These considerations may be held to prove that the twofold Johannine literature, instead of break- ing the evidences of unity of authorship, reveals a high probability that the two document* proceeded from the same mind. We have also seen that the strong evidence for the existence of the tJospel towards the verv beginning of the 2nd cent., and the traditional attribution of authorship to the son of Zebedee, are not countermanded by the character- istics of John supposed to be given in the Synoptic Gosjiels, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and the three ICpistles of John.
Some able critics, like Gebhardt, Konan in some edd. of the Vie de Jfsus, and Matthew Arnold, are ready to admit that the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel is af< coiiious as for the Synoptic (iospels and the Pauline Kpislles. Keim ha-s even triumphed over Baur's chronolug}' and pressed back
710
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
the date of the existence of the Gospel to a time when the son of Zebedee may have been Btill livinj'. iJut all these hold a view of the writing wliicu deprives it of historic value. They regard it as a Christological romance in the form of a narrative, which was not intended even by the author to be taken as a serious or historical record of what was actually said and done. The intense personality of the author pervades the whole. He has, say they, very sparingly made use of the Synoptic Gospels and the teaching of St. I'aul, and freely manipulated traditional material as suited his pur- pose, and he never intended to convey other tlian the grand impression produced upon liis mind by the forms of the new faith. As Jth, Enoch, 2 Es, the Shepherd, the Platonic Dialogues, tlw Divina Commcdia, Paradise Lost, etc., used semi-narra- tive forms for the purpose of conveying religious ideas, so our evangelist was one of the most etl'ective writers of didactic liction.
Others have gone much further than this. They have questioned every mark of early origin, and have thought that they found abundant evidence of later date, e.g. references to the second de- struction of jerus. under Hadrian. Some have foand traces of Docetism, later Gnosticism, Neopla- tonism in the Gospel, and have contended that it is an attempt to trace to the words of Jesus the two types of Hel. and Heb. Christianity, the writer 8 deliberate aim being to bring about the healing of a schism which can be traced back to the apostles themselves. Tlie controversy turns on the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptic narrative, and this we must now examine.
VI. The Relation of the Foutith Gospel to THE SvNorTic Narrative. — A. A general state- ment of the contrast between them. — It is now admitted that this contrast has appeared to modern criticism more extreme than to that of preWous centuries. ' Atmosphere ' or climate are difficult to define, but the most conseri-ative critics are conscious of a vital change when passing from genealogical details to the abysses of eternity, from the homely life and trade of Nazareth and Capernaum to the heated discussions of the temple courts, from the Sermon on the Mount to the valedictory discourse. The dramatia persona are different. Nicodemus, Lazarus, and Nathanael, the impotent and the blind man, are introduced to us for the first time. Thomas starts into prominence and a position of high argumentative importance. The chronological elements ditl'er. The various visits to the metropolis interfere with the simple flow of the Synoptic narrative. No direct mention is made of the birth in Bethlehem from the virgin mother. The story and testimonies of John the Baptist are taken up where the Sjnoptists drop them, and yet no direct account is given of his death. The temptation, the transfiguration, the agony in the garden, the trial before the Sanhedrin, the dereliction, the ascension, are apparently ignored. The main themes of the discourses, viz. tne conditions of admission into the kingdom, are exchanged for profound hints as to the uniqueness of the Lord's own person. His pre-existence, His claim to reveal the Father and to give eternal life. The miracles of the Synoptic narrative appear to set forth His comradeship and His pity for the sorrows of the world, but the later narrative of miracles of Jesus seems mainly used to insist upon the apologetic value of His miracles— they are • signs ' of the glory of God. The little children have vanished from the scene, even from the hosannas of the triumphal entry. It is considered scarcely possible to exaggerate the contrast between the gradual development of the Synoptic Christ, Bud the aureole of Messianic and divine splendour
which invests Him from the first in 'John's' re- presentation.
The first three Gospels represent more than one current type of tradition. The Fourth Gospel is almost universally admitted to be the work of one thoughtful mind, which has impressed it.self upon the whole work. The author in propriA pcrsonA addresses his readers with explanations of his own, and at times seems to expand by further rellec- tions or recollections even the words of bis adored Master ; so that a vigorous subjective element cannot be excluded, although it may have been relatively exaggerated.
B. We have to examine these divergences and some others, and to decide whether the admission of their existence destroys the historical value of the Fourth Gospel. Primd facie, the claim of the writer to be the most intimate friend and disciple of Jesus Christ must be held to give a wei;,'lit and an authority to his autoptic representations to which none of the Synoptista can lay equal claim.