# The Johannine Writings/Part I, Chapter II

CHAPTER II.
 ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS WITH THE FOURTH.
 WE might have shown many other differences between the Synoptics and  Jn. But it will be better to notice them at a later stage. We shall  therefore pause here to deal with a question which must have occurred  to many of our readers long before this: Are the accounts in the four  Gospels really so fundamentally different? Is there no way of  reconciling them?  __________________________________________________________________
 1. EARLIER ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THEM COMPLETELY.
 This question was quite urgent in the days when people felt obliged to  cherish the belief that every letter in Holy Scripture was dictated by  the Holy Spirit. In those days it had to be answered in the affirmative  at any cost. And, as a matter of fact, the cost was not light--it did  not involve merely effort and ingenuity, but meant giving up what seems  obvious when the Bible is understood in a natural and unsophisticated  way. And yet the attempt to establish complete harmony between the four  Gospels (or, as was thought, simply the art of exhibiting this  harmony), the nature of which suggested the name "Harmonics," was for  many centuries one of the chief pursuits of theological science.
 Strictly speaking, there are only two courses open to us, If one and  the same event seems to be reported in more Gospels than one, but in a  more or less different way, we must either show that the difference in  the statement is only apparent, or we must say that each account treats  of a distinct event. The more seriously we regard the language, the  more frequently will the second course be the one we shall have to  take. Strict Harmonics, too, with quite special frequency arrives at  this result by starting with the presupposition that each Evangelist  not only tells us a story correct in every word, but also gives each  particular event and utterance in the life of Jesus in its right order,  though--and this could not be denied under any circumstances--he omits  many things which are preserved in the other Gospels.
 Thus, for example, it was necessary to show in each of the first three  Gospels at what point each of those journeys of Jesus to a feast  reported only in Jn. could be fitted in. In Jesus' walking on the sea,  Jn. (vi. 16-21), we are told, has not in mind the same event as the  Synoptists have, for in the Synoptics Jesus is taken into the boat in  the middle of the Lake (Mk. vi. 51), but in Jn. is not (see above, p.  19 f .). Again, the Feeding of the Five Thousand reported by Jn. (vi.  1-13) must be a different event from the Feeding spoken of by the  Synoptics (Mk. vi. 35-44) for in all the Gospels we are told that such  a feeding took place on the day preceding the night on which Jesus  walked on the sea (with the exception of Lk. who does not report the  walking on the sea). But how? It is not permissible even to regard the  Feeding reported in all three Synoptics as one and the same event; for  in Mt. (xiv. 21) those who are fed are more numerous--besides the 5000  men there are women and children the number of whom is not given.  Consequently, there are three Feedings instead of one, in which the  number 5000 figures: one in Mk. = Lk., another in Mt., a third in Jn.  On each occasion there are only five loaves and two fishes ^ on each  occasion twelve baskets full of fragments are gathered up; each event  is followed by a night-journey across the sea; yet each Evangelist  relates only one of these three events, and Mk. and Mt., though each  knows of another Feeding, do not report more than one of these three;  but the two between them tell of a fourth and a fifth--one according to  Mk. (viii. 1-9) in which 4000 men, and another according to Mt. (xv.  32-38) in which 4000 men besides an indefinite number of women and  children, were satisfied; but on both occasions this happens after the  people have wandered about with Jesus for three days, on both occasions  there are seven loaves and a few fishes, and on both occasions seven  baskets full of fragments are gathered up afterwards.
