Preface.

[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.][pg ii]Nihil Obstat.Gualterus MacDonald, D.D.,Censor Theolog. Deputat.Imprimatur.Gulielmus,Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.[pg iii]Preface.It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work. Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland decided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in this College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now expected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change, while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so much time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion. The consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very ablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as those of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it would be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more compendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected to study.With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt, indeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while omitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to observe throughout the utmost consistent brevity.I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that what I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God's word is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the exercise of the student's intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of opinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from interposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.It might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly—the only Catholic commentary hitherto existing[pg iv]on this Gospel in the English language—would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the length of His Grace's work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will readily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible, that students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor's views. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate questions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel it my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the students of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace's work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in preference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a useful book of reference.The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate published at Turin in 1883:Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V. Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita. Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum hoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti,mdccclxxxiii. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from this edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I have returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal Wiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.Maynooth College,Ascension Thursday, 1897.[pg 001]Introduction.I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we except the Alogi (St. Epiph.,Haer., li. 3, 4), heretics of the second century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been frequently and variously attacked by the so-called Rationalists, whose many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three following theories:—1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the“partition theory”hold that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John's, still considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John's disciples afterwards set these discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan,[pg 002]who holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year 100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the Apostle John.”13. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and many others.Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.A.—External Evidence.21. TheApostolic Fathersdo not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance, with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also, who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”(Epis. 1De Virgin, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not deceived,for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth”(Ad. Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;3but, as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St. John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity. For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of St. John as his.4Now, so great is the similarity of style between our Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that“The two writings offer the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions.”Indeed we have now the direct testimony of[pg 003]Papias in a fragment of his rather recently discovered:“Quant au silence de Papias il n'est plus possible d'en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile. Un nouveau fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait l'œuvre de l'Apotre”(Didon—Jesus Christ, Introd. xxviii.).2. TheFathers of the second centurywere thoroughly acquainted with our Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, whenJustin Martyr(† 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (Apol.i. 61), says:“For Christ said:‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’Now that those born once cannot enter again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,”there can hardly be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.Again,Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as Tatian'sDiatessaron, which commenced with the opening words of our Gospel:“In the beginning was the Word.”5TheMuratorian Fragment, which contains a list of canonical books, made not later than 170a.d., says:“John, one of the disciples, (is the author) of the fourth Gospel.”Theophilusof Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost,of whom John says:‘In the beginning was the Word,’”&c.Finally,Irenæus(† 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about the year 180, and who wrote his work,Against Heresies, probably between 180 and 190a.d., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.”This testimony of Irenæus is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus of learning everything connected with the Apostle.Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of its authority for their errors.“They use that which is according to John,”says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second century (Iren.,Haer., iii. 11. 7).[pg 004]3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of thethird century, because it is not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the author. Even Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 10, p. 47) says:“It is certain that towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle, and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century, could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of the Apostle?B.—Internal Evidence.1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is“the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.”Now according to all the fathers,“the disciple whom Jesus loved,”&c., was St. John. Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John. They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine authorship.2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish[pg 005]him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author's long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved among the events he describes.6Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described as adescent(John iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2, ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany from the Holy City (xi. 18).Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals (John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv. 9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares himself aneye-witness, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,and we saw His glory”(John i. 14), as where he tells us,“Hethat saw it, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that he saith true”(John xix. 35).II.—Author.St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee, the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew (Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21),[pg 006]he left all things to follow Christ, and became the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was privileged to recline on his Master's bosom at the Last Supper (John xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High-priest (John xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John xix. 26).After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3); and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem, and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47a.d.,7he found St. John there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the Blessed Virgin's death (Niceph.,H. E., ii. 42); that he subsequently preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67a.d.), settled at Ephesus (Origen,apud.Euseb.,H. E., iii. 1). In the reign of Domitian (81-96a.d.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull.,De Praescr.36).8He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession of Nerva (96-98a.d.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to an extreme old age, and died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's Passion (Jer.,Advers. Jovin, i. 14),i.e., about 101 of the Dionysian era.[pg 007]III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians of Asia Minor, and at their request.9The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he tells us in the very beginning that“the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us”(John i. 14); and in xx. 31:“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.”2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,10all of whom erred in regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See belowIX., and Cornely, iii., † 64.3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers. And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life, cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the Synoptic Gospels.IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; and the various parts[pg 008]of the Gospel are carefully disposed with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal (xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose. In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of theplanof the Gospel.I. 1-18.The Prologue.The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and sanctification of man; His incarnation.I. 19-XXI. 23.The Narrative, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—(a) I. 19-XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in HisPublic Life—By the testimony of the Baptist.By the testimony of His disciples.By the testimony of His miracles.By the testimony of His discourses.(b) XIII. 1-XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in His last discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.XXI. 24, 25.The Epilogue, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though incomplete.V.—Time And Place Of Writing.The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have placed it almost as early as 70a.d.; but the weight of evidence, external and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is to say, between 90 and 100a.d.There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,11and many of the fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos. See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter view.[pg 009]VI.—Integrity.With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11, and the whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of their authenticity.VII.—Language.It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.VIII.—Christ's Discourses In The Gospel.St. John's Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part, of Christ's discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5, bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are, doubtless, reported in almost12the exact words of our Lord. But the discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For this was sufficient for the Evangelist's purpose; and, therefore, we have no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be fictitious, because,[pg 010]they say, no human memory could retain such long discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master's discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses, besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and again repeated in his apostolic preaching.IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which, therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel was directed against the errors ofCerinthus, and of“those who are calledNicolaites”(see above,III. 2, note); while the latter says that it was directed againstCerinthus, andother heretics, especially the Ebionites.13It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against which it was directed.Cerinthus, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the world was not made by Him, but by an inferiorpower(virtus) distinct from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin, but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that, however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter's baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died amereman,[pg 011]while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual and impassible.14TheEbionites, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to beobligatory, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.15About the doctrine of theNicolaites, which they claimed to have derived from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.Among the“other heretics”alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited above were, doubtless, theSimonians(followers of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, and foll.), and theDocetae.TheSimoniansagreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the originators of the Gnostic heresy.“Simoniani a quibusfalsi nominis scientiaaccepit initia.”(Adv. Haer., i. xxxiii. 4.)TheDocetae(δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only theappearanceof a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death were not real, but apparent.[pg 013]

