>Y^LEe¥MH¥IEI&SIITYe

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

J

THE HISTORICAL VALUE
OF THE
FOURTH GOSPEL

E. H. ASKWITH, D.D.
Vicar of Kirkby Lonsdale
Formerly Chaplain of Trinity College, Cambridge

HODDER AND STOUGHTON
LONDON MCMX

A^49h

PREFACE
r I lHIS book is a reprint, with a few
necessary verbal changes, of a series
of papers which have appeared in the
Expositor during the last twelve months.
They are here reprinted by permission of
the Editor, who was kind enough to suggest
to the Publishers that the papers were
worth issuing in book form. As this opinion
was shared by others, I have acted upon
it, and turned each paper into a chapter.
I send forth the book in the hope that
it may draw the attention of its readers
to many points of interest and importance
in the Fourth Gospel, and may be of use
jto other workers in the same field. E. H. A.
Kibeby Lonsdale.

CONTENTS CHAPTER I
INTEODUCTOBY
PAGE
The purpose of the book ..... 3
Opposition to the Fourth Gospel based on its contents 4
Historical probability . . . . .6
The claim of the Fourth Gospel to be historical . 7
Serious objection to the theory of impersonation . 13
Principles on which our investigation will be carried
out  18

CHAPTER II
THE MINISTET OF THE BAPTIST

" The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness " .
Synoptic account of the Baptist .
Tho Johannine account .
The Baptism of Jesus implied in it
The descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven
Statement in St. Matthew as to the diffidence of the
Baptist ......
The call of the first disciples
Difficulties considered and answered
Early belief in the Messiahship of Jesus .

27293135
37 39 42
44 52

vm

CONTENTS

The call of Nathanael .
Schmiedel's criticism of the portrait of the Baptist in
the Fourth Gospel .

PAGE 55

60

CHAPTER III

THE BETEAYAL

The anointing at Bethany .

70

The scene in the garden

. 73

The presence of the soldiery

. 76

The conduct of Jesus

. 81

Silence as to the Agony

. 89

Point of view of the Evangelist

. 90

CHAPTER IV
THE TBIAL OP JESUS

The examination before Annas

93

Peter's denial .....

98

Caiaphas .....

101

Fullness of the account of the trial before Pilate

102

Pilate on the judgment seat

112

CHAPTER V

THE CBTJCIFIXION

Details peculiar to St. John
The presence of the women
"I thirst" .
TireXearai The piercing of Jesus' side
The burial
The place of the tomb

117
118123
130135
139
141

CONTENTS ix
CHAPTER VI
THE EESUBEEOTION (i.)

No account of the Resurrection
Criticism of "Matthew" ....
Need to investigate the whole evidence for the Eesurreo
tion ......
St. John xx. the evidence of an actor in the scene
The empty tomb .....
The visit to the tomb ....
The appearanoe to Mary Magdalene
The appearances to the assembled disciples
Appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee
"Matthew" and the missing verses of St. Mark
Inexactness of "Matthew" ....

PAGE 145146 147
149 150151153 154156161 163

CHAPTER VII
THE EESUBEEOTION (li.)
St. Paul's enumeration of the post-resurrection appear
ances ....... 170
Identification of these with those recorded in the Gospels 172
The appearance to the more than five hundred brethren
at once ....... 174
Agreement of St. Paul's list of appearances with those
in the Gospels if interpreted comprehensively . 179
The gift of the Spirit . . . . .180
The second miraculous draught of fishes . . . 181

x CONTENTS
CHAPTER VIII
THE CLEANSING OP THE TEMPLE, THE FEEDING
OF THE FIVE THOUSAND, AND THE WALKING
ON THE SEA
Comparison of the story of the cleansing of the Temple
in the Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel
Exactness of St. John's account
The two stories refer to different occasions
The feeding of the five thousand .
Details peculiar to the Fourth Gospel a mark of his
toricity .....
The sequel to the miracle .
The sending away of the disciples
irpbc. BnBaaiSav . . . •
The walking on the sea and arrival at the opposite shore

PAGE 187 193
195197 200 204207208
211

CHAPTER IX

THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY, AND THE LAST SUPPEB
The story of the Triumphal Entry more intelligible in
the Fourth Gospel . . . . .217
The writer speaks as a disciple .... 220
Was the Last Supper a Passover? . . . 221
The incidents at the Supper .... 229
Silence as to the Institution of the Eucharist . . 231
The teaching of Jesus and the difficulties of the disciples 233

CONTENTS CHAPTER X

xi

THE PBOBABILITY OP A MINISTBY IN JEEUSALEM

Result of our enquiry up to this point .
Antecedent probability of a Jerusalem ministry .
The Synoptio narratives require such a ministry
The false witnesses at the trial
Joseph of Arimathaia ....
The lament over Jerusalem
Traces in St. Luke's Gospel of visits to Jerusalem

PAGE
. 239
243
. 246
. 247
, 250
. 252
. 257

CHAPTER XI

THE MINISTBY OP JESUS ACCOEDING TO THE
FOUETH EVANGELIST

Differences between the Fourth Gospel and the
tists in the story of the ministry
Earlier ministry not in Galilee
Why did Jesus retire to Galilee?
Call of the first disciples
Reference to Acts i. 21
Confession of Messiahship .
The marriage feast .
The first Passover of the ministry
The visit of Nicodemus
Jesus and the Baptist
The withdrawal to Galilee — through Samaria
The feasts in Jerusalem
Growing opposition of the Jews

Synop-

261262 264265 268 269
272275276 277 278
281 283

xii CONTENTS
CHAPTER XII
SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY OF THE
FOUETH GOSPEL CONSIDEEED PAGE
Independence of Fourth Evangelist . . . 293
The raising of Lazarus ..... 295
The supposed anachronism in the Eucharistic teaching 302
Professor Burkitt on the Baptism of Jesus . . 307
Miracles in the Fourth Gospel .... 309
Schmiedel's theory of symbolism of the miracles . 310
The discourses in St. John ..... 313
Irreconcilable attitude of the Jews . . . 314
Conclusion ... .... 315

INTRODUCTORY

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

rTIHE writer of these pages sets himself the
task of showing on internal grounds
that the Fourth Gospel is a historical and
not merely, as some present-day critics
affirm, a theological document. In speaking,
however, of the Gospel as historical we
do not mean that the aim of the writer
of it was primarily a historical one. His
interest may well have been theological,
as indeed he expressly states it to have
been (xx. 31). But our contention will here
be that the writer did not invent his story
to teach theological truth. We believe that
the things which the Evangelist records as
Value of Fourth Gospel. 3

4 INTRODUCTORY
having happened are real events, that they
did take place. In saying this we are
setting ourselves in opposition to much of
the criticism of our day, which denies to
this Gospel serious historical value, regard
ing it as irreconcilable with the Synoptic
tradition of the life of Jesus Christ.
For the opposition to the Johannine
authorship of the Fourth Gospel is based
chiefly on internal grounds. Its external
credentials might be accepted by adverse
critics were it not for what they consider
to be overwhelming objections against its
apostolic authorship on the ground of in
ternal evidence. But, as it is, the external
evidence is explained away because it is
thought that the sfcory of the life of Jesus
in this Gospel cannot be brought into
agreement with wnat is acknowledged to
be the earlier story in point of time, that,
namely, which we have in the pages of the
Synoptists. Critics opposed to the Johan
nine authorship ot the Gospel contend that

INTRODUCTORY 5
both stories of the life of Jesus — that of
the Synoptists and that of the Fourth
Gospel — cannot be alike historical. A choice,
then, has to be made between the two, and
preference is shown for the Synoptic story.
For it is argued that the Fourth Gospel is
obviously a theological document, and its
writer's interests are theologically deter
mined, so that its genesis is explicable on
theological grounds. While, then, the
Fourth Gospel may be an interesting
psychological study its contents are not
history and are not to be so interpreted.
It is because the opposition to the
historical character of the Fourth Gospel
is based principally on its contents, and
because the external credentials of the
apostolic authorship of the book are ex
plained away, not for the reason that they
are trivial, but because they cannot out
weigh the internal evidence, that we shall
in these pages confine our attention to this
internal evidence, and discuss the historical

6 INTRODUCTORY
probability of the events which this Gospel
records. Now it is clear that the mind, when it
applies itself to considerations of historical
probability, cannot possibly start as if it
were a tabula rasa. For in judging
whether or not a document is historically
probable, that is to say whether or not
the events recorded in it are likely to
have happened, we are either comparing
the document itself with other documents
which may agree with or conflict with
it, or we are judging of the agreement
of its recorded events with individual or
general human experience. Thus it may
be argued that the story in the Fourth
Gospel is historically improbable because
it contains so much of the miraculous.
This is an objection which might equally
well be urged against the other Gospels,
and it is no part of our present purpose
to consider it. The case before us is that
of a document purporting to be historical

INTRODUCTORY 7
and yet not in agreement with other
documents. We have to do with critics
who accept the Synoptic account of the
life of Jesus as, in the main at any
rate, historical but who contend that the
story of the same life in the Fourth
Gospel is so much at variance with it
that it cannot be seriously regarded as
history. The interests of the writer are
so obviously theological that there can
be no doubt that his record of the life
of Jesus is to be interpreted not his
torically but theologically.
It cannot be too strongly insisted upon
at the outset of our inquiry that the
Fourth Gospel does certainly put forth
its own claim to be historical, to be an
account of things which really happened.
Indeed it purports to be the work of an
eyewitness of some, at any rate, of the
things which it records. Thus at the
beginning of the Gospel (i. 14) we read:
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt

8 INTRODUCTORY
among us; and we beheld his glory, glory
as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth." And this asser
tion of personal witness is clearly put
forward in the opening words of the first
Johannine Epistle, a work which is gene
rally recognised to proceed from the same
hand as the Gospel, whether or no that
hand be the hand of John the son of
Zebedee : " That which was from the
beginning, that which we have heard,
that which we have seen with our eyes,
that which we beheld, and our hands
handled, concerning the Word of life
(and the life was manifested, and we
have seen and bear witness, and declare
unto you the life, the eternal life which
was with the Father, and was manifested
unto us) ; that which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you also, that
ye also may have fellowship with us."
No asseveration of personal witness of
the life of Jesus could well be stronger

INTRODUCTORY 9
than this. And it is reaffirmed in the
narrative of the Gospel. Thus when the
writer records the incident of the piercing
of the side of the Crucified, out of which
there came blood and water, he adds
(xix. 35) : " And he that hath seen hath
borne witness, and his witness is true :
and he kndweth that he saith true that
ye also may believe." Whether the state
ment at the close of the Gospel (xxi. 24)
is one made by the author himself or is
a later addition, it too is an assertion
of personal witness : " This is the disciple
which beareth witness of these things,
and wrote these things; and we know
that his testimony is true."
This last-quoted verse shows that it is
intended that the author of the Gospel
should be identified with the person who
is described in its pages as "the disciple
whom Jesus loved." This is clear from
the connection of the verse with those
immediately preceding it. We thus have

10 INTRODUCTORY
to recognise the presence, purported at
any rate, of the writer at several of
the scenes described by him. He was
present at the Last Supper (xiii. 23), to
him was intrusted by Jesus the care of
His mother (xix. 26, 27), he was a witness
of the empty tomb (xx. 1-10), and he saw
personally the risen Jesus (xxi. 7).
Now it may, of course, be said that this
is but a device on the part of the writer to
give authority to his work. We are told
that pseudonymous writing was common in
old times and that the practice of it must
not be judged by modern standards of
authorship. This is indeed an important
point that has to be borne in mind in
estimating the genuineness of ancient
writings. But it may be questioned
whether it has much to do with the
case before us. For what the writer does
not do in his Gospel is to lay claim to a
great name. It is the modesty of his
reference to himself that specially strikes

INTRODUCTORY 11
us. He never names himself at all, but he
employs always a circumlocution when he
has to make mention of himself. Thus we
have seen above how he describes himself
as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the
identity of this disciple with the author, real
or purported, being assured to us by the
statement of xxi. 24.
And there can be little doubt that the
writer intends the reader of the Gospel to
see his presence at other scenes which he
records, when he does not name himself.
When in the first chapter (35 ff.) he tells
of two disciples of John who both followed
Jesus at the instigation of the Baptist he
gives the name of one of them but not
that of the other. "One of the two that
heard John speak and followed Jesus was
Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." It has
been generally understood that the other
was the author himself.
So again in xviii. 15 he writes that two
disciples followed Jesus from the garden,

12 INTRODUCTORY
where the betrayal had taken place, to the
palace of the high priest. The one disciple
he names— Simon Peter — the other is spoken
of simply as "another disciple." It can
hardly be supposed that the author was
ignorant of the name of this other disciple,
for he tells us so much about him. He " was
known unto the high priest, and entered
in with Jesus into the court of the high
priest." And when Peter was standing out
side "the other disciple which was known
unto the high priest went out and spake unto
her that kept the door, and brought in
Peter." And it was in connexion with this
admission of Peter by the porteress into the
court of the high priest that the first denial
made by Peter of his Master occurred. The
whole account of this scene is indeed most
graphic and circumstantial, and the cha
racter of the description is at once explained
if it be the work of an eyewitness, as it will
be if the author be that other disciple. In
a later chapter we shall return to this matter.

INTRODUCTORY 13
The point which it is sought to emphasise
now is that while the author of the Gospel
does undoubtedly seem to wish to give his
readers the impression that he himself played
a part in some, at any rate, of the scenes
which he describes, and that he writes as one
who knows because he has seen and heard,
he yet does this with such modesty and self-
suppression that it becomes absurd to treat
the Gospel as a pseudonymous writing which
claims authority by the use of some great
and honoured name.
It must not, however, be denied that it is
possible that the writer of the Gospel may
have wished to make it appear that he was
an eyewitness of the events that he records
in order to give authority to his writing.
But there is a serious objection to this theory
of the make-belief of discipleship, which
may be stated here. It is this. The claim
to be a personal disciple and eyewitness is
not sufficiently prominent to support the
theory. It is altogether too casual and by-

14 INTRODUCTORY
the-way. For it must be remembered that
the theory presupposes that the writer's
interest is mainly theological and that he
forges events and puts into the mouth of
Jesus words which He did not really speak
in order to give support to the doctrine con
tained in them. But in those parts of the
Gospel which are most doctrinal the presence
of the writer is not hinted at, with the
exception of the chapters which give the
discourse in the upper chamber at the Last
Supper. He does not anywhere in those
sections of the Gospel which give our Lord's
public discourses refer to his own presence
at the time they were delivered. He does
not say : I was there, and I heard these
words, and I know, therefore, that they are
the doctrine of the Lord. Even in the upper
chamber, where the writer represents him
self as present, he does not emphasise his
presence. The only two occasions in the
Gospel where the personal witness of the
writer is specially emphasised are those

INTRODUCTORY 15
which have been already mentioned, namely,
the piercing of the Lord's side, whereat there
came out blood and water, and the mani
festation of the risen Jesus. As by the
mention of the one the writer gives his
personal testimony to the actual death of
Jesus, so by his record of the other he bears
witness to the Lord's triumph over death.
Personal witness is all-important on such
points as these ; and if the witness which the
writer so emphatically gives were not true,
he would be an impostor ; and no appreciation
of the sublime grandeur of his conception
of the Person of Jesus Christ should blind
our eyes to the fact. There would be no
excuse for what would be a deliberate false
hood. Even if these things did take place
and the writer had not personal experience
of them and yet said that he had, he would
stand guilty of a deception which no good
intention could justify. If the words of xix
35 be not true, they are gross deceit. For
even though xxi. 24 may be no claim of the

16 INTRODUCTORY
author of the Gospel, but an addition made
by some other writer who may have
genuinely believed what he said, the same
cannot be said of xix. 35. The words, " He
knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may
believe," could only come from the writer
of the Gospel himself ; for he alone could
testify that he knew that he was speaking
the truth. For while one, other than the
author of the Gospel, might testify that the
author was saying what was true — a testi
mony which he could only give if he had
independent evidence of the truth of what
was related — he would not be likely to say
that the author knew that he was speaking
the truth ; whereas the statement comes quite
naturally from the Evangelist himself.
We must not, however, omit to mention,
in passing, the opinion that has been enter
tained that the pronoun ktTvoe in this verse
has reference, not to the Evangelist, but to
the Lord Jesus. This opinion originates with
Zahn (Einleitung, ii. p. 476), and it has found

INTRODUCTORY 17
favour with Dr. Sanday. It is not necessary
to discuss the matter here, for the argument
is not seriously affected by it, but I confess
that I prefer Westcott's view that the person
intended by liceivog is the same as the sub
ject of fitfxapTvpi)Ktv. But even if we sup
pose that Zahn is right and that what is
here written amounts to " Christ knoweth
that what the writer is saying is true," it
would still remain true that we have here
an asseveration of the Evangelist himself
and not the testimony of another. For a
man is not wont to call Heaven to witness
that something that has been said is true
unless it be what he himself has said.
The claim, then, of the author of the
Fourth Gospel to have been a personal
disciple of Jesus, and to have seen and heard
something of that which he records, seems
unmistakable. It is a claim put forward by
the Evangelist himself, and it is supported
by the testimony of xxi. 24. But this claim
has been and still is disputed. It becomes
Value of Fourth Gospel. 3

18 INTRODUCTORY
necessary, then, to examine it and to decide
whether it can be justified. If it be the
case, as adverse critics contend, that the
Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is not the Jesus
of the Synoptists, but the poetic creation
of a later time, then the Gospel is not
historical in the true sense of the word.
But how shall we institute our inquiry,
and on what principles shall we carry it
forward? Our document does not stand
alone, but it has to be considered in relation
to the other three Gospels. We are assuming
that the Synoptic Gospels are, speaking
generally, historical, that they give a true
picture of Jesus Christ, who really did do
and say the things which He is in them repre
sented to have done and said, that they are
a faithful account of His deeds and words
and of His manner of living and speaking.
Of course it has to be borne in mind that
there are differences and divergences even
among the Synoptists, but for our purpose
these are for the most part unimportant,

INTRODUCTORY 19
though they have their importance in what
is known as the Synoptic Problem. With
that we have not here to do. Assuming the
general historical correctness of the Synop
tists, we have to bring the Fourth Gospel
into connexion with them.
On comparing the Fourth Gospel with
the other three we observe that it covers
ground which they also cover, while it also
contains much matter peculiar to itself,
namely, the Judaean ministry of Jesus. It
seems desirable, then, first of all to compare
with the Synoptists those parts of the
Fourth Gospel which treat of subjects
common to it and them. For the time the
Judsean ministry peculiar to St. John may
be left out of account. We will first inquire
whether the character of the Fourth Gospel
in those parts of it which touch closely the
Synoptic narratives is such that its claim
to be the work of a personal disciple and
eyewitness can be sustained. For if it be
indeed the writing of one who drew from

20 INTRODUCTORY
his personal experience, this ought to show
itself in the narrative. The. author need
not agree with the Synoptists in every
detail, but in the main he should, and we
ought to find incidental touches which give
evidence of personal witness. Agreement
with the other Gospels would of course
prove nothing in itself, for our author, if
he be only a fictitious disciple and eye
witness, will have drawn his information
from them. We must look for independence
even in those parts of the Gospel which
touch the Synoptists most closely. We
must test our Evangelist in regard to those
points in which his account of things, which
the Synoptists record, differs from theirs,
either in the way of correction or of
addition. I may say, then, at once that a careful
examination of those parts of the Fourth
Gospel which can be compared with the
other three as treating of a common subject,
has led me to the conclusion that the

INTRODUCTORY 21
Evangelist is indeed writing from personal
experience, and I desire to state at length
my reasons for this conclusion.
The sections of our Gospel which we shall
first examine, being those which touch
closely the Synoptic narratives, will be the
ones which deal with the ministry of the
Baptist, with the betrayal, trial, and
crucifixion of Jesus, and with the post-
resurrection appearances. After dealing
with these we will pass to consider a group
of five other events common to the
Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel, namely,
the cleansing of the temple, the feeding of
the five thousand, the walking on the sea,
the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and
the Last Supper.
After we have examined in some detail
these parts of the Fourth Gospel which
treat of events which the other Evangelists
also treat of, and substantiated the claim
of the fourth Evangelist to be a personal
disciple and eyewitness, we can proceed to

22 INTRODUCTORY
the consideration of those sections of his
Gospel which treat of the Judsean ministry,
and we shall start without prejudice against
their historical probability.
It will have been noticed that we have
been proceeding on the assumption that
the Fourth Gospel is the work of one
author, and it may be objected that we
have not allowed for the possibility that
in some parts of the Gospel we may have
the work and testimony of a personal
disciple while in other portions this may
not be the case. Well, for my own part,
I believe that this Gospel is one and
indivisible, and that it is impossible with
out violence to dissect it or sever one part
from another. The narrative flows on
without creating any suspicion that at any
point of it a new hand has become engaged
on it. I except, of course, the section at
the beginning of chapter viii. and possibly
also the two concluding verses of the
Gospel. The rest is all alike written in

INTRODUCTORY 23
the style peculiarly "Johannine," a style
so distinctive that it seems well-nigh
impossible that it could proceed from more
than one person. It is the style of the
Fourth Gospel, and the style too of the
so-called First Epistle of St. John. And
if we can make good our contention that
the Fourth Gospel is the work of a personal
disciple as it claims to be, then there is
very good reason to believe that its author
is John the son of Zebedee.
I do not propose to discuss the theory
put forward by Delff and subjected to
criticism by Dr. Sanday (The Criticism of
the Fourth Gospel), that the author of
certain parts of the Fourth Gospel, though
a personal disciple, is yet some other
person than John the son of Zebedee. The
choice seems to me to lie between the
traditional authorship and a mere make-
believe of personal testimony. My object
in these chapters is primarily to vindicate
the historical character of the Fourth

24 INTRODUCTORY
Gospel, so that the person of the writer
of it is not of chief concern. But I am
persuaded that if the Gospel is recognised,
as I believe it will have to be, but is not
in Delff's theory, as an indivisible whole,
and the writing of a personal disciple, it
will be acknowledged to be the work of
John the Apostle.

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST

CHAPTER II
THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
A LL the four Evangelists agree in repre
senting the ministry of the Baptist
as a deliberate preparation made by him
for the coming of Another after him greater
than himself. In all the Gospels the Baptist
comes forward in fulfilment of the words
of the prophet Isaiah : " The voice of one
crying in the wilderness, Make straight " (or
"make ready") "the way of the Lord." And
in all he points to Another who is to come
after him, the latchet of whose shoes he
is not worthy to unloose.* The scene of
the Baptist's preaching is the valley of the
* Matthew has a slightly different expression.
27

28 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
Jordan, and in the river Jordan he bap
tized those who came to him. In the
Fourth" Gospel a particular place named
Bethany (i. 28) is mentioned, "These things
were done in Bethany beyond Jordan where
John was baptizing." This particularity of
statement on the part of this Evangelist is
noteworthy and is easily explicable if he
were himself, as the narrative seems to
suggest, a disciple of John. On this point
more will be said presently. But we must
throughout our investigation into the
question whether our Gospel does or does
not show true signs of being the work of
a personal disciple and eyewitness, notice
particularly those points in which the
author gives details, lacking in the other
Evangelists, in the scenes and events
described both by him and by some or
all of them. We draw attention, then, at
this point to the particular mention of
Bethany beyond Jordan.
But we must pass now to consider the

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 29
broad outlines of the story of the preach
ing and baptism of John in the Synoptists
and the Fourth Gospel.
The account given in St. Mark is very
short. He tells how John came in fulfil
ment of the words of prophecy, and bap
tized in the wilderness and preached the
baptism of repentance unto remission of
sins. He then tells of the crowds that
went to his baptism, and gives a brief
description of the appearance of the Bap
tist, who was clothed with camel's hair and
had a leathern girdle about his loins, and
he adds that his food was locusts and wild
honey. He mentions the Baptist's procla
mation of Him who was to come after him,
mightier than he, and for whom he was
unworthy to perform the most menial
office. This One, when He came, would
confer a baptism greater than the Bap
tist's. For while the Baptist baptized with
water, this Greater One to come would
baptize with the Holy Ghost. The Evange-

30 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
list then passes on to tell of the baptism
of Jesus by John. He records how, as
Jesus came up out of the water, He saw
the heavens rent asunder and the Spirit
as a dove descending upon Him : and a
voice came out of the heavens, Thou art
my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.
The other two Synoptists utilise Mark,
and they have information to give besides,
derived from some other source. St. Mat
thew tells of Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to John's baptism, and of the Bap
tist's insistence in their case on a true
repentance. Claims of privilege, such as
" We have Abraham to our father," were
insufficient. St. Luke gives this same warn
ing of the Baptist, though he speaks of it
as addressed to the multitudes. He also
gives details of the Baptist's requirements
from special classes who came to his
baptism asking advice : What shall we do ?
We may remark, too, that St. Luke repre
sents the Baptist's reference to Him that

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 31
should come after him as being made at a
time when the people were in expectation,
and all men reasoned in their hearts con
cerning John, whether haply he were the
Christ. We now turn to the account given of
these things in the Fourth Gospel. We will
remark first of all that while the Evange
list, like the Synoptists, finds a place in his
story of the Baptist for the words of the
prophet Isaiah, " the voice of one crying
in the wilderness, Make straight the way of
the Lord," he does not simply say, as do
the Synoptists, that the Baptist came in
fulfilment of, or in accordance with, this
prophecy, but he represents the Baptist
as applying these words to himself. He
tells of a mission sent to the Baptist from
the religious leaders of the nation in Jeru
salem requiring him to declare himself.
The Jews, we read, sent unto him from
Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him,
Who art thou? And he confessed and

32 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
denied not; and he confessed, I am not the
Christ. And they asked him, What then?
Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not.
Art thou the prophet ? * And he answered,
No. They said, therefore, unto him, Who
art thou? that we may give an answer to
them that sent us. What sayest thou of
thyself? It was then that the Baptist
replied : I am the voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Make straight the way of
the Lord.
Now we can gather from a later portion
of the Synoptic narrative that the religious
authorities at Jerusalem did not acknow
ledge the Baptist. For when they ques
tioned the authority of Jesus to cleanse the
temple, and indeed challenged Him with
the question, by what authority He did
these things, and He put to them the
counter question, whether the baptism of
John was from heaven or of men, they
found themselves in a dilemma. They
* For the reference here see Westcott's Commentary-

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 33
feared to say that it was of men because
the people took John for a prophet. And
if they said that it was from heaven, then
Jesus would ask them, Why then did ye
not believe him? It is clear, then, that
they had not believed in the mission of
the Baptist. Thus this deputation to the
Baptist of which we read in the Fourth
Gospel is rendered a probable event by
what we find recorded in another connec
tion in the Synoptists.
And when we come to reflect on the
matter, we can see that the application of
the words of Isaiah to the Baptist which
we find in the Synoptists is more likely
than not to have been made by himself
first of all rather than by others who re
garded him as divinely sent. If the Bap
tist in his humility had made his own this
appellation — a voice crying in the wilder
ness — we can well understand the applica
tion of it to him in the Synoptists, whereas
it is not easy to understand that those
Value of Fourth Gospel. ^.

