JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
The
following
are
some
detailed
differences
of
import-ance.
The
exact
duration
of
Christ's
ministry
cannot
be
determined
either
by
the
Synoptic
narratives
or
by
St.
John's;
but
it
would
appear
that
in
the
former
it
might
be
compressed
within
the
compass
of
one
year,
whilst
the
latter
in
its
mention
of
Passovers
and
Festivals
would
require
more
than
three.
Again,
the
Synoptic
Gospels
describe
a
ministry
exercised
almost
entirely
in
GaUlee
up
to
the
closing
scenes
in
Jerusalem;
St.
John
has
little
to
say
of
Galilee,
but
he
does
mention
an
important
visit
to
Samaria,
and
narrates
at
length
events
and
controversies
in
Jerusalem
of
which
the
other
EvangeUsts
say
nothing.
On
these
points,
how-ever,
it
may
be
remarked
that
none
of
the
Gospels
pro-fesses
to
be
complete;
that
an
exact
chronological
outline
can
with
difficulty
be
constructed
from
any
of
them;
and
that
each
gives
passing
hints
of
events
of
which
the
writer
had
cognisance,
though
it
does
not
come
within
his
purpose
to
describe
them.
Minute
difficulties
of
detail
cannot
be
discussed
here.
But
the
difference
between
the
Synoptists
and
St.
John
with
regard
to
the
date
of
the
Last
Supper
and
Christ's
death
has
a
special
importance
of
its
own.
The
first
three
GospeIs_
represent
Jesus
aa
partaking
of
the
regular
Passover
with
His
disciples,
and
as
being
crucified
on
the
15th
of
Nisan;
St.
John
describes
the
Last
Supper
as
on
the
day
of
'preparation,'
and
the
crucifixion
as
taking
place
on
the
14tn
Nisan,
the
great
day
of
the
Passover.
Various
modes
of
reconciliation
have
been
proposed,
turning
upon
the
meaning
of
the
phrase
'eating
the
Passover'
ana
on
the
Jewish
naode
of
reckoning
days
from
sunset
to
sunset.
It
has
been
further
suggested
that
the
term
'
Passover'
was
applied
to
the
eating
of
the
sacrifice
called
Chagigah,
which
was
offered
on
the
first
Paschal
day_
immediately
after
the
morning
service.
The
explanations
offered
of
the
discrepancy
are
ingenious,
and
one
or
other
of
them
may
be
correct.
But
it
can
hardly
be
said
that
any
has
com-manded
general
acceptance
among
critics,
and
meanwhile
the
difference
remains.
It
must
not
be
supposed,
however,
that
tills
necessarily
implies
an
error
on
the
part
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
.Many
critics
contend
earnestly
that
St.
John
gives
the
more
consistent
and
intelHgible
account
of
the
Last
Supper,
the
trial
and
the
death
of
Jesus
in
relation
to
the
Jewish
festival,
and
that
the
phraseology
of
the
Synoptists
may
be
more
easily
and
satisfactorily
explained
in
terms
of
St.
John's
narrative
than
vice
versa.
The
objection
that
the
writer
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
had
a
dogmatic
reason
for
changing
the
da^
and
representing
Christ
as
the
true
Passover
Sacrifice
offered
for
the
sins
of
the
world,
is
not
borne
out
by
facts.
The
writer
nowhere
speaks
of
Christ
as
the
Paschal
Lamb
(not
even
in
193^),
and
his
allusion
to
the
date
is
too
slight
and
casual
to
warrant
the
supposition
that
he
wishes
to
press
home
the
teaching
of
1
Co
5'.
Further,
if
the
Synoptic
tradition
of
the
date
bad
been
established,
it
is
most
imhkely
that
an
anony-mous
writer
of
the
2nd
cent,
would
have
set
himself
in
opposition
to
it.
If
St.
John
wrote
of
his
own
superior
knowledge,
a
discrepancy
is
intelligible,
and
the
correc-tion
of
a
previous
misapprehension
may
have
been
in-tentional.
It
may
be
said
in
passing
that
the
argument
drawn
from
the
Quartodeciman
controversy
—
whether
Christians
ought
to
keep
the
Passover
at
the
same
time
as
the
Jews,
i.e.
always
on
14th
Nisan,
whatever
day
of
the
week
it
might
be,
or
always
on
Srmday
as
the
first
day
of
the
week,
on
whatever
day
of
the
month
it
might
fall
—
cannot
legitimately
be
made
to
tell
against
the
liistoricity
of
the
Fourth
Gospel.
The
controversy
concerned
the
relation
between
Christians
and
Jews
as
such,
rather
than
the
exact
date
of
Christ's
death
audits
meaning
as
a
Passover
sacrifice.
We
reach
the
centre
of
difficulty,
however,
when
we
try
to
understand
the
marked
difference
between
the
body
of
the
Ssmoptic
narrative
on
the
one
hand
and
St.
John's
on
the
other.
St.
John's
omissions
are
so
stri-king.
He
never
refers
to
the
miraculous
birth
of
Christ;
he
gives
no
account
of
the
Transfiguration,
the
institu-tion
of
the
Eucharist,
or
the
Agony
in
the
Garden;
a
large
number
of
miracles
are
not
described,
nor
is
their
occurrence
hinted
at;
no
parables
are
recorded,
though
the
Synoptics
make
them
a
chief
feature
of
Christ's
teaching,
and
the
very
word
for
'parable'
in
its
strict
sense
does
not
occur
in
the
book.
