Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

taken of it in the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, or by Irenæus, who names all the evangelists, specifying something peculiar to every one of them, whereby he may be distinguished from the rest. I might add Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the whole current of succeeding ecclesiastical writers.

3. The account which Irenæus gives of the occasion of writing this Gospel is as follows: "John, desirous to extirpate the errors sown in the minds of men by Cerinthus, and some time before by those called Nicolaitans, published his Gospel, wherein he acquaints us, that there is one God who made all things by his word; and not, as they say, one who is the Creator of the world, and another who is the Father of the Lord; one the Son of the Creator, and another the Christ from the supercelestial abodes, who descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creator, but remained impassible, and afterwards flew back into his own pleroma or fulness."—Again, "This disciple, therefore, willing at once to cut off these errors, and establish a rule of truth in the church, declares that there is one God Almighty, who, by his word, made all things visible and invisible; and that, by the same word by which God finished the work of creation, he bestowed salvation upon men who inhabit the creation. With this doctrine he ushers in his Gospel, 'In the beginning was the word,'" etc. This testimony is of great antiquity, having been given in less than a century after the publication of the Gospel. As Irenæus, however, names no authority, and quotes no preceding writer in support of what he has advanced in relation to the design of the evangelist, it can only be considered by us as the footing of ancient tradition.

4. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote not long after Irenæus, has, as we learn from Eusebius added† some particulars, as what in his opinion, together with the entreaties of the Asiatic churches, contributed not a little to induce John to compose his Gospel. The first he mentions is, that the evangelists who had preceded him had taken little notice of our Lord's teaching and actions soon after the commencement of his ministry, and before the imprisonment of John the Baptist. One consideration, therefore, which induced him, though late, to publish a Gospel, was to supply what seemed to have been omitted by those who had gone before him. For this reason he avoided as much as possible recurring to those passages of our Lord's history of which the preceding evangelists had given an account. There was no occasion, therefore, for him to give the genealogy of our Saviour's flesh, as the historian expresses it, which had been done by Matthew and Luke before him. The Lib. iii. cap. 24.

Advers. Hæres. lib. iii. cap. 11.

† Lib. iii. cap. 24. ̓́Εικοτως οὖν τὴν μὲν τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν VOL. II.

53

same Eusebius says in another place, quoting Clement, "John, who is the last of the evangelists, having seen that in the three former Gospels corporeal things had been explained, and been urged by his acquaintance, and inspired of God, composed a spiritual Gospel." Thus it appears to have been a very early tradition in the church, that this Gospel was composed not only to supply what had not been fully communicated in the former Gospels, but also to serve for refuting the errors of Cerinthus and the Gnostics.

5. Yet in the time of Epiphanius, about the middle of the fourth century, an opinion much the reverse of the former was maintained by a few sectaries whom he calls Alogians, because they rejected the Logos, that is the word. Their opinion was, that Cerinthus himself was the author of this Gospel, an opinion, as Epiphanius clearly shows, quite improbable in itself, and unsupported by evidence ;-improbable in itself, because the words employed by the evangelist, so far from confirming, contradict the sentiments of the heresiarch: unsupported by evidence, because there is nothing to counterbalance the contrary evidence above-mentioned, the ancient tradition and uniform testimony both of the friends and of the foes of Christianity, who had all concurred in affirming that this Gospel was written by John. In all the controversies maintained with Celsus, with Porphyry, and with the emperor Julian, who strained every nerve to undermine the authority of the Gospels, they never thought of controverting that they were written by those whose names they bear. So clear was this point accounted for ages, even by the most acute adversaries of the christian name.

