Introduction

Testimony of ancient Christian tradition regarding the origin of the fourth Gospel

Apostle John the Theologian

The occasion and purpose of the writing of the Gospel

The plan and content of the Gospel according to John

Objections against the authenticity of the Gospel of John

The self-witness of the fourth Gospel

The language and expression of the fourth Gospel

Commentaries on the Gospel of John and other works concerning this Gospel

Testimony of ancient Christian tradition regarding the origin of the fourth Gospel

The conviction of the Orthodox Church that the writer of the fourth Gospel was the beloved disciple of Christ, the apostle John, is based on firm testimony of ancient Christian church tradition.

First of all, the holy bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, in his “Refutation of Gnosticism” (around 185 CE), referring to the tradition of the Asia Minor Church to which he belonged by his upbringing, says that the disciple of the Lord John wrote the Gospel in Ephesus. He also cites passages from the Gospel of John to refute the teaching of the heretics the Valentinians.

In the epistles of the holy Ignatius of Antioch there are hints that he was acquainted with the Gospel of John. Thus, he says that Christ did nothing without the Father (to Magn. 7:1; cf. John 5:19), speaks of the bread of life which is the Body of Christ (1 Cor 10:16; cf. John 6:51), of the Spirit who knows where He is going and where He comes from (Philad. 7, 1; cf. John 3:8), of Jesus as a door (Philad. 9:1; cf. John 10:9).

Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus before settling in Rome, not only in his teaching about the Logos aligns with the teaching of the Gospel of John, but says that his teaching is based on the “memoirs of the apostles,” that is, evidently, on the Gospels (Dial. 100, 4 and Apol. 67, 3). He mentions the word of Jesus to Nicodemus about rebirth (Apol. 61; cf. John 3 and foll.).

Around the same time (roughly in the 60s of the second century) the Montanists formally based their teaching that the Comforter Spirit speaks through them on the Gospel of John. The attempt of their enemies, the Alogoi, to attribute the fourth Gospel, as having served as the formal support for the heretics, to the heretic Cerinthus met with no success whatever and only served to occasion testimony to the Church’s faith in the origin of the fourth Gospel precisely from John (Irenaeus of Lyon. “Against Heresies,” III, 11, 1). Likewise, the attempt of the gnostics to make use of various terms from the Gospel of John did not shake the Church’s faith in the authenticity of this Gospel.

In the era of Marcus Aurelius (161–180 CE) and in the Asia Minor Church and beyond it, the fourth Gospel is recognized by all as the work of the apostle John. Thus the acts of Carpus and Papylus, Theophilus of Antioch, Melito, Apollinarius of Hierapolis, Tatian, Athenagoras (the ancient Latin and Syriac translations already have the Gospel of John)—all, evidently, are well acquainted with the Gospel of John. The holy bishop Clement of Alexandria even speaks of the occasion for which John wrote his Gospel (Eusebius. “Ecclesiastical History,” VI, 14, 7). The origin of the Gospel of John is testified to also by the Muratorian Fragment (see “Analekta,” ed. Preuschen, 1910, p. 27).

Thus, the Gospel of John existed in Asia Minor, without doubt, from the beginning of the second century and was read, and roughly around the middle of the second century it found access also to the other regions where Christians lived and acquired respect as the work of the apostle John. Given such a state of affairs, it is scarcely surprising that in many works of the apostolic fathers and apologists we do not yet encounter quotations from the Gospel of John or hints of its existence. But the very fact that Heracleon, a disciple of the heretic Valentinus (who came to Rome around 140 CE), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John, testifies that the Gospel of John appeared much earlier than the second half of the second century, since, undoubtedly, it would be quite strange to write an explanation of a work that had only recently appeared. Finally, the testimonies of such pillars of Christian learning as Origen (third century), Eusebius of Caesarea, and the blessed Jerome (fourth century) regarding the authenticity of the Gospel of John clearly speak to the fact that in church tradition concerning the origin of the fourth Gospel there can be nothing that is not well-founded.

Apostle John the Theologian

Regarding where the apostle John was born, nothing certain can be said. About his father Zebedee, it is known only that he, with his sons James and John, lived in Capernaum and engaged in the fishing business on a fairly large scale, as is indicated by the fact that he had hired hands (Mark 1:20). A more prominent figure is the wife of Zebedee, Salome, who belonged to those women who accompanied Christ the Savior and from their own means procured what was needed for the maintenance of a rather large circle of the disciples of Christ, who constituted an almost constant retinue around Him (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:41). She shared the ambitious desires of her sons and asked Christ to grant them their dreams (Matt 20:20). She stood at a distance at the removal of the Savior from the cross (Matt 27:55 and foll.) and took part in the purchase of spices for the anointing of the body of the buried Christ (Mark 16:1; cf. Luke 23:56).

The family of Zebedee was, according to tradition, related to the family of the Most Holy Virgin: Salome and the Most Holy Virgin were own sisters, and this tradition is in complete accord with the fact that the Savior, at a time when He was about to give up His spirit to the Father, hanging on the cross, entrusted the Most Holy Virgin to the care of John (see the comments to John 19:25). By this kinship one can also explain why precisely from among all the disciples James and John made their claim for the first places in the Kingdom of Christ (Matt 20:21). But if James and John were cousins of the Most Holy Virgin, then they were also related to John the Baptist (cf. Luke 1:36), whose preaching should therefore have especially interested them. All these families were permeated with one pious, truly Israelite sentiment. This is evident, among other things, from the fact that all the names borne by members of these families were genuine Hebrew names without admixture of Greek or Latin epithets.

