1. THE traditional writer of the fourth Gospel was John the Apostle. Of the two oldest manuscripts of the original text, the Vatican (B) has simply “According to John” as both columnar title and subscription, whilst the Sinaitic (N) shows this as subscription (so also the Old Latin copies). “Gospel according to John” is found in ACEFGL, etc. Manuscripts of the Apocalypse bear the superscription of “John the divine (θεὀλγος),” which refers to his λόγος doctrine (Reuss; p. 21), but, Weiss and Zahn think, was not so used before the third century. Dr. Barry has described him as “last of Apostles and first of divines” (p. 264).
Most manuscripts assign to it the last place among the Gospels, but in D it is placed next to Matthew’s, as being both by Apostles.
This John was, it would seem, the younger of the two sons of Zebedee and Salome (cf. Matt. 28:56 with Mark 15:4040There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Mark 15:40)). The Gospels “according to” Matthew and Mark both always name James first; and so Luke generally, but twice the third Evangelist writes “John and James” (8:51, 9:28).
The Synoptic Gospels would lead us to suppose that theirs was a Galilean family, and probably of Bethsaida (cf. John 1:4545Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45) with Luke 5:99For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: (Luke 5:9)), in easy circumstances (Mark 1:2020And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. (Mark 1:20)). Until the brothers became permanently attached to JESUS they followed the calling of fishermen (see, further, notes on 1:35 and 18:15).
John’s definite call to discipleship is recorded in Matt. 4:2121And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. (Matthew 4:21) f. and Luke 5:1-111And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, 2And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. 3And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. 9For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: 10And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. 11And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him. (Luke 5:1‑11). The Lord gave to him and his brother the joint name of “Boanerges” (Mark 3:1717And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: (Mark 3:17)); so that writers concerned with the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse have to consider the fitness of the designation of a son “of thunder” in that connection, as also when investigating the authorship of the Epistles which go under John’s name.
The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” spoken of in the Gospel attributed to John the Apostle, is generally supposed to be a designation of himself (see, further, note on 13:23). To the disciple so described our Lord when dying bequeathed the care of His mother (19:26). This Apostle is, besides, spoken of as one of the “pillars” of the Church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1919For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (Galatians 2:19); cf. Acts 1519Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Acts 15:19), A.D. 51). The last glimpse we have of him in the New Testament is as an exile in the island of Pat tom during the reign, Eusebius (2:18) states, of Domitian. Before that time, according to Tertullian (Præscr. Hæret.), while the Apostle was in Rome, he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he emerged unhurt. Ecclesiastical tradition carries on the story of his life, when released from Patmos, by representing him as prominently connected with the churches of Asia Minor, with Ephesus in particular (Irenæus). Zahn supposes that he removed from Palestine during the fatal Jewish war of the year 69, whilst Blass, comparing Acts 1519Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Acts 15:19). with chapter 21. there, considers that he must have finally left Jerusalem by at least the year 54. His residence in Asia Minor has been questioned, on insufficient grounds, by Keim, Scholten, H. Holtzmann, Harnack, Bousset, and Schmiedel, from its not suiting their theory as to the authorship. Amongst other familiar incidents related of that period of his life are the stories of his reclaiming a notable backslider (Eusebius 3:33), and of his meeting a Gnostic in a public bath, when he at once rushed out of the place. Irenaeus’s account (3:3, 4) gives Cerinthus as the name, but Epiphanius (30:24) says that it was Ebion. The last-named writer states that the Apostle remained unmarried. John is generally reported to have passed away in Ephesus by a natural death soon after the year 98―i.e., after the accession of Trajan (so Irenæus, 2:22, 5). Eusebius (7:25) states that his grave was shown there; another account is that two graves were shown at Ephesus connected with the name John (see, further, note on 21:22 f.).
