THE BIBLIOTHECA SACRA. ARTICLE I. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AFTER A CENTURY OF CRITICISM. BY THE REV. W. L. FERGUSON. WHEN, where, and by whom was the Fourth Gospel written? These questions have been often asked and variously answered during the past one hundred years. It shall be the aim of the present discussion to consider: first, the history of the controversy; second, the date of composition; third, the place of composition; fourth, the author; fifth, the occasion and the author's object in writing; sixth, the present aspects of the controversy. I. THE HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. That the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel, was the generally received opinion of the Christian church down to the end of the seventeenth century. The only exception to this was on the part of a small sect, which flourished in Asia Minor at the close of the second century, known as the "Alogi." This sect "denied the doctrines of the Logos, the Paraclete, and of the continuance of the prophetic gifts in the church, and also attributed the writings of John, which taught these doctrines, to Cerinthus, in order not thereby to impeach the authority of that apostle."1 1 Jackson, Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 23. VOL. LIII. NO. 209. I At the close of the seventeenth century a few English Deists made an attack upon this Gospel, but the contest was of little importance. It was not until 1792 that the storm, which has raged so violently at times, really broke forth. The occasion was the publication of a small book, by Edward Evanson, entitled "The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists." Evanson had been a clergyman in the Church. of England, but, some fifteen years before he wrote his book, he had left the ministry, owing to certain difficulties in which he had become involved. "In 1773 he was tried in the Consistorial Court of Gloucester for publicly altering or omitting such phrases in the church-service as seemed to him to be untrue; correcting the authorized version of the Scriptures, and conversing against the creeds and the divinity of Christ."1 The case was carried to the Court of Arches, and in 1777 it was quashed, upon technical grounds. Evanson urged the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. He regarded as spurious the seven letters to the seven churches in the former, and he assigned the latter to some second-century author, e. g. some Platonic philosopher. He also regarded as spurious Matthew and Mark, assigning them also to the second century. Likewise he rejected the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews; of James, Peter, John, and Jude. He expressed himself as abundantly satisfied with the Gospel according to Luke and with the Acts of the Apostles.2 The book of Evanson called out numerous replies, and in 1810 was the subject of the Bampton Lectures. Prior to the death of Evanson, which occurred in 1805, his views gained currency in Germany. In 1798, Eckermann wrote rejecting the authorship of John, but admitting that Johannine traditions formed the basis of our Fourth Gospel. Several other Germans entered the contest, but the battle lan1 Schaff-Herzog, art. "Evanson," ii. 777. 2 Bampton Lectures (1890), pp. 174-175; Reynolds, Pulpit Commentary, p. xii. guished until 1820, when Bretschneider published his "Probabilia." The work was originally written in the German, but later was translated into Latin, not being intended for general circulation but for the use of the students. The book does not assert as positive the conclusions of the author, but as probable. The object of the work was to call forth opinions from experts. Bretschneider put forth all the old views of Evanson, Eckermann, Vogel, and others, and he also added new ones. He emphasized the points that both in discourses and in Christological teaching the Fourth Gospel contradicts the other three; that it is the work of a Christian, who was either of pagan, or, as would seem more probable, of Alexandrian origin; that it belongs to the first half of the second century. The substance of all the later destructive criticism is to be found in his work. Bretschneider's views brought out a perfect cyclone of books, pamphlets, and articles in reply. In 1824, after carefully weighing all the evidence presented in these replies, Bretschneider withdrew his objections as urged in the "Probabilia," and expressed himself as thoroughly satisfied that his arguments had been fully answered. Two years later, in a review article, he repeated this withdrawal; and four years later he reasserted the same retraction in his "Handbook of Dogmatics."1 For a short period the theological world found rest. But the season of quiet was broken, in 1835, when Strauss published his "Life of Jesus." The appearance of this work opened the Johannine question anew, and precipitated a conflict, which, under one form or another, and with varying degrees of intensity, has been waging ever since. Replies to Strauss in the shape of sermons, books, editorials, and theses came thick and fast. But amidst them all, he was unterrified; and by means of them, his books received much free advertising and ran through four editions. 1 Bampton Lectures (1890), p. 188. |