34 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
who believed in his divine mission and took
him for a prophet sent by God would have
applied to him a description which might
seem derogatory. I find, then, in his
account of the mission from Jerusalem to
the Baptist, recorded by our Evangelist, a
mark that we have here to do with the
words of one who knew. And we shall be
able, I think, to go further than this and
to say that we have here the record of one
who heard and saw the things which he
narrates. But of this presently.
We referred above to the fact that St.
Luke places the Baptist's references to Him
that was mightier, and who was to come
after him, at the time of expectation on
the part of the people when men were
questioning in their hearts whether John
was the Christ. We may notice now that
with this accords the narrative of the
Fourth Gospel. The members of the mis
sion sent from Jerusalem having obtained
from the Baptist the confession that he

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 35
was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the
prophet, proceed to question him, and ask
him why then he is engaged in baptizing.
And John answered them : "I baptize with
water : in the midst of you standeth one
whom ye know not, even He that cometh
after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am
not worthy to unloose."
It may perhaps appear strange that the
fourth Evangelist, if he had accurate know
ledge of the work of the Baptist, should
not mention the baptism of Jesus which
all the Synoptists record. But silence on
the part of a writer as to any particular
event does not prove that he did not know
of it, and indeed a careful reading of our
Gospel seems to show that the Evangelist
did know of the baptism of Jesus, and that,
though he does not record it explicitly, it
is very clearly implied in what he says.
We read that on the day after the Baptist's
reception of the deputation from Jerusa
lem, he saw Jesus coming unto him, and

36 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
said, " Behold the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world ! This is He of
whom I said, After me cometh a man
which is become before me : for He was
before me. And I knew Him not ; but that
He should be made manifest to Israel, for
this cause came I baptizing with water."
And John bare witness, saying, "I have be
held the Spirit descending as a dove out of
heaven; and it abode upon Him. And I
knew Him not : but He that sent me to
baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon
whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit de
scending, and abiding upon Him, the same
is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.
And I have seen, and have borne witness
that this is the Son of God."
This section of the narrative requires
careful consideration. In the first place we
note that it implies all that the Synoptists
say about the baptism of Jesus at the
hands of John the Baptist. "John bare
witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 37
descending as a dove out of heaven, and it
abode upon Him." It may be said that the
Evangelist does not associate this descent
of the Spirit upon Jesus with His baptism.
But surely this is implied very clearly in
the words that follow : " He that sent me to
baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon
whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit de
scending and abiding upon Him, the same
is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit."
The words suggest that the descent of the
Spirit upon the chosen One was to take
place in the course of the administration of
the baptism. He that sent the Baptist to
baptize with water had given him a sign —
a sign which (as the association of ideas
seems to imply) was to take place at the
baptism of Him thus marked out.
Again we note that if our Evangelist says
nothing of the voice from heaven which
was heard at the baptism of Jesus, this,
too, is implicit in his story. That voice,
according to the Synoptists, had declared :

38 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased. And here in the Fourth
Gospel we have the testimony of the
Baptist: I have seen, and have borne
witness that this is the Son of God. This
title " Son of God " may well not have
meant to the Baptist all that we read into
it, but at any rate it implied Christhood
or Messiahship, and the use of it by the
Baptist is a faithful witness on his part
to the voice from heaven, if indeed that
voice had proclaimed " This is my beloved
Son." We may, then, without forcing the nar
rative of the Fourth Gospel, say that the
baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit
upon Him in the form of a dove at His
baptism, and the voice from heaven, de
claring Him to be the Son of God, are all
implicit in it. But we must face the objec
tion that in our Gospel the Baptist says
that he knew Him not until the sign
was fulfilled, whereas in the narrative of

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 39
Matthew John is represented as saying to
Jesus, who came to be baptized by him :
"I have need to be baptized of thee, and
comest thou to me ? But Jesus answering
said unto him, Suffer it now, for thus it
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."
This seems to show that the Baptist already
knew the superiority of Jesus — knew, in
fact, that He was the one to whom the
Baptist had pointed, and for whom he had
prepared the way.
There are two possible explanations of the
difficulty which here confronts us. In the
first place it might be said that it is
extremely likely that the Baptist was
already acquainted with Jesus, seeing that,
according to St. Luke, their mothers were
related to one another. The Baptist may
well have been impressed by the character
and personality of Jesus, and may even
have had a presentiment, which was now
to be converted into a certainty by the
fulfilment of the sign that had been given

40 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
to him, that this was indeed He for whose
coming he was preparing men's hearts.
Or, secondly, it might be said that we can
not be expected to accept every statement
in Matthew as true in historical detail.
The Evangelist may be expressing what
seemed to Christians a very proper senti
ment on the part of the Baptist. Such an
explanation would, I confess, be no shock
to me, and would in no way upset my faith
in the general reliability of the Gospel
narrative. I regard the First Gospel as
principally valuable to us for the sayings of
Jesus which it records rather than for its
statements of historical fact. And certainly
I cannot discredit the very plain statement
of the Baptist recorded for us in the
Fourth Gospel, for I believe on other
grounds that we have here the witness of a
personal disciple of the Baptist. I cannot
accept it as a principle of criticism of the
Gospels that the Synoptists are to be
preferred in every detail, and that the

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 41
Fourth Gospel is to be discredited if any
where its statements do not accord with
those of the other three. The value which
we attach to the Fourth Gospel will depend
in large measure on whether or not we are
persuaded by a careful examination of its
contents as a whole that it is the testimony
of one who knew, who had seen and who
had heard. This is its claim, and it is this
claim that we are engaged in examining
and carefully weighing. We have so far
made but little way in the task we have
set ourselves. The conclusion which every
one must form for himself will depend
upon a careful examination of the whole
evidence. Weak points in it, if such there
seem to be, must be noted by each inquirer.
An honest attempt will be made in these
pages to face all the facts of the case and
a purely ex parte statement of it will be
carefully avoided. The reader has already
understood that it is our object to defend
the traditional authorship of the Gospel, but

42 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
we would be preserved in our task from
any suppression of the facts.
We now return to the narrative of the
Evangelist. We have considered the wit
ness of John to himself as a mere Voice to
proclaim One who was to come after, and
we have seen him in the presence of this
Other whom he declared to be the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the
world. I know that it has been said that
this is the language of later Christian de
votion and worship, and that it is an ana
chronism to put such a saying into the
mouth of the Baptist. But there is nothing
incredible to one who believes John the
Baptist to have been a Heaven-sent prophet
to prepare the way of the Christ, that he
should have had an insight, divinely given,
into the sin-bearing office that this Other
would have to assume.
This testimony of the Baptist to " the Lamb
of God" is repeated on the following day
when Jesus again walked by, as John stood

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 43
with two of his disciples. And the two dis
ciples, we are told, heard him thus speak,
and they followed Jesus. " And Jesus turned
and beheld them following, and saith unto
them, What seek ye? And they said unto
him, Rabbi, where abidest Thou? He saith
unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They
came, therefore, and saw where He abode;
and they abode with Him that day: it was
about the tenth hour." We notice this par
ticularity of statement, which is intelligible
if the writer had himself a share in these
events. And that he had a share in them
has been surmised with good reason from
the words which follow : " One of the two
that heard John speak and followed him,
was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." The
other he does not name, and, as we have
seen, it is according to his manner to pre
serve his own anonymity. It has been
inferred, then, that the other was John
himself, the writer of the Gospel.
A difficulty, however, arises at once, for

44 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
it would seem from the Synoptists that the
call by Jesus of John, the son of Zebedee,
to discipleship came at a later time, as did
also that of Andrew and his brother Simon
Peter, both of whom are associated with
Jesus at this earlier stage in the Fourth
Gospel. For we read that Andrew "findeth
his own brother Simon, and saith unto him,
We have found the Messiah (which is, being
interpreted, Christ). And he brought him
to Jesus, who looked upon him and said,
Thou art Simon the son of John : thou
shalt be called Cephas (which is, by inter
pretation, Peter)."
Now this whole passage has seemed to
the opponents of the Johannine authorship
of the Gospel to present serious and in
surmountable historical difficulties ; for not
only, as we have said already, does it
antedate the call to Simon Peter and
Andrew (and John, too, if he be intended
by that other disciple), but it antedates
too by a long way the recognition, by

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 45
these disciples of Jesus, of His Messiah-
ship. It is not to be denied that these are
serious difficulties which must be properly
faced, but I doubt whether they are as
formidable as is often imagined.
Let us at first put on one side the
difficulty presented by the disciples' too
early acknowledgment of the Messiahship
of Jesus and consider the question of the
time of their call to be disciples.
Mark's account is as follows : " And
passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he
saw Simon and Andrew the brother of
Simon casting a net in the sea : for they
were fishers. And Jesus said unto them,
Come ye after me, and I will make you
to become fishers of men. And straight
way they left the nets and followed him.
And going on a little further, he saw
James the son of Zebedee, and John his
brother, who also were in the boat mend
ing the nets. And straightway he called
them: and they left their father Zebedee

46 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
in the boat with the hired servants, and
went after him." Matthew borrows his
account from Mark, and adds nothing to
it. The only small point of difference is
that Matthew omits mention of the hired
servants. St. Luke, however, gives a much
fuller account of the call of these disciples
at the sea of Galilee and places it in
connection with a miraculous draught of
fishes (St. Luke v. 1-11). I think it
cannot be denied that the fuller narrative
of St. Luke here is to be preferred to the
very cursory and, as it stands, hardly in
telligible account given by Mark, and copied
by Matthew. It seems extremely unlikely
that Jesus was unknown to Peter before
the call at the sea of Galilee to become
a fisher of men. Indeed in St. Luke the
order of events is so given that the healing
of Simon's wife's mother in the house of
Simon precedes the call associated in that
Gospel with the miraculous draught of fishes.
It is true that in Mark the order of events

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 47
is reversed, and the healing of Peter's
mother-in-law follows the call by the sea
of Galilee. Historical probability is, how
ever, all in favour of some previous ac
quaintance of Peter with the Master before
he would be ready to obey the call to
follow Him and to become a fisher of men,
and the account given in Mark of these
things is altogether too fragmentary to
enable us to get a true perspective of the
progress of events.
We may say, then, that the Synoptic
narratives, collectively considered, do not
exclude the possibility of a prior acquaint
ance of Peter and Andrew and James
and John with Jesus before their call
by the sea of Galilee : and this acquaint
ance may not have been lacking in
intimacy ; and an informal discipleship
and partial companionship may well have
preceded the final call which followed upon
the miraculous draught of fishes. Then the
disciples threw in their lot with Jesus to

48 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
be trained by Him to become fishers of
men. Apart from the fact that St. Luke in his
account places the healing of Simon's
mother-in-law before the call at the lake
(an order of events, however, reversed in
Mark), we may observe that the reply of
Peter to Jesus, when the command to let
down the nets was given, suggests previous
knowledge of, and confidence in, Jesus:
"Master, we have toiled all night, and took
nothing, but at thy word I will let down
the nets."
So, then, we cannot discredit the Fourth
Gospel on the ground that it brings these
future apostles into a position of discipleship
under Jesus in the neighbourhood of the
Jordan and before the ministry in Galilee.
But there is the further difficulty. It has
been objected that the recognition and con
fession of the Messiahship of Jesus on the
part of these disciples in the Fourth Gospel
is premature. It is said that according to

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 49
the Synoptists this recognition did not
come until a later stage, when Peter made
his great confession at Caesarea Philippi
(Mark viii. 27, Matt. xvi. 13, Luke ix. 18).
And further, it is pointed out that when
the confession was made, Jesus strictly
charged His disciples not to make it known
that He was the Christ, whereas in the
Fourth Gospel the claim to Messiahship is
everywhere prominent and public.
Now if it be the case, as the Fourth
Gospel represents it to be, that some of
the first disciples of Jesus were led to Him
by the influence of the Baptist, who
directed them to Jesus as the One for
whose coming he had been preparing, it is
almost inconceivable that, even at that
early stage, there should not have been
some sort of recognition, or at any rate
hope, of His Messiahship. Surely the
Baptist knew that he had come to prepare
the way for the Messiah, nor did he make
any secret of the fact. And the story of
Value of Fourth Gospel. 5

50 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
the baptism of Jesus as we have it in the
Synoptists finds a place for the assertion of
His Messianic office ; for the voice from
heaven proclaims Him to be the Son of
God, which title at least implied Messiah-
ship, whatever further depth of meaning
it might contain. There is, of course, the
question : For whom was this voice
meant? Who heard it? It is not quite
olear from the narratives of Mark and
Matthew whether it was Jesus or John
who saw the Spirit like a dove descend,
and it is not said who heard the voice,
but only that there was a voice. In Mark
the voice addresses Jesus: Thou art My
beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.
In Matthew it speaks of, but not to,
Jesus : This is My beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased. St. Luke makes the
voice address Jesus, but he does not say
who heard it, nor who saw the Spirit.
He merely says that the heaven opened
and the Holy Spirit came down in bodily

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 51
form like a dove upon him, and a voice
came out of heaven: Thou art My beloved
Son, &c.
According to the Fourth Gospel it was
the Baptist who saw the Spirit descend on
Jesus, and there is no reason to suppose
that any other bystanders witnessed the
sign. It was for the Baptist ; and it must
have been from him that the story of the
baptism of Jesus came. He saw and he
bore witness that this was the Son of God
(John i. 34). It is a mistake to suppose
that this title thus applied to Jesus at this
early stage in the Fourth Gospel goes
beyond anything which we find at the
corresponding stage in the Synoptists. In
their pages Jesus is declared thus early to
be the Son of God, and there is no sugges
tion that this was a title to be kept secret.
Nor is there anything at all improbable in
the statement of the Fourth Evangelist
that the Baptist testified that he had seen
the sign of the descent of the Spirit like a

52 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
dove, and that He bore witness to the Son
of God.
Is it unlikely, then, we ask, that some of
the disciples of the Baptist, having been
thus directed by him to Jesus, should have
gone over to Him in the belief that He
was the Messiah? If Andrew believed the
testimony of the Baptist, would it not be
quite natural that he should say to his
brother Simon, as in the Fourth Gospel he
is represented as saying, We have found
the Messiah? As yet he believes Him to
be the Messiah only on the testimony of
another. His is at present a discovery of
hope rather than an assurance of faith,
which could only come later on when he
had learnt to know his Master. Perhaps
those first disciples were too ready at first
to call Jesus Messiah without realising
what it meant. And we find Jesus almost
rebuking Nathanael for a too hasty confes
sion. When Philip brought Nathanael to|
Jesus, who showed by His words addressed

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 53
to Nathanael that He knew what he had
been doing and of what he had been think
ing and perhaps also reading, Nathanael is
so struck by this that he acknowledges
that Philip must have been right when he
said to him, We have found him of whom
Moses in the law and the prophets did
write. He too readily confesses : " Rabbi,
Thou art the Son of God ; Thou art King
of Israel." Then comes what sounds like
a rebuke from Jesus : " Because I said unto
thee, I saw thee under the fig tree,
believest thou? Thou shalt see greater
things than these." And then he adds —
and the plural pronoun seems to show
that the words, though addressed to
Nathanael, were meant not for him
alone but for his fellow-disciples too : " Verily
verily, I say unto you, ye shall see the
heaven opened, and the angels of God
ascending and descending upon the Son of
Man." So, then, until they knew Jesus
to be the true link between earth and

54 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
heaven, the one Mediator between God and
man, they were incapable of making a
full confession of faith. If their hope was
already set on Him, they must pass
through much discipline and experience
before they could be said to know Him.
We may say, then, that the faith of these
early disciples of Jesus, who had passed to
Him from the Baptist, was, at this early
stage, of a very elementary character, and I
do not think that if the first chapter of our
Gospel be carefully read, it can be said
that the Evangelist represents it as other
wise. There is plenty of room left for
development, and that could only come
by their personal intercourse with the
Master. What gives special value to the
great confession of St. Peter at the later
stage is that it proceeds from personal
knowledge. He is not repeating what
another has said to him. Flesh and blood
have not revealed it to him, but the
Father in heaven. It is an act of personal

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 55
faith, proceeding from personal knowledge
and experience. This could not be said
of these confessions, really little better
than expressed hopes, which are recorded
in the first chapter of St. John. They are
worthy to be recorded, not because of what
they were then, but because of what
they developed into later.
It may perhaps seem useless to speculate
why our Lord should have made use of the
figure of the ladder in His conversation
with Nathanael, but something may be
said on this point in passing. It would
appear from the conversation that Na-
thanael's thoughts had been running on
the patriarch Jacob. It is difficult other
wise to understand the bearing of the
greeting of Jesus : " Behold an Israelite
indeed, in whom is no guile," and Na-
thanael's answer, which seems to show that
Jesus had read what was going on in
his mind, Whence knowest thou Me? We
learn from what follows that Nathanael

56 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
had been sitting under a fig - tree when
Philip called him, and Nathanael was as
much, if not more astonished that Jesus
knew this than that He was able to read
his thoughts. What was Philip doing
under the fig-tree? Possibly he had been
engaged in meditation or in reading, and
the subject that occupied him may well
have been the story of Jacob. Such a
supposition — it is but a conjecture after
all — gives unity to the whole incident and
would explain our Lord's reference to
Jacob's ladder, to which it hardly admits
of doubt that His words (i. 51) do refer.
This underlying unity may seem fanciful.
It was suggested to me many years ago
by one who has now been long dead. The
impression it made upon me as in itself
very likely is as strong now as it was then.
I do not propose in the present chapter to
discuss the point, referred to above, which
is made against the Fourth Gospel, namely,
that the Messiahship of Jesus is so much

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 57
to the fore and so widely talked about,
whereas in the Synoptists Jesus is repre
sented as urging silence on the point. It
is an objection which does not properly
concern us here, and it will be best to
reserve it for consideration at a later stage.
But we shall do well before closing this
chapter to say something about the story
of the ministry of the Baptist as given by
our Evangelist, regarding it, as we shall
now do, as proceeding from one who had
himself been a disciple of the Baptist, from
whom he passed to become a disciple of
Jesus. Indeed, the whole point of view taken by
the Evangelist seems to me to be that of a
disciple who honoured and reverenced his
master, and that not blindly, but with a
real appreciation of his powers and of his
limitations. He gave up this his first
master to follow and to be taught by
Another, but he remembers the former one
with gratitude and affection. He recognises

58 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
that the Baptist was divinely sent, but he
was not the light, nor did he claim to be
what he was not. He bore witness of the
light, and faithfully directed men away
from himself to that Other for whom he
came to prepare the way. He confessed,
and denied not — there is no wavering, no
uncertainty, no self-seeking — he confessed,
I am not the Christ.
It is this same Evangelist who records
the noble words of the Baptist spoken
when he was confronted by the growing
popularity of Jesus : " A man can receive
nothing, except it have been given him
from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me
witness that I said, I am not the Christ,
but that I am sent before Him. He that
hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the
friend of the bridegroom, which standeth
and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because
of the bridegroom's voice : this my joy,
therefore, is fulfilled. He must increase,
but I must decrease " (iii. 27-30).

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 59
What our Evangelist tells us of the
Baptist does not, then, concern his outward
appearance, nor his meat and drink, nor
does he say anything of the crowds that
came to him. He tells rather how the Bap
tist led some of his disciples away from
himself to follow Another. His theme is the
testimony of the Baptist to the Christ. He
is not ashamed to have given up his first
master to follow that Other, because for
this very purpose had he been a disciple
of the Baptist, that by him he might be
led on to become a disciple of Jesus. From
the Synoptists we learn nothing of how
some of the Baptist's disciples became
disciples of Jesus. But if the work of the
Baptist was what the Synoptists declare it
to have been, namely, to prepare the way
for the Christ, it is hardly conceivable that
this work, faithfully carried out, could have
failed of this result — to supply disciples for
Him. The first chapter of the Fourth
Gospel shows the Baptist making this

60 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
supply, and he who wrote it was, I believe,
one who passed to discipleship under Jesus
through the faithful witness borne to Him
by the Baptist. He had learnt what the
Baptist had to teach him, which was to
follow Jesus. By transferring his allegiance
to the new Master he was really continuing,
in the only true way, his allegiance to the
old. It is one of the objections urged by
Schmiedel against the Johannine authorship
of the Fourth Gospel that the picture which
it gives of the Baptist and his ministry
does not accord with historical probability.
In the Fourth Gospel, he says,* the Baptist
knows not only the superior dignity of
Jesus as does Matthew (the reference here
being of course to the Baptist's protest, ?'I
have need to be baptized of Thee," which
Schmiedel regards as a later addition to
* See his pamphlet in the series ReUgionsgeschicM-
Uche Volksbiicher entitled Das Vierte Evangelium
gegeniiber den drei ersten, p. 64. I have given a
somewhat free rendering of his words.

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 61
the original story) and that He was des
tined to be the redeemer of the whole
world, but also his previous life with God
in heaven (St. John i. 15, 30). The task of
the Baptist, then, is exclusively confined to
bearing witness to Jesus. Not for a
moment has his baptism value for those
who have a share in it; he practises it
only that he may be able to witness for
Jesus. There is no mention anywhere of
his preaching of repentance. His later
question, whether Jesus were the Messiah,
would, therefore, be altogether impossible,
for he would then be guilty of a sinful
doubt respecting that which had been re
vealed to him by God. According to the
original account of the Synoptists, on the
other hand, he knew nothing up to this
time which put him into a position to
decide this question (for Schmiedel considers
the voice at the baptism to have been
addressed to, and heard only by, Jesus).
In short, he says, instead of a strong,

62 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
though in its spiritual outlook limited per
sonality, worthy of honour in His tragic
death, the Fourth Gospel exhibits nothing
but a secondary figure endowed with super
natural knowledge, but wanting in colour
true to life, who merely has to serve to
reveal the majesty of Jesus.
I consider that these objections are in
large part answered by what has been al
ready said of the Evangelist's point of view
in recording the Baptist's ministry. It is
perfectly true that the interest, for the
Evangelist, of the Baptist is in the witness
he bore to the Christ. This witness had,
indeed, as we believe, been the first step
towards the writer's discipleship with Jesus.
But Schmiedel overstates his case when he
lays so much stress on the supernatural
knowledge of the Baptist, and certainly
when he says that the Baptist knew of the
previous life of Jesus with God in heaven.
The Baptist's witness as recorded by our
Evangelist runs (i. 15) : " This was He of

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 63
whom I said, He that cometh after me is
become before me : for He was before me
(on irpwrog fiov »)v)." And again in verse 30 :
"This is He of whom I said, After me
cometh a man (avrjp) which is become before
me, for He was before me." To interpret
these sayings, as Schmiedel does, as if they
evidenced the Baptist's knowledge of the
previous life of Jesus in heaven, is to make
the thought of the prologue of the Gospel
the thought of the Baptist, instead of the ripe
belief of the Evangelist himself. It seems
fitting to quote the words of the late
Bishop Westcott * : " ' After ' and ' before
are both used in a metaphorical sense from
the image of progression in a line. He who
comes later in time comes 'after,' and he
who advances in front shows by that his
superior power. The supposed reference to
the pre-existence of the Word, as if the
Baptist said, ' He that cometh after me in
respect of my present mission hath already
* Commentary on St. John.

64 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
been active among men before I was born,'
seems to be inconsistent with the argu
ment, which points to a present consequence
(is now come to be), of an eternal truth
(He was before me)."
Then next, Schmiedel considers that the
Baptist's knowledge of the Messianic dignity
of Jesus, as represented in St. John, is in
consistent with the message of inquiry
recorded in the Synoptists : " Art thou he
that should come, or do we look for
another?" But it is surely a mistake to
imagine that this question proves that the
Messiahship of Jesus was something which
had not engaged his mind before, something
as to which he had had no information hither
to. The very answer of Jesus, " Blessed is
he whosoever shall not be offended in Me,"
points to the fact that the Baptist's faith
was being sorely tried as he lay in his
prison. And what otherwise, we ask, would
be the meaning of the question of Jesus
after the disciples of John had departed —

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 65
"What went ye out into the wilderness to
see, a reed shaken with the wind?" It is
surely true to experience that the spiritual
enlightenment of one period of life seems
insufficient at a later time of deep spiritual
depression and that he who experiences
this is ready to seek for fresh assurances
of his former certainty, which has become
dimmed. Something has already been said on the
question, To whom was the voice at the
baptism of Jesus audible? Schmiedel con
siders that it was heard by Jesus only.
But the Synoptists, if they do not state
that it was so, certainly do not exclude the
possibility that the voice was audible to the
Baptist. And I can see nothing at all un
likely in the testimony which the Baptist
gives, according to the fourth Evangelist,
respecting the sign of the descent of the
Spirit upon Jesus.
If it had been the purpose of our Evan
gelist to write a history of the Baptist's
Value of Fourth Gospel. Q

66 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST
ministry, then, knowing what we do of
this from the Synoptists, we should say
that he had failed. But, as it is, his purpose
was to give the Baptist's witness to Jesus
as the Christ, which witness had meant all
that it had done for the Evangelist him
self. In this he has certainly not failed ;
nor is there, so far as I can see, in the
narrative portion of the first chapter of
our Evangelist anything which goes beyond
the bounds of historical probability. Indeed
the more I consider it, the more probablje
does the whole story become, filling up, als
it does, what are undoubtedly gaps in the
Synoptic narrative, and affording us an
explanation of the story of the baptism of
Jesus in the other three Gospels. If our
account of the matter be correct, then that
story goes back to the testimony of the
Baptist himself.

THE BETRAYAL

CHAPTER III

THE BETRAYAL

IT has been explained in the first chapter
that it is our purpose, first of all, to
examine those sections of the Fourth Gospel
which cover ground already traversed by the
Synoptists, in order to decide whether the
narrative is consistent with the Synoptic
narrative, and whether the differences and
additions are such as to justify the tradition
of the Christian Church that the fourth
Evangelist was a personal disciple of Jesus.
In the preceding chapter we have applied
our method to the story of the ministry of
the Baptist.
We now pass over the whole story of

70 THE BETRAYAL
the public ministry of Jesus, because the
points of view of our Evangelist and of
the Synoptists are so widely different in
regard to it. In the present chapter we
shall consider the account, given us in the
Fourth Gospel, of the betrayal of Jesus.
The fourth Evangelist agrees with the
Synoptists in representing the death of
Jesus to have been brought about through
the treachery of Judas. He does not,
however, record the actual covenant of
betrayal made with the chief priests for
thirty pieces of silver. But, like Mark and
Matthew, he reports the anointing of Jesus
at Bethany, upon which, according to these
other Evangelists, the agreement made by
Judas with the chief priests followed closely.
This anointing evidently took place when
Jesus was reclining at the table. This is
explicitly stated by Mark and by the
fourth Evangelist. We find in the Fourth
Gospel more particularity of statement than
in the other Gospels, and names are given.

THE BETRAYAL 71
It is true that it does not mention by name
Simon the leper, in whose house, according
to Mark and Matthew, the event took
place, but it mentions Martha as serving,
and Lazarus as one of the guests at the
supper ; and whereas Mark and Matthew
speak, without naming her, of a woman
who came and anointed Jesus, our Evan
gelist tells us that this woman was Mary,
doubtless intending the sister of Martha.
With these two sisters he has already made
us familiar in the story of the raising of
their brother Lazarus. The expression used
by the Evangelist to describe the ointment
is much the same as that employed by
Mark (John — pvpov vapoov wuttiktiq TroX.vrip.ov,
Mark — pipov vapSov Trio-TiKrjg iroXureXovg), the
epithet irufriieog, here applied, being of un
certain meaning. There is a difference
between our Evangelist and the other two,
in that he speaks of the anointing of the
feet of Jesus, they of that of His head.
The former seems more probable when once

72 THE BETRAYAL
the feast had begun. The Evangelist
specially emphasises that it was the feet,
for the order of his words is: "She
anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped with
her hair his feet." He adds the little touch,
suggestive of his own presence on the
occasion, that the house was filled with
the odour of the ointment.
Mark and Matthew tell us that there
arose a murmuring among some present
that the ointment should be thus wasted,
instead of being sold and given to the
poor. The fourth Evangelist says that this
complaint came from Judas Iscariot. Nor
is he likely to be wrong in this, for the
other two Evangelists place the going away
of Judas, to sell Jesus to the chief priests,
in close juxtaposition with this incident.
Our Evangelist gives us information,
peculiar to him, about Judas Iscariot,
namely, that he had the money bag,
which fact is repeated in xiii. 29. This is
a fact — supposing it to be a fact — which

THE BETRAYAL 73
would hardly be known outside the circle
of the disciples.
We see, then, that this section of our
Gospel which records the anointing of
Jesus in the house at Bethany abounds in
particularity of detail. The author writes
as one who either knew the details or
pretended to know them.
We come now to the story of the actual
betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane. The
intervening events, namely, the triumphal
entry into Jerusalem and the Last Supper,
will come before us in later chapters.
Our Gospel agrees with the Synoptists in
making the arrest of Jesus take place out
side Jerusalem. The name Gethsemane,
which Matthew and Mark give to the spot.
is not found in the Fourth Gospel. But
the Evangelist calls the place "a garden"
(Kijiroe), and tells us that Jesus passed to
it with His disciples after crossing the
brook Kidron. He adds that it was a place
whither Jesus often resorted with His

74 THE BETRAYAL
disciples, and this was how Judas knew it.
This is a detail that would be known to
the select circle, and the mention of it is
intelligible if the writer belonged to that
circle. It is a striking fact that no mention is
made in the Fourth Gospel of the Agony
in the Garden. It is the more striking,
as, according to the Synoptists, John was
himself one of the three chosen by Jesus
to watch while He went further on to pray.
We cannot, however, argue that what a
writer does not mention he does not know
of. Possibly our Evangelist felt that he had
nothing to add to what was already written
in the other Gospels on the subject, and he
may characteristically have chosen not to
mention an incident to which his own name
attached in the other Gospels.
We come now to the arrival of Judas
Iscariot upon the scene. According to the
Synoptists, he was accompanied by a multi
tude (oxXog) armed with swords and staves,

THE BETRAYAL 75
and coming from the chief priests and
elders. There is no explicit mention of
the presence of soldiers. In the Fourth
Gospel, however, it is distinctly stated that
there were soldiers; Judas having received
(1) the band (rrjv awupav) and (2) officers
from the chief priests and the Pharisees.
There can be no question that "the band"
was one of soldiers, and they were led by
an officer called in v. 12 a Chiliarch. A
clear distinction is made between the band
of soldiers, which would, of course, be
supplied by the Roman governor, and the
officers who were from the Jewish authori
ties. Our Evangelist tells us that they came
with lanterns and torches and weapons
(o7tXojv). It may be remarked in passing
that the mention of lanterns and torches,
of which nothing is said by the Synoptists,
suggests that we have here the evidence
of an eyewitness. These lights would give
a character to the scene which would impress
one who was there.

