The First Considerable Specimen Which The fourth Gospel gives of the teaching of Jesus, is his conversation with Nicodemus (iii.1-21.). In the previous chapter (23-25.) it is narrated, that during the first Passover attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry, he had won many to faith in him by the miracles which he performed, but that he did not commit himself to them because he saw through them: he was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not only of the adherents whom Jesus had found even thus early, but also of the wariness with which he tested and received them, a more detailed account how Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and a Pharisee, applied to him, and how he was treated by Jesus.

It is through the Gospel of John alone that we learn anything of this Nicodemus, who in vii. 50 f. appears as the advocate of Jesus, so far as to protest against his being condemned without a hearing, and in xix. 39. as the partaker with Joseph of Arimathea of the care of interring Jesus. Modern criticism, with reason, considers it surprising that Matthew (with the other Synoptics) does not even mention the name of this remarkable adherent of Jesus, and that we have to gather all our knowledge of him from the fourth Gospel; since the peculiar relation in which Nicodemus stood to Jesus, and his participation in the care of his interment, must have been as well known to Matthew as to John. This difficulty has been numbered among the arguments which are thought to prove that the first Gospel was not written by the apostle Matthew, but was the product of a tradition considerably more remote from the time and locality of Jesus. But the fact is that the common fund of tradition on which ^{P.395} all the Synoptics drew had preserved no notice of this Nicodemus.

With touching piety the Christian legend has recorded in the tablets of her memory, the names of all the others who helped to render the last honours to their murdered master: Joseph of Arimathea and the two Marys (Matt. xxvii. 56-61 parall.); why then was Nicodemus the only neglected one, he who was especially distinguished among those who tended the remains of Jesus, by his nocturnal interview with the teacher sent from God, and by his advocacy of him among the chief priests and Pharisees? It is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man, if he had really assumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular Gospel tradition, without leaving a single trace, that one is induced to inquire whether the contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation: namelv, that such a relation between Nicodemus and Jesus might have hcen fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the author of the fourth Gospel without having really subsisted.

John xii. 42, it is expressly said that many among the chief rulers believed in Jesus, but concealed their faith from dread of excommunication by the Pharisees, because they loved the praise, of inen more than the praise of God That towards the end of his career many people of rank believed in Jesus, even in secret only, is not very probable, since no indication of it appears in the Acts of the Apostles; for that the advice of Gamaliel (Acts v.34ff.) did not originate in a positively favourable disposition towards the cause of Jesus, seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his disciple Saul. Moreover the Synoptics make Jesus declare in plain terms that the secret of his Messiahship had been revealed only to babes, and hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21), and Joseph of Arimathea is the only individual of the ruling class whom they mention as an adherent of Jesus. How, then, if Jesus did not really attach to himself any from the upper ranks, canic the case to be represented differently at a later period? In John vii. 48 f. we read that the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by the remark that none of the rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace, believed in him; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for example, Celsus, laid great stress on the circumstance that Jesus had had as his disciples. This reproach was a thorn in the side of the early Church, and though as long as her members were drawn only from the people, she might reflect with satisfaction on the declarations of Jesus, in which he had pronounced the poor and simple "blessed" (makarioi); yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education, these would lean to the idea that con-^{P.396} verts like themselves had not been wanting to Jesus during his life.

But, it would be objected, nothing had been hitherto known of such converts. Naturally enough, it might be answered; since fear of their equals would induce them to conceal their relations with Jesus.

Thus a door was opened for the admission of any number of secret adherents among the higher class (John xil. 42 f.). But, it would be further urged, how could they have intercourse with Jesus, unobserved? Under the veil of the night, would be the answer; and thus the scene was laid for the interviews of such men with Jesus (xix. 39.). This, however, would not suffice; a representative of this class must actually appear on the scene: Joseph of Arimathea might have been chosen, his name being still extant in the synoptic tradition; but the idea of him was too definite, and it was the interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of Jesus. Hence a new personage was devised, whose Greek name Nikodhmoj seems to point him out significantly as the representative of the dominant class. That this development of the legend is confined to the fourth Gospel, is to be explained, partly by the generally admitted lateness of its origin, and partly on the ground that in the evidently more cultivated circle in which it arose, the limitation of the adherents of Jesus to the common people would be more offensive, than in the circle in which the synoptic tradition was formed. Thus the reproach which modern criticism has cast on the first Gospel, on the score of its silence respecting Nicodemus, is turned upon the fourth, on the score of its information on the same subject.

These considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against the ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our investigations. This may still be in the main genuine; Jesus may have held such a conversation with one of his adherents, and our evangelist may have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a man of rank. Neither will we, with the author of the Probabilia, take umbrage at the opening address of Nicodemus, nor complain, with him, that there is a want of connection between that address and the answer of Jesus. The requisition of a new birth (gennhqnai anwqen) as a condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, does not differ essentially from the summons with which Jesus opens his ministry in the synoptic Gospels, liepent you, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. New birth, or new creation, was a current image among the Jews, especially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper of the Lord. It was ^{P.397} customary to say of Abraham, that when, according to the Jewish supposition, he renounced idolatry for the worship of the true God, he became a new creature. The proselyte, too, in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations, was compared to a new-born child, That such phraseology was common among the Jews at that period, is shown by the confidence with which Paul applies, as if it required no explanation, the term new creation, kainh ktisij, to those truly converted to Christ. Now, if Jesus required, even from the Jews, aa a condition of entrance into the Messianic kingdom, the new birth which they ascribed to thenheathen proselytes, Nicodemus might naturally wonder at the requisition, since the Israelite thought himself, as such, unconditionally entitled to that kingdom: and this is the construction which has been put upon his question v. 44 But Nicodemus does not ask, How can you say that a Jew, or a child of Abraham, must be born again? His ground of wonder is that Jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be born again, and that when he is old.

It does not, therefore, astonish him that spiritual new birth should be expected in a Jew, but corporeal new birth in a man. How an oriental, to whom figurative speech in generalhow a Jew, to whom the image of the new birth in particular must have been familiar how especially a master of Israel, in whom the misconstruction of figurative phrases cannot, as in the Apostles (e. g. Matt. xv. 15 f.; xvi. 7), be ascribed to want of educationcould understand this expression literally, has been matter of extreme surprise to expositors of all parties, as well as to Jesus (v. 10). Hence some have supposed that the Pharisee really understood Jesus, and only intended by his question to test the ability of Jesus to interpret his figurative expression into a simple proposition: but Jesus does not treat him as a hypocrite, as in that case he must have done-he continues to instruct him, as one really ignorant (v. 10). Others give the question the following turn: This cannot be meant in a physical sense, how then otherwise? But the true drift of the question is rather the contrary: By these words I can only understand physical new birth, but how is this possible? Our wonder at the ignorance of the Jewish doctor, therefore, returns upon us; and it is heightened when, after the copious explanation of Jesus (v. 5-8), that the new birth which he required was a spiritual birth, Nicodemus has made no advance in comprehension, but asks with the same obtuseness as before (v. 9), how can these, things be? By this last difficulty Lcke is so straitened, that, contrary to his ordinary exegetical tact, he refers the continued amazement of Nicodemus, (as other expositors had referred his original question,) to the circumstance ^{P.398} that Jesus maintained the necessity of new birth even for Israelites.

