2.Einleitung in d. N. T., 3rd ed., 1897; Das Johannes-Evangelium, 9th ed. (4th of those undertaken by Dr. Weiss), 1892.

3.For Beyschlag’s treatment of the Fourth Gospel see Zur johanneischen Frage, reprinted from Theol. Studien und Kritiken (Gotha, 1876); Neutest. Theologie (Halle a. S., 1891), i. 212-19; Leben Jesu (3rd ed., Halle, 1893).

4.English readers may be reminded that Dr. Ezra Abbot was an American Unitarian who died in 1884. He was a leading member of the American Committee which joined in the production of the Revised Version, and, after serving as Assistant Librarian, became Professor of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University in 1872. He was a scholar of retiring habits, and was one of those who spend in helping and improving the work of others time that might have been given to great work of their own. His literary remains were religiously collected after his death.

5.Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters, p. 92 f.

6.The writings of Dr. Delff that bear upon the subject of the Fourth Gospel are Die Geschichte d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth (Leipzig, n. d., but the preface is dated 1889); Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt (Husum, 1890); Neue BeitrÄge zur Kritik und ErklÄrung des vierten Evangeliums (Husum, 1890).

7.Bousset thinks that this may mean ‘related to’ the high priest (Offenb. p. 46 n.); but this is questioned by Zahn (Einl. ii. 483).

8.This book is not to be confused with Die urchristlichen Gemeinden published two years earlier, and now translated under the title Christian Life in the Primitive Church.

9.Professor Harnack gave a lecture, which I was privileged to hear, at the Union Seminary on October 10, 1904.

10.Das vierte Evang. p. 12 ff.

11.Enc. Bibl. ii. 2555.

12.New Light, &c., p. 149.

13.A third article, on the internal evidence, appeared in January of the present year, iii. 353 ff.

14.Urchristentum (ed. 2, Berlin, 1902), ii. 389.

15.Ibid. p. 450.

16.Hibbert Journal, ii. 620.

17.Enc. Bibl. ii. 2554.

18.Beginnings of Christianity, ii. 166 ff.; cf. von DobschÜtz, Probleme, p. 94.

19.Character, &c., p. 157 f.

20.An incidental passage in Dr. Dill’s Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (p. 120 f.) deserves to be set by the side of Dr. Drummond’s. He is speaking of the Satiricon of Petronius. ‘Those who have attributed it to the friend and victim of Nero have been confronted with the silence of Quintilian, Juvenal, and Martial, with the silence of Tacitus as to any literary work by Petronius, whose character and end he has described with a curious sympathy and care. It is only late critics of the lower empire, such as Macrobius, and a dilettante aristocrat like Sidonius Apollinaris, who pay any attention to this remarkable work of genius. And Sidonius seems to make its author a citizen of Marseilles. Yet silence in such cases may be very deceptive. Martial and Statius never mention one another, and both might seem unknown to Tacitus. And Tacitus, after the fashion of the Roman aristocrat, in painting the character of Petronius, may not have thought it relevant or important to notice a light work such as the Satiricon, even if he had ever seen it. He does not think it worth while to mention the histories of the Emperor Claudius, the tragedies of Seneca, or the Punica of Silius Italicus.’

21.The two books of Drs. Drummond and Stanton were reviewed by M. Loisy in the Revue Critique, 1904, pp. 422-4, and Dr. Drummond’s by Prof. H. J. Holtzmann in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1905, cols. 136-9. Both reviews were disappointing, though Dr. Holtzmann’s contains the usual amount of painstaking detail. It is natural that play should be made with the real inconsistencies of Dr. Drummond’s position; but his weightier arguments are in neither case directly grappled with.

22.Ignatius, i. 405.

23.See the story in the Moscow MS. of the Martyrium Polycarpi (Lightfoot, Ignatius, iii. 402), which professes to be taken from ‘the writings of Irenaeus.’

24.Character and Authorship, p. 348.

25.Ibid. p. 213.

26.Chronologie, p. ix.

27.Ibid. p. 678.

28.Chronologie, p. 679.

29.Ibid., p. 680.

30.Chronologie, p. 695.

31.Ueber d. Tod, &c., p. 31.

32.On this phrase see Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 170-3.