1a Indications of authorship present themselves in the Gospel itself at 1:14. 19:35, 21:24. So much of the tradition as concerns the Apostle’s connection with it is pieced together from the “Church History” of Eusebius (3., chapter 24.), who has preserved the Preface to comments on Logia of the Lord, by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (see Col. 4:1313For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. (Colossians 4:13)), about A.D. 130 or 140 (see Sanday, “Gospels in the Second Century,” pp. 145-160, or Stanton, pp. 166-168), from the Muratorian Fragment, about A.D. 170 (see Westcott on the Canon), and from Irenæus in his treatise against heresies (A.D. 180), whose statement in 3:11 Weizsäcker acknowledges as documentary evidence, not mere tradition. The language of Papias is too vague to be of any help as to this Gospel and its authorship. Justin Martyr came in between this Papias and Tremens. He seems to quote from the Gospel in both his Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, but does not name the author. The Muratorian Fragment, however, is distinct in its evidence, not only for the Apostolic authorship, but for the supreme value it attached to the fourth Gospel. By the time of Tremens acceptance of the Johannine authorship is clear: of him Jülicher candidly says that “he was not the man to spin tradition out of his own brain” (p. 405). Indeed, the late Dr. Ezra Abbot, an American Unitarian. was convinced that we need not travel lower down for recognition of John’s authorship than the time of Justin Martyr―i.e., in the middle of the second century (p. 80; q. Stanton, pp. 181-191). Justin’s adherent, Tatian (AS.). 160), seems to have used this Gospel for his “Diatessaron,” which begins with. “In the beginning was the Word” (cf. testimony of Theodoret, in Zahn). As far as is known, recognized opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, did not attempt to disturb the received opinion. It is true that so-called Alogi (see note on 1:1) attributed the authorship to Cerinthus, and the acceptance of the Johannine claim in the second century was retarded by the circumstance that the Gnostic heretic did actually appeal to this Gospel (see notes on 1:3, 5, 14, etc.). So according to Origen, Heracleon in Italy (170-180), whilst the Alexandrian Basilides, “about the year 175,” as wrote Matthew Arnold (“God and the Bible,” p. 268 f.), “had before him the fourth Gospel.” Zahn (ii. 459 note) gives ample references for such writers, as well as to Theophilus of Antioch, who died in 186, the first of the orthodox distinctly naming the author. Stanton well says: “That this Gospel, unlike as it is to the Synoptics, should have overborne the resistance offered to its acceptance is, humanly, only to be explained by its Apostolic authorship” (p. 277; cf. Sadler, Introduction to Commentary, xxv.).
In the early years of the third century we find Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius, vi. 14) affirming that he had heard from men of Asia Minor that John the Apostle wrote this Gospel after being “urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit.” Origen’s acceptance, soon after Clement’s, of the received opinion is no less clear; the great Christian scholar does not even hint at any diversity of opinion about it. All down the centuries such was the belief, until in 1792 an English clergyman named Evanson questioned it (“The Dissonance of the Evangelists”). In 1820 a German professor, Bretschneider, followed, and, again, Strauss in 1835, as Baur of Tubingen in 1844. But for some thirty years after the appearance of Strauss’s famous “Life of Jesus” most German theologians, including independent workers like Neander. De Wette, and Ewald, followed the lead of Schleiermacher in adhering to the old view, and resisting the ideas of the “Tubingen school.” So also Renan in his “Life of Jesus,” belonging to the sixties; but by the time he wrote his “Evangiles” this famous French writer’s opinion had changed (p. 428; cf. the “Life,” etc., 13th ed., p. 10 f.).
In 1864 appeared a work by Weizsäcker (Baur’s successor), entitled “Investigations respecting the Gospel History,” and also the Dutch theologian Scholten’s “The Gospel according to John,” which may together be taken as marking increased academical acceptance of the “modern” view, now largely held in Protestant circles on the Continent, especially since the publication of Keim’s “Jesus of Nazara.” Weizsäcker position in his later work, “The Apostolic Age,” is that the Apostle was the indirect, a confidential disciple of his the direct author (cf. Harnack’s “The Gospel of John the Elder according to John the son of Zebedee”). Such, likewise, was essentially the view of the late Auguste Sabatier, of the French “Liberal” school, as it is of Loisy, his counterpart among French Romanists, to whom Nouvelle has replied. Schürer (see English edition of his pamphlet) is of the same opinion, which was adopted also by Matthew Arnold (“God and the Bible,” p. 256 f.).
Amongst Germans the names of Lücke, Bleek, Meyer, Hengstenberg, Credner, Luthardt, Bunsen, Ritschl, B. Weiss, Schanz, Beyschlag, Zahn (as Haussleiter and Blass, regarding the “Elder” as none other than the Apostle), and Goebel stand for defense of the Johannine authorship; but those of the two Holtzman: is, Pfleiderer, Schürer, Jülicher, Bousset, Clemen, and the Swiss professors Wernle and Schmiedel, rank as opponents. In this country Dr. S. Davidson, Dr. Jas. Martineau, and Dr. E. A. Abbott, as, of course, the now disclosed author of “Supernatural Religion,” support the negative position; whilst Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, with Professors Sanday and Stanton, Dr. Plummer, Dr. Salmon and Dr. Gloag, besides Dr. Jas. Drummond among Unitarian scholars, uphold the older view. So also the Swiss scholar, Professor Barth, and the late F. Godet. French and American writers are likewise in different camps.