But, in that case, Nicodomus would have inquired concerning the necessity, not the possibility, of that birth; instead of asking, "How can these things be?" he would have asked, "When shall these things happen?" this inconceivable mistake in a Jewish doctor is not thon to be explained away, and our surprise must become strong suspicion so soon as it can be shown, that legend or the evangelist Iiad inducements to represent this individual as more simple than he really was. First, then, it must occur to us, that in all descriptions and recitals, contrasts are eagerly exhibited; hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher, the other the taught, there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to the wisdom of the former, by exaggerating the simplicity of the latter. Further, we must remember the satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of that age, to place a master of Israel in the position of an unintelligent person, by the side of the Master of the Christians. Lastly it is, as we shall presently see more clearly, the constant method of the fourth evangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form the knot and the progress of the discussion, by making the interlocutors understand literally what Jesus intended figuratively.

In reply to the second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely the tone of the fourth evangelist's prologue (v. 11-13). The question hence arises, whether the evangelist Lorrowed from Jesus, or lent to him hid own style. A previous investigation has decided in favour of the latter alternative, But this inquiry referred merely to the form of the discourses; in relation to their matter, its analogy with the ideas of Philo, does not authorize us at once to conclude that the writer here puts his Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos into the mouth of Jesus because the expressions, "speak what we do know," and, No man has ascended up to heaven," have an analogy with Matt. xi. 27; and the idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah which is here propounded, is, as we have seen, not foreign to the apostle Paul.

V. 14 and 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth, (the communications concerning the new birth,) to the more difficult things of heaven, (the announcement of the destination of the Messiah to a vicarious death.) The Son of Man, he says, must be lifted up which, in John's phraseology, signifies crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation,) in the same way, and with the same effect, as the brazen serpent (Numb. xxi. 8, 9.) Here many questions press upon us.

Is it credible, that Jesus already, at the very beginning of his ^{P.399} public ministry, foresaw his death, and in the specific form of crucifixion? and that long before he instructed his disciples on this point, he made a communication on the subject to a Pharisee? Can it be held consistent with the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that. he, should impart such knowledge to Nicodemus? Even Lcke puts the question why, when Nicodemus Iiad not understood the more obvious doctrine, Jesus tormented him with the more recondite, and especially with the secret of the Messiah's death, which was then so remote? He answers: it accords perfectly with the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that he should reveal the sufferings appointed for him by God as early as possible, because no instruction was better adapted to cast down false worldly hopes. But the more remote the idea of the Messiah's death from the conceptions of his contemporaries, owing to the worldliness of their expectations, the more impressively and unequivocally must Jesus express that idea, if he wished to promulgate it; not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure that Nicodemus would understand. Lcke continues: Nicodemus was a man open to instruction; one of whom good might be expected. But in this very conversation, his dulness of comprehension in earthly things had evinced that he must have still less capacity for heavenly things: and, according to v. 12, Jesus himself despaired of enlightening him with respect to them. Lcke, however, observes, that it was a practice with Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been comprehended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less comprehensible; thai he purposed thus to give a spur to the minds of his hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect.

But the examples which Lcke adduces of such proceeding on the part of Jesus, are all drawn from the fourth gospel. Now the very point in question is, whether that gospel correctly represents the teaching of Jesus; consequently Lcke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar procedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with the woman of Samaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburdening of weak faculties with enigma on enigma, does not accord with the wise rule as to the communication of doctrine, which the same gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, xvi. 12. It would not stimulate, but confuse, the mind of the hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension of the well-known figure of the new birth, to present to him the novel comparison of the Messiah and his death, to the brazen serpent and its effects; a comparison quite incongruous with his Jewish ideas. In the first three Gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course. In these, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part, of the disciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is evident that the evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphorical discourses) applies himself with the assiduity of an earnest teacher to the thorough explanation of the difficulty, and not until ^{P.400} he has effected this does he proceed, step by step, to convey further instruction (e. g. Matt. xiii.10ff.36ff.; xv. 16; xvi.8ff.) This is the method of a wise teacher; on the contrary, to leap from one subject to another, to overburden and strain the mind of the hearer, a mode of instruction which the fourth evangelist attributes to Jesus, is wholly inconsistent with that character. To explain this inconsistency, we must suppose that the writer of the fourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the contrast which appears from the first, between the wisdom of the one party and the incapacity of the other, by representing the teacher as overwhelming the pupil who put unintelligent questions on the most elementary doctrine, with lofty and difficult themes, beneath which his faculties are laid prostrate.

Even those commentators who pretend to some ability in this department, lose all hope of showing that the remainder of the discourse may have been spoken by Jesus. Not only does Paulus make this confession, but even Olshausen, with a concise statement of his reasons. At the above verse, any special reference to Nicodemus vanishes, and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the destination of the Son of God, to confer a blessing on the world, and on the manner in which unbelief forfeits this blessing. Moreover, these ideas are. expressed in a form, which at one moment appears to be a reminiscence of the evangelist's introduction, and at another has a striking similarity with passages in the first epistle of John. In particular, the expression the "only begotten Son," which is repeatedly (v. 16 and 18.) attributed to Jesus as a designation of his own person, is nowhere else found in his mouth, even in the fourth gospel; this circumstance, however, marks it still more positively as a favourite phrase of the evangelist (i. 14-18), and of the writer of the Epistles (1 John iv. 9). Further, many things are spoken of as past, which at the supposed period of this conversation with Nicodemus were yet future.

For even if the words, "he gave," ' refer not to the giving over ^{P.401} to death, but to the sending of the Messiah into the world; the expressions, men loved darkness, and their deeds were evil, (v. 19), as Lcke also remarks, could only be used after the triumph of darkness had been achieved in the rejection and execution of Jesus: they belong then to the evangelist's point of view at the time when he wrote, not to that of Jesus when on the threshold of his public ministry. In general the whole of this discourse attributed to Jesus, with its constant use of the third person to designate the supposed speaker; with its dogmatical terms only begotten, light, and the like, applied to Jesus; with its comprehensive view of the crisis and its results, which the appearance of Jesus produced, is far too objective for us to believe that it came from the lips of Jesus. Jesus could not speak thus of himself, but the evangelist might speak thus of Jesus. Hence the same expedient has been adopted, as in the case of the Baptist's discourse already considered, and it has been supposed that Jesus is the speaker down to v. 16, but that from that point the evangelist appends his own dogmatic reflections. But there is again here no intimation of such a transition in the text; rather, the connecting word for, yap (v. 16), seems to indicate a continuation of the same discourse. No writer, and least of all the fourth evangelist (comp. vii. 39; xi. 51 f.; xii. 16: xxxiii.37ff.), would scatter his own observations thus undistinguishingly, unless he wished to create a misapprehension, f

If then it be established that the evangelist, from v. 16. to the end of the discourse, means to represent Jesus as the speaker, while Jesus can never have so spoken; we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure adopted by Luke, when he maintains that it is really Jesus who continues to speak from the above passage, but that the evangelist has interwoven his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than before. For this admission undermines all certainty as to how far the discourse belongs to Jesus, and how far to the evangelist; besides, as the discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and style, it must be ascribed either wholly to Jesus or wholly to the evangelist. Qf these two alternatives the former is, according to the above considerations, impossible; we are ^{P.402} therefore restricted to the latter, which we Iiave observed to be entirely consistent with the manner of the fourth evangelist.