[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.][pg ii]Nihil Obstat.Gualterus MacDonald, D.D.,Censor Theolog. Deputat.Imprimatur.Gulielmus,Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.[pg iii]Preface.It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work. Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland decided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in this College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now expected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change, while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so much time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion. The consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very ablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as those of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it would be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more compendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected to study.With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt, indeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while omitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to observe throughout the utmost consistent brevity.I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that what I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God's word is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the exercise of the student's intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of opinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from interposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.It might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly—the only Catholic commentary hitherto existing[pg iv]on this Gospel in the English language—would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the length of His Grace's work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will readily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible, that students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor's views. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate questions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel it my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the students of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace's work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in preference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a useful book of reference.The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate published at Turin in 1883:Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V. Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita. Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum hoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti,mdccclxxxiii. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from this edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I have returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal Wiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.Maynooth College,Ascension Thursday, 1897.[pg 001]Introduction.I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we except the Alogi (St. Epiph.,Haer., li. 3, 4), heretics of the second century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been frequently and variously attacked by the so-called Rationalists, whose many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three following theories:—1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the“partition theory”hold that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John's, still considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John's disciples afterwards set these discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan,[pg 002]who holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year 100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the Apostle John.”13. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and many others.Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.A.—External Evidence.21. TheApostolic Fathersdo not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance, with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also, who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”(Epis. 1De Virgin, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not deceived,for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth”(Ad. Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;3but, as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St. John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity. For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of St. John as his.4Now, so great is the similarity of style between our Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that“The two writings offer the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions.”Indeed we have now the direct testimony of[pg 003]Papias in a fragment of his rather recently discovered:“Quant au silence de Papias il n'est plus possible d'en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile. Un nouveau fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait l'œuvre de l'Apotre”(Didon—Jesus Christ, Introd. xxviii.).2. TheFathers of the second centurywere thoroughly acquainted with our Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, whenJustin Martyr(† 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (Apol.i. 61), says:“For Christ said:‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’Now that those born once cannot enter again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,”there can hardly be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.Again,Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as Tatian'sDiatessaron, which commenced with the opening words of our Gospel:“In the beginning was the Word.”5TheMuratorian Fragment, which contains a list of canonical books, made not later than 170a.d., says:“John, one of the disciples, (is the author) of the fourth Gospel.”Theophilusof Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost,of whom John says:‘In the beginning was the Word,’”&c.Finally,Irenæus(† 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about the year 180, and who wrote his work,Against Heresies, probably between 180 and 190a.d., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.”This testimony of Irenæus is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus of learning everything connected with the Apostle.Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of its authority for their errors.“They use that which is according to John,”says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second century (Iren.,Haer., iii. 11. 7).[pg 004]3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of thethird century, because it is not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the author. Even Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 10, p. 47) says:“It is certain that towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle, and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century, could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of the Apostle?B.—Internal Evidence.1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is“the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.”Now according to all the fathers,“the disciple whom Jesus loved,”&c., was St. John. Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John. They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine authorship.2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish[pg 005]him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author's long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved among the events he describes.6Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described as adescent(John iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2, ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany from the Holy City (xi. 18).Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals (John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv. 9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares himself aneye-witness, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,and we saw His glory”(John i. 14), as where he tells us,“Hethat saw it, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that he saith true”(John xix. 35).II.—Author.St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee, the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew (Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21),[pg 006]he left all things to follow Christ, and became the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was privileged to recline on his Master's bosom at the Last Supper (John xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High-priest (John xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John xix. 26).After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3); and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem, and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47a.d.,7he found St. John there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the Blessed Virgin's death (Niceph.,H. E., ii. 42); that he subsequently preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67a.d.), settled at Ephesus (Origen,apud.Euseb.,H. E., iii. 1). In the reign of Domitian (81-96a.d.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull.,De Praescr.36).8He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession of Nerva (96-98a.d.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to an extreme old age, and died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's Passion (Jer.,Advers. Jovin, i. 14),i.e., about 101 of the Dionysian era.[pg 007]III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians of Asia Minor, and at their request.9The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he tells us in the very beginning that“the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us”(John i. 14); and in xx. 31:“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.”2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,10all of whom erred in regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See belowIX., and Cornely, iii., † 64.3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers. And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life, cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the Synoptic Gospels.IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; and the various parts[pg 008]of the Gospel are carefully disposed with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal (xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose. In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of theplanof the Gospel.I. 1-18.The Prologue.The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and sanctification of man; His incarnation.I. 19-XXI. 23.The Narrative, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—(a) I. 19-XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in HisPublic Life—By the testimony of the Baptist.By the testimony of His disciples.By the testimony of His miracles.By the testimony of His discourses.(b) XIII. 1-XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in His last discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.XXI. 24, 25.The Epilogue, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though incomplete.V.—Time And Place Of Writing.The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have placed it almost as early as 70a.d.; but the weight of evidence, external and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is to say, between 90 and 100a.d.There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,11and many of the fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos. See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter view.[pg 009]VI.—Integrity.With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11, and the whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of their authenticity.VII.—Language.It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.VIII.—Christ's Discourses In The Gospel.St. John's Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part, of Christ's discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5, bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are, doubtless, reported in almost12the exact words of our Lord. But the discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For this was sufficient for the Evangelist's purpose; and, therefore, we have no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be fictitious, because,[pg 010]they say, no human memory could retain such long discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master's discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses, besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and again repeated in his apostolic preaching.IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which, therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel was directed against the errors ofCerinthus, and of“those who are calledNicolaites”(see above,III. 2, note); while the latter says that it was directed againstCerinthus, andother heretics, especially the Ebionites.13It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against which it was directed.Cerinthus, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the world was not made by Him, but by an inferiorpower(virtus) distinct from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin, but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that, however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter's baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died amereman,[pg 011]while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual and impassible.14TheEbionites, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to beobligatory, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.15About the doctrine of theNicolaites, which they claimed to have derived from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.Among the“other heretics”alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited above were, doubtless, theSimonians(followers of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, and foll.), and theDocetae.TheSimoniansagreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the originators of the Gnostic heresy.“Simoniani a quibusfalsi nominis scientiaaccepit initia.”(Adv. Haer., i. xxxiii. 4.)TheDocetae(δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only theappearanceof a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death were not real, but apparent.[pg 013]

