BY THE REV. JOHN R. MACKAY, M.A., INVERNESS.
WITH a view to implement a promise made in the October Magazine, I mean now to inquire:—
I.—What may be learned concerning the authorship of our Fourth Gospel, (a) from that Gospel itself, and (b) from testimony external to the Gospel?
II.—What were the circumstances of the first readers of the Gospel? and
III.—What help do the facts established in answer to the two previous questions give to a better understanding of the Gospel in question?
I.—(a) If we keep in mind a few facts attested by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the fourth Gospel, on a fair examination, will not leave us in doubt as to its human authorship.
For the fourth Gospel speaks plainly of its own authorship. Referring in chapter xxi. to an erroneous impression that had got abroad concerning “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” that he should not die, the Gospel, at v. 24, goes on to say: “This—that is, the disciple whom Jesus loved—is the disciple that wrote these things.” The human author, that is, of the fourth Gospel, according to the testimony of the Gospel itself, was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Who, then, are we to understand by this “disciple whom Jesus loved?” The manner in which this periphrase, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” is studiously made to serve as substitute for the author’s proper name, and the manner in which this periphrase is coupled, say in xxiv. 20, and other places with Peter, a real proper name, are circumstances that lead us to the conclusion that the author’s proper name has been avoided in the fourth Gospel. In xiii. 23, in xix. 26, in xx. 2, in xxi. 7, in xxi. 20, he is introduced as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” There can be little doubt that it is same person who is intended by “the other disciple that was known to the high priest” in xviii. 16; it is certain that it is the author that is meant by the periphrase “he that hath seen” in xix. 35; and I should say the same thing of the periphrase, “the other disciple,” in xx. 3, 4, 8. The places now cited do not therefore yield us the author’s proper name, but they do yield us the information that the author was one than whom none enjoyed more of Christ’s fellowship, and that he was not Peter, nor indeed any Apostle who is mentioned within the fourth Gospel by his proper name.
Who then is he? The Apostles that are mentioned by name in this Gospel are Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, Judas (not Iscariot), and Judas Iscariot. In other words, all the twelve Apostles, save James and John (the sons of Zebedee), and Matthew, and James (the son of Alphaeus), and Simon Zelotes, occur by name in the fourth Gospel. Of the five that are not named, Matthew is excluded, among other reasons, as being the author of the first Gospel; and James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes are excluded on the ground that in none of the four Gospels, nor yet in the earliest tradition, is there any special prominence among the Apostles assigned to any of the two. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, alone remain. These two, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were favoured by our Lord with a confidence towards Himself which Peter alone shared. Of the twelve Apostles, those three alone saw the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark v. 27; Luke viii. 51). They alone were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2; Luke ix. 28). They three had in Gethsemane a nearness to Christ which the other Apostles had not (Matt. xxvi. 37; Mark xiv. 33). It is thus a moral certainty that the author of the fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the disciple who leaned on His bosom at supper, was either James or John. But James we know, from Acts xii. 2, to have been put to death at a date so early that it is unimaginable that the fourth Gospel could have been written by him—a date, in fact, earlier than ever anyone assigned to the fourth Gospel. It remains that the author of the fourth Gospel was John, the son of Zebedee.
This conclusion is confirmed—if it needed confirmation—by the noteworthy circumstance that the fourth Gospel is the only one of the four Gospels where John the Baptist is invariably styled simply John (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 40; iii. 23-27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41. Contrast with this, Matt. iii. 1; Mark vi. 14; Luke vii. 20). Where the author of the fourth Gospel thinks ambiguity possible, he is careful to distinguish persons and places really differing but bearing the same name. Thus, in xiv. 22, he distinguishes Judas (the brother of James) from Judas Iscariot. But inasmuch as he is determined to introduce the Apostle John only by a periphrase, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” or some other periphrase, he reckons that there can be no ambiguity if he speaks of John the Baptist as simply John. Hence the usage in the matter of John the Baptist’s name in the fourth Gospel. It was otherwise in the case of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They had no intention of using a periphrase as a substitute for the Apostle John’s proper name. There was therefore in their case need, to avoid ambiguity, to distinguish John, the son of Zacharias, from the Apostle John, and this is ordinarily done by calling the former John the Baptist.