But not only on the passage v. 16-21 must we pass this judgment: v. 14 has appeared to us out of keeping with the position of Jesus; and the behaviour of Nicodemus, v. 4 and 9, altogether inconceivable. Thus in the very rirst sample, when compared with the observations which we have already made on John iii.22ff.; iv.1ff., the fourth gospel presents to us all the peculiarities which characterize its mode of reporting the discourses of Jesus. They are usually commenced in the form of dialogue, and so far as this extends, the lever that propels the conversation is the striking contrast between the spiritual sense and the carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus: generally, however, the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which the writer blends the person o'f Jesus with his own, and makes the former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.

IN The fifth chapter of John, a long discourse of Jesus is connected with a cure wrought by him on the sabbath (19-47). The mode in which Jesus at v. 17 defends his activity on the sabbath, is worthy of notice, as distina;uished from that adopted by him in the earlier Gospels. These ascribe to him, in such cases, three arguments: the example of David, who ate the show-bread; the precedent of the sabbatical labours of the priest's in the temple, quoted also in John vii. 23 (Matt. xii. 3 ff. parall.); and the course pursued with respect to an ox, sheep, or ass, that falls into the pit (Matt. xii.11 parall), or is let out to watering on the sabbath (Luke xiii. 18.); all which arguments are entirely in the practical spirit that characterizes the popular teaching of Jesus. The fourth evangelist, on the contrary, makes him argue from the uninterrupted, activity of God, and reminds us by the expression which he puts into the mouth of Jesus, My Father "works until now" of a principle in the Alexandrian metaphysics, viz. God never ceases to act, a metaphysical proposition more likely to be familiar to the author of the fourth gospel than to Jesus. In the synoptic Gospels, miracles of healing on the sabbath are fallowed up by declarations respecting the nature and design of the sabbatical institution, a species of instruction of which the people were greatly in need; but in the present passage, a digression is immediately made to the main theme of the gospel, the person of Christ and his relation to the Father. The perpetual recurrence of this theme in the fourth gospel has led its adversaries, not without reason, to accuse it of a tendency purely theoretic, and directed to the glorification of Jesus. In the matter of the succeeding discourse ^{P.403} there is nothing to create a difficulty, nothing that Jesus might not have spoken, for it treats, with the strictest coherence, of thino-s which the Jews expected of the Messiah, or which Jesus attributed to himself, according to the Synoptics also: as, for instance, the raising of the dead, and the office of judging the world. But this consistency in the matter, only lieightcns the difficulty connected with the form and phraseology in which it is expressed. For the discourse, especially its latter half (from v. 31), is full of the closest analogies with the first epistle of John, and with passages in the gospel in which either the author speaks, or John the Baptist. One means of explaining the former resemblance is to suppose, that the evangelist formed his style by closely imitating that of Jesus. That this is possible, is not to be disputed; but it. is equally certain that it could proceed only from a mind destitute of originality and selfconhdence, a character which the fourth evangelist in no way exhibits. Further, as in the other Gospels Jesus speaks in a thoroughly different tone and style, it would follow, if he really spoke a3 he is represented to have done by John, that the manner attributed to him by the Synoptics is fictitious. Now, that this manner did not originate with the evangelists is plain from the fact, that cach of them is so little master of his matter. Neither could the bulk of the discourses have been the work of tradition, not only because they have a highly original cast, but because they bear the impress of the alleged time and locality. On the contrary, the fourth evangelist, by the ease with which he disposes his materials, awakens the suspicion that they are of his own production; and some of his favourite ideas and phrases, such as, "The Father shows the Son all that himself does," and those already quoted, seem to have ^{P.404} sprung from an Hellenistic source, rather than from Palestine. But the chief point in the argument is, that in this gospel John the Baptist speaks, as we have seen, in precisely the same strain as the author of the Gospels, and his Jesus. It cannot be supposed, that not only the evangelist, but the Baptist, whose public career was prior to that of Jesus, and whose character was strongly marked, modelled his expressions with verbal minuteness on those of Jesus.

Hence only two cases are possible: either the Baptist determined the style of Jesus and the evangelist (who indeed appears to have been the Baptist's disciple); or the evangelist determined the style of the Baptist and Jesus. The former alternative will be rejected by the orthodox, on the ground of the higher nature that dwelt in Christ; and we are equally disinclined to adopt it, for the reason that Jesus, even though he may have been excited to activity by the Baptist, yet appears as a character essentially distinct from him, and original; and for the still more weighty consideration, that the style of the evangelist is much too feeble for the rude Baptist, too mystical for his practical mind. There remains, then, but the latter alternative, namely, that the evangelist has given his own style both to Jesus and to the Baptist: an explanation in itself more natural than the former, and supported by a multitude of examples from all kinds of historical writers. If however the evangelist is thus responsible for the form of this discourse, it is still possible that the matter way have belonged to Jesus, but we cannot pronounce to what extent this is the case, and we have already had proof that the evangelist, on suitable opportunities, very freely presents his own reflections in the form of a discourse from Jesus.

In chap. vi., Jesus represents himself, or rather his Father, v.27ff., as the giver of the spiritual manna. this is analogous to the Jewish idea above quoted, that the second Goel, like the first, would provide manna; and to the invitation of Wisdom in the Proverbs, ix. 5, "Come, eat of my bread."

But the succeeding declaration, that he is himself the bread of life that comes down from heaven (v. 33 and 35) appears to find its true analogy only in the idea of Philo, that the divine word logoj qeioj is that which nourishes the soul. From v. 51, the difficulty becomes still greater. Jesus proceeds to represent his flesh as the bread from heavcn, which he will give for the life of the world, and to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and to drink his blood, he pronounces to be the only means of attaining eternal life. The similarity of these expressions to the words which the Synoptics and Paul attribute to Jesus, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, led the older commentators generally to understand this passage as having refer- ^{P.405} ence to the Sacramental supper, ultimately to be appointed by Jesus.