[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

Nihil Obstat.Gualterus MacDonald, D.D.,Censor Theolog. Deputat.Imprimatur.Gulielmus,Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.

Nihil Obstat.

Gualterus MacDonald, D.D.,

Censor Theolog. Deputat.

Imprimatur.

Gulielmus,

Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.

Preface.It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work. Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland decided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in this College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now expected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change, while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so much time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion. The consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very ablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as those of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it would be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more compendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected to study.With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt, indeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while omitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to observe throughout the utmost consistent brevity.I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that what I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God's word is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the exercise of the student's intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of opinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from interposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.It might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly—the only Catholic commentary hitherto existing[pg iv]on this Gospel in the English language—would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the length of His Grace's work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will readily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible, that students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor's views. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate questions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel it my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the students of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace's work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in preference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a useful book of reference.The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate published at Turin in 1883:Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V. Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita. Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum hoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti,mdccclxxxiii. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from this edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I have returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal Wiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.Maynooth College,Ascension Thursday, 1897.

It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work. Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland decided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in this College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now expected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change, while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so much time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion. The consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very ablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as those of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it would be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more compendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected to study.

With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt, indeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while omitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to observe throughout the utmost consistent brevity.

I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that what I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God's word is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the exercise of the student's intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of opinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from interposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.

It might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly—the only Catholic commentary hitherto existing[pg iv]on this Gospel in the English language—would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the length of His Grace's work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will readily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible, that students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor's views. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate questions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel it my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the students of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace's work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in preference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a useful book of reference.

The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate published at Turin in 1883:Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V. Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita. Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum hoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti,mdccclxxxiii. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from this edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I have returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.

The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal Wiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.

Maynooth College,Ascension Thursday, 1897.

