naum (iv. 47); Aenon is near to Salim,' and there are 'many waters' there (iii. 23); Sychar is 'a city of Samaria, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there' (iv. 5); Ephraim is a city 'near to the wilderness' (xi. 54). Comp. the minute local knowledge implied in vi. 22-24, iv. 11, 12, 20, ii. 12.

This familiarity with topography is the more remarkable in the case of Jerusalem, which (as all are agreed) was destroyed before the Fourth Gospel was written. He knows of the traffic in the Temple and of what it consisted (ii. 6); Bethesda is 'a pool by the sheep-gate, having five porches' (v. 2); Siloam is 'a pool, which is by interpretation Sent' (ix. 7); Solomon's porch is "in the Temple' (x. 23). Comp. the minute knowledge of the city and suburbs implied in viii. 20, xi. 18, xviii. 1, 28, xix. 13, 17—20, 41, 42.

The way in which the author quotes the O. T. points to the same conclusion. He is not dependent on the LXX. for his knowledge of the Scriptures, as a Greek-speaking Jew born out of Palestine would very likely have been: he appears to know the original Hebrew, which had become a dead language, and was not much studied outside Palestine. Out of fourteen quotations three agree with the Hebrew against the LXX. (vi. 45, xiii. 18, xix. 37); not one agrees with the LXX. against the Hebrew. The majority are neutral, either agreeing with both, or differing from both, or being free adaptations rather than citations. (See also on xii. 13, 15.)

The Evangelist's doctrine of the Logos or Word confirms us in the belief that he is a Jew of Palestine. The form which this doctrine assumes in the Prologue is Palestinian rather than Alexandrian. (See note on 'the Word,' i. 1.)

THE EVANGELIST WAS AN EYEWITNESS OF MOST OF THE EVENTS

WHICH HE RELATES.

The narrative is crowded with figures, which are no mere nonentities to fill up space, but which live and move. Where they appear on the scene more than once, their action throughout

is harmonious, and their characteristics are indicated with a simplicity and distinctness which would be the most consummate art if it were not taken from real life. And where in the literature of the second century can we find such skilful delineation of fictitious characters as is shewn in the portraits given to us of the Baptist, the beloved disciple, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, Nicodemus, Martha and Mary, the Samaritan woman, the man born blind? Even the less prominent persons are thoroughly lifelike and real; Nathanael, Judas not Iscariot, Caiaphas, Annas, Mary Magdalene, Joseph.

Exact notes of time are frequent; not only seasons, as the Jewish Feasts noticed above, but days (i. 29, 35, 43, ii. 1, iv. 40, 43, vi. 22, vii. 14, 37, xi. 6, 17, 39, xii. 1, 12, xix. 31, xx. 1, 26) and hours (i. 39, iv. 6, 52, xix. 14; comp. iii. 2, vi. 16, xiii. 30, xviii. 28, xx. 1, 19, xxi. 4).

The Evangelist sometimes knows the exact or approximate number of persons (i. 35, iv. 18, vi. 10, xix. 23) and objects (ii. 6, vi. 9, 19, xix. 39, xxi. 8, 11) mentioned in his narrative.

Throughout the Gospel we have examples of graphic and vivid description, which would be astounding if they were not the result of personal observation. Strong instances' of this would be the accounts of the cleansing of the Temple (ii. 14—16), the feeding of the 5000 (vi. 5—14), the healing of the man born blind (ix. 6, 7), the feet-washing (xiii. 4, 5, 12), the betrayal (xviii. 1-13), almost all the details of the Passion (xviii., xix.), the visit to the sepulchre (xx. 3—8).

To this it must be added that the state of the text of the Gospel, as we find it quoted by early writers, shews that before the end of the second century there were already a great many variations of readings in existence. Such things take time to arise and multiply. This consideration compels us to believe that the original document must have been made at a time when eyewitnesses of the Gospel history were still living. See notes on i. 13, 18, vii. 8 and ix. 35.

THE EVANGELIST WAS AN APOSTLE.

He knows the thoughts of the disciples on certain occasions, thoughts which sometimes surprise us, and which no writer of fiction would have attributed to them (ii. 11, 17, 22, iv. 27, vi. 19, 60, xii. 16, xiii. 22, 28, xx. 9, xxi. 12). He knows also words that were spoken by the disciples in private to Christ or among themselves (iv. 31, 33, ix. 2, xi. 8, 12, 16, xvi. 17, 29). He is familiar with the haunts of the disciples (xi. 54, xviii. 2, xx. 19). Above all, he is one who was very intimate with the Lord; for he knows His motives (ii. 24, 25, iv. 1—3, v. 6, vi. 6, 15, vii. 1, xiii. 1, 3, 11, xvi. 19, xviii. 4, xix. 28) and can bear witness to His feelings (xi. 33, 38, xiii. 21).

