THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
(_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
(1.) Their general accuracy; this is shown by secular
history, where they can be tested.
(2.) Their sources; the triple tradition; other early documents.
(3.) Their probable date; before the destruction of Jerusalem,
A.D. 70.
(_B._) THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
(1.) Its authorship. The writer appears to have lived in
the first century, and to have been an eye-witness
of what he describes; so probably St. John.
(2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. It was meant
to supplement them; and it does not show a different
Christ, either in language or character.
(3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. This
admitted to be by St. John, and the Gospel was
probably by the same author.
Having decided in the last chapter that the Four Gospels are
probably genuine from _external testimony_, we pass on now to the
_internal evidence_, which, it will be seen, strongly supports this
conclusion. For convenience we will examine the first Three,
commonly called the _Synoptic_ Gospels, separately from the Fourth,
which is of a different character.
(_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
In dealing with these Gospels, we will first consider their general
accuracy, then their sources, and then their probable date.
(1.) _Their general accuracy._
It is now admitted by everyone that the writers show a thorough
acquaintance with Palestine both as to its geography, history, and
people, especially the political and social state of the country in
the half-century preceding the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The
Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about A.D. 95, gives us a vivid
description of this; and everything we read in the Gospels is in
entire agreement with it.
In regard to the actual events recorded, we have, as a rule, no
other account, but where we have, with the doubtful exception of the
enrolment under _Quirinius_, their accuracy is fully confirmed.
According to St. Luke[196] this enrolment occurred while Herod was
king, and therefore not later than what we now call B.C. 4, when
Herod died; but, according to Josephus and other authorities,
Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and carried out his taxing in A.D.
6.
[Footnote 196: Luke 2. 2 (R.V.).]
This used to be thought one of the most serious mistakes in the
Bible, but modern discoveries have shown that it is probably
correct. To begin with, an inscription was found at Tivoli in 1764,
which shows that Quirinius was _twice_ Governor of Syria, or at
least held some important office there. And this has been confirmed
quite recently by an inscription found at Antioch, which shows that
the former time was about B.C. 7.[197] There is thus very likely an
end of that difficulty, though it must be admitted that it would
place the birth of Christ a little earlier than the usually accepted
B.C. 4, which however some critics think probable for other reasons.
[Footnote 197: Ramsay, 'Bearing of Recent Discovery on New
Testament.' 1915, p. 285-292.]
Next it will be noticed that St. Luke says that this was the _first_
enrolment, implying that he knew of others; and discoveries in Egypt
have confirmed this in a remarkable manner. For they have shown that
it was the custom of the Romans to have a _periodical_ enrolment of
that country (and therefore presumably of the adjacent country of
Syria) every fourteen years. Some of the actual census papers have
been found for A.D. 20, 48, 62, 76, etc., and it is extremely
probable that the system started in B.C. 9-8, though the first
enrolment may have been delayed a few years in Palestine, which was
partly independent.
And St. Luke's statement that everyone had to go to _his own city_,
which was long thought to be a difficulty, has been partly confirmed
as well. For a decree has been discovered in Egypt, dated in the
seventh year of Trajan (A.D. 104), ordering all persons to return to
their own districts before the approaching census,[198] which is
worded as if it were the usual custom. The next census in A.D. 6,
which is the one referred to by Josephus, is also mentioned by St.
Luke;[199] but he knew, what his critics did not, that it was only
one of a series, and that the _first_ of the series took place at an
earlier date.
[Footnote 198: Ramsay, p. 259.]
[Footnote 199: Acts. 5. 37.]
Curiously enough, there used to be a very similar error, charged
against St. Luke, in regard to Lysanias; whom he says was tetrarch
of Abilene, a district near Damascus, in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius, about A.D. 27.[200] Yet the only ruler of this name known
to history in those parts was a king, who was killed in B.C. 34. But
inscriptions found at Baalbec, and Abila (the latter dating
somewhere between A.D. 14-29) show that there was a second Lysanias,
hitherto unknown, who is expressly called the _tetrarch_ and who is
now admitted to be the one referred to by St. Luke.[201] On the
whole then, these Gospels, wherever we have any means of testing
them by secular history, appear to be substantially accurate.
[Footnote 200: Luke 3. 1.]
