INTERNAL EVIDE‘.'CE.] ignores the minor distinctions of Pharisees, Sadducees, llerodians, scribes, and lawyers, with which the synoptists have made us familiar.‘ Palestine is seen no lon er with the distinctions of a neighbouring diversified cgast-line, but like a dark mass upon the horizon of the distant East, serving as a foil to the S)lCI1(.lO1lI‘ of the rising Sun of Iiightebusness, which it sti'ives in vain to obscurii. In the miraculous part of our evangelist’s narrative especially, there is visible this artistic power of selection and compression. Few miracles are described, 11ot more than eight in all (including the post-resurrection miracle of the draught of fishes), and among these not a single case of exorcism. The element of mere wonder (which comes too prominently forward, at least for a pupil of Philo, in the synoptic miracle on the Gadarene) is carefully subordinated to the symbolical element. It is true that the whole Gospel breathes a supernatural atmosphere. Although the Logos, becoming “flesh” (i. 14), is imme- diately afterwards called Jesus (i. 17) or the Son (i. 18), and is never henceforth mentioned I; the name Lofros throughout the whole of the Gospel, yiet in reality itb is still the Logos, rather than Jesus, that is'described in the following pages. The Logos is never (as in Mark) “unable” to work miracles, never liable to “ marvel,” never “in an agony,” never (with the single exception of the scene at the grave of Lazarus in which e’-nipaéev éavrév, John xi. 33) “sorrowful and very heavy ;” the words aces, €}x£6fv, O'Tl')(I.yXVl.’€O}l.(lL occur repeatedly in the synoptists, never in the 1:LT>11ti'1th G(l)s‘pel;1tl1e]Logos “ lil’l,0(VS whatfis inhman,” sees l a lame un( er tie ficr-tree iscerns rom t e first that one of the twelve whomofle had chosen is “ a devil ”; when He asks advice from His followers, it is a mere form, merely “to prove them, for He Himself knew what He would do”; there is not in the drama of the Fourth Gospel (as in Mark) any development of thourrht or )lan in the chief actor; the development must be lodked fdr in the drama taken as a whole, and including the creation, the fall, and all the preparation of the world for the coming of the Word as flesh ; but the life of Christ on earth is, in the Fourth Gospel, only one act as it were, in which the previous action of the drama is simply ctrried on and sustained; the whole of the future, His destined “lifting up,” His death, His rising in three days, all lie mapped out before the Saviour, so that He walks in a known country and in light, while all around, friends and foes alike, are stum- bling or groping in the dark. In this sense, therefore, it is true that the supernatural element is even more prominent in the Fourth Gospel than in the synoptists. But the miracles themselves are subordinated. Though frequent reference is made to the vast number of them (ii. 23; iii. 2; vi. 2; vii. 31; ix. 16; xi. 47; xii. 37; xx. 30), yet, not only are very few described, but even l‘;‘hos.e few are described rather as “emblems” than as ()‘ ' I 1 1 u y . A -:3 ' - «J (««‘T§§3ii§¥)fV?.i1$iif1. oi: ’§yl.e3{§?aZi£§‘b3..i..$5Zt $i§fa§3s°'IL§”{ff‘Z bad sense (to denote the “sign from heaven” demanded by the Pharisees, or the “signs” which the false Christs shall work to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect, Mk. xiii. 22 , is the very word selected by John to describe the miracles of. Jesus; while the word 5vv(ip.eL9 §1e.?$‘€'é1§t.yhe“{3§l§§s”’as‘iléiilé ii‘ D332. S.i;L‘il’t§.SfSuféei?‘§)’Li‘.iii Gospel. I-‘artly no doubt ’the author ma 1 7 f lt th t _ , , y rave e a “H: Biglveisngefiilguflyy slrggestecl that a distinction ‘is drawn by _, ' _ ews 1n the. south and the "multitude _(ux7os) 111 Galilee (Westcott,Intro¢l. to St Jnlm). But the term b'xAos is also applied to the mixed multitude of pilgrims in Jerusalem at the P“S5°"°r (“L 12: 17: 15, 29. 34) ; aml besides, if the author had in- tended_to deny any such distinction, he could hardly have expressed _C"I~'(":'f1,V' tl_1-1,1,1 ip xii. 9, where he adds that this “1uulti- ‘ 5 01 the Jul” iUX7s '.1'o)i)S <’K Téu =Iau5afwy) GOSPELS 825 miracles were made cheap by excessive enumeration, and that the narrative of a multitude of miracles without apparent motive created a stumbling-block rather than a help to philosophic and educated readers. Especially might this be felt in Ephesus, the home of wizards and wonders and “curious arts” (Acts xix. 19), where even the last-called of the apostles had worked cures and exorcisms past numbering (ib. 12). Accordingly the author, though he makes mention of very many miracles, describes none but those which are obviously emblematic. It has been stated above that the 1st Epistle of John was not only written by the author of the Fourth Gospel, but must be considered as a kind of postscript or appendix, commending the Gospel to the church. Ile- membering, therefore, the important passage in the Epistle (l J o. v. 8), which describes the three witnesses on earth as breath (or spirit), water, and blood, and bearing in mind that “ blood” in all probability has (among other possible meanings) a reference to the eucharistic wine, we shall not be surprised that the first miracle of all describes the changing of the water into wine. Next is a miracle exemplifying the power of the word of Jesus, where faith is present (iv. 50, and cf. iv. 41); then the Messiah manifests (in the cure of the impotent man) the superiority of the ever—flowing fountain of life to the intermittent power of the pool of the law (v. 3); then comes the eucharistic feeding of the five thousand with bread and fishes, wherein “the Lord gave thanks,” aixapurrvjcram-o9 -roi‘: Kvpfov (vi. '23), followed by the walking on the water, which is also appended by Matthew and Mark to the eucharistic miracle; then the opening of the eyes of the blind by Him who was the Light of the world (ix. 5) , the raising of Lazarus by Him who was the Resurrection and the Life (xi. 25); and lastly, the miraculous draught of fishes, taken at the command of Him who had sent His apostles to be fishers of men, and to cast the net of the gospel (xxi. 6). In all these narratives, although the common people are exhibited as wonder-struck, yet the impression left on the reader is that, for the Word of God, such works are matters of course, and only important because of their inner spiritual meaning. Philo says (Life of 1l[oses, i. 38) that such miracles as the production of the water from the rock by Moses and the like are the sports (wrafyvta) of God, and not so really great or deserving of serious attention as the revolutions of the planets. There is no trace of “sport” in any of the works of the Word of God narrated by the author of the Fourth Gospel ; yet botl1 he and Philo agree in looking through the letter of the narrative of every miracle to the spiritual essence contained in it, which alone constitutes the importance of the act. Now Philo, in speaking of the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam, declares at once that the literal meaning is fabulous (;w6¢I;8eg) ; whereas he treats the emission of the water from the rock as historical, although he suggests, as a first explanation, that possibly there may have been a latent spring in the rock. Yet Philo proceeds to deduce his spiritual inferences as freely from what he deems “fabulous ” as from what he deems historical. It is not necessary to assume in the author of the Fourth Gospel precisely the same indifference to the distinction between spiritual and historical narrative; but it appears certain that, in his writings, as in Philo’s, the historical is subordinated to the spiritual. Not but that the picturesque incidents of each miracle receive from him due attention; but it seems to be for the most part the picturesqueness resulting from the skill of a graphic. teacher, rather than from the memory of an eye-witness. Compare, for example, Mark's with J ol1n’s account of the feeding of the five thousand. There is less motive, less
X. —— 104