33.The division of opinion in this case is among the more radical critics themselves. H. J. Holtzmann, Schmiedel, and Professor Bacon are on the one side: JÜlicher, Wrede, and Wernle are on the other; and in each of these instances the opinion is thoroughly characteristic; the subtle and acute minds are ranged against those that are stronger on the side of what we should call plain common sense.

34.Chronologie, &c., p. 676.

35.Letter to the Rev. William Unwin, dated Oct. 31, 1779.

36.Character, &c., p. 387.

37.For the proof see especially Lightfoot.

38.On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament (1871), pp. 72, 73.

39.Texte u. Untersuch. v. 2, p. 170. The other authority is a single MS. (but the oldest and most interesting) of the ninth-century writer Georgius Monachus or Georgius Hamartolus (ed. De Boor, p. 447 [???????] a?t????? ?at????ta?, where the other MSS. have ?? e????? ??epa?sat?). The question of the relation of the texts is judiciously discussed by De Boor (Preface, pp. lx-lxxi), but the fuller statement of particulars is reserved for a third volume.

40.Ueber den Tod der SÖhne Zebedaei (Berlin, 1904).

41.Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz d. Johannesevangeliums (TÜbingen and Leipzig, 1903), p. 25.

42.An excellent example is the treatment of the Acts of Paul and Thecla by Professor W. M. Ramsay in The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 375-428.

43.‘Das Geographische im Evangelium nach Johannes,’ in the Zeitschr. f. neuttest. Wiss., 1902, pp. 257-265.

44.Cf. Drummond, p. 366 f.; and the writer’s Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 95.

45.H. J. Holtzmann, ad loc., and Einleitung, ed. 2, p. 469: cf. Drummond, p. 437 f.

46.Pp. 42-6.

47.It is denied by Holtzmann, but approved by Westcott.

48.For a discussion of the nature of this defilement see Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, p. 56 ff.

49.Op. cit. p. 49.

50.It is very surprising that Freiherr Hermann von Soden, in a pamphlet published at the end of the year, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Berlin, 1904), p. 9, should deny the existence of local colour in the Fourth Gospel. In proof he mentions some half-dozen points that occur in the Synoptics but not in this Gospel; which only means that it is of a different type from the other three, and does not repeat what was already found in them. And yet, even of these points, several come back in another form. It is true that the Gospel does not describe the healing of a demoniac, but it has many marked allusions to demoniacal possession (see below, p. 134). It is true that it has not the name ‘Sadducees’; it speaks of them rather as ‘chief priests’; but it is well acquainted with their character and policy (see above, p. 126 ff.). The Gospel has no ‘elders,’ but it has ‘rulers’ or members of the Sanhedrin, whose position it perfectly understands. In like manner it has no ?????? or ???d?d?s?a???, but it is fond of the title ‘Rabbi,’ and it makes pointed reference to Rabbinical training (see below, p. 132). The whole page of criticism, coming from a writer of such eminence, is most disappointing. Either the statements are very questionable as fact or they have not the slightest bearing on the authorship of the Gospel. Why should not an Apostle break off somewhat abruptly in his report of a discourse, or glide imperceptibly from narrative into comment? That is just what St. Paul does, as we shall see (p. 168, below).

The truth is that the criticism of the Fourth Gospel on the liberal side has become largely conventional; one writer after another repeats certain stereotyped formulae without testing them. It is high time that they were really tested and confronted with the facts.

51.On the application of this penalty in the lifetime of Christ, see above, p. 115.

52.Sanhedr. 97 a.

53.Dial. c. Tryph. §8, cf. 110.

54.Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1893, col. 181 ff.

55.RÉville, La doctrine du Logos, p. 67.

56.Grill, p. 218.

57.Ibid., p. 114. Philo’s word for ‘interpreter,’ however, is not cognate with that used by St. John.

58.Ibid., pp. 115-26.

59.Drummond, Philo Judaeus, ii. 237-9; Grill, pp. 133-6.

60.The main passage is Vit. Mos. iii. 14.

61.That accomplished scholar P. Wendland points to the tendency to attach the Stoical idea of the ????? specially to Hermes and the Egyptian Thoth. He quotes from Cornutus (temp. Nero) t?????e? d? ? ???? ? ????? ??, ?? ?p?ste??a? p??? ??? ?? ???a??? ?? ?e??. Hermes is the messenger of the gods, and communicates their will to men; and it is conceivable that the use of the term ????? in connexion with him may have in some slight degree suggested, or prepared the way for, its use in connexion with the new revelation. See Christentum u. Hellenismus (1902), p. 7.

