Heinrich Meyer Commentary - John

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - John


(Show All Books)

Chapter Commentaries:

Verse Commentaries:


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT

HANDBOOK

TO

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TH.D.,

CONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

REV. WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXIV.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR

T HE translation of this first part of Dr. Meyer’s Commentary on John has been executed from the fifth edition of the original by the Rev. William Urwick, already known as the translator of several works published by the Messrs. Clark. It has, however, been revised and carried through the press by myself at the request of Dr. Dickson, who, with the assent of the publisher, had asked me to join him in the editorship of the series. In order to secure as great uniformity as possible between this volume and the two already edited by Dr. Dickson, that gentleman was kind enough to read the proofs of the first few sheets, and I also had the benefit of his judgment and experience upon some points of difficulty that occurred in the earlier pages. References have been made not only to Dr. Moulton’s translation of Winer’s Grammar of New Testament Greek (published by Messrs. Clark), but also to the translation of Alex. Buttmann’s Grammar (New Testament Greek), by Professor Thayer, of the Theological Seminary, Andover, which has recently appeared. These references, it is hoped, will be useful to students of the original. A list of exegetical works upon the Gospel of John will be prefixed to the second volume, which will complete the Commentary upon the Gospel.

F. CROMBIE.

ST. MARY’S COLLEGE,

ST. ANDREWS, 3d August 1874.

PREFACE

T HE Gospel of John, on which I have now for the fifth time to present the result of my labours, still at the present day continues to be the subject—recently, indeed, brought once more into the very foreground—of so much doubt and dissension, and to some extent, of such passionate party controversy, as to increase the grave sense of responsibility, which already attaches to the task of an unprejudiced and thorough exposition of so sublime a production. The strong tendency now prevalent towards explaining on natural grounds the history of our Lord, ever calling forth new efforts, and pressing into its service all the aids of modern erudition, with an analytic power as acute as it is bold in its free-thinking, meets with an impassable barrier in this Gospel, if it really proceeds from that disciple whom the Lord loved, and consequently is the only one that is entirely and fully apostolic. For it is now an admitted fact, and a significant proof of the advances which have been gradually achieved by exegesis, that the pervading supranaturalism—clearly stamped on it in all the simplicity of truth—cannot be set aside by any artifices of exposition. This, however, does not prevent the work of a criticism, which obeys the conviction that it is able, and that for the sake of the right knowledge of the Gospel history it ought, to establish the non-apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel. Accordingly, in pursuance of the programme which was traced for it fifty years ago by Bretschneider, and of the ampler investigations subsequently added by the criticism of Baur, unwearied efforts have been made with augmented and more penetrating powers, and to some extent also with a cordial appreciation of the lofty ideas which the Gospel presents, to carry out this project to completion. Such critical labour submits itself to be tried by the judgment of scholars, and has its scientific warrant. Nay, should it succeed in demonstrating that the declaration of the Gospel’s apostolic birth, as written by all the Christian centuries, is erroneous, we would have to do honour to the truth, which in this case also, though painful at first, could not fail to approve itself that which maketh free. There is, however, adequate reason to entertain very grave doubts of the attainment of this result, and to refuse assent to the prognostication of universal victory, which has been too hastily associated with these efforts of criticism. Whoever is acquainted with the most recent investigations, will, indeed, gladly leave to themselves the clumsy attempts to establish a parallelism between the Gospel of John and ancient fabrications concocted with a special aim, which carry their own impress on their face; but he will still be unable to avoid the immediate and general duty of considering whether those modern investigators who deny that it is the work of the apostle have at least discovered a time in which—putting aside in the meanwhile all the substantive elements of their proof—the origin of the writing would be historically conceivable. For it is a remarkable circumstance in itself, that of the two most recent controversialists, who have treated the subject with the greatest scientific independence, the one assumes the latest, the other the earliest possible, date. If now, with the first, I place its composition not sooner than from 150 to 160, I see myself driven to the bold assertion of Volkmar, who makes the evangelist sit at the feet of Justin—a piece of daring which lands me in a historical absurdity. If I rightly shrink from so preposterous a view, and prefer to follow the thoughtful Keim in his more judicious estimate of the ecclesiastical testimonies and the relations of the time, then I obtain the very beginning of the second century as the period in which the work sprang up on the fruitful soil of the church of Asia Minor, as a plant Johannine indeed in spirit, but post-Johannine in origin. But from this position also I feel myself at once irresistibly driven. For I am now brought into such immediate contact with the days in which the aged apostolic pillar was still amongst the living, and see myself transported so entirely into the living presence of his numerous Asiatic disciples and admirers, that it cannot but appear to me an absolutely insoluble enigma how precisely then and there a non-Johannine work—one, moreover, so great and so divergent from the older Gospels—could have been issued and have passed into circulation under the name of the highly honoured apostle. Those disciples and admirers, amongst whom he, as the high priest, had worn the πέταλον , could not but know whether he had written a Gospel, and if so, of what kind; and with the sure tact of sympathy and of knowledge, based upon experience, they could not but have rejected what was not a genuine legacy from their apostle. Keim, indeed, ventures upon the bold attempt of calling altogether in question the fact that John had his sphere of labour in Asia Minor; but is not this denial, in face of the traditions of the church, in fact an impossibility? It is, and must remain so, as long as the truth of historical facts is determined by the criterion of historical testimony. Turning, then, from Volkmar to Keim, I see before my eyes the fate indicated by the old proverb: τὸν καπνὸν φεύγοντα εἰς τὸ πῦρ ἐκπίπτειν .

