Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 0:1 - 0:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY
ON THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN
BY
J. H. BERNARD
EDITED BY
A. H. MCNEILE
Volumes I & II
T & T CLARK
EDINBURGH AND NEW YORK
59 GEORGE STREET
EDINBURGH Eph_2 2LQ
SCOTLAND
Copyright ©T&T Clark Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T&T Clark Ltd.
ISBN 0 567 05024 6
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
PREFACE
————
DR. Bernard’s many friends will be glad at last to have his Commentary. Fortunately he had completed the manuscript of both volumes before his visible presence was taken from us in August 1927, so that I have been responsible only for seeing it through the Press. Dr. L. C. Purser saw the proofs as far as Chapter XIX., but I have been through the whole, trying to gather up the fragments that remained. The Indices have been prepared by the Rev. R. M. Boyd, Rector of Shinrone I would thank him gratefully for his help, but he needs no thanks.
A. H. McNEILE.
Dublin, October 1928.
ABBREVIATIONS
————
The evangelist has been designated throughout as Jn., to distinguish him from John the son of Zebedee as well as from John the Baptist. This abbreviation is not intended to imply that he must be identified with John the presbyter, although the editor regards this as highly probable;1 but it is convenient to have a brief designation which stands for the writer of the Gospel, without prejudging his personality. A few other abbreviations that have been adopted are the following:
D.B. Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. (1898-1904).
D.B.2 Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (1893).
D.C.G. Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 2 vols. (1906).
Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.-X. (1900-1915).
E.B. Cheyne’s Encyclopæ Biblica, 4 vols. (1899-1903).
E.R.E. Hastings’ Encyclopæ of Religion and Ethics, 12 vols. (1908-1921).
J.T.S. Journal of Theological Studies (1900-1926).
Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan (1914- ). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable.
INTRODUCTION
————
CHAPTER I
THE TEXT
(i) Authorities for the Text.
(ii) Dislocations of the Text.
(iii) The Structure of the Gospel.
(I) Authorities for the Text
Full accounts of the manuscript material available for the text will be found in Gregory’s Prolegomena (1894), in his Textkritik (1902, 1909), and in von Soden’s Die Schriften des neuen Testaments (1902). During the last twenty-five years several additional manuscripts and versions of first rate value have come to light. Only a few of the more important authorities for the Gospel, in whole or in part, are named here, von Soden’s notation being placed in brackets, and the century to which each MS. is ascribed being given in Roman numerals. No attempt has been made in these volumes to print an apparatus criticus. Tischendorf’s (1872) is still the most useful, von Soden’s (1913) being constructed on the basis of a new classification of textual authorities, which has not commanded general acceptance. Westcott and Hort’s Notes on Select Readings (1884) are indispensable, although their doctrine of the inferiority of the “Western Text” is now regarded as too strongly stated. A. Souter’s brief critical apparatus is valuable, and his table of MS. authorities admirably clear (Nov. Test. Græ Oxford).
Papyri
The earliest extant remains of Gospel manuscripts in Greek were written in Egypt on papyrus. Of these some of the most interesting were found at Oxyrhynchus, and have been published by Drs. Grenfell and Hunt. A few contain fragments of the Fourth Gospel. They are generally in the form of a book or codex, and not in the form of rolls of papyrus. Most of those mentioned here present a text similar to that of B:
Pap. Oxyrh. 208 (von Soden, ε02) and 1781 form fragments of the same MS., the oldest extant text of Jn. (sæ iii), and are at the British Museum. They give in a mutilated form Joh_1:23-41, Joh_16:14-30, Joh_20:11-25. This MS. was a codex, made up of a single quire of some twenty-five sheets. See p. xxix.
Pap. Oxyrh. 1228, Glasgow, iii. This has a good text of Joh_15:25-31
Pap. Oxyrh. 847, British Museum, iv, contains Joh_2:11-22.
Pap. Oxyrh. 1780, British Museum, iv, contains Joh_8:14-21.
Pap. Oxyrh. 1596, British Museum, iv, contains Joh_6:8-12. Joh_6:17-22.
There are many other papyrus fragments, some of early date; the above are mentioned as specimens of the available material.
Uncials
Information as to most of these will be found in the textbooks. We give brief references for those which have been recently brought to light:
B Vaticanus (δ1). Rome. Cent. iv.
אSinaiticus (δ2). Leningrad. iv.
A Alexandrinus (δ4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50-8:52 are missing.
C Ephræ (δ3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.
D Bezæ(δ5). Cambridge. v-vi. Græ Cc. 18:14-20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (Dsupp).
T Borgianus (ε5). Rome. v. Græ Contains cc. 6:28-67, 7:6-8:31.
Tb Muralt (ε31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25-42, Son_2:9-14, 4:34-50.
Tw (ε35). British Museum. vi. Græ Contains cc. 3:5-4:49 with a few gaps. For a collation by Crum and Kenyon, cf. J.T.S. April 1900, p. 415 f. See on 3:18, 4:6.
W Freer (ε014). Washington. iv-vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).
N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899).
L Regius (ε56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2-20, 21:15-25 are missing.
ΘKoridethi (ε050). Tiflis. viii-ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann & Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700. See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925.
Γ(ε70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix-x. Contains Son_1:1-13, 8:3-15:24, 19:6 to end.
ΔSangallensis (ε76). St. Gall. ix-x. Græ
Secondary uncials are not specified here; nor has reference been made to two fragmentary palimpsest uncials of the fifth century, at Leningrad and the British Museum respectively (von Soden’s ε1 and ε3).
Cursives
Of the vast mass of minuscules, only a few need be mentioned.
The following are notable: 33 (δ48), Paris, ix-x, perhaps the best of all the cursives, akin to BDL at many points; 28 (ε168), Paris, xi; 157 (ε207), Rome, xii; 565 (ε93), Leningrad, ix-x; 700 (ε133), London, xi, ed. Hoskier (under the numeration 604).
The twelve cursives numbered 13, 69, 124, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709, are descended from a lost common ancestor. Salmon directed Ferrar’s attention to 13, 69, 124, 346; and Ferrar began a collation, which was completed and published by T. K. Abbott in 1877.1 The group may be cited as fam. 13. See above on Θ and for the position of 7:52-8:11 in this group, see note on the Pericope.