Introduction.I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we except the Alogi (St. Epiph.,Haer., li. 3, 4), heretics of the second century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been frequently and variously attacked by the so-called Rationalists, whose many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three following theories:—1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the“partition theory”hold that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John's, still considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John's disciples afterwards set these discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan,[pg 002]who holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year 100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the Apostle John.”13. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and many others.Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.A.—External Evidence.21. TheApostolic Fathersdo not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance, with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also, who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”(Epis. 1De Virgin, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not deceived,for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth”(Ad. Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;3but, as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St. John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity. For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of St. John as his.4Now, so great is the similarity of style between our Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that“The two writings offer the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions.”Indeed we have now the direct testimony of[pg 003]Papias in a fragment of his rather recently discovered:“Quant au silence de Papias il n'est plus possible d'en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile. Un nouveau fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait l'œuvre de l'Apotre”(Didon—Jesus Christ, Introd. xxviii.).2. TheFathers of the second centurywere thoroughly acquainted with our Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, whenJustin Martyr(† 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (Apol.i. 61), says:“For Christ said:‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’Now that those born once cannot enter again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,”there can hardly be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.Again,Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as Tatian'sDiatessaron, which commenced with the opening words of our Gospel:“In the beginning was the Word.”5TheMuratorian Fragment, which contains a list of canonical books, made not later than 170a.d., says:“John, one of the disciples, (is the author) of the fourth Gospel.”Theophilusof Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost,of whom John says:‘In the beginning was the Word,’”&c.Finally,Irenæus(† 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about the year 180, and who wrote his work,Against Heresies, probably between 180 and 190a.d., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.”This testimony of Irenæus is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus of learning everything connected with the Apostle.Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of its authority for their errors.“They use that which is according to John,”says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second century (Iren.,Haer., iii. 11. 7).[pg 004]3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of thethird century, because it is not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the author. Even Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 10, p. 47) says:“It is certain that towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle, and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century, could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of the Apostle?B.—Internal Evidence.1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is“the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.”Now according to all the fathers,“the disciple whom Jesus loved,”&c., was St. John. Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John. They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine authorship.2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish[pg 005]him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author's long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved among the events he describes.6Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described as adescent(John iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2, ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany from the Holy City (xi. 18).Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals (John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv. 9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares himself aneye-witness, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,and we saw His glory”(John i. 14), as where he tells us,“Hethat saw it, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that he saith true”(John xix. 35).II.—Author.St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee, the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew (Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21),[pg 006]he left all things to follow Christ, and became the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was privileged to recline on his Master's bosom at the Last Supper (John xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High-priest (John xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John xix. 26).After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3); and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem, and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47a.d.,7he found St. John there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the Blessed Virgin's death (Niceph.,H. E., ii. 42); that he subsequently preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67a.d.), settled at Ephesus (Origen,apud.Euseb.,H. E., iii. 1). In the reign of Domitian (81-96a.d.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull.,De Praescr.36).8He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession of Nerva (96-98a.d.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to an extreme old age, and died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's Passion (Jer.,Advers. Jovin, i. 14),i.e., about 101 of the Dionysian era.[pg 007]III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians of Asia Minor, and at their request.9The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he tells us in the very beginning that“the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us”(John i. 14); and in xx. 31:“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.”2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,10all of whom erred in regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See belowIX., and Cornely, iii., † 64.3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers. And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life, cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the Synoptic Gospels.IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; and the various parts[pg 008]of the Gospel are carefully disposed with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal (xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose. In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of theplanof the Gospel.I. 1-18.The Prologue.The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and sanctification of man; His incarnation.I. 19-XXI. 23.The Narrative, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—(a) I. 19-XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in HisPublic Life—By the testimony of the Baptist.By the testimony of His disciples.By the testimony of His miracles.By the testimony of His discourses.(b) XIII. 1-XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in His last discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.XXI. 24, 25.The Epilogue, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though incomplete.V.—Time And Place Of Writing.The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have placed it almost as early as 70a.d.; but the weight of evidence, external and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is to say, between 90 and 100a.d.There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,11and many of the fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos. See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter view.[pg 009]VI.—Integrity.With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11, and the whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of their authenticity.VII.—Language.It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.VIII.—Christ's Discourses In The Gospel.St. John's Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part, of Christ's discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5, bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are, doubtless, reported in almost12the exact words of our Lord. But the discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For this was sufficient for the Evangelist's purpose; and, therefore, we have no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be fictitious, because,[pg 010]they say, no human memory could retain such long discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master's discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses, besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and again repeated in his apostolic preaching.IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which, therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel was directed against the errors ofCerinthus, and of“those who are calledNicolaites”(see above,III. 2, note); while the latter says that it was directed againstCerinthus, andother heretics, especially the Ebionites.13It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against which it was directed.Cerinthus, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the world was not made by Him, but by an inferiorpower(virtus) distinct from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin, but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that, however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter's baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died amereman,[pg 011]while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual and impassible.14TheEbionites, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to beobligatory, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.15About the doctrine of theNicolaites, which they claimed to have derived from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.Among the“other heretics”alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited above were, doubtless, theSimonians(followers of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, and foll.), and theDocetae.TheSimoniansagreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the originators of the Gnostic heresy.“Simoniani a quibusfalsi nominis scientiaaccepit initia.”(Adv. Haer., i. xxxiii. 4.)TheDocetae(δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only theappearanceof a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death were not real, but apparent.

