Gospel of St. John
This subject will be considered under the following heads:
I. Contents and Scheme of the Gospel;
II. Distinctive Peculiarities;
III. Authorship;
IV. Circumstances of the Composition;
V. Critical Questions Concerning the Text;
VI. Historical Genuineness;
VII. Object and Importance.
I. CONTENTS AND SCHEME OF THE GOSPEL
According to the traditional order, the Gospel of St. John
occupies the last place among the four canonical Gospels. Although
in many of the ancient copies this Gospel was, on account of the
Apostolic dignity of the author inserted immediately after or even
before the Gospel of St. Matthew, the position it occupies today
was from the beginning the most usual and the most approved. As
regards its contents, the Gospel of St. John is a narrative of the
life of Jesus from His baptism to His Resurrection and His
manifestation of Himself in the midst of His disciples. The
chronicle falls naturally into four sections:
� the prologue (i, 1-18), containing what is in a sense a brief
epitome of the whole Gospel in the doctrine of the Incarnation of
the Eternal Word;
� the first part (i, 19-xii, 50), which recounts the public life
of Jesus from His baptism to the eve of His Passion,
� the second part (xiii-xxi, 23), which relates the history of
the Passion and Resurrection of the Saviour;
� a short epilogue (xxi, 23-25), referring to the great mass of
the Saviour's words and works which are not recorded in the
Gospel.
When we come to consider the arrangement of matter by the
Evangelist, we find that it follows the historical order of
events, as is evident from the above analysis. But the author
displays in addition a special concern to determine exactly the
time of the occurrence and the connection of the various events
fitted into this chronological framework. This is apparent at the
very beginning of his narrative when, as though in a diary he
chronicles the circumstances attendant on the beginning of the
Saviour's public ministry, with four successive definite
indications of the time (i, 29, 35, 43, ii, 1). He lays special
emphasis on the first miracles: "This beginning of miracles did
Jesus in Cana of Galilee" (ii, 11), and "This is again the second
miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judea into
Galilee" (iv, 54). Finally, he refers repeatedly throughout to the
great religious and national festivals of the Jews for the purpose
of indicating the exact historical sequence of the facts related
(ii, 13; v, 1; vi, 4; vii, 2; x, 22; xii, 1, xiii, 1).
All the early and the majority of modern exegetes are quite
justified, therefore, in taking this strictly chronological
arrangement of the events as the basis of their commentaries. The
divergent views of a few modern scholars are without objective
support either in the text of the Gospel or in the history of its
exegesis.
II. DISTINCTIVE PECULIARITIES
The Fourth Gospel is written in Greek, and even a superficial
study of it is sufficient to reveal many peculiarities, which give
the narrative a distinctive character. Especially characteristic
is the vocabulary and diction. His vocabulary is, it is true, less
rich in peculiar expressions than that of Paul or of Luke: he uses
in all about ninety words not found in any other hagiographer.
More numerous are the expressions which are used more frequently
by John than by the other sacred writers. Moreover, in comparison
with the other books of the New Testament, the narrative of St.
John contains a very considerable portion of those words and
expressions which might be called the common vocabulary of the
Four Evangelists.
What is even more distinctive than the vocabulary is the
grammatical use of particles, pronouns, prepositions, verbs, etc.,
in the Gospel of St. John. It is also distinguished by many
peculiarities of style, -- asyndeta, reduplications, repetitions,
etc. On the whole, the Evangelist reveals a close intimacy with
the Hellenistic speech of the first century of our era. which
receives at his hands in certain expressions a Hebrew turn. His
literary style is deservedly lauded for its noble, natural, and
not inartistic simplicity. He combines in harmonious fashion the
rustic speech of the Synoptics with the urban phraseology of St.
Paul.
What first attracts our attention in the subject matter of the
Gospel is the confinement of the narrative to the chronicling of
events which took place in Judea and Jerusalem. Of the Saviour's
labours in Galilee John relates but a few events, without dwelling
on details, and of these events only two -- the multiplication of
the loaves and fishes (vi, 1-16), and the sea-voyage (vi, 17-21) -
- are already related in the Synoptic Gospels.
A second limitation of material is seen in the selection of his
subject-matter, for compared with the other Evangelists, John
chronicles but few miracles and devotes his attention less to the
works than to the discourses of Jesus. In most cases the events
form, as it were, but a frame for the words, conversation, and
teaching of the Saviour and His disputations with His adversaries.