 But enough! The perseverance with which people have pursued all these  suggestions--which from the outset are such as we cannot accept--to  their utmost limit, and have put faith in them out of respect for the  Holy Spirit, who is supposed to have inspired every letter of the  Bible, certainly deserves to be fully recognised. Only one question is  forbidden. How often may Jesus be supposed to have been born, baptized,  crucified, and raised from the dead?  __________________________________________________________________
 2. MODERN ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THEM APPROXIMATELY.
 Present-day defenders of the trustworthiness of all the four Gospels  are far more modest in the claims which they make. They quietly assume  that one and the same event is meant, even where the accounts differ  from one another rather widely; only they would rather not concede too  much, and so they try as far as possible to represent the differences  as being only slight. Naturally it is right for us always to test  whether these are really as great as they seem at first sight to be.  Where, however, this attempt is vain unless we seriously misinterpret  the language, it is not only unfair, but is also nothing better than  illogical. For if we are obliged to admit, and actually do admit, that  there are many contradictions in the Bible, there is no point in  insisting in the case of a limited number of these, that they are not  really contradictions. If we admit--since Jesus was taken captive only  on one occasion--that according to the Synoptics Judas betrayed him by  a kiss, and according to Jn. did not betray him in this way (xviii.  4-6), what is the use, when we turn to the expulsion of the dealers  from the fore-court of the Temple, of denying that either the  Synoptists or Jn. must have made a mistake, and of preferring to  suppose that there were two such acts, one at the beginning of his  ministry (Jn. ii. 13-22), the other at the end of it (Mk. xi. 15-18)?  If this were so, why did Jesus omit to drive the dealers and  money-changers from the temple court on his other visits to Jerusalem  as well? Are we to suppose that they were not stationed there on these  occasions? And why on the first occasion did he escape scot free,  whereas on the second he suffered death in consequence?  __________________________________________________________________
 3. USE OF THE SYNOPTICS BY JN.
 We may set aside such palpably impossible attempts to deny that there  are contradictions between the Synoptics and Jn., and give attention to  such as are really worth discussing. But before we do this, it should  be said that it is almost universally agreed that the author of the  Fourth Gospel had the other three before him when he wrote.
 To prove this we are not of course at liberty to cite at our pleasure  all kinds of things in which Jn. agrees with them, for these he might  himself have noted as an eye witness. We must specify passages which he  would not certainly have written, if he had not derived them from the  Synoptics. Thus, for example, it is very remarkable that Jesus ascends  the mountain before the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Jn. vi. 3) and  ascends the mountain after it (vi. 15), though we have not been told in  the meantime that he came down, or been given any clue that would lead  us to conjecture that he did so. The matter admits of a simple  explanation: when the author was about to relate the beginning of the  Feeding, he had before him the beginning of the second Feeding in Mt.  (xv. 29), "and he went up into the mountain and sat there." He tells us  almost word for word: "And Jesus went up into the mountain, and there  he sat with his disciples." At the second place, however, when he was  about to pass from the Feeding to Jesus' walking on the sea (vi. 15) he  remembered that Mk. and Mt., in their first story of the Feeding, said  that between the two acts Jesus ascended the mountain (his language  agrees very closely with Mt. xiv. 23), and so he added this and  overlooked the fact that he had said nothing about Jesus coming down.  For another example see xx. 2 (chap. iii., 26). In i. 15, in the words,  "This was he of whom I said, `He that cometh after me is become before  me,'" the Baptist actually recalls something he has said about Jesus at  an earlier date, but which is not found in the Fourth Gospel but only  in the Synoptics Mt. iii. 11), though there the language and meaning  are different.  __________________________________________________________________
 4. Is JN.'S PURPOSE SIMPLY TO SUPPLEMENT AND CORRECT?
 But why does Jn. differ so often from the Synoptics, if he was  acquainted with their books? The most important attempt to explain this  consists in saying that his purpose throughout his book is to  supplement the story of his predecessors and, where in small matters  this was inexact, to correct it. This theory therefore presupposes  further that he was himself present at the events described, and was  entitled to think that wherever he made additions and corrections he  was justified in doing so. Whether this is confirmed is a question we  shall soon have to investigate more closely. We leave it for the  present and simply ask, Can this double purpose, which is ascribed to  him, be discovered at all in his book? As regards this intention to  make corrections, it is certainly not easy to recognise it, for the  author nowhere says: the matter was not thus, but thus. If then he made  corrections, he must have made them quite quietly out of respect for  his predecessors.