The necessary references have been made in the Introduction to the substantive grounds on which in recent years the assaults have been renewed against the authenticity of the Gospel, and there also the most recent apologetic literature upon the subject has been noticed. After all that has been said for and against up to the present time, I can have no hesitation in once more expressing my delight in the testimony of Luther—quoted now and again with an ironical smile—that “John’s Gospel is the only tender, right, chief Gospel, and is to be far preferred before the other three, and to be more highly esteemed.”1[1] In order to make the confession one’s own, it is not necessary to be either a servile follower of Luther or a special adherent of the immortal Schleiermacher. I am neither the one nor the other, and in particular I do not share the individual, peculiar motive, as such, which underlies the judgment of the former.

[1] 1 So Luther, in that section of his Preface to the New Testament containing the superscription, “Which are the right and noblest books of the New Testament?” This section, however, is wanting in the editions of the New Testament subsequent to 1539, as also in the edition of the whole Bible of 1534.

Since the publication of the fourth edition of my Commentary (1862), many expository works upon John and his system of doctrine, and among these several of marked importance, have seen the light, along with many other writings and disquisitions,[2] which serve, directly or indirectly, the purpose of exposition. I may venture to hope that the consideration which I have bestowed throughout upon these literary accessions, in which the one aim is followed with very varying gifts and powers, has not been without profit for the further development of my work, probably more by way of antagonism (especially towards Hengstenberg and Godet) than of agreement of opinion. In our like conscientious efforts after truth we learn from each other, even when our ways diverge.

[2] The essay of Riggenbach, “Johannes der Apostel und der Presbyter,” in the Jahrb. f. D. Theologie, 1868, p. 319 ff., came too late for me to be able to notice it. It will never be possible, I believe, to establish the identity of the apostle with the presbyter, and I entertain no doubt that Eusebius quite correctly understood the fragment of Papias in reference to this point.—To my regret, I was unable, also, to take into consideration Wittichen’s work, Ueber den geschichtlichen Charakter des Evang. Joh. The same remark applies to the third edition of Ebrard’s Kritik der evangel. Geschichte, which appeared in 1868, and in which I regret to observe a renewed display of the old vehemence of passion. Renan’s Life of Jesus, even as it has now appeared in its thirteenth edition, I have, as formerly, left out of consideration.—The first part of Holtzmann’s dissertation upon “The Literary Relation of John to the Synoptics” (Hilgen-feld’s Zeitschrift, 1869, p. 62 ff.) has just been published, and the conclusion is still to follow. Of course, before the latter appears, no well-founded judgment can be passed upon this essay of this acute theologian; but I have doubts whether it will ever be successfully shown that in the case of the fourth Gospel there is any dependence of a literary kind upon the Synoptics, especially upon the Gospel of Luke.

The statement of the readings of Tischendorf’s text I was obliged to borrow from the second edition of his Synopsis, for the reasons already mentioned in the preface to the fifth edition of my Commentary on Mark and Luke. The latest part of his editio octava, now in course of appearance, was published last September, and extends only to Joh_6:23, while the printing of my book had already advanced far beyond that point. I may add that the deviations in the text of this editio octava from that of the Synopsis in reference to the various readings noticed in my critical annotations down to Joh_6:23, are not numerous, and scarcely any of them are of importance exegetically. Of such a nature are those, in particular, in which this highly meritorious critic had in his Synopsis too hastily abandoned the Recepta,[3] and has now returned to it. I would fain think that this may also be the case in future with many other of the readings which he has now adopted, where apparently the Cod. Sinait. has possessed for him too great a power of attraction.[4]

[3] Joh_1:18, where the Synopsis has μονογενὴς θεός , the editio octava has restored ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός : Joh_3:13, where ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ was deleted in the Synopsis, these words have again been received into the text.

