Chapter IX: Part 9

At Ephesus in Asia the embers of the apostolic age glowed longer than elsewhere; and we cannot wonder that here the torch should be lit which was to be handed on to later times. If the devotion of disciples had to do with the writing of the Gospel, we may be sure that it also had to do with the commending and spreading of the Gospel when written. It is possible enough that they were the first to give it the name of ‘the spiritual Gospel.’ As such it passed from hand to hand; and again it is not surprising that those who prided themselves on superior spirituality and insight, like the Gnostics, showed a special fondness for this Gospel, as we are told they did[85]. Neither is it any more surprising that in an opposite quarter, where a spirit like that of our own Hanoverian Bishops looked with jealousy upon every outbreak of enthusiasm, there should be a movement of reaction against the Gospel which seemed to encourage such manifestations (the Alogi). The catholic Church went calmly on its way, and these partialities and inequalities soon found their level. By the time of Irenaeus there is a stable equilibrium; no one of the four Gospels is either before or after another. And this is really the lesson taught by the Muratorian Fragment, though the writer has to speak a little more apologetically—there are, it is true, differences, but all are inspired by the self-same Spirit.

The last trace in ancient times of the preference which from its birth had been given to the Fourth Gospel appears, as we might expect, in Origen. After describing in detail the different purposes which dominated the other Gospels, Origen explains that Providence reserved for him who had leaned upon the breast of Jesus the greater and more mature discourse about Him, for none of the others had set forth His deity so unreservedly as John.

‘So then we make bold to say that of all the Scriptures the Gospels
are the firstfruits, and the firstfruits of the Gospels is that
according to John the meaning whereof none can apprehend who has not
leaned upon the breast of Jesus, or received at the hands of Jesus
Mary to be his mother too[86].’

This is the kind of history that the extant materials and tradition sketch for us of the origin and early fortunes of the Fourth Gospel. From the moment that we leave behind the shade of obscurity which does just linger over the person of the author, everything seems to me quite consistent and coherent and natural and probable. Can we say as much of the opposition to the Gospel, especially in its extremer form, as represented by Schmiedel or Jean Réville or Loisy? We certainly cannot give the epithets just used to the theory of these writers, because there is really nothing to apply to them; the Gospel is for them a great _ignotum_, and nothing more. Is not this in itself a rather serious objection? As an _ignotum_ the Gospel is really too great to plant down in the middle of the history of the second century without creating a disturbance of all the surrounding conditions which we may be sure would have lasted for years. Imagine this solid mass suddenly thrust into the course of events, as Schmiedel would say, somewhere about the year 140, between Basilides and Valentinus and their disciples, as it were under the very eyes of Polycarp and Anicetus and Justin and Tatian, without making so much as a ripple upon the surface. Of course nothing can be simpler than to say that the author of the Gospel is unknown; but the moment we come to close quarters with the statement, and realize what it means, we perceive its difficulty.

Epilogue on the Principles of Criticism.

And now that we have come to the end of this brief sketch of the history of the Gospel for the first hundred years or so of its existence, I may perhaps turn in conclusion to the other object which has been present to my mind throughout this course of lectures, and attempt to collect and state, also in the most summary form, some of the underlying principles of criticism which have from time to time found expression in the lectures and which I desire to submit for your consideration, more especially where they differ from much current practice. I consider them to be self-evident; but their obviousness has at least not prevented them from being too often disregarded. The main points would, I think, be as follows:—

1. In judging of the external evidence for any ancient writing, it is always important to observe not only the details of the evidence itself (date, genuineness, authority, freedom from ambiguity, the precise point attested), but also the extent of the area from which it is drawn and the proportion which it bears to the extant literature of the period which it covers. The first step should be an attempt to realize by an effort of the imagination the proportion between (1) the whole of the extant evidence, (2) the amount of the material that yields this evidence, (3) the amount of the material, once extant but now no longer extant, which might have contributed evidence if we had it. In other words, what we have to consider is not only the actual, positive evidence available, but the distribution of this evidence and its relation to the real lie of the facts—no longer accessible to us but as they may be imaginatively reconstructed.

2. In particular, when use is made of the argument from silence, the first question to be asked is, What is silent? It may well be that the literature supposed to be silent is so small that no inference of any value can be drawn from it.

3. In any further use of the argument from silence full allowance should be made for common human infirmity in the persons who are silent—for oversight forgetfulness, limited range of thought. It is always desirable that the application of the argument from silence should be checked by comparison with verifiable examples from actual experience, whether that experience is derived from ancient life or from modern.

