The Life of Jesus | Page 8

longer preserved than in other parts.
[Footnote 1: Julius Africanus, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 7.]
So far we have only spoken of the three Gospels named the synoptics.
There remains a fourth, that which bears the name of John. Concerning

this one, doubts have a much better foundation, and the question is
further from solution. Papias--who was connected with the school of
John, and who, if not one of his auditors, as Irenæus thinks, associated
with his immediate disciples, among others, Aristion, and the one
called _Presbyteros Joannes_--says not a word of a Life of Jesus,
written by John, although he had zealously collected the oral narratives
of both Aristion and Presbyteros Joannes. If any such mention had
been found in his work, Eusebius, who points out everything therein
that can contribute to the literary history of the apostolic age, would
doubtless have mentioned it.
The intrinsic difficulties drawn from the perusal of the fourth Gospel
itself are not less strong. How is it that, side by side with narration so
precise, and so evidently that of an eye-witness, we find discourses so
totally different from those of Matthew? How is it that, connected with
a general plan of the life of Jesus, which appears much more
satisfactory and exact than that of the synoptics, these singular passages
occur in which we are sensible of a dogmatic interest peculiar to the
compiler, of ideas foreign to Jesus, and sometimes of indications which
place us on our guard against the good faith of the narrator? Lastly,
how is it that, united with views the most pure, the most just, the most
truly evangelical, we find these blemishes which we would fain regard
as the interpolations of an ardent sectarian? Is it indeed John, son of
Zebedee, brother of James (of whom there is not a single mention made
in the fourth Gospel), who is able to write in Greek these lessons of
abstract metaphysics to which neither the synoptics nor the Talmud
offer any analogy? All this is of great importance; and for myself, I
dare not be sure that the fourth Gospel has been entirely 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 Irenæus,[5] show that thenceforth this Gospel mixed in every
controversy, and served as corner-stone for the development of the faith.
Irenæus is explicit; now, Irenæus 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 Irenæus.[12]
[Footnote 1: _Apol._, 32, 61; _Dial. cum Tryph._, 88.]
[Footnote 2: Legatio pro Christ, 10.]
[Footnote 3: _Adv. Græc._, 5, 7; Cf. Eusebius, _H.E._, iv. 29;
Theodoret, _Hæretic. Fabul._, i. 20.]
[Footnote 4: Ad Autolycum, ii. 22.]
[Footnote 5: _Adv. Hær._, II. xxii. 5, III. 1. Cf. Eus., _H.E._, v. 8.]
[Footnote 6: Irenæus, _Adv. Hær._, I. iii. 6; III. xi. 7; St. Hippolytus,
Philosophumena VI. ii. 29, and following.]
[Footnote 7: Irenæus, _Adv. Hær._, 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. Hær._, III. xvi. 5, 8; Cf. Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, v.
8.]
But it is, above all, the perusal of the work itself which is calculated to
give this impression. The author always speaks as an eye-witness; he
wishes to pass for the apostle John. If, then, this work is not really by
the apostle, we must admit a fraud of