Nos. 1, 118, 131, 209 are also akin to each other and to Θ and may be cited as fam. 1 (see K. Lake, Cod. 1 and its Allies, 1902).
Ancient Versions
The Old Latin MSS. are cited under the letters a, b, e, f, ff2, etc., Jerome’s Vulgate being vg. The relative value of the African and European texts of the O.L. is too intricate for discussion here.
The Old Syriac version probably goes back to Tatian’s Diatessaron, and in any case to sæ iii sub init. We have it in two MSS.; Syr. sin. of sæ iv, discovered at Mt. Sinai in 1892, and Syr. cur. of sæ v, edited by Cureton in 1858, both being accessible in Burkitt’s indispensable Evangelion da Mepharreshê(1904).1 The Peshitta or Syriac vulgate is of sæ v.
The Coptic vss. have been fully edited in the Sahidic and Bohairic texts by G. Homer (1901-1924). The Sahidic generally follows א but has a Western element.
The oldest MS. of Jn. in this version (sæ iv) was discovered in 1913 and edited by Sir H. Thompson in 1924. By him it is called Q, and it is now in the Bible Society’s House in London. It is in codex form, made up of twenty-five sheets of papyrus, folded together so as to make a single quire (cf. p. xiv above). It has a good text like א and omits the Pericope de adultera.
The text printed in this volume is similar to that followed by Westcott and Hort, and by Bernhard Weiss, although not identical with either. It is convenient to indicate here the more important instances in which the reading that has been adopted after due consideration of the evidence (of the manuscripts and of the context alike) differs from that accepted by most recent critics. At 1:41, 19:29, 20:17 readings have been suggested or adopted which have very little manuscript authority (if any), but which must be judged on their own merits as emendations. Other weakly attested readings are accepted at 10:29, 11:42, 12:9, 17:11, 18:1. And at 9:4, 14:4, 14, 16:22 reasons have been given for following the textus receptus rather than its modern rivals. In each case, the variants have been examined in the notes in loc.
(II) Dislocations of the Text
There are some passages in the Fourth Gospel which present difficulties in their traditional context; and critical opinion has, during the last half-century, been favourable, on the whole, to the conclusion that, whether by accidental transposition of pages of the original, or by perverse editorial revision, they have been removed from their proper position.
A
Of such instances of dislocation of the text, perhaps the strongest case can be made for the transposition of Son_5 and 6. The first modern critic to urge that the order of these chapters should be interchanged was Canon J. P. Norris,1 and his suggestion has been accepted by many scholars.
The words of 6:1, “After these things (μτ τῦα Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee,” are oddly chosen if a journey from Jerusalem is in the author’s mind, which must be the case if the events of c. 6 are consecutive to those of c. 5. To know which is the “other” side of the lake, we must know the point of departure. In 6:22 πρντςθλση means the eastern side, in 6:25 the western side; just as in Mar_5:1 the same phrase means the eastern side, and in 5:21 the western side. No doubt, for one who followed the ordinary road from Jerusalem northward, the “other” side would be either the northern or the eastern coast. But a journey from Jerusalem through Samaria and Lower Galilee, which extended either round the northern end of, or across, the lake to the neighbourhood of Bethsaida Julias, would be described very elliptically by the sentence, “He went away to the other side of the sea.” On the other hand, the phrase is quite natural if we suppose Him to start from Capernaum, i.e. if we treat c. 6 as following immediately on c. 4. Then all is clear. The nobleman’s son at Capernaum has been healed by Jesus (4:54), who is in the neighbourhood, that is, near the western shore of the lake; and the next thing recorded is that “after these things Jesus went away to the other side” (i.e. the north-eastern shore) of the lake, where, it is added, “a great multitude followed Him because they beheld the signs which He did on them that were sick.” Among the more noteworthy of these was the “second sign” in Galilee, i.e. the healing of the nobleman’s son.
Again, the opening words of c. 7, “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for He would not walk in Judæ because the Jews sought to kill Him,” do not follow naturally upon c. 6. The whole of c. 6 is occupied with Galilæ discourse and miracle; why, then, should the fact that “He walked in Galilee” be emphasised at 7:1? And no hint has been given in c. 6 that “the Jews” were so indignant at His words that they sought to kill Him. On the other hand, the words of 7:1 come naturally in succession to the narrative of c. 5 (but see below, p. xix), which contains the controversy of the Jews consequent on the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath, after which it is expressly said that the Jews sought to kill Jesus (5:18). A retirement from Jerusalem to Galilee was quite natural then; but it was only for a short time, and He went back to Jerusalem to resume His ministry there at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:10). That no very long interval of time elapsed between the controversies of c. 7 and those of c. 5 is shown by the allusion in 7:21 to the healing of 5:5. We cannot interpolate between these two points a long ministry in Galilee.
The narrative proceeds smoothly if we adopt the order, c. 4 (Samaria and Galilee), c. 6 (Galilee), c. 5 (Jerusalem, a period to which we must assign, as we shall see, 7:15-24; see p. xix), c. 7:1-9 (a retirement to Galilee), c. 7:10-14, 25-52 (another visit to Jerusalem).
It should be added that, if the traditional order of cc. 4-7 be followed, there is a difficulty in identifying the Feast mentioned at 5:1; the Passover, Pentecost, Dedication, Tabernacles, Purim, being advocated in turn by various expositors. But if we place c. 5 after c. 6, the identification is obvious. It is the Feast of the Passover, which has been mentioned at 6:4 as “at hand.”
Of independent evidence for this transposition of Son_5 and 6, there is none that can be relied on.
Irenæ e.g., a very early commentator on the Fourth Gospel, regards the feast of 5:1 as the Passover, and does not mention the feast of 6:4. But, nevertheless, he takes Son_5 and 6 in their traditional order, and places the Feeding of the Five Thousand after the Healing of the Man at Bethesda (Hæ ii. xxii. 3).
