entirely free. Ephesian society was full of speculations concerning the origin of being, the logos, and the knowledge of God. This may have suggested to the apostle to open his work with an authoritative declaration respecting the origin of the true Logos, and of being. These facts show that many of the theories of the newer criticism are built upon half truths, but without a due consideration of the other half, and hence are liable to lead to erroneous conclusions. The region and environment in which this Gospel had its origin, gave a breadth, depth and height to the thought, not found in any other Gospel. It springs from a mind and heart that loved the hills, valleys, seas, rivers and homes of Palestine, and yet knew the philosophy, business, pleasure, and thought of East and West centering in the opulent Ephesian capital. It breathes the aroma of the Holy Land over the swirl of pleasure and sordid acuteness of the wide world of trade and commerce. It is peculiarly the spiritual Gospel for all ages, for all degrees of culture and for all conditions and races of men.

VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL.-It follows from the author's explicit statement of his purpose in writing, that he would not attempt to write a complete nor a general biography of the life and work of Jesus, much less a history of the rise of Christianity. Nor, on the other hand, would his chief aim be to supplement the narratives in the synoptic Gospels, much less to correct them. Nor, again, would his object primarily be to refute the errors of Gnosticism, or of other heresies that were prevalent at the time. His purpose was not apologetic, nor negative, but positive; to persuade his readers "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;" and that believing they might have life in his name. To do this he might select some facts and teachings not in the earlier Gospels, and so seem partially to supplement their narratives. He would naturally set forth the truth and so far refute errors and heresies of all sorts. Through spiritual teaching into spiritual life, was the heavenly path which the inspired apostle would point out to his readers.

He therefore begins with a positive declaration of the eternal Logos, the light, life, and Creator of all things, who was God, and became

1 "It follows that the whole external form in which the Gospel is clothed was Ephesian, and necessarily Ephesian, because it was Johannine; but that the whole inner reality of the truth which was expressed in this form was the Gospel of Jesus Christ, brought home to the apostle's mind, as he himself claims in his record of the promise, by the special guidance into all truth, and the vivifying of faculty to recall the teaching of Christ himself, which is the work of the Holy Ghost." Watkins, Bampton Lectures, 1890, p. 440.

2 "The Gospel is not Jewish, not Hellenic, not Philonian, not Alexandrian, not Pauline, not Gnostic, not Montanist; but it is all these, and more than these." Bampton Lectures, 1890, p. 443,

flesh, who was Jesus the Christ. Then follows a narrative of his manifestation to the Jews, being pointed out by John the Baptist, from whom he accepts and teaches disciples, manifesting his glory by a miracle at Cana. He returns to Jerusalem, cleanses the temple, teaches the new life to Nicodemus, and a spiritual worship to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, and heals the nobleman's son at Cana. He again retires to Jerusalem, heals the cripple at Bethesda, comes in conflict with the Jews, goes again into Galilee, feeds 5000, and in Capernaum declares himself the bread of life. Again he suddenly appears in Jerusalem at the feast of tabernacles, contends with the Jews for their unbelief, declaring himself the light of the world; restores sight to a man born blind, and announces himself as the good Shepherd. Again he disappears, to appear at Jerusalem at the feast of Dedication, when from the bitter opposition of the Jews he retires beyond Jordan. From thence he comes to Bethany to raise Lazarus, then to retire again to the wilderness near Ephraim, from whence he reappears at Bethany, is anointed by Mary, makes his entry into Jerusalem, teaches in the temple, keeps the last passover with his disciples, points out the betrayer, comforts his chosen disciples, utters his intercessory prayer, is seized in the garden, tried by the Jews and by Pilate, condemned, crucified, hastily embalmed by Joseph and Nicodemus, laid in the tomb, and rises on the first day of the week, appearing to Mary Magdalene, the eleven, and finally by the Sea of Galilee. These things are not only so presented as to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but the facts themselves are selected because they are suited to confirm the faith of disciples. They clearly show that Jesus claimed divine authority, origin, and power, and a divine nature.

1. While this great fact may not be peculiar to the Gospel of John, the mode of presenting it is peculiar, and characteristic of his writings.