The literary question has been complicated by the fact that Eusebius (book iii.) evidently understood Papias as saying that there were two Johns of Ephesus―John the Apostle and John the Elder (see Stanton, pp. 168-171); the passage would be found in Routh’s “Reliquiæ Sacræ,” vol. i., p. 8. The tendency now is to discredit the existence of two such contemporaries at the same place: so Ransack (“Chronology,” i., pp. 409, 662 note, 674), for whom it is merely “a third-century idea,” with Schürer, Loisy, etc. The distinguished professor of Berlin holds that whilst the Apostle’s influence lies behind (p. 677), the Evangelist was the Elder, to whom he ascribes all the Johannine writings (of. cit., i., p. 659 f.). On the other hand, conservative scholars, by specially “critical” Germans called “Apologists,” generally regard “the Elder” as identical with the Apostle (cf. 2 John 11The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; (2 John 1), 3 John 11The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. (3 John 1), with 1 Peter 5:11The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: (1 Peter 5:1)). Even Hilgenfeld (of the Tubingen school) thought the existence of a distinct Elder (still held by H. J. Holtzmann and others) very shadowy; so also Drummond.
Wendt (reviving an idea of Weisse) takes a mediating position; he analyses the book into a “Source” (the Evangelist, John the Apostle) and an Editor (“redactor”). The American professor, Briggs, is of the same mind. His countryman, Bacon of Yale, sets up a triple authorship, although disclaiming classification with the writers last named (for him the “redactor” was “Theologos,” the teacher of Justin Martyr). But most scholars, as Pfleiderer (ii., p. 480 f.) and Martineau (“Seat of Authority,” p. 189), decide for a single writer. There are, accordingly, three main views―that the writer was (a) the Apostle; (b) a distinct Elder; (c) a disciple, whether of the Apostle or of this Elder (as Bousset and von Soden think). The last takes the form in the hands of Dr. Salmon (see his posthumous work, p. 436) of a hermeneutes, or interpreter acting as amanuensis.
The third view is akin to the idea of a “Second (Third) Isaiah” in Old Testament criticism. “That the author of this Gospel,” writes Sir R. Anderson, “should not have left even a tradition of his personality or name is a supposition which tries even a trained capacity for misbelief” (p. 142 of 2nd ed. of “Christianized Rationalism” in Twentieth Century Papers).
Opinion differs amongst the “advanced” writers as to whether the Evangelist was of Jewish or of Gentile descent. Keim and Scholten thought that he was a Gentile Christian; others, as O. Holtzmann and J. Réville, hold that he was a Hebrew Christian (see, further, notes on 4:27 and 18:15). With this goes, of course, the question of the linguistic style of the Gospel, from which the critics seek to determine the amount of “culture” (Acts 4:1313Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)) at the Evangelist’s command. Some, as O. Holtzmann and Michel. (after F. W. Newman in this country), speak of “monotony” characterizing the discourses, whilst von Soden complains of “the poverty of vocabulary,” which seems ill to accord with the same writer’s saying that the Evangelist’s mind was “rooted in the Greek culture in which he grew up” (p. 440). The device is, accordingly, adopted of supposing him to be a Hebrew Christian with a Gentile education. Dr. Briggs holds strongly that this Gospel was first written in Hebrew (p. 147). There is a great unwillingness to own Ewald’s demonstration of its Hebraising style, or the justice of Lightfoot’s very competent opinion that “a scholarly Greek could not have written as John” (see his “Biblical Essays,” pp. 16 f., 128 If., 135 ff. for illustrations). Ewald supposed that the book was taken down by a friend from the Apostle’s dictation; that the amanuensis had some control over the language used (“Johannine Writings,” p. 50 f.), thus rendering the Apostle service like the aid that another is believed to have given to Paul in the literary form of the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. Salmon, p. 206). Dr. Barry finds no difficulty in assuming that “St. John gave the substance, which his Hellenistic secretary put into shape” (p. 169).