[Footnote 201: Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 4523; Ramsay, 'Bearing
of Recent Discovery on New Testament.' 1915, p. 298.]
But it may be said, do not the Gospels themselves contradict one
another in some places, and if so they cannot all be correct? Now
that there are some apparent contradictions, especially in the
narratives of the Resurrection (see Chapter XVII.), must of course
be admitted; but many of these can be explained satisfactorily, and
those which cannot are as a rule quite trivial. For example,[202]
St. Matthew relates that at Christ's Baptism the Voice from Heaven
said, '_This_ is my beloved Son in _whom_ I am well pleased;' and
the other Evangelists, '_Thou_ art my beloved Son, in _thee_ I am
well pleased.' There is a clear verbal discrepancy, whatever words
were used, or in whatever language they were spoken. Again, St.
Matthew records the passage about the Queen of the South as being
spoken just after, and St. Luke as just before, the similar passage
about the men of Nineveh, though both can hardly be correct. Such
mistakes as these, however, do not interfere with the substantial
accuracy of the narratives.
[Footnote 202: Matt. 3. 17; 12. 42; Mark 1. 11; Luke 3. 22; 11. 31.]
(2.) _Their sources._
Now the first three Gospels have, as is well known, a number of
identical passages, which must plainly be due to _copying_ in some
form, either two Evangelists copying the third, or all three some
earlier document. The portion they have in common (often called the
_Triple Tradition_) includes some of the parables of Christ, and
several of His miracles, such as calming the storm, feeding the five
thousand, curing the man at Gadara, and raising the daughter of
Jairus. If, as is probable, it represents the testimony of a single
witness, there is little difficulty in identifying him with St.
Peter.
But it is _most unlikely_ for the _whole_ of this earlier document
to have been included in three separate Gospels; it is sure to have
contained something that was only copied by one or two. Therefore
most scholars are now of opinion that the so-called Triple Tradition
was merely our St. Mark's Gospel, practically all of which was
copied, either by St. Matthew or St. Luke, if not by both. And this
is certainly probable, for the many graphic details in this Gospel
show that it must date from an extremely early time; so it was most
likely known to the other Evangelists. It would also agree with the
statement of Papias (quoted in the last chapter) that St. Mark got
his information from St. Peter. And as some of it has to do with
events, such as the Transfiguration, when St. Peter was present, and
St. Matthew was not, there is nothing improbable in St. Matthew (as
well as St. Luke) including part of it in his Gospel.
This however is not all; for our first and third Gospels also
contain a good deal in common, which is not in Mark, and this looks
like another older document, often called 'Q' from the German
_Quelle_, meaning '_source_.' It consists chiefly of discourses and
parables, though including at least one miracle, that of healing the
centurion's servant, and is admitted by most critics to date from
before A.D. 50.
But here again, it is unlikely for the _whole_ of this earlier
document to have been included in two separate Gospels, it is sure
to have contained something else besides. Moreover, _as thus
restored_ (from Matthew and Luke) it is obviously incomplete. It
contains scarcely any narrative to explain how the discourses arose,
and of necessity it omits everything in Christ's life which is
recorded by St. Mark as well, for this has been already assigned to
the so-called Triple Tradition. Therefore when it was complete, it
must have contained a good deal more, which may well have been the
remainder of our St. Matthew's Gospel. St. Luke would then have only
included _a part_ of what St. Matthew wrote, just as they both only
included a part of what St. Mark wrote. And the supposed second
document would be our St. Matthew's Gospel, just as the supposed
Triple Tradition is now thought to be our St. Mark's Gospel. There
are difficulties on every theory, but on the whole this seems as
satisfactory as any other, and it accounts fairly well for the first
two Gospels.
But the third Gospel requires further explanation, for besides what
is copied from the other two, it contains a good deal of additional
matter, such as the parable of the Prodigal Son, which St. Luke must
have got from some other source. While he expressly says that _many_
had written before himself; so there were several such sources in
existence. And this was only natural, for the Christian religion
spread rapidly, and St. Luke himself shows us what its converts were
taught. For he says that he only wrote his Gospel to convince
Theophilus of the things about which he had already been
instructed.[203] Clearly then the course of instruction must have
included what the Gospel included; and this was the whole of
Christ's life, from His Virgin-Birth to His Ascension. It is hence
probable that from the very first Christian teachers had some
account of that life.
