the
immediate hearers of Christ had passed away, the godless corruption began through the deception of false
teachers who now with unabashed countenance dared

2549

2550

Fo:i

JOHN, SON O F ZEBEDEE

to set up against the preaching of truth the doctrines
of gnqsis falsely so called. There is no reason for disputing the date here given. A personal disciple of
Jesus certainly can hardly have survived to see it. But
the gospel shows clearly how profoundly the gnostic
ideas had influenced its author. Neither is the position
of the case as if he had started from the churchly point
of view and then found himself on the road to the
gnostic; on the contrary, we find him on the return
path from gnosticism to the churchly view, Cp 29 6.
In addition to what is said there, attention may be called
to the high value Jn. places on knowledge (17 3).
I t might a t first appear as if Jn. were not yet in open antagonism against gnosis and thus that gnosticism has not yet attained
any great development. If, however, we view the matter so,
we shall mistake the task which was set before him. The first
epistle gave room for direct polemic against gnosis, and he uses
his opportunity in the most distinct manner. Rut when a
gospel had to he written, polemic methods could be employed
only under some disguise. Nevertheless they are recognisnhle
enough. Against the gnostic division between pneumatic and
psychical persons are levelled such sentences as 3 r6f: ; so also
against the dualism between God and the world; against the
one-sided emphasis laid by gnosticism on the importance of
knowledge is directed the insistence upon faith ; and against
the docetic view that Christ was man only in appearance stress
is laid (1 14) on the doctrine that the Logos was made flesh and
that his glory conld he beheld. Indeed the great importance
given in 1935 to the attestation of the floding of water and blood
from the wounded side appears-although the water and blood
have also a symbolical meaning ($ 234-at the same time and
indeed primarily to have its reason in the desire to combat the
view that Jesus did not suffer really but only seemingly.

All that must be conceded is that no traces can as

yet be found in the Fourth Gospel of the great and
elaborated systems such as were developed by Valentinns
and others after 140A.D. The ideas of light, and the
like, out of which those later gnostics formed their pairs
and their ogdoads of ieons are still touched upon in the
gospel only comparatively lightly. Ch. 844 does not
speak of the father of the devil, but only says, by a somewhat lax construction, that the devil is a liar and the
father of (the) lie (Wirier(*), 3 18, n. 30 ; 2 2 9 d ) .
With Montanism the case is otherwise. The Fourth
Gospel shows an indubitable contact with it in the idea
61.Relation of the Paraclete. Here, however, the
to Montanism. prioritymust be assigned to the gospel,
since Montanism, according to one
ancient source, first came to manifestation about 156 or
157, according to the other even as late as 172 (cp
Harnack, op. cz2, 363-379). In actuality the idea of
the paraclete is fnrther developed in Montanism than in
the Fourth Gospel. In the latter the ruling conception
is that Jesus is identical with the Paraclete, that is to
say that his second coming consists in nothing other
than the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of
believers (3 26c). In Montanism, on the other hand,
a sharp distinction is drawn between the age of Christ
and the age of the Holy Spirit, and a much higher
value is given to the latter.
If on independent grounds some period shortly before
140 A. D . can he set down as the approximate
date of
_.
the production of the gospel, then new
82. 543 as
guide to date. lmportance attaches to one particular
passage upon which, apart from this,
we could not veniure & base a n y hypotgesis as to date.
In 543 Jesus says : ' I am come in the name of my
father and ye receive me not ; if another will come in
his own name, him ye will receive.' This prophecy of
another Messiah was fulfilled when in 132 A.D. Barchochba arose and incited the Jews to the great revolt
which in 135 ended in the complete extinction of the
Jewish state. It is very tempting to think that 543
contains an allusion to this. At all events, as compared
with this supposition the hypothesis of Rousset (Antichr.,
r895, 108) has no superior claims-that by the pseudoMessiah here predicted the Antichrist is meant, and
this because ' thus almost all the church fathers interpret,
and in this region these are the authorities from whom
we have to learn.' Bousset, in conformity with this
2551

interpretation, supposes that such apocalyptic ideas had

great importance for the evangelist, notwithstanding
the fact that his entire book shows no trace of this, hut
rather the opposite (3 28). Compare further, 3 65, end.
Asia Minor is almost universally regarded as the
Fourth Gospel's place of origin. It is on this assump63. Place of tion that we can most easily explain
Composition. how the Gospel could be ascribed to
the John living there, to whom the
Apocalypse, or at least the seven epistles therein contained, are assigned with still greater probability.
Alexandrian as well as gnostic ideas can without
difficulty be traced in those regions. It has even been
attempted to account for the mistake by which Caiaphas
is called ' high priest for that year' (3 38) by the fact
that in Asia there was a high priest ( d p x q d s ) for the
whole province who changed from year to year (Ivlommsen, Ram. Gesch. 5 318 ; E T Prouinces, 1345). It must,
however, be affirmed once for all that these proofs hale
no decisive value ; but neither does the question as to
place of origin possess any fundamental importance.
Very iniportant inferences, however, can he drawn
from the paschal controversies of the second century.
54. The Paschal ( u ) In Asia Minor the celebration was
held on the 14th of Nisan
Controversy. always
by those who afterwards were called
Quartodecimans : elsewhere it was celebrated on the
first Sunday after the Spring equinox. The, difference
of usage first came to light on the occasion of a visit of
Polycarp of Smyrna to Rome during the bishopric of
Anicetus (therefore in 154 A.D.). On that occasion
Polycarp, according to the report of Irenmus (fragm. 3,
cp Eus. HZ3 v. 2416), appealed on behalf of the Asiatic
celebration to the authority of John the disciple of the
Lord, and of the other apostles. Similarly, in the third
stage of the controversy, Polycrates of Ephesus in his
letter to the Roman bishop Victor about 196 A. D. (ibid.
v. 242-8) made a like appeal to the authority of Philip,
John, Polycarp, Melito. and a large number of fanions
names.
Of the reasons for this usage we become
apprised in the second stage of the controversy, about
170 A. D., in which its supporters came into conflict not
with Rome but with men in Asia Minor itself.
( b ) In order to escape the conclusion that the John
appealed to by the Quartodecimans could not have
been the writer of the Gospel, some theologians assert
that the men of Asia Minor, and John among them,
had observed the 14th of Nisan in commemoration of
the death of Jesus. This would fit in with the Fourth
Gospel admirably, only it is opposed to the express
statements.of Hippolytus and Apollinaris (Chron. Pnsch.,
ed. Paris, p. 6 n 6 d ; ed. Dindorf, pp. 1 2 f : and 14),
according to whom the commemoration intended was
that of the institution of the Lord's Supper by Jesus.
That this was only the opinion of a minority cannot
be maintained.
(c) Others sought to attain the same result by supposing
that the Quartodecimans without any reference at all to
events in the life of Jesus had simply, in accordance with
the Jewish calendar, observed the day upon which the
Jewish passover fell. Such a mechanical conformity
with the Jewish law, and such a degree of indifference
towards reminiscences of occurrences in the life of Jesus,
would be very remarkable if observable in any Christians,
and most of all if observable in one who had actually
been an eye-witness of the last days of Jesus. It is,
however, expressly set aside by the statement of Apolliuaris (Z.C.) that the Quartodecimans claimed Mt.
as on their side,-on the point, namely, that Jesus had
eaten the paschal lamb with his disciples on 14th Nisan
and had suffered on the 15th. Apollinaris infers from
this that in their view the gospels seem to be at variance
1 The most thorough discussions are those of Hilgenfeld, Der
Paschasfreif,1860, and of Schiirer..De controuersiispaschazi~~s,
Leipsic, 1869; in German in Ztschr. f; d. kist. TkeoZ., 1870,
pp. 182-284.

