Back Aa

Literature and History of New Testament Times

[165] <h2>LESSON XXX</h2> <h3>THE TESTIMONY OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE</h3> <h4>The Gospel According to John</h4> <h5>1. THE EVANGELIST A WITNESS</h5> The author of the Fourth Gospel was a great man. He was great, however, not as a philosopher or as a religious genius, but as an apostle; not as the originator of great ideas, but as one who received the teaching of another. He was great, not as one who created a profound theology, but as one who could understand the Lord Jesus Christ. The "Johannine theology" is the theology not of John but of Jesus. So at least John himself represents it. He claims to be not a theologian, but a witness. The value of his book depends upon the truth of his witnessing. If the Johannine picture of Christ is the creation of the author's genius, it commands admiration; but only if it is a true picture of the historic Jesus can it offer eternal life. Is the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel fiction or fact, a splendid product of religious genius or a living Saviour? Few questions have caused profounder agitation in the modern Church. The question cannot be separated from the question of authorship. Clearly if the book was written by an intimate friend of Jesus, its witness must be true. Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? This question is of vital importance. <h5>2. THE TRADITION</h5> At the close of the second century—the earliest period from which any really abundant Christian literature outside of the New Testament has been preserved—the tradition about the authorship of the Gospel was practically unanimous. Even the one small and uninfluential sect that disagreed practically supports the common view, for its denial was evidently based upon objections to the contents of the Gospel and not at all upon any independent information. (1) Irenæus and Polycarp.—Of the three important writers of the close of the second century, all of whom attest the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, Irenæus deserves special mention. Irenæus spent his early life in Asia Minor, but afterwards became[166] the leader of the Church in Gaul. Before he left Asia Minor he had some very interesting associations. One of them was with Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was martyred in A. D. 155. Polycarp would be an important figure merely on account of the early period in which he lived; but what makes his testimony supremely valuable is his personal association with John. Irenæus himself in his early youth, before he had left Asia Minor, had heard Polycarp discoursing about the things he had heard John say. Polycarp, then, was a personal disciple of John, and Irenæus was a personal disciple of Polycarp. Only one link, therefore, separated Irenæus from John. Moreover, since Irenæus in his youth had lived in Asia Minor, the very place of John's residence, it is natural to believe that what he heard Polycarp say about John could be supplemented in other ways. Now beyond any reasonable doubt whatever, Irenæus supposed that the John of whom he had heard Polycarp speak was none other than John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. If that supposition was correct, then the connection between Irenæus and the apostle John was exceedingly close; and when Irenæus exhibits an absolutely unwavering belief that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle, it is very unlikely that he was mistaken. He had known one of the personal disciples of John; he himself had lived in Asia Minor where John had been the well-known leader of the Church, and where the Fourth Gospel, no matter who wrote it, was almost certainly produced. When, therefore, he asserts, not as something new, but as a thing which he had known from the beginning, that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, surely he must be believed. This conclusion has been avoided by the hypothesis that the John about whom Polycarp spoke was not really, as Irenæus supposed, John the son of Zebedee, but another John, a certain John the presbyter, who was not one of the twelve apostles at all. The unnaturalness of such an hypothesis appears on the surface. Could a native of Asia Minor who had repeatedly heard Polycarp speak about the John in question, and who had many other opportunities for acquainting himself with the traditions of the church in Asia Minor—could such a man, together with all his contemporaries, have come to labor under so egregious a misapprehension? (2) Other Attestation.—The testimony of Irenæus to the Fourth Gospel is of particular importance, on account of Irenæus' connection with Polycarp. But it is only one detail in a remarkable consensus. When the most widely separated portions of the Church before the close of the second century all agreed that the[167] Fourth Gospel was written by John the son of Zebedee, their common belief could not have been of recent origin. Earlier writers, moreover, by their use of the Gospel attest at least its early date. <h5>3. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF</h5> The tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee is confirmed by the testimony of the Gospel itself. Although the book does not mention the name of its author it clearly implies who he was. (1) Indirectness of the Testimony.—This testimony of the Gospel itself is all the more valuable because it is indirect. If the name John had been mentioned at the beginning, then it might conceivably be supposed that an unknown author had desired to gain a hearing for his work by putting it falsely under the name of a great apostle. As it is, the inference that the author claims to be John the son of Zebedee, though certain, does not force itself upon the careless reader. A forger would not thus, by the indirectness of his claim, have deprived himself of the benefits of his forgery. The testimony of the Gospel to its author must now be considered. (2) The Author an Eyewitness.—In the first place, almost at the very beginning, we observe that the author claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. "We beheld his glory," he says in John 1:14. By beholding the glory of Christ he evidently does not mean merely that experience of Christ's power which is possessed by every Christian. On the contrary, the glory of Christ, as it is intended by the evangelist, is fully explained by such passages as ch. 2:11. The miracles of Jesus—palpable, visible events in the external world—are clearly included in what is meant. It will be observed that in ch. 1:14 it is very specifically the incarnate Christ that is spoken of. The evangelist is describing the condition of things after "the Word became flesh." Evidently, therefore, it was the earthly life of Jesus which the evangelist claims to have "beheld." This conclusion is confirmed by I John 1:1-4. Scarcely anyone doubts that the First Epistle of John was written by the man who wrote the Gospel. When, therefore, the author of the epistle speaks of "that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life," evidently these words have significance for the Gospel also. The author fairly heaps up expressions to show, beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, that he had come into actual physical contact with the earthly Jesus. [168] (3) The Unnamed Disciple of John 1:35-42.