In fact it is the controversies with the Sanhedrists at Jerusalem
which seem especially to claim the attention of the Evangelist. On
such occasions John's interest, both in the narration of the
circumstances and in the recording of the discourses and
conversation of the Saviour, is a highly theological one. With
justice, therefore, was John conceded even in the earliest ages of
Christianity, the honorary title of the "theologian" of the
Evangelists. There are, in particular, certain great truths, to
which he constantly reverts in his Gospel and which may be
regarded as his governing ideas, special mention should be made of
such expressions as the Light of the World, the Truth, the Life,
the Resurrection, etc. Not infrequently these or other phrases are
found in pithy, gnomic form at the beginning of a colloquy or
discourse of the Saviour, and frequently recur, as a leitmotif, at
intervals during the discourse (e. g. vi, 35, 48, 51, 58; x, 7, 9;
xv, 1, 5; xvii, 1, 5; etc.).
In a far higher degree than in the Synoptics, the whole narrative
of the Fourth Gospel centres round the Person of the Redeemer.
From his very opening sentences John turns his gaze to the inmost
recesses of eternity, to the Divine Word in the bosom of the
Father. He never tires of portraying the dignity and glory of the
Eternal Word Who vouchsafed to take up His abode among men that,
while receiving the revelation of His Divine Majesty, we might
also participate in the fullness of His grace and truth. As
evidence of the Divinity of the Saviour the author chronicles some
of the great wonders by which Christ revealed His glory, but he is
far more intent on leading us to a deeper understanding of
Christ's Divinity and majesty by a consideration of His words,
discourses, and teaching, and to impress upon our minds the far
more glorious marvels of His Divine Love.
III. AUTHORSHIP
If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III,
xi, 9) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the
Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end
of the eighteenth century. Evanson (1792) and Bretschneider (1820)
were the first to run counter to tradition in the question of the
authorship, and, since David Friedrich Strauss (1834-40) adopted
Bretschneider's views and the members of the T�bingen School, in
the wake of Ferdinand Christian Baur, denied the authenticity of
this Gospel, the majority of the critics outside the Catholic
Church have denied that the Fourth Gospel was authentic. On the
admission of many critics, their chief reason lies in the fact
that John has too clearly and emphatically made the true Divinity
of the Redeemer, in the strict metaphysical sense, the centre of
his narrative. However, even Harnack has had to admit that, though
denying the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, he has sought in
vain for any satisfactory solution of the Johannine problem:
"Again and again have I attempted to solve the problem with
various possible theories, but they led me into still greater
difficulties, and even developed into contradictions." ("Gesch.
der altchristl. Lit.", I, pt. ii, Leipzig, 1897, p. 678.)
A short examination of the arguments bearing on the solution of
the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will enable the
reader to form an independent judgment.
Direct Historical Proof
If, as is demanded by the character of the historical question, we
first consult the historical testimony of the past, we discover
the universally admitted fact that, from the eighteenth century
back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without
question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of
evidence therefore, we may begin with the third century, and
thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles.
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute
the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents,
signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate
Gospels, John is in every case and without the faintest indication
of doubt named as the author of this Gospel. The earliest of the
extant manuscripts, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle
of the fourth century, but the perfect unanimity of all the
codices proves to every critic that the prototypes of these
manuscripts, at a much earlier date, must have contained the same
indications of authorship. Similar is the testimony of the Gospel
translations, of which the Syrian, Coptic, and Old Latin extend
back in their earliest forms to the second century.
The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose
reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees
with that of the above mentioned sources. St. Dionysius of
Alexandria (264-5), it is true, sought for a different author for
the Apocalypse, owing to the special difficulties which were being
then urged by the Millennarianists in Egypt; but he always took
for granted as an undoubted fact that the Apostle John was the
author of the Fourth Gospel. Equally clear is the testimony of
Origen (d. 254). He knew from the tradition of the Church that
John was the last of the Evangelists to compose his Gospel
(Eusebius, " Hist. eccl.", VI, xxv, 6), and at least a great
portion of his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, in which he
everywhere makes clear his conviction of the Apostolic origin of
the work has come down to us. Origen's teacher, Clement of
Alexandria (d. before 215-6), relates as " the tradition of the
old presbyters", that the Apostle John, the last of the
Evangelists, "filled with the Holy Ghost, had written a spiritual
Gospel" (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, xiv, 7).
Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyons (d. about 202), linked immediately with the
Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple
of the Apostle John. The native country of Irenaeus (Asia Minor)
and the scene of his subsequent ministry (Gaul) render him a
witness of the Faith in both the Eastern and the Western Church.
He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the
Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of
the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of the Four
Gospels, he says of the last: " Later John, the disciple of the
Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was
residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here,
so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple
of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.
We find that the same conviction concerning the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel is expressed at greater length in the Roman Church,
about 170, by the writer of the Muratorian Fragment (lines 9-34).
Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (before 181) also cites the
beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John (Ad Autolycum,
II, xxii). Finally, according to the testimony of a Vatican
manuscript (Codex Regin Sueci seu Alexandrinus, 14), Bishop Papias
of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an immediate disciple of the Apostle
John, included in his great exegetical work an account of the
composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been
employed as scribe by the Apostle.
It is scarcely necessary to repeat that, in the passages referred
to, Papias and the other ancient writers have in mind but one
John, namely the Apostle and Evangelist, and not some other
Presbyter John, to be distinguished from the Apostle. (See JOHN
THE EVANGELIST, SAINT.)
Indirect External Evidence
In addition to the direct and express testimony, the first
Christian centuries testify indirectly in various ways to the
Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel. Among this indirect
evidence the most prominent place must be assigned to the numerous
citations of texts from the Gospel which demonstrate its existence
and the recognition of its claim to form a portion of the
canonical writings of the New Testament, as early as the beginning
of the second century. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died under
Trajan (98-117), reveals in the quotations, allusions, and
theological views found in his Epistles, an intimate acquaintance
with the Fourth Gospel. In the writings of the majority of the
other Apostolic Fathers, also, a like acquaintance with this
Gospel can scarcely be disputed, especially in the case of
Polycarp, the "Martyrium of Polycarp", the "Epistle to Diognetus",
and the "Pastor" of Hermas (cf. the list of quotations and
allusions in F. X. Funk's edition of the Apostolic Fathers).
In speaking of St. Papias, Eusebius says (Hist. eccl., III, xxxix,
17) that he used in his work passages from the First Epistle of
St. John. But this Epistle necessarily presupposes the existence
of the Gospel, of which it is in a way the introduction or
companion work. Furthermore, St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxxii,
2) cites a sentence of the "presbyters" which contains a quotation
from John, xiv, 2, and, according to the opinion of those entitled
to speak as critics, St. Papias must be placed in the front rank
of the presbyters.
Of the second-century apologists, St. Justin (d. about 166), in an
especial manner, indicates by his doctrine of the Logos, and in
many passages of his apologies the existence of the Fourth Gospel.
His disciple Tatian, in the chronological scheme of his "
Diatessaron", follows the order of the Fourth Gospel, the prologue
of which he employs as the introduction to his work. In his
"Apology" also he cites a text from the Gospel.
Like Tatian, who apostatized about 172 and joined the Gnostic sect
of the Encratites, several other heretics of the second century
also supply indirect testimony concerning the Fourth Gospel.
Basilides appeals to John, i, 8, and ii, 4. Valentine seeks
support for his theories of the ons in expressions taken from
John; his pupil Heracleon composed, about 160, a commentary on the
Fourth Gospel, while Ptolemy, another of his followers, gives an
explanation of the prologue of the Evangelist. Marcion preserves a
portion of the canonical text of the Gospel of St. John (xiii, 4-
15; xxxiv, 15, 19) in his own apocryphal gospel. The Montanists
deduce their doctrine of the Paraclete mainly from John, xv and
xvi. Similarly in his "True Discourse" (about 178) the pagan
philosopher Celsus bases some of his statements on passages of the
Fourth Gospel.
On the other hand, indirect testimony concerning this Gospel is
also supplied by the oldest ecclesiastical liturgies and the
monuments of early Christian art. As to the former, we find from
the very beginning texts from the Fourth Gospel used in all parts
of the Church, and not infrequently with special predilection.
