In modern times by Neander, and especially by Lücke, impetuosity and passion" have been pointed out as the individual temperament' of the Apostle, but certainly we can only understand this of such impetuosity as is consistent with tenderness, and is as it were its opposite pole. On this subject some just remarks are made by Bruno Bauer, and a comprehensive exhibition of it is given by Frommann.h

III. The Language of the Gospel of John, and the time and place of its composition.

The unanimous testimony of antiquity declares that the Gospel was written by the Apostle at Ephesus. To this conclusion we are led also by internal evidence, namely, that the author has regard to the Hellenistic-Judaic theosophy, and in general to readers not living in Palestine (John ii. 6, 13; iv. 9; v. 1, 2); and also that he is versed in the Hellenistic Greek language. His acquaintance with Hellenistic Greek is so great, in comparison with the style of the Apocalypse, that if the Evangelist John is the author of the latter, the Gospel, according to all appearance, must have been written considerably later. According to Irenæus (Adv. Hæres. v. 30. 3.), the Apocalypse was revealed (εwpάon) to John towards the end of the reign of Domitian, who died A. D. 96. Supposing that it was recorded immediately after it was revealed, the book of the Apocalypse must have been written about the year 95. If then we place the writing of the Gospel in the year 100 (and we can scarcely put it later), there would still be only five years between the two writings, a period which appears to be too short to explain the great difference of language. If, according to very probable internal evidence, we place the record of the Apocalypse in the reign of Galba (A.D. 68 or 69), we have a length of time fully sufficient. The recent investigations of Dr. Paulus, Hug, and Credner (1841), have made it probable that the Greek language was very widely spread in Palestine-even James the brother of the Lord, who never lived out of his father-land, wrote his Epistle in comparatively good Greek. Thus John also may have had some knowledge of Greek during his residence at Jerusalem. If his banishment took place after his entrance on his new sphere of labour in Asia Minor, he would indeed have but little practice in it; yet the period of from ten to twenty years after his return must, on the other hand, have exerted an essential influence.k The style of the Gospel gives the general impression that the

Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes, p. 400, sq.

h Johann: Lehrbegriff, p. 22.

i Comp. Dannemann, Wer ist der Verfasser der Offenbarung Johannis? 1841. * See my Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, 2nd edit. p. 383.

author

6

ει

6

6

author was not much practised as a writer, since the structure of the periods is deficient in an unusual degree. John stands in this respect far below Paul, yet the reason is to be found less in his using a language to which he was unaccustomed, than in the difference of their individual temperament; for dialectic thinking is completely foreign to John; his mind appears to be in the highest degree plain and simple. His discourse throughout uniformly alternates between the particles Sé and ov; it is indeed surprising how frequently the latter is used; thus, in ch. xix., it is found in ver. 20, 21, 23, 24 (bis), 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 42. The simple connection by xai occurs as frequently, iii. 14; v. 27; viii. 21, 49; xvii. 11. Once we find ouws μevro, xii. 42; xaíTOIYE, iv. 2; Evro alone, vii. 13 [iv. 27; xx. 5; xxi. 4]; also xai-dé, vi. 51; viii. 16, 17; xv. 27; ei-vuv dé, ix. 41; xviii. 36. Not less is the uniformity in the use of favourite words and phrases, of which especially the three Epistles furnish instances, to be attributed in great part to his individual turn of mind--a certain simplicity of mind, in accordance with which all his thoughts gather round a few comprehensive terms, such as uaprugía, witness, doa, 'glory,' anda, truth,' pas, light,' onoros, darkness,' wn aivios, ‘eternal life,' Méve, abide' (see ch. v. 38). Nevertheless we must believe that John possessed less readiness of language than is shown in the writings of Paul, and certainly less than in the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to verbal improprieties, there are no examples that furnish any difficulty greater than those which are found in many expressions of Paul; though it is frequently assumed that there are, because Eusebius says that John wrote anтaioτws (Hist. Eccl. vii. 44). As to barbarisms, we have to mention, vna (xvii. 7), and according to Cod. B. D. L. TεTÝρnuav (xvii. 6); also, according to some MSS. ixorav instead of six ov (αν. 22); χαρήσομαι instead of χαρῶ (xvi. 20, 22); ἀλήθινος (iv. 37; vii. 28), if it is taken in the sense of anons. As to solecisms, there are où un in a dependent question (xi. 56), and in a direct question (xviii. 11), va after the demonstrative (xv. 8; xvii. 3); the Hebraic construction (vii. 4, &c.). To these we may add TE instead of Te (ch. viii. 39), if with Griesbach we adopt the former reading. We may cite as good Greek, e. g., the formula οἱ περὶ Μάρθαν (xi. 19); the use of the particle νῦν (xi. 8); πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν (xii. 1); ἤπερ (xii. 43); ὅμοιος with the genitive (viii. 55, and in no other passage in the N. T.); Isporova declined according to the Greek manner, whilst in the Apocalypse it is Iegovoan, &c. As peculiarities of the style of John may be noticed further his frequent use of the pronoun (vi. 71; vii. 7; ix. 39); the demonstrative with i'va (xv. 8; xvii. 3; 1 John iv. 17); the repetition of the positive

