JOHN, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. I. Genuine ness. —There is no reason to doubt that the fourth gospel was from the beginning received in the church as the production of the apostle whose name it bears. We may decline to accept as a testimony for this the statement at the close of the Gospel itself (xxi. 24), for this can have the force of an independent testimony only on the supposi tion that the passage was added by another hand ; and though there is an evident allusion in Pet. i. 14 to what is recorded in John xxi. 18, 19, yet as that saying of the Lord was one which tradition would be sure to send forth among the brethren (comp. ver. 23), it cannot be inferrer' from Peter's allusion to it that it was then put on record as we have it in the Gospel. We may also admit that the passages in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers which have been adduced as evidencing, on their part, acquaintance with this Gospel are not decisive ; as all of them may owe their ac cordance with John's statements to the influence of true tradition, or to the necessary resemblance of the just utterance of Chritian thought and feeling by different men ; though in three of the passages cited from Ignatius (Ad Rom. vii. ; .4d Trail. viii. ; and Ad Philad. vii.) the coincidence of the two first with John vi. 32, ff., and of the last with John iii. 8, is almost too close to be accounted for in this way* (Ebrard, Evang. yoh., p. toz ; Rothe, Anfiinge der Christi. p. 715). But Eusebius attests that this Gospel was among- the books universally received in the church (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25) ; and it cannot be doubted that it formed part of the canon of the churches, both of the East and West, before the end of the 2d century [CANoNJ. It is in the Peshito, and in the Muratori Fragment. It is quoted or referred to by Justin Martyr (Apol. 52, 61 ; ii. 6; c. Tryph. 105, etc. ; comp. Olshau sen, Echtheit der Ran. Evv., p. 3o4, ff.) ; by Ta tian (Orat. ad Graces, 4, 13, 19), who, indeed, composed a Diatessaron (Euseb., H. E., iv. 29 ;. Theod., Haret. Fab.,i. zo), in preparing which he must have had this Gospel before him ; in the Epistle of the Church at Vienne and Lyons (Euseb. v. 1) ; by Melito of Sardes (see Pitra, Specileg. Solmense, Prolegom. p. 5, Paris 1352) ; by Athenagoras (leg. pro Christ. 1o); by Apolli naris (Frag. Chron. Pasch., p. 14, ed. Dindorf) ; by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 24); and in the Clementine Homilies (xix. 22,
ed. Dressel, 1853), in such a way that not only is its existence proved, but evidence is afforded of the esteem in which it was held as canonical from the middle of the al century. Still more precise is the testimony of Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who not only composed a IIarmony of the four evangelists (Hieron., De viris illust. 25; Ep. 15i, ad Algasiam), but in an extant work (Ad Auto/. ii. 22) expressly quotes John i. as part of Holy Scripture, and as the production of the apostle, whom he ranks among the inauparoOdpot. More important still is the testimony of Irenmus (Ear.
iii. tr. 3, p. 218, ed. Grabe), both because of his acquaintance in early youth with Polycarp, and because of the distinctness and unhesitating confi dence with which lie asserts the Johannine origin of this Gospel. To these testimonies may be added that of Celsus, the enemy of the Christians, who, in preparing his attack upon them, evidently had the four canonical gospels before him, and of whose citations front them some are undoubtedly from that of John (comp. Olshausen, bk. cited, p. 349, 355 ; Dicke, Comment. i. 68, ff., 3d ed.) ; which shetvs that, at the time when he wrote, this Gospel must have been in general acceptance by the Christians as canonical. The heretic Mar eion, also, in rejecting this gospel on dogmatical grounds, is a witness to the fact, that its canonical authority was generally held by the Christians (Tertull. c. Marcion, iv. 5 ; de Carne Christi). That the Gospel was recognised as canonical by the Valentinians, one of the most important sects of the 2d century, is placed beyond doubt by the statement of Irenmus (Haw. iti. and by the fact that it is quoted by Ptolemxus, a disciple of Valentinus (Epiphan., Har. xxxiii. 3), and was commented on by Heracleon, another of his dis ciples, both of whom lived about the middle of the 2d century. That Valentinus himself knew and used the hook is rendered probable by this, and by the statement of Tertullian (De Freese,: 'far. 38), that Valentinus accepted the Biblical canon entire, though he perverted its meaning ; and this probability is raised to certainty by the fact that, in the recently discovered work of Hip polytus, Valentinus is found twice (Philosoph. vi. 33, 34, ed. Miller) citing the phrase b apxcm, Kbo-kum Tarot", as applied to the devil, which occurs only in John's Gospel, and repeatedly there (xii.