("John" (Eng. tr.), i. pp. 184-251), limits the date more precisely to 83-89, but it is much saferi (with Schanz and Schäfer) to take the closing decade of the century as the earliest limit. So M. Arnold (God and the Bible, pp. 135-225), Weiss, Westcott (John xxxv.-xl.; Study of the Gospels, p. 239), Plummer (CGT, 80-95 A.D.), Reith (Gospel of John, i. p. xxix), and Adeney (BI, p. 337). Harnack, denying the authorship to John the apostle, chooses widely 80-110 A.D. (Chron. pp. 655-680); and cp. Weizsäcker, AA, ii. pp. 150 f., 166 f., 206-236; Untersuchungen, Erster Theil. The universalism of the writing (1718, kooμos occurs seventy-eight times in John, fifteen times in the synoptists) rests upon the inherent nature of Jesus (19) and his resurrection (1232): and it is quite in keeping with this "catholic" tendency, which marks the opening of the second century, that the nations share in Christ's kingdom owing to its natural expansion, and not on account of any abrogation of the obstacles in the Jewish law. "It is no longer necessary to discuss terms with the obligatoriness of the law." Christianity is itself a new Law, its conditions not national but universal, not external but inward. The Jews have set themselves aside by their hostility to Jesus (1238-40); to them in fact he appeared what Julius Caesar had become for Lucan, the embodiment of a hateful and ruinous success. Hence the saying, ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν ἀποθανεῖσθε (821. 24) is substantially the epitaph of Judaism, written by Christianity as the first century closed.

Evidently also the period was one when the primitive tradition of Jesus, as held by the early church, could no longer suffice by itself (1612. 13), but required to be supplemented by expansion (1625) into fuller and richer developments through fresh revelations of the Spirit in its continuity (1416. 26. etc.). Parallel with this lie traces of extensive activity (438) and its results (1016 1720), very possibly too of disappointments and failure (1012 1561); above all, the need of unity (17).2 Outward and inward evidence, then, converge to a date +100, although they do not permit of any greater precision in regard, at any rate, to the time of this book's composition.

The way in which the Logos-conception is introduced and used, indicates that it was familiar to the writer's audience; for, as Hebrews suggests, the gnostical method had already begun to permeate certain circles of early Christianity. The later literature not merely points to the popularity of the method (e.g. Barnabas), but shows that it was not without dangers for the faith. Signs of a reaction are not awanting. The first epistle of John is a protest against certain inferences which were drawn from such gnostical treatment of the evangelic history, and threatened to dissipate the faith (particularly the human life and death singularly puts the gospel and epistles between 80 and 90 A.D. (Einl. ii. pp. 549-564). Schürer's invaluable paper (Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand d. Joh. Frage), read at the Giessen Conference of 1889, has been reproduced in the Contemp. Review for Sept. 1891, pp. 388-417, with a conservative reply from Sanday (ibid. pp. 529-544) containing some important admissions on the question of the Johannine style as an exact historical medium. Bacon, in a frank discussion (INT, 251 f.), chooses 100-110 A.D.

1 Especially if it is held that while our synoptic gospels belong to the years preceding 90, and the Johannine gospel came into existence shortly afterwards, the canon of our four gospels rose soon after the publication of the fourth gospel in Asia Minor. So, with Harnack and Zahn, Dr. Paul Rohrbach (Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums, p. 66); cp. also Eck (Preussische Jahrbücher, 1898, pp. 25-45), who makes John the presbyter the author of the book. Similarly Abbott (98–115 A.D.).

2 Compare the fine eucharistic prayer (Didachê) almost contemporary with the fourth gospel: ὥσπερ ἦν τοῦτο τὸ κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὁρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἔν, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν.

1

of Jesus) in a subjective spiritualism. So afterwards, e.g. in 2 Ti 217, the resurrection (and with it the return of Jesus) had to be recovered from this thaw of abstract speculation, and in Judas and 2 Peter the distinctive eschatological hopes are reiterated in their archaic forms against the novel disparagement which they suffered at the hands of semi-philosophic conceptions. Thus the fourth gospel marks an epoch in two senses. It denotes the entrance of this Hellenistic gnosis on a large scale into early Christian literature, while it furnishes at the same time a standpoint from which the later literature can be definitely estimated in its varied currents. The strength of the gnostical spirit in early Christianity is shown not merely by the way in which the author of the fourth gospel exploited it for the sake of presenting the historical faith, but by the fact that its fascination soon required a corrective and almost a protest in the very circles where it had first been welcomed (Wendt, Joh. Evglm. p. 211 f.). As the first epistle of John indicates, the interests of historical religion and piety alike required a check to be placed upon the tendencies that made for the identification of Philonic conceptions with the Christian doctrines of Jesus and his central personality. [Le Quatrième Evang., son origine et sa valeur historique, 1901. J. Réville.]

