GOSHEN GOSPELS

‘The house of with a royal residence Tradition has been exceptionally fortunate with the name
temples of and Goshen in particular identified Goshen with the
region and the of the Amalekit‘es. The
evidently not very far E., and on of Goshen to Sadir, a village N E . of by Sa‘adia
the site, of modern Tell It is very ques- (and Abu-sa‘id) is as strange as the limitation to (Old
tionable whether before there were in the Cairo) by Bar Modern scholars have, on the contrary
frequently extended Goshen too widely: Ebers, included
eastern part of the valley any Egyptian settlements it the whole eastern delta between the Tanitic branch Targ.
except the fortification mentioned above at any rate, Jer. which made Goshen ‘the land of Pelusium’),
it fully deserved the name that it came to bear in and the Bitter Lakes. We can afford to neglect certain
later times-’ land of (this would hardly hypotheses which date from the period before the decipherment
of the hieroglyphics for the situation erroneously assumed by
apply to the old western district). The position of the Brugscb, see EXODUS, 13. W. M. M.
land colonised by Rameses was very advantageous. It
possessed a healthy desert climate and was most fertile GOSHEN [BAFL]; I. A
as long as the canal to the Crocodile Lake was kept in land mentioned in Deuteronomistic portions of Joshua
The extension of the canal of Ram( to among other districts of Canaan, Josh.
the Ked Sea by Necho I. increased the commercial im- [AFL]), [BAFL]). It is strange to find
portance of the district. Quite recently, the repairing the name of Goshen outside the limits of Goshen roper.
of the canal has trebled the population, now Hommel
this district, which forms a part of the modern province supposes that as the Israelites in Egypt multiplied, the
Heroopolis-Patum thus became an im- area allotted to them was extended, and that the strip
portant place 4 for the trade on the Red Sea, where of country between Egypt and Judah, which still
also the Romans built a fortified camp. belonged to the Pharaoh, was regarded as an integral
Thus we see that and ‘land of part of the land of Goshen. This is obviously a con-
were with the Egyptians
. hardly identical. servative hypothesis (see EXODUS i., § ; M IZRAIM ,
The country of could be The text, however, may need criticism. That
only the eighth (eastern) nome. The the M T sometimes misunderstands, or even fails to
application to that (eastern) district, of observe, geographical names, is plain we have learned
the (obsolete and rare) name so much from Assyriology. Let us then suppose that
(vocalise of western dome) not Goshen is wrongly vocalised, and should be and
yet been shown on the (later) Egyptian monuments. compare the name of the town (‘fat
The Hebrew story (Nu. 33 of the Israelites marching two soil’), the Gischala of Josephus. Other solutions are
da ys (Rameses to Succoth, Succoth to Etham) through the
whole valley of (instead of starting from its eastern open we may at any rate presume that this old Hebrew
end) might suggest to some a mistake of P, J E placing the name had a Semitic origin, see
country of the Israelites hetween Bubastus, and Tell
(cp Naville). T h e probabilities, however, of such a As they now stand, Josh. and do
theory are small all sources seem to mean the same part of the the same geographical picture. T he words in 11 16, all the
country. Negeh and all the land of Goshen and the
Probably Heroopolis had, before the extension of the suggest that ‘the Goshen’ lay hetween the Negeb or southern
canal by Necho I., less importance, and the possibility steppe region and the or Lowlands. We might hold
that it took in the SW. of the hill-coimtry of Judah. In Josh;
that once also the eastern district had P-sapdu as capital where we read ‘all the land of Goshen as far as
and belonged to the district is, therefore, not to be we may ,presume that some words have dropped out after
denied. It must he confessed that the geographical Goshen. Cp N EGEB, 4.
texts upon which we have to rely date from Ptolemaic A town in the SW. of the hill-country of Judah, mentioned
with Debir, Anab, etc., Josh. 15 Probably an echo of
times only. The division of the Arabian district may the old name of a district in the same region (see I). Cp
have been different in earlier centuries. Gesham. T. K. C.

G o S ’ PE L s
CONTENTS
AND ANALYTICAL.
A.- INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS T O ORIGIN.
I. THE EARLIEST TRADITION IV. THE INTRODUCTIONS and ,
The effect of prophecy
THE TRIPLE TRADITION Philonian Traditions
The edition of Mk. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed Justin and
Divergence of Mt. and Lk.
Mk. relation to Mt. and Lk. Jn. in relation to the Introductions
Jn. in relation to the Triple Tradition 8-14).
(a) Instances from the first part of Mk. 8). V. THE C ONCLUSIONS (Mt. Lk.
of the Resurrection 24-33.
(y ) Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or Mk. and Mt.) (i.) The Evangelists select their evidence 24).
caused by obscurity (5 IO). (ii.) T he Period of Manifestations 25).
T he Passover and the Lord’s Supper Traces of Poetic Tradition 26).
( e ) T he Passion .
Discrepancies 27).
Conclusion and Exceptions (v.) view (‘proofs ’), 28.
(vi.) T he Manifestation to the Eleven
111. DOUBLE TRADITIONS 15-20). Lk. Ignatius) 5
Mk. and Mt. Jn. in relation to Mk. and Mt. 15). T he of tradition
.
Mk. and Lk Jn. in relation to Mk. and Lk. 16). (vni.) view (‘signs ’),
Mt. and or Double Tradition . (ix.) Contrast between Jn. and the Synoptists (5 33).
Acts of the Lord’; (6) Words of the Lord (x.) Note on the Testimony of Paul 33 note).
(iv.) Jn. in relation to ‘The Double Tradition’
VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS 34-63).
First Gospel 34-36).
A poetic description of the new city is to be found in Doctrinal and other characteristics 343.
Anastasi, 4 6. Evidence as to date 35).
t of the canal always led immediately to an
encroachment ofthe desert upon the narrow cultivable area. Jn. in relation to Mt’s. Tradition 36).
The canal was cubits wide (according to Strabo ft. The Coptic versions which simply transliterate, seem,
according to Pliny j o yards according to traces near however to have lost all Possibly the vocalisation of
ft. deep (according to Pliny; 16-17 Engl. ft. disguised the Egyptian name to them. A woman pilgrim
according to modern traces). of the fourth century places the ‘terra Gesse‘ 16 R. m. from
The canal was repaired by II., calling the capital ‘civitas Arabia.’ She believed
whence the name of the province Augustamnica from the he 4 R. m. to the E. of this capital (see Naville,
Canalis Trajanus. meaning apparently
1761 1762
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
( b ) The Third Structure 52-63).
I
37-44).
The Dedication, Linguistic characteristics T he Gospel as a whole 52).
T he Details.
Doctrinal characteristics 39). The Prologue 53).
(iii.) A manual for daily conduct The Bridegroom
(a) Galilee, Jerusalem, Samaria
Evidence as to date
(3 T he Bread of
of Life 55).
The Light 56).
T he Life 57).
The Gospel 45-63). (6) The Raising of the Dead 58).
Hypotheses of authorship (7) The Raising of Lazarus 59).
(ii.) [a] Names, 46, numbers, 47, and quotations (8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice 60).
The ‘Deuteronomy’
(iii.) (IO) The Passion
B. - EXTERNAL EVI DENCE AS TO ORIGIN.
I. STATEMENTS 64-82) Clement of Rome 87).
The Third Gospel 64). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
Pa 65-74). Th e Epistle of Barnabas
His Exposition 65 a). (I Alleged Synoptic Quotations 89).
His account of Mk. and Mt. 65 b). Anticipations Jn. go).

I
The system of Eusebius 66). The Great Apophasis
The silence of Papias on Lk. and Jn. 67). (ix. Ignatius
(e) The date of his Exposition 68-73). . (I) Was
Papias a hearer of ? and and
Jn. the Papias’ His list The hpistle to Diognetus 95).
of the Apostles (6) His relation to Polycarp. The Shepherd of 96).
Summary of the 74). 97).
Justin Martyr 75-77). Marcion
( a ) His titles of the Gospels Valentinus 99).
(6) Indications of Lk. as a recent Gospel 76). Summary of the Evidence before Justin
The origin of Justin’s view of the Memoirs 77). (xviii.) Justin Martyr
The Muratorian 78). (I) Minor apparent Johannine quotations
79). ‘Except ye be begotten again’
(yi.) Clement of Alexandria (3) Other alleged quotations
(vii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Mk. and Mt. 81). (4) Abstentions from quotation
(viii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Lk. and Jn. Inconsistencies with Jn. 103).
Summary of the evidence about Justin
11. QUOTATIONS ...
Paul 83). Traces of Jn. as a recent ‘interpretation’
(ii.) ames 84).
quoted from the Gospels The Diatessaron
T he Oxyrhynchus fragment 86).
B.-HISTORICAL AND SYNTHETICAL.
A.-SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
I. IN THE Order of narratives I 3).
In general Occasion of Words
I n Lk. IO Places and persons
I n Mt. Later conditions
I n Mk. Miracle stories
Conclusion Resurrection of Jesus 138).
Absolute
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. ( a ) About Jesus generally
(b) About Jesus’ miracles 140).
Tradition theory Inference regarding the ‘signs
Dependence theory 116). Metaphors misinterpreted 142).
Original gospel Influence of O T
Original Mk. Miraculous
Logia (5 Conclusion as to words of Jesus
Two-source theory
Extent of logia
Special Lk. source 123). AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF AND
Smaller sources 124). THEIR SOURCES.
Theories of combination Titles of gospels 146).
Review of classes of theory Statements of Fathers
Use of Mt. by Lk. Author of gospel 148).
Sources of the sources Author of gospel and the logia
Critical inferences Date of logia
Semitic basis 130). Date of gospel of gospel (5
author and date of 3rd
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF Conclusion
Fundamental principles Gospel of Hebrews ($155).
Chronological statements Other extra-canonical gospels
B.-FOURTH GOSPEL.
See JOHN

abbreviations used in this article.

(reff. to in Potter’s ed. of Ignatius, ed. Light- Tradition of Mk.
and margin of foot. and Mt. where it differs from Lk.
epistle entitled Refutation Heresies Lk. =Common Tradition of Mt.
‘An ancient homily,’ in Lightfoot’s ed. (text of Grabe books and sections of and Lk. (whether in Synoptic or
Clement. Homilies, ed. ET in ‘ante-N’icene Library’). Double Tradition).
Schwegler. Lightf. Lightfoot, Bib.Essays. contra
Harmony Lightf. Lightfoot, Essays on Huet, Kouen, 1668).
called Tatian’s Diatessaron. Religion. Philo (Mangey’s vol. and page).
ed. (ed. Amsterdam, Pseudo-Peter Gospel of Peter.
HE ed. ref. to and page). Schottg. 2 vols.
ET. to Mk. Codex (see TEXT), called
16 Sinaiticus.
Heresies ed. Duncker. =the Common Tradition of Tryph. Justin’s (ed. Otto).
Lightfoot, ed. Mk. and Lk. where differs from Westc Westcott’s on John.
Mt. on
 GOSPELS
[The aim of the article to set forth with
sufficient fulness the facts that have to be taken into
account in formulating a theory of the genesis of the
gospels, to record and some of the more
portant theories that have been proposed, and to
cate if possible the present position of the question and
the apparent trend of thought.
Its two parts, as will appear from the prefixed tabular
exhibit of their contents, are partly independent, partly
complementary. Roughly it may be said that the first
GOSPELS
is relatively full in its account of the
of the gospels as a basis for considering their mutual
relations, and in its survey of the external evidence as
. to origin. The second mainly at
giving ordered account of the various questions bear-
ing on (especially) the internal evidence that have
raised by scholars in the long course of the development
of gospel criticism, and at attempting to find at least a
provisional answer.]

A . INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS T O ORIGIN.

I. THE E ARLIEST T RADITION . known. (Eus. the substance of the it is
antecedently probable that, where the Synoptists differ,
Roughly it may be said that, of the Synoptists, Mk.
if favours one, he does so deliberately. Inde -
exhibits the Acts shorter Words of the Lord Mt.
pendently, therefore, of its intrinsic value, is im-
a combination of the Acts with Discourses
portant as being, in effect, the commentary on
of the Lord, the latter often grouped
the Synoptists.
together, as in the Sermon on the Mount
Lk. a second of Acts with Discourses, 11. THE TRIPLE
which an attempt is made to arrange the Words and
Here we have to consider : (i.) The edition of Mk.
Discourses chronologically, assigning to each the circum-
stances that occasioned it. A comparison shows that Mt. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed;
and where Mk. is silent, often agreewith one another. (ii.) Mk. in relation to Mt. and Lk.
Jn. in relation to and
This doubly-attested account-for the most part con-
fined to Discourses, where the agreement is sometimes Lk.
verbatim- may be conveniently called Double The Edition of from which and
borrowed differs from Mk. itself merely in a few points
Tradition.’ Where Mk. steps in, the agreement between
indicating a tendency to correct style.
Mt. and Lk. is less close and a study of what may be The most frequent changes are (a)to substitute for
called the Triple Tradition,’ the matter common and to insert pronouns, for the sake of clearness. But
to Mk., Mt., and Lk., shows that here and as is often apparent (6) a tendency to substitute more definite, or
a rule, contain nothing of importance in common. which classical or appropriate words. For example,
are substituted for the single (Mk. 2
is not found i n our ( o r rather in a n ancient applied to wine and wine-skins), (or some other
edition of containing a fe w for the barbaric (Mk. 2 4 for (MU.
for [see below, This leads to the for the unheard of
conclusion that, in the Triple Tradition, Mt. and Lk. (Mk. 2 is by the
following; bracketed additions : Mk. 4 mystery
borrowed (independent& of each other) either our of God; (3 [his brother]; (44)
(more f r o m some document 2 embedded In Mk. for ‘them Mt. and Lk.
in heart.’ (c) there is’condensation 4 IO]
or an
Any other hypothesis requires only to he stated in order to unusual word [of a plant] is changed to a
untenable. For example : ( I ) that Mt. and Lk. should more one ; or a less reverential phrase 27 )
agree accident, would be contrary to all literary experience ; to a more reverential one
if and Lk. borrowed from a common document contain- In altered into or
ing Mk or (3) differing in important respects from Mk or possihly because means in (four or five times)
Lk. from or Mt. from Lk and
would contain not in
( 5 ) if Mk. borrowed from Mt. and from Lk., he must have This follows from the generally admitted fact that versions
his narrative so to insert almost and of the Three Synoptic Gospels were welt known in the Church
word common to and in the passage before him-a long before the publication of the Fourth (see helow, ‘External
hard task, even for a literary forger of these days, and an im- Evidence’). An interesting testimony to the authority of our
possibility for such a writer as Mk. Four Canonical Gospels, and also to the later date of the Fourth
The Fourth Gospel called Jn.) does comes from ‘the Jew’ of Celsus, who says that (Orig. 2
the Synoptic‘ ‘repentance, faith,, certain believers, ‘as though roused from intoxication to
baptism,‘ ‘rebuke,’ ‘sinners, control (or to self-judgment, sir
2. John. ‘disease ‘possessed with a devil,‘ alter the character of the Gospel from
cast devils ‘unclean ‘leper ‘leaven,’ its first in four-
’enemy,’ ‘hypocrisy, ‘adultery,’ wbe ‘rich,’ fold and fashion and
‘riches,’ ‘mighty work Instead of it that they might have wherewith to
Jn. uses ‘have faith ‘Faith,’ in Jn. is ‘abiding gainsay refutations
Christ.’ The Synoptists say that prayer will he if we Celsus apparently that there was first an original
have faith : Jn. says (15 If y e in and my words Gospel, of such a kind as to render it possihle for enemies to
you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto make a charge of ‘intoxication (perhaps being in Hebrew and
you. Except in narrating the Crucifixion, Jn. never mentions characterised by eastern metaphor and hyperbole), then, that
cross’ or ‘crucify,’ but he represents Jesus as predicting there were three versions of this Gospel, then four, thus making
being ‘uplifted’ or ‘glorified.’ In Jn. the Synoptic ‘child an interval between the first three and the fourth, which he, does
rarely occurs but the necessity of the kingdom of not make between any of the first three. The word ‘manifold
God as little children’ is expressed by him in the necessity ap ears to refer to still later apocryphal Gospels.
(verbally different, hut spiritually the same) of being ‘born from seemed more appropriate for history. At
above.‘ all events Lk. never (without etc.)
Jesus. The only apparent instance is Lk.
Since the author of the Fourth Gospel must have unto them Peace he unto yon. This is expunged
dorf, and in double brackets by WH . Alford condemns
For the meaning of the emphasised ‘the ’ see helow Tischendorf on the ground that authority is weak.’
T he hypothesis of an Oral Tradition, a’s the sole of internal evidence is strong.
the similarities in the Synoptists, is contrary both to external 3 The deviations of Mt. and Lk. from Mk. are printed in
and to internal evidence. distinct characters in Mr. Rushbrooke’s which is
3 ‘The kingdom of God or ‘of heaven,’ occurs in Jn. twice, indispensable for the critical study of this question. It follows
in the Synoptists more times. the order of Mk.
1766
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
‘the cleft of a rock.’ Once at least our Mk. (9 : dvahov Introduction) might naturally their place in the
to have traditio;, Mt. and Lk. dialect of the slaves and freedmen who formed the first congrega-
the older : there is order, tions of the Church in Rome ; but in the more prosperous days
is on the Mount, indicating that both Mt. of the Church they would be corrected.
and Lk. derive the saying, not from but from a different Again, a very early Evangelist, not having much
source, which come the portion: common to Mt. and Lk.
above called The Double Tradition. experience of other written Gospels, and not knowing
An examination of the deviations from Mk. common exactly what most edify
to Mt. and Lk. in the Triple Tradition confirms the Church, might naturallv stress on
view that Mt. did not borrow from L k . , nor L k. from vivid expressions and striking words, or reproduce
Mt. Had either borrowed from the other, they would anacolutha, which, though not objectionable in discourse,
have agreed, at least occasionally, against Mk. in more are unsuitable for written composition.
important details. Many such words are inserted Mk. and avoided Mt. or
Lk. or by (13s)
(ii.) in relation t o and is a remark- For irregular constructions 12
able fact that-whereas the later Evangelists, and other (altered 5 Note also the change
writers such as Barnabas and Justin, of construction from to the infinitive in 315, as compared with
314 and the use of to ask a question (2x6 The
appeal largely to detailed fulfilments of of Mk. are known; see 627 7 4 39. Those
prophecy-Mk. quotes no prophecies in in 1214 and in Mk. shares with
his own and gives no miraculous Less noticed but more noteworthy, are the uses of rare, poetic,
or prophetic’ words (7 32 8 23
incidents peculiar to himself except (Mk. an ancient which may indicate a Christian or hymn the basis
and semi-poetical tradition of the healing of the blind.
H e makes no mention of Christ’s birth or childhood, Mk. also contains stumbling-blocks in the way of
and gives no account of the weak believers, omitted in later Gospels,
Occasionally Mk. repeats the same thing in the formofquestion and not likely to have been tolerated,
and answer. may sometimes he a mere peculiarity of style
e.g 2 3 : but in many cases (1 32 42 3 [compared except in a Gospel of extreme antiquity.
4 5 12 44 etc ) he seems t o have had before him two example ‘ H e was not to do there any
3
versions of one saying in his ‘anxiety to omit to work
only
. 34) all sick are brought to Jesus, hut he heals
whereas Mt. (816) says that he healed all, and Lk.
have inserted hoth. in connection with un-
clean spirits see 44 37 - 12 for others, relating that he healed each one ; his mother
to the of people round Jesus, the publicity of his and brethren attempt to lay hands on him, on the ground that
work and his desire for solitude, see 2 he was insane. an ambitious petition is imputed to
3 etc. (some paralleled in Lk., not so fully or James and Johh, instead of (as Mt.) t o their mother;
gra Mk. abounds with details as to the manner Pilate ‘marvels’ at the speedy death of Jesus which might
and gestures of Jesus (see 3 31-37 I n some have been used to support the view (still maintained by a few
these, Aramaic words are given as his very utterances, 5 41 modern critics) that Jesus had not really died Mk. omits (6 7)
14 36. Sometimes Mk. gives names mentioned by no other the statement that Jesus gave power (as Mt. Lk. 91) to his
writer (cp 3 8 10 46). apostles to heal he enumerates the different
stages which Jesus effected a cure, and describes the cure
In some circumstances, elaboration of as at first, only partial the fig-tree, instead of being
portant detail (and especially the introduction of names), up ‘immediately’ (as Mt. 2119 is not
instances of which abonnd in the Apocryphal Gospels, observed to he withered till after the interval of a day.
would indicate a late writer. But Mk. often emphasises (iii.) in the
and elaborates points omitted, or subordinated, by the Instances from the first part of following
other Evangelists, and likely to be omitted in later times, comparisons will elucidate relation
as not being interesting or edifying. to the Triple Tradition. (It will be found
For example Lk. and Jn. subordinate facts relating to the
ersonal
Now Acts 3
influence and execution of John the
that several years after Christ’s
. that Jn. generally supports a combination
of Mk. and Mt., and often Mk. alone,
against Lk. the exceptions being in those
death ‘the baptism of John’ was actually overshadowing the
baptism of Christ among certain Christians. This being the passages which describe the relation of John the Baptist
case, it was natural for the later Evangelists to There Jn. goes beyond Lk.
references t o the Baptist. Lk., it is true, describes birth Mk. 1 ‘As it is written in Isaiah, If these prophecies,
in detail: but the effect is to show that the son of Zachariah was wrongly assigned to Isaiah are not an early interpolation, they
destined from the womb to be nothing hut a forerunner of the are the only ones quoted the Evangelist Mt. and
Messiah. Jn. effects the same in a different way, by Lk. assign one of these prophecies assigns to
recording the Baptist’s confessions of Christ’s preexistence and the Baptist, so as to the willing subordination of the
sacrificial mission. I t is characteristic of early date as latter I am [but] the voice’).
well as of his simplicity and freedom from controversial Mk. mentions no suspicion among the Jews that the
that, whether aware or not of this danger of rivalry, he set down: Baptist might be the Messiah. Lk. mentions a silent
just as he may have heard them, traditions the Baptist ‘questioning‘ (that does not elicit a direct denial). adds a
that must have interested the Galilean Church far more than question (1 art thou?’ followed a
Churches of the Gentiles. I not
Another sign of early composition is the rudeness of Mk.17: me.’ Rejected by Lk. (possibly as being
Greek. liable to an interpretation derogatory to Jesus), but. thrice
Mk. uses many words by repeated by Jn. 27 such a context as to to
6. Rude Phrynichus, (5 23) Christ’sprecedence
Mk.18: ‘shall baptize you with f he Holy Spirit,’omitting
(1025) is added by, Mt. and Lk. Jn. goes with
as the Constitutions improves the had Mk. 133) : He it is that with the Holy Spirit.’
(Taylor’s so Lk. always (and sometimes Mk 1 mentions ‘Jordan in connection with the baptism of
Mt.) corrects these Such words (which stand on Jesus: k. does not (though he does afterwards in his preface
quite a different footing Greek, such as we find in to the Temptation). Jn. (1 does, with details of the place.
(Note that Lk. never mentions the Synoptic ‘beyond
Almost the only addition of importance in this ‘corrected
edition of Mk.’ is ‘Who it I t is beside the mark to reply that these words are used,
thee?’ added to explain the obscure Mk. 1465 ‘Prophesy. occasionally, by classical prose writers. T he point is, that
T he parenthesis in Mk. 1 is the only exception. This was occurs in N T only and a account
probably an insertion in the original Gospel (see 5 8). healing in 2034, occurs i n N T
3 For proof that Gospel terminates at 168, see WH ninety times! In the canonical books of OT, occurs only
on Mk. 16 which is there pronounced to he ‘a narrative in Proverbs. occurs only here in NT, and only twice
of Christ’s appearances after the Resurrection,’ found by ‘ a (apart from a leper’s scab in OT, and there in poetical
scribe or editor ‘in some secondary record then surviving from passages. (practically non-occurrent in Greek litera-
a preceding ‘its authorship and its precise date ture, see Thayer) is found nowhere in the Bible, except in of
must remain unknown ; it is, however apparently older than the Is. 356, and in account of the man who had (Mk. 732)
time when the Canonical Gospels received for impediment in his speech.’
though it has points of contact with them all, it contains I t omitted also in 3 (where D and Ss. add it).
attempt harmonise their various representations of the course The of and Lk. to Mk. will be found
of events. by Synopticon. I t may
Papias, quoted Eus. (3 39) : ‘For he (Mk.) took great sumed that in this section, Mt. agrees with except
care about one matter, io omit nothing of what he heard.’ where indicated.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
has it thrice.) Lk. describing the descent of the meant ‘glorifying’ the Father, and hence the Son, by
Spirit adds in a bodily shape.‘ Jn. implies that the descent the supreme sacrifice on the Cross? No one can that these
was a sign to the Baptist alone and States were what Jesus calls dark sayings the
that abode on Jesus. Thus he ‘bodily disciples contradicted him : (16 Behold at
shape,’-at all events in the ordinary sense. Lk. alone (136) speakest thou clearly and utterest no dark saying. But they
had stated that the Baptist was connected with Jesus through were wrong.
family ties; represents the Baptist a s saying ‘And I Jn. seems to say, therefore, not that Christ’s teaching,
knew not. thoughclear, was ‘concealed’ (Lk. from the disciples
Mk. 1 (possibly also leaves room for interval after
the Temptation, in which the reader may place Christ’s early supernaturally, but rather that it was
teaching in Jerusalem before ‘John was betrayed. Lk. 414, beyond till the Spirit was given. Imbued with the
omitting the mention of John, appears to leave mo interval. Jn. popular belief that resurrection must imply resurrection
repeatedly says, or imphes, that the early teaching took place
(324 4 I 3) was imprisoned. in a fleshly form, visible to friends and enemies
I have not come to, call the righteous, but the how could they a t present apprehend a spiritual
sinful. Lk. adds ‘to Jn. the word tion, wherein the risen Christ must be shaped forth by
repentance.’ the Spirit, and brought forth after sorrow like that of
puts into the mouths of Christ’s household or friends
the words ‘ H e is beside and Lk. ‘the woman when she is in travail?’
seem to transfer this to the multitudes. They render it ‘were Mk. and Mt. seem to have read in to utterances
astonished or Jn. goes of Jesus from fa ct s o r
with in mentioning a charge of ‘madness’ and
connecting it with the charge of possession hath a Towards these, Lk. and Jn. different
devil and is mad’). the charee of the attitudes
Pharisees, ( a ) in thd form (3 starting a t first in accord with the Tradition,
an unclean spirit while adding a milder gradually drops more and more of the definite ; and
(322): In the prince of he casteth out the (devils. a t last, when confronted with the words, After I am raised, I
and reject (a) and adopt defining ‘prince’ by will go before you into Galilee,’ omits the promise altogether.
‘Beelzebnl. aoes with ‘ H e hath a devil.’ Jn., on the contrary, recognises that the predictions of Christ
Mk. parable of seed that springeth up were of a general nature, though expressed in Scriptural types.
sower ‘ knoweth not how is omitted by and Lk. Lk. differ also in their attitudes towards Scripture a s
the essence of this in of the from the Spirit, ‘proving’ the Resurrection. Lk. represents the two travellers
as to which, we (38) not whence and as to the risen Saviour, till he ‘interpreted to
apparently modelled on Eccles. : ‘As the Scriptures the things concerning himself.’ Jn.
what is way wind expressly says that the belief of the beloved disciple precede4
the in of her the knowledge of the Scriptures: ‘And he saw and
with child, even so thou knowest not the work of God believed ; for not even y e t did they the Scripture, how
all. I n the morning sow thy seed and in the evening withhold that he must needs rise from the dead.
not thine hand :for thou not which shall prosper, this In the light of returning to statement that
or that.’ disciples discussed together ‘what the the dead
Mk. 6 :‘A prophet in his own country.’ Lk. alone connects might mean,’ we have only to suhstitute ‘this’ for ‘the,’ and i t
this proverb with a visit Nazareth, in which the Nazarenes becomes intelligible. Every one knew what ‘rising from the
try to Jn. it with dead’ meant. But they did not know the meaning of this kind
a visit in which the Galileans Jesus. Cp N A Z ARE TH . of rising from the dead what Christ said about his
8 27-29. Here Lk., alone of the evangelists, represents
Jesus as ‘praying and he does the (6’) The promise and Mt.), ‘ I will go
four other passages where and omit it. Jn. never
uses the word throughout his Gospel. before you to occurs in close connection with
Predictions of the to these Mk. Peter’s profession that he will not desert Jesus. Jn. has,
and Lk. give us a choice between two difficulties. in the same connection I go to prepare
(a) 9 (comp. also 9 says, that the disciples ques- for you.’
tioned among themselves was the meaning of rising from This leads us to elsewhere for a confusion between
the dead Yet what could he clearer? I n ‘Galilee’ and ‘place. Comparing with Lk. 437,we
predicting Lk. predictions of death and find that Lk. has, instead of ‘The whole of Galilee,’
Resurrection. with fulness detail, the words every place of the (so also in Lk.
which the Gospel proceeds; stands where we should expect
and the last prediction of death a statement that 45) so Chajes [Markus-studies, who also independently offers
‘it was as it were veiled them. so whereas Mk. the same theory [double meaning of to account for Lk. 4 37).
(and Mt.) contains the I have been
raised up, I will go before you t o Lk. omits this; and In Mk. 3 7, Lk. ‘Galilee.’ The question, then, arises,
subsequently, where Mk. (16 7) and repeat or refer to this whether, the original, may have been some word signifying
promise, Lk. alters the words to into he ‘region, or ‘place which (I) interpreted to
in Galilee.’ mean ‘Galilee,’ Jn. ‘the place (of my Father)’ or ‘the
relation to ( a ) and (6) is as follows in (a’) (holy) while (3) Lk. found the tradition so obscure
and that he omitted it altogether. Now the word a longer
(a’) Jn. makes it obvious why the disciples conld not form of (‘Galilee’), is used to mean (Josh. 22 ‘region.’
understand Christ’s predictions. Again, Mt. ‘to Galilee to the where he
Take the following 19) ‘Destroy this temple and in three for them,’ suggests two ‘Galilee,’ ‘appointed
days I will raise it up ; (3 Son ’of man must Lastly, hesidrs many passages Ign.
be up (1223) ‘T he hour is come that the Barn. 19 I ; 5,
Son of man should be
man
.
(13 Now hath the Son of
God hath been in
and also
a n attribute, to mean ‘place
where word
the next world),’
is used, with