I have often thought that the manner in which the Apostle John effaces almost entirely direct mention of himself and of his family, might be quoted as illustrative of what growth in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ means. There was a time (see Matt. xx. 20; Mark x. 35) when the sons of Zebedee, instigated, as it would seem, by their mother, manifested somewhat carnal notions of the nature of Christ’s kingdom, and somewhat ambitious aspirations in connection with that kingdom. But more than half a century has intervened between the time that Salome (compare Matt. xxvii. 56, with Mark xv. 40) sought for John and James, her sons, the places next to Christ Himself in His kingdom, and the time that John wrote what we call the fourth Gospel. In that interval John gained in knowledge of the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom, and with a deeper apprehension of the nature of the kingdom, came a corresponding growth in self-abasement. For what do we find in the matter of John’s treatment of the things that concerned his own family in the Gospel he wrote? Not only is he himself not once mentioned by name, but neither is his brother, James, nor yet his mother, Salome. It would seem as though he sought to be avenged on that ambitious mind which as a family they once showed, and that he was determined that—from the family point of view—they should be as nothing. Only once does the father’s name appear, and that in xxi. 2, where, as a periphrase for James and John, “the sons of Zebedee” are mentioned. The plan of the book rendered one such allusion almost necessary, lest it should be open to an adverse critic to say that the author of the fourth Gospel was not aware of the existence of the Apostles James and John at all.
Of course, it will be said that the effacement of the Evangelist’s name is not owing to reasons of humility, inasmuch as he almost invariably speaks of himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and the persons to whom the Gospel was first delivered knew well who that disciple was. But in this connection one has to remember that it is not only his own name that the author effaces, but that there is an effacement of John’s family, which quite distinguishes the fourth from the other three Gospels. And further, it may with very good reason be held that it was not at all with a view to self-aggrandisement that the author of the fourth Gospel speaks of himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” It is for the sake of the truth of the Gospel that this manner of speech is made use of, and the meaning to be attached to the phrase is that John wishes his readers to understand that not only was he an eye or ear witness of all that he relates, but that through Jesus’ love to him he had almost unparalleled advantages of knowing the facts of the Gospel history. We may, on this account, well believe that John records nothing concerning the earthly life of Jesus Christ but what he himself immediately saw or heard, or what Christ personally narrated to him. This claim appears, in fact, to be made in so many words in the First Epistle of John, which some have regarded as a virtual postscript to the Gospel according to John. “That which we have seen and heard,” says he (1 John i. 3), “declare we unto you.”
I.—(b) The conclusion regarding the authorship of the fourth Gospel to which an examination of the statements made in the Gospel itself leads us, is corroborated by all the external evidence available.
Until the rise of modern infidelity the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel was questioned by none in the whole history of the Church, if we except a few whimsical bodies known to antiquity by the name of Alogi. Irenæus (120-190 A.D.), Bishop (that is, Pastor) of Lyons in Gaul, in his Third Book against Heresies, and the first chapter thereof, after stating what he had received as truth concerning the authorship and composition of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, goes on to say: “Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” Now, the testimony of Irenæus in this connection is extremely valuable, for Irenæus forms a link in a chain which reaches back to the days of Christ Himself. Eusebius (264-340 A.D.) has preserved, in his “Ecclesiastical History” (v. 20), part of a letter which Irenæus wrote to one Florinus, then a renegade from the faith, but of whom Irenæus once hoped better things. In the course of this letter Irenæus said: “I saw you when I was yet, as a boy, in Lower Asia with Polycarp. I could even now point out the place where the blessed Polycarp sat and spoke, and describe his going out and coming in, his manner of life, his personal appearance, the addresses he delivered to the multitude, how he spoke of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, and how he recalled their words. And everything that he had heard from them about the Lord, Polycarp told us, as one who had received it from those who had seen the Word of Life with their own eyes, and all this in complete harmony with the Scriptures.” “These,” remarks Harnack, “are priceless words, for they establish a chain of tradition (Jesus, John, Polycarp, Irenæus) which is without a parallel in history.” Irenæus elsewhere (“Ecclesiastical History,” iii. 3) says: “Polycarp was not only instructed by Apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by Apostles in Asia, appointed Bishop of the Church in Symrna, whom I also saw in my early youth.”