From the fact that James is everywhere called before John, one can confidently conclude that John was younger than James, and tradition calls him the youngest among the apostles. John was no more than 20 years old when Christ called him to follow Him, and the tradition that he lived until the reign of the emperor Trajan (reigned 98–117 CE) is not implausible: John would then have been around 90 years old. Shortly after being called to follow Him, Christ called John to special, apostolic service, and John became one of the twelve apostles of Christ. By virtue of his special love and devotion to Christ, John became one of the most intimate and trusted disciples of Christ, and even the most beloved. He was granted the privilege of being present at the most important events in the life of the Savior, for example at His Transfiguration, at Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, and others. In contrast to the apostle Peter, John lived more an inner, contemplative life than an outward, practically active one. He observes more than he acts; he more often immerses himself in his inner world, pondering in his mind the greatest events of which he was destined to become a witness. His soul hovers more in the heavenly realm, which is why from ancient times he has been assigned in church iconography the symbol of an eagle (Bazhenov, p. 8–10). But sometimes John displayed ardor of soul, even extreme irritability: this was when he took offense on behalf of the honor of his Teacher (Luke 9:54; Mark 9:38-40). The passionate desire to be closer to Christ showed itself also in John’s request to be given the first positions together with his brother in the glorious Kingdom of Christ, for which John was ready to go with Christ even to sufferings (Matt 20:20-28). Because of such a capacity for unexpected impulses, Christ called John and James “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17), at the same time foretelling that the preaching of both brothers would act on the souls of their listeners irresistibly, like thunder.

After the Ascension of Christ into heaven, the apostle John, together with the apostle Peter, appeared as one of the representatives of the Christian Church in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1 and foll.; Acts 2:4). At the apostolic council in Jerusalem in the winter of 51–52 CE, John, together with Peter and the leader of the Jerusalem Church, James, recognizes the right of the apostle Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles without at the same time binding them to observe the law of Moses (Gal 2:9). Even at that time, consequently, the significance of the apostle John was great. But how much it should have increased when Peter, Paul, and James died!

Having settled in Ephesus, John held the position of leader of all the churches of Asia for another thirty years, and among the other disciples of Christ who surrounded him he enjoyed exceptional esteem from the believers. Tradition gives us some details about the activity of the apostle John during this period of his stay in Ephesus. Thus, it is known from tradition that he celebrated Christian Pascha every year at the same time as the Jewish Pascha and before Pascha observed a fast. Then once he left a public bath upon seeing the heretic Cerinthus there. “Let us flee,” he said to those who came with him, “so that the bath does not collapse, for Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is in it.” How great was the love and compassion for people in him is testified by the story about a young man whom John converted to Christ and who in his absence joined a band of robbers. John, according to the account of the holy bishop Clement of Alexandria, himself went to the robbers and, meeting the young man, implored him to return to the right path. In the very last hours of his life, John, being no longer able to speak at length, only repeated: “Little children, love one another!” And when the listeners asked him why he repeated the same thing over and over, “the apostle of love”—such was the title that became fixed on John—answered: “Because it is the commandment of the Lord, and if only it were fulfilled—that would be enough.” Thus, a will that admitted no compromise between the holy God and the sinful world, devotion to Christ, love of truth joined with compassion for the unfortunate brothers—these are the basic traits of the character of John the Theologian as they became imprinted in Christian tradition.

John proved his devotion to Christ, according to tradition, also through sufferings. Thus, during the reign of Nero (reigned 54–68 CE), he was brought to Rome in chains and here he was first forced to drink a cup of poison, but when the poison had no effect, he was thrown into a vessel of boiling oil, from which, however, the apostle also did not suffer. During his stay in Ephesus, John was obliged by command of the emperor Domitian (reigned 81–96 CE) to go to dwell on the island of Patmos, located forty geographical miles southwest of Ephesus. Here, in mysterious visions, were revealed to him the future destinies of the Church of Christ, which he depicted in his Apocalypse. On the island of Patmos the apostle remained until the death of the emperor Domitian (96 CE), when by command of the emperor Nerva (reigned 96–98 CE) he was returned to Ephesus.

John died, probably in the seventh year of the reign of the emperor Trajan (105 CE), having reached the age of one hundred.

The occasion and purpose of the writing of the Gospel

According to the testimony of the Muratorian canon, John wrote his Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia Minor, who desired to receive from him instruction in faith and piety. Clement of Alexandria adds to this that John himself noticed a certain incompleteness in the accounts of Christ contained in the first three Gospels, which speak almost only of the “bodily,” that is, of the external events from the life of Christ, and therefore himself wrote a “spiritual Gospel.” Eusebius of Caesarea, for his part, adds that John, having reviewed and approved the first three Gospels, nevertheless found in them insufficient information about the beginning of the activity of Christ. The blessed Jerome says that the occasion for writing the Gospel was the appearance of heresies that denied the coming of Christ in the flesh.

Thus, on the basis of what has been said, one can conclude that John, in writing his Gospel, on the one hand wanted to fill the gaps he noticed in the first three Gospels, and on the other hand wanted to give believers (first of all Christians from the Greeks 1) a weapon for the struggle with the heresies that had appeared. As for the evangelist himself, he defines the purpose of his Gospel thus: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). It is clear that John wrote his Gospel in order to give Christians support for their faith in Christ precisely as the Son of God, because only with such faith can one achieve salvation or, as John expresses it, have life in oneself. And the entire content of the Gospel of John fully corresponds to this intention expressed by its writer. Indeed, the Gospel of John begins with John’s own turn to Christ and ends with the confession of faith of the apostle Thomas (chapter 21 is an addition to the Gospel made later). John wishes to show throughout his Gospel the process by which he himself and his fellow apostles came to faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, so that the reader of the Gospel, following the deeds of Christ, might gradually understand that Christ is the Son of God... The readers of the Gospel already had this faith, but it was weakened in them by various false teachings that distorted the understanding of the incarnation of the Son of God. In addition, John could have had in view the clarification of the duration of the public service of Christ to mankind: from the first three Gospels it would appear that this activity lasted only about a year, but John explains that it lasted more than three years 2.

The plan and content of the Gospel according to John

The evangelist John, in accordance with the purpose he set for himself in writing the Gospel, undoubtedly had his own special plan of narration, unlike the general traditional account of the history of Christ common to the first three Gospels. John does not simply report in order the events of Gospel history and the words of Christ, but makes a selection from them, bringing forward especially those things that testified to the divine dignity of Christ, which in his time was being questioned. Events from the life of Christ are reported by John in a particular light, and all are directed toward clarifying the fundamental position of Christian faith—the divinity of Jesus Christ.