him, and Gqd him in himself and 978, uses the word absolutely of
him. Who was to conjecture that, when Jesus spoke of Paradise. leads to the inference [which is highly
being ‘ from the earth,’ he said this (12 signifying probable as regards and which further knowledge
by what death he was to die’? or that might render equally probable as regards ‘place’] that an expres-
sion, misunderstood and as meaning and
‘Call,’ used by 41 times 26, Mk. only 4, is used omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it at all, was
by Jn. only twice. Righteous in Mt. and understood by to mean [my Father’s ‘Paradise.’
Lk. (but only twice in to describe who observes the In any case we have here a tradition of Mk. and rejected
law’-is used but thrice in Jn. and then in the higher Platonic by Lk., Jn. such a way as to throw light
sense 0 righteous and see 5 724). on the different views taken by Lk. and Jn. of Christ’s sayings
times in Lk., only times in hft. and Mk. together, occurs about his resurrection.
only 4 in Jn., and except in the of
Jn. differs in expression from Mk. and ; but one is said to have understood the ‘stretching out,’ and the
he differsf a r context almost compels us to suppose that it was not understood.
Similarly, the ‘Raise In I Sam. where of have a corrupt reproduc-
cleave the tree, mainly referring to the Baptist’; tion of Sym. has ‘appointed
doctrine about stones as children to Abraham. and place.’ Also compare Mt. ‘Go tell my brethren to
about cutting down barren tree of Jewish formalism-may depart to Galilee,’ with Jn. 20 17, to my brethren and say
possibly have had in his mind Eccles. unto them I ascend Does not this indicate
The aorist cannot be exactly expressed in English : hath that what understood as meaning ‘Galilee’ or ‘appointed
been’ is nearer to the meaning than ‘ was.’ mountain understood as meaning ‘heaven’? This points
‘Signifying representingunderafigure or to some of being expressed by ‘the place,’
n o one the time). In 21 the cross is ‘signified’ ‘the holy place,’ (place) of the Father,’ ‘the
more clearly by the ‘stretching out of the ‘hands but no ‘the Holy Mountain.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or caused Lk. amplifies and dignifies while Jn. appears to subordinate,
the circumstances of the Supper. What Jn. had to say
by obscurity, appear to be corrected, about the feeding on the flesh and blood of the Saviour, he
or omissions supplied, by in earlier, in synagogue at Capernaum. There Jesus
the followine instances insists, (663) words that I have spoken to are
Mk. (117 and Mt. say that Jesus ‘ s a t on the ass’. spirit and are life ’ and, profiteth nothing.’ Now he
Lk. first with and then substituted reiterates this (13 ‘ye are clean but not
for the latter the ‘they put him thereon.’ This, when compared with (15 3), ‘ye are clean
Jn. (12 goes with Mk. T he Synoptists all mention of the word that (have spoken untoyou,’ indicates that
‘garments,’ on the ass and strewn in the road. But Mk. participating in the bread and wine and washing of was
and Mt. mention also the ‘strewing’ of branches (Mt. useless except so far as it went with spiritual participation in
however, calling them a word that mostly ‘the himself. A climax of warning is attained by
means litter,’ or ‘grass straw used for or for making Judas receive the devil when he receives the bread
of mattress. This Lk. omits. inserts dipped in wine by the hand of Jesus.
(without mentioning ‘garments but in a avoids the ambiguous Synoptic word ‘covenant’
context: ‘They took (in their hands) the or ‘testament and makes it clear,
of the palm trees and went the final discourse, that he regards the Spirit as a (or
forth to meet that implies nothing of the nature of a bargain or
Whether Jn. or Mk. was right or whether both were right compact.
is not now the question. T he is that where Lk. omits 5. Mk. 14 27 (and Mt.; but Lk. ‘All ye shall be caused to
tradition of Mk. possibly as being difficult, Jn. modifies it, or stumble; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and
substitutes a kindred one. sheep shall be scattered abroad,’ was likely to cause a ‘scandal
(143-9) account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman -as though God could ‘smite’ his son. This may be seen
is either omitted by Lk. or placed much earlier and from Barnabas, who gives the prophecy thus : (5 hen
greatly modified the woman being called sinner,’ and the they the Jews] shall own shepherd, then shall
host being as ‘Simon a ‘Pharisee.’ Mk. and Mt., perish the sheep of the flock. Jn. while retaining Christ’s
however, call him ‘Simon the and Jn. (12 suggests prediction that the disciples be ‘scattered
that the house belonged to and his sisters. I t is effectively destroys the ‘scandal’ by adding that, even wheh
not impossible that the difference may be caused by some clerical abandoned by them he would not be abandoned the Father
error. Chajes, accounts for ‘Simon the leper’ by ‘And yet I alone, because the Father with me.’
aconfusion between ‘the The Passion.- The facts seem to be as follows :-
the leper.’ May there have further confusion between I. and Mt. place the words, ‘Arise let us go’ at
the arrival of Judas. Lk. omits all that between ( a )
and ‘Lazarus’? Jn. apparently guards the reader
against supposing the woman to he a sinner, by telling us (11 Mk. 14 38 Watch and pray.
the and (6) Mk.
.. temptation,’
‘Arise, let us go,’ having
that it Mary, the sister of
The Passover and the Lord’s Supper.- The merely (2246) ‘Stand
temptation.’ Now ‘to stand
and pray ...
Synoptists and especially Lk seem to represent the Cruci- ‘nothing else than to pray’ 2 But
fixion as after. occurrine before. the Paschal might also mean ‘watch cp Neh. 73. Lk. may have considered
-meal.‘ are of in (6) a duplicate of (a), the meaning to he ‘stand fast and
Lk. between the Day of Preparation and pray.‘ Jn. places the words ‘Arise, let us go,’ at the moment
the Day of I t was one thing to when Jesus feels the approach, not of hut of
(Mk. 14 and Mt.) ‘prepare to eat the Pass- world who
over,’ and another to (Lk. 228) ‘prepare the that we Lk. omits all) mention of the ‘binding’ of Jesus.
may eat it,’ which Lk. substitutes for the former. Also Mk. early Christian writers regarded it as a symbolical
14 (which Mt. adjusts to a different context, act, being performed in the case of the intended sacrifice of
and omits) indicates that original tradition have Isaac, the prototype of Christ (Gen. 22 Jn. inserts it (18
agreed with view: for no one would have been abroad a t as does Mk. 15 I (and Mt.).
or after sunset when the Passovermealwas to be eaten. 3. Lk. speaks of 52) ‘generals (UT of the temple.’
Mk. Mt. ’in parts unquestionably sanction view. they Jn. says (18 ‘The and officers of the
do not express it so decidedly as Lk., and they contain slight Lk. has loosely (3 Annas Caiaphas as ‘high priests
traces of an older tradition indicating that the Last Supper that Caiaphas was high priest, and Annas his
was on the Day of Preparation. father-in-law.
I . Mk. 14 One of you shall betray me, he that 4. According to Mk. 14 false witnesses asserted that
with was perhaps a shock to some believers, as Jesus had declared that destroy the temple.
indicating that partook of the bread. Mt. the Mt. alters ‘would’ into was and implies that, though
words, retaining more general phrase, while what had been previously testified was false this may have been
they were eating.’ Lk. omits ‘eating,’ having simply, ‘the Lk. omits the whole. I n his the destruction of
(13 quotes ‘He eateth my bread ...
hand of him that is to betray me is with me on the table.’ Jn.
,’and
the temple by the Romans was accepted by Christians as a
divine retaliation. which he reearded as inflicted bv
mentions as the from Jesus himself, so’thaf he wish avoid saying that
hands. testimony was ‘false. says in effect, ‘Some words about
Mk. (and Mt.) H e that dippeth his hand in the dish destroying “the temple had been uttered by Jesus but
with me’ will be the is omitted by Lk. Jn. com- they referred to “the temple of his body.” And the were
bines a modification of this with the foregoing; Jesus the-“destroyers.”’
dips the sop’ and gives it to Judas. Mk. 15 6 (and Mt.) says that it was the custom to
3. Lk. differs from Mk. Mt. in mentioning the release a malefactor a t the feast. Lk. omits this. Jn. not
meal (apparently) as the Passover mentioning inserts it, adds that Pilate himself the
a ‘cup’ which 17) ‘received’ meal, and Jews of it.
bade the disciples ‘distribute to one another inserting the 6. (and Mt.) the (purple or scarlet)
words D o this a s a memorial of me (4) mentioning ‘robe and the ‘crown of thorns. Lk. omits these striking
a second cup, that was ‘after sup (5) speaking of what reason, it is difficult to Jn. inserts
the as new covenant. I n all these points both of them.
7. Mk 1465 alone of the Synoptists mentions ‘blows with
in the flat ‘hand” ; in in Is. 506). Jn. also
mentions 3 (and
Conclusion and Exceptions.- The instances above
of the enumerated might be largely supplemented. The
in conclusion from them is that-setting
aside ( I ) descriptions of possession,
and other subjects excluded from the Johannine
allusions to John the Baptist, (3 ) a few
passages where Jn., accepting development,
on
with Mt.13 17 Lk. 17 Also (3) and and (5) may be interpola-
tions (but more probably early additions, made in a later edition
of the work) I Cor. or (more probably) from
her tradition.
would D and destroy this possibility by reading ‘two
witnesses.’
is what Barnabas (7 ) connects them with the scapegoat. Possibly
this connection may have seemed to Lk. objectionable.
The miracle (Mk. 11 Mt. 21 of the Withered Fig Tree
may come under this head. It has a close resemblance to
(136) parable of the Fig Tree. Cp FIG.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
carries it a stage further, ever agrees with It must be added that, in this Double Tradition
as whilst he very steps in to and (to a less extent) in those parts of the Triple
support, or explain by modifying, some obscure harsh Tradition where Lk. makes omissions, Mk. and Mt.
statement omitted by Lk. generally agree more closely than where Lk. intervenes.
Two important exceptions demand mention :- The phenomena point to a common document occasion-
(a) Mk.1525, ‘ I t was the third hour and they crucified ally used by Mk. and Mt., and, where thus used,
him,’ is omitted by Mt. and Lk and con-
14. Exceptions. tradicted indirectly Jn. 19 ‘ I t was avoided by Lk. and also by The Walking on the
about the hour’ (when Pilate pro. Water is an exception to general omission. The
nounced sentence). Mk. may have confused (‘sixth’) Anointing of Jesus (since Lk. has a version of it) has
(‘third’). [In I 637 the impossible thirty been treated above as part of the Triple Tradition.’
may be due to a similar confusion.] Or the sentence may be out
of place and should come later, describing the death of Jesus and in relation to and
a s occurring when was the lime when is very brief. The larger portion of it relates
they crucified How easily confusion might spring up, to exorcism, Mk. (and note
may be seen from the Acts of John ‘when he was hanged the close agreement between Mk. and
on the bush of the cross i n the sixth of the day
was over all the land. First, ‘sixth Lk. as to the exorcism of the Legion,’ a name omitted
might be mistaken for ‘from the’ (or vice versa); then by Mt. in his account of it). There are also accounts
a numeral would have to Or might be of Jesus (Mk. 45) retiring to solitude, and of
repeated (or dropped) before In Mk. 15 33, D, which
elsewhere gives in full, has an unusual symbol people flocking to him from (38) Tyre and Sidon. A
The conclusion is that Mk. seemed to Mt. Lk., and section of some length attacks the Pharisees, as (Mk. 12
t o be in error, and that Jn. corrected by what Mt. 38-40) devourers of widows’ houses,’ and prepares the
and Lk. corrected by omission. (Mk. 236) way for the story of
(6) Mk. 14 30, Before the cock crow twice thrice thou shalt
deny is given by Mt. and Lk. with omission of the widow’s mite. In the later portions of the Gospel,
‘twice. This is remarkable because ‘ twice enhances the Lk. deviates from Mk. (as Mt. approximates to Mk. ),
miraculousness of the predidtion. May not Mk. be based on returning to similarity in the Preparation for the Pass-
a Semitic original, which gave the saying thus, Before the cock
crow, twice and thrice’ (=repeatedly, see Job 3329 over (Mk. 14 12-16), but from this point deviating more
(1338) accepts modification of Mt., but with and more.
tion-‘the cock shall not crow, until such time as thou deny insertion of what may be called the
me thrice section,’ is consistent with the prominence given by him
Here Jn. accepts, but‘ improves on, the Synoptic correction of
Mk., though perhaps literally correct, does not represent to women and to poverty (see below, 39).
the spirit of what Jesus said. and or, The Double Tradition’ (a)
the Acts of the Lord, ( b ) the Words of
111. DOUBLE TRADITIONS.
The Double Traditions include what is common to Acts of the Lord are con-
) Mk. and Mt., ) Mk. and ) fined to the details of the Tempta -
Mt. and Lk. . The last of these is so much tion and the healing of the Centurion’s servant.
fuller than or that it may be con- gives no detailed account of a Temptation, hut just
veniently called ‘ Double Tradition.’ it adding (113) ‘and the angels were ministering
apparentlyduring the Temptation ; Mt.
(i.) and ; in to and says that after the departure of the devil ‘ angels
Much of this has been incidentally discussed above, and to unto him ;Lk.
under the head of the Triple Tradition : and what has mentions no ‘angels.’ omits all temptation of Jesus,
suggests (1 that ‘angels were always ascending and descend-
been said there will explain why Lk. and Jn. omit Mk. ing on the Son of man,’ and that, in course of time, the eyes of
and (accounts of the Baptist), 913 (‘Elias the disciples would be opened todiscern them.
is come already’), He calleth for As regards the healing, some assert that Jn. does
omission of a long and continuous section of Mk. not refer to the event described by
But if so it can hardly be denied that he, their
(a),Christ’s walking on the Sea, it in inserting in his Gospel another
the doctrine about ‘ things that defile,’ and about case of healing, resembling the former in being performed ( I ) a t
‘the children’s crumbs,’ (d),the feeding of the Four a distance, on the child (apparently) of a foreigner, and (3)
near Capernaum. and Lk. differ irreconcileably.3 Jn.,
‘Thousand, ( e ) ,acomparison between this and the feeding
of the Five Thousand, and the dialogue (see 39 n. ) Space hardly admits mention of the possiblereasons for
following the doctrine of leaven - may indicate several omissions. Some of these passages the practical
abrogation of the Levitical Law of meats in Mk.
that Lk. knew this section as existing in a separate have seemed to him to point to a later period, such as that in
tradition, which, for some reason, he did not wish Actslog-16, where Christ abrogated the Law by a special
t o include in his Gospel. Most of it may be said utterance to Peter. Again in the Doctrine of Bread, while
(Mk. 7 crumbs and 8 leaven are used spiritually
t o belong to ‘the Doctrine of Bread,’ as taught loaves’ and (Mk. 8 ‘one loaf’ are used literally and
in Galilee. Jn. also devotes a section of his Gospel to mixture of the literal and metaphorical may have perplexed Lk
.a doctrine of Bread (but of quite a different kind from especially if he interpreted the miracle of the Fig-Tree
phorically, and was in doubt as to the literal or metaphorical
concentrating attention on Christ as the Bread. meaning of the Walking on the Water. Some passages he may
Lk. also omits (Mk. the cutting off of hand and also have omitted a5 du licates, the Feeding of the Four
foot,’ and (Mk. the discussion of the enactments lhousand. As regards ‘leaven,’ insertion ‘which is
of Moses concerning divorce-the former, perhaps, as hypocrisy’), if authentic, is fatal to the authenticityof Mk.
Perhaps the original was simply Beware of leaven,’ and the ex-
being liable to literal interpretation, the latter, as being planation, the was ‘ Beware of
of date. The ambitious petition (Mk. ,the leaven of hypocrisy. T he rest was
the sons of Zebedee, Christ’s rebuke (Mk. of evangelistic teaching How Jesus mean real leaven and
real bread when he could feed his flock with the leaven of heaven
Peter as Satan, and the quotation (Mk. ‘ I will at his pleasure?’) inserted first as a parenthesis (perhaps about
smite the shepherd,’ L k. may have omitted, as not the Son of man or the Son of God), and then transferred to the
tending to edification. In the discourse on ‘the last text in the first person. The variation of Mt. ftom Mk.
day’ L k. omits a great deal that prevents attention suggests that the words were not Christ’s.
Jn. thenarrative of Jesus walking on the Sea but adds
from being concentrated on the destruction of Jerusalem expressions (6 borrowed from Ps. ‘go to the
as exactly the predictions of Christ; but sea and where they would which increase
especially he omits (Mk. ‘of this hour the Son the symbolism of a story describing the helplessness of the
knoweth not.’ Twelve, when, for a short time, they had left their master. Jn.
omits the statement (Mk. and Mt.) that Jesus constrained the
disciples to leave him.
Attempts have been made, but in vain (see Classical Review, The passages referred to in this section will be found in
18 to prove that ‘sixth hour’ meant 6 A.M. Rushhrooke’s Synopticon, arranged in order.
T he parallel in Mt. can be ascertained by refer- D and omit Lk. 7 ‘Wherefore neither thought I
ence to myself worthy to come unto thee,’ thus harmonising Lk. with
For the Withering of the Fig-Tree (Mk. 11 see 13 n. Mt., who says that the man did come to Jesus. .
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
while correcting both Evangelists in some respects, and especially from perhaps because there was a as well as
in tacitly (448) denying that Jesus ‘marvelled,’ corrects Lk. a Galilean tradition of the life of Jesus, and towards
more particularly by stating ( I ) that the man came to Jesus
that Jesus a word, or promise of healing (3) the close of his history, depended mainly on the former.
the child was healed in t h a t hour,’ and by it clear owing to their length and number
that the patient was not a servant but a In the first tbree (and perhaps their frequent repetition in varied shapes
points, Jn. agrees with Mt. in the fourth, he interprets Mt. by Jesus himself, and by the apostles after
in all, he differs from Lk.
The Words of the Lord are differently arranged the resurrection), would naturally contain
by Mt. and Lk. Mt. groups sayings according to more variations than are found in the
their subject matter. Lk. avows in shorter Words of the Lord. The parable of the Sower,
his preface (1 3 ) an intention to write coming first in order, and having appended to it a
in (chronological) order,’ and he often supplies for a short discourse of Jesus (Mk. that might
saying a framework indicating the causes and circum- seem intended to explain the motive of the parabolic
stances called it forth. Sometimes, however, he is might naturally find a place in the Triple
manifestly wrong in his chronological arrangement, , Tradition. But this privilege was accorded to no other
whenheplaces Christ’s mourning over Jerusalem (1334 35) parable except that of the Vineyard, which partakes of
early, and in Galilee, whereas Mt. (2337-39) places it in the natwe of prophecy.
the Temple at the close of Christ’s . T h e longer discourses of the Double Tradition show traces o f
a Greek document, often in rhythmical and almost poetic style.
The Lord‘s Prayer (Mt. 69-13 Lk. 112-4). It was Changes of words such as for
perhaps on the principle of grouping that Mt. added for for for
to the shorter version of the Lord’s Prayer the words, for may indicate merely an attempt to render
more exactly a word in the original; but such substitutions as
thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth,’ as having (Lk.
been in part used by Jesus on another occasion (Mt. Spirit’ for (Mt. ‘good indicate doctrinal pur-
other addition, Deliver us from the evil pose. The original of Lk. 13 was perhaps (as
one,’ is not indeed recorded as having been used by ‘thyspiritis
Jesus elsewhere, it resembles the prayer of Jesus for good,’ RT] Lk. appears to have the older
version when he retains (L 1426) ‘hate his father,’ Mt.
his disciples in Jn. : keep them from the ‘love more than
one’ (and cp Tim. On changes, see Other variations indicate a corruption or various interpretation
LORD’S P RAYER they adapt the prayer for daily of a Greek original of course, precluding a still earlier
Mt. probably
and indicate that Lk. follows a later version of the in text which he read as e.,
prayer in his alterations, but an earlier version in his ‘for two farthings,’ and then he added (‘five before
omissions.4 to complete the sense. Perhaps a desire to make straightforward
sense as well as some variation in the MS., may have led Lk. to
exactly in the Double Tradition substitute for in Mt. Lk.
are for the most part of a prophetic or historical char- This last passage exhibits Lk. as apparently misunderstanding
acter. Some describe the relations between John the a tradition more correctly given by Mt. I n Mt. it is part of a
Baptist and Christ another calls down woe on late and public denunciation of the Pharisees in Jerusalem in
Lk. it is an early utterance, and in the house of a Pharisee
another, in language that reminds of the thoughts, Christ’s host. Probably the use of the singular
though not of the words of thanks God for revealing ‘Thou blind Pharisee’), together with the metaphor of the ‘cup
to babes what He has hidden from the wise and and platter,’ caused Lk. to infer that the speech was delivered
prudent another pours forth lamentations over doomed to a Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dining. The use
of (Lk. 1139) (see below, 38) makes it Probable
Jerusalem. Others, such as, ‘But know this, that if that is a late tradition. Other instances of Lk. s altera-
the goodman,’ and ‘ W h o then is the faithful and tions are his change of the original and
just steward,’ etc., appear to have an ecclesiastical into the Christian (Lk. 1149)
Lk. also omits the difficult In Mt.
rather than an individual reference, at all events in their
primary application. All these passages were especially send unto you prophets ...
2334, Jesus is represented as saying ‘Wherefore behold
and of them ye slay
.
fitted for reading in the services of the Church, and
consequently more likely to have been soon committed God said, I
etc.
unto them rophets ...
Lk. 1149, ‘Wherefore also the Wisdom
and some of
them shall they slay etc., omitting ‘crucify.’ Here Lk. seems
to writing. On the other hand, those sayings which to have in some respects, the original tradition
have most gone home to men’s hearts and have been whereas Mt. interpreting the Wisdom of God (cp I Cor.
most on their lips, as being of individual application, ‘Christ the of God to mean Jesus, it
Also Mt. retains a n a tradition
seem to have been so early modified by oral tradition which made ‘Zachariah’ of Barachiah ; Lk. omits the
as to deviate from exact agreement. Such are, ‘ T h e error.
mote and the beam Ask and it shall be given unto I n the ‘parables of the Wedding
you Take no thought for the morrow Fear not Feast, the Talents, and the Hundred Sheep-it may be
them that kill the body’ ‘Whosoever shall confess,’ said that Mt. lays more stress on the exclusion of those
etc. He that loveth father or mother more than me,’ who might have been expected to be fit, Lk. on the
etc. and note, above all, the differences in the Lord’s inclusion of those who might have been expected to b e
Prayer. As Lk. approaches the later period of Christ’s unfit.
work, he deviates more and more both from Mt. and Thus in the Wedding Feast, Lk. adds the invitation
of the maimed,’ etc. Mt. adds the rejection
Mt. 86 mentions which may mean ‘child,’ but more
often means servant’ in such a phrase as Cp P ARABLES.
etc. See (RV) Mt. ‘my servant’; Acts3 his Mk. (also Mt. and. Lk.) ‘he will destroy husband-
(marg. or Child ’). mentions (7 ‘ servant. men’-{.e., the Jewish nation. The parable of the Sower may
has repeatedly 47 50) ‘son,’ but finally recurs to Mt. s also be said to predict the history of the Church, its successes
word (4 child liveth (the only instance in which and failures.
uses ‘Hebrew ‘when used in the present article concerning the
The reason for transposition is probably to be in original of the Gospels, means ‘ Hebrew or Aramaic,’
the last words of the passage, ‘Ye shall not see me, until ye leaving that question open. But see Clue, A. and C. Black,
shall say, is t h a t cometh in the name of the Lord,’ 4 Other instances are ‘over many
words uttered by the crowd (Lk. 38) welcoming Jesus on his things,’ which might easily be corrupted into ‘over
entrance into Lk. probably assumed that the ten cities’ (see Lk. and comp. Mk. perhaps
prediction referred to
fore, have been made sometime before
into Jerusalem.
utterance, and must, there-
before the entrance
written parallel to Lk. 839
of the Seventy (Lk. ...
Also, in the Mission
is
3 Cp I RV: ‘As may be the will in heaven, so almost certainly (Abbott and Rushbrooke’s Common Tradition
shall he do.’ of xxxvii.) a confusion of two details in the
Cp Lk. 9 23 : ‘If any one wishes to come
me, ... let him take up his cross daily,’ where Lk. substitutes
after Mission of the Twelve (I) Take nothing for the journey,’
(Mt. ‘Salute the house. The corruption of a Greek
the present for and and inserts ‘daily. original is perhaps sufficient to explain this ; but it is more easily
in order to adapt the precept to the inculcation of explicable on the hypothesis of a Greek Tradition corrected b y
of a reference to a Hebrew original.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
of a guest who has no wedding garment and, in Talents in the LXX, and occurs in N T only in 8 Lk. 9 The Son
the casting out of the servant. In Mt. of man hath where to rest his head. But there is pathos and
22 13 47 the inclusion of prepares for an ultimate ex- power the thought that the one place on earth where the
clusion. The conclusion of the Hundred Sheep is, in 18 of man ‘rested his head’ was the Cross and the one moment
I t is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these was when he had accomplished the will.
little ones should perish’; in Lk.157, ‘There shall be joy in
heaven over one sinner that repenteth.’ The Single Traditions IV. INTRODUCTIONS (Mt. and ).
of Mt. and Lk., when examined, will he found severally to (i.) in these is very manifest.
reveal the same tendency to dwell on exclusion and inclusion ;
and this will confirm the inference, in itself prohahle, that the The agreement of Mt. and Lk. in the introductions
hand of each Evangelist is apparent thevarying characteristics describing the birth and childhood of
of the parables of the Double Tradition. Jesus consists in little more than fragments
in to The from Is. which, in the Hebrew, is,
The discourses in Jn. have almost for their sole subject A young woman shall conceive and hear
the Father as revealed through the Son, a (or, the) son and his name Immanuel,’
lie outside the province of the precepts, but in The virgin shall be with child and
parables, and discourses of the Double bring forth a son, and thou the husband)
Tradition. In the Synoptists, Jesus is a his name Immanuel.’ This was regarded as having
teacher of truth in Truth itself. been fulfilled, not by the birth of Isaiah‘s son recorded
The word used by Mk.) is employed Mt. and
Lk. (Mt. Lk. 816 11 33-36) to signify the light given in Is. (but cp but by the birth of the
the teachers of the Gospel, or else the conscience. The Disciples Messiah. In the earliest days of the Jewish Church of
themselves are called Mt. ‘the light of the world.’ Christ, the Messiah would naturally be described in
introduces Christ a s saying (8 I am the Light of the World. hymns and poetic imagery as the Son of the Virgin the
Again Mt. 7 13 and Lk. 13 24 declare that the ‘gate’ is narrow ;
Jn. that it is n o t objectively narrow, but only to those Daughter of Sion. In Rev. the Man Child is
who make it so being no other than Christ himself, born of a woman clothed with the sun,’ who evidently
‘go in out,’ and ‘shall find represents the spiritual Israel. Eusebius v. 1 4 5 )
pasture. Mt. 23 speaks of sinners as being excluded
(breaking the Moses) Lk. substitutes quotes a very early letter from the church of Lyons.
the law of justice): not in his Gospel in his Epistle where the ‘Virgin Mother’ means the Church,’ and
( I Jn. 34, cp with appears to refer to some controversy other instances are
about these words when he pronounces that is ) Traditions about every
in the true sense, and that all is
Though Jn. never mentions but always would tend in the same direction : (i. 131) ‘the Lord
asking or requesting,’ he nevertheless introduces begat Isaac’ Isaac 215) ‘is to be thought not the
Jesus as uttering, in his last words a kind of result of generation but the shaping of the
parallel to the Lor ds Prayer, of such a nature as to unbegotten.’ The real husband of Leah is (i. the
imply that what the disciples were to pray to God as Unnoticed (6 though Jacob is the father
future, Jesus thanked God as past. of her children. is found by Moses (i.
I t is true that prayer and praise are combined, and the words ‘pregnant, (but) by no mortal.’ Tamar is (i. 598-9)
are wholly different : for example ‘the hour is come’ has ‘pregnant through divine seed.’ is (i.
no counterpart in the Lord’s prayer. But (a) ‘the hour in Jn. born of a human mother’ who became pregnant after-
hour of glorifying the Father
Son,’ that is say ‘the hour of doing his will and establishing receiving divine seed.’ Concerning the birth of Isaac,
his kingdom . in essence, hour is come’ means Philo says (i. 148) : It is most fitting that God should
‘Th y is come.’ So, too (6) ‘I converse, in a manner opposite to that of man, with a
manifested thy name to the whom thou hast given me nature wonderful and unpolluted and pure.’ If such
means, in effect ‘T hy name hath been hallowed.’ (c) T he
prayer that, as Son has glorified the Father on earth, so the language as this could be used by educated Jewish
Father mayglorify the in heaven (17 j with the writers about the parentage of those who were merely
glory which he ‘had before the world was,’ means,‘ in effect inspired G o d s Word, how much more would even
‘Thy will heen done on earth; so may it now be done
heaven a s it was from the heginning.’ Also, remembering stronger language be used about the origin of one who
‘the words’ of God are the of man, we find in was regarded as w ith the Word, or the
(‘the words thou me Z them’) an equivalent Word
to I have given day day their bread.’ (e) The Justin and confirm the view that pro-
declaration that he has kept all except the son of
perdition ‘in the name’ given him the Father seems to phecy has contributed to shape the belief a miraculous
mean ‘ I have prevented them hitherto from being led into conception. Justin admits that some did not accept it,
temptation.’ If) Last comes the one prayer not yet but bases his dissent from them on (Tryph. 48) the.
(17 I ‘keep them the which
seems to allude to the clause in version ‘Deliver us from proclamations made by the prophets and taught
evil one by him Christ).’ says that the Ebionites
Possibly there is also an allusion to Mt. Lk. declared Jesus to have been the son of Joseph 21 I )
have not come to bring peace (not as though denying the
of Mt. and Lk., hut as though supplementing what, itself, following those who interpreted
would he a superficial statement), in Jn. ‘Peace I leave with virgin in Is. 7 14 as young woman Pro-
you,
spoken ... I give nnto
that in me ye may
agreement with Lk. 1426 . ..
These things I have
his own (or
phecy will also explain the divergence between Mt. and
Lk. Some, following the Hebrew, might say that the
life),’ against Mt. 10 37 loveth more me (omitting soul ’) divine message came to the mother of the Lord,
Jn. ‘he that his soul in this world,’ indicate; others (following might assert that the message
that Lk. has preserved the older tradition. But came Mary’s husband. Lk. has taken the
addition shows his sense of the obscurity of Lk., who did not
make it clear that ‘father’ ‘mother’ and ‘soul’ are to he former course, Mt. (though inconsistently) the latter.
‘hated only so they ‘in this Prophecy also explains and attitude toward
of temptation.
More conjectural must he the theory of an allusion to the that the of to represent it throughout
Douhle Tradition in used of Jesus and N T makes it improbable that it would represent ‘bowing’
the Cross. I t is commonly rendered ‘hawing’ his head, hut here.
no authority is alleged for The expression is not found The name is sometimes Thus. when
Ahercius (A.D. writes that grasped
The relation of Jn. to the Double Tradition of the Acts of the Fish’ (the meaning Christ), Lightfoot (Ign. 481)
the Lord has been considered above 17. This section deals hesitates between the Virgin Mary’ and ‘the Church,’ hut
with his relation to the Double of the Words of the apparently inclines to the latter. Marcion is accused
Lord. Epiphanius of ‘seducing a virgin’ and being consequently ex-
Comp. 79 : communicated. But ( I) neither Tertullian (an earlier hut not
less enemy of Marcion) nor the still earlier Irenaeus,
3 Even in this last clause implies partial fulfilment already: makes mention of any such charge. Hegesippns (Eus. iii. 32 7)
Thev have been delivered: now let them he in a state of says that ‘the Church remained a and
deliverance.’ till the days of Symeon hisho of Jerusalem, when heresies
When Lk. means he uses Marcion must acquitted : cp ad
cis And the word ‘bow’ is so common in the Eba (the Church)
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
the Messianic name Immanuel.’ Jesus was not (any As regards the childhood of Jesus, Mt. looks on
more than Isaiah‘s son) called by this name, and Lk. Bethlehem (21)as the predicted home of Joseph and
omits all reference to it. Mt. (or the author of Mary, and mentions their going to Nazareth as a thing
though he represents Joseph as receiving unexpected and (223) a fulfilment of prophecy. H e
the Annunciation, representspeopk as also mentions (as fulfilments of prophecy) a flight into,
to give Jesus this name, and alters the prophecy ac- and return from, Egypt, and a massacre in Bethlehem.
cordingly (Mt. Thou shalt call his name Neither of these is mentioned by Lk., and the latter is
Jesus ... that it might be fulfilled , . .
They not mentioned by any But a typical meaning
his name Immanuel.’ is also obvious in both narratives ; Jesus is the vine
Divergence of the rest, Mt. of Israel brought out of Egypt.’ He is the of
a n d Lk. altogether diverge. Both the of Moses, who was saved from the slaughter of the children
(according to all under Pharaoh. Lk. treads the safer ground of private
trace his descent through and personal narrative, except so far as he has given
pretation)
Joseph, not through and there trouble to apologists by his statement about an enrol-
survive even ndw traces of a between them and ment that took place under Quirinius, which was the
the Gospels in which they are The cause why Joseph and Mary left their home in Nazareth
Genealogies (for account and analysis of which see in order to be enrolled at Bethlehem, the home of their
G ENEALOGIES appear to have denied, the Gospels Instead of prophetic there is contemporary
certainly affirm, a Miraculous Conception. and typical testimony :-Anna, the prophetess of
Mt. in its text. has ’I. representing the extreme north; the aged Simeon
representing the extreme south and Elizabeth
But Ss. has J. Joseph; Joseph to whom was Zachariah, of the tribe of
Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, whd is called the As regards the Baptist, while omitting some points
is also retained a, 6, Bohb. and S. Germanensis
though they make Mary the This indicates that liken him to Elijah, Lk. inserts details showing
the original had simply (a) ‘James begat Joseph, and Joseph that, from the first, John was foreordained to go before
