SECTION X.

Of the Time when, and the Place where, St. John's Gospel was written.

THAT the latter part of St. John's life was spent principally at Ephesus, appears from what is related by Eusebius in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, ch. 23. It is likewise the generally received opinion that he wrote his Gospel there: and though, strictly speaking, we can produce no historical evidence in its favour (for neither the subscription to St. John's Gospel in the Syriac version, nor any other subscription of the same kind is entitled to the name of evidence), yet the fact is highly probable in itself, since it is reasonable to suppose, that he wrote where he resided. And as the Greek language was spoken in great purity at Ephesus, and the doctrines which he has combated, prevailed in that city, the opinion that St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus agrees both with its style and its

contents.

That he wrote later than the three other Evangelists is also the general opinion: and I have endeavoured in a preceding section to confirm it by internal arguments. Dr. Seiler however contends, that St. John wrote before the other three Evangelists, and argues in support of this opinion from the three following passages, ch. i. 6. vi. 7. 37. But I am wholly unable to discover in these places any marks whatsoever of an early composition and the reader perhaps on examining them will suppose, that I have made a mistake in the quotations. I must refer him therefore to Dr. Semler's own notes to these passages, in his Paraphrasis in Evangelium Johannis.

To the arguments, which I produced in the sixth section of this chapter, to shew that St. John wrote later than the other three. Evangelists, may be added

the following; which, I think, renders it highly probable that St. John wrote his Gospel only a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, if not after that event; that is, either shortly before, or after the year 70. None of the three first Evangelists bas mentioned the name of the Apostle, who cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant,, when Christ was betrayed by Judas: but St. John has openly related that this Apostle was St. Peter. Now the three first Evangelists acted with great propriety in not mentioning St. Peter's name, because it would have afforded the Jews an opportunity of accusing him. Unless therefore we suppose that St. John acted with less prudence than the other Evangelists, we must conclude that St. Peter was dead, when St. John wrote his Gospel, and therefore that there was no further danger to be apprehended from an open avowal of the fact. Besides, in ch. xxi. 18, 19, St. John having mentioned the following prophecy of Christ respecting St. Peter, When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hand, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,' explains this prophecy by adding, "This spake he, signifying by what death he (namely Peter) should glorify God.' St. Peter therefore must have already suffered martyrdom, or St. John would not have been able to make the application. Now the death of St. Peter is referred to the year 67: consequently St. John's Gospel was written later than that period.

Another argument for the late composition of St. John's Gospel may be derived from the fluency of the language in which it is written. St. John remained in Jerusalem long after the death of Christ, as appears from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians. Nor was he arrived at Ephesus when St. Paul took leave of the elders of that city for the last time, or his name would not have been passed over in silence. Further, he was not arrived at Ephesus, when

St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Ephesians, during his imprisonment, or St. John's name would have been mentioned in that Epistle. St. John's residence in Ephesus therefore cannot have commenced long before the death of St. Peter and St. Paul; and it is not improbable that the hostilities, which began about that period between the Jews and the Romans, induced him to leave his native country, agreeably to the command of Christ, when he foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. But if St. John arrived so late at Ephesus, his Gospel must have been written many years later: for as he was born and educated in Palestine, he could not have acquired that fluency of language, which is displayed in his Gospel, except by a long residence in a Greek city. According to the preceding statement, St. John must have been nearly sixty years old, when he came to Ephesus: and therefore we must admire his ability in forming so good a style at so great an age. It is true that his language is not that of a native Greek: yet it is perfectly free from the stiffness and formality of a school exercise.

There is a single passage in St. John's Gospel, from which several critics have inferred, that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. In ch. v. 2. St. John says, There is at Jerusalem by the sheep-gate a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.' Hence it is inferred that Jerusalem was still standing, when he wrote this passage: for if Jerusalem had lain at that time in ruins, it is argued, that St. John would not have said, There is at Jerusalem, &c,' but There was at Jerusalem, &c.' And this argument is corroborated by the circumstance, that though this passage has many various readings, the Greek MSS. are unanimous in respect to the reading Esi de, not one having been hitherto discovered which reads Hv de. But this argument appears to me at present to be less decisive, than I once thought it. It is founded wholly on the single word s; but authors do not always weigh their words with so much exact

ness, as that es alone should warrant the inference. Besides, as the subject of discourse was the pool Bethesda, which could not have been destroyed in the conflagration of Jerusalem, St. John, even after the destruction of that city, might speak in the present tense, with equal, and perhaps still greater propriety, than in the past. It will be objected perhaps that St. John adds having five porches' (TEVTE SOaç EXsoa,) and that if the pool existed after Jerusalem was destroyed, still these porches could not have remained. Now I grant that πεντε soας παλαι έχεσα, with the addition of παλαι, would be a more suitable expression in a work written after those porches had ceased to exist: but even the most correct writers are sometimes deficient in precision. I am still therefore of opinion that St. John wrote his Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem, though not in so very advanced an age as some have supposed, because the fluency of language then ceases. But as his Gospel abounds with repetitions introduced for the sake of perspicuity, and repetitions of this kind are peculiar to men in years, St. John appears, when he wrote his Gospel, to have arrived at that stage of life, which precedes the infirmities of old age.

Lardner, in his Supplement to the Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. I. ch. ix. § 7, 8. has stated the various opinions both of ancient and modern writers relative to the time when St. John's Gospel was written; to whom I refer the reader for further information on this subject. Lardner's own opinion, which he delivers § 9. is, that it was written about the year 68, and consequently before the destruction of Jerusalem. His first argument in favour of this early date is grounded on the occasion of St. John's writing his Gospel mentioned by the ancients, namely, the bringing the other three Gospels to him, and his observing their deficiency. Hence Lardner argues, Their Gospels were soon brought to him: and if he thought fit to confirm them, or to write any thing by way of supplement, he would do it in a short time. The first three Gospels

very probably were written and published before the end of the year 64, or in 65 at the furthest. If they were brought to St. John in 65, or 66, he would not defer more, or much more, than a year, or two, to publish the history of Jesus, and make the account complete.' But this argument rests on a very unstable foundation: for I have already shewn, that though St. John has completed the accounts of his predecessors, his object was, not merely to add a supplement to the other three Gospels, but to confute the tenets of the Gnostics and the Sabians. And even if St. John's only motive had been to supply the deficiencies of the three first Gospels, still I can see no necessity for supposing, that he would therefore have written his Gospel within a year or two after he had seen those of his predecessors. Lardner's other arguments have not convinced me more than the preceding: I shall therefore not quote them, but request the reader to examine them for himself. Yet, though I think not Lardner's arguments satisfactory, and the year in which St. John wrote his Gospel, still appears to me uncertain, yet I will not assert that Lardner's conclusion is false.

SECTION XI.

Of the Heretics, who rejected St. John's Gospel.

LAMPE, in his learned Prolegomena to St. John's Gospel, has treated at full length of the heretics who rejected it: though I fear, that he has acquitted several of this charge, to whom it may be justly laid. However, their opinions are of very little importance, especially as most of them allowed that St. John was

d Lib. II. cap. 1.