[Footnote 203: Luke 1. 1-4.]
And this probability becomes almost a certainty in the light of
modern discoveries. For quantities of old _papyri_ have been found
in Egypt, which show that at the time of Christ, writing was in
common use among all classes; soldiers, farmers, servants,
schoolboys, were all accustomed to write. Therefore, as it has been
well said, 'so far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the
general character of preceding and contemporary society, the first
Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of
Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus
died.'[204] And since St. Luke, when he was at Jerusalem met several
of the _elders_ there, including Christ's brother, St. James,[205]
he probably had access to all existing documents.
[Footnote 204: Ramsay, Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol.
xxxix., 1907, p. 203.]
[Footnote 205: Acts 21. 18.]
There is thus no reason to doubt his own statement, that he had
ample means of knowing the truth, _from the beginning_. And this, he
says, was the very reason why he determined to write; so a more
trustworthy historian can scarcely be imagined.[206] Fortunately,
however, though dividing the Gospels into their original parts is an
interesting study, it is in no way essential to our present
argument.
[Footnote 206: Luke 1. 2-3.]
(3.) _Their probable date._
We now come to the _probable date_ of the first three Gospels; and
there are strong reasons for fixing this before the fall of
Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. In the first place several _subjects_ are
discussed, such as the lawfulness of the Jews paying tribute to
Cæsar,[207] which would have had no interest after that event. And
that conversations on such subjects should have been composed in
later days, or even thought worth recording, is most unlikely. Nor
are Christ's instructions as to what persons should do when they
bring their gifts to the altar, likely to have been recorded after
the altar, and everything connected with it, had been totally
destroyed.[208]
[Footnote 207: Matt. 22. 17.]
[Footnote 208: Matt. 5. 24.]
Secondly, nearly all the _parables_ of Christ have very strong marks
of truthfulness, as they are thoroughly natural in character, and
suit the customs and scenery of Palestine. Moreover, they are unique
in Christian literature. However strange we may think it, the early
Christians never seem to have adopted Christ's method of teaching by
parables. Yet, if they had composed these parables, instead of
merely recording them, they would doubtless have composed others
like them. It is hence probable that these discourses are genuine;
and, if so, they must obviously have been written down very soon
afterwards.
Thirdly, there are a few passages which deserve special mention. Two
of these are Christ's saying that (apparently) there would not be
time to go through the cities of Israel before His Second Coming;
and that some of His hearers would not die till the end of the
world.[209] That such statements should have been composed in later
years is out of the question; so we can only conclude that they were
actually spoken by Christ. And they show that the Gospels must not
only have been written when some of Christ's hearers were still
alive, but that they could not have been revised afterwards; or the
passages would not have been allowed to remain as they are.
[Footnote 209: Matt. 10. 23; 16. 28; Mark 9. 1; Luke 9. 27; but some
other texts imply the contrary--_e.g._, Matt. 21. 43; Mark 13. 7,
10; 14. 9; Luke 21. 24.]
Another is the statement that the potter's field was called the
field of blood _unto this day_;[210] which could scarcely have been
written when the whole city was little more than a heap of ruins. Of
course, on the other hand, it could not have been written
immediately after the time of Christ, but twenty years would
probably be a sufficient interval.
[Footnote 210: Matt. 27. 8; see also 28. 15.]
Fourthly, there is the prophetic description of the _fall of
Jerusalem_ itself, which seems confused by the Evangelists with that
of the Day of Judgment, St. Matthew saying, and both the others
implying, that the one would immediately follow the other.[211] Had
the Gospels been written after the former event, it is almost
certain that the writers would have distinguished between the two;
indeed, their not doing so is scarcely intelligible, unless we
assume that when they wrote, both events were still future.
[Footnote 211: Matt. 24. 3, 29; Mark 13. 24; Luke 21. 27.]
And this is confirmed by the curious hint given to the readers both
in Matthew and Mark to _understand_, and act on Christ's advice, and
leave the city and go to the mountains, before the siege became too
severe.[212] Plainly such a warning could not have been written
_after_ the siege, when it would have been useless. It must have
been written _before_; so if it is a later insertion, as it seems to
be, it proves a still earlier date for the rest of the chapter.