I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we except the Alogi (St. Epiph.,Haer., li. 3, 4), heretics of the second century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been frequently and variously attacked by the so-called Rationalists, whose many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three following theories:—1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the“partition theory”hold that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John's, still considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John's disciples afterwards set these discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan,[pg 002]who holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year 100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the Apostle John.”13. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and many others.Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.A.—External Evidence.21. TheApostolic Fathersdo not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance, with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also, who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”(Epis. 1De Virgin, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not deceived,for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth”(Ad. Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;3but, as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St. John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity. For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of St. John as his.4Now, so great is the similarity of style between our Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that“The two writings offer the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions.”Indeed we have now the direct testimony of[pg 003]Papias in a fragment of his rather recently discovered:“Quant au silence de Papias il n'est plus possible d'en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile. Un nouveau fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait l'œuvre de l'Apotre”(Didon—Jesus Christ, Introd. xxviii.).2. TheFathers of the second centurywere thoroughly acquainted with our Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, whenJustin Martyr(† 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (Apol.i. 61), says:“For Christ said:‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’Now that those born once cannot enter again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,”there can hardly be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.Again,Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as Tatian'sDiatessaron, which commenced with the opening words of our Gospel:“In the beginning was the Word.”5TheMuratorian Fragment, which contains a list of canonical books, made not later than 170a.d., says:“John, one of the disciples, (is the author) of the fourth Gospel.”Theophilusof Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost,of whom John says:‘In the beginning was the Word,’”&c.Finally,Irenæus(† 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about the year 180, and who wrote his work,Against Heresies, probably between 180 and 190a.d., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.”This testimony of Irenæus is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus of learning everything connected with the Apostle.Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of its authority for their errors.“They use that which is according to John,”says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second century (Iren.,Haer., iii. 11. 7).[pg 004]3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of thethird century, because it is not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the author. Even Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 10, p. 47) says:“It is certain that towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle, and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century, could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of the Apostle?B.—Internal Evidence.1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is“the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.”Now according to all the fathers,“the disciple whom Jesus loved,”&c., was St. John. Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John. They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine authorship.2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish[pg 005]him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author's long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved among the events he describes.6Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described as adescent(John iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2, ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany from the Holy City (xi. 18).Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals (John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv. 9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares himself aneye-witness, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,and we saw His glory”(John i. 14), as where he tells us,“Hethat saw it, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that he saith true”(John xix. 35).

That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we except the Alogi (St. Epiph.,Haer., li. 3, 4), heretics of the second century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been frequently and variously attacked by the so-called Rationalists, whose many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three following theories:—

1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the“partition theory”hold that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John's, still considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John's disciples afterwards set these discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.

2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan,[pg 002]who holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year 100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the Apostle John.”1

3. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and many others.

Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.

A.—External Evidence.21. TheApostolic Fathersdo not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance, with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also, who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”(Epis. 1De Virgin, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not deceived,for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth”(Ad. Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;3but, as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St. John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity. For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of St. John as his.4Now, so great is the similarity of style between our Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that“The two writings offer the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions.”Indeed we have now the direct testimony of[pg 003]Papias in a fragment of his rather recently discovered:“Quant au silence de Papias il n'est plus possible d'en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile. Un nouveau fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait l'œuvre de l'Apotre”(Didon—Jesus Christ, Introd. xxviii.).2. TheFathers of the second centurywere thoroughly acquainted with our Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, whenJustin Martyr(† 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (Apol.i. 61), says:“For Christ said:‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’Now that those born once cannot enter again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,”there can hardly be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.Again,Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as Tatian'sDiatessaron, which commenced with the opening words of our Gospel:“In the beginning was the Word.”5TheMuratorian Fragment, which contains a list of canonical books, made not later than 170a.d., says:“John, one of the disciples, (is the author) of the fourth Gospel.”Theophilusof Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost,of whom John says:‘In the beginning was the Word,’”&c.Finally,Irenæus(† 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about the year 180, and who wrote his work,Against Heresies, probably between 180 and 190a.d., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.”This testimony of Irenæus is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus of learning everything connected with the Apostle.Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of its authority for their errors.“They use that which is according to John,”says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second century (Iren.,Haer., iii. 11. 7).[pg 004]3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of thethird century, because it is not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the author. Even Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 10, p. 47) says:“It is certain that towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle, and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century, could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of the Apostle?

1. TheApostolic Fathersdo not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance, with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also, who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”(Epis. 1De Virgin, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not deceived,for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth”(Ad. Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;3but, as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St. John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity. For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of St. John as his.4Now, so great is the similarity of style between our Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that“The two writings offer the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions.”Indeed we have now the direct testimony of[pg 003]Papias in a fragment of his rather recently discovered:“Quant au silence de Papias il n'est plus possible d'en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile. Un nouveau fragment de l'évêque d'Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344) ... temoigne qu'il connaissait l'œuvre de l'Apotre”(Didon—Jesus Christ, Introd. xxviii.).