76 THE BETRAYAL
But exception has been taken to the
presence of the band of soldiers in the Fourth
Gospel. The objection is really a twofold
one. First it is said that it is not likely
that there were any soldiers at all; and
secondly it is contended that, even if there
were some, there could not be so many as
the term o-wiipa, here used, implies.
In answer to the first objection it may
be said that not only is it a priori probable
that there would be soldiers, but also their
presence seems to be required by the Synoptic
account. Westcott says very pertinently :
" It is difficult to suppose that the priests
would have ventured on such an arrest as
that of Christ without communicating with
the Roman governor, or that Pilate would
have found any difficulty in granting them
a detachment of men for the purpose,
especially at the feast time. Moreover,
Pilate's early appearance at the court, no
less than the dream of his wife, implies
some knowledge of the coming charge."

THE BETRAYAL 77
Westcott further adds : " Perhaps it is not
too fanciful to see a reference to the
soldiers in the turn of the phrase ' twelve
legions of angels ' (Matt. xxvi. 53)."
According to the Synoptists, the multitude,
which came to take Jesus, was equipped with
swords and staves. It is very unlikely that
the Jewish " officers '' who formed the temple
guard or police would be permitted by the
Roman authorities to carry arms. And if
this be so, there must have been Roman
soldiers in this "multitude." It is likely
enough that the Jewish "officers" had
power to effect an arrest in the temple
itself, but it may be questioned whether
any such power would have been allowed
them outside. If the armed power of Rome
had been called in, we can well understand
the protest made by Jesus (Mark xiv. 48,
49) : " Are ye come out as against a robber,
with swords and staves to seize me? I was
daily with you in the temple teaching, and
ye took me not."

78 THE BETRAYAL
I do not think, then, that exception can
reasonably be taken to the presence of the
soldiery, in the Fourth Gospel, among those
who came to arrest Jesus. But then it is
urged that the term 17 airetpa which the
Evangelist uses proves the narrative to be
quite unreliable. For airetpa is the Greek
equivalent of the Latin 'cohors,' which
denotes the tenth part of a legion. It is
true that airetpa is used in Polybius (11, 23)
to denote a maniple, which was only the
thirtieth part of a legion, but the use of
the term Chiliarch (v. 12), which was the
Greek equivalent of 'tribunus,' the com
mander of a cohort, seems to require us
to take airetpa in the context as equivalent
to 'cohors,' which would be a body of six
hundred men.
Now it certainly does not seem at all
probable that so large an armed force as
this would have been employed for the
arrest of an unarmed man ; and if the
narrative of our Evangelist made it neces-

THE BETRAYAL 79
sary for us to understand it so, there would
be a considerable shaking of our faith in his
reliability. It is possible to take up the position that
the Evangelist does not use the words airetpa
and xiXiapxoe in their technical sense. A
serious objection, however, to this is the use,
of the definite article with airetpa the first
time the word occurs, for we read : " Judas
having received the band &c." If airetpa be
not used technically, the force of the article
could not well be anything but 'the band
necessary for his purpose ' ; that is to say,
the band needed to effect the arrest. This
interpretation seems unsatisfactory, and it is
more natural to adopt the technical meaning
of airetpa. The force of the article would
then be ' the cohort garrisoned in Jerusalem,'
in the tower of Antonia. We find the same
definiteness with apparently this meaning in
Acts xxi. 31, where we read : " Tidings came to
the chief captain of the band (ri£ %iXiapxty tijc
oTTEi/or/e) that all Jerusalem was in confusion."

80 THE BETRAYAL
But while it is hardly to be supposed that
the whole garrison would turn out to effect
the arrest of Jesus, there is no difficulty
in supposing that a detachment was sent.
A detachment acting for the whole might
be spoken of as if it were the whole, in
much the same way as we, in English, speak
of " the police." By this term we sometimes
mean the whole body of the police, but
such a statement as "the police have made
an arrest" would be understood to mean
that some of the police had done so. If
we read in a book that a person having got
the police went off to effect an arrest, we
should not suppose that every policeman in
the place went with him. And in the
passage before us we need not understand
that the whole body of Roman troops
stationed in Jerusalem went with Judas.
If, then, we once admit that the Synoptic
narrative does not exclude, even though
it does not explicitly mention, the presence
of Roman soldiers among those who came

THE BETRAYAL 81
with Judas to take Jesus, there does not
appear to be anything extravagant in the
statement of the fourth Evangelist.
We shall now pass on to our Evangelist's
story of the arrest. We mark that he does
not say anything of the kiss of Judas,
which the Synoptists tell us was the sign
by which those who were to make the arrest
might know which was the person to be
taken. The account of the matter in our
Gospel is as follows : " Jesus therefore know
ing all things that were coming upon him
went forth, and saith unto them, Whom
seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of
Nazareth ('Irjo-ouv rbv NaZwpatov). Jesus saith
unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which
betrayed him, was standing with them.
When therefore he said unto them, I am
he, they went backward, and fell to the
ground. Again therefore he asked them,
Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of
Nazareth. Jesus answered, I told you that
I am he : if therefore ye seek me, let these
Value of Fourth Gospel. 7

82 THE BETRAYAL
go their way: that the word might be ful
filled which he spake, Of those whom thou
hast given me I lost not one."
Then follows the incident of the cutting
off of the ear of the high priest's servant.
Our Evangelist here, according to his usual
habit, gives names. He tells us that it was
Peter who thus drew the sword, and that
the servant's name was Malchus. These are
details unknown to the Synoptists, or, at
any rate, unrecorded by them. They are
details which would be known to the writer,
supposing him to have been present at the
scene, and also to have been known to the
high priest (xviii. 10).
But the historical probability of the scene
as described by our Evangelist has been
strongly controverted. Schmiedel * considers
that a book in which, as he says, the mean
ing of the Eucharistic supper is given a
year before it took place, in which five
* Das vierte EvangeVvwm, gegeniiber den drei ersten
p. 107.

THE BETRAYAL 83
hundred if not a thousand Roman soldiers
go backward and fall to the ground before
Him, whom they were to arrest, at the
words " I am he," and in which a hundred
pounds of spices are applied for the embalm
ing of the body of Jesus, should for these
reasons alone be saved from any such mis
understanding as that it is a report of
actual events.
We are only concerned here with the
second of these objections. We may at once
put aside " the five hundred, if not a
thousand Roman soldiers," for we do not
suppose that the Evangelist means that the
whole cohort of soldiers was employed. But
Schmiedel would probably still object to
the account given by the Evangelist, even
if the number of soldiers were reduced to
one of not more than two figures.
Now I do not see how it can be reason
ably denied that the behaviour of Jesus as
represented here is just what the perfect
unselfishness and general considerateness of

84 THE BETRAYAL
His character would have led us to expect.
We see Him ready to give Himself up to the
authorities, who demanded His arrest, and
to save His disciples from all molestation.
There is certainly nothing in the statement
made by the Evangelist, that Jesus knew
all things that were coming upon Him, that
is at all improbable, for the Synoptists
report in clearest terms that He had fore
told to His disciples His crucifixion and that
He had a clear foreknowledge of the
treachery of Judas. It is going beyond
all reasonable criticism to say that the
Evangelist is here making Jesus less human
than do the Synoptists. And the scene is
certainly graphically depicted, so much so
that if the Evangelist be not recording that
of which he had had actual experience, we
must allow that he was indeed a consum
mate artist.
We see Jesus first of all coming forward
and asking — possibly addressing Himself to
the Chiliarch in command of the soldiers —

THE BETRAYAL 85
"Whom seek ye ?" This was not a superfluous
question. For though Jesus knew the mean
ing of the kiss of Judas, this was never
theless no straightforward answer to His
question, for Judas had merely greeted Him
as a friend, pretending still to belong to
the circle of disciples. There had been no
proper statement made which would render
the question of Jesus inappropriate. The
answer, then, is given : " Jesus the Nazarene."
And Jesus said : " I am He." And then the
Evangelist adds : " And Judas also which
betrayed him was standing with them."
This is a statement which appears at
first sight superfluous. But if the writer
be describing an actual scene of which he
had been the witness, we can understand
the impression that must have been made
on his mind when the treachery of Judas
was thus proved. The kiss which Judas
had given his Master could tell the disciples
nothing. It was calculated to make it
appear that he was still one of themselves,

86 THE BETRAYAL
but he is now seen standing with those who
have come to take Jesus. He is proved to
be a traitor.
And now comes the statement of the
Evangelist: "When, therefore, he said unto
them, I am he, they went backward and
fell to the ground." Now this either took
place or it did not. If it did, there must
have been some reason for this conduct
though we may not be able to discover it ;
if it did not take place and the Evangelist
is only inventing particulars, then this
particular invention must have had a
reason. And what satisfactory reason, we
may ask, can be assigned ? The only
reason suggested is that it is a design of
the Evangelist to extol Jesus and to
heighten in some way the dignity of His
person and of His commanding presence.
This indeed is a fault which is thought by
opponents of the historical worth of the
Gospel to pervade the whole book. Well,
they may be right, but the present instance

THE BETRAYAL 87
is a very unconvincing proof of this*
tendency. The character of Judas is one of the
strangest puzzles in the New Testament.
He does not appear to have wished that
Jesus should be condemned to death. It
has been thought that his purpose was to
force Jesus to declare Himself, and there
may well have been some subtle design,
as hard for us to read as the character of
Judas himself, in this conduct on the part
of those who had come to arrest Jesus.
Judas, who, as we read, was standing with
them, may have taken the lead in this
strange behaviour which the others may
have followed without quite knowing why.
But the point to observe is that whatever
its purpose, Jesus, according to the narra
tive, was impatient of it. He asked them
again: "Whom seek ye?" And when they
repeated their answer, "Jesus the Nazarene,"
He replied with an obvious tone of just
impatience : " I told you that I am he : if

88 THE BETRAYAL
therefore ye seek me, let these go their
way." If the Evangelist meant to repre
sent this act of the soldiers and of the
officers of the Jews as one of homage to
Jesus, he strangely contradicts himself by
making it very unacceptable to Him to
whom it was offered. The rejection of it
would imply that it was no true homage ;
and if it is no true homage, it can in no
way add to or heighten the dignity of the
Christ. It seems far more likely that this
conduct savoured of an excessive politeness,
wholly inappropriate to the occasion and
utterly distasteful to Him to whom it was
offered ; for plainly He rejected it. I can
see no evidence here of any such design on
the part of the writer as is attributed to
him. We need not surely lose patience with
our Evangelist because he records a fact
which we find it hard, if not impossible,
to explain.
Again, it cannot fairly be argued that the
readiness of Jesus to surrender Himself, as

THE BETRAYAL 89
this is exhibited in our Gospel, is out of
accord with the mental struggle which the
Synoptists depict in what is usually called
the Agony in the Garden. For this struggle
was over before Judas appeared upon the
scene. Jesus knew now that the cup must
be drunk ; and the words which the Fourth
Gospel puts into His mouth in His reproof
of Peter for using the sword — "The cup
which the Father hath given me, shall I
not drink it ? " — are reminiscent of the
struggle through which He had passed.
We may remark that our Evangelist, who
is thought by those who regard him as
unhistorical to carry miracle to excess, says
nothing of Jesus healing the ear of Malchus.
If he were wanting in this passage to lay
emphasis on the divine power of Jesus, as
is contended by those who object to his
representation of the conduct of the men
in going backward and falling to the ground,
he loses his opportunity in omitting to men
tion a proof of it which lay ready to his

90 THE BETRAYAL
hand in the pages of St. Luke. Apparently
the underlying thought of this section of
our Gospel is not the miracle-working power
of Jesus, but His perfect self-surrender and
readiness to bear all that was destined for
Him by the will of heaven. He is ready to
bear all Himself, and shows Himself eager
to spare His disciples all share in the
persecution which He Himself was to
undergo. And if it be said that the
freedom He gives to His disciples renders
nugatory the statement of the Synoptists
that they all forsook Him and fled, the
answer will be that the freedom extended
to them laid upon them the responsibility
of the choice between withdrawal from Him
and following Him with their sympathy.
While He was anxious to spare them per
secution, they were only too ready to
desert Him through fear of consequences
to themselves. Not that we are in a
position to judge them. Their conduct was
very human, while His was divine.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS

CHAPTER IV

THE TRIAL OF JESUS

TTTE shall now consider the report given
by the fourth Evangelist of the
Trial of Jesus. According to the Synoptists
Jesus was tried before Caiaphas, the high
priest, and afterwards before Pilate, and
St. Luke mentions a quasi-trial before
Herod. The fourth Evangelist tells also of
a previous examination of the Prisoner
before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
It is difficult to see what motive could be
suggested for the insertion of this notice
of an examination before Annas unless it
really took place. There is certainly nothing
antecedently improbable in it, for it is well
93

94 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
known that Annas wielded enormous influ
ence, though he had long ago been deposed
from the high-priesthood, now held by his
son-in-law. Exception has been taken to the statement
of our Evangelist that Caiaphas was high
priest that year. It has been said that this
proves the writer to have been under the
erroneous impression that the high-priest
hood was a yearly office. This point is
mentioned here by the way, and it must be
left to the reader to judge whether such a
mistake is at all probable in a writer who,
it must be allowed, shows himself through
out well informed about, and thoroughly con
versant with, Jewish matters and customs.
Returning to the examination of Jesus
before Annas, we notice that it fits in
remarkably well with the account given by
St. Luke of the arrest and trial. For he
tells how Jesus was taken from the place
of His arrest to the high priest's house
(otiu'av), and then a considerable interval

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 95
elapsed, during which the threefold denial
of Peter occurred, before the meeting of the
Sanhedrin, which is said to have taken
place before it was day. There is then
nothing at all impossible in the course of
events in the Fourth Gospel. The Evangelist,
like St. Luke, puts the denial of Peter
before the trial before Caiaphas ; and the
filling up of the interval of time between
the arrest and the formal arraignment
before the Sanhedrin by an informal
examination by, or at any rate in the
presence of, the influential Annas . certainly
seems highly probable. Whether this ex
amination took place in the house of Annas
or in the palace of the high priest Caiaphas
is a question which cannot be positively
determined. For my own part I take it
that it was held in the palace of Caiaphas,
but the uncertainty arises from our in
ability to decide whether our Evangelist
intends Annas or Caiaphas when he speaks
of the high priest in xviii. 15 and 19. The

96 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
title apxtepevg could be and certainly was
applied to Annas after his deposition from
the high-priesthood, and indeed the term
is used with some elasticity, and we read
of apxiepetg, rendered by " chief priests " in
our English translation. But as in verse 13
the Evangelist says expressly that Caiaphas
was high priest and he does not there
apply any title to Annas, merely describing
him as the father-in-law of Caiaphas, it
seems most natural that when he immedi
ately afterwards speaks of 6 apxiep^ig he
should mean him who has been so desig
nated, namely Caiaphas. On the other
hand, if 6 apxiepevg in verse 19 refers to
Caiaphas, then the Evangelist records no
examination made by Annas, and the
questions put to Jesus respecting His
doctrine came from Caiaphas. In this case
the statement of verse 24, that Annas sent
Jesus bound to Caiaphas, may seem wanting
in point. But of course the examination,
whether made by Annas himself or by

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 97
Caiaphas in the presence of his father-in-
law, was quite informal, and when Jesus is
sent bound to Caiaphas the high priest
(v. 24) it is that He may be formally
arraigned before the Sanhedrin.
The matter is, however, not one of great
importance. The statement made by our
Evangelist that there was an informal
examination made before the meeting of
the Sanhedrin is extremely probable, and
we have seen that St. Luke's narrative
leaves room for it, though he does not
actually mention it. Moreover the state
ment of our Evangelist that this exami
nation took place before Annas, if not by
him, is also probable, considering the
influence which he is known to have had.
Indeed it seems to me that we have here
one of those touches which show the
Evangelist to have been accurately informed.
This of course he would be if he is to be
identified with the other disciple (v. 15) who
was known to the high priest.
Value of Fourth Gospel. g

98 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
The story of the denial of Peter, who
accompanied this other disciple to the
palace of the high priest, is told in our
Gospel in such a circumstantial way that it
is difficult to believe that it is other than
historically correct. Like St. Luke, differing
here from the other Synoptists, our Evan
gelist makes the denial take place before
the meeting of the Sanhedrin. He tells us
that the first of the three denials occurred
as Peter entered into the palace of the
high priest. 'The other disciple,' whom
we take to be the fourth Evangelist, and
who was known to the high priest, gained
admission to the palace, and in view of
the fact that he was no stranger he was
able to persuade the portress to admit
Peter. Nor was the question put by the
portress to Peter, " Art thou also one of
this man's disciples?" an unnatural one.
Probably she knew John to be a disciple ;
hence the point of the word 'also.' But
Peter, afraid, said, "I am not." Our

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 99
Evangelist then tells us that Peter passed
to the fire and stood and warmed himself
with the servants and the officers, who
had made a fire of coals, for it was cold.
One who had himself experienced the
cold of that night would naturally remem
ber the fact.
The other two denials are placed by our
Evangelist after the examination of Jesus
respecting His disciples and His teaching,
and the record of them follows immediately
on the words : " Annas therefore sent him
bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." Then,
as Simon Peter stood and warmed himself,
those who were with him questioned him:
"Art thou also one of his disciples?" He
denied, and said, "I am not." Then one of
the servants of the high priest being, the
Evangelist tells us, a kinsman of him
whose ear Peter cut off, said, "Did I not
see thee in the garden with him?" Peter
denied again : and straightway the cock
crew.

100 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
It has been pointed out* that the state
ment made by St. Luke that on the third
denial the Lord turned and looked upon
Peter would find a simple explanation if
the narrative of the Fourth Gospel be
accurate, for, according to it, the last two
of the three denials occurred as Jesus was
being taken before Caiaphas. If then Peter
denied Jesus just as He was being led
past the place where Peter was, what
more natural than that Jesus should have
turned to look at him, and that that look
should have brought tears of bitter sorrow
into Peter's eyes?
It may be noted, too, that St. Luke
places an interval of about an hour be
tween the first and second denials of
Peter, and with this the narrative of the
Fourth Gospel agrees, in that it implies
that the examination took place in the
meanwhile. Of course it is open to
* Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible in the article
on "Annas."

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 101
objectors to say that our Evangelist had
St. Luke's Gospel to help him in the con
struction of his own, and therefore points
of agreement prove nothing. But it is
difficult to see how the Evangelist could
have constructed his narrative about these
matters with all its circumstantial detail
if he had not been possessed of information
more accurate and detailed than he could
possibly glean from the other Gospels.
Our Evangelist tells us nothing of the
trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, though
we see that he knew of it from his state
ment that Jesus was sent bound to
Caiaphas. It may seem idle to speculate
why he is silent on this point, but it is
probable that he had nothing to add to
what the Synoptists had written about it,
and moreover it contributed little to the
ultimate condemnation of Jesus, which
had to come from Pilate. The Evangelist
has already described in brief and striking
terms the attitude of the high priest by

102 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
saying : " Caiaphas was he which gave
counsel to the Jews that it was expedient
that one man should die for the people."
The trial before the Sanhedrin was no
true trial at all. It was merely an
attempt so to implicate Jesus that the
counsel of Caiaphas might appear justified.
But when our Evangelist comes to tell
the story of the arraignment before Pilate
he gives very full information, and only
the most obstinate prejudice will fail to see
in this account a very accurate knowledge
of what took place. We gain from St.
John a far more exact idea of the stages
by which Pilate was led on to consent
to the death of Jesus than could ever
be derived from the pages of the Synop
tists; Pilate is so set before us in this
Gospel that we are constrained to acknow
ledge that here, even if nowhere else in
the book, we have the picture of a
historical reality. The only reasonable
exception, as it seems to me, that can be

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 103
taken to this part of the story of our
Evangelist is that it says nothing of Pilate
sending Jesus to Herod. But it is easily
possible to combine the narratives of
St. Luke and St. John so as to have a
consistent whole.
Our Evangelist begins by stating that
Jesus was led from Caiaphas into the
Praetorium while it was early, and he
explains the peculiar way in which the
trial had to be conducted because the
Jewish accusers refused to enter into the
Praetorium, lest they should be defiled,
and so might not eat the passover.
Exception may be taken to this statement
on the ground that the passover had
already taken place. This is a point,
however, the consideration of which we
must defer until a later chapter. I may
say here in anticipation that I take the
view that our Evangelist is right, and
that the passover was to take place the
next evening.

104 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
The prisoner then was within, and the
accusers without, and Pilate has to conduct
the case by passing from the one to the
others. He goes out therefore to ask the
accusers what their accusation was. Instead
of bringing a direct charge they reply
evasively: "If this man were not an evil
doer, we should not have delivered him
up unto thee." Now we know from the
Synoptists that the Sanhedrin, after seeking
to find some cause of death in Jesus, had
at last found it in His confession of
Messiahship, which they interpreted as
blasphemy. Satisfied that for this He
deserved to die, but unable to carry out
the sentence themselves, they had come
to Pilate, evidently hoping that he would
consent. If, as we suppose, he had already
allowed them the necessary band of soldiers
to arrest Jesus, they may have interpreted
this to mean his readiness to acquiesce
in their verdict. But instead they find
that Pilate requires a definite accusation,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 105
which they were not prepared for. In their
opinion Jesus was an evil-doer; should not
this suffice? Pilate then replies with some
sarcasm that if he is not to decide the
case but they, then judgment must pro
ceed from them and not from him : " Take
him yourselves and judge him according
to your law." To which the Jews replied:
"It is not lawful for us to put any man
to death." By their answer they showed
to Pilate that it was a death sentence that
they required and not an equitable judg
ment of the case according to Roman law.
The Evangelist finds this incident worthy
of record because, as he significantly adds,
the inability of the Jews to put any man
to death brought about the fulfilment of
the word of Jesus which he had spoken,
signifying what manner of death He should
die. That Jesus had so spoken and fore
told His crucifixion, the Synoptists plainly
declare ; so that our Evangelist cannot be
accused of ascribing here undue foreknow
ledge to Jesus.

106 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
The Evangelist does not state that the
accusers then preferred a case against the
Prisoner, but it seems to be implied in
the subsequent conduct of Pilate, who
entered again into the Praetorium and,
calling Jesus, asked Him : " Art thou the
king of the Jews ? " Jesus proceeds to
inquire whether this is a charge brought
against Him as to which He must defend
Himself or whether it is an inquiry made
by Pilate. He asks : " Sayest thou this of
thyself, or did others tell it thee concern
ing me ? " Then comes Pilate's answer full
of contempt and scorn for the Jew : " Am
I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
priests have delivered thee unto me : what
hast thou done?"
When then Jesus is informed that there
is a charge laid against Him, He is ready
to defend Himself, because this is obviously
a matter as to which the Roman Governor
has a right to an answer. He defends
Himself, then, not by denying the charge,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 107
but by showing that it was misleading.
"My kingdom is not of this world: if my
kingdom were of this world, then would
my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews : but now is my
kingdom not from hence."
Is He then guilty of the charge they have
brought against Him ? Pilate asks Him :
"Art thou a king then?" Jesus answered:
" Thou sayest that I am king. To this end
have I been born, and to this end am I
come into the world, that I should bear
witness unto the truth. Every one that is
of the truth heareth my voice." And Pilate
asks: " What is truth ? "
But he sees clearly, whatever his attitude
of mind towards Jesus and His claims to
be a king, that this is no political case
and that no criminal offence has been com
mitted ; so he goes out again to the accusers
and says : " I find no fault in him."
At this point the account given by St.
Luke helps us. The accusers became more

108 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
urgent, he says, and accused Jesus of
stirring up the people, teaching throughout
all Judaea and beginning from Galilee even
to Jerusalem. Pilate, learning that the
prisoner was a Galilean, sends him to Herod,
who was at that time in Jerusalem. But
Herod could get no answer to the questions
he put to the prisoner, and sent Him back to
Pilate arrayed in a splendid robe. Neither
did he find any fault in Him touching the
things whereof He was accused.
Of all this our Evangelist says nothing.
Nor from his point of view was there any
need to mention it, for matters stood after
the visit to Herod exactly as they did before.
Pilate is in the same position now as then.
He can find no fault or crime in the Prisoner.
But at this point he shows signs of weakness.
He wishes to please the Jews, and so he
offers to release Jesus as a political prisoner.
It may seem strange that when the accusers
had so plainly shown that it was the death
of Jesus which they desired, Pilate should

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 109
have sought to satisfy them by setting Him
free. This is a trait in the story which
increases our confidence in the truth of it.
Pilate does not propose simply to release
Jesus, but to release Him as a political
offender in honour of the feast and accord
ing to custom. But the accusers would
have none of it. That would have been to
frustrate their whole design. They demanded
instead the release of the robber Barabbas.
Then Pilate, still exhibiting cowardly weak
ness, has Jesus scourged, hoping apparently
that by thus disgracing Him in the eyes
of the accusers he will satisfy their malice,
and be able to spare his own conscience the
guilt of the death of an innocent man.
The soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and
put it on Jesus' head and arrayed Him in
a purple garment — possibly the same as
that in which Herod had clothed Him* —
* There is an interesting article in the Jowrnal of
Theological Studies, April, 1909, by Dr. A. W. Verrall
on "Christ before Herod." I do not find myself in

110 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
and after they had mocked Him, Pilate
went out once more, still protesting that
he could find no crime in the man, and
exhibiting Jesus wearing the crown of thorns
and the purple garment. To their pity he
appeals, and possibly also to their sense of
humour, which he hopes may enable them
to see the absurdity of the charge they
have brought against Jesus. But to Pilate's
words, "Behold the man," they reply with
shouts : " Crucify him, crucify him." If
this is what they want, Pilate says, let
them do it themselves. "Take ye him and
crucify him, for I find no crime in him."
Then, and not till then, did the accusers
bring forward the charge on which they
agreement with the writer when he argues that
Herod's conduct, described in the original as ifiwai^ag
irtpifiakirv kaBrJTa Xa/iirp&v airbv, was not intended as a
piece of mockery. It seems to me that lp.itail.ac, cannot
be separated from irspifiaKuv as Dr. Verrall's interpre
tation of the passage requires. Herod mockingly
threw round Jesus a splendid robe and sent Him
to Pilate. This seems the natural meaning of the
passage.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 111
had already in the Sanhedrin declared Jesus
to be worthy of death : " We have a law,
and by that law he ought to die, because
he made himself the Son of God." And when
Pilate heard this he was the more afraid,
and he entered into the Praetorium again
and asked Jesus, "Whence art thou?" But
Jesus gave him no answer. He refused to
be questioned by Pilate, except so far as
the questions arose out of definite charges
of which Roman law required Pilate to
take account. And Pilate said unto Him :
" Speakest thou not unto me ? Knowest
thou not that I have authority to release
thee, and have authority to crucify thee ? "
To which Jesus replied : " Thou wouldest
have no authority against me except it
were given thee from above ; therefore he
that delivered me unto thee hath greater
sin." Hereupon Pilate sought to release
Jesus, but the Jews, detecting the weakness
Pilate had already shown, proceed to work
upon his fears: "If thou release this man,

112 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
thou art not Caesar's friend : every one
that maketh himself a king speaketh against
Caesar.'' And they were successful. Pilate
brought Jesus forth, and took his place on
the judgment seat at a place which the
Evangelist, with his usual particularity of
statement, says was called the Pavement,
and in Hebrew Gabbatha. His final appeal,
" Behold your king ! " and " Shall I crucify
your king ? " met only with the response
from the chief priests: "We have no king
but Caesar." And he delivered Jesus to be
crucified. We cannot say what is the point intended
by the Evangelist in mentioning that, when
Pilate took his place on the judgment seat,
it was the preparation of the passover, and
it was the sixth hour. Did he intend to
indicate that time was pressing and that
this business must be got over before the
feast? It may be so, but the sixth hour,
supposing this to mean six o'clock according
to our reckoning, that is six hours from

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 113
midnight, could not be considered late. Or
could it be that, regarding Jesus as the
true paschal lamb, as his words in xix. 36
show him to have done, he saw the fitness
of this day and hour for the sentence of
death now passed upon Him ? Or was there
something in the outward appearance of
the city at this moment which directed
attention to the character of the day, and
was the hour impressed on the mind of
the Evangelist by his experience of the
event? Or did he feel that the day and
hour of this dicision, so momentous in the
history of the world, deserved to be chroni
cled? These are questions that we cannot
answer.

