personal inn,,,'- „,„-. ,. ij.i isMq', t'i . '""''''
' I' '« J9'. lliese touches
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
are introduced spontaneously, forming an integral part of the consciousness of the -nriter.
Again, it is e%'ident that a selection has been made out of a number of incidents that were avail- able (20*'- "). Incidents related in detail in the Synoptics are implied (7''- 3^ 1^^ ^). Barabbas is mentioned without introduction, and the single comment, ' Now Barabljas was a robber,' is full of suppressed meaning (18*). The trial before Caia- phas Ls not described. Two great miracles are related substantially as in the SjTioptics (6'"-')- Compare also the Anointing (12) and the Triumphal Entry (12'2-i5). The Trial scenes and the Cruci- fixion corresi^ond in the main ^vith the Synoptics. The Denial of Peter gains in verisimilitude by being broken up into separate incidents. The Baptists words in 3^ are confirmed by Mt 9'^. The Baptist's ministry is implied in lO*"- ■*'.
(2) The Evangelist describes himself not as a biographer, but as a ' witness.' He brings forward others as witnessing. In 21", if the order is sig- nificant, 'witnessing' is looked ui)on as of prior importance to 'writing.' A governing idea in the writer's mind is ' the truth,' which consists not in historical fact, but in having the mind brought into tune with the Divine facts of love and self-sacrilice. The miracles are not only actualities (Iftya), they are also signs [crrnieTa). The Evangelist's mind is specially open to any suggestion of spiritual truth conveyed bv the actual facts {e.g. 2"- "). Siloam is ' sent,' tne sending forth of the waters being typical, perhaps, of the Christ sent of God (9'). Judas goes out of the light of the upper room ' into the night' (13*"). 'It was winter' at the Feast of the Dedication (I0'~), symbolizing the storm of hatred and the chill of indifference that met the warmth of Jesus' love. The use made of the sign in 19^*- is also typical of the Evangelists mind. The reflective character of the writing is .seen in the frequent use of iVa and oSn as connective particles. He emphasizes on various occasions the doctrine of a higher purpose running through the history {e.g. ipi ; cf. ' the hour,' 2^ etc. 3-'' 19^). This idea of the sovereignty of God in events is found also in St. Paul, and is not represented in the Christian tradition solely by the Fourth Evangelist. There is also the frank confession that the disciples failed to understand some sayings and incidents at the time, and that only the Spirit, mediated through the teaching of events, revealed the hidden mean- ing {e.g. 2" 12'"). This is in accordance with the attract e.\pre<~inn ..f tin- -auie idea in 14^.
It isimpossil.li- fully i.. uii.lerstand the author's conception of hi>toiy witlmut taking into account his clear consciou^nes.^ that the gift of the Spirit of Truth must be part of the equipment for ^mting such a narrative as this Gospel (14", cf. 19^ and the use of d\7)9i>'(Ss). The theory of history that is exemplified in the Gospel is summed up in 15'-^-". Even the situation of distress in the Church at the time he WTote finds its interpretation only in the prophetic words of Christ (14=^ 16*).
TiN itii :i conception of history so far removed from tli.it of till- iiiore chronicler, it is not surpris- ing tli;it tlie i>cr,-]iective of certain incidents {e.g. the Clean^inx of the Temple) has been disturbed. There was a careful selection of those events in the life of Christ that were best fitted to illustrate in all their varyin" phases the belief and unbelief called forth by the Person and teachin" of Jesus, but the Evangelist always starts with what he has seen (1"). There are some difficulties of seiiueii(;e that would be removed by giving a different order to the narrative ; e.g. ' Anse, let us go hence ' (14^'), wherethediscour.se is resumed in ch. 15. Again, the discourse in 7"'" would be eminently in [ilace at the end of di. 5. These transpositions miglit have taken place through various causes after the
document had left the writer's hands (see Bacon, Introduction, pp. 271-274).
2. The discourses. — There are differences in style and in length between the discourses of Christ in the Fourth Gospel and those in the Synoptics. At first .sight they seem far removed in character. Yet nothing could be farther from the truth than to say that the personal contribution of the Evan- gelist in the discourses is more apparent than lus desire to reproduce the exact woixis of Jesus, or that he makes use of the Synoptics in mechanical fashion. He has preserved one or two isolated sayings (1« o^ G-'" 13-"- ^ 20^') which are also found in the Synoptics, and the discourse in 5""" contains many coincidences of word and thought with Mt 1 !=■'". (For other coincidences see TVestcott, Ixxxi.). Yet there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the hypothesis that even in these cases the Evangelist was entirely dependent on the Synoptic narratives, although it is probable that ne hail them before him. Even the discourses of the Fourth Gospel, when reduced to their element,s, are full of short and pregnant sayings, such as we are accustomed to connect mth Christ (see a most suggestive collection in Drummond, op. cit. p. 16 ff.). Discourses much longer than any that are found in John are to be found in the Synoptics. It is true that the style of the discourses and the style of the Evangelist are practically identical, but that may be partly due to the fact that the words of Jesus have been translated from the Aramaic. The dialogue form is more fully represented in the Fourth Gospel than in the others, which would rather make for authenticity.