I here submit a section from a classic reference work, A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, by George Salmon, DD, FRS. (Second Edition, London, John Murray, 1886). The section quoted comprises the first eleven pages of Lecture 16. I have taken minor liberties with headings and typography.
ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
In this lecture I chiefly reproduce the arguments of Dr. San- day (_Fourth Gospel_, ch. 19), with the additions made to them by Prof. Westcott in the Introduction to his Commentary on St. John's Gospel. I also make use of an appendix added by Renan to the 13th edition of his _Vie de Jesus_, in which he justifies the preference he had expressed (see p. 214) for the narrative as given in the fourth Gospel.
THE WRITER WAS A JEW.
(1) I remark, in the first place, the familiarity with the Old Testament which he exhibits. Quotations from it occur as fre- quently as in what has been regarded as the Jewish Gospel, St. Matthew's; and in two or three cases they are made directly from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint. These cases are, the passage from the 41st Psalm (13:18), "He that eateth bread with me hath lift up his heel against me", and that (19:37) from Zechariah 12:10, "They shall look on him whom they pierced". The prophecy also (Isaiah 6:9,10) which is so often referred to in the New Testament, and which is quoted by St. Matthew (13:14) nearly in the words of the Septuagint, appears in quite a different rendering in St. John (12:40).
(2) Next I note his acquaintance with the Jewish feasts. It is remarkable that this Evangelist (said to be anti-Jewish) has alone recorded our Lord's attendance at these feasts, and has used them as landmarks to divide the history. It is in this way we learn, what we should not have found from the Synoptic Gospels, that our Lord's public ministry lasted more than one year. Three passovers are directly mentioned (2:13,23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28); besides another feast, named generally "a feast of the Jews" (5:1), with respect to which commentators are divided whether or not it was a passover. The feast of Tabernacles is spoken of with a note that the last was the "great day of the feast" (6:37), and this verse contains what seems a plain allusion to the rite, practiced at this feast, of pouring forth water from the pool of Siloam.
PAGE 2
Mention is likewise made of that feast of the later Jews, insti- tuted without any express divine command, which commemorated the dedication of the Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epi- phanes (10:22).
(3) In connection with the preceding, I note the acquaintance shown with Jewish customs and habits of thought. There are, for instance, repeated references to the customs in connection with purification: the "waterpots after the manner of the purifying of the Jews" (2:5), the question about purifying between John's dis- ciples and the Jews (3:25), the coming up of Jews to Jerusalem, previous to the passover, in order to purify themselves (6:55), the fear of our Lord's accusers to defile themselves, previous to the passover, by entering the heathen Praetorium (18:28), and the Jewish scruple against allowing the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath day (19:31). We learn, moreover, from St. John (what other testimony confirms) that baptism was not a rite newly instituted by John the Baptist, but one known to the Jews before; for the question is not put to the Baptist (1:25), What is this new thing that thou doest? but he is asked why he baptized, see- ing that he claimed for himself no official position, neither to be the Christ, Elias, nor "the prophet". Then, again, the Evange- list, in his well-known narrative (ch. 4), shows his knowledge of the state of feeling between the Jews and Samaritans (see also 8:48); he is familiar with current Rabbinical and popular notions, as for instance concerning the connection between sin and bodily suffering, in the question (9:2), "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"; as to the importance attached to the religious schools (7:15); the disparagement of the "disper- sion" (7:35); and with the Rabbinical rule against holding con- verse with a woman (4:27). I have already had occasion to notice one passage which has been a terrible stumbling-block in the way of those who would ascribe the book to a Gnosticizing Gentile of the second century. In the very passage where the claims of spir- itual religion, apart from any distinction of place and race, are most strongly set forth, the prerogatives of the Jew are asserted as strongly as they are by St. Paul himself when he has to answer the question, "What advantage then hath the Jew?" This Gospel puts into our Lord's mouth the words (4: 22), "Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews". If these words be invention, assuredly they are not a Gentile or a Gnostic invention (see also p. 209). I do not present the argument from the language, because to enter into details would make it necessary to discuss what phrases can positively be asserted to be Hebraisms; but the whole coloring of the diction, and still more of the thoughts, is essentially Hebrew. (For proofs, see Sanday, p. 289; Westcott, pp. vii., li.)
