Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

M THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND
deatli took place) measures for preventing the further extension of
their tenets. Now, how was it possible that in this state of things
a work could be forged in John's name ;
or, supposing even that one
might have been (though history says nothing of any such imposi-
tion under the name of John),' how is it conceivable that no opposition
should have been made thereto, when many thousands were
acquainted with John, and must have known exactly what he wrote,
and what he did not ? Of such opposition, hoivever, there is nowhere
the slightest trace. Not merely all teachers of the orthodox
church, in all parts of the wide Roman empire, but also all heretics
of the most various sects, make use of the work as a sacred valuable
legacy bequeathed to the church by the beloved disciple ; and the
few heretics who make no use of it, as, e. g., Marcion, still evince
acquaintance with it, and regard it as a genuine work of John's, but
are impudent enough to deny that John himself had a correct
knowledge of the Gospel, because he was too much of a Jew.
Whether, as was the case with the other Gospels, John's also was
corrupted by the heretics, who felt that they were specially aimed
at in it, is uncertain. The Gnostics, with the exception of Marcion
(who, however, as has been already mentioned, is only improperly
reckoned among the Gnostics), made most frequent use of John, as
in their opinion specially favouring their spiritual ideas. We do
not learn, however, that there existed in ancient times any Gospel
of John corrupted by the Gnostics, as Luke's Gospel was mutilated
by Marcion. In modern times, it is true, a Gospel of John thus
disfigured has come to public knowledge ; but the alterations in it
originated at a late period in the middle ages.
The doubts respecting the genuineness of John's Gospel which
have, nevertheless, been proposed in recent times, took their rise,
like those in regard to Matthew, solely from its internal character.
When once doubts were thus occasioned, endeavours were made to
sustain them on historical grounds likewise. These, however, are
of little weight," from the firmness of the foundation on which the
Gospel rests. It was with John much as with Matthew, in regard
to those characteristics which excited doubt of the genuineness of
the book. It was correctly remarked, that John gives a different
representation of our Lord from that presented by the first three
Evangelists. In his Gospel, Christ's actions and discourses appear,
' There does exist in MS., it is true, a second apocalypse under John's name ; but
this production appears to belong to a much later period. There is also an apostolic
history of older date, in which, however, John is only mentioned along with others
it is not ascribed to him.
2 The most weighty opponent of the genuineness of John has given the excellent ex-
ample of pubUcly acknowledging that he has become convinced of the genuineness of
this jewel of the church, and retracts his doubts. May this, example find numerous
imitators 1
;