Again, to take one example, the raising of Lazarus depicted in the
Catacombs forms, as it were, a monumental commentary on the
eleventh chapter of the Gospel of St. John.
The Testimony of the Gospel Itself
The Gospel itself also furnishes an entirely intelligible solution
of the question of authorship.
(1) The general character of the work
In the first place from the general character of the work we are
enabled to draw some inferences regarding its author. To judge
from the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who was well
acquainted with the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He also
displays an accurate knowledge of the geographical and social
conditions of Palestine even in his slightest incidental
references. He must have enjoyed personal intercourse with the
Saviour and must even have belonged to the circle of his intimate
friends. The very style of his chronicle shows the writer to have
been an eyewitness of most of the events. Concerning the Apostles
John and James the author shows a thoroughly characteristic
reserve. He never mentions their names, although he gives those of
most of the Apostles, and once only, and then quite incidentally,
speaks of " the sons of Zebedee" (xxi, 2). On several occasions,
when treating of incidents in which the Apostle John was
concerned, he seems intentionally to avoid mentioning his name
(John, i, 37-40; xviii, 15, 16; cf. xx, 3-10). He speaks of John
the precursor nine times without giving him the title of "the
Baptist", as the other Evangelists invariably do to distinguish
him from the Apostle. All these indications point clearly to the
conclusion that the Apostle John must have been the author of the
Fourth Gospel.
(2) The express testimony of the author
Still clearer grounds for this view are to be found in the express
testimony of the author. Having mentioned in his account of the
Crucifixion that the disciple whom Jesus loved stood beneath the
Cross beside the mother of Jesus (John, xix, 26 sqq.), he adds,
after telling of the Death of Christ and the opening of His side,
the solemn assurance: "And he that saw it hath given testimony;
and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true: that
you also may believe" (xix, 35). According to the admission of all
John himself is the "disciple whom the Lord loved". His testimony
is contained in the Gospel which for many consecutive years he has
announced by word of mouth and which he now sets down in writing
for the instruction of the faithful. He assures us, not merely
that this testimony is true, but that he was a personal witness of
its truth. In this manner he identifies himself with the disciple
beloved of the Lord who alone could give such testimony from
intimate knowledge. Similarly the author repeats this testimony at
the end of his Gospel. After again referring to the disciple whom
Jesus loved, he immediately adds the words: "This is that disciple
who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these
things; and we know that his testimony is true" (John, xxi, 24).
As the next verse shows, his testimony refers not merely to the
events just recorded but to the whole Gospel. It is more in
accordance with the text and the general style of the Evangelist
to regard these final words as the author's own composition,
should we prefer, however, to regard this verse as the addition of
the first reader and disciple of the Apostle, the text constitutes
the earliest and most venerable evidence of the Johannine origin
of the Fourth Gospel.
(3) Comparison of the Gospel to the Johannine epistles
Finally we can obtain evidence Concerning the author from the
Gospel itself, by comparing his work with the three Epistles,
which have retained their place among the Catholic Epistles as the
writings of the Apostle John. We may here take for granted as a
fact admitted by the majority of the critics, that these Epistles
are the work of the same writer, and that the author was identical
with the author of the Gospel. In fact the arguments based on the
unity of style and language, on the uniform Johannine teaching, on
the testimony of Christian antiquity, render any reasonable doubt
of the common authorship impossible. At the beginning of the
Second and Third Epistles the author styles himself simply "the
presbyter" - evidently the title of honour by which he was
commonly known among the Christian community. On the other hand,
in his First Epistle, he emphasizes repeatedly and with great
earnestness the feet that he was an eyewitness of the facts
concerning the life of Christ to which he (in his Gospel) had
borne testimony among the Christians: "That which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word
of life: for the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear
witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the
Father, and hath appeared to us: that which we have seen and have
heard, we declare unto you" (I John, i, 1-3; cf. iv, 14). This
"presbyter" who finds it sufficient to use such an honorary title
without qualification as his proper name, and was likewise an eye-
and earwitness of the incidents of the Saviour's life, can be none
other than the Presbyter John mentioned by Papias, who can in turn
be none other than John the Apostle (cf. JOHN THE EVANGELIST,
SAINT).
We can therefore, maintain with the utmost certainty that John the
Apostle, the favourite disciple of Jesus, was really the author of
the Fourth Gospel.
