JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
either
of
an
old
man's
exact
reminiscences
of
events
longf
past
or
of
a
late
writer's
pretended
acquaintance
with
precise
details.
The
portraiture
of
persons
and
incidents
charac-teristic
of
the
Gospel
is
noteworthy.
The
picture
is
so
graphic,
and
the
effect
is
produced
by
so
few
strokes,
often
unexpected,
that
it
must
be
ascribed
either
to
an
eye-witness
or
to
a
writer
of
altogether
exceptional
genius.
The
conversations
recorded,
the
scene
of
the
feet-washing,
the
representation
of
the
Samaritan
woman,
of
the
man
born
bUnd,
the
portraiture
of
Peter,
of
Pilate,
of
the
priests
and
the
multitude,
the
question-ings
of
the
disciples,
the
revelation
of
secret
motives
and
fears,
the
interpretations
of
Christ's
hidden
mean-ings
and
difficult
sayings
—
may,
as
an
abstract
possibility,
have
been
invented.
But
if
they
were
not
—
and
it
is
hard
to
understand
how
a
writer
who
lays
so
much
stress
upon
truth
could
bring
himself
to
such
a
perversion
of
it
—
then
the
author
of
the
Gospel
must
have
moved
close
to
the
very
centre
of
the
sacred
events
he
describes.
In
many
cases
it
is
not
fair
to
present
such
a
dilemma
as
this.
The
use
of
the
imagination
in
literature
is
often
not
only
permissible,
but
laudable.
It
is
quite
conceivable
that
a
Jew
of
the
2nd
cent,
before
Christ
might
use
the
name
of
Solomon,
or
the
author
of
the
Clementine
Homilies
in
the
2nd
cent.
a.d.
might
write
a
romance,
without
any
idea
of
deception
in
his
own
mind
or
in
that
of
his
readers.
But
the
kind
of
narra-tive
contained
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,
if
it
be
not
genuinely
and
substantially
historical,
implies
such
an
attempt
to
produce
a
false
impression
of
first-hand
knowledge
as
becomes
seriously
misleading.
The
impossibility
of
conceiving
a
writer
possessed
of
both
the
power
and
the
will
thus
deliberately
to
colour
and
alter
the
facts,
forms
an
important
link
in
the
chain
of
argument.
Fabulous
additions
to
the
canonical
Gospels
are
extant,
and
their
character
is
well
known.
They
present
a
marked
contrast
in
almost
all
respects
to
the
charac-teristic
features
of
the
document
before
us.
The
name
of
John
is
never
once
mentioned
in
the
Gospel,
though
the
writer
claims
to
be
intimately
acquainted
with
aU
the
chief
figures
of
the
Gospel
history.
As
deliberate
self-suppression
this
can
be
understood,
but
as
an
attempt
on
the
part
of
a
writer
a
century
afterwards
to
pose
as
'the
beloved
disciple,'
a
prominent
figure
in
elaborate
descriptions
of
entirely
imaginary
scenes,
it
is
unparalleled
in
literature
and
incredible
in
a
reUgious
historian.
A
volume
might
well
be
filled
with
an
examination
of
the
special
features
of
the
Gospel
in
its
portrayal
of
Christ
Himself.
Even
the
most
superficial
reader
must
have
noticed
the
remarkable
combination
of
lowliness
with
subUmity,
of
superhuman
dignity
with
human
infirmities
and
limitations,
which
characterizes
the
Fourth
Gospel.
It
is
in
it
that
we
read
of
the
Saviour's
weariness
by
the
well
and
His
thirst
upon
the
Cross,
of
the
personal
affection
of
Jesus
for
the
family
at
Bethany,
and
His
tender
care
of
His
mother
in
the
very
hour
of
His
last
agony.
But
it
is
in
the
same
record
that
the
characteristic
'glory'
of
His
miracles
is
most
fully
brought
out;
in
it
the
loftiest
claims
are
made
not
only
for
the
Master
by
a
disciple,
but
by
the
Lord
for
Himself—
as
the
Light
of
the
World,
the
Bread
from
Heaven,
the
only
true
Shepherd
of
men.
Himself
the
Resurrection
and
the
Life.
He
is
saluted
not
only
by
Mary
as
Rabboni,
but
by
Thomas
as
'my
Lord
and
my
God.'
The
writer
claims
an
exceptional
and
intimate
knowledge
of
Christ.
He
tells
us
what
He
felt,
as
in
11"
and
1321;
the
reasons
for
His
actions,
as
in
6';
and
he
is
bold
to
describe
the
Lord's
secret
thoughts
and
purposes
(6"-
"
18'
1928).
More
than
this,
in
the
Prologue
of
a
Gospel
which
describes
the
humanity
of
the
Son
of
Man,
He
is
set
forth
as
the
'only'
Son
of
God,
the
Word
made
flesh,
the
Word
who
in
the
beginning
was
with
God
and
was
God,
Creator
and
Sustainer
of
all
that
is.
