; xiv. 30 ; xvi. II) ; and also quoting the say ing„ John x. 8, as the word of Christ. From the sante source, also (vii. 22, 27, p. 232, 242), we learn that Basilides was acquainted with John's Gospel, and cited it ; and this brings us up to the beginning of the 2d century, within a short time of the apostle's death.
This concurrence of external testimony is the more noticeable, as there are certain peculiarities in the fourth gospel which would have thrown sus picion on its genuineness had not that been placed beyond doubt by the knowledge which the Chris tians had of its having proceeded from the pen of John. Of these are the prominence given to the extra-Galilean ministry of our Lord ; the record of remarkable miracles, such as the healing of the impotent man (ch. v.), of the blind man (ch. ix.), the raising from the dead of Lazarus, and others, omitted by the other evangelists ; the insertion of so many discourses of Jesus, of which no hint is found in the other gospels, as well as the omission of remarkable facts in the evangelic history, espe cially the institution of the supper and the ag,ony in the garden ; and certain important apparent dis crepancies between this and the synoptic gospels. In perfect keeping with this assumption, also, is the entire tone, spirit, and character of the Gospel ; it is emphatically, as Clement of Alexandria calls it, the rvevparticoP elia-y-yaLov, and breathes through out the spirit which was characteristic of the dis ciple whom Jesus loved.' The work is evidently the production of one who was, as the writer pro fesses to be (i. 14 [comp. John i. ; iv. 141 ; xbc. 35 ; xxi. 24), an eye-vvitness of what he narrates ; and there is a simplicity, a naturalness, and a vividness in the whole narrative which no forger of a later age could have attained—which the very consciousness of composing what was in tended to be an imposition, would have precluded. The remarkable manner, also, in which the writer avoids introducing John by name (ch. xiik 23 ; xix. 26 ; xx. 2, 3, ; xxi. 7, 24), affords addi tional evidence that John himself was the writer. It has been urged also by some (Bleek, Ebrard, Credner), that the use of the simple 'liorttnnly, without in any case the addition of the usual Barrtorlis, to designate the Baptist, in this Gospel, is an evidence of its being the production of John the apostle, on the ground that, supposing the apostle not to be the writer, one would expect that he should, like the Synoptists, discriminate the Baptist from the Apostle by this epithet, whereas, supposing the apostle himself to be the writer, be would feel less prompted to do so ' (Bleek, Einleit.
d. N. T., p. i48) ; but to this much weight cannot be attached, for though it is probable that a writer taking his materials from the other evan gelists would have designated John as they do, and though, as Meyer suggests (Km?. Exeg. Comm.
fiber N. T., Ein. ins Ev. des Yohannes, p. 23), it is probable that John, who had been a disciple of the Baptist, might prefer speaking of him by the name by which he had been accustomed to desig nate him during their personal intercourse, rather than by his hictorical name ; yet as we cannot tell what considerations might have occurred to a forger writing in the apostle's name to induce him to drop the distinctive epithet, it is hardly competent for us to accept this omission as a proof that the work is not the production of a forger. It is needless to press every minute particular into the service of the argument for the genuineness of this Gospel ; it is impossible to read it without feeling that it is Johannine in all its parts, and that, had it been the production of any other than the apostle, that other must, in mind, spirit, affection, circum stances, and character, have been a second John.
It is only comparatively recently that any attempt has been made to impugn the genuineness of this gospel. The work of Bretschneider, entitled Pro babilia de Evangelii et Epp. yohannis apost.
et origine, Lips. 1820, is the earliest formal attack of any importance made upon it ; and this the author has himself assured us, was made by him with a view of anew exciting and extending inquiry into the genuineness of the Johannine writings, an end which, he adds, has been gained, so that the doubts he suggested may be regarded as dis charged (Dogmatik, p. 26S, 3d ed. [BRET SCHNEIDERD, Since this work appeared, the claims of the Gospel have been opposed by Strauss in his leben Yesn ; by Weisse, in his Evavelische Geschichte ; by Ltitzelberger (Die Kirchliche dilion fib. d. Apost. yak.); by Baur (Krit. Unter such. fib. d. Kanonischen Eyeing.); by Hilgenfeld (Das Eyeing. it. die Briefe yoh. nach ihrem zehrbeg,-. dargestellt), and by others. But the reasons ad vanced by these writers have so little force, and have been so thoroughly replied to, that even in Germany the general opinion has reverted to the ancient and catholic belief in respect of the author ship of the fourth gospel. The reader who wishes to go into the controversy may consult with ad vantage the following works in reply to those above noted : Stein, Aziatcntia Ev. yoh. vindicata, Bran denb. 1822 ; Crorne, Probabilia haud prohabllia. oa'er IViderlegung der von Dr. Bretschneider gegen d. aechtheit des Ev. u. d. Br. Yoh. erhobenen Zwertel, Leipz. r824.; Hauff, Die iluthentie d. habe Tara a'. Ev. Yoh., Niirnberg 1831 ; and in the Stud. und Krit. for ;846, p. 8o6 ; Tholuck, Glaubwardigkeit der Evang. Gesch. ; Ebrard, d. Evangel. Geschichte, Ztir. 185o, 2d ed. ; Ewald, 7ahrbuch, p. 146, v. p. 178 ; Meyer, Krit. Exeg. COMM. ii. Th. 2 Abt., Gott. i856, 3d ed. ; Bleek, Ein/. in a'. N. T., Berl 1862 ; Davidson, introduction to the N: T., i. p. 233, ff.