Value of Fourth Gospel.

THE CRUCIFIXION

CHAPTER V

THE CRUCIFIXION

ZOOMING now to the account which our
Evangelist gives of the Crucifixion, we
observe that there is nothing in it which
conflicts in any way with the picture which
the Synoptists portray for us. The Fourth
Gospel contains much information not to
be found in the Synoptists, and is markedly
independent of them. It is in this Gospel
only that we are told that the title on the
cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and
Greek, and it is from it that we learn of
the altercation between the Jews and Pilate
as to the form of wording of the title. It
must be allowed that this has all the
116

118 THE CRUCIFIXION
appearance of historical truth. The account
given of the distribution of the garments of
Jesus among the soldiers is more fully told
than in the other Gospels, this being easily
explained, on the theory of the Johannine
authorship, by the presence of the Evange
list at the scene ; for it is immediately after
wards that he tells of the women at the
cross along with the disciple whom Jesus
loved. It is, however, open to objectors to
say that the story of the partition of the
garments among the soldiers is an embel
lishment of that given in the other Gospels
in order to make the event square with the
prophecy which the Evangelist quotes: —
"They parted my garments among them,
And upon my vesture did they cast lots."
The incident of the women and the be
loved disciple at the cross is also open to
the criticism of objectors on the ground
that our Evangelist brings them near to
the cross, whereas Mark and Matthew speak

THE CRUCIFIXION 119
of certain women looking on, but only from
far off. It is, however, not impossible that
these faithful women did approach the cross
as our Evangelist represents. But it is
hardly likely that they would be there the
whole time. They may well have retired
when the beloved disciple took Mary, the
mother of Jesus, to his house as he seems
to have done immediately (xix. 27). The
other women may have returned to view
the scene from afar and have afterwards
taken part in the burial as St. Luke
reports. It is certainly a point worthy of
notice that the women mentioned in Mark
and Matthew as watching from far off can
be satisfactorily identified with those (other
than the Lord's mother) standing by the
cross in the Fourth Gospel.
Mark and Matthew give the names of
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James
the less and of Joses, and Salome. In the
Fourth Gospel we have, besides Mary the
mother of Jesus, His mother's sister, not

120 THE CRUCIFIXION
named, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary
Magdalene. There is a way of interpreting
the Evangelist's words so that Mary the
wife of Clopas would be identical with the
sister of the mother of Jesus. This does
not commend itself to me, for the inter
pretation would require two sisters to bear
the same name. I adopt Westcott's under
standing of the passage and take it that
the Evangelist mentions four women: (1)
the mother of Jesus, (2) His mother's sister,
(3) Mary the wife of Clopas, (4) Mary
Magdalene. Now Mary the wife of Clopas is satis
factorily indentified with Mary the mother
of James the less and of Joses, for James
was the son of Alphaeus (Mark iii. 18), and
it seems likely that Clopas and Alphaeus are
Greek equivalents of a common Aramaic.
Thus the four women mentioned by our
Evangelist will be the mother of Jesus and
the same three women named by Mark
and Matthew, provided that Salome be

THE CRUCIFIXION 121
identical with the sister of the mother of
Jesus. And such I take her to have been.
Our Evangelist, whom we identify with St.
John, does not name his own mother Salome,
but describes her as the sister of Jesus'
mother. Such an indirect description agrees
with his usual manner, which, as we have
seen, forbids him to name himself.
Westcott has pointed out that the iden
tification of Salome with the sister of Jesus'
mother helps us to understand better why
Jesus should have intrusted His mother to
the care of St. John, this being explained
by the relationship between them.
A careful examination, then, of this par
ticular section of our Gospel reveals an
agreement with the Synoptists too subtle
to explain except on the hypothesis that we
have here the record of an actual occur
rence. If this be not history, but only an
ideal presentation of the devotion of the
writer who impersonates the beloved dis
ciple, then it must be admitted that the

122 THE CRUCIFIXION
picture he gives is one of consummate art.
From a comparison of this passage with
the Synoptists we are confirmed in our
belief that our Evangelist is indeed John
the son of Zebedee. But if not, he has
wished to make it appear that he was.
Would he, we may ask, if he had had such
a purpose have carried it out disguisedly?
The dignified self-suppression of the narra
tive is explicable on the theory of the
Johannine authorship. It is not easy to
explain it on a theory of impersona
tion. If it be the case that the beloved disciple
retired at once from the cross after the
mother of Jesus had been intrusted to his
care, we can understand why he passes
over much that must have occurred before
the point at which he resumes his story,
as the end was now approaching. He may
well have returned to the scene again and
have heard the word of Jesus which he
next records. A new section begins with

THE CRUCIFIXION 123
the words "after this" (jxera. tovto). This
manner of linking together the parts of
his story with the words pera. tovto or pera
Tavra is characteristic of the Evangelist (ii.
12, v. 1, vi. 1, vii. 1, xxi. 1). It may be, as
has been thought, that there is a shade of
distinction between pxra tovto and jusra ravra,
the former implying a closer connection
than the latter with what has gone before.
We do not, however, take it that pera. tovto
expresses an immediate sequence in point
of time.
" After this," says the Evangelist, " Jesus
knowing that all things were now finished
that the scripture might be accomplished,
saith, I thirst." Now here again it may
be objected that it is in his desire to see
j
prophecy fulfilled that our Evangelist puts
into the mouth of Jesus words which He
did not really speak. And it may be said
that one who writes history can record
what has happened but he cannot read
the mind of his heroes beyond what they

124 THE CRUCIFIXION
express in words. But here the Evangelist
says that Jesus knew that all things were
now finished. Is not this going beyond
what the actual occurrence and the spoken
words warrant?
It must of course be allowed, and it has
already been admitted, that our Evangelist
is doing more than writing history. In
going beyond the mere recording of events
he may or may not have rightly interpreted
the mind and person of Christ. We must
make a clear distinction between his state
ments of fact and his comments upon
them, or the conclusions he draws from
them. If he records that Jesus said some
thing, he is making a historical statement ;
if he says that Jesus thought or knew
something, he is drawing a conclusion. In
investigating the historical value of the
Gospel before us we are concerned
primarily with its statements of fact.
A book may be true historically, but
the conclusions drawn by the author from

THE CRUCIFIXION 125
the facts may be false, or, at any rate, open
to question.
In describing the scene in the garden the
Evangelist records that Jesus went forward
to meet those who had come to arrest Him,
and he says that Jesus did this, knowing
all things that were coming upon Him.
We can accept this last statement respect
ing the knowledge of Jesus, because His
words reported both by the Synoptists and
in the Fourth Gospel respecting His coming
sufferings and death are a sufficient jus
tification of it. We may not be able in
all cases to verify the Evangelist's state
ments of what Jesus thought and knew,
because we do not know all that He said,
but it must be remembered that if the
Evangelist was indeed a personal disciple,
then he had peculiar opportunities for
knowing and entering into the mind of
his Master, and it would be simply
impossible for him to communicate fully
to any other person all the detailed reasons

126 THE CRUCIFIXION
which had led him to certain conclusions.
He could do it in some measure but never
fully. Consider, for example, his words in
ii. 23-25. He says that when Jesus was
in Jerusalem, during the feast, "many
believed on his name beholding the signs
which he did. But Jesus did not trust
himself unto them, for that he knew all
men, and because he needed not that any
one should bear witness concerning man ;
for he himself knew what was in man."
Now plainly the Evangelist could not detail
all the reasons that had led him to this
conclusion respecting the knowledge Jesus
had of men. He incidentally gives instances
of it in his Gospel — e.g., Nathanael, the
woman of Samaria, Judas Iscariot — but
we naturally suppose that his own con
clusions were drawn from a larger
experience than he could possibly record.
With these considerations in mind we
will return to the section of our Gospel

THE CRUCIFIXION 127
which is now properly before us (xix
28-30). Let us look first at the statement
of historical fact, supposing it to be fact.
It is this : "Jesus said, I thirst. There was
set there a vessel full of vinegar, so
they put a sponge full of vinegar upon
hyssop and brought it to his mouth. When
Jesus therefore had received the vinegar,
he said, It is finished ; and he bowed his
head and gave up his spirit."
Now there is certainly nothing antece
dently improbable in what is here stated.
The torments of thirst were a usual experi
ence of those who were crucified, and we
learn from the Synoptists that 'vinegar'
was at hand in this particular case. There
is nothing impossible then in the statement
of our Evangelist that Jesus, tormented by
thirst, wished that something should be
given Him to drink. Nor can we argue
that this incident did not take place
because the other Evangelists do not
record it, though the question naturally

128 THE CRUCIFIXION
arises whether our Evangelist is not merely
giving another version of the story given
by the Synoptists, that when Jesus uttered
His great and bitter cry, " My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " one of
the bystanders ran and dipped a sponge
in vinegar and offered it to Him to drink.
But the rest said: "Let be. Let us see
whether Elias (whom they thought that
Jesus had been summoning) will come to
help Him." But I cannot see any adequate
reason for such a supposition as this. Why
should we suppose that the vinegar,
specially set there for sufferers, was only
offered once to Jesus? That our Evangelist
says nothing of the Eli incident may be
explained by the fact that it was already
recorded in the other Gospels, and his
account of the crucifixion seems of set
purpose to supply details which they do
not give. Or it may be explained if we
suppose that he records here just the things
of which he had personal experience, and

THE CRUCIFIXION 129
we have seen reason to think that he may
have been absent from the scene for some
time. Then there is the further statement of
our Evangelist that Jesus spoke the word :
"It is finished (TtTiXeaTai)." And this is
perfectly possible, for all the Synoptists
record that He cried with a loud voice,
though they do not give the word spoken.
And St. Luke records that after He had
thus cried, He said : " Father, into thy hands
I commend (irapaTiQepai) my spirit"; while
our Evangelist tells us that after He had
said, " It is finished," He bowed His head
and gave up (irapiSwicev) His spirit. It is
true he records no words with which this
surrender of the spirit was made. It does
not follow that he did not know that any
words were spoken, seeing that he must
have known them from St. Luke's Gospel,
nor, on the other hand, need we suppose
that St. Luke put into the mouth of Jesus
these words which He never really spoke.
Value of Fourth Gospel. \Q

130 THE CRUCIFIXION
I can see nothing, then, historically im
probable, either on a priori grounds or by
reason of the Synoptic narratives, in these
two words of Jesus which our Evangelist
records, namely, " I thirst " and " It is
finished." We have then only to consider the
Evangelist's setting, so to speak, of this
picture. We must take account of his
exact statement: "Jesus knowing that all
things were now finished (reTeXeaTai), that
the Scripture might be accomplished
(TeXeiitiQq) saith, I thirst."
It must be observed that the verb used
in the sentence 'that all things were now
finished' is the very same word as that
afterwards spoken by Jesus when He said,
' It is finished.' If then Jesus did really
utter this word, as the Evangelist says
He did, we need not dispute the statement
made by him that Jesus knew that all
things were finished. The question, how
ever, naturally arises: Why did the

THE CRUCIFIXION 131
Evangelist make this statement respecting
the knowledge of Jesus when he is going
almost immediately afterwards to record
the word spoken? It is perhaps not
possible for us to answer this question,
but we must give it our consideration.
First, we must mention the uncertainty
of connexion of the words 'that the
scripture might be accomplished' in the
context. Do they belong to the words
preceding them or to those that follow?
Are we to understand that Jesus knew
that all things were finished for the accom
plishment of the Scriptures when He said,
'I thirst,' or are we to interpret our clause
so that it would give the meaning that
Jesus said, I thirst, in order that the
scripture might be accomplished?
In favour of the second of these two
interpretations we have the fact that it
accords with the manner of our Evangelist,
who finds in the several details of the
passion the fulfilment of prophecy (xix. 24,

132 THE CRUCIFIXION
36, 37). But on the other hand there must
be set against this the apparent contra
diction involved if this interpretation be
adopted. For it may be said that Jesus
could not be said to know that all things
were already finished if, as yet, there re
mained one prophecy unfulfilled. Westcott,
however, does not think this difficulty
serious. For he remarks that the thirst
was already felt. The Old Testament lan
guage is : " When I was thirsty they gave
me vinegar to drink." The prophecy then
would be fulfilled, so far as Jesus was
concerned, by the feeling of thirst. It
could only be accomplished entirely when
expression was given to this feeling so that
the need felt could be met by the offer of
drink. Westcott, however, says : " The ful
filment of the scripture was not the object
which the Lord had in view in uttering the
word, but there was a necessary corre
spondence between His acts and the divine
foreshadowing of them." If we accept this

THE CRUCIFIXION 133
statement of the case, then the words,
'that the scripture might be accomplished'
become parenthetical, and Jesus did not
utter the words 'I thirst' for the finishing
of His work, but all things were already
finished and He knew them so to be. In
this case the statement of the Evangelist
that Jesus knew that all things were now
finished is equally absolute if the words
'that the scripture might be accomplished'
belong to them or carry the reader on to
what follows ; and for the statement the
Evangelist has, to justify him, the fact
that Jesus Himself afterwards uttered the
word TereXeaTai.
But then we ask: What is the point of
our Evangelist saying that Jesus knew that
all things were now finished, if he is going
to record just afterwards that Jesus said,
" It is finished " ? I should answer his
question, without, I hope, any seeming
irreverence, by saying that in the mind of
the Evangelist the knowledge that Jesus

134 THE CRUCIFIXION
had was the justification for His giving
utterance to His own personal physical
need. Though the bodily sufferings of the
crucifixion were so severe, yet Jesus did
not allow His mind to turn to them until
all things were finished. When He knew
that He had done all that was required of
Him, and not until then, He asked for some
bodily relief in saying, 'I thirst.' And even
in His request, the Evangelist seems to say,
Jesus was but fulfilling what had been
foretold. I take it then that when Jesus said, ' I
thirst,' He meant just exactly what He said.
I can accept no mystical interpretation of
the words. .He felt the awful torments of
thirst and asked for alleviation ; He did
not refuse the vinegar when it was offered,
though when hung upon the cross He had
refused the myrrh intended to stupefy the
senses. All that He had passed through
had brought with it a feeling of exhaustion
which He appeals to the pity of some by-

THE CRUCIFIXION 135
stander to remove. In the hour of death,
true to the principle of His life, He worked
no miracle for His own relief.
We now pass to the account our Evange
list gives of what took place at Golgotha
after the death of Jesus. He alone of all
the Evangelists records the request of the
Jews made to Pilate that the legs of those
crucified might be broken. This request
they made because it was the preparation,
and they would not that the bodies should
remain on the cross on the Sabbath Day —
that Sabbath Day being a high day. The
request being granted, the soldiers came
and brake the legs of the one and of the
other crucified with Jesus, " but when
they came to Jesus Himself and saw that
He was dead already they brake not His
legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear
pierced His side and straightway there
came out blood and water." Then follows
the Evangelist's solemn attestation: "And

136 THE CRUCIFIXION
he that hath seen it hath borne witness,
and his witness is true (aXnOivri) : and he
knoweth that he saith true, that ye also
may believe." And then he adds : " These
things came to pass that the scripture
might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not
be broken. And again another scripture
saith, They shall look on him whom they
pierced." It is open to objectors to the historicity
of our Gospel to say that the writer here
again invents his facts to square with
prophecy. But surely there is nothing at
all improbable in this account ; and though
we have here statements of fact not given
by the Synoptists, there is nothing which
conflicts with their less full accounts. The
only possible point of conflict that I can see
would be in regard to the statement made
by Mark that, when Joseph of Arimathaea
went to Pilate and asked for the body of
Jesus, Pilate marvelled if He were already
dead ; and calling unto him the centurion

THE CRUCIFIXION 137
he asked him whether He had been any
while dead. And when he learned it of
the centurion, he granted the corpse to
Joseph. Now the request of Joseph must have
preceded that made by the Jews that the
legs of those crucified might be broken, for
Pilate would not have expressed astonish
ment at the death of Jesus if He had
already given permission for His legs to be
broken. But it cannot be said that there
is anything improbable in the request of
the Jews being made after that of Joseph
of Arimathaea, for of course there were two
other bodies besides that of Jesus. The
Jews may or may not have known when
they made their request that Jesus was
already dead. There is no suggestion that
they wished to offer further insult to the
body. They wanted to get all the bodies
out of the way before the high-sabbath
began, as it did at sunset on the Friday.
The soldiers who were to carry out Pilate's

138 THE CRUCIFIXION
order broke the legs of the two robbers,
but when they came to Jesus and found
that He was already dead they brake not
His legs. It was perhaps more by way of
precaution than to offer insult to His body
that one of the soldiers pierced the side of
Jesus. It may perhaps seem strange that
none of the Synoptists should mention this
incident. None of them does, for the state
ment of the piercing of the side in Matthew
is a later addition. But it must be remem
bered that the piercing of the side is no part
of the death, which had already taken place.
Again, the asseveration of our Evangelist
respecting the outflow of blood and water
from the pierced side is too solemn to
be passed lightly by. Whatever mystical
meaning there may be in this occurrence
we are not here concerned with. But
the reality of the death of Jesus is most
certainly affirmed, and the Evangelist in
plainest terms claims to have been a witness
of this incident.

THE CRUCIFIXION 139
Now I am far from saying that impersona
tion in literature is never justifiable, but I
do say emphatically that a writer who
impersonates another and deliberately says
he is not so doing is guilty of an offence
for which no epithet would be too oppro
brious. In this case the writer says that
his witness is true or genuine (aXriOivfi). In
other words, if he is impersonating a wit
ness, he is guilty of denying the fact of im
personation. It would be indeed strange
that the writer of a book such as our
Gospel, the sublimity of whose spiritual
teaching even opponents of its historicity
admit, should descend to such a departure
from the truth ! This is he who sets forth
the Word made flesh as full of grace and
truth ! This is he who represents Jesus as
declaring before Pilate that He came to
bear witness to the truth !
Our Evangelist concludes his account of
the crucifixion by recording, as do the other
Evangelists, the burial of Jesus. This was

140 THE CRUCIFIXION
undertaken by Joseph of Arimathaea. Mark
and Luke describe him as one who was
looking for the kingdom of God. Matthew
says that he was a disciple of Jesus.
The Fourth Gospel describes him as a
disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jews.
This is a detail which St. John, supposing
our Evangelist to be he, would be likely to
know. He also tells us that there came
too Nicodemus, he who on the first occa
sion came to Jesus by night, and that he
brought a mixture (or, according to another
reading, a roll) of myrrh and aloes, about
a hundred pound weight. This great
weight of spices has been objected to and
declared to be unhistorical. But it must
be remembered that Nicodemus was prob
ably, like Joseph, a rich man, and it would
seem that both men intended to pay great
honour to the dead body of Jesus, whom
they revered. A more serious objection than
the weight of the spices is the difference
between our Gospel and St. Luke. The

THE CRUCIFIXION 141
latter represents the women as preparing
spices and ointments and going with these
to the tomb on the first day of the week.
Putting the two accounts side by side, I
am inclined to think that it was Nicodemus,
who, as our Evangelist says, supplied the
spices, and that the purpose of the visit of
the women on the first day of the week
was to apply the spices to embalm the body,
there not having been time for this on the
Friday evening. Then all had been done,
as both St. Luke and St. John imply, in a
hurry. There is in the Fourth Gospel a detail
which we do not find in the Synoptists re
specting the place of the burial. The tomb
where they laid Jesus was, our Evangelist
tells us, near at hand, and he implies that
it was chosen for this reason. Time was
pressing ; the day was declining. It was
the preparation, the passover was at hand.
The tomb then was chosen because it
was near, and it is possible that it was

142 THE CRUCIFIXION
intended to be only a temporary resting-
place. So then in the account of the burial of
Jesus we find in our Evangelist details,
peculiar to himself, which suggest accurate
information, and encourage us in the belief
that we have here the record of a personal
disciple, who had real personal knowledge
of the things which he records.

THE RESURRECTION (I)

CHAPTER VI
THE RESURRECTION (i)
r I THE Gospels give us no account of the
resurrection. What they tell of is
the empty tomb and appearances of the
risen Jesus to His disciples singly or in
groups. The nearest approach we have to
anything which can be called an account
of the resurrection itself is that in Matthew,
who says, "Behold, there was a great earth
quake ; for an angel of the Lord descended
from heaven and came and rolled away
the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance
was as lightning, and his raiment white as
snow ; and for fear of him the watchers
did quake, and became as dead men."
Value of Fourth Gospel. J \ 145

146 THE RESURRECTION
We have here an attempted explanation
of the way in which the stone came to be
rolled away from the mouth of the tomb
and, perhaps we may add, of the reason
why the guard was unable to hinder the
exit of Jesus from the tomb. It is not
part of our present purpose to investigate
the historical probability of this statement
made in Matthew. It may or may not be
substantially true. It is an obvious criti
cism to make that a large circular stone
rolling in a horizontal groove is not exactly
a thing on which the angel could have sat.
And indeed I confess that I am sceptical
about this statement as a matter of his
tory, because it is difficult to see what the
evidence for it can be. I believe, however,
that it is a well-attested fact that the stone
was rolled away, and this apparently by
no human hands, and that the body of
Jesus, which had been laid in the tomb
two days before, was gone.
It will be necessary in the present

THE RESURRECTION 147
chapter and the next following, in order
to vindicate the historicity of the Fourth
Gospel, to consider the whole evidence for
the resurrection. For it seems to be
thought by many people at the present
day that this evidence is of so conflicting
a nature that it can no longer be accepted
as trustworthy by men of honest mind.
We shall then have to examine it with
some care and minuteness in order to
decide its true nature and value. We shall
have to compare the story given in the
Fourth Gospel with the accounts of all
the Synoptists, and to take account too of
the evidence afforded us by the statements
of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians xv.
First of all, it will be well to consider
the narrative of the Fourth Gospel by itself.
For I take it that the writer, if not a
personal disciple, at any rate writes as if
he were, and as if he were present at the
events which he describes. It seems
desirable, then, to show that the accounts

148 THE RESURRECTION
given in the last two chapters of this
Gospel form a consistent whole, explicable
on the theory of the Johannine authorship
of the book. Afterwards we shall have to
examine the relation of the Johannine
story with the other accounts of the
appearances of the Risen Lord.
Now if St. John be the author of the
Fourth Gospel, it is clear that we have in
its last two chapters evidence, in the
strictest sense of the word, for the resur
rection. Even though his Gospel be the
latest of all in point of time its value as
affording evidence of the resurrection may
far exceed that of the Synoptists. We
have certainly no right to start with the
hypothesis that the Synoptists are here to
be preferred to the Fourth Gospel. We
ought first to examine St. John on the
supposition that it is evidence, as it claims
to be. If its claim is supported by con
sistency and probability, then we shall be
able to give our Evangelist a fair hearing

THE RESURRECTION 149
when we compare his story with that of
the Synoptists.
We shall therefore proceed now to the
examination of the contents of the twentieth
chapter, and I think we shall find reasons
for believing that we have here the evidence
of an eyewitness and not a tradition, and
most certainly not a concocted story.
In this chapter, then, we have the
account of three appearances of the Risen
Jesus, the first to Mary Magdalene and the
other two to the assembled disciples, the
first time when Thomas was absent, and
the second time when he was there. Of
two of these appearances the Evangelist,
supposing him to be St. John, was himself
a witness ; of the other he could not of
course be a witness, but he gives, I
believe, substantially the account that Mary
Magdalene herself gave of her own experi
ence. The object of the writer seems to be
to give in a straightforward way the steps
by which he himself came personally to

150 THE RESURRECTION
know of and to believe the fact of the
resurrection. He begins by telling of the visit of Mary
Magdalene to the tomb which she found
empty. She at once reported the fact to
Simon Peter and to 'the disciple whom
Jesus loved ' : " They have taken away the
Lord out of the tomb and we know not
where they have laid Him."
Now we may remark in passing that the
Fourth Gospel does not say that Mary
Magdalene had gone alone to the tomb. It
is necessary to insist on this point, for it
has been urged as an objection to this
Gospel that it is not in agreement with
the Synoptists as to the number of the
women. If it is not stated explicitly by
our Evangelist that there were other
women with Mary Magdalene, it is at any
rate plainly implied that she had not gone
alone to the tomb, for she uses the plural
number in making her announcement: "We
know not where they have laid Him." If it

THE RESURRECTION 151
be asked why the Evangelist does not
explicitly state that other women had gone
to the tomb with Mary Magdalene, I should
say that it was not essential to his purpose.
He is recording primarily his personal ex
periences in the matter. He tells then,
first of all, how he came to know that the
tomb was empty. This he learnt from
Mary Magdalene, not from the other
women, whom, therefore, it would have
been irrelevant to mention.
The Evangelist next goes on to tell of
his visit to the tomb in company with
Simon Peter and what they saw there. The
story is very graphically told, and we can
follow each detail of it. The younger
disciple outruns the elder and comes first
to the tomb, and stooping and looking
in he sees the linen cloths lying ; yet
entered he not in. Simon Peter, there
fore, also cometh following him, and
entered into the tomb ; and it is as
if the Evangelist were recording how

152 THE RESURRECTION
Peter, speaking from within, had described
the appearance of the tomb. He beholdeth
the linen cloths lying, and the napkin
that was upon His head not lying with
the linen cloths, but rolled up in a
place by itself. Then, he adds, entered
in the other disciple which came first
to the tomb, and he saw and believed.
Believed what ? Some, with St. Augustine,
have thought that the Evangelist meant
only that he believed what Mary Mag
dalene had said, that the body had been
taken away and laid elsewhere. But this
is an interpretation of the passage which
seems to me most unlikely. Much more
probable is it that, the arrangement of
the grave-cloths in the tomb was such
that the Evangelist saw that the body
could not have been taken away as Mary
had supposed. He believed that the appear
ance of the empty tomb indicated resur
rection, of which the Lord had spoken
before His death. The disciples had not

THE RESURRECTION 153
understood His words, nor did they as
yet, the Evangelist says, know the scripture
that he must rise again from the dead.
The two disciples then returned to their
home. Then follows the account of the
appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene.
If the view we take of the matter be
right, then the Evangelist had the story
from Mary's own lips, for she came and
told the disciples, "I have seen the Lord,"
and she told how He had said these
things to her. We have, I believe, in
these verses (11-17) substantially Mary's
own story as she told it to the disciples
and as the Evangelist remembered it. She
told them how she had seen two angels
in the tomb who had said to her,
Woman, why weepest thou? how she had
answered: Because they tiave taken away
my Lord and I know not where they have
laid Him. Then she had turned and saw
one standing whom she thought to be
the gardener — this, if true, could only

154 THE RESURRECTION
have come from Mary herself — and to
him she had said : Sir, if thou hast
borne Him hence, tell me where thou
hast laid Him, and I will take Him away.
Then came the sound of her name, by
which she recognised the Master. Then the
refusal to let her cling to Him — those
strange words which seem to me to have
the mark of genuineness — "Touch me not,
for I am not yet ascended unto the Father,
but go unto my brethren, and say to them,
I ascend to my Father and your Father,
and my God and your God." It is easier to
believe that this happened as is here stated
than that the story was invented.
The Evangelist now goes on to relate
how Jesus appeared to the disciples when
they were met together that same evening
with closed doors for fear of the Jews.
There is no attempt at explanation. He
merely says what happened, what he him
self had witnessed. Jesus came and stood
in the midst and said to them, Peace be

