Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/robertsn/rwp-joh/joh.int

Text File | 1993-03-13 | 34KB | 630 lines

                        THE FOURTH GOSPEL
                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

                        GREATEST OF BOOKS

        The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel
over all the books of the world. If Luke's Gospel is the most
beautiful, John's Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and
reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one
that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not
possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be
indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship
and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament.
Here we find _The Heart of Christ_ (E. H. Sears), especially in
chapters #Joh 14-17|. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it
is small consolation to be told that the book at least has
symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the
Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to
sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge
and charm us as we linger over it.

                       THE BELOVED DISCIPLE

        The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus
loved" (#Joh 21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of
believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the
disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these
things: and we know that his witness is true" (#Joh 21:24|). This
is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any
record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made
in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book
closed first with #Joh 20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the
same style and was probably added before publication by the
author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in #Joh
21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is
apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is
given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the
Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not
the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the
language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor
as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A.
E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

                        A PERSONAL WITNESS

        It is manifest all through the book that the writer is
the witness who is making the contribution of his personal
knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry.
In #Joh 1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and
dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tên doxan
autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to
the glory of the Word, but in #Joh 21:25| he employs the singular
"I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we
know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly
all the scenes described. The word witness (\martureô, marturia\)
so common in this Gospel (#Joh 1:7,8,19; 3:11,26,33; 5:31; 12:17;
21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel
of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of
Christ (#Lu 1:1-4|). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either
the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the
Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's
Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as
preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to
be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as
such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note
all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid
details.

                     WITH A HOME IN JERUSALEM

        It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew
accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now
universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of
Jesus "to his own home" (\eis ta idia\, #Joh 19:27|) from the
Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this
Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest
(#Joh 18:15f.|). Delff (_Das vierte Evangelium
wiederhergestellt_, 1890) argues that this fact shows that the
Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a
priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had
special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin
(#Joh 7:45-52; 11:47-53; 12:10ff.|). But at once we are
confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the
circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than
the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last
passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (#Joh 13:23|).
Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea
of Galilee (#Joh 21:1ff.|) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the
"Beloved Disciple" (#Joh 21:20|).

                     ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS

        It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa
A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder
John " (\ho presbuteros Iôannês\) occurs. The most natural way to
understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by
this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the
words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the
allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work
of Dom John Chapman, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_
(1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in
Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter.
"Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia
Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia
Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life"
(Bousset, _Die Offenbarumg des Joh._, p. 38, translation of
Nolloth, _The Fourth Evangelist_, p. 63, note). Let this be
admitted and much becomes clear.

             NO EARLY MARTYRDOM FOR THE APOSTLE JOHN

        In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius
Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published.
It is the _Codex Coislinianus_, Paris, 305, which differs from
the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John
according to Papias was slain by the Jews (\hupo Ioudaiôn
anêirethê\) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in
peace (\en eirênêi anepausato\). The passage also quotes Eusebius
to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and
lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes
Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the
Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death.
Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius,
makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a
worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and
John by Jesus (#Mr 10:39; Mt 20:23|) and realized by James first
of all (#Ac 12:1f.|). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos.
The correction to Peter in #Joh 21:20-23| would have no meaning
if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

                   THE AUTHOR THE APOSTLE JOHN

        Loisy (_Le Quatr. Evangile_, p. 132) says that if one
takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the
Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does
not take it "literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the
author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a
deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not
use his own name instead of a _nom de plume_. Reference can be
made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which
gives the author's name. One can see a reason for the turn here
given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences
of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of
the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which
marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles
disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list
of seven in chapter #Joh 21| it is easy to drop the names of
Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed
disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even
named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the
Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of
Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not
mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so
many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is
John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily
understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (#Ac
12:1|). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle
John as the author.

           EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN

        Ignatius (_ad Philad_. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the
Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a
clear allusion to #Joh 3:8|. Polycarp (_ad Phil_. S 7) quotes
#1Jo 4:2,3|. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John.
Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he
used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John
and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our
Four Gospels. Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ out of the Four
Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autol_. ii. 22) calls
John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about A.D. 180.
The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names
John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of
Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside
of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has
stronger external evidence.

                 THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

        As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living
apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent
use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion
Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the
Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of
the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author
supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two
passovers not given by the other Gospels (#Joh 2:23; 6:4|) and
another (#Joh 5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know
certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in
length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our
Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without
which we should know little of this beginning (#Joh 1:19-4:45|).
The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean
ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which
is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue
(#Joh 1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose
as in #Col 1:14-20| and #Heb 1:1-3| and employs the language of
the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret
Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

                  A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING

        So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert
that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented
in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to
recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's
_Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is
also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for
the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the
great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for
instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved
in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and
the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are
preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel,
because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of
his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long
reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of
the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel
when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters #Joh
7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a
Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the
Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the
Fourth Gospel (#Mt 11:25-30; Lu 10:21-24|). The use of "the
Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that
Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics
do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in
Jesus.