hegat Jesus.’ Then, when the belief in the Miraculous Con- the Messiah, not really as Elijah, but (117) i n the spirit
ception arose, various corrections were made such as (6) ‘ to
whom was espoused or betrothed Mary or ‘the of Elijah.’
husband of Mary,’ indicate the ‘begetting’ to he (v .) in to the Introductions is apparently,
taken in a putative sense, or to refer the reader to what followed but not really, In his own person he
as a corrective of the formal genealogical statement. Then (c)
‘Mary’ was repeated as the subject of a new clause in no mention of Nazareth or Bethlehem. He
genealogy, hut with the repetition of the now misplaced ‘hegat.’ takes us back to the cradle (Jn. 1I ) in the
Then some altered ‘begat’ into ‘brought forth, others beginning,’ as though heaven were the only
into whom was begotten.’ true Bethlehem (House of [the] Bread [of life]).’ T h e
Lk. 323 has
But has, ‘And fervent, faith of the first disciples defies past prophecies
Jesus, when he was about thirty years old as he was called the about Bethlehem, and present objections as to Nazareth
son Joseph son of Heli etc.; is not a complete and Joseph, by admitting the apparent historical fact
sentence. D
etc.. and iust before. has to fact, and yet believing (145 ) : W e have found
: him of. whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
5) read (for and interpret it as write, the son the ma n
to baptism.’ D interpreted that Jesus When the objection is urged against (146) Nazareth,’
a t the beginning of his thirtieth year, was (really), as he
supposed to be the son of Joseph hut that in the moment of faith in the personality of Jesus overwhelms the objector
baptism, he again the Spirit. will with the mystical reply (1 ‘Come and In Mt.
have the same meaning if we insert ‘ was’ as the
’Jesus . .. as he was called, the son of Joseph.’
throw light on almost forgotten Jewish charges
verb,
The not actual to
first of these three version;
against Jesus that may have influenced some Evangelists defends Jesus against the Jewish charge hut surrenders the
inducing them to lay stress on the fact that Jesus was Miraculous Conception. The second is ’obscure. The third
‘the son of Joseph,’ or a t all events that Mary, at the time of sacrifices the defence, but retains the miracle.
the birth of her first-born, was ‘ espoused to Some attempt to explain the omission by other omissions of
the crimes of kings by but Josephusdwells on
I t is highly probahle, on grounds of style, that author the history of Herod and his family in order to show (Ant.
of the Introduction is not the author of the whole of xviii. 5 3)
Gospel. Quirinius was governor of Syria, A.D. 6, fen years
D rewrites the earliest part of genealogy, partially this time. The most plausible explanation suggested is
conforming it to perhaps, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria;
3 This is all the more important if the tradition recorded by there is no direct, and scarcely any indirect, evidence to justify
is correctly interpreted to mean that the belief. There is also no proof that Mary’s presence was
of the Gospels which consist the genealogies were written ohligatory. That Lk. invented such an ‘enrolment’ is im-
first (see below possible; hut that he antedated it is highly probable. Making
4 Codex a sim. Bobb.) has J. Joseph cui (or a compilation toward close of the century,
desponsata Virgo Maria Jesum’ 6 has Joseph,’ cui he might naturally consider that the ‘enrolment’ supplied an
desponsata erat V.M., V. autem Jesum.’ Later, answer to the difficult question ‘How came the parents of
and Bohh. (a is missing) use and ‘peperit’ of Jesus to Bethlehem at the time of birth?’ See
Mary, showing that ‘genuit’ is not an error here, hut is a also
retention of the old true reading, inconsistent with the altera- For the meaning of this Rabbinical formula, see
tions adopted. Codex (D is missing) alters ‘genuit’ into and nd and Wetst. (on Jn. 140) who quotes
‘peperit,‘ but in other respects agrees with a. Corh. and other Rev. I t introduces the
Brix. agree with the Greek text. The Vat. of the tion a mystery. Ndte also a similar contrast
gives Mt. 116 thus : ‘Jacob hegat Joseph, the husband of Mary, ...
who of her hegat Jesus, the Messiah. See the English
tion by Hogg (Ante-Nicene Christian Library add. vol.
personal belief and
... hut some said, What d o 6
unbelief in 40
when they heard these words said This is ..
come out
the prophet
1897, p. 45, n. 6), who points the confusion not the Scripture that Christ cometh seed
between ‘who of her begat,’ and ‘from whom was begotten,’ o j David and And compare the sub-
in from Syriac to Arabic. ordinate ‘ officers ’ (7 46, ‘ Never man so spake ’) with ‘the chief
however, ‘This day Ihave thee,’ priests and Pharisees’ (7 52, ‘Out ariseth no prophet ’).
hut) ‘Thou art my Son and my beloved. But Westcott says on Jn. 742, ‘There is a tragic irony in the fact
this may have been as equivalent to ‘ I have begotten that the which the objectors assumed to he
thee to -day as my Son. Codex has ‘quod et unsatisfied birth in Bethlehem was actually satisfied.:
dicehatur esse filius . follows D. But are to, believe that Jesus that the ‘condition
I n Acta P.(A and B) 2 the ‘elders of the Jews’ say to was ‘satisfied and yet left the in their ignor-
Jesus ‘Thou art born of (B ‘of sin to which ance, so as keep back from them the fulfilment of God’s
other’pious Jews reply (A), ‘we h a t Joseph espoused word, making himself responsible for the ‘tragic’ consequences?
(or betrothed Mary, and that he is not born of And in the face of such an objection, publicly and
fornication (B) ‘we know that Joseph received Mary his made, is it credible that a conspiracy of silence have
mother in the way of which another been maintained Christ’s relations, friends, and neighbours
version is ‘His mother Mary was given to Joseph This, a t all events, cannot be disputed, that Jn. represents the
1780
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
i t is the fulfilment of prophecy in Lk. it is the testimony others ‘worshipped.’ If other manifestations were of
of visions and voices pointing to John as the messenger the same kind, different observers might record them
of the Messiah, and to the Messiah himself; in it is differently. To testify to the resurrection was the
(1 the glory as of the only begotten Father special duty of an apostle, and such testimony was
-that constitutes the true testimony to Christ. oral. The two earliest Gospels (even if we include
as genuine) contain very much less about
V. THE CONCLUSIONS. the resurrection than the two latest. When at last
The conclusions (Mt. Lk. and in the apostles passed away, and it became needful to
effect treat of Christ’s resurrection. write something about Christ’s rising from the dead,
This the genuine Mk. does not and to add it to the already existing manuals of his
describe, breaking off abruptly a t teaching, the writers might find themselves forced to
(16E), for they were afraid. choose a few typical instances that seemed to them
The their evidence. -Mt. most ‘according to the Scriptures,’ and best adapted
mentions two appearances. In the first, Christ for edifying the Church. At first, they might be
appears to women who ‘held his feet’ in the tent (as Paul was) with bare enumerations but, when
second, to the Eleven but it is added that ‘some the time came to fill in details, the narrators might
doubted.’ I n Lk. Christ never appears to women. supply them, partly from prose traditions, partly from
Indeed, Lk. almost excludes such an appearance by the most ancient and popular of those hymns, which, as
speaking of (2423) ‘ a vision of which the Pliny testifies, they sang to Christ as to a god, on the
women are reported to have seen, without any mention day on which they celebrated his resurrection, partly
of Christ’s appearing to them. I n this omission he from the Scriptures on which the earliest witnesses for
resembles Paul, who enumerates several appearances Christ’s resurrection lay so emphatic a stress.
to men but none to women.’ in giving a list of ) of poetic tradition. the more ancient
the ‘appearances’ which he had laid stress, an traditions of Mk. and Mt., some details appear to arise
apostle might write in a letter to his own converts. from hymnal Later accounts
But Lk. writes as a historian, giving Theophilus evi- indicate an intention to convey either (as
dence that he might know ‘t he exact truth.’ Him, Lk.) ‘proofs’ of a historical fact, or
therefore, we might reasonably expect not to omit any (as Jn. ) signs indicative of the real though spiritual
important testimony, known to him, concerning Christ’s converse held with the disciples by the risen Saviour.
resurrection. His omission, in itself, disposes of the (iv. ) account appears to have
theory that the differences of Lk. from Mt. arise from been (in parts at all events) the earliest. The testimony
mere haste or carelessness of observation, like those of the soldiers to the Resurrection (where
with which we are familiar in a court of justice. Like note the words (2815) to this day’) was
a glacier-worn rock, Lk. exhibits the signs of attempts dropped in subsequent gospels, perhaps
to smooth away points of objection. Not, of course, owing to the unlikelihood that Roman soldiers would
that he invents. But while adopting old traditions, he risk their lives by a falsehood such as Mt.
Henceforth was (Mk., Lk., no the stone
accepts adaptations suggested in the course of new con-
troversies. H e shows a desire to prove, improve,
.
was not ‘sealed there was no earthquake an angel
did not descend heaven ; the women came, not ‘to look at
edify, reconcile, select-motives natural, but not adapted the they had carefully ‘looked at’ it before (Mk.
to elicit the exact truth.’
) The Period of for the It is impossible here to do more than indicate one or two
traces of this. The earthouake. which Mt. alone might
coolest and most judicial historian, the difficulty of naturally spring from ‘God is a
reconciling and selectingmust have been shout and ‘The earth melted was shaken ’).
very great. though he mentions
of the resurrection ‘ mhny bodies of the
only three manifestations, implies (2030) saints’-a miracle if authentic more startling than the Raising
of Lazarus, but by the Evangelists-was probably
that there were many more. Not derived from some hymn describing how Christ went down to
improbably the period of appearances and voices was Hades and brought np to light the saints detained there.
much longer than is commonly supposed. Mt. tells us, Mk. says that the women came to the sepulchre when ‘the
sun had inconsistently with his own ‘very early
concerning the only manifestation that he records as ‘deep dawn and ‘dark.’ becomes if
made to the Eleven, that (28 17) ‘some doubted,’ while tradition variously influenced by hymns describing how
‘the sun (of righteousness) had risen,’ or by the
disciples as believing in a ‘Jesus of Nazareth whilst the un- prophecy (Ps. 465) God shall help her and that at the dawn
believing Pharisees demand a ‘Jesus of of the morning.’ It is difficult for us’to realise the probable
For the evidence of spuriousness (lately increased by the extent and influence of metaphor in the earliest traditions of
discovery of the Codex of the Syriac Gospels) see the Christian Church,.. The of Behnesa the
WH 2 (notes), pp. stone, cleave the tree, taken by many in a sense. But
Cp Acta Pilati (7) (A and B), ‘We have, a law that a it probably means, Raise up stones to he of Abraham
woman is not to come forward to give evidence. Doubtless cut down and cleave the tree of Christ never
such an objection was often by Christians from
adversaries.
3 The only evidence is
where D reads, in different order, without In first Christian generation might be so misunderstood as to affect
Hebrew ‘days’ sometimes means ‘some, or several, days,’ as in the historical traditions of the second.
Cen. 404, They continued [for some] days in ward.’ Later writers modify account so as to soften some of
By corruption, or tradition, M ‘forty’) might easily be its improbabilities. Pseudo-Peter makes the soldiers tell the
added to (or before or after it and the whole truth to Pilate, who (at the instance of the Jews) enjoins
number would suit OT traditions about Israel, Mbses and silence. In some MSS of Acta Pilati (A) the soldiers try to
Elijah. The Valentinians supposed Christ to have deny truth, but are supernaturally forced to affirm it. The
with his disciples eighteen months: Sophia ch. 1 retention of story, with modifications, in apocryphal books
mentions eleven years. Lk. indicates that the to of the second century that delighted in the icturesque, does not
remain (Acts in Jerusalem till the descent of the Spirit, prove a late origin. Some have thought tradition is
two or three days. Apollonius indicates (Eus. v. 18 proved to be late by the excess of ‘prophetic gnosis’ in it.
tradition a period of twelve years : (764) says In But that alone is not a sure criterion. The difficultiespre-
the Lord says to the disciples the sented of the ‘dead bodies of arising,’
Resurrection, I have twelve disciples, judging you and of the women grasping the feet of Jesus and
worthy of me ... that those who disbelieve may hear and bald statement that ‘some doubted,’ all suggest origin.
testify, not being able to say in excuse We did not hear The use of ‘prophetic gnosis’ depends in large measure not on
...
but, just before, (762) ‘Peter says the Lord said to the the date but on the personal characteristics of the writer. For
apostles. After forth to the world, lest there is more in Mt. than in Jn. But of
any should say, We did not hear. Perhaps there was a con- is a sign of an date. In course
fusion between ‘twelve years ’ and ‘twelve (really eleven) of tics and enemies detected and exposed
See for the evidence that Barnabas and blocks, subsequent evangelists adopted traditions that
Jn. disagreed with Lk. as to the day of the Ascension. sprang up to remove or diminish them.
1781 1782
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Lk. hut to ‘bring the purpose of em- (lit. not ‘the Lord is risen indeed
balming the body. But when did the women buy them? When hath appeared to This is consistent with
the Sabbath was ‘quite passed says Mk. (16 I). App who says of the two travellers ‘they went away and
Not so, says Lk. they bought them first, and then it the rest to the Eleven), they them.
‘rested on the Sabbath. Again what was the use of the (vi.) The to the (Mk.
the ‘great the way? Mk. no Ignatius), occurring i n Mk.
reply. Lk. the objection not asserting that the
stone was ‘great. Pseudo-Peter, who has committed himself’ but in Lk. while the two
to a ‘very stone,’ replies, ‘the women determined, if they travellers are telling their tale, is described
could not enter, to spices outside door.’ says by the latter as follows : ‘See my hands and
in effect ‘T he women brought no spices. body had
received ’this already from Nicodemus. From my feet that is I myself: handle me and see
point, inconipatihilities constitute almost the whole narrative. for a spirit hath not flesh
T he women (I) came to the tomb (Mk. [a]Mt., Lk., Jn.) and bones as ye see me having. [And when he had
before dawn or while it was yet dark, yet (Mk.
sunrise; yet said this, he shewed them his hands and his
they Eleven (3) they (Mk., Mt.), were And while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered,
to hid the Eleven go to Galilee,’ yet (Lk.) they were merely he said unto them : Have ye anything to eat here
to remind the Eleven of what Jesus had said Galilee or And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish [and a
they (or rather Mary) brought no message a t all hom
angels, but message from Jesus that he was on honeycomb.] And he took it and did eat before them.’
the point of ‘ascending
entered the tomb, yet
. (4) they (Lk., and perhaps
proh. Mt.) they did not enter it (5)
Cp Ignatius, 3 : For I know and believe that
he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and
the angel was (Mk., Mt.) yet (Lk. two; (6) the angel when he came to Peter and his company
(or angels) (Mt.) the women they sought
Do not fear, for I know that ye seek he said to them: “Ta ke handle
Jesus, and yet blamed them for so doing (Lk. 24 5 : me and see that I am
‘Wh y seek ye the living among the (7) The Eleven not a bodiless demon.” And straightway they touched
(Mk Mt.) were to go to to see Jesus, yet (Lk., Jn.)
him in Jerusalem and were (Acts) not t o depart him and believed, being mixed with his
(apparently having left it since the resur- and his Spirit (or, For this cause
rection) (8) Peter (Lk. 24 looked into the tomb and also they despised death, and were found superior to
then went home without entering, yet Peter entered the death. And after his resurrection he ate with them
tomb ; Mary was not to touch Jesus because he had
not yet ascended, yet (Mt.) the women held f a s t his feet and drank with them -as being in the flesh
though he had not yet ascended; (IO) when the two disciples although spiritually united with the Father.’ The word
from Emmaus reported that the Lord had appeared to them (as in Mk. Mt. is.
the Eleven 16 13) did not believe, yet (Lk.)
replied ‘the Lord is the Lord (Mt. Jn.) grammatically, as well as traditionally, adapted to
appeared to the disciples in Galilee yet (so far as we can judge express a Eucharistic and the words, mixed
from Lk. and Acts) no in Galilee could have
occurred. is confused ‘They found the Eleven gathered together
and them that with them. And he hath appeared.
(v. ) (’proofs’). - Lk. concentrates himself
on the accumulation of ‘proofs,’ by ( I )
they ... saying, Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared
rigidly defining the time when Jesus
unto Simon.
in the way.
say, ‘The Lord
... they also told them what
I n direct speech
appeared nnto us. In
had happened
two travellers would
speech,
ascended and left his disciples, re-
proo s’ presenting Jesus as appearing merely
f this would become the Lordappeared unto them. The next
stage of the would define ‘them’ as ‘Simon and a
in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, so as to omit all companion.’ Lastly, Simon, as being the more important, would
appearances in Galilee where some doubted,’ (3) giving be alone mentioned.
W H regard the bracketed words as an ‘at a
the impression that the women saw nothing but period when forms of the oral Gospel were still current.
‘a vision of angels,’ (4)recording no apparition that ‘See is proh. the rendering of here (so
was not attested by at least ‘two [male] witnesses,’ (5) Lightf.), in the corresponding passage in Lk. it means.
introducing Jesus as eating 5 in the presence of his ‘see
4 MSS are in favour of
disciples. N o instance has been of the of in the
Yet even Lk. shows loopholes for detecting possihle misunder- sense of the middle, take hold of.
standing of metaphor. Compare, for example, narrative of There are several signs of variations as to this tradition
the Lord’s drawing and conversing with the two disciples both in Ignatius and in Lk. The words ‘and see that I am not
on their way to Emmaus, with the Martyrdom a bodiless demon’ dislocate the sentence, which begins with an
‘the Lord was standing near and conversing with appeal to touch, not to sight. W e know from Origen (see
I n the latter the ‘standing Lightf. adloc.) that these words were in the Preaching
near‘ is spiritual; and so may have been the which he rejected, and we have reason to believe that they were
‘drawing near and the ‘conversing,’ in the not in the the as known to him and
The that Lk. in his attempt to ascertain the Lightf. suggests that they were added in the recension of that
facts may be illustrated by the probable explanation of his Gospel known to Jerome. Cancelling them, we should have, a s
omission of the appearance of Christ to Peter. I n reality, Peter the original, in Gospel of the ‘Take me; and
was probably one of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, as they straightway handled him and believed. As regards Lk.,
is repeatedly assumed by Origen. But tradition confused Irenreus 14 when quoting passages from Lk. accepted
the story, t o the the words uttered by Marcion and Valentinus, omits this passage though Tertullian
two Lk. should have run (as in D), inserts it as part of Marcion’s Gospel. con-
the travellers ‘found the Eleven and those with them, and said sidered that Marcion was quoting it from some apocryphal
(though Tertullian does not say so, hut merely accuses
B favours the supposition that they did not Marcion of perverting the passage). Irenreus himself nowhere
enter. This is not inconsistent with which some- quotes this passage, hut alludes to the assumption about
times means ‘depart,’ nor with Mk.168, ‘spirits’ expressed in it, in ‘For Spirit.
which may that they ‘fled’ (not hath neither hones nor flesh. Tertullian Marcion 4 4 3 ,
‘out of’) the tomb. De Christi 5 ) the words twice, omitting the
‘Ye’is emphatic. The soldiers might well be afraid, but to and omitting Even in ( a) ,
the women were not to he afraid. the context shows that he is not quoting a mutilated text of
3 This is still mort obvious in Pseudo-Peter, ‘ But Marcion’s; (6) makes it certain that the omission is
not stoop and look. own. H e quotes thus, (a) my hands and
probably not a part of the original Lk.,this insertion feet that it is I myself,’ (6) that it is I and in cases
represents a very early tradition, and perhaps formed a part of adds ‘for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having. In the
a later edition of the Gospel. I t can hardly he a condensation of (6) he asserts a spirit has but has not
‘bones ‘han k,’ and ‘feet. Marcion (according to Tertullian)
(and cp. Philo on Gen. 188) for the estab - interpreted the passage thus (Marcion 4 43) A hath not
lished belief that an angel or spirit might live familiarly with hones, as,’ and so, ‘ y e see me having bones] and he
men for a long period could not eat. remarks that Marcion might as well have cancelled the passage
‘their were may be a as interpret it thus. [In (6) Clark has, by error, ‘hath
metaphor meaning that ‘their eyes were opened to discern and hones’ instead of ‘hath not bones.’] A fragment of
Hippolytus from Theodoret Clark, has : For
Christ in Scriptures’ (cp. Lk.
used of opening the mind or heart)
Acts 16 14 where it
their H e having risen . .. when His disciples were douht, called
the Lord‘s presence a t the breaking of to Him and said, “Reach hither; handle and see :
reminds the reader of the implied precept to resort to ‘violence for a Spirit hath not hones and flesh, as ye see me have.”’
in prayer (Lk.16 16, and cp. D (differing from has (Lk. 2 4 3 9 )
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
with his flesh and spirit (or blood),’ implying a close the one hundred and fifty-three fish in the of the
union such as binds each member of the Church to Christ Church, and feeding them with the One Bread and the
in the one Body or one Bread, may very well be a part of One before they go forth to preach the Gospel to
the tradition (or of some comment on it) from which the world. Then, without definite demarcation of the
is quoting. If so, the original (though not the period of manifestations and voices, the Gospel ends.
Ignatian) meaning may be correctly expressed by the In all this, the difference between Jn. and Lk. is obvious.
Armenian paraphrastic version, they believed, who Take, for example, the first manifestation to the disciples.,
(or, and they) were participators of the Eucharist (lit. Jn., the disciples are not (Lk. 24 37) terrified
communicated), and who (?) feasted before on his body and affrighted ;they have received the message
between from Mary in which Jesus calls them his
and blood.’ In other words, the disciples not only signs ‘brethren,’ and when Jesus in the midst
received a vision and an utterance of the Lord, but of they as soon as they see
also were made one w ith the body and spirit (or ‘the hands and the They do not (as in
Lk.) suppose Jesus to be a ‘spirit’ (or, as D, ‘phantasm’);
of Christ and were raised the f e a r of by they require no appeal to sight or touch ; nor does Jesus eat in
the Eucharist and therein handling his their presence. The of the first manifestation in is
These facts, being literalised in later narratives, apparently not to prove the Resurrection hut to convey the
may have given rise to the statements, made in good to the disciples. There is no explanation of prophecy’
the Spirit is conveyed at once, not promised as a future
faith, that they had handled’ Christ’s body,’ or that T he appeal to touch comes afterwards. The incredulity of
Christ had given them his body’ to handle.’ Thomas (absent on the first occasion) makes Jesus reproachfully
) The historical estimate of Tradition must suggest on a second occasion that the incredulous disciple may
touch the wounds in his hands and side ; hut it is not indicated
be lowered, ( I ) by evidence of his other errors and that Thomas does this. The words that follow suggest that it
misunderstandings given above, was not done: (2029) ‘Because thou hast thou hast
by the variations in the corresponding believed’ : (it is not said, Because thou hast touched’).!
tradition quoted by Ignatius and The same spiritual (as distinct from logical)
’Tertullian, (3) by the fact that, A . D. purpose pervaded sign of the ‘seven’-who, if
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (of which city Luke [Eus. proof’ and not a ‘sign’ had been intended, should
34 is said to have been a native), wishing to attest have been the Eleven.’ There is indeed some
the reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quotes similarity between the words of Jesus in Jn. 215 :
from an unknown authority a passage that omits all Children, have ye any meat? and those in Lk. :
mention of eating,’ and neither here nor elsewhere ‘Ha ve ye here anything to e at ?‘ how great a
to the testimony of This certainly leads to difference in reality! I n the latter case the Messiah
the inference that Lk. had not, in the mind of deigns to take food from the disciples in order to meet
that preponderant authority which a canonical their (Lk. ‘reasonings’ ; in the former, the
or even authoritative Gospel might be expected to Saviour gives himself to the ‘children’ to strengthen
have.’ them for the work of the Gospel.
evidence must not be disniissed without a reference (ix. ) Contrast the
Acts 14, which really meant with,
h u t was probably interpreted by Lk. (as patristic com-
mentators Clement, to and 15 For the symbolism of this helow, 47.
‘Nottoallthepeople, but towitnesses This ‘standing in the however, is from prophetic
to those foreordained God, namely ourselves, who see Ps. 22 quoted Heb. 2 and by Justin
.ate and drank with after the resurrection from the dead.’ 106) : also cp 24 36.
This, when combined with Acts 1 4 and Lk. 13 26 (‘we 3 Not, as Lk., ‘the hands and the I n Jn., as in
have eaten and drunk in thy presence ; not in parallel Mt. Pseudo-Peter. the feet are avvarentlv . reearded as hound. not
indicates a consistent interpretation of sucha nature as (possibly) nailed to
to convert metaphorical accounts of spiritual and 4 Jn., the first manifestation to the disciples seems to
revelation into literal accounts of historical ‘proofs. include a new and spiritual Genesis or Creation of The
(viii.) (signs). I n proof’ is entirely Genesis (2 7) described how God ‘breathed
into the face (of man) the of and man became
subordinated to ‘signs’-i.e., spiritual symbolisms. The riving soul.’
first manifestation of Jesus is to a woman, The rarity of which occurs in NT in
(2016) does not recognise him till called Jn. 2022, suffices to make the reference to Gen. 2 7 certain.
‘signs.’ whoy name. The Ascension is mentioned as
Philo also frequently quotes Gen. 2 7 (with to contrast
the ‘first‘ man with the ‘second’man.
-impending and as (apparently) preliminary to being Not improbably Jn. also has in mind that Ignatian tradition
(20 17) ‘ touched.’ In the second manifestation, Jesus which ,described the apostles as ‘mixed with his flesh and his
conveys to the disciples‘ the Holy Spirit which (739) analysis of all the passages where Ignatius
combines flesh and spirit’ and ‘flesh and blood’ makes it
not be the Ascension-a fact probable that ‘spirit’ (not ‘blood’) is the correct reading. At
indicating that, in the interval between the two, Jesus the same time, if both traditions were prevalent, first
had ascended. In a third the second to manifestation to the disciples would express the ‘being mixed
with his spirit,’ and the second (that to Thomas) the ‘being
he offers himself to the ‘handling’ of the mixed with his
incredulous Thomas, and pronounces a blessing on In any case, Jn. takes this historically sacred word, tradition.
those who have not seen yet have believed. In a fourth, ally associated with the creation of man, and represents it as
‘the third’ ‘the he is in Galilee, in in which the Logos
Divine image into’ him that Spirit of himself
directing the seven fishermen in their task of catching (as I Cor. not ‘living hut
life-giving so as to enahle the disciples to
transmit life to others.
Codex a has Handle me (reading I t is interesting to note here (in the light of Mk. 116-20) the
for in what precedes). In the passage, which has been between and Draught of Fish, which
scraped with a thus, ‘Behold, see my hands Lk. connects with the calling of Peter to be a Fisher of
and my feet,
.
and see that it is I ; for a spirit
.
flesh and hones. . a s . .see m e . .. .
When. . n ot.
. .. .. Men, but Jn. with a n imparting of the One Fish and the
?ne Bread to the ‘seven’ disciples-apparently as a preparation
were. Again he said unto them ‘Have ye here anything to or their apostolic work. I t will he found that Lk. differs from
eat Codices a 6 d and Brix. me after ‘handle. Mk. and in seven the boats are ‘standing’
The emphasis laid on ‘bones’ may have arisen from an he lake; there are two (the Jewish and Gentile
allusion to Is. 6614 ‘Your hones shall spring up.’ not one; all (Peter included) have given up
‘Blood’ was omitted, perhaps in accordance with a sense that ishing in despair ; Jesus enters one of the vessels ; the
it could not appeal either to sight or to touch. (Justin are ‘rent asunder’; (6) Peter fears and Jesus depart
761 indicates something specially non-human about the blood of 7) Jesus does not expressly any of the fishers ‘follow’ him.
Christ.) differs from Lk. these details: ( I ) I t is Jesus (not the
Apologists usually depreciate what they call mere who is standing the sea ; there is one vessel
argument from silence’; but it has weight varying with cir- Peter has not given up fishing ; (4) Jesus does not enter the
cumstances. Here it The evidence is almosf ; (5) io spite of the multitude of the fishes (21 ‘the net
as strong as if Ignatius said expressly, I did not know rent’ ; (6) Peter leapt into the sea and hastened toward
or else, ‘ I knew Lk., hut did not believe to he so authori- lesus; Peter is hidden, after the Sacramental Feast,
tative as the tradition from which I quoted. to feed Christ’s sheep, hut also to ‘follow’ him.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
is a curious contrast between the personal and as it VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS.
were private nature of Christ’s last THE FIRST
utterances in Jn. and the public or - That Mt. was intended for
ecclesiastical utterances recorded by readers is suggested by the stress laid
Lk., Mk. and the last verses of Mt. on prophecy; the tracing of genealogy
In Hither, break your fast,’ thou me? back to Abraham as in Lk.. to
Feed my sheep,’ If I will that he tarry till I come, Ada m; cp the Sermon on the
what is that to thee?’ In the Synoptists, either Mount corresponding to the Law given on Mount
App. ) the injunction to preach the Gospel, the prediction Sinai ; the contrast between what had been said of old
of condemnation for those who will not believe and be time’ and what the new Lawgiver prescribed the word
baptized, and the promise of signs such as the casting lawlessness (altered Lk. to ‘ iniquity ’), used
out of devils,’ tongues,’ lifting up serpents,” drinking by Mt. alone, and the strong condemnation of him
poison, etc., and healing the sick or else (Mt.) bap- who (Mt. 5 breaks, or tenches others to break, one
tizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the least of the commandments.’
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things as
parables point less to the inclusion of the Gentiles than
many as I commanded you,’ and a farewell in Galilee, to the exclusion of unworthy Jews. H e alone has the saying
with an assertion that Jesus possesses all power, and (22 14) : ‘Many are called but few chosen. H e seems to move
a promise that he will be always present with the amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine unworthy of
disciples; or, lastly (Lk.), an ’opening’ of the dis- the pearls of truth, aniong the tares sown by the enemy among
fishermen who must cast hack again many of the fish caught i n
ciples’ to understand the Scriptures, and a long the net of the Gospel. ‘The way’ is mentioned him
statement that the Scriptures must needs have been alone and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest
thus fulfilled, and that there must be the preaching of the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the
goats and those who even ‘cast out devils’ in name of the
repentance in his name with a view to the remission Lord’and yet are rejected by him because they ‘work lawless-.
of sins to all the nations-beginning from Jerusalem,’ ness.’ H e alone introduces into the Lord’s Prayer the
and then a promise, and a warning that they must Deliver us from the evil (one).’ Elsewhere he alone gives as a
remain in the city till the promise is fulfilled :-concern- reason for not being distracted, ‘sufficient for the day is the.
evil thereof.’ The wavering or retrogression of many Jewish
ing all which utterances we are warned by our knowledge converts when the breach between Jews and Gentiles widened,
of the various accounts of Christ’s revelations to Paul about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, may well explain t h e
that we must accept none of them as necessarily repre- emphasis laid by Mt. on backsliding and the Condemnation
of might refer to Jews who considered
senting the actual words of Christ himself, though (in that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who,
various degrees, and subject to various qualifications) casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished to cast aside
they may be regarded as revelations to the Early Church, morality as well. Yet Mt. prefers (12 33) even open and con-
conveyed, during the period of manifestations, to this sistent wickedness to the sin of the ‘ hypocrites’ whom his Gospel
continually denounced (the word occurs Mt. times, in Mk.
or that disciple, in the same way in which the vision I , in Lk. in Jn. and he dwells more than the rest on t h e
and the voice were conveyed to Paul at his conver- blessings of the meek, the merciful, and the little ones
sion. angels behold the face of the Father.
Besides the fulfilments of prophecy or type mentioned
his Introduction, Mt. sees several others not
in the Triple Tradition.
the gift of ‘ tongues ‘-as we infer from Paul‘s Epistles-was a Some of these that relating to the (212-5) and the
phenomenon remarkable, hut not supernatural ( 3 ) the ‘taking colt (27 ‘the the ‘three days and three
or, more probably, destroying of serpents was in the belly of the as representing the time o f
probably a of the promise in Lk. 10 that the Christ’s remaining in the tomb and the (2335) apparently in-
disciples should ‘trample upon serpents and scorpions and all accurate reference to the son of Barachiah, contain
the Dower of the enemv.’ such obvious difficulties may he regarded as evidences
‘The text is of early, not of late and the same applies to
3 The in any full discussion of the Re- He shall be called a which is found in no existing
surrection, would come first and claim a detailed consideration. book of prophecy. See N A ZARE TH .
Here we can onlv observe on I Cor. 15 that the Apart from his account of the Resurrection, few new miracles
earliest traditions communicated to a doctrine are introduced Mt. Two of these consist of acts of healing.
