[511:1] Eusebius, H. E., 7:25.

[511:2] Einl. Offenb. Johannes, ii., p. 504.

[512:1] Einl. Offenb. Joh., ii., p. 744 f.

[512:2] Einl. N. T., § 189 e., p. 422.

[512:3] Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v., p. 179.

[512:4] It is generally asserted both by Apologists and others that this testimony is valid in favour of the recognition by Papias of the authenticity of the Apocalypse.

[513:1] Dial. 81; cf. Eusebius, H. E., 4:18.

[513:2] Eusebius, H. E., 4:26.

[513:3] De Vir. Ill., 24.

[513:4] Eusebius, H. E., 5:18.

[513:5] Ib., 4:24.

[513:6] Adv. Haer., 4:20, § 11; 21, § 3; 30, § 4, etc.

[513:7] Ib., 5:30.

[513:8] Adv. Marc., 3:14, 24, etc.

[513:9] Stromata, 6:13, §§ 106, 141.

[513:10] Eusebius, H. E., 6:25, in Joann. Opp., iv., p. 17.

[514:1] Eusebius, H. E., 7:24.

[515:1] Cf. 1:9; 22:8.

[515:2] 1:9, dia ton logon tou theou kai tên martyrian Iesou...

[515:3] Cf. 1:1-3, 9 f.; 19:9 f.; 22:6-9, 10, 16 f., 18 f.

[515:4] Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., ii., p. 55 f.; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v., p. 179 f.

[515:5] We do not refer to the opening of the Epistle to Titus, nor to that which commences "James, a servant (doulos) of God," etc., nor to the so-called "Epistle of Jude," all being too much disputed or apocryphal.

[516:1] Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v., p. 180 f.; cf. Die. Joh. Schriften, 1862, ii., p. 56 f.

[516:2] Apoc., 21:12.

[516:3] Ib., 7:4-9.

[516:4] Matt. 19:27-28; Luke 12:28-30.

[516:5] Matt. 19:28.

[517:1] Die drei ersten Evv., p. 23.

[517:2] Die Joh. Schr., ii., p. 56 f.

[518:1] John 13:23; 19:26, 27; 20:2 f.; cf. 21:20 f.

[519:1] Matt. 4:21 f.; Mark 1:19 f.; Luke 5:19 f.

[519:2] Mark 3:17.

[519:3] Ib., 9:38 f.; Luke 9:49 f.

[519:4] Luke 9:54 f.

[520:1] Matt. 20:20 f.

[520:2] Acts 1:13; 3:1.

[520:3] Ib., 8:25; 15:1 f.

[520:4] Eusebius, H. E., 2:23; cf. p. 268 f.

[520:5] Acts 3:1 f.

[520:6] Gal. 2:8-9.

[520:7] Acts 4:13.

[521:1] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3:3, § 4; Eusebius, H. E., 4:14.

[521:2] Eusebius, H. E., 3:31.

[521:3] We need not refer to any of the other legends regarding John, but it may be well to mention the tradition common amongst the Fathers which assigned to him the cognomen of "the Virgin." One Codex gives as the superscription of the Apocalypse: "tou agiou endoxotatou apolstolou kai euangelistou pathenou êgapêmenou epistêthiou Iôannou theologou"; and we know that it is reported in early writings that, of all the Apostles, only John and the Apostle Paul remained unmarried; whence probably, in part, this title. In connection with this, we may point to the importance attached to virginity in the Apocalypse, 14:4; cf. Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii., p. 254; Lücke, Comm. fib. d. Br. Joh., 1836, p. 32 f.; Credner, Einl. N. T., i., p. 21.

[521:4] The very objection of Ewald regarding the glorification of the Twelve, if true, would be singularly in keeping with the audacious request of John and his brother, to sit on the right and left hand of the glorified Jesus, for we find none of the "incomparable modesty" which the imaginative critic attributes to the author of the fourth Gospel in the John of the Synoptics.

[522:1] Apoc., 2:2.

[522:2] Ib., 2:14, 3:9.

[522:3] Ib., 1:9.

[524:1] Credner, Einl. N. T., i., p. 208.

[524:2] Die Joh. Schr., i.p. 50 f.

[525:1] It is almost certain that John did not remove to Asia Minor during Paul's time. There is no trace of his being there in the Pauline Epistles (cf. de Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 221).