Moreover, none of the Evangelists have altered the passage, as later
writers might have done, to make it agree with the event; since as
far as we know, the Christians did not go to _the mountains_, but
to Pella, a city in the Jordan valley.[213]
[Footnote 212: Matt. 24. 16; Mark 13. 14; Luke 21. 21.]
[Footnote 213: Eusebius, Hist., iii. 5.]
St. Luke, it will be noticed, omits the hint just referred to, and
as his account of Christ's prophecy of the siege is rather more
detailed than the others, it is sometimes thought to have been
written _after_ the event. But this is a needless assumption, for
the hint would have been quite useless to Theophilus, to whom the
Gospel was addressed; and the prophecy is anyhow no closer than that
in Deut. 28., which everyone admits was written centuries before
(Chapter XI.).
On the whole, then, everything points to our first three Gospels
having been written some years before the destruction of Jerusalem,
A.D. 70; and most likely by the Evangelists, to whom they have been
universally ascribed.
It may also be added, in regard to the Evangelists themselves, _St.
Matthew_ the Apostle was a publican or tax-collector, so just the
sort of person to keep records, in either Greek or Hebrew.[214] _St.
Mark_ came of a wealthy family, as his relative, Barnabas, had some
property; and his mother, Mary, had a large house at Jerusalem,
where Christians used to assemble, and where it has been thought the
Last Supper was held.[215] And the _young man_ who followed from
here to Gethsemane was probably St. Mark himself, or he would not
have recorded such a trivial incident.[216]
[Footnote 214: Matt. 9. 9.]
[Footnote 215: Acts 4. 37; 12. 12; 1. 13; Col. 4. 10.]
[Footnote 216: Mark 14. 51.]
And _St. Luke_, as we shall see in the next chapter, was a doctor,
who says he got his information from _eye-witnesses_. And if he was
the companion of Cleopas, as is perhaps probable (for such a graphic
narrative must have come from one who was present, yet the language
is thoroughly that of St. Luke), he would also have had some slight
knowledge of Christ himself.[217] And in similar cases where St.
John speaks of two disciples, but gives the name of only one, it is
practically certain that he himself was the other.[218] Moreover St.
Luke says that his Gospel, which only goes as far as the Ascension,
was about _those matters which have been fulfilled among us_[219]
(_i.e._, which have _occurred_ among us), and this implies that it
was written in Palestine at a very early date, and that St. Luke
himself was there during at least part of the time referred to.
[Footnote 217: Luke 24. 18; _Expositor_, Feb., 1904.]
[Footnote 218: John 1. 40; 18. 15.]
[Footnote 219: Luke 1. 1. (R.V.). A short paper on _Fulfilled among
us_, by the present writer, appeared in the _Churchman_, Aug. 1914.]
All three must thus have been well-educated men, and quite in a
position to write Gospels if they wanted to. While as none of them
seem to have taken a prominent part in the founding of Christianity,
there was no reason for ascribing the Gospels to them, rather than
to such great men as St. Peter and St. Paul, unless they actually
wrote them.
(_B._) THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
We pass on now to the Fourth Gospel, and will first examine the
internal arguments as to its authorship, which are strongly in
favour of its being the work of St. John; and then the two arguments
on the opposite side, said to be derived from its connection with
the other Gospels, and the Book of Revelation.
(1.) _Its authorship._
To begin with, the writer appears to have lived in the _first
century_. This is probable from his intimate acquaintance with
Jerusalem, and as before said that city was only a heap of ruins
after A.D. 70. Thus he speaks of Bethesda, the pool near the
sheep-gate, having five porches; of Solomon's porch; of the pool of
Siloam; and of the Temple, with its treasury; its oxen, sheep, and
doves for sacrifice; and its money-changers for changing foreign
money into Jewish, in which alone the Temple tax could be paid. And
his mention of Bethesda is specially interesting as he uses the
present tense, _There is in Jerusalem_, etc., implying that the gate
and porches were still standing (and therefore the city not yet
destroyed) when he wrote.[220]
[Footnote 220: John 5. 2.]