2552

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

a s to this (3 42). He himself is on the side of the
Fourth Gospel, and thus, as he himself admits no
variance, interprets the First Gospel wrongly in the
actual sense of the Fourth ; the Quartodecimans, however, appealed not simply to the Jewish calendar but
also to Mt., and that too to Mt. properly understood.
( d ) A last resort remains,-that of Schurer, who
thinks they did this only in a late stage of the controversy. This also, however, is very improbable.
W e shall do well to attribute to them at least enough
continuity of view for them to be always aware what it
was that they were maintaining.
( e ) In this failure, then, of all the suggested views we
have no alternative left but to acknowledge that the
John to whose authority the Qiiartodecimans appeal
cannot have been the author of the gospel. If then
this John of Asia Minor was the Elder, the apostles
authorship of the gospel remains, so far as the paschal
controversy is concerned, a possibility. The assumption, then, must be that the gospel was written by the
apostle, though at the same time he was not head of
the church at Ephesus. This assumption, however,
is one that has been resorted to by but few, for the
tradition says only of the Ephesian John that he wrote
the gospel.
After what has been said, only a very brief recapitulation as regards
the genuineness
will be required.
85. Conclusion ( a )Even when the Apocalypse has been
as to author. assigned to another writer, the apostolic
authorship of the gospel remains impossible, and that not merely from t6e consideration
that it cannot be the son of Zebedee who has introduced
himself as writer in so remarkable a fashion (I 41), but
also from the consideration that it cannot be an eyewitness of the facts of the life of Jesus who has presented,
as against the synoptists, an account so much less
credible. nor an original apostle who has shown himself
so easily accessible to Alexandrian and Gnostic ideas,
nor a contemporary of Jesus who survived so late into
the second century and yet was capable of composing
so profound a work. On this ground are excluded not
only the son of Zebedee but also every non-apostolic
eye-witness, including even John the Elder, although
the last-named seems to be recommended by the Asian
tradition so far as this does not make for the apostle.
(6) Harnack, who holds the Elder to he the author-with incorporationalso ofreminiscences oftheson ofZehedee in his work

so that the gospel might appropriately enough be called GospJ

of John the Elder according to John the son of Zehedee (&ay

yfAh~ovIwbvvov 706 I r p e u / 3 d p o u K a r i I w b v ~ v~ b Z+&lou)v
is compelled not only to place the date at a much earlier period
than is justified by the evidence(S 48
hut also, notwithstanding this, to understand by a disciple of the Lord (which the
Elder was) one who perhaps had seen Jesus only once in earliest
childhood without really entering into personal relations with
him ; and all this over and above the further necessity for imputing so many incredihilities to the author, if the credibility of
the synoptists is not to he reduced to zero. Further Harnacks
hypothesis mnst he characterised as incapable of beiAg discussed
so long as the continuation of his work gives him no occasion to
state quite frankly whether he regards as historical such statements for example as those regarding the foot-washing the
spear-thrust, the falling to the ground of the Roman cohdrt in
Gethsemane, and the 100 pounds of ointment a t the embalming
of Jesus.1
(c)The same remark holdsgoodas regards Bousset who(ApocaIvpse in Meyers iioinnzentar, 5th ed. 1896, p. 33-51) maintains
that the Ephesian John, that is to say, the Elder, in his youth
belonged to the train of Jesus a t such times as Jesus was in
Jerusalem, and that from his mouth one of his scholars has given
us, so far as the activity of Jesus in Jerusalem is concerned, an

m,

1 As wewrite we take from his Wesen rZesCLristenthunzs,1900,

p. 13 (ET What is Christianity? 1900) the following: The
Fourth Gospel which does not come from the apostle John, and
does not profess fo do so, cannot be used as a historical sonrcein
the ordinary [;.e., customary] sense of those words. The author
acted with autocratic freedom, transposed events and placed
them in an unwonted light, composed discourses at his own
will and illustrated lofty thoughts by imagined situations.
Hence his work though not wholly wanting in the elements of
a genuine if hardly recognisahle tradition, can hardly a t any
point he taken into account as a source for the history of Jesus.
it is but little that we can take over from him and even tha;
only with circumspection.

