NI:\V TK.<TVMI:\T. 



m later ori|(iu than the | 



or altered to mutum ort 



have 10 SMMted. Furthermore the dmfciBMBl of 



berrir (or cv, n diff> pinion) u-quircs time. 



Since ihcM.* (iiKwtim ii* d the GuBpel of John without 



. 

 ouotiun aa well as their opponents. at no lime daring 



a age. Were it forged thus sii.vc-sfully personated the apostle in a literary 

 ay, theae heretics would lorvery is vciv small ; that any one in the first quartt r 

 of '.lie MOM century could have done it Would seem 



!.|e save to those who have prejudged tin 

 The argument from internal evidence may lie cWcd 



. 



the development of this difference could a 

 Gospel have Ui'ii p.ihucd off as written l>y .John. In 

 f tin- it U im|M.s.-il.lc to date the Gospel in the 

 eniml century. ThoM.- who will nnl a<vept it as irenu- 

 in.- -(ill claim a* lute a tlute as A. It. I In or 1 1 J. but 

 with n.i positive evidence to support (his view, mid 

 wiiliniit U-ing able to find any uiie who oould MM 

 wrillen Mich a work. Hut suppose it were written 

 (th.it is. forged) in A. I. ll.V There were probably 

 thousand- of Christians then living whu had known 

 the apostle John. How could a forgery at that time 

 have obtained universal MaeptUMtf In KphcMis. a 

 great commercial city, where .John had been living, 

 nine one would have detected tin- fraud. Only wlicn 

 we can U-licvc that the Christians of that age were as 

 credulous in their faith as the modern opponents df 

 this Gospel are credulous in their unbelief. can we re- 

 gard such a dale for the Gospel as in the slightest dc- 



by a citation from I 'res. T. \V. llwiglil (Godct')- (',,1,1 



v mi the Gomel 



Amer. cd., 



.M:.'): "There is no doubt that the author of 



i.|i. 

 thi 



.Ml, 

 i 



|H'| penetrated in his thought into the centre of tlie 

 i'liristiau system, as it has IK en understood by the 

 church. The question of the authorship bceomis. 

 therefore, one of gravest importance. It the author 

 was that most intimate disciple of .Jesus of whom the 

 book speaks so frequently, he trained his conception oi' 

 Christ and the new faith from the Ixird himself, and 

 could not be mistaken. His hook is the flower and 

 cniiMimmalion of the iipostolie thought. It is in the 

 truest and highest sense inspired of God. The at- 

 tempt to deny the system is a hopeless one 

 this Gospel is established on a firm foundation. In 

 view of this fact, it may well seem divinely ordered 

 that the book should stand in the world as it has ever 

 done, bearing within itself its own evidence. The 

 writer of it, in addressing the readers lor whom his 



gree probable. 1'rof. Kzr.i Abbot calls attention to j first Hpistlc was intended, says that lie writes that which 



mime of the closing words of the Fourth (iospel ("and 

 we know that his testimony is true " ) as containing an 

 "attestation to the truth and genuineness of the Gos- 

 pel." Such an attestation would never have been ap- 

 pended to a forged document. 



R Inimi'il Kritlfiire. Here we are confronted 

 even more directly with the alternative, truth or fraud. 

 The moral tone of the (iospel is such that a forgery 

 (..cms a psychological monstrosity. Vet the author so 

 describes himself, without any immodesty or sell ' a. 

 H-rtion, as to convey everywhere the .impression that 

 he was " the beloved disciple." The objections raised 

 from the a.<s. imcd contradictions to the synoptic nar- 

 ratives have been repeatedly answered. 



The positive internal evidence is derived (1) from 

 the style, which points to the author as a Hebrew .Jew 



(not a Hellenist) who was yet familiar with the (Ireek 

 language from long residence in a city where that lan- 

 guage was spoken. The simple structure also points to 

 an aged man. There is no one who so well suits these 

 indications as the apostle John. 