THE EVANGELIST WAS THE APOSTLE S. JOHN.

The contents of the two previous sections are almost sufficient to prove this last point. We know from the Synoptists that three disciples were specially intimate with Jesus, Peter, James, and his brother John. S. Peter cannot be our Evangelist: he was put to death long before the very earliest date to which the Fourth Gospel can be assigned. Moreover the style of the Gospel is quite unlike the undoubted First Epistle of S. Peter. Still less can S. James be the author, for he was martyred long before S. Peter. Only S. John remains, and he not only entirely fits in with the details already noticed, but also having long outlived the rest of the Apostles he is the one person who could have written a Gospel considerably later in date than the other three. But we have not yet exhausted the evidence. The concluding note (xxi. 24) declares that the Gospel was written by 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (nyáña, xxi. 20). This disciple is mentioned in three other places under the same title (xiii. 23, xix. 26, xxi. 7;—xx. 2 is different). He is some one who is intimate with S. Peter (xiii. 24, xxi. 7; comp. xviii. 15, xx. 2), and this we already know from the Synoptists that S. John was, and we learn from the Acts that he remained so (iii. 1, 3, 11, iv. 13, 19, viii. 14). He is one of those enumerated in xxi. 1,

and unless he is one of the two unnamed disciples he must be S. John.

One more point, a small one, but of very great significance, remains. The Fourth Evangelist carefully distinguishes places and persons. He distinguishes Cana 'of Galilee' (ii. 1, xxi. 2) from Cana of Asher; Bethany 'beyond Jordan' (i. 28) from Bethany 'nigh unto Jerusalem' (xi. 18); Bethsaida, 'the city of Andrew and Peter' (i. 44), from Bethsaida Julias. He distinguishes also Simon Peter after his call from others named Simon by invariably adding the new name Peter, whereas the Synoptists often call him simply Simon. The traitor Judas is distinguished as the 'son of Simon' (vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26) from the other Judas, who is expressly said to be 'not Iscariot' (xiv. 22), while the Synoptists take no notice of the traitor's parentage. S. Thomas is thrice for the sake of additional clearness pointed out as the same who was called Didymus (xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2), a name not given by the Synoptists. Comp. the careful identification of Nicodemus (xix. 39) and of Caiaphas (xi. 49, xviii. 13). And yet the Fourth Evangelist altogether neglects to make a distinction which the Synoptists do make. They distinguish John the son of Zebedee from his namesake by frequently calling the latter 'the Baptist' (more than a dozen times in all). The Fourth Evangelist never does so; to him the Baptist is simply 'John.' He himself being the other John, there is for him no chance of confusion, and it does not occur to him to mark the distinction.

iii. Answers to objections.

We are now on too firm ground to be shaken by isolated difficulties. It would take a great many difficulties of detail to counterbalance the difficulty of believing that the Fourth Gospel was written by some one who was neither an Apostle nor even a contemporary. But there are certain difficulties supposed to be involved in the theory that the Evangelist is S. John the Apostle, some of which are important and deserve a separate answer. They are mainly these ;-

(1) The marked dissimilarity between the Fourth Gospel

and the three others.

(2) The marked dissimilarity between the Fourth Gospel and the Revelation.

(3) The difficulty of believing that S. John (a) would have "studiously elevated himself in every way above the Apostle Peter;" (b) would have magnified himself above all as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.'

(4) The use made by S. Polycarp of S. John's authority in the Paschal controversy.

(1) The answer to the first of these objections will be found below in Chapter VI. of the Introduction, and in the introductory note to Chapter iii. of the Gospel.

(2) The answer to the second belongs rather to the Introduction to the Apocalypse. The answer to it is to a large extent a further answer to the first objection; for "the Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel" (Westcott). The Gospel is a summary of Christian Theology; the Apocalypse is a summary of Christian Politics. The one exhibits the ideal life in God in the perfect Man, the other exhibits it in the perfect community. Great as are the differences between the two, the leading ideas of both are the same. The one gives us in a magnificent vision, the other in a great historic drama, the supreme conflict between good and evil and its issue. In both Jesus Christ is the central figure, whose victory through defeat is the issue of the conflict. In both the Jewish dispensation is the preparation for the Gospel, and the warfare and triumph of the Christ is described in language saturated with the O. T. Some remarkable similarities of detail will be pointed out in the notes (see on i. 14; iv. 6; vii. 30; xi. 44; xiii. 8; xv. 20; xix. 13, 17, 20, 37). Difference of date will go a long way towards explaining the great difference of style. And there are good reasons for believing that the Apocalypse was written early in S. John's life, before he had mastered the Greek language, and the Gospel and Epistle late in his life, after he had done so.

(3 a) The question, 'How could S. John have studiously elevated himself in every way above the Apostle Peter?' reminds

ST JOHN

с