82

2553

account that, as compared with the synoptists, is independent

and in many points to he preferred.
( d ) T o what degree the thesis of the authorship of the gospel
by a son of Zehedee (or indeed any eye-witness)can be maintained
only a t the cost of the very credibility which yet it is proposed
to support by this assumption is well seen in what B. Weiss
has to say regarding the disiourses of Jesus in the Fourth
Gospel. H e grants that the misunderstandings of these discourses by the hearers are often in reality nierely attempts on
the part of, the evangelist to account for the continuance of the
discussion that the evangelist is well aware that he is not
giving liisreaders the discourses and conversations with literal
accuracy, that not only the original words, hut also the
concrete historical context of the words of Jesus are often
obliterated, the evangelist concerning himself only for the enduring significance of these and their value for edification in the
sense of his own conception of the person of Christ, that even
in the narrative parts the connections in detail have often disappeared, the historical colouring has been lost and the representation of occurrences has been manipulated in accordance
with the ,meaning which they had acquired to the mind of this
narrator.
N o critic, however severe, could express himself
much more unfavourably with regard to the Fourth Gospel than
this defender of its genuineness has done.

( e ) As compared with such a line of defence, there is

a positive relief from an intolerable burden as soon as
the student has made up his mind to give up any such
theory as that of the genuineness of the gospel, as
also of its authenticity in the sense of its being the work
of an eye-witness who meant to record actual history.
Whoever shrinks from the surrender can, in spite of all
the veneration for the book which constrains him to take
this course, have little joy in his choice. Instead of
being able to profit by the elucidations regarding the
nature and the history of Jesus promised him by the
genuineness theory, he finds himself at every turn laid
under the necessity of meeting objections on the score
of historicity, and if he has laboriously succeeded (he
thinks) in silencing these, others and yet others arise
tenfold increased, and in his refutation of these, even
when he carries it through-and that too even, it may
be, with a tone of great assurance-he yet cannot in
conscientious self-examination feel any true confidence
in his work.
(f)
With the other view the case is quite different.
W e have to deal with a writer from whom we neither
can demand strict historical accuracy, nor have any
occasion to do so. Just in proportion as this is frankly
recognised, however, we find in him a great and eminent
soul, a man in whom all the ruling tendencies of his
time meet and are brought together to a conimon focus.
A philosophical book, indeed, would not have been
difficult for him to write, yet would have received but
little attention ; for all that at that time was recognised
as divine was held to be seen in the person of Jesus.
Thus the task this man deemed to be laid upon him by
the nature of the circumstances was that of giv.ing expression to his deep ideas in the form of a life of Jesus.
W e become aware that this implied many restrictions
upon his freedom, and one is astonished all the more at
the ease of movement with which he has carried out his
work. In short, one discerns in the gospel the ripest
fruit of primitive Christianity-the ripest, if also at the
same time the furthest removed from the original form.
W e shall return to a consideration of this subject with
somewhat greater detail 62) after we have glanced at
the First Epistle which in this respect is closely related
to the gospel.
Before proceeding to this, however, a word must be
given to the partition -hypotheses. (a)We have post56. p~rtition- poned notice of them until now because
hypotheses. to have brought them up at an earlier
point would have tended only to obscure the issues. A whole series of earlier partition hypotheses have shared the common fate of being
withdrawn by their own promulgators.
Least
hopeful of all is a hypothesis of interpolations. Not
that the existence of interpolations in Jn. is impossible ;
on the contrary, it is affirmed even by the most outspoken critical theologians ( 28 6). But if it is proposed
1 Lehr6:-der Einleitung in das NT,5 51 7.
2554

(a

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

to eliminate every difficult passage as having been
interpolated, very little indeed of the gospel will be left
at the end of the process. Theoretically, the case is
somewhat better with a sources -hypothesis. which
should maintain that the last author did not introduce
mere interpolations into the exemplar before him without
touching the text itself, that he dealt with it very much
as the synoptists dealt with their sources. Even so,
however, no great advantage is gained.
(6)T o mention only the latest advocate of a hypothesis
of this sort, Wendt holds most of the miracle narratives,
and some of the elaborations of the discourses as well as
of the occasions assigned to them, to be additions of the
last author. The main point, however, is that his fundamental principle-in itself worthy of all acceptance--is
that passages are to be held to be later insertions, not
on account of their contents, but only when they break
the connection. There is much reason to fear, however,
that distrust of the authenticity of the substance often
causes an interruption of the connection to be imagined
where in reality there is none. Many passages of the
same sort as others which give Wendt occasion for the
separating process, are left by him untouched, when the
resolt would not be removal of somc piece held to be
open to exception in respect of its contents ; the ground
for exception which he actually takes, on the other hand,
is often altogether non-existent.

knows that he spoke the words, Before Abraham came.

into being, I am, glorify me with the glory which 1 had
with thee before the world was (858 1 7 5 ) , and he
wrote the prologue with exception of the verses (6-8 15)
about the Baptist.

(4 A s for the miracle-narratives, according to Wendt Jesus,.

e.<., did not heal the man born blind but only beheld him and
took him as text of his discourse on the healing of the spiritual
blindness of the world ; in the case of the sick man a t Bethesda
Jesus in healing him laid his hand upon him somewhat in the
manner indicated in Mk. 733 8 23-25 so that the action could
be regarded by the Jews as a violatio; of the Sahbath-law.
( e ) What has been said may perhaps suffice to show how

little fitted is this latest attempt at separation of sources

-however superior to kindred efforts of the same sortto supply a really satisfactory solution of . the
Johannine problem. Its indications of difficulties in
the connection are valuable ; but these will have to be
explained by the writers carelessness about the matter
(as has been done in 5 34 6,c). In the end we shall have
to concur in the judgment of Strauss, that the Fourth
Gospel is like the seamless coat; not to be divided but
to be taken as it is.

. .