Secondly, the writer appears to have been an _eye-witness_ of what
he describes. He twice asserts this himself, as well as in an
Epistle which is generally admitted to be by the same writer, where
he declares that he had both seen, heard, and touched his
Master.[221] So, if this is not true, the work must be a deliberate
forgery; which is certainly improbable. Moreover, he frequently
identifies himself with the Twelve Apostles, recording their
feelings and reflections in a way which would be very unlikely for
any late writer to have thought of. Would a late writer, for
instance, have thought of inventing questions which the Apostles
wanted to ask their Master, but were afraid to do so? Or would he
have thought it worth repeating so often that they did not
understand at the time the real significance of the events they took
part in?[222]
[Footnote 221: John 1. 14; 19. 35; 1 John 1. 1.]
[Footnote 222: _E.g._, John 2. 17, 22; 4. 27; 13. 28; 16. 17.]
The author is also very particular as to times and places. Take, for
instance, the passage 1. 29-2. 12, with its expressions _On the
morrow_, _Again on the morrow_, _About the tenth hour_, _On the
morrow_, _And the third day_, _And there they abode not many days_.
It reads like extracts from an old diary, and why should all these
insignificant details be recorded? What did it matter half a century
later whether it was the same day, or on the morrow, or the third
day; or whether they stayed many days in Capernaum, or only a few;
as no hint is given as to why they went there, or what they did? The
only reasonable explanation is that the writer was present himself
(being of course the unnamed companion of St. Andrew); that this was
the turning-point in his life when he first saw his Lord; and that
therefore he loved to recall every detail.
And it may be noticed in passing that this passage explains an
apparent difficulty in the other Gospels, where it is stated that
these Apostles were called to follow Christ, after the death of St.
John the Baptist; though with a suddenness and ready obedience on
their part, which is hard to believe.[223] But we here learn that
they had already been with Christ some months before, in company
with the Baptist, so they were doubtless prepared for the call when
it came. And the passage, like many others, bears internal marks of
truthfulness. In particular may be mentioned the words of Nathanael,
_Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel_, implying
that the latter title was at least as honourable as the former. No
Christian in later times, when Christ was obviously not the King of
Israel (except in a purely spiritual sense), and when the title _Son
of God_ had come to mean so much more than it ever did to the Jews,
would have arranged it thus.
[Footnote 223: _E.g._, Mark 1. 14-20.]
Lastly, if we admit that the writer was an eye-witness, it can
hardly be disputed that he was the Apostle _St. John_. Indeed, were
he anyone else, it is strange that an Apostle of such importance
should not be once mentioned throughout the Gospel. It is also
significant that the other John, who is described in the first three
Gospels as John the _Baptist_, to distinguish him from the Apostle,
is here called merely _John_. No confusion could arise if, and only
if, the writer himself were the Apostle John. While still more
important is the fact that at the close of the Gospel, we have a
solemn declaration made by the author's own friends that he was the
_disciple whom Jesus loved_ (admitted by nearly everyone to be St.
John), that he had witnessed the things he wrote about, and that
what he said was true. And testimony more ancient or more conclusive
can scarcely be imagined.
With regard to the _date_ of the book, we can say little for
certain. But the extreme care which is taken in these closing verses
to explain exactly what Christ did, and did not say, as to St.
John's dying, before His coming again, seems to imply that the
matter was still undecided, in other words that St. John was still
alive, though very old, when they were written. And if so the Gospel
must have been _published_ (probably in some Gentile city, like
Ephesus, from the way the Jews are spoken of)[224] towards the close
of the first century; though a large part of it may have been
_written_ in the shape of notes, etc., long before.
[Footnote 224: _E.g._, John 2. 13; 5. 1; 6. 4.]
(2.) _Its connection with the other Gospels._
But, as before said, there are two arguments against the genuineness
of this Gospel. The first is that the Christ of the Fourth Gospel is
almost a different person from the Christ of the other three. The
_events_ of His life are different, His _language_ is different, and
His _character_ is different; while, when the Gospels cover the same
ground, there are _discrepancies_ between them. But every part of
this objection admits of a satisfactory answer.
