The Gospel of John on the other hand has scarcely any incidents in common with the others. It was written long after the others. We may auk, Was it written to supply needs which arose after the first three. Gospels were written? The first generation of witnesses had passed away, and John, the last of the apostles, emphasizes the reality of the things which he had heard and seen. (John 19:35.) "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples." John 20:30. "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." John 21:24. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which. we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life;..... That which. we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us." 1 John 1:1, 3.
False teachers had arisen denying the divinity of the Lord and these John abundantly answers.
But the Gospel of John is much more than this. It is the last and fullest testimony, the revelation of the Father and the Son.
But to return to the writing of the Gospels, we can see that at length the need for a written Gospel would be felt. Christians were found in all parts of the world; of the original Church at Jerusalem, many were scattered, many were dead. Then Luke tells us that "many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." Luke tells us that the book of Acts was written after the Gospel. Many have thought that the Gospel of Luke was written during the two years when Paul was in prison at Caesarea. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in the year 60, and sailed with him from Caesarea in the year 62. During the interval which he spent in Palestine he would have opportunity for converse with many who had known the Lord, even possibly with Mary, the Lord's mother.
No other clue is given us in the New Testament as to how the Gospels were written, but a tradition, which reaches back to apostolic times, gives us a few particulars.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who knew Poly-carp who had known the apostle John, writes as follows about 100 A. D.:
“Matthew indeed produced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own language, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul. Afterward John, the disciple of our Lord, the same who lay upon His bosom, also published his Gospel whilst he was yet at Ephesus in Asia.'
The next witness, also about 100 A. D. is Papias who knew the elders who knew the apostles. He gives the following on the authority of the Presbyter John: "Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded, he wrote with great accuracy, but not however in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter who gave him such instruction as was necessary; but not to give a history of our Lord's discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in anything by writing some things as he has recorded them, for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts." Of Matthew he says, "Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect and everyone translated it as he was able.”
Eusebius who was born towards the end of the third century, passed through the last great persecution under Diocletian. When it was Over, and Constantine had granted. liberty of worship to Christians, Eusebius tried to gather up all the remaining records and traditions of the first three centuries of the Church, and thus wrote the first Church history. It is a most wonderful and interesting book, and will well repay careful study. Although not infallible, much of it is certainly correct, and it is the basis of all the histories of the Church for the first three centuries ever since.
Eusebius, whose opinion, therefore is worth regarding, sets down his conclusions as to the writing of the gospels as follows: "Of all the disciples, (apostles) Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says undertook it from necessity. Matthew having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written having been distributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of His deeds and at the commencement of the Gospel. And. this was the truth. For it is evident that the other three evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist and intimated this in the very beginning of their history." John has passed by in silence the genealogy of our Lord; he commenced with the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, a part reserved for him by the divine Spirit.
It is evident that this account of the writing of John's Gospel is quite inadequate. That it was written-last is evident from the little explanatory notes on the institutions and feasts of the Jews which show that it was addressed to people to whom they were unfamiliar. It would appear also that it was written after Peter's martyrdom on account of the reference in John 21:19 to the death he was to die, i.e., by crucifixion.
(To be continued.)