2 A decision as to the date of the publication of this Gospel, of course, depends mainly on the view that one takes of the authorship. The old Tubingen opinion, now happily dead, was that it arose in the latter half of the second century. This has been brought back by H. Holtzmann to the years from 100 to 140 (Schmiedel, between 132 and 140). But Dr. Plummer inquires: “If the Gospel was published between these years, why did not the hundreds of Christians who had known St. John during his later years denounce it as a forgery?” (p. 37.). Other dates are J. Réville’s, 100-125, Jülicher’s, 100-110, until we reach O. Holtzmann’s convenient “not before 100” (because of alleged dependence on Luke’s Gospel). There remain the views of the two specially representative scholars, all of whose writings, from different points of view, command English respect―Harnack, who does not conceal his dissatisfaction with nineteenth-century results, and puts the date at between 80 and 110; and Zahn, whose date is from 75 to 90. Eusebius says that the Gospel was written in the Evangelist’s old age, with which Harnack’s and Zahn’s respective dates would sufficiently agree. And so W. Kelly: “God directed that the truth should be held back from his pen for fifty years at least” (“Exposition of the Epistles of John,” p. 6). “Repetition of phrases,” as Barry says, “is characteristic of old age” (p. 161); see also note on v. 2.
The best short popular statement as to the authorship is that by Colonel Turton in his clearly written, sane, and, to opponents, markedly fair book (pp. 323-335).
3 See notes on 1:3-5, etc.
4 See note on 1:14.
5 See note introductory to chapter 3.
6 It is clear that the latest of the Gospels supposes acquaintance with those which preceded it (see 2:12, 3:24, 11:2, 18:24, 28).
Renan started the absurd notion that this Evangelist bore testimony against whatever he omitted. Thus, the second chapter of the “Vie de Jesus” begins with “Jesus was born at Nazareth,” with footnote referring to John 1:4545Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45) f. (see, further, in note 42 below).
O. Holtzmann enumerates certain omissions from this Gospel (as of any account of the Temptation), and says that such incidents were deemed derogatory to the Son of God. Nowhere, however, in the Synoptics is greater insistence placed on the Lord’s humanity than in John’s Gospel.
Dr. E. A. Abbott, in book iv. of his “From Letter to Spirit,” has a chapter on “The Silence of John,” but Dr. Drummond shows, by an illustration taken from old ecclesiastical literature, how little the argument drawn from silence serves the purpose for which it is used (p. 157).
Nine-tenths of this Gospel is peculiar to itself, and five-sixths is composed of discourses.
On its relation in general to the Synoptic records, see Westcott, Introduction 78-80., or Salmon, Lecture XVII., Milligan, xxix. f., Reynolds, lxxxviii.-cxxviii. Ewald nut Godet suppose that John designedly gave his narrative a supplementary character, whilst Weiss and Zahn consider that he did so without intending it, but Reuss rejects either view (see Introduction to the Exposition of Mark, 1:7, and note 12 there). Pfleiderer (as now Heitmüller) has differed from German critics in general with regard to the Johannine Christ; these two writers hold that the fourth Gospel exhibits the “historical Jesus” (see, further, next note).
7 A very serious point is the claim of the fourth Gospel to be accounted historical―i.e., as setting forth what our Lord actually said and did. This is discussed in Westcott’s Introduction, p. 53. Cf. the Advent Lectures (1907) of the Dean of Westminster. Many critics depreciate it relatively to the Synoptic Gospels from the fancy that the “Jesus” of Paul (2 Cor. 2:44For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you. (2 Corinthians 2:4)) and John (1 John 4:33And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3)) is “another” than the “historical” Jesus of the Synoptists. The followers of Renan criticize by the light of this. All careful readers may discern, alongside of parallel statements in the Synoptists (Reuss. p. 226 f.), the difference between the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the one hand, and that going under the name of John on the other. in regard of (1) the duration of the Lord’s ministry (see note on 2:13); (2) the scene of it (ibid.); (3) the style of our Lord’s teaching (see note on 3:1); (4) the assertion of His Messianic claim (see notes on 1:33, 41). The personality of the writers does seem to enter more largely into the last than that of the writers of the earlier narratives into their respective texture. And yet if John was to portray the inwardness of our Lord’s life and mind, how could he do so without projection of his own soul into the task of setting forth the way in which he had “learned Christ” (Eph. 4:2020But ye have not so learned Christ; (Ephesians 4:20))? Such even as Schmiedel talk of the application of their “own intellect” to analysis of the mind of Christ (“Jesus in Modern Criticism,” p. 36). Clement of Alexandria described the fourth Gospel as predominantly “spiritual” in contrast with the “bodily” Synoptic Gospels (Eusebius, 6:7, 14), as to which see W. Kelly, “Elements of Prophecy,” p. 82, or Bruce, “Kingdom of God,” p. 346. This may have referred to the inner spirit in contrast with the facts of the Lord’s life (Milligan, Introduction; six). Cf. T. H. Green, “The Gospel at its Highest Potency and in its Finest Essence” (iii. 171). It may be said to set before us “heavenly” rather than “earthly” things (3:12; cf. 7:46, 16:12). Nevertheless, as W. Kelly has written in his “Exposition of the Revelation,” the “general bent” of this Gospel is to trace what He was on earth rather than what He is in heaven (p. 100).