To begin with, the fact that the Fourth Gospel narrates different
_events_ in the life of Christ from what we find in the other three
must of course be admitted. But what then? Why should not one
biography of Christ narrate certain events in His life, which the
writer thought important, but which had been omitted in previous
accounts? This is what occurs frequently at the present day, and why
should it not have occurred then? The Fourth Gospel may have been
written on purpose to _supplement_ some other accounts.
And there is strong evidence from the book itself that this was
actually the case. For the writer refers to many events without
describing them, and in such a way as to show that he thought his
readers knew about them. He assumes, for instance, that they know
about St. John the Baptist being imprisoned, about Joseph being the
supposed father of Christ, and about the appointment of the
Twelve.[225] It is probable then that the Gospel was written for
well-instructed Christians, who possessed some other accounts of
Christ's life. And everything points to these being our first three
Gospels.
[Footnote 225: John 3. 24; 6. 42, 70.]
Then as to the _language_ ascribed to Christ in the Fourth Gospel
being different from that in the others. This is no doubt partly
true, especially in regard to His speaking of Himself as _the Son_,
in the same way in which God is _the Father_. But it so happens that
we have in these other Gospels at least three similar passages[226]
which show that Christ did occasionally speak in this way. And there
is no reason why St. John should not have preserved such discourses
because the other Evangelists had omitted to do so. On the other
hand, the title _Son of Man_ (applied to Christ) occurs repeatedly
in all the Gospels, though strange to say only in the mouth of
Christ Himself. This is a striking detail, in which St. John
entirely agrees with the other Evangelists.
[Footnote 226: Matt. 11. 25-27; 24. 36; 28. 19; Mark 13. 32; Luke
10. 21, 22.]
The next part of the objection is that the _Character_ assigned to
Christ in the Fourth Gospel is different from that in the other
three; since instead of teaching moral virtues as in the Sermon on
the Mount, He keeps asserting His own Divine nature. And this also
is partly true, for the Fourth Gospel shows the Divinity of Christ
more directly than the others, which only imply it (Chapter XXI.).
And very probably the writer did so on purpose, thinking that this
aspect of Christ's character had not been sufficiently emphasised in
the previous accounts. Indeed, he implies it himself, for he says
that he omitted much that he might have inserted, and merely
recorded what he did in order to convince his readers that Jesus was
the Christ, the Son of God.[227]
[Footnote 227: John 20. 31.]
But no argument for a late date can be drawn from this. Because four
of St. Paul's Epistles (_i.e._ Rom.; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; and Gal.) which
have been admitted to be genuine by critics of all schools, describe
exactly the same Christ as we find in the Fourth Gospel, speaking of
His Divinity, Pre-existence, and Incarnation (Chapter XXI.). And
from the way in which St. Paul alludes to these doctrines he
evidently considered them the common belief of all Christians when
he wrote, about A.D. 55. So the fact of the Fourth Gospel laying
stress on these doctrines is no reason whatever against either its
genuineness or its early date. Indeed, it seems to supply just those
discourses of Christ which are necessary to account for St. Paul's
language.
Lastly, as to the _discrepancies_. The one most often alleged is
that according to the first three Gospels (in opposition to the
Fourth) Christ's ministry never reached Jerusalem till just before
His death. But this is a mistake, for though they do not relate His
attendance at the Jewish feasts, like St. John does, they imply by
the word _often_ ('How _often_ would I have gathered thy
children,'[228] etc.) that He had frequently visited the city, and
preached there. And one of them also refers to an earlier visit of
Christ, to Martha and Mary, which shows that He had been to Bethany
(close to Jerusalem) some time before.[229]
[Footnote 228: Matt. 23. 37; Luke 13. 34.]
[Footnote 229: Luke 10. 38.]
Another difficulty (it is scarcely a discrepancy) is the fact that
such a striking miracle as the raising of Lazarus, which is
described in the Fourth Gospel, should have been _omitted_ in the
other three. It is certainly strange, but these Evangelists
themselves tell us there were _other_ instances of raising the dead,
which they do not record,[230] and they probably knew of it, as it
alone explains the great enthusiasm with which Christ was received
at Jerusalem. This they all relate, and St. Luke's saying that it
was due to the _mighty works_, which the people had _seen_, implies
that there had been some striking miracles in the neighbourhood.[231]
[Footnote 230: Matt. 10. 8; 11. 5; Luke 7. 22.]
