The Theosophical Society,
Theosophy
and Religion
The Fourth-Gospel Problem
By
G R S Mead
First Published 1901
The whole tradition of the apostle John's residence at
on the assertions of Irenaeus, who thus
endeavours to establish his claim that he (Irenaeus) was in direct contact with an apostolic
tradition. In his very early youth, says Irenaeus, he
had known Polycarp, who, he claims, was a direct
disciple of the apostolic John. This latter assertion of Irenaeus
is called into serious question by many scholars.
Turning to the evidence of Papias
(about 140 A.D., or as Harnack would
have it 145-160 a.d.), we are
confronted with the enormous difficulty of
his assertion that at his time two "disciples of the
Lord," Aristion and
John the elder, were alive, and this too following his reference
to
another John, a "disciple of the Lord," mentioned in a
list with other
well-known names of apostles, who had passed away.
We have seen that the only way out of the difficulty which Dr.
Abbott
can suggest is to expunge the words "disciples of the
Lord" after the
names of Aristion and John the elder;
how does Professor Schmiedel, in
his article on "John," overcome this difficulty? Papias distinctly says
that his interest was to hear from the followers of the elders
what they
could tell him of what the elders had said about what certain
"disciples
of the Lord" had said. These "disciples of the
Lord" were dead and
Papias did not
think much of either what was stated about them in books,
or what certain writers declared they said. Papias
believed that he
would better get at the truth of the matter by direct oral
tradition.
This in addition also to what he had already gleaned in early
life
directly from certain other elders. But there was an additional
confirmation of the nature of the "commandments given by the
Lord to
faith," for these same elders who had formerly known certain
"disciples
of the Lord" who had passed away, also knew of certain
living "disciples
of the Lord," namely Aristion and
John the elder. Now in this connection
"elder" cannot refer to age, but must refer to office.
The second John
is an elder, but further and beyond that he is distinguished as
also
being a "disciple of the Lord." In our opinion, as we
have already said,
this term signifies a grade, and marks out this John as enjoying
the
direct inspiration of the Master after his death.
How does Professor Schmiedel overcome
this difficulty? Of the phrase
"disciples of the Lord," he writes: "This
expression has been used
immediately before, in the stricter sense, of the apostles; in
the case
of Aristion and John the elder, it is
clearly used in a somewhat wider
meaning, yet by no means so widely as in Acts 9.1, where all
Christians
are so called; for in that case it would be quite superfluous
here. A
personal yet not long-continued acquaintance with Jesus,
therefore, will
be what is meant. Such acquaintance would seem to be excluded if Papias
as late as 140 or 145-160 A.D., had spoken with both."
Professor
Schmiedel, however,
thinks that Papias's words refer to an earlier time
than the period when he wrote his book; but even so, we shall
have to
reckon with the new evidence that Aristion
is perhaps the writer of the
appendix to our canonical Mk., in which case the date leans
forward
again. Again Professor Schmiedel's
assumption that Papias knew Aristion
and John the elder personally, is based on a translation of the
text
peculiar to himself and out of keeping with the construction of
the
sentence. Otherwise, as he well sees, there are two intermediate
links
between John the elder and the apostles. We, therefore, prefer
the
straightforward meaning of Papias and
the extended meaning of the term
"disciples of the Lord."
Now Papias, in a fragment preserved by
late writers, asserts that John
the apostle suffered martyrdom, "was put to death by the
Jews," whereas
the "John" of Irenaeus is
said to have died of old age at
Irenaeus, of
course, would have it that this Ephesian John was the
apostle; but no other ecclesiastical writer of the second century
knows
anything of the residence of the apostle at
Gospel, on the other hand, it is "presupposed" that
John is not to die a
martyr's death, whereas the Gnostic Heracleon,
about 175 A.D., confirms
the martyrdom of John the apostle.
How then are these contradictory assertions to be reconciled and
the
"gross carelessness on the part of the leading authorities
for ecclesiastical tradition" to be excused? As we have already seen from Papias, there were two Johns, the apostle and the elder,
both "disciples of the Lord." John the elder may have resided at
Now in the N.T. there are no less than five documents officially
ascribed to the authorship of the apostle John. Of these five two
only
need engage our attention in the present enquiry. It is now
claimed by
the canon that the apostle John wrote both the Fourth Gospel and
also
the Apocalypse. On the other hand, no book of the N.T. has
suffered such
vicissitudes of acceptance and rejection as the Apocalypse, so
that from
the earliest times doubt was cast on its apostolic origin. But
not only
this, the differences of style between this document and the
Fourth
Gospel are so absolutely divergent that even the most
uninstructed
reader can detect them freely with the most superficial
inspection.