[4] E.g. with the reading θαυμάζετε in Joh_5:20; in the same way with φεύγει , which is found only in à of all the Codd. In the great predominance of testimonies against it, I regard the former as the error of an ancient copyist, while the latter appears to me as a marginal gloss, quite inappropriate to the strain of tender feeling in which John speaks of Jesus, which perhaps originated in a similar manner, as Chrysostom, while reading in the text ἀνεχώρησεν , says by way of explanation, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς φεύγει . Had φεύγει been the original reading, and had it been desired to replace it by a more becoming expression, then probably ἐξένευσεν from Joh_5:13, or ἀνῆλθεν in Joh_6:3, to which passage πάλιν in ver. 15 points back, would have most naturally suggested themselves.

In conclusion, I have to ask for this renewed labour of mine the goodwill of my readers,

I mean such a disposition and tone in judging of it as shall not prejudice the rights of critical truth, but shall yet with kind consideration weigh the difficulties which are connected with the solution of the task, either in itself, or amidst the rugged antagonisms of a time so vexed with controversy as the present. So long as God will preserve to me in my old age the necessary measure of strength, I shall continue my quiet co-operation, however small it may be, in the service of biblical exegesis. This science has in fact, amid the dark tempests of our theological and ecclesiastical crisis, in face of all the agitations and extravagances to the right and left, the clear and lofty vocation gradually, by means of its results,—which are only to be obtained with certainty through a purely historical method, and which are not to be settled by any human confession of faith,—to make such contributions to the tumult of strife as must determine the course of a sound development, and finally form the standard of its settlement and the regulative basis of peace. And what writing of the New Testament can in such a relation stand higher, or be destined to produce a more effective union of spirits, than the wondrous Gospel of John, with its fulness of grace, truth, peace, light, and life? Our Lutheran Church, which was born with a declaration of war and had its confession completed amid controversy from without and within, has raised itself far too little to the serene height and tranquil perfection of this Gospel.

DR. MEYER.

HANOVER, 1st December 1868.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Introduction

SEC. I.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF JOHN

J OHN’S parents were Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, probably not of the poorer class (Mar_1:20; Luk_5:10), and Salome (Mar_15:40; comp. Mat_27:56). To his father the evangelists ascribe no special religious character or personal participation in the events of the Gospel history; but his mother was one of the women who followed Jesus even up to His crucifixion (comp. on Joh_19:25). To her piety, therefore, it is justly attributable that John’s deeply receptive spirit was early fostered and trained to surrender itself to the sacredly cherished, and at that time vividly excited expectation of the Messiah, with its moral claims, so far at least as such a result might be produced by a training which was certainly not of a learned character. (Act_4:13.) If, too, as we may infer from Joh_19:25, Salome was a sister of the mother of Jesus, his near relationship to Jesus would enable us better to understand the close fellowship of spirit between them, though the evangelists are quite silent as to any early intimacy between the families; and in any case, higher inward sympathy was the essential source out of which that fellowship of spirit unfolded itself. The entrance of the Baptist on his public ministry—to whom John had attached himself, and whose prophetical character and labours he has described most clearly and fully—was the occasion of his becoming one of the followers of Jesus, of whom he and Andrew were the first disciples (Joh_1:35 f.). Among these, again, he and Peter, and his own brother James the elder, brought by himself to Jesus (see on Joh_1:42), formed the select company of the Lord’s more intimate friends; he himself being the most trusted of all,[5] the one whom Jesus pre-eminently loved, and to whose filial care He on the cross entrusted Mary (Joh_19:26). Hence the ardent, impetuous disposition, which led the Lord Himself to give to him and his brother the name Boanerges, and which he exhibited on more than one occasion (Mar_3:17; Mar_9:38 ff.; Luk_9:49 f., 54),—connected even though it was with an ambition which his mother had fostered by her sensuous Messianic notions, Mat_20:20 ff.; Mar_10:35 ff.),—is by no means to be deemed of such a character as to be incapable of gradually subjecting itself to the mind of Jesus, and becoming serviceable to its highest aims. After the ascension he abode, save perhaps when engaged on some minor apostolical journey (such as that to Samaria, Act_8:14), at Jerusalem, where Paul met with him as one of the three pillars of the Christian church (Gal_2:1 ff.). How long he remained in this city cannot, amid the uncertainty of tradition, be determined; and, indeed, it is not even certain whether he had already left the city when Paul was last there. He is certainly not mentioned in Act_21:18, but neither is he in Acts 15, though we know from Gal_2:1 ff. that he nevertheless was present; and therefore, as on the occasion of Gal_1:19, so on that of Acts 21, he may have been temporarily absent. In after years he took up his abode at Ephesus (Iren. Haer. iii. 3. 4; Euseb. iii. 1. 23),[6] probably only after the destruction of Jerusalem; not by any means, however, before Paul had laboured in Ephesus (Rom_15:20; 2Co_10:16; Gal_2:7 f.), although it cannot be maintained with certainty that he had not even been there before Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians: for, in the enigmatic silence of this epistle as to all personal references, such a conclusion from the non-mention of his name is doubtful.