Origen, too, has a phrase which, if it stood by itself, would favour the view that Son_5 and 7 are consecutive. When commenting on c. 4, he says (p. 250) that the feast of 5:1 was not likely to be the Passover, because “shortly afterwards it is stated” (μτ ὀίαἐιέεα) ὅιἦ ἐγςἡἑρὴτνἸυαω, ἡσηοηί (7:2). In other words, he says that 7:2 comes “shortly after” 5:1, a quite reasonable statement if c. 6 precedes c. 5, but hardly defensible if c. 6, with its seventy-one verses, separates c. 5 from c. 7. However, in the same commentary (pp. 268, 280), he clearly takes c. 5 as following on c. 4 in the traditional order.
Tatian’s distribution of Johannine material in his Diatessaron is remarkable. He does not scruple to disturb the Johannine order of incidents, as we have them in the traditional text; and, in particular, he adopts the order cc. 6, 4:4-45, Son_6:5, Son_6:7. He was probably led to this by internal evidence; but it is possible (although not likely) that he may be following the authority of texts or documents no longer accessible to us. In any case, the evidence of the Diatessaron provides a corroboration, ualeat quantum, of the conclusion that Son_5 and 6 are not now in their right order.
B
A second case of “dislocation” of the original text of Jn. has already been mentioned (p. xviii). If we remove the section 7:15-24 from its traditional position, and append it to c. 5, we shall find not only that its language is more appropriate as the conclusion of c. 5, but that 7:25f. follows most naturally upon 7:14.
The allusion to the γάμτ of Moses (5:47) provokes the question “How does this one know γάμτ” (7:15) i.e. the writings of the Law with their interpretation. But there is nothing in 7:14 which suggests any such query, for nothing has been said in 7:14 as to the learned nature of the teaching which Jesus is giving. The more natural sequel to 7:14 Isa_7:25, where the citizens of Jerusalem express surprise that such a teacher should be an object of suspicion to the rulers.
Again in 7:19 the question, “Why seek ye to kill me?” is very abrupt, and is hardly consistent at this point with the favourable reception from the people of which 7:12 tells. But it is quite in place if the section 7:15-24 is a continuation of the controversy of c. 5; one of the consequences was that the Jews had sought to kill Jesus (5:18). Indeed, the themes of 7:15-24 are throughout the same as in c. 5; and at 7:16, 17 Jesus defends Himself, exactly as at 5:30, by explaining that His doctrine was not His own, but given Him by the Father, whose will He came to do.
Again at 7:18 He reverts to what has been said at 5:41, 44, about the untrustworthiness of those who seek only their own glory. At 7:22 He turns against themselves their appeal to Moses as the exponent of the Law, as He had done at 5:46.
And at 7:23 He makes a direct reference to the cure of the impotent man at Bethesda (5:9), which, because it was wrought on a Sabbath day, was the beginning of their quarrel with Him. It is very difficult to interpret 7:23 if we suppose it to refer to something which had happened months before; it is evidently present to the minds of His interlocutors, whose feelings as aroused by it He describes in the present tense, θυάεε…χλτ (7:21, 23). And, finally, the mention of “just judgment” at 7:24 brings us back to 5:30.
It is possible that the transference of the section 7:15-24 from its true position was due to the mistake of a copyist, who took the words “Is not this He whom they seek to kill?” in 7:25 as requiring 7:19 in the immediate context, forgetting that 5:18, 7:1 are both equally apposite.
But, however that may be, that a dislocation of the text is here apparent has been accepted by Wendt,1 Bacon,2 Moffatt,3 Paul,4 and many other critics.
C
We proceed next to consider the difficulties presented by the traditional order of cc. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; and some reasons will be given for the conclusion that the order adopted in this commentary, viz. 13:1-30, 15, 16, 13:31-38, 14, 17, more nearly represents the intention of the original writer.
It is plain that “Arise, let us go hence,” at the end of c. 14 is awkward in this position, if the teachings of cc. 15, 16 follow immediately. This suggests that cc. 15, 16 should precede c. 14; and then 14:31 would be the last word of the discourse delivered in the upper room, c. 17 (the high-priestly prayer) being offered as the Lord with the Eleven stood up before they left the house for Gethsemane. Again, “I will no longer talk much with you” (14:30) is followed by two chapters of further discourse, in the traditional order of the text, whereas it would be a natural phrase, if the discourse were reaching its end, and 14:25-31 were the final paragraph of farewell.
There are several sayings in c. 16 which suggest that it should come before c. 14. Thus Jesus says (16:5), “None of you ask where I am going.” But Peter asked this very question (13:36), and Thomas implied that he would like to know the answer (14:5). These queries more naturally come after 16:5 than before it.
Another point emerges on comparison of 16:32 with Mar_14:27. Both of these passages tell how Jesus warned the Eleven that they would shortly be put to a severe test of faithfulness, in which they would fail. “All ye shall be made to stumble: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad” (Mar_14:27). “The hour is come when ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone” (Joh_16:32). Now Mk. places the confident assurance of Peter, and the sad prediction of his denial, immediately after this. We should expect the same sequence in Jn.; and we find it very nearly, if 13:31-38 is placed after 16:33, for the incident of Peter’s boast and rebuke is narrated in 13:35-38. Again, 14:19 seems to come more naturally after 16:16f. than before these verses in which the disciples express bewilderment at the enigmatic saying, “A little while and ye behold me not,” etc. The language of 16:17 suggests that this saying was new to the hearers, whereas it occurs with an explanation in 14:19 (cf. 13:33). See also on 14:19 for the priority of the verse 16:10.
We now turn to c. 15. The allegory of the Vine in the traditional text begins abruptly, nor is there any sequence with what precedes in the last verses of c. 14. But, as we have shown elsewhere,1 if we place c. 15 immediately after 13:30, the point in the narrative at which the Eucharist was instituted, we find a complete explanation of the sacramental thoughts which appear in 15:1-8. And there are other clues which point to the sequence of 15:1f. with 13:30.
Thus the unfruitful branch of 15:2 has an obvious allusion to Judas, who has just gone away to his act of treachery, if c. 15 follows 13:30 directly. The words ὑεςκθρίἐτ of 15:3 become more forcible the nearer they are brought to ὑεςκθρίἐτ, ἀλ οχ πνε of 13:10, 11 (where see note). So also the nearer that 15:16, 20 can be brought to 13:18, 16, being the verses to which they respectively carry an allusion, the easier are they to explain. Again, in our arrangement of the text, 15:12, 17 give the first statement of the duty of Christians to love each other (which has been adumbrated 13:12-15), but it is not described as a New Commandment (13:34) until it has been thoroughly explained what love implies.2
Similarly, the teaching about prayer of 14:14 shows an advance on the teaching of 15:16, 16:29, in that at 14:14 it is Jesus, not the Father, who is described as the answerer of prayer. See the note on 14:14.