In the prologue to the Gospel (John 1:1-18), John first speaks of the divine dignity of Christ and of the relationship to Him of men, some of whom did not believe in Him, while others received Him. This thought of the different relationship of men to the incarnate Word, the thought of the struggle between faith and unbelief, runs throughout the Gospel of John.

The narrative itself about the activity of Christ begins with His appearance before the disciples of John the Baptist, who had previously triple attested that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Christ manifests to His first disciples His omniscience (John 1:19-51) and then—His omnipotence (John 2:1-11) and then after some time in Jerusalem appears as the lord of the temple, that is, as the Messiah (John 2:12-22). The official representatives of Judaism immediately show their ill will toward Christ, which with time is destined to degenerate into open persecution of Christ, while the common people, it seems, feel an attraction to the Light that has appeared, nourished, however, by the miracles which Christ performed at this time in Jerusalem (John 2:23-25). An example of such a bearer of faith is the Pharisee Nicodemus, before whom Christ revealed the greatness of His person and His mission (John 3:1-21). In view of such an attitude toward Christ on the part of the Jews, John the Baptist again and for the last time attested His high dignity before his disciples, threatening those who did not believe in Christ with the wrath of God (John 3:22-36). After this, having spent about eight months in Judea, Christ withdraws for a time to Galilee, and on the way, in the Samaritan region, converts to faith the population of an entire Samaritan city (John 4:1-44). In Galilee He receives a fairly warm welcome, since the Galileans had been witnesses to the miracles which Christ performed in Jerusalem at the celebration of Pascha. Christ, however, declares such faith inadequate (John 4:45-54). Incidentally, according to John, Christ during His stay in Galilee, which lasted, apparently, about seven or eight months—until the feast of Booths (a Jewish feast in John 5:1), lived within the circle of His family, not coming forward with the preaching of the Gospel. He wishes, evidently, first and foremost to proclaim the Gospel in Judea and for this goes to Jerusalem for the feast of Booths. Here, in connection with a healing He performed on the Sabbath, the representatives of Judaism begin to accuse Him of violating the law of Moses, and when Christ in vindication of His action pointed out to them His special rights as the Son of God, equal with God the Father, the hatred of the Jews toward Him was expressed in measures they designed to eliminate Christ, which, however, at this time were not carried out in view of the strong impression, undoubtedly made by the speech He spoke here in defense of His Messianic dignity (John 5:1-47). From this point onwards in John’s account begins the depiction of the struggle which the official representatives of Judaism waged against Christ—a struggle that ended in the decision of the Jewish authorities to “take Christ” (John 11:57).

Not received a second time in Judea, Christ again withdrew to Galilee and began to perform miracles, of course preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. But here too, His teaching about Himself as a Messiah who came not to restore an earthly Jewish kingdom but to establish a new Kingdom—a spiritual one—and to give people eternal life, arms the Galileans against Him, and only a few disciples remain around Him, namely the twelve apostles, whose faith is expressed by the apostle Peter (John 6:1-71). Having spent this time in Galilee both Pascha and Pentecost, in view of the fact that in Judea enemies only waited for an opportunity to seize and kill Him, Christ only at the feast of Booths went again to Jerusalem—this was already the third journey there—and here again appeared before the Jews with the assertion of His divine mission and origin. The Jews rise up against Christ again. But Christ, nevertheless, on the last day of the feast of Booths boldly proclaims His high dignity—that He is the giver of true water of life—and the servants sent by the Sanhedrin cannot carry out the order given to them—to seize Christ (John 7).

Then, after the forgiveness of the sinful woman (John 8:1-11), Christ rebukes the unbelief of the Jews in Him. He calls Himself the Light of the world, and them, His enemies, the children of the devil—that ancient murderer of men. When He pointed out to them at the end of His speech that He existed before the ages, the Jews wished to stone Him as a blasphemer, and Christ withdrew from the temple where the dispute with the Jews took place (John 8). After this Christ healed on the Sabbath a man born blind, and this further intensified the hatred toward Jesus in the Jews (John 9). Nevertheless, Christ boldly calls the Pharisees hired hands who do not care for the welfare of the people, and Himself—the true Shepherd, who lays down His life for His flock. This speech arouses in some a negative attitude toward it, in others—some sympathy (John 10:1-21).

Three months later, at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, a collision occurs again between Christ and the Jews and Christ withdraws to Perea, where many Jews who had believed in Him also follow Him (John 10:22-42). The miracle of the raising of Lazarus, which testified to Christ as the giver of resurrection and life, arouses faith in Christ in some and in His enemies a new outburst of hatred toward Christ. Then the Sanhedrin made the final decision to kill Christ and announced that if anyone knew where Christ was, he should immediately report it to the Sanhedrin (John 11:57). After more than three months, which Christ spent not in Judea, He appeared again in Judea and near Jerusalem, in Bethany, attended a friendly supper, and two days later solemnly entered Jerusalem as the Messiah. The people received Him with enthusiasm, and the Greeks who had come for the feast expressed a desire to speak with Him. All this prompted Christ to proclaim aloud to all those around Him that He would soon give Himself up to death for the true benefit of all people. John concludes this section of his Gospel with the statement that although the majority of the Jews did not believe in Christ despite all His miracles, among them there were also believers (John 12:37-43).

Having depicted the break that occurred between Christ and the Jewish people, the evangelist now portrays the relationship to the apostles. At the last, the Last Supper, Christ washed the feet of His disciples, as a simple servant, thereby showing them His love and at the same time teaching them humility (John 13). Then, to strengthen their faith, He speaks of His forthcoming departure to God the Father, of their future situation in the world, and of His future meeting with them. The apostles interrupt His speech with questions and objections, but He constantly directs them to the thought that everything that will soon happen will be beneficial both for Him and for them (John 14-16). To finally calm the anxiety of the apostles, Christ, in their presence, prays to His Father that He would take them under His protection, saying at the same time that the work for which Christ was sent has now been accomplished and that, consequently, the apostles will only have to proclaim this to the whole world (John 17).