The chief objection to this interpretation is, that before the institution of the supper, such an allusion would be totally unintelligible.

Still the discourse might have some sense, however erroneous, for the hearers, as indeed it had, according to the narrator's statement; and the impossibility of being understood is not, in the fourth gospel, so shunned by Jesus, that that circumstance alone would suffice to render this interpretation improbable. It is certainly supported by the analogy between the expressions in the discourse, and the words associated with the institution of the supper, and this analogy has wrung from one of our recent critics the admission, that even if Jesus himself, in uttering the above expressions, did not refer to the supper, the evangelist, in choosing and conveying this discourse of Jesus, might have had that institution in his mind, and might have supposed that Jesus here gave a premonition of its import, In that case, however, he could scarcely have abstained from modifying the language of Jesus; so that, if the choice of the expression eat the flesh etc, can only be adequately explained on the supposition of a reference to the Lord's Supper, we owe it, without doubt, to the evangelist alone. Having once said, apparently in accordance with Alexandrian ideas, that Jesus had described himself as the bread of life, how could he fail to be reminded of the bread, which in the Christian community was partaken of as the body of Christ, together with a beverage, as his blood? He would the more gladly seize the opportunity of making Jesus institute the supper prophetically, as it were; because, as we shall hereafter see, he knew nothing definite of its historical institution by Jesus.

The discourse above considered, also bears the form of a dialogue, and it exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially belongs to the fourth gospel: that, namely, in which language intended spiritually, is understood carnally. In the first place (v. 34), the Jews (as the woman of Samaria in relation to the water) suppose that by the bread ichich comcth dozen from heaven, Jesus means some material food, and entreat him evermore to supply them with such. Such a misapprehension was certainly natural; but one would have thought that the Jews, before they carried the subject further, would have indignantly protested against the assertion of Jesus (v. 32), that Moses had not given them heavenly bread. When, Jesus proceeds to call himself the bread from heaven, the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum murmur that he, the son of Joseph, whose father- and mother they knew, should arrogate to himself a descent from heaven (v. 41); a reflection which the Synoptics with more probability attribute to the people of Nazareth, the native city of Jesus, and to which they assign a more natural cause. That the Jews should not understand (v. 53) how Jesus could give them his flesh to eat is very conceivable; and for that reason, as we have ob- ^{P.406} served, it, is the less so that Jesus should express himself thus unintelligibly. Neither is it surprising that this "hard saying" should cause many disciples to fall away from hiin, nor easy to perceive how Jesus could, in the first instance, himself give reason for the secession, and then, on its occurrence, feel so much displeasure as is implied in v. 61 and 67. It is indeed said, that Jesus wished to sift his disciples, to remove from his society the superficial believers, the earthly-minded, whom he could not trust; but the measure which he here adopted was one calculated to alienate froin hiin even his best and most intelligent followers. .For it is certain that the twelve, who on other occasions knew not what was meant by the leaven of the Pharisees (Matt. xvl. 7), or by the opposition between what goes into the mouth, and what comes out of it (Matt. xv. 15), would not understand the present discourse; and the words of eternal life, for the sake of which they remained with him (v. 65), were assuredly not the words of this sixth chapter.

The further we read in the fourth gospel, the more striking is the repetition of the same ideas and expressions. The discourses of Jesus during the Feast of Tabernacles, ch. vii. and vili. are, as Lcke has remarked, mere repetitions and amplifications of the oppositions previously presented (especially in ch. v), of the coining, speaking, and acting, of Jesus, and of God (vii. 17, 28 f.; vili. 28 f., 38 40, 42. compare with v. 30, 43; vi. 38.); of being from "above" and "beneath" (viii. 23 comp. iii. 31.); of 'bearing witness of one's self," and "receiving witness from God" (viii. 13. comp. v. 31-37.); of light and darkness (viii. 12. comp. iii.10ff., also xii. 35 f); of true and false judgment (viii.15 f., comp. v. 30.). All that is new in these chapters, is quickly repeated, as the mention of the departure of Jesus whither the Jews cannot follow him (vii. 33 f., viii. 21; comp. xiii. 33., xiv.2ff., xvi.16ff.); a declaration, to which are attached, in the first two instances, very improbable misapprehensions or perversions on the part of the Jews, who, although Jesus had said, I go to him that sent me., are represented as imagining, at one time, that he purposed journeying to the dispersed among the Gentiles, at another, that he meditated suicide. How often, again, in this chapter are repeated the asseverations, that he seeks not his own honour, but the honour of the Father (vii. 17 f., viii. 50, 54); that the Jews neither know from where he came, nor the father who sent him (vii. 28; viii. 14, 19, 54); that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life, shall not see death, while whoever does not believe must die in his sins, having no share in eternal life (viii. 21, 24, 51; comp. iii. 36, vi. 40.).

This ninth chapter, consisting chiefly of the deliberations of the Sanhedrin with the man born blind, whom Jesus had restored ^{P.407} to sight, has of course the form of conversation, but as Jesus is less on the scene than heretofore, there is not the usual amount of artificial contrast; in its stead, however, there is, as we shall presently find, another evidence of artistic design in the narrator.

The tenth chapter commences with the well-known discourse on the Good Shepherd; a discourse which has been incorrectly called a parable. Even the briefest among the other parables of Jesus, such as that of the leaven and of the mustard-seed, contain the outline of a history that dcvelopes itself, having a beginning, progress, and conclusion. Here, on the contrary, there is no historical development; even the particulars that have an historical character are stated generally, as things that are wont to happen, not as things that once happcned, and they are left without further limitation; moreover, the door usurps the place, of the Shepherd, which is at first the principal image; so that we have here, not a parable, but an allegory. Therefore this passage at least(and we shall find no other, for the similitude of the vine, cli. xv., comes, as Lcke confesses, under the same category as the one in question)furnishes no argument against the allegation by which recent critics have justified their suspicions as to the authenticity of the fourth gospel; namely, that its author seems ignorant of the parabolic mode of teaching which, according to the other evangelists, was habitual with Jesus. It does not however appear totally unknown to the fourth evangelist that Jesus was fond of teaching by parables, for he attempts to give examples of this method, both in cli. x. and xv., the first of which he expressly styles a parable, paroimia. But it is obvious that the parabolic form was not accordant with his taste, and that he was too deficient in the faculty of depicting external things, to abstain from the intermixture of reflections, from which the parable in his hand became an allegory.