 We prefer, therefore, in the first instance, to consider the question:  Does he wish merely to give facts which are supplementary? In the case  of the narratives which are peculiar to him, this would be conceivable,  as well as in the case of the expulsion of the dealers from the  fore-court of the Temple, if such an event really took place at the  beginning of Jesus' ministry. But in Jn. we find again a number of  stories given by the Synoptics, in which the idea cannot possibly be  that the events happened a second time, and not merely on one occasion  as the Synoptics state. We need only mention the Feeding of the Five  Thousand, the walking on the sea and the entrance into Jerusalem (vi.  1-15, 16-21; xii. 12-16). It might really be thought in the case of the  second of these stories that the idea of correcting was the ruling  purpose; Jn., in opposition to the story of the Synoptics which says  that Jesus was taken into the boat in the middle of the sea, wishes, as  an eye witness, to insist that this was not so, since Jesus crossed the  lake from one shore to the other. But it is really hard to discover  what correction he means to make in his description of the entry into  Jerusalem, or, in particular, in that of the Feeding of the Five  Thousand; and this is sufficient to show that the whole idea that Jn.'s  purpose is always either to supplement or correct is untenable. If, on  the other hand, certain concessions are made, and it is claimed that he  only meant to do this now arid then, the whole explanation of the  passages in which he differs from the Synoptics would have no value;  for in the case of a considerable number of sections in his book the  question why he introduced them would still be left unexplained.  __________________________________________________________________
 5. JN.'S PURPOSE NOT MERELY TO SUPPLEMENT AND CORRECT.
 But let us see rather more exactly how in detail people think of the  author as carrying out his purpose of supplementing and correcting the  Synoptics. Here special importance may be attached to his statement  that some time after Jesus' public appearance John the Baptist was  still baptizing and that Jesus was doing so too, and to the addition,  "for John was not yet imprisoned" (iii. 22-24). In the Synoptics (Mk.  i. 14), Jesus does not come forward publicly until after the  imprisonment of the Baptist. Consequently the remark in Jn. which  contradicts this might easily be due in this instance to his purpose of  making a correction. If this were so, Jn. is aware, as the Synoptics  are not, that Jesus started a public mission while the Baptist was  still at work. And here we should have the explanation of the fact that  he adds so much which these omit: all this really happened before the  arrest of the Baptist, with which in the Synoptics the story of Jesus  work begins.
 All? Strictly speaking, as a matter of fact, everything that Jn.  reports; for he never mentions a point at which the Baptist was  imprisoned. But this view of the matter would be quite impossible; for  in the expression "not yet taken" Jn. betrays the fact that he knew  very well of the arrest of the Baptist, and thinks of it as happening  during the public ministry of Jesus. But when? Before v. 35 ("he was  the lamp") and certainly before the Feeding of the Five Thousand and  Jesus' walking on the sea (Jn. vi. 1-21), of which the Synoptics do not  speak until long after the imprisonment of the Baptist--unless we were  to adopt the quite untenable assumption (see p. 48) that Jn. in these  two stories is thinking of two events quite different from those the  Synoptics have in mind. But we find afterwards in Jn. (chap. vii.-xi.)  Jesus appearing in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, the cure of  the man born blind, Jesus appearing at the Feast of the Dedication of  the Temple, and the raising of Lazarus--all things about which the  Synoptics say nothing, and which, nevertheless, are so extremely  important, that their silence about them is quite inexplicable. In all  these cases it does not help us at all to be told that Jn. merely  wished to supply facts as to what happened before the imprisonment of  the Baptist.
 At the best, therefore, the assumption could be used for the events  which Jn. narrates in chapters ii.-v. But before we adopt it, we shall  do well once more to examine closely the passage on which it is based.  "Jesus baptized," we are told in Jn. iii. 22 (26; iv. 1). And in iv. 2  we read "and yet Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." What  would a writer, who was anxious to report nothing false, have done when  he noticed afterwards that this had happened? We may be sure that he  would afterwards have deleted the error in the earlier passage, instead  of allowing it to stand and appending the confession that he had made a  mistake. Here we can see the peculiar character of the Fourth  Evangelist. He is not an author who is anxious to report nothing false;  where it suits his purpose, he reports it.