                 THE SAME STYLE IN THE DISCOURSES

        It is further objected that there is no difference in
style between the discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and his
own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this
criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where
discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, #Joh
3:16-21|. Does the discourse of Jesus end with verse 15,16, or
21? So in #Joh 12:44-50|. Does John give here a resume of
Christ's teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that
John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ
as in chapters 4,6,7,8,9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is
not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as
Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain
extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of
Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere
automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an
accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures
including that of John's Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

              HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

        It is just here that the chief attack is made on the
Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It
is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par
with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies
omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though
certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_,
the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in
seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in
the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising
of Lazarus in chapter #Joh 11| which occurs here alone. But John
makes this miracle play quite an important part in the
culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to
be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and
knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an
unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very
start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and
temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the
temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be
overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the
Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the
Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final
denunciation in #Mt 23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to
Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of
the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing
of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding
the draught of fishes in chapter #Joh 21| with that in #Lu 5|,
making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter #Joh
12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in
#Lu 7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day
ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it.
Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple
truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the
personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to
supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left
to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts
is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first
disciples in chapter #Joh 1| is another. The author followed
Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was
present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He
was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the
mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He
saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed
of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most
helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value
of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

                   LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES

        Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author
of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of
John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary,
the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote
also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit
the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author
describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact
has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the
author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the
Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have
termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But
the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for
in addressing the elders (#1Pe 5:1|) he calls himself "your
fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes
Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual
humanity of Jesus as in #1Jo 1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which
denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which
came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the
Cross as in #1Jo 2:22|. One of the many stories told about John
is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath
with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his
actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth
Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

                BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE

        It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship
of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse.
In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the
Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly
the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both
Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine
authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general
rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse
claims to be John (#Re 1:4,9; 22:8|), though what John he does
not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally
leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John,
the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he
saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in
language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books
which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached.
Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of
the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become
master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_,
p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author
cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after."
Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems
definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to
call attention to the statement in #Ac 4:13| where Peter and John
are described as \agrammatoi kai idiôtai\ (unlettered and private
or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in
2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical
solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was
reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was
apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the
visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the
Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in
Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is
able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine
authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in
date.

                     THE UNITY OF THE GOSPEL

        This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the
identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in
the Gospel: the Prologue, #Joh 1:1-18|, the Body of the Book,
#Joh 1:19-20:31|, the Epilogue, #Joh 21|. But there is no
evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though
the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter.
This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some
argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but
here again there is no proof and no real reason for the
supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped
at #Joh 20:31| and then added #Joh 21| before sending the book
forth after his friends added #Joh 21:24| as their endorsement of
the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various
displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such
subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly
long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John
is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary
account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that
editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands
even if that be true.

                  ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK

        The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume
called, _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922) in which
he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in
time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited
some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek
scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are
plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed
to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author
was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the _Koiné_ Greek of his
time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps
due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

                     THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

        He tells us himself in #Joh 20:30f|. He has made a
selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious
purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have
life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly
stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and
this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry
chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history.
Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if
written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and
every history or biography worth reading is written with a
purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite
another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the
impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us
his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to
him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes
to win others to like faith in Christ.

                    JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST

        No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity
of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word
was God" (#Joh 1:1|) and in the correct text of #Joh 1:18|, "God
only begotten" (\theos monogenês\). It occurs repeatedly in the
book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God"
(#Joh 1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (#Joh 5:18|)
and the claim of Christ himself (#Joh 5:20-23; 6:48; 8:12,58;
11:25; 14:9; 17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the
author in #Joh 20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has
proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some
critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has
been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term
\theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q,
the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan
portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of
Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view
at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual
nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential
picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I
have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way
to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to
throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections
of late theological development away from the original picture.
The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved
to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes
before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the
fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the
Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the
same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the
world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George
Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the
Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).

                  A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT
                     LITERATURE (SINCE 1880)

ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880).
ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891).
ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).
   ,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906).
APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915).
ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_
   (1910).
BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_
   (1910).
BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_
   (1898).
BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_
   (1907).
BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925).
BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905).
BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929),
   in Int. Crit. Comm.
BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922).
BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902).
BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_
   (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909).
BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's
   Gospel_ (1928).
BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_
   (1922).
CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904).
CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_
   (3 vols,, 1912-15).
CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927).
CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth
   Gospel_ (1911).
CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925).
CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912).
D'ALMA, _La Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).
   ,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911).
DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909).
DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).
   ,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten
   Evangeliums (1890).
DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).
   ,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897).
DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author-
   ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904).
EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888).
EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der
   Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890).
FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904).
GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915).
GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).
GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910).
GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols.,
   1886--90).
GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_
   (1910).
   ,Le quatrieme evangile_ (1924).
GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_.
GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920).
GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910).
GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910).
GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten
   Evangeliums_ (1902).
GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas
  ev_. (1911).
HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's
   Gospel_ (1917).
HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917).
HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913).
HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth
   Gospel_ (1919).
   ,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923).
HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des
   Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908).
HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908).
HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885).
HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and
   Interpretation_ (1931).
IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.).
JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German
   Criticism_ (1906).
   ,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918).
JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909).
KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922).
KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905).
LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914).
LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_.
LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).
   ,_La valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910).
LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_
   (1908).
LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).
LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III,
   1893).
LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932).
LOISY, A., _Le quatrieme evangile_ (1903).
LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899).
LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_
   (1931).
MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923).
MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906).
McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930).
MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to
   St. John_ (1923).
MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915).
MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_
   (1925).
NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925).
NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel
   (1927).
ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced
   from Internal Evidence_.
OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911).
PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913).
REVILLE, J., _Le quatrieme evangile_ (1901).
REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899).
RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906).
ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of
   John_ (1916).
ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_
   (1929).
ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925).
SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905).
SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_
(1903).
SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908).
SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_
   (1906).
SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth
   Gospel_ (1903).
SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and
   Prophet_ (1909).
SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the
   Fourth Gospel_ (1916).
SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903).
SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_
   (1926).
SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915).
SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte
   Jesu_ (1910).
STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914).
STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as
   Hist. Documents, 1921).
STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898).
STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).
   ,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ-
   ment_ (1917).
   ,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_
   (1925).
TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und
   Erklart_ (1931).
VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine
   Problems_ (1917).
WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_.
WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela-
   tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890).
WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916).
WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918).
WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).
   ,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_
   (1911).
WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908).
WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry
   into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).
   ,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911).
WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols.,
   1908).
WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888).
WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927).
WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911).
WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_
   (1903).
ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921).