1 D m /oltnnnes-Evan&ium,
1900, and previously in Die
LehveJesu, 1, 1886, pp. 215-342.

D.-FIRST
EPISTLE
What distinguishes the First Epistle from the gospel
most obviously is its express uolemic against false
These, to speaG generally,
6,. Polemic- teachers.
against
false are gnostics ; this appears (24) in the
h e that saith, I know him
teachers. expression
16 Xdvwv 671 .+vvwKa alSrbv\ as also in
that terminus technicus of gnosis seed (mrdppa : 39),
which signifies the individual seed-grains of divine
origin scattered throughout the world of matter, to wit
the souls of gnostic persons, and in the declaration of
these persons that they have no sin (18 IO).
More
precisely, the false teachers disclose themselves to be
docetics. Their assertion (222) that Jesus is not the
Messiah finds its explanation in 42f: (cp 2 Jn. 7 ) , according to which they deny that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh, and in 56 ( this is he that came by water a n d
blood ). While holding this teaching they give thcnlselves over to libertinism, according to 2415f: 3410 517,
which passages must certainly be taken as referring to
them. The case isnot met by supposing the reference
to be to Cerinthus, the oldest of the gnostics, who with
all his gnosticism was still a Jewish Christian ; later
forms must be intended even although we are not in a
position to state more precisely what they were. T h e
purpose of the epistle, then, is to combat this tendency
with as much directness ( 2 2 6 37) as it is combated
indirectly in the gospel (5 5 0 ) . The writing can be
called a letter only in a remote sense (cp E PISTOLARY
L ITERATURE, 3 9). The writer addresses his readers
as little children, or beloved, or brethren ; but i n these
expressions he is addressing all Christendom.
In all his controversy with gnosis the author is at the
same time strondv
- _influenced bv its ideas. Like that
of the gospel. hls thought is dominated
58.
with gnosis. by the great antithesis betwecn God
and the world (216 4~ f \ . or God and
the devil (38 IO 44), or truth andfalsehood (221 4 6 ) ; in
analogy with Jn. 3 6 843, etc., in I Jn. 519 also we find
the mutually exclusive alternatives that one must either
be of God or of the world which lieth in the wicked
[one] (&
r o v v p 4 K E ~ L ) . The claim to know, or
to have known, all things is made by the writer for
himself and for his readers (213f: .of: 27 47)as positively
as any gnostic could make it ; the expression seed
(ardppa)be applies in similar manner to himself and to
them, and asserts sinlessness for both ( 3 9 6 518).
In the ideas just indicated, as well a s in respect of
69. Author language, the agreement with the gospel
seems so strong that the identity of
from author authorship of both writings is often reof Jn. garded as self-evident. Holtzmann, however (Einl. ins N T ), enumerates fifteen
German theologians by whom it is denied, and he him-

2555

2556

Thus for example it ought not by any means to be regarded

as beto$ening a hro!& connection when (11 16), at the words of
Jesus
Let us go unto him [Lazarus], Thomas says to hi:
fellow).disciples: Let us also go that we may die with him.
That the sequence of these sentences does not demand the
intei-pretation that Thomas wishes to die with Lazarus is selfevident, for Thomas is speaking to his fellow-disciples about a
word of Jesus in which he had implicitly said that he was going
to his death. I t is therefore not permissible to conclude that
in the source, v. 16 followed immediately upon v. IO, and tha;
accordingly the announcement of the raising of Lazarus contained in m. rr-rg is an addition by the evangelist. Moreover
v. 16 in strictness fits on to v. I O no h:tter than i t does to v. 15:
In v. 40 where Jesus says to Martha, Said 1 not unto thee thar
if thnii wouldest believe thou shonldest see the glory of God?
Wendt with justice finds a reference back to w. 23 25f., but
considers that they rest upon a misinterpretation of these verses
which speak not of a bodily resurrection but of the imparting
by Jesus ofan inward eternal life evenhere in this temporal
sphere. This is essentially correct ; but it presents only one
side of the matter. The word is purposely ambiguous ($ 25 c),
and in its literal sense is fulfilled by the raising of Lazarus
which nevertheless is itself only a figure for the impartation &
that inward eternal life. Wendt proceeds therefore upon a misapprehension of the distinctive character of the Fourth Gospel
when he comes to the conclusion that in the sonrce all that was
related was this :-Jesus heard of the sickness of Lazarus, but
although no delay in his journey occurred did not arrive untii
after his death ; on his arrival he comforted Martha by pointing
to that inward eternal life which can be lived in the temporal,
went with her to the grave and wept there. What availed
Martha this pointing to the &ward eternal life when her brother
had just quitted this temporal, and what point has it in presence
of the assurance of Jesus (2,. 23), thy brother shall rise again 1
I t cannot be a continuation of this assurance,-neither if with
Marthaweunderstandv. 23 torefer to the last day, norifwe interpret it in a spiritual sense ;for resurrection and continuance in life
are different things. That it was, on the other hand anything
higher than what is said in v. 23 is excluded by the Ample fact
that after the apparent death of Lazarus it was not practicable.

(c) Wendt attributes his assumed source to the apostle

John. The eye-witness Peter, on whose communications in Wendts view the gospel of h k . rests, knows
that on his last evening Jesus held the sacrament of the
Supper with his disciples ; John the eye-witness that he
washed his disciples feet. Peter the eyewitness knows
concerning Jesus that he expected the Final Judgment
on a definite day at the end of the present world, John
the eye-witness knows that he spoke the words coiitained
in 11 25f: and 5 24, and proves by this that the representations whichagree with thereport of Peter (e.#. , 528J and
the closing words of 639 40 44 54 1248) were added by the
evangelist in contradiction of the source written by the
eye-witness John. The eye-witness Peter transmits an
account according to which Jesus had not any consciousness of his pre-existence, the eye-witness John

1
,

74

/ I

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

self haselaborated the same view with the utmost care
in Jahrhb. J p r u t . T h e d 1881, 690.712; 1882, 128.152,
316-342, 460.485.
T o begin with the vocabulary : byyshla, dray chis Stdwxa

was written after the gospel (and that in turn after 132), provided
that the epistle was written not later than about 140.

