GOSPELS
its
inhabitants
were
acute
reasoners.
With
them
the
question
who
Jesus
was
could
not
be
postponed
;
this
is
shown
by
the
way
in
which
the
Pharisees
questioned
the
Baptist.
To
them,
therefore,
the
Messiahship
was
proclaimed
earlier.
It
is
true
that
there
would
be
a
difficulty
if
the
Twelve
first
learned
about
the
Messiahship
of
Jesus
at
Csesarea
PhiUppi.
But
this
does
not
appear
from
the
Synoptics.
The
Apostles
had
no
doubt
heard
the
questions
asked
in
Judaea,
and
did
know
our
Lord's
claim
to
be
Christ;
but
they
did
not
fully
realize
all
that
it
meant
till
the
incident
of
Peter's
confession.
(c)
The
claims
of
our
Lord
are
said
to
be
greater
in
Jn.
than
in
the
Synoptics
(e.g.
Jn.
10"),
and
it
is
suggested
that
they
are
an
exaggeration
due
to
a
later
age.
Certainly
Jn.
is
a
'
theological
'
Gospel.
But
in
reality
the
claims
of
our
Lord
are
as
great
in
the
Synoptics,
though
they
may
not
be
so
explicitly
mentioned.
The
claim
of
Jesus
to
be
Lord
of
the
Sabbath
(Mk
2^'),
to
re-state
the
Law
(Mt
S"-
^ii-
RV,
etc.),
to
be
about
to
come
in
glory
(Mk
8=8
14=2),
to
be
the
Judge
of
the
world
(Mt
25='S-
etc.),
the
invitation
'Come
unto
me'
(Mt
ll^"''),
the
assertion
of
the
atoning
efficacy
of
His
death
(Mk
KV'
14")
—
cannot
be
surpassed
(see
also
Mark
[Gospel
acc.
to],
§
3).
The
self-assertion
of
the
great
Example
of
humility
is
equally
great
in
all
the
Gospels,
and
is
the
great
stumbUng-block
of
all
the
thoughtful
upholders
of
a
purely
humanitarian
Christ.
(d)
Other
differences,
which
can
here
be
only
alluded
to,
are
the
emphasis
in
Jn.
on
the
work
of
the
Spirit,
the
Comforter;
the
absence
in
Jn.
of
set
parables,
allegories
taking
their
place;
and
the
character
of
the
miracles,
there
being
no
casting
out
of
devils
in
Jn.,
and,
on
the
other
hand,
the
miracle
at
Cana
being
unlike
anything
in
the
Synoptics.
The
only
miracle
common
to
the
four
Gospels
is
the
feeding
of
the
five
thousand,
which
in
Jn.
is
mentioned
probably
only
to
introduce
the
discourse
at
Capernaum,
of
which
it
forms
the
text
(Jn
6).
All
these
phenomena
may
be
accounted
for
on
Clement's
hypothesis.
The
Fourth
Evangelist
had
the
Synoptics
before
him,
and
supplemented
them
from
his
own
knowl-edge.
And
it
may
be
remarked
that,
had
Jn.
been
a
late
work
written
after
the
death
of
all
the
Apostles,
the
author
would
never
have
ventured
to
introduce
so
many
differences
from
Gospels
already
long
in
circula-tion;
whereas
one
who
had
been
an
eye-witness,
writing
at
the
end
of
his
life,
might
well
be
in
such
a
position
of
authority
(perhaps
the
last
survivor
of
the
Apostolic
company,
whoever
he
was)
that
he
could
supplement
from
his
own
knowledge
the
accounts
already
in
use.
The
supplementary
character
of
Jn.
Is
seen
also
from
its
omission
of
matters
to
which
the
writer
nevertheless
alludes,
assuming
that
his
readers
know
them;
e.g.,
Jesus'
baptism
(without
the
knowledge
of
which
Jn
1^
would
be
unintelligible),
the
commission
to
baptize
(ct.
the
Nicodemus
narrative,
Jn
3),
the
Eucharist
(cf.
Jn
6,
which
it
is
hardly
possible
to
explain
without
any
reference
to
Jesus'
words
at
the
Last
Supper,
for
which
it
is
a
preparation,
taking
away
their
apparent
abrupt-ness),
the
Transfiguration
(cf
.
1"),
the
Birth
of
our
Lord
(it
is
assumed
that
the
answer
to
the
objection
that
Christ
could
not
come
from
Nazareth
is
well
known,
148
741.
62),
the
Ascension
(cf.
6«2
20"),
etc.
So
also
it
is
often
recorded
in
Jn.
that
Jesus
left
questions
un-answered,
and
the
Evangelist
gives
no
explanation,
assuming
that
the
answer
is
well
known
(3'
4"-
"
6*^
7=5).
There
are
some
well-known
apparent
differences
in
details
between
Jn.
and
the
Synoptics.
They
seem
to
differ
as
to
whether
the
death
of
our
Lord
or
the
Last
Supper
synchronized
with
the
sacrificing
of
the
Paschal
lambs,
and
as
to
the
hour
of
the
Crucifixion
(cf
.
Mk
1526
with
Jn
19").
Various
solutions
of
these
discrepancies
havebeensuggested;
but
there
is
one
solution
which
is
impossible,
—
namely,
that
Jn.
is
a
2nd
cent.
'
pseudepigraphic
'
work.
For
if
so,
tlie
first
care
that
the
writer
would
have
would
be
to
remove
any
obvious
differences
between
his
work
and
that
of
his
predecessors.
It
clearly
professes
to
be
by
an
eye-witness
GOSPELS
(Jn
1"
19»»).