6. It deserves our particular attention, that this Gospel carries in its bosom strong internal evidences of the truth of some of those accounts which have been transmitted to us from the primitive ages. At the same time that it bears marks more signal than any of them, that it is the work of an illiterate Jew; the whole strain of the writing shows that it must have been published at a time, and in a country the people whereof in general knew very little of the Jewish rites and manners. Thus, those who in the other Gospels are called simply the people or the multitude, are here denominated the Jews; a method which would not be natural in their own land, or even in the neighborhood, where the nation itself, and its peculiariγενεαλογιάν ἅτε Ματθαιῷ καὶ Λουκά προγράφεισαν ἀποσιωπήσαι τὸν ̓Ιωάν

[ocr errors]

Lib. vi. cap. 14. Τὸν μέντοι Ιωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα, ὅτι τὰ σωμα τικά ἐν τοῖς Ευαγγέλιοις δεδηλώται, προτράπεντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνώριμων, πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευμάτικον ποιῆσαι Ευαγγελίον.—τοσαῦτα ὁ Κλήμης.

+ Her. 51. Επεί οὖν τὸν λόγον οὐ δέχονται, τὸν παρὰ ̓Ιωάννου κεκηρυ γμένον, ἄλογοι κληθήσονται. This ancient controvertist does not disdain the humble aid of a pun. Λόγος means reason as well as word; ἄλογοι, unreasonable, or against the word.

χα

[ocr errors]

ties, were perfectly well known. As it was customary in the east, both with Jews and others, to use proper names independently significant, which, when they went abroad, were translated into the language of the country, this author, that there might be no mistake of the persons meant, was careful, when the Greek name had any currency, to mention both names, Syriac and Greek. Thus Cephas, which denoteth the same as Peter, John 1: 43; Thomas, that is Didymus, ch. 11: 16. The same may be said of some titles in current use: Rabbi, which signifieth doctor, ch. 1: 38; Messiah, a term equivalent to Christ, ch. 1: 41. In like manner, when there is occasion to mention any of the religious ceremonies used in Judea, as their purifications or their festivals, it is almost invariably signified that the ceremony or custom spoken of is Jewish. Thus the waterpots are said to be placed for the Jewish rites of cleansing, ch. 2: 6, κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων. The passover is once and again (ch. 2: 13. 6: 4. 11: 55,) denominated the Jewish passover, ʼn пάoza zav lovdalov, a phrase used only by this evangelist; and even any other religious feast is called by him ἑορτὴ τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων, a Jewish festival; ch. 5: 1. 7: 2. This style runs through the whole. The writer every where speaks as to people who knew little or nothing about the Jews. Thus, in the conversation between our Lord and the woman of Samaria, the historian interrupts his narrative by inserting a clause to account to the Asiatic Gentile readers for that strange question put by the women, ch. 4: 9, "How is it that thou, who art a Jew, askest drink of me who am a Samaritan?" The clause inserted for explanation is, " for the Jews have no friendly intercourse with the Samaritans." Again, for the information of the same readers, after acquainting us that the Galileans had seen our Lord's miracles at Jerusalem during the festival, he adds," for they likewise attended the festival," ch. 4: 45. Neither of these explanatory clauses would ever have been thought of in Palestine, or perhaps even in Syria, where the enmity betwixt the Jews and the Samaritans, and the connexion of Galilee with Judea, were better known.

7. It may be objected against the use I make of this observation, that as Mark and Luke are thought not to have published their Gospels in Palestine, it might have been expected that they also should have adopted the same manner. This in part I admit. I have accordingly pointed out* a few examples of a similar nature in the Gospel by Mark. And as to the Evangelist Luke, if his Gospel was, as I have supposed,† published at Antioch, or in any part of Syria, there was not the same occasion. But, in answer to the objection, it may further be observed, that those published soon after our Lord's ascension, in whatever part of the world it was, Pref. to Luke, sect. 8.

* Pref. to Mark, sect. 5.

were mostly for the use of converts from Judaism, with whom the church in the beginning chiefly abounded. But towards the end of the first century, the reception of this doctrine, particularly in Greece, Asia Minor, and those places which had been most favored with the teaching of Paul, became much more general among the Gentiles who knew little or nothing of Jewish ceremonies. That the writer of this Gospel had such disciples chiefly in view, is very plain to every reader of discernment.