(probably oral, on the of in Two are connected with Peter (I) Mt. the on
this tradition ‘accordance with the Scriptures’ played the water Mt. the in the fish‘s mouth. As
part (3) manifestations of Christ were described the these, the’omission of former Mk. and Jn., who record
word ‘appeared a word regularly denoting visions [the what precedes and follows, points to the conclusion that it is a
instance in is used in N T of the appearance of a poetic symbolism of Peter’s lapse and restoration. Ametaphorical
body is Acts 7 ; (4) places first appearance explanation probably applies also to the
to Cephas, and last hut one an appearance to James, neither
of which is recorded in our canonical Gospels (5) he excludes
all appearances to women; (6) he places the appearance of also o f the Sociefv o f
Christ to himself on the same footing as those witnessed by the (‘97) as to character
apostles: (7) he speaks of the risen body as ‘a spiritual body’ or by Lk.), the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer
(on which, note that says that every spirit (where Lk. probably retains the original and shorter form), tha
has a ‘body,’ and that demons are called ‘bodiless’ in seven parables in Mt. the genealogy compressed into a triad
comparison with the spirits that are destined t o saved) and and other humerical groupings that show Jewish
as being (8) the same in kind, for Christ as’ for the influence.
after as should infer not An authoritative and widely circulated Gospel stands in this
T he latest of Paul’s speeches on vision repeats, as from respect on quite a different footing from an apocryphal and non-
a long discourse (Acts26 14-18). It then continues rg) authoritative book. The former would be attacked con-
... I was not disobedient unto the heaven@ troversialists, and any contained in it would he
exposed. Christians could not cancel the difficult passages
vision.’ But Paul’s earlier speech (22) assigns to Jesus merely
a portion this discourse, while another portion (mentioning without giving up the authority of the book. Consequently
‘ a witness’ and ‘sins’) occurs (22 15 in the report of a speech the difficult passages would remain in that Gospel, but would be
Ananias t o Saul, and another (mentioning ‘the Gentiles’) quietly dropped by subsequent evangelists. Hence, as
is uttered by Jesus indeed, but (22 canonical Gospels, the presence of difficulties is a mark of
when the was in a ‘trance. On the other hand, in early date. But this criterion does not apply to comparatively
the earliest account of the vision, the mention of Saul’s mission obscure works not so liable to attack.
to Gentiles’ is made Jesus (915) not to to 3 See an extraordinary comment in Ephraem 161) ‘So
dnanias; and Jesus is represented as saying ~- to Saul no more when Simon ... took his net and
(cp Jn. 21
to cast it into the sea,
I go a-fishing. T hey
than occurs in they also went
These facts lead to the following general conclusions :- (a) say unto him, We also come with thee ’). Also cp Philo (1499)
Words recorded as uttered on ‘the holy didrachm,’ and where he says
have heard in the ‘vision.’ Words that ‘the fish‘ hints a t food, and that
as in a ‘vision’ ncay have heard in the course a stater might admit ‘other solutions not unknown
trance. (c) The occasion utterance may implies a tradition of symbolism on this incident.
a even more occasions. the For other traces of Philonian symbolism in the Synoptic Gospels,
words 6ut cp Mt. 13 33 and Lk. 13 on the ‘leaven‘ which a woman ‘hid
an inspired speaker. in of with
1788
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
) to Mt. recorded the pre- a patron, a man of rank. The apostles-the ( 1 eye-
diction that the apostles would not accomplish witnesses and ministers of the word ’-appear to have
the cities of Israel’ until the Son of man delivered their testimony by oral tradition
had come,’ must he not have assumed and to have passed away. T o supply their places (1I )
that, in some sense, he had ‘come’ If so, this ‘many had ‘ attempted to draw up a formal narrative
will explain the difficult expression in 2 66 4, ‘ye shall concerning the matters fully
or see the Son of man, established in the Church. These writers had clearly
It would seem that, as Jn. saw at least a primary not been eye-witnesses, nor were they, in judgment,
fulfilment of Zech. (‘They shall look on him whom so successful as to make unnecessary any further
they pierced’) in the moment when the spectators of attempts. Apparently they had failed in the three
the Cross gazed on the pierced side of Jesus, so Mt. points in which he hopes to excel : they had not ( I )
regarded the coming of Christ with power as com- traced everything up to its source
mencing from the time of the sacrifice on the Cross, and this ( 2 ) accurately and
or of the Resurrection. But, whatever he the inter- ( 3 ) they had not written ‘in order
pretation, the difficulty of this and some other passages All this affords an interesting parallel to the description of the
leads to the belief that Mt. has in some cases preserved of the Mishna by R. Judah (Hor. Hebr.
When he saw the captivity was (sic) prolonged and the scholars
the earliest tradition. Other passages point to a very tohecomefaint-hearted, and and the cabala
much later , the name of the Field of Blood to fail, and the oral law t o be much diminished-he gathered and
borne ( 2 7 8 ) to this day,’ the charge of stealing Christ’s together all the decrees, statutes, and sayings of the
wise men. For captivity was prolonged,’ substitute
body repeated ( 2 8 1 5 ) to this day,’ and the mention of Lord delayed his coming,’ for sayings of wise men’ substitute
the Jews in the same passage as an alien race also ‘traditions and ‘narratives some of
the recognition of ‘the false prophets ‘as a definite which were probably based on the Psalms of Israel and the
class to be avoided, and of (1817) the church’ as the hymns of the first generation of Christians-and we have the
same phenomena introducing themselves. Catechumens were
arbiter in quarrels. Perhaps, viewed in the light disturbed the diversity of traditions ; catechists and evangel-
of the the precepts (5 24) to be reconciled with ists themselves found it hard to distinguish the genuine from,
a brother before bringing one’s gift to the altar,’ and the spurious; it was time to ‘gather and scrape up together
the traditions-especially those upon the Resurrection and the
( 7 6 ) to avoid casting pearls before swine, indicate a time Incarnation and to do this with such exactness that
the Eucharist had so long been celebrated in the the might know the certainty about
Church as materially to influence the general traditions points of Christian faith.
of the doctrine of Christ. Linguistic characteristics.-As a corrector, in
) in io the Triple Tradition, Lk. has been shown above to b e
often agrees with, but intensifies, the doctrine of a linguistic purist, and his insertions
depreciation the teachers of old time is more often indicate a love of sonorous and
strongly expressed in ‘thieves and robbers’; compound words But in his Introduction,
(1130) ‘easy yoke’ is less strong than Jn.
36. which implies that Christ’s service describing the days before the Nativity (as also
shall deliver from every yoke ; Mt. when describing the first days of the church in Acts),
priests profane the Sabbath’ is not so the narrative takes an archaic Hebraic
clear as ‘on the Sabbath ye a man . and The vocahularyof Lk. is largely borrowed from the L XX , and in
23 33) offspring of vipers and ‘serpents (Satan particular from the
being ‘the is less forcible than 844) ‘ye are of (in the sense of ‘belonging’) the use of
your father the alone of the Synoptists, describes for God,
the Pharisees as (15 mentions (1513) the ‘rooting and Cp story of the
up of Pharisaism, and the rewarding of men according rich fool (1219) with Ecclus. Lk.187 (‘Though he bear
to their works and similar thoughts will he found i n Jn.
In a very few cases does Jn. appear to be tacitly
long with them . .. )
(‘Blessed art thou among women’) with Judith
22 ; Lk. 142
Often
correcting Single .Tradition. Perhaps doctrine there is an allusive use of L X X words. Cp Lk. (about
‘little children’ and the stress laid by him on Joseph of who had not to’ the decision
appeared to Jn. liable to be perverted into a confession that of the Pharisees) with 23 I ‘Thou shalt not
Christianity was a religion of weakness and At all the unjust with Ps. 888 ‘Thou hast
events, though he alone of the Evangelists supports Mt. 21 5 in mine far from me’ . and Lk. 20
quoting Zech. 9 9 ‘Behold thy king cometh,’ he omits ‘meek with Job 19 31 ; also Lk. 1 7
on which the Rabbis (Schottg. 2 etc.) laid with Gen. 1811 It difficult to
emphasis ; and, whereas Mt. immediately afterwards decide whether those portions of Lk. which approach the L X X in
describes the testimony to Jesus as that of ‘babes and children
Jn. states that ‘even of rulers many believed
him.’ Inafe w otherpassages (Mt. Mt. 26 name for a Jew. And the omission of K Acts
52 18 though partly correcting to be might he explained on the ground that thinks it i n
rather him against omissions or statements of Mk. bad taste to be-noble a young catechumen too much as
and Lk. Dion. Halic. 5 begins and. ends
( b ) THE THIRD a treatise with but intersperses
and T o use the term
The Dedication of dedication shows characteristic of ‘the obsequious man’ in Theophr.
that we have passed into a new’literary 5, ‘after a
The Muratorian fragment ’).
province. certainly cannot refer to qualities alone.
calls attention to the fact that the This is proved ( I ) hy use of the vocative in Acts243 2625
author writes in his own name,’ a novelty among evan- (and cp 2326); Jos. Ant. iv. 2 8 (in the
gelists. H e also dedicates his work to some one who, latter, vocatively), where it is applied to ‘young men of distinc-
if not an imaginary would appear to be tion or cp Lucian ...
Philo on ‘the three measures of the soul that (3) Dion. Halic. seems (as quoted dis-
are to be ‘kneaded’ like cakes the sacred tinguish between and (4) I t seems highly
doctrine must he hidden ( K E K After the destruction of robahle that the author of the first part of the Epistle to
the Temple Vespasian Jews in all parts of the Empire has Lk. in view when writing I)
to pay the to the Roman Treasury. Among Christian where ‘Diognetus represents not a Christian,
there mav have arisen the whether thev. an inquirer, and is probably a fictitious name. If so, this
longer were liable to it. tends to show that he regarded Theophilus’ as represent-
Mk. ‘immediately,’ Lk. substitutes ‘shall ing a typical catechumen, just as his own ‘ Diognetus’ repre-
be’ for ‘ye shall see.’ Cp also Mt. 16 till they see the Son sented a typical inquirer. On the whole, the impression left hy
in his kingdom,’ Mk. I ‘the of God the use of the name is that it is typical of one who might be
having.come,’ Lk. 9 27 the-kingdom of God.’ addressed
Cp I Cor, ‘be not in mind: how- Philo a treatise on the Creation (1I ) ‘for the sake of
beit in malice be ye babes, but in be men’ (see also I Cor. the God-beloved (roil And does not (Acts 1I)
I 13 I). sound
3 There may have been, however, controversial reasons for like an echo of Philo 2 444 b
omitting that epithet. . . . ? Tatian speaks of ‘interpretations (of
Cp Lightf. BE ,197 ‘Theophilus, if a real person and Scripture) which being published in writing make those who
not a nom de itself, is not an unlikely give heed to them God
1789
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
rhythm and vocabulary are translations from Hebrew documents, ‘day by day,’ both in the Lord‘s Prayer and in the
or imitations, conscious or unconscious of the books of LXX. precept to take up the cross,’ indicates
But the use of ‘the the raising of the
widow’s son at Nain, (10 I) the appointment of the Seventy, (11 a purpose the writer to produce a
39) the rebuke of the Pharisees, the preface to the practical Gospel. seems to see, as the obstacles
parable of the faithful and just steward, (1315) the healing of to the Faith, not hypocrisies nor Jewish backsliding,
the daughter of Abraham bound by Satan the parable
of the sycamore tree (156) the parable of unjust judge (19 but the temptations of wealth and social position acticg
8) the story of Christ’s looking on upon half-hearted converts and his sayings abcut
the verse (243) where it is said that ‘they found not the body of building the tower,’ ‘putting the hand to the plough,’
the Lord Jesus’-confirms the theory (which is also supported renouncing all one’s possessions,’ and hating
by internal evidence) that these passages in Lk. are translations.
Another test-word is Lk. uses about and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have
twenty-six times, only three times been going on in the divided household of many a
T h e latter form is sometimes used geographically by writers young Theophilus.’ The important part played
who use the former rhetorically or historically; it is
ahle that in 2 and 41 the two forms should be used apparently by ‘devout women’ in Acts prepares the reader for
finding prominence assigned to them here. Lk. alone
...
in the same sense, and :TO-
Cp gives us the songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the
) Doctrinal testimony of Anna. The mother of the Lord (not
doctrine is touched in the song of Zacharias over the Joseph) ponders in her heart the words of her Son, and
Baptist, and struck more clearly in the her sufferings are made ( 2 35) the subject of prophecy;
song of Simeon over the child Jesus ; alone mentions the domestic anxieties of Martha
proclaiming, in the first case, redemption for (1 and the devoted faith of her sister, the cure of the
‘God‘s people,’ in the second, for the afflicted daughter of Abraham,’ the woman who
a light for revelation of invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Jesus, the
implied rejection of the Jews in favour of the story of her who loved much,’ and the parable of the
Gentiles at the outset of Christ’s public life in Nazareth is a woman rejoicing over the lost piece of silver. Lot’s
chronological error; but it indicates the tendency of the Gospel.
(Mt.632) ‘the Gentiles’ are condemned as seeking wife is mentioned by him alone nor do we find in any
pleasures, Lk. is careful (1230) ‘the Gentiles other Gospel the utterance of Jesus to the daughters of
those who are spiritually Gentiles; and ‘seventy’ Jerusalem.’ Mk. and Mt. with Lk. in pro-
are emblematic of the Gospel to the nations.’ Mk.
makes no mention of the Samaritans. Mt. has merely nouncing a blessing on the man who gives up father or
‘Go not into any city of the ; but in Lk. the sons mother or lands or houses for Christ’s sake; bnt Lk.
of Zehedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a alone adds ‘ wife.
Samaritan village ; a just Samaritan shames both priest and Strangely incongruous with these sayings and with the great
Levite; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the body of Synoptic doctrine, are the parables of the unjust steward
blush. As for the law, it is valid as long as Jesus is a child or the unjust judge, and the friend persuaded by importunity:
( 2 51 ) ‘subject to’ his parents; but as soon as he has been T he moral of t h e y appears to be ‘Copy the world, only an
baptized, it is regarded as superseded because unworldly fashion. Yet the thought and the language
fulfilled. make it difficult to believe that uttered’ these parables
Gospel is abundant in contrasts. It couples their present shape ; and the last two (as they stand) seem at
blessings with (Lk. 6 24-26) ‘ woes. It proclaims a variance with his to remember that the Father
knoweth what things we need before we ask for them. Every-
conflict pending-between God and Satan, forgiveness thing points to the conclusion that we have here and probably
and sin, self-renunciation and worldliness-which is to elsewhere in Lk., discourses, based indeed on Christ’s doctrine
culminate in the triumph of mercy imparting to the hut not containing his words or modelled after his methods and
style. Else, why in the parable of the Shepherd, do we find the
Gentiles (2447) a message of ‘repentance and remission dramatic Lk. it is in Mt. and
of sins.’ do introduce in the
When Satan departs from Jesus it is only (413) ‘for a time’; case of the rich fool, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the
Satan binds a daughter of is beheld by Jesus ‘fallen unjust judge?
from heaven,’ enters into Judas, and the Twelve that Evidence as t o more clearly than
he may ‘sift’ them. There is a sharp demarcation between
rich and poor. I t is ‘the, poor,’ not (as Mt. 53) ‘the poor in describes the fall of Jerusalem as the result
spirit,’ that are ‘blessed. In Lk., Christ pronounces a woe of a siege and capture. H e also more
upon them that are rich, rebukes the ‘cumbered’ Martha, definitely a term for all troubles.
exhorts the rich to entertain the poor and dooms the rich fool
t o a sudden while Dives is ’consigned to unalterable Lk. alone has the exhortation to (2128) ‘look up.’
torment. But above all Lk. contrasts ‘repentance’ with Omitting the remarkable saying of Mk. and Mt. that
If is contrasted with Dives, the grateful the Son himself knoweth not ‘the hour,’ he declares
amaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers the merciful that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till
Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite, the trivial
anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Mary, much the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’ Then will come
more does the publican find his foil in the Pharisee prays a time of ‘ distress ’-not, however, now for Israel, but
by his side ; the woman ‘which was a sinner’ and loved much for the Gentiles-and amidst convulsions of nature the
in Simon the churlish host loved little; the prodigal
younger son in the envious elder son; and the penitent thief on Son of man will come. In the hope of this coming,
the right in the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories, the disciples are to lift up their heads, remembering
as well as that of and the lost piece of silver, must that, although some of them will be slain,’ not a hair
have appealed with great force to many who applied to them- of their heads will be injured. The comparatively
selves the words of Epbes. 2 I : ‘And you did when
ye were dead through your trespasses and sins ; they magnify cheerful discourse on the Coming, combined with the
power of forgiveness-contrasting the instantaneous and joyful and triumphant tone of the Introduction, accords
complete victories of faith (for the most part ‘without works’) with the general tenor of Lk. when compared with Mt.,
with inferior results of a long life of ordinary and prudent
respectability. and indicates as the author a Christian Gentile to whom
) A conduct.-The insertion of (as to Barnabas) the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted
and not unwelcome fact. Writing with recollection,
T he Gospel of the Hebrew always uses the form but not under the present pressure, of persecution,
never b
Another test-phrase is SEI, frequent in Genesis and the when the Church was making rapid progress in the
early part of Exodus but rare or non-existent in later books. conversion, not only of the slaves, the poor, and the
I t does not occur in Mk. or Mt. I n Jn. it occurs only (a) in ‘devout women,’ but also of the higher and more
the interpolated811 the woman taken in adultery’ (6) in126 educated classes in the Roman Empire, the Evangelist
[where D transpose; SEI and omits ( ‘ h o w Judas
did not care’), the probably being simply ‘N ot seems to be looking forward to the moment when the
that Judas in2123 where sup- times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled,’ and the Son
ported by and is perhaps genuine, meaning ‘ however.’ of man would suddenly come.’ Such a date might be
In Lk. (as also in Acts) it is frequent, mostly in his Single reasonably at the close of Vespasiau’s or the
Tradition, but sometimes in the Double or Triple when he
words his I n view of beginning of Nerva’s See
these facts, Mt. 1247, bracketed by Tischendorf and placed by Acts 25 And he (Paul) two years [in Rome]’)
W H in marg., should be rejected as an interpolation. suggests, a t first sight, that Acts-and, a (Acts 1I )
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
, (v. ) Narratives peculiar to apart value of his work. Every page of it shows signs of
from the Introduction and the Conclusion, are : ( I ) the pains, literary labour, and good taste. It is by far the
miraculous draught of fishes the raising most beautiful, picturesque, and pathetic of all the
of the widow’s son (3) the healing Gospels, and probably the best adapted for making
of the woman bound’ by Satan; (4) the converts, especially among those who have to do
cure of the dropsical m a n ; (5) the appearance of the the life of the household. But, if bald bare facts are in
angel strengthening Jesus, and (6) the healing of the question, it is probably the least’ authoritative of the
severed Four.
As regards its omission all the other Evangelists is, in often intervenes to facts mentioned by
itself, almost fatal to its authenticity, and it is probably t o be and omitted by Lk. But, as regards facts
explained as the result of a literary misunderstanding,
was probably some tradition or obscure, and mentioned by Lk. alone, Jn. is either silent or gives so
omitted by Jesus said ( a) ‘let it the sword) be re- version of them (as in the case of the Draught
stored t o its place. This was misunderstood by Lk. as meaning of Fishes) that many would fail to recognise an intention
(6) ‘let it the ear) be restored.’ He therefore substituted to describe the same event. On this point, see the next
(6) for and amplified his narrative in such words as to leave
no section.
(vi. ) are led to the (vii. ) in
conclusion that, although Lk. attempted to write is only where Lk. alters, or omits, some Synoptic
accurately’ and in order,’ yet he Tradition, or where he attempts to
could not always succeed. When describe the phenomena that followed
decidingbetweenan earlier and a later the Resurrection, that Jn. (as a rule)
date, between this and that place or occasion, between steps in to correct Lk. The Fourth Gospel lies outside
metaphor and literalism, between what Jesus himself that large and province, peculiar to the Third,
said and what he said through his disciples, he had which deals with the welcome of repentant sinners and
be guided by evidence which sometimes led him right, some of the words most in use with
but not always. faith,’ rich,’ riches,’ divorce,’ publican,’ and (in
I n regarding the story of the fig-tree as a metaphor and the the words of Jesus) sinner ‘-are altogether absent
promise about treading on scorpions as a spiritual and from Jn.
the home of the infant Jesus a t Nazareth, not a t Perhaps the only important point of doctrine in which n.
Bet lehem, he was probably right. T he Feeding of the Four may be thought tacitly to contradict the Single Tradition of
Thousand he may have rightly rejected as a duplicate of the as to which Lk. encourages something approaching to
tradition about the Five Thousand. But be himself seems to while Jn. so far discourages that he’avoids the
give in his Mission of the Seventy a duplicate of Mission of very use of the word, preferring ‘ask’ or every-
the His two-fold description of Jesus as mourning where implies that the essential thing is, not that the petitioner
Jerusalem in Galilee and once near the should be importunate, but that he should be ‘in Christ,’ in
city itself, an error of an character (like his which case his petition be granted.
inference from the expressions ‘cnp’and ‘platter,’ that a certain Lk. aims at chronological order. while giving a new
discourse of Jesus was uttered at the table of a chronology, his history to symbolical and
Again, Mk. and Mt. show traces of duplicate traditions concern- spiritual principles. Lk. often removes from the old Tradition
ing the insults offered to Jesus in the Passion; and these such words as Atticists might condemn Jn. seems sometimes
(combined with the Psalmists predictions about ‘T he to prefer and always uses a vocabulary simple even to
of the earth’) may have led Lk. to adopt a tradition-not monotony, Lk. writes what have delivered,’
by the other Evangelists-that Herod joined with Jn. (not here dissenting, but indicating superiority) writes in
Pilate to the journey to Emmaus and the the name of eye-witnesses 114) that which we
Manifestation to the Eleven, it has been shown that he have
seems to take metaphor for literal statement. Some textual So far, Jii. may be said to differ, without correcting ; but on
ambiguity may have induced him to believe that the Nazarenes,, one or two points of Single Tradition he seems to write
instead of (as Mk. and Mt.) ‘being caused to stumble in Jesus For mentions Annas and
tried to ‘cause Jesus to (down a precipice) and that
words uttered to the woman at the ‘were not ‘L et
her alone,’ but H er sins are forgiven
Lk. absolute omission of some genuine and valuable of the mentions Martha and Mary together.
traditions- especially in connection with Christ’s ap- Mary, he says w a s a t Christ’s feet; Martha was
pearing to women after the Resurrection and with ‘troubled’ Lk. ‘about much serving. Jn.
does not contradict this. but he presents us with a different
Christ’s promise to go to Galilee ‘-though it may be aspect of Martha. Mar;, he says, was sitting a t home with the
in part extenuated on the ground of the need of selection, Martha went to meet Jesus, and made a confession of
and in part almost justified on the ground of the obscurity faith ’in him, and induced Mary to come forth also to meet
him.
the original, nevertheless seriously diminishes the I n two or three instances, Jn. represents as an act what Lk.
represents as a word. Lk. 22 27 (‘I am in the of
‘the former treatise,‘ completed during the apostle’s you as ,he that IS to Jn. where Jesus
life. But although Acts may incorporate documents written while ‘serves ; Lk. (‘I have for thee’) seems parallel
Paul was living and left unaltered by the compiler, the compila- to the prayer to the Father in (‘keep them from
tion may have been made many years after the apostle’s death. evil Perhaps we may add (‘I commend my
Of these (3) and (4) no special mention ; ( I ) must be spirit’) and Jn. 1930 (‘he delivered np his spirit ’).
classed 32 and 47) with draught of fishes, which is THE J OHANNINE GOSPEL. -The has
symbolical will be discussed with the Raising of Lazarus
(see below, 58). to ( 5 ) (described by WH as not a part been the subject of various hypotheses
of gospel, but as one of precious among the of authorship. The internal evidence for,
remains of’ an ‘evangelical tradition locally current these (apart from direct statements) is
the Canonical Gospels,’ and as being ’rescued from oblivion by derivable from (ii. ) names, allusions, etc. style
the scribes of the second century’) see 5 6 2 (4).
The same word means ‘restore’ a sword in ) structure.
Jer. 29 47) 6, and a in Lk. 610. The solution is (i. ) Gospel states that
: ‘Justitiam
unconsciously suggested by Ephrem
in ... Aurem in
(2 1
and
the disciple whom loved is the witness
of ‘these things,’ adding ‘and we know
accounts of the two Missions ( a) that his witness is true.’ A comparison of several
with account of the single it will other passages leads (by a process of elimination) to the
be that is almost entirely made up of that portion of inference that the author-writing perhaps with some
Mt. which does not occur in (a).
4 See above co-operation or attestation of others-was John the son
between a verb and its causal form produces of Zebedee. But the belief that the apostle originated
manyvariations in the L X X (Gen. 32 Jer. 15 the Gospel is compatible with a conviction that he did
...
and probably explains many Synopticvariations; cp Mk. 2 Mt.
(Mt. with Lk. 534 not or write it in its
Mk. Lk. Mk. 1 1 7 Lk. A great (as used in Mk.
many instances occur in Theodotion’s and the LXX version of. The text is uncertain. There may have been ,originally a
Daniel 16, distinction between and ‘the writer has
See above, IO simply hath been written,’ and 19 35 simply ‘hath
1794
 GOSPELS
For example the teaching of the aged apostle may have been of places in Tn. divide themselves into two classes :
taken up disciple or ‘interpreter,’ and may have been first, the well known second, the ob-
ultimately published by the latter, as Peter’s is said to have
been recorded and, circulated Mark (see below, 65) *& scure and contested. Concerning the
Peter’s ‘interpreter. If, as says John the former. Tn. mav be shown to write
wrote the Apocalypse about A . D . the’difference of style mostly from biblical, or literary, not from local, know-
between that and the Gospel would necessitate a very
interval to admit even a possibility that he wrote the latter5 ledge. The latter he mentions only when they are
Suppose the apostle t o have been ninety, or, say, only adapted for symbolism.
five, when he wrote the Apoc., and concede an interval of only For example : ( I ) that ‘spake in the Treasury ’is an
years to allow him to learn a new kind of Greek, change his error (so far as we know) from a supposition that what
vocabulary, and adopt a new style, new thoughts, and a new held in the days of Nehemiah and cp Neh. held
tone, yet this brings us to 106 and the apostle to the age of also in the time of Christ that the temple was
a hundred or ninety-five. Is it probable that one so aged could ‘forty and six years’ was a false from I about
retain powers of memory and expression sufficient for the mental the second temple. That Jesus I ) crossed the Kidron may
construction, or even the literary expression, of a work in which very well have happened; but the fact appears to he introduced
as will he shown, every word is weighed and every as a parallel to David who similarly S. crossed the
adapted to a spiritual purpose? The improbability is increased Kidron mourning to in triumph. (3) mention of
by the tradition (reported Jerome) that towards the close of the cornfields of Sychar, or Shechem, far from implying an eye-
his life the venerable apostle bad to he carried into the midst of witness, might have been made by any reader of Philo
the congregation and could do no more repeat over and familiar with Gen. 4915. (4) Dialogues between a Samaritan
over again the injunction one another. and a Jew about ‘this mountain’ as compared with
If this was so, John’s Gospel would nevertheless continue to Mount Sion, existed among the Talmudists, and was the
be preached, probably by one or more of his elders,’ preaching custom to place the scene a t the foot of the former near
in his name, say from A.D. 98 to A.D. or A.D. Then it SYCHAR appears to have been an opprobrious name for
becomes easy to understand how the individuality of an Shechem 54 it adapted itself to the dialogue on ‘the
‘interpreter’ may have combined with the force of new living water. the alleged familiarity with Capernaum
cumstances-attacks from philosophers without conflicts with and its ‘sea,’ it reduces itself to this, that the writer knew
incipient Docetism within-to mould the oral Johannine Gospel Capernaum to he on the sea-shore, so that people would ‘go
into its present shape, first without an appendix, and then, when down’ to it, and knew that the sea was large enough to allow
the nominal author had passed away (say A.D. with the men to row-under stress of weather and not necessarily in a
additional chapter that, effect, alludes (21 23) to his death. straight direction-for (6 19) twenty-five or thirty furlongs.’
Who this or ‘interpreter’may have been we cannot now Passing to ‘obscure and places we find (6) in (323)
For the present it must suffice to point out that, as near to [the var. cited]
the Muratorian Fragment enrolls among the canonical books near to Peace’), a reference to the Baptist’s urification by
the Wisdom of though admitting it to have been water as a preparation for the higher purification
written not by Solomon but by Solomon’s friends ‘in his honour,’ king of Salem (or Christ. Cp As for (7)
so a and ‘interpreter’ of John, committing to writing a the corrupt passage4 relating to Bethesda, Bethzatha, or
Johannine Gospel, might deem it a merit to ignore his own part saida, the most probable supposition is that Jn. wished to
in the composition, and to it as a whole to his master describe some place of bathing or purification in Jerusalem
and teacher. The alternative was to do as Lk. had done : to that the themselves (Wetst. ad called a
use I and me in the preface, and to explain that the writer place by the Greek-derived name sheep-pool and
received his doctrine from the aoostle. That. however. was an that a kindred name appeared to he applied to a pool in Jeru-
salem Lastly (8) the pool of Siloam, and its
from the spiritual interpretation-which introduces in the healing of
in man horn blind, the type of the converted Gentile
novel precedent even stimulate the Johannine would he known to every reader of Is. 86.
‘interpreter’ to merge his own authorship in that of the apostle Numbers-If the man at Bethesda represents
or, rather, in that of ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ and
he perhaps regards as a pattern and type of true discipleship. sinful Israel, his 38 years of waiting might correspond to the 38
Some of these points will be more fitly discussed years that elapsed before Israel 2 ‘went
over the Brook The fish, according
under External Evidence. What has been said above to Philonian principles,‘?would mean (as explained
is intended to guard reader against assumptions Augustine) the Church as evolved from the
fatal to unprejudiced criticism. Law and the Spirit. The 6 water-pots ‘containing or 3 firkins
apiece’ (after the Jews’ manner of purifying) represent the
For example it is commonly assumed ( I ) that the author inferior dispensation of the the Law-preparing
must be a n or a forger that if he knows some
things not known to the Synoptists he must know everything
known to a n apostle must a n apostle; (3) that the Further, how little security there is that names would he
minute details with which the narrative abounds are signs of an accurately preserved in passing from Hebrew to Greek (not to
eye-witness with a taste for the picturesque, and ear-witness speak of the gulf dividing an oral tradition from Gospels written
with a keen sense of the On the contrary, ( I ) if the say, may be seen comparing two books of
writer is a disciple regarding himself as the pen of a teacher, he in the circumstances most favourahle to accuracy, where
not to he regarded as a forger if the writer received from 60th same which errors
John the apostle some things not known to the Synoptists, it might corrected. Cp ( a ) Ch. with (6) I Esd.
does not follow that he received everything, still less that he : (a) (6) u.8 : (a) (6)
must himself be an apostle ; (3) if, among a vast store of details 15. Similar discrepanciesahound in I Esd. Esd.
of name number (such as might naturally drop from the lips I t was that variations in obscure Gospel names should
of a very old man in oral accounts of reminiscences) he selected abound a t the beginning of the second century, leaving it open
those which lent themselves to a symbolical meaning, it does to the writer to choose that form which seemed most suitable.
not follow that he was an eye-witness or ear-witness; and it Neh. might give the impression that ‘the children of
may even be that he would have regarded picturesqueness as Israel when bringing their offerings into ‘the Chambers,’ were
an impertinence approximating to profanity in one who was to enter the treasure-house. Mk. against
attempting to write a Gospel that should be a New Testament the Treasury’) is correct, and so is Josephns v.
Scripture’ But no unofficial person was, Christ’s time, allowed
) Evidence from Names, -Here we consider in the Treasury.‘
(a) Numbers, Names See the
of Eusehius
The Apocalypse contains much internal evidence the
reference to cheap wine and dear corn in Rev. for placing a t built his part of the
least part of the work in the reign of Domitian. The ancient tempie ‘in eight years.’