A date later than that of the gospel is very strongly suggested

by the only passage which directly iiidicates any time relation
at all namely 2 12-14. The three things of which the writer
here degins by saying I write them u:to you, he repeats with
the words, I have &itten unto you. Here he seems to be
referring to the go5pel. If in doing so he identifies himself
with the author of the gospel, we must not judge of the fact
otherwise than we do when we find the evangelist writing in
the name of the apostle; fiction of this kind was regarded as
perfectly permissible (5 41 c). As to the bearing of this question
of date upon the question of attestation, see 5 47. External
evidence does not forbid the supposition that the first epistle

What the author seeks to establish against the false

teachers is, viewed in one aspect, the creed of the
Everyone who does not hold
61.
ofCharacter
polemic church.
It passes with him for Antichrist. On
of epistle. this he is decided, -indeed, stern.
Only, as a gnostic he is far too niuih
imbued with a feeling of the necessity for working on
the convictions of his readers to be able to :ivoid
attempting to make plain from the evidence of the facts
themselves the truth of his theses. This, however, he
does not by any means attempt in the form of proofs
properly so called ; rather docs he express his conviction in a simple propositional manner, in the confident.
expectation that it will make an impression by its own
inherent force. As compared with the other N T writers
who engage in polemic against false teachers, and
especially the authors of the Pastoral Epistles, the
Epistle of Jude, and the second Epistle of Peter-nor
even to the exclusion of Paul-he must be credited
with a high degree of moderation in his polemic, and
avoidance of personalities in speaking of his opponents.
Moreover, alongside of the church creed on which he
lays weight, he also elaborates a practical Christianity.
But here we reach a point at which the gospel and
the epistle can be considered together.
If the worth of the Fourth Gospel does not lie in the
62. Permanent accuracy of its separate details regarding the life of Jesus, nor yet in the
value and
of
gosqel
character of the total picture it pre.~
I
.
sents, it is the more to be found in
eplsle
the ideas bv which in common with
the epistle it is dominated.
(u)Both writings rendered an extraordinary service
to their time by absorbing into Christianity, as they
did, every element in the grcat spiritual tendencies
of the age that was capable of being assimilated, and
thus disarming their possible antagonism. While the
oldest Christianity might seem to be a religion for the
uncultured merely, the Johannine theology made it
possible for educated persons also to attach themselves
to it without renouncing the rest of their spiritual
heritage. If the Jesus of literal history might seem to
an educated Gentile merely as an individual member
of the despised Jewish race, the impression must necessarily have been very different when, as now, he was
presented as the Logos of God, as the world-principle
which had existed long before Judaism came into being,
and even upon earth was far exalted above everything
Jewish. If Paul with deliberate intention had proclaimed
the Gospel to be to the Gentiles foolishness ( I Cor. 1231,
the Johannine theology took account of the strivings of
Gnosticism after knowledge and brought this into its
own service. That between God and the world there
is fixed a great gulf which strictly speaking cannot be
bridged over, it frankly recognised, in order in the next
place to provide a bridge in the Logos-idea-itself borrowed from the Greek philosophy-and, in doing so,
at the same time to avoid the separation (so dangerous
to the existence of the Christian Church) of mankind
into two eternally distinct classes. It also even prepared the way for Moutanism, at least in so far as it
recognised the coming of the Holy Spirit to mankind
as the greatest thing of all.
(6) Of supreme value, not only for that age but for
all time, is the full assurance of its faith in the truth
of Christianity (414 831 f.5. 1633 I Jn. 54). The idea
of God is apprehended with a depth that is nowhere
approached elsewhere in the NT. A philosopher may
dispute the propositions both that God is spirit and
that God is love (Jn, 421.~4 I Jn. 4 8 16), but he cannot
surpass them in simplicity of scientific expression. The
first basis of the religious life, the feeling of dependence,
cannot be expressed with greater depth than in the
gospel (3 27), the essence of sin with greater depth than

2557

2558

etc., are found only in &e eiistle, no:

in the gospel. Moreover, a somehat different field of.thought
is disclosed by the use of ihaup6s (2 2 4 IO) and also of @ r p a
(2 2027) which characterises the epistle. On the whole it is seen
that the thoughts of the epistle in many ways follow the ordinary lines, above which the gospel has risen to purely spiritual
conceptions. The second coming of Christ is still spoken of in
I Jn.228 as a visible individual occurrence in time. the
resurrection is (32) looked for simply after death; the final
judgment is relegated to a particular day (4 17). The more
spiritual apprehension is not wholly wanting(see 3 14 24 5 IT-13);
but it is not prominent. In 2 i Christ appears as the Paraclete
which finds an analogy in the gospel only in the expressio;
another Paraclete (1416), spoken of the Holy Spirit. kedemption is wrought by Christ by means of his death (1 7 2 z 4 IO),a conception which in the gospel finds its parallel only in 12936
and perhaps 1150-j2 17 19whilst everywhere else in the gospel
his redeeming activity is for the most part sought in his message (19-13 8 IZ 17 .+.a),
to which, in the epistle, allusion is made
only in 4 9.
Irapouula, d A ~ r k ,dvopla,