2. The prominence given to the Jewish nation as Christ's own people and to the Messianic hope is peculiar. 1:11, 45, 49, 51; 5:46; 7: 26, 27; 3:14, 17; 12: 37.

3. The last personal discourses with disciples are also peculiar to John 13 to 17. In Matthew there are discourses to a select four, but they relate to the destruction of Jerusalem and the last Judgment. In John the discourses relate to spiritual conditions of, and comfort for the disciples, with a distinct promise of the Holy Spirit, and of the help he will be to them. The intercessory prayer is also peculiar to John.

4. This Gospel is further peculiar in revealing more fully the inner spiritual life of the Jesus, whose outward life is presented in the earlier Gospels. In these reports we may be certain that the Gospel gives not merely the substance, but also the form, and mainly if not entirely the

phraseology of the Lord himself.' The tinge of individuality of the Gospel writer, which some find even in these discourses, may be due to reporting in Greek what our Lord may have spoken in Aramaic.

5. The Gospel is peculiar in beginning with a record of things that were before the beginning of human history. Those who deny the supernatural, call this philosophy, not history, and thus seek to show that the Gospel is not real history, but an adaptation of what was real, to the writer's philosophy (so Keim). Godet, however, has shown that Sallust begins his biography of Cataline with a philosophical introduction. Yet no one on that account regards his history as romance. Hence if it were strictly true that John began his Gospel in a similar way, no sound literary criticism could pronounce it other than history on that account.

VI. RELATION TO THE THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.-A brief statement only of the divergences of John's Gospel from the other three, and of the coincidences, can here be given.

The divergences: 1. The three Gospels tell of genealogies, the birth, humanity, miracles and Galilæan teaching of Jesus. John's Gospel brings before us a series of divine manifestations, transferring us into new scenes, and into a remarkably spiritual atmosphere, yet one filled with the storms of mighty conflicts between the forces of darkness and the Author of light. There are indeed many incidents indicative of such conflicts in the three Gospels, but they are less sharply marked than in the Gospel of John.2

2. In the three earlier Gospels the scene of labor is chiefly in Galilee or Peræa; in this Gospel it is chiefly in Judæa and Samaria. The work in Galilee is apparently incidental or occasional. In John the

3

1 The tables showing differences in the vocabulary of the narrative and in the reported discourses of Jesus compiled by Prof. Reynolds, in Pulpit Commentary, p. CXXIII, and similar tables of the vocabulary of the several Evangelists which I have compiled, while they do not prove that the discourses are entirely a literal Greek translation of the very words of our Lord, are strong evidences in favor of that view. Dr. Reynolds has a list of 145 words and 9 phrases used in the reported discourses of our Lord, but nowhere else in the Gospel, although 38 of these words are in the synoptic record of the Lord's words. He has a list of 500 other words used in this Gospel narrative and as words of others, but not in the Lord's discourses. Thayer's Grimm's Lexicon has a list of 133 Greek words peculiar to John, i. e., not used by other N. T. writers. It notes 114 of the 133 words as peculiar to the Gospel of John, an incidental support of the above view.

2 Criticism of the dogmatic literary school supposes that there is an irreconcilable difference between the history of the life of Jesus as given in the three earlier Gospels and in John's Gospel. Some (Meyer, Weiss and others) suppose John intended to correct the details in the earlier accounts, and present a more accurate portrait of Jesus, and a more exact report of his discourses.

8 3 Upwards of three-twentieths of the total contents of the Four Gospels are peculiar to John; or over three-fifths of the matter in John's Gospel are not in common with any one of the other three Gospels.

conflict with the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem is narrated with special mention of the Jewish feasts. From Galilee and Capernaum Jesus comes to Jerusalem to the passover, 2:13, 23; goes into Judæa, 3 : 22 ; teaches in Samaria, 4: 45; returns from Galilee to Jerusalem to another feast, 51; is in Galilee for fear of the Jews, 7:1; but again appears and teaches in Jerusalem during the feast of tabernacles, 7:14; disappears, to be found a few months later at the temple again during the feast of dedication, 10:22; soon withdraws beyond Jordan, 10:40; to return to Bethany, 11 : 17, 18; again withdraws to a wilderness, to reappear again at Jerusalem at the last passover, 11:55; 12:1. In all these differences in this history there is, however, a hint of the other scenes and labors mentioned by the three synoptics.