Either,
then,
Jn.
was
the
work
of
one
who
wrote
so
early
that
he
had
never
seen
the
Synoptic
record,
—
but
this
is
contradicted^
by
the
internal
evidence
just
detailed,
—
or
else
it
was
written
by
one
who
occupied
such
a
prominent
position
that
he
could
give
his
own
experiences
without
stopping
to
explain
an
apparent
contradiction
of
former
Gospels.
In
fact
the
differences,
puzzling
though
they
are
to
us,
are
an
indication
of
the
authenticity
of
the
Fourth
Gospel.
4.
Are
the
Gospels
contemporary
records?—
We
have
hitherto
considered
them
from
internal
evidence.
We
may,
in
conclusion,
briefly
combine
the
latter
with
the
external
attestation,
in
order
to
fix
their
date,
referring,
however,
tor
details
to
the
separate
headings.
It
is
generally
agreed
that
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
the
latest.
Internal
evidence
shows
that
its
author
was
an
eye-witness,
a
Palestinian
Jew
of
the
1st
cent.,
whose
in-terests
were
entirely
of
that
age,
and
who
was
not
concerned
with
the
controversies
and
interests
of
that
which
followed
it.
If
so,
we
cannot
place
it
later
than
A.D.
100,
and
therefore
the
Synoptics
must
be
earlier.
Irenaeus
(c.
a.d.
180)
had
already
formulated
the
necessity
of
there
being
four,
and
only
four,
canonical
Gospels;
and
he
knew
of
no
doubt
existing
on
the
subject.
It
is
incredible
that
he
could
have
spoken
thus
if
Jn.
had
been
written
in
the
middle
of
the
2nd
century.
Tatian
(c.
a.d.
160)
made,
as
we
know
from
recent
discoveries,
a
Harmony
of
our
four
Gospels
(the
Diatessaron),
and
this
began
with
the
Prologue
of
Jn.
Justin
Martyr
(c.
A.D.
150)
is
now
generally
allowed
to
have
known
Jn.,
though
some
hold
that
he
did
not
put
it
on
a
level
with
the
Synoptics.
Again,
it
is
hard
to
deny
that
1
Jn.
and
the
Fourth
Gospel
were
written
by
the
same
author,
and
1
Jn.
is
quoted
by
Papias
(c.
140
or
earlier),
as
we
learn
from
Eusebius
(.HE
ill.
39),
and
by
Polycarp
(Phil.
7,
written
c.
a.d.
111).
If
so,
they
must
have
known
the
Fourth
Gospel.
Other
allusions
in
early
2nd
cent,
writers
to
the
Fourth
Gospel
and
1
Jn.
are
at
least
highly
probable.
Then
the
external
evidence,
like
the
internal,
would
lead
us
to
date
the
Fourth
Gospel
not
later
than
A.D.
100.
This
Gospel
seems
to
give
the
results
of
long
reflexion
on,
and
experience
of
the
effect
of,
the
teaching
of
our
Lord,
written
down
in
old
age
by
one
who
had
seen
what
he
narrates.
The
Synoptics,
to
which
Jn.
is
supplementary,
must
then
be
of
earlier
date;
and
this
is
the
conclusion
to
which
they
themselves
point.
The
Third
Gospel,
being
written
by
a
travelling
companion
of
St.
Paul
(see
art.
Luke
[Gospel
acc.
to]),
can
hardly
have
been
written
after
a.d.
80;
and
the
Second,
whether
it
be
exactly
the
Gospel
which
St.
Luke
used,
or
the
same
edited
by
St.
Mark
the
'interpreter'
of
St.
Peter
(seeart.
Mark
[Gospel
acc.
to]),
must
beeither
somewhat
earUer
than
Lk.
(as
is
probable),
or
at
least,
even
if
it
be
an
edited
form,
very
little
later.
Its
'autoptic'
character,
giving
evidence
of
depending
on
an
eye-witness,
makes
a
later
date
difficult
to
conceive.
Similar
arguments
apply
to
Mt.
(see
art.
Matthew
[Gospel
acc.
to]).
Thus,
then,
while
there
is
room
for
difference
of
opinion
as
to
the
names
and
personalities
of
the
writers
of
the
Gospels
(for,
like
the
historical
books
of
OT,
they
are
anonymous),
critical
studies
lead
us
more
and
more
to
find
in
them
trustworthy
records
whose
writers
had
first-hand
authority
for
what
they
state.
It
may
be
well
here
to
state
a
difficulty
that
arises
in
reviewing
the
2nd
cent,
attestation
to
our
Gospels.
In
the
first
place,
the
Christian
literature
of
the
period
a.d.
100-176
is
extremely
scanty,
so
that
we
should
not
a
priori
expect
that
every
Apostolic
writing
would
be
quoted
in
its
extant
remains.
And,
further,
the
fashion
of
quotation
changed
as
the
2nd
cent,
went
on.
Towards
the
end
of
the
century,
we
find
direct
quotations
by
name.
But
earlier
this
was
not
so.
In
Ignatius,
Polycarp,
Justin,
and
other
early
2nd
cent,
writers,
we
find
many
quotations
and
references,
but
without
names
given;
so
that
doubt
is
sometimes
raised
whether
they
are
indebted
to
our
canonical
Gospels
or
to
some
other
source,
oral
or
written,
for
our
Lord's
words.
It
is
clear
that
our
canonical
Gospels
were
not
the
only
sources
of
information
that
these
wnters
had;
oral
tradition
had
not
yet
died
out,
and
they
may
have
used