The discourses of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles extend to x. 18. From v. 25, the evangelist professes to record sayings which were uttered by Jesus three months later, at the Feast of Dedication. When, on this occasion, the Jews desire from him a distinct declaration whether he be the Messiah, his immediate reply is, that he has already told them this sufficicntiv, and he repeats his appeal to the testimony of the Father, as given in the "works" done by Jesus in his name (as in v. 36.). Hereupon, by reason of the incidental remark that his unbelieving questioners were not of his sheep, the evangelist reverts to the allegory which he had recently abandoned, and repeats part of it word for word. But not recently e.g. by Tholck and Lcke. The latter, however, allows that it is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks, that the discourses of the Shepherd and the Vine are rather comparisons than parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the parables presented by the Synoptics as a species, under the genus similitude, to which the images in John belong. ^{P.408}

Jesus abandoned this allegory; for since its delivery three months are supposed to have elapsed, and it is certain that in the interim much must have been spoken, done, and experienced by Jesus, that would thrust this figurative discourse into the background of his memory, so that he would be very unlikely to recur to it, and in no case would he be able to repeat it, word for word.

He who had just quitted the allegory was the evangelist, to whom three months had not intervened between the inditing of the first half of this chapter, and that of the second. He wrote at once what, according to his statement, was chronologically separated by a wide interval; and hence the allegory of the shepherd might well leave so distinct an echo in his memory, though not in that of Jesus. If any think that they can solve this difficulty by putting only the verbal similarity of the later discourse to the earlier one to the account of the evangelist, such an opinion cannot be interdicted to them.

For others, this instance, in connection with the rest, will be a positive proof that the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel are to a great extent the free compositions of the evangelist.

The same conclusion is to be drawn from the discourse with which the fourth evangelist represents Jesus as closing his public ministry (xii. 44-50). This discourse is entirely composed of reminiscences out of previous chapters, and, as Paulus expresses it, is a mere echo of some of the principal apophthegms of Jesus occurring in the former part of the gospel. One cannot easily consent to let the ministry of Jesus close with a discourse so little original, and the majority of recent commentators are of opinion that it is the intention of the evangelist here to give us a mere epitome of the teaching of Jesus. According to our view also, the evangelist is the real speaker; but we must contend that his introductory words, Jesus "cried aloud and said," are intended to imply that what follows is an actual harangue, from the lips of Jesus.

This commentators will not admit, and they can appeal, not without a show of reason, to the statement of the evangelist, v. 36, that Jesus withdrew himself from the public eye, and to his ensuing observations on the obstinate unbelief of the Jews, in which he seems to put a period to the public carreer of Jesus; from which it would be contrary to his plan to make Jesus again step forward to deliver a valedictory discourse. I will not, with the older expositors, oppose to these arguments the supposition that Jesus, after his withdrawal, returned to pronounce these words in the ears of the Jews; but 1 hold fast to the proposition, that by the introduction above quoted, the evangelist can only have intended to announce an actual harangue. It is said, indeed, that the aorist in wpae and dm has the ^{P.409} signification of the pluperfect, and that we have here a recapitulation of the previous discourses of Jesus, notwithstanding which the Jews had not given him credence. But to give this retrospective signification there ought to be a corresponding indication in the words themselves, or in the context, whereas this is far less the case than e. g. in John xviii. 24. Hence the most probable view of the question is this: John had indeed intended to close the narrative of the public ministry of Jesus at v. 36, but his concluding observations, v.37ff., with the categories of faith and unbelief, reminded him of discourses which he had already recorded, and he could not resist the temptation of making Jesus recapitulate them with additional emphasis in a parting harangue.

The long discourses of Jesus above examined are peculiar to the fourth gospel; it has only a few brief maxims to which the Synoptics present parallels. Among the latter, we need not give a special examination to those which are placed by John in an equally suitable connection, with that assigned, to them by the other evangelists (as xii. 25. comp. with Matt. x. 39; xvi. 25; and xiii. 16. comp. with Matt. x. 24.); and as the passage ii. 19 compared with Matt. xxvi. 61, must be reserved until we treat of the story of the Passion, there remain to us only three passages for our present consideration.

The first of these is iv. 44, where the evangelist, after having mentioned that Jesus departed from Samaria into Galilee, adds, For Jesus himself testified that "a prophet has no honour in his own country. We find the same idea in Matthew xiii. 57. (Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24), "A prophet is not without honour, exce(t in his own country and in his ovn house." But while in the latter case it stands in a highly appropriate connection, as a remark prompted by the ungracious reception which Jesus met with in his native city, and which caused him to leave it again: in John, on the contrary, it is given as a motive for the return of Jesus into his own country, Galilee, where, moreover, he is immediately said to be warmly received.

The experience stated in the above sentence, would rather have disinclined than induced Jesus to undertake a journey into Galilee; hence the expedient of translating yap by although, is the best adapted to the necessity of the case, and has even been embraced by Kuinl, except that, unhappily, it is an open defiance of the laws of language.

Unquestionably, if Jesus knew that the prophet held this unfavourable position in his native country, it is not probable that he would regard it as a reason for going there. Some expositors, ^{P.410} therefore, have 'been induced to understand "country" not as the province, but in a narrower sense, as the native city, and to supply, after the statement that Jesus went into Galilee, the observation, which they assume the evangelist to have omitted, that he avoided his native city Nazareth, for the reason given in the ensuing verse. But an ellipsis such as this explanation requires us to suppose, belongs not less to the order of impossibilities than -the transmutation of gar into though. The attempt to introduce the desired statement that Jesus did not visit his own town into the present passage has been therefore renounced; but it has yet been thought possible to discover there an intimation that he did not soon return there. But to render this interpretation admissible, the entire period of the absence of Jesus from Galilee must have been mentioned immediately before the notice of his return; instead of this, however, only the short time that Jesus had tarried in Samaria is given (v. 45), so that in ludicrous disproportion of cause and effect, the fear of the contempt of his fellow countrymen would, on the above supposition, be made the reason for delaying his return into Galilee, not until after a residence of some months in Judea, but until after the lapse of two days spent in Samaria. So long, therefore, as Galilee and Nazareth are admitted to be the "country" of Jesus, the passage in question cannot be vindicated from the absurdity of representing, that Jesus was instigated to return there by the contempt which he knew to await him. Consequently, it becomes the interest of the expositor to recollect, that Matthew and Luke pronounce Bethlehem to he the birthplace of Jesus, from which it follows that Judea was his native country, which he now forsook on account of the contempt he had there experienced, But according to iv. 1. (comp. ii. 24, iii. 26 ff.) Jesus had won a considerable number of adherents in Judea, and could not therefore complain of a lack of honour; moreover the enmity of the Pharisees, hinted at in iv. 1, was excited by the growing consequence of Jesus in Judea, and was not at all referable to such a cause as that indicated in the maxim about the prophet. Further, the entrance into Galilee is not connected in our passage with a departure from Judea, but from Samaria; and as, according to the import of the text, Jesus departed from Samaria and went into Galilee, because he had found that a prophet has no honour in his own country, Samaria might rather seem to be pointed out as his native country, in conformity with the reproach cast on him by the Jews there; though even ^{P.411} in Samaria also Jesus is said, iv. 39, to have had a favourable reception. Besides, we have already seen that the fourth evangelist knows nothing of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but on all occasions presupposes him to be a Galileau and a Nazarene. From the above considerations we obtain only the negative result, that it is impossible to discover any consistent relation between the maxim in question and the context. A positive result, namely, how the maxim came to occupy its actual position, notwithstanding this want of relation, will perhaps be obtained when we have examined the two other passages belonging to the present head of our inquiry.

