well. Their atmosphere appears to be the local patriotism and reverence But when the whole chapter is taken as a unity, it falls into the age and spirit (Klöpper) of vers. 24, 25, so that there is hardly any need of separating these. The gospel could not have ended with 2123, and consequently it seems rather artificial to take vers. 24, 25 as notes added before publication (O. Holtzmann). Wetzel (Echtheit u. Glaubwürdigkeit des Ev. Joh. p. 15f.) keeps 24a for John, but even he has to relegate 24b to another hand. At the same time, it must be allowed that ver. 25 stands on a slightly separate footing, owing to its omission in *. Against Tischendorf's consequent rejection of the verse, cp., however, Zahn, Einl. ii. pp. 495, 496. A few MSS contain a scholion upon it, according to which it was inserted (προσθήκη) by τινὸς τῶν piloróvov upon the margin, and afterwards brought into the text by ignorance and accident (ayvoia ruxóv). The appendix may have probably ended with ver. 24, to which ver. 25 was added as a natural and somewhat rhetorical flourish, in keeping not merely with the close of this gospel, but with its position at the close of the four gospels. How apt a remark for a scribe or editor to make as the finale of a volume containing the evangelic narratives! Apart from these more or less obvious interpolations (to which Scholten adds 221. 22 789 1233 189 2119, as added by the author of the epistles), the book appears to be essentially and thoroughly of one piece, narratives and discourses inseparably woven together, the style fairly homogeneous, form and substance equally pointing to a compact unity. Practically this has been and remains a postulate of the best Johannine criticism. By liberal and conservative scholars alike, up till lately, it has been almost unfalteringly held that the fourth gospel, whatever be its date, character, and author, is an organic whole (the few and uninfluential exceptions are noted by Holtzmann, Einl. pp. 435, 437; Watkins, Bampton Lectures (1890), pp. 246 f.; and Weiss, INT, ii. pp. 396-398). Two recent theories, however, fall to be seriously noticed. Both use the partition-method in order to reach back to the document of an original eye-witness, pretty much as Matthew and Luke go back to the Logia, and both favour the excision of the Galilean episodes. One is Wendt's, explained in his Die Lehre Jesu (1886), i. p. 215 f.; ii. (Eng. tr. i.) 1 On its textual authenticity cp. WH, ii. pp. 90, 91, also Weiss (-Meyer) ad loc. Both verses, 1935 and 204, are explicit instances, with many others throughout the gospel, that the writer expected a not unnatural scepticisin in regard to his concep tion of Jesus. These verses really indicate and anticipate a charge of novelty and untrustworthiness, which would arise from the Christian consciousness having been hitherto nourished mainly upon the synoptic tradition; hence author and editors alike do their best to remove the grounds for this opposition. But it is a sign of late development. Mark, e.g., does not insist that his picture of Jesus is lifelike. He lets it speak for itself. Its humanity constitutes its evidence of genuineness, and forms its appeal to the conscience and mind. The fourth evangelist asserts, and the very assertion speaks of a later and more complex situation. pp. 22-28, and, with a detailed account, in his Joh. Evglm. (1900); cp. reviews by Holtzmann (ThLz, 1886, pp. 197-200), Haupt (SK, 1893, II. pp. 217-250), Beyschlag (GGA, 1886, 15), Iverach (Exp. iv. pp. 161-178). The other is by Dr. H. Delff in Das vierte Evangelium (1890), Neue Beiträge zur Kritik u. Erklärung d. vierten Evangelium (1890), and SK (1892), I. pp. 72-104, "Noch einmal das vierte Evangelium und seine Authenticitat," although Wendt prefers to class this and the earlier attempt by Schweizer as theories of interpolation rather than as source-hypotheses. Cp. reviews of Delff by Sanday in his series of articles on "The Present Position of the Johannine Question" (Exp. iv. v., especially iv., p. 328 f., v. 375 f.), A. Meyer (TR, 1899, pp. 255 f., 295 f., 333 f.) in his similar survey, Holtzmann (ZwTh, 1893, pp. 503-506; also ThLz, 1890, pp. 588 f.), and Zahn (Einl. ii. pp. 482, 483). Wendt's aim (anticipated a century ago by C. R. Eckermann) is to disentangle a written source, from the same apostolic hand as the first epistle of John. This, he considers, is often interrupted (e.g. 115 1318. 19) in its flow of discourses, and consequently points to another series of narrative-interpolations apparently introduced to provide a setting for the dialogues and discourses of Jesus. Remove these intrusive additions, and then materials are presented for discovering genuine Logia of Jesus, especially as they now are seen to fall naturally at the close of Christ's life and into his Judaean ministry. By the sacrifice of some of the historical interludes and connections, Wendt thus finds himself free to seek valuable apostolic tradition for the teaching of Jesus in the Johannine discourses. These even in their extant form, however, have been worked over by the author: they demand sifting and rearrangement in order that their witness to the mind of Christ may be accurately ascertained, and their implicit harmony with the synoptic type of tradition unfolded. While the fourth gospel thus is a post-apostolic composition, especially in its historical framework, upon the other hand it contains an apostolic tradition of Jesus which represents with essential trustworthiness the spirit and substance of his teaching. These Johannine "logia" are related to the extant gospel of John somewhat as the Aramaic logia of Matthew to the (canonical) first gospel. The two main clues followed with much ingenuity by Wendt in his work of disentangling the sources are (a) the interruptions and lack of connection at various points, e.g. 1318. 