No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Fourth Gospel and the Church
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2011
Extract
There are two important chronological questions in the history of the Fourth Gospel: the date of its composition and the date of its acceptance by the church. The solution of the first depends in large measure on the question of John's use of the synoptic gospels. Did he use them at all? And, if he did, in what way? There can be no doubt that if he knew them he had little interest in their historical value. But does this mean that he had more authentic historical data? Or that he was interested not in history but in theology?
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1942
References
1 P. Gardner-Smith, St. John and the Synoptic Gospels (1938).
2 Windisch, H., Johannes und die Synoptiker (1926)Google Scholar.
3 Grant, F. C. in JBL, lvi (1937), 285 ffGoogle Scholar.
4 Benoit, P. in Rev. Bibl., xlvii (1939), 456Google Scholar. Goguel (Intr. au N.T., iii (1923), 222) cites the personages who appear only in these gospels as proofs of John's use of Luke; but on Annas in the chronology of Luke see my note in HTR, xxxiii (1940), 151 ff., and on Mary and Martha the article cited in note 3 above.
5 Windisch, op. cit., 182.
6 I Corinthians xi. 26.
7 John xix. 33, 36.
8 As von Campenhausen, H. in ZNTW, xxxiii (1934), 259Google Scholar ff.
9 H. Windisch, op. cit., 77; Lohmeyer, E. in ZNTW, xxxviii (1939), 115 ffGoogle Scholar.
10 Moffatt, J. in Expositor, vi (1910), 3Google Scholar.
11 JTS, xxvii (1926), 259Google Scholar.
12 Luke xxiv. 35; see Lietzmann, H., Messe und Herrenmahl (1926), 238 ff.Google Scholar, and Cullmann, O. in RHPR, xvi (1936), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.
13 Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (1935), 191Google Scholar.
14 Ref. Omn. Haer., vii. 22.
15 Fragment from Acta Archelai, 67 (96 Beeson); Clement of Alex., Strom., i. 21 (p. 95 Stählin).
16 So Windisch, H. in ZNTW, vii (1906), 236Google Scholar ff.
17 A. von Harnack, Marcion (ed. 2, 1924), 32.
18 Origen, De Princ. i, praef. 8 = Kerygma Petri; Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. 16 = Gosp. of Hebrews; Eusebius, H.E., iii. 36.11 = unknown. Bacon, B. W., The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (1910), 60Google Scholar, takes this argument over from the Oxford Committee's The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 83.
19 H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel, etc.
20 Bell, H. I., Recent Discoveries of Biblical Papyri (1937), 20Google Scholar.
21 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haer., vii. 38.
22 Gregory, C. R., The Canon and Text of the N.T. (1907), 180Google Scholar.
23 C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel.
24 Ibid., 22.
25 On this point see Harrison, P. N., Polycarp's Two Epistles, etc. (1936)Google Scholar.
26 Irenaeus, iii. 3. 4; Eus., H.E., iv. 14. 9 mentions only his use of I Peter.
27 The Johannine Epistles (1912), liii; but see Sir E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (1940), i. 109.
28 Polycarp's name in a list of users of the Apocalypse, in Jerome's commentary on the Psalms (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 2 (1897), 5Google Scholar), is not convincing proof, for the several epistles of Polycarp (Irenaeus, v. 33. 4) may be no more than the one known to us (see note 25).
29 Clement, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, Jerome.
30 Andrew of Caesarea, In Apoc., 34.
31 Irenaeus, v. 36. 2.
32 Cramer, Catena in Act. i. 18 (iii. 12); Professor Nock points out that it was customary in antiquity to associate writers in a teacher-disciple relationship. Thus Jerome calls Lactantius a disciple of Arnobius — but evidence of Lactantius using Arnobius has not been produced.
33 Adv. Marc., iv. 5.
34 De Carne Christi, 3; Adv. Marc., iv. 3 f.
35 Trypho, 81.
36 Ibid., 103.
37 Apol., i. 61.
38 Ibid., i. 65.
39 Drummond, J., Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1904), 100Google Scholar; one should make some deductions for the apocryphal gospel Justin used.
40 Buckley, E. R. in JTS, xxxvi (1935), 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff. I may suggest that he had found this work in Palestine; in Rome the church would probably recognize only the synoptic gospels. It may have been Predicatio Pauli; compare the fragment in Routh, Rel. Sacr., v. 825 f., with Trypho, 88. It is of course possible, on the other hand, that his variants from synoptic tradition are due to oral material and folk lore or (in some cases) memory quotation.
