{ 1 ) Can we accept the new version of the principal scene of the ministry of Christ? Mattliew and Mark refer to one passover feast only, for which they bring Jesus to Jerus. — while all the other incidents and teachings are confined to Galilee. It is worth while to remember that to the Romans and Hellenes, to whom Mk and Lk appeal, the ditl'erence between the two must have been very insignificant. To the introspective soul of John, who thought of days, places, hoursof his intercourse with ' the Word incarnate,' it was of moment to record some of these things in sliarper detail. Thus, seeing that the Synoptic narrative of the public ministry ignores the Juda'an ministry of the first passover, he reveals his intimate knowledge of the facts by the use of the word rdXiv in 4', thereby corresponding with the Synoptists as to the date of the commencement of the public ministry. In ch. 5 we have an intermezzo in which a visit to Jerus. brings our Lord into conflict witli the Pharisees on the Sabbatic law. This ex- plains and corresponds with the long and bitter struggle with the I'harisees detailed by the Synop- tists in the early portion of the Galiloean ministry. Jesus does not appear to have been accompanied by more than a few disciples on these visits to the metropolis. Caspari {Chron. Introd. to Life of Christ, Eng. tr. 142) has made the acute suggestion that John, who was known to Caiaphas, and had a house in Jerus. to which he resorted at the time of the great feasts, may have been the sole auditor and witness of the conversations, and have been his Master's host as well as his biographer. But ' John ' never expanded these preciousmemorandainto a full biogiaphy. He, like iiis predecessors, has given us only fragments, pregnant incidents, great words, wlucli lifted the veil from the mystery of the Lord's consciousness. The references to special occasions are abrupt, e.g. to the abiding in Judiea (3^-), the walking in Galilee ("'), the retiring to Pera?a (10"), the pause at Ephraim (11")— other signs and teachings are cited and summarized from first to last. It is helpful to remember that even the Synoptista are not silent about \'isits to Juda?a, as compare the (Tisch.», WH) text of Lk 4", where eh ras (Tu>'a7ar70! ri;? 'lovSalat is inserted in the text — Tregelles and RV insert it in the margin. This might be synchronous with either the first visit of Jesus to Jems, or even the second. In Lk .5" the presence in Galilee of Pliarisees from Jerusalem represents the impression already produced in the temple bv the great discussion on the Sabbatic law. Both Matthew (24") and Luke (IS"-"-") record the territde and tender apostrophe, 'O Jerusalem . . . how often would I,' etc. In Lk 10" the incident of Mary and Martha is not incom patible with our Lord's presence at Bethany during
JOHX, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
711
the feait of Tabernacles, described in Jn 7'°. The Synoptic narrative implies, in the final scenes, familiarity with people and things, which is best explained by the Joliannine account of these visits to Jerusalem.
(2) Is the length of our Lord'M public ministry so diO'erent, after all, in the two accounts as hope- lessly to discredit either account ? Browne (Ord. saclonim) has endeavoured to compress even John's account into the short space of one year, contained between the first and last Passover ; and this is eft'ected by expunging from the text (Jn 6') the reference to another passover ; but it has the tendency to render tlie whole narrative unhistorical when we consider the astounding brevity of the period during which the entire personal influence of Jesus upon friends and foes must have been produced. This becomes more striking when we compare it with the length of the teaching of Socrates, Buddha, or Mohammed. The same com- parison may be made with the record of the ministry of Hosea, Jeremiah, or Ezra, or with the history of the career of Moses, David, or Solomon. The fact is that there is no positive statement in any of the four Gospels upon the subject. The only termini are the 15th year of Tiberius (Lk 3') ancf the recall of Pontius Pilate (A.D. 36). There is therefore more historic probability in the whole narrative if the extended chronology of John into two years and a half be followed. There is nothing to contradict it in tlie Synoptic narrative. See, further, art. Curonolooy of NT, vol. i. p. 40611".
(3) The most perplexing and debated apparent discrepancy between the first three Gospels and the Fourth turns on the day of our Lord's death. As judged by critics of all schools a formidable diflerence emerges, which some, like Baur and Strauss, have lifted into capital importance as demonstrating the late origin of the Fourth Gospel at the hands of one who was ready from doctrinal and ecclesiastical motives to contradict the far- spread tradition of a century. It is assumed that the writer wished to make it appear that Jesus was the true Passover, in whom all the ancient symbolism of the Lamb and the system of sacri- fices culminated, and that he did not hesitate to alhrm by a group of incidental references that our Lord was crucified at the time when the Jews were preparing to kill and eat the paschal supper ; whereas the Sj'nop. Gospels had been unanimous in their assertion that the day pre- ceding the agony and the crucifixion was that on which the days of unleavened bread commenced and the paschal lamb was slain and eaten, and that, the Lord Jesus having been tried and con- demned on the day of the Feast and Holy Con- vocation, was laid in the grave on the evening of the Sabbath preparation. The dilTerence of statement is explicit, and said, by the opponents of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, to be irreconcilable. This conclusion is strongly em- pha.'iized by the Tubingen writers, on the ground that the Quarto -deciman and Jewish -Christian party persisted in celebrating their ' fea.st of the Saviour's Pa.s.sover' on the 14th day of Nisan, when the Jews slew their paschal lamb. Their festivals of rejoicing commenced after their fast- ing had ended, on whichever day of the week it occurred. According to Kuseliius (HE v. 24), I'olycrates of Kphesus allirmcd that the Eastern Churches founded their custom in part on the practice of the .Apostle John hirnsclf, 'who ob- served the \ith day according to the Gospel.' But what Gospel? Not the Fourth, according to the critics, but the Svnoptic Gospels, where John is mentioned with iVter as preparing the Pa.'<s(ivor on the morning «f the 13th Ni.san, and celebrating it with thi' Lord on the night of the 14th. This,