The declaration xiii. 20, he that receives you, receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me, has an almost verbal parallel in Matt. x. 40. In John, it is preceded by the prediction of the betrayal of Jesus, and his explanation to his disciples that he had told them this before it came to pass, in order that when his prediction was fulfilled., they might believe in him as the Messiah. What. is the connection between these subjects and the above declaration, or between the latter and its ensuing context, where Jesus recurs to his betrayer? It is said that Jesus wished to impress on his disciples the high dignity of a Messianic missionary, a dignity which the betrayer thought lightly of losing; but the negative idea of loss, on which this supposition turns, is not intimated in the text.

Others are of opinion that Jesus, observing the disciples to be disheartened by the mention of the betrayer, sought to inspire them with new courage by representing to them theirhigh value: but in that case he would hardly have reverted immediately after to the traitor. Others, again, conjecture that some intermediate sentences have been omitted by the writer; but this expedient is not much happier than that of Kuinl, who supposes the passage to be a gloss taken from Matt. x. 40, united originally to v. 16 of chap. xiii. of John, but by some chance transposed to the end of the paragraph.

Nevertheless, the indication of v. 16 is an useful way-mark. This verse, as well as v. 20, has a parallel in the discourse of instructions in Matthew (x. 24.); if a few fragments of this discourse had readied the author of the fourth gospel through the medium of tradition, it is very probable that one of them would bring the others to his recollection. In v. 16 there is mention of the "sent," and of "sent him," so in v. 20, of those whom Jesus will send, and of Him who sent Jesus. It is true, that the one passage has a humiliating, the other an encouraging tendency, and their affinity lies therefore, not in the sense, but in the words; so that as soon as the fourth evangelist puts down, from memory, traditional sayings of Jesus, we see him subject to the same law of association as the Synoptics. It would have been the most natural arrangement to place v. 20 immediately after v. 16; but the thought of the traitor was uppermost in the mind of the writer, and he could ^{P.412} easily postpone the insertion of an apophthegm that had only a verbal connection with his previous matter.

Our third passage, xiv. 31, lies yet further within the domain of the story of the Passion than the one last examined, but as, like this, it can be viewed quite independently, we shall not be anticipating if we include it in our present chapter. In the above passage, the words "Arise, let us go hence" remind us of those by which Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 46, Mark xiv. 42, summons his disciples to join him in encountering the traitor: "rise, let us be going." The position of the words in John is perplexing, because the summons to depart has no effect; Jesus, as it he had said nothing of the kind, immediately continues (xv. 1,), I am the true vine etc, and does not take his departure with his disciples until after he has considerably prolonged his discourse. Expositors of every hue have been singularly unanimous in explaining the above words by the supposition, that Jesus certainly intended at the moment to depart and betake himself to Gethsemane, but love for his disciples, and a strong desire to impart to them still further admonition and comfort, detained him; that hence, the first part of the summons, "Arise," was executed, but that, standing in the room in which he had supped, he pursued his discourse, until, later, (xviii.1), he also put into effect the words, let us go hence. It is possible that the circumstances were such; it is also possible that the image of this last evening, with all its details, might be engraven so deeply and accurately in the memory of a disciple, that he might narrate how Jesus arose, and how touchingly he lingered. But one who wrote under the influence of a recollection thus lively, would note the particulars which were most apparent; the rising to depart and the delay, not the mere words, which without the addition of those circumstances are altogether unintelligible.

Here again, then, the conjecture arises that a reminiscence of the Gospel tradition presented itself to the writer, and that he inserted it just where it occured to him, not, as it happened, in the best connection; and this conjecture assumes probability so soon as we discover what might have reminded him of the above expression. In the synoptic parallels the command, "Rise, let us be going," is connected with the announcement, "Behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners; behold he is at hand that will betray me;" with the announcement, that is, of the hostile power which is approaching, before which, however, Jesus exhibits no fear, but goes to encounter the danger with the decision implied in that command. In John's gospel, also, Jesus, in the passage under our notice, had been speaking of a hostile power when he said, The prince of this world comes and has nothing in me. It makes little difference that in John it is the power that dwells in the betrayer, and in those led by him, while, in the synoptic Gospels, ^{P.413} it is the betrayer who is impelled by that power which is said to approach. If the author of the fourth gospel knew by tradition that Jesus had united with the announcement of an approaching danger the words, Rise, let us be going, this expression would be likely to occur to him on the mention of the prince of this world; and as in that stage of his narrative he had placed Jesus and his disciples in the city and within doors, so that a considerable change of place waa necessary before they could encounter the enemy, he added to a)gwmen (let us go), the word e)nteuqen (hence). As, however, this traditional fragment had intruded itself unawares into the train of thought, which he designed to put as a farewell discourse into the mouth of Jesus, it waa immediately lost sight of, and a free course was given to the stream of valedictory instruction, not yet exhausted.

If, from the point of view now attained, we glance back on our first passage, iv. 44, it is easy to see how the evangelist might be led to insert in so unsuitable a connection the testimony of Jesus as to the treatment of a prophet in his own country. It was known to him traditionally, and he appears to have applied it to Galilee in general, being ignorant of any unfavourable contact of Jesus with the Nazarenes. As, therefore, he knew of no special scene by which this observation might have been prompted, he introduced it where the simple mention of Galilee suggested it, apparently without any definite idea of its bearing.

The result of the above investigation is this; the fourth evangelist succeeds in giving connectedness to his materials, when he presents his own thoughts in the form of discourses delivered by Jesus; but he often fails lamentably in that particular, when he has to deal with the real traditional sayings of Jesus. In the above instances, when he has the same problem before him as the Synoptics, he is as unfortunate in its solution as they; indeed, he is in a yet more evil case, for his narrative is not homogeneous with the common Gospel tradition, and presented few places where a genuine traditional relic could be inserted. Besides, he was accustomed to cast his metal, liquid from his own invention, and was little skilled in the art of adapting independent fragments to each other, so as to form a harmonious mosaic.

The foregoing examination of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel, has sufficiently prepared us to form a judgment on the controversy of which they have recently been the subject. Modern criticism views these discourses with suspicion, partly on account of their internal contexture, which is at variance with certain generally received rules of historical probability, and partly on account of their external relation to other discourses and narratives. ^{P.414}

With respect to the internal contexture of the above discourses, there arises a twofold question: Does it correspond to the laws, first, of verisimilitude, and secondly, of memory?