Above all, in the epistle Christ is represented much

less than he is in the gospel as intervening between God
and men. The conception, based on the Logos-idea
that it is Christ alone, not God, who can come into direct
relation with the world, is absent. In the gospel the
relation of God to Christ is like that of Christ to
believers (1014f. 1420 159f.) : God gives salvation to
him, he imparts it to them (17 8 etc. ; the only exceptions
are 316 6 40 1421-23 1626f: 17623). Christ alone is the
way toGod(1461079155), whilein theepistle(321)we
can have boldness directly toward God ; in the gospel it is
Christ who is the light (14 S m ) , in the epistle it is God
(15 ) ; in the one it is Christ who is the law-giver (1334
1 5 I,), in the other it is God (3 23) ; in the one it is Christ
who is the hearer of prayer (1413,f,cp 15 16 1623 f. 26),
in the other it is God (3 22 5 14f: ). These divergences
are explained much more easily on the assumption that
the two writings come from different writers though
belonging to one and the same school of thought.
Which of the two writings was the earlier cannot be
decided on eeneralprounds: In itself considered. the
more ordinary and commonplace way of
60* Priority looking at things may very well be
in time* regarded as the earlier. the more suiritualised as the later ; indeed on this supposition the growth
of one and the same author out of the one into the
other would become in some measure intelligible. W e
could, however, equally well imagine that the gospel
bad come into existence first, and that later when,
from the novelty of its ideas, it met with but little
approval and much opposition, another hand belonging
to the same circle as the evangelist had made the
attempt to give currency to the newer ideas with closer
adherence to the current theological conceptions. T h e
undertaking in this case would be analogous to the conjectured attempt mentioned in 28, by means of later
interpolations of passages implying a resurrection at a
definite point in time, to avert the objections likely to
be raised by the more spiritualised statement of the
resurrection-idea. In imputing some such intention to
the writer it is by no means necessary to assume that he
set about his task merely by way of accommodation, at
a sacrifice of his own convictions. It is precisely when
we distinguish the author of the epistle from the author
of the gospel that it becomes possible for us to suppose
that in it he was giving expression solely to his own
personal view.

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

in I Jn. 1 8 IO 2 9, prayer with greater depth than when
i t is represented as an asking in the name of Jesus
(1516),-which again in turn cannot be better expounded than it is in I Jn. 5 14 as an asking according
t o God's will. All objections based upon pernicious
results which might be supposed to follow from the
prominence given to knowledge are disarmed at the
outset by the declaration, I Jn. 2 3, that the verification
of knowledge lies in the keeping of the commandments
of God. Truth is not only seen ; it is done (Jn. 3 21
I Jn. 1 6 ) ; and this doing of the truth is again made
equivalent to the doing of righteousness ( I Jn. 2 29).
Any one-sidedness of mere intellectualism is guarded
against from the outset by the depth of the mysticism
which comes to its fairest expression in the Johannine
theology (1423 154-7 1 7 ~ 3 without,
)~
however, leading
to any vague idea that man must be absorbed in the
divine essence. If we discern in Christ not only the
historical individual but also at the same time that
summing-up of all that is divine which the author of
the gospel saw in his individuality, in a word, the ideal
of a child of God, then, in spite of all that criticism
has to say in the exercise of its own proper functions,
we can still echo with full conviction the words in which
the author has expressed his unique appreciation of
Jesus, as in 1 5 s 146 336 or 668f:
( c ) The spiritualisation of the concrete conceptions
of primitive Christianity has led to ideas such as it
would be impossible to express in a more modern way.
The person who finds himself no longer able to believe
that the redemptive significance of Jesus lies only in
the fact of his death finds the opposite view-according
to which his work of redemption was achieved by his
message and only confirmed by his death-already
laid down for him in the prologue to the gospel 19-13
and also in 812174-8. etc.
So far as this is concerned, the gospel, in virtue, so to say, of
the principle that extremes meet, even comes round again to
the original historical point of view such as we find it in the
synoptists. Paul had transferred the redeeming significance
of Jesus from his life to his death. But a t the same time he
had also thought of him as pre-existent. When John developed
this latter thought into the Logos-idea he was compelled by
the nature of i t to place the redeeming work wrought by Jesus
not any longer in his death, which for the Logos would only
mean a return to his previous condition and thus have value
only for himself and not for mankind ; hd had therefore to seek
it in the revealing work of Jesus, and this work Jesus could
perform upon earth only by declaration of his peculiar message.

Any one who finds himself unable to accept the dogma

of the Trinity here finds that which can justify him in
his attitude in the declaration (739) that the Holy Spirit
had no existence before the exaltation of Christ, being
in fact according to 2 Cor. 3 17 identical with the exalted
Christ ( 26 c). Any one who finds himself nnable to believe that Jesus needed to legitimise his claims by means of
miracle has only to take his stand on 2029, 'Blessed
are they who have not seen and yet have believed.'
Any one who finds himself no longer able to think of
the second coming of Christ as destined to happen in
bodily form finds opened for him in 1416-18 the way
by which he may think of it as spiritual. Any one
who finds himself unable to think of a bodily resurrection and a final judgment once for all on the last day
has only to take his stand on 1126 5 24. Any one who
finds himself unable to regard the value of the sacrament of the Eucharist as an absolute one has on his
side the express utterance of Jesus (663): ' it is the spirit
that maketh alive ; the flesh profiteth nothing,'-a
principle which Paul in 2 Cor. 36 had made use of with
reference to the O T religion, but not as yet with refercnce to any of the positive institutions of Christianity.
Indeed this fundamental principle, taken along with 13 15
and 3346, is in itself a sufficient counteractive against
any one-sided or exaggerated exaltation of the figure
of Christ as pourtrayed in John. On the other hand,
the Johannine theology can claim the most unreserved
and absolute acceptance for the highest which it has
t o offer, the place which it assigns to love. This is
2559