2. TheFathers of the second centurywere thoroughly acquainted with our Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, whenJustin Martyr(† 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (Apol.i. 61), says:“For Christ said:‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’Now that those born once cannot enter again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,”there can hardly be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.

Again,Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as Tatian'sDiatessaron, which commenced with the opening words of our Gospel:“In the beginning was the Word.”5

TheMuratorian Fragment, which contains a list of canonical books, made not later than 170a.d., says:“John, one of the disciples, (is the author) of the fourth Gospel.”

Theophilusof Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost,of whom John says:‘In the beginning was the Word,’”&c.

Finally,Irenæus(† 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about the year 180, and who wrote his work,Against Heresies, probably between 180 and 190a.d., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.”This testimony of Irenæus is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor, and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus of learning everything connected with the Apostle.

Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of its authority for their errors.“They use that which is according to John,”says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second century (Iren.,Haer., iii. 11. 7).

3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of thethird century, because it is not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the author. Even Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 10, p. 47) says:“It is certain that towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”

It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle, and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century, could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of the Apostle?

B.—Internal Evidence.1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is“the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.”Now according to all the fathers,“the disciple whom Jesus loved,”&c., was St. John. Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John. They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine authorship.2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish[pg 005]him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author's long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved among the events he describes.6Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described as adescent(John iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2, ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany from the Holy City (xi. 18).Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals (John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv. 9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares himself aneye-witness, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,and we saw His glory”(John i. 14), as where he tells us,“Hethat saw it, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that he saith true”(John xix. 35).

1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is“the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.”Now according to all the fathers,“the disciple whom Jesus loved,”&c., was St. John. Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John. They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi. 20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine authorship.

2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish[pg 005]him from John the Apostle, our author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing appellative.

3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author's long sojourn in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life spent in Palestine.

4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved among the events he describes.6Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum is rightly described as adescent(John iv. 47, 51); the author is acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2, ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany from the Holy City (xi. 18).

Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals (John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv. 9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2, 37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares himself aneye-witness, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,and we saw His glory”(John i. 14), as where he tells us,“Hethat saw it, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that he saith true”(John xix. 35).

II.—Author.St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee, the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew (Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21),[pg 006]he left all things to follow Christ, and became the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was privileged to recline on his Master's bosom at the Last Supper (John xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High-priest (John xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John xix. 26).After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3); and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem, and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47a.d.,7he found St. John there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the Blessed Virgin's death (Niceph.,H. E., ii. 42); that he subsequently preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67a.d.), settled at Ephesus (Origen,apud.Euseb.,H. E., iii. 1). In the reign of Domitian (81-96a.d.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull.,De Praescr.36).8He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession of Nerva (96-98a.d.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to an extreme old age, and died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's Passion (Jer.,Advers. Jovin, i. 14),i.e., about 101 of the Dionysian era.

St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee, the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew (Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21),[pg 006]he left all things to follow Christ, and became the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was privileged to recline on his Master's bosom at the Last Supper (John xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High-priest (John xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John xix. 26).

After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3); and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem, and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47a.d.,7he found St. John there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.

In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the Blessed Virgin's death (Niceph.,H. E., ii. 42); that he subsequently preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67a.d.), settled at Ephesus (Origen,apud.Euseb.,H. E., iii. 1). In the reign of Domitian (81-96a.d.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull.,De Praescr.36).8He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession of Nerva (96-98a.d.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to an extreme old age, and died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's Passion (Jer.,Advers. Jovin, i. 14),i.e., about 101 of the Dionysian era.

III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians of Asia Minor, and at their request.9The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he tells us in the very beginning that“the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us”(John i. 14); and in xx. 31:“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.”2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,10all of whom erred in regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See belowIX., and Cornely, iii., † 64.3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers. And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life, cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the Synoptic Gospels.

St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians of Asia Minor, and at their request.9

The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—

1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he tells us in the very beginning that“the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us”(John i. 14); and in xx. 31:“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.”

2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,10all of whom erred in regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See belowIX., and Cornely, iii., † 64.