(2) That the author had lived in Palestine i> al-o 

 evident from many local allusions, ami from the fa- 

 miliarity with .Jewish usages. It has Ix-en objected (by 

 Matthew Arnold among others) that he refers to these 

 matters as a foreigner miglit do. Hut the Gos|>el, it 



i- claimed by all, was written after the destruction of easting doubt upon the hisiorica 

 Jerusalem, when Jewish usage was comparatively nn- rative. 

 known in Asia Minor, mid explanation was required. 

 The knowledge of .Jewish affairs in the time of Christ. 

 eviwed by t!ie author, is strikingly minute. 



(.'{) The cvidcii.v that the author was an eye-wit- 

 ncai of many of the events he records is obvious even 

 to a oareleM reader of the (iospel. He refers to p. T- 

 what each one said, nit the synoplists do not. 

 \Vell nigh every chapter contains some mark that sng- 



he has seen and heard, in orderthat they may have fel- 

 lowship, as he himself has, with the Father and with his 

 Son .Jesus Christ. It is a Wonderful fact in the li'iMoi-y 

 of the centuries which have passed since he wrote, that 

 th.i-e who have been persuaded by his story to believe 

 and who have been conscious, as the result of tin ir 

 faith, that they had fellowship with (iod. have had an 

 abiding confidence that he told of what he had heard 

 and seen, and that it is those who have rejected the doc- 

 trine ana the peculiar life, who have questioned the re- 

 ality of the author's experience as the disciple whom 

 Jesus loved. The past may give us confidence in the 

 future; and we may safely predict that, until the in- 

 ner life of the author ceases to bear this witness, he 

 and his (iospel will be among the unshaken pillars of 

 the church.' 1 



7. T/i>' Aria i if the Apostlct. That this book was 

 written by Luke, the companion jf I'aul, is suggested 

 by internal evidence, and has been supported by ex- 

 ternal evidence from the earliest times. Hut the Tu- 

 bingen school assumed to find in it irreconcilable dif- 

 ferences with the four Epistles of I'aul they accepted 

 as genuine. This was necessary for their theory. Hut 

 many of their arguments rest upon false exeiri-.-is. and 

 feu scholars now accept their extreme conclusions. 



Still in the HRITANNICA there are suggestions made 



verily of the nar- 



I.e prenence ol the author. Not only so. but he 

 n|N-akH nf himself as present, claims especially to tell 

 hat he has aeen. " Here we are driven to UM alter- 



Here, as in the ease of the Gospels, a "patch- 

 work " theory of the origin of the book has liccn ac- 

 cepted by many critics. Some parts, r. </.. the sections 

 where "we" is used, were written by 1/ukc, but the 

 book has ln-c-1 edited by a later hand in the second cen- 

 tury. It contains a basis of truth, but is not all of 

 it historical. 



Hut the clumsiness of this theory is apparent even 

 to Hcnan. If the integrity of the l>""k be accepted, 



the whole of it must l>e ascribed to Luke. The date 

 would seem to be not much later than A. i>. ('.::. at 

 which time the narrative ends, somewhat abruptly. 



native: either the writer was a true witness of what The positive proofs of the authenticity of the entire 

 he relates, or he was a false witness who wrote down a narrative are very strong. No other historical book of 



the New Ti -lament tonchesiipon so many poinU where 

 verification from other sources i possible. The titles 

 plied to magi-tratcs in the dilb-rent cities, the topo- 



(Sehaff). 

 (4) The writer intimates agnin ami again that he 



Was on of the Twelve He t-lls what tl ihers said. 



nmninir one and another. He modestly conceals his graphical allusion.-, the hints of local nsaire. the ilinera- 

 own name, but in so doing all the more conclusively re ri< - all these in hundreds of in-t.-mees. have been 

 veals his own per*ni. It can scarcely be denied that proven accurate, even when imperfect knowledge had 

 the author meant to convey the impression that he was previously indicated that the author had made a mis- 

 tbe a|MMtlc John. Mor< iyer, the explanations he in take, (lii Schaft's lllttury of thr CkrittioH Ckvrdi, 