IV. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPOSITION
Passing over the intimate circumstances with which early legend
has clothed the composition of the Fourth Gospel, we shall discuss
briefly the time and place of composition, and the first readers
of the Gospel.
As to the date of its composition we possess no certain historical
information. According to the general opinion, the Gospel is to be
referred to the last decade of the first century, or to be still
more precise, to 96 or one of the succeeding years. The grounds
for this opinion are briefly as follows:
� the Fourth Gospel was composed after the three Synoptics;
� it was written after the death of Peter, since the last chapter
- especially xxi, 18-19 presupposes the death of the Prince of the
Apostles;
� it was also written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple, for the Evangelist's references to the Jews (cf.
particularly xi, 18; xviii, 1; xix, 41) seem to indicate that the
end of the city and of the people as a nation is already come;
� the text of xxi, 23, appears to imply that John was already far
advanced in years when he wrote the Gospel;
� those who denied the Divinity of Christ, the very point to
which St. John devotes special attention throughout his Gospel,
began to disseminate their heresy about the end of the first
century;
� finally, we have direct evidence concerning the date of
composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth
Gospel, which was probably written about the year 200 or a little
later, says concerning the date of the appearance of the Gospel:
"He [sc. the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of
Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the Island of
Patmos". The banishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last
year of Domitian's reign (i.e. about 95). A few months before his
death (18 September, 96), the emperor had discontinued the
persecution of the Christians and recalled the exiles (Eusebius,
"Hist. eccl.", III, xx, nn. 5-7). This evidence would therefore
refer the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 96 or one of the years
immediately following.
The place of composition was, according to the above-mentioned
prologue, the province of Asia. Still more precise is the
statement of St. Irenaeus, who tells us that John wrote his Gospel
"at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. haer., III, i, 2). All the other early
references are in agreement with these statements.
The first readers of the Gospel were the Christians of the second
and third generations in Asia Minor. There was no need of
initiating them into the elements of the Faith; consequently John
must have aimed rather at confirming against the attacks of its
opponents the Faith handed down by their parents.
V. CRITICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TEXT
As regards the text of the Gospel, the critics take special
exception to three passages, 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; and 21.
John 5:3-4
The fifth chapter tells of the cure of the paralytic at the pool
of Bethsaida in Jerusalem. According to the Vulgate the text of
the second part of verse three and verse four runs as follows: " .
. waiting for the moving of the water. And an angel of the Lord
descended at certain times into the pond, and the water was moved.
And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the
water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under." But
these words are wanting in the three oldest manuscripts, the Codex
Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (aleph), and Codex Bez (D), in the
original text of the palimpsest of St. Ephraem (C), in the Syrian
translation of Cureton, as well as in the Coptic and Sahidic
translations, in some minuscules, in three manuscripts of the
Itala, in four of the Vulgate, and in some Armenian manuscripts.
Other copies append to the words a critical sign which indicates a
doubt as to their authenticity. The passage is therefore regarded
by the majority of modern critics, including the Catholic
exegetes, Schegg, Schanz, Belser, etc., as a later addition by
Papias or some other disciple of the Apostle.
Other exegetes, e.g. Corluy, Comely, Knabenbauer, and Murillo,
defend the authenticity of the passage urging in its favour
important internal and external evidence. In the first place the
words are found in the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the emended Codex
Ephraemi (C), in almost all minuscule manuscripts, in six
manuscripts of the Itala, in most of the Bodices of the Vulgate,
including the best, in the Syrian Peshito, in the Syrian
translation of Philoxenus (with a critical mark), in the Persian,
Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and in some manuscripts of the
Armenian text. More important is the fact that, even before the
date of our present bodices, the words were found by many of the
Greek and Latin Fathers in the text of the Gospel. This is clear
from Tertullian [De bapt., i (before 202)], Didymus of Alexandria
[De Trin., II, xiv (about 381)], St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of
Alexandria, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine [Sermo xv (al. xii), De
verbis Evangelii S. Joannis), although the last-mentioned, in his
tractate on the Gospel of St. John, omits the passage.
The context of the narrative seems necessarily to presuppose the
presence of the words. The subsequent answer of the sick man (v.