[5] On account of his devoted love to the person of the Lord, on which Grotius finely remarks: “Quod olim Alexandrum de amicis suis dixisse memorant, alium esse φιλαλέξανδρον , alium φιλοβασιλέα , putem ad duos Domini Jesu apostolos posse aptari, ut Petrum dicamus maxime φιλόχριστον , Johannem maxime φιλοιησοῦν , … quod et Dominus respiciens illi quidem ecclesiam praecipuo quodam modo, huic autem matrem commendavit.”

[6] It is no argument at all against this, that Ignat. ad Ephes. 12 mentions Paul, but not John; for Paul is mentioned there as the founder of the church at Ephesus, and as martyr,—neither of which holds good of John. Besides, this silence is far outweighed by the testimonies of Polycarp in Irenaeus, Polycrates in Euseb., Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, etc. To account for these, as Keim in particular now attempts to do (Gesch. J. I. p. 161 ff.), by supposing some confusion of John the Presbyter with the Apostle John, is in my opinion futile, simply because the silence of Papias as to the apostle’s residence in Asia proves nothing (he does not mention the residence of any of the Lord’s apostles and disciples, to whom he makes reference), and because it seems scarcely conceivable that Irenaeus should have so misinterpreted what Polycarp said to him in his youth regarding his intimacy with John, as to suppose he spoke of the Apostle, when in fact he only spoke of the Presbyter of that name. It is pure caprice to assume that Eusebius “lacked the courage” to correct Irenaeus. Why so? See, on the other hand, Steitz in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1868, p. 502 ff.

The distinguished official authority with which he was invested at Ephesus, the spiritual elevation and sanctity ascribed to him, cannot be better indicated than by the fact that Polycrates (Euseb. iii. 31, v. 24) not only reckons him among the μεγάλα στοιχεῖα (great fundamental elements of the church; comp. Gal_2:9), but also calls him ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον [7] πεφορηκώς . Of his subsequent fortunes we have only untrustworthy and sometimes manifestly false traditions, amongst the latter of which is one based on Rev_1:9,[8] but unknown even to Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. iii. 20), of his banishment to Patmos under Domitian (first mentioned by Irenaeus and Clem. Alex.),—an event said to have been preceded by others of a marvellous kind, such as his drinking poison at Rome without injury (see especially the Acta Johannis in Tischendorf’s Acta Apocr. p. 266 ff.), and his being thrown into boiling oil, from which, however, he came out “nihil passus” (Tertullian), nay, even “purior et vegetior” (Jerome). The legend is also untrustworthy of his encounter with Cerinthus in a bath, the falling in of which he is said to have foreseen and avoided in time (Iren. Haer. iii. 3. 28; Euseb. iii. 28, iv. 14); it is only indirectly traceable to Polycarp, and betrays a purpose of glorifying the apostle at the expense of the heretic, although there may be little ground for the assertion that it is only what we should expect from the author of the Apocalypse (Baur, Kanon. Evang. p. 371). The great age to which John attained, which is variously stated,—according to Irenaeus, Eusebius, and others, about a hundred years, reaching down to Trajan’s time,—gave some countenance to the saying (Joh_21:23) that he should not see death; and this again led to the report that his death, which at last took place at Ephesus, was only a slumber, his breath still moving the earth on his grave (Augustine). In harmony, however, with a true idea of his character, though historically uncertain, and first vouched for by Jerome on Gal_6:10,[9] is the statement that, in the weakness of old age, he used merely to say in the Christian assemblies, Filioli, diligite alterutrum. For love was the most potent element of his nature, which had been sustained by the truest, deepest, and most affectionate communion in heart and life with Christ. In this communion John, nurtured in the heart of Jesus, discloses, as no other evangelist, the Lord’s innermost life, in a contemplative but yet practical manner, with a profound idealizing mysticism, though far removed from all mere fiction and visionary enthusiasm; like a bright mirror, faithfully reflecting the most delicate features of the full glory of the Incarnate One (Joh_1:14; 1Jn_1:1); tender and humble, yet without sentimentalism, and with the full and resolute earnestness of apostolical energy. In the centre of the church life of Asia he shone with the splendour of a spiritual high-priesthood, the representative of all true Christian Gnosis, and personally a very παρθένιος (“virgo mente et corpore,” Augustine) in all moral purity. From the startingpoint of an apostle of the Jews, on which he stands in contrast (Gal_2:9) with the apostle of the Gentiles, he rose to the purest universalism, such as we meet with only in Paul, but with a clear, calm elevation above strife and conflict; as the last of the apostles, going beyond not only Judaism, but even Paul himself, and interpreting most completely out of his own lengthened, pure, and rich experience, the life and the light made manifest in Christ. He it is who connects Christianity in its fullest development with the person of Christ,—a legacy to the church for all time, of peace, union, and ever advancing moral perfection; among the apostles the true Gnostic, in opposition to all false Gnosticism of the age; the prophet among the evangelists, although not the seer of the Apocalypse. “The personality of John,” says Thiersch (die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 273), “left far deeper traces of itself in the church than that of any other of Christ’s disciples. Paul laboured more than they all, but John stamped his image most profoundly upon her;” the former in the mighty struggle for the victory, which overcometh the world; the latter in the sublime and, for the whole future of the gospel, decisive celebration of the victory which has overcome it.

