it has been alleged, runs directly countei to the representations of the Fourth Gospel.
Now, the difficulty here involved baa been preatly ag^ravatei by the twofold iiK-thod in which conservative critics liave en- deavoured to solve it. Hen^tenherff, Tholuck, Edersheim, Luthardt, M'Clellan, etc., satisfy themselves that every reference In John is compatible with the Synoptic aasertion that the Lord's Supper coincided with the Jewish paseover on the evening: of 14th-l&lb of Nisan. They think that several of the proceedings of the night were exceptional, e.g. Judas going: out, that the possible purchase of things needed for ttie feast or gift of alma could be justitled, that * the paasover ' whi<-h the chief prieats were intending to hold, and for the ceremonial attendance on which they would not enter the pra)toriuni, referred to a midday meal on the feast day called 'chagi^'uh,' a ' thank-offering,' and sometimes termed by lajtity * passover' (2Ch 332» SS' »), and that the references to the s^<^sm^>r— and the bearing of the cross, are all compatible with the first day of convocation. It is thua thought that the two accounts are harmonized ; but, on the other band, Bleek, Orcawell, Uodet, Weiss. Westcott, Watkins, etc., have shown the entire incom- patibility of the proceedings of the trial, of the crucilixion, the bearing of the cross by one coming from field labour, the purchase of spices, etc., with the moat elastic int^^-rpre- tation of the letter of the law then in vogue. The violations of Sabbatic law in performing or allowing deeds of mercy would have been utterly Insignincant by the side of these flagrant contradictions of both letter and spirit. These numerous de- tails (see Keynolda' Introd. pp. xcii-xcv, and notes on the passages in Gosp.) cannot be oiacussed. The Synoptists them- selves supply many conflrmations of the Johaimine view, esjie- cially the determination of the authorities not to apprehend Jesus ' on the feast day.' Since Luke reckons the 50th day after the first day following the Sabbath of Passover (see Lv 23i*, Dt l&*) aa that on which Pentecost had fully come (Ac 2i), and as the universal tradition and custom of celebrating it on a Suniiai/ cannot be disputed, it is evident that Lake must have reckoned in the year of our Lord's (Jeath that the paschal feast waa held on the night following the crucitixioa.
St. John, who took part in the preparation of the passover, was not purposely correcting a common tradition, but making the chronology more clear. Still there remains to be accounted for the explicit manner in which Luke and Mark refer to the celebration of the supper and the blending with it of the ancient ceremonial on the night of the betrayal. Godet and Westcott do not hesitate to imply that the Synoptic narrative shows that our Lord must have anticipated by a day the legal celebration. Haste and the imminence of the tragedy are thought to account for tliis departure. The fresh point made by Caspari (Chron. Introd. to Life of Christ, Eng. tr. pp. 195-217), is that the four evangelists are unanimous in the asser- tion that Jesus sutl'ercd on the 14th of Nisan, after having prepared for the pa.schal supper, though without tne lamb, or the bitter herbs, or the elaborate ceremonial ; that the lamb may have been reserved for the evening of the day of the crucifixion itself, for the hurry and awfulness of which they were imprepared. H this be the fact, the dilliculty vanislies. In its favour may be added the Chronicon Pttschale, which quot«3 Clemens Alex., who, following the chronology just set forth, implies that the disciples had learned that Jesus was Himself the Lamb, the food and the wine of the feast. The fact that Origen, Chrysos- tom, and others in the course of the various Easter controversies, took a dillerent view from Clemens Alex., does not here concern us. The points at issue with the Western Church turn on other considerations not vitnlly connected with our present discus,sion. With three most plaus- ible, if not absolutely satisfactory, methods of accounting for the dilliculty, it is scarcely worthy of candid scholarship to speak of irreconcilable contrail iction, or of the impossibility of St. John's being the autlior of the Fourth Gospel.
(4) The omission by the Synoptic Gospels of events and discourses which constitute vital portions of the Fourth Gospel is very startling, and dilHcult to explain ; but it is itni)ortant to obsiTve that Mattlu'W and Luke are also almost equally characterized by pciiiliarities of their own. Without enumerating them here in detail
712
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOH.V, GOSPEL OF
(see Pulp. Com. xcvi), it maj- bo sulVicioiit to notiie that while paragraplis of various length, peculiar to the author of the I'Wrth Gospel, amount to nintti/-six, yut the specialities wliich we owe entirely to Lk amount to no fewer than seventy- two, anil similar peculiarities of Mt to nxty-tivo, exceeding together by thirty-eight those of the Fourth (jospel. It is sullieicnt to urge that the three evangelists each found in the abundance of material what best corresponded with the supreme motive of his selection. Special emphasis has been laid upon the silence of the Synoptists on an event which definitely precipitated tlie tragedy. Most certainly, the death and restoration of Lazarus take so signal a place in the final working out of Jewish hostility, in John's Gospel, as t^ imply an extraordinary reticence on the part of tlie Synoptists. It is possible that amid the a lUuence of mighty works wrouglit in Galilee the sorrows and joys of Bethany did not bulk so largely as they seem to the critics to do when this one event is smgled out for minute inspection.