been able to do it in a manner satisfactory either to myself, or to any other impartial inquirer into truth. I consider it therefore as a tacit correction of the account given by the two Evangelists, who were not eyewitnesses, and that St. John intended to say, though he has expressed himself in a more delicate manner, what the following words imply. Other historians had been informed of the embalming of Jesus, but the account which they have given is not perfectly exact. The women went early on Sunday morning, not to embalm Jesus, but merely to visit the sepulchre: for he had been already embalmed by Joseph and Nicodemus.'

If it be true that there are passages in St. John's Gospel, which are at variance with the accounts given by the other Evangelists, we cannot hesitate to give the preference to St. John, who, of the sacred historians, wrote last, who was eye-witness to almost all the facts which he has recorded, who appears to have had an excellent memory, and paid attention to the most minute circumstances. Perhaps some persons will think that this mode of reasoning is an infringement on the inspiration, not only of St. Mark and St. Luke, who were not Apostles, but even on that of St. Matthew. Let however this matter be as it will, the truth of the Christian religion itself will not in the least be affected, The case is exactly parallel to the following. An historian of the present age, of whose general accuracy and fidelity we have no reason to doubt, gives in his narrative the description of an engagement: and an officer, who was present in the engagement, revises this description, and communicates additions and corrections.

SECTION VIII.

Of the Peculiarities of St. John's Greek Style.

ST. JOHN's style is better and more fluent than that of the other Evangelists: and it seems as if he had acquired a facility and taste in the Greek language from his long residence at Ephesus. His narrative is very perspicuous; and in order to promote perspicuity, the same word is sometimes repeated, though perhaps the advanced age in which St. John wrote, had some influence, since he is always inclined to repetitions.

sin'

He never speaks of himself in the first person, but uses a periphrasis, such as, the disciple whom Jesus loved,' or the disciple who leaned on the breast of Jesus.' This again is to be attributed to his long connection with the Greeks, to whom the egotism of the first person was offensive. To the same cause must be ascribed likewise the variation of his expressions, and the use of synonyms, where he has occasion in the same place to speak more than once of the same thing. Thus in ch. xxi. 15, 16, 17. he uses ayamav and pidav, βοσκειν and ποιμαινειν, προβατα and αρνια. In ch. viii. 46. αμαρτια is equivalent to ψεύδος, and cannot denote in general, as is evident from the context: this word was used by St. John to avoid the repetition of Yeudos which occurs in the 44th verse. In the same chapter, ver. 51. the thought he shall never die' is expressed by θανατον ε μη θεωρηση εις τον αιώνα : but in the next verse it is expressed in a different manner by 8 μn youσεται θανατε εις τον αιώνα. Some commentators have thought this too artificial, while others have imagined that the expressions were not synonymous, and have endeavoured to point out a peculiar emphasis: but in fact they are nothing more than various modes of expressing the same thing, according to the practice of good Greek writers. With a view to a similar variation

υμείς

St. John has used EIMI, ch. vii. 34. in the sense of eo, which in the common printed editions is accented, not εἶμι iu but ui, and thus absurdly converted into the sense of sum. That St. John by ОПOY EIMI Eгo, ch. vii. 34. intended to signify Whither I go,' and not 'Where I am,' is evident not only from the context, which requires a verb of motion, because vulc 8 duvadbe eλ0v immediately follows, but likewise from the parallel passage, ch. viii. 21. where Christ says the very same thing, only in different words, os yw UπαуW, vueiç s dvvaode eXÕE. If it be asked, why St. John did not use the verb vπaуw in ch. vii. 34. as well as in ch. viii. 21. I answer, because in the former instance he had already used vaуw in the preceding verse, and for υπαγω that reason he exchanged it for the less usual word μ in the sense eo.

A peculiarity in St. John's mode of writing is the commencement of a clause with the word which had been used in the preceding: for instance, ch. i. 1. ο λογος, και ο λογος-ην προς τον θεον, και ο Θεος. Α similar repetition may be seen in ver. 3, 4. 7, 8. 10, 11. of the same chapter. In ch. xx. 11. is κλausoa ε w' wc κλαίεσα εξω ως SV EKλaшv; and in ch. xxi. 1-17. are repetitions of the same kind. This mode of writing is sometimes censured by grammarians, but as St. John has applied it, the effect is by no means disagreeable. We meet with another instance in his first Epistle, ch. iii. 1. according to the reading of many good authorities, wa TɛKva Jes κληθωμεν (και εσμεν. Ver. 4. αγαπητοι, νυν 2. τεκνα θες εσμεν. Another peculiarity in St. John's style is the frequent use of the pronoun yw, where there is no emphasis, and therefore where it was unnecessary in the Greek language: for instance in the above-mentioned example, εy UTауw, I go,' as in the modern European languages. Whoever turns to Schmid's concordance will find a sufficient number of examples to prove the truth of this assertion. In some cases indeed, as in ch. i. 20. one might suppose that he meant to lay

ινα τεκνα

a particular stress on the pronoun eye, but it really occurs too often, to admit this supposition.

In St. John's Epistles we meet with many examples of a similar kind to those, which I have quoted from his Gospel but the style of the latter is better and more perspicuous, than that of the former. The conjunction kat, for instance, occurs so frequently in his Epistles, that it is sometimes difficult to translate it: but in his Gospel he has used it more sparingly. Hence it is not unreasonable to suppose, that he wrote his Gospel much later than his Epistles, and after he had improved his Greek style by his long residence in Ephesus. Of the Apocalypse, which is written in a totally different style both from the Gospel and the Epistles of St. John, I shall treat at large in a subsequent chapter.

SECTION IX.

Of the last Chapter of St. John's Gospel.

THE last chapter of St. John's Gospel may be considered as a supplement, which was added principally with the view of giving the reader some account of the author. Some of the early Christians had imbibed the notion, that St. John the Evangelist would live till the day of judgement, a notion to which a false interpretation of a saying of Christ, and the great age which the Evangelist actually attained, had given For this reason St. John has related at full length, in the last chapter, the conversation which took place between Christ, St. Peter and himself after the

* See Fabricii Cod. Apocryph. Tom. I. p. 533. Not. x.

resurrection and has shewn in what connection, and in what sense Christ said of St. John, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?'

Grotius, and several other critics, have contended that the last chapter was added, not by St. John himself, but by some other person or persons, and probably by the elders at Ephesus, after St. John's decease. Their principal argument is founded on ver. 24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true.' But, as this inference is not supported by the testimony of the ancients, I do not think it admissible. The style of the whole of the twenty-first chapter is exactly the same, as that of the rest of the Gospel. And as to the 24th verse in particular, I can see no reason for supposing that even that alone is an addition: for the phrase, We know that his testimony is true, is nothing more than a figure of rhetoric, called Communicatio, and expresses the same as, 'Every Christian knows, that his testimony is true.' Besides, if this addition had been made by the Ephesian elders, they would probably have inserted their names: for the testimony of We know,' made by unknown persons, could add no authority to St. John's Gospel.

See my History of the Resurrection, p. 295, 296.