FOOTNOTE: The description of Caiaphas as "high-priest that year" (11:49,51; 18:13) does not oblige us to suppose the writer to be so ignorant of Jewish affairs as to imagine the high-priesthood to be an annual office. All that the words assert is that in that year when "one man died for the people", Caiaphas was the high-priest. The repeated changes made by the
PAGE 3
government in the high-priesthood at this time are mentioned by Josephus (Antt. 18: 2, 2)
The best argument that can be used in opposition to those I have produced is that founded on the constant use of the phrase "the Jews", which seems to imply that the writer was not a Jew. But the use of the phrase presents no difficulty when we remember the late date of the Gospel, and that it was written in a Greek city where "the Jews" were in all probability the bitterest adversaries of the Christian Church. I need only refer to the hard things said of "the Jews" many years before by St. Paul (I Thess. 2:14-16), who more than any other gloried in being able to call himself a Jew.
FOOTNOTE: In John 7:1, "the Jews" seems to mean the inhabi- tants of Judaea as opposed to the Galileans, a use of the word natural enough in a Galilean writer. The word will bear this meaning in most of the passages where it occurs in this Gospel, of course setting those aside where the word would in any case be used in a book intended for Gentile readers, as, for instance, where customs or feasts of "the Jews' are spoken of. But 6:41,52, will not admit this interpretation, since it is not said that the objectors were visitors from Judaea.
THE WRITER WAS A JEW OF PALESTINE.
We may infer this from his minute acquaintance with the topography of the Holy Land. Thus he knows the small town Cana of Galilee (2:1,11; 4:46; 21:2), a place not noticed by any earlier writer; Bethsaida, the native place of Philip, Peter, and Andrew (1:44); Bethany beyond Jordan (1:28), for this seems to be the true read- ing instead of Bethabara of the common text; he knows the exact distance from Jerusalem of the better known Bethany (11:18); he knows the city Ephraim near the wilderness (11:54); AEnon near to Salim, where John baptized (3:23);
FOOTNOTE, a quote from Renan, here paraphrased: "We do not know where Salim was, but the name "AEnon" is most informative. It is the Chaldean plural of AEn, and means "fountains." How would a Hellenistic Gnostic know that? It may be a proper name, or a description of a place, but it is not the invention of anyone ignorant of Semitic languages."
Sychar the city of Samaria, where Jacob's well was, of which the Evangelist tells that the "well is deep" (4:11), as indeed it is, more than a hundred feet; he knows the whole aspect of the place; the mountain where the Samaritans worshipped, that is to say, Mount Gerizim, which rises to a sheer height of eight hundred feet above the village, and where the remains of a temple are still visible; and he knows the rich cornfields at the base of the moun- tain (5:5) - See Stanley's _Sinai and Palestine_, p240]
There is the same familiarity with the topography of Jerusalem. He speaks of Bethesda, the pool near the sheep gate, having five porches; of the treasury near the temple; of Solomon's porch; of
PAGE 4
the pool Siloam, which name he correctly derives as the "sending forth" of waters; of the brook Kedron; of the place that is called the pavement, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha; of the place of the skull, called in Hebrew Golgotha. I would also notice the graphic description of the aspect of the Temple on the occasion of its cleansing by our Lord; the animals for sacrifice, sheep, oxen, and doves, crowding its courts; and the money-changers, who are described as sitting, the sellers of the animals naturally stand- ing.