The final section of his Gospel, John devotes to the depiction of the history of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here one speaks of the seizure of Christ by soldiers in Gethsemane and of Peter’s denial, of the trial of Christ before the spiritual and secular authorities, of the crucifixion and death of Christ, of the piercing of the side of Christ by a soldier’s lance, of the burial of the body of Christ by Joseph and Nicodemus (John 18-19) and, finally, of the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene, to ten disciples, and then to Thomas together with the other disciples a week after the resurrection (John 20:1-29). Attached to the Gospel is a conclusion in which the purpose of writing the Gospel is indicated—the strengthening of faith in Christ in the readers of the Gospel (John 20:30-31).

The Gospel of John has, besides, an epilogue in which is depicted the appearance of Christ to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, when the apostle Peter was restored to his apostolic dignity. At the same time, Christ foretells to Peter his fate and the fate of John (John 21).

Thus, John developed in his Gospel the thought that the incarnate, only-begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, was rejected by His own people, among whom He was born, but nevertheless gave grace and truth to those who believed in Him and made it possible for them to become children of God. The content of the Gospel is conveniently divided into the following sections.

The Prologue (John 1:1-18).

First section: The testimony of John the Baptist concerning Christ—until the first manifestation of the greatness of Christ (John 1:19-2:11).

Second section: The beginning of the public service of Christ (John 2:12-4:54).

Third section: Jesus—the Giver of eternal life, in the struggle with Judaism (John 5:1-11:57).

Fourth section: From the last week before Pascha (John 12).

Fifth section: Jesus in the circle of disciples on the eve of His sufferings (John 13-17).

Sixth section: The glorification of Jesus through death and resurrection (John 18-20).

Epilogue (John 21).

Objections against the authenticity of the Gospel of John

From what has been said about the structure and content of the Gospel of John, one can see that this Gospel contains very much that distinguishes it from the first three Gospels, which are called synoptic from the similarity of the portrayal given in them of the person and activity of Jesus Christ. Thus, the life of Christ in John begins in heaven...

The story of the nativity and childhood of Christ, with which the evangelists Matthew and Luke acquaint us, John passes over in silence. In the magnificent prologue of the Gospel, John, this eagle among the evangelists, to whom this symbol is assigned in church iconography, with bold flight carries us straight into infinity. Then he quickly descends to earth, but here in the incarnate Word he shows us signs of the divinity of the Word. Then in the Gospel of John, John the Baptist appears. But this is not the preacher of repentance and judgment as we know him from the synoptic Gospels, but a witness to Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The evangelist John says nothing about the baptism and temptation of Christ. In Christ’s return from John the Baptist with His first disciples to Galilee the evangelist sees the beginning of the preaching of the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Gospel of John the chronological and geographical framework of the activity is quite different from that of the synoptists. John barely touches upon the Galilean activity of Christ—only at its highest point—the story of the miraculous feeding of five thousand and the discourse about the bread of heaven. Then only in the depiction of the last days of the life of Christ does John converge with the synoptists. According to the Gospel of John, the principal place of Christ’s activity is Jerusalem and Judea.

Even more does John differ from the synoptic evangelists in depicting Christ as a Teacher. In the latter, Christ appears as a popular preacher, as a teacher of morality, expounding before the simple inhabitants of Galilean towns and villages in the most accessible form for them the teaching about the Kingdom of God. As a benefactor of the people, He goes about Galilee, healing every illness in the people surrounding Him in whole crowds. In John, the Lord appears either before individual persons, such as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, or in the circle of His disciples, or, finally, before priests, scribes, and other Jews knowledgeable in religious learning, with discourses about the divine dignity of His person. At the same time, the language of His discourses becomes somewhat enigmatic, and we often encounter here allegories. The miracles in the Gospel of John also have the character of signs, that is, they serve to clarify the fundamental propositions of Christ’s teaching about His divinity.

More than a hundred years have passed since German rationalism directed its attacks against the Gospel of John to prove its inauthenticity. However, it was only from the time of Strauss that the actual persecution of this greatest testimony to the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ began. Under the influence of the philosophy of Hegel, which did not admit the possibility of the realization of the absolute idea in a separate person, Strauss declared the Johannine Christ a myth and the entire Gospel a tendentious fiction. Following him, the head of the new Tübingen School F. C. Baur attributed the origin of the fourth Gospel to the second half of the second century, when, as he believed, the reconciliation began between two opposite directions of the apostolic age—Petrism and Paulinism. The Gospel of John, according to Baur, was precisely the monument of the reconciliation between both these directions. It was intended to reconcile the various disputes that were happening at the time (around 170 CE) in the Church: Montanism, Gnosticism, the teaching about the Logos, Easter disputes, and so on, and for this purpose it made use of material contained in the first three Gospels, placing everything in dependence on the single idea of the Logos. Baur’s followers—Schwegler, Kestlin, Zeller, and others—wanted to develop and substantiate his view, but, in any case, nothing came of their efforts, as even such a liberal critic as Harnack acknowledges. The first Christian Church was not at all an arena of struggle between Petrism and Paulinism, as the newest church-historical science has shown. However, the newer representatives of the neo-Tübingen School H. J. Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Kreyenbühl (his work in French: “The Fourth Gospel,” vol. I, 1901 and vol. II, 1903) still deny the authenticity of the Gospel of John and the reliability of the information contained in it, with most of them attributing the influence to Gnosticism. Toma attributes the origin of the Gospel to the influence of Philonism, Max Müller—to the influence of Greek philosophy 3.