4. The presumption is that plain statements of fact may be trusted, unless there is a distinct and solid reason to the contrary. Even where there is a considerable interval of time between the fact and the statement, it may be presumed that the writer who makes the statement had connecting links of testimony to which he had access and we have not. In any case it is worth while to ask ourselves whether it is not probable that such connecting links existed.

5. In such plain statements the presumption further is that the writer meant what he says, or appears to say. Not until this apparent sense has proved wholly unworkable is it right to tamper with his express language, whether by emendation of the text or putting upon his words a sense that is not obvious and natural.

6. The imputation of conscious deception or fraud is to be strongly deprecated, except with writers of ascertained bad character, and even then the imputation should not be made without substantial reason.

7. All imputations of motive, and especially of sinister motive, should be carefully weighed, and it should in particular be considered whether the supposed motive is one that was likely to be in operation under the historical conditions of the time and circumstances of the writer affected.

8. It should never be forgotten that human nature is a very subtle and complex thing—usually far more subtle and complex than any picture of it that we are likely to form for ourselves. Hence it is improbable that the enumeration of motives by the critical historian will really exhaust the possibilities of the case. Many seeming inconsistencies, whether of character or of statement, are really less than they seem, and quite capable of conjunction in the same person.

9. Where a simple cause suffices to explain a group, especially a large group, of facts, it is better not to assume a cause that is highly exceptional and complicated. This rule seems to apply to the indications of an eye-witness in the Fourth Gospel.

10. Such indications do not in the least exclude the natural effect of lapse of time and the unconscious action of experience and reflection on the mind of a writer who sets down late in life a narrative of events that had happened long before.

11. In studying a narrative of this kind we should bear in mind, as well as we can, the whole career of the writer: we should divide it into its successive stages, and we should be constantly asking ourselves which stage of his experience is reflected in the shape that each portion of the narrative takes. If the conception which results as a whole appears to be such as naturally starts from direct contact with the facts, that will supply us with a much easier explanation than any which involves the wholesale use of fiction.

12. There are different kinds of portraiture; and it does not at all follow that a portrait to be real must be full of movement and action. There are some minds that, from peculiarity of mental habit, although they preserve what they once saw or heard with great distinctness and fidelity, nevertheless easily travel away from these recollections of observed fact and glide into a train of reflection which is almost soliloquy. The author of the Fourth Gospel appears to be a writer of this kind.

13. He himself lays so much stress upon ocular testimony that we must give him credit for such testimony, even where it is not altogether easy for us to follow him.

14. This applies particularly to his reports of miracle. But in judging of these reports, we must before all things bear in mind that the personal disciples of Jesus and the whole first generation of Christians certainly believed that they were living in the midst of miracle, and certainly held that belief to be an important constituent in their conception of Christ.

15. If we would form an adequate idea of what we call ‘the supernatural’ in the dealings of God with men, we must not begin by ruling out all that transcends our common experience. We must keep it in our minds even where we feel that there are features of it that we do but imperfectly understand. More light may be given to us by degrees.

16. All our Gospels together present us with a view of the life and words of Christ to which, if we did but know it, there would be much to be added. The first Christians were acquainted with many particulars under both heads which to us are entirely lost. These particulars contributed in an important degree to the total impression which they formed of the Person of Christ.

17. The conception was naturally fullest and most adequate in the Mother Church, i. e. in the Church in which the immediate followers of Christ were for the longest time collected. It was here, and nowhere else, that that conception of His Person was formed which dominated all parts of the Church, and which carried with it certain corollaries as to the nature of God and his dealings with men that became a permanent body of belief.

18. St. Paul no doubt developed certain portions and aspects of this body of belief, but it is quite impossible and contrary to the evidence that he can have invented its main propositions.

19. We may be sure that St. John did not draw directly from St. Paul, but, firstly, from his own recollections, and in the second place, from the store of common memories and common doctrine that was the possession of all Christians and especially of those who had been nearest to the Master.

20. If we attempt a reconstruction of the main lines of the progress of the Church in the early and in subsequent centuries, such reconstruction ought to be worthy of its subject. In other words, it ought to be one in which we can really see the finger of God.

21. The workings of Divine Providence, as we have experience of them, do not indeed always correspond to what we should antecedently expect. They are such as belong to a world, not of perfect, but of imperfect beings. The Divine purpose as we see it, does not take effect at once, but by slow and gradually expanding degrees.