7), "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me
into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before
me", could scarcely be intelligible without verse 4, and the
Evangelist is not accustomed to omit such necessary information
from his text. Thus both sides have good grounds for their
opinions, and no final decision on the question, from the
standpoint of the textual critic, seems possible.
John 7:53-8:11
This passage contains the story of the adulteress. The external
critical evidence seems in this ease to give still clearer
decision against the authenticity of this passage. It is wanting
in the four earliest manuscripts (B, A, C, and aleph) and many
others, while in many copies it is admitted only with the critical
mark, indicative of doubtful authenticity. Nor is it found in the
Syrian translation of Cureton, in the Sinaiticus, the Gothic
translation, in most codices of the Peshito, or of the Coptic and
Armenian translations, or finally in the oldest manuscripts of the
Itala. None of the Greek Fathers have treated the incident in
their commentaries, and, among Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian,
and Hilary appear to have no knowledge of this pericope.
Notwithstanding the weight of the external evidence of these
important authorities, it is possible to adduce still more
important testimony in favour of the authenticity of the passage.
As for the manuscripts, we know on the authority of St. Jerome
that the incident "was contained in many Greek and Latin codices"
(Contra Pelagium, II, xvii), a testimony supported today by the
Codex Bez of Canterbury (D) and many others. The authenticity of
the passage is also favoured by the Vulgate, by the Ethiopians
Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and by many manuscripts of the
Itala and of the Armenian and Syrian text. Of the commentaries of
the Greek Fathers, the books of Origen dealing with this portion
of the Gospel are no longer extant; only a portion of the
commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria has reached us, while the
homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel must be
considered a treatment of selected passages rather than of the
whole text. Among the Latin Fathers, Sts. Ambrose and Augustine
included the pericope in their text, and seek an explanation of
its omission from other manuscripts in the fact that the incident
might easily give rise to offense (cf. especially Augustine, " De
coniugiis adulteris", II, vii). It is thus much easier to explain
the omission of the incident from many copies than the addition of
such a passage in so many ancient versions in all parts of the
Church. It is furthermore admitted by the critics that the style
and mode of presentation have not the slightest trace of
apocryphal origin, but reveal throughout the hand of a true
master. Too much importance should not be attached to variations
of vocabulary, which may be found on comparing this passage with
the rest of the Gospel, since the correct reading of the text is
in many places doubtful, and any such differences of language may
be easily harmonized with the strongly individual style of the
Evangelist.
It is thus possible, even from the purely critical standpoint, to
adduce strong evidence in favour of the canonicity and inspired
character of this pericope, which by decision of the Council of
Trent, forms a part of the Holy Bible.
John 21
Concerning the last chapter of the Gospel a few remarks will
suffice. The last two verses of the twentieth chapter indicate
clearly indeed that the Evangelist intended to terminate his work
here: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his
disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are
written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God: and that believing, you may have life in his name " (xx, 30
sq.). But the sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is
that the twenty-first chapter was afterwards added and is
therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel. Evidence
has yet to be produced to show that it was not the Evangelist, but
another, who wrote this appendix. The opinion is at present fairly
general, even among critics, that the vocabulary, style, and the
mode of presentation as a whole, together with the subject-matter
of the passage reveal the common authorship of this chapter and
the preceding portions of the Fourth Gospel.
VI. HISTORICAL GENUINENESS
Objections Raised against the Historical Character of the Fourth
Gospel
The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present
time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since
David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial
has been postulated in advance in most of the critical inquiries
into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this
prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy also reached the point where he
openly denied the historicity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion
the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in
symbolical garb his religious ideas and theological speculations.
The writings of Loisy and their rationalistic prototypes,
especially those of the German critics, have influenced many later
exegetes, who while wishing to maintain the Catholic standpoint in
general, concede only a very limited measure of historical
genuineness to the Fourth Gospel. Among this class are included
those who acknowledge as historical the main outlines of the
Evangelist's narrative, but see in many individual portions only
symbolical embellishments. Others hold with H. J. Holtzmann that
we must recognize in the Gospel a mixture of the subjective,
theological speculations of the author and the objective, personal
recollections of his intercourse with Christ, without any
possibility of our distinguishing by sure criteria these different
elements. That such a hypothesis precludes any further question as
to the historical genuineness of the Johannine narrative, is
evident, and is indeed candidly admitted by the representatives of
these views.