[525:2] Gal. 2:9.

[526:1] Most critics agree that the characteristics of the fourth Gospel render the supposition that it was the work of an old man untenable.

[526:2] John 2:6, 13; 5:1; 6: 4; 7:2; 19:40, 42, etc.

[526:3] Ib., 8:17; 10:34; 15:25, etc.

[526:4] Ib., 5:16, 18; 7:23, 19 f.; 8:40, 59; 9:22, 28; 18:31 f.; 19:12 f.

[526:5] Ib., 8:44.

[526:6] To ethnos is applied to the Jewish people fourteen times in the New Testament. It is so used five times in the fourth Gospel (11:48, 50, 51, 52; 18:35), and elsewhere, with one exception, only by the author of the third Synoptic and Acts (Luke 7:5; 23:2; Acts 10:22; 24:3, 10, 17; 26:4; 28:19), who is almost universally believed to have been a Gentile convert and not a Jew. The exception referred to is 1 Pet. 2:9, where, however, the use is justified: ethnos hagion, laos eis peripoiêsin. The word laos is only twice used in the fourth Gospel, once in 11:50, where ethnos occurs in the same verse, and again in 18:14, where the same words of Caiaphas, 11:50, are quoted. It is found in 8:2, but that episode does not belong to the fourth Gospel, but is probably taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Ewald himself points out that the saying of Caiaphas is the purest Greek, and this is another proof that it could not proceed from the son of Zebedee. It could still less be, as it stands, an original speech in Greek of the high priest to the Jewish Council -- a point which does not require remark (cf. Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 325, anm. 1).

[527:1] John 11:49, 51; 18:13. 16, 19, 22, 24.

[527:2] Antiq. 18:2, § 2; 4, § 3; cf. Matt. 26:3, 57.

[527:3] Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 326, anm. 1; Lücke, Comment. Ev. Joh., ii., p. 484.

[527:4] John 18:13.

[528:1] Antiq., 18:2, § 1.

[528:2] John 18:15. The author says, in relating the case of restoration of sight to a blind man, that Jesus desired him, (9:7) "Go wash in the pool of Siloam," and adds: "which is by interpretation: Sent." The writer evidently wishes to ascribe a prophetical character to the name, and thus increase the significance of the miracle; but the explanation of the Hebrew name, it is contended, is forced and incorrect (Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 93; Davidson, Int. N. T., ii., p. 428; cf. Gesenius, Lex. Hebr., 1847, p. 925), and betrays a superficial knowledge of the language. At the best, the interpretation is a mere conceit, and Lücke (Ev. Joh., ii., p. 381) refuses to be persuaded that the parenthesis is by John at all, and prefers the conjecture that it is a gloss of some ancient allegorical interpreter introduced into the text. Other critics (Kuinoel, Cont. in N. T., 1817, iii., p. 445; Tholuck, Com. Ev. Joh. 5te Aufl., 1837, p. 194; cf. Neander, Leben J. C. 7te Ausg. p. 398, anm. 1; Farrar, Life of Christ, ii., p. 81, n. 3) express similar views; but this explanation is resisted by the evidence of MSS. As the balance of opinion pronounces the interpretation within grammatical possibility, and the interpolation of the phrase may be equally possible, the objection must not be pressed.

[528:3] Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 331; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 95 f.; Davidson, Int. N. T., ii., p. 427; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, p. 354; Scholten, Het Ev. Joh., p. 207. Keim (Jes. v. Naz., i., p. 495, iii., p. 66, anm. 2) does not consider the events connected with the place historical. The reference is suggestively discussed by Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 210 f.; Beiträge, p. 256 f.; Caspari, Chron. Geogr. Einl., 1869, p. 79 f.; Ebrard, Ev. Joh., p. 68 f.; Ewald, Gesch. V. Isr., v., p. 262, anm. 1; Farrar, Life of Christ, i., p. 140, n. 1; Grove, in Smith's Dict. of Bible, i., p. 194 f.; Hengstenberg, Ev. Joh., i., p. 83 f.; Holtzmann, in Schenkel's Bib. Lex., i., p. 420 f.; Meyer, Ev. Joh., p. 103 f.; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb., i., p. 167. The itinerary indicated in the following passages should be borne in mind: John 1:18, 43, 2:1, 10:40, 11:1-18. The recent apologetic attempt to identify this Bethany with Tell Anihje, "närrische weise" as Keim contemptuously terms Caspari's proceeding, has signally failed.