8. Though simplicity of manner is common to all our Lord's historians, there are evident differences in the simplicity of one compared with that of another. One thing very remarkable in John's style, is an attempt to impress important truths more strongly on the minds of the readers, by employing, in the expression of them, both an affirmative preposition and a negative. Thus: "All things were made by it (the Word); and without it not a single creature was made," ch. 1: 3. "He acknowledged and denied not, but acknowledged," ch. 1: 20. Pleonasms are very frequent in this Gospel: "This man came as a witness to testify concerning the light," ch. 1: 7; tautologies also, and repetitions. Thus it follows: "He was not the light, but came to testify concerning the light," ch. 1: 8. Again, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. This was in the beginning with God," ch. 1: 2. See also the verses marked in the margin.*

9. Hebraisms are to be found in all the evangelists; though it may be remarked, that some abound more with one sort of Hebraism, and others with another. A Hebrew idiom, very frequent with this writer, is the repetition or introduction of the personal pronoun in cases wherein it is perfectly redundant. Thus, ch. 1: 33, Ep ὃν ἄν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ' αὐτὸν, literally, On whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him. And, ch. 1: 27, 'Ον ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος. Here both the pronouns οὗ and αὐτοῦ où are employed in relation to the same person, an idiom which it is hardly possible to express intelligibly in a modern language. As to other particularities in this writer, I shall only observe, that the conjunction xal is not so frequently used by John for coupling sentences as by the rest. The introduction of any incident with the phrase zaì ¿yéveto, generally rendered in the common translation and it came to pass, in which the verb is used impersonally, though common in the other Gospels, never occurs in this.

10. The introduction of either facts or observations by the adverb idou, behold, is much rarer in this Gospel than in the rest. But in the change (or, as rhetoricians term it, enallage) of the tenses, so frequent with the Hebrews, John abounds more than any

* John 1: 15, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33.

other of our Lord's biographers. He is peculiar in the application of some names, as of ὁ λόγος, the word, and ὁ μονογενής, the only begotten, to the Lord Jesus Christ; and of o napáxλntos, the monitor, or, as some render it, the advocate, and others, the comforter, to the Holy Spirit. He is peculiar also in some modes of expression, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, it may not be improper to suggest in passing. Such is his reduplication of the affirmative verb 'Αμήν ; for he always says, Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, Verily, verily, I say unto you. It is never used but singly by the rest. Upon the whole, John's style is thought to be more idiomatical, and less conformable to the syntactic order, than that of any other writer in the N. Testament. There is none whose manner more bespeaks an author destitute of the advantages which result from letters and education.

11. It is manifestly not without design that he commonly passes over those passages of our Lord's history and teaching which had been treated at large by the other evangelists, or, if he touches them at all, he touches them but slightly; whilst he records many miracles which had been overlooked by the rest, and expatiates on the sublime doctrines of the pre-existence, the divinity, and the incarnation of the Word, the great ends of his mission, and the blessings of his purchase. One of the most remarkable passages of our Lord's history, related by all the evangelists except John, is the celebrated prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish temple, and State, about forty years before it happened. The three other historians published it before the accomplishment, when their narratives could answer two purposes of the utmost importance: one was, to prove in due time, to impartial inquirers, an irrefragable evidence of our Lord's mission; the other, to serve to his disciples not only for the confirmation of their faith, but as a warning how to conduct themselves when the signs of an immediate completion should appear. Now neither of these purposes could be answered by the account of a prediction not written till after its accomplishment, when it might be speciously objected, if conformable, that the terms of the prediction were adjusted to the events; and as a warning, every body must see that it was too late to warn when the danger was past. Providence has disposed matters infinitely better, producing Christians who had the best opportunity to know what their Master predicted, to attest the prophecy many years before there was the remotest appearance of its completion, and a Jewish witness, not a friend but an enemy to Christianity, to attest its fulfilment. Such was the historian Josephus, who probably knew nothing of the prediction, but had the best opportunity of knowing circumstantially what was accomplished by the Romans, and who, by his faithful and accurate narrative of the facts, has unintentionally rendered an eminent service to the Christian cause. He has

« AnteriorContinuar »