2. Certain incidents are omitted in St. John which in the Synoptics are crises in the life of Christ.—
The omission of the Temptation narrative is per- haps not strange in one who knew the mind of Jesus so intimately. The beloved disciple would be well qualified to understand the parabolic nature uf the story. The essence of the Temptation narra- tive is the possession of Dii-ine power and the refusal to use it for selfish ends. Similarly, Christ's freedom of action, especially in iv^ai J to ilis di-atli, is frequently emphasized iii tln^ I'.nntli (.M-|,f| ,,i. 10"-'»). The outward glory ol ilir /,.:/./"'•'/..// is merged in a higher glory, vliic li i~ ^.■•■n in tlie communicating of Life and' Light to men (1^). As gards the omission of the narrative of the institu-
tion of the Lord's Supper, it was no doubt unneces- sary, at the time at which the Gospel was written.
to repeat words that were in common use in the Church. The inner meaning of the sacrament is perhaps displayed in ch. 6, and throughout chs. 13-17. as an a'biding union with Christ, and the redeini'tiv .l.atli is emphasized elsewhere in the Gospi I \\ I- |,o--ilile that there had been creeping into till' ( huirli -uperstitious views of the ordinance, and the iiiulior is concerned both to bring out the spiritual meanin" and to show that the ideas usually connected solely with the institution, of eating and drinkin'; the flesh and blood of Christ, were already familiar to His disciples. It is the washing of the disciples' feet in the Fourth Gospel to whidi a symbolic meaning is attached (IS*'"'"). The Fourth Evangelist omits th&Aflony in the Gar- den. If i~ -uj;;:ested that he would regard it as inconi|.aiili|.' with the ilignity of the Logos, and daiMa-in- to lii, ( niieeption of the Person of C'hrist. CerlaiTilv rlir <'hii-t of the Fourth Gospel retains no trace'of tli.- A^miy when at His wonl the Konian soldiers fall l.a. k on 'tlir -loun.l. The Intercessory Prayer also lin;^''r\c- -an inijierial culm.' Vet «'c nuist take into account ~urli statements a.- l-J-'^--".
and the recalling of the very words of the A"ony in 18". Moreover, it is untrue to say that the Fourth Evangelist regards bodily weakness as incompatible with the Logos. Jesus sits at Jacob's well tired and weary (4"), He weeps at the grave of Lazarus, and thirsts on the cross (19*). The last passage gives us a key to the author's attitude in reference to the person "of Christ. Jesus spoke the words in full consciousness ('knowing,' etc., i.e. they were not irrunf/ from Him), and in speaking them fulfils a great Divine purpose ( ' that the scripture might be fulfilled '). In his picture of Jesus upon earth, the Evangelist brings out in stron^ relief attributes of His Person which j)resented tliemselves to him in their full significance only through his experience of the Risen Christ. The two conceptions of Christ's humanity and Divinity are naively set side by side (cf. e^^i™ 11»- «■ ■"• •>=).
The reverse side of the question is presented in the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus. Here the Fourth Evangelist inserts an occurrence which is also a crisis in the last days, and yet the Synoptics do not mention it. The contradiction is partly resolved if we remember that the Synoptic account may really be reduced to one original document closely corre- sjionding to our Gospel of St. Mark, and containing recollections of the preaching of St. Peter. Again, the mere fact that a miracle of raising from the dead has been omitted need excite no surprise. Jairus' daughter also was dead. The difficulty is that the miracle should be one of such central importance in the working out of the end. It may be that in the preaching of the early Apostles, which is the basis for the oral tradition of the Synoptics, the incident would not be dwelt on, considering the hatred provoked against Lazarus himself (12'°). At all events, the extraordinary knowledge dis- played by the Fourth Evangelist of the situation, in the cdosinw days at Jerusalem, leads to the presumption that he is right in the place he gives to the miracle.
3. The date of the Last Supper. — All the SjTioptics agree in putting the Last Supper on the evening of ' the first day of unleavened bread,' i.e. on the evening which began Passover day, accord- ing to Jewish reckoning (Mt 26"-«', Mk 14'''-", Lk 007. U) Thus the day of the Crucili.xion is the Pa-~o\(.r , lay. 1.1 l.ltli Xisan. On the other hand, lie I'ouiili (';o^|„ 1 iv-.ii'ls the day of the Crucifixion n- iJ.Mitir:il Willi tlc' ilay of Preparation for the ra^-ovci- ( r.i" ■'-'-I. The rulers would not enter the Pr.-etoriuin lest they be prevented by defilement from eating the Passover (18=«). Jn 13' puts the Supper 'before the feast of the Passover.' Elabo- rate and ingenious attempts have been made to bring eitlier the Synoptics into harmony with the Fourth Gospel or vice versa. No successful attempt has yet been made to reconcile the two accounts chronologically, and it does not appear probable that any solution can be found in that direction. The only jioints on which all four are agreed are that our Lord suflered on a Friday (but see West- cott, Jntrod. to Study of Gospels, p. 322), and rose again on the following Sundaj'. AVe must choose between the Cnicitixion on the 14th Xisan (John) or on loth Nisan (Synoptics).