It is not suggested here that we are to look for exact logical sequence, such as would be appropriate in a philosophical treatise, in the Last Discourses of Jesus as reported many years after they were spoken. On the contrary, cc. 14-16 of the Fourth Gospel abound in repetitions of the same thoughts and phrases, held in the memory of an aged disciple, but not necessarily put together in the order in which they were originally delivered. Yet, where sequence can be detected, it is worthy o1 notice.
The teaching about the Paraclete seems to fall into shape more readily if we place cc. 15, 16 before c. 14. In 15:26, 16:7 we have the πρκηο described as the Advocate of Christ, confuting the hostility of the world and confounding its judgments. This is the primary meaning of πρκηο (see on 15:26); and so far, the idea of the πρκηο as the Helper or Guide of Christian disciples has not appeared. Then, at 16:13, we pass to a new thought: the πρκηο is to guide the apostles into all truth about Christ, and is to reveal future things to them. He is now the Paraclete of the Church, not of Christ. Then, at 14:16, it is promised that He will abide with the Church until the end of time, so that Christian disciples may not be left ὀφνί or without a Friend. Finally, at 14:26, we return to the idea that He will lead them to the truth, which is now described as “teaching” them, and will always keep in their memory the words of Jesus Himself. At this point, for the first time, He is explicitly identified with the “Holy Spirit” of God.
The only phrase1 which would be favoured by the traditional order of chapters rather than by the order cc. 15, 16, 14 is, “He shall give you another Paraclete,” at 14:16. This, it may be thought, is more naturally said at the first mention of the Paraclete than at a point in the discourse after He has already been named three or four times. But (see note in loc.) this phrase is apposite here, and here only, because Jesus has just been speaking of His own office as the Advocate with God who secures an answer to the prayers of the faithful, although He has not explicitly claimed the title πρκηο for Himself.
It may be added, in conclusion, that the consolations of 14:1, 2 seem to come more appropriately towards the end, than at the beginning, of the Farewell Discourse. The disciples have been assured that the world will one day be proved to have been wrong in its rejection of Jesus (15:26, 16:8f.); they are told, moreover, that they, themselves, will again “see” Jesus after His departure (16:19), which will turn their grief into joy (16:22); they think that they understand this, although it is not so (16:29), and are warned that they will fail in the impending hour of trial (16:32). This hurts them, and Peter asks why they cannot follow Jesus to death even now (13:37); but he is again warned that he will fail at the pinch (13:38). Then, and not until then, is explained to them the great assurance of life after death in the heavenly places which Jesus will prepare (14:2). This is a consolatory promise of a quite different kind from any of those given in cc. 15, 16, for it leads the thoughts of the disciples beyond this earthly life.
On grounds such as these, I follow Spitta2 and Moffatt3 in supposing a dislocation of the text at 13:30. Wendt1 and Paul2 find the break at 13:35, but vv. 33 and 36 f. seem to be in complete sequence.
D
The position of the verses, 3:31-36, provides another example of difficulties of interpretation, probably due to a disturbance of the textual order.
As the verses 3:31-36 stand in the traditional text, it would seem at first sight that they were intended to be a continuation of the Baptist’s “witness” to our Lord, contained in vv. 27-30; and many of the older commentators (e.g. Meyer, Alford) held this to be the case. But most modern exegetes recognise that in this section, as in 3:16-21, we have an evangelistic commentary on what has preceded. The style of 3:31-36 is unmistakably that of Jn., when writing in his own person. However, it does not bear any clear relation to what immediately precedes in the traditional text. Abbott (Diat. 2501 f.) endeavours, indeed, to interpret 3:33 of John Baptist; it is the Baptist, he holds, that is said to have sealed his attestation that God is true. But, if so, the words in v. 32, τνμρυίνατῦοδὶ λμάε, must also be interpreted as Jn.’s paraphrase of the Baptist’s account of the ill success of Jesus’ mission. This is entirely inconsistent with the report of the Baptist’s disciples about Jesus, πνε ἔχνα πὸ ατν(v. 26), which drew from their master a confident and joyful assurance that Jesus was, indeed, the Coming One, the Christ Himself (vv. 27-30).
An examination of the section 3:31-36 shows, on the contrary, that it is a continuation of Jn.’s commentary (vv. 16-21) upon the pronouncement of Jesus in vv. 11-15. Thus v. 32, in both its clauses, reproduces almost verbatim the words ascribed to Jesus in v. 11; and v. 31 goes back to v. 12. V. 36a, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” has been said already at v. 16; and the sombre warning to the unbeliever or disobedient at v. 36b has been, given before, although less explicitly, at v. 18. “He whom God hath sent” (v. 34) recalls v. 17. There is no saying in vv. 31-36 which naturally arises out of the section vv. 22-30, but everything in vv. 31-36, on the other hand, goes back to vv. 11-21.
Hence, it suggests itself that vv. 22-30 are out of place; and this conclusion has been reached by several scholars. Lewis proposed to transfer 3:22-30 to a position immediately following 2:12, and this has been approved by Moffatt,1 Lewis,2 J. M. Thompson,3 Garvie,4 etc. That 3:25 speaks of κθρσό is thought to recall 2:6, and the bridegroom of 2:10 to suggest the image of 3:28. But the sequence of μτ τῦοin 2:12, followed by μτ τῦαin 3:22, would be strange and not like the style of Jn. Nor can it be said that there would be any special ap positeness in such a position of 3:22-30. To place these verses before the Cleansing of the Temple and the subsequent “signs” at Jerusalem (2:23) makes it difficult to explain the crowds who flocked to the ministry of Jesus (3:26). For, according to this arrangement of the text, Jesus has not been in Jerusalem at all, and the miracle at Cana of Galilee is the only “sign” that has attracted attention.