The possibility that all the gospels were finally edited (in Asia Minor, or even Ephesus) during the first quarter of the second century hardly affects the main problem of their dates. Such editing involved the harmonising and supplementing of the synoptic texts, but these-with the exception of one or two obvious passages-already existed in what is substantially their present form. The extent and the nature of this process are questions which belong rather to the literary criticism of the writings or to the history of the canon, than to the chronological determination of the original texts. Upon the latter problem they throw little light. Thus even Zahn, after a rather unsuccessful endeavour to minimise the differences of style between the fourth gospel and the apocalypse, is forced to conclude with the admission that John may have allowed the style of his writings to be revised by more accomplished friends (Einl. ii. p. 617). A similar device was adopted by Josephus (c. Apion. 1. 9). Wendt again identifies the author of his "source" used in the fourth gospel with the author of the first epistle, but refuses to identify either this author or the fourth evangelist with the author of the apocalypse.2

Finally, the terms "genuine" and "Johannine" are out of place in strictly scientific work upon the fourth gospel. It is genuine upon the score not of authorship but of contents-thanks to the fidelity and insight with which it serves to express certain elements of Christianity as the personal spirit and mind of Jesus. Similarly it is Johannine, many critics would admit, upon any theory of its origin. Even although they see no adequate reason for accepting the tradition which assigns the book to the apostle John, and several cogent reasons to the contrary, they would hardly deny that nevertheless the volume is Johannine--in the sense that any historical element throughout its pages may be traced back directly or indirectly to that apostle and his school.

1 Akin perhaps to the system of Simon Magus' pupil, Menander (Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. 23. 5), who taught that his baptism involved freedom from death ("eius discipulos ultra non posse mori, sed perseverare non senescentes et immortales").

2 Bacon similarly refers the superior historical element in the fourth gospel to the apostle's disciple and reporter, author of 1.-III. John, whose gospel material was edited after his death by the compiler of Jo 1-20 and author of the appendix, ch. 21, who retouched and disarranged the whole.

[95-115 A.D.]

THE FOURTH GOSPEL

The gospel was written under the colours of a primitive apostle. But under cover of that teacher's passionately defended authority we have a new spirit, views that go far beyond those of the primitive church. This teaching does not merely presuppose Paulinism and its consequences, to which indeed there is nowhere a clear reference. It already implies the existence of that Christianity which had begun on heathen soil to develop into an unfettered world-religion, and had carried with it all the healthier elements of Jewish Christianity. . . . The union at so early a date of the personal faith in Jesus with the doctrine of the Logos, in itself became of the greatest significance for the history of Christianity. It meant neither more nor less than that the church had come to regard its religion as universal, and that, in a form which prepared the way for the whole future amalgamation of the Christian idea with the highest thought of Greek philosophy. . . . For a primitive apostle, this is inconceivable. But by one who wrote at second-hand the communications of an apostle could be related to a theology which justified and explained faith in Christ as faith in the Logos of God; by such a writer the whole life, the whole aspect of it, could be transformed into a great haggadic, didactic work.-Weizsäcker.

1-6 11-18

119-51

21-442

443-671

7-12 71-1042

11-12

13-20

13-17

Galilee (ii) miracle, cure of officer's son.

The earlier ministry: Jerusalem: festival, (iii) miracle: speech

The conflict:

Galilee

the Son and the Father. (iv) miracle of loaves, (v) miracle

of walking on sea: speechChrist and men, the bread of life.

Jesus and the disciples: the last speeches on

the Lord's prayer.

the union of Christ and his disciples. the Spirit and the future.

the work of Christ in and for his disciples.

(in the garden-betrayal by Judas.
before Annas and Kaiaphas-denial by

Peter.

before Pilate-trial, crucifixion, death, and burial.

18-19 Jesus and the passion:

Mary Magdalenê.

20

21

After death: the threefold appearance of Jesus to the ten disciples. the eleven disciples.

[Appendix: Jesus and the disciples at the lake of Galilee.]

THE FOURTH GOSPEL

1 1 In the beginning was the Logos, And the Logos was with God, And the Logos was God:

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3

4

5

All things were made through him,

And apart from him not one thing was made that has been made.
In him was life,

And the life was the light of men.

And the light shines in the darkness,

Yet the darkness has not extinguished it.

6 There appeared a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came to bear witness,

But he came to witness concerning the light.

9 The true light which lightens every man was coming into the world. In the world he was,

10

11

12

13

And through him the world was made,

Yet the world knew him not:

He came to his home,

Yet his own people did not welcome him.

But to all who accepted him he gave the power of becoming God's

children

Even to those who believe on his name

Who were born, not of blood, nor of the inclination of the flesh, nor of the inclination of man, but of God.

14 And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.

And we beheld his majesty, majesty such as the only Son has from the Father,

Full of grace and truth;

15 (John bears witness of him, and cries, saying, "This is he of whom I said :

'He who comes after me is put before me,

For he was earlier than I."")

16

For out of his fulness we have all received,

Even grace upon grace.

17

For the law was given through Moses:

18

19

The grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ.

No one has ever seen God:

The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, it was he who unfolded him.

And this is the witness of John. When the Jews sent priests and 20 Levites to him from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who art thou?" he owned -he would not deny it-he owned, "It is not I who am the Christ."