[7] The plate of gold worn by the high priest on his forehead. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 393 f., ed. 3; Knobel on Exo_28:36. The phrase used by Polycrates is not to be taken as signifying relationship to a priestly family (Joh_18:15; Luk_1:36), but as symbolic of high spiritual position in the church, just as it is also used of James the Lord’s brother in Epiphanius, Haer. xxix. 4. Compare now also Ewald, Johann. Schriften, II. p. 401 f.

[8] See especially Düsterdieck on the Revelation, Introduction, p. 92 ff.

[9] Earlier attested (Clemens, Quis div. salv. 42) is the equally characteristic legend (Clement calls it μῦθον οὐ μῦθον , ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον ) of a young man, formerly converted by the apostle’s labours, who lapsed and became a leader of robbers, by whose band John, after his return from Patmos, voluntarily allowed himself to be taken prisoner in order to bring their captain back to Christ, which he succeeded in doing by the mere power of his presence. The robber chief, as Clement says, was baptized a second time by his tears of penitence. Comp. Herder’s legend “der gerettete Jüngling” in his Werke z. schön. Lit. vi. p. 81, ed. 1827.

SEC. II.—GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL

With regard to the external testimonies, we remark the following:—

1. Chap. 21 could only serve as a testimony, if it proceeded altogether from another hand, or if the obviously spurious conclusion should be made to include Joh_21:24. See, however, on John 21 – 2Pe_1:14 also, and the Gospel of Mark, cannot be adduced as testimonies; since the former passage cannot be shown to refer to Joh_21:18 f., while the second Gospel was certainly written much earlier than the fourth.

2. In the apostolical Fathers[10] we meet with no express quotation from, or sure trace of any use of, the Gospel. Barnabas 5, 6, 12 (comp. Joh_3:14), and other echoes of John in this confused anti-Judaizing epistle, to which too great importance is attached by Keim, as well as Herm. Past. Simil. 9, 12 (comp. Joh_10:7; Joh_10:9; Joh_14:6), Ignat. ad Philad. (comp. Joh_3:8) 9 (comp. Joh_10:9), ad Trall. 8 (comp. Joh_6:51), ad Magnes. 8 (comp. Joh_10:30; Joh_12:49; Joh_14:11), ad Romans 7 (Joh_6:32 ff; Joh_7:38 f.), are so adequately explained by tradition, and the common types of view and terminology of the apostolical age, that it is very unsafe to attribute them to some definite written source. Nor does what is said in Ignat. ad Romans 7, and ad Trall. 8, of Christ’s flesh and blood, furnish any valid exception to this view, since the origin of the mystical conception of the σάρξ of Christ is not necessarily due to its dissemination through this Gospel, although it does not occur in the Synoptics (in opposition to Rothe, Anfänge d. Chr. Kirch. p. 715 ff.; Huther, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. 1841, iv. p. 1 ff.; Ebrard, Evang. Joh. p. 102; Kritik d. evang. Gesch. ed. 2, p. 840 ff.; Tischend. Ewald Jahrb. V. p. 188, etc.). Hence the question as to the genuineness of the several epistles of Ignatius, and their texts, may here be altogether left out of consideration. Just as little from the testimony of Irenaeus ad Florin. (ap. Eus. v. 20) to Polycarp, that in all the latter said of Christ he spoke σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς , may we infer any use of our Gospel on Polycarp’s part, considering the generality of this expression, which, moreover, merely sets forth Irenaeus’ opinion, and does not necessarily mean New Testament writings. When, again, Irenaeus (Hœr. v. 36. 1 f.) quotes an interpretation given by the “presbyteri apostolorum discipuli” of the saying in Joh_14:2 (“In my Father’s house,” etc.), it must remain doubtful whether these presbyteri knew that saying from our Gospel or from apostolical tradition, since Irenaeus quotes their opinion simply with the general words: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν κύριον .

[10] It is true that Barnabas, 4, quotes, with the formula sicut scriptum est (which is confirmed, against Credner, by the Greek text of the Codex Sinaiticus), a passage from Matthew (Mat_20:16, Mat_22:14; not 2Es_8:3, as Volkmar maintains). To find, however, in this alone canonical confirmation of the fourth Gospel (Tischendorf) is too rash a conclusion, since the close joint relation of the four, as composing one fourfold Gospel, cannot be proved so early as the apostolical Fathers; nor do even Justin’s citations exhibit any such corpus evangelicum. Besides, that very remarkable us ὡς γέγραπται makes it probable that the passage in Matthew may have erroneously appeared to the writer of the epistle as taken from the Old Testament.—Again, it is incorrect to say (with Volkmar) that the citation in Barnabas 5 of Psa_22:21 tells against our Gospel, since that citation has no bearing on the spear-thrust spoken of in Joh_19:34, but simply refers to death on the cross as such, in contrast with death by the sword.