The evidence of Irenæus is unambiguous, and from the nature of it, is of itself sufficient, so far as external testimony is concerned, to establish the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. But it does not stand alone. Justin Martyr (103-168 A.D.) was a younger contemporary of Polycarp who also, after he became a Christian, spent a few years in or about Ephesus. Now Justin does not expressly say—and this be it observed is what we have to prove—that the Apostle John wrote our fourth Gospel. He does expressly say that John wrote the book of Revelation. But we are at liberty to say of Justin (1) that he knew our fourth Gospel, and (2) that, while he does not expressly mention John as the author, all that he does say in that connection tallies perfectly with the Johannine authorship. In proof of the first of these statements—we shall here only point out that in his “First Apology” (chap. lxi.) in relating the manner of Christian baptism, Justin, inter alia, says: “In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit they receive the washing with water. For Christ also said: ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mother’s womb, is manifest to all.” As we come across that quotation in our reading of Justin, we cannot avoid saying that our fourth Gospel—and it was composed, according to our date, less than a score of years before Justin’s birth—was well known to Justin; and there are other considerations of a more general nature, but which we cannot here and now work out, which corroborate our view of Justin.
But (2) not only did Justin Martyr know our fourth Gospel, all that he has written in this connection tallies with the view that he regarded the Apostle John as the author not only of the Book of Revelation, but also of our fourth Gospel. Justin frequently speaks of written “Memoirs” concerning Jesus Christ, to which he refers as his authorities, and which can scarcely be any other than our four Gospels. Ordinarily they are quoted as “Memoirs” by Apostles, but in one place at least he is more discriminating, for he refers to those “Memoirs” as “drawn up by Christ’s Apostles and those who followed them.” (Dialogue, chap. ciii.) These “Memoirs” must therefore have had as authors at least two Apostles and two followers of Apostles. It need not be pointed out how exactly that tallies with our view that, in Justin’s opinion, two Apostles—to wit, Matthew and John—and two followers of Apostles—to wit, Mark and Luke—were the authors of his “Memoirs.”
This estimate of the nature of Justin’s testimony is further corroborated by a reference to Tatian, who was for some time a pupil of Justin’s. Tatian was the author of a “Harmony of the four Gospels.” The work has come down to us in a somewhat incomplete form, but still with that completeness that puts it beyond doubt that just our four Gospels were also Tatian’s, and the fourth Gospel is found in what remains to us of Tatian’s “Harmony” almost entirely.
Now, if Tatian (as received) does not give us the names of the four Evangelists, that desideratum is the less felt because it is beyond dispute that in Tatian’s time Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were, all the world over, known as the authors of the four Gospels. Not to mention Irenæus’s testimony again, I shall—keeping in view here, however, only the fourth Gospel—refer to the testimony of (1) Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about 220 A.D., a man who travelled in Greece, Syria, and other places expressly for the purpose of collecting information about the apostolic tradition. Eusebius (H.E., vi. 14) quotes Clement to the following effect: “But last of all (i.e., after Matthew, Luke, and Mark), John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain (by his predecessors, that is), composed a spiritual Gospel.” (2) Theophilus, who, according to Eusebius, became Bishop of Antioch in 168 A.D. He wrote a treatise to his heathen friend, Autolycus. In the course of the treatise these words occur (chap. xxii.): “The holy writings teach us, one of whom, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.'”