19; and (b) the existence side by side of different conceptions of Christ's work and person, e.g. the prominence of pya (synonymous with pnuara) in the discourses, and of onueîa (=miraculous acts) in the narratives; also the idea of faith in the former as the practical confession of Christ the divine Saviour, in the latter as the theoretical conviction produced by Christ who is the divine worker of miracles (Lehre Jesu, i. pp. 215-342; Das Johannes-Evangelium, 1900, p. 54 f.). See Bahnsen's review, PM (1900), pp. 377-382, and EBi, ii. 2554 f. Delff with papal confidence ("Meine Auffassung ist also keine Hypothese... sondern ein historischer Fund") attributes the gospel to a Jewish-Christian author, "the high priest John" (HE, v. 24, iii. 31, ôs éyevýÔŋ iepeùs Tò πétaλov πeþoρeкws), afterwards known as "the presbyter."1 1 Bousset (-Meyer, Offenbar. Joh. pp. 41-48; TR, 1897, p. 12 f.) similarly conjectures that the disciple whom Jesus loved was not the son of Zebedee, but the presbyter John, a member of the inner circle of Christ's adherents at Jerusalem, who was of priestly lineage, and who preserved a particular tradition of the Master's work and experiences in the capital. Founding on not very stable evidence from Philippus Sidetes († 430) and Georgios Hamartolos, a chronicler of the ninth century, he further [Continued on page 699. This connection with the ecclesiastical society of the capital illustrates passages like 31£ 745-52 1147-53 1242. 43 1815 1989 f, but necessitates-upon 1resupposes (like Réville, 1. 394, II. 147) that both the sons of Zebedee suffered a martyr's death in Palestine (Mk 1039, Mt 203). Consequently the only John in Asia Minor at the beginning of the second century was John the Presbyter. However, even though the fourth gospel were given up as anonymous, no reasonable objection could be taken to the critical position. The anonymity of treatises so different and weighty as Matthew and Hebrews helps materially to illustrate the possibility that a writer of such genius in the philosophy of religion as the fourth evangelist might have passed away without leaving any trace of his name or of his character. Delff's hypothesis, partially followed by Fries 1-the excision of a series of passages (including those upon the Logos, the Galilean ministry, and the eschatology) which were interpolated ("by Cerinthus," Fries) in the original document, in order to harmonise it with the Alexandrian philosophy of religion, the prevailing synoptic tradition, and the chiliastic tendencies current toward the close of the first century. The original document itself was written by a Jewish Christian named John, for the benefit of Jewish priests; its locus was Jerusalem, its date the years immediately preceding 70 A.D. The Pastoral Epistles.-It has been already pointed out that the most reasonable criticism assigns these writings to a post-Pauline date, and at the same time recognises that a genuine element of the apostle's mind and spirit exists in their pages. The solution of the problem offered by this dual characteristic is probably 2 to be found in a modified application of the interpolation- and compilation- theories. The author, a devoted Paulinist, not only possessed some knowledge of the apostle's life and ideas, but also in all likelihood notes from his hand or fragments of his letters. These had been originally addressed to Timotheus and Titus. Subsequently they came to be incorporated in the substance of the extant pastorals, and attempts have been made by several critics to extricate them from their matrix. This may no longer be possible, with any degree of certainty. But the abrupt connections and apparent inconsistencies give some aid; and it is interesting to notice that the various attempts agree in one or two passages at least with a fair measure of unanimity. The following sections may be taken, roughly speaking, as containing considerable Pauline fragments according to the interpolation-theories: they are to be classified as (c) certain, and (p) probable. (c) 2 Ti 115-18 46(9)-22 (practically the whole, except vers. 3, 4, and minor additions). Tit 312. 13(15) (p) 2 Ti 21-13 310-12 (1 Ti 112-17). Special examples of this criticism are appended, chiefly as they bear upon the question of the date at which either the fragments or the main writings were composed. The composite character, especially of 2 Timotheus, and partly even of Titus, is widely felt, but the schemes of reconstruction vary in many details. Hilgenfeld (ZwTh, 1897, pp. 1-86), e.g., working along the line of Hesse, detects in 1 Timotheus a coherent letter, "Eine wohl zusammenhängende und abgeschlossene Empfehlung der neuen Gestaltung christlicher Ge 1 Det fjärde Evangeliet och Hebreerevang. (Stockholm, 1898). Cp. TR (1899), 377 f. 2 So Renan, Sabatier, Ménégoz, Beyschlag, Spitta, Réville, Krüger, and, besides Clemen (Einheit. 1894, pp. 142-175), who subjects the letters to a detailed discussion, McGiffert (AA, pp. 404-413). Holtzmann (Past. pp. 119-126) rigorously objects to all such analyses, and O. Holtzmann also treats this line of criticism too unfavourably (in a review of Lemme's work, ZwTh, 1883, pp. 45-72). The chief special works are by Lemme (Das echte Ermahnungschreiben des Apostels Paulus an Timotheus, 1882), Hesse (Die Entstehung der neutestamentlichen Hirtenbriefe, 1889), and Knoke (Praktisch-theologischer Commentar zu den Pastoralbriefen). The last-named finds Titus genuine, except 17-9. 12. 13. In 1 Timotheus he disentangles a Pauline letter (repayyedía) to Timotheus, dating from Corinth=13. 4. 18-20 21-10 412 51-6. 11-15. 19-23 another, written from his imprisonment in Caesarea=112-17 314-16 41-11. 13-16 212-15 57. 8 617-19 15-11 62-16; and finally another church-document written in the Pauline spirit, 31-10. 12. 13 211 59. 10. 16. 17 61. 2. All compiled by a later editor! |