thought

thought in a negative form (i. 23; xv. 6; 1 John ii. 27; 2 John 9); the construction with xai-xaí (vi. 36; ix. 37, &c.); also that the second member of the sentence extends beyond the thought contained in the first (v. 41, 42; ix. 41; xiv. 10; 2 John i. 3). One cannot but wish that the characteristics of the language of the individual writers of the New Testament had been given by Winer in his New Testament Grammar. Lücke, too, in his third edition of his Commentary on John has not given any such account. See in reference to the style of the Gospel, Seyffarth, Beitrag zur Specialcharacteristik der johann. Schriften, Leipz. 1833, and in reference to the language, Schott, Isagoge in N. T. p. 150.

The uniform testimony of antiquity declares this Gospel to be the last written, and many internal marks also testify to the fact. It presupposes the synoptic narrative (see below)--it bears the character of completing that; it reports the discourses of Jesus with less verbal accuracy, &c.

IV. Object of the Gospel and Plan of carrying it out.

In discussing the question of the object of the Gospel of John, we must distinguish between the general and the special object. All who recorded the evangelical history had in view the general object of spreading and establishing belief in Christ and in his saving doctrine. With this view Luke prepared his account for the benefit of Theophilus, as he says in the introduction to his gospel. John also had this general design, as he himself says, xx. 31. The question then is, whether beside this we have ground to suppose that there was a special object. The construction of this gospel might well lead to such a supposition. It has throughout a peculiar didactic character, it brings prominently forward a circle of truths different from that which is exhibited in the synoptic gospels, and to this it continually returns. Thus it may. appear, that he was desirous of opposing some definite foreign dogmatic tendency. The arrangement also, and the matter of his history, differ considerably from those of the other evangelists. This might lead us to think that his object was to complete their accounts. A polemico-dogmatic object, besides the general one, is supposed even by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. iii. 12). He says that John's design was to oppose the errors of the Gnostic Cerinthus. This statement of the early teacher of the church has been adopted by many ancient and modern theologians, most of whom, however, assume a more general polemical design against the Gnostic and Docetic opinions; many have thought, moreover, that there is to be discovered in the gospel a polemical aim against the sect of the Zabeans, or disciples of John the Baptist. So the Socinian

writers

writers Schlichting and Wolzogen; also Grotius, Herder,m Overbeck," who think that it is directed especially against the Zabeans; beside these, Michaelis, Storr, Schmidt, Hug, Kleucker, who suppose a polemical aim against both the Gnostics and the Zabeans. Some, as Kleucker, and more recently L. Lange, think that they perceive a polemical design against carnal Judaizing Christians. The latest negative criticism of Lützelberger comes back to a polemical aim against the disciples of John the Baptist (p. 275), and that of Schwegler (see § 6), who allows the gospel to have appeared at the end of the second century, finds in it a connection with the doctrines of the Gnostics, and likewise with those of the Ebionites, partly irenical, partly polemical.