—The author of the Fourth Gospel, then, clearly claims to be an eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ. Further indications identify him with a particular one among the eyewitnesses. In John 1:35-42, an unnamed disciple of Jesus is mentioned. "One of the two," it is said in v. 40, "that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." Who was the other? There is some reason for thinking that he was one of the two sons of Zebedee. But the matter will become clearer as we proceed. Another question is why this disciple is not mentioned by name. The Fourth Gospel is not chary of names. Why, then, is the disciple who appears so prominently along with Andrew and Simon not mentioned by name? Only one plausible explanation suggests itself—the explanation that the unnamed disciple was the author of the Gospel, who, through a feeling common in the literature of antiquity, as well as of our own time, did not like to mention his own name in the course of his narrative. We have already observed that the author claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Christ. John 1:14. When, therefore, near the beginning of the narrative a disciple of Jesus is introduced, rather mysteriously, without a name, when, furthermore, events in which this disciple was immediately concerned are narrated with unusual vividness and wealth of detail, vs. 35-42, the conclusion becomes very natural that this unnamed disciple is none other than the author himself. (4) The Beloved Disciple.—This conclusion, it must be admitted, so far as this first passage is concerned, is nothing more than a likely guess. But by other passages it is rendered almost certain. In John 13:21-25, a disciple is mentioned as leaning on Jesus' breast and as being one whom Jesus loved. This disciple is not named. But who was he? Evidently he was one of the twelve apostles, for only the apostles were present at the Supper which is described in chs. 13 to 17. The disciple "whom Jesus loved," however, was not only among the Twelve; he was evidently among the innermost circle of the Twelve. Such an innermost circle appears clearly in the Synoptic Gospels. It was composed of Peter and James and John. The beloved disciple was probably one of these three; and since he is clearly distinguished from Peter, ch. 13:24, he was either James or John. The introduction of an unnamed disciple, which seemed significant even in John 1:35-42, becomes yet far more significant in the present passage. In the account of the Last Supper, a considerable[169] number of the disciples are named—Peter, Judas Iscariot, Thomas, Philip, Judas not Iscariot—yet the disciple who is introduced with especial emphasis, whose very position at table is described with a wealth of detail far greater than is displayed in the case of any of the others, is designated merely as "one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." The strange omission of this disciple's name can be explained only if he was the author of the book. Clearly the painter has here introduced a modest portrait of himself in the midst of his great picture. Passing by John 18:15,16, where "the other disciple" is probably the author, and ch. 19:26,27, where the repetition of the strange designation, "the disciple ... whom he [Jesus] loved," confirms the impressions derived from ch. 13:21-25, we discover another important indication in ch. 19:35. "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." "He that hath seen" can scarcely refer to anyone other than the beloved disciple who was mentioned just before as standing by the cross. In the present verse, this beloved disciple is represented as the one who is now speaking. The identification of the beloved disciple with the author of the Gospel, which was implied before, here becomes explicit. In John 20:1-10, "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" is of course the same as the one who appears in ch. 13:21-25; 19:26,27,35. (5) Testimony of the Appendix.—In John 21:7,20-23, the beloved disciple appears again, and in v. 24 he is identified, in so many words, with the writer of the Gospel. In this verse the first person plural is used; other persons seem to be associated with the author in commending the Gospel to the attention of the Church. This phenomenon is explained if the twenty-first chapter be regarded as a sort of appendix, perhaps added at the request of a circle of friends. It will be observed that ch. 20:30,31 forms a fit ending to the book; what follows therefore appears the more like an appendix, though it was certainly written by the author's own hand and published before his death along with the rest of the book. (6) Why Are John and James Not Mentioned by Name?—The conclusion of our investigation is that the author of the Fourth Gospel indicates clearly that he was either one or the other of the two sons of Zebedee. This conclusion is confirmed by the curious circumstance that neither one of these men is mentioned in the Gospel by name. How did they come to be omitted? They were in the very innermost circle of Jesus' disciples; many apostles far less prominent[170] than they are named frequently on the pages of the Gospel. There can be only one solution of the problem: one at least of these men is, as a matter of fact, introduced in the Gospel as the beloved disciple, and the reason why he is introduced in such a curiously anonymous way and why his brother also is not named, is that the author felt a natural delicacy about introducing his own and his brother's name into a narrative of the Lord's life. One statement that has just been made requires qualification: it is not quite true that the sons of Zebedee are not designated by name in the Gospel. They are not indeed called by their individual names, but in ch. 21:2, they are designated by the name of their father. Possibly this slight difference of usage between chapter 21 and the rest of the Gospel has something to do with the fact that chapter 21 seems to be an appendix. (7) The Author Was Not James, but John.