62.Entstehung d. vierten Evang. i. 4-31, 87 ff.

63.Le QuatriÈme Evangile, p. 98: ‘Les observations prÉcÉdentes et tout ce qu’on a remarquÉ touchant le caractÈre du quatriÈme Evangile prouvent suffisamment que la thÉologie de l’incarnation est la clef du livre tout entier, et qu’elle le domine depuis la premiÈre ligne jusqu’À la derniÈre.’

64.A few sentences here are repeated from my article in Hastings, D. B. iv. 575.

65.Atonement and Personality, p. 194. Compare the important and detailed exposition, pp. 154-9, 168 f., 180-2.

66.I do not doubt that the most active period for the putting together of material for Gospels was the decade 60-70 A.D. At the beginning of this period St. Mark had not yet taken up his task; and his Gospel forms the base of the other two Synoptics. The Matthaean Logia perhaps by this time were collected.

67.I cannot regard this argument as at all invalidated by Dr. Drummond’s three sermons, The Pauline Benediction (London, 1897). At the same time I can quite accept the view that the Apostle’s words are ‘the seed rather than the final expression of Christian theology.’

68.With the above may be compared Dr. Hort’s comment (ad. loc.) on 1 St. Peter, i. 1, 2, and other Trinitarian passages referred to in illustration: ‘In no passage is there any indication that the writer was independently working out a doctrinal scheme: a recognized belief or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed. How such an idea could arise in the mind of St. Paul or any other apostle without sanction from a Word of the Lord, it is difficult to imagine: and this consideration is a sufficient answer to the doubts which have, by no means unnaturally, been raised whether Matt. xxviii. 19 may not have been added or recast in a later generation.’

69.Compare the Fifth of the Oxyrhynchus Logia.

70.L’Évangile et L’Église, p. 78 f.

71.H. J. Holtzmann, for instance, points to Is. xiv. 3; xxviii. 12; lv. 1-3; Jer. vi. 16; xxxi. 2, 25, but especially Ecclus. iii. 6; vi. 24, 25, 28, 29; li. 23-30.

72.Contrast the treatment of the passage by M. Loisy with the way in which it is singled out by Matthew Arnold (Literature and Dogma, p. 214 f.). Indeed the course of the most recent criticism has borne in upon me more and more that, far from being a stumbling-block, it is really the key to any true understanding of the Christ of the Gospels. If we had not had the passage, we should have had to invent one like it!

73.I do not of course mean to deny all influence of St. Paul upon St. John in the shaping or formulating of Christian ideas. But the ultimate origin of those ideas goes further back than to St. Paul.

74.See, however, the Oxford Society of Hist. Theol., N. T. in Apost. Fathers (1905), p. 84.

75.Ibid., pp. 64, 67, 69; on the use of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 81-83 (a judicious estimate).

76.Ignatius von Antiochien, pp. 46 ff.

77.Strangely enough, the Oxford Society’s committee do not mention this phrase, though it presents a stronger case than any of those on p. 31.

78.Hibbert Journal i. 529.

79.Character, &c. 157.

80.Hibbert Journal ii. 610.

81.Chronologie, p. 675.

82.Die Offenbarung Johannis, p. 208.

83.It is pointed out to me by Dr. V. Bartlet that the sentence in the Fragment about the dead raised to life is really a new statement not connected with the sentences preceding which are referred to Papias. I am inclined to think that this is right, and that the authority may be Quadratus.

84.Since this was written I have had the advantage of seeing in manuscript an argument by Dom John Chapman, presenting in a more attractive shape than I have ever yet seen the view that the only John of Ephesus was the son of Zebedee. All depends upon the truth of the story of this Apostle’s death. It is one of those statements that we can neither wholly trust, nor wholly distrust. There is a real chance that it may be right, and there is an equally real chance that it may be wrong; the evidence, as it seems to me, does not warrant a positive assertion either way. I should be much inclined to think that, if the statement is true, there was but one John at Ephesus, the beloved disciple who was also the Presbyter; and, if the statement is false, there was still but one John, who was both Presbyter and Apostle. But then there comes in the problem of the Apocalypse, which may require two Johns!

85.Iren. adv. Haer. iii. 11. 7.

86.Comm. in Joan. i. 6.