. 11). It seems to have been originally placed
after Luke xxi. 36, and was inserted into St. John's Gospel after it
was completed. We cannot apply the same process to any other passage
in the Gospel. It is an organic whole, as much as any play of
Shakespeare or poem of Tennyson. And over the whole book we find the
same morsels of history and geography. They are of a kind which
tradition never hands down unimpaired, and which no Ephesian disciple
of an apostle would be likely to commit to memory. In spite of all
attempts to divide the Gospel into parts derived straight from an
apostle and parts invented by later minds, the Gospel remains like the
seamless coat which once clothed the form of the Son of man.

[Sidenote: Date.]

It is important to observe that even the most hostile criticism has
tended to recede in its attempt to find a probable date for this
Gospel. Baur fixed it about A.D. 160-170, Pfleiderer at 140,
Hilgenfeld 130-140; Juelicher and Harnack will not date it later than
110, {94} and the latter grants that it may be as early as 80. The
year 80 is as early a date as the most orthodox Christian need desire,
and we can reasonably believe that it was written by the apostle at
Ephesus between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90. We learn from Irenaeus that St.
John survived until A.D. 98.

[Sidenote: Literary Style.]

Several points in the literary style of the apostle have been noticed
in dealing with the internal evidence which they afford to the
authenticity of his Gospel. But it is necessary to add something more,
for there is no writer to whom we can more fitly apply the profound
saying that "the style is the man." The language of St. John is the
result of a long and impassioned contemplation. Whether he writes down
his own words, or records the words and deeds of our Lord, his language
shows the result of careful reflection.

The teaching of Jesus exhibits a development different from that in the
Synoptists. We find in chs. ii., iii., and iv. that our Lord
definitely taught that He was the Son of God and Messiah quite early in
His ministry, while in the earlier part of Mark our Lord's teaching
about His Messiahship is far less definite. And the method of teaching
is also different. In the Synoptists we find picturesque parables and
pointed proverbs, while in John we find long discourses and arguments.
In the Synoptists the teaching is generally practical, in John it is
much more openly theological.