22. In a world so mixed and chequered progress also has been mixed and chequered; it has not been exactly what we, with our limited faculties, could at once recognize as ideal. It has been progress by tentative experiment, by gradual formulation, by description, at first rough and approximate, but improved little by little as time went on. Any reconstruction of Christian history which agrees with these broad conditions is legitimate, I mean, any reconstruction which recognizes the tentative, experimental, imperfect but gradually improved formulation of Christian belief. It is incumbent upon us, in our own day, to take our part in the attempt to formulate our conceptions of truth, whether historical or doctrinal, with all the accuracy in our power; and we may be quite sure that future generations will improve upon anything that we leave behind us.

23. Any method of reconstructing history on these lines is, as I have stated, legitimate and worthy of a Christian who is loyal to his faith. But a view of history that cannot be expressed in terms fit to describe the operation of Divine Providence; that sees in it nothing but huge blunders and gross deteriorations; that regards the Church of Christ as built on fundamental untruth, which only becomes worse and not better as the centuries advance; such a view seems to me to be not loyal and not really Christian.

Footnote 74:

See, however, the Oxford Society of Hist. Theol., _N. T. in Apost.
Fathers_ (1905), p. 84.

Footnote 75:

Ibid., pp. 64, 67, 69; on the use of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 81-83 (a
judicious estimate).

Footnote 76:

_Ignatius von Antiochien_, pp. 46 ff.

Footnote 77:

Strangely enough, the Oxford Society’s committee do not mention this
phrase, though it presents a stronger case than any of those on p. 31.

Footnote 78:

_Hibbert Journal_ i. 529.

Footnote 79:

_Character, &c._ 157.

Footnote 80:

_Hibbert Journal_ ii. 610.

Footnote 81:

_Chronologie_, p. 675.

Footnote 82:

_Die Offenbarung Johannis_, p. 208.

Footnote 83:

It is pointed out to me by Dr. V. Bartlet that the sentence in the
Fragment about the dead raised to life is really a new statement not
connected with the sentences preceding which are referred to Papias. I
am inclined to think that this is right, and that the authority may be
Quadratus.

Footnote 84:

Since this was written I have had the advantage of seeing in
manuscript an argument by Dom John Chapman, presenting in a more
attractive shape than I have ever yet seen the view that the only John
of Ephesus was the son of Zebedee. All depends upon the truth of the
story of this Apostle’s death. It is one of those statements that we
can neither wholly trust, nor wholly distrust. There is a real chance
that it may be right, and there is an equally real chance that it may
be wrong; the evidence, as it seems to me, does not warrant a positive
assertion either way. I should be much inclined to think that, if the
statement is true, there was but one John at Ephesus, the beloved
disciple who was also the Presbyter; and, if the statement is false,
there was still but one John, who was both Presbyter and Apostle. But
then there comes in the problem of the Apocalypse, which _may_ require
two Johns!

Footnote 85:

Iren. _adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7.

Footnote 86:

_Comm. in Joan._ i. 6.

INDEX

Abbot, Ezra, 12 f., 15.

Abbott, Edwin A., xi.

Alogi, 65 f., 238, 255.

Antioch, 199.

Apocalypse, 248-50.

Apocryphal Acts, 112.

Apocryphal Gospels, 112 f.

Apologetics, x, 3-5, 38.

Apostle, the title, 105 f.

Apostolicity, 41.

Aristion, 241;
_see also_ Presbyters of Papias.

Arnold, Matthew, 225.

Athanasius, _Vita Antonii_, 57 ff., 183.

Augustine, St., 178.

Bacon, Benjamin W., 19, 24 f., 35, 57, 75.

Baldensperger, Wilhelm, 84.

Barnabas, Epistle of, 38 f., 241.

Bartlet, Vernon, 250.

Basilides, 247, 256.

Batiffol, Mgr. Pierre, 12.

Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 43.

‘behold,’ meaning of, 76 f.

‘believe,’ 161 f.

Bethsaida, 114.

Beyschlag, Willibald, 10 f.

Bousset, Wilhelm, 17, 249 f.

Box, George H., 153.

Briggs, Charles Augustus, 21 ff.

Burkitt, F. Crawford, 183 f.

Butler, Dom Cuthbert, 57, 183.

Caius, 66, 69.

Calmes, Père Th., 12.

