Ephesus; for obviously we have the possibility that he may have written the Gospel at an earlier period. It may be observed that, while tradition generally assigns the writing of the Gospel to Ephesus, there are traces of a different opinion. The Muratorian Canon seems to state that the Gospel was written before the breaking up of the Apostolic circle,* therefore, presumably, in Palestine.

The assignment of a Palestinian or Syrian origin to the Gospel would seem to carry with it an earlier date for its composition than that which is commonly accepted (A.D. 90 or somewhat later); possibly even a considerably earlier one. But this is by no means at variance with the facts of internal evidence. Even apart from a full acceptance of the theory propounded in the present volume, it must surely be admitted that the facts which have been brought together greatly strengthen the case for holding that the Gospel is >the work of an eye-witness. The view that it represents the mature Christian experience of that witness is doubtless sound; but if we are to assume that he was a man of eighty or more when he took up his pen, we are postulating for him a mental vigour quite exceptional in one so old. Opinions may differ as to the impression of the author's personality conveyed by the Gospel ; but the present writer feels that, while the First Epistle might fairly be regarded as the product of extreme old age, the planning and execution of the Gospel is hardly consistent with such a theory. The age of sixty-five or seventy would at any rate be more normal for the composition of a work which exhibits so markedly a maturity which is as yet unimpaired. Assuming that the author was about twenty at the Crucifixion, this would lead us to date the Gospel A. D. 75-80. The question whether it would be reasonable to place it even earlier demands an expert knowledge of its relation to the Synoptic Gospels and a first-hand conclusion as to the dates of these latter; and on these points the writer does

* The Fourth Gospel is said to be the work of 'Ioannis ex discipulis'. The occasion of its composition is given as follows: 'Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit, Conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut recognoscentibus cunctis Ioannes suo nominè cuncta discriberet.' Since John himself is named one of the disciples', it seems to follow that 'his fellowdisciples' (one of whom is Andrew) are the other Apostles.

6

not feel qualified to venture an opinion. We may note, however, that there seem to be no indications pointing to a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70; the evidence of 52, "Eori dè ev τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα . . . πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα, which has been thought to imply that the city was still standing intact, being of doubtful validity if the Greek is regarded as a translation from Aramaic.*

On the other hand, there are a number of indications which suggest a certain remoteness, both in time and place, from the scenes described, and also seem to imply that the author was not writing, at least primarily, for Jews, but for a larger circle of Christians. What Jew, or indeed what Gentile inhabitant of Palestine, would need to be informed that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, that Tabernacles was the feast of the Jews, or that the festival of the Dedication took place in winter? + Of course it might be maintained that the author, writing not merely for his contemporaries but for posterity to whom such details would not be obvious, took care to insert them; but such a theory can hardly claim probability.

We arrive, then, at the impression that the Gospel was not written at an earlier date than A.D. 75-80, nor from Palestine; yet on the other hand our theory of an Aramaic original seems to demand that it should have originated in an Aramaic-speaking country. Thus Syria is indicated, and if Syria, then Antioch. * The meaning 'was' or 'is' might be left in Aramaic to be inferred from the context, or at any rate expressed in such a way that confusion would be easy in translation. For 'EOTIV exovoa Cur. has a lo Existing was.. and existing in it'; Pesh. ∞ 'Existing was . . . and existing was in it'; while

...

Joo, lit. lo... Joa Ll

in Pal. Syr. we find ▲/ a logo... Joo, 'Existing is and is in it'. Here, however, the only time-determining factor is the dot above Joo, which marks it as the Participle hāwē, not the Perfect hawa. In W. Aramaic there would probably have been no mark of distinction.

+ Instances of such touches may be seen in 26.13.23, 45.9, 52, 61.4, 72.87, 1022, 118, το 1.40. Two of these passages, viz. 223 ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, 6' πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος, convey the impression of conflation. Of course it must be assumed, on the hypothesis of translation, that in 425 (ô λeyóμevos Χριστός), 5* (Εβραϊστί), 1913 (Λιθόστρωτον, Ἑβρ. δέ), 1977 (Κρανίου Τόπον, ὃ λέγεται 'Eẞp.), 2016 ('Eßp. ὁ λέγεται Διδάσκαλε) the translator has glossed the text for the benefit of his readers. It is possible that some of the touches in the first set of passages given in this note may be translator's glosses.

...

Though Antioch was a Greek city, it stood not far from the heart of the district whence from the earliest times the Aramaic speech was diffused, eastward into Mesopotamia and southward through Syria and Palestine. The city must have been bilingual, and though Greek was doubtless the language of the upper classes, there must have been a large substratum of population to whom Aramaic was the more familiar language. This follows necessarily from the exigencies of trade—both the regularly organized caravan-trade from beyond the Euphrates, and the local trade which brought the country people into the metropolis to sell their food-stuffs, and to add new blood to the population. As we learn from Acts, the natural line of expansion for the infant-Church at Jerusalem was northward to Antioch. If the writer of the Fourth Gospel really spent the last part of his life at Ephesus, then we have in Antioch a half-way house between this and Jerusalem; and if the line of his missionary activity was Jerusalem-Antioch-Ephesus he was following in the footsteps of St. Paul.