In considering the authorship of the Apocalypse we must first of
all
proceed on the assumption that the book is a unity. "The
spirit of the
whole book can be urged as an argument for the apostle's
authorship" on
the ground that it is in entire keeping with the Synoptic
description of
the "son of thunder." Its eschatological contents,
Jewish-Christian
character, its "violent irreconcilable hostility" to
enemies without and
false teachers within, its fiery prophetic utterances, all
testify to
the justice of this by-name; still the writer does not call
himself an
apostle, but only a minister of Christ.
On the other hand, the technical erudition and skilful
arrangement of
the writer are hardly consistent with the synoptic description of
John
as a poor fisherman, and with the Acts' designation of him as
"an
unlearned and ignorant man." Above all we should expect
"a livelier
image of the personality of Christ" from an eye-witness. And
finally the
Apocalypse speaks of the twelve in "a quite objective
way," without the
slightest hint that the writer is one of the twelve. These
difficulties
are lessened, however, if we assume that John the elder was the
author
and not John the apostle.
But even so we are not out of the wood, for it is no longer
possible to
hold that the Apocalypse is a unity, and critical research has
demonstrated that it is in its simplest analysis a Jewish
apocalypse
over-written by a Christian hand. The question thus becomes far
more
complicated; was the apostle or the elder the over-writer or
original
author of any part of it? The only hypothesis that can hold water
in
this connection is the possible authorship of John the elder of
the
Letters to the Seven Churches.
After reviewing the radical differences of language and spheres
of
thought of the two documents under discussion, the Apocalypse and
Fourth
Gospel, Professor Schmiedel concludes:
"The attempt even to carry the
Gospel and the Apocalypse back to one and the same circle or one
and the
same school . . . is therefore a bold one. It will be much more
correct
to say that the author of the Gospel was acquainted with the
Apocalypse
and took help from it so far as was compatible with the
fundamental
differences in their points of view. On account of the dependence
thus
indicated it will be safe to assume that the Apocalypse was a
valued
book in the circles in which the author of the Gospel moved, and
that he
arose in that environment and atmosphere."
To this we cannot altogether agree; it may be that the Apocalypse
was a
valued book in the circle of the writer of the Gospel because of
its
apocalyptic character, but it is manifestly certain that the
writer of
the fourth Gospel did not arise in the intolerant and unloving
"environment and atmosphere," of the compiler and overwriter of the
Revelation.
Turning now to the Fourth Gospel itself, the method of enquiry
adopted
by scientific research centres itself
upon the question of this Gospel's
historicity. "In proportion as tradition concerning the
authorship is
uncertain, must we rely all the more upon this means of arriving
at
knowledge." The most important line of research is that of
comparison
with the three synoptic writings, but here it has to be
remembered that
we must not begin by postulating a higher degree of historicity
for the
synoptists, all we
can legitimately do is to discover the differences,
and then ascertain which is the more preferable account, and
finally
enquire whether the less preferable can have come from an
eye-witness.
To take the fundamental differences in order. The powerful
personality
of the Baptist in the synoptics in Jn. becomes a mere "subsidiary figure
introduced to make known the majesty of Jesus." The scene of
the public
ministry of Jesus in Jn. is very
different from the synoptic account;
equally so is the order of the principal events in the public life.
The miracle-narratives in Jn. are
"essentially enhanced" beyond those of the
synoptics, and Jn. adds new and more astonishing narratives; moreover
Jn.'s miracles
can always be more easily explained symbolically. But
perhaps the most important difference of all is that relating to
the
date of the crucifixion; moreover Jn.
does not mention the celebration
of the last supper, but preaches the mystical doctrine that the
Christian "passover" was the sacrifice of
Christ on the cross. Further "the difference in character between the
synoptic and the Johannine discourses of Jesus can
hardly be over-estimated."
As to Jn.'s representation of Jesus, it
is always in harmony with the "utterances of the Johannine
Christ," that He is the Logos of God. Nothing that would
savour of an
earthly origin or nature is recorded of Jesus. The author
of the Fourth Gospel preaches the universality of salvation, spiritualises the eschatology and the "second
advent." The sayings of Jesus regarding Himself assert his pre-existence
from all eternity, and that He is the only Way and only Son of the Father; in
brief He is identified with the Logos of the prologue.
This prologue Professor Schmiedel
assumes to be written by the author of
the rest of the work, but we are of opinion that it is from some
other
hand, and not only so but specially selected as an appropriate
introduction, if not as a text upon which the leading doctrinal ideas of the
Gospel are based.
And this may explain the following contradictory views of the
critics, for Professor Schmiedel writes: "One
might suppose it to be self-evident that the evangelist in his prologue had the
intention of propounding the fundamental thoughts which he was about to develop
in the subsequent course of the gospel." Whereas Professor Harnack's opinion is "that the prologue is not the
expression of the evangelist's own view, but is designed merely to produce a favourable prepossession on behalf of the book in the minds
of educated readers."
