Many points of difference between the fourth Gospel and the others may be satisfactorily ac counted for from the fragmentary character of the narratives. None of them professes to be a com plete biography, and, therefore, one may 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 Eusebius, and of the still more ancient writers whose testimony he cites, Clement of Alexandria and Origen ; and the opinion appears to be well founded. Whether John was acquainted with the works of his predecessors or not is uncertain, but he was no doubt acquainted with the evangelical tradition out of which they originated. We have, then, in this circumstance a very natural explana tion of the omission of many important facts, such as the institution of the supper, the baptism of Jesus by John, the history of his temptation and transfiguration, and the internal conflict at Gethse mane. These his narrative assumes as already known. In several passages he presupposes in his readers an acquaintance with the evangelical tradition (i. 32, 45 ; ; 24 ; xi. 2).
It is not easy to reconcile the apparent discre pancy between John and the Synoptists with re spect to the day on which Christ observed the last passover with his disciples. Lucke decides in favour of John, but thereby admits the discrepancy to be real. Again. in the Synoptic Gospels the duration of our Lord's ministry appears to be only one year, whereas John mentions three pass overs which our Saviour attended, but neither the Synoptists nor John determine the duration of the Saviour's ministry, and, therefore, there is no con tradiction between them on this point.
It has been alleged that therc is an irreconcil able difference between the Synoptic and the Johannean representation of Christ, so that, as suming, 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 remembrance, and that they 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 coinposed by John himself.
If the allegation could be made good that the Christ of John is essentially different from the Christ of the Synoptists, the objection would be fatal. On the con traiy, however, we are per suaded 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 say that the fourth Gospel represents Christ as God, while the others 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 apparent difference in their respective re presentations. That the Synoptists do not differ essentially from John in their view of Christ is shewn by Dorner in an admirable comparison (Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte, SI, ff. ; E. Tr. i. so, ff.) We are sorry that Liicke and Frommann, as well as De Wette, give in so much to the view that John has mingled his own subjectivity 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 represents Christ as applying this term to himself. We may also refer to those passages in which, after quotin,g obscure sayings of the Re deemer or remarkable occurrences, he either adds an explanation or openly confesses his ignorance of their meaning at the time (ii. 19-22 ; Yi. 70 ; vii. 37-39 ; xi. t ; xii. 16, 3z ; xiii. 27 ; xx. 9).
The susceptible disposition of John himself, and the intimate relation in which he stood to Christ, make the supposition reasonable that he drank so deeply into the spirit of his master, and retained so vivid a recollection of his very words, as to re produce them with accuracy. Instead of transfer ring his own thoughts and expressions to Christ, John received and reproduced those of Christ him self. In this way the similarity between John's language and that of Christ is accounted for. It is acknowledged, even by Stmuss and De Wette, that the most characteristic expressions in John were orig,inally used by Christ himself. When it is objected that John could not retain in re membrance, or hand down with accuracy, such long discourses of Christ as he records in his Gos pel, far too little regard is paid to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to be expected especially in such a case as this, according to the Saviour's promise, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you,' John xiv. 26.
(Kirchhofer, Quellorsamm/ung znr Gesch. d.
T Canons ; Norton on the Genuineness of the Gos pels, 2 vols.; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels ; Hug, Introduction to the N. 7'.
(American translation) ; De Wette, Historico-Criti. cal Introduction to the Canonical Books of the N. T. (Amencan translation) ; Reuss, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments, Zweite ausgabe ; Guericke, Gesamnageschichte des N. T.; Thiersch, Die Kirche Apostolischen Zeitalter ; Weiss, Zur Entstehungsgeschkhte a'er a'rei synoptis, chen Evangelien (Studien u. Krit, 1861); H. A W. Meyer, Kommentar liber clas N. T.; De Wette. Exeget. Handbuch ZUNI N. T.; Lticke, Kommen tar fiber das Ev. des 79hannes ; Frommann, Der johanneische Lehrbegrihr.—A. T. G.