i. The Scene of the Ministry.
One of the most obvious differences between the Synoptic and the
Johannean narrative is that the scene of so much of the latter is laid
in Judaea and Jerusalem.
The first comment that we have to make upon this is that the difference
is not really so great or so significant as it seems. From both sides it
is subject to some discounting, from the side of St. John as well as
from that of the Synoptics.
I have already alluded to the fundamental mistake that is so often made
of judging the Gospel as though it were not a Gospel, but a biography.
If the author had been writing a biography like (e. g.) Mr. Morley’s
_Life of Gladstone_, he would have felt himself bound to cover the whole
of the ground. He would have had to sketch the whole of his hero’s
career. He would have had to observe a due proportion between its
different parts. If the hero had spent part of his life in England, and
part of it in the Colonies, each of these should have had justice done
to it. But the author of the Gospel was under no such obligation. His
object was not to write a complete and connected history. The Gospel is
not a history, but a series of scenes, chosen with a view to a
particular purpose of which I shall have to speak later. For that
purpose geography did not matter: it was quite indifferent whether the
scene was laid in Judaea or in Galilee. But there was a sub-current in
the author’s mind which led him to supplement the work of his
predecessors, and to notice some things which they had omitted. Perhaps
this was one of the reasons that led him to single out by preference
Judaean scenes. And perhaps those scenes really lent themselves better
to the object that he had in view. The simple peasants of Galilee needed
moral teaching; whereas the theologically minded inhabitants of Judaea
called out more of a theology. If the writer of the Gospel had his home
(or a home) at Jerusalem, it would be only natural that he would give
prominence to scenes enacted there. But in any case it is to be observed
that the Gospel by no means excludes a Galilean ministry, but rather
presupposes it.
We are expressly told (in iv. 44) of the reason which caused Jesus to
retire from Judaea to Galilee, and it is rather implied that the stay
there would be of considerable duration. (‘After the two days he went
forth from thence into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a
prophet hath no honour in his own country.’) Again, in vii. 4, the
brethren of Jesus taunt Him with avoiding the head quarters of Judaism.
Their words imply that His work had been done in the obscurity of a
province (‘No man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be
known openly’). He had not as yet manifested Himself to the world.
On the other hand, when we come to examine the evidence of the Synoptics
we find that it too is by no means so clear as it might seem at first
sight. From the critical point of view what we have to deal with is not
our Gospels as we have them, but the original documents out of which
they are composed. Thus their evidence is really reduced to that of the
main document, which is common to all three and is practically identical
with our present Gospel of St. Mark. The second leading document,
commonly known as the _Logia_, was a collection (in the main) of sayings
with very few exact notes of place or time; and one or two allusions in
this would perhaps be better satisfied by a Judaean ministry. In any
case that would be true of the special source, or sources, of St. Luke.
For instance, the story of Mary and Martha (Luke x. 38-42) points to
Bethany; and parables like those of the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee
and the Publican would have more local colour if delivered in or near
Jerusalem.
Going back to the ground-document, we must remember that that too does
not profess to be a biography: it is in the strictest sense a Gospel,
the main object of which is to produce belief. If we may accept the
well-attested tradition as to its origin—that it was put together from
material supplied by the occasional preaching of St. Peter—completeness
and consecutiveness are not what we should look for. There can be little
doubt that this Gospel was really full of gaps, into which there is
nothing to prevent us from inserting such southward excursions as we
find described in the Fourth Gospel. It is true that there is something
rather strange in the fact that our Second Gospel should be so
predominantly taken up with Galilee. Nothing that we know quite serves
to explain this. But, however that may be, the unsolved problem has more
to do with St. Mark than with St. John.
The antecedent probabilities of the case are really in favour of St.
John’s narrative and not against it. It is not likely that a pious Jew
would neglect the command to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem.
Neither is it likely that a religious reformer would be content to work
and teach only in a province. ‘It cannot be that a prophet perish out of
Jerusalem’ (Luke xiii. 33) is a Synoptic saying; and it would be strange
if the prophet only went to Jerusalem to die. It may be true that some
of the traces of acquaintance with inhabitants of Judaea, such as the
owners of the ass requisitioned for the public entry into Jerusalem and
of the upper room in which the last Passover was eaten, might be
accounted for by visits paid to the south before the active ministry of
Jesus began. But this would not hold so well of cases like those of
Judas Iscariot and Joseph of Arimathaea, whose relation to Jesus is
associated with His religious work. Of course the proof is not decisive;
but both these and many other indications would be better satisfied if
the ministry had really been carried on in Judaea as well as Galilee. In
that case we should better understand why the Pharisees sent emissaries
to the north to watch what was going on (Mark iii. 22, vii. 1), and also
how events gradually led up to the final crisis; how the populace was
worked up to the enthusiasm which greeted the public entry, and how the
hostility of the rulers was deepened until it could be satisfied with
nothing short of death. If the Synoptic narrative had stood alone, the
catastrophe would be too sudden and abrupt.
ii. The Duration of the Ministry.