If now the question is, whether expressions occur in the gospel which may be used in opposing Gnostic, Zabean, or Judaistic errors, no one will deny that this is the case. Yet a definite polemical object on the part of John would not be thereby proved, for when Christianity is brought forward in its purity, it always of itself comes into opposition to these errors. Then only would the form of the gospel oblige us to assume such a definite polemical object, when its peculiar didactic character could not be explained except from definite considerations of this kind, founded on history. This, however, is not the case. As to the opinion of Irenæus, it is known, that the teachers of the church in their contests with heretics were easily led to represent even the apostles as being definite opponents of heresies. Irenæus, in the passage referred to, assumes, that John intended to oppose also the errors of the Nicolaitans, which yet certainly is not the case; and besides, Irenæus might easily, without being led by any historical facts, arrive at the conclusion, that it was the definite design of the evangelist to come forward polemically against the Gnostics, simply on this account, that many expressions of John are capable of being used against them. To this may be added, that those passages which are taken as having a polemical aspect against Cerinthus (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, 'the word became flesh,' P) and those which are looked upon as opposing the disciples of John the Baptist (John i. 8; iii. 28, seq.) do not accurately fulfil their polemical object, as Dr. Paulus has shown; and further, that Cerinthus might have made use of some passages in John in his own favour (p. 112). Moreover, this polemical aim cannot be shown to run through the whole gospel. Under these circumstances we cannot admit, that John in writing

m Erläut. zum N. T. aus einer neueröffn. morgenl. Quelle, p. 11.

n Neue Vers. üb. d. Ev. Joh.

his gospel had a definite polemico-dogmatic object in view, much less that this was his chief object. It is however quite probable that here and there (xix. 34, 35), and especially in the prologue, he incidentally took notice of erroneous opinions and doubts which were already current at that time. Such an occasional regard to the circumstances of his time belongs to every writer. This appears more in the first Epistle of the Apostle than in his gospel, and on this point Lücke forms a very correct opinion in his introduction to the first Epistle of John.

If there exists no polemical object running through the whole, it may be inquired, whether John had the design of placing his gospel in a definite relation to the other gospels. Did he aim to give a more spiritual representation of the teaching and the life of the Redeemer? This thought readily occurs to any one who is attracted by the wonderfully sublime simplicity, and the heavenly mildness which pervades the whole composition, as well as the many express references to the higher nature of Christ. The Alexandrians, who in general assumed a twofold spiritual standpoint for Christians, gave utterance to this thought. Clement, in a fragment of his lost TOTUTσais, preserved by Eusebius s says : τὸν μέντοι Ιωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα, ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγ γελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι θεοφορη θέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον, ( that John, the latest, perceiving that that which was carnal had been set forth in the Gospels, being urged by those who were acquainted with him, and being inspired by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel.' In a similar way Lücke has viewed the three first gospels as proceeding from the stand-point of faith (rioris), that of John from the standpoint of knowledge (yvos). Again, as John for the most part relates such speeches and miracles of Christ as the other Evangelists do not mention; many, both ancient and modern writers, assume that it was his intention in general, to complete the earlier gospels, but especially to supply what was wanting in their representation of the Divine in Christ (r ɛoλoyíav). Thus Eusebius," and thus also Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says, 'But the faithful in Asia, judging that the blessed John was more worthy of

Thus Rettberg, An Jesus in exhibenda, &c., p. 9.

s Hist. Eccl. vi. 14.

u Hist. Eccl. iii. 24.

* Lücke, Comm. 1st edit. pt. 1, p. 160, sq.

* Catena in Ev. Joh. ed. Corder. Antv. 1630, åλλ' oi πepì Thy 'Aolav TIOTOL ἀξιοπιστότερον τῶν λοιπῶν εἰς τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου μαρτυρίαν Ἰωάννην κρίναντες εἶναι τὸν μακάριον, προσήνεγκαν μὲν αὐτῷ τὰς βίβλους, μαθεῖν ἥντινα περὶ αὐτῶν ἔχει τὴν δόξαν παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ βουλόμενοι. Ὁ δὲ ἐπήνεσε μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τους γεγραφότας, ἔφησε δὲ βραχέα μὲν αὐτοῖς παραλελεῖφθαι, καὶ τῶν μάλιστα ἀναγκαῖων λεχθῆναι θαυμάτων τὰ διδασκαλικὰ ἅπαντα μικροῦ. Εἶτα καὶ δεῖν ἔφασκε τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ παρουσίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ διαλεγομένους μηδὲ τοὺς περὶ τῆς θεότητος λόγους παραλιπεῖν, κ. τ. λ.

trust