this fact; and in the list of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared at the Lake of Galilee, "the sons
of Zebedee" are put last (21:2), when yet in all the Synoptic lists of the apostles they are, with Peter
and Andrew, placed at the head of the Twelve. This difference can only be explained from motives
of delicacy and modesty.
What a contrast the author presents to those pseudonymous literary forgers of the second
and third centuries, who unscrupulously put their writings into the mouth of the apostles or other
honored names to lend them a fictitious charm and authority; and yet who cannot conceal the fraud
which leaks out on every page.
Conclusion.
A review of this array of testimonies, external and internal, drives us to the irresistible
conclusion that the fourth Gospel is the work of John, the apostle. This view is clear, self-consistent,
and in full harmony with the character of the book and the whole history of the apostolic age; while
the hypothesis of a literary fiction and pious fraud is contradictory, absurd, and self-condemned.
No writer in the second century could have produced such a marvellous book, which towers high
above all the books of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and Tertullian and Clement and Origen, or any
other father or schoolman or reformer. No writer in the first century could have written it but an
apostle, and no apostle but John, and John himself could not have written it without divine
inspiration.§ 84. Critical Review of the Johannean Problem.
See the Liter. in § 40, pp. 408 sqq., and the history of the controversy by Holtzmann, in Bunsen’s
Bibelwerk, VIII. 56 sqq.; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T.’s (6th ed.), I. 248 sqq.; Godet,
Com. (3d ed.), I. 32 sqq.; Holtzmann, Einleitung (2d ed.), 423 sqq.; Weiss, Einleitung (1886),
609 sqq.
The importance of the subject justifies a special Section on the opposition to the fourth Gospel,
after we have presented our own view on the subject with constant reference to the recent objections.
The Problem Stated.
The Johannean problem is the burning question of modern criticism on the soil of the New
Testament. It arises from the difference between John and the Synoptists on the one hand, and the
difference between the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse on the other.
I. The Synoptic aspect of the problem includes the differences between the first three
Evangelists and the fourth concerning the theatre and length of Christ’s ministry, the picture of
Christ, the nature and extent of his discourses, and a number of minor details. It admits the following
possibilities:
(1.) Both the Synoptists and John are historical, and represent only different aspects of the
same person and work of Christ, supplementing and confirming each other in every essential point.
This is the faith of the Church and the conviction of nearly all conservative critics and commentators.
(2.) The fourth Gospel is the work of John, and, owing to his intimacy with Christ, it is
more accurate and reliable than the Synoptists, who contain some legendary embellishments and
even errors, derived from oral tradition, and must be rectified by John. This is the view of
Schleiermacher, Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, and a considerable number of liberal critics
and exegetes who yet accept the substance of the whole gospel history as true, and Christ as theA.D. 1-100.