This
marked
characteristic
of
the
Gospel
JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
has
indeed
been
made
a
ground
of
objection
to
it.
We
cannot
conceive,
it
is
said,
that
one
who
had
moved
in
the
circle
of
the
immediate
companions
of
Jesus
of
Nazareth
could
have
spoken
of
Him
in
this
fashion.
The
reply
is
obvious.
What
kind
of
a
portrait
is
actually
presented?
If
it
be
an
entirely
incredible
picture,
an
extravagant
attempt
to
portray
a
moral
and
spiritual
prodigy
or
monstrosity,
an
impossible
combination
of
the
human
and
the
Divine,
then
we
may
well
suppose
that
human
imagination
has
been
at
work.
But
if
a
uniquely
impressive
Image
is
set
forth
in
these
pages,
which
has
commanded
the
homage
of
saints
and
scholars
for
centuries,
and
won
the
hearts
of
millions
of
those
simple
souls
to
whom
the
highest
spiritual
truths
are
so
often
revealed,
then
it
may
be
sur-mised
that
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
not
due
to
the
fancy
of
an
unknown
artist
of
genius
in
the
2nd
cent.,
but
it
is
due
to
one
who
reflected,
as
in
a
mirror,
from
a
living
reaUty
the
splendour
of
Him
who
was
'
the
only
begotten
of
the
Father,
full
of
grace
and
truth.'
3
.
Scope
of
the
Gospel
andits
relation
to
the
Synoptics.
—
It
cannot
be
denied
that
there
are
grave
difficulties
in
the
way
of
our
accepting
the
conclusion
to
which
we
are
irresistibly
led
by
the
above
arguments.
Some
of
these
were
felt
as
early
as
the
2nd
and
3rd
cents.,
and
have
always
been
more
or
less
present
to
the
minds
of
Christians.
Others
have
been
more
clearly
brought
out
by
the
controversy
concerning
the
genuine-ness
of
the
Gospel
which
has
been
waged
through
the
last
half-century.
In
this
section
it
will
be
convenient
to
try
to
answer
the
questions.
How
does
this
Gospel,
if
written
by
the
Apostle
John,
stand
related
to
the
other
three?,
how
can
the
obvious
discrepancies
be
reconciled?,
and
how
far
do
the
writer's
object
and
method
and
point
of
view
account
for
the
unique
char-acter
of
the
narrative
he
has
presented?
It
is
clear,
to
begin
with,
that
the
plan
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
differs
essentially
from
that
of
the
Synoptics.
The
writer
himself
makes
this
plain
in
his
own
account
of
his
book
(20™-
").
He
did
not
undertake
to
write
a
biography
of
Christ,
even
in
the
limited
sense
in
which
that
may
be
said
of
Matthew,
Mark,
and
Luke;
he
selected
certain
significant
parts
and
aspects
of
Christ's
work,
tor
the
purpose
of
winning
or
conserving
faith
in
Him,
presumably
under
special
difficulties
or
dangers.
We
are
therefore
prepared
for
a
difference
in
the
very
framework
and
structure
of
the
book,
and
this
we
assuredly
find.
The
Fourth
Gospel
opens
with
an
introduction
to
which
there
is
no
parallel
in
the
NT.
The
circumstances
of
Christ's
birth
and
childhood.
His
baptism
and
temp-tation,
are
entirely
passed
by.
His
relation
to
John
the
Baptist
is
dealt
with
from
a
later,
doctrinal
point
of
view,
rather
than
from
that
of
the
chronicler
describing
events
in
their
historical
development.
Only
typical
incidents
from
the
ministry
are
selected,
and
only
such
aspects
of
these
as
lend
themselves
to
didactic
treat-ment.
It
will
be
convenient
here
to
give
a
brief
outline
of
the
plan
and
contents
of
the
Gospel.
The
Phologue:
I'-'s.
The
Word
—
in
Eternity,
in
Creation,
in
History
and
Incarnate.
Pakt
i.:
119-125".
Christ's
manifestation
of
Himself
in
a
Ministry
of
Life
and
Love.
1.
The
proclamation
of
Hig
message,
the
testimony
of
the
Baptist,
of
His
works,
and
of
His
disciples.
The
beginnings
of
faith
and
unbelief,
li»-4".
2.
The
period
of
Controversy
and
Conflict;
Christ's
vindication
of
Himself
against
adversaries,
partly
in
discourae,
partly
in
mighty
works,
51-12'*''.
Pakt
ii.:
13i-20".
Christ's
manifestation
of
Himself
in
Suffering,
in
Death,
and
in
Victory
over
Death.
1.
His
last
acts,
discouraea,
and
prayer,
IS'-lT^fl.
2.
His
betrayal,
trial,
death,
and^burial,
18'-19«.
3.
His
Resurrection
and
Appearances
to
His
dis-
ciples,
ch.
20.
The
Epilogue:
21'-='.
Further
Appearances
and
Last
Words.
Notes
appended
by
other
hands:
21^-
*.