It is alleged by the friends of the fourth gospel that its discourses are distinguished by a peculiar stamp of truth and credibility; that the conversations which it represents Jesus as holding with men of the most diverse disposition and capacity, are faithful delineations of character, satisfying the strictest demands of psychological criticism. In opposition to this, it is maintained to be in the highest degree improbable, that Jesus should have adopted precisely the same style of teaching to persons differing widely in their degrees of cultivation; that he should have spoken to the Galileans in the synagogue at Capernaum not more intelligibly than to a master of Israel; that the matter of his discourses should have turned almost entirely on one doctrine.-the dignity of his person; and that their form should have been such, as to seem selected with a view to perplex and repel his hearers. Neither, it is further urged, do the interlocutors express themselves in conformity with their position and character. The most educated Pharisee has no advantage in intelligence over a Samaritan woman of the lowest grade; the one, as well as the other, can only put a carnal interpretation on the discourse which Jesus intends spiritually; their misconstructions, too, are frequently so glaring, as to transcend all belief, and so uniform that they seem to belong to a standing set of features with which the author of the fourth gospel has chosen, for the sake of contrast, to depict those whom he brings into conversation with Jesus. Hence, I confess, I understand not what is the meaning of verisimilitude in the mind of those who ascribe it to the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John.

As to the second uoint, regarding the powers of memory, it is pretty generally agreed that discourses of the kind peculiar to John's gospel, in contradistinction to the apothegms and parables, either isolated or strung together, in the synoptic Gospels, namely, series of dependent propositions, or prolonged dialogues, are among the most difficult to retain and reproduce with accuracy. Unless such discourses were reduced to writing at the moment of their delivery, all hope of their faithful reproduction must be abandoned.

Hence Dr. Paulus once actually entertained the idea, that in the judgment-halls of the temple or the synagogues at Jerusalem, there were stationed a sort of shorthand writers, whose office it was to draw up verbal processes, and that from their records the Christians, after the death of Christ, made transcripts. In like manner, Bertholdt was of opinion, that our evangelist, during the lifetime of ^{P.415} Jesus, took down most of the discourses of Jesus in the Aramean language, and made these notes the foundation of his gospel, composed at a much later period. These modern hypotheses are clearly unhistorical; nevertheless, their propounders were able to adduce many reasons in their support. The prophetic declarations of Jesus relative to his death and resurrection, said Bertholdt, are more indefinite in John than in the synoptic Gospels, a sure sign that they were recorded before their fulfilment, for otherwise the writer's experience of the event would have reflected more clearness on the predictions. To this we may add the kindred argTinicnt, by which Henke thought it possible to establish the genuineness of the discourses in John: namely, that the fourth Evangelist not seldom appends explanatory remarks, often indeed erroneous, to the obscure expression of Jesus, thus proving that he was scrupulously conscientious in reporting the discourses, for otherwise he would have mingled his comments with their original matter. But it is with justice objected, that the obscurity of the predictions in the fourth gospel is in perfect harmony with the mystical spirit that pervades the work, and as, besides, the author, together with his fondness for the obscure and enigmatical, indisputably possessed taste, he must have been conscious that a prophecy would only be the more piquant and genuine-looking, the more darkly it was delivered: lienee, though he put those predictions into the mouth of Jesus long after the events to which they refer, he might yet chose to give them an indefinite form. this observation helps to explain why the evangelist, when elucidating some obscure expressions of Jesus, adds that. his disciples did not understand them until after his resurrection, or after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (11. 22; vii. 39); for the opposition of the darkness in which the disciples at one time groped, to the light which ultimately arose on them, belongs to that order of contrasts with which this gospel abounds. Another argument, adopted by Bertholdt and approved by Tholck, is, that in the discourses of the fourth gospel there sometimes occur observations, which, having no precise meaning in themselves, nor any connection with the rest of the discourse, must, have been occasioned by some external circumstance, and can only be accounted for on. the supposition of prompt, indeed, of immediate reduction to writing; and among their examples the passage, Arise, let us go hence (xiv.31), is one of the most important. But the origin of such digressive remarks has been above explained, in a manner that renders the hypothesis of instantaneous note-taking superfluous.

Thus commentators had to excogitate some other means of certifying the genuineness of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel. The general argument, so often adduced, founded on what a ^{P.416} good memory might achieve, especially among men of simple lives, unused to writing, lies in the region of abstract possibility, where, as Lcke remarks, there may always be nearly as much said against as for a theory. It has been thought more effectual to adopt an argument resting on a narrower basis, and to appeal to the individual distinctions of the apostle John, to his intimate and peculiar relation to Jesus as the favourite disciple, to his enthusiasm for his master, which must surely have strengthened his memory, and have enabled him to preserve in the most lively recollection all that he can from the lips of his divine friend. Although this peculiar relation of John to Jesus rests on the authority of John's gospel alone, we might, without reasoning in a circle, draw from it conclusions as to the credibility of the discourses communicated by him, were the faults of which his gospel is accused only such as proceed from the inevitable fading of the memory; because the positive notices of that relation could never flow from this negative cause. As, however, the suspicion which has arisen to the prejudice of the fourth evangelist has gone far beyond those limits, even to the extent of taxing him with free invention, no fact resting on the word of John can be used in support of the discourses which he communicates. But neither the above relation, if admitted, nor the remark that John apparently attached himself to Jesus in early youth, when impressions sink deepest, and from the time of his master's death lived in a circle where the memory of his words and deeds was cherished, suffices to render it probable that John could retain in his mind long series of ideas, and complicated dialogues, until the period in which the composition of his gospel must be placed. For critics are agreed that the tendency of the fourth gospel, its evident aim to spiritualize the common faith of Christians into the Gnosis, and thus to crush many errors which had sprung up, is a decisive attestation that it was composed at a period when the Church had attained a degree of maturity, and consequently in the extreme old age of the apostle.

Hence the champions of the discourses in question are fain to bring forward, as a forlorn hope, the supernatural assistance of the Paraclete, which was promised to the disciples, and which was to restore all that Jesus had said to their remembrance. This is done by Tholck with great confidence, by Lcke with some diffidence, which Tholck's Anzeiger severely censures, but which we consider laudable, because it implies a latent consciousness of the circle that is made, in attempting to prove the truthfulness of the discourses in John, by a promise which appears nowhere but in those discourses; and of the inadequacy of an appeal, in a scientific inquiry, to a popular notion, such as that of the aid of the Holy Spirit. The con- ^{P.417} sciousness of this inadequacy shows itself indirectly in Tholck for he ekes out the assistance of the Paraclete by early notes; and in Lcke also, for he renounces the verbal authenticity of the discourses in John, and only contends for their substantial veracity on "rounds chiefly connected with the relation which they bear to otner discourses.

The external relation of the discourses of Jesus in John's gospel is also twofold; for they may be compared both with those discourses which the Synoptics put into the mouth of Jesus, and with the manner in which the author of the fourth gospel expresses himself when he is avowedly the speaker.