THE RESURRECTION 155
unto you. And when He had said this He
showed them His hands and His side.
Then were the disciples glad when they
saw the Lord, who now spoke to them,
giving them their commission: As the
Father hath sent me, so send I you. He
then breathed upon them and said :
" Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever
sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto
them ; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained." Next comes the story of Thomas, who
had been absent when Jesus appeared the
first time. And then follows the state
ment that these appearances did not
stand alone : " Many other signs did Jesus
in the presence of the disciples which are
not written in this book ; but these are
written that ye may believe that Jesus
is the Christ the Son of God, and that
believing ye may have life in his name."
So ends the twentieth chapter, which,
according to our view, gives us the stages

156 THE RESURRECTION
by which the Evangelist knew the fact
of the resurrection.
We note that all these appearances
recorded in St. John xx. took place in
Jerusalem. And they are rejected by
some critics on this very ground. For
it is said that the earliest tradition places
the post-resurrection appearances in Galilee,
and that a choice must therefore be made
between the two. But then the Fourth
Gospel does not stop at the twentieth
chapter, and the concluding chapter tells
of an appearance in Galilee at the sea
of Tiberias. Some have thought that this
last chapter is not really a part of the
Gospel, but is an addition by a later
hand. The majority of critics, however,
even those opposed to the historicity of
the Gospel, do not support this view. And
the internal evidence is all in favour of
an identity of authorship.
Is the discrepancy, then, between the
earlier and later Gospels in the matter

THE RESURRECTION 157
of the post-resurrection appearances all
that it has been made out to be? May
there not after all have been appear
ances both in Jerusalem and in Galilee?
Now we observe at once in reading
the Synoptists that it is certainly not
the case that they know only of appear
ances in Galilee. St. Luke says nothing of
appearances in Galilee, but he has a good
deal to say of such in or near Jeru
salem. But then St. Luke is said to belong
to a later stage of the tradition which
transfers the appearances in Galilee to
Jerusalem, a process which, it is said,
is continued or repeated in the Fourth
Gospel. But we have already seen that
the Fourth Gospel, while it records appear
ances in Jerusalem, knows certainly of
one appearance in Galilee. It has indeed
been said that the last chapter of the
Gospel was added by the writer for
the purpose of bringing his work into
accord with the early tradition which

158 THE RESURRECTION
placed the appearances of the risen Jesus
in Galilee. But such a theory proceeds
from a presupposition that there were
no appearances in Jerusalem, a presup
position which, as I shall now go on to
show, is not justified by the so-called
earliest tradition.
For where is that tradition to be found?
The answer would be : In the Gospel
according to Mark. But then it must be
borne in mind that the original ending
of Mark is missing ; and there is nothing
in the abrupt ending that we possess
to justify us in concluding that there
could have been no appearance in Jeru
salem. That the conclusion of the Gospel
in its original form did go on to tell
of an appearance in Galilee I am not
prepared to deny. The words of the
young man arrayed in white and sitting
in the tomb are (ver. 6) : " Be not amazed ;
ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath
been crucified : he is risen ; he is not here ;

THE RESURRECTION 159
behold the place where they laid him !
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He
goeth before you into Galilee ; there
shall ye see him as he said unto you."
Now these words have a place in Matthew
also, and there it is told that the eleven
disciples did go into Galilee, unto the
mountain where Jesus had appointed
them, and there they saw Jesus, for
it is written : " When they saw him
they worshipped him, but some doubted."
It seems then most probable that Mark
also went on to tell of this appear
ance in Galilee — the account of this being
a part of the missing conclusion of that
Gospel. And honesty requires that we should
not omit to mention the fact that St.
Luke gives a different version of the words
of the angel to the women. In St. Luke
there is mention of two angels — or rather
two men in dazzling apparel — who say to
the women : " Why seek ye the living

160 THE RESURRECTION
among the dead ? He is not here, but is
risen. Remember how he spake unto you
when he was yet in Galilee, saying that
the Son of Man must be delivered up into
the hands of sinful men, and be crucified,
and the third day rise again." Here we
have mention of Galilee, but it is in a
different connexion. In Mark and Matthew
the disciples were told to go to Galilee,
where Jesus would come to them, but here
in St. Luke it is to words that Jesus had
spoken when in Galilee that reference is
made. St. Luke, it has been said, changed
the reference to Galilee to conform with
his view that the appearances took place
in Jerusalem and not in Galilee. And this
change of meaning in the words of the
angel has been thought to render unreliable
St. Luke's story of the appearances at Jeru
salem. If he could thus twist the reference
to Galilee, may he not have twisted the
history too ? I am not able to take this
view, for I believe that the simplest way

THE RESURRECTION 161
of explaining all the documents is to
suppose that there were appearances also
in Jerusalem. I allow, however, that St.
Luke's version of the words of the angel
differs substantially from that in Mark and
Matthew. Returning now to these two Gospels, we
see that Matthew does record an appear
ance in Galilee, and there is every reason
to suppose that Mark did so ' too. But it
must be carefully noticed that Matthew
expressly records an appearance in Jeru
salem too, before that in Galilee, for he
tells how, as the women were hastening
from the tomb to bring the disciples word,
behold, Jesus met them saying, All hail.
And they came and took hold of His feet
and worshipped Him. Then said Jesus unto
them, Fear not: go, tell my brethren that
they depart into Galilee, and there shall
they see me.
Whether or not a similar account had a
place in the missing verses of Mark we
Value of Fourth Gospel. 12

162 THE RESURRECTION
cannot of course say. But here it is plainly
said in Matthew that Jesus appeared to
the women on their way from the tomb
to the city.
It is difficult, however, to reconcile this
account of the appearance to the women
with the narrative of St. Luke, who puts
into the mouth of the two disciples on the
road to Emmaus these words (xxiv. 22) :
"Moreover, certain women of our company
amazed us, having been early at the tomb ;
and when they found not his body, they
came saying that they had also seen a
vision of angels which said that he was
alive. And certain of them that were with
us went to the tomb and found it even as
the women had said; but him they saw
not." Now this account would certainly seem
to imply that the women had not seen
Jesus. It is true that the subject of the
sentence, 'him they saw not,' refers to
those who had gone to the tomb in con-

THE RESURRECTION 163
sequence of the words of the women, and
not the women themselves. But the whole
context suggests that neither had the
women seen Him; it was only a vision of
angels that they had had.
Are we then to exclude the statement in
Matthew that Jesus appeared to the women
as unhistorical ? But, if so, on what prin
ciple? We cannot reject it on the ground
of St. Luke's narrative, if at the same time
we are not prepared to give credence to
him in the rest of his account of these
things, and if we are going to accuse him
of romancing on the subject of the post-
resurrection appearances in transferring
them to Jerusalem.
For my own part, I am prepared not
exactly to exclude the statement of Mat
thew about the appearance to the women,
but to interpret it as a not very exact
statement of what actually happened. And
this seems to me to be an important dis
tinction which we must make in all these

164 THE RESURRECTION
narratives. That is to say, we must distinguish
between what is substantially true, and what
is accurately expressed. I consider the state
ment in Matthew that Jesus appeared to
the women to be substantially true because
we know from St. John's Gospel that Jesus
did appear to one of them, namely, to Mary
Magdalene. But I find myself quite unable
to put the post-resurrection narrative of
Matthew on a level with that of the Fourth
Gospel for accuracy of statement, because
I believe the Fourth Gospel to be first
hand evidence.
Now the statement in Matthew that Jesus
appeared to the women may be compared
with another made by the same Evangelist,
who says that the two robbers crucified
with Jesus joined in the reproaches and
revilings directed against Jesus upon the
cross, whereas, according to St. Luke, one
of the two reproved his companion for so
doing. It is substantially true that the
robbers did revile Jesus, for they did so in

THE RESURRECTION 165
the person of one of them ; but I can see
no reason, apart from prejudices of verbal
inspiration, not justified by the facts, to
suppose, as has been done, that both robbers
had at first joined in the taunts, and that
the one of them afterwards changed his
tone. Had he done so, he could not have
rebuked his companion as in St. Luke he
does. While, then, it is substantially true that
the robbers reviled Jesus, the fact is not
accurately expressed in Matthew. And so
it is, I think, with the statement respecting
the appearance to the women. This, as it
stands, will not agree with St. Luke's
narrative, and, if there is one story of
the post-resurrection appearances in the
Synoptists which carries upon its face the
impress of historical truth, it is that of
the appearance of Jesus to the two disciples
going to Emmaus. It seems to me that we
have here not merely substantial truth, but
also an accuracy of statement of great

166 THE RESURRECTION
historical value. It may be said that this is
a purely subjective judgment and needs justi
fication. If any question the judgment, I
should ask for an explanation of the extra
ordinary particularity of statement in the
story. So marked is this that I cannot but
believe that the Evangelist had the story
from one of the actors in the scene, if not
from his lips, then from his pen.

THE RESURRECTION (II)

CHAPTER VII
THE RESURRECTION (li)
THE story of which we were speaking
at the end of the preceding chapter,
of the appearance to the two going to
Emmaus, hangs together with the account
of that to the disciples in Jerusalem on
the evening of the same day. The two
disciples had returned from Emmaus at
once to Jerusalem, and had found the
eleven gathered together, and them that
were with them, who greeted them with
the words : " The Lord is risen indeed and
hath appeared to Simon." And they two
rehearsed the things that happened in the
way and how He was known of them in

170 THE RESURRECTION
the breaking of the bread. And then, while
they were talking of these things, Jesus
stood in their midst. There is no mention
of a coming — the story agrees with the
corresponding account in the Fourth Gospel,
which tells us that the doors were shut —
Jesus stood in the midst.
Now if appearances of the Risen Jesus
did take place in and near Jerusalem, the
accounts of these things in the Third and
Fourth Gospels are explained. If they did
not, they are a mystery needing more
explanation than has as yet been given.
But now the question arises, why is it that
in Mark and Matthew stress is laid on
Galilee, and I think that perhaps it may
help us here to refer to St. Paul's enume
ration of appearances in 1 Corinthians xv.
There we read as follows : —
"I delivered unto you, first of all, that
which also I received, how that Christ died
for our sins according to the scriptures ;
and that he was buried; and that he hath

THE RESURRECTION 171
been raised on the third day according to
the scriptures ; and that he appeared to
Cephas ; then (tha) to the twelve ; then
(eireiTa) he appeared to above five hundred
brethren at once, of whom the greater part
remain unto this present, but some are
fallen asleep; then (eireiTa) he appeared to
James ; then to all the apostles ; and last
of all, as unto one born out of due time,
he appeared to me also."
We have here the earliest written record
of the appearances of the risen Lord. St.
Paul's statement shows that he regarded
the fact of the resurrection as based upon
the evidence of those who had seen Jesus
after He had risen. He claims himself to
have been one of those who had seen Him,
so that his witness of an appearance made
to himself personally is evidence in the
strict sense of the word. His statement of
appearances made to others is not evidence
in this same sense. It is evidence, however,
that St. Paul believed these appearances to

172 THE RESURRECTION
have occurred, and as we know that he had
been in personal contact with James and
Peter and others of the apostles — to say
nothing of intercourse he may have had
with some of the five hundred brethren to
whom Jesus, according to him, appeared at
one and the same time — we may say at
least that tjhere is a strong presumption
that St. Paul had received information on
this matter direct from some of those to
whom, as he here states, Jesus had ap
peared. We have now to ask whether the ap
pearances thus enumerated by St. Paul are
in agreement substantially with those given
in the Gospel, and to inquire whether the
Apostle's words throw any light on the
emphasis laid, in the first two Gospels, on
an appearance in Galilee.
We observe that St. Paul says nothing
about the time and place of these appear
ances. We know from elsewhere that the
appearance to himself took place in the

THE RESURRECTION 173
neighbourhood of Damascus, but that detail
finds no place here, nor does he locate or
date the other appearances which he here
enumerates ; but his use of the words eha
and eirevra implies that the sequence is a
chronological one.
He tells first of an appearance to Cephas
or Peter. This agrees with a casual state
ment made by St. Luke, from whom also
we learn of this appearance ; for when the
two disciples returned to Jerusalem from
Emmaus they were greeted with the words :
"The Lord is risen indeed and hath ap
peared to Simon."
" Then to the twelve." This appearance is
to be identified with that recorded by St.
Luke and St. John as taking place on the
evening of the first Easter Day — an appear
ance which, as we learn from St. John, was
repeated the following week, when Thomas,
who had been absent before, was now
present with his fellow-disciples.
It may, of course, be objected that

174 THE RESURRECTION
St. Paul says nothing of the appearance to
Mary Magdalene, nor yet of that to the
two on the way to Emmaus. This does not
prove that such appearances did not take
place, nor does it show that St. Paul did
not know of them. He may be thinking
more particularly of those who were to be
in a special way witnesses of the resur
rection. Then He appeared to above five hundred
brethren at once. Of this appearance we
should not have known but for this state
ment of St. Paul, and it may seem sur
prising that it should not be mentioned in
the Gospels. Ought not this to have been
the crowning proof of the resurrection,
seeing that the appearance was made not
to one, nor to a few, but to so many at
once? And we cannot help asking where
this appearance took place. Some may say
that it is useless to attempt to decide such
a question, as we are not told. But may
it not well be that this appearance to more

THE RESURRECTION 175
than five hundred brethren at once took
place in Galilee? Is not Galilee, in fact,
the most likely scene of the event? Jesus
had many Galilean followers, and it may
well be that they had been specially invited
to gather themselves together to behold
Him. Indeed, I believe that we have here
the key to the emphasis laid upon Galilee
in the post-resurrection accounts in Mark
and Matthew. The message to the disciples
generally, as distinguished from the apostles
particularly, was to meet in Galilee where
they should see the risen Jesus. The place
of meeting would be an appointed one,
most probably on a mountain (St. Matt.
xxviii. 16).
The First Gospel speaks of the eleven dis
ciples going into Galilee, " unto the moun
tain where Jesus had appointed them. And
when they saw him, they worshipped him
but some doubted." May we not have here
again substantial truth but not perfect ac
curacy of statement? It seems impossible

176 THE RESURRECTION
to explain the doubts of the apostles if they
had already seen Jesus in Jerusalem, but if
those who doubted were some of the large
number of brethren to whom Jesus simul
taneously appeared, is not the doubting
easily explained?
May not then the mountain in Galilee
have been the appointed meeting-place of
the large body of the Galilean followers of
Jesus, who there revealed Himself to them
according to a promise already given, a
promise which had called them together?
This seems to me very likely. I cannot
but regard the last chapter of Matthew as
very fragmentary ; and if we are to reduce
the history of these things to a consistent
whole, we must fit in the information we
have from other sources. That there was
a special message sent to the disciples to
go to Galilee, where Jesus would meet them,
seems clear from Mark and Matthew. The
statement of St. Paul that Jesus appeared
to above five hundred brethren at once

THE RESURRECTION 177
enables us to interpret that message as
addressed to the disciples at large. By
obedience to it they were brought into
the circle of favoured ones to whom this
appearance was vouchsafed.
Nor need we assume that there was only
one appearance in Galilee, though probably
there was only one to the disciples in
general. The last chapter of St. John tells
of an appearance to certain of the apostles
at the Sea of Galilee, and the story of it
is too circumstantially told to be lightly
dismissed as unhistorical.
We now return to St. Paul's statement.
After the appearance to the more than five
hundred brethren he tells of an appearance
to James. Of this we learn nothing from
the Gospels. But then we must remember
that the appearance to Peter is only
casually introduced in St. Luke. Then he
speaks of an appearance to all the apostles.
This may very well have been the last ap
pearance before the Ascension, for we see
Value of Fourth Gospel. J3

178 THE RESURRECTION
from the Acts that Jesus made it clear to
His disciples that they were not to expect
to continue to see Him with their bodily
eyes. He seems to have parted from them
finally by an Ascension — not a simple
vanishing — so that they learnt by this acted
parable to lift their hearts heavenward,
and not to expect a repetition of the ap
pearances which had been granted to them
during the forty days.
We may then sum up by saying that
there seems to be substantial agreement
between the summary given by St. Paul
of appearances of the risen Jesus and the
accounts contained in the Gospels, if we
take account of their record of appearances
both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. It is a
mistake to suppose that the earliest tra
dition knew nothing of appearances in
Jerusalem but only in Galilee. And it may
well be that the special emphasis laid on
an appearance in Galilee in Matthew (and
presumably in Mark too) is to be explained

THE RESURRECTION 179
by the fact that Galilee was the scene of
the appearance to the large body of the
disciples. Something must have called to
gether those more than five hundred to
whom, according to St. Paul, Jesus had ap
peared at one time. That something might
well have been a message from the lips of
Jesus that He would appear upon one of the
mountains of Galilee.
And the bearing of all this upon our
immediate subject, the historical value of
the Fourth Gospel, is this. There is
nothing whatever therein contained about
the post-resurrection appearances which in
any way conflicts with the other Gospels
taken in conjunction with St. Paul and
interpreted comprehensively. St. John never
intended to tell the whole story of all
the appearances of the risen Jesus. This
he says expressly. I can see no reason to
doubt that what he does record is a faithful
reproduction of the facts as they would be
indelibly impressed on the mind of one who

180 THE RESURRECTION
had had his share of experience in these
events of such stupendous interest and
importance. And it must be borne in mind that if
exception be taken to the contents of the
twentieth chapter of St. John on the ground
that the appearances there recorded take
place in Jerusalem, then the same exception
must be taken to St. Luke xxiv. as un-
historical. And this would be a serious
conclusion to reach in regard to one whose
claims as a historian stand so high.
It has been urged as an objection to our
Gospel that the writer represents the
bestowal of the Holy Spirit as being made
on the first Easter Day, when he records
that the risen Jesus breathed on His dis
ciples and said to them : " Receive ye the
Holy Ghost." But as our Evangelist does
not record any events subsequent to the
ascension, we cannot conclude from this
statement that he meant to imply that
there was no further outpouring of the

THE RESURRECTION 181
Spirit at Pentecost. I fail to see why it
should be supposed that the action of Jesus
which St. John here notes should exclude
the later Pentecostal effusion.
Finally, objection has been taken to the
account of the miraculous draught of fishes
in the last chapter of the Gospel, it being
said that this is simply based on St. Luke's
account of a similar occurrence early in the
ministry of Jesus. But why may there not
have been a repetition of this occurrence?
We gather from St. Luke's narrative that
the miraculous draught which he records
was intended to be a speaking parable to
the fishermen of Galilee. For he reports
the words of Jesus to Simon Peter : " Fear
not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men."
Surely there is nothing impossible or even
improbable that, now that the time had
come for the fulfilment of this promise,
the Lord should have repeated the sign,
when these disciples had returned to their
occupation of fishing in the interval between

182 THE RESURRECTION
their return to Galilee after the Passover
and their next going up to Jerusalem to
observe Pentecost. It has long ago been
pointed out that there is a very significant
difference between the two cases. On the
first occasion we are told that the nets
were breaking ; on the second it is expressly
said that though the fish were so many
the net was not rent. On the first occasion
the disciples were being called to be pre
pared for a work which would at a later
time be imposed upon them, but for which
they were as yet unready and unfit ; but
on the occasion of the second miraculous
draught the time of preparation was over;
they were even now to become fishers of
men. While, then, I confess that I am dis
trustful of the duplication of an event
told in a different way by two writers,
because I believe that such duplication
proceeds too often from an impatience with
difference of detail when substantial agree-

THE RESURRECTION 183
ment is all that may be expected, I am of
opinion that in this case the events, recorded
by St. Luke and St. John, are not the same,
though they have features in common.
The whole story told in the last chapter
of St. John is altogether too circumstantial
and detailed to be interpreted otherwise
than as a genuine occurrence. It is all
easily explained if the things happened as
they are said to have happened, and if
St. John is the author of the Gospel. I
cannot see that it can be satisfactorily
explained otherwise.

THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, THE
FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND,
AND THE WALKING ON THE SEA

CHAPTER VIII
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, THE FEED
ING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND, AND THE
WALKING ON THE SEA
r I lHERE are five events, other than those
we have already considered, which
are recorded both by the Synoptists and
St. John. These we must now proceed to
examine. They are the cleansing of the
temple, the feeding of the five thousand,
the walking on the sea, the triumphal entry
into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper. We
shall consider the first three of these in
the present chapter.
Each of the three Synoptists records how
Jesus, after His triumphal entry into Jeru
salem, went to the temple and cast out
187

188 THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
them that bought and sold there, protest
ing against its sacred precincts being turned
into a den of robbers. These three accounts
are in reality one ; the first and third
Evangelists have doubtless here borrowed
from Mark. St. Luke's account is the
shortest; that in Mark, which is copied
almost verbatim in Matthew, is the
longest. In both Mark and Matthew it is
said that Jesus entered into the temple and
cast out them that sold and bought there,
and overthrew the tables of the money
changers, and the seats of them that sold
doves, and Mark adds that He would not
suffer that any man should carry a vessel
through the temple.
St. John, however, says nothing about
this cleansing of the temple after the
triumphal entry, but he records a similar
occurrence as taking place at an early
stage in the ministry when Jesus went up
to Jerusalem for the passover. We will
quote his account: "And the passover of

THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 189
the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple
those that sold oxen and sheep and doves,
and the changers of money sitting : and
he made a scourge of cords, and cast all
out of the temple, both the sheep and the
oxen ; and he poured out the changers'
money and overthrew their tables ; and to
them that sold the doves he said, Take
these things hence ; make not my Father's
house a house of merchandise. His disciples
remembered that it was written, The zeal
of thine house shall eat me up."
Further in both cases the Evangelists
represent that Jesus was challenged by the
authorities for His action. In the Synoptic
account the question is put to Him: "By
what authority doest thou these things ? or
who gave thee this authority ? " To these
questions Jesus gave no direct reply, but
put to His questioners a counter question,
" The baptism of John, was it from heaven
or from men?" and promised an answer to

190 THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
their question in return for their answer
to His. They found themselves in a dilemma,
and could not answer, and so received no
answer to the question they had put.
In St. John also Jesus is challenged by
the Jews and the question asked Him is :
" What sign showest thou unto us, seeing
that thou doest these things?" And Jesus
answered: "Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up." The Evan
gelist then goes on to record the answer of
the Jews : " Forty and six years was this
temple in building, and wilt thou raise it
up in three days ? " He then adds : " But
he spake of the temple of his body. When
therefore he was raised from the dead, his
disciples remembered that he spake this;
and they believed the Scripture and the
word which Jesus had said."
Now before we pass on to compare and
contrast these accounts, and to decide
whether both the Synoptic and Johannine
accounts are to be considered historical or,

THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 191
if not, to which of the two the preference
is to be given, let us notice a significant
feature in the account of the Fourth Gospel,
namely the reference to the disciples. " His
disciples remembered that it was written,
The zeal of thine house shall eat me up."
And again: "When he was risen from the
dead his disciples remembered that he spake
this." These statements are at once explicable
and justified if the Evangelist was himself a
disciple. None but disciples themselves could
appropriately say that they remembered,
unless indeed he had the information from
them, or unless there were something in their
conduct which showed it (see for example
Matt. xxvi. 75, Luke xxiv. 8). If then our
Evangelist be not himself a disciple, he here
makes himself appear so to be, and that
in a most subtle way.
It must be allowed, I think, that there is
nothing at all in the account of the cleansing
of the temple in the Fourth Gospel which
is a priori historically improbable. The

192 THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
only exception that can be taken to it is
that it too closely resembles the Synoptic
account to be considered as the record of
a separate historical event. But it is
important to notice that a very casual
statement in Mark respecting the false
witness brought against Jesus at His trial
before the high priest shows that some
such words as those attributed to Jesus in
the Fourth Gospel on this occasion must
have been uttered by Him. St. John puts
into the mouth of Jesus the words, " Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise
it up." In Mark it is said that at the trial
there stood up certain and bare false witness
against Him, saying, We heard Him say, I
will destroy this temple that is made with
hands, and in three days I will build
another made without hands. This witness
was false because it distorted the words
which Jesus had spoken. He had not said
"I will destroy this temple," but "Destroy
ye this temple, and in three days I will

THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 193
raise it up." Exception has been taken to
the explanation given by the Fourth Evan
gelist that Jesus spoke these words of the
temple of His body. But we may in passing
remark that the statement of the false
witnesses in Mark respecting a temple made
without hands shows that Jesus used the
word temple in a metaphorical sense, and
why therefore may He not have intended
His body? And I think that it must be
admitted that if Jesus did ever speak these
words — as even Mark gives us reason to
think that He did — the occasion of their
utterance in the Fourth Gospel is peculiarly
appropriate. And we may remark in con
clusion on this point that the account in
Mark of the false witness at the trial points
to the words not having been recently
spoken. It is an argument in favour of
them having been uttered at an early stage
of the ministry, as in our Gospel they are
said to have been.
Again, the account of the cleansing of
Value of Fourth Gospel. J 4.

194 THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
the temple in the Fourth Gospel is minute
and circumstantial. The oxen and the
sheep are not mentioned in the Synoptists,
but only here. The scourge of cords is
peculiar to this Gospel, and the manner of
dealing with the various articles of com
merce is very exact. The oxen and sheep
are driven out ; the changers' money is
poured out, and their tables overthrown ;
and the doves are got rid of by a
command to those that sold them to
take them away. Contrast with this
exactness of statement the account in
Mark: "He began to cast out them that
sold and them that bought in the temple,
and overthrew the tables of the money
changers, and the seats of them that sold
the doves." Apart from prejudices against
the Fourth Gospel on other grounds, would
not its account of the cleansing of the
temple deserve to be preferred to the
Synoptic account, supposing that a choice
had to be made between the two?

THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 195
But here is just the question which
we must face, namely, whether a choice
has to be made, or the incident was
repeated in actual fact. And we may
ask, Why should there not have been a
second occurrence? If it were the case, as
the Fourth Gospel states, that Jesus pro
tested against the profanation of the
temple at the beginning of His ministry,
why, if He found the same profanation
going on at a later stage, may He not
have repeated His protest? It is true that
the Fourth Gospel says nothing about such
a repetition. But then neither does it say
anything about a good many other inci
dents that took place at Jerusalem after
the triumphal entry. What it says rather
supplements the Synoptists than repeats
what they had already written.
Further, the difference between the chal
lenge put to Jesus on the two occasions
and His answer to it militates against
the theory that we have to do with only

196 THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
one event and not two. Supposing that
the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist
recorded the cleansing of the temple as
taking place at the same time but with a
difference of detail in regard to it, then I
allow that it would be a remark of a
very weak case to explain the differences
of detail by duplicating the event. But
this is not the case with which we have
to deal here. There is a difference of
detail, and the occasion is also different.
Therefore the two events may well be
distinct. Both may have taken place.
The position has been taken up by some
scholars that the event only occurred once
and that the Fourth Gospel has given it
its right place in point of time, the Synop
tists only finding it necessary to place it
where they do because they have given no
record of any previous visit of Jesus to
Jerusalem during His ministry. This position
I find myself unable to adopt. I should be
disposed to adopt it if I were persuaded

FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND 197
that a choice had to be made between
the two, but I am of opinion that the
repetition of the occurrence is the simplest
and the most natural explanation of the
contents of the documents. I certainly find
myself unable to believe that the story as
given by the Fourth Evangelist is an
embellishment of that of the Synoptists.
If it were, we should have to pronounce
it an extraordinarily clever one, because
of the superior picturesqueness of its de
tails. This is more easily explained by
the supposition that the writer was
an eye-witness of the things which he
relates. We now come to the story of the
feeding of the five thousand. They are
probably not far wrong who consider that
the interest of the Fourth Evangelist in
regard to this lies not so much in the
miracle itself as in the discourse which he
places after it. The miracle forms the
text of a sermon.