It is interesting to note that we are not entirely without external indication that St. John was at Antioch and wrote the Gospel there. Mr. F. C. Conybeare has quoted a statement translated from a Syriac fragment appended to the Armenian translation to the commentary of St. Ephrem on Tatian's Diatessaron: 'Iohannes scripsit illud [evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit in terra usque ad tempus Traiani'.* There exists a wide-spread (though not very early) tradition that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. The Maprúpov 'Iyvaríov (5th or 6th century A.D.) so describes him at its opening, and adds later on the scarcely credible statement that he and Polycarp (born A.D. 69) had together been disciples of the Apostle.+

The facts which lead the present writer to suggest the theory that the Fourth Gospel may have been written at Antioch are as follows:

1. The Epistles of St. Ignatius (c. A. D. 110) are full of Johannine Theology. It is true that there is only one passage in them which approximates to an actual verbal quotation, but reminiscences of the teaching of the Gospel are more numerous than is generally

*ZNTW. 1902, p. 193.

+ Cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II. ii, pp. 473 f., who argues against the historical value of the statement and seeks to explain how it may have arisen.

recognized. Dr. Inge's conclusion is that 'Ignatius' use of the Fourth Gospel is highly probable, but falls some way short of certainty'.* One of his reasons for this doubtful verdict is 'our ignorance how far some of the Logia of Christ recorded by John may have been current in Asia Minor before the publication of the Gospel'. This is met if it can be shown that Ignatius was probably also acquainted with the First Epistle of St. John; and this seems to be the case.t The Ignatian expressions, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου and τέκνα φωτὸς ἀληθείας may actually imply acquaintance with the original Aramaic of the Gospel.

2. Drs. Rendel Harris and Mingana, in their recent edition of the Odes and Psalms of Solomon (1920), have made a case for a connexion between the Odes and the Letters of Ignatius, and have shown that the dependence is almost certainly on Ignatius's side. There is a tradition recorded by the historian Socrates that Ignatius instructed the Antiochenes in the composition and singing of hymns. Theophilus of Antioch was also familiar with the

* The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, by a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, p. 83.

+ Cf. especially the group of passages reflecting the teaching of 1 Jn. quoted from the letter to the Ephesians on p. 154.

We must also tell whence the custom of the Church of singing antiphonal hymns had its origin. Ignatius, the third bishop after Peter of the Syrian Antioch, who also had personal intercourse with the Apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels praising the Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and delivered the fashion of the vision to the church in Antioch: from whence also the same tradition was transmitted to other churches.'-Socrates, HE. vi. 8, quoted by Harris and Mingana, p. 43. These editors also aptly call attention (p. 47) to two passages in Ignatius's letters in which he uses chorus-singing as a metaphor for Christian harmony; Ephes. 4, 'In your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, each and all, form yourselves into a chorus, that, being harmonious in concord, and taking the key-note of God, ye may in oneness sing with one voice through Jesus Christ unto the Father, that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good deeds to be the members of His Son' (i. e. His children); Rom. 2, 'Forming yourselves into a chorus, in love sing to the Father in Jesus Christ.' These passages find a striking parallel in Ode 41, which begins as follows:

'Let all of us who are the Lord's bairns, praise Him:

And let us appropriate the truth of His faith:

And His children shall be acknowledged by Him:

Therefore let us sing in His love.

Let us, therefore, all of us unite together in the name of the Lord.'

The italics draw attention to the parallelism in thought.

Odes.* It seems clear that they were originally composed in Syriac. The conclusion of these editors is that they were probably written at Antioch in the first century.‡

Now the fact that the writer of the Odes was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel can be proved fairly clearly; though here again the evidence takes the form of reminiscence of the teaching rather than actual verbal quotation. Surprising as this may seem in view of the very early date which is assigned to the Odes, it is the less surprising if, as on our theory, the date of the Gospel is earlier than is commonly supposed; and it becomes quite comprehensible if the Gospel was actually composed at Antioch and first circulated there in Aramaic. It is noteworthy that a great part of the connexions with the thought of the Gospel, both in Ignatius's Letters and in the Odes, are with the Last Discourses, Jn. 13-17.

The evidence for all this appears so highly important that it is given in detail in an Appendix.

The supposed influence of Pauline Theology upon the Fourth Gospel in no way conflicts with our new theory as to the date and place of the Gospel. A period of twenty years or so allows ample time for the principal epistles of St. Paul to have become well known at Antioch. The present writer has, however, put forward suggestions (pp. 45 ff.) which may indicate a somewhat different conclusion, viz. that both St. Paul and the author of the Gospel may have been influenced by a common earlier source of teaching. Both of them were Rabbinists; and the course of the present discussion has revealed several instances of a knowledge of Rabbinic speculation on the part of the Gospel-author which is independent of St. Paul. Both again were mystics; but there is no reason for assuming that the mysticism of the Gospel was a development of Pauline teaching. Mysticism is one of the characteristics of the Rabbinic method of treating Scripture; and the question how far this trait in the two Christian writers is based on Jewish Haggada is one which calls for further investigation. The inclusion within the early Church at Jerusalem of a large contingent from the priestly class (Acts 67) must almost

* op. cit. ch. iii.

top. cit. ch. xiii.

top. cit. ch. iv.