Now even a single topographical reference may give a revelation of the writer's nationality. I remember, at the beginning of the Cri- mean war, when we knew nothing here of the authorship of the bril- liant war correspondence which began to appear in the TIMES, how a comparison, in one of the early letters, of some scenery to that of "the Dargle," suggested to us the inference, This writer must be an Irishman. If a novel appeared in which the scene was laid in Ireland, and mention freely made of small Irish localities, and of different Dublin public buildings, we should feel little doubt that the writer was either an Irishman, or one who had spent some time in Ireland; and yet I need not say how much easier it is now, than in the days when the Gospel was written, for a writer to get up from books the details which would add verisimilitude to his narrative.
The work of a native of Palestine may also be recognized in the knowledge of local jealousies which the writer exhibits. One out- side a country thinks little of the distinctions between different provinces. But here we seem to have a picture drawn by a Galilean who had smarted under the haughty contempt with which the inhabi- tants of Jerusalem regarded his province: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (1:46). "Shall Christ come out of Galilee?" (7:41). "Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet" (7:52). Note also the scorn of the rulers and the Phari- sees for the opinion of the vulgar. "This people who knoweth not the law are cursed" (7:49).
Further, the writer is as familiar with the history of the Temple as with its external aspect. One of the data used at present in calculating the chronology of our Saviour's ministry is the remark recorded by St. John (2:20), "Forty and six years was this Temple in building." Counting the commencement of the forty-six years from the time recorded by Josephus, we obtain a date for our Lord's ministry in close agreement with what we are led to by other considerations. But is it credible either that a forger in the second century, when the science of chronology was unknown, could have had the information rightly to state the interval between the beginning of the Temple building and our Lord's minis- try, or, that if he had made a random guess, he could have hit the truth so accurately?
PAGE 5
THE WRITER WAS A JEW OF THE FIRST CENTURY
I come next to the question, It having been thus proved that the writer was a Jew, was he a Jew of the first or of the second cen- tury? And this question is not difficult to answer, for the sub- jects which engage interest, and which excite controversy, differ from age to age. Even in the lifetime of one man they change. Compare Paul's earlier Epistles with his later, compare the Epis- tles to the Romans and Galatians with those to Timothy and Titus, and you will find that the controversy about justification with or without the works of the Law, which is the main subject of the earlier Epistles, is hardly alluded to in the later. This is one of the tests by which was exposed the forgery of the Decretal Epistles ascribed to the early Popes, that the controversies and topics with which these letters deal are not those of the centu- ries when the alleged writers lived, but those of the ninth cen- tury, when the letters were really written. Now, test the fourth Gospel in this way, and you will find that the controversies with which it deals, and the feelings which it assumes, are those of the first century, not the second. The Messianic idea that per- vades the Gospel is not that which prevailed after the Gnostic heresies arose, but that which existed before Jerusalem was destroyed, when the Jews still expected the Messiah to be a deliv- erer who should establish a temporal sovereignty and make the Jews the rulers of the surrounding nations. This Evangelist tells us, what we do not learn from the Synoptic Gospels, that the impres- sion produced by the miracle of feeding the multitude was such that they were about to come by force to make our Lord a king, evidently believing that they had now found him who would lead them against the Romans, and victoriously restore the kingdom to Israel. And we are told that our Lord was obliged to withdraw Him- self from their importunity to a mountain alone. It was because He refused to proclaim a "kingdom of this world" that the Jews found it hard to own as their Messiah one who, though He could preach and heal, yet seemed unable to bring them the deliverance or the glory which they desired. St. John represents the prudent Jewish rulers as resolved to put down the prophesying of Jesus, because they feared that the political consequences of His assertion of His kingdom would be an unsuccessful revolt against foreign rule, the result of which would be that the Romans would come and take away their place and nation (11:48). And St. John brings out with great clearness the fact that it was as a pretender to temporal sovereignty that Jesus was accused before Pilate, who, though per- sonally inclined to dismiss the complaint, was withheld from doing so through fear of exciting the jealousy of his own emperor by his remissness, if in such a matter as this he showed himself not Cae- sar's friend (19:12). Remember that the state of Jewish feeling which I have described was quelled by the destruction of Jerusa- lem, and judge whether it is probable that a writer of the next century would have been able to throw himself into the midst of these hopes and feelings, and to reproduce them as if they were part of the atmosphere which he had himself breathed. Then, again, the topics introduced are those which were discussed in our Lord's time, and not a hundred years afterwards. For example, what
PAGE 6
Gnostic of the second century would have cared to discuss a breach of the Sabbath, and to inquire when the duty of Sabbath observance (admitted to be the general rule) was overborne by a higher obli- gation? See, again, how familiar the writer is with the expecta- tions which before our Lord's coming the Jews had formed of what their Messiah was to be. He was not to be from Galilee. "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethle- hem, where David was?" (7:42); "We have heard out of the Law that Christ abideth for ever" (12:34); "We know this man whence he is, but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is" (7: 27); "When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?" (7:31).