external evidence for the Domitian date is singularly strong. Cp on
APOCALYPSE. The RV rendering the sheep (gate)’ unsupported by
JOHN S O N ....If it was John the Elder-a any instance of a similar ellipse in Greek literature, and in-
as Eusebius 396) tells was confused directly condemned and Jerome.
with the imputation of the Gospel to John the 5 See the of for
apostle might he more easily explained. of the king. in Philo represent the irrational
3 Some critics actually extend this last inference to the passions. The sick man Jn. typifies sinful 514
dialogue with the Samaritan woman a t which no was sin no more’) waiting for the intermittent purification of the
present ! Law (typified by the intermittent pool).
4 In order to appreciate what follows the reader re- ’ does not the whob of the except
member ( I ) that every name number, and even syllable in these
in Scripture was generally in Rabbinical tradition to 7 The (the ten commandments): Spirit (Rev. 14
have some significance that this significance or 31 According to Philo (1 the fulfilment of any
symbolism was reduced to a system the Alexandrian Jews potentiality, say 3, the fulfilment of 4 is
(see Siegfried and Drummond on Philo); (3) that (as will The fulfilment of is . .
he shown in foot-notes to this section) was familiar with the absurd of course to of
Philonian teaching. Philonian interpretation, and not thought absurd by Augustine.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
the way for the perfect dispensation of the the in the Talmudists ; and something similar has been indicated
Gospell-of which the wedding feast at Cana is a type. Peter 34 n.) as present in Mt. But in we find
swims over a number that represents (Philo 60. Jn. repetition rather than grouping. Now Jn. differs
on repentance. The ‘five porches’ in Bethesda from the Synoptists (and shows some resemblance
represent the five senses of unredeemed the to the Apocalypse) in being from to last a
unregenerate passions-and so the ‘five husbands’ of the Woman whether from the Evangelist, or the Baptist, or the
of Samaria represent what Philo calls ’the five seducers,’ who Son, or the Father and it expressly distinguishes between
lead the soul from its union with God. (3 ‘earthly things” and ‘heavenly things,’ to both of which
Quotations.-Quotations from O T (rare in the Christ ‘hears witness.’ Hence we are led to ask whether
twofold iteration may not he a kind of verbal image of the
Gospel, and non-existent in the Epistle) are condensed principle that ‘The testimony of two men is true’ (referring to
and adapted’to the context. Almost all the earthly witness of the Son attested the co-operation of
differ both from the Hebrew and from the the Father). Again, the occurrence of threefold iteration in
references to the Resurrection and other mysteries, recalls the
LXX, even where these agree. For the mention (in the Epistle) of the Three that bear witness
most part, Jn. quotes the OT as illustrating funda- earth ( I Jn. 5 ‘the Spirit pnd the Water, and the Blood,’
mental tendencies or pointing to three ‘make up the Here the witness though
T he words (1034) ‘ I said ye are gods’ are taken to indicate earth,’ yet testifies to a ‘heavenly’ mystery, to the
that all men who have received the Word of God’ are in some essence and redeeming powers of Christ. Thus once more, we
sense divine. (8 17) ‘The testimony of two men is true’ means are led to ask whether this juxtaposition of and three-
that in the spiritual world, as in the material, experience is the fold iteration may be neither accident nor tautological blemish,
test of truth ; so that he who can produce the results he aims at hut the result, partly of a style formed in the schools of Jewish
is proved to he-so far as the province of the action extends-in thought, partly of a deliberate purpose to direct the spiritual
the region of truth having the testimony of ‘ t w o ’ (himself and reader to between the things of earth and those of
God, or himself ahd Nature). From first to last this Gospel heaven. And the question is almost changed into an affirmative
ahounds in allusions to the O T and is permeated with Jewish inference, when we find Philo commenting on the distinction
tradition, but the seems to have shared in the growing between the Lord’s ‘once’ or ‘twice, and
dissatisfaction felt Jews with the L X X a t the beginning of declaring-in allusion to Dent. 19 ( t w o witnesses or three’)
the second century, and to have been largely influenced by -that (1 holy matter is proved three
Christian traditions of free quotation.4 Probably, also, the combination of positive and negative was
based on principles of
) Fourth Gospel in iteration
It may be objected that such a style would be highly
-sometimes( a )double, sometimes triple, sometimes
artificial, whereas style is simplicity itself. Rut,
of the same expressed in the first place, might seem
positively and negatively-quite different artificial for us might be a second
from anything-in the Synoptists. nature for those bred amid Jewish and
confessed ;
that doeth ill . . . cometh not to
(1 H e confessed, and denied not, (a)
Alexandrian traditions of the interpretation of the OT
. hut he that doeth the truth (y) cometh to the ; (10 and, in the second, though words are as simple a s
7 9) ‘ I am the door of the sheep. .. I am ( a ) the door. (a) I n
the Baptist’s testimony, and at the heginning of the Gospel, the
those of Tennysop’s Memo riam, his is not
simple.
iteration (with or without slight variation) is often There are more ambiguities Jn. than in all the rest of the
1 33 ‘ I knew him not (twice), and 3 4 35 48 Gospels put together so that sometimes it might almost seem
etc. But not infrequently-with the aid ofquestionandanswer, as if he intended to his readers to choose between several
or other slight variations which have a meaning break- meanings, or even to decide according to their impres-
ing the sense of monotody-the effect of a threefold iteration is sions, whether the Evangelist or ’some other is speaking.
produced, as when Jesus is predicting his Resurrection Moreover he abounds in variations-impossible to render
where the words little while and ye shall see me,’ are
...
repeated thrice, and ‘a little while’ seven times. So the words in English, and wholly wanting in the Synoptists-hetween
of Mk. and ‘(cometh) me’-rejected Greek words such as : (21 15 and Simon,
converted by Jn. (1 into a triple testimony from the
Baptist to the pre-existence of Christ. Cp 1 8 4 for a quaint illustration of the ‘twice
Westcott rightly calls attention to the triple repetition of and ‘thrice’ ‘twice’ apparently denoting earthly confirm;
‘these things’ in 12 where the allusion is to an unconscious and ‘thrice’ the ‘holy matter’). Siegfried (p. 168)
fulfilment of prophecy; in fact the Gospel ahounds with such gives as a Philonian rule, that ‘Scripture points to a deeper
instances 855 15-18 16 13-16 and some- meaning by doubling and adds that this is a
times the repetition refers not to words hut t o acts. Thrice did principle of It might he a mere accident that
171) rejects the Synoptic ‘(Jesus) answering said and always prefers
raise his eyes to heaven, and always as a prelude to some ‘answered and said.’ But note that in the Synoptists! Christ
sublime of act or utterance. T he writer implies that always says ‘Verily’; in Jn., Verily. Both
lesus manifested himself to the after the Resurrection can hardly be right ; for who can believe that Christ used
many signs ; but he selects and, of the last, he says sometimes one, sometimes the other, and that the Synoptists
(21 I This is now the third time .. .
Numerical groupings, in threes, fives, sevens, etc., are frequent
a mere accidental coincidence, rejected all the sayings that
contained the latter, whilst Jn. rejected all that contained the
former’? Yet, if added the second ‘verily’without additional
For this mention of 6, connection with and 3, cp Philo meaning, he was guilty of tautology, which Philo calls (1 529)
2 : 6. .. composed of having the odd the vilest kind of ‘macrology
denying its existence in the OT. Moderns
as male, and the even as female, whence originate those things
which are according to the fixed laws of nature. . . What the may think this a trifle hut the question is, not what they think
number that the number 7 exhibited in full what was thought a Jew A . D. T o him, no word
perfection. ‘ Scripture could be trifling.
The occurs again (67) in the old tradition This distinction between the heavenly and the earthly, repre-
derived from Mk. 6 37 : ‘two hundred of bread.’ sented by threefold and twofold rhythms, is perceptible at the
This is a good instance to show how Jn. may (as often elsewhere) very outset (1 where the three clauses about the Logos,
have retained a n old tradition that adapted t o spiritual followed by their summary in one clause-suggesting the
interpretation, as if to say, ‘N ot all the repentance in the world ‘heavenly’ Witnesses, who are One-are followed the
could suffice to bread to feed, the Church; it must be account of the ‘man, named John,’ of whom it is twice said
received as the free of God. On the other hand in that he (1 to hear witness of the light.’
mentioning (125) ‘three hundred pence’ (see Philo on Gen. On the Positive and Negative, see the Canon of Sohar, a
Judas Iscariot (like Caiaphas, 11 testifies to treatise of suspicious origin containing very ancient elements
the comnleteness of the
(as 300 does
of sweet
harmonybetween
which .
laws of the Torah . . resolve
themselves into the mysteries of the masculine and the feminine
man, or the symmetrical body of Humanity, so that it is here principle (positive and negative). Only when parts meet
appropriate to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and the consequent together does the higher unity arise.’ As regards what may be
unity of the Church in his body. called the of the Twofold witness, see
appears a t first to resemble quotations (on Ex. 31 16): It (the Sabbath) twice because of
being an instance of minute and exact fulfilment. But the the Shechinah and below,’ in Johannine language.
‘vesture’ is the Church, which is not to he and there is attest it in the name of the Son and of the Father : and see the
also a reference to the Logos, which keeps the Church together comment on Gen. 5 I : ‘Behold Adams are named
(Phil. 1562) ‘Nor shall he rend his (Lev. 21 IO), for in this section : one is the mystical the other is the
of the spiritual Universe , ..
keeps all its parts in mystical terrestrial’ So Philo (on Ex. 14) speaks of ‘duo
union. divina’ or rationes.
Perhaps also he did not know Hehrew enough to render The first chapter alone suffices to prove this
the OT with that exact accuracy which was attempted soon 50). Especially difficult is it to decide whether his are
after his days in the version of That a writer might be used affirmatively, interrogatively, or imperatively (5 39 12
familiar with Hehrew traditionhut not with the Hebrew language, I 15 18 27 16 20 29) and his may often mean that or
is proved by the example of Philo.
1797
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
thou me?’ followed by ‘Simon , ..
art thou and the Life was the Light of Alluding to the
? and and Thou knowest name bv which the called the Messiah Comer
that am thy friend followed by Thou tells us the Light bas
all things thou that I am thy ginning ‘coming’ t o the world, but that at last, as the
Similar distinctions are drawn between the Psalmist had predicted, the Word ‘tabernacled men,
meanings of and between and they beheld his ‘glory.’ But what ‘glory’? Not t h a t of
and and between the aorist and present and material splendour hut that of ‘grace and These words
All are natural in an familiar with introduce a with the The Logos wbo
philosophy and so long habituated to Greek as to has given light and life to men has also given ‘grace’and ‘truth’
be able t o play on its words and t o the its minute t o Israel; (1 ‘The Law was given through Moses,
differences of grammatical expression. (thereof) and the (thereof) were through Jesus
(iv. ) -( a ) as a See TRUTH.
Having prepared us by a parenthesis (1 14, ‘the glory as of
Fourth Gospel (Westc. on ‘begins and closes an only-begotten’) to conceive of an ‘only-begotten,’ and of a
with a sacred week.’ The (week’ has ‘glory’ in the unity of divine love, exceeding all Hebraic notions
to be deduced from a careful reading of of the splendour of prophetic signs or visions and all Hellenic
notions of wisdom, he now concludes by that it is not
the context. But this is a characteristic (as Job had said) God who has ‘declared Wisdom, it is
of the Gospel, distinguishing it from the the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father who has ‘declared
Apocalypse. In the latter, symbolism is on the sur- God.
face : in the former,. latent. The word ‘ seven ’ occurs Bridegroom. - This section contains the
about .fifty-five times in the Apocalypse ‘seven Doctrine of Water : the Water of the Law super-
spirits,’ stars,’ angels,’ vials,’ etc. ) in the Gospel seded by the Wine of the Gospel ;
never. None the less, as might be expected in a work the Water of Purification from
that opens with the words ‘ i n the beginning,’ so as to above’ the Water of Life that
suggest a parallel with the seven days of Creation and quenches the soul‘s thirst. three scenes of these sub-
Rest, the thought of perfect ‘seven’ pervades all sections severally Galilee, Jerusalem, and Samaria.
Jn. highest revelations of the divine Galilee. After a period of 2 r j six
There are seven miracles or ‘signs.’ There is a sevenfold days comes the wedding-feast at Cana where Jesus the un-
acknowledged Bridegroom of the after first justice
witness (West. of ( I ) the Father, the the t o the ‘purification of the Jews,’ his ministers draw forth
works, (4) Scripture, (5) the Forerunner, (6) the Spirit, (7) the from the well the water which the Governor of the Feast pro-
Disciples. In the final discourse-a Deuteronomy in which nounces the best
Jesus reviews his ‘testimony,’ the clause
(which occurs nowhere else in the Gospels) is repeated seven Jerusalem. The next act of the Bridegroom
is the noun ‘love (which the Epistle mentions as
the very Name of Lastly the sacred words, I AM For the connection, cp 36 thee is the fountain
used (8 58) absolutely to represent eternal being of the of life: in thv shall we see Also note the distinction
are combined with seven predicates to represent seven revela- which been is in the Logos
tions : ( I ) the Bread, the Light ’(3) the Door, (4) the Good and that which ‘came into being the Logos:
Shepherd, ( 5 ) the Resurrection the Life, (6) the Way, the T he former is permanent, the latter transient. This distinction
Truth, and the Life, and (7) the true Vine. is lost the punctuation of the ‘was not anything made
(6) The The Prologue is based on that was made?
Ps. after mentioning ‘glory,’ ‘tabernacle,’ ‘mercy’
ancient traditions, describing Wisdom as having taken or ‘grace,’ a n d ‘ truth goes on to personify these virtues and to
part with God from the beginning in the describe Truth as up’ from the earth, and Righteous-
creation, and predicting the accomplish- ness as from heaven. This enables us to under-
ment of God’s ‘ truth and grace,’ and the ‘ tabernacling ’ stand the spiritual meaning of
ascending and descending on the
of God
of man.’ They are ‘grace
of his glory among traditions Jn. con- and truth,’ ‘peace and righteousness,’ looking down from heaven
centrates on Christ. Only, instead of calling and rising from earth. Thus was fnlfilled the im-
Wisdom, he prefers the more commonly plied in (Gen. 28 the vision of Bethel when Jacob rested
the stone which was afterwards ‘anointed the type
used in the OT. (Just. 86) of, Christ. (for
T he Synoptists begin their Gospels b y saying in effect (Mk.) should he read with the Valentinians cp Orig.
‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . ..
was John7 668, where the context necessitates though the text
or by tracing the descent of Jesus to (Mt.) has been conformed t o T.R.
or Adam. Jn. goes farther hack, saying that Light, corresponds to ‘truth,’ as every Jew would feel who
the Word ‘ w a s . .
in the beginning, and , was God and thought of the high priest’s Urim and Thuminim (‘light’
that the ‘man’ John merely (Westc. on Jn. 1 6) ‘arose, truth ’), and of Ps. 43 3 out thy light and thy truth.
into existence H e then turns to nature history. the life of man: says the Psalmist is in God’s
‘What has been the Word,’ he says, ‘was Life, ‘favour more often Hence what from the
point of view of nature may be called ‘light will be
38 : ‘that ye may know and from the point of view the Law, ‘truth, and favour, or
grow in knowledge.’ A difference kept between
and 5 6 ‘the prophets having grace from
There are indications that Jn., in writing his Gospel Christ. the curious expression (1 16) ‘grace for grace’
the New Genesis or regeneration of man had in view the apparently ‘grace following grace,’ one ‘grace’ or
Great Announcement of Simon Magus, (see below, ‘favour,’ after another-cp 1 3 4 2 , ‘constantly bestowing
allegorising the Pentateuch, discerned in the five books a refer- his graces one after another (possibly
ence to the five senses and in the whole a description of the based on some Jewish tradition the of
second creation. If is t o the point to remember that the in connection with ‘the head stone,
Talmudists 363) found a mystical meaning in the
sevenfold repetition of ‘the the Shechinah-in the Orieen takes to mean
Pentateuch. hut it mean ‘jealous’ or a applied
Owing to the variation of MSS, it is impossible t o speak only to as the husband of Israel. The ‘zeal’ or
with certainty as to the repetition of as the subject, repre- ‘jealousy’ suits the context, and also (2 ‘The zeal of thine
senting the divine Creator. There is fair evidence, however, house etc.
for its sevenfold repetition, and still better for that of in the ‘ the well not from the vessels.’ So Westc. ad
words of Jesus, the divine unity. 7 Philo, 1296 : ‘ that hath received from God, directly (or
Job The latter declares that God indirectly, through an draughts of wine will
alone ‘hath seen and declared wisdom. not drink out of a cistern. See also his on Gen. 16 7,
Mic. Ps. 85 9-11. and his description of the as ‘intoxicated
Thus he leaves it an open question-to be answered what with the wine of the divine love of God. Add
follows concerning the person of Christ-as to the nature of the also (1 103) bringing forth bread and wine
Word. ‘Wisdom’ would have closed the question by giving it instead of water,’ and (1 683) the truly great High Priest, the
a too narrow answer. Note that Jn., alone of the Evangelists, Cupbearer of God, who, having received the draughts of grace,
uses the word though it is found (four times) gives them in turn, pouring forth the libation in its fulness,
in the Apocalypse. H e regards God as a Spirit, permeating, namely himself.’ For the vessels and the ‘two or
attracting, and harmonising all that is, and especially all that three firkins ‘see above 47. According to Westcott‘s new,
is in the sphere of righteousness. To call such a adopted the in vessels ‘remained water,’ but
‘Wisdom’ would be bathos. In the Epistle he prefers ‘Love. the water drawn from the became wine ; so
7 WH ii., on Mk. 1 I , say that ‘several fathers’ that the filling of the vessels was a purely emblematic act.
connected the words thus, and this is far the least harsh con. This fact, the context, the structure of the Gospel, and the
nection, whether the parenthesis (1 be considered genuine traditions. of Philo, combine to indicate that the whole of the
or not. narrative is spiritual and emblematic.
1800
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
is to a tte mp t to win back a n d purify the unfaithful The woman (Jn. 428) ‘left her water-pot and departed’
d au g h te r of Jerusalem, typified by th e temple. The to carry news of the Messiah. differs here but in such a
way as to show that the water-pot is not a mere picturesque
Synoptists, fr o m the h u ma n standpoint, describe t h e detail. H e says’that Rebecca (1 did not, like Agar, need
temple as a d en of robbers 2 16 , as a of the leather the body-to hold the water, but only
merchandise the water-pot,’ which is a symbol of a heart that can
Herein Jn. to be following the prophets, who called hold draught. view may be that, as Rebecca
Tyre (Ez. 27 3 Is. 23 17) a place of merchandise of needed not the so the woman of Samaria, .who
the as the in the latter passage expresses stage higher, needed not the having received the
it, she ‘played the T o Jn. the greedy ‘merchandise dwelling spring of living water.
of the priestly monopolists in the temple appeared a kind of The seed of the Gospel having been in Sbechem, the
‘idolatry’ (cp. Col. 3 unfaithfulness to the Bridegroom associations of the place are changed. is connected no longer
-and he represents Jesus as devoured by ‘jealousy for with Jacob but with Jesus (or with Jacob in his higher stage, as
of for the true Church (his bride and his a type of Jesus); no longer with ‘the things of the senses,’ but
body)-and as predicting that, even men might destroy with ‘the ‘Jesus bids the disciples ‘lift up their
it, it should be raised up in ‘three days. eyes’ to look the fields white already’ with the results of
Closely connected with this attempt to purify Jerusalem his husbandry. Immediately the harvest begins. The Samari-
‘the harlot,’ comes the mention of a birth tans come from the city. Some of them had believed, in Jesus
by ‘water and the It is introduced as a doctrine of on the testimony of the woman. But Philo saps that it is
‘earthly as a rudimentary one-and ininculcating it characteristic of a false god to exist only report and con-
Jn. to he baptism with water, on vention, and the a woman &{,
baptism with the Spirit also. The purification, which Here it is added
requires ‘blood’ (I Jn. ‘the Spirit and the water and the ‘that the (442) believed ‘no longer owing
blood’) is yet to come; but it is faintly suggested by to the speaking of the woman,’ but to the ‘word
‘hour,’ and (3 14) ‘the (brazen) of Christ.
(y) Samaria. F r o m unfaithful Jerusalem the Jesus returns to Galilee a n d Cana. Thus cycle
Bridegroom passes to unfaithful (the w o m a n of th e Bridegroom e nd s in th e place where it began,
with th e five h us b a nd s ’). S h e, too, like t h e H o u s e of ma k in g way for t h e doctrine of Bread.
Ja c ob of old (Jer. h a d played th e harlot ‘ w i t h ( 3 ) The of healing of t h e sick m a n
many husbands,’ a n d h a d g o n e t o th e waters of at Bethesda o n the S ab b at h , which represents th e heal-
to slake her thirst, h av in g forsaken the L o r d , ‘the in g of Israel - not unaccompanied
fountain of living waters.‘ (5 14) warning th at th e work might be
T h e dialogue place near Jacob’s well. I n Philo the undone- 1s followed b y a statement
‘well and the fountain represent different stages of t h a t the S o n does nothing b u t h e sees the F a t h e r
ledge. The well of Agar represents a lower stage than that of
Rebecca; Rebecca supplies the camels from the do. H e n ce , when he ‘lifts his before the
‘well,’ but the servant the ‘fountain,’ because the .latter is eucharistic sign of the giving of t h e bread, w e a r e
(1 the holy word. The highest and best well of all is the prepared to hear th at w h a t he gives, t h e F at he r is really
Father of all, the Fountain of life In giving. It t h e b re ad fr o m heaven.
Jn. we find a place called or
ably opprobrious name for Shechem (see alluding By placing the giving of Christ’s flecb and blood early in the
to (Is. 28 ‘the drunkenness of Ephraim,’ in any case Gospel, and by introducing, much later, the one commandment
suited to the moral of the It is (45) ‘near the place of love, fulfilled by Christ on the Cross, Jn gives the
that to Joseph his son. This is explained by Philo. of a desire to discourage materialistic of the :
Shechem (‘shoulder’) has two meanings; in connection (663) ‘The spirit it that giveth life, the flesh profiteth
Gen. ‘a certain athlete’ becomes a ‘husbandman, nothing; the words that I spoken unto you, they are
it indicates labour but when it is mentioned as given spirit and they are life. 5
it means (1 ‘the bodily things which ( 4 ) The L ig h t -The doctrine of Light, th o u gh
of the senses; .Jesus (Jn. ‘wearied of his journey, sat in Prologue, a n d touched
Philo says that Moses ‘sat a t the not by Jesns b u t by th e Evangelist)
a cowardly retreat, but ‘like an athlete recover.
ing breath’ for a new attack - an ‘interesting parallel to the 3 is not definitely set forth b y
position of Jesus before his attack on Samaritan unbelief. I t Jesus till th e m i d d l e of the Gospel (8 ‘ I am
was (46) ‘about the sixth hour hour described by Philo the light of th e world.’
(on as fittest for the revelation of divine truth.
The woman of Samaria, coming to draw water from Jacob’s This revelation is desciibed as being followed by a more active
well, received the from Jesus (418) ‘Thou hast had hostility in the enemies who now (8 37-44) seek to destroy
five and he whom thou now is not thy revealing themselves as the children of the Destroyer. The
Philo says (on Gen.36) that woman is symbolically depth of darkness (848: hast a devil’) draws the
the sense (sensus),’ and (1 131) There are two husbands of fullest light: ‘BeforeAbraham was, I AM’). Then,
senses one lawful, one a seducer’ ; but he proceeds that
‘the acts through senses; he also (1 563) con- be uttered.’ I f Jn. wrote in part with a view to contemporary
nects ‘having with heresies, he might very well include that of Magus, who
‘having many gods,’ and speaks of 609) those ‘ enamoured of is said in Acts to have held the Samaritans at a
many gods,’ who know not the one Husband, namely early period bound in enchantments. Justin Martyr testifies
to his in Samaria in the first half the second century.
More probably, however, it means, primarily, religious pride and
Cp the introductory words in same passage of ambition (leading to hatred of truth moral goodness), Rev.
‘Thus the .
thy God unto Jerusalem. . neither 13 5 a mouth speaking great things,’ some
thou washed in to cleanse thee; thou not with Simon Magus.
‘Salt’is symbol of the Spirit. speaks of ‘salting’ Philo quoted above.
with ‘fire. , 4 the healing of the nobleman s son compared
See Philo, on ‘the brazen serpent’ (the enemy of the with healing of the centurion’s servant, see above
that came to Eve); it is (ib. ‘the strongest may mean either ‘king’s servant or
virtue. For the apparently abrupt transition that ensues from like,’ ‘princely. Origen (perhaps reading with
serpent’ to ‘the living water,‘ see Philo, ; one regards the as representing Abraham, and the raising
is healed by the the other is caused to drink of the son as representing the action of the Logos in raising up
that most excellent draught, Wisdom, from the which Isaac, as if from the dead. If that is so, the three miracles of
he brought forth from his own wisdom. represent the action of the Logos before the Law,
The statement, that ‘(Westc. p. ‘there can be no under the Law, 3) outside the This ‘sign’ is wrought
question as to the individuality of the discourse with the woman at Cana and is 54) ‘the second. It terminates the section
of Samaria,’ is perfectly true, if ‘individuality’ means of of the and introduces that of health and food,
style and purpose. It is practically certain, however, that the healing and the Bread of Life.
dialogue did not actually occur in the exact words recorded by Jn. 3 Philo that the imitates the Father’s
For ( I ) no disciple (48) was present; and, even if we that ways to patterns.’
the Evangelist received an account of the dialogue from.Jesus 4 Jesus thrice lifts his eyes 17 I ) : when he ( I )
himself, both Jesus and the Woman of Samaria talk in gives the Bread, (2) raises Lazarus, the final sacrifice of
nine style. The applies to the dialogue with Nicodemus. praise and prayer to the Father.
4 ‘the Nile. 5 Words-hut words into the heart- not acts,. nor
Cp a tradition on Joel 3 1 : ‘ A s the first miracles, are the climax of Christ’s life among his
caused a well to spring up, shall a second cause waters before the crucifixion. washes their feet ; but Judas, like
to spring the rest, is washed, and Judas is also expressly said by Jn. (not
What the sixth (Jn. 4 ‘he whom thou now by the Synoptists) to have received ‘the sop.’ Neither act
hast’? Philo speaks (26) of the ‘six powers’ of turbulence, makes them They are ‘clean’ (15 3)
the five senses and uttered speech,’ of which the last of the word that he has spoken and they have received;
prates with unbridled mouth of countless things that should not Judas is not because he has not received
1801 1802
 GOSPELS
an attempt to stone Jesus! he ‘was hidden and because they did not understand that ruling implies serving
went forth from the temple. This and a second (12 36) eclipse and even dying. The Shepherd (10 ‘layeih down his
are ‘two witnesses’ against ‘the darkness’ that will not (1 5 ) for the sheep’ (10 ‘ i norder that it may
‘apprehend the light. In other words, the Resurrection, or attainment of life through
Next comes the healing of the Gentile world, typified death, is a law of the spiritual world a part of the Father’s will.
Thus Jn. anticipates the objection that if the Shepherd dies in
by the man who was blind from his birth. conflict with wolf,’ the wolf is
As Naaman was sent to Jordan, so the man is sent to
(97) the Pool of Siloam which represents (Is. the Later, the law is restated as the law of the Harvest :
worship of the true God as distinct from the worship of (1224) ‘Except it (the grain) die, it abideth alone, but
false gods (see also Is. 7 3 22 I I if it perish it bringeth forth much fruit meantime,
3 292). The inference that the Gentile world must Jesus says (1 018) that he has power to take np his
purified by Jewish waters-i.e by the Law-is obviated by the
statement-probably supersession of the Law by life as well as to lay it down, and these words naturally
49 IO) Siloam means This sign is prepare us for a ‘sign’ of this particular ‘power.’
altogether different from the healing of the man a t Bethesda a sign is afforded by the Resurrection of Lazarus.
(Israel) who is never said to believe, and who is threatened with (6) The Raising of the Dead.-That marvellous cures (and
in case of relapse. The Gentile world (9 believes not improbably, revivifications) were wrought by the
so that this sign includes the creation of spiritual, as well Christians is indicated by the Pauline
material, light. Raising Epistles, by indirect Talmudic testimony
T he section terminates with a denunciation of the dead in and bv earlv Christian traditions.
abiding sin of the blind who profess to lead others are hdwever, of very early exaggera-
tion arising from misunderstood metaphor.
and who say we see.’ For example, (Eus. v. 18 14) alleges A.D.) that
T h e Life.-The mention of the ‘blind leaders’ John in Ephesns raised a dead man. How, we ask, did this
leads to the mention of the ideal Leader who knows escape writers-Papias for example records such
loves) all that are his, and that, an act of Philip but not of Jbhn? The is to he found
in where the apostle, an Elder
too, 3 about a young convert receives the answer H e is dead.’
so that they are drawn towards him as the Good ‘What death?’ ‘ H e died God.’ The reconverts
Shepherd who does not drive, but the youth, who becomes trophy resurrection. Similarly,
All the shepherds and deliverers of the world that ‘came’ whereas the churches of Gaul speak of reconverted apostates as
before the Logos are described as ‘thieves and v. 145) dead brought by the prayers of
martyrs, (ii. says that, ere now, in the brotherhood,
‘owing to sore need,’ many have been raised by the prayers of
Westcott has no note here. but the second ‘hiding the and this, literally; and it seems highly probable
in 12 36 he translates hidden’ (not ‘hid himself’) that he has confused some metaphorical The question
and declares it to be ‘the result of the want of faith’ of Christ’; arises, how early did such occur ? ‘ T he
adversaries and he there refers to the present passage (8 wicked,’ says a Jewish tradition ‘though living, are termed
dead.’ ‘Let the dead: says Lord ‘bury their dead.’ In
Chrisf’s commission to the Twelve, Mt. alone has ‘raise the
dead,’ and afterwards (11 5) ‘the dead are raised.’ Yet Mt. de-
scribes Jesus as revivifying no one except the daughter of
Jairus, concerning whom Mt. has written (9 24) ‘she is not dead
but sleepeth.’ See It is probable that Mt. has here
given the actual words of Jesus, or the closest approximation
to them; they were perhaps omitted by owing to their
being first literalised and then regarded as difficult or erroneous.
Lk. as well as Mk. records it is true ‘the dead are raised
but he meets the possible dead have been raised,’
by inserting the raising of a widow’s son (7 immediately
before. daughter, he might now plead that
the raising of persons justified the plural ‘are.’
besides the suspicion attaching to the of this narrative
not only from Mk. but also from the parallel Mt. which closely
agrees with story a misunderstanding of
the Shiloh of Gen. 49 IO ; cp metaphor. I n Esd. 9 there is a vision of a woman (Sion)
3 Cp Philo (1 382) on the two kinds of ignorance, of which the sorrowing for the death of her ‘only son’ (the City or Temple).
second fancies that it knows what it does not know, puffed u p Christians would assert that Christ (Jn. 2 up the
‘with a false notion of its own : this ‘generates Temple,’ or, in the language of Christian psalms and hymns
I t is this proud, complacent, that he up the only son of the sorrowing
‘and deliberate and scorn ofgoodness), the possible influence of symbolism combines with other
is, in the Synoptists, unpardonable, and, in Jn., the sin causes4 to oblige to reject as non-historical account of
that ‘abideth cannot be effaced. (For cp Jn. the raising of the widow’s son. See NAIN.
15 16 I Cor. 13
4 The true Shepherd and the trne Husbandman (or Vine- Gospel as authoritative. The saying has affinities to Greek
dresser) are connected by Philo in a discourse about notion that the only lawful is that of the wise man (see
the husbandry or of soul. H e distinguishes Philo 38).
between the tiller of ground (who is a ‘hire- (I) Eusebius, in quoting these words of prefixes to
ling’) and the real husbandman (who prunes, or encourages them (v. 7 I ) ‘that, he says,’ which (though in 17 6
as the case may require). So the ‘shepherd it introduces a statement attested bv ‘the canonical Acts of the
distinguished from the mere ‘keeper. Poets he says Apostles’) may imply, according context, an emphasis laid
call kings the their people, the title is on the subjectiveness and doubtfulness of what is alleged (see
rightly reserved for ‘the wise. The difference between Philo iv.1546 the words ‘owing to sore need
and In. is that the former makes no mention of ‘laying down a ply very well to apostasy, hut less well to literal
life the sheep.’ death (3) 32 4) implies that, whilst
If the text IS correct. ‘came allusion to healing of the sick still went on the raising of the dead
the or the character of the ideal was a thing of the past ... and that though
. Deliverer. Of David, as of Abraham, Jn. they had lived for some time, none were living when wrote
would say that they (8 56) saw Christ’s they did not For the date of the
claim to be independent, but depended on the Deliverer.
But this does not explain lrpb ‘before me. We
expect me,’ or ‘setting themselves above me.
A Hebrew may have caused confusion between ‘be; and the letter) facilitates the theory that mis-
fore time). ‘before estimation).’ and ‘in the of. understood the metaphor. When Papias records similar acts,
‘before Eusebius by the words 39 and
‘before’ (mg., ‘like’). Or an original Gr. tradition, appears indicate his disbelief in them, a t least if we combine
(cp Mk. 1042 with them with the followine ‘mvthical.’ ‘not
might mean ‘before me,’ or ‘above me. Cp Justin,
lrpb Since
Christ is ‘the Truth,’ lrpb in Justin may represent
a traditional version of the in Jn. Many authorities wicked one, prince of Israel.’ The interpretation is applied to
of the words heretics. 95 dead know not anything.’ See an article on
The of the Dead the The