[529:1] According to Eusebius and Jerome, it was shown in their day, near Salem and the Jordan, eight miles south of Scythopolis; but few critics adopt this site, which is, in fact, excluded by the statements of the evangelist himself.

[529:2] Scholten, Het Ev. Joh., p. 435.

[529:3] The italicised words in verse 3, as we have already pointed out, are only by the second hand in A, but they are originally given in D and 33.

[530:1] Angelum aquis intervenire, si novum videtur, exemplum futuri praecurrit. Piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat. Observabant, qui valetudinem querebantur; nam si quis praevenerat descendere illuc, queri post lavacrum desinebat (De Baptismo, § 5).

[531:1] Adv. Judaeos, § 13.

[531:2] "The Biblical critic is glad that he can remove these words from the record, and cannot be called upon to explain them" (Rev. H.W. Watkins, M.A., in A New Test. Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, i., p. 416).

[531:3] Without pretending to give an exhaustive list, we may mention the views of the following critics. In favour of the authenticity: Von Amnion, Bengel, Burton, Baumgarten-Crusius, Grotius, Hahn, Hengstenberg, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Lachmann, Lampe, Lange, MeClellan, Reuss, Scholz, Scrivener (doubtful), Sepp, Stier, Strauss, Tittmann, Webster and Wilkinson, Weisse, Wetstein, Wordsworth. Ebrard and Ewald are disposed to accept verse 3, and to reject verse 4 only. Against the authenticity: Alford, Baeumlein, Brückner, Davidson, Farrar, Godet, Griesbach, Kuinoel, Lightfoot, Lücke, Luthardt, Meyer, Milligan, Neander, Olshausen, Sanday, Scholten, Semier, Späth, Stemler, Storr, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Tregelles, Trench, Weizsäcker, Westcott, and Hort. The following are doubtful: Holtzmann, Schulz, Theile, de Wette.

[531:4] Cf. Lücke, Com. Ev. Joh., ii., p. 16 f.; Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 200 f.

[532:1] Talmudische Stud. Zeitschr. gesammt. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1856. p. 240 f.

[532:2] Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 181, anm. 1; Gesch. V. Isr., v., p. 348, anm. 1; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., viii., p. 255 f.

[532:3] Einl. N. T., i., p. 264.

[532:4] Das Ev. des heil. Joh., 1867, i., p. 244.

[532:5] Ib., i., p. 262 f.

[533:1] John 1:35 f.; 13:23, 19:26, 35; 20:2.

[533:2] Ewald, Die. Joh. Schr., i., p. 400; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 151. Ewald considers the relationship to have been on the mother's side. Hengstenberg contradicts that strange assumption (Das Ev. heil. Joh., iii., p. 196).

[533:3] Matt. 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20.

[534:1] Luke 5:1-11.

[534:2] The author apparently considered that Jonas and John were the same name -- another indication of a foreigner. Although some of the oldest codices read "John" here and in 21:15-17, there is great authority for the reading "Jona", which is considered by a majority of critics the original.

[534:3] John 1:41-42.

[535:1] Matt. 26:58, 69; Mark 14:54, 56; Luke 22:54 f.

[535:2] John 18:15.

[535:3] Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 400, anm. 1; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 15.

[536:1] John 13:23-26.

[536:2] Ib., 19:25-27.

[536:3] Luke 9:55. These words are omitted from some of the oldest MSS., but they are in Cod. D (Bezae) and many other very important texts, as well as in some of the oldest versions, besides being quoted by the Fathers. They were probably omitted after the claim of John to be the "beloved disciple" became admitted.

[536:4] Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16.

[536:5] Mark 16:7.

[537:1] Ad Corinth., 5.

[537:2] Indeed, in the universally-repudiated Epistles, beyond the fact that two are addressed to John, in which he is not called "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the only mention of him is the statement, "John was banished to Patmos" (Ad Tars., 3).

[537:3] Eusebius, H. E., 3:39.

[538:1] Lützelberger, Die kirchl. Tradition über d. Apost. Joh., p. 199 f.