Since the neo-Tübingen School nevertheless could not fail to reckon with the testimonies regarding the authenticity of the Gospel of John that go back to the very first decades of the second century CE, it attempted to explain the origin of such testimonies by something like a self-hypnosis of those ancient church writers in whose works such testimonies are found. Quite simply a writer, such as, for example, the holy Irenaeus, read the inscription “Gospel of John”—and immediately it became fixed in his memory that this is indeed the Gospel belonging to the beloved disciple of Christ... But the majority of critics began to defend the position that under “John,” the author of the fourth Gospel, the entire ancient Church understood “the elder John,” whose existence is mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea. Such are the views of, for example, Bousset and Harnack. Others (Julicher) consider the author of the fourth Gospel to be some disciple of John the Theologian. But since it is rather difficult to admit that at the end of the first century in Asia Minor there were two Johns—an apostle and an elder—enjoying equally enormous authority, some critics began to deny the residence of the apostle John in Asia Minor (Lützenburger, Keim, Schwarz, Schmiedel).

Not finding it possible to find a substitute for the apostle John, contemporary criticism, however, unanimously asserts that the fourth Gospel could not have come from the apostle John. Let us see then how well-founded are those objections which contemporary criticism raises against the universal church conviction regarding the authenticity of the fourth Gospel. In examining the objections of critics against the authenticity of the Gospel of John we will of necessity have to speak also about the credibility of the information provided in the fourth Gospel, because in substantiation of their view on the origin of the fourth Gospel not from John, the critics point to the unreliability of various facts cited in the Gospel of John and to the general implausibility of the representation that is created on the basis of this Gospel concerning the person and activity of the Savior 4.

Keim, and after him many other critics, point out that according to the Gospel of John Christ “was not born, was not baptized, experienced neither internal struggle nor mental suffering. From the beginning He knew all things, shone with pure divine glory. Such a Christ does not correspond to the conditions of human nature.” But all this is false: Christ, according to John, became flesh (John 1:14) and had a Mother (John 2:1), and there is a clear indication of His acceptance of baptism in the words of John the Baptist (John 1:29-34). That Christ experienced internal struggle is clearly stated in John 12:27, and of His mental suffering the tears He shed at the tomb of Lazarus testify (John 11:33-35). As for the foreknowledge which Christ manifests in the Gospel of John, it is fully in accord with our faith in Christ as God-man.

Furthermore, critics point out that the fourth Gospel supposedly does not recognize any gradation in the development of the faith of the apostles: the apostles first called are from the very first day of their acquaintance with Christ fully convinced of His Messianic dignity (John 1). But critics forget that the disciples were fully convinced of Christ only after the first sign in Cana (John 2:11). And they themselves say that they believed in the divine origin of Christ only when Christ spoke much to them about Himself in the farewell discourse (John 16:30).

Then, if John speaks of Christ going to Jerusalem from Galilee several times, whereas according to the synoptists it would seem that He visited Jerusalem only once at the Passover of the Passion, we must say regarding this that, in the first place, even from the synoptic Gospels one can infer that Christ was in Jerusalem more than once (see Luke 10:30), and in the second place, the evangelist John most correctly denotes the chronological sequence of events, who wrote his Gospel after the synoptics and naturally must have come to the thought of the need to supplement the insufficient chronology of the synoptists and to depict in detail the activity of Christ in Jerusalem, which was known to him, of course, much better than to anyone of the synoptists, two of whom did not even belong to the company of the Twelve. Even the apostle Matthew could not know all the circumstances of Christ’s activity in Jerusalem, because, in the first place, he was called comparatively late (John 3:24; cf. Matt 9:9), and in the second place, because Christ sometimes went to Jerusalem secretly (John 7:10) without the accompaniment of the whole crowd of disciples. John, however, was undoubtedly granted the privilege of everywhere accompanying Christ.

But most of all doubts concerning the credibility are raised by the speeches of Christ which the evangelist John cites. Christ in John, according to the opinion of critics, speaks not as a practical popular teacher, but as a subtle metaphysician. His speeches could only have been “composed” by a later “writer” under the influence of the views of Alexandrian philosophy. On the other hand, the speeches of Christ in the synoptists are naive, simple, and natural. Therefore, the fourth Gospel is not of apostolic origin. Regarding such an assertion by critics, it is first of all necessary to say that it greatly exaggerates the difference between the speeches of Christ in the synoptists and His speeches in John. One can point to about a dozen sayings which are cited in the same form by both the synoptists and John (see John 2:19 and Matt 26:61; John 3:18 and Mark 16:16; John 5:8 and Luke 5:24). And then the speeches of Christ cited by John should indeed have differed from those cited by the synoptists, since John set as his task the acquaintance of his readers with the activity of Christ in Judea and Jerusalem—this center of Rabbinical learning, where Christ had before Him a completely different circle of listeners than in Galilee. It is understandable that the Galilean speeches of Christ cited by the synoptists could not be devoted to such exalted teachings as comprise the subject matter of the speeches of Christ spoken in Judea. Besides, John has cited several speeches of Christ spoken in the circle of His closest disciples, who, of course, were much more capable than the common people of understanding the mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

One must also take into account the circumstance that the apostle John by his nature was predominantly inclined to be interested in the mysteries of the Kingdom of God and in the high dignity of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. No one was able to assimilate the teaching of Christ about Himself in such fullness and clarity as precisely John, whom therefore Christ loved more than his other disciples.

Some critics assert that all the speeches of Christ in John are nothing other than the unfolding of the ideas contained in the prologue of the Gospel and, consequently, were composed by John himself. To this one should say that, rather, the prologue itself could be called the conclusion which John drew from all the speeches of Christ cited by John. This is evidenced, for example, by the fact that the fundamental concept of the prologue, “Logos,” does not occur in the speeches of Christ in the sense that it has in the prologue.

As for the assertion that only John cites speeches of Christ in which His teaching about His divine dignity is contained, this fact cannot have any special significance as proof of the contradiction supposedly existing between the synoptists and John in the teaching about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. For even in the synoptists there are sayings of Christ in which a clear indication is made of His divine dignity (see Matt 20:18 and others). Besides, all the circumstances of the nativity of Christ and the numerous miracles of Christ reported by the synoptists clearly testify to His divine dignity.

Further, it is pointed out as evidence of the “composedness” of Christ’s speeches in John their monotony in regard to content. Thus, the conversation with Nicodemus depicts the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God, while the conversation with the Samaritan woman depicts the universal character of this Kingdom, and so on. If there is some uniformity in the external construction of the speeches and in the way of proving thoughts, this is explained by the fact that Christ’s speeches in John have as their purpose the clarification of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God to the Jews, not to the inhabitants of Galilee and therefore naturally take on a uniform character.

