Jesus Himself saw that some of those who iiro- fessed to be di.sciples were of this unreiiahle character, before either they themselves or others knew it (2^'-^). That there should have been this class is in every way proliable, under the con- ditions of the case, and in view of facts like the wide popularity for a time of the Prophet of N.azareth, whicii the Synoptic Gospels, too, relate. Hut it is almost inconceivable that any one writing at the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd cent, should have described them in a manner so true to historical circumstances, except from actual recol- lection of instances. There was no motive or guidance for doing so in the trials of the Church at that time. Those who fell away then did so under the infiuence of the love of the world, or of philosophy, or the fear of persecution. A moral in reg.-ird to the last-named cause of defection might be pointed from examples of secret believers who were afraid to confess Christ, and such are spoken of in Jn (12^'^ I'J**; cf. also 7"), but they are a distinct class from tliose mentioned alrave, whose conduct was such as would have occurred among those who were compelled to judge of the claims of Jesus during His lifetime, but not afterwards.
The chief points on which the conflicts of Jesus with the Jews turn in the Synoptic Gospels, appear also in Jn (cf. Mt 12» ■" ; Mt 16'-' = Mk 8>''»; Lk 1116. 29-32 .^vith Jn 2'«). They make charges of demon- iacal po.ssession (cf. Mtff", Mt 12-^"- = .Mk 3~''- = Lk ll""- with Jn 8«- ■"•■ « lO'"- ™- ■"). They i-harge Him with disregarding the Sabbath (cf. iSit 12"'- = Mk 2^''- = Lk 6'"-, Mt 12»'f=Mk 3"f=Lk f."'^-, Lk IS'""- U'"- with Jn 5'»- '«• '« -^-^Q"- !«). At the .same time the difference in the illustration which Christ uses as an argument/iim ad hominem in Mt 12" and in Jn 7" should be noticed, and the exquisite suita biJity of each to the particular scene of contro- versy. The one would come home to the country- folk of Galilee, to whom such a case of conscience may even have been .already' familiar ; the force of the other would be felt \>y the .lews of Jerusalem, with their high sen.se of the importance of such points of ceremonial law.
As regards the character of the miracles in .In, it is curious that he does not relate .any exanii>le of the cure of one possessed with a devil — which, according to the Synojitic Gospels, was one of the commonest kinds of our Lord s miracles. This is the more singular because teaching as to an im- portant aspect of Christ's mission could be de- duced from such miracles, and was so by Christ Himself, according to the Synoptic narrative (Mt 12^-5» = Mk 3-"-" = Lk ll"-=«). On the other hand, the first mirjicle recorded in Jn (2'"") is of a ditler- ent type from any in the Synoptics. The other miracles in Jn are either the same as, or similar in kind to, those which they relate. The miracle of raising Lazarus, however, seems to surpass in wonder the raising of Jairus' daughter and of the widow's son, though on consideration it may well be questioned whether it does so to an ap- preciable extent. But it is in any case remark- able that so great a miracle, and one which, according to Jn, served to precipitate the action of the Jewish Sanhedrin, should be omitted in the Synoptic account. While recognizing this, it may be well to notice that the miracle of Christ wliicli must seem the most stupendous of all from the point of view of naturalism, — ' that of feeding the multitude,' — is related by all four evangelists.
Speaking generally, although Jn gives us a pro- founder view of the meaning of our Lord's work, and unfolds the great drama of the belief and unbelief which He provoked, with a more awful sense of its import than the Synoptic Gospels do, yet, in respect to the broad features of the nistorjfc
GOSPELS
GUSJPELS
243
they are either in essential agreement, or are not necessarily inconsistent with one anotlier.
(2) Comparison in detail of passages in which the first three and the fourth Gospels are jjarallcl or approximate to one another, or are in conflut. — We must be content with touching on a few points of special interest.
(a) The work of the Baptist fcf. Jn l''"*" with Mt 3'-" = Mk P'=I,k 3'-"). Alike in the Synoptic outline and in Jn, the work of the Baptist is the starting-point of the history. But on comparing their accounts it is to be noticed, that while we have in the former a general description of the Baptist's preacliing before tlie baptism of Jesus and of that event itself, the latter takes up the history at a time a little (probably a few weeks) later, when the Baptist had reflected on the signs which accompanied the baptism of Jesus, and when he could not only speak of 'the Coming One,' but point Him out. It does not appear from the Synoptic account who saw the signs and heard the voice. The words spoken from lieaven have in Mk and Lk the form of an address to Jesus ; nevertheless, it cannot be supposed that these evangelists, any more than Mt, imagined them to have been spokea simply for the assurance of Jesus. All three, we cannot doubt, record them as a proof of His Messiahship. From Jn it may be inferred that the knowledge of these signs rested on the evidence of the Baptist, who de- clared what he had seen and heard. To him the revelation was granted, as to one fitted by his exceptional spiritual enlightenment to receive it, not to all the bystandeis, or, 9t all events, not to them with the samr? cleamesa. And this assuredly was in accord with the law» of God's spiritual kingdom. The views of the person and work of Christ taught or im])lied in the Baptist's language will be referred to below.