THE WRITER WAS AN EYEWITNESS
I regard it, then, as proved that the writer of the fourth Gospel was a Jew, not very distant in time from the events which he relates. Is there, then, any reason why we should refuse credence to the claim, which he himself makes four times, to have been an eye-witness of our Saviour's life? (1:14; 19:35; 21:24; I John 1:1) There is nothing against admitting this claim, but everything in favor of it. It is quite remarkable how frequently the Evange- list throws himself into the position of the original disciples, and repeats their reflections or comments; these being such as, though appropriate at the time, would not be likely to have occurred to one who was not himself a disciple. There are three instances in the very second chapter. The effect of the miracle of the turning the water into wine is said to have been that "his disciples believed on him" (v. 11). Again, "his disciples remem- bered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" (v. 17). Again, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them" and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said" (v. 22). Why is this prominence given to the reflections of the disciples? Is it likely that a forger of the second century, who wished to exhibit the glory of the Logos, would say, what sounds so like a truism, that His disciples believed on Him? If they had not, they would not have been disciples. It would surely have been more to the point to tell the effect upon the guests: and a forger would hardly have failed to do this. But all is explained when we sup- pose that a disciple is speaking and recording how that favorable impression produced by the testimony of the Baptist, which had disposed him to join the company of Jesus, was changed by this miracle into actual faith. I leave other instances of the same kind to be traced out by yourselves, only taking notice now of one of them: how we are told that the disciples who took part in the triumphal entry of Palm Sunday understood not at the time what they had been doing, but, after Jesus was glorified "remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him" (12:16).
PAGE 7
THE WRITER WAS A DISCIPLE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
I think we may also conclude that the writer had been a disciple of the Baptist as well as of our Lord. This appears from the full- ness of the opening chapter, which deals with the Baptist's minis- try, and which is best explained if we suppose the Evangelist to be the unnamed disciple who, together with Andrew, heard the tes- timony, "Behold the Lamb of God". And if the Evangelist had heard the story from another he would scarcely have added the minute detail that it was the tenth hour of the day when the conversation with Jesus took place. We trace the work of a disciple of the Bap- tist in more than one subsequent allusion to that testimony, and, above all, in one remarkable periphrasis, which is undoubtedly what no forger would have imagined, "Jesus went away beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized, and there he abode; and many resorted unto him and said, John did no miracle, but all things that John spake of this man were true" (10:41). To describe the place of Jesus's sojourn as the place where John at first bap- tized, and to record the impressions of those who had been affected by the Baptist's teaching, and were hesitating whether or not they should attach themselves to Jesus, would not actually occur to anyone who had not himself moved in the same circle. Indeed, the prominence given to the Baptist in the fourth Gospel is in itself a proof how near the writer was to the events which he records. A modern reader seldom realizes the importance of the work done by the Baptist in preparing the way of Jesus. Yet the Synoptic Gospels tell of the reputation and influence gained by John (Matt. 14:5; Mark 6:20; Luke 20:6; cp. Acts 18:25; 19:3). They tell also that there was such a connection between John and his successor, that any who acknowledged the divine mission of the Baptist would be bound in consistency to own the authority of Jesus (Matt. 21:25; Mark 11:31; Luke 20:5). The fourth Gospel explains fully what the connection was, by telling that it was among the disciples of the Baptist that Jesus first gained follow- ers, who joined Him in consequence of the testimony borne to Him by John. This testimony is again referred to as furnishing part of the credentials of Jesus (v. 32, 33). But we have no reason to think that in the second century John occupied such a place in the minds of men as would lead a forger to lay such stress on his authority.