It is said that the speeches cited by John are not connected with the events described in the Gospel of John. But such an assertion does not at all correspond to reality: it is precisely in John that each speech of Christ has a firm basis in preceding events, one might even say—is called forth by them. Such, for example, is the conversation about the bread of heaven, spoken by Christ in connection with the feeding of the people with earthly bread (John 6).

Furthermore, it is objected: “How could John in his old age remember such extensive, difficult in content, and obscure speeches of Christ?” But when a man directs all his attention to one thing, it is clear that this “one thing” he comprehends in all its details and firmly imprints it in his memory. Now John was known to have not had a particularly active role in the circle of the disciples of Christ and in the apostolic Church, and appeared rather as a silent companion of the apostle Peter than as an independent actor. He turned all the ardor of his nature—and he did indeed have such a nature (Mark 9)—all the abilities of his outstanding mind and heart toward reproducing in his consciousness and memory the greatest personality of the God-man. From this it becomes clear how he was able subsequently to reproduce in his Gospel such extensive and profound speeches of Christ. Besides, the ancient Hebrews were generally able to remember very lengthy conversations and repeat them with literal exactness. Finally, why not assume that John himself could have recorded individual conversations of Christ for himself and then made use of what he had recorded?

They ask: “Where could John, a simple fisherman from Galilee, have acquired such philosophical education as is evident in his Gospel? Is it not more natural to suppose that the fourth Gospel was written by some Gnostic or Christian from the Greeks who was educated in the study of classical literature?”

To this question one should answer as follows. First, John does not have that strict logical sequence and that systematic construction of views which characterize Greek philosophical systems. Instead of dialectic and logical analysis, in John there predominates a synthesis characteristic of systematic thinking, reminiscent rather of Eastern religious-theological contemplation than of Greek philosophy (Prof. Muretov. The Authenticity of the Discourses of the Lord in the Fourth Gospel. Orthod. Rev., 1881, Sept., p. 65 and foll.). One can therefore say that John writes as an educated Jew, and the question of where he could have acquired such Jewish education is resolved quite satisfactorily by the consideration that the father of John was a fairly wealthy man (he had hired hands of his own) and therefore both his sons, James and John, could have received a good education for the time in one of the Rabbinical schools in Jerusalem.

Some critics are troubled also by the similarity which is observed both in the content and in the style of the speeches of Christ in the fourth Gospel and in the first epistle of John. It appears as though John himself composed the speeches of the Lord... To this one should say that John, having entered the circle of disciples of Christ in earliest youth, naturally assimilated His ideas and the very manner of their expression. Then, the speeches of Christ in John are not a literal reproduction of everything that Christ said in a particular instance, but only an abbreviated transmission of what Christ actually said. Moreover, John had to transmit the speeches of Christ, pronounced in Aramaic, in Greek, and this forced him himself to seek expressions more corresponding to the meaning of Christ’s speeches, so that naturally there resulted in the speeches of Christ that tint which was characteristic of John’s own speech. Finally, between the Gospel of John and his first epistle there is undoubtedly a difference, namely, between the speech of John himself and the speeches of the Lord. Thus, salvation of people by the Blood of Christ is frequently spoken of in the first epistle of John and is passed over in silence in the Gospel. As for the form of exposition of thoughts, in the first epistle we encounter everywhere brief fragmentary instructions and maxims, while in the Gospel there are entire long speeches.

In light of everything that has been said, in opposition to the assertions of the critics, one can only agree with the positions expressed by Pope Pius X in his “Syllabus” of July 3, 1907, where the Pope recognizes as heresy the assertion of the Modernists that the Gospel of John is not history in the proper sense of the word, but mystical reflections about the life of Christ, and that it is not a genuine testimony of the apostle John concerning the life of Christ, but a reflection of those views of the person of Christ which existed in the Christian Church by the end of the first century CE.

The self-witness of the fourth Gospel

The author of the Gospel clearly identifies himself as a Jew. He is acquainted with all Jewish customs and views, especially the views of contemporary Judaism on the Messiah. Besides, he speaks as an eyewitness of everything that was accomplished at that time in Palestine. If he seems to separate himself from the Jews (for instance, he says “the feast of the Jews,” not “our feast”), this is explained by the fact that the fourth Gospel was written undoubtedly at a time when Christians had completely separated from the Jews. Besides, the Gospel was written precisely for Christians from the Gentiles, which is why the author could not speak of the Jews as “his” people. The geographical situation of Palestine at that time is also delineated with the highest accuracy and detail. This cannot at all be expected from a writer living, for example, in the second century.

As a witness of events that took place in the life of Christ, the author of the fourth Gospel further shows himself in the special chronological accuracy with which he describes the time of the occurrence of these events. He designates not only the feasts by which Christ went to Jerusalem—this is important for determining the duration of Christ’s public service 5—but even the days and weeks before and after a particular event and, finally, sometimes the hours of the events. He also speaks with accuracy about the number of persons and objects being discussed.

The details which the author provides about various circumstances of the life of Christ also give reason to conclude that the author was an eyewitness to everything he describes. Moreover, the traits with which the author characterizes the various actors of the time are so precise that they could only be indicated by an eyewitness, moreover one who well understood the distinctions existing between the various Jewish factions of the time.

That the author of the Gospel was an apostle from among the Twelve is clearly evident from the recollections he provides of many circumstances of the inner life of the circle of the Twelve. He knows well all the doubts that troubled the disciples of Christ, all their conversations with one another and with their Teacher. Moreover, he names the apostles not by the names by which they became known later in the Church, but by those which they bore in their circle of friends (for instance, he calls Bartholomew Nathanael).

It is remarkable also the attitude of the author toward the synoptists. He boldly corrects the statements of the latter at many points as an eyewitness, and moreover one who has greater authority than they do: only such a writer could speak thus boldly, without fear of condemnation from any quarter. Moreover, this was undoubtedly an apostle from among those closest to Christ, since he knows much that was not revealed to other apostles (see John 6:15).