them as
Gospel, or he did not, a t the time of writing, recognise the
1803
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
(7)Reserving the historical question for special treat - he puts and answers negatively the shall
I say? I say] save me from’this hour? By this act,
ment (see it may be said here that : in spite he virtually fulfills tde Law of Sacrifice, or the Law of the
of Martha’s inferential statement in 1 1 3 9 Harvest, which he has (1224) just enunciated.
the words of Jesus at the tomb ad ‘the prince of this world is, in Jewish Tradition,
Father, I thank thee that thou heardest the prince of the ‘seventy’ nations of the Gentiles, there is
point in the words that follow the introduction of the
me,’ imply that the hearing’ was already past, and the ‘Greeks : Now is the judgment of this world, now shall
life of Lazarus was in effect already granted to his prayers. the of he out ; and I, if I he lifted up,
W e must, however, suppose that the narrative- though will draw unto me. But as with this
second manifestation of light comes (1236) a second and final
possibly based on one or more of Christ’s actual eclipse
is mainly allegorical. The great negative reason is the The unstable or ‘multitude’ of the Jews is now
silence of the Synoptists about Christ’s greatest miracle, mentioned for the last time, quitting the stage as the devout
which was, according to the chief cause of both Gentile world enters; and its last words are (1234): ‘Who is
this Son of man?‘
( a ) the applause that greeted his entry into Jerusalem, The Deuteronomy. -The public doctrine of Jesus
and (6) the resolution of the priests to slay
ends when he ‘cries aloud’ for the third
The positive reasons are : (I) Jn., adopting Philonian tradi -
tions of style and expression, and writing on the lines of the OT, time (see above, saying that his
might naturally subordinate the literal to the synibolical. For word will the world and that
Philo calls creation of Eve from Adam’s rib (1 70) his word is the word of the Father.
mythical If such was view, he might well W e are now transported to a higher sphere, to the
think himself justified composing a single symbolical story
that might sum up a hundred floating traditions about Christ’s inner teaching of Christ, the revision and summary of
revivifying acts in such a form as to point to him as the Consoler his doctrine, the giving of the One commandment, the
of Israel and the Resurrection and the Life of the world. promise of the Paraclete, and the prayer to the Father.
The of Lazarus suggests symbolism. Another form of It is a Deuteronomy, full of mystical allusions in which a
it is who is, in Philo (1 the type of a being numerical symbolism-sometimes veiled, sometimes manifest, as
and (indeed) a corpse,’ but ‘held together and in the seven times repeated refrain ‘These things have I spoken
into by the rovidence of God.’ (3) unto you’-is prevalent throughout. As Abraham (Gen. 184)
Lk. and Jn. alone mention Martha sister Mary. They washed the feet of the Three Persons and gave them food, so
appear to differ in their views of the sisters; possibly they now the Son or Messiah (Schottg. 2 repays the to
differ as to the brother Some early writers took Abraham’s The Talmudists, in the spirit of
to he a real person ; and it is easy to see that traditions the prophets, describe (Schottg. 2 the ‘mansions
about the Lazarus of Lk. may have prepared the way for the habitations’ of God as coming to man and Philo speaks of the
Lazarus of Jn. ‘Jesus it might he said raised many from the Divine word and Powers 249 ‘making .their home in,’
dead. hut concerning Lazarus by he said (Lk. : and ‘sharing their with the devout soul, and of (i. 643)
If h e y believe not Moses and the neither will they God himself as in souls of the perfectly purified;
believe though one rise from the dead.”’ The next step would So teaches that Father and the Son will ‘make
he to say that this prediction was fulfilled : Lazarus was raised their the heart of the As Philo, agreeing
from the dead; yet the Jews did not with the Talmudists warns us that (1 457) ‘place does
(8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice.-We pass to not mean a region’filled with matter, hut God himself, the
refuge of the Universe, so by his context, teaches us that
the beginning of the week before the Passover. the ‘place which Jesus will ‘prepare’ for his
The anointing of Christ (12 is a kind of preparation of the disciples is a home in the bosom of the Father.
lamb for the sacrifice, and the coming of the ‘Greeks’ to the All these allusive iterations of ancient traditions, and
New Temple is hailed by Jesus as a sign
60. that ) ‘the hour’ of ‘glory’ has ar- all the lines of various doctrine, converge towards
rived. Voice from heaven, which the Christ in his threefold character of ( 1 4 6 ) ‘the way, the
Synoptists place a t the Baptism (where truth, and the life.’
it), and also a t the Transfiguration, mentioned
alone in this as ratifying the act of Jesus First, in the doctrine of the Way the disciples are taught to
ray in his name- a clause Then the
’Truth,’ or the ‘ Spirit of Truth introduced before becomes
coffin,’ ‘the dead man sat (3) ‘he began to speak the predominant element, the threefold
Jesus ‘gave him to his mother. Similar details are found in of the The two sections of the Way (or Son) and the
K. and I K. which describe miracles of Truth (or Spirit) terminate with a prediction of victory because
revivification performed and Elijah. the Father is with the Son; so the latter has, in effect,
Those who regard the speeches in Acts as historical would already (1633) ‘conquered the world. Last comes the doctrine
also have to explain how Paul, in mentioning the Resurrection of the Father himself (the Life), called ‘Father,’
omits the raising of any dead people by Christ and ‘holy Father,’ and finally 25) ‘just or Father.
more, how Peter (10 when emphasising his acts Here ‘my name’ ceases and ‘t hy is Finally
makes no mention of -with repeated references to the Church as being 6 7 IO,
This has never been explained. Some have suggested that etc.) ‘that which’or ‘those whom’ the Father hath
the Synoptists kept silence to screen Lazarus. But how could the Son- the Last Words terminate in an outpouring of the Son’s
they hope to ‘screen’ one who was known to all Jerusalem, not devotion to the Father,’ wherein his ‘name’ is, in
to speak of the multitude of pilgrims? effect revealed as ‘love : I have made known unto them
3 As regards the different delineations of the sisters see $44 . thy and will make it known, that the wherewith
I n Lk. Martha comes first as entertaining appar- thou in them, then:.
ently (or certainly, see v. 1.) her house; then Mary is men-
tioned hut not a t all. (11 I ) mentions in order
Mary, Martha. I n Mary is the anointing was present. Those who heard anything not hear the true
is narrated) ‘she who anointed the Lord,’ which implies knowledge thing. They heard ‘thunder’ or angel. See 2
of only one anointer. But Lk. 37) the only woman that for the decline of the authority of the Bath-Kol.
anoints the Lord is ‘a sinner. in Lk. the anointing is Cp Lk. ‘ I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from
in the of the Pharisee ; in in the house of heaven.’ uttered the return of the Seventv.’
‘Lazarus. mention (1623) of a Lazarus in connection
with the life after death ‘Abraham’s suggests that 14 26 15 24 (15 is obviously to be excluded).
there is some confusion of tradition latent under these differences The Paraclete or ‘friend called in to help,’ is connected by
and similarities in Lk. and Jn. the name Lazarus, see Philo sometimes with the Elenchos, or Convicting
above and cp Power, sometimes (ii. 227) with the high priest entering
4 2 4 (see Grabe’s note), De 7 and God‘s presence to represent the Cosmos, but perhaps more often
the Fathers generally, regard the story as history. is with the Spirit of the ideal Cosmos (the name Logos being given
placed by 8 7 in the same category as to the High Priest, see Sometimes 227) the Priest
those who took this view, no distinguished the appears as interceding with the Father of Cosmos hut
Lazarus of Lk. from the. Lazarus of calling to his aid the Son of the Father. Philo does
5 A literal interpretation of the narrative is accompanied by himself to one form of ex The Elenchos is called
many minor difficulties, such as the question why Jesus, after 247) Paraclete (i. god‘s own Logos ; (i. the ideal
he had been informed of the of Lazarus, remained Man or Man to Truth
beyond Jordan (116) ‘two days. From this and from 11 17 The ’whole of last discourse shows Philonian ;
Lightfoot infers (BE178) ‘ a journey which occupies three but (as usual), whereas Philo regards the intellect, Jn. regards
days,’ Westcott (on 116) ‘The journey would occupy about the heart- aconseauenceofthe belief of the latter in the incarnate
a day.’ There no solid basis for either conclusion. A full Logos.
discussion of the subject would show the mystical meaning 5 in Jn. and I Jn. 2 I, of having the
underlying these and other details. narrow legal meaning implied in the Synoptists Mt. Lk. 1 6
Jn. takes pains to show that the Voice was not, in Mk. 17, ‘just’ in the Platonic sense, and is
popular and modern sense of the term, ‘objective.’ A ‘multitude of the of God and Christ.
1805 1806
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
The Passion (see above, can be as veil (Heh. 10 it would be natural to describe the
found here for only one or two points, not only peculiar piercing of his as ‘rending of the veil.’ It is said
(Joel’s that the Jews believed the veil of the
to Jn. but to his purpose. They Temple to have been literally rent, shortly before the capture of
are connected with Christ’s last utterances the City. This may have helped to literalise the veil-tradition.
on the Cross, and with what followed them. Christians would say to Jews you speak of, did not
I. The words Eli, Eli, etc. recorded by Mk. and happen in the siege, or at least did not happen only then ; the
veil was rent when Lord was by you.’ Also,
are said to have been misunderstood by bystanders against the Synoptists, there is this consideration, that the
at the time. Lk. omits them, and even Mk. and Mt. ‘rending of the veil if it had occurred would probably have
are at variance the In the corresponding been kept a the priests (who would know of it)
and,’ if it was ever revealed by any of them, would probably
passage Jn. has simply I thirst.’ revealed by zealous converts apt to make. exaggerations and find
Of course the first impulse is to take this, as the bystanders coincidences.
took it in a purely literal meaning and to say that it has no
Mk. and Mt. in the Fourth Gospel 4. The piercing of Christ’s side us to
words ‘ bread water ‘food ‘eat drink feed,’ and ‘ thirst central thought of the Fonrth Gospel and the Epistle,
are hardly used in literal when the namely, the love of God revealed in the Blood of Christ
bring him food he replies that (434) hi‘s is to do the Paschal Lamb.
the will of the Father and accomplish his work. This suggests
that in Christ’s last utterance the same spiritual standard must T he E istle to the Hebrews recognises that old
maintained, so that, in effect, it was the expression of a way to was through (Lev. 146) ‘blood ‘water scarlet
‘thirst’ for that final acconiplishment of God’s wool,’ and ‘hyssop,’ but asserts that the way (Heb. 10
him to say ‘it is finished,’ and then to down the the blood of Jesus.’ The Epistle of Barnabas
barrier of the flesh and to enter into unfettered communion with (11 however, will not give up the old Levitical elements : i t
the Father (cp even adds the Levitical ‘wood which it discerns in Cross
and though not difficulty, it brings in
What Mk. and express in the form of (apparent) notion of the Cross as a ‘tree,
complaint, Lk. entirely omits (perhaps because which flows the purifying stream of baptism. I n the
of its difficulty), Jn. ,appears to express in the form of ospels, the ‘scarlet cloak’ represents the ‘scarlet wool,’ and
the highest spiritual aspiration. Not that he excludes the cross the wood ; hut the blood that came from the mere
piercing of the hands, or perhaps the hands and might
the .physical meaning, but (as always throughout the well seem insufficient to express the purifying blood of
Gospel) he includes a spiritual meaning-that the Son ; and there was nothing at all to’ indicate the water.
of God, who is in the bosom of the Father,’endured An early tradition inserted in Lk. (2244) endeavoured to supply
the of sprinkling’ by relating how ‘drops as of blood
for our sakes to feel, for a brief space, as if, i n a certain streamed from Jesus in his agony; hut still there was no
sense, he were not there, ‘so that he ‘thirsted’ for the mention of water. Yet not only did the Levitical requirements
presence of God. mention ‘running water hut Zech. 131 predicted the opening
2. The spontaneousness of Christ’s death was not
of a fountain against and uncleanness for I t is in
the of Christ’s side that a revelation of the
clearly expressed by the two earliest
inserts, as uttered by Jesus, the first half of the
that, to this day, terminates a pious Jew’s confession on .
(2) the human soul
presented the blood human body, repre-
his death-bed (Ps. 31 5). Yet even this was liable to the sented
Jewish objection that it implied, as utterer,’ not a Physically, that these details should have been seen the
Redeemer, but’one need of redemption. No, such eye of a disciple kept probably at some distance from the cross
objection applied to the tradition preserved by I Pet. a crowd of hostile spectators and soldiers, must he, if not
impossible at least disputable. But, whatever facts
2 23 perhaps gave himself up as a sacrifice’ ; may have been seen, the essence of the narrative is a spiritual
cp Gal. 220 Eph. This word Jn. adopts. But he fact. A revelation is vouchsafed to the beloved disciple. His
represents Jesus not as saying this, as doing it : eyes are opened to discern the Fountain of It may have
his spirit.’ See above, I n the Synoptists, the feet, too, are pierced, but not in Jn.
3. The rending of the is omitted by partly and Pseudo-Peter.
perhaps because, in his view ( I ) Christ’s body is the
’Temple, and the veil is flesh, so that the piercing
of his side by the soldier’s true tradition, omitting the word ‘blood,’ seeing in it a fulfil-
and essential ‘rending of the veil,’ but partly because ment of Ps. 22 14 ‘ poured ont like water.
( 2) Jn. may have considered the Synoptic tradition This symbolism seems to be in accordance with
erroneous. describing ‘ashes and water’ as origin of genera-
tion ; and purification of the body
here explains many difficulties. Death under with water as preparatory the purification of the soul with
crucifixion did not generally ensue till after two or three ; blood. But Jn. may be also alluding to the ‘mixed cup’ of the
Mk. mentions ‘surprise’ (omitted at Eucharist, which contained wine mixed with water. Irenaeus
the speedy death of Jesus. Unbelievers, explaining says that (5 the Ebionites (who denied Christ’s nature
resurrection as a might ‘Pilate well be sur - used water alone in the Eucharist) ‘not receiving the
prised,” for death could not happen so soon. steps in to combination of God and man into their rejected the mix-
say that it did happen, and to spiritualise the circumstances. ing of the heavenly wine,‘ and did not God into
The (see CROSS, 6), was performed, he says, on mingling (non recipientes Denm ad commistionem :
the twocriminals ; this would have violated in other words he declares their rejection of the divine natnre in
the ordinance about the Paschal Lamb [Ex. was averted Christ to he analogous to their rejection of the wine in the
from Jesus hy his death, and the death was attested hy the Eucharist. According to this view, the wine in the Eucharist,
piercing of his side ; and thus two Scriptures were fulfilled. and the blood of Christ on the cross, would represent Christ’s
It is more probable that the Synoptic account of ‘the rending nature. But whatever reference Jn. may have had to
of the veil should have sprung from a misunderstanding of the Ebionitism, or to a rising Docetism that rejected Christ’s human
‘piercing of the side’ than vice versa. In the earliest days of nature, it seems probable that his main object is to hear witness
the Church, when it became customary to speak of Christ’s flesh for the to Christ’s human nature as completely
real-in and soul well as spirit. Applied to the
Mk. supposes to be addressed by the man with Eucharist, the Johannine view would recognise the in the
the vinegar to the bystanders, supposes to he the soul spirit in the water and blood.
addressed the bystanders to the man. See ELI, Aramaic 4 Cp Ps. 369 : With thee is the of in thy
(or in D Hebrew) is confused in all the MSS. Pseudo-Peter light shall we see light’-a passage closely connected with
interpret; the, words ‘ My Power, my Power, why thou key-passage in the Gospel (14): ‘The was of
forsaken me? Justin (Tryph. 125) translates and cp Rev. : will give unto that is athirst of the
Ev. X. 8494’ Robinson on fountain of Also cp Rev. :
the word in the by and of water of life ... proceeding out of the throne of God and
the Lamb.’ I t was a saying, older Fourth Gospel, that
E
word in (Barn. The kingdom Jesus is on the tree’ (or Cross,
(where M S S might have seems to : cp Justin, I 41, 73, ‘The Lord hath
have been, in the corrected edition used reigned from the tree’). So, in Jn., the Cross-heing the place
Mt. retained (in the form hut with Christ is up’ and where God is
(from as object. This expresses the throne of God. In Barn. 11 as in Rev. 222 (imitating the
somewhat more of voluntariness. Lk. (23 46) goes farther. astoral picture of Ezek. 477 the Cross is also the tree
Retaining in the sense of ‘breathing his last,’ he of life whose leaves will heal the nations, and it is planted
adds an expiession of trust on the part of Jesus. by side ofthe river of living water. But there were varieties
1807 1808
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
been given to some one to see literally the piercing of the side as possible, fact from not-fact. No criticism, however.
and to hand down to the church of Ephesus a historical fact
obscured in previous traditions. But the spiritual meaning of ought to prevent us from recognising
the act is not to be regarded or from the materialistic its historicalvalue in correcting
or historical The whole of the context is spiritual sions derived from the Synoptic Gospels, and the epic
thought and mystically symbolical in expression. First power and dramatic irony which brings on the
there is threefold mention of ‘ accomplishment. Then as
there were ‘signs’ wrought by Christ during his so stage the characters and classes whereby the will of God is
now there are, perhaps, seven accomplishments of OT being continuously fulfilled, so that we ourselves
type or that accompany, or follow, his In learning from Pilate to ‘behold the man,’ and discern-
the last of these, the striking of all (prospective as well as
retrospective backward to prophecy hut also forward ing with Caiaphas that ‘ i t is expedient that one man
to the of the Gentiles, to’ the christianising of the should die and not that the whole people should
Roman Empire, and to the metamorphosis of blind ersecution perish.’ It often raises us above details of which the
into awe-struck adoration), the soldiers of ‘this coming certitude will probably never be into a
to break the bones’ of the Paschal Lamb, are not only diverted
from their purpose, but as it were forced to ‘look on him whom region where we apprehend the nature and existence of
they pierced. a Word of Life, essentially the same in heaven and on
Thus, amid mysticism and as it began, earth, human yet divine, the incarnation of the concord
ends the Johannine life of Christ. Viewed as history, it of the spiritual Yet, while no Gospel
must be dispassionately analysed so as to separate, as far so high, none stands more firmly, more pi below.
EVIDENCE.
The Exterhal Evidence as to the authorship and first half of the second century, wrote five books of
the Gospels consists of, I. Statements, of the Lord’s Logia.’
Quotations. ( a ) His was probably a ‘setting forth’
of the Logia, though it might include interpretation
I. STATEMENTS. as By ‘Logia (oracles),’ he
meant the Words also In-
Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied
cluding the Acts) of Christ as being
in the N T Epistles, nor in that of. Cleniens
oracularly’ applicable to the
nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the
of man. This title was already in use to denote,
i. THE T H I RD implies ( a ) that
their oracular aspect, the Scriptures of the OT, and
‘many’ Gospels were current, and perhaps that
here transfers it to what he regards as the
their diversity was t o obscure oracles of
‘the certainty concerning the
things wherein ’ the Christian catechu- Eus. iii. 39 I
men was instructed : that whereas the apostles (al.
delivered , taught them Schwegl.
Lightfoot proves that Eusebius, not
‘many’ ‘drew up a e ., wrote. This uses to mean ‘inter re
points to a time when the apostles had passed away, in L X X and means
leaving the open to the historians. ‘interpret ). In Judg. 7 (AL setting
qualification not that he had consulted an apostle forth is ‘interpretation. Heretics
are called by (Pref. I, and i. 3 6) bad setters (or
and obtained his but that he had (13 ) ‘traced of things well they
the course of all things accurately from the first.’ The sometimes= “forge “make false entries the
particular defects implied in existing ‘ narratives besides perverting’
For example, the Valentinians are said to I)
that they were not accurate,’ and not chronological transgress the order and connection of the Scriptures,’ ‘trans -
order. posing and and making anything out
Papias, a bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis in the of anything As instance, they
asserted that the anguish of Sophia was indicated the words
‘And what I shall say I know not,’ which Irenxus
of tradition, and Barnabas himself quotes a saying that sug- regarded as a heretical or ‘exposition,’ of Jn.
gested the thought of the as a Vine front which the Similarly (Polyc. Phil. 7 ) does not refer to
juice, or blood, is dropping : 12) ‘When a tree bow (Lightf. ad ‘perverse interpretations,’ but to
down and rise and when blood shall dropfrom a tricks ‘artful treatment,’ in ‘setting as well as
This view is developed in the later Johannine vision.
water and the blood the Cross, or rather from Christ The of oracles in Lucian deal with both
on the Cross. See Rev. 22 17. (‘setting forth‘), and (‘solution’) : the panto-
I t may be objected that the author lays stress upon ‘seeing’ mime makes his meaning so clear as to need ii.
(19 35 : H e that hath seen hath borne witness ’). The very stress ‘no one to set it forth words.‘ Aristotles
however, indicates that seeing’. hasaspiritnal signification, as ad Alex. I) is perhaps a short of
(149) ‘ H e that seen me hath seen the ‘we facts, as compared a long narrative. is
his glory ; and elsewhere Jn. Space does not allow called by ’the setter forth of the will of
the exposition of the Philonian and Johannine uses of expres- Zeus,’ not because he but because he the
sions relating to sight and vision, which would demonstrate this Oracles Incourseof time, however, both among
conclusion. But it may be assumed that, whenever and Greeks, no new ‘oracles’ were forthcom-
senses aye used are always used ing. Then the exegetes had to confine himself to explaining the
in a Handling’ in I Jn. 1I old oracles ; and so by degrees and assumed
no exception to this invariable rule; see above (on the their modern prevailed in the days of
‘handling in Ignatius), 29. Eusebius. This explains why the Alexandrine scribe altered
(I) The the ‘bone not into in 7
(5) the ‘looking’ on him whom they pierced,’ are all I t cannot he denied that a collection of the Lord‘s Logia
definitely mentioned in the OT, and (6) the ‘delivering of the might contain nothing but his words, like the Oxyrhynchus
spirit’ may be regarded a fulfilment of 31 5 ; but there is papyrus: I t is tnie that Philo applies the term Logion even
no verbal allusion either to Zech. or to Ps. 2214. We to a statement in the Pentateuch Phi. 1538
cannot therefore assert that ‘seven’ is here in the author’s 10 9 ; Phi. quoting Gen.
mind. the structure of the whole Gospel makes it probable. in the passage where (2163 he speaks of ‘all things
3 And he that hath seen hath written in the hooks‘ as ‘oracles he proceeds
and witness is true and he knoweth that to say that they were oracularly delivered through Moses, and
he saith true. On the assumption (so Westcott and Alford) that then divides them into three according as they are uttered
is the a repeated the sentence ( I ) in the person of God, by question and answer, (3) in the
isstrangely tautological. But may not Jn. intend to mean person of Moses, under and control from God. This
Christ? The passage is the keynote to the, Epistle, and in the separates them, it would seem, from historical statements made
Epistle (see Westc. on I Jn. 26) is always used by the historians themselves, in the books of Kings, Chronicles,
(cp especially I Jn. 417). I t characteristic of Esther, etc. In the Words
Jn. that he should use the so that a superficial reader of the Lord, regarded either as to
should render it in one way and a spiritual reader another. Dt.339 Ps.11967 [sing.] or as sure promises of
I n any case, the threefold form of the attestation appears deliverance Ps. 12 7 1831 10519 In N T the
deliberately adapted to the context describing the Three living oracles (Acts 38) are those delivered from Mount Sinai,
Witnesses. apparently referred to in Rom. 3 and in the only two other
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Papias’ and i s as follows: (Eus.
iii. 39
r oil (V.
roil yip
roil
instances (Heb. 5 I Pet. 4 it means the moral precepts, or
Law, of Christ. In the only two instances given in Otto’s index
t o Justin it means (I 32) OT ‘prophecy 17-18)
prophetid denunciation of woe (where the Logia against I n the light of what follows-about the between ( I )
the Pharisees are coupled with the prophetic Logia of OT). Peter, who ‘adapted his discourses to the needs of the occasion,
Eusebins perhaps expresses his view of the meaning of Logia (as making no classified collection of the Lord‘s Logia,’ and
when 24 Matthew, who ‘compiled the Logia-he seems to mean that
Matthew and John were the only apostles that left memorials Peter neither confined himself to the Logia, nor attempted to
of the Lord‘s a word that in sing. sometimes meant group or classify them (as Matthew in the Sermon on the
‘life’ (Epict. but in ‘discourses’ (Epict. 24 Mount), but taught all that related to Christ’s life, ‘whether
etc.). Although the term Logia might include actions, without distinguishing between his words
circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether Papias would and his deeds.
have given the name, for example, to Mk. ‘And King H e ‘committed no misfake’). This
Herod heard it, for his name had become ; and he said must be the meaning, as the verb is invariably so used in N T
John the Baptist is risen from the dead etc. We must there! and almost alwpys (if not always) in OT. Cp especially Acts
fore he content to be uncertain how far, all, Papias embodied 25 Cor. 7 thou not commit a
history in his ‘setting forth’ of the Logia, as distinct from I Cor. 36. Lucian
‘interpretations’ and traditions which he may have added to ed. Holden,
them Xen. Cyr. 140. Papias is defending Mark against the very
Papias calls them rather than for obvious natural objection that he did not do the apostle justice in writing
is from in that the down oral and casual (or at all events e x tempore,
former pften means ‘God whilst the latter means ‘the Lord teaching, unchanged, in a permanent book. The style that suits
(Jesus). might have meant ‘Oracles the former is often unsuitable to the latter. Lightfoot
of the O T (as in Iren. Pref. I). 163) in calling this (‘he did no wrong’) a ‘mistranslation’ of the
be clear but lengthy. being applied author of must be thinking of the sense, not of the Greek.
t o the Lords Day as from the Sabbath, was exactly the But, thus interpreted, it makes excellent sense.
fit word to distinguish the oracles of the Law of Christ from the appears to be used by Papias as an emphatic
oracles of the Law of Moses. form of (used above in the sense ‘repeat, or teach
mean ‘remembered.‘ But it may also from memory’) and to mean ‘repeat memory.‘ Cp
mean ‘mentioned.’ In the another passage, generally admitted to be from Papias, in
Papias elsewhere will be our guide here-’ I n 68 v. 33 3 ‘Asthe Elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord,
Papias uses it twice; and Lightf. (SR renders memory (Lat. where there can be
fiist then ‘relate. That the same word should little doubt, that Latin points to a Greek original
he used in two consecutive sentences to mean quite different or And a precisely parallel use occurs in
things is in itself, highly improbable. still, more when Papias the description given by himself of the way in which
might used for The meaning ‘re- Polycarp, the of John and of the HE v. 20
peat ’ ‘ trach from memory,’ which is absolutely necessary in the used not only to ‘relate his intercourse with them,
secohd, is highly probable also in the first. When a convert but t o repeat front their
been taught the Logia, his business was (Heb. 5 to ‘repeat Justin goes a step takes
them to others. Hence, in 68, Papias contrasts himself, as to mean something distinct from traching. Influenced
‘learning well and teaching well’ the traditions of b y his that the were not about the
the Elders,’ with heretics who ‘ taught alien apostles the apostles, he appeals to those (I
commandnients‘ and not those of the Lord. Iren. 18 I of 33) recorded all that concerned our
the teaching their dogma of the decad Saviour Jesus Christ, have it.’ And pubsequent
with gen.). Eusebius describes the Synoptists a s passages show that he meant ‘recorded in There is
accus.), co-ordinately with Jn. as no doubt that he was in error. But his error strengthens the
It be urged that, in the LXX, ‘call to evidence that in Papias means something
mind. There is close connection, however, between ‘calling t o than ‘remember.’ I n Lucian, 2 8,
mind’ 13 3, the deliverance of the Passover) and to ‘relate exactly, or in detail, some special instances’; 3
‘commemorating. The two words are the active and causative it is contrasted with ‘disorderly and
forms of the same Hebrew verb and renders both seems to mean ‘repeating what one has thought out (id. 3
(‘remember’ and ‘make by the Greek it describes one who not only knew the exact facts but also
and in Ps. I Macc. 12 speaks of ‘remember-. ‘repeated from memory (or? registered in memory) the exact
friends in prayers, sacrifices, etc. (cp and words
Macc. 9 (Tisch.), ‘I would have your good So 8
will,’ means, ‘ I would have acknowledged or recorded it introducing one of the sculptor’s sayings.
some act.‘ Similarly, in NT, 2 IO, ‘ the poor As, therefore, Irenaeus describes Polycarp, one of John’s dis-
means. ‘remember them in act. So Heb. 137. ciples, as ‘repeatinq exactly from memory ‘John’s doctrine abcut
them had the rule over yon, which spake‘unto you the (Eus. 206) ‘the mighty works and
word of God,’ would, itself, imply what actually follows, of the Lord, so Papias appears to be describing
their faith.’ So the Ephesians are bidden to (Acts 20 Mark, Peter’s ‘interpreter,’ first as ‘repeating from memory
31 35) ‘call to mind’ Paul’s life among them, and also words and then as exactly from memory
of the Lord Jesus.’ Col. 418, my bonds’ (following the doctrine of Peter about Christ’s discourses
43, us God open unto a door for or actions, and as committing to writing what he
the word, to speak the mystery of Christ for which I am (Mark) had thus ‘repeated.
i n bonds’), probably includes, in I Macc. 12 and Lightfoot translates here ‘re-
as in later Christian writers, remember my bonds (in your membered. And the word has this meaning in a few phrases
prayers).’ (For the connection between ‘praying’ and ‘re- such as ‘bear a grudge against,’ etc. ( I ) there is no notion
membering ’ see I Tbess. 13.) I n Mt. 16 g, is here of ‘grudge’; the usage, and the context,
probably corruption of Mk. So favour the meaning ‘recount (4) besides the above-mentioned
far, in NT, with this exception, takes the gen. or : but passage from Irenreus, and that from Justin (meaning
in I Thess. (best taken apparently ‘record at all events something more than
the
.
... is. ‘remind one another of’ ‘remember’), also (6) Justin’s frequent appeal to
implying mention’), Tim. 2 8 as ‘written records.’ These considerations, together
following 2 the things thou with the kindred use of above mentioned, are con-
commit to faithful men, who will be able to teach others), clusive in favour of the decision here means
and preceding 2 1 4 these in ‘recount‘ or ‘repeat from memory. There is a considerable
almost certainly means ‘make mention of, or teach, Jesus probability that the word was in regular use to denote the
Christ.’ We see, therefore, in the Pauline Epistles, a com- Memoirs or Anecdotes the apostles, first ‘repeated’ by
mencement of the later tendency to pass from the active to the their immediateinterpreters or pupils then committed to writing
causative meaning of the Hebrew some of them the form of Gospels ; and lastly accepted
from mere ‘remembering to some Justin as Memoirs written by the apostles Christ. Yet
practical way ,in preaching. he seems to have retained the old title. As Xenophon’s
The ambiguity of the word has probably caused Clem. Alex. mean Memoirs
(following, but misunderstanding and modifying, Papias) would naturally mean ‘Memoirs
describe Mark as (Eus. 146) ‘remembering about the apostles,’ and about Christ’s teaching through them.
Peter’s words. Iren. 3 3 roil appears to retain an old title but to give it a wrong
must mean ‘Paul mention of
117 seems to mean ‘a commemoration Perhaps the use of was influenced by the use
made. of the Hebrew This, meaning originally ‘repeat from
This (which is a very rare construction, if it occurs at all, memory,’ came to mean ‘teach the oral Law,’ whence came the
NT) appears to differ from and word ‘Mishna the doctrine of the oral Law.
mean ‘whateveroriginated from Christ, Is with the co-ordinate for
1812
 GOSPELS GOSPELS