Other notes of autoptic testimony are the minute particulars of time, and place, and persons that are mentioned; that such a dis- course took place in Solomon's porch (10:23); such another in the treasury (8:20); another, as I mentioned a moment ago, at the tenth hour; another (that with the woman of Samaria) at the sixth (4:6); that such another miracle was performed at the seventh hour (4:52); that this or that remark was made, not by the disciples generally, but by Philip (6:7; 14:8), or Andrew (6:9), or Thomas (11:16; 14:5), or Judas, not Iscariot (14:22). The name of the servant whose ear Peter cut off is given (18:10). In two different places the native town of Peter and Andrew is mentioned as Beth- saida (1:44; 12:21): the Synoptic Gospels would rather have led us to conjecture Capernaum.
PAGE 8
There is one passage in particular which by its graphic character forcibly impresses me with the conviction that I read the testi- mony of an eye-witness: I mean the account (20:3) of the conduct of Peter and an unnamed disciple (who is unmistakably the Evange- list himself), when Mary Magdalene came running to tell them that the body of our Lord had been removed from the sepulchre; how the younger was foremost in the race, but contented himself with look- ing into the sepulchre; how Peter, with characteristic boldness, went in, and how the other disciple then followed the example set him. If any but an eye-witness devised all these details, so min- ute and so natural, we must credit him with a literary skill such as we nowhere else find employed in the manufacture of apocryphal Gospels. But there remains to be mentioned a touch so subtle, that I find it impossible to ascribe it to a forger's invention. Not a word is said as to the effect of what he had seen on the mind of Peter; but we are told that the other disciple went in and saw and believed: for as yet they had not known the Scripture, that Christ must rise again from the dead. Is it not plain that the writer is relating his own experience, and recalling how it was that the idea of the Resurrection opened on his mind as a reality? And lastly, note that we have here the work of no reck- less forger. To such a one it would cost nothing to record that he and Peter had then seen our Lord. But no; the disciples are merely said to have returned to their own home. It is Mary Magdalene who remains behind and first enjoys the sight of the risen Saviour.
THE WRITER WAS THE APOSTLE JOHN
If it has been proved that the author of the fourth Gospel was an eye-witness, little time need be spent on the proof that he was the apostle John; for few would care to dispute this, if forced to concede that the Evangelist actually witnessed what he related. To accept him as an eye-witness implies an admission that the things he tells are not mere inventions: and some of these things could only have been known to one of the inner circle of disciples who surrounded our Lord. The Evangelist tells what these disciples said to one another (4:33; 11:16; 16:17; 20:25; 21:3,7); what they thought (2:11,17,23; 4:27; 13:22,29); what places they were accus- tomed to resort to (11:54; 18:2; 20:19). The epilogue to the Gos- pel (21:24) identifies its author with him whom it describes as the disciple whom Jesus loved; and even if there had not been this explicit declaration, the way in which that disciple is introduced (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20; and probably 18:15), irresistibly conveys the impression that the Evangelist wished his readers to understand that he himself was that disciple. The disciple whom Jesus loved must surely have been one of those three (Peter, James, and John), who in the Synoptic Gospels are represented as honored by our Lord's special intimacy; and in this Gospel that disciple is expressly distinguished from Peter (13:24; 20:2; 21:7,20), while we know that James was dead long before the fourth Gospel was written (Acts 12:2).