There may be a difference between theological veracity and scientific exactness (see F. W. Robertson, sermon on “The Kingdom of the Truth,” vol. i. of “Sermons”) respectively expressed in Professor Kaftan’s recent pamphlet (“Jesus and Paul,” p. 66) by Wahrheit (veracity) and Wirklichkeit (reality); but can one safely apply that distinction to the discourses in the fourth Gospel? With Robertson it is easy to go when he says (sermon on “The Sanctification of Christ,” vol. ii., No. 17): “Feel a truth: that is the only way of comprehending it. John felt out truth. He understood his Lord by loving Him.” So already Origen (Inge, “Christian Mysticism,” p. 45). However that may be, to use the words of Bishop Moule, “In the record as it stands I have a report revised by the ever-blessed Speaker” (p. 14). Cf. Bernard. “The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ,” p. 179.
That the material accuracy of its statements should be questioned is soul corrupting in the light of the express assurance conveyed by 21:24. But it is the center of the posit ion of those who uphold New Testament revelation in general (cf. Lightfoot, “B. E.,” p. 47), and so must be attacked. Dr. Salmon, moreover, has remarked that “critics nowadays trust far more to their own power of divination than to historical testimony” (p. 256). Intellectual honesty is incumbent on all of us. As says Bishop Gore: “We must all train ourselves in the very rare quality of submission to good evidence. This quality is as rare among sceptics as among believers” (“First Sermon on the Permanent Creed,” etc., p. 17). It may be added, indeed, that the “free science” upon which some German professors flatter themselves belongs rather to the mythology of the nineteenth century. It is the duty of historians to hold the balance between the “objective” and “subjective”; but Kaftan, in his pamphlet already mentioned, remarks that those of the “Liberal” school “wish to know history, not as it was, but as it ought to be―that is, according to their presuppositions, governed by the modern view of the world” (p. 56).
8 The various foregoing aspects of this Gospel will receive detailed consideration in the following notes on passages specially used by the “critical school” for the statement of their respective views, and, it is hoped, some aid will be given towards discrimination of that which is true from what is false in current theories. For example, the writer of “Supernatural Religion” has: “If the doctrines preached in the fourth Gospel represent Christianity, then the Synoptic Gospels do not teach it” (vol. ii., p. 463). There is an element of truth in these words. The three first Gospels supply us only with “the word of the beginning of Christ” (Heb. 6:11Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1)). The late W. Kelly (“God’s Inspiration of the Bible,” p. 524 note) would have associated himself entirely with the following extract from Sir R. Anderson’s Reply to Harnack “The distinctive doctrines of Christianity are not to be found in the teaching of the Synoptics, as they are called. The first two Gospels belong as much to the Old Testament as to the New.... The Synoptics Gospels are divinely described as the records of what Christ began to do and teach; of what began to be spoken by the Lord. And His voice, like that of Moses and the prophets then spake on earth. But to us He speaketh from heaven” (Twentieth Century Papers, p. 189). Cf. Professor Kaftan: “To proclaim the Jesus religion as the proper and true Christianity is contrary to history (p. 50).” Cf. Seeley, “Ecce Homo,” p. 78 f. (edn. of 1908). The position taken up by Baur, later German professors, with Mr. W. R. Cassels, have but plagiarized. As the late Professor Schlottmann has said: “It is the right and duty of the Church to reject the popularizing of crude hypotheses put forth with the semblance of scientific results” (“Compendium of Biblical Theology,” p. 137).
Without any reservation, the view, expressed towards the end of his life by W. Kelly, of the authorship of the Gospels and the Epistles going under the name of John, was that the Apostle so-called was the instrument of the Holy Spirit for furnishing the Church with these writings in succession, and that the Apocalypse was that which appeared last (“Exposition of the Epistles,” pp. 3-7).
This Gospel begins with a Preface (“Prologue”), which most writers regard as extending to 1:18 (so Tischendorf’s Synopsis), and ends with an “Epilogue” (chapter 21). It is variously divided, as into seven parts (Milligan), or three parts (H. Holtzmann, Zahn). Some look upon the “Prologue” as the key to the whole, whilst Harnack thinks that it was intended only to engage the interest of Greek readers (p. 235).