Who then was this disciple? He does not name himself and, however, identifies himself as the beloved disciple of the Lord (John 13:23). This is not the apostle Peter, because Peter is everywhere in the fourth Gospel called by name and is directly distinguished from the unnamed disciple. From among the closest disciples there remain then two—James and John, the sons of Zebedee. But it is known that James did not leave the land of the Jews and comparatively early suffered a martyr’s death (in 41 CE). Meanwhile, the Gospel was undoubtedly written after the synoptic Gospels and, probably, at the end of the first century. Only John alone can be recognized as this closest apostle to Christ who wrote the fourth Gospel. When calling himself “the other disciple,” he always adds a definite article to this expression (ὁ μαθητής), thus clearly indicating that everyone knew him and could not confuse him with anyone else. Out of his humility he also does not name by his own name his mother, Salome, and his brother James (John 19:25). Only the apostle John could act thus, for any other writer would certainly have mentioned by name at least one of the sons of Zebedee. They object: “But the evangelist Matthew found it possible to mention his own name in his Gospel” (Matt 9:9)? Yes, but in the Gospel of Matthew the personality of the writer completely disappears in the objective depiction of Gospel events, whereas the fourth Gospel has a sharply expressed subjective character, and the writer of this Gospel, being aware of this, wished to keep his own name in the background, a name which would anyway come to mind.

The language and expression of the fourth Gospel

Both the language and the expression of the fourth Gospel clearly testify to the fact that the writer of the Gospel was a Palestinian Jew, not a Greek, and that he lived at the end of the first century. In the Gospel, first of all, there are direct and indirect references to passages from the books of the Old Testament (this can be seen in the Russian edition of the Gospel with parallel passages). Moreover, he is acquainted not only with the translation of the Seventy, but also with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament books (cf. John 19:37 and Zech 12:10 according to the Hebrew text). Then, “the particular plasticity and imagery of speech, which constitute a distinctive feature of the Hebrew genius, the arrangement of the members of a sentence and their simple construction, the striking particularity of exposition extending to tautology and repetition, brief and abrupt speech, the parallelism of the members and entire sentences and antitheses, the absence of Greek particles in the connection of sentences” and much else clearly testify that the Gospel was written by a Jew, not a Greek (Bazhenov. “Characteristics of the Fourth Gospel,” p. 374).

D. H. Müller, a member of the Viennese Academy of Sciences, in his article “The Gospel of John in the Light of Strophe Theory” (Vienna, 1909) successfully attempts to divide the most important speeches of Christ contained in the Gospel of John into strophes and in conclusion expresses the following: “After completing my work on the Sermon on the Mount, I also studied the Gospel of John, which in content and style differs so much from the synoptic Gospels, but to my considerable surprise I found that the laws of strophics govern here to the same degree as in the speeches of the prophets, in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the Quran.” Does not this fact testify that the writer of the Gospel was a genuine Jew, educated in the study of the prophets of the Old Testament? The Hebrew character in the fourth Gospel is so strong that anyone who knows the Hebrew language and has the opportunity to read the Gospel of John in a Hebrew translation would undoubtedly think that he is reading the original and not a translation. It is evident that the writer of the Gospel thought in Hebrew but expressed himself in Greek. But this is precisely how the apostle John should have written, for from childhood he was accustomed to think and speak in Hebrew, while he learned Greek only in his mature years.

The Greek language of the Gospel is, without doubt, original, not translated: both the testimonies of the church fathers and the absence of proof among those critics who for some reason want to assert that the Gospel of John was originally written in Hebrew—all this is quite sufficient to be confident in the originality of the Greek language of the fourth Gospel. Although the author of the Gospel has few terms and expressions of the Greek language in his vocabulary, these terms and expressions are as valuable as a large gold coin which is usually used in large-scale transactions by wealthy people. In terms of its composition, the language of the fourth Gospel has a character common to the entire koiné dialektos. In places, there are Hebrew words, Latin words, and some terms peculiar only to this Gospel. Finally, some words in John are used in a special sense not characteristic of other New Testament writings (for example, Logos, agapao, Ioudaioi, zoe, and others, the meaning of which will be indicated when explaining the text of the Gospel). In relation to etymological and syntactic rules, the language of the fourth Gospel generally does not differ from the rules of koiné dialektos, although there are also some distinctive features here (for example, the use of the article, the agreement of a predicate in the plural with a subject in the singular, and others).

In stylistic regard, the Gospel of John is distinguished by the simplicity of phrase construction, approaching the simplicity of ordinary speech. Here we everywhere encounter brief abrupt sentences connected by few particles. But these brief expressions often produce an extraordinarily strong impression (especially in the prologue). To give special force to a particular expression, John places it at the beginning of a phrase, and sometimes even violates the sequence in the order of speech (for instance, John 7:38). What also strikes the reader of the Gospel of John is the extraordinary abundance of dialogues, in which one or another thought is unfolded. As for the fact that in the Gospel of John, in contrast to the synoptic Gospels, parables are not found, this phenomenon can be explained by the fact that John did not think it necessary to repeat the parables that were already reported in the synoptic Gospels. However, he has something that resembles these parables—namely, allegories and various images (for example, the figurative expressions in the conversation with Nicodemus and with the Samaritan woman, or, for instance, the genuine allegory of the good shepherd and the door to the sheepfold). Besides, Christ probably did not use parables in His conversations with educated Jews, and it is precisely these conversations which John chiefly cites in his Gospel. The form of the parable was not suited either to the content of Christ’s speeches spoken in Judea: in these speeches Christ spoke of His divine dignity, and the form of images and parables was completely unsuited for this—dogmas are inconvenient to express in parables. The disciples of Christ could also understand the teaching of Christ without parables.