Canonicity, 39.

Catholicity, 41.

Ceremonies, 119 ff.

Chapman, Dom John, 252.

Cheyne, Thomas Kelly, x f.

Church, the Mother, vii, 228-33, 261.

Chwolson, Daniel, 121, 152 f.

Clement of Alexandria, 66, 67 ff., 72 f., 105, 238 ff.;
_see_ Presbyters.

Continuity, 5, 234 f.

Conybeare, Frederick C., 29, 55.

Cosmos, 197.

Criticism, American, 46 ff.

— English, 44 ff.

— French, 27 f., 31.

— German, ix, 27 f., 48 ff.

— Principles of, 42-67, 142, 257-63.

De Boor’s Fragment, 103 f., 107, 250 ff.

Delff, Hugo, 17 f., 21, 90, 99, 108.

Demoniacal Possession, 130, 133 f.

Development, alleged want of, 155-65, 209.

_Didaché_, 199, 241, 245 f.

Dill, Samuel, 35 f.

Dobschütz, Ernst von, 15 f., 18 f., 115.

Dods, Marcus, 11.

Drummond, James, 3, 15, 32 ff., 41, 67, 81, 110 ff., 115, 141, 166,
192, 197, 241, 247.

Dualism, 196.

Ebionism, 29, 226, 230.

ἐκεῖνος, 77 ff.

_Encyclopaedia Biblica_, 1 f., 45.

Eusebius, 65, 67 ff., 238 f., 250 f.

Extensions, Principle of, 178.

Feasts, the Jewish, 117 f., 119 ff.;
_see_ Passover.

Fisher, George P., 14.

Fourth Gospel, Appendix to (ch. xxi), 63 f., 80 f.

— as a ‘spiritual Gospel,’ 68, 70 ff., 96.

— Christology of, 205-35.

— Criticism of, 1-3, 5-8, 15, 25, 32, 60 ff., 65 f., 67 ff.

— Discourses in, 165-9.

— External Evidence for, 238-48.

— Internal Evidence, Summary of, 238 f.

— Geographical Details in, 113 f.

— Monotony of, 206.

— not a biography, 70 f., 205-7.

— Object of, 68 f., 71 f., 205 f.

— Relation to Synoptics, 67 ff., 71 f., 117 f., 143-55, 166, 216-25.

— Author of, 67 ff., 70 ff., 79 f., 82-108, 128, 167 ff., 188 f., 206,
244 f., 260;
_see_ St. John, Apostle and Presbyter.

Furrer, Konrad, 113 f.

Galatians, Epistle to the, 230.

Georgius Monachus (Hamartolus), 103.

Godet, Frédéric, 11.

Goltz, Freiherr E. von der, 242-4.

Grill, Julius, 190-2, 194-7, 200 f.

Gwatkin, Henry M., 58 f.

Harnack, Adolf, 18 ff., 42 ff., 60 ff., 76, 106, 197, 200, 223, 241,
249, 250, 252.

Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, 45-9.

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 207-16.

Heracleon, 24, 238, 240.

Hermas, 241.

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, 41, 57, 75, 115, 194, 224.

Holtzmann, Oscar, 25 f.

Ignatius of Antioch, 51 ff., 199, 241-5.

Irenaeus, 60 ff., 65 f., 73, 105, 238 ff., 251, 255.

Jacquier, Abbé E., 12.

Jerusalem, Destruction of, 116, 123 f.

Jewish Ideas, 15, 128-36.

John, Apocryphal Acts of, 108.

— First Epistle of, 57, 74 ff.

— School of St., 73, 81 f., 253 f.;
_see_ Presbyters of Papias, Presbyters of Clement.

John the Apostle, 16 ff., 60 ff., 97-108, 248-56;
_see also_ Fourth Gospel, Author of.

— Death of, 103 ff., 107 f., 251 f.

John the Presbyter, 16 ff., 19 f., 60 ff., 97-108, 248-56;
_see also_ Fourth Gospel, Author of.

Jülicher, Adolf, 1, 31 f., 75.

Justin Martyr, 33, 139, 166, 246 f., 256.

Keim, Theodor, 241.

Kreyenbuhl, Johannes, xi.

Last Discourse, 90, 94 ff.

Last Supper, 88 f., 94, 150-5.

Lazarus, Story of, 87 f., 170-2.

Light and Life, 190 f., 201.

Lightfoot, Joseph B., 12, 51 ff.

