Literary history offers, besides, another example, which presents the greatest analogy with the historic phenomenon we have just described, and serves to explain it.  Socrates, who, like Jesus, never wrote, is known to us by two of his disciples, Xenophon and Plato, the first corresponding to the synoptics in his clear, transparent, impersonal compilation; the second recalling the author of the fourth Gospel, by his vigorous individuality.  In order to describe the Socratic teaching, should we follow the “dialogues” of Plato, or the “discourses” of Xenophon?  Doubt, in this respect, is not possible; every one chooses the “discourses,” and not the “dialogues.”  Does Plato, however, teach us nothing about Socrates?  Would it be good criticism, in writing the biography of the latter, to neglect the “dialogues”?  Who would venture to maintain this?  The analogy, moreover, is not complete, and the difference is in favor of the fourth Gospel.  The author of this Gospel is, in fact, the better biographer; as if Plato, who, whilst attributing to his master fictitious discourses, had known important matters about his life, which Xenophon ignored entirely.

Without pronouncing upon the material question as to what hand has written the fourth Gospel, and whilst inclined to believe that the discourses, at least, are not from the son of Zebedee, we admit still, that it is indeed “the Gospel according to John,” in the same sense that the first and second Gospels are the Gospels “according to Matthew,” and “according to Mark.”  The historical sketch of the fourth Gospel is the Life of Jesus, such as it was known in the school of John; it is the recital which Aristion and Presbyteros Joannes made to Papias, without telling him that it was written, or rather attaching no importance to this point.  I must add, that, in my opinion, this school was better acquainted with the exterior circumstances of the life of the Founder than the group whose remembrances constituted the synoptics.  It had, especially upon the sojourns of Jesus at Jerusalem, data which the others did not possess.  The disciples of this school treated Mark as an indifferent biographer, and devised a system to explain his omissions.[1] Certain passages of Luke, where there is, as it were, an echo of the traditions of John,[2] prove also that these traditions were not entirely unknown to the rest of the Christian family.

[Footnote 1:  Papias, loc. cit.]

[Footnote 2:  For example, the pardon of the adulteress; the knowledge which Luke has of the family of Bethany; his type of the character of Martha responding to the [Greek:  diechouei] of John (chap. xii. 2); the incident of the woman who wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair; an obscure notion of the travels of Jesus to Jerusalem; the idea that in his passion he was seen by three witnesses; the opinion of the author that some disciples were present at the crucifixion; the knowledge which he has of the part played by Annas in aiding Caiaphas; the appearance of the angel in the agony (comp.  John xii. 28, 29).]