Commentaries on the Gospel of John and other works concerning this Gospel

Among the ancient works devoted to the study of the Gospel of John, the first chronologically is the work of the Valentinian Heracleon (150–180 CE), fragments of which are preserved in Origen (there is also a special edition by Brooke). Then follows a very detailed commentary by Origen himself, which has been preserved, however, not in its complete form (ed. Preuschen, 1903). Then come eighty-eight homilies on the Gospel of John belonging to the holy bishop John Chrysostom (in Russian translation from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 1902). The commentary by Theodore of Mopsuestia in Greek is preserved only in fragments, but now there has appeared a Latin translation of the Syriac text of this work, which reproduces almost everything in full form. The commentary of the holy bishop Cyril of Alexandria was published in 1910 at the Moscow Theological Academy. Then come one hundred twenty-four homilies on the Gospel of John belonging to the blessed Augustine (in the Latin language). Finally, worthy of attention is the commentary on the Gospel of John belonging to the blessed Theophylact (translation at the Kazan Theological Academy).

Among the new commentaries by Western theologians, the following deserve attention: the works of Tholuck (1857), Meyer (1902), Luthardt (1876), Godet (1903), Keil (1881), Westcott (1882), Schanz (1885), Knabenbauer (1906), Schlatter (1902), Loisy (1903), Heitmuller (in I. Weiss’s “New Testament Writings,” 1907), Zahn (1908), Holtzmann (1908).

Among the most prominent works of Western scholars of the so-called critical direction devoted to the Gospel of John are the works of Bretschneider, Weisze, Schwegler, Bruno, Bauer, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Toma, Jacobsen, O. Holtzmann, Wendt, Kreyenbühl, I. Reville, Grill, Wrede, Scott, Wellhausen, and others. The latest major work of the critical direction is: “Spitta”. Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu. Göttingen, 1910.

In the apologetic direction on the Gospel of John wrote: Black, Stier, Weiss, Edersheim (“The Life of Jesus the Messiah,” the first volume of which was translated into Russian), Shastau, Delf, P. Ewald, Nesgen, Kluge, Kammerlincke, Schlatter, Stanton, Drummond, Sanday, Smith, Bart, Gebel, Lepin. 6 But even these works must be used with caution...

In Russian theological literature there are many explanations of the Gospel of John and separate articles and pamphlets relating to the study of this Gospel. In 1874, the work of Archimandrite (later Bishop) Michael (Luzin) appeared in its first edition under the title: “The Gospel of John in Slavonic and Russian Languages with Prefaces and Detailed Explanatory Notes.” In 1887, the “Essay on the Study of the Gospel of the Holy Apostle John the Theologian” by George Vlastov appeared, in two volumes. In 1903, there was published a popular explanation of the Gospel of John compiled by Archbishop Nikanor (Kamenskiy), and in 1906—“Commentary on the Gospel,” compiled by B. I. Gladkov, in which the Gospel of John is also explained popularly. There are also popular explanations of the Gospel of John by Eusebius, Archbishop of Mogilev (in the form of sermons on Sundays and feast days), Protopriest Mikhailovskiy, Bukharev, and some others. The most useful aid for becoming acquainted with what was written about the Gospel of John before 1893 is the “Collection of Articles on the Interpretative and Edifying Reading of the Four Gospels” by M. Barsov. The subsequent literature up to 1904 on the study of the Gospel of John is indicated by Prof. Bogdashevskiy in the Orthodox-Theological Encyclopedia, vol. VI, pp. 836–837, and partly by Prof. Sagarda (there, p. 822). Among the most recent Russian literature on the study of the Gospel of John, the following dissertations are worthy of special attention: I. Bazhenov, “Characteristics of the Fourth Gospel from the Point of View of its Content and Language in Connection with the Question of the Origin of the Gospel,” 1907; D. Znamenskiy, “The Teaching of the Holy Apostle John the Theologian in the Fourth Gospel Concerning the Person of Jesus Christ,” 1907; Prof. Bogoslovskiy, “The Public Service of the Lord Jesus Christ,” 1908, part 1.

* * *

Notes

This is evidenced by the fact that in the Gospel explanations of Hebrew words and customs are frequently given (for example, John 11:38-42 and others).

It is not possible to determine precisely the time and place of the writing of the Gospel of John. It is only probable that the Gospel was written in Ephesus, at the end of the first century.

A specimen of the critical attitude toward the Gospel of John is the little book by O. P. Fleider, translated into Russian in 1910—“The Origin of Christianity,” pp. 154–166.

Proofs of the incorruption of the Gospel will be given in their proper place, in the explanation of the text of the Gospel.

The chronology of the life of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of John is as follows. After receiving baptism from John, Christ remains for some time near the Jordan and here calls His first disciples (John 1). Then He goes to Galilee, where He lives until Pascha (John 2:1-11). At Pascha He comes to Jerusalem, this is the first Pascha during the time of His public service (John 2:12-3:21). Then Christ after this Pascha, probably in April, leaves Jerusalem and remains in the land of Judea until the end of December (John 3:22-4:1). By January Christ comes through Samaria to Galilee (John 4:43-54) and here lives for a fairly long time: all the end of winter and summer. At Pascha, however (an allusion to it is made in John 4:35)—the second Pascha during the time of His public activity—He apparently did not go to Jerusalem. Only at the feast of Booths (John 5:1) does He appear again in Jerusalem, where He apparently remained for a very short time. Then He spends several months in Galilee (John 6:1). At Pascha of this year (John 6:4) Christ again did not go to Jerusalem, this is the third Pascha of His public service. At the feast of Booths, however, He appears in Jerusalem (John 7-10:21), then spends about two months in Perea and in December, at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, again comes to Jerusalem (John 10:22). Then Christ soon again leaves for Perea, from where for a short time He appears in Bethany (John 11). From Bethany until the fourth Pascha He remains in Ephraim, from where He comes to the last Pascha, the fourth, in Jerusalem, in order to die here at the hands of His enemies. Thus, John mentions four Passover feasts, within the circle of which is contained the history of the public service of Jesus Christ, which lasted, evidently, more than three years.

The latest work in time is that of Lepin. La valeur historique du IV-e Evangile 2 vol. Paris, 1910, 8 fran.