To give quotations from authors later than Irenæus, Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria, bearing on the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel is a thing uncalled for, inasmuch as it is universally conceded that from the third century the said authorship was as fully recognised as it could have been, say, at the Reformation. How then, one may ask, does Dr. Moffatt get over this overwhelming testimony to the Apostle John’s title to be regarded as the human author of the fourth Gospel? We answer: (1) He gets over the witness of the Gospel to its own authorship, by treating the claim of the author, although averred on oath (xix. 35), as fictitious! (2) He treats the external testimony with more respect, but still to as little purpose. At the outset he tries to belittle Irenæus’s weighty testimony, but in a manner quite unfair. His criticism of Irenæus amounts virtually to this: Irenæus can be proved to be wrong in some other of his assertions, and we cannot therefore appeal to him here. Now, we do not quote Irenæus as though he were infallible. We quote him as an honest and capable Christian writer. The mere fact that he erred in his view, say of the duration of our Lord’s earthly life (and that I suppose is the most serious charge in this respect that can be made against him), is no reason why we should not accept his testimony concerning a matter which he says he heard with his own ears Polycarp say.
Having thus vainly imagined that he had disposed of Irenæus’s testimony for the Apostle John’s title to be regarded as the author of our fourth Gospel, Moffatt goes on to give what he regards as positive reasons for concluding that the Apostle John was martyred early in life, and, inasmuch as everyone allows that the Gospel according to John belongs to a date later than, say 60 A.D., it, of course, follows that the Apostle John was not the author of our fourth Gospel. What are these positive reasons? I shall state them one by one, and as I go along show that his reasons are, for his purpose, no reasons at all.
(a) Moffatt claims that Matthew xx. 23 (Mark x. 39), implies that the two sons of Zebedee had suffered death by martyrdom. The conclusion is quite illegitimate; but even if it were legitimate it would not avail for Moffatt’s purposes. For the Apostle John might have suffered martyrdom without his dying young. It is early martyrdom that Moffatt, and the infidel school that he follows, undertake to prove.
(b) Moffatt next quotes a worthless chronicler of the 9th century, George the Sinner, in the sense that Papias, a contemporary of Polycarp, had somewhere made the statement that the Apostle John died a martyr. But then George the Sinner himself says that Papias and Origen are his authorities for saying that the Apostle John lived at Ephesus as late as 96 A.D.!
(c) Moffatt next introduces the testimony of some ancient calendars or martyrologies, with a view to prove that John, as well as James, died a martyr. The calendars referred to are practically worthless as history; but even if they did prove that John died a martyr, they prove nothing at all as to an early martyrdom. If the three foregoing arguments made use of by Moffatt were brought forward simply to show that the Apostle John died a martyr, we should say that the grounds adduced are very worthless, and, in view of Eusebius’s constant allusions to the Apostle John’s death at Ephesus, not to be treated as serious history. But for Moffatt’s purpose the grounds are simply non-existent.
(d) The only other substitute for argument that Moffatt can bring forward is the silence of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, and of Hegesippus, on the Ephesian residence of the Apostle John. But Clement of Rome—one Epistle by whom is extant—and Ignatius—if we have any of his writings, which is doubtful—and Hegesippus—of whom we have only fragments—never once refer to the Apostle John in any connection. Are we, then, to quote Clement, Ignatius, and Hegesippus, to show that such an one as the Apostle John never existed? The thing is absurd. The argument from silence, because it proves too much, proves nothing at all.
Moffatt’s reasons for rejecting the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel are worthy of infidelity! But it is really extraordinary that they should be brought forward in this twentieth century as reasons why we should abandon the excellently-attested faith of nearly two milleniums.
(To be Continued.)