A simpler explanation is that 3:22-30 originally followed, instead of preceding, 3:31-36.5 Everything then falls into place. The evangelist’s commentary or paraphrase, 3:16-21, 31-36, is continuous; and a new section (3:22-30) of the narrative beginning with μτ τῦα as usual in Jn., deals with the second witness of the Baptist, and connects itself directly in the opening verses of c. 4 with the journey to Samaria. It may be added that the sequence between 3:22-30 and 4:1, 2 is as natural as that between 3:36 and 4:1, 2 is unreal.
E
Another example of “dislocation” may be found, if we mistake not, in c. 10, the traditional order of verses being difficult to interpret, and the order vv. 19-29, vv. 1-18, vv. 30 ff. suggesting itself as preferable.6
First, as is pointed out in the note on 10:1, the introductory “Verily, verily” is employed to begin a new discourse on a new topic in a manner without parallel in the rest of the Gospel. There is no connexion between the end of c. 9 and the beginning of c. 10, which opens (as we have it) with the allegory of the shepherd and the sheep. This has nothing to do with the controversy about the healing of the blind man, which occupies the whole of c. 9. On the other hand, it is plain that 10:19-21 comes naturally after 9:41. The end of the long and tedious argument about this miraculous cure was that the Pharisees who were inquiring into the matter were not unanimous in the conclusion they reached. Some said that Jesus was mad; others that He really had restored the man’s sight, and that this could not be explained away by saying that He was a madman. There is no connexion apparent between 10:18 and 10:19-21. The traditional text represents the allegory of the shepherd and the sheep following (after an undefined interval) the condemnation of the Pharisees for refusing to recognise in the cure of the blind man a confirmation of Jesus’ claims; and then, abruptly, at vv. 19-21, we turn back to the Pharisees still in controversy about this very matter. The end of the story of the blind man is in vv. 19-21, and this naturally follows on 9:41.
This controversy had gone on for some weeks, and by the time that we have reached the end of it, a couple of months have elapsed since the Feast of Tabernacles, and so a new paragraph begins by telling us that the Feast of Dedication (see on 10:22) had now arrived. The hostile Jews are determined to get a plain answer to the question “Art thou the Christ?” (10:24), and Jesus tells them that their unbelief is due to their not being of His flock, assigning a moral cause for their want of faith as He had done before (see on 10:26). If they were His sheep, they would hear His voice and follow Him, and so would be safe in His keeping (10:27-29). Then follows, quite naturally, the allegory of the shepherd and the sheep, introduced by ἀὴ ἀή inasmuch as it takes up and enlarges the theme already suggested by vv. 27-29.
We believe, then, that vv. 1-18 are out of their true position, which was lost owing to some accident. The scribe who placed them immediately after 9:41 noticed no doubt that the sequence of vv. 29, 30 was intelligible, and it satisfied him. In v. 28 Jesus had said that His sheep were safe in His hand, and in v. 29 (even more strongly) that they were safe in the Father’s hand. “I and my Father are One” is a declaration which would be quite in place here. But it is in even a more appropriate place if it follows (as we have argued it should follow) v. 18: “I have authority to lay it down, and authority to take it again. This commandment did I receive from my Father. I and my Father are One.” It is this unity which explains the seeming inconsistency of the assertion, “I lay it down of Myself,” with the former statement, “the Son can do nothing of Himself” (5:19 and see on 10:18)—an inconsistency which, as the text stands, is not relieved by the assertion of unity with the Father, which is essential to the argument.
F
A sixth example of “dislocation” appears at 12:44-50, a section which comes in more naturally after 12:36a, the verses 12:36b-43 following 12:50.
At v. 36b it is said that Jesus went away and “was hidden,” the evangelist noting the incredulity of His hearers, in which he finds a fulfilment of prophecy (vv. 39-41), and adding that nevertheless many of the rulers were secretly believers, although they were afraid to confess it (vv. 42, 43). But then at v. 44, the public and authoritative teaching of Jesus begins again, the word ἔρξ being inconsistent with ἐρβ of v. 36b. And, moreover, the topics of vv. 35, 36 are continued in vv. 44 ff. Thus the contrast between the believer who walks in the light and the unbeliever whom darkness overtakes is carried on from v. 35 to v. 46. But in vv. 35, 36 it has not yet been explained what the Light is to which reference is made; to go back to 8:12 is easy for a modern reader, but it would not be suggested by anything in vv. 35, 36. We get the explanation in v. 46, “I am come as a Light into the world,” etc., an explanation which is not only natural, but necessary, if vv. 35, 36 are to be intelligible in their original context. And then Jesus reverts to the theme, frequent throughout the Gospel, that His claim for attention is not “of Himself,” but because He is God’s messenger.
There is no change of scene between v. 36a and v. 44. Vv. 35-36a and vv. 44-50 form a continuous discourse, the effect of which is summarised vv. 36-43.1
To this argument, the evidence of Tatian’s Diatessaron gives corroboration. For, whatever his reason may have been, Tatian rearranges the text of Joh_12. His order is, Joh_12:19-36a, then verses from Mt., Lk., Joh_12:42-50, verses from Lk., Joh_12:36-41. He differs from the conclusion which we have reached as to vv. 42, 43; but either he noticed that 12:36b-41 could not stand in the text in the position in which we find them, or (less probably) he was following manuscripts which placed these verses in the order that we have adopted as the true one.2
G
Mention must be made here of a rearrangement of the text in c. 18 which has been adopted by many good critics, but which is not followed in the present commentary.
In 1893 F. Spitta,3 taking the view that ὁἀχεεςof 18:19 must mean Caiaphas, and noticing the repetition of the phrase Πτο ἑτςκὶθρανμνςin vv. 18, 25a, suggested that, perhaps owing to the displacement of a leaf of papyrus, the text of vv. 13-27 was in disorder, and that the original sequence was vv. 13, 19-24, 14-18, 25b-28, 25a being a copyist’s addition. This conjectural restoration of the text was thought to be confirmed shortly afterwards by the discovery of the Sinai Syriac codex, in which the verses are found in the order 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25b-28. F. Blass accepted this as the true text,1 stating that the traditional order of verses was only a narrative “of blundering scribes.” Later, G. G. Findlay and Moffatt adopted the order vv. 13, 14, 19-24, 15-18, 25b-28, which only differs from Spitta’s in the place assigned to v. 14, an unimportant variation.