 And here in fact it suits his purpose very well. It is only the  statement, that Jesus baptized, and did so while John was still at  work, that enables him to represent the interesting situation in which  the number of the followers of the Baptist is becoming smaller and  smaller, and that of the followers of Jesus growing larger and larger.  And this is one of Jn.'s chief aims. "He must increase, but I must  decrease" (iii. 30): with these words the Baptist himself is made to  write the legend to this little picture, which is really sketched very  gracefully. In order to do so, the author adds a touch which, in  reality, as he himself knows, does not at all harmonise with the truth.
 Only one? Of course the picture includes that other feature we have  mentioned; John the Baptist is still at large. Must we see in this a  correct addition, a correction made by an eye-witness when the same  "eye-witness" in another verse not far off has told us with equal  precision something which on his own admission is not true? Must we  base upon this our idea of the purpose of correction which he followed  throughout his book? A different idea of his purpose has resulted, with  an incomparably greater amount of probability, from this very example;  he wishes to be not a reporter who is to be taken at his word, but a  painter; a painter of vivid scenes designed to make clear and  impressive a higher truth--in the present instance the truth that John  was only the forerunner of Jesus, and had to take an entirely  subordinate place, in fact does so of his own free will. And if we now  ask again, how long the Evangelist imagines the Baptist to be still at  large while Jesus is at work, the only answer can be: merely for this  particular scene, and not for those that follow. Once his retirement  before Jesus has been described, the Baptist is so unimportant to Jn.  that he does not think his arrest worth reporting. Indeed, even in the  case of preceding events (the marriage at Cana, the expulsion of the  dealers from the fore-court of the Temple, the conversation with  Nicodemus), he seems to have hardly thought that they occurred while  the Baptist was still at large.
 But the theory that Jn. wishes to supplement the Synoptics by giving  the earliest events in the public life of Jesus is overthrown by what  we are told as regards the discourses of Jesus, when it is presupposed  that these also served the purpose of supplementing the Synoptics. If  Jesus be supposed to have spoken in both ways--as he is represented as  doing in the Synoptics and as Jn. makes him do--it cannot be imagined  that the style met with in Jn. was the earlier. We are told on the  contrary that Jn. preserves the manner of speech in which Jesus  addressed his disciples in his last days, after he had finished his  ministry amongst the people, which latter is reflected in his  discourses in the Synoptics. This statement might seem worth  considering if the discourses of Jesus preserved to us in Jn. were  solely farewell ad dresses to his disciples during his last days, like  those in chapters xiii.-xvii. But, as a matter of fact, Jn. represents  Jesus as speaking from the very beginning in the same style as in these  farewell discourses. To sum up, in the events which he describes, Jn.  is supposed to take us back to the earliest days, and in the discourses  which Jesus delivered at these, the earliest events in his public  career, this same author Jn. is supposed to preserve the tone in which  Jesus spoke during the last weeks of his life. Both assumptions are  necessary if we are to insist that Jn. wishes to supplement and correct  the Synoptics. And yet one of the two assumptions annuls the other.  __________________________________________________________________
 6. ARE SEVERAL JOURNEYS OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM PRESUPPOSED IN MT. xxiii. 37?
 But an attempt is made in another way to show that Jn. could not really  be in conflict with his predecessors. Those who make it find in the  Synoptics themselves passages here and there which confirm, as they  think, the story of Jn. In particular, several journeys of Jesus to  Jerusalem, connected with a public appearance there, are, they say,  presupposed when Jesus says in Mt. (xxiii. 37): "Jerusalem, Jerusalem,  that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee,  how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen  gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." The  inference really appears to be unavoidable. The only remarkable thing  is that the Synoptists themselves have not drawn it. If they themselves  really suggest that Jesus came forward so often in Jerusalem, why do  they not only tell us nothing about this, but represent things as if  when he made this utterance he had come to Jerusalem for the first time  to counsel and admonish. Thus those who refer to this utterance as a  corroboration of the story of Jn. are producing a greater puzzle as  regards the Synoptists, who likewise claim that their story has a right  to be regarded as correct. So that before we attach such great  importance to the utterance in question, we prefer to examine it again  more closely.