3. The length of our Lord's ministry. Though this at the longest is so short as to be "one of the historical puzzles of human literature," its period is lengthened to 2 or 3 years, in John's Gospel. Yet how short is this in comparison with the labors of Moses, David, or Paul, or with the period of instruction of Socrates, or the career of Confucius or Mohammed!

4. The lack of parables in John's Gospel also presents a marked difference from the Gospels by Matthew and Luke. Of parables properly so called, none appear in John. The nearest approximation to this form of teaching appears in the figures of the shepherd and sheepfold, 101-16, and of the vine and the branches, 15:1-7. Among other marked omissions in John are: the birth and ministry of John; birth and boyhood of Jesus, the temptation, the greater part of the Galilæan ministry, including the sermon on the mount, and the transfiguration; the temple teaching during passion week, the institution of the Lord's Supper and of Baptism, the agony in the garden and the ascension.

5. The key-note of John's Gospel is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. It also clearly recognizes him as the Son of man, but the truth that rings out clear and strong above all others from the beginning to the end of the Gospel is, Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. The divergencies in no case exclude the other accounts, and it is fair to assume that, if we knew all the details, the apparent differences would disappear. The coincidences between John's and the three synoptic Gospels are likewise strongly marked :

1. Although the three earlier Gospels do not describe the Judæan ministry, there are frequent allusions to it. See Mark 23 : 37, and Luke 13:34; Luke 10: 38-42; Matt. 12:2 shows the opposition of the Jews. Compare also Matt. 26: 34, 61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29, etc. The Galilæan ministry is clearly recognized by John, Chap. 6 and 7: 1. 2. The earlier Gospels and John agree in noting Nazareth as the boy

hood home of Jesus, Capernaum as a later residence, John the Baptist as his forerunner, and that the Baptist introduced Jesus to the people.

3. The three Gospels and John further agree in great facts in the life of Jesus: as, 1, feeding the 5000; 2, walking on the sea; 3, anointing at Bethany; 4, triumphal entry into Jerusalem; 5, the last supper; 6, the betrayal of Judas; 7, denial by Peter; 8, a Jewish and Roman trial; 9, crucifixion; 10, burial; 11, resurrection; 12, appearance after his resurrection, and finally, 13, in making the person and work of Jesus the very centre of all their teaching.

There are numerous unlooked-for coincidences, as the imprisonment of the Baptist, compare John 3:24 with Matt. 4:12, Mark 1:14, Luke 7:19; the remark of Judas about the value of the ointment, John 12:5, Mark 12:5; the similarity of imagery; the bride and groom, John 3:29, Matt. 9:15; the harvest, John 4:35, Matt. 9:37; the vine, John 15:1; Matt. 21:33. More than 100 similar coincidences in phrase, figure, and expression have been noted.

Finally, respecting the divergences and coincidences it should be observed: 1. That the Gospels are each and all very fragmentary. Altogether they do not preserve more than a small fraction of the life, acts, and teachings of Jesus. See John 20:30; 21:25. No one of the Gospels professes to be a complete history of Jesus and his work. Even Luke only proposes to write that Theophilus might know the certainty concerning the things wherein he was instructed, Luke 1:4, Revised Version. The writing of each evangelist was necessarily fragmentary. Besides, brevity would best serve the purpose he had in writing.

2. Each selected from a large mass of material what would best serve the specific object for which he wrote. This would lead us to expect different incidents, and that where they choose the same facts and teachings, each writer would present them in accordance with his plan, and therefore with a variety in details similar to that in which we find that persons of different temperament and powers of observation and description will now narrate the same event.

3. The three earlier Gospels breathe the air and have the flavor of the Holy Land while it was the pride of the Jewish nation, and before their capital and temple were destroyed. Matthew formed his Gospel while residing in that land of promise and of glory to every Jew. Mark and Luke may have written during a temporary sojourn beyond the limits of Palestine, but their Gospels are essentially of the Palestinian type and aroma. While Matthew wrote for Jewish, Mark for Roman, and Luke for Greek Christians, each Gospel alike shows its origin in the Holy Land. On the other hand, John's Gospel, though showing that the writer familiarly knew Palestine and Jewish life, and was an eye-witness of