The order to appreciate

the negative as well as the positive value the evidence
of Papias, we must briefly consider the purpose of
Eusebius, who has preserved it.
Eusebius promises ( H E 3 3 ) to record ( I ) the
tions of ecclesiastical writers from disputed books,’
they have said about the
cal Scrip tures and uncanonical as
well

His promise to include the latter we

have reason to believe that he faithfully keeps. But
he gives no extracts from Papias about Lk. and Jn.
It may be reasonably inferred that Papias was silent .
about them. The silence have proceeded from Was Papias a hearer of John ?
either of two causes : ( I ) Jn. and Lk. may not have -Was Eusebius right in denying, or
been recognised by Papias as on an equality with Mk. in asserting, that Papias was
and Mt. though recognising them as authoritative, a hearer of John
Papias may have had nothing to say about them. Here, and in what follows, we must distinguish the statements
( d ) The silence of Papias on Lk. and of Eusehius from his inferences. The former are almost always
accurate the latter are sometimes erroneous (though by giving
latter of the alternatives just us the grounds for them he enables us to avoid Even
mentioned is highly improbable. the inferences of Eusebius are probably more trustworthy here
Papias dwells on the defect of ‘order, or arrangement than the statements of Now Eusebius rejects the
in Mk who he says never even contemplated an ‘orderly definite statement of the latter that Papias was a ‘hearer of
of Logia. Now Lk. avowed it as one of John,’ on the ground that Papias himself makes no such claim
his objects to write ‘in (chronological) order and in his preface, where he naturally, and almost inevitably, would
‘order’ differs not only from that of Mt. but also from that of have made it, if he could. H e gives us the preface to speak for
It is hard to believe, then, that would ‘have nothing itself. H e adds facts and extracts from the work of Papias,
ahout Lk., if he recognised Lk. Again, as regards Jn., the whole of which was apparently before him. These convey
would not Papias have naturally added what the Muratorian no indication that Papias ‘heard‘ John. That
Fragment says-that this want of order was corrected by Jn. fluenced by the natural tendency of early Christian contro-
who wrote order o r d i n e m ) ‘ ? The Muratorian Frag - versialists to exaggerate the continuity of Christian tradition,
ment, Clement of Alexandria, and the anonymous tradition pre- and by the fact that Papias lived in Polycarp’s time and reported
served Eusehius 24 all have somethi ng said- hastily declared Papias to be ‘a hearer of
to tell us ahout the original authorship of the ‘spiritual John, , is more probable than that Eusehius, subsequently
Gospel of John the disciple of the Lord; and what they say reviewing all the evidence, was mistaken in denying it.
testifies to the interest taken in its origin those ecclesiastical The probable conclusion is that Papias was not a
writers who were among the first to recognise it as hearer of John.‘
Is it likely that if he acknowledged it to be the work
of the last of the apostles, knew it t ha t he and 3. Was Papias ‘ a hearer of Aristion and of
worth John the elder’ ? And were they disciples of the
These considerations point to the conclusion that Lk. Lord ?
and Jn. were not recognised by Papias as on a level Eusehius affirms that Papias did hear them, and he gives
with Mk. and his reasons thus : H e (Papias) confesses that he has
If Papias did not recognise Lk. and Jn. as authorita- received the words of the apostles on the
tive, it would likely that probably one hand from those who had followed
Aristion and them ; of Aristion
HE 24 it had been for some time taught and of the Elder John he says he was him-
orally, and though traditions from it may have been in self a hearer.’ The context indicates that
use in Proconsular Asia--was not yet circulated in Eusebius is drawing this inference merely from the ‘distinc-
tion” that Papias makes between the past and the present,-
writing, or, if circulated, not yet acknowledged as apos- ‘ What Andrew, etc., and the things that
tolic, when Papias wrote his Consequently r e ) Aristion and the Elder John say though
the date of the Exposition becomes of great importance. the two last were still living so that Papias had probably
The Date of Papias’s Exposition.-There is no evi- consulted them . and the habitual conscientiousness
leads him perhaps the slightness of his grounds) to
dence of importance bearing on it beyond Eus. HE qualify his inference in the following sentence-‘At events
making mention them by name in his
treatise he sets down their traditions. H e does not add ‘and
Papias ’states that he received them from their own lips,’ and
. he appears to have no evidence beyond what he himself puts
before us. But the of tense from ‘said’ to ‘say’ is
62
mere variety? Or as indicating a shorter statement? or as
plyinganydoubt? 15 Origen, 2 13 ;
denote distinctions of historical certainty (see below, 80). and 898 ; and Eus. etc. It is equi-
Lightfoot, who assumes that Papias must have said some- valent to Papias’s
thing about thinks it probable that the Probably ‘taught from memory,’ or ‘repeated.’ See note
torian writer borrowed from Papias ‘his contrast between above, 65, n.
secondary evidence of Mk. and the primary evidence of Jn. See above, 65 n. Papias (I) forth the
But, in that case, how is it that was to Logia, ‘interpreted then,, and (3) arranged
w h a t e v e r was s a i d by ecclesiastical about along with them traditions.
books-whilst what was said bv later writers. 4 These bracketed words are perhaps to be omitted. See
omits what was said by the of all? (3) below.
This might be regarded as almost certain hut for one con- he says that Luke 4 6 ) ‘diligently followed
sideration. Eusehius has a contempt for Papias. Forced by ...
. . .. . the
.... Paul).’ but shows the source of
his antiquity to devote a great deal of space him, he does it his error 13, H e also
with terms of disparagement, and (iii. 39 (cp 4 6 with 36 I) takes (the word)
himself to what is indispensable Want of space, to mean (the Word). These are such errors as
and contempt for his author, may have induced him to break the the most honest impartial historian might make.
promise he made just before, and to omit what Papias may have This could be proved a collection of Irenaeus‘s mistakes.
said about Lk. and Jn. reserving it till he came to later ecclesi- And a comparison of the remarks m a d e Eusehius
astical writers who from Papias. This is highly about other writers with silence
improbable. Eusehius is a most careful and conscientious writer. quoting would indicate that, although he would by no
Though, for example, on one occasion he gives in his own words means call the latter (as he calls Papias) ‘a man of very little
understanding,’ he nevertheless thinks less highly of his power
I j) has quoted this story, and , ..
a tradition about Mk. at an early period in his history, and adds
Papias attests
it,’ this does not prevent him from giving the testimony of Papias
of weighing evidence than of his (v. 20 3) orthodoxy and high
standard of carefulness in copying MSS.
in full, in its chronological order. 7 Eus. 39 5 :
1813 1814
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
(Lightf. ‘probably for the sake of variety so “Most people,’ says Papias, took pleasure in
that .nothing can be inferred from it ; and the mere that
Papias ‘sets, down their traditions’ and ‘mentions their names”
.by no means proves that he obtained his information from
from ‘those who had followed them.’
We conclnde that (u)Papias is not to have
been, and that (so far,as we can judge from Eusebius’s the books he may have, included treatises,
production, of inadequate, and omission of adequate, that of Basilides ‘but hot exclude
evidence) he probably was not, a hearer of Aristion Christian apocrypha and disputed books, and various
and John the Elder.. . ,
versions of books.
3. Again, the disciples, the Lord’ can For example, though had made of the
Logia, it was variously ‘interpreted ; and this affords a very good
.hardly have followed ‘Aristion, etc.,’ in the used reason for the desire of Papias to ascertain ‘what Matthew said,’
by Eusebius., For he regards Arktion a5 living ,at the in order to throw light on what Matthew or was supposed
time when Papias wrote., But that ‘disciples of the have written. Again the E istle of James
Lord’ should be living when Papias ‘was his Eusebius 25) not as as ‘disputed,’ was probably
the days of Papias and we can understand that its
investigations (Lightfoot; 150 n. ) would involve a existence may well have caused him to add his name to thq
chronological difficulty. apostolic list: Between ‘Matthew’ and ‘.James’ comes ‘John
Eusehius would ‘probably have felt, in whose name a gospel perhaps ‘his behalf
apparently Papias as, born .too late to have. been a Ephesus his last years) may been recently
‘hearer of Moreover if Papias was hearer of an y as a tradition and this ‘would not only for
‘disciple of the Lord this contradict the spirit of the inclusion of but also for its position between
inference that’ Papias drew his ‘information about the that of James and Matthew. Apocryphal works were, early
apostles merely from their ‘pupils.’ Aristion the Elder current names (Eus. 25) ‘Andrew, Peter (whom
John, if ‘disciples of the Lord,’ could not be called ‘pupils’ of Papias himself mentions as the originator of Mk.), and Thomas
the apostles.. This internal evidence’ that Eusebius did not as, Matthias). The inclusion of Philip (whose
find the words ‘disciples etc.’ after ‘Aristion etc.’ is Eusebius does mention) may be explained
by (I) their absence version, the by his having in Hierapolis, where Papias was
of in several Greek MSS, and of by Rufinns, As regards Aristion, Ensebins 39 us that Papias
the extreme harshness of ‘disciples of the Lord, inserted some of ‘accounts of the words of
the repetition of ‘disciples of the Lord as though they were the Lord and there is some slight
fhree and (4) ease the can be for regarding him as author of
a s an At the fact that he wrote
Elders.’-It remains to of of the Lord not found in Mk.
consider who are the Elders from whom or Mt., or else why should Eusehius
would make it desirable to ascertain what Aristion was in the
Papias obtained his information. habit of ‘saying.’, Lastly the two disputed Epistles of .John
There is no evidence to show that apostles were called ‘Elders.’ (the Second a n d Third)& by ‘the Elder,’ and may
Yet Papias’s.words- seeming to amount to this, If pupils of have been naturally to the Elder John. And Papias
the Elders came, I used to ask about the of Elders iii. 39 from the First
Andrew, Peter, a t first sight, to may on this as well as on other hare made
‘apostles’ with Elders. the of the Elder a subject of investigation.
T he truth appears to be that, in the days of Papias, the latter Thus, though may be, .probably are, other
title was given to ordained by the
of the Lord. The next of Elders was not yet causes, ‘unknown to us ,, for Papias’s selection
called ‘the but rather of lor those who had and drift of evidence,, external and
indicates, as one ,important cause, the
arising from ‘Christian literatore, and
the special importance of had been
The most probable conclusions, then, are that ( I )
Papias was not a bearer of John ( 2 and 3) whether he
was, or was not, a hearer of and the Elder John,
the two latter were not ‘disciples of the Lord’ ( 4 ) the
Elders from whom he obtained his information were
not apostles but Elders appointed by John or other
apostles and he supplemented this by information between ‘oral tradition,’ and ‘written narrative’), and (a)
(not or and .and
from their followers and successors. all imply that though the narrative had been
5. Papias’s list of the apostles.-Why does Papias related them; Papias did it them, but from
mention, as the about others who handed down and warranted its genuineness.
he made investigations, Andrew, Peter, This has an important hearing on date of Papias. The
words following on
Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew?
and whv in this order An answer is
..
Philip and his daughters
most naturally mean that
at
gested by the context in the extract quoted above was same (people).’ (They can hardly mean
‘that Papias was ‘born the time the same
Note that in the same sentence is varied with So his
Eusebius (quoted above, 66) varies with where there We are .not to infer that Papias
is hut a shade of difference in meaning. mentioned John, or any one as the author. Had he so,
Eusehius might naturally that Papias-who tells would probably have said, as he does (Eus.
that he regularly cross-examined any who could tell him ‘what v. 8 He also’ the Epistle John,
said’-would have questioned John himself had he quotations from it and likewise from
alive and accessible to questioning. Denying that he a the First of Peter. From ( I ) this and the early
‘hearer,’ he probably implies that he was too late to be one. custom ofquoting without names, we may reasonably infer that
3 See 4th 3 245. Papias. probably wrote Papias did not ‘mention’ John’s Epistle. It is shown elsewhere
‘the of the Lord ... and Aristion and John (see JOHN, EPISTLES OF ) that some so-called quotations from the
disciples. ‘Their (in .was First Epistle are probably mere quotations from floating Johan-
changed into and replaced by nine traditions.
(For the frequency of etc., confused with Why does was not bound to tell of
see Otto on. Justin, p. Prof. W. E quotations from canonical books-take up space telling us
Bacon has suggested that was corrupted into that Papias quoted from (ni. ‘the Epistle of John’?
before the time of Ensehius, This is very likely; cp 4 24 The answer is to be found partly in completion of
B but A Eusebins’s sentence and from that of Peter likewise partly
This of Elders is confirmed by the following in, the similar statement ahout 87) Irenreus. It IS simply
in passages where he is probably a quiet way of saying ‘You see Papias and Irenreus do not
(Lightf. SR quoting) the substance, if not the very words, quote from the and Third Epistles of John, nor from
of Papias, speaks of the, doctrine as that of ,(v. 5 I 3F the the Second Epistle of Peter.’ These were works’ and
Elders, the the 33 ‘the Elders who is against them the fron t
have If these are the words of Papias, the silence.
that he uses ‘Elders’ there to mean 3 For example, he places Andrew first. Cp with this the
makes it probable that it in the same sense here, and leading part assigned to Andrew by the Muratorian Fragment
that they represented (see below, 78) in originating the Fourth Gospel.
1816
 by those disciples of the Lord were reported, other Gospel) Papias is silent, and we conclude that he
truly or falsely, to have left writings also. knew neither, or ranked neither with Mk. or Mt. But
6. Papias’s relation to this point, the date at which he was investigating and writing
bius affords the following indirect evidence. (about A.D.) and his quotations from I Jn
H e first Polycarpas (which was certainly written by the same hand as the
the to the bishopric Smyrna the Gospel) combine to it probable that must have
eye-witnesses and ministers of the
time flourished Papias (he, too, been known to him, at least parts, as a tradition.
relation of Hierapolis) and the world-famed W e are led to conclude that he was writing at the time
Ignatius,’ second when Jn. was attaining, but had yet attained,
in succession, to Peter in the bishopric of
Then he 4-15) describes the Epistles’of Ignatius recognition as an apostolic Gospel
and Polycarp. Next he mentions 37 I) Quadratus and the. There were also current (as Lk. tells us), ‘many
daughters as being among those who ‘occupied the narratives of Christ’s life, and (as Papias says) many
first rank in the to the apostles adding that has diffuse writings, possibly including Gnostic gospels, and
confined his mention of these such as have left
extant records of apostolic teaching. Then after so called Apostolic Acts, Revelations, and Epistles.
going back to Clement of Rome to protest spurious These appear to have prejudiced Papias against books,’
works attributed he continues I have (already). and to have him to go back as near as possible
mentioned the of Ignatius and : of Papias five, to the fountain-head. His attitude is so well described
.
hooks are extant and he deals his works
by the following words of Irenaeus that we can imagine
detail, denying t h k a “ hearer’ of the apostle‘s, which is
equivalent to denying that he was of those the first rank Papias himself using them : (Iren. v. 20 ) All these
in the succession to the apostles. ‘Some time after this, (iv. (heretics) are of much later date than the to
comes Polycarp’s to Rome and martyrdom. All
this harmonises with the supposition that Papias was so much the apostles the churches ... Those
younger than, Ignatius that he could not be who desert the teaching of the Church impugn the
reckoned in their ‘ rank of succession but that was’ knowledge of the holy Elders.’ To these
obliged to t his name theirs account of the import-
ance of his ‘ records,’ which compiled death then, or ‘holy to by
ofthe aged Polycarp. His habit’of speaking (in his Exposition) the made it his first object to go But
in the name of ‘the Elders that have seen John’ may have led we learn from Clement of Rome (ch. 44) that, as early as
to the that Papias was ‘a of 95 A. some of the Elders appointed by the
John and companion’of Polycarp.,’,
and even some of those ‘(appointed) in the next
Evidence
generation by men of note,’ had died It is
Reviewing the evidence, ‘we are led to the ,following.
improbable that John, during his last years of disability,
positive conclusions. appointed any Elders and it is reasonable to suppose
negative and
Papias was not a [bearer of John,’ that by A.D. most of the Johannine Elders would
nor a companion nor
have passed away. Hence, though Papias did his
did he any disciple of the Lord. He was not in best to obtain information from them, he was glad to
the same rank of succession as and Philip’s glean what he could from the those
daughters. Thedaughtersdwelt in Papias’snativecity and who had followed them’), his question to an Elder’s
died (Lightfoot, about A D. Papias
pupil always being, ‘What said John (or or that
records narrative handed down them but Disciple of the Lord) by the Elder (whom you
(apparently) as coming them. These facts followed ” ) was appointed?’ In particular, having
suggest for Papias’s birth a date about 85 D. When he regard to the apocryphal literature circulated in the
reached early manhood A.D. ) the last of the apostles,
names of Andrew, Peter, Thomas, to the traditions
if living, was probablyincapacitated by old age for
current in Hierapolis about Philip, and to the better
teaching. The Johannine Gospel, though preached orally
attested but literature circulated in the
at Ephesus, was not yet published. Being probably of James and John, to the great diversity of the inter-
SR of Pagan origin, and (Eus.
pretations ’ of the Logia compiled by Matthew, and to the
given to literalise Jewish metaphor, Papias may have
objections brought against Peter’s teaching as recorded
been perplexed by a comparison of Hebrew with Greek
by Mark-he made these Disciples of the Lord the
interpretations of Christian traditions. He found
special object of his investigations It of course,
current the Commandments (Eus. 3 9 3 ) ‘given from
possible, that Jn may have been as
the Lord .to the ,Faith’ but he desired to add to these
from the doctrine of the apostles, as repeated by canonical other churches it was acknowledged
the Elders whom they had appointed, and by the, supposition that the early and familiar recognition of
successors of those Elders. H e also mentions ( I ) the, an ‘interpreter’ as a natural companion of apostle. In the
(Eus. 393) ‘interpretations‘ that Papias inserted in Ex-
teaching of the apostle Peter, first repeated,‘ and then. position, he may have included his own or other Greek
written,’ by his interpreter’ Mark, including the Acts as well as explanations, of the Logia. From
well as the Words of Jesus, and making no attempt and from Ign. we see
at classifying the Lords Oracles a compilation how large a part of apostolic and presbyteric teaching would
consist of ‘interpretations’ of O T a Christian sense, and these
by the apostle Matthew, in Hebrew, of ‘the Lord’s might sometimes be ‘interpreted’ from the Hebrew. Soon,
Oracles certainly including Christ’s discourses and however, the word would he confined to ‘
probably giving some account of Christ’s life. But this, explaining, obscurities in the Greek Logia. For the thus
used, see Orig. 58, and quotations from Irenaeus given
instead of being circulated in Greek (as Peter’s teaching above n.
had been) by one authoritative interpreter,’ had received The hesitation, of to accept Jn. may have been all
many About Lk. or Jn. (or any the greater because (if we accept the theory that
his fifth book is quoting Papias in support of he
Polycarp and Ignatius have phrases that suggest the appears to have accepted the Apocalypse as John’s on
authority of antiquity. Papias has none. Several MSS, very authority of (Iren. v. 301) ‘those who saw John face to face,
naturally, interpolate a compliment to Papias’s learning. and to have to John in support of
If we may judge from the order of the extracts, Papias very materialistic views of the Millennium. A historian who
This i s slightly confirmed by the fact believed (with that the Apocalypse was written the
that in the former extract Papias uses the longer title aged apostle about 96 A .D . might well hesitate t o receive a work
in the latter, the shorter natural abbreviation published, as coming from the same pen, a few years afterwards,
when one repeats a title a second time. yet differing from the former in language so completely as almost
3 The ‘interpreter’ on and to he in another dialect, also absolutely differing from Mk.
on I Cor. 1427) was the recognised attendant of the reader and and from the ‘interpreters of Mt.’ in its representation of the
teacher the Jewish schools. When a Jewish apostle the Words of the Lord.
author of the Apocalypse which is composed most barbarous The teaching (Iren. the vines each with
Greek) preached, or t o Greek congregations, an ‘inter - branches, ascribed to the Lord by the elders who saw John
preter’ may often have been in request. W e have seen that according helps us to understand how even Papias
Mark was called the ‘interpreter’ of Peter. It was an early Ens.) might feel unable t o believe that
belief 38) that Luke or Clement of Rome ‘interpreted’ the expositor of this teaching was the author of the Fourth
the Epistle to the Hebrews from Paul’s Hebrew into Greek-a Gospel.
59 1817 1818
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
in Hierapolis but, so far as Papias guides us, the Holy Spirit as a hovered on him has written
led to the conclusion that, in A . D . , Lk. a n d his apostles (the apostles I mean), of this our Christ
if the text were
Jn. were not yet acknowledged a s on a level with correct, would exhibit Justin stating a non -canonical event
a n d Mt . , by the first Christian historian who gives us (the ‘fire’) as a fact on his own authority and the canonical
a n y account of the Gospels. event a5 on the authority of the ‘apostles’ (iv.) Tryph.
iii. J UST I N M ART YR . - Justin Martyr (Lightfoot, BE For in the Memoirs which assert have
his apostles and who followed
87, A . D .), whilst quoting the them,’ introduces ‘it is written that sweat
Gospels under various titles, makes som e as were drons. streamed down from him while
incidental but very important statements ab out their passage found’ some MSS of Lk. but
W H as not genuine3 (and found in no other Gospel); (v.)
composition. , ‘As we have learned through the Memoirs,‘
( a ) Justin’s titles the Gospels a r e adap te d to his anies the words a man through the Virgin (from
readers. I n the Apology addressed he generally combined w t h and is followed by (vi.)
uses the term, ‘Memoirs the Apostles but in the Dialogue ‘as also from the Memoirs we have learned this too intro-
with the Jew, Trypho he gradually subordinates Memoirs and ducing an utterance of Christ on the Cross peculiar 2346.
at last resorts to the jewish authoritative form ‘it is All these passages reveal Justin a s quoting with a
Like Lk. and Jn. (and perhaps Papias), in a less special emphasis a later version of L k . , in -
degree, he avoids the term In the Dialogue, it is
Trypho, not Justin, who first it IO, ‘the so- cluding interpolated passages - as though protesting tha t
called Gospel, Justin, replying, calls it L k. is on a level with the Memoirs, a n d was composed
the ‘teaching by our Saviour.’ I n I Apol. by
he does not use the word till toward the close, and then seem-
ingly as a concession to popular language ‘ Memoirs . . . have
which are called Gospels. The Memoirs seen 1814.n. , that.. in is the
(apart from ‘Gospels’) he generally quotes for the facts of regular word for a pupil a n d successor.’
Christ’s life ; but sayings are also quoted from them, twice from
Mt., and twice from Lk. (One of the latter agrees Now Eusebius 4 6) misunderstands
with D.) Christ’s words, when introduced by ‘he said,
‘memoirs.’ (L k.
always agree with Mt. they are called me a ning tha t L u k e had been a ‘pupil of all (the
when Jesus is predicting his sufferings, but 18) a n d Justin might do the same. This enables us to answer
when denunciatory and when coupled with prophetic
utterances. ‘ Teachings from Christ himself’ the question, How (in Justin’s opinion) was L u k e taught
(I Apol. refer to chastity and Christian love, and are from the Miraculous Conception ? Justin’s view is that Christ
Mt. and Lk. ; I 53 speaks of Gentiles, ‘men of everyrace ( I Apol. 67 a n d c p after his resurrection,
persuaded by the Teaching tliat came from
apostles.’ This quotation (as well as Tryph. and IO cp also ‘ a pp e a r e d to his apostles a n d disciples a n d ta ught
35) indicates moral precepts, such as are in the and t h e m ’ everything relating to himself 3 to the
the Logia of Behnesa. But I Apol. 33, quoting Lk. with a K ingdom of T hi s teaching’ would, therefore,
clause from Mt., and describing the authors of the Memoirs as apply ( I Apol, 33) to the Nativity a n d other mysteries,
having ‘taught’ the Annunciation and Apol. 66, stating that
those who are to receive the first accept ‘what as well as to moral precepts, a n d Luke, as being ‘ a
is taught by us,’ indicate a catechetical ‘teaching’ of facts, pupil of all the apostles,’ would receive it. As regards
different from the Moreover, in 28 ‘what the form of transmission, Justin begins with a n am bigu -
Christ taught’ or Christ’s ‘Teachings refer partly
to his predictions, partly to the punishment of the wicked in ous expression (I Apol. which
fire. Crescens is charged with not having ‘read’ them, m a y m e an ( I ) ‘reme mbe red,’ or ’rep eated from
so that they must have been a hook, or part of one. memory.’ Adopting the latter meaning, he uses it, not
Indications of as a Gospel.-In a few (as‘ Papias did) of the successors of the apostles, but of
instances Justin appeals, as it ‘were beyond the apostles themselves. he gradually inclines,
76. His Lk.,the Memoirs, to those who composdd them;
or else he introduces a personal quasi-protest and finally commits himself, t o the theory that this
of authenticity, ‘ I assert,’ ‘I have learned,’ etc. repetition was not oral merely, but also in writing.
(i.) I 33 ‘ A s those who recorded H e n c e he allows himself to say ‘ t h e apostles wrote,’
all things our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught,’intro-
duces Annunciation to the Virgin (with a clause taken on the ‘fire’ as part of the story. Both here and in 103
I Apol. 66 ‘For the apostles, the Memoirs Justin has This day have I begotten thee (as D in Lk. 3
by them,’ which are called Gospels, delivered he had a text differing from which
that Jesus had thus ordained6 to them ‘introduces very well have included, the ‘fire’ as ‘written by the apostles,
in a condensed form, of the of equally with the The reading, ‘this day,’ etc., is now
Eucharist, including the words, D o this in remembrance of found only in some versions of Lk., in 103 Justin
m e ’ not found in Mk. or Mt., and regarded W H as follows (not order in the Temptation.
an ’interpolation from I Cor. 11 ;
fire was in the Jordan. . and.. .
88,
that
Some have inferred that, in
‘John,’ because by including
apostles must include
and can the plural
The Shepherd of Hermas is quoted once as ‘ Scripture by be justified. Such an argument ignores a passage also
Irenaens and frequently as a divine revelation by Justin to neither in
Yet the Fragment decides that it is not to be read In and left a loop-hole for supposing
in the churches. Now the and the Muratorian that the apostles might not have written but
Fragment probably both originate from Rome, and the simply taught them. But Justin commits himself to the
torian writer shows familiarity with the authorship and recent statement that they ‘ w r o t e .
date of the book. The more distant Fathers, Irenaens and (see that and kindred words used by Justin
accept it; the author, who writes on the spot, [I 26 63 Apol. I to mean ‘the of a
rejects Similarly we shall find Justin Martyr in the middle the very act disclaimed
of the second century making Ephesus the scene of a and Mark Remembering that this ‘assertion
-and speaking of John as ‘a man among us ( r a p of Justin’s is preceded (a few lines before) by ‘the Memoirs
abstaining in a marked nianner from quoting Jn., the (mentioning the words, ‘This day have
while freely quoting the Synoptists and occasionally using I begotten thee,’ found now only in a of Lk.), we are led to
Johannine traditions. infer that he is protesting against the statement of Papias or
These he regards, not as Memoirs the apostles and against similar statements made others. Justin says, in
their doctrine, hut as Memoirs about Christ composed by the effect ‘The apostles write books,’ and then half
apostles (I 33 himself: Or, at all events, fhey and wrote
See note above, 65. them.’
quoted in I 63 (‘Jesus ... himself 3 The interpolated Lk.
4 Lk.’
‘drops
course means the third Gospel as have it.’
said’) with in (‘it in the Gospel
that he said ’). Whenever is mentioned, the The author need not be, and probably is not the beloved
is in (which Justin may prefer to as being the physician,’ the companion of Paul. The the Preface
Gospel best known to the Jew Trypho). of the Gospel may revised, re-edited, or re-written it,
4 Tryph. 35, and I Apol. ‘the and may he a different person from the Pauline Luke.
prayer of the word that was from Christ’ over the Eucharist.
These (Tryph. are from Mt., supplemented hy Thesewords
Lk. (as in D ) in such a way as suggest that Justin used a come a t conclusion of the Apology, before Justin’s first
rough harmony of Mt. and Lk., or a correction of the former by appeal to the Romans to accept the Faith and they show that
the latter. the the Christian Faith, which Christ,
middle; cp and 40, after his resurrection, was supposed to have taught to the
apostles, and which Justin has set before the Romans in his
7 The rhythm demands Ephraem (43) comments treatise. has it somewhat differently
1819 1820
 GOSPEL8 GOSPELS
though he uses but one strictly apostolic Gospel (that of (one) of the apostles, that, whilst all John
Mt. Having these views about the apostolic consensus should write all things in his own name.’
of the Memoirs, and having a preference for Th e writer admits that ‘different catholic truths
are taught’ in the Four Gospels ; but he protests
record of the Nativity and the Passion, Justin may there ‘one Catholic Spirit ac
naturally have recoiled from as being a new work, dictating the facts of Nativity Passion Resurrection,
breaking this both style and thought, and intercourse of the Lord with the and two Advents
especially nnfavourable to the authority of Lk. ‘What wonder then if John so persistently sets
forth each point in his saying with reference to himself,
iv. FRAGMENT. - Muratorian
..
“What we have seen with our eyes and heard-with (our)
thus- and our hands these things we have written?
tamen et ita For thus he professes himself to be not only a seer but also a
nay and a writer (too) of all the wonderful works of the
Tertium secundum
Lucan. ..
The six words ap-
Lord in order ( p e r ordinem).’ I n these words the writer meets
objections probably urged against the Fourth Gospel. Though
differing in facts and style from the Synoptists, it was pervaded,
parently referring to Mk. (on which supposition
there is nothing extant about Mt.) appear to mean he says, by the same ‘one Catholic Spirit.’ written
name of’ John, it had been revised and attested by th e
that Mark was present at only some of Peter’s Disciples a n d Elders at Ephesus and this a
Luke’s disadvantages are dwelt on : it was special so that it be said to come direct from
not till after the Ascension that Paul took him as a Christ, and to represent, even better than the earliest Gospels,
his exact teaching.
companion he ‘compiled in his own name, on [his This theory of special inspiration was well calculated
own] judgment, he had not seen the to facilitate the diffusion of a Gospel that seemed t o
Lord in the flesh’ he [set down facts] as far as he supply just those things that were wanting in the
could ascertain them.’ On the other hand, the Fourth
Synoptists :-a certainty not to be found in the various
Gospel was written by John, (one) of the disciples,’ at interpretations of Mt., a fulness of to which
the exhortation of his fellow-disciplesand his bishops.’
Mk. did not pretend, and-in contrast with
After a three days’ fast ‘ i t was revealed to Andrew, authority of a disciple, an eye-witness, and ear-witness,
ii. ‘To John Peter was the who also wrote in order.’ .
delivered by the Lord after v. (about 185 A . D .) emphasises the
tion. These delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the unity of the Gospel as coming 11) from inspired
rest to the Seventy.
Does Justin recognise Mk. as a distinct Gospel? see Tryph. apostles (who first preached it and then
106, ‘handed it down to us in
Scriptures ’), but touches also on thesubject of distinctive
(Mk. 3.17 authorship. H e omits the various interpretations of
alone). Here Qv would mean (we set aside the in- Mt. mentioned by Papias, and the disadvantages of Lk.
terpretation ‘ Memoirs of Jesus ’) ‘Peter‘s Memoirs ’ indicating mentioned by the Muratorian writer. Mark is ‘the
( I ) either that Justin accepted Mk. as, by disciple and interpreter of Peter Luke the companion
Peter, or that he here, inconsistently, would render the
phrase, Memoirs about Peter.’ (But 70 is re- of Paul : thus he implies that their gospels
peatedly confounded with were, in effect, apostolic.
Th e passage is either tediously lengthy, or it distinguishes He places Mt. before Mk. as the Fragment
between what Christ said and what he ‘ H e said that he
changed Peter’s name’ this is in Mt. and nowhere appears to have done. Jn. is placed after thus :
else. ‘It is the Memoirs [that he changed the ‘Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also
name]’ ; the triple tradition 3 Mt. 10 Lk. G lay on his breast, he too published the Gospel
This distinction would indicate that Justin was here quoting the e.) while living in Ephesus of Asia.’ Else-
Memoirs of Peter Mk.) in support of the Logia of Mt.
(a view somewhat confirmed by the fact that, when Justin intro- where (iii. he says that John directed his Gospel
duces quotations with ‘(Jesus) says he quotes from Mt.). against Cerinthus and the Matthew, he says
This would indicate that wrote after Peter’s death. 1I ). published his Gospel in Hebrew while Peter
Otherwise Peter could have supplied him with the substance of
the discourses a t which latter was not present. Papias also Paul in Rome were preaching and founding the
implies that Mark could not correct what he had Church’ : after their decease (or departure,
reference to Peter. says 1I) that Mark wrote after but Lat. death’),’Mark (is known to have)
the ‘decease of Peter (but see 79). handed down (perf. in writing what Peter
3 ‘Nomine ex conscripsit. Dominum tamen
ipse in Ex express an original was in the habit of preaching Luke ‘ set
‘from hearing,’ not ‘from sight. (See Westc. Canon down in a book what Paul was in the habit
Lightf. But, in that case, should we of preaching (
expect) ‘enim’ instead of H e wrote not as an
had not seen the Lord’? a Gospel ‘in Lightf. SR 189, the word
one’s own name’ was innovation. Luke did it [his represents read, ‘ Had the
(ex 1 3 ‘it seemed good to original been or we should expect
m e . How objectionable this may have seemed to some, is or
shown by the (Lk. 1 3 codex et et Our writer has in view Ezek. 15-12,the ‘four living creatures’
(sic) The Muratorian writer contrasts this later Gospels) dominated one world-wide or catholic
the origin of the Fourth Gospel, which the Evangelist ‘spirit.’ develops this but hardly improves
wrote down‘ not ‘conscripsit wrote from there are 118) ‘four zones’
knowledge, not from
a divine ‘revelatum . .. ...
his own name as the
ut Iohannes
cuncta describeret.’ If this explanation is correct
winds spiritus,
meaning catholic spirits”),’ so there must be
capable of
to the lion (John), ox (Luke), man (Matthew)
Gospels
may have dropped after ‘suo’ (‘Nomine suo sua eagle in Rev. 47. Irenreus seems to have felt bound
or ‘opinio may used absolutely meaning keep the order of Rev. and yet to place John first but the
notion. would imply a contrast between the bold- result is so strained that Jerome carried posterity with him
ness of Luke’s innovation and the limitations of assigning eagle to John and the lion to Mark.
3 used of a single letter (see Lightf. SR
Andrew is hare called an Jphn a ‘disciple.’ a very free quotation from I Jn.
Papias calls ‘Andrew, Peter,’ etc., disciples. The not merely one of the exoteric spectators of the mighty
identifying ‘apostles’ with ‘prophets,’ and specifying works of Jesus, h u t one of those privileged to or ‘hear
rules for them, which if broken, stamp an ‘apostle’ as a ‘false from (cp the Talmudic ‘receive from’) to be a
prophet ’-suggests a and place in which an ‘apostle’ was disciple, and a transmitter of tradition. ‘Seer’ might
little more than a It became a tradition to call not imply admission to the inner circle which ’was taught b y
John disciple’ (as Paul is peculiarly apostle’). Christ, according to Mk., his life, and, according to
crates of Ephesus, a t the close of the cent., after mentioning Justin and (see 77 after his Resurrection.
(Eus. Philip was of the Twelve goes on Why does not the writer that too, wrote ‘in
to speak of ‘John, who lay on the bosom of the Lord without (chronological) order Does he imply that Luke had
any mention of apostleship. This may he by ( I ) failed?
uncertainty whether John (like Nathanael) was one of the Twelve,, There is no early testimony to any simultaneous presence of
a feeling that was a higher title than ‘apostle the two apostles in Rome except a t the time of their martyrdom
or (3) a desire to describe the author of the Gospel as he (see Eus. 258, quoting Dionysius of Corinth,
scribed himself; and (3) are the most probable; This
1821
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
vi. of Alexandria (circa for public use. Lastly Origen, unsurpassed by early
gives (Eus. a tradition of the earliest Christian writers for honesty and intellect, says
elders that 25 from tradition that Mark wrote as P e t e r rug-
‘those portions of the Gospels which (& a. The investigation
contain the genealogies may stop here. Later writers have n o further evidence,
were written first.’ and can but exemplify the tendency of tradition, even
Clement adds a tradition about Mk. apparently on the among honest and able men, to exaggerate or to mini-
authority of the same Elders, that ‘publicly in the interests of a good cause.
preached the word in Rome and uttered the Gospel
in the spirit his numerous hearers besought viii. S UMMARY OF EVIDENCE AS TO AND

