Tliere is a striking difference between the fourth gospel and the sj'noptic gospels in respect both to con- tents and form ; but, with all this difference, there is a general and essential agreement. John relates in part the same things as the synoptists, and in a similar man- ner, but not with the verbal agreement. The follow- ing are parallel : The purification of the Temple, ii, 13- 22=Matt. xxi, 11 sq. ; the feeding of the multitude, vi, l-15 = Matt. xiv, 13-21 ; the walking upon the sea, vi, 10-21 = Matt, xiv, 22-30; the anointing, xii, 1- 8 = Matt. xxvi, G-13; the entry into Jerusalem, xii, 9-19=; Matt, xxi, 1-1^; the prediction of the denial of Peter, xiii, 36-38 = Matt, xxvi, 33-35. In some of these instances the expressions are verbally parallel ; also in the following : xii, 25 =Matt. x, 39 ; xiii, 20 = Matt, x, 40 ; xiv, 31 = Matt, xxvi, 40. There is a sim- ilarity between iv, 44, and JIatt. xiii, 57 ; between xiii, 10 and ]Matt. x, 24, and Luke vi, 40 (De Wette, Kref/et.. Handb. zum N. Test.). On the other hand, however, much important matter has lieen omitted and mucli added liy John, while his manner of narration also dif- fers from tliat of the synoptists. In the first three gospels, tlie scene of our Lord's ministry is chiefly laid in Galilee, but in the fourth gospel it is chiefly in Ju- dcca and Jerusalem. This may partly account for the difl'erent style of our Lord's discourses in the synoptic gospels, as compared with the (iospel of John (Hug, p. 433). In tlic former, Christ often makes use of para- bles and proverbial sayings; in the latter, John records long and mystical discourses. Yet we find proverbial maxims and parables also in John xii, 24-20 ; xiii, 10, 20 ; X, 1 sq. ; xv, 1 sq. Many points of difference be- tween^ the fourth gospel and the others may be satis- factorilj' accounted for from the fragmentarj' charac- ter (if the narratives. None of them professes to be a complete biograph}', and, therefore, one maj- contain what others omit. Besides, the fourth gospel was
composed after the others, and designed to be in some respects supplemental. This was the opinion of Euse- bius, and of the still more ancient writers whose testi- monj' he cites, Clement of Alexandria and Origen; and the opinion appears to be well founded. Whether John was acquainted with tlie works of his predeces- sors or not is uncertain, but he was no doul)t acquaint- ed with the evangelical tradition out of which they originated. AVe have, then, in this circumstance, a very natural explanation of the omission of many im- portant facts, such as the institution of the supper, the baptism of Jesus by John, the histoiy of his temptation and transfiguration, and the internal conflict at Geth- semane. These his narrative assumes as already known. In several passages he presupposes in his readers an acquaintance with the evangelical tradi- tion (i, 32, 45 ; ii, 1 ; iii, 24 ; xi, 2). It is not easj' to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between John and the sj'noptists with reference to the day on which Christ observed the last passover with his disciples. Lucke decides in favor of John, but thereby admits the discrepancy to be real. Again, in the synoptic gos- pels, the duration of our Lord's miiiistr}' appears to be only one j'ear, whereas John mentions three passovers which our Saviour attended ; but neither the sj'noptists nor John determine the duration of the Saviour's min- istry, and, therefore, there is no contradiction between them on this point. It has been alleged that there is an irreconcilable difference between the synoptic and the Johannean representation of Christ, so that, assum- ing the historical reality of the former, the latter must be regarded as ideal and subjective ; particularly, that the long discourses attributed to Christ in the fourth gospel could hardly have been retained in John's re- membrance, and that thej' are so unlike the sayings of Christ in the other gospels, and so like John's own style in his epistles, that they appear to have been composed by John himself. If the allegation could be made good that the Christ of John is essentialh' differ- ent from the Christ of the synoptists, the objection would be fatal. On the contrary, however, we are persuaded that, on this all-important point, there is an essential agreement among all the evangelists. We must remember that the full and many-sided character of Christ himself might be represented under aspects which, although different, were not inconsistent with each other. It is by no means correct to saj- tliat the fourth gospel represents Christ as God, while the oth- ers describe him as a mere man. Yet we may find in the fact of his wondrous person as the God-man an explanation of the appai'ent difference in their respect- ive representations. That the synoptists do not differ essentially' from John in their view of Christ is shown bj"^ Dorner in an admirable comparison (Dorner, Ent- wickclunffsijeschiclile, i, 81 sq. ; E. tr. i, 50 sq.). Liicke and Frominann, as well as De AVette, greatly incline to the view that John lias mingled his own sul)jectivity with the discourses of Christ, which he professes to re- late. That the evangelist does not transfer his own subjective views to Christ appears from the fact that while he speaks of Christ as the Logos, he never rep- resents Christ as appl3'ing this term to himself. We may also refer to those passages in which, after quot- ing obscure sayings of the Redeemer or remarkable oc- currences, he either adds an explanation or openly con- fesses his ignorance of their meaning at tlie time (ii, 19-22 ; vi, 70 ; vii, 37-39 ; xi, 11 ; xii, 10, 32 ; xiii, 27; XX, 9).