On examining the grounds for this denial or limitation of the
historical genuineness of John we find that they are drawn by the
critics almost exclusively from the relation of the Fourth Gospel
to the Synoptic narrative. On comparison three points of contrast
are discovered: (1) with respect to the events which are related;
(2) in regard to the mode of presentation; and (3) in the doctrine
which is contained in the narrative.
(1) The events related
As regards the events related, the great contrast between John and
the Synoptists in the choice and arrangement of materials is
especially accentuated. The latter show us the Saviour almost
exclusively in Galilee, labouring among the common people: John,
on the other hand, devotes himself chiefly to chronicling Christ's
work in Judea, and His conflicts with the Sanhedrists at
Jerusalem. An easy solution of this first difficulty is found in
the special circumstances attending the composition of the Fourth
Gospel. John may - in fact must - have assumed that the Synoptic
narrative was known to his readers at the end of the first
century. The interest and spiritual needs of these readers
demanded primarily that he supplement the evangelical story in
such a manner as to lead to a deeper knowledge of the Person and
Divinity of the Saviour, against which the first heresies of
Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and the Nicolaites were being already
disseminated in Christian communities. But it was chiefly in His
discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem that
Christ had spoken of His Person and Divinity. In his Gospel,
therefore John made it his primary purpose to set down the sublime
teachings of Our Saviour, to safeguard the Faith of the Christians
against the attacks of the heretics. When we come to consider the
individual events in the narrative, three points in particular are
brought forward:
� the duration of Christ's public ministry extends in the Fourth
Gospel over at least two years, probably indeed over three years,
and some months. However, the Synoptic account of the public life
of Jesus can by no means be confined within the narrow space of
one year, as some modern critics contend. The three earliest
Evangelists also suppose the space of at least two years and some
months.
� The purification of the Temple is referred by John to the
beginning of the Saviour's ministry, while the Synoptists narrate
it at the close. But it is by no means proven that this
purification occurred but once. The critics bring forward not a
single objective reason why we should not hold that the incident,
under the circumstances related in the Synoptics, as well as those
of the Fourth Gospel, had its historical place at the beginning
and at the end of the public life of Jesus.
� Notwithstanding all the objections brought forward, John is in
agreement with the Synoptists as to the date of the Last Supper.
It occurred on Thursday, the thirteenth day of Nisan, and the
Crucifixion took place on Friday, the fourteenth. The fact that
according to John, Christ held the Supper with His Apostles on
Thursday, while, according to the Synoptists, the Jews ate the
paschal lamb on Friday, is not irreconcilable with the above
statement. The most probable solution of the question lies in the
legitimate and widespread custom, according to which, when the
fifteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath, as it did in the year of
the Crucifixion, the paschal lamb was killed in the evening hours
of the thirteenth of Nisan and the paschal feast celebrated on
this or the following evening, to avoid all infringement of the
strict sabbatic rest.
(2) The mode of presentation
As regards the mode of presentation, it is especially insisted
that the great sublimity of the Fourth Gospel is difficult to
reconcile with the homely simplicity of the Synoptics. This
objection, however, entirely disregards the great differences in
the circumstances under which the Gospels were written. For the
Christians of the third generation in Asia living in the midst of
flourishing schools, the Fourth Evangelist was forced to adopt an
entirely different style from that employed by his predecessors in
writing for the newly-converted Jews and pagans of the earlier
period.
Another difficulty raised is the fact that the peculiar Johannine
style is found not only in the narrative portions of the Gospel,
but also in the discourses of Jesus and in the words of the
Baptist and other personages. But we must remember that all the
discourses and colloquies had to be translated from Aramaic into
Greek, and in this process received from the author their
distinctive unity of style. Besides in the Gospel, the intention
is by no means to give a verbatim report of every sentence and
expression of a discourse, a sermon, or a disputation. The leading
ideas alone are set forth in exact accordance with the sense, and,
in this manner, also, they come to reflect the style of the
Evangelist. Finally, the disciple surely received from his Master
many of the distinctive metaphors and expressions which imprint on
the Gospel its peculiar character.
