Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/509

 JOHN

443

JOHN

matic character of John's narrative, as compared with the stress laid on tiie moral side of the discourses of Jesus by the Synoptists, is to be found in the charac- ter of his first readers, to which reference has already been repeatedly made. To the same cause, also, must be ascribed the further difference between the Gospels, namely, why John makes his teacliing centre around the Person of Jesus, while the Synoptics bring into re- lief rather the Kingdom of God. At the end of the first century there was no need for the Evangelist to repeat the lessons concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, already amply treated by his predecessors. His was the especial task to emphasize, in opposition to the heretics, the fundamental truth of the Divinity of the Founder of this Kingdom, and by chronicling those words and works of the Redeemer in which He Himself had revealed the majesty of His glory, to lead the faithful to a more profound knowledge of this truth.

It is superfluous to say that in the teaching itself, es- pecially regarding the Person of the Redeemer, there is not the slightest contradiction between John and the Synoptists. The critics themselves have to admit that even in the Synoptic Gospels Christ, when He speaks of His relations with the Father, assumes the solemn " Johannine " mode of speech. It will be suffi- cient to recall the impressive words: "And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him" (Matt., xi, 27; Luke, X. 22).

Positive Evidence for the Historical Genuineness of the Gospel. — The reasons urged against the genuine- ness of the Fourth Gospel are devoid of all conclusive force. On the other hand, its genuineness is vouched for by the whole character of the narrative. From the very beginning the events are portrayed with the precision of an ej'ewitness; the most minute subsidi- ary circumstances are mentioned; not the least sug- gestion can be found that the author had any other object in mind than the chronicling of the strict his- torical truth. A perusal of the passages describing the call of the first disciples (i, 35-51), the Marriage at Cana (ii, 1-11), the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv, 3-42), the healing of the man born blind (ix, 1-41), the raising of Lazarus (xi, 1-47), is suffi- cient to convince one that such a chronicle must neces- sarily lead the readers into error, if the events which are described be otherwise than true in the historical sense.

To this must be added the express assertion made repeatedly by the Evangelist that he speaks the truth and claims for his words unqualified belief (xix, 35; XX, 30 sq. ; xxi, 24; I John, i, 1—4). To reject these as- surances is to label the Evangelist a worthless impos- tor, and to make of his Gospel an unsolvable historical and psj'chological enigma.

And finally, the verdict of the entire Christian past has certainly a distinct claim to consideration in this question, since the Fourth Gospel has always been unhesitatingly accepted as one of the chief and historically credible sources of our knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ. With entire justice, there- fore, have the contrary views been condemned in clauses 16-18 of the Decree " Lamentabili " (3 July, 1907) and in the Decree of the Biblical Commission of 29 May, 1907.

VII. Object and Import.\nce. — The intention of the Evangelist in composing the Gospel is expressed in the words which we have already quoted: "But these are written that vou may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God " (xx, 31). He wished also by his work to confirm the faith of the disciples in the Messianic character and the Divinity of Christ. To attain his object, he selected principally those dis- courses and colloquies of Jesus in which the self-reve- lation of the Redeemer laid clearest emphasis on the

Divine Majesty of His Being. In this manner John wished to secure the faithful against the temptations of the false learning by means of which the heretics might prejudice the purity of their faith. Towards the narrative of the earlier Evangelists John's attitude was that of one who sought to till out the story of the words and works of the Saviour, while endeavouring to secure certain incidents from misinterpretation. His Gospel thus forms a glorious conclusion of the joy- ous message of the Eternal Word. For all time it re- mains for the Church the most sublime testimony of her faith in the Son of God, the radiant lamp of truth for her doctrine, the never-ceasing source of loving zeal in her devotion to her Master, Who loves her even to the end.

Commentaries on the Gospel of St. John. — In early Christian times; the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom and the Tractates of St. Augustine; the extant portions of the commentaries of Origen and St. Cyril of Alexandria; the expositions of Theophylactus and Euthymius, who generally follow Chr>'s- ostom, and the exegetical works of St. Bede. who follows Augustine. In the Middle Ages: the interpretations of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, of Blessed Albertus Magnus, Rupert of Deutz, and St. Bruno of Segni. Modern works in Latin: those of Cajetan; Toletus; Maldonatus; Ribera; Patrizi (Rome, 1S57); Corluy (3rd ed., Ghent, 1889); Klofut.^r (2nd ed., Vienna, 1S94); Knabenbauer (2nd ed., Paris, 1906). In EngUsh: MacEvillt (2nd ed., Dub- lin. 1902); MacRory (Dublin, 1S97); Westcott (new ed., London, 1908); Plummer (London, 1881); Whitelaw (Glas- gow, 1888). In German: Klee (Mainz, 1829); Haneberg- Schegg (2 vols., Munich, 1878-80); Schanz (Tubingen, 1885); Belser (Freiburg, 1905); Keil (Leipzig, 1881); Holtzmann (3rd ed., Tubingen, 1908); Meyer-Welss (9th ed., Gottingen, 1902); Zahn (Leipzig, 1908). In French. Fillion (Paris, 1SS7); Calmes (Paris, 1904); Godet (4th ed., Neuchfttel, 1905). In Spanish. MuRlLl.o (Barcelona, 1908). Other works: Camerlynck, De 4- Evangelii auctore (I, Ix)uvain, 1899; II, Bruges, 1900); Lepin, Uorigine du IV" Evangile (Paris. 1907); Idem. Valeur historique du IV' Evangile (2 vols., Paris, 1910); Fouard, S. Jean (Paris, 1904); Fillion. S. Jean I'Evcnigeliste (Paris. 1907); Abbot. Peabody, and Lightfoot, The Fourth Gospel (London, 1892); Scott. The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology (Edinburgh, 1908); Worsley, The Fourth Gospel arui the Synoptists (Edinburgh. 1909).

Leopold Fonck.

John and Paul, Saints, martyred at Rome on 26 June. The year of their martjTdom is uncertain: according to their Acts, it occurreil under Julian the .Apostate (361-3). In the second half of the fourth century, Byzantius, the Roman senator, and Pamma- chius, his son, fashioned their house on the Cselian Hill into a Christian basilica. In the fifth century the presbyteri tituli Byzantii (priests of the church of By- zantius) are mentioned in an inscription and among the signatures of the Roman Council of 499. The church was also called the titxdus Pammachii after Byzantius's son, the pious friend of St. Jerome. In the ancient apartments on the ground-floor of the house of Byzantius, which were still retained under the basilica, the tomb of two Roman martjTs, John and Paul, was the object of veneration as early as the fifth century. The Sacramentarium Leonianum already indicates in the preface to the feast of the saints, that they rested within the city walls ("Sacr. Leon.", ed. Feltoe, Cambridge, 1S96, 34), while, in one of the early itineraries to the tombs of the Roman mart\TS, their grave is assigned to the church on the Ca>lian (De Rossi, "Roma eotterranea", I, 138, 175). The titulus Byzantii or Pammachii was consequently known at a very early date by the names of the two martyrs {titulus SS. Joannis et Pauli). That the two saints are martyrs of the Roman Church, is his- torically certain; as to how and when their liodies found a resting-place in the house of Pammachius under the basilica, we only know that it certainly occurred in the fourth century. The year and cir- cumstances of their martynlnm arc likewise unknown. According to their .\cts, which are of a purely leg- endary character and without historical foundation, the martjTS were eunuchs of Constantina, daughter of Constantine the Great, and became acquainted with a certain Gallicanus, who built a cluirch in