From the twentieth and twenty-first chapters I quote no examples, because I have already given them in my History of the Resurrection. I will only observe that he has not related the command, which Christ gave to his disciples after his resurrection, to go into Galilee ; but as in ch. xxi. 1. the scene is suddenly changed from Jerusalem to the sea of Tiberias, he must have supposed that his readers were already acquainted with this command. Lastly, Christ's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is no where related by St. John yet in ch. xxi. 22. it is implied. SECTION VII. Of St. John's Mode of Narration. AFTER what has been said in the foregoing section, it will not be difficult to assign the reason, why St. John has sometimes more, and sometimes less than the other Evangelists. He has omitted the greatest part of what his predecessors had already related, and for no other reason, than because he thought it unnecessary, except where he was influenced by particular motives, to repeat what was already on record. His silence therefore in respect to the numerous facts, which are found in the other Gospels, cannot be used as an argument to weaken the credibility of those facts: or we must deny that Christ was ever born, and that John the Baptist was beheaded. On the contrary St. John's silence may rather be considered as a proof, that the facts, which the other Evangelists have recorded, and he has left unnoticed, are really true: for if their accounts had been inaccurate, he would probably have corrected them. However, there is an omission of a certain kind in St. John's Gospel, which deserves particular attention, namely, the omission of the demoniacs. In not a single instance has St. John related the casting out of a devil, either where accounts of this kind have been given in the other Gospels, or where they have not?. Yet at Ephesus, where St. John wrote his Gospel, we find from Acts xix. 12-17. not only that evil spirits were expelled by St. Paul, but that Jewish exorcists in that city attempted to do the same, though the event by no means answered their expectations. The question therefore is: Did St. John omit all such histories by mere accident, or did he omit them by design? Perhaps he believed that persons said to be possessed with devils had in reality no concern with evil spirits, but were merely afflicted with some natural disorder; and mentioned them therefore, neither under the name of demoniacs, lest the term should be literally understood, nor under any name expressive of a natural disorder, because he was unwilling, in a matter, which had no essential influence on the Christian doctrine, to contradict a commonly received opinion. The only place, where I could wish that he had said something on this subject, is that, in which the other Evangelists have related the expulson of a devil, who called himself Legion, because it is almost the only instance on which the reality of diabolical possession can be grounded. Where St. John has related facts, which are likewise related by the other Evangelists, of which the examples may be seen in the above-mentioned Table to the four Gospels, it is generally in one of the three following cases. 1. Either the fact was necessary as an introduction to something important, which he was going to relate, as for instance his account of the five thousand men 1 See Timmermann de Dæmoniacis. See No. 39. of the Table to the four Gospels. See my Dogmatic Theology, sect. 98, or rather the New Orient. Bibl. Vol. II. p. 177-180. ch. vi. whom Christ fed with five barley loaves, a fact, which was absolutely necessary to be known, or the very important discourses of Christ, which were delivered after the performance of that miracle, could not have been fully understood. St. John therefore has related the fact, though it had been already recorded by the other Evangelists, and has moreover augmented and apparently improved their narration. t 2. Or at other times he was induced to repeat facts already contained in the other Gospels, because several circumstances, which he thought necessary to be known, had been omitted. The supper at Bethany, the unction of Christ by Mary, and Christ's entry into Jerusalem, related by St. John in the twelfth chapter, had been already related by the other Evangelists: but then St. John has added the following very important circumstances. First, Lazarus, on whose restoration to life the other Evangelists had been purposely silent, sits at table with Christ, and by bearing witness in person to the truth of his restoration, contributed in a great degree to the glory of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem". Secondly, Judas Iscariot was the first who censured the unction of Christ, and it was he who occasioned the other disciples to do the same ". Hence we see the reason, why Christ's answer affected him in particular, and what confirmed him in his resolution to betray his master. The other Evangelists make mention of the treachery of Judas, at the same time that they give an account of the supper in Bethany. But they have not shewn the connection, or explained, how the one was the immediate effect of the other: whereas, we clearly perceive from St. John's account * St. John after vagde has used the epithet sins, which had been used by St. Mark. This is an additional argument in favour of the opinion that St. John had read St. Mark's Gospel in particular, for this very unusual word occurs in no other part of the New Testa ment. " See ver. 1, 2. 17, 18. ▾ Ver. 4, 5. the chain of thought and the springs of action in this unhappy man, who, though a traitor to Christ, is a strong witness to the truth of Christianity. In ch. xx. 1-18. which has been said to be contradictory to the accounts given by the other Evangelists, St. John takes for granted, that what they had related in general terms of the women, who went to visit the sepulchre, was already known, and adds a special account of what was seen in particular by Mary Magdalene, who went alone very early to the sepulchre. A full and distinct explanation of this matter would be too prolix for the present place: I refer therefore the reader to my History of the Resurrection. I have observed several other examples, in which St. John has explained the accounts of the other Evangelists. Whoever reads what St. Matthew has related, ch. iv. 12. When Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee,' without any further knowledge of the situation of affairs at that time, will think it perhaps extraordinary, that the imprisonment of John the Baptist should have induced Christ to return to Galilee, when the very person at whose command John had been imprisoned, was tetrarch of Galilee. But St. John, ch. i. 1-4. has explained this matter; for after having related that Christ could not tarry in Judæa on account of the Pharisees, he adds, that Christ was obliged to go through Samaria, (εδει δε αυτον διερχεσθαι δια της Σαμα peas). It is true that he has not assigned the reason why Christ was obliged to go through Samaria: but this we learn from Josephus, who relates that when John was cast into prison Herod was at Machærus in Peræa. St. John's account therefore, though not fully explanatory of the relation of the other Evangelists, is instructive at least for those who are acquainted with the history of those times. St. Matthew, ch. xxviii. 46-49. and St. Mark, ch. xv. 34-36. relate that after Christ had exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, vinegar was brought him to drink. Now between Christ's exclamation and the offering of vinegar to him, we see no immediate connection: but St. John has explained this matter by adding, ch. xix. 28. that Christ said, 'I thirst.' 3. St. John appears to have corrected, though in a very delicate manner, the accounts given by his predecessors. If the reading ηθελον εν λαβειν αυτον, ch. vi. 21, is the genuine reading, and the conjectural emendation, which I proposed, Vol. II. ch. x, sect. 4. of this Introduction, be not admissible, St. John has tacitly corrected the relation of St. Matthew and St. Mark. For, according both to St. Matthew and to St. Mark, Christ actually entered the ship, in which the disciples were: but St. John says only, that they intended to take Christ into the ship, but that the ship was suddenly at the place of its destination, so that they had not time to put their design in execution. Further, the account given in St. Matthew's Gospel (whether it proceeded from St. Matthew himself, or was a very early addition, I will not determine) of St. Peter's leaping into the sea, to meet Christ before he arrived at the ship, of his danger of sinking, of his being rescued by Christ, and of their entering together into the ship, appears by the different relation of St. Johu to have been delicately set aside. St. Mark likewise, though he derived information from St. Peter himself, says nothing of this transaction.-Ch. xix. 39, 40. where St. John relates that Nicodemus and Joseph embalmed the body of Jesus on the Friday evening, before it was deposited in the sepulchre, does not harmonize with the account of St. Mark, ch. xvi. 1. and of St. Luke, ch. xxiii. 56. xxiv. 1. that the women after Christ's interment purchased spices in order to embalm his body on the Sunday morning. I have attempted indeed in my History of the Resurrection' to reconcile the contradiction: but I have not See No. 53. in the Table to the four Gospels. |