denial upon the genuineness of the Apocalypse.^1088 The effect of Keim’s movement therefore tended
rather to divide and demoralize the besieging force.
Nevertheless the effect of these persistent attacks was so great that three eminent scholars,
Hase of Jena (1876), Reuss of Strassburg, and Sabatier of Paris (1879), deserted from the camp of
the defenders to the army of the besiegers. Renan, too, who had in the thirteenth edition of his Vie
de Jesus (1867) defended the fourth Gospel at least in part, has now (since 1879, in his L’Église
chrétienne) given it up entirely.^1089
The Defence of the Fourth Gospel.
The incisive criticism of Baur and his school compelled a thorough reinvestigation of the
whole problem, and in this way has been of very great service to the cause of truth. We owe to it
the ablest defences of the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel and the precious history which
it represents. Prominent among these defenders against the latest attacks were Bleek, Lange, Ebrard,
Thiersch, Schneider, Tischendorf, Riggenbach, Ewald, Steitz, Aberle, Meyer, Luthardt, Wieseler,
Beyschlag, Weiss, among the Germans; Godet, Pressensé, Astié, among the French; Niermeyer,
Van Oosterzee, Hofstede de Groot, among the Dutch; Alford, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott, Sanday,
Plummer, among the English; Fisher, and Abbot among the Americans.^1090
It is significant that the school of negative criticism has produced no learned commentary
on John. All the recent commentators on the fourth Gospel (Lücke, Ewald, Lange, Hengstenberg,
Luthardt, Meyer, Weiss, Alford, Wordsworth, Godet, Westcott, Milligan , Moulton, Plummer, etc.)
favor its genuineness.
The Difficulties of the Anti-Johannean Theory.
The prevailing theory of the negative critics is this: They accept the Synoptic Gospels, with
the exception of the miracles, as genuine history, but for this very reason they reject John; and they
accept the Apocalypse as the genuine work of the apostle John, who is represented by the Synoptists
as a Son of Thunder, and by Paul (Gal. 2) as one of the three pillars of conservative Jewish
Christianity, but for this very reason they deny that he can have written the Gospel, which in style
and spirit differs so widely from the Apocalypse. For this position they appeal to the fact that the
Synoptists and the Apocalypse are equally well, and even better supported by internal and external
evidence, and represent a tradition which is at least twenty years older.(^1088) Especially from Hilgenfeld. The tradition of the Ephesian sojourn of John is one of the strongest and most constant in the
ancient church, and goes back to Polycrates, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias, the very pupils and grandpupils of John, who could
not possibly be mistaken on such a simple fact as this.
(^1089) Dr. Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 106) accords to Dr. Baur the merit of having penetrated deeper into the peculiar character of the
fourth Gospel and done more for the promotion of its understanding then the mechanical old exegesis, which had no conception
of the difference and looked only for dicta probantia; but he justly adds that Baur’s criticism is "sicklied all over with the pale
cast" of modern philosophical construction (von der Blässe moderner philosophischer Construction angekränkelt). We are
prepared to say the same of Dr. Keim, a proud, but noble and earnest spirit who died of overwork in elaborating his History of
Jesus of Nazara. The most scholarly, high-toned, and singularly able argument in the English language against the Johannean
authorship of the fourth Gospel is the article "Gospels" in the "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., vol. X. 818-843 (1879), from the pen of
Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, head-master of the City of London School.
(^1090) Without detracting from the merits of the many worthy champions of the cause of truth, I venture to give the palm to Dr.
Godet, of Neuchâtel, in the introductory volume to his third and thoroughly revised Commentary on John (Introduction historique
et critique, Paris, 1881, 376 pages), and to Dr. Weiss, of Berlin, in his very able Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882, vol. I. 84-198. In
England the battle has been fought chiefly by Bishop Lightfoot, Canon Westcott, Prof. Milligan, and Dr. Sanday. In America,
Dr. Ezra Abbot (1880) is equal to any of them in the accurate and effective presentation of the historical argument for the
Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel. His treatise has been reprinted in his Critical Essays, Boston, l888 (pp. 9-107).
A.D. 1-100.