Type this book, chapter by chapter. Progress is saved on this device.
Begin Typing VigilThe differences between the Fourth and the other Gospels are too obvious to need emphasis. From the second century onwards, they have constituted a difficult problem. The answer of Alexandria in the second century, that the 'Spiritual' Gospel was written later, when the 'bodily' events had been recorded in the first three, still holds the field. Details must be dealt with, so far as space permits, in the notes, but the chief lines of difference may be conveniently summarised here.
With the exceptions of 1:19-34 (the Baptist), 2:13-16 (Temple cleansing), perhaps 4:46-54 (healing of nobleman's son), 12:1-8 (anointing), 12:12-16 (triumphal entry) and the history of the Passion and Resurrection, the Fourth Gospel breaks altogether new ground. In the common sections it is claimed that it shows literary dependence on the Synoptic Gospels, and the author certainly assumes that his readers know their contents. But he has other independent sources of information.
The old contrast of a synoptic account of one year's ministry (the 'acceptable year of the Lord') and a ministry of 3.5 years (in John), needs serious modification. Mark suggests a ministry ending with a Passover, in which the period of ripe corn occurred, not at the beginning, i.e. a ministry of more than one year. John, even if the reference to a Passover in 6:4 is part of the original text, need not imply a ministry of much more than two years. John does, however, leave the impression of a longer ministry than the Synoptists suggest.
In the Synoptic Gospels this [scene] is Galilee, with one first and final visit to Jerusalem, at the Passover, when He was crucified. In John the scene passes backwards and forwards between Jerusalem and Galilee, the former being the scene of His most important work. The exact order of events and number of visits to Judaea and Jerusalem depends on the question whether the gospel, as we have it, represents the original arrangement of the matter out of which it has grown. But there is no doubt as to the prominence of work in the south. The cleansing of the Temple is recorded in connexion with the earliest public visit to Jerusalem, its natural place if more than one visit occurred.
The method of the Synoptic teaching, by parable, and the subject, the Kingdom, have almost disappeared. Their place is taken by discourses and controversies, mainly on Christ's claims and relation to God. His pre-existence and unique 'Sonship' are assumed. And what the Synoptists represent as uttered only occasionally, in moments of exceptional exaltation, here becomes normal. The 'Similitudes' of Enoch show that pre-existence could naturally be attributed to One who was thought of as Messiah. But the question of the Messiahship is differently treated. In the Synoptists Jesus publicly claims the title only at the end, and it can be plausibly maintained that the disciples recognise Him as such only late in the ministry, recognition being at first confined to demoniacs. In John, the Baptist, the earliest disciples, and others all recognise the Messiahship from the beginning. The difference is clear and marked even if a solution may be found in the fact that His conception of the office directly contradicted the ideas of popular Messianism, so that those who hailed Him as Messiah at first may have been 'offended' when He consistently refused to do what they expected from Messiah, as they conceived His nature and office.
While the Synoptists clearly assume that Christ ate the last Paschal meal with His disciples, and died on the 15th of Nisan, 'the great day of the Feast,' John equally clearly places the Crucifixion on the 14th, the Jews having not yet 'eaten the Passover' when they appeared before Pilate. Here there is perhaps a growing consensus of opinion that John has preserved a truer tradition.
These and other differences have led many to deny any historical value to the Johannine account of the ministry. But while it is clear that the element of interpretation, not absent from the earlier gospels, is here predominant, it is a mistake to suppose that all the contents of the gospel can be explained as the attempt of the author, by the aid of symbolism, allegory, and typology, to read into the life of Jesus, which he knew only from the Synoptists, his own interpretation of the Person and work of Jesus Christ and its significance for men. The later element, which could not have been so prevalent before the end of the first century, is clear. But another element of trustworthy detail, which does not obviously help forward the writer's own object and views, is equally clear. If there is interpretation there is history as well, and the history is not derived from the Synoptic accounts. It is often needed to explain them.
This timeline combines the three Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and the five Johnannine works.