3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers. And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life, cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the Synoptic Gospels.

IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; and the various parts[pg 008]of the Gospel are carefully disposed with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal (xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose. In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of theplanof the Gospel.I. 1-18.The Prologue.The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and sanctification of man; His incarnation.I. 19-XXI. 23.The Narrative, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—(a) I. 19-XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in HisPublic Life—By the testimony of the Baptist.By the testimony of His disciples.By the testimony of His miracles.By the testimony of His discourses.(b) XIII. 1-XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in His last discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.XXI. 24, 25.The Epilogue, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though incomplete.

What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; and the various parts[pg 008]of the Gospel are carefully disposed with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal (xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose. In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of theplanof the Gospel.

I. 1-18.

The Prologue.The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and sanctification of man; His incarnation.

I. 19-XXI. 23.

The Narrative, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—

(a) I. 19-XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in HisPublic Life—

By the testimony of the Baptist.

By the testimony of His disciples.

By the testimony of His miracles.

By the testimony of His discourses.

(b) XIII. 1-XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ's Divinity in His last discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.

XXI. 24, 25.

The Epilogue, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though incomplete.

V.—Time And Place Of Writing.The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have placed it almost as early as 70a.d.; but the weight of evidence, external and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is to say, between 90 and 100a.d.There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,11and many of the fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos. See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter view.

The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have placed it almost as early as 70a.d.; but the weight of evidence, external and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is to say, between 90 and 100a.d.

There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,11and many of the fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos. See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter view.

VI.—Integrity.With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11, and the whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of their authenticity.

With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11, and the whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of their authenticity.

VII.—Language.It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.

It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.

VIII.—Christ's Discourses In The Gospel.St. John's Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part, of Christ's discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5, bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are, doubtless, reported in almost12the exact words of our Lord. But the discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For this was sufficient for the Evangelist's purpose; and, therefore, we have no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be fictitious, because,[pg 010]they say, no human memory could retain such long discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master's discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses, besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and again repeated in his apostolic preaching.

St. John's Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part, of Christ's discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.

But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5, bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are, doubtless, reported in almost12the exact words of our Lord. But the discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For this was sufficient for the Evangelist's purpose; and, therefore, we have no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be fictitious, because,[pg 010]they say, no human memory could retain such long discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master's discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses, besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and again repeated in his apostolic preaching.

IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which, therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel was directed against the errors ofCerinthus, and of“those who are calledNicolaites”(see above,III. 2, note); while the latter says that it was directed againstCerinthus, andother heretics, especially the Ebionites.13It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against which it was directed.Cerinthus, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the world was not made by Him, but by an inferiorpower(virtus) distinct from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin, but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that, however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter's baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died amereman,[pg 011]while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual and impassible.14TheEbionites, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to beobligatory, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.15About the doctrine of theNicolaites, which they claimed to have derived from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.Among the“other heretics”alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited above were, doubtless, theSimonians(followers of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, and foll.), and theDocetae.TheSimoniansagreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the originators of the Gnostic heresy.“Simoniani a quibusfalsi nominis scientiaaccepit initia.”(Adv. Haer., i. xxxiii. 4.)TheDocetae(δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only theappearanceof a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death were not real, but apparent.

There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which, therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel was directed against the errors ofCerinthus, and of“those who are calledNicolaites”(see above,III. 2, note); while the latter says that it was directed againstCerinthus, andother heretics, especially the Ebionites.13It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against which it was directed.

Cerinthus, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the world was not made by Him, but by an inferiorpower(virtus) distinct from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin, but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that, however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter's baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died amereman,[pg 011]while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual and impassible.14

TheEbionites, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to beobligatory, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.15

About the doctrine of theNicolaites, which they claimed to have derived from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.

Among the“other heretics”alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited above were, doubtless, theSimonians(followers of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, and foll.), and theDocetae.

TheSimoniansagreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the originators of the Gnostic heresy.“Simoniani a quibusfalsi nominis scientiaaccepit initia.”(Adv. Haer., i. xxxiii. 4.)

TheDocetae(δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only theappearanceof a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death were not real, but apparent.

Back to IndexNext