It will be observed that while Spitta’s proposal and that of Moffatt involve only a transposition of sections of nearly equal length—in Spitta’s case vv. 14-18 and 19-24, and in Moffatt’s case vv. 15-18 and 19-24—the Sinai Syriac, besides transposing the sections vv. 16-18 and 19-23, also divorces v. 24 from its traditional place and inserts it after v. 13. It is in the highest degree improbable that this double divergence of the normal text from the Sinai Syriac can be the result of accident; something more, therefore, is involved in the traditional order than the mere displacement of a leaf of the exemplar.2 In other words, there is a presumption that the text of Syr. sin. has been rearranged from harmonistic motives just as those of Spitta and Moffatt have been.3 See also on 4:8.
The advantage claimed for these rearrangements is that they present a more coherent story. In the case of Syr. sin. the removal of v. 24 to a place after v. 13 enables us to get rid of Annas altogether, except for a short halt at his house. As in Mt., everything is done by Caiaphas, who conducts the preliminary examination of Jesus (26:57-67), as well as presiding at the formal meeting of the Sanhedrim (27:1). Again, the title ἀχεεςis thus strictly reserved for Caiaphas, who was the recognised high priest at the time, Annas having been deposed from office previously. And the bringing together of the sections vv. 15-18 and 25-27 is thought to be helpful in regard to an understanding of the story of Peter’s denials.
In the text as reconstructed by Spitta and Moffatt, Jesus remains in the house of Annas for the preliminary cross-examination, after which (v. 24) He is sent to Caiaphas. But this does not bring the narrative into harmony with Mt., unless we suppose that Caiaphas (although in the house of Annas) conducts the inquiry of vv. 19-23; and in that case v. 24 is extraordinarily clumsy after v. 23.
It is argued in the notes on this chapter (see on 18:13 for a brief summary of the sequence of events) that two erroneous assumptions underlie these rearrangements of text. First, ἀχεες as a title, was not confined to the high priest at the moment in office, but was used of ex high priests, such as Annas, as well (see on 7:32, 11:49, 18:19). In 18:15-23 Annas is the ἀχεες but Caiaphas was the ἀχεεςτῦἐιυο ἐενυ And, secondly, we cannot get rid of 25a, as is done by Syr. sin., as well as by Moffatt, without removing a characteristic note of Johannine style (see note in loc.). Further, the separation of the later denials of Peter from his first brings out the interval of time (occupied by the cross-examination of Jesus) which elapsed since Peter began to wait in the courtyard (see on 18:18, 25).
These considerations, which are given more fully in the notes, show, I believe, that the traditional order of verses in 18:13-26 is more probably original than those which have been proposed in substitution for it. It may be added that the traditional order is followed by Tatian, who did not scruple to transpose verses where the sense seemed to demand it.
H
That a document may contain genuine, but misplaced, passages is, as Moffatt has shown, a legitimate hypothesis; and profane, as well as sacred, literature supplies illustrations.1 But where manuscript evidence is wholly lacking, and internal evidence alone is available, hypotheses as to transposition of sections are necessarily precarious, and ought to be accepted only when the internal evidence is very strong. A method, however, of obtaining objective corroboration of such hypotheses has been adopted during recent years by several scholars,2 which must not be ignored.
If we knew the number of lines of writing, or of letters, in a single leaf (recto and verso) of a manuscript in codex form, we should know the length of a section that would be involved by the accidental displacement of a leaf. Let us count the letters in the various sections in which we have found traces of displacement. It is not possible to be certain as to the exact numbers in the original, because we cannot be sure what contractions were used. But the following figures, derived from our printed text, will give at any rate the comparative lengths of the sections:
I. c. 5 = 3630 letters.1
II. 7:15-24 = 763 letters.
III. 13:31-14:31 = 3120 letters.
IV. 3:22-30 = 730 letters.
V. 10:1-18 = 1495 letters.
VI. 12:36b-43 = 598 letters.
Let us suppose that each leaf of two pages (recto and verso) of our manuscript contained about 750 letters. This would not be abnormal, and might happen in a variety of ways; e.g. a page of 34 lines, each of 11 letters,2 would have 374 letters, and thus the leaf would have 748 letters. The same result would be reached if the writing were in double columns, and each column were of 17 lines. Or, as Thompson suggested, we might have an arrangement of 25 lines of 15 letters each to a page, which would give us 750 letters to the leaf.3
A leaf might carry from 700 to 1500 letters of our printed text. Thus the oldest extant Greek MS. of Jn. is the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus numbered 208 and 1781 (see p. xiv), which goes back to the end of the third century. This MS. was in book form, consisting of a single quire of some 25 sheets, and it is demonstrable4 from the fragments which remain that each page contained about 710 letters, and each leaf 1420. On the other hand, the papyrus codex 1780 (see p. xiv) carried only about 700 letters a leaf. Both of these provide examples of early Gospel manuscripts written on papyrus, the leaves being fastened together so as to make a codex. Scribes are conservative people, and it is probable that the normal Gospel book was similar to this pattern in the first century, whatever its size.
We take, then, 750 letters for each leaf, and make no other hypothesis, leaving as an open question the disposition of the lines of the manuscript of Jn. under consideration. It appears at once that § II. and IV. occupy approximately one leaf each; §V. occupies almost exactly two leaves; §I. occupies nearly five leaves (750 ×5 = 3750, which is slightly in excess of 3630, or only 45 letters less than 3795, the number if the verse 5:4 is included); §III. has 3120 letters, which is only 120 letters in excess of four regular leaves (750 ×4 = 3000); §VI. would not quite fill a leaf, having only 598 letters, but the quotation marks in this section would take up space that would normally be occupied by text, and moreover on the hypothesis of dislocation, §VI. would conclude Part II. of the Gospel, after which a blank space would naturally be left before entering on Part III.
These figures are remarkable. If the leaves on which the Gospel was written became disarranged from any cause, a faulty rearrangement of them would produce in § II., IV., V., almost exactly the displacements of text to which internal evidence has pointed; and in § I., III., VI., the figures would be close to what we should expect.1
The argument drawn out above stands quite apart from, and is independent of, the arguments based on internal evidence; and even if it fail to win acceptance, the conclusions as to the dislocations of the text in Jn. must be considered on their own merits.