 When we do this, it is clear in the very first instance that it does  not read as people think it does, and in the way in which we have  rendered it above, intentionally following the general practice, in  order to show what mistakes one is liable to make when one follows a  popular custom. In reality--and in Lk. (xiii. 34) exactly as in Mt.--it  reads: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that kills the prophets and stones them  that are sent unto her, how often would I have gathered thy children,"  &c. Jerusalem is therefore apostrophised only in the second half of the  sentence; in the first something is said about the city without the  city itself being addressed. No one who has a thought clearly in his  mind, and intends to write it down in an equally simple sentence, would  express himself in this way.
 On the other hand, the remarkable form of the sentence would be quite  intelligible if our Evangelists, Mt. and Lk., or rather the earlier  writer from whom they both draw, [3] used a book in which the sentence  about Jerusalem appeared without any apostrophe; and if they or he  proceeded to introduce the apostrophe without noticing that, having  made this alteration, the sentence should have been made to read  differently at the beginning. And this is not a mere conjecture; we  have, in addition, a clue which indicates the kind of book it may have  been. In Mt., that is to say, the utterance immediately follows another  (xxiii. 34-36) to this effect: "Therefore, behold, I send unto you  prophets, and wise men, and scribes; some of them shall ye kill and  crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and  persecute from city to city," &c. Lk. gives this utterance in xi.  49-51, keeping the continuation about Jerusalem--quoted above--for  chap. xiii. of his book. But this earlier utterance in Lk. not only  dispenses with the apostrophe, as the beginning of the continuation  about Jerusalem does--"I will send unto them prophets and apostles, and  some of them they shall kill and persecute," &c.--but--and this is the  chief point it is preceded by the introductory words: u There fore also  said the wisdom of God."
 The Wisdom of God is represented in several books of the Old Testament  as a person who takes up the word (Prov. viii. f., Ecclus. xxiv.), or  is found as the title of a book (Wisdom of Solomon; Wisdom of Jesus,  son of Sirach). The saying under consideration is not found in any of  these books. But it is clear that it cannot have been framed for the  first time by Jesus. In what precedes Jesus is addressing the  Pharisees. He could not, therefore, as he does in Lk., suddenly  continue, "therefore also said the wisdom of God," unless what now  follows is a saying which was already well known. But this is clear  from the version in Mt. as well, though here the introductory formula  is wanting. Jesus cannot have said of himself, as Mt. makes him say, "I  send to you prophets and wise men and Scribes," for he never did this,  and at least would never have sent Scribes, whose attitude towards him  was so unfriendly. Lk. knew very well what he was doing, when he  substituted "Prophets and Apostles"; for Jesus could really send  Apostles and (New Testament) Prophets. In this description of the  persons sent, Mt. therefore has, we may be sure, preserved the more  original version, but in the introductory formula it is Lk. who has  done so. In Mt. the only remaining clue to the fact that his  predecessor had before him a book in which this introductory formula  stood is the word "therefore."
