(h) The cleansing of the temple (Jn 2"-=^ cf. with Mt 21"- '»•»= Nik 1 !'»-"• ^ = Lkl9«"« 20=). It is a well-known diHerence between the Synoptic Gospels and Jn, tliat while he records a cleansing of tiie temple at the very beginning of the jiublic work of Jesus, tliey place tlieir corresponding narrative among the events of the last week of His life. There is nothing inherently diflicult in the supposition that such an act should have been performed by Jesus at each of these epochs in His ministry. If on an early visit to Jerusalem Ho saw the traffic desecrating the temple courts, as He must in all probability have done, it would be natural that lie should be moved to righteous indignation against it. Nor need He have felt restrained by the fear of too soon proclaiming His Mes,siahship. By such an act He did not obviously do this ; it was one which any proi>het mi^'ht have performed. The consciousness of a character higher even than that of a prophet is revealed only in words of mysterious imiKjrt. It is likely enough also that the abuse would again in a short time appear, in spite of His rebuke. If, however, we assume that the <liirerence between Jn and the other Gospels as to the time of the cleansing arose through reminiscences, which were fundamentally the same, having been combined and connected in diverse ways, the account of the fourth evan- elist is certainly not the less reliable of the two. '"or he must have known that given by the first three, since, even if he were not acquainted with their Gospels, the fact of their all recording this tradition implies its being widely spread ; and he would not have departed from it, whether in order to oorrecl or to supplement their narrative, except on the ground of possessing good information. It Is to l)e ailduil that in respect of vividness, and of the nppriiprialcness with wliich the scene and the ■everal jiarts of the action are represented, the
f
superiority is on the side of Jn. One or two did'erences in the two accounts appear to accorO with the dillerence of time.
(c) The feeding of the five thousand and crossing of the lake (Jn 6'-"-«*-^ cf. with Mt 14"-* "■'"-»= Mk G»-«-«-« = Lk 9>°-"). This is the narrative in which Jn and the SjTioptic Gospels are most closely parallel. As is commonly the case in Jn, the relation of the miracle is followed by teaching concerning spiritual mysteries, which appear to be suggested by the miracle, so that we are led almost to regard it as an acted parable. But the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record the miracle, without gi\ang any corresponding discourse, shows that the fourth evangelist cannot be rightly accused of in- venting the miracle as a basis for the discourse, and if he did not in this case, tlicre is the less reason to suppose that he did so in others. Jn agrees in many points of detail and in some phrases with the Synoptic Gospels, esp. with Mk and Mt. It is possible tliat these may be due in part to ac- quaintance with these Gospels, or with the docu- ment embodied in them. But a common tradition would equally well account for such correspond- ences as may be observed. Indeed, this is the most probable explanation of the relation between .In 6'^'», Mt e--", Lk 9". He would seem to give here in a fuller form the incident of which tliey have i>resen-ed a partial reminiscence.
Even in this narrative, where the resemblance between the four evangelists is greatest, ^a is still verj' independent. And man}' of the touches peculiar to him are such as would be imparted by an eye-witness. There is greater particularity in his account, e.g. words which, according to the Syno[itic (.Jospels, were spoken to or by the dis- ciples generally, were, according to Jn, addressed to or spoken by individuals amongst them. The more lifelike character of his account of the con- clusion of the incident of the miracle should also be noticed. There was a scene of excitement and enthusiasm, and Jesus, after His wont, quietly withdrew (Jn w."-"). This we can understand far better than that the multitudes should have been willing to disperse, simply on being bidden to go, after wtnessing such a work (Mt v."=Mk vv.«- •">).
(d) The closing scenes. It will be impossible to do more than allude to a few of the divergences from and additions to the Synoptic Gospels which we find in Jn. As regards the much discussed subject of the Day of the Crucifixion, it must suttice to say that, whatever may be the dilficultios arising from the Synoptic language concerning the Last Supper, the view that Jesus was crucifiea on the 14th of Nisan, which is the natural infer- ence from Jn's language, must be accepted as the most probable. On this assumption, his state- ments throughout are clear and self-consistent, while they are supported also by some indications in the other Gospels. To pass on, there are many signs of accurate knowledge in Jn's whole account of the last evening with the disciides, the arrest, and condemnation of Jesus. For instance, the preliminary investigation before Annas, and the fact mentioned in Jn and nowhere else that he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, fit well with all the statements contained in Josephus regarding the succession of meml>er» of the family of Annas to the office of high priest during Annius' own life- time. Again, when Jesus is brought to I'ilate, wo obtain from Jn a clear and tliorouj;hly probable \'ii'W of the scene ami of the succcssi\-e acts of the drama. The prisoner, as wius natural, is con<lucted at once within the governor's house, while the .lewisli rulers remain outside for a ceremonial rea.son (IS"). I'ilate pa.s.ses to and fro. In xt.""" he is outside |iarleying with the Jews ; in rv.""" h«