Turning now from the Gospel to the records of the early Church. the facts are these: Writers of the period 170-200 show great familiarity with the Gospel, quoting it frequently and often speak ing of John the Apostle as the author. In addi tion to this there are several explicit statements of importance. IrenTns (e.130-200), whose early home was in Asia Minor, declares that it was by John the Apostle. who spent his last years in Ephesus and there wrote the Gospel to counteract the teachings of Cerinthus (Adr. Herr. ii. 22, 5; iii. 1, 1; iii. 4 and xi. 11. (See CERIN Polycrates, a bishop of Ephesus, in a letter to Victor of Rome. e.190. speaks of John, `who reclined on the breast of the Lord.' as buried in Ephesus. Polyearp (born or converted about A.D. 69, martyred 155). Bishop of Smyrna. was known to Iremens, who as a youth heard him tell of his intercourse with John and others who had seen Jesus (Euseb., Hi.st. Eccles.. v. 20). In such statements we have the testimony of personal experiences carrying us back to John himself. Justin Martyr, writing c.150. who had already spent sonic time in Ephesus, uses the Gospel as one of the Apostolic memoirs, but says nothing about it in particular. Evidence for the existence and use of the Gospel before Justin is not entirely lacking. though not altogether certain. It is likely that it was known to Ignatius of Antioch (c.110-115), to the writer of the Epistle to Bar nabas (c.125) and to the early Gnostic Basilides (e.125). External evidence then quite clearly points to the existence of the Gospel soon after A.D. 100, assigns it to John, and indicates Ephesus as the place where it was written. It must be admitted, however, that this evidence is not alto gether satisfactory. Papias of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (e.70-140), author of a work contain ing early Christian traditions from which Euse bius has given extracts, speaks apparently of a certain .John the Elder, in distinction from John the Apostle, also a disciple of Jesus, as a promi nent Christian in Asia Minor. Furthermore, Ignatius. in his letters to Asia Minor Christians, does not mention John the Apostle as influential in Asia. nor does Polyearp, in his epistle that has come down to us. This silence is surprising, especially in view of Iremeus's statement that Pulyearp loved to talk about John, yet it does not seem to be sufficient to overthrow the strong positive evidence mentioned above. The general hearing of the evidence of the Gospel itself, coupled with the external testimony, is therefore to the effect that the fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle John, late in life, at Ephesus in Asia Minor.
Nevertheless, by sonic modern critics this view is pronounced untenable. The more important seasons for such an opinion are: (1) The charac ter of the teachings in the fourth Gospel and the representation there given of .Jesus' life and words are, on the one hand, so from what we have in the first three Gospels, and, on the other hand, fit in so well with the doctrinal developments of the first half of the second cen tury, that it seems necessary. apart from the question of authorship, to consider it a product of early second-century thought. Such a position practically necessitates giving up the Johannine authorship. (2) The evident use made of the Synoptic Gospels by the fourth does not accord with Apostolic authorship of the latter. (3) The vagueness in the recorded tradition of Asia Minor makes it possible that it was John 'the Elder,' lather than John the Apostle, who worked there, and that soon after his death, by an easy con fusion, much of his activity was aseribed to .John the Apostle, who may not have lived in Ephesus at all. (4) Certain particulars in the history of
Christianity in Asia Minor, especially the appeal of Polyearp to the authority of John in the Quar todeeiman controversy. which is said to contra diet the statements in the Gospel, show that early in the second century the Gospel was not recog nized in that region as of Apostolic origin.
The two latter of these arguments rest on such uncertain grounds that much weight should not he attached to them. The Quartodeeiman contro versy in its early stages was concerned with the question of the proper time to begin the observ ance of Easter. the Christian Passover, and did not touch the question of the particular day of the month when Jesus ate the last supper. Polycarp claimed that John had taught them to celebrate the Passover regularly on the 14th of Nisan. the usual Jewish day. Even if, with many, we should hold that the fourth Gospel places the last sup per on the 13th of Nisan. l'olyearp might easily have made his appeal to .lohn and also eonshh•red him the author of the Gospel. The third argu ment presents a possibility, but not a probability. It may he said with confidence that such a con fusion of ideas among men who had personal knowledge of the facts is altogether unlikely. It does not appear to have been noticed by the ad vocates of this theory that the eon fusion of John the Presbyter and John the Apostle must then have antedated the (Espel itself: for not only xxi. 23, hut the whole book, rests on the supposition or claim that the Apostle John is its authority. But this involves improbabilities that are fatal to the supposition. There must have been sub stantial reasons for the claim of the Gospel to be Johannine and for the ready acceptance of it as such by the leaders of the Church in Asia Minor. In other words, the activity of John in Asia Minor and the conviction that the Gospel rests on him as its authority is the only reasonable explanation of its history as known to us.
If the external attestation and the claim of the book itself point tin istakahly to the above conclusion, just as certainly do the contents appear to lead another way. How can a hook so different from the Synoptic Gospels and with such advanced theological ideas he ascribed to John, the Galilean fisherman? We have here a problem with several elements. There is the question of fact—what is the actual relation of the fourth to the first three Gospels? There is also the clement of authorship—tn what extent does the hook claim to be by .John himself—alto gether, or only in part? And finally, there is the question of the personal qualifications and capaci ties of .John—what he was able to produce. To say that. the theology or philosophy of the book is such that John could not have written it, is to take a purely hypothetical and even arbitrary position. We do not know, and have no means of knowing. what John could have produced. Sonic one wrote the book and he was a gifted man. Ile may as well have been John as any other Christian Jew. That the honk marks a stage of th night supplementary to the primitive Apostolic and Pauline developments is not to lie denied. The existence of such further develop ment is largely due to this book. The hook created. (lid not result from it. If it was by John it simply reflects the growth df his own religious experience. He had lived close to the Master, he had seen the origin and progress of the Church, he had known Paul, and at last had lived for some time in the speculative atmosphere of Ephesus. • This hook gives his final judgments, his memory of Jesus, his impressions of Hint after these years of experience.