3. Of indirect but decided importance, on the other hand,—assuming, that is, what in spite of the doubts still raised by Scholten must be regarded as certain, that the Gospel and First Epistle of John are from one author,—is the use which, according to Euseb. iii. 39, Papias[11] made of the First Epistle. That in the fragment of Papias no mention is made of our Gospel, should not be still continually urged (Baur, Zeller, Hilgenf., Volkmar, Scholten) as a proof, either that he did not know it, or at least did not acknowledge its authority (see below, No. 8). Decisive stress may also be laid on Polycarp, ad Phil. 7 ( πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός ἐστι ), as a quotation from 1Jn_4:3; Polycarp’s chapter containing it being unquestionably genuine, and free from the interpolations occurring elsewhere in the Epistle. It is true that it may be said, “What can such general sentences, which may have circulated anonymously, prove?” (Baur, Kanon. Evangel. p. 350); but it may be answered that that characteristic type of this fundamental article of the Christian system, which in the above form is quite peculiar to the First Epistle of John, points to the evangelist in the case of no one more naturally than of Polycarp, who was for so many years his disciple (comp. Ewald, Johann. Schriften, II. p. 395). It is nothing less than an unhistorical inversion of the relations between them, when some (Bretschneider, and again Volkmar) represent John’s Epistle as dependent on Polycarp’s, while Scholten tries to make out a difference in the application and sense of the respective passages.

[11] A disciple of the Presbyter John. From the fragments of Papias in Eusebius, it is abundantly clear that he mentions two different disciples of the Lord called John,—John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, who was not one of the twelve, but simply a disciple, like Aristion. The attempt to make the Presbyter, in the quotation from Papias, no other than the Apostle, leads only to useless controversy. See especially Overbeck in Hilgenteld’s Zeitschr. 1867, p. 35 ff.; Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 63 ff., in opposition to Zahn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, pp. 649 ff.

4. It is true that Justin Martyr, in his citations from the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων (“ ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια ,” Apol. I. 66), which also served as church lessons,[12] has not used our canonical Gospels exclusively (the older view, and still substantially held by Bindemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 355 ff., and Semisch, d. apost. Denkw. Justins, 1848; also by Luthardt, Tischendorf, and Riggenbach); but neither has he used merely an “uncanonical” Gospel (Schwegler), or chiefly such a one (Credner, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld), as was “a special recension of that Gospel to the Hebrews which assumed so many forms” (Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 9). For he used not only our canonical Gospels, but also in addition other evangelic writings now lost, which—rightly or wrongly—he must have looked upon as proceeding from the apostles, or from disciples of theirs (comp. Tryph. 103: ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν , ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι ); and hence his variations from our canonical Gospels hardly agree more than once or twice with the Clementines. His Apologies certainly belong (see Apol. i. 46) to somewhere about the middle of the second century.[13] His citations, even when they can be referred to our canonical Gospels, are generally free, so that it is often doubtful where he got them. (See Credner, Beitr. I. p. 151 ff.; Frank, in the Würtemb. Stud. XVIII. p. 61 ff.; Hilgenf. Krit. Untersuch. üb. die Evang. Justins, etc., 1850; Volkmar ueber Justin.) From Matthew and Luke only five are verbally exact. He has also borrowed from John,[14] and indeed so evidently, that those who would deny this are in consistency obliged, with Volkmar, to represent John as making use of Justin, which is an absurdity. See Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 137 ff. It is true that some have found in too many passages references to this Gospel, or quotations from it (see against this, Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 600 ff.); still we may assume it as certain, that as, in general, Justin’s whole style of thought and expression implies the existence of John’s writings (comp. Ewald, Jahrb. V. p. 186 f.), so, in the same way, must the mass of those passages in particular be estimated, which, in spite of all variations arising from his Alexandrine recasting of the dogma, correspond with John’s doctrine of the Logos.[15] For Justin was conscious that his doctrine, especially that of the Logos, which was the central point in his Christology, had an apostolic basis,[16] just as the ancient church in general, either expressly or as a matter of course, traced the origin of its doctrine of the Logos to John. It is therefore unhistorical, in the special case of Justin, merely to point to an acquaintance with Philo, and to the Logos-speculations and Gnostic ideas of the age generally (against Zeller, Baur, Hilgenf., Scholten, and many others), or to satisfy oneself possibly with the assumption that Paul furnished him with the premisses for his doctrine (Grimm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 687 ff.), or even to make the fourth evangelist a pupil of Justin (Volkmar). It seems, moreover, certain that Apol. i. 61, καὶ γὰρ Χριστὸς εἶπεν · ἄν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε , οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν . Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι , φανερὸν πᾶσίν ἐστι , is derived from Joh_3:3-5. See especially Semisch, p. 189 ff.; Luthardt, l.c. XXXII. p. 93 ff.; Riggenb. p. 166 ff. It is true, some have assigned this quotation, through the medium of Mat_18:3, to the Gospel to the Hebrews, or some other uncanonical evangelic writing (Credner, Schwegler, Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten), or have treated it as a more original form of the mere oral tradition (see Baur, against Luthardt, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 232). But in the face of Justin’s free manner of quoting, to which we must attribute the ἀναγενν . instead of ΓΕΝΝ . ἌΝΩΘΕΝ ,