The question as to the length of our Lord’s ministry is allied to that
as to its place. As to this, however, I should not be prepared to speak
with quite so much confidence. Antecedently we have no sufficient means
of saying whether a period of a little over one year or a little over
two years would be more probable. Over such work a year is soon gone;
and the relation of the different Synoptic documents to each other seems
to show that all are but fragmentary and give an imperfect account of
the events. The plucking of the ears of corn (or ‘grain,’ Amer. R. V.)
has been taken to point to the occurrence of a Passover in the course of
the Galilean ministry, because it would be at Passover time that the
grain was beginning to ripen. We cannot press this very far; the
incident may have occurred (if we have not to work in the Johannean
narrative as well) near the beginning of the ministry.
On the other hand it is just possible that St. John’s story may be
compressed within the shorter limits. All turns on the reading of John
vi. 4, where it is well known that there is strong patristic evidence
for omitting ‘the Passover,’ so that this feast, like that in ver. 1,
would be unnamed. At the same time readings that rest entirely on
patristic quotations are notoriously precarious; and I should hesitate
as much to lay stress on this point as on the other. If I myself give
the preference to the Johannean reckoning, it would be not because I
thought that a clear case could be made out for it in itself, but only
on the ground of the general superiority of the Fourth Gospel in
chronological precision.
iii. The Cleansing of the Temple.
Another well-known difference is that as to the place assigned to the
cleansing of the Temple. In the Fourth Gospel this comes at the
beginning of the ministry, and in the Synoptic Gospels at the end.
Really the opposition is only between one document and another. The
three Synoptics have in this instance a single base, which is
practically our St. Mark. In matters of chronology the authority of this
document does not rank very high; so that on external grounds it is
possible enough that the Fourth Gospel should be preferred.
It is, however, often assumed that the internal grounds in this case
outweigh the external. It is held that so strong a measure as the
expulsion of the buyers and sellers could only fall in the later period,
when the tension between the two sides was reaching its climax and the
end was drawing near. I am not sure that this is not to exaggerate the
significance of the action. It is really very much in the spirit of the
Old Testament prophets. Compared (e. g.) to the slaughter of Baal’s
prophets by Elijah, it may well seem a small thing. I agree that the act
was in the strict sense Messianic rather than prophetic. This I think
comes out in the saying, ‘Make not my Father’s house a house of
merchandise’ (John ii. 16). And yet, when we remember that the Lord had
not long before come up from His baptism in the Jordan, and still had
the Divine Voice proclaiming His sonship as it were sounding in His ear,
it seems natural enough that He should mark the beginning of His
ministry by some emphatic act. The conscience of the bystanders would be
on His side, and one could well understand that they would be abashed
and make no defence, like the accusers of the woman taken in adultery.
For these reasons it seems to me that the inferiority of St. John’s
version is not so self-evident as is supposed. If it were, how was it
that the Evangelist came to change the accepted story as it reached him?
At the same time I quite allow that memory may have played him false.
The point is not really of any great importance, and I would not ask for
more than that the question should be kept open.
iv. The Date of the Last Supper and of the Crucifixion.
Few subjects connected with the Fourth Gospel are more difficult and
more complicated than this question of the date (i. e. the day of the
month) of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. As the texts stand there
is a real difference between the dates assigned to these events in the
Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. There is agreement as to the day of
the week. In any case the Last Supper was eaten on the evening of
Thursday, and our Lord suffered on the afternoon of Friday. But
according to the Synoptics this Thursday would be Nisan 14, though on
the Jewish reckoning (which counted the days from sunset to sunset) the
Last Supper would fall on the beginning of Nisan 15. The Supper itself
would be the regular passover, and the Crucifixion will have taken place
after the passover. According to St. John we are expressly told that the
Last Supper was held ‘_before_ the passover’ (xiii. 1), on what we
should call the evening of Nisan 13, and the Jews the beginning of Nisan
14; and our Lord will have suffered on the afternoon of the following
day, that still belonged to Nisan 14, and His death will have taken
place at the time devoted to the slaughter of the Paschal lambs (3-5
p.m.).
It is said that this date is chosen for typological reasons, to identify
Christ as the true Paschal Lamb. If that is so, the Evangelist has at
least not said a word to emphasize the point, and to appreciate its
significance we have to go to St. Paul (1 Cor. v. 7, ‘For our passover
also hath been sacrificed, even Christ’). But the argument may just as
well be inverted, and St. Paul may be taken as corroborating the
statement in the Fourth Gospel. It is indeed, as I cannot but think in
this as in other cases, more probable that the fact gave rise to the
idea, than that the idea came first and was afterwards translated into
fact.