On
the
other
hand,
his
additions
are
notable.
How
is
it
that
the
Synoptists
JOHN,
GOSPEL
OF
have
nothing
to
say
of
the
changing
of
Water
into
Wine,
of
the
Feet-washing,
and
especially
of
the
Eaising
of
Lazarus?
Is
it
conceivable
that
if
such
a
miracle
was
actually
worked
it
could
have
had
no
place
in
any
of
the
great
traditional
accounts
of
His
ministry?
Are
we
to
understand
that
the
Synoptists
are
correct
when
they
place
the
Cleansing
of
the
Temple
at
the
end
of
Christ's
ministry,
or
St.
John
when
he
describes
it
at
the
beginning?
Other
apparent
discrepancies
are
of
less
importance.
They
concern
the
Anointing
of
Jn
12
as
compared
with
the
narratives
of
Mt
26,
Mk
14,
and
Lk
7;
the
accounts
of
the
trial
of
Jesus
given
in
the
Synoptics
in
their
relation
to
that
of
Jn.;
and
the
appearances
of
the
Lord
after
His
Resurrection
as
recorded
by
St.
John
in
the
20th
and
21st
chapters.
Further,
the
most
superficial
reader
cannot
but
be
struck
by
the
different
representations
of
Christ's
ministry
in
its
main
features.
The
Synoptic
Gospels
do
not
contain
the
long
discourses
which
are
reported
in
St.
John,
always
couched
in
a
pecuUar
and
characteristic
diction,
nor
do
they
mention
the
frequent
controversies
with
'the
Jews,'
who
are
represented
in
the
Fourth
Gospel
as
frequently
interrupting
Christ's
addresses
with
questions
and
objections
to
which
the
Synoptists
present
no
parallel.
The
very
mention
of
'the
Jews,'
so
often
and
so
unfavourably
referred
to,
is,
it
is
said,
a
sign
of
a
later
hand.
The
writer
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
uses
the
same
somewhat
peculiar
style,
whether
he
is
reporting
Christ's
words
or
adding
his
own
com-ments,
andit
is
sometimes
difficult
to
distinguish
between
the
two.
In
doctrine
also,
it
is
contended,
there
are
irreconcilable
differences
between
the
Three
Evangelists
and
the
Fourth.
Judgment
is
viewed
by
the
Synoptists
as
a
great
eschatological
event
in
the
future,
but
by
St.
John
as
a
present
spiritual
fact
accomplished
even
whilst
Christ
was
on
earth.
It
is
said,
further,
that
Gnostic
and
other
heresies
of
various
kinds
belonging
to
the
2nd
cent,
are
alluded
to
in
the
Gospel,
and
that
the
Johannine
authorship
is
therefore
untenable.
Last,
but
by
no
means
least,
the
use
of
the
word
Logos
to
describe
the
Eternal
Word,
and
the
doctrines
associated
with
the
name
that
are
found
in
the
Prologue,
point,
it
is
said,
conclusively
to
an
Alexandrian
origin,
and
are
practically
irreconcilable
with
the
authorship
of
the
son
of
Zebedee.
An
adeq
uate
solution
of
these
acknowledged
difficulties
can
be
found
only
in
a
fuU
consideration
of
the
circum-stances
under
which,
and
the
objects
for
which,
the
Gospel
was
written.
It
is
an
essential
part
of
the
hypothesis
of
Johannine
authorship
that
the
book
was
not
composed
till
a
generation
after
the
death
of
St.
Paul,
in
a
community
where
Christianity
had
been
established
for
nearly
half
a
century.
Such
an
interval,
at
such
a
rapidly
advancing
period
of
Christian
history,
implied
changes
of
a
deep
and
far-reaching
kind.
An
'
advanced
Christology
'
—
^that
is
to
say,
a
f
uUer
develop-ment
of
the
doctrines
implied
in
the
fundamental
Christian
beUef
that
'God
was
in
Christ,'
and
that
Christ
was
'the
Son
of
the
living
God'
—
was
to
be
expected.
The
bearing
of
this
truth
upon
current
religious
ideas
among
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
became
more
clearly
seen
in
every
succeeding
decade.
No
writer,
be
he
aged
Apostle
or
Ephesian
elder,
could
write
in
a.d.
100
as
he
would
have
written
fifty
years
before.
The
very
point
of
view
from
which
the
wonder-ful
Life
of
lives
was
considered
and
estimated
had
changed.
With
it
had
changed
also
the
proportionate
significance
of
the
details
of
that
life
and
work.
The
central
figure
was
the
same.
His
words
and
deeds
re-mained,
indeUbly
imprinted
upon
the
mind
of
one
who
had
lived
'
when
there
was
mid-sea
and
the
mighty
things.'
But
if
an
artist
at
the
same
time
knows
his
work
and
is
true
to
the
realities
he
paints,
his
perspective
changes,
the
lights
and
shadows
of
his
picture
alter,
and
the
relative
size
of
objects
depicted
is
altered,
when
a
new
point
of
view
is
taken
up.