the central idea of the first epistle ( 2 7 J 323 47-21), and

equally central is the saying in the gospel in 1 334J 15 12.
It has indeed been the achievement of Christ to bring
this new commandment of love into the world and to
give the world his own exaniple in this (13 15)-even
if the foot-washing never occurred in a literal sense.
E.- SECOND AND T H I R D EPISTLES
The ' elect lady ' ( ~ K X E K TK ~U ~P ~ U )in 2 Jn. I is, especially in view of v. 13 and of the change between '-thy
63. Address. children' and 'thee' in 4 J , a church. It
IS designated as 'lady' perhaps because
(Eph. 531 f.) of the marriage relation with Christ the
)
predicate ' elect together' ( U U Y E K 'lord' ( K ~ ~ P I O; S the
X C K T ~ ~ only
) , with the substantive ' church' ( B K K X ~ U ~ U )
understood, is applied also to the church in Babylon in
I Pet. 5 13. This interpretation of ' lady ' ( K u p f a )becomes
quite obvious if 3 Jn. g refers back to the second letter,
which is not improbable. Now, in 2 Jn. 13 the church addressed is greeted by a sister church. This sister church
is, we may be sure, that to which the writer belongs.
The church addressed need not, however, on this account
be also an individual church ; there is a possibility
that any church whatever may be intended. In this
case the second epistle, though individual in form, will
be in reality as catholic as the first.
The case of the third epistle is different. Gaius is
an individual, and neither can Diotrephes and Demetrius
(vu.9 12) be divested of their individual character.
One Gains is named in Acts 1929, a second in 204, a
third in I Cor. 114 Rom. 1623. The last-named has
affinity with the Gaius of this epistle in so far as hospitality is predicated of both. That the two are identical
there is nothing further to show. W e may pcrhaps
rather assume the name to have been chosen in order
to recall the other hospitable Gaius.
If we direct our attention to what is most distinctively
peculiar to the two epistles we shall have to say that
64,Purpose. their purpose, first and foremost, had
reference to church-polity. The new
thing in the second epistle is not a theoretical refutation of false teachers but the exhortation (v.10 J ) not
to receive such persons under one's roof and not even to
salute them. Although this does not refer to the case
of persons living in the same place, bnt only to that of
passing travellers, it in any case represents an effectual
step in the direction of the exclusion from church fellowship of these adversaries who in a. 9 are designated as
' progressives ' (5 a p o d y w v ) , in v. 7 as docetics.
The stringency with which this is demanded seems to find its
explanation in 3 Jn. 9 3, according to which Diotrephes, an
opponent of the writer, refuses to receive not only his letters
but also the brethren who adhere to him, and expels from his
own community those members who are willing to receive these
brethren. At the same time it is perfectly plain that the cause
of this reciprocal excommunication is in the third epistle different from what it is in the second. I n the third there is no
word of false doctrine; hut great emphasis is laid upon the
personal ambition of the adversary and upon the claim on
the part of the writer to unconditional authority. The fact
that travelling brethren are spoken of in both letters ought not to
be allowed to disguise this difference. Now the directly expressed
purpose of the third epistle is that Gaius should give a friendly
reception to the adherents of the writer on their travels. As
Demetrius is mentioned immediately before the close of the
epistle, and a good testimony is expressly given with re ard
to him, he has been regarded as the bearer of the epistle wfich
thus was at the same time a letter of introduction ( c i Rom.
16 13).
The interesting hypothesis, as to an important tnrningpoint in the history of the most ancient form of ecclesiastical or.
ganisation, which Harnack (Texte u. Untersuch. 15 3 '97) has
connected with the the third epistle, will on account o i its wide
(y.zf.).
scope he most conveniently considered under MINISTRV

In this place, on the other hand, a word is still demanded by the second purpose which, over and above
that of church-polity, underlies at least the second
epistle. This epistle combines with its polemic against
false teachers a recommendation of the ideas of the
gospel and of the first epistle, and in this respect stands
on the same level with the first epistle itself, whether
it be that the second epistle is later than the first and

2560

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

the gospel, or whether it be that it preceded them. If
the second epis'tle preceded, the second (and also the
third epistle, in case it was contemporary with the
second) would be a first attempt at giving literary currency to those ideas under the name of a known church
authority ; the gospel would then exemplify a further
step in that it claimed to be by a still higher authority,
namely the son of Zebedee.
In the second epistle the coincidence in language with
the gospel and the first epistle is fairly strong ; in the
6s. Authors, third it is confined to
few eLpressions
and dates. in vu. 3f: 6 I I J The contents fall in
profundity far behind both the larger
writings. For-neither bf the two smaller writings can
we assert more than that they move in the same spiritual
sphere with the larger.
In both the author calls himself ' the Elder ' ( 6 r p e u ,P~TEPOE).
By this expression the authorship of an apostle
is as good as excluded, unless it so happened that within
the circle of his followers he had borne this name as one
Qf special distinction. This, however, according to 5 7 a ,
holds good rather of John the Elder, who is distinct from
the apostle. 'The Elder seems to many to be expressly
shown by the designation to have been the author. H e
was, however, a chief authority with Papias, and Papias
was strongly inclined to chiliasm ; but of chiliasm we find
no trace in the epistles before us. ' The Elder ' might
indeed be the designation of a person quite unknown to
.us, if only it was understood in the circle of the recipients
who was meant by it. If, however, we are right in holding that at least the second epistle is for the entire church,
then the designation of the writer will also be intended for
i t , in other words it will denote the famous Elder-not
indeed in the sense of his being the actual author, but in
that of his being the author in whose name it was to run.

~~

That both epistles are from the same hand need not he
,donhted, yet neither is i t ahsolutely certain. If we must
suppose from the outset, on account of the other Johannine
writings, that there was a whole group of men who laboured in
.one and the same spirit, then there can always have been two
,different members of the group to whom we are indebted for
these two writings which do not absolntely coincide either in
langnage or in intention. T h e reference back from 3 Jn. g t o
the second epistle is by no means a conclusive proof of unity of
authorship, nor yet are the limited number of expressions in
which both agree, such as 'walking in truth' (mprrrare2u ;u
&AqOd?), 2 Jn. 4 3 Jn.3f:, or 'loveand truth'in 2 Jn. 3 3 Jn. 1.