As a result of the former comparison, critics have pointed out the important difference that exists between the respective discourses in their matter, as well as in their form. In the first three Gospels, Jesus closely adapts his teaching to the necessities of his shepherdless people, contrasting, at one time, the corrupt institutions of the Pharisees with the moral and religious precepts of the Mosaic law; at another, the carnal Messianic hopes of the age with the purely spiritual nature of his kingdom, and the conditions of entrance therein. In the fourth gospel, on the contrary, he is perpetually dilating, and often in a barren, speculative manner, on the doctrine of his person and higher nature: so that in opposition to the diversified doctrinal and practical materials of the synoptic discourses, we have in John a one-sided dogmatism. That this opposition does not hold invariably, and that in the discourses of the synoptic Gospels there are passages which have more affinity with those of John, and vice versa, must be granted to judicious critics; but the important preponderance of the dogmatical element on the one side, and of the practical on the other, is a difficulty that demands a thorough explanation. In answer to this requisition, it is common to adduce the end which John is supposed to have had in view in the composition of his gospel: namely, to furnish a supplement to the first three Gospels, and to supply their omissions. But if Jesus taught first in one style, then in another, how was it that the Synoptics selected almost exclusively the practical and popular, John, nearly without exception, the dogmatic and speculative portions of his discourse? This is accounted for in a manner intrinsically probable. In the oral tradition, it is observed, on which the first three Gospels were founded, the simple and popular, the concise and sententious discourses of Jesus, being the most easy of retention, would alone be propagated, while his more profound, subtle and diffuse discourses would be lost. But according to the above supposition, the fourth evangelist, came as a gleaner after the Synoptics: now it is certain that all the discourses of Jesus having a practical tendency had not been preserved by them; hence, that the former has almost invariably avoided giving any relic of such discourses, can only be ^{P.418} explained by his preference for the dogmatic and speculative vein: a preference which must have had both an objective and a subjective source, the necessities of his time and circumstances, and the Lent of his own mind. this is admitted even by critics who are favourable to the authenticity of the fourth gospel, with the reservation, that that preference betrays itself only negatively, by omission, not positively, by addition.

There is a further difference between the synoptic Gospels and the fourth, as to the form of teaching adopted by Jesus; in the one, it is aphoristic and parabolic, in the other, dialectic. We have seen that the parable is altogether wanting in the fourth gospel, and it is natural to ask why, since Luke, as well as Matthew, has many admirable parables peculiar to himself, John has not been able to make a rich gleaning, even after those two predecessors? It is true that isolated apothegms and sentences, similar to the synoptic ones, are not entirely absent from the fourth gospel: but, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the prevailing aphoristic and parabolic form of instruction, ascribed to Jesus by the Synoptics, is more suited to the character of a popular teacher of Palestine, than the dialectic form which he is made to adopt by John.

But the relation of the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John, to the evangelist's own style of thinking and writing, is decisive. Here we find a similarity which, as it extends to the discourses of a third party, namely, the Baptist, cannot be explained by supposing that the disciple had formed his style on that of the master,) but requires us to admit that the evangelist has lent his own style to the principal characters in his narrative. The latest commentator on John has not only acknowledged this with regard to the colouring of the expression; he even thinks that in the matter itself he can here and there detect the explanatory amplifications of the evangelist, who, to use his own phrase, has had a hand in the composition of the longer and more difficult discourses. But since the evangelist does not plainly indicate his additions, what is to assure us that they are not throughout interwoven with the ideas of Jesus, indeed, that all the discourses which he communicates are not entirely his own productions? The style furnishes no guidance, for this is every whore the same, and is admitted to be the evangelist's own; neither does the sense, for in it also there is no essential difference whether the evangelist speaks in his own name, or in that of Jesus: where then is the guarantee that the discourses of Jesus are not, as the author of the Probabilia maintains, free inventions of the fourth evangelist?

Lcke adduces some particulars, which on this supposition would be in his opinion inexplicable. First, the almost verbal agreement ^{P.419} of John with the Synoptics in isolated sayings of Jesus. But aa the fourth evangelist was within the pale of the Christian community, he must have had at his command a tradition, from which, though drawing generally on his own resources, he might occasionally borrow isolated, marked expressions, nearly unmodified. Another argument of Lcke is yet more futile. If, he says, John had really had the inclination and ability to invent discourses for Jesus, he would have been more liberal in long discourses; and the alternation of brief remarks with prolonged addresses, is not to be explained on the above supposition. But this would follow only if the author of the fourth gospel appeared to be a tasteless writer, whose perception did not tell him, that to one occasion a short discourse was suitable, to another a long one, and that the alternation of diffuse harangues with concise sentences was adapted to produce the best impression. of more weight is the observation of Paulus, that if the fourth evangelist had given the rein to his invention in attributing discourses to Jesus, he would have obtruded more of his own views, of which he has given an abstract in his prologue; whereas the scrupulousness with which he abstains from putting his doctrine of the Logos into the mouth of Jesus, is a proof of the faithfulness with which he confined himself to the materials presented by his memory or his authorities. But the doctrine of the Logos is substantially contained in the succeeding discourse of Jesus; and that the form in which it is propounded by the evangelist in his preface, does not also reappear, is sufficiently explained by the consideration, that he must have known that form to be altogether foreign to the teaching of Jesus.

We therefore hold it to be established, that the discourses of Jesus in John's gospel are mainly free compositions of the evangelist; but we have admitted that he has culled several sayings of Jesus from an authentic tradition, and hence we do not extend this proposition to those passages which are countenanced by parallels in the synoptic Gospels. In these compilations we have an example of the vicissitudes which befal discourses, that are preserved only in the memory of a second party. Severed from their original connection, and broken up into smaller and smaller fragments, they present when reassembled the appearance of a mosaic, in which the connection of the parts is a purely external one, and every transition an artificial juncture. The discourses of Jesus in John present just the opposite appearance. Their gradual transitions, only rendered occasionally obscure by the mystical depths of their meaning, transitions in which one thought develops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition is frequently but an explanatory amplification of the preceding, - are indicative of a pliable, ^{P.420} unresisting mass, such as is never presented, to a writer by the traditional sayings of another, but such as proceeds from the stores of his own thought, which he moulds according to his will. For this reason the contributions of tradition to these stores of thought, (apart from the sayings which are also found, in the earlier Gospels,) were not so likely to have been particular, independent dicta of Jesus, as rather certain ideas which formed the basis of many of his discourses, and which were modified, and developed according to the tent of a mind of Alexandrian or Greek culture. Such are the correlative ideas of father and son, light and darkness, life and death, above and beneath, flesh and spirit; also some symbolical expressions, as bread of life, and water of life. These and a few other ideas, variously combined by an ingenious author, compose the bulk of the discourses attributed to Jesus by John; a certain uniformity necessarily attending this elemental simplicity.