41 Right Ginza v. 3 (188 Lidzbarski).
42 R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, 339; W. Scott, Hermetica, i. 238. 20.
43 Compare the possibly Roman II Clement, which uses the synoptics and an uncertain apocryphal gospel.
44 Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 4.
45 de Bruyne, D. in Rev. bénédictine, xl (1928), 193 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. von Harnack, Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Ak. (phil.-hist. Kl.), 1928, 322 ff.; my own notes in ATR, xxiii (1941), 231 ff.
46 Bacon, B. W. in JTS, xxiii (1922), 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff.
47 La Piana, G. in HTR, xviii (1925), 216Google Scholar.
48 JBL, 1 (1931), 77Google Scholar ff.
49 HTR, xxxiii (1940), 189Google Scholar. It should also be noted that in the Jewish calendar Passover and Passion would come on the same day; cf. G. M. Styler in ATR, xxiii (1941), 67 ff.
50 The Primitive Church (1929), 265 ff.; so Corssen, P. in ZNTW, v (1904), 266Google Scholar ff.
51 In T.U., xxxiii (1919). Dating it from the Quartodeciman controversy is dangerous because it is not a strikingly tendentious work; but I see little reason to place it so early as 150 (as K. Lake in HTR, xiv (1921), 24Google Scholar). What evidence is there that its author thought the resurrection took place in A.D. 30? It should be noted that some scholars place the Epistula's origin in Egypt (Hatch, W. H. P. in HTR, xxi (1928), 152Google Scholar).
52 It is related in Clement of Alexandria, Adumbratio to I John i. 1 (Gr. Chr. Schr., iii. 210), though possibly second-hand (Hennecke, N.T. Apokr.2 (1924), 171).
53 von Harnack, A., Chronologie d. altchristl. Litt., i (1897), 542Google Scholar.
54 Acta Iohannis 14 (Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr., ii. 1. 159 f.).
55 De Praesc. Haer., 32; Timothy as first bishop of Ephesus: Fascher in Pauly-Wissowa, RE vi A 1350.
56 Fragment in Routh, Rel. Sacr., i. 121; Otto, Apol. Rel., ix. 416. Some texts, of course, provide three or four; see Hoskyns, op. cit., i. 206, 291 f.
57 Bonner, C., The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis, Studies and Documents, xii (1940), 40Google Scholar.
58 Routh, Rel. Sacr., i. 160 f.; Otto, ix. 486 f.
59 Origen, Contra Celsum, ii. 28; ii. 31.
60 Ibid., vi. 24 ff.; viii. 15 ff.
61 H.E., v. 10.
62 Bacon, B. W. in ZNTW, xxvi (1927), 190Google Scholar.
63 Irenaeus, iii. 1. 1.
64 Ibid., v. 33. 4.
65 Ibid., ii. 22. 5.
66 Philip of Side, Georgios Hamartolos, Mark x. 39, Rev. xi. 8.
67 H.E., iv. 5. 3.
68 Epiphanius, Haer., lxvi. 20.
69 Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus, in H.E., v. 20. 6.
70 Irenaeus, Letter to Victor, in H.E., v. 24. 16.
71 In Contemp. Rev., lxxi (1897), 226.
72 De Praesc. Haer., 32; Irenaeus, iii. 3. 4.
73 Vita Polycarpi, 22–23.
74 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haer., vi. 35.
75 Irenaeus, i. 28. 1.
76 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haer., viii. 19; Apollinaris in H.E., v. 16. 2.
77 H.E., ii. 25. 6; his objections are pre-Irenaean (iii. 11. 9).
78 H.E., iii. 31. 4.
79 H.E., ii. 25. 7.
80 H.E., iii. 28. 2.
81 R. Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epiphanios.
82 Bacon, B. W., The Fourth Gospel, etc. (1910), 231Google Scholar ff.
83 Epiphanius, li. 3.
84 Epiphanius, li. 4.
85 Epiphanius, li. 18; see the quotations from Barsalîbî in Lawlor-Oulton, Eusebius, H.E., vi. 20. 3. I think it more likely that Gaius rejected the gospel in Dialogue and Kephalaia alike and was not quoted fully by Eusebius than that he accepted it in the Kephalaia.