(3) The doctrinal content
The difference in doctrinal content lies only in the external
forms and does not extend to the truths themselves. A satisfactory
explanation of the dogmatic character of John's narrative, as
compared with the stress laid on the moral side of the discourses
of Jesus by the Synoptists, is to be found in the character of his
first readers, to which reference has already been repeatedly
made. To the same cause, also, must be ascribed the further
difference between the Gospels namely, why John makes his teaching
centre around the Person of Jesus, while the Synoptics bring into
relief rather the Kingdom of God. At the end of the first century
there was no need for the Evangelist to repeat the lessons
concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, already amply treated by his
predecessors. His was the especial task to emphasize, in
opposition to the heretics, the fundamental truth of the Divinity
of the Founder of this Kingdom, and by chronicling those words and
works of the Redeemer in which He Himself had revealed the majesty
of His glory, to lead the faithful to a more profound knowledge of
this truth.
It is superfluous to say that in the teaching itself, especially
regarding the Person of the Redeemer, there is not the slightest
contradiction between John and the Synoptists. The critics
themselves have to admit that even in the Synoptic Gospels Christ,
when He speaks of His relations with the Father, assumes the
solemn "Johannine" mode of speech. It will be sufficient to recall
the impressive words: "And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father:
neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom
it shall please the Son to reveal him" (Matt., xi, 27; Luke, x,
22).
(4) Positive Evidence for the Historical Genuineness of the Gospel
The reasons urged against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel are
devoid of all conclusive force. On the other hand, its genuineness
is vouched for by the whole character of the narrative. From the
very beginning the events are portrayed with the precision of an
eyewitness; the most minute subsidiary circumstances are
mentioned; not the least suggestion can be found that the author
had any other object in mind than the chronicling of the strict
historical truth. A perusal of the passages describing the call of
the first disciples (i, 35-51), the Marriage at Cana (ii, 1-11),
the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv, 3-42), the healing
of the man born blind (ix, 1-41), the raising of Lazarus (xi, 1-
47), is sufficient to convince one that such a chronicle must
necessarily lead the readers into error, if the events which are
described be otherwise than true in the historical sense.
To this must be added the express assertion made repeatedly by the
Evangelist that he speaks the truth and claims for his words
unqualified belief (xix, 35; xx, 30 sq.; xxi, 24; I John, i, 1-4).
To reject these assurances is to label the Evangelist a worthless
impostor, and to make of his Gospel an unsolvable historical and
psychological enigma.
And finally, the verdict of the entire Christian past has
certainly a distinct claim to consideration in this question,
since the Fourth Gospel has always been unhesitatingly accepted as
one of the chief and historically credible sources of our
knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ. With entire justice,
therefore, have the contrary views been condemned in clauses 16-18
of the Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907) and in the Decree of
the Biblical Commission of 29 May, 1907.
VII. OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE
The intention of the Evangelist in composing the Gospel is
expressed in the words which we have already quoted: "But these
are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God" (xx, 31). He wished also by his work to confirm the faith
of the disciples in the Messianic character and the Divinity of
Christ. To attain his object, he selected principally those
discourses and colloquies of Jesus in which the self-revelation of
the Redeemer laid clearest emphasis on the Divine Majesty of His
Being. In this manner John wished to secure the faithful against
the temptations of the false learning by means of which the
heretics might prejudice the purity of their faith. Towards the
narrative of the earlier Evangelists John's attitude was that of
one who sought to fill out the story of the words and works of the
Saviour, while endeavouring to secure certain incidents from
misinterpretation. His Gospel thus forms a glorious conclusion of
the joyous message of the Eternal Word. For all time it remains
for the Church the most sublime testimony of her faith in the Son
of God, the radiant lamp of truth for her doctrine, the never-
ceasing source of loving zeal in her devotion to her Master, Who
loves her even to the end.
Commentaries on the Gospel of St. John
In early Christian times: the Homilies of ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM and
the Tractates of ST. AUGUSTINE; the extant portions of the
commentaries of ORIGEN and ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA; the
expositions of THEOPHYLACTUS and EUTHYMIUS, who generally follow
Chrysostom, and the exegetical works of ST. BEDE, who follows
Augustine. In the Middle Ages: the interpretations of ST. THOMAS
AQUINAS and ST. BONAVENTURE, of Blessed ALBERTUS MAGNUS, RUPERT of
DEUTZ, and ST. BRUNO OF SEGNI.
LEOPOLD FONCK
Transcribed by Michael Little
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
