One must admit, therefore, that the internal evidence, drawn from the book itself, is not clear, either as to its date or author. It seems to claim an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, even a "beloved disciple," as its author. On the other hand, the quality of its theology and the stage of theological development and the char acter of the theological controversies presup posed in the book seem to indicate a date when authorship by an apostle becomes very question able. Its other internal characteristics are not decisive.
IV. The External The testi mony of early Christian writers after about 160 A.D. is practically unanimous as to the early date and Johannine authorship of the gospel. Even the sole known exception, the small and obscure group in Asia Minor, later called the Alogi, with possibly the Roman presbyter Gaius, did not dispute the early date, though they asserted that the gnostic Cerinthus was its au thor. Sudh writers as Theophilus of Antioch, Irenieus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage assumed that the Johan nine authorship was indisputable. They knew of no other tradition. But as our inquiry is pushed back toward the beginning of the 2d century traces of the use or knowledge of the gospel become increasingly uncertain. It must be remembered, however, that the same thing is measurably true of each one of the Synoptics, especially Mark, the oldest gospel of all. Justin (140-50 A.D.) almost certainly used our gospel as the work of the Apostle John. Igna tius of Antioch (110-17 A.D.) was acquainted with its type of thought and may have read it. Both Papias (c. 140 A.D.) and Polycarp (110-17 A.D.) made use of 1 John, which speaks for rather than against their knowledge of the gospel, but this is all that can be said with confidence. The evidence that Basilides, the Egyptian Gnostic (c. 130), used our gospel is strong, though not free from uncertainty. That I Clement, writ ten in the West, at Rome, about 96 A.D. con tains no allusion to this gospel is not surprising. In case the gospel was written in Asia between 90 and 100 A.D. a reasonable time must be al lowed for it to have become generally circulated and known as familiarly as the older gospels were. When this is taken into consideration the evidence for the gospel compares very favor ably with that in favor of Mark, for example.
The reliability of the tradition that the Apostle John lived °to the times of Trajan" (98-117), as it is expressed by Irenieus, and that the later part of his life was spent in Asia (Ephesus) has been emphatically disputed by many critics, especially since DeBoor proved from newly-discovered evidence that Papias probably said something about John being put to death by the Jews. But the exact wording of Papias' statement has not been recovered, nor the context to which it belonged. Until we have more than only a few fragments of Papias' work in our hands, we shall not be able to base any conclusions on what he may have said or meapt. Irenzu,s' testimony as to how he himself, in his youth, heard Polycarp of Asia speak of his intercourse with the Apostle John is positive and cannot easily be brushed aside. Then there is the obscure figure of an "Elder" named John, spoken of by Pa pias, who may have become confused, even as early as c. 140-50 A.D., with the Apostle John.
V. The decision of the crit ical question is, it is evident, beset by great difficulties. The external evidence, while on the whole favorable to Johannine authorship, is not strong enough to be considered decisive. The internal evidence is conflicting. It is both for and against the traditional view. Each of the opposing views can be supported with forcible arguments, and a decision will probably be found to rest mainly on one's personal equation.
No one knows (historically) when the Apos tle John died, nor where or how he spent his last years. No one knows what were his mental and spiritual gifts. No one can say that he could or could not have written such a book as the Fourth Gospel. But these things are practically certain: the Fourth Gospel must have been composed after the Synoptic tradi tion was generally accepted. It was composed by one who was richly endowed with spiritual insight, who had a profound Christian experi ence, and who had thought deeply on some of the greatest problems of theology and was able to discuss or state them in marvelously simple and concise language. Can any one say positively that an agedapostle could not have planned deliberately a "spiritual" gospel in which the words and deeds of Jesus were to be treated symbolically rather than literally? However the problem of authorship may eventually be solved, the fact remains that in the Fourth Gospel the Christian Church pos sesses a treasure of priceless worth. To the spiritually minded of all the Christian cen turies this gospel has ministered more effec tively, probably, than any other New Testa ment Book. It has spoken untold comfort to the troubled and sorrowing. A mystic influ ence emanates from it and under its spell God and eternal life become realities of experience. Whoever wrote it had sounded the depths of the revelation of Christ. Through its influence the early Church was enabled to clarify and unify its faith, and realize the full significance of the gospel in an age when subtle specula tions threatened to strangle its life and confuse its mind.
literature on the Fourth Gospel (including usually a consideration of the Epistle of John) is extraordinarily extensive and cannot be listed here. The most service able recent list will be found in Moffat's 'In troduction to the Literature of the New Testa ment' (New York 1915). Of special import ance are the following: Zahn, 'Introduction to the New Testament' (Vol. III, Edinburgh 1909); Feine, Paul. 'Theologic des neuen Testa ments' (2 Aufl. Leipzig 1910, pp. 514-631) ; 'En cyclopxdia Biblica) (Vol. II, New York 1901, articles and "John, Apostle') ; Bacon, B. W., 'The Fourth Gospel in Literature and Debate' (New York 1910) ; Stanton, V. H., 'The Gospels as Historical Documents' (Part I, Cambridge 1903) • Sanday, W., 'The Crit icism of the Fourtl, Gospel) (New York 1905) ; Drummond, J., 'The Character and Authorship of the Fourth (London 1903) ; Scott, E. F., The Fourth Gospel' (Edinburgh 1906) ; 'Cambridge Biblical Essays' (New York 1909, pp. 251-329) ; Findlay, G. G., 'Fellowship in the Life Eternal> (on 1 John, London 1909) ; Lati mer, Jackson, 'The Problem of the Fourth Gospel' (Cambridge 1914).