Now it is to be noticed that there is no positive teaching in the
Gospels, or in the N.T. generally, as to the origin of things except in this
proem. It is further to be noticed that just as the later followers of Plato
specially singled out the Timaeus for study and
commentary, so did the most philosophical among the Christians (for instance,
the Gnostics of the second half of the second century) single out this proem
for commentary. The Timaeus is evidently based on and
compiled from fragments of more ancient writings, and we are of opinion that
this also
is the case with the proem of the Fourth Gospel.
But when Professor Schmiedel writes:
"The perception that the prologue
is deliberately intended as a preparation for the entire contents
of the
gospel has reached its ultimate logical result in the proposition
that
the entire gospel is a conception at the root of which lies
neither
history nor even tradition of another kind, but solely the ideas
of the
prologue," we are not quite certain that this is altogether
the case. We
rather hold that the prologue by itself was not the basis of the
Gospel,
but that the author was brought up in an atmosphere in which such
ideas
as those contained in the prologue were current, and that the
prologue
itself is a scrap of a lost document. We hold, further, that
there was a
distinct tradition of these ideas differing considerably from the
synoptic tradition, though at the same time we do not deny the
personal
inspiration of the writer of the Fourth Gospel and his
independent
treatment of both the outer and inner traditions. This does not
of
course assume the historicity of the "Johannine
tradition," but it
assumes a mystical tradition of not only equal authority with the
outer
traditions, but of greater authority, in the mind of the writer
of the
"Johannine" document, than
the view of the synoptists.
Professor Schmiedel, in summing up the
comparison of Jn. with the
synoptics, writes:
"We shall be safe in asserting not only that the
synoptists cannot
have been acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, but also
that they were not aware of the existence of other sources,
written or
oral, containing all these divergences from their own account
which are
exhibited in this Gospel." This seems to be the correct
conclusion from
the evidence; at the same time it must be remarked that though
the
writer of the Fourth Gospel was acquainted with the main
materials used
by the three synoptists, and treated
them with the greatest freedom, and
though the synoptists seem to have
known nothing of the written or oral
traditions used exclusively by Jn.,
that all this does not necessarily exclude their being contemporary writers.
As to the internal evidence for the nationality of the evangelist,
"his
attitude—partly of acceptance, partly of rejection—towards the
O.T.,"
and his "defective acquaintance with the conditions in
time of Jesus," lead to the conclusion "that he was by
birth a Jew of
the Dispersion or the son of Christian parents who had been Jews
of the
Dispersion." It has, however, been strongly argued that the
writer could
not possibly have been a Jew.
Now as the formal conclusion of the Fourth Gospel is to be found
at the
end of chap. 20, chap. 21 is "beyond question" an
appendix, and moreover
can be clearly proved not to have come from the same author as
the
writer of the rest of the book. The main purpose of the second
half of
this appendix is the "accrediting" of the document—a
fact which shows
that the authorship and contents were already called into
question.
The authors of this appendix assert that it was a certain
disciple whom
Jesus loved who had written "these things," and that
they (the authors)
know that his "testimony" is true.
The Gospel's writer's own account of the author is that "he
who saw it
bare record and his record is true: and the one knows that he
speaks
true." The greatest possible ingenuity has been exhausted on
these words
so as to make them a statement of the writer concerning himself,
but
this is manifestly an impossibility. Finally, in the supposed
other
testimony as to himself the designation of the unnamed disciple
as "the
disciple whom Jesus loved," speaks "quite
decisively" against this
assumption. In all of this, therefore, we have no certain fact as
to
authorship from internal evidence.
Passing next to the external evidence for the genuineness of the
Fourth
Gospel, Professor Schmiedel has of
course to traverse the same ground
which we have already reviewed in referring to Dr. Abbott's labours.
This he does in a very full and scholarly manner, and in summing
up his
estimate of the evidence writes: "We find ourselves
compelled not only
to recognise the justice of the remark
of Reuss that 'the incredible
trouble which has been taken to collect external evidences only
serves
to show that there are none of the sort which were really
wanted,' but
also to set it up even as a fundamental principle of criticism
that the
production of the Fourth Gospel must be assigned to the shortest
possible date before the time at which traces of acquaintance
with it
begin to appear. Distinct declarations as to its genuineness
begin
certainly not earlier than about 170 A.D."
It is quite true that nothing can be definitely proved beyond
this; but,
as we have already indicated, we are inclined to assign as early
a date
to the Fourth Gospel as to the synoptics,
and attribute its later
recognition, as compared with that of the synoptics,
to the difficulty
which the general mind always experiences in assimilating
mystical and
spiritual doctrine.