(III) The Structure of the Gospel
The Gospel falls into three parts, preceded by a Prologue and followed by an Appendix.
Part I. (cc. 1:19-4:54 with c. 6) begins at Bethany beyond Jordan, goes on to Galilee, thence to Jerusalem, and back to Samaria and Galilee. It deals with the ministry of a little more than one year.
Part II. (Son_5:7, Son_5:8-12) has to do with the Jerusalem ministry of Jesus, and extends over a second year.
Part III. (cc. 13-20) is wholly concerned with the Passion and Resurrection.
More at length, the structure may be exhibited as follows:
THE PROLOGUE
This (1:1-18) is primarily a Hymn on the Logos, interspersed with explanatory comments by the evangelist.
PART I
1:19-51 The ministry of John the Baptist, and the call of the first disciples of Jesus
2:1-12 Ministry at Cana of Galilee (the first “sign”).
2:13-25 Cleansing of the Temple (Jerusalem: Passover)
3:1-15 Discourse with Nicodemus on the New Birth
3:16-21, 31-36 Evangelist’s commentary thereon.
3:22-30 Ministry in Judæ
4:1-42 Samaria and the woman of Sychar.
4:43-54 Return to Galilee.
Healing of the nobleman’s son.
6:1-15 Feeding of the Five Thousand.
6:16-25 Return to Capernaum.
6:26-60 Discourses on the Bread of Life.
6:60-71 Perplexity of disciples, and the defection of many.
Only the Twelve stand fast.
PART II
5:1-9 Cure of impotent man (Jerusalem: Passover).
5:10-19 Argument about Sabbath observance.
5:20-29 The relation of the Son to the Father.
5:30-40 The threefold witness to Jesus’ claims.
5:41-47, 7:15-24 Argument with the Jewish doctors.
7:1-9 Retirement to Galilee.
7:10-14, 25-36 Teaching of Jesus in the Temple (Jerusalem: Feast of Tabernacles) arouses hostility.
7:37-52 His appeal to the people: intervention of Nicodemus.
8:12-59 His claim to be the Light of the World: indignation of the Pharisees.
9:1-41 Cure of blind man: his confession of Christ:
condemnation of the Pharisees.
10:19-21 Consequent diversity of opinion about Jesus.
10:22-29, 1-6 The Feast of the Dedication: Discourse about the Jews’ unbelief: other shepherds are false guides.
10:7-18 Jesus claims to be the Door of the sheep and the Good Shepherd.
10:30-42 Jesus is accused of blasphemy, and retires beyond Jordan.
11:1-57 The raising of Lazarus (Bethany): another brief retirement.
12:1-11 The supper at Bethany.
12:12-22 The triumphal entry to Jerusalem: the Greek inquirers.
12:23-36a Announcement of His Passion: His agony of spirit: perplexity of the bystanders.
12:44-50 A last warning: a last appeal to those who rejected Him.
12:36b-43 Evangelist’s commentary on Jewish unbelief as foreordained in prophecy.
PART III
13:1-20 The Last Supper; the Feet-washing; its spiritual lesson.
13:21-30 Jesus foretells His betrayal: Judas departs.
13:31a, 15, 16 The Last Discourses.
13:31b-38, 14 The Last Discourses.
17:1-26 The Last Prayer.
18:1-14 Jesus arrested and brought to Annas.
18:15-18 Peter’s first denial.
18:19-24 Examination before Annas: Jesus sent on to Caiaphas.
18:25-27 Peter’s second and third denials.
18:28-40 Jesus accused before Pilate; His first examination by Pilate, who fails to secure His release.
19:1-7 The scourging and mockery: Pilate fails again to save Jesus.
19:8-16 His second examination by Pilate, who fails a third time to save Him, and pronounces sentence.
19:17-24 The Crucifixion: the soldiers.
19:25-30 Three sayings of Jesus from the Cross.
19:31-42 The piercing of His side: His burial.
20:1-10 The sepulchre found empty.
20:11-18 Appearance of the Risen Lord to Mary Magdalene.
20:19-23 His first appearance to the disciples: their commission.
20:24-29 The incredulity of Thomas dispelled at His second appearance to them.
20:30, 31 Colophon: scope and purpose of the Gospel.
APPENDIX
21:1-17 Appearance of the Risen Christ by the Sea of Galilee.
21:18-23 Prediction of Peter’s martyrdom: a misunderstood saying about John.
21:24, 25 Concluding notes of authentication.
The concluding sentences in each of these sections are noteworthy, as indicating the careful planning of the narrative.
The last words of the Prologue are a summary of the theme of the Gospel, viz. the Manifestation of the Father through His Son (1:18).
Part I. is mainly occupied with the Ministry of the first year, which was largely in Galilee. Its happy progress is recorded, but this ends with the defection of many disciples (6:66). Here is the first suggestion of failure.
Part II. tells of the Ministry at Jerusalem, the success of which would be fundamental, and of the fierce opposition which it provoked. Its climax is the final rejection of Jesus by the Jews, upon which the evangelist comments in a few sombre words (12:36b-43).
Part III. narrates the Passion, which seemed the end, and the Resurrection, which was really the victorious beginning. The final words explain the purpose of the writing of the Gospel which is now concluded (20:30, 31).
The authentication at the end of the Appendix (21:24, 25) has its own special significance. For the Appendix, see on 21:1f.
NON-JOHANNINE GLOSSES
It is generally recognised that the story of the adulterous woman (7:53-8:11) is not Johannine, and that it was interpolated by scribes at an early date. This is discussed in the note on the Pericope. There are three or four other passages which suggest a hand other than that of Jn., and are probably due to editorial revision, being added after the Gospel was finished, perhaps before it was issued to the Church. Thus 4:1, 2 is a passage which has been rewritten for the sake of clearness, but the style is not that of Jn. So 6:23 is an explanatory non-Johannine gloss. The verse 5:4 is rejected by modern editors from the text as insufficiently attested, but linguistic evidence alone would mark it as non-Johannine. 11:2 is undoubtedly an explanatory or parenthetical comment, but it is possible that it is added by Jn., although there are non-Johannine touches of style: cf. 11:5. There is also some doubt about the comment at 12:16, which reads as if it was not due to the original evangelist, but to some one who had the Synoptic, rather than the Johannine, story in his mind at this point.