 But what kind of book was it? If the Scribes were mentioned amongst  those men who were sent by God to the people, it was the work of a  pious Jew who reproached his people for being stiff-necked, and was  anxious to induce them to repent. Whether it had the title  "Wisdom"--perhaps with some addition--or whether Wisdom was simply  represented as speaking in it, we do not know. From this book,  according to the story of the predecessor of our Mt. and Lk., Jesus  quoted a passage in support of his own words in which he warned the  Pharisees that they would be punished. In this way it is still used in  Lk. Mt., on the other hand, has wrongly understood it and introduced it  in such a way that Jesus uses the words as his own, and Lk. also, as  regards the utterance about Jerusalem, shares the misunderstanding.  Thus it was the Wisdom of God which said that it had often wished to  gather together Jerusalem's children, as a hen gathers her chickens.  This it had actually done by sending prophets and wise men and Scribes.  It is not Jesus who says he has done this. Thus the whole confirmation  of Jn.'s story of many visits of Jesus to Jerusalem rests solely on the  fact that an utterance put into the mouth of the Wisdom of God by a  Jewish author has been wrongly regarded as a saying of Jesus. And now  we understand also why the Synoptics, in spite of this "saying of  Jesus" in which he says how often he has concerned himself about  Jerusalem, had no information about these labours.  __________________________________________________________________
 [3] The truth of the theory that they had the work of an earlier writer  before them has been fully demonstrated. Cp. Wernle, Die Quellen des  Lelens Jesu, pp. 70-7-4 (in the Religionsgeschichtlichen Volksbuecher;  Engl. trans, pp. 131-139).  __________________________________________________________________
 7. IS JESUS' RELATIONSHIP TO GOD IN MT. xi. 27 THE SAME AS IN JN.?
 It would be still more important if we could find a second passage in  the Synoptics fitted to confirm the story of Jn. We mean such  confirmation as would relate not merely to one particular point, such  as the journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem, but to the whole character of  Jesus' discourses. We have in mind Mt. xi. 27: "All things have been  delivered unto me of my Father, and no one knoweth the Son, save the  Father; neither (doth any know) the Father, save the Son, and he to  whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." These words seem certainly  to be spoken quite in the spirit of the Fourth Gospel, which in x. 14  f., for instance, says ("I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own,  and mine own know me), even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the  Father." In Jn. this mutual knowledge must be understood in the sense  that Jesus had from eternity existed with God in heaven before he came  down to earth.
 Now it is certainly remarkable that in the Synoptics only this one  saying can be found which gives expression to this thought, and might  be compared to the discourses of Jesus in Jn. If, as is claimed, it  really implies confirmation of these, again all that we get is a new  puzzle as regards the Synoptics: why in these does Jesus not speak in  this way more often, instead of talking everywhere else in such an  entirely different way? This consideration obliges us to re-examine the  utterance more closely.
 This also originally read quite differently. All ecclesiastical and  heretical writers of the second century, who give us any information  about this passage, entirely or in part support the following version:  "All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, and no one hath  known the Father, save the Son, neither the Son save the Father, and he  to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him."
 Even the Church Father, Irenaeus, about A.D. 185, who warmly upbraids a  Christian sect for making use of this version, follows it several times  in his writings; it must therefore have really been found in his own  Bible. As compared with it, the version which we now have in the Bible  cannot under any circumstances claim the preference. It is true that  our oldest copies of the Bible contain it, but they are about two  centuries later than the authorities we have mentioned. And no  plausible reason can be given why the version current in the second  century should be due to a deliberate change on the part of a Christian  sect; on the other hand, since the one form must have arisen through an  alteration of the other, it is very conceivable that it is the text in  our present Bible which has resulted from a change, because, we may  suppose, the writer was anxious to make the language resemble more  closely Jesus style of preaching in Jn.
 Is the difference so great then? At first sight it might seem slight.  But that is a very wrong impression. While we read, "No one knoweth the  Son . . . the Father," a mutual knowledge from eternity may be meant,  and, as we said just now, this is one of the ideas of the Fourth  Gospel. When, however, we read, "no one hath known," a definite point  of time is fixed at which the knowledge first began; and when Jesus  goes on to say of himself, "no one has known the Father but the Son,"  it is clear that the knowledge of the Father cannot have commenced  before some definite date in his earthly life, since the Synoptics are  not aware that Jesus existed in heaven before he lived on earth.  Nevertheless, if the words in the first place were, "no one hath known  the Son save the Father," it would still be possible that at any rate  the knowledge on the part of God was present from eternity, and this  would be in agreement with the style of thought in the Fourth Gospel.  But a second important peculiarity in the oldest version is found in  this very fact that the first place is assigned to the clause, "No one  hath known the Father save the Son," and that the other clause follows,  "No one hath known the Son, save the Father." And since the knowledge  spoken of first was not gained earlier than during the earthly life of  Jesus, we cannot suppose that the knowledge referred to in the second  clause belongs to an earlier date.
