[16] De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of Jesus in the synoptical gospels, [Matt. xix. 21], [xx. 22 f]. But these two cases are of a totally different kind from the one under consideration in John. We have here to treat of a want of comprehension, [[370]]in the face of which it is surprising that Jesus instead of descending to its level, chooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the synoptists, on the other hand, we have examples of an excessive self-valuation, too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel with that of Nicodemus, if the latter had piqued himself on his enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden flight into a higher region, had sought to convince him of his ignorance. [↑]

[17] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 96. [↑]

[18]

[III. 19]: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς. [III. 16]: ὅυτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχη ζωὴν αἰώνιον. [I. 9]: ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, τὸ φωτίζον πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. [5]: καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῆ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. [1 John iv. 9]: ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ.

[19] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. [↑]

[20] Tholuck (Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 335) adduces as examples of a similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source, with the writer’s own matter, [Gal. ii. 14 ff.] Euseb., H. E. iii. 1, 39. Hieron. Comm. in Jes. 53. But such instances in an epistle, a commentary or an historical work interspersed with reasoning and criticism are not parallel with those in an historical narrative of the nature of our fourth gospel. In works of the former kind, the reader expects the author to reason, and hence, when the discourse of another party has been introduced, he is prepared at the slightest pause to see the author again take up the argument. It is quite different with a work like our fourth gospel. The introduction, it is true, is put forth as the author’s own reasoning, and it is there quite natural that after a brief quotation from the discourse of another, [v. 15], he should, at [v. 16], resume the character of speaker without any express intimation. But when once he has entered on his narrative, which is strictly a recital of what has been done, and what has been said, all that he annexes without any mark of distinction (as e.g. [xii. 37]) to a discourse explicitly ascribed to another, must be considered as a continuation of that discourse. [↑]

[21] Philo. Opp. ed. Mang. i. 44. apud Gfrörer, i. p. 122. [↑]

[22]

[Joh. v. 20]: ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ, ἃ αὑτὸς ποιεῖ. [24]: ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν. [32]: καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. [34]: ἑγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω. [36]: ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου. [37]: καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ ἐμοῦ. [Ib.]: ὄυτε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὕτε τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε. [38]: καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν. [40]: καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθείν πρός με, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε. [42]: ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. [44]: πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεύειν, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ του μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε· [John iii. 35] (the Baptist): ὁ γὰρ πατηρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. [1 Joh. iii. 14]: ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, ὅτι μεταβεβηκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν. [Joh. xix. 35]: καὶ ἀληθινή ἑστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν, ὃτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Comp. [xxi. 24]. [1 Joh. 3], [12]. [1 Joh. v. 9]: εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὔτη ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. [Joh. i. 18]: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. Comp. [1 Joh. iv. 12]. [1 Joh. i. 10]: καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν. [1 Joh. v. 12]: ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει. [1 Joh. ii. 15]: οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ. [Joh. xi. 43]: ἡγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον, ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

[23] Vid. the passages compared by Gfrörer, 1, s. 194, from Philo, de linguarum confusione. [↑]