[Footnote 231: Luke 19. 37.]
On the other hand, there are several _undesigned agreements_ between
the Gospels, which are a strong argument in favour of their
accuracy. Take, for instance, the accusation brought against Christ
of destroying the Temple, and rebuilding it in three days. This is
alluded to both by St. Matthew and St. Mark; but St. John alone
records the words on which it was founded, though he does not
mention the charge, and quotes the words in quite a different
connection.[232]
[Footnote 232: Matt. 26. 61; Mark 14. 58; John 2. 19.]
Or take the Feeding of the five thousand.[233] St. Mark says that
this occurred in a desert place, where Christ had gone for a short
rest, and to avoid the crowd of persons who were _coming and going_
at Capernaum. But he gives no hint as to why there was this crowd
just at that time. St. John says nothing about Christ's going to the
desert, nor of the crowd which occasioned it; but he happens to
mention, what fully explains both, that it was shortly before the
Passover. Now we know that at the time of the Passover numbers of
people came to Jerusalem from all parts; so Capernaum, which lay on
a main road from the north, would naturally be crowded with persons
_coming and going_. And this explains everything; even St. Mark's
little detail, as to the people sitting on the _green_ grass, for
grass is only green in Palestine in the spring, _i.e._, at the time
of the Passover. But can anyone think that the writer of the Fourth
Gospel purposely made his account to agree with the others, yet did
this in such a way that not one reader in a hundred ever discovers
it? The only reasonable explanation is that the event was true, and
that both writers had independent knowledge of it.
[Footnote 233: Matt. 14. 13; Mark 6. 31; Luke 9. 10; John 6. 4.]
The objection, then, as to the connection of the Fourth Gospel with
the other three must be put aside. It was plainly meant to
_supplement_ them; and it shows not a different Christ, either in
_language_ or _character_, but merely a different aspect of the
same Christ, while the slight _discrepancies_, especially when
combined with the undesigned coincidences, rather support its
genuineness.
(3.) _Its connection with the Book of Revelation._
We pass on now to the other argument. The Book of Revelation is
generally admitted to be the work of St. John, and it is ascribed to
him by Justin Martyr.[234] Its date is usually fixed at A.D. 68;
though many critics prefer A.D. 95, which is the date given by
Irenæus.
[Footnote 234: Dial., 81.]
Yet it is said it cannot be by the same writer as the Fourth Gospel
because the _Greek_ is so different, that of the Revelation being
very abrupt, with numerous faults of grammar, while the Gospel is in
good Greek. Therefore it is urged that a Galilean fisherman like St.
John, though he might have been sufficiently educated to have
written the former, as his father was well off and kept servants,
and he himself was a friend of the High Priest,[235] could scarcely
have written the latter. Various explanations have been given of
this. Perhaps the best is that the Revelation was written by St.
John himself, since he is not likely to have had friends in Patmos;
and that when writing the Gospel he had the assistance of a Greek
disciple.
[Footnote 235: Mark 1. 20; John 18. 15.]
On the other side, it must be remembered that though the two books
are different in language, they are the same in their _teaching_;
for the great doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that of the Divinity of
Christ, is asserted almost as plainly in the Revelation. And even
the striking expression that Christ is the _Logos_, or _Word_,
occurs in both books, though it is not found elsewhere in the New
Testament, except in one of St. John's Epistles.[236] And the same
may be said of another striking expression, that Christ is the
_Lamb_, which also occurs in the Gospel and Revelation, though not
elsewhere in the New Testament.[237] This similarity in doctrine is
indeed so marked that it strongly suggests the same authorship; and
if so, it makes it practically certain that the Fourth Gospel was
written by St. John.
[Footnote 236: John 1. 1; 1 John 1. 1; Rev. 19. 13.]
[Footnote 237: John 1. 29, 36; Rev. 6. 1; 14. 1.]
On the whole, then, these objections are not serious; while, as
already shown, the Fourth Gospel has very strong internal marks of
genuineness. And when we combine these with the equally strong
external testimony, it forces us to conclude that St. John was the
author. This Gospel, then, like the other three, must be considered
_genuine_; indeed, the evidence in favour of them all is
overwhelming.