quotations in the Philosophumena, the last book of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, the Syrian
Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, revealed the stubborn fact of the use and abuse of the Gospel
before the middle and up to the very beginning of the second century, that is, to a time when it was
simply impossible to mistake a pseudo-apostolic fiction for a genuine production of the patriarch
of the apostolic age.
II. Internal Evidence. This is even still stronger, and leaves at last no alternative but truth
or fraud.- To begin with the style of the fourth Gospel, we have already seen that it is altogether
unique and without a parallel in post-apostolic literature, betraying a Hebrew of the Hebrews,
impregnated with the genius of the Old Testament, in mode of thought and expression, in imagery
and symbolism, in the symmetrical structure of sentences, in the simplicity and circumstantiality
of narration; yet familiar with pure Greek, from long residence among Greeks. This is just what
we should expect from John at Ephesus. Though not a rabbinical scholar, like Paul, he was acquainted
with the Hebrew Scriptures and not dependent on the Septuagint. He has in all fourteen quotations
from the Old Testament.^1075 Four of these agree with the Hebrew and the Septuagint; three agree
with the Hebrew against the Septuagint (6:45; 13:18 19:37), the rest are neutral, either agreeing
with both or differing from both, or being free adaptations rather than citations; but none of them
agrees with the Septuagint against the Hebrew.^1076
Among the post-apostolic writers there is no converted Jew, unless it be Hegesippus; none
who could read the Hebrew and write Hebraistic Greek. After the destruction of Jerusalem the
church finally separated from the synagogue and both assumed an attitude of uncompromising
hostility. - The author was a Jew of Palestine. He gives, incidentally and without effort, unmistakable
evidence of minute familiarity with the Holy Land and its inhabitants before the destruction of
Jerusalem. He is at home in the localities of the holy city and the neighborhood. He describes
Bethesda as "a pool by the sheep gate, having five porches" (5:2), Siloam as "a pool which is by
interpretation Sent" (9:7), Solomon’s porch as being "in the Temple" (10:23), the brook Kedron
"where was a garden" (18:1); he knows the location of the praetorium (18:28), the meaning of
Gabbatha (19:13), and Golgotha (19:17), the distance of Bethany from Jerusalem "about fifteen
furlongs off" (11:18), and he distinguishes it from Bethany beyond Jordan (1:28). He gives the date
when the Herodian reconstruction of the temple began (2:19). He is equally familiar with other
parts of Palestine and makes no mistakes such as are so often made by foreigners. He locates Cana
in Galilee (2:1; 4:26 21:2), to distinguish it from another Cana; Aenon "near to Salim" where there
are "many waters" (3:23); Sychar in Samaria near "Jacob’s, well," and in view of Mount Gerizim
(4:5). He knows the extent of the Lake of Tiberias (6:19); he describes Bethsaida as "the city of
Andrew and Peter" (1:44), as distinct from Bethsaida Julias on the eastern bank of the Jordan; he
represents Nazareth as a place of proverbial insignificance (1:46).
He is well acquainted with the confused politico-ecclesiastical Messianic ideas and
expectations of the Jews (1:19–28, 45–49; 4:25; 6:14, 15 7:26; 12:34, and other passages); with
the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9, 20, 22 8:48); with Jewish usages and observances,
as baptism (1:25; 3:22, 23 4:2), purification (2:6; 3:25, etc.), ceremonial pollution (18:28), feasts
(^1075) John 1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 7:38; 10:34; 12:14, 38, 40; 13:18; 15:25; 19:21, 36, 37.
(^1076) See the careful analysis of the passages by Westcott, Intr., pp. xiii sqq.
A.D. 1-100.