"If," however, "on independent grounds some period
shortly before 140
A.D. can be set down as the approximate date of the production of
the
Gospel," then new importance is to be attached to a passage
(5.43) where
Jesus is made to say: "I am come in the name of my father
and ye receive
me not; if another will come in his own name, him will ye
receive." This
is to be taken as a prophecy after the event, as is the case in
thousands of instances in contemporary apocalyptic literature. Barchochba, claiming to be the Messiah, headed a revolt of
the Jews in 132 A.D., which ended in the complete extinction of the Jewish
state in 135 A.D.
Furthermore, in reviewing the nature of the external evidence as
to the
Gospels, Professor Schmiedel gives a
valuable warning to those who have
to decide between the conservative and independent views on the
matter.
After citing a number of declarations of the Church Fathers (with
regard
to other writings) which are admitted by both sides to be
fantastic or
erroneous, he writes: "When the Church Fathers bring before
us such
statements as these, no one believes them; but when they 'attest'
the
genuineness of a book of the Bible, then the conservative
theologians
regard the fact as enough to silence all criticism. This cannot
go on
for ever. Instead of the constantly repeated formula that an
ancient
writing is 'attested' as early as by (let us say) Irenaeus, Tertullian,
or Clement of
more modest statement that its existence (not genuineness) is
attested
only as late as by the writers named, and even this only if the
quotations are undeniable or the title expressly mentioned."
After this declaration it is strange to find the learned critic
adopting
the statement of one of these Church Fathers on a most debatable
point
without the slightest hesitation.
We have already seen the strong mystical bias of the writer of
the
Fourth Gospel, and we naturally turn to Professor Schmiedel's exposition
to learn his opinion on the relation of this Gospel to Gnosticism.
He
admits that "the gospel shows clearly how profoundly Gnostic
ideas had
influenced the author"; but on this very important subject
Professor
Schmiedel has no
light to offer. He seems to accept the entirely
polemical assertion of Hegesippus, as
handed on by Eusebius, that
"profound peace reigned in the entire Church till the reign
of Trajan
[98-117 A.D.]; but after the second choir of the apostles had
died out
and the immediate hearers of Christ had passed away, the godless
corruption began through the deception of false teachers, who now
with
unabashed countenance dared to set up against the preaching of
truth the
doctrines of Gnosis, falsely so-called. There is no reason for
disputing
the date here given."
On the contrary, there is every possible reason for disputing not
only
the date, but every single item of the statements, as we have
shown at
great length in our recent work on the subject. Here again, as
everywhere else in connection with the Gnosis, the new Encyclopaedia
reveals its vulnerable side, as we shall endeavour
to prove in our
concluding paper.
As to the place of composition of the Fourth Gospel, Professor Schmiedel
inclines to
assumption that we can explain how the Gospel could be ascribed
to some
John living there. But the strongly Alexandrian ideas of the
Gospel are,
in our opinion, somewhat against this, though of course Gnostic
ideas,
and very probably Alexandrian, could be current in
however, nothing to prevent us referring the origin to an
Alexandrian
circle, and the carrying of an early copy of the document to
But before leaving the subject it should be mentioned that the
criticism
of the Fourth Gospel, which has so far proceeded on the
assumption of
its unity (excepting, of course, the appendix and the prologue),
is
further complicated by hypotheses of "sources," and the
question of
interpolation. The question of sources, however, does not help us
at
present to an any more satisfactory solution of the problem;
there may,
indeed, be interpolations, "but if it is proposed to
eliminate every
difficult passage as having been interpolated, very little indeed
of the
gospel will be left at the end of the process."
With regard to the whole question of Fourth Gospel criticism
Professor
Schmiedel says that
there is only "positive relief from an intolerable
burden," when "the student has made up his mind to give
up any such
theory as that of the 'genuineness' of the gospel, as also of its
authenticity in the sense of its being the work of an eye-witness
who
meant to record actual history. Whoever shrinks from the
surrender can,
in spite of all the veneration for the book which constrains him
to take
this course, have little joy in his choice. Instead of being able
to profit by the elucidation regarding the nature and the history of Jesus,
promised him by the 'genuineness' theory, he finds himself at every turn laid
under the necessity of meeting objections on the score of historicity, and if
he has laboriously succeeded (as he thinks) in silencing these, others and yet
others arise tenfold increased, and in his refutation of these, even when he
carries it through—and that too even, it may be, with a tone of great
assurance—he yet cannot in
conscientious self-examination feel any true confidence in his
work."
It only remains to add that, in our opinion, the same remarks, with
slight modification might be made with regard to by far the greater part
of the synoptical writings as well.
But that such a poor answer as the one we are led to deduce from
the
general point of view of advanced criticism, will satisfy the question:
"What think ye of Christ?" is and must be highly
repugnant to those who
not only love but also worship Him. What, then, are the grounds
for this
intuition of greater things, which refuses to sacrifice itself on
the altar of "science"? Our next paper will be devoted to a general
consideration of this question.
The Theosophical Society,