ἌΝΩΘΕΝ being taken, according to the common ancient view, in the sense of denuo (comp. also Clem. Recogn. vi. 9),—this is most arbitrary, especially when Justin himself gives prominence to the impossibility of a second natural birth. Moreover, in the second half of the quotation ( οὐ μὴ εἰσελθ . εἰς τ . βασιλ . τῶν οὐρ .), some reminiscence of Mat_18:3 might easily occur; just as, in fact, several very ancient witnesses (among the Codices, à *) read in John l.c. βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν , the Pseudo-Clemens (Homil. xi. 26), by quoting the second half exactly in this way, and in the first half adding after ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝ . the words ὝΔΑΤΙ ΖῶΝΤΙ ΕἸς ὌΝΟΜΑ ΠΑΤΡῸς , ΥἹΟῦ , ἉΓΊΟΥ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς , exhibits a free combination of Mat_28:19; Mat_18:3. Other passages of Justin, which some have regarded as allusions to or quotations from John, may just as fitly be derived from evangelic tradition to be found elsewhere, and from Christian views generally; and this must even be conceded of such passages as c. Tryph. 88 (Joh_1:20 ff.), de res. 9 (Joh_5:27), Apol. I. 6 (Joh_4:24), Apol. I. 22 and c. Tryph. 69 (Joh_9:1), c. Tryph. 17 (Joh_1:4). However, it is most natural, when once we have been obliged to assume in Justin’s case the knowledge and use of our Gospel, to attribute to it other expressions also which exhibit Johannean peculiarities, and not to stop at Apol. I. 61 merely (against Frank). On the other hand, the remarkable resemblance of the quotation from Zec_12:10 in Joh_19:37 and Apol. I. 52, leaves it doubtful whether Justin derived it from John’s Gospel (Semisch, Luthardt, Tisch., Riggenb.), or from one of the variations of the LXX. already existing at that time (Grimm, l.c. p. 692 f.), or again, as is most probable, from the original Hebrew, as is the case in Rev_1:7. It is true that the Epistle to Diognetus, which, though not composed by Justin, was certainly contemporary with and probably even prior to him, implies the existence of John’s Gospel in certain passages of the concluding portion, which very distinctly re-echo John’s Logos-doctrine (see especially Zeller, l.c. p. 618, and Credner, Gesch. d. neut. Kanon, p. 58 ff.); but this conclusion (chapp. 11, 12) is a later appendix, probably belonging to the third century at the earliest. Other references to our Gospel in the Epistle are uncertain.

[12] For the course of the discussions upon Justin’s quotations, and the literature of the subject, see Volkmar, Ueb. Justin d. M. u. s. Verh. z. uns. Evangelien, 1853; Hilgenfeld, Evangelien, 1855; Volkmar, Urspr. d. Evang. 1866, p. 92 ff. See also in particular, Luthardt, Justin d. M. u. d. Joh. Evang., in the Erlanger Zeitschr. f. Protest. u. K. 1856, xxxi. parts 4–6, xxxii. parts 1 and 2; Ewald, Jahrb. VI. 59 ff.; Riggenbach, Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Joh. p. 139 ff.

[13] The controversy as to the date of the first Apology (Semisch, A.D. 138–139; Volkmar, about 147; Keim, 155–160) need not here be discussed, since in any case our Gospel is in the same position as the Synoptics, so far as Justin’s use and estimate of it are concerned.