It will be seen from what has already been said how

difficult it is to say almost anything as to the date of
composition. The answer to the question depends on
the hypotheses adopted as to purpose and author. T h e
external attestation for the second epistle and still more
for the third is much wealter than for the first. Even
though this is intelligible enough in view of their brevity
.and of their designation of their author as Elder, it yet
permits ' any view which may he required by the
hypotheses mentioned above, especially the view which
relegates them to a, date appreciably later than the first.
SOME PASSAGES REFERRED Tc

Tn.114
jl1.145-51
Jn.21-II
Jn.2zo
Jn.31-21
JII.RJ5
Jn.36
Jn.316f:

Jn. 3 16
Jn.42
Jn. 421-24
Jn. 446-54
Jn.51-r6
Jn, 51-16
Jn. 524
Jn. 528f:
Jn. 543
Jn. 6 1-63
Jn.64
Jn. 6393.
Jn.6398
Jn.G41f:
Jn. 65-59
Jn. 6 52
Jn.668f:
Jn. 739
J.. 739

50
35h

F 35e
5 38

j::
:$A
Jn. 858

$3 35h
$256
$29~2
$ 50

Jn.91-41
Jn. 01-41

2561

2534
2538

Iiirlemann (/PI",
1879, pp. 565-576) has even soughf
to establish a probability that the two minor epistles.
which he assigns to a date earlier than that of the first
epistle or of the gospel, presuppose the work of Papias
and subserve the intention of substituting a different
picture of John for that drawn by Papias.
W e may conclude, then, by pointing out briefly that the first
half of the second century suits all the rderences to the conditions of a later time (less precisely determinable) which we have
found in thesecond and third epistles and in the gospel. In
the second and third epistles the most important trace of this
kind is the excommunication of one another by Christians and
the rise of a hierarchy. I n the gospel we have, corresponding
to this, on the one band, the idea of the unity of the church
(here expressed quite ideally, without any hierarchical flavour :
1016 1711 12-23 etc.), on the other hand, the expulsion of
Christians from the synagogue, which Barcochba carried out.
The assigning of this in 9 22 to the lifetime of Jesus is certainly
not histmical (see GOSPELS, 136). I t is significant that 162
announces i t for a future time. The same period fits also the
tendency to detach the responsihlity for the condemnation of
Jesii!? as much as possible from the Roman government and to
roll it on to the Jews, a tendency even more marked iii Jn. 18 26I 9 16 than in the synoptics (cp GOSPELS 4 108). Jesus acknowledges himself not a s Messiah of the Je&: but as King of Truth;
politically therefore-this is the political aspect of the narrative
-cmistiLnity is not dangerous.
Of conservative works on the Johannire question that cf
Luthardt (Der jbh. Urspr. des 4. Ev., 74; ET by C. R.
Gregory, St. John the author of the Fourth
66. Literature. Gospel, '75, with copious bibliography)
deserves special mention ; of 'mediating'
works, that of Beyschlag (Die /oh. Frage, '76, previously in
St.Kr. '74J). T h e most important critical works are : Bretschneider, Probdilia, '20 ; Baur, TCbinger theolog. jahrbb. '44,
1-191, 397-475, 615-700 and Die Ranomschen hvangelirn, '47,;
Hilgenfeld, Das Em. u. die Bn2fc johannis, '49, and Die
Evangelien, '54 ; Scholten, Het Evangel2 naarJohannes, '64,
Germ. transl. 67 ; Keim, Gesch. j e s u von A azara, i. '67, 103172 ; Thoma, Genesis des Joh.-Ev., '82 ; Jacohsen, Untersuchyngen #bey das j o h . - E v , '84 ; Oscar Holtzmann, Joh.-Evnng.
87. Baldensperger ProZog des 4. Evang '98 (regards polemi:
and apologetic agaiAst the sect of the Dis:iples of John as the
aim of almost the whole gospel). Too late to be used in the
above article appeared Kreyenhuhl, Das EvungeZiunz der
Wahrheit, i. (19.0).
The Johannine question enters here
quite a new stage. Kreyenbiihl regards the Fourth Gospel as
a Gnostic work, and seeks to ascribe it to Menander of Antioch,
a pu il of Simon Magus.
[ T i e English literature on the subject in mainly 'conservative';
see, especially, Sanday, Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth
Go.$. ('72); Thz Gospels in the SeconZ Cent. ('76); Salmon
Hist. Introd. t o NT ('85) ; Watkins, Mod. C d . consider& ii
ReL t o Fourth Gospel ('go) ; Gloag, Introd. t o /oh. Writings
('91); Lightfoot, Essays on t h Work entitled 'SupernaturaZ
Religion' (orig. in Cont. Reu. '74-'77) and 'on the Internal
Evidence for the Authenticity. and Genuineness of St. John's
Gospel' in the Erpositor (Jan. Feh. 1889); T. B. Strong, art;
'John' in Hastings, D B , 2 ; Reynolds, art. 'John, Gospel of,
ib. ; Salmond, 'John, Epistles of,' ib. ; also the comm. of Westcott, ' Gosp. of St. John,' in Speaker's Comnzentary, and Epp. of
Si. /ohn, 3rd ed. ('85) and Hummer, St. john's CospeZ and
Epistles ('96). T h e critical view is represented by J. J. Tayler,
A n Attenyif t o Ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel,
csjeciaZZy in its relation to theJZrst three ('67) ; b y the anonymous author of Supernatural Religion: an E n g u i y into the
ReaZity of Divine Revelation (vol. ii '74); by E. A. Ahhott
art 'Gospels' in Ency. Brit. ('79'; see'8lso GOSPELS above, 56
8-167) ; and by B. W. Bacon, Introd. to NT (1900)~pp. 230279.1
P . w. s.

[N T H E PRECEDING ARTICLE
Jn.106
Jn.1015

$ 25a

0256

2558

2521
2539
253'

255'
2525

2533
2539
2556

2526

2544
2526
2530

2538
2541
2555
2532
2555
2530

2531

2528

2524

2520

2556

2538
2531
2555
2528
2523
2528
2520
2530
2559
2551

2527
2528
2533

2525

2545
2551
2524
2543
2543
2526
2559
2531.
2557
2556
2556
2547

2520

2530
I

"

j n . ~ z o - 3 2 5 27
Jn.1227
$ 26a
Jn. 13 I , 29 5 21 a
Jn. 13 1-17 3 5 f
Jn.1323
$416
Jn.142
545d
rn. 16 16-22 6 28 6
jn.181
8,38
Jn. I813
Jn.1828

2542
2525
2531
2529
2522
2539
2544
2547
2531
2542
2542
2522

2525

2560

Rev. 19 13

2562

$14 E

2560
2545
2517