CHAPTER XXX.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

But little light can be thrown upon the Gospel of John, by any comparison with the manuscripts of Luke.

The first manuscript to which any similarity can be found, is No. 19; the account of the feeding of the multitude, by a miracle. But the differences in the narratives are very great. According to all the synoptics, Jesus had retired to a desert place; in Luke it is stated that it belonged to the city of Bethsaida. According to John, he had gone up into a mountain. According to this historian, it was on the eve of a Jewish passover. This the synoptics say nothing about; nor do they connect Jesus with any passover, except the one at which he suffered. According to Mark and Matthew, who continue the narrative, Jesus sent away the multitudes, and retired into a mountain to pray; according to John, he departed into a moun

tain, (though he was already in a mountain), to avoid the multitude who wished to take him by force, and make him a king. It will be remembered that this manuscript could not be fully identified in Mark. These were probably different versions of a common tradition.

The essential features of the tradition were, that a multitude consisting of 5000 men, besides the women and children, had been fed by Christ, upon five loaves and two fishes.

The next parallel is No. 30. Of the contents of this long manuscript, there is but the circumstance of Jesus riding on a colt, the foal of an ass, which is briefly noticed, as the fulfillment of a prophecy. This manuscript, also, could not be recognized distinctly in Mark, and there is no reason to believe it was used in John.

No. 32. Luke 22. 1 to 23. 49. Portions of this MS. have partial parallels, in John, 13. 1 to 30; vv. 36 to 38; ch. 18, vv. 1 to 18; 24 to 28; 33 to 40; ch. 19, vv. 15 to 25; 28 to 30.

No. 33. Luke, 23. 50, to the end.

The first part of this manuscript, narrating the begging of the body of Jesus, and his burial, by Joseph of Arimathea, has a closer parallel in John than any of the previous ones; (John, 19. 38 to 42.) The balance of it, however, after the coming of Mary Magdalene to the sepulcher, cannot be recognized.

Thus, it will be seen, that not a single manu

script in Luke can be completely traced in John. In some instances, the writer may have used Luke or Mark.

The inference is, that Luke and John were not composed from common sources.

The same result will follow, upon comparing John with Mark and Matthew.

It has every

The Gospel of John stands alone. mark of being an original gospel, while the synoptics are compilations made, for the most part for the purpose of preserving the early traditions of the disciples, concerning the life and teachings, the sufferings, the death and the resurrection of Jesus.

The Gospel of John is a theological document, written for theological purposes.

The first express testimony to the existence of this gospel, is that of Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 180, who speaks of it thus:

"And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing (inspired) men, one of whom, John, says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,'" etc.-Ad Autolycum, 2. 22.

Here John is not spoken of as an apostle, but as a spirit-bearing, or inspired man. Such the writer may have considered John the Presbyter, of the second century, who is by many thought to be the author of the gospel.

The internal character of this gospel is quite inconsistent with the theory of its having been written by the unlettered fisherman, the son of Zebedee. It is hardly possible that such a person could

have become the educated and philosophical theologian, whose pen is to be traced in the Gospel of John.

It is written in purer, and less Hebraistic Greek, than the other gospels, and its style is elegant and graceful.

John the apostle, son of Zebedee, was a Jew. But the author of the Gospel of John, refers to the Jews in the third person. He speaks of the feasts "of the Jews," "the passover of the Jews," "the manner of the purifying of the Jews," etc. The law of Moses is spoken of as "your law," and "their law." Furthermore, the Jews are denounced as the children of the devil.

The fact that in this gospel, the full and absolute divinity of Christ is first distinctly taught, is evidence, also, that it was not written by a Jew. The divinity of Jesus was not a doctrine of the Jewish Christians. It originated with Gentiles, formerly idolaters. To the Jew, it meant polytheism. The early Jewish Christians held Christ to be a man only.

There are also many errors in reference to the geography of the country. The author speaks of Enon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of "a city of Samaria, called Sychar." If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers. The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of the geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever re

sided in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed.

Even the birthplace of John himself, Bethsaida, or Julias, is assigned to Galilee, when it was situated in another country. This mistake alone, is fatal to the authority of the gospel. This is conceded by Hug,' provided it cannot be explained. An attempt has been made to explain it by showing that it was the custom of the people to speak of the Gaulonite country as Galilee. Josephus is cited, as calling Judas, the Galilean, a Gaulonite. Josephus four times refers to Judas as a Galilean." The only place where he is spoken of otherwise,3 is manifestly a mistake on the part of some transcriber, and arose from the fact, that there were two cities by the name of Gamala, one in Gaulonitis, the other in Galilee. No doubt the passage in Josephus, "a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala," should read, "a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala." It would then correspond with the other passages in Josephus, and with the Acts of the Apostles, [5. 37]; in all of which he was called Judas of Galilee.

Galilee was a well known district of country, with well defined boundaries; and it is absurd to suppose that another country, entirely disconnected with it, was called Galilee, without further evidence than this passage of Josephus.

8.

(1.) Introduction to N. T. p. 24.

(2) Antiquities, bk. 18 1. 6; bk. 20, 5. 2; Jewish War, bk. 2, 8. 1, and bk. 2, 17. (3.) Antiquities, bk. 18, 1. 1.