 The meaning is really quite simple: Jesus alone has acquired the  knowledge that God is not a Lord who is jealous for his own honour, and  cannot be approached by men, but is a loving Father. This of itself  means that he can feel himself to be a son of God. It is a feeling of  his own, however, which no one so far has realised--none of his  hearers, but God alone. This second part of the thought is very well  expressed in Lk. (x. 22) by the clause: "no one knows (more correctly,  has known) who the son is," that is to say, that I am he. Finally, with  this agrees very well the conclusion in Mt. and Lk., "and to whom the  son will reveal it." In the usual version of the saying, the  immediately preceding words are: "no one knows the Father, but the  son." What the latter will reveal is thus the deeper nature of God,  and, understood in the spirit of the Fourth Gospel, the meaning might  be that Jesus acquired the knowledge during his pre-existence in  heaven. But, according to the correct version, the immediately  preceding words are, "no one has known the son, but the Father," and  here the following words mean, "and he to whom I myself am willing to  reveal that I am that son; you have all failed as yet to recognise  this, I myself must tell you of it."
 Strictly speaking, when the knowledge that God is the Father dawns upon  any man, he can feel that he himself is His son; this knowledge Jesus  wished to bring to all, and said, "blessed are the peace-makers, for  they shall be called the sons of God," "love your enemies, and pray for  them that persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father which is in  heaven" (Mt. v. 9, 44 f.). He used the expression "sons of God," and so  the same expression as he applied to himself. Instead of this, Jn.  continually uses of men--and he is the first to do so--the phrase  "children of God," reserving the expression "Son of God" for Jesus  alone, and Luther, without any justification, has used it also in Mt.  and in other places where the original has "sons." [4] It is quite  clear that, in view of what we have said, Jesus cannot have called  himself Son of God in a sense that only applies to himself, on the  ground, for instance, that he proceeded from God in a manner different  from that in which human beings come into existence at their birth; he  can only have done so in a sense in which all men can become what he  was, that is to say, sons of God who are equally ready to obey  absolutely the Father in heaven, but at the same time rely upon His  love, just as a human son relies upon the love of his human father. If  we of to-day wish to express the sense in which Jesus called himself  Son of God in a way that cannot be misunderstood, we must do the  reverse of what Jn. has done--use the other expression and say that  Jesus felt himself to be a child of God.
 Turning again to Mt. xi. 27, we must remember that at this time Jesus  alone possessed the knowledge that God is a loving Father. This made  him singular and raised him above other men. Thus the thought of being  God's son made him feel in addition that he was sent by God to reveal  this knowledge to his brethren. This is the meaning of the initial  words of the saying: "all things have been delivered to me of my  Father." It does not imply any super human power, as in the saying  (which, it is almost generally agreed, was not spoken by Jesus), "all  power is given to me in heaven and upon earth" (Mt. xxviii. 18). Here  the word "power" does occur in the passage, but not in the text under  consideration. What is delivered to Jesus, in our passage, we must  gather simply from the context; on the evidence of the saying itself,  it is the knowledge that we can regard God as our Father. In agreement  with this is the fact that according to xi. 25 it must be something  which was hidden from the wise and revealed to the simple, and  according to xi. 28-30 something which was quite different from the  yoke of the Jewish Law under which the weary and heavy-laden groaned,  while Jesus yoke was easy and his burden light, and was able to refresh  the soul because it consisted simply in doing the will of God gladly  and in relying upon His love.