EVANGELISTIC COMMENTS
These non-Johannine glosses must not be confused with the comments which Jn. makes, as he proceeds, on his narrative, and on the words which he records. These appear not only in the body of the Gospel, but in the Prologue (cf. p. 145; see on 1:6f, 12, 15) and in the Appendix (21:19). At 2:21, 7:39, 12:33, 17:3 Jn. offers an explanation of words of Jesus which he thinks may be misunderstood, and at 6:61, 64 he calls attention to a point that may be missed. He points out a misunderstanding on the part of the Jews (7:22, 8:27) and of the disciples (11:13). He notes that certain words of the Jews correspond with what Jesus had said about His death (18:32; cf. 4:44). He ascribes motives to Judas (12:6) and to the rulers (12:43). He gives brief elucidations, such as could be needed only by those to whom the details would be new (4:9, 6:71; cf. 2:24, 7:5). He pauses to note the irony of Caiaphas’ unconscious prophecy (11:51). His general habit, however, is to pass over without comment (see on 1:45) any obvious mistake or misapprehension as to the Person of Christ. These mistakes his readers will correct for themselves, while they need help in regard to obscure sayings.
The special interest of the concluding paragraph of Part II. has already been noticed (p. xxxiii). Here the evangelist ends the narrative of the ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem and His rejection there, by quoting, as part of his own comment, several verses from the O.T. which show how Jewish unbelief had been foreordained in prophecy (12:36b-43).
1 See p. 68.
J.T.S. Journal of Theological Studies (1900-1926).
B Vaticanus (δ1). Rome. Cent. iv.
D Bezæ(δ5). Cambridge. v-vi. Græ Cc. 18:14-20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (Dsupp).
L Regius (ε56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2-20 21:15-25 are missing.
1 Cf. also Rendel Harris, The Ferrar Group (1900).
ΘKoridethi (ε050). Tiflis. vii-ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann & Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925.
1 For harmonistic rearrangements of the text in Syr. sin., cf. p. xxvi.
אSinaiticus (δ2). Leningrad. iv.
1 In the Journal of Philology, 1871, p. 107. Norris added later that the suggestion had been made by a fourteenth-century writer, Ludolphus de Saxonia.
1 Gospel according to St. John, p. 85.
2 The Fourth Gospel, p. 499.
3 Introd. to N. T., p. 554.
4 Hibbert Journal, April 1909.
1 See on 15:1; and cf. p. clxxiii. f.
2 See, further, note on 15:10.
1 Westcott (Introd. cxxxi) finds, indeed, a “progress” in the teaching about the Paraclete, taking the chapters in the usual order; but he takes no account of the difference between the Paraclete of Christ in 15:26, 16:7 and the Paraclete of the Church in 16:13, 14:16, 26.
2 See also Bacon, Fourth Gospel, p. 500.
3 See, for the various hypotheses as to the place of cc. 15, 16, Moffatt, Introd. to Lit. of N.T., p. 556.
1 Gospel according to St. John, p. 104.
2 Hibbert Journal, April 1909.
Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.-X. (1900-1915).
1 Introd. to N.T., p. 553 n.
2 Disarrangements, etc., pp. 25-31.
3 Expositor, viii. ix. 422.
4 The Beloved Disciple, pp. 20, 84.
5 For this transposition, see Cadoux, J.T.S., July 1919, p. 317.
6 Moffatt has adopted this order is his New Translation of the N.T.
1 Cf. Wendt, l.c. p. 96, and Moffatt, l.c. p. 556.
2 Cf. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel, p. 509, and Moffatt, Introd. to the N.T., p. 556.
3 Gesch. und Lit. d. Urchristenthums, 1893, p. 158.
1 Philology of the Gospels, 1898, p. 59.
2 C. H. Turner (J.T.S., Oct. 1900, p. 141) suggested that the O. L. codex e, from which the leaf between 18:12 and 18:25b has been cut, might have supported Syr. sin.; but cf. Burkitt in Ev. da Mepharr., ii. 316 contra.
3 Cf. Wendt, Fourth Gospel, p. 164, and see also Schmiedel (E.B. 4580), who takes the view adopted in this commentary that no readjustment of the text is necessary.
1 See Moffatt, Introd. to N.T., p. 39.
2 See especially F. J. Paul (Hibbert Journal, April 1909), A. C. Clark (Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, 1914), and J. M. Thompson (Expositor, viii. ix. 421 f., 1915).
1 If v. 4 were included, we should have 3795 letters.
2 Codex אis probably derived from a MS. having 11 letters to the line (H. S. Cronin, J.T.S., 1912, p. 563); and the same may be true of B (Clark, Primitive Text, etc., p. 33),
3 Thompson also finds traces of a unit of 208 letters; Clark, on the other hand, attaches special significance to a unit of 160 to 167 letters.
4 See Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. ii. (1899), and vol. xv. (1922).
1 The unit of about 750 letters appears again in Jn.’s account of the Cleansing of the Temple, viz. 2:14-22 =764 letters. Reasons have been given (on 2:13) for the opinion that this section is also out of place, but we cannot be sure that Jn. did not deliberately place the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and it has accordingly been left in its traditional position. It would remove some difficulties to place 2:14-22 after 12:19, but new difficulties would arise. E.g., the Jews’ question τ σμῖνδινεςἡῖ; (2:18) would not be suitable after the Raising of Lazarus
CHAPTER II
THE APOSTLE JOHN AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL
(i) John the Apostle was the Beloved Disciple.
(ii) John the Apostle did not suffer Death by Martyrdom.
(iii) John the Apostle and John the Presbyter.
(iv) The Muratorian Fragment and the Latin Prefaces on the Authorship of the Gospel.
(v) The Gospel and the Johannine Epistles were written by John the Presbyter.
(vi) The Apocalypse is not by John the Presbyter, but probably by John the Apostle.
(vii) Summary of Argument as to Authorship.
(viii) Early Citations of the Fourth Gospel.
(I) John the Apostle Was the Beloved Disciple
The notices of John by name are infrequent in the N.T. He was, apparently, the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, the proprietor of a fishing-boat on the Lake of Galilee and a man of sufficient substance to employ servants (