Local Colour, 129-36.

Logos, Doctrine of the, 185-204, 211 ff.

Loisy, Abbé Alfred, 2, 28, 31, 41, 200-4, 205, 223 f., 256.

Lucius, Ernst, 54 f.

Luthardt, Christoph E., 11.

Malchus, 90.

Matthew, Apocryphal Gospel of, 112 f.

McGiffert, A. Cushman, 19.

_Memra_, 187.

Messiah, the title, 208, 221 f.

Messianic Expectation, 117, 136-40, 158 f.

Milligan, William, 11.

Ministry, Scene of the, 144-8.

— Duration of, 148 f.

Miracle, 169-84.

Moberly, Robert Campbell, 215.

Moffatt, James, 19.

Moulton, William F., 11.

Muratorian Fragment, 66, 105, 255.

Origen, 66, 238, 255.

Papias, 60, 64, 73, 246, 250 ff., 254;
_see_ De Boor’s Fragment.

Paraclete, 196 f., 219 f.

Passover, 85, 117, 119 f., 151-5;
_see_ Feasts.

Paul, St., 168, 174 f., 188, 261.

— St., and St. John, Relation of, viii, 168, 208-16, 226-33.

Peter, St., and St. John, 91 f., 100, 102, 107.

Peter, Second Epistle of, 43.

Petronius, _Satiricon_, 35 f.

Pfleiderer, Otto, 26.

Pharisees;
_see_ Sects and Parties.

Philip the Evangelist, 64.

Philo, 55, 185-200.

— _De Vita Contemplativa_, 54 ff.

Pilgrimages, 117 f.

Polycarp, 60, 62, 242, 256.

Polycrates, 62, 99 f., 102 f., 105.

Pothinus, 61 f.

Pragmatism, 109 ff.

Presbyter, the title, 253.

Presbyters of Clement, 67, 72 f.

— of Papias, 60 f., 63 f., 241.

Purification, 84 f., 120 f.

Quadratus, 250.

Rabbinical Schools, 132.

Ramsay, William M., 112.

Réville, Jean, 2, 28, 31, 200, 256.

Ritschlianism, 47.

Roman Government, 126 ff.

Sadducees;
_see_ Sects and Parties.

Salmon, George, 66.

Samaria, Woman of, 85.

Sanhedrin, 90 f., 100 f., 116, 124 ff.

Schmiedel, Paul W., 2, 26 f., 37 ff., 57, 75, 239 ff., 247, 256.

Schürer, Emil, 18, 28, 55 f.

Schwartz, Eduard, 32, 66, 246.

Sects and Parties, 123 ff.

Silence, Argument from, 33 ff., 39, 171 f., 251.

Soden, Freiherr Hermann von, viii f., 129 f.

Soltau, Wilhelm, 21.

Son of God, the title, 208-26, 231.

Spirit, the Holy, 214 f.

‘spiritual,’ meaning of, 71 f.

Stanton, Vincent H., 3, 37 ff., 241.

Stoics, 199.

Style, Argument from Identity of, 56 f., 74 f., 81.

Supernatural, the, 169-84, 260 f.

Synoptic Gospels, Criticism of, 151 ff., 170-2, 217 f., 261;
_see_ Fourth Gospel, Relation to Synoptics.

Tatian, 66, 238 ff.

Temple, the, 113, 122 f.

Temple, Cleansing of, 149 f.

— Golden Gate of, 113.

— Solomon’s Porch, 123, 164 f.

— Treasury, 123.

Tertullian, 105, 238 ff.

Textual History, Argument from, 55 ff.

‘that year,’ 115.

Thecla, Acts of Paul and, 43, 112.

Theophilus of Antioch, 34, 238.

Tiberias, Sea of, 114.

Tradition, 4, 44.

Trinity, Doctrine of the, 215 f., 218 f., 231.

Valentinus, 247, 256.

Ward, Miss Janet, 1.

Watkins, Henry W., xi.

Weingarten, Hermann, 57.

Weiss, Bernhard, 9 f., 30.

Wellhausen, Julius, ix.

Wendland, Paul, 199.

Wendt, Hans Hinrich, 21 ff., 220 f.

Wernle, Paul, 27, 31, 75, 227-35.

Westcott, Brooke Foss, 13, 93.

Wrede, William, ix, 75, 109 f.

Zahn, Theodor, 8 f., 245.

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the lectures in which they are
referenced.