ly written by the pen of a Galilean fisherman. But
that, as a whole, this Gospel may have originated toward the end of
the first century, from the great school of Asia Minor, which was
connected with John, that it represents to us a version of the life of
the Master, worthy of high esteem, and often to be preferred, is
demonstrated, in a manner which leaves us nothing to be desired, both
by exterior evidences and by examination of the document itself.
And, firstly, no one doubts that, toward the year 150, the fourth
Gospel did exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from St.
Justin,[1] from Athenagorus,[2] from Tatian,[3] from Theophilus of
Antioch,[4] from Irenaeus,[5] show that thenceforth this Gospel mixed
in every controversy, and served as corner-stone for the development
of the faith. Irenaeus is explicit; now, Irenaeus came from the school
of John, and between him and the apostle there was only Polycarp. The
part played by this Gospel in Gnosticism, and especially in the system
of Valentinus,[6] in Montanism,[7] and in the quarrel of the
Quartodecimans,[8] is not less decisive. The school of John was the
most influential one during the second century; and it is only by
regarding the origin of the Gospel as coincident with the rise of the
school, that the existence of the latter can be understood at all. Let
us add that the first epistle attributed to St. John is certainly by
the same author as the fourth Gospel,[9] now, this epistle is
recognized as from John by Polycarp,[10] Papias,[11] and Irenaeus.[12]
[Footnote 1: _Apol._, 32, 61; _Dial. cum Tryph._, 88.]
[Footnote 2: _Legatio pro Christ_, 10.]
[Footnote 3: _Adv. Graec._, 5, 7; Cf. Eusebius, _H.E._, iv. 29;
Theodoret, _Haeretic. Fabul._, i. 20.]
[Footnote 4: _Ad Autolycum_, ii. 22.]
[Footnote 5: _Adv. Haer._, II. xxii. 5, III. 1. Cf. Eus., _H.E._, v.
8.]
[Footnote 6: Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._, I. iii. 6; III. xi. 7; St.
Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_ VI. ii. 29, and following.]
[Footnote 7: Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._, III. xi. 9.]
[Footnote 8: Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, v. 24.]
[Footnote 9: John, i. 3, 5. The two writings present the most complete
identity of style, the same peculiarities, the same favorite
expressions.]
[Footnote 10: _Epist. ad Philipp._, 7.]
[Footnote 11: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, III. 39.]
[Footnote 12: _Adv. Haer._, III. xvi. 5, 8; Cf. Eusebius, _Hist.
Eccl._, v. 8.]
But it is, above all, the perusal of th
|