Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/508

 JOHN

442

JOHN

" Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his dis- ciples, which are not written in tliis Ijook. But these are written, that you may beheve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have hfe in his name " (xx, 30 sq.). But the sole con- clusion that can be deduced from this is that the twenty-first chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel. Evidence has yet to be produced to show that it was not the Evangelist, but another, who wrote this ap- pendix. The opinion is at present fairly general, even among critics, that the vocabulary, style, and the mode of presentation as a whole, together with the subject-matter of the passage, reveal the common au- thorship of this chapter and the preceding portions of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Julicher, "Einlcitung", 5th ed., Tiibingen, 1906, pp. 387-91; also Hilgenfeld, Har- nack, etc.).

VI. Historical Genuineness. — Objections Raised against the Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel. — • The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial has been postu- lated in advance in most of the critical inquiries into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy has also reached the point where he openly denies the histo- ricity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in sym- bolical garb his religious ideas and theological specula- tions.

The writings of Loisy and their rationalistic pro- totypes, especially those of the German critics, have influenced many later exegetes, who while wish- ing to maintain the Catholic standpoint in general, concede only a very limited measure of historical genuineness to the Fourth Gospel. Among this class are included those who acknowledge as historical the main outlines of the Evangelist's narrative, l)ut see in many individual portions only symbolical embellish- ments. Others hold with H. J. Holtzmann that we must recognize in the Gospel a mixture of the sub- jective, theological speculations of the author and the objective, personal recollections of his intercourse with Christ, without any pos.sibility of our distinguishing by sure criteria these different elements. That such a hypothesis precludes any further question as to the historical genuineness of the Johannine narrative, is evident, and is indeed candidly admitted by the repre- sentatives of these views.

On examining the grounds for this denial or limita- tion of the historical genuineness of John we find that they are drawn by the critics almost exclusively from the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptic narrative. On comparison three points of contrast are discovered: (1) with respect to the events which are related; (2) in regard to the mode of presentation; and (3) in the doctrine which is contained in the nar- rative.

(1) As regards the events related, the great contrast between John and the Synoptists in the choice and arrangement of materials is especially accentuated. The latter show us the Saviour almost exclusively in Galilee, labouring among the common people: John, on the other hand, devotes himself chiefly to chroni- cling Christ's work in Judea, and His conflicts with the Saiihi'drists at. .lerusalem. An easy solution of this first difficulty is found in the special circimistances attending the composition of the Fourth Go.spel. John may — in fact must — have assumed that the Synoptic narrative was known to his readers at the end of the first century. The interest and spiritual needs of these readers (leniMri(l(>d primarily that he supplement tlic evangelic:!! story in such a manner as to lca<l to a deeper knowledge of the Person and Divin- ity of the Saviour, against which the first heresies of

Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and the Nicolaites were being already disseminated in Christian communities. But it was chiefly in His discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem that Christ had spoken of His Person and Divinity. In his Gospel, therefore, John made it his primary purpose to set down the sublime teachings of Our Saviour, to safeguard the Faith of the Christians against the attacks of the heretics.

AVhen we come to consider the individual events in the narrative, three points in particular are brought forward: (a) the duration of Christ's public ministry extends in the Fourth Gospel over at least two years, probably indeed over three years, and some months. However, the Synoptic account of the public life of Jesus can by no means be confined within the narrow space of one year, as some modern critics contend. The three earliest Evangelists also suppose the space of at least two years and some months, (b) The purification of the Temple is referred by John to the beginning of the Saviour's ministry, while the Sjmoptists narrate it at the close. But it is Ijy no means proven that this purification occurred but once. The critics firing forward not a single objective reason why we .should not hold that the incident, under the circumstances related in the Synoptics, as well as those of the Fourth Gospel, had its historical place at the beginning and at the end of the public life of Jesus, (c) Notwithstanding all the objections brought for- ward, John is in agreement with the Synoptists as to the date of the Last Supper. It occurred on Thurs- day, the thirteenth day of Nisan, and the Crucifixion took place on Friday, the fourteenth. The fact that, according to John, Clirist held the Supper with His Apostles on Thursday, while, according to the Synop- tists, the Jews ate the paschal lamb on Friday, is not irreconcilable with the above statement. The most probable solution of the question lies in the legitimate and widespread custom, according to which, when the fifteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath, as it did in the year of the Crucifixion, the paschal lamb was killed in the evening hours of the thirteenth of Nisan and the paschal feast celebrated on this or the follow- ing evening, to avoid all infringement of the strict sabbatic rest.

(2) As regards the mode of presentation, it is espe- cially insisted that the great sublimity of the Fourth Gospel is difficult to reconcile with the homely sim- plicity of the Synoptics. This objection, however, entirely disregards the great differences in the circum- stances under which the Gospels were written. For the Christians of the third generation in Asia, living in the midst of flourishing schools, the Fourth Evange- list was forced to adopt an entirely different style from that emploj'ed by his predecessors in writing for the newly-converted Jews and pagans of the earlier period.

Another difficulty raised is the fact that the pecu- liar Johannine style is found not only in the narra- tive portions of the Gospel, but also in the discourses of Jesus and in the words of the Baptist and other per- sonages. But we must remember that all the dis- courses and colloquies had to be translated from Aramaic into Greek, and in this process received from the author their distinctive unity of style. Besides, in the Gospel, the intention is by no means to give a verbatim report of every sentence and expression of a discourse, a sermon, or a disputation. The leading ideas alone are set forth in exact accordance with the sense, and, in this manner, also, they come to reflect the style of the Evangelist. Finally, the disciple surely received from his Master many of the distinc- tive metaphors and expressions which imprint on the Gospel its peculiar character.

(.'?) The difference in doctrinal content lies only in the external forms and does not extend to the truths themselves. A satisfactory explanation of the dog-