86 Epiphanius, li. 22.
87 Epiphanius, li. 17; 18; 21; H. Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker, 4.
88 Epiphanius, li. 18.
89 E. Schwartz in Abhandlungen d. K. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen (phil.-hist. Kl.), N.F., vii. 5, 30 ff.; so A. Jülicher in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, vii. 509 f.; see also Harris, J. R., Hennas in Arcadia (1896), 43Google Scholar ff.
90 Epiphanius, li. 12; 18.
91 Letter to Victor, in H.E., v. 24. 3.
92 A. E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon, Texts and Studies i. 4 (1891), 55; Origen, In Iohann., vi. 2. See Sir E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, i. 149.
93 H.E., v. 18. 4.
94 W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei (1934), 210; Ptolemaeus in Irenaeus, i. 8. 5.
95 Ibid., 96.
96 Richardson, C. C. in HTR, xxxiii (1940), 184Google Scholar.
97 Epiphanius, li. 18.
98 Ibid., li. 22.
99 Ibid., li. 18.
100 Turner, C. H. in JTS, iii (1901), 117Google Scholar, makes this parallel.
101 Nock, A. D. in HTR, xxxii (1939), 95Google Scholar.
102 C. H. Turner argued in JTS, iii (1901), 116, that the Alogi were an offshoot of the Montanists; but his testimonies from Epiphanius are not convincing, and the evidence of Irenaeus, iii. 11. 9 does not concern the Montanists (cf. iv. 33. 6), even if the text be read “pseudoprophetae” (a reading Burkitt rejected in CAH, xii. 456 n. 2).
103 M. Goguel, La Vie de Jésus (1932), 326: Paul would never have argued his apostleship had the earthly Jesus instituted it.
104 Gavin, F. in ATR, ix (1927), 250Google Scholar ff.
105 Luke ix. 10, xvii. 5, xxii. 14, xxiv. 10.
106 John xiii. 16 does not speak of “apostles” but of “sent ones.” Bauer, W., Das Johannesevangelium3 (1933), 170Google Scholar, compares Bereshith rabba 78, where the teaching is “The sender is greater than the one sent.” Note also Matthew x. 24; Luke vi. 40; the article by Gavin cited in note 104.
107 Matthew x. 2, a purely editorial remark: “these are the names of the twelve apostles.”
108 Luke vi. 13.
109 Rev. xxi. 14: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
110 I Corinthians xv. 5.
111 M. Goguel, op. cit., 368; Gardner-Smith, op. cit., 36. It is of great importance, as R. H. Lightfoot remarks (History and Interpretation in the Gospels (1935), 82), that “in St. John's gospel the church is founded at the first meeting of Jesus with his disciples after the crucifixion, John xx. 19–23.”
112 Sir E. Hoskyns, op. cit., ii. 594.
113 Jerome, Comm. in Gal., i. 2 (Migne, PL, xxvi. 341). On this question see Lake, K. in HTR, xiv (1921), 95 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G. La Piana, ibid., 187 ff.; Riddle, D. W. in JBL, lix (1940), 169Google Scholar ff.
114 Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (1935), 117Google Scholar.
115 Lake's, K. argument in Beginnings of Christianity, v (1933), 45 f.Google Scholar, that since Thomas like Didymus means “twin” his name can hardly be real, is weakened by the fact that persons named Didymus can be found. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 8. v.
116 They are equated in the Syriac Doct. Apost., the Curetonian Syriac form of John xiv. 22, and the Syriac appendix to the letters of Jesus and Agbar in H.E., i. 13. 11.
117 Hoskyns (op. cit., i. 341) adduces xiii. 18, xv. 16, 19 in support of his claim that the call of the Twelve is presumed; but this evidence is weak, and the twelve baskets of vi. 13 only ambiguously assist him.
118 Ibid., i. 98.
119 The date of this appendix is very doubtful, for Irenaeus does not cite it. There is an almost direct quotation of xxi. 20 in Polycrates' letter to Victor (H.E., v. 24. 3). I should not place it before the middle of the second century.
120 Lietzmann, H., The Beginnings of the Christian Church (Eng. tr. 1937), 311Google Scholar; but this view is greatly weakened if ἀγαπητὁς means “only” (as Turner, C. H. in JTS, xxvii (1926), 113 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. shows for LXX and Mark).