io
stimulated him? .
...
write out what the apostle had said ; and that Peter,
of this. neither hindered nor
Papias
Mt. as
Mk. and
did
Eusebius. however. earlier his two other tradi- not thus recognise Lk. or Jn., though
traditions on were
known to him. Justin Martyr regarding
Peter’s hearers. Then he adds (6) ‘But they say the Synoptic Gospels as Memoirs written by the apostles
that the apostle, learning the accomplishment from the teaching of Christ, and showing a preference
from a revelation the Spirit, was pleased with their for Lk. (in an interpolated form), affords no trace of a
sanctioned the work for reading in for) the churches :- recognition Gospel like Jn. outside the stream of
Clement in his has quoted the
history and his account is confirmed also the the (3 ) The Muratorian fragment (? 170
A. D .), welcoming the Fourth Gospel as supplying the
.. . of
Now
called Papias-and further, that Peter
is not in Clement’s or Papias’s account and
differs from the spirit of Perhaps Eusebius, while dis-
deficiencies of the Three, meets any objection that might
tinguishing fact from doubtful tradition (‘they say’), has be raised against divergence the Synoptists
inserted a parenthesis, corrective of the latter, to the effect that (a ) by an account of a special revelation to in
h as and true] history,’ and that accordance with which this Gospel was written in a kind
Clement’s view (namely, that Peter was merely the origin, but of joint authorship, though in John’s name, and by a
mot the suggester, supervisor or authoriser of the work) was
supported substance If so Eusebius instead of protest that the Four Gospels are animated by
committing himself to the view that Mk., pre- Spirit. , (4) has no trace of the theory of
pares the reader for finding it contradicted revision or joint authorship of Jn. H e compares the
Concerning Clement says that (Eus. vi. four Gospels with the four winds or the four living
‘John, last of all, reflecting that earthly aspect creatures of prophecy, as being divinely. ordained in
had been set forth in the Gospels, at the number. Clement no mention of a revela-
instigation of his pupils by a special tion’ to Andrew or to any other of John’s friends, but
of spirit composed says that John himself received a ‘divine impulse’ to
a spiritual gospel.’ write the From the time of Irenaeus the
OF THE EVIDENCE AS T O M K . AN D Gospel met with almost universal acceptance.‘
MT. for Mark he was not in
The Fragment This may have been a misunderstanding such ex-
appears to be apologetic he was pression as accordance with Peter’s teaching. But Origen’s
words mean the latter.
onlv at some discourses For alleged quotations of Justin from Jn. see
Both imply that ‘Peter was dead. when wrote, 3 Traces of the tradition in this form are retained by
that the latter could not have the apostle’s supervision. philus and Tatian (see Eusebius
after recording an anonymous tradition (‘they say,’
Irenaeus, though stating ‘that Mark wrote after Peter’s ‘he says’) that John supplemented the Synoptists by request of
departure (which probably meant death ’), gives no friends says expressly in his own person (cp 24 and
indication that he did’ not adequately represent the ‘us’ 16 that John “began his theology
from the beginning, since that had been reservedf o r him by
apostle;. and it i s doubtful whether he did not mis- Spirit owing to his superiority [ t o the other evangelists].’
interpret the word departure.’ Clement says that appears to be the Eusebian way of expressing
Peter lived to know what had been done by Mark, yet a word that might seem to him to savour of Montanism.
s o far retains the apologetic as to add that Peter neither An important exception has been recently brought to light.
See Rendel Harris. Hermas in Cambridee.
hindered nor incited the composition. Another tradition 43-57. Eusebius extracts from a Dialogue
(apparently later) says that Peter was informed by the Montanist) written by Gaius 25 6 ‘an orthodox writer
Spirit of the accomplishment of the book, and authorised vi. 20 3 ‘ of very great learning
who wrote during the bishopric of Zephyrinus A. D.),
favours the rendering ‘decease’ for which has this meaning and whom passages from his writings indicate as resident in or
in Philo 2 388 Lk. Pet. v. 136 (Letter the near Rome. In one of these extracts, Gaius attacks 28
the notion of an earthly of Christ after the Resurrection,
Yet the inference from Acts2830 (referred to in Iren. as well as the notion of and ‘wedding festivities‘ i n ’
would be that I ) ‘the former Jerusalem, all of which e attributes t o Cerinthus. Such an
composed while Paul was living. Perhaps Irenaeus may be attack, even if it assailed the Johannine Apocalypse, would
setting down an old tradition correctly which he and subsequent robahly commend him to Eusebius. Now Ebed-Jesu, a t the
to mean ‘departure (from Rome)’-inter- of the fourteenth century, recorded Hippolytus
preted wrote a treatise called Heads against Gaius, and Dionysius
in its literary sense, means (not ‘include‘ hut) Bar Salibi quotes from this treatise (along with replies from
‘contain as ‘have as their contents : Diod. Sic. Hippolytus) objections raised by Gaius not only to the Apo-
14 calypse, but also t o the Gospel. An inscription on the
‘have their contents); chair of Hippolytus shows that this bishop had before
cp Eus. 24 The common phrase that date written a treatise ‘ I n defence of the Gospel according
etc. Macc. 15 Macc. 11 means ‘ was John and the and it is argued with great force
substance as follows.’ C p Hippol. that this treatise, or an epitome of it, was the ‘Heads against
‘(my) its Gaius.’
“On, the essence of the All.”’ Hence, Eusebius. vi. the
meant a section and the meaning here is, ‘ the sections th a t (seven or in number) had into hi5
have the genealogies as their contents.’ To place Lk. before not include the ‘Defence of the Gospel of John, and
Mk. would be inconsistent with all early tradition. See calypse’; and it is possible that his ‘Heads against Gaius
The tradition that Peter ‘knew‘ of the composition of the attacked some other- work of Gaius unknown to Eusebius
Gospel ‘through the Spirit probably arose not the Dialogue against Proclus. But the fact seems
from Clement’s confused with a fact so strange that learned critics have described it ‘im -
possible’-that a of the Roman by
The Muratorian fragment describes a ‘revelation’ to those Eusebius as a n d orthodox,’ attacked the Fourth
who urged John to write; Clement, a impulse’ given at the beginning of third century. The almost
t o ohn himself. complete of his book and of his literary
regards Mt. there practically no evidence (under the so complete that Bishop Lightfoot, till recently, maintained that
head of Statements beyond that which been quoted above he was a fictitious character in the Dialogue against Proclus
from Papias 65). which (he affirmed) was written by Hippolytus-shows
5 See above, $65. difficult it is modern critics to that at, and shortly
1823 1824
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
QUOTATIONS. Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus fragment) are an example of
quotes nothing that is found in such a manual as has been described
Gospels (Lk. 22, part of 19 and 20 being set aside as an They are a fragment of what
above. to have been a very ancient
seems
interpolation) except the saying about
( I Tim. 5 the labourer worthy of edition of a ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ The extreme
his hire’ (cp Mt. ‘food,’ Lk. antiquity of the (probably not later than zoo A . D . )
and the frequent allusions to it (or to doctrine similar
‘hire’). But this is also found in the 131
food’). to it) in combine to show the antiquity of
Other sayings of Paul are akin to sayings in the the subject matter. But a still stronger proof is found
(a) Rom. ‘Abhor that which is evil in the nature of two of the sayings. Justin, when
to that which is good ... using such a phrase as Sabbatise the sabbath,’ avoids
not suffering yourselves to be carried away the danger of literalism by saying
with the humble Did. 3 Flee from all evil
and from all of .. . Thy shall not true sabbath,’ the sabbath of God,’ etc. and Clem.
to the but thou shalt conversant Alex. is even more cautious. (Magn. bids
with the just and (T.),’ where parts of the original might his readers not sabbatise but live in accordance with
apparently refer either to things or to (6) Thess.
the Lords Day.’ No one, therefore, but Jesus (who
..
I O If any will not work neither let him
let him work and [on these terms] let him eat.
Did. 12 3
did not shrink from utterances seemingly inconsistent)
appears likely to have originated such a saying. The
Paul and Did. probably used an antecedent tradition.
Rom. Be not overcome by evil,’ closely resembles same argument applies to the last words in the same
Pseudo-Clement’s 13 ‘ Let not evil overcome Logion Unless ...
, ye shall not see the F athe r’).
us but the latter could not have borrowed from Paul, The phrase see God is in Sermon but see the
whom he bitterly attacks. Father occurs only in Jn. H e that hath seen me
JAMES.-The Epistle of James, which is of un- hath seen Father,’ a rebuke to Philip’s expectation
certain date. Dermeated with doctrine similar to that of a materialistic seeing the Father.’ These
of the Sermon on the It con- and many other considerations indicate that the Logia
tains more and closer parallels, how- are genuine sayings of Jesus, ignored or suppressed
ever, to the and Barnabas. because of the dangerous tendency of some of them,
The passage that is closest to Mt. is that which forbids swear- and the obscurity of others.
ing by earth, heaven or any other oath (Mt. 534.37 James5 The Logia testify to the antiquity of ( a ) passages in the
but Mt. says he “Yea, yea,”.’ James (RV) Sermon on the Mount, (6) the proverb about ‘a prophet in his
says ‘Let your ye a” be yea.”‘ The meanings are quite own country’ (favouring versions of these sayings). They
different. The former ‘Say and nothing more also show traces of Johannine They use a Hebraism
than the, latter Let your yea” be also a (‘the sons of men’) found only Mk.328, and apparently
“ y e a ” of action. I n latter form it is and corrupted in the later Gospels. Another Hebraism is probably
ad a common Rabbinical precept (apparently alluded latent in the phrase ‘fast (accus.) the
to in Cor. 117). As it is also thus quoted by Justin and ‘fast during the [present] age’ (the Hebrew for and
it was probably found in some versions of Mt ‘age’ being the same). The meaning is, ‘fast to the six
an d therefore the Epistle may be quoting from Mt. But days of the flesh : the of the
cannot regarded as proved. In its denunciations of ‘the v. Of Rome (about 9 A. D. ) has
rich,’ the Epistle resembles Lk. 624, but not so as to indicate
borrowing. (a) 5761472
iii. APPARENT QUOTATIONS.-Passages apparently Lk. 636 - 3831) which, when compared
auoted from the the of Paul and with (Phil 2 ) and
James, have been shown shows pretty that writers had
to be found in sources other, and prob- in some other tradition than that of the Synoptists.
ably earlier, than the Gospels. The subject is kindness and mercy. besides
There were probably many manuals of Christ’s moral teaching throwing the Synoptic tradition into a terse antithetical form,
which the Sermon on the Mount is one) as well as of his adds The word
predictions concerning the last day probably, too, collections occurs nowhere in except I Cor. 1 3 4. Here,
of bearing on the Messiah and perhaps accounts and the context uses it thrice, and also ;
of the Passion showing how these prdphecies were fulfilled. see under Pauline influence. This points to his
,These, together with the ‘narratives’ of his life mentioned by of some tradition of Christ’s teaching about kind-
Lk. 1I, and the various interpretations of mentioned ness and mercy. The explains the reason. I t has mis-
Papias, necessarily left their impress on the earliest Christian understood ’ in the narrow Jewish sense of
writers even after the Gospels were recognised as canonical, almsgiving,‘ so that, instead of Blessed are the merciful for
an d still more before that time. Hence, it is to infer they shall mercy,’ it has (1 5) Blessed is he that
(without further consideration of circumstances) ‘ Barnabas according t o the commandment, for he is exempt (from punish-
ment a t the Day of Judgment). Against such a Judaising
quoted or quoted or ‘Justin
quoted Jn. because of similarity, or even the quota- version the broad Pauline would express a useful
tions. For example, i t has recently been inferred that the Thesaying is introduced with
Vision must be later than is usually supposed Dr. J. B. Mayor pointed out that (556) has
because it 2 4) quoted Dan. 6 from the version (not alleged as yet from any other Greek
But Heh. 1133 appears to quote the same author). For similarities of thought, cp 876,
Moreover, Rev. 9 12 7 1 3 7, resemble
version. It appears therefore, that Theodot. incorporated in It is characteristic of to use sayings that are
version an one by the authors and inconsistent. Hence (a) ’seeing the Father‘ is Johannine
Rev. (see Rendel spite of or because of Jn. 14 So also is (6) ‘thirst used
Harris’s in Arcadia, 25). spiritual (see Jn. 4 6 35 7 37 and the
OF Logia of beautiful saying imputed to Jesus [Resch Origen,
I thirsted for them that Adh (c) Jesus, describing;
after, the first appearance of the Fourth Gospel, it may have himself as (Jn. passim) ‘coming to ‘being in,’ etc. the world
been regarded with suspicion orthodox, educated, and con- (Log. ‘ I stood in the midst of the impossibility
servative Christians, such as Justin in the middle of the second that the true disciple can ever be ‘alone’ (e) the
century, Gaius at the beginning of the third. impediment presented by ‘knowledge to the art
a saying found in the Talmud of spiritual healing (Jn. 27).
(Taylor, 24). Cp I Thess. 5 Log. 27-29, ‘raise the stone .. . cleave the
to mean that any single disciple-while doing his Master’s work
‘It ‘ raising up stones to be children of Abraham, and by cutting
down and ‘cleaving the tree of conventional

677 only reversing order. he also quotes Barnabas

him (cp Jer.
pluck
I am with thee
and to break down ...
..
Law that ‘cumbered the ground’-would have his Master with
and to
..
. I have set . thee to
to plant ’).
should cleave them that fear the If so, it is parallel to the of the Baptist recorded by
Lord.’ Mt. 3 IO Lk. 3 9 about the stones and the tree (see
the use of (a) vol. no. I
Isaac offered on the altar cp with ( a )Did. 4 4 7 5 I , Barn: Cp Eph. 4 32, Rom. 11
(6) Barn. 1 (c) 43, Barn. 7 3 (Heb. 11 is equiva-
om. altar ’). lent to quotes this
1826
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
tions of Mt. in the Two So far as this little
book is concerned, the Gospel to which it refers might
manual of the Words of the Lord. consist of a version of the Sermon on the Mount and
Elsewhere the same chapter in which the- Precepts to the Twelve. On the Second Advent,
he quotes ‘cleave to the holy,’ and is followed by the writer mentions (166-8) ‘the Signs of the Truth’
both apparently quoting from some version of the Lord’s Words
- combines Mk. 9 4 2 and Mt. ; and again Clem. with such apparent independence of Mt. as to make it
Alex. (561) agrees with him. has Remember the doubtful whether, in the context, the resemblances to
words of Jesus our Lord, how he said, Woe that man. Mt. indicate quotations from Mt.
It were well for him if he had not been born, rather than Of all the promises or blessings in Mt. 5 the earlier part
that he should cause to one of my elect. I t were better of the inserts Did .37 meek, since
for him that a mill-stone were put round him and that he were earth is based Mt. 5 5 is) on Ps.
sunk in the sea, than that he should pervert one of 37 Did. is he giveth in accordance with
my elect.’
and ‘saith the Lord’ for ‘remember ...
has the same, substituting
saith.
The reduplication of statement has a Hebraic sound, and it is
the commandment refers to the commandment’ which the
writer has just (Mt. 5 42 Lk. 6 Give to every one that
asketh thee, and ask not again.’ But the Hebrew for ‘give
probable (both because of preface, and because of alms’ is often represented by and ‘alms’ by
the apparent borrowing from Logia the same chapter) that the (cp ALMS), so that ‘blessed is he that giveth’ might be, in N T
two authors are here as above, quoting independently, from an Greek, (or as Mt. 5 7). It
ancient tradition of Words of the should be noted that Lk. omits both these
condenses Is. 29 13 similarly to Mk. 76 Mt.
158 omitting the bracketed words in the following quotation vii. BARNABAS.-The Epistle of Barnabas assigned
the L X X : Q by Lightfoot ( BE to but by others
(Clem. omitting placed later.
(Clem.
Th e bracketed words the antithesis and Justin (I ) Synoptic i n Barnadas.- (a)
omits them (allusively) in 27 and 80 This Epistle is alleged to quote Mt. 2214 as Scripture
: ‘Let us give
Yet in 78 he quotes the passage lest, as it is wri tt en , we be found
quite differently, omitting with manv called but few chosen.”
of but
the latter part preserves the antithesis. These facts and the
so that
‘
Th e application of the title Scripture to NT before the end
markablevariations inthetext of the of the first century, if here intended, would be unique.
indicate that maybe herequotingfromsome Christian there are several reasons for doubting the intention. ( I ) In other
manual of prophecy used also by other authors. whq allusions to Synoptic tradition, the author does not quote as from
frequently quotes it, is said by Lightf. to ‘follow Scripture.’ H e twice quotes Enoch, either as 5)
But this is not likely. For, in the only passage ture, or with is written ’(4 3): ‘The last stumbling-block hath
drawn nigh concerning which it is written as
where he resembles
Now is the reading of
has
in Mt. “ Fo r tn this end hath the Lord cut the times ...
158 (adopted by also in Probably therefore Now (3) these two passages agree with the one under discussion
is following Mt. 1 5 3 (or some ancient of in treating of the ‘last days,’ on which subject ‘Enoch’ was an
has elsewhere for and similarly authority. Also, (4) in the last-mentioned passage, whereas he
D has for in “Also has might have quoted Mk. Mt. 2422 (if known to him as
The facts are conclusive negatively. canonical) about the ‘cutting short of the not only
Th e passage does nol prove that is quoting frcm quotes Enoch instead and treats it as ‘Scripture,’ but also
appears to add words not now extant in Enoch For to
end etc.). (6) The book of Enoch as we have it, is a com-
No further quotations of importance are alleged. posite work and is likely to have many forms. (7)
If it for N T (or, at anticipated) the phrases
The conclusion is, that ( I ) is certainly ‘ of unrighteousness ‘Gehenna,’ ‘the New J
proved to have quoted from our Gospels in ( a ) the Son of Man the throne of his glory ‘it
and (6) he is probably quoting from Logia not now ex- had good for him if he had not been is
tant ; (3) in (c) he may be quoting from our Gospels, natural supposition that it may have contained the saying
question.
but quite as probably from a Manual (or some Oral These considerations make probable that the
Tradition) of prophecy in Christian use. author is either quoting the words from a version of
vi. DIDACHE.-The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles Enoch, or confusing some tradition of the Words of
a document. The earlier Christ with a version of