 Are all these thoughts similar to those found in the Fourth Gospel? Far  from it. On the contrary, no utterance harmonises with the spirit of  Jesus' discourses in the Synoptics so well as the one we have been  considering if we hold fast to its original language. In fact, it is  precisely this that enables us for the first time to under stand fully  how Jesus came to be what he was according to the Synoptics; at first  he was quite simply a man who in the course of his mental development  realised that he had a Father in heaven; next he became one who felt  himself called by this Father of his to be a leader, sent to the  people, because he found that he stood quite alone in having this  knowledge, and yet could not be silent about it; and from this it was  easy to take a further step and to feel obliged to regard himself as  that highest messenger sent by God, whom his people and his age thought  of as the one who had been long promised, as the Messiah.  __________________________________________________________________
 [4] Paul interchanges "sons" and "children" without any distinction.  Luther renders only the Singular by "son" (Heb. xii. 5-7; Rev. xxi. 7),  the Plural by "sons" only in the phrase "sons and daughters" (2 Cor.  vi. 18). In Gal. iv. 7 he arbitrarily changes the Singular into the  Plural in order to be able to use the term "children." The Authorised  English Version has, like Luther, son for the Singular, but also in  Gal. iv. 7. For the Plural it has in half the cases sons (Rom. viii.  14, 19; Gal. iv. 6; Heb. ii. 10, xii. 7 f.; besides 2 Cor. vi. 18), but  in the other half, like Luther, children (Mt. v. 9, 45; Lk. vi. 35, xx.  36; Rom. ix. 26; Gal. iii. 26; Heb. xii. 5). The Revised Version  everywhere translates correctly son or sons.  __________________________________________________________________
 8. INACCURATE RECOLLECTION ON THE PART OF THE APOSTLE JOHN?
 What remains, if we still wish to maintain that the Fourth Gospel is in  agreement with the first three? If we disregard various other  expedients, which are far less likely to be satisfactory than those we  have already discussed, there is only one left. We are told by the  Church Fathers that at the end of the first century the Apostle John  was still living. This being so, it is eagerly assumed that he did not  write his gospel until shortly before his death. And whereas his great  age obscured his recollection of many matters in the life of Jesus, he  remembered other things quite correctly. This explains, it is said, how  it is that his book, apart from much that is incorrect, contains much  that serves to correct the story of the Synoptics.
 In itself this assumption has nothing impossible about it; if indeed it  could be accepted that the Gospel was composed by the apostle and in  his old age, this theory might be deemed fairly probable. Since,  however, we must first examine the two presuppositions on which it is  based, let us at the outset put the simple question, What would the  result be? At least not this--that Jn., as compared with the Synoptics,  must always be regarded as everywhere right. This particular idea  therefore is abandoned as being untenable. To what extent is he right  then? To suit the real desire of those who put forward this theory, he  is right on as many points as possible. For the main purpose of these  people is to support the idea that we have in Jn. the work of an  eye-witness of the life of Jesus. But when we examine the matter more  closely, his trustworthiness is abandoned on one point after another,  because, however much we may wish to believe in it, it cannot be  maintained.
 In particular, as regards the discourses of Jesus, it is more and more  generally conceded that it was the aged John who first conceived them  in the style in which they appear in the Fourth Gospel. His conception  of Jesus changed in the course of his long life, and as these new ideas  took shape his recollection of the discourses of Jesus altered as well.  If this were assumed to a moderate extent, it might seem conceivable;  but people would never have jumped at so doubtful an expedient, unless  the difference between Jn.'s style of discourse and the other style,  which may really be accepted as original, were very marked indeed.
 Thus the result of emphasising the great age of John is really the  opposite of what was intended. The desire was simply to defend the  trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel as against the Synoptics, and yet  the would-be defenders are obliged in a clear, if rather veiled, manner  to admit that on most points he is untrustworthy.
 We have now come to the end of the attempts to reconcile the accounts  of the life of Jesus in the Synoptics and in Jn. In conclusion, we can  only say that we sincerely pity any one who engages in this labour. If  on many particular points his efforts seem to be really satisfactory to  him, he can never rejoice at his success; for he has no sooner shown  that it is not absolutely impossible to reconcile some new little  circumstance in Jn. with the Synoptics than a whole series of others  come to light which defy every attempt at reconciliation.  __________________________________________________________________  __________________________________________________________________
{{header