[14] He has made most use of Matthew, and then of the Pauline Luke, but also of Mark. That he has taken very little comparatively from John, seems to be due to the same reason as his silence in respect of Paul, which is not tantamount to an exclusion of the apostle of the Gentiles; for he is rich in Pauline ideas, and there can be no mistake as to his knowledge of Paul’s epistles (Semisch, p. 123 ff.). It is probably to be explained by prudential consideration for the antagonism of the Jewish Christians to Paul’s (and John’s) anti-Judaism. In the obvious possibility of this circumstance, it is too rash to conclude that this Gospel had not yet won the high authority which it could not have failed to have, had it really been a work of the apostle (Weisse, d. Evangelienfr. p. 129); or even, that “had Justin known the fourth Gospel, he would have made, not only repeated and ready, but even preferential use of it. To assume, therefore, the use of only one passage from it on Justin’s part, is really to concede the point” (Volkmar, üb. Justin, p. 50 f.; Zeller, p. 650). The Clementine Homilies (see hereafter under 5) furnish an analogous phenomenon, in that they certainly knew and used our Gospel, while yet borrowing very little from it. The synoptic evangelic literature was the older and more widely diffused; it had already become familiar to the most diverse Christian circles (comp. Luk_1:1), when John’s Gospel, which was so very dissimilar and peculiar, and if not esoteric (Weizsäcker), certainly antichiliastic (Keim), made its appearance. How conceivable that the latter, though the work of an apostle, should only very gradually have obtained general recognition and equal authority with the Synoptics among the Jewish Christians? how conceivable, therefore, also, that a man like Justin, though no Judaizer, should have hesitated to quote from it in the same degree as he did from the Synoptics, and the other writings connected with the Synoptic cycle of narratives? The assumption that he had no occasion to refer frequently and expressly to John (Luthardt, op. cit. p. 398) is inadmissible. He might often enough, where he has other quotations, have quoted quite as appropriately from John.

[15] See Duncker, d. Logoslehre Justins d. M., Göttingen 1848, and Luthardt as above, xxxii. pp. 69 ff., 75 ff.; Weizsäcker in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 703 ff.; Tischendorf, wann wurden uns. Ev. verf. p. 31 ff., ed. 4; Weizsäcker, d. Theol. d. M. Just., in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p. 78 ff. Great weight is due to Justin’s doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos (Apol. i. 32, 66; c. Tryph. 100), which is foreign to the system of Philo, etc., and is specially Johannean.

[16] Hence his frequent reference to the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων . On one occasion led to do so casually, because he is speaking directly of Peter, he refers definitely to the ἀπομνημονεύματα τοῦ Πετροῦ (c. Tryph. 106: μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ , κ . τ . λ .). Here Credner (Beitr. I. p. 132; Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 17) quite correctly referred αὐτοῦ to ΙΙέτρον (Lücke conjectures that αὐτοῦ is spurious, or that τῶν ἀποστόλων is to be inserted, so that αὐτοῦ would refer to Jesus), but he understood these ἀπομν . to be the apocryphal Gospel of Peter,—the more groundlessly, that the substance of Justin’s quotation is from Mar_3:17; Justin understood by ἀπομνη . τοῦ Πετροῦ the Gospel of Mark. So also Luthardt, op. cit. xxxi. p. 316 ff.; Weiss, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 677; Riggenb. and others; comp. Volkmar, Urspr. d. Evang. p. 154. According to Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 5, “Marcus quod edidit evangelium, Petri adfirmatur, cujus interpres Marcus.” Comp. Irenaeus also, 3:10. 6, 3:1. 1. According to this, compared with what Papias says of Mark, Justin might have expressed himself exactly as he has done. With respect to the controversy on the subject, see Hilgenfeld, Krit. Unters. p. 23 ff., and Luthardt, l.c.; comp. on Mark, Introduction. Notice also how unfavourable the passage seems to the notion that Justin’s Memorials are a compilation (Ewald and others).

5. To the testimonies of the second century, within the church, the Clavis of Melito of Sardis certainly does not belong (in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, Paris 1852), since this pretended κλείς , wherein the passages Joh_15:5; Joh_6:54; Joh_12:24, are quoted as contained “in Evangelio,” is a much later compilation (see Steitz, Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 584 ff.), but they include the Epistle of the Churches at Vienne and Lyons (Eus. v. 1), where Joh_16:2 is quoted as a saying of the Lord’s, and the Spirit is designated the Paraclete: Tatian, Justin’s disciple, ad Graec. 13, where Joh_1:5 is cited as to τὸ εἰρημένον ; chap. 19, where we have indications of an acquaintance with John’s prologue (comp. chap. 5); and chap. 4, πνεῦμα ὁ θεός , compared with Joh_4:24; also the Diatessaron of this Tatian,[17] which is based on the canon of the four Gospels, certainly including that of John: Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 10, which is based upon a knowledge of John’s prologue and of Joh_17:21-23 : Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, in a Fragment in the Paschal Chronicle, ed. Dindorf, p. 14 ( ὁ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντηθεὶς ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο πάλιν καθάρσια ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα · λόγον κ . πνεῦμα , comp. Joh_19:34), where Baur, of course, takes refuge in a tradition older than our Gospel; also in another Fragment in the same work ( ὍΘΕΝ ἈΣΥΜΦΏΝΩς ΤῈ ΝΌΜῼ Ἡ ΝΌΗΣΙς ΑὐΤῶΝ