—The author of the Fourth Gospel, then, identifies himself with one or the other of the sons of Zebedee. As to which one of the two is meant there cannot be the slightest doubt. James the son of Zebedee was martyred in A. D. 44. Acts 12:2. There is abundant evidence that the Fourth Gospel was not written so early as that; and John 21:20-23 apparently implies that the author lived to a considerable age. Evidently, therefore, it is John and not James with whom the author identifies himself. (8) Is the Gospel's Own Testimony True?—Thus the singularly strong tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee is supported by the independent testimony of the book itself. Conceivably, of course, that testimony might be false. But it is very hard to believe that it is. It is very hard to believe that the author of this wonderful book, who despite all the profundity of his ideas exalts in a very special manner the importance of simple testimony based upon the senses, John 19:35; I John 1:1-4, has in a manner far subtler and more heinous than if he had simply put a false name at the beginning palmed himself off as an eyewitness of the Saviour's life. Many learned men have found it possible to accept such a view; but the simple reader of the Gospel will always be inclined to dissent. The author of this book has narrated many things hard to be believed. But there are still found those who accept his solemn testimony; there are still found those in whom the purpose of the book is achieved, who through this Gospel believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing have life in his name. John 20:31. [171] <h5>4. TRADITIONAL TIME AND PLACE AND PLAN</h5> The tradition about the Fourth Gospel is not confined to the bare fact of Johannine authorship; it has preserved certain other very interesting information. (1) The Ephesian Residence.—For example, tradition represents the Fourth Gospel as written after the other three Gospels and at Ephesus. The evidence for the Ephesian residence of the apostle John is singularly abundant and weighty; and the contrary evidence which has been thought to attest an early death of John is exceedingly weak. At first, John, like the others of the original apostles, remained in Palestine. He appears in Jerusalem a little before A. D. 50 at the Apostolic Council. Gal. 2:9. At some subsequent time, perhaps at the outbreak of the Jewish war in A. D. 66, he journeyed to Asia Minor and there for many years was the revered head of the Church. He lived indeed until the reign of Trajan, which began in A. D. 98. (2) The Gospel of John Supplementary to the Synoptic Gospels.—According to tradition, the Gospel of John was not only written after the Synoptic Gospels, but was intended to be supplementary to them. This information is amply confirmed by the Gospel itself. Evidently John presupposes on the part of his readers a knowledge of the Synoptic account. This explains his peculiar choice of material—for example, his omission of most of the Galilean ministry, and of such events as the baptism and the institution of the Lord's Supper. It explains also, for example, a verse like John 3:24: "For John was not yet cast into prison." The Synoptic Gospels begin their account of the ministry of Jesus with what happened after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Mark 1:14. Readers of Mark might even receive the impression that Jesus had not begun his teaching till after that time. John corrects any such impression in ch. 3:24. If, then, the Gospel of John is intended not to compete with the Synoptic Gospels, but to supplement them, in what direction does the supplementing move? What is it that John adds to what had already been told? Here, again, tradition affords us useful hints. Eusebius, in the early part of the fourth century, writes as follows (Church History, iii, 24, 7-13, translated by McGiffert, in "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," second series, vol. i, p. 153): "And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned [Matthew, Mark and Luke][172] having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: 'Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.' Mark likewise says: 'Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, 'adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.' They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: 'This beginning of miracles did Jesus'; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: 'For John was not yet cast into prison.' John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit." According to Eusebius, then, John intended to treat the time before the imprisonment of the Baptist as the Synoptists treated the time after that event. We have already noted the element of truth in this observation. Of course it is not the only observation that needs to be made. Much of what John narrates occurred after the imprisonment of the Baptist. [173] According to Clement of Alexandria, of the close of the second century, who here reports what had been said by his predecessors in Alexandria, John, seeing that "bodily" matters had been treated by the Synoptists, supplemented their work by writing a "spiritual" Gospel. In this testimony also there is no doubt an element of truth. It is true that the Fourth Gospel reproduces certain profound elements in the teaching of Jesus which in the earlier Gospels appear only incidentally. The oral tradition which forms the chief basis of the Synoptic Gospels was rooted deep in the earliest missionary activity of the Church. Especially, perhaps, in the Gospel of Mark, but also in Matthew and Luke, we have for the most part those facts about Jesus and those elements of his teaching which could appeal at once to simple-minded believers or to outsiders. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, drawing, like the others, from the rich store of Jesus' teaching and Jesus' person, has revealed yet deeper mysteries. In this profound book, we have the recollections of a beloved disciple, at first understood only imperfectly by the apostle himself, but rendered ever clearer by advancing experience, and firmly fixed by being often repeated in the author's oral instruction of the Church. <hr class="tb" /> In the Library.—Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible," article on "John" (7): Purves, article on "John, Gospel according to St." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 33-40. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Westcott, "The Gospel according to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Plummer, "The Gospel According to St. John." Browning, "A Death in the Desert" (vol. iv, pp. 191-206 of the Riverside Edition). Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp. 174-355. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others. <hr class="chap" /> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.