198 FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
At this point, then, I hope I may be
pardoned if I state the opinion that if the
discourse in Capernaum on the Bread of
Life had been found in our Gospel follow
ing upon the miracle of the feeding of
the five thousand, and if that miracle had
had no place in the Synoptists, there would
have been critics who would have said
that the miracle never took place at all,
just as they tell us that the raising of
Lazarus is a pure invention of the Evan
gelist, a story to illustrate the text, I am
the Resurrection and the Life. But as the
miracle of the [feeding of the five thou
sand is recorded by the Synoptists, they
are unable to take up this position, but
they tell us that the discourse is an
invention. Well, we are not now concerned
with the discourse, though we shall have
something to say about it later on. It
finds no place in the Synoptists, and at
present we are concerned with such things
as are related both by them and the

FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND 199
Fourth Evangelist. It is the miracle with
which we have to do. We must ask
whether the account given of it in our
Gospel is such as to justify the belief
that he who records it was a disciple and
an eyewitness of what he relates ; for this
he was, on the theory of the Johannine
authorship of the Gospel.
Substantially, the account of the miracle
is the same as that given by the Synoptists.
Nobody could doubt for a moment that the
Evangelist is recording the same event as
that which they relate. But a very cursory
reading of our Evangelist's account, and
comparison of it with the Synoptic account,
show us that it is marked by greater
particularity, so that either the Evangelist
is writing from personal experience, or he
had knowledge of details beyond those
known to the Synoptists, or he embellished
the Synoptic narrative with details for some
purpose or other. We must first examine
the account and see what these details are.

200 FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
According to our Evangelist the feeding
of the multitude was first suggested by
Jesus Himself. The Synoptic account re
presents the disciples as coming to Jesus
and asking Him to send the multitudes
away that they might buy something to
eat. But Jesus replied, Give ye them to
eat. And they answered, Shall we go and
buy two hundred pennyworth of bread
and give them to eat? And He saith unto
them, How many loaves have ye? go and
see. And when they knew they say, Five
and two fishes. Then He made the people
sit down, and distribution was made of the
loaves and the fishes, so that the whole
multitude was satisfied. At the conclusion
of the meal twelve basketfuls of the frag
ments were taken up. This is in substance
the Synoptic account.
In the Fourth Gospel it was Jesus who
first broached the subject of food for the
multitude. " Seeing that a great company
cometh unto Him, He saith to Philip,

FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND 201
Whence are we to buy bread, that these
may eat?" Why was the question
addressed to Philip in particular? Was
it that he was an inhabitant of the nearest
town? We cannot tell. But we cannot but
be struck by the fuller detail of our Evan
gelist beyond that of the Synoptists, who
mention no disciples by name. The narra
tive goes on to say that Jesus only asked
this question to prove Philip, for He Him
self knew what He would do. Exception
has been taken to this statement as ex
hibiting the tendency of the Evangelist
to emphasise the foreknowledge of Jesus.
But the question is whether the subsequent
conduct and action of Jesus justify the
statement. And most people would allow
that they do. The statement of the Evan
gelist is of course not a statement of fact
cognised by the senses. It is a justifiable
conclusion based on the facts of the case.
Then comes Philip's answer: "Two hun
dred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient

202 FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
for them that every one may take a little."
This has to be compared with the question
of the disciples, in the Synoptic narrative,
whether they should go and buy two
hundred pennyworth of bread. There is
no real discrepancy between the two
accounts. For if Jesus had, as our Evan
gelist represents, asked the question,
Whence are we to buy bread that these
may eat? the subsequent statement of
Philip that two hundred pennyworth of
bread would not suffice might well be con
verted into a kind of surprised question
such as we find in the Synoptists : Shall
we go and buy two hundred pennyworth
of bread and give them to eat?
It is not improbable, as the Synoptists
state, that Jesus at this point asked the
disciples how many loves they had, nor is
it improbable that the answer came, as
according to our Evangelist it must have
done, from Andrew : There is a lad here,
which hath five barley loaves and two fishes ;

FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND 203
but, he asks, what are they among so
many? Here again we have a particularity
of statement in the mention of Andrew by
name, which it is difficult to account for
unless things really happened as here
stated. One who was present would know
and might well remember these details. If,
however, the details are merely invented to
make it appear that the writer was an eye
witness of the event, does it not seem
strange that he nowhere asserts his own
presence on the occasion? It can be in
ferred but it is never obtruded.
There are two other points in the account
given by our Evangelist which indicate
first-hand evidence. The one is the state
ment made by him that there was much
grass in the place, and the other is the
command of Jesus to gather up the broken
pieces remaining over that nothing might
be lost. The Synoptic account does indeed
tell of the gathering up of the fragments,
but it says nothing of this act proceeding

204 THE WALKING ON THE SEA
from a command of the Master. The
probability seems to me to be in favour
of such an order having been given.
The miracle of the feeding of the five
thousand is followed in our Gospel, as in
the first two, by an account of the walking
upon the water. This forms a natural
transition to the great discourse on the
Bread of Life delivered in the synagogue
at Capernaum. We may suppose, then,
that it was on this account that St. John
gave it a place in his narrative.
There are certain points of difference in
regard to this incident between the Synop
tists and St. John which must now be
touched on. We observe first of all that
St. John alone has something to say of the
effect upon the people of the miracle of the
feeding of the five thousand. He tells us
that they said : " This is of a truth the
prophet that cometh into the world." He
then goes on to say that Jesus perceived

THE WALKING ON THE SEA 205
that they were about to come and take
Him by force and to make Him a king,
and that for this reason He withdrew again
into the mountain Himself alone. Then,
apparently in the absence of the Master,
when the evening came, the disciples went
down to the sea and entered into a boat,
and were going over the sea to Capernaum.
The Evangelist adds that it had become
dark and Jesus had not yet come to them.
But according to the Synoptic account it
was Jesus Himself who had constrained
(fivayKaaev) the disciples to enter into the
boat and to go before Him to the other
side^to Bethsaida according to Mark —
while He sent the multitude away. Then,
after He had taken leave of the multitude,
He went into the mountain to pray. St.
John, however, represents some, at any rate,
of the multitude as being the next morning
still in the same spot where the miracle
had taken place (vi. 22).
Now as regards the effect produced upon

206 THE WALKING ON THE SEA
the multitude by the miracle of the feeding,
there seems to be nothing improbable in
this as it is described by our Evangelist.
It was indeed a stupendous miracle that
they had witnessed, and the conclusion to
which they came seems perfectly natural
under the circumstances. Moreover it would
be difficult to see what motive the Evange
list could have had in making this
statement unless what he says did really
take place. It is true that the intention to
seize Jesus to make Him king is only said
to have been perceived by Jesus, and no
outward signs of the intention are
mentioned. But we need not assume
that the Evangelist had nothing to go
upon in making this statement. Moreover
the haste shown and the compulsion exer
cised by Jesus, according to the Synoptists,
in sending away the disciples, things which
are unexplained in the Synoptic narrative,
may perhaps be accounted for if the story
of this event in the Fourth Gospel is

THE WALKING ON THE SEA 207
historical. For it might well be that Jesus
desired to remove His disciples at once from
the dangerous enthusiasm of the crowd,
against which they might have been power
less to stand. There is certainly, then, no dis
agreement with the Synoptists on the part of
our Evangelist when he describes the effect pro
duced by the miracle upon the crowd. He is
merely recording what they are silent about.
There does, however, appear to be a
disagreement in regard to the other two
points, namely, the sending away of the
multitude and the departure of the dis
ciples. But as to the first of these two it
must be observed that our Evangelist really
is silent on the matter, and it must not be
supposed that what he says of the crowd
the next morning in verse 22 implies that
all the five thousand were still there. He
speaks of 6 o^Xoc 6 loTijKwe irepav rfjc
daXaaaric The presence of the article
before the participle seems to make it
impossible to understand that by 6 oxXog

208 THE WALKING ON THE SEA
is meant the whole multitude of the day
before. And indeed the following verses
show that there were only so many as
could cross the lake in the boats which
came over to the place from Tiberias, and
which were driven in possibly by the storm
during the night. Some dispersal of the
crowd the day before was well-nigh im
perative in order to frustrate their purpose,
and it is not difficult to fit in the state
ment of the Synoptists, that Jesus sent the
multitude away, with the narrative of the
Fourth Gospel, though this does not
mention the fact explicitly.
The more difficult point is the departure
of the disciples; but perhaps we may get
help from the mention of Bethsaida in
Mark. Matthew omits the words irpbg
BriOaaiBav, possibly because the writer found
it difficult to interpret them, Bethsaida
being situated at the north end. of the
lake and not close to its banks. Indeed
some have thought that the words in Mark

THE WALKING ON THE SEA 209
imply that there was a second place called
Bethsaida on the western shore of the lake,
but this is mere hypothesis and has nothing
to support it. Mark says that Jesus imme
diately compelled His disciples to enter into
the boat and to go before to the other side
(irpodyeiv elg to irepav) — to Bethsaida (irpbg
Bijf}o-a(8av), so our English translation runs.
What is meant by these words ? Did Jesus
send His disciples across to the western
shore of the lake? The words 7rp6e
Bfjflo-cuSav seem to exclude this, though
the expression elg to iripav at first suggests
it. May it not then be that Jesus told His
disciples to go across to a point on the
shore of the lake in the direction of Beth
saida, or over against Bethsaida, it being
understood that He would follow them on
foot? This interpretation would give a
perfectly natural meaning to the words
irpbg BqBaaidav. And if the interpretation
be correct, then the narrative of St. John
will fit in quite well with it. For the
Value of Fourth Gospel. J5

210 THE WALKING ON THE SEA
disciples would wait at this spot for Jesus;
and only when it had grown dark, and
Jesus had not yet come, did they start to
cross to the western shore of the lake, to
Capernaum as St. John says.
Further, I am of opinion that not only
is this interpretation of the words irpbg
BriOaaiBav a possible one, but it is necessary.
If Bethsaida had been the goal, the fact
would have been expressed by the use of
the preposition elg, not by irpog. To a place
is always in the New Testament rendered
by elg. The only apparent exception to this
that I can find is St. Luke xxiv. 50, where
we have ewg irpog BriOaviav, which is trans
lated in the Authorised Version " as far as to
Bethany." But this is probably incorrect ;
and we note that the Revisers have rendered
it " until they were over against Bethany."
It does not seem to me, then, that there
is anything in the account of this incident
in the Fourth Gospel which is out of
agreement with the Synoptic account.

THE WALKING ON THE SEA 211
Indeed the purpose of the multitude to
declare Jesus king, which our Evangelist
alone mentions, seems to throw light on
what Mark and Matthew tell us. For it
helps us to understand the desire of Jesus
to separate His disciples from the dangerous
enthusiasm of the crowd and His conduct
in dispersing the multitude, before He
rejoined the disciples. According to the
Johannine account the disciples did not
start to cross to the western shore of the
lake until it had become dark and Jesus
had not yet rejoined them. Their goal was
Capernaum (fipxovTO iripav rije OaXaaatig
elg Ka(j>apvaoip). The Evangelist gives a
graphic though very brief description of the
difficulty encountered in the crossing when
he says that the sea was rising by reason
of a great wind that blew. He tells us
that they had rowed some twenty or
thirty furlongs when they beheld Jesus
walking on the sea, and drawing nigh
unto the boat and they were afraid.

212 THE WALKING ON THE SEA
When they were assured that it was
Jesus they were ready to receive Him
into the boat ; and straightway, he con
cludes, the boat was at the land whither
they were going. He does not state that
they landed at Capernaum itself, though
his language implies that they were
somewhere near it, but this they might
be if it was the land of Gennesaret, as
Mark calls it. And there would be plenty
of time for the incidents recorded in
Mark vi. 54, 55 to happen before those
of the multitude who came over from
the eastern shore arrived in Capernaum
later in the day (St. John vi. 24).
It is true that the Evangelist says
nothing of Peter's attempt to walk on the
sea to Jesus, an incident recorded only in
Matthew. Of course if this incident really
took place and the Evangelist did not
know of it, he could not have been an
eyewitness. But we cannot draw any
conclusion from his silence on the point.

THE WALKING ON THE SEA 213
Exception has been taken to the state
ment made in our Evangelist's account
that the boat was immediately at the
land whither they were going, whereas it
would appear that the disciples were well
out in the middle of the lake when Jesus
came to them. Mark, followed by Matthew,
says that the wind ceased, and implies a
continuation of the voyage. But if the
last part of the voyage was smooth and
quickly over, we need not be hypercritical
in judging of the manner in which our
Evangelist expresses the fact. The verb
he uses is yivopai, the same word which
he employs two verses before when he
speaks of Jesus drawing near to the boat
(eyyvg tov irXoiov ytvopevov). It is true that
it is the aorist eyevero which occurs in the
verse we are considering, yet still the
verb itself denotes a process and not
merely a state. They were not at once at
the land, but they quickly got to it.
Returning once again to the narrative of

214 THE WALKING ON THE SEA
Mark, we may point out how improbable it
is that " the • other side " to which Jesus at
once compelled His disciples to go was the
western shore of the lake. For the Evan
gelist distinctly says that the disciples were
to go before, while Jesus sent the multitude
away. The clear implication is that He
would follow them, and on foot, for there
is no suggestion that there was any other
boat there than the one. The place to which
they were directed to go was then not very
far distant, as indeed it would not be if
Bethsaida here means Bethsaida Julias to the
north of the lake, not far from which town
the miracle of the feeding had taken place.
Further, it seems clear that the incident
of the walking on the water could not have
taken place in this neighbourhood, for Mark
speaks of it as happening in the fourth watch
of the night. The disciples must then have
been on the lake for a considerable time and
have advanced some way. It is highly im
probable that they were still near to the
place from which they had started.

THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY, AND THE
LAST SUPPER

CHAPTER IX
THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY, AND THE LAST
SUPPER
1 jyTE will now pass on to consider the
account given in the Fourth Gospel
of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. It
is often said that this Gospel exhibits an
obvious exaggeration in the matter of
miracle. It may be well, then, to point
out that here at any rate there is a very
marked absence of anything of the kind.
There is nothing said of the prevision
of Jesus in the matter of the finding of
the ass's colt. Our Evangelist merely says
that Jesus, having found a young ass, sat
thereon. The writer does not say whether
217

218 THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY
or not the Synoptic account of the finding
of the ass is correct. Further, there is
something very natural about the whole
incident as it is told in his Gospel. The
impression we get from the Synoptists
is that Jesus was accompanied by a great
crowd of people as He travelled towards
Jerusalem, these having been with Him all
the way. We learn from St. John that
the multitude that had come to the feast
in Jerusalem, hearing that Jesus was
coming to the city, went out to meet
Him and greeted Him with " Hosanna !
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord, even the King of Israel." In
regard to the use of this greeting Eder
sheim writes : * "It must be remembered
that, according to Jewish tradition, Psalm
cxviii. 25-28 was also chanted antiphonally
by the people of Jerusalem, as they went
to welcome the festive pilgrims on their
arrival, the latter always responding in
* Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. p. 368.

THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 219
the second clause of each verse, till the
last verse of the Psalm was reached,
which was sung by both parties in unison,
Psalm ciii. 17 being added by way of
conclusion." It would seem, then, that our Evangelist
gives us an accurate picture of the occur
rence. The multitude came out to meet
Jesus to give Him a special welcome
because, according to the Evangelist, they
had heard of the miracle which he had
wrought. He says: "The multitude there
fore that was with him when he called
Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him
from the dead, bare witness. For this
cause also the multitude went and met
him, for that they heard that he had
done this sign."
Now this point is certainly not brought
out in the Synoptic account. There is
mention of the multitudes that went before
and that followed, but we should not
gather from this, without the help of the

220 THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY
Fourth Gospel, that those before were
they who had come out from Jerusalem
to welcome Jesus and were now escorting
Him in triumph into the city.
And though St. John says that this entry
of the King into the city accorded with
the words of the prophet, "Fear not,
daughter of Zion: behold thy King cometh,
sitting on an ass's colt," he tells us that
the disciples did not at the time understand
the significance of the event. " These things
understood not his disciples at the first ;
but when Jesus was glorified, then
remembered they that these things were
written of him, and that they had done
these things unto him." We compare this
statement with those others in ii. 17, 22,
where we have already seen the writer
able to speak in the name of the disciples.
This statement, like those others, is at
once intelligible if the Evangelist be the
Apostle St. John.
I do not think that more need be said of

THE LAST SUPPER 221
the triumphal entry. It remains now to
consider our Evangelist's account of the
Last Supper, this being the last of the
events that he has in common with the
Synoptists. There is first of all the question of the
connection of this Supper with the feast of
the Passover. Our Evangelist says nothing
about it being a Passover celebration.
Indeed it is clear from his narrative of
subsequent events that he certainly did not
regard it as the Passover. For in xviii. 28
he says that the accusers of Jesus would
not enter the pretorium that they might
not be defiled, but might eat the passover.
Again he remarks incidentally in xix. 14,
that when Pilate sat on the judgment seat
at a place called in Hebrew Gabbatha, it
was the Preparation of the Passover. In
xix. 31 and 42 he again speaks of the day
of the crucifixion being the Preparation.
Now while the use of the term ' Prepara
tion' in these last two verses might be

222 THE LAST SUPPER
interpreted by making it apply to Friday,
qua Friday, which was the Preparation for
the Sabbath, it seems impossible to accept
this interpretation in view of the other
two verses to which reference has been
made. I acknowledge that in taking up
this position I have against me the em
phatically expressed opinion of Edersheim,
but I fail to see that he has proved his
case. He thinks that there is no difference
between the Synoptists and St. John as to
the day of the month on which the Lord
ate the Last Supper with His disciples.
He considers that the language of the
Fourth Evangelist does not preclude the
possibility that that Supper was the
Passover feast which was celebrated on
the evening of Nisan 14. Thus he inter
prets the eating of the Passover xviii. 28,
as having reference to the Chagigah on
Nisan 15 ; but even if this be possible
there is still the expression "the Prepara
tion of the Passover" in xix. 14 to

THE LAST SUPPER 223
explain. Edersheim interprets this to mean
the Friday in Passover week. It would
not then be the Preparation of the Passover
itself, but the Preparation of the Sabbath
of the week of the Passover. This, if a
possible interpretation, seems hardly a
natural one. And there is the incidental
remark made by the Evangelist in xiii. 29,
which tells against it. When Jesus had
said to Judas at the Supper, "That thou
doest do quickly," the writer adds that no
one at the table knew for what intent He
spake this to him. Some thought, because
Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto
him, " Buy what things we have need of for
the feast." This seems to show that in the
view of the writer the Supper at which
they were sitting was not the Passover
feast, for which preparations were yet to
be made.
On the whole, then, I share the opinion
of most scholars that the Fourth Gospel
makes the crucifixion take place on

224 THE LAST SUPPER
the 14th Nisan, and that the feast of the
Passover would be on the evening of that
day. In this case we have a distinct
difference between our Evangelist and the
Synoptists, who appear to make the Last
Supper a celebration of the Passover.
Thus in Mark we read : " On the first day
of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed
the passover, his disciples say unto him,
Where wilt thou that we go and make
ready that thou mayest eat the passover?
And he sendeth two of his disciples, and
saith unto them, Go into the city, and
there shall meet you a man bearing a
pitcher of water : follow him, and where
soever he shall enter in, say to the good-
man of the house, The Master saith,
Where is my guestchamber, where I shall
eat the passover with my disciples? . . .
And the disciples went forth, and came
into the city, and found as he had said
unto them : and they made ready the pass-
over. And when it was evening he cometh

THE LAST SUPPER .227
with the twelve." This account, somewhat
abbreviated, is reproduced in Matthew;
and St. Luke repeats it almost verbatim.
The latter, however, has information about
the Last Supper from some source other
than Mark (St. Luke xxii. 14-38), and
he represents Jesus as saying to His
disciples, when He sat down with them :
" With desire I have desired to eat this
passover with you before I suffer ; for
I say unto you, I will not eat it until
it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
There are two very interesting notes on
the meaning of this saying which are
published in the Journal of Theological
Studies for July 1908, by Professor Burkitt
and the Rev. A. E. Brooke. Professor
Burkitt certainly holds no brief for the
Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
but he takes the view, which Mr. Brooke
shares, that these words in the mouth
of Jesus imply that the meal of which
Jesus and His disciples were then par-
Value of Fourth Gospel. J g

?9, THE LAST SUPPER
taking was not the passover feast. Pro
fessor Burkitt takes our Lord to mean :
"Near as this Passover is, and much
as I have longed to celebrate it with
you, it is not so to be, for I shall
not eat it; within the next twenty-
four hours the enemy will have done his
worst, and the next Passover that I shall
eat with you will be the Messianic Feast."
I may be allowed to say that this view,
now put forward by Professor Burkitt
and Mr. Brooke, is one that had occurred
to me independently some time ago. The
natural meaning of the words, taken by
themselves, seemed to me to be just as
Professor Burkitt has paraphrased them.
The difficulty, however, was to reconcile
this interpretation with St. Luke's unam
biguous statement a few verses before that
it was the Passover feast in which Jesus
and His disciples were engaged.
But the explanation of the discrepancy
is probably that which Professor Burkitt

THE LAST SUPPER 227
himself gives. St. Luke has at least two
sources from which he derives his infor
mation. One is, of course, the Gospel
according to Mark, which he freely quotes.
The other sources used by him may have
supported a view inconsistent with that
taken over from the Gospel of Mark. In
other words, St. Luke's other sources may
have regarded the Last Supper as not being
the Passover.
Certainly the statement made in Mark
xiv. 12 that they sacrificed the Passover
on the first day of unleavened bread is
an inaccurate one; for the first day of
unleavened bread was the day after the
Passover, viz., the 15th Nisan. If, then,
the Gospel of Mark is inaccurate here, it
may be also inaccurate in making the Last
Supper a paschal celebration, this inaccuracy
being taken over in Matthew and by St.
Luke. So though the Fourth Evangelist
differs from what is commonly called the
Synoptic view of the date of the Last

228 THE LAST SUPPER
Supper, it may well be that he is right
after all.
For, again, Mark, followed by Matthew,
represents the chief priests, &c, as saying
when they were plotting to take Jesus
and to put Him to death: "Not during the
feast, lest haply there shall be a tumult
of the people." But if the Last Supper
were a Passover celebration, then it be
comes clear that the Jewish authorities
did the very thing which they decided not
to do. It seems more likely than not,
then, that the Fourth Evangelist is correct
in not calling the Last Supper a Passover
celebration. And it must be acknowledged
that only one who was well informed
could have thus corrected the error made
in the other Gospels, for he does correct
it, not by saying that the Last Supper was
not a Passover, but by stating plainly that
the Crucifixion took place on the day of
the Preparation, the day, that is, on the
evening of which the Passover took place.

THE LAST SUPPER 229
We now pass from our Evangelist's
dating of the Supper to what he has to
say of what took place at it. His account
is, as every one knows, much fuller than
that given by the other Evangelists and
yet he omits all mention of the institution
of the Eucharist. This, for some unaccount
able reason, seems to give great offence to
those who deny the apostolic authorship
of the Gospel and discredit its historical
character. They speak as if the Evangelist
had somehow put the institution of the
Lord's Supper out of its place, because in
his Gospel Jesus is represented as teaching
truth preparatory to it in the synagogue
at Capernaum after the feeding of the five
thousand (St. John vi.). But why should
this discourse not have taken place as St.
John records? Something of the kind
seems almost a necessity. For what mean
ing otherwise could the disciples have
attached to the words of Jesus when,
as according to the Synoptists, He instituted

230 THE LAST SUPPER
the Eucharist at the Last Supper? When
He said, "This is my body," "This is my
blood," must there not have been some
previous teaching which would prepare the
minds of the disciples to hear such startling
words? I have never been able to see why
He who spake thus to the disciples at the
Last Supper, and who is believed to have
thus spoken because the Synoptists record
the fact, should not have spoken a year
before, as the Fourth Evangelist represents,
in the synagogue at Capernaum. We have
already seen that Schmiedel regards this
discourse as unhistorical because it gives
the meaning of the Eucharistic Supper a
year before it took place, and the insertion
of it appears to him therefore to detract
from the historical value of the Gospel as
a whole. But it is not a very exact state
ment of the case to say that the Capernaum
discourse gives the meaning of the Eu
charistic Supper before it took place. For
the discourse makes no reference to the

THE LAST SUPPER 231
Eucharistic Supper. It certainly abounds
in teaching preparatory to the institution of
the Eucharist; but that is a different thing.
Though the Fourth Evangelist, in his full
account of the Last Supper, says nothing
of the institution of the Eucharist, it does
not follow that he did not know it was
instituted then. Such a supposition would
be absurd. Instead of finding fault with
him for not repeating what was already
known, we ought rather to be grateful to
him for telling us so much that was not
generally known and which he, if he were
an eyewitness, was in an exceptional
position to record. And I cannot see that
there is anything which he writes on the
subject which is in the least degree im
probable a priori. He tells of two incidents
which the other Evangelists give us, namely,
the foretelling of the betrayal by one of
Jesus' disciples sitting with Him, and also
that of the denial of Peter. It is true that
Mark and Matthew put the latter after Jesus

232 THE LAST SUPPER
had left the upper room, but it is worthy
of note that St. Luke, relying no doubt on
some other trustworthy source, represents
it, as our Evangelist does, as taking place
at the Supper. And I fail to see how any
one can read the story in the Fourth Gospel
of the Lord's disclosure of the betrayal of
Judas without being impressed by its his
torical likelihood. It is told, as only one
who was present on the occasion could have
told it, with a most remarkable minuteness
of detail. When Jesus made the announce
ment that one of them would betray Him,
our Evangelist gives us the picture of the
disciples looking one on another in bewilder
ment, doubting of whom He spake. Then
he tells us that there was at the table
reclining in Jesus' bosom one of His disciples,
whom Jesus loved. This would be John him
self. To him Simon Peter beckoned that he
might find out who it was. And he leaning
back, as he was, on Jesus' breast, saith unto
Him, Lord, Who is it? And Jesus answered :

THE LAST SUPPER 233
He it is for whom I shall dip the sop and
give it him. So He dipped the sop and
gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
Nothing but prejudice against the Gospel
as a whole could deny to this account real
historical value. Who could have invented
all these details on the ground of what the
other Evangelists tell of the same event?
The verisimilitude of our Evangelist is here
past all question.
Nor is there anything at all improbable
in the story of the washing of the disciples'
feet on this occasion, followed by the exhor
tation to humility and service. For from
St. Luke we learn that there had arisen a
contention amongst the disciples which of
them was to be accounted the greatest.
And the subsequent teaching given by
Jesus is set forth in such a way that there
seems no improbability that it was actually
given. The difficulties which the disciples
found in what He said to them are brought
out. One after another questions him; and

234 THE LAST SUPPER
each time the disciple who addresses Him
is mentioned by name. First it is Thomas :
" Lord, we know not whither thou goest, and
how can we know the way ? " Then Philip :
" Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth
us." And later it is Judas (not Iscariot):
"Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt
manifest thyself to us, and not unto the
world?" There is, it is true, one case where
the disciples are said to have spoken
collectively (xvi. 29), but this naming of
individuals in three cases is not to be passed
lightly over. It is at once explicable on
the theory of the Johannine authorship.
It need not be claimed that the Evan
gelist is recording the ipsissima verba, or
the Greek equivalent of the ipsissima verba
of Jesus. But there seems no reason to
doubt that we have in these chapters a
faithful representation of the teaching of
the Master on momentous subjects, given
at a time when the minds of the disciples
were receptive by reason of the solemnity

THE LAST SUPPER 235
of the occasion. Our author tells us of a
promise made by Jesus that the Holy Spirit
would bring to the remembrance of the
disciples the things that He had spoken to
them. Why should we doubt that this
disciple had found the promise fulfilled in
his own case, and that the words of Jesus
which he has recorded were indeed spoken
by Him? If we have not preserved for us
the letter, yet we may believe that we have
what is more important, the spirit.

THE PROBABILITY OF A MINISTRY
IN JERUSALEM

CHAPTER X
THE PROBABILITY OP A MINISTRY IN
JERUSALEM
"Y"TTE have now considered in some detail
those sections of the Fourth Gospel
which cover ground common to it and the
Synoptists. We claim to have shown that
there is nothing in these parts of the Gospel
seriously at variance with the Synoptic
account of the same events. The only
difference of any importance concerns the
date of the Crucifixion, but in regard to
this we have seen reasons for thinking that
the Fourth Evangelist is right, and the
Marcan account incorrect. While we do
not deny that our Evangelist was in all

240 THE PROBABILITY OF
probability acquainted with the other three
Gospels, which every one acknowledges to
be earlier than the Fourth Gospel in point
of time, there is a marked independence in
his treatment of his subject. Moreover the
independence which the writer shows is
suggestive of first-hand information con
cerning the things he has to tell of. The
narrative cannot, in my opinion, be explained
as an embellishment, with a purpose, of
the Synoptic narrative. If these portions of
the Fourth Gospel which we have had under
our consideration in the preceding chapters
had stood alone and the Judsean ministry
had found no place in the Gospel, I hardly
think that any one would have doubted
their independent historical value.
But we have yet to consider those parts
of the Gospel in which the ministry of
Jesus is presented from a wholly different
point of view from that which the Synoptists
take. And here of course we cannot judge
of the historical value of our document on

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 241
the same principles as those which have
served us hitherto, for thus far we have
been able to make a comparison between
a part of a document, whose historicity
we are seeking to establish, with other
documents whose historicity is, speaking
generally, admitted, inasmuch as the same
events, or, in some cases, closely connected
events, are found detailed in both the one
and the other. I think it ought to be
allowed that if our Evangelist has shown
up well in the comparison we have made
of his work with the Synoptic writings, so
far as a comparison could be made, there
is a presumption in favour of the historicity
of the other parts of his Gospel. Some of
my readers may not allow that I have
proved my case up to the present point of
the inquiry. Such will not of course allow
that we have any right to approach the
remaining sections of the Gospel with any
prejudice in their favour. I contend, how
ever, that the parts of the Gospel already
Value of Fourth Gospel. ~jJJ

242 THE PROBABILITY OF
considered are certainly not in themselves
of such a nature as to create prejudice
against the remainder.
Speaking broadly, this remainder consists
of an account of a ministry of Jesus at
different times in or near Jerusalem. It is
true that our Evangelist tells of events in
Galilee as to which the Synoptists are silent,
and these will demand our consideration in
due course. In the present chapter, how
ever, I do not propose to go into them,
nor indeed is it my intention yet to consider
in detail our Evangelist's account even of
the activity of Jesus in Jerusalem. It seems
desirable first of all to inquire whether a
Jerusalem ministry has historical prob
ability in its favour, without troubling
ourselves yet with the question whether, if
it has, that recorded in the Fourth Gospel
is likely to be historical.
I propose then to argue for the two fol
lowing propositions :
A. It is antecedently probable that Jesus

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 243
visited Jerusalem during His ministry and
before the Passover visit when He was
crucified. B. Certain points in the Synoptic narra
tives are rendered more intelligible if Jesus
had thus previously visited Jerusalem and
taught there. (A.)
It will not be necessary to dwell long on
the first of these two propositions. It is
true that the impression created by the
Synoptic narratives may well be that only
one Passover Feast occurred during the
public ministry of Jesus, namely that one
at which He was crucified. According to
the Fourth Gospel there were at any rate
three Passovers, at two of which Jesus was
present in Jerusalem. For the third, the
middle of the three, He seems not to have
gone up to the capital, for the reason that
the authorities there were bent on His
death (St. John vii. 1), the time for which

244 THE PROBABILITY OF
had not, however, yet come. It is easily
to be understood that Jesus might have
absented Himself from the capital even
during " a Feast of obligation " for reasons
of personal safety if His hour had not yet
come, but it seems highly improbable that
He should have kept away from Jerusalem
altogether. Even if there were no Passover
Feast during His Galilaean ministry, there
must have occurred some Feast, attendance
at which was obligatory. Even if it be
possible to date the various stages of the
Galilaean Ministry, as told by the Synoptists,
so that no Passover Feast fell within it,
there must have been one Feast of Pente
cost, for the incident of the plucking of the
ears of corn on the Sabbath day (Mark ii.
23) gives a clear indication that it can only
have happened somewhere about the time
of harvest. And then, before the next
Passover Feast occurred, there would be the
Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteenth day
of the seventh month. Now attendance

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 245
at these three Feasts — the Passover, Pente
cost, and the Feast of Tabernacles — was
obligatory, and it is difficult to believe that
Jesus would have absented Himself from
two successive Feasts of obligation falling
within His Galilsean ministry unless indeed
there were special reasons why He did not
wish to come into conflict with the authori
ties in Jerusalem. It may be said, of
course, that He absented Himself because
He knew of the hostility towards Him of
the religious leaders there, this having
become clear to Him from the attitude of
the Scribes and Pharisees who had come
down from Jerusalem to Galilee to question
and oppose Him. But it is surely far more
easy to explain their advent in Galilee if,
as the Fourth Evangelist tells us, Jesus had
already visited Jerusalem and they had
there fallen out with Him.
I claim, then, that it is antecedently
probable that Jesus visited Jerusalem during
His ministry and before the Passover visit

246 THE PROBABILITY OF
when He was crucified. By using the word
' antecedently ' here I do not mean that
the probability is independent of the
Synoptic story of the ministry of Jesus, but
what I contend for is that it does not
depend on the particular statements of the
Fourth Gospel. At least two Feasts of
obligation must have occurred during the
Galilaean ministry, and the absence of
Jesus from both of these, if He had not
previously tested the attitude of Jerusalem
towards Him, is highly improbable. Such
a test could only properly be made by a
personal visit. (B.)
Further, we can argue that certain points
in the Synoptic narratives are rendered
more intelligible if Jesus had visited Jeru
salem during His ministry and before the
fatal Passover Feast.
For consider first St. Mark xiv. 57 ff . Jesus
is on His trial before the high priest, who

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 247
with the Sanhedrin, desires to find some
cause why He should be put to death. They
invited witness against Him. And many
bore false witness against Him, but agreed
not together. Then, we read, there stood
up certain, and bare false witness against
Him, saying, " We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands,
and in three days I will build another
made without hands." The same incident
is recorded in St. Matthew xxvi. 60. Now it
is true that in Matthew the witnesses are
not represented as saying, " We heard him
say " but " This man said." It is clear,
however, that the evidence would be worth
less unless they could give personal testi
mony to having heard Jesus thus speak.
These witnesses — two in number according
to Matthew — are testifying to having heard
Jesus say certain blasphemous words against
the temple. We are not told who the
witnesses were nor whence they came, but
it is most natural to suppose that they

248 THE PROBABILITY OF
were men of Jerusalem, and that they are
referring to words which Jesus had spoken
in Jerusalem. This supposition is confirmed
by the words used in Mark : "I will destroy
this temple." Now when did Jesus use these
words, or words like them which could be
twisted so as to be turned against Himself?
There is no evidence of any words like them
having been spoken by Him in those few
days at Jerusalem before the fatal Passover
Feast, for what He said about the coming
destruction of the Temple to His disciples
(Mark xiii. 2) had been said privately ; and
further, there is nothing at all in His words
which in any way corresponds with the
statement testified against Him : " In three
days I will build another, made without
hands." Further, the fact that the witnesses did
not agree in the evidence they gave suggests
that the words to which they were refer
ring had been spoken some time before,
and their recollection of them was there-

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 249
fore confused, and their testimony conflict
ing. The conclusion, then, is obvious. Jesus
had spoken in Jerusalem words which these
witnesses now tried to use against Him.
That He had used words capable of being
misunderstood or misinterpreted after this
manner is stated by the Fourth Evangelist
(ii. 19). We have then an argument in
favour of the historicity of the Fourth
Gospel in regard to this particular state
ment. It is, however, open to an objector
to say that the Evangelist put the words
into the mouth of Jesus in consequence of
what he found written in Mark and
Matthew respecting the false witness
against Jesus. But even if this were so,
which I do not for a moment allow to be
probable, it would be an argument in
favour of the proposition which we are at
present seeking to establish. As has been
said, we are not yet specially concerned
with the proof that the particular narrative

250 THE PROBABILITY OF
of the Fourth Gospel relating to the visits
of Jesus to Jerusalem is historical. We
are arguing that certain points in the
Synoptic narratives are rendered more
intelligible if Jesus had during His public
ministry visited Jerusalem and taught
there. If the Fourth Evangelist invented
this saying of Jesus in ii. 19 because
of what he found in the first two
Synoptists, it would be a proof that to
him some explanation of the accusation
brought against Jesus by these false wit
nesses was necessary. And that explana
tion, on this hypothesis, is that Jesus
had uttered words capable of this mis
construction on a previous visit to Jeru
salem. We will next consider the reference to
Joseph of Arimathaea in connexion with
the burial of Jesus. The site of Ari
mathaea, so far as I know, has not yet
been identified. St. Luke, however, calls
it "a city of the Jews," which implies

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 251
that it was in Judaea. Moreover the fact
that in Mark (and St. Luke repeats the
statement) Joseph is called a "councillor"
would seem to suggest that he lived in
or near Jerusalem. In Matthew he is
called a disciple of Jesus. Parenthetically
we may remark that the Fourth Evangelist
so indicates him likewise, and adds that
he was only a disciple secretly, for fear
of the Jews. It may be objected that the
statement in Matthew that Joseph was a
disciple cannot be pressed, as Mark does
not so speak of him, but describes him as
one "who was looking for the kingdom
of God." I can see, however, no reason,
except prejudice, for rejecting the descrip
tion in Matthew. And we ask : How came
this man to be a disciple of Jesus ? The
answer is simple enough if Jesus had
during His ministry visited, and taught
in, Jerusalem. Moreover — but this again
only parenthetically — the use of the word
'boldly' in Mark's description of Joseph's

252 THE PROBABILITY OF
approach to Pilate seems to me a con
firmation of the statement in the Fourth
Gospel that Joseph had been only a
secret disciple. The appropriateness of the
word 'boldly' is at once apparent if, until
now, Joseph's discipleship had been a secret
thing. It is hardly conceivable that the
Fourth Evangelist concluded that Joseph
was a secret disciple by arguing from the
boldness of his approach to Pilate as Mark
represents it. He may well have had inde
pendent knowledge of the fact.
Next let us reflect on our Lord's lament
over Jerusalem as St. Luke records it (xix.
41 ff.). Is it conceivable that Jesus would
have thus lamented over the city if He had
as yet made no direct appeal to its inhabi
tants? What meaning otherwise have such
words as : " O that thou hadst known in
this day, even thou, the things which belong
unto peace ! " ? It is an utterance devoid
of all significance unless a refusal had
already been made. But t it is perfectly

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 253
explicable on the hypothesis that there had
already been a Jerusalem ministry, and a
rejection, as according to the Fourth Gospel
there had been.
Similar to this lament of Jesus over the
holy city is that other which St. Luke
gives, and which finds a place in Matthew
too (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34 ; " O Jeru
salem, Jerusalem, which killeth the pro
phets and stoneth them that are sent unto
her ! how often would I have gathered thy
children together even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not!" Schmiedel has proved to his own satis
faction * that these words are not words
of Jesus at all, but that they are an utter
ance of ' Wisdom ' quoted from some litera
ture not now extant. He points out that
in Matthew they follow immediately upon
the words : " Therefore behold, I send unto
* The Johannine Writings, pp. 57 ff. The reference
in the original German is p. 45, Das vierte Evangeliwtn.

254 THE PROBABILITY OF
you prophets, and wise men, and scribes :
some of them shall ye kill and crucify 5
and some of them shall ye scourge in
your synagogues, and persecute from city
to city: that upon you may come
all the righteous blood shed on the
earth from the blood of Abel the
righteous unto the blood of Zechariah,
son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between
the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I
say unto you, all these things shall
come upon this generation." Now words
like these, but with the third person
instead of the second, occur also in St.
Luke (xi. 49 ff.) and they are prefaced by
the words " Therefore also said the wisdom
of God," which mark them out as a quota
tion. The quotation, according to Schmiedel,
does not stop at Matthew xxiii. 36, but
continues in the following words already
cited : " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, etc.,"
though it is to be noticed that in St. Luke
this lament is placed in another connection

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 255
altogether (Luke xiii. 34). It is unfortunate
for Schmiedel's argument that the connexion
in St. Luke is so entirely different. Still he
is right in drawing attention to the fact
that the correct reading gives : " O Jeru
salem, Jerusalem, which killed the prophets
and stoned them that are sent unto
her," and not, " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
which killesi the prophets and stonesf them
that are sent unto thee." So that in these
words something is said about Jerusalem
rather than to her, and Jerusalem is only
addressed in the words which follow : " How
often would I have gathered thy children
together, etc."
It does not, however, appear to me that
Schmiedel has satisfactorily proved that
these last words are not original words
of Jesus. There may well be mingled
with His words a quotation, as Schmiedel
supposes ; but it seems clear that both
the First Evangelist and St. Luke regard
the lamentation as one proceeding from the

256 THE PROBABILITY OF
heart of Jesus Himself. Whatever former
utterance He may be making use of, He
is giving expression to the bitter sorrow
of His own soul that Jerusalem had
refused to heed His message and that
her children would not be gathered to
Himself. But even if we were to give
away, as Schmiedel would have us do,
this apostrophe addressed to Jerusalem,
I venture to say that the lamentation
over the city in St. Luke xix. 41 f.
remains unintelligible unless Jesus had
already suffered rejection from her. It
is only explained if He had already visited
Jerusalem and taught there.
Indeed the final rejection and murder of
Jesus at the fatal Passover stands unex
plained in the Synoptic narrative. We may
well ask whether it is historically probable
that Jesus should have confined His
ministry to Galilee and the north, only
presenting Himself to Jerusalem at last to
be immediately taken and crucified. Surely

A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 257
the whole attitude of the religious authori
ties in Jerusalem towards Jesus, as this is
set before us by the Synoptists, demands
some explanation beyond what they give !
Whether the details of the Fourth Gospel
respecting the Jerusalem ministry be correct
or not, some such ministry there must
have been if the Synoptic narrative itself
is to be believed.
And, again, there are traces in St. Luke's
Gospel of visits to Jerusalem before the
final one. The parable of the Pharisee and
the publican would find its appropriate
setting in the holy city. That of the Good
Samaritan suggests that it was delivered
somewhere in the neighbourhood of the
scene mentioned in the parable itself. In
close proximity to this parable there stands
in St. Luke's Gospel the visit of Jesus to
the house of Martha and Mary in some
unnamed village. The Fourth Gospel, if
historical, determines this village as
Bethany, near to Jerusalem. It is ex-
Value of Fourth Gospel. Jg

258 A MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM
tremely difficult to construct from St.
Luke's Gospel an outline of the journey-
ings of Jesus. But we may gather from
it that a wider sphere of activity was
embraced than that which the Marcan
story mentions or suggests. The Synoptic
narrative, if by this term we understand
not merely the Marcan account but
all that is contained in the other two
Synoptists as well, and especially the
matter peculiarly Lucan, is not unfavour
able to the theory that the ministry of
Jesus extended even to Jerusalem itself;
on the contrary, it seems to demand this
extension. But whether or no the Fourth
Gospel is to ibe accounted historical in its
description of the mission of Jesus to the
Jews in Jerusalem is a question which must
be separately considered. This will form
the subject of our next chapter.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST

CHAPTER XI
THE MINISTRY OP JESUS ACCORDING TO THE
FOURTH EVANGELIST
r I THE story of the ministry of Jesus in
the Fourth Gospel differs from that in
the Synoptists chiefly in these two respects:
(1) Whereas from the Synoptic narratives
it might appear that Jesus gathered no
disciples about Him until after the im
prisonment of the Baptist, the Fourth
Evangelist states clearly that Jesus made
disciples and entered upon an active minis
try when John was not yet cast into
prison. (2) Whereas the Synoptists make
Galilee and the north the scene of the
ministry of Jesus until near the time of

262 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
His visit to Jerusalem for the Passover
Feast at which He was crucified, the
Fourth Evangelist represents Jesus as visit
ing Jerusalem repeatedly, there being five
Feasts, including the fatal Passover, which,
according to him, gave Jesus occasion to go
to the holy city.
Now, as regards the first of these two
differences, it must be carefully noticed
that the Synoptic narratives, though they
do not mention a period of ministry prior
to the imprisonment of the Baptist, yet do
not exclude the possibility of such. For it
is important to observe that the Fourth
Evangelist does not locate this earlier
ministry of Jesus in Galilee. It is true
that he takes Jesus to Galilee after He has
gathered to Himself certain of the Baptist's
disciples (i. 35-51), and that he records the
miracle wrought at the marriage feast in
Cana, and also a sojourn of not many days
in Capernaum. But we must be careful to
notice that there is no public activity in

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 263
Galilee at this time. The occasion of the
marriage feast was a private one, and only
His mother, and brethren and disciples are
mentioned in connexion with the stay in
Capernaum. From Capernaum our Evangelist takes
Jesus to Jerusalem for the Feast of the
Passover (ii. 13 ff.), and after this Jesus
and His disciples came into " the land of
Judaea." Here He tarried with them and
they — presumably with His authority (comp.
iii. 22 with iv. 2) — baptized. At this time,
the Evangelist says expressly, John was
still baptizing, for he was not yet cast into
prison. This statement reads like a de
liberate correction of a possible misunder
standing that might arise from the Synoptic
narrative, respecting the time when the
public teaching of Jesus began.
Now it is a matter of some importance
that we should notice how both Mark and
Matthew imply that, before the public
Galilean ministry of Jesus began, He was

264 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
elsewhere than in Galilee, though they do
not say where. Mark has : " After that
John was delivered up, Jesus came (fjXdev)
into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God,
etc." (St. Mark i. 14), and Matthew speaks
of a withdrawal into Galilee : " When he
heard that John was delivered up, he
withdrew (avex&pnaev) into Galilee." The
wording in Matthew might suggest that it
was in consequence of the imprisonment of
the Baptist that Jesus withdrew to Galilee.
St. Mark, however, mentions the imprison
ment only as a point of time, and does not
say that it was the reason why Jesus came
into Galilee. So then even though the author
of ' Matthew ' may have intended his words
" When he heard that John was delivered
up, etc." to give the explanation why Jesus
retired to Galilee, we need not regard the
statement as authoritative, for he may only
have drawn an incorrect conclusion from
St. Mark, who is his authority here.
But the Fourth Evangelist gives as the

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 265
reason why Jesus departed into Galilee that
He "knew that the Pharisees had heard
that He was making and baptizing more
disciples than John " (iv. 1). These words
leave it undetermined whether the writer
means that the move was made while John
was still baptizing. "Baptizing more dis
ciples than John" might mean baptizing
more disciples than John had done, and
not was doing. The reason of the with
drawal of Jesus to Galilee may then be
given correctly in the Fourth Gospel, and
the time of it, which is left undetermined
here, may well be, as St. Mark says, after
John was delivered up. Only a too keen
scent for discrepancies between the Fourth
Gospel and the Synoptists will detect one
here. But then we are confronted with the
objection that St. Mark, followed by the
author of 'Matthew,' places the call of
Andrew and Simon Peter, to be disciples
of Jesus, after the Galilean ministry had

266 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
begun, whereas the writer of the Fourth
Gospel brings them into discipleship some
time before, representing them, as we have
seen, as having been previously followers
of the Baptist. This seems at first sight a
serious objection, particularly as St. Mark
was the 'interpreter' of Peter and is
reputed to be the reporter of that Apostle's
teaching. But I think that it is possible
to make too much of the influence of St.
Peter upon St. Mark's Gospel. It must not
be so exaggerated as to make the Apostle
almost the author of that Gospel. And we
have already pointed out in the second
chapter how insufficient the account given
by St. Mark of the call of Peter and
Andrew by the sea of Galilee is to explain
their readiness to obey. We must surely
prefer here the fuller narrative of St. Luke
who had some other source of information
on this point than St. Mark's Gospel. It
may justly be argued that the story of
the miraculous draught of fishes as given

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 267
by St. Luke (v. 1-11) is the natural prelude
to the promise of Jesus : " From henceforth
thou shalt catch men." The very frag
mentary account, then, given by St. Mark,
who depicts Jesus walking by the sea of
Galilee and calling Andrew and Peter to
follow Him, and He would make them
fishers of men, needs to be supplemented as
in St. Luke's Gospel it is. But there is no
reason for regarding this supplement as in
any way artificial and the invention of the
writer. It has all the appearance of his
torical truth. Nor, as I have already
pointed out, does St. Luke's account suggest
that when this incident took place Simon
Peter was still a stranger to Jesus. On the
contrary, it is more probable than not that
Peter already knew Jesus and so had learnt
to place confidence in Him, as he shows
himself ready to do when he says : " Master,
we toiled all the night, and took nothing :
but at thy word I will let down the net.'
It does not then seem to me reasonable

268 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
to consider the Fourth Gospel incredible in
so far as it brings Simon Peter and An
drew into a position of discipleship with
Jesus at a time earlier than the public
Galilean ministry. It is a remarkable fact
that if we exclude the account given in the
Fourth Gospel of the passing of disciples
from the Baptist to Jesus then we have no
record anywhere of any such thing. It is
surely unlikely that he who made it his
work to prepare the way for the Christ
should not have passed on some of his
disciples to follow Jesus.
And before we go on further, it may be
pointed out that we have evidence from
another source that the ministry of Jesus
does not (even in the view of one of the
Synoptic Evangelists) date from the impri
sonment of the Baptist, but rather goes back
to the time when John was still baptizing.
I refer to the reported words of St. Peter
in Acts i. 21 f., where we read : " Of the men
therefore which have companied with us

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 269
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in
and went out among us, beginning from
the baptism of John, unto the day that he
was received up from us, of these must
one become a witness with us of his resur
rection." The words here italicised seem
to me an indirect but not an uninteresting
confirmation of what is reported in the
Fourth Gospel respecting the time at
which Jesus began to gather disciples about
Himself. But, an objector will say, granting that
Jesus may have made disciples prior to
His public Galilean ministry, there is a
serious difficulty in the way of the accept
ance of the account of this in the Fourth
Gospel. For the recognition and confession
of Jesus by His disciples, as the Messiah
at this early stage is, in view of the
Synoptic narratives, an anachronism. This
recognition, it is said, only came later.
Moreover, in the Synoptists Jesus is
represented as unready to declare Himself

270 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
to be the Messiah, whereas in the Fourth
Gospel the Messianic claim is in the fore
ground everywhere.
I have already pointed out in the second
chapter that the recognition of the first
disciples of Jesus as the Christ is more a
hope than an assured faith, and that the
discipline of their training under Jesus was
necessary in order that it might pass from
the one to the other. Even in the Fourth
Gospel itself the faith of the disciples is
shown to be of gradual growth (ii. 11,
vi. 68 f.). At first it was the belief of
hope, and this, as they gained experience,
developed into the faith that comes of
knowledge. In reference to the general objection
that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus puts
Himself forward from the first as the
Messiah it may be said that this is an
objection which is easily overrated. As we
shall see when we come to consider the
visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, He did not

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 271
declare Himself as the Christ to the Jews
sufficiently clearly for them. And so late
as the last visit but one we find them
challenging Him to assert Himself: "How
long dost thou hold us in suspense ? If thou
art the Christ tell us plainly."
It seems to me as clear as anything well
can be, if once we accept the Synoptic
story of the Baptism of Jesus, that He
was fully conscious of His Messiahship
before He began His ministry. And when
He came forward to gather disciples to
HimseK, He must have meant to present
Himself to them as the Messiah, to make
them ' believe in Him.' That the conception
which the people had of the Messiah was a
wrong one, and one that Jesus could not
entertain, is apparent enough. And as
wrong notions manifested themselves,
caution was needed — even the Fourth
Gospel shows this to have been the case
(ii. 24, vi. 15) — and injunctions to silence
such as we find in the Synoptists may

272 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
have become necessary. As Professor
Stanton* well observes, Jesus "set before
Himself a twofold object — to implant in
the hearts of men faith in Himself as
the Christ, and at the same time to
change their conception of the Christ, to
prevent His countrymen receiving Him
merely as the Christ of their expec
tation." It must be borne in mind that the
time when Jesus came forward was one
of expectation. People were looking for
the Messiah, and the preaching of the
Baptist must have quickened the hope of
the coming of the Christ. Some of the
Baptist's disciples then were ready to
follow one to whom their master had
pointed them. With this little band of
disciples Jesus went to Galilee, but not, as we
have seen, to come forward there publicly
as a Teacher. At the marriage feast in
Cana of Galilee He turns the water into
* The Gospels as Historical Documents, part ii. p. 196.

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 273
wine. It is interesting, I think, to note
one particular in our Evangelist's account
of this event. I refer to the hesitation,
which Jesus shows, to exercise His power.
When His mother tells Him that the
supply of wine has failed, He answers her,
almost reprovingly : " Woman, what have
I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet
come." Shall He, or shall He not, relieve
their want? He cannot unless the right
moment has come for the manifestation of
His power. Now the Fourth Evangelist
tells us nothing of the story of the
Temptation of Jesus, as we have it in the
Synoptists, but we observe here a striking
agreement between him and them. The
author of Ecce Homo was right, I think,
in making the Temptation of Jesus a
matter having to do with the way in
which He should exercise His miraculous
powers. He had refused in the wilderness
to turn stones into bread for the satis
faction of His bodily wants. And it seems
Value of Fourth Gospel. JQ

274 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
to me that He hesitates, for the moment,
as to whether He shall use His power
at the marriage-feast. He must first be
assured that His hour has come, and that
the occasion is a right one for so doing.
There is at first sight an apparent contra
diction between the gentle rebuke addressed
to His mother and His subsequent readi
ness to take the course He did. But
deliberation was needed. He would not be
dictated to, save from above. There was
only hesitation until the Divine will was
clear. Then an immediate response was
made. The miracle then was wrought, and the
Evangelist records that in consequence of
it, His disciples (of whom we believe he
was himself one, and so qualified to speak
on the point) believed on Him. They who
had joined themselves to Jesus, because of
the testimony of the Baptist to Him, were
now finding that their allegiance was
deserved.

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 275
After this event at Cana, whether im
mediately or not we cannot say, for
the connecting link pera tovto does not
determine this, Jesus went with His
mother and brethren and disciples to
Capernaum, for what purpose we are not
told, but there is no hint of any public
teaching on this occasion. Thence He went
up to Jerusalem for the Passover (ii. 13),
His disciples accompanying Him (ii. 22). It
was on this occasion that, for the first time,
He protested against the profanation of
the temple. The account of this we have
already considered in an earlier chapter,
and we have seen that there is good reason
to regard it as historical. The action of
Jesus aroused the resentment of ' the
Jews' and we see here the beginning of
their hostility towards Him, which thus
dates from a very early stage of His public
life. For this is His first appearance in
Jerusalem since this began. But all were
not hostile. " When He was at Jerusalem

276 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
at the passover, during the feast, " many
believed on his name, beholding his signs
which he did." The Evangelist does not
tell us what signs these were. The cleans
ing of the temple may well have been one
of them. But though many were ready
' to believe on His name ' — which means
probably that they were ready to welcome
Him as Messiah — "Jesus did not trust
Himself unto them." We may read into
this statement "of the Evangelist the fact that
there were false conceptions of Messiahship
in the minds of the people in Jerusalem,
and these Jesus detected from the first.
It was during the time in Jerusalem
that the visit of Nicodemus to Jesus by
night occurred (iii. 1-21). There is nothing
incredible or at all improbable in this visit,
nor do I see any reason to doubt that the
purport of the conversation, which, indeed,
the Evangelist may himself have heard, is
correctly reported. I say deliberately 'pur
port,' for, as has often been pointed out,

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 277
the style of the writer himself marks even
the words of Jesus which He records. Indeed
it is not always easy to decide where Jesus
ceases to speak, and the reflections of the
Evangelist on His words begin. Thus verses
16-21 of this chapter may well be the writer's
own comment, rather than words of Jesus.
" After these things " — these events at
Jerusalem — Jesus sojourned with His dis
ciples in the land of Judaea (iii. 22) and
baptized, while John was still baptizing.
And "there arose a questioning on the part
of John's disciples with a Jew about puri
fying" (iii. 25). They come to John and
tell him of the activity and growing popu
larity of Jesus. This gives the Evangelist
the opportunity to record the further testi
mony of his former master the Baptist :
"Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I
said, I am not the Christ, but that I am
sent before him. He that hath the bride
is the bridegroom: but the friend of the
bridegroom, which standeth and heareth

278 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bride
groom's voice: this my joy, therefore, is
fulfilled. He must increase, I must decrease."
There seems no sufficient reason for the
invention of this incident and we may well
believe that it really did occur. The con
cluding words of this chapter (iii. 31-36)
are no argument against it, for they need
not be understood as part of the Baptist's
answer. Rather do they read like a reflection
of the writer.
We now come to the withdrawal of Jesus
from Judaea into Galilee. We have already
considered the reason which our Evangelist
gives for this. The journey to Galilee was
made through Samaria, and the chief inci
dent in it is the conversation with the
woman of Samaria at Jacob's well. The
story of this is told circumstantially and
with remarkable detail, and I should find
it difficult to believe that it can be invention
and not fact. It was in accordance with
our Lord's method to use passing circum-

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 279
stances to teach important truths, and in
this case He engages the woman in con
versation arising out of her employment
at the time. The story is, however, open
to the objection that Jesus plainly declares
Himself to this woman to be the Christ. It
must, however, be noticed that He does not
so declare Himself until the woman has
spoken of the expectation of Messiah among
her own people.
We have now reached the time when the
public ministry of Jesus in Galilee begins.
" The Galileans received him, having seen
all the things that he did in Jerusalem at
the feast : for they also went unto the
feast." So writes our Evangelist. He does
not narrate the details of the work of Jesus
in Galilee at this time except the single
miracle of the healing of the nobleman's
son at Capernaum. We cannot decide why
he is so reticent about the work in Galilee,
nor why he singles out this particular miracle
as worthy of narration. It seems to have

280 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
been impressed upon his mind that on
each of the two occasions when Jesus had
come into Galilee He had wrought a sign
at or from Cana (iv. 54). But after all why
should the Evangelist have told again the
story of the Galilean ministry? It had
already been written- at some length and
there was no need to repeat what the
Synoptists had already written. It is true
that he does later on repeat the story of
the miracle of the feeding of the five
thousand, and that of the walking upon
the sea, but these he introduces, I believe,
only because they led up to the discourse
in the synagogue at Capernaum. This seems
to be the Evangelist's centre of interest in
that section of his Gospel.
We are all familiar with the view that
the Fourth Evangelist wrote to supplement
the Synoptists, and, though this would be
an insufficient explanation to give of his
purpose in penning his Gospel, we may well
believe that there is an element of truth

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 281
in it. The interest of the Evangelist turns
on the belief and the unbelief which the
presence and person of Christ called forth.
The rejection of Jesus by the Jews, though
given in the Synoptic narratives, is in
adequately explained. The steps by which
the crucifixion ultimately came about are
not shown. The Fourth Evangelist is careful
to trace the hostility of the Jews from its
first beginnings to its culmination in the
crucifixion. His Gospel is a historic com
mentary on his own words : " He came unto
his own (elg to. 'iBia) and his own (ol 'iStoi)
received him not." Not that his Gospel
gives only a dark picture of unbelief. There
were those who believed, and of them he
writes: "As many as received him to them
gave he the right to become children of
God, even to them that believe on his name."
As we have already said, there were five
festal occasions when Jesus visited Jeru
salem. The first of these has already come
before us. It was a Passover, the first since

282 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
He had begun to make disciples. The chief
incident of it was the cleansing of the
temple. The next occasion was after the
public Galilean ministry had begun. The
feast is an unnamed one (v. 1). It has been
conjectured to be (1) Pentecost, (2) Purim,
(3) the Feast of Trumpets. Certainty is
impossible in the matter. Our Evangelist
tells how Jesus on this occasion offended
the Jews by healing an impotent man on
the Sabbath day. They 'persecuted' Jesus
— by reproaches we may suppose. The
answer Jesus gave them was : " My Father
worketh even until now and I work." They
were offended at this saying and now sought
to kill Him, because He not only broke the
Sabbath but also made Himself equal with
God. Now it has been objected that the manner
in which Jesus speaks to the Jews in Jeru
salem does not accord with the style of His
teaching, as the Synoptists represent it.
Indeed, I have heard it said that Jesus'

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 283
manner of address in the Fourth Gospel is
irritating and not worthy of Him. The
saying put into the mouth of Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel, "My Father worketh until
now, and I work" is contrasted with His
words on a similar occasion : " The Sabbath
was made for man and not man for the
Sabbath." And we are told that it is highly
improbable that Jesus would have spoken
to the Jews in Jerusalem about His Father,
as in the Fourth Gospel He does. It is said
that the argumentative tone of the Gospel
reflects the thoughts of a later time, and
cannot be reconciled with the Synoptic
teaching. It seems not simple enough, but
is altogether too theological.
This complaint is made against the long
discourse of Jesus which follows immediately
upon the incident we have been considering.
But I do not think that we have any right
to judge a priori how Jesus would speak in
Jerusalem. Even the Synoptists, when they
take Him to Jerusalem for the last Passover,

284 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
put into His mouth very stern and uncom
promising words. And I see no reason why
from the first Jesus should not have adopted
towards the religious teachers in Jerusalem
the attitude which the Fourth Evangelist
sets Him forth as exhibiting. It is not fair
to compare the manner of teaching given
by Jesus to the simple folk in Galilee with
His manner of speaking in Jerusalem where
the conditions were so entirely different.
A breach with the authorities there was
inevitable from the first. Jesus comes to
offer Himself to them for their acceptance
and He does not conceal His claims, which
run counter to all the prejudices and selfish
ambitions of Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.
It is not necessary to suppose that the
Fourth Evangelist gives us the ipsissima
verba of Jesus. But we may not unreason
ably think that he sets forth the purport
of the Master's appeal and claims. It is to
be noticed that he does not represent Jesus
as coming to Jerusalem and giving out

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 285
with no uncertain voice : I am the Christ :
It would seem that Jesus never so styled
Himself in Jerusalem until He was challenged
at His trial before the high priest, and then
He only did so in answer to the high
priest's question. To have proclaimed Him
self as the Christ in the face of the mis
taken ideas as to the nature of the Mes
sianic office would have been mischievous.
But Jesus did come forward acting with
authority, as in the case of the cleansing of
the temple, and claimed to speak authori
tatively in the name of God, whom He calls
publicly His Father. He asserts too that
His miracles are signs of His divine
mission. From the first He claims the
allegiance of Jerusalem for Himself, though
He knows what the claim is to cost Him.
The discourse then given in v. 19-47, and
completed in vii. 15-24, this latter passage
having seemingly become displaced from its
proper context,* marks a crisis in the life of
* See Hibbert Journal for April, 1909 : On two dis
locations in, St. John's Gospel.

286 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
Jesus. He sees that the attitude of the rulers
in Jerusalem towards Him is irreconcilable.
Henceforth, Galilee is His hope, and the
scene of His labours. Apparently He did
not attend the next Passover Feast, but
He waited until the Feast of Tabernacles
was well advanced and then came forward
and preached boldly in the temple courts,
inviting attention to Himself. He does not
now address Himself to the rulers but to
the people generally : " If any man thirst,
let him come unto me and drink." There
is much speculation among the people as
to whether He is the Christ, and many
were ready to believe on Him. The
Pharisees are alarmed by the readiness
shown to accept Him as the Christ and
they send the temple officers to take Him.
These, however, are unable to obey the
order, so impressed are they by the manner
of Jesus' teaching — "Never man spake like
this man." Jesus continues to teach, direct
ing men boldly to Himself as the light of

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 287
the world (viii. 12). The Pharisees resent
the testimony He bears to Himself, and
an altercation ensues, which ends in an
attempt to stone Him, because He had
spoken blasphemy in claiming to be one
with God (viii. 58). But He escaped.
Then follows the story of the healing
of the man born blind, which is told
with remarkable vividness and detail,
that it is difficult to believe it can be
an invention of the writer. The question
ing by the Pharisees of the man himself
and his parents, and their attempts to
intimidate by threats of excommunication
are clearly and logically brought out. The
man receives his sentence of excommunica
tion and Jesus offers Himself to him as
the object of his personal faith (ix. 35-38).
Jesus still speaks boldly to the people and
asserts Himself as the true leader and
shepherd of Israel in opposition to the hire
lings who but seek their own (x. 1-18).
Many think Him mad and possessed, but

288 MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING
some reason more soberly : " These are
not the sayings of one possessed with a
devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the
blind?" All this happened at the Feast of
Tabernacles. The Evangelist does not tell
us what happened meanwhile, but he
passes at once to the Feast of Dedication,
some two months later. "It was winter,"
he says, "and Jesus was walking in the
temple in Solomon's porch." The Jews
seek to draw from Him a direct claim to
be the Messiah : " If thou art the Christ,
tell us plainly." But Jesus refers them to
the works He has done, and reproves their
unbelief. Again He repeats His oneness
with the Father, and they again try to
stone Him (x. 22-39).
This is the last time that Jesus comes to
Jerusalem until He offers Himself as Jeru
salem's King of peace (xii. 12-16). He
retires now beyond the Jordan to the place
where John had at the first baptized. Here

TO THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 289
many came to Him; and they said: "John
indeed did no sign : but all things whatso
ever John spake of this man were true."
And many believed on Him there.
Next follows the story of the raising of
Lazarus, the objections to which we will
consider later. This miracle, persuading, as
it did, so many to believe on Jesus, finally
decided the Pharisees to put Him to death.
Their opportunity came when Jesus pre
sented Himself publicly before the Feast of
the Passover.
Now, whatever objections may be made
to the account in the Fourth Gospel of the
visits of Jesus to Jerusalem on the ground
that they do not fit into the Synoptic frame
of events, and that the teaching in Jeru
salem does not accord with that in Galilee,
we have a right to demand that critics
should concede that at any rate our
Evangelist gives a picture consistent in
itself, and that the progress of events
is not unnatural. In other words, the
Value of Fourth Gospel. 20

290 MINISTRY OF JESUS
events do 'march.' There is no halting.
We can see opposition developing ; and the
final issue flows naturally out of the begin
ning. The unbelief and hostility of the
Jews and their final rejection and crucifixion
of Jesus stand out clearly and consistently.
But something more will have to be said
in our next and concluding chapter in
answer to objections which are made to
the Fourth Gospel on the ground of its
inconsistency with the other three.

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE HIS
TORICITY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
CONSIDERED

CHAPTER XII
SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY OF
THE FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED
THERE can be no question about the
independence of the Fourth Evangelist.
His account of the visits of Jesus to Jeru
salem is certainly not derived from the
Synoptists, and even in regard to his subject
matter on ground common to the Synoptic
narratives and himself, a careful study shows
that he did not merely repeat what the
Synoptists say. He tells the story his own
way and tacitly corrects them. The most
striking correction of all concerns the date
of the crucifixion. Whereas the Synoptists
make the Last Supper a Passover, and put

294 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
the crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan, St. John
says that the Supper was before the Feast
of the Passover and he puts the crucifixion
on the 14th of Nisan. Schmiedel allows that
if the Fourth Evangelist is right in this, then
his Gospel is to be regarded as correct all
through, so crucial does this point seem to
him to be. Schmiedel, however, thinks the
Evangelist is wrong, and he refuses to regard
this Gospel as history in any true sense of
the word.
Professor Burkitt is also strongly opposed
to the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, but
it is a remarkable fact that he considers the
writer of it correct in his dating of the
crucifixion. Schmiedel's concession then that
the Gospel is to be credited if the author
is right on this point is one that cannot
be assumed to be granted by opponents
generally. It would take up too much space if we
were to attempt to answer in detail all the
various objections which have been urged

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 295
against the Fourth Gospel as history. We
may, however, single out some of the most
important ones.
Professor Burkitt writes * : " The dis
crepancy between the Fourth Gospel and the
Synoptic narrative, i.e., St. Mark's Gospel,
comes to a head in the story of the Raising
of Lazarus. It is not a question of the im
probability or impossibility of the miracle,
but of the time and place and the effect
upon outsiders." There is no room, he tells
us, for the miracle in the historical frame
work preserved by St. Mark. " Is it possible
that any one who reads the continuous
and detailed story of Mark from the Trans
figuration to the Entry into Jerusalem can
interpolate into it the tale of Lazarus and
the notable sensation that we are assured
that it produced ? Must not the answer be,
that Mark is silent about the Raising of
Lazarus because he did not know of it ? And
if he did not know of it, can we believe
* The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 221 ff.

296 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
that, as a matter of fact, it ever occurred?
In all its dramatic setting it is, I am per
suaded, impossible to regard the story of
the Raising of Lazarus as a narrative of
historical events."
In answer to this criticism it may be said,
first, that ' discrepancy ' is not an appropriate
word to use. If of two writers of the history
of a period one narrates and the other omits
a particular event, it cannot properly be said
that there is a discrepancy between them.
Secondly, it may be questioned whether the
story given by St. Mark of the time from
the Transfiguration to the Entry into Jeru
salem can fairly be described as ' continuous
and detailed.' It certainly is not so if the
Fourth Gospel be historical ; and it is simply
a prejudging of the whole matter so to
describe it. Thirdly, I can see no reason
for supposing that if the miracle of the
Raising of Lazarus really took place, St.
Mark must have known it.
In comparing the Fourth Gospel with the

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 297
Synoptists one must ever remember that
account must in all fairness be taken of all
three of them, and not only of St. Mark.
While it is generally recognised now that
the author of 'Matthew,' and St. Luke
used St. Mark, or what is practically the
same as our St. Mark, it is clear that they
had other sources of information, one of
these being that which is commonly denoted
by Q. The use of St. Mark and Q alone
will not fully account for St. Luke's Gospel,
though of course it is very difficult to decide
how much of it falls outside these two sources.
Now, if we had St. Mark's Gospel only
and knew nothing of the others we might
suppose that when Jesus left Galilee (St.
Mark x. 1) it was to go almost direct to
Jerusalem for the Passover. Of course, if
the Fourth Gospel be historical, this was
not the case. And I venture to say, that if
St. Luke's Gospel have any historical value
independently of its connection with St. Mark,
there is room for the course of events as

298 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
St. John gives them. It is, I readily allow,
extremely difficult to extract from St. Luke's
Gospel a chronological sequence of events,
but it seems to be clear that, according to
this writer, after Jesus had "stedfastly set
His face to go to Jerusalem," when "the
days were being fulfilled that he should be
received up," a good deal happened which
from St. Mark's narrative we should never
have imagined. I contend that it is not
only the Fourth Gospel which requires us
to regard the story from the Transfiguration
to the Entry into Jerusalem in Mark as
'continuous and detailed.' St. Luke's story
is inexplicable if we so regard it.
If we are to do justice to all the documents,
we must not begin by assuming the complete
ness of St. Mark. My contention is that his
Gospel is incomplete and needs to be supple
mented from other sources. St. Mark does
not say that when Jesus removed from
Galilee and came into " the borders of Judaea
[and] beyond Jordan," He did so merely

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 299
en route for the Passover Feast at Jerusalem.
St. John's Gospel leaves plenty of room for
a stay in these parts between verses 21 and
22 of chapter x., and again in x. 40 it is
expressly said that after the Feast of the
Dedication Jesus "went away again beyond
Jordan into the place where John was at
the first baptising ; and there he abode."
It was from this place that, according to our
Evangelist, Jesus was sent for, when Lazarus
of Bethany was sick.
If the story of Lazarus in the Fourth
Gospel be not historical, then the Evangelist
has made very skilful use of an incidental
notice in St. Luke, where Martha and Mary
are named and their dispositions contrasted
(x. 38-42). It is worthy of note that,
although St. Luke does not name the village
where these sisters lived, the visit of Jesus
to their home falls in that section of the
Gospel which follows upon the time when
He had stedfastly set His face to go to
Jerusalem. The place which it occupies

300 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
in the Gospel, immediately after Jesus had
spoken the parable of the Good Samaritan,
itself suggestive of the neighbourhood
appropriate to it, shews that the village
may well have been Bethany, which is the
home of Martha and Mary according to the
Fourth Evangelist.
Schmiedel exhibits some impatience with
the Evangelist because he distinguishes the
Mary of whom he is speaking as the one
" which anointed the Lord with ointment
and wiped his feet with her hair." As the
record of this anointing only comes later
in the Gospel, Schmiedel considers it in
appropriate to give this description before
the incident of the anointing has been told.
But this surely is hypercritical. The story
of the anointing at Bethany was already
known to those for whom our Evangelist
wrote, and there seems to me to be nothing
strange that when he mentions a woman
bearing so common a name as Mary he
should distinguish her as he does here.

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 301
Professor Burkitt recognises the wonderful
dramatic setting of the story of the Raising
of Lazarus. If the story be fiction, as we
are asked to believe, this wonderful narrative
must be set down to an extraordinary artistic
power possessed by the writer. To this we
must ascribe the contrast between the
behaviour of the two sisters, which is so
entirely in keeping with their dispositions
as depicted in St. Luke. To this too must
be due the graphic description of the
despondency of Thomas : " Let us also go
that we may die with him." We mark
how entirely this agrees with the character
of this Apostle as it is incidentally but con
sistently portrayed elsewhere in the same
Gospel (St. John xiv. 5; xx. 24, 25). The
fact that the portrayal is incidental, and
by-the-way, has to be taken account of. It
is easily explained if it is true to life, and
a description of life ; but not other
wise. Dr. West- Watson, the Bishop of Barrow-

302 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
in-Furness, has recently suggested* that
though the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus
is not recorded by any of the Synoptists,
the fact of the miracle may offer an ex
planation of the question put to our Lord
by the Sadducees on the subject of Resur
rection, and also of the eagerness of the
authorities, according to Matthew, to make
the tomb of Jesus secure by the sealing of
the stone.
A rock of offence, second in f ormidableness
only to the story of the Raising of Lazarus,
is the anachronism of which the Evange
list is supposed to be guilty in placing the
Eucharistic teaching given by Jesus a year
too soon. In the third and ninth chapters
we referred to Schmiedel's objection that
the meaning of the Eucharistic Supper is
given a year before its time. This fact,
taken in conjunction with the statement of
the Evangelist that five hundred, if not a
* Journal of Theological Studies, January, 1910,
Note on The Persean Ministry.

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 303
thousand, Roman soldiers go backward
and fall to the ground before Him, whom
they were to arrest, at the words " I am
he," and with the weight of the spices
applied to embalm the body of Jesus, is
sufficient, according to Schmiedel, to prove
that the Gospel has no historical value.
We have seen, however, that Schmiedel
would forego even these objections if the
Fourth Evangelist be right, as we have good
reason to think that he is, as to the date
of the crucifixion. Perhaps then this objec
tion to the Eucharistic teaching is not quite
so formidable as some would have us think.
Professor Burkitt goes even beyond
Schmiedel in his opposition. Schmiedel
objects to the meaning of the Eucharistic
supper being given a year before its insti
tution, but Professor Burkitt says : " It is
evident that ' John ' has transferred the
Eucharistic teaching to the earlier Galilean
miracle." Now I contend that this last is
unfair criticism. It is true in a sense, as

304 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
Schmiedel says, that the meaning of the
Eucharistic supper is given a year before
it was instituted. I say that in a sense this
is true. It would be more accurate to say
that a year before the institution of the
Eucharistic supper, teaching was given
which, when the Supper was instituted,
served to give it meaning. But no refer
ence is made to the Supper in St. John vi.,
so that the Evangelist is not guilty of an
anachronism. But Professor Burkitt goes further, and
in so doing transgresses the facts of the case,
when he speaks of the Evangelist having
transferred the Eucharistic teaching from
the Last Supper to the earlier Galilean
miracle. For where in the Synoptic story
of the institution of the Lord's Supper do
we find Eucharistic teaching? The Eucha
rist is then instituted, and the commandment
is given to observe it, but there is no record
of any teaching about it, except so far as
the words, " This is my body " and " This

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 305
is my blood" can be described as teaching.
I have contended in the ninth chapter that
these words which our Lord then used imply
some previous teaching, such as we find in
St. John vi., for their explanation.
Professor Burkitt says that the Fourth
Evangelist by omitting the institution of
the Eucharist at the Last Supper, "creates
a false impression of the scene." He
writes : * " The origin of the Christian rite
of the common sacramental meal must have
been known to every moderately instructed
Christian, certainly to every one who would
undertake to write an account of our Lord's
life on earth, and we cannot suppose the
Fourth Evangelist to have been ignorant
of it. When, therefore, we find him writing
an elaborate account of this last meal, in
cluding the announcement of the impending
betrayal, in which, nevertheless, there is no
mention of the epoch-making words of
Institution, we can only regard his silence
* The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 224.
Value of Fourth Gospel. 21

306 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
as deliberate. He must have deliberately left
out this exceedingly important incident ;
and thereby, so far as the mere narrative
of facts is concerned, he creates a false
impression of the scene."
It is difficult to see how the Evangelist
creates a false impression, seeing that, as
Professor Burkitt allows, the origin of the
common sacramental meal was known to
every moderately instructed Christian. The
Evangelist does not say that the Eucharist
was not instituted at the Last Supper. He
is simply silent on the point, deliberately
silent, as Professor Burkitt says; for why
should he re-write what was already so well
known ? He tells us a great deal about the
Last Supper which otherwise we should
not know, and I can see no reason to
doubt that what he records is fact and
not fiction. I think there is some truth in
the idea that the Fourth Evangelist made
it his aim to supplement the other Gospels.
Surely we should be thankful for the addi-

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 307
tional information, rather than feel annoy
ance because of the absence of repetition
of what we already know. It is an abuse
of words to say that the Evangelist, by
omitting the account of the institution of
the Eucharist and yet giving our Lord's
sacramental teaching, preparatory to it, a
year before, is guilty of a deliberate sacrifice
of historical truth.
Again, Professor Burkitt accuses our
Evangelist of giving a false impression
respecting the Baptism of Jesus. "The
descent of the Holy Spirit upon our Lord
at His baptism by John is the commence
ment of the Ministry according to St. Mark.
By this act, according to some early theolo
gians, such as Aphraates, He received from
the Baptist the sacerdotal gift. But the
Fourth Evangelist will have none of it. The
scene at the Jordan is indeed recorded by
him, and John testifies to the descent of the
Spirit upon Jesus ; but the central incident,
the actual baptism of Jesus by John, is

308 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
altogether left out. If the intention of the
Evangelist had been to tell us what happened,
if his intention had been to make us believe
in Jesus because of what happened, such
an omission would be nothing short of
disingenuous." This criticism seems to me strange indeed.
The first statement is not correct, for St.
Mark represents the ministry of Jesus as
beginning after John was delivered up, so
that it cannot accurately be said that, accord
ing to him, the baptism of Jesus is the com
mencement of the ministry. It is the Fourth
Evangelist who makes the ministry begin at
an earlier time. And it is quite misleading
to say, as Professor Burkitt does, that the
baptism of Jesus is altogether left out in the
Fourth Gospel. It is not described in detail,
it is true. But, as I have already pointed
out in the second chapter, it is implicit in
the narrative. For it seems quite clear
from the Baptist's words in i. 33 that the
Spirit descended upon Jesus at the time

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 309
of His baptism : " He that sent me to baptize
with water, he said unto me, Upon whom
soever thou shalt see the Spirit descending
and abiding upon him, the same is he that
baptizeth with the Holy Spirit." "The
central incident" is not the baptism, but
the descent of the Spirit. This the Fourth
Evangelist does not omit. His intention
is to tell us what happened, whatever may
be said to the contrary. He himself, as we
have seen, came first to Jesus in consequence
of the testimony of the Baptist to the descent
of the Spirit which he had himself witnessed.
Objection is also taken to ^the miracles in
the Fourth Gospel. Not but what there are
miracles in the other Gospels, but the Fourth
Evangelist is thought to carry the miraculous
to excess. He certainly does not record a
great number of miracles, but those that
he does relate are considered to go beyond
corresponding ones in the other Gospels-
Thus Lazarus is raised from the dead after
he has lain in the grave four days, whereas

310 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
Jairus' daughter was raised shortly after
death, and the widow's son at Nain before
burial. The man at the pool of Bethesda
had been thirty-eight years in his state of
infirmity, and the blind man to whom Jesus
gave sight had been blind from his birth.
As regards these last two instances, we
cannot say whether or not they go beyond
miracles of healing given in the Synoptists.
They tell of blind men to whom sight was
restored, and blindness is blindness whether
it dates from birth or not.
Schmiedel contends that the miracles in
the Fourth Gospel are symbolic and nothing
more. Symbolic they well may be, and
indeed plainly are, but the question is
whether they are fact or fiction. If they
are fact, the exactness of statement which
we find in this Gospel may be explained by
the writer's personal knowledge and infor
mation. If they are fiction and symbolic,
a meaning must be found for the details.
We may ask, What is the symbolism of the

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 311
four days during which Lazarus had lain in
the tomb? Schmiedel interprets the thirty-
eight years of the malady of the sick man
at the Pool of Bethesda in this way : For
this length of time the Israelites had been
obliged, as a punishment for their disobedi
ence to God, to wander in the wilderness,
without being permitted to set foot in the
promised land. The sick man then represents
the Jewish people, and in the five porticoes
of the house in which he had so long hoped
for a cure we may easily recognise the five
books of Moses !
One would like to have an interpretation
of the five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs
that the disciples had rowed (St. John vi. 19)
when they saw Jesus walking on the sea.
Unfortunately here the number is not exact.
But this gives some latitude for inter
pretation ! It is much to be wished that
Schmiedel would add this detail to the
symbolic interpretation he gives of the
miracle of the walking on the water. Of

312 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
this he says* that it is certainly meant to
serve to support the belief that at every
celebration of the Lord's Supper, Jesus is
really near to His people. The use of the
word 'certainly' (Sicherlich) is certainly not
justified. And such loose writing does not
serve to commend Schmiedel's position in
regard to the Fourth Gospel.
It must be allowed that some of the
miracles that our Evangelist records are
symbolic. They are speaking parables. This
is plain from the words, "I am the
Resurrection and the Life," in the story
of the Raising of Lazarus, and from the
Lord's declaration, "I am the bread of
life," following upon the feeding of the
five thousand. But this only raises the
miracles to a higher level. It makes them
signs in a high and spiritual sense. But
they are no signs at all if they be mere
fiction. Another objection raised is the difference
* Das vierte Evangelium, p. 79.

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 313
between the manner of Jesus' teaching in
the Fourth Gospel and that in the Synop
tists. The latter abound in parables which
are wholly absent in St. John. But it is
absurd to suppose — and indeed the Synoptic
writings themselves settle the point — that
Jesus had only one method of teaching,
viz., that by parables. That He employed
this method widely is clear enough from
the Synoptists, but there was no need for
the Fourth Evangelist to repeat the para
bles which were already well known. Why
should we doubt that Jesus made use of
discourse as well as of parable?
But it is complained that the manner of
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is unsym
pathetic and repellent. His way of address
ing the Jews could not fail to turn them
against Him. It must, however, be remem
bered that in this Gospel we are shown
Jesus in the presence of those who opposed
Him more than is the case in the other
Gospels. And there are stern denunciations

314 OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICITY
of Scribes and Pharisees even in the
Synoptists. It is not possible to infer from
the manner in which Jesus spoke to the
simple folk in Galilee how He would address
the religious authorities in Jerusalem. In
the Synoptic narrative He is not repre
sented as speaking smooth words to them.
Perhaps there are some who think that
Jesus ought to have made a compromise
with the Jewish authorities instead of being
so unbending. But the Fourth Gospel shows
how impossible such a thing was. The
claim of Jesus to come from God, whom
He called His Father, was resented by the
Jewish leaders from the first. Jesus had
nothing to gain for Himself personally by
pressing the claim. The opposition is
determined from the beginning and He
plainly foresaw the issue of it. A stern
protest against mercenary and legalistic
religious views had to be made, and strife
was inevitable. The opposition of the Jews
in the Fourth Gospel arises from the action

OF FOURTH GOSPEL CONSIDERED 315
of Jesus in cleansing the temple when He
said, "Make not my Father's house a house
of merchandise," and from His supposed
violation of the Sabbath, in justification of
which He says: "My Father worketh
hitherto and I work." This saying is
thought to be provocative and possibly
also to be ill-advised. But the question
really is whether the claim of Jesus was
true or not. One may be forgiven for sus
pecting that some of the opposition to the
Fourth Gospel arises from a belief that it
was not.
The question of the historicity of this
Gospel is a crucial one. It is perfectly true
that the Person of Christ as the Fourth
Evangelist sets it forth does not go beyond
what St. Paul in his Epistles represents it.
But it would be a serious loss to us if we
were deprived of the assurance we gain
from the Fourth Gospel, if it be historical,
that one who had lived in such close
intimacy with Jesus in the days of His

316 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
flesh came to believe in Him as the author
of this Gospel does. His prologue sounds
the keynote of what his faith in regard
to Jesus Christ was. The answer to the
question of the historical value of what is
recorded in the Gospel as fact is the answer
also to the question whether that faith was
justified.

TJNWDJ BBOTHEB8, T.TMTTRD, PBINTEBS, WOKING AND LONDON.