tion. Therefore, there is a strong probability that the accordant portions of these three histories contain a tolerably correct outline of the chief events of Christ's life; but some errors and embellishments might also find their way into all three by the same channels, viz. the mistakes or inventions of the first writer, or the traditions on which they all depended. In the case of miracles in particular, it is to be considered whether the same motives which led the first evangelist to exaggerate or to receive exaggerations, might not have led men circumstanced so similarly to himself as Mark and Luke were, to repeat a part of his statements. They have shaken Matthew's general credibility by rejecting some of his most prominent miracles; and it may be questioned whether their own position, as men of the same views and feelings, and defenders of the same cause, enables them to add from their own credibility what they have taken from him, in the case of the miracles which they confirm.

It might be said that after admitting so much against the credibility of the evangelists, it is inconsistent to receive their testimony at all, or to pretend to gather from them any truth regarding the history of Christ. But this would be a contrary extreme. It is of the very nature of history to contain much incorrectness, since it must depend more or less on a series of links of human testimony. Therefore to ascertain the truth of remote historical facts is a peculiarly difficult attempt, although not altogether hopeless; and if the object be considered worth the pains, the inquirer must submit to the trouble of sifting narrations, of making allowance for mistakes, ignorance, and peculiar biases, and in many cases be content to retain a very small grain of reality from the midst of a mass of invention. So in these three Gospels, after making every allowance for probable mistake and fiction, and especially of such a kind as would tend to aggrandize the

founder of the sect, there still seems to remain so much of
reality, that the attempt of Jesus to assume the Messiahship,
his public preaching in Galilee and at Jerusalem, and his
crucifixion, might be considered, from the testimony of these
three writers alone, as facts deserving a place in history;
which conclusion is strongly supported by other writings and
subsequent events.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE DATE AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF

ST. JOHN.

THE first three Gospels agree very well in the style of the discourses attributed to Christ, which are chiefly parables and short pithy sayings. They represent him as beginning his public preaching in Galilee, proceeding after some time to Jerusalem, and suffering there. The chief topic dwelt upon is the approach of the kingdom of heaven; and they contain much concerning the fall of Jerusalem.

But the Gospel of John is of a very different character. The discourses of Christ are here long controversial orations without any parables: he is made to journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, and back again, many times; the kingdom of heaven is nearly lost sight of; the fall of Jerusalem never alluded to; and we have, instead of these, several new subjects, viz. the incarnation of the word or logos in the person of Christ; his coming down from heaven; his relationship to the Father; and the promise of the Comforter or Holy Spirit. Also, with few exceptions, a new set of miracles is attributed to Christ.

From the resemblance of style, the author of this Gospel and of the three Epistles appears to be the same. In the first Epistle, he says, that he had been an eye-witness of the word of life. In the last two he calls himself "the elder." There was a John, usually called the elder or presbyter, to distinguish him from John the Apostle, the brother of James;

N

+

and Papias* calls him also "a disciple of Jesus.”

But the name "elder" was not uncommonly given to the heads of the church (1 Peter v. 1), and might be assumed by John the Apostle. In the Gospel, the writer is said to be the disciple whom Jesus loved. That this is the same as the brother of James is confirmed by this, that the other three Evangelists often name this John among the more confidential disciples of Jesus; whilst the other John, the presbyter mentioned by Papias, does not appear at all. And since the church in general has attributed this Gospel to John the Apostle, there seems to be sufficient reason to believe that he and the beloved disciple were the same. Consequently, this Gospel contains what is equivalent to an assertion that it was written by the Apostle John, and thus differs from the rest in stating its author.

There is no external evidence before Irenæus (178), who said, "afterwards, i. e. after Luke wrote, John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia." Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, also speak of this as the last-written Gospel. There are several passages in the Fathers before Irenæus, having the appearance of quotations from or allusions to the Gospel and the 1st Epistle, viz. Hermas, A. D. 100; Ignatius, 107; Polycarp, 108. The result most generally agreed upon, is the date of 97 or 98 for the Gospel.†

We find in ch. xxi. 24, as follows, "this (the beloved disciple) is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Grotius conjectures that "we" meant the church at Ephesus.

Euseb. H. E, l. 3, c. 29.

+ Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, and Jones, are for 97 or 98. Lardner "does not presume to say exactly the year, but thinks it might be written in the year 68."

In this case, the chapter in question, and therefore probably the whole Gospel,* does not come before us strictly as the writing of St. John, but rather as the report of what he wrote, given by some member or members of the Ephesian church. The Gospel has the appearance rather of a collection of detached writings and discourses than of a continuous work; and it seems highly probable that some other person than the aged Apostle himself should have been employed to put these together and transcribe them. And whether this compiler, transcriber, or amanuensis, may not have been so zealous as to add not only the last chapter, but also in some other parts to improve somewhat upon the Apostle's own words, is difficult to determine. Yet the general identity of the style is an argument that such liberties could not have been very extensive.

II. The later date of this Gospel would account in a great measure for the difference between its tone and sentiments and those of the other three. After so long an interval from the fall of Jerusalem, the expectation of an immediate coming of the Son of Man had become comparatively faint; the political character of the Messiah as a Jewish deliverer was nearly obsolete; and the investing him with the attri- ! butes suggested by the Alexandrian Platonic philosophy, was a theme much more intelligible and interesting to the Greeks, perhaps also the philosophic Jews at Ephesus. The Apostle having been resident there for many years,t would naturally become conversant with the prevalent habits of thinking and speaking amongst the philosophical and religious world around him; to which indeed the habitual respect of the Jews of

All the evidence from manuscripts confirms the argument derived from the style, that the last chapter is a genuine part of the Gospel.

+ The time when John came to Ephesus cannot be ascertained, but the opinions vary from A. D. 60 to 70. The chief datum is that he probably did not go there till after Paul had been there and written his epistle.