There does not, therefore, seem to be any real presumption against the
accuracy of the Fourth Gospel. Probably, if the truth were known, the
presumption so far as it went would be rather in its favour, from the
early date and excellent character of the evidence supplied by St. Paul.
But when we come to compare the two narratives in detail, the favourable
presumption is increased by the fact that, whereas the Fourth Gospel is
throughout entirely consistent with itself, the Synoptics are by no
means so consistent.
An interesting point was raised by the late Dr. Chwolson, an eminent
Russian _savant_, who was a great authority on things Jewish—he was a
Jew by birth, though he embraced Christianity, and became Professor at
St. Petersburg and a member of the Imperial Academy. In an elaborate
monograph, _Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes_ (St.
Petersburg, 1892), Dr. Chwolson tried with great learning and ingenuity
to bring the Synoptic narrative into harmony with that of St. John. The
attempt was carefully examined by Dr. Schürer[54], and I am not prepared
to say that it was successful. But I am not sure that one of the items
in Dr. Chwolson’s criticism of the Synoptic story was completely
disposed of, even though so formidable a triad as Schürer himself, H. J.
Holtzmann and Zahn agree in taking the other side. The three Synoptic
Gospels all place the Last Supper on the evening of ‘the first day of
unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover’ (Mark xiv. 12: cf.
Matt. xxvi. 17, Luke xxii. 7). Chwolson challenges the accuracy of this
expression and asserts that ‘From the Mosaic writings down to the Book
of Jubilees (chap. xlix), Philo, Flavius Josephus, the Palestinian
Targum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uziel, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the
Rabbinical writings of the Middle Ages, indeed down to the present day,
the Jews have always understood by the expression “the first day of the
feast of unleavened bread,” only the 15th of the month, never the 14th.’
There is something of an answer to this criticism; and it is perhaps
made good that by a laxity of expression the Synoptists might write as
they have done. Of course the fundamental text is that of St. Mark, and
Chwolson’s ingenious solution by emending the text of St. Matthew is so
much labour thrown away. Still the comprehensive statement as to Jewish
usage does not seem to be invalidated, and the laxity of expression
remains somewhat curious.
I can conceive it possible that the Synoptists may be brought into
closer agreement with St. John—perhaps on the lines of a paper by the
Rev. G. H. Box (_Journ. of Theol. Studies_, April, 1902), which I am
glad to see is spoken of with some approval by Dr. Drummond—on the
hypothesis that the meal of which our Lord and His disciples partook was
really the ceremony of _Kiddûsh_, a solemn ‘sanctification’ which
preceded the weekly Sabbath and great festivals like the Passover.
But in any case the Synoptic version is too much burdened by
contradictions to be taken as it stands. Many of these have been often
pointed out In Mark xiv. 2 (Matt. xxvi. 5) we are expressly told that
the Sanhedrin determined to arrest Jesus, but ‘not during the feast,’
lest there should be a tumult among the people. But, according to the
Synoptic account, it was on the most sacred day of the feast, and after
the Passover had been eaten, that the arrest was carried out. Further,
we observe that although the Last Supper is described as a Passover,
there is no hint or allusion to its most characteristic feature, the
paschal lamb. The events of the night would involve sacrilege for a
devout Jew. On such a holy day it was not allowed to bear arms; and yet
Peter is armed, and the servants of the High Priest, if not themselves
armed, accompany an armed party. Then we have the hurried meeting of the
Sanhedrin who, according to the Synoptic version, would have just risen
from the paschal meal. Jesus is taken to the _praetorium_ of the Roman
Governor, to enter which would cause defilement, and that on the most
sacred day of the feast. Simon of Cyrene is represented as coming in
from the country, which though perhaps not necessarily implying a
working day, looks more like it than a day treated as a sabbath. The
haste with which the bodies were taken down from the cross is accounted
for by the sanctity of a day that is about to begin, not of one that is
just ending (Mark xv. 42). If it had been the latter, Joseph of
Arimathaea could not have ‘bought’ the linen cloth in which the body was
laid.
We may add to the above a point specially brought out by Mr. Box. ‘In
all the accounts it is noticeable that _one_ cup only is mentioned which
was partaken of by _all_; whereas at the Passover a special point is
made of each man bringing his own cup to drink from.’
It seems on the whole to be safe to say that if the two accounts are to
be harmonized, it is not St. John who will need to be corrected from the
Synoptists, but the Synoptists who will have to be corrected by St.
John. And the result of the investigation on which we have been engaged
will be that, of the four points commonly alleged against the Gospel,
two are more or less clearly in its favour, and the remaining two are
not more than open questions on which either side may be right. Even if
the investigation had been more adverse than it is, it would by no means
have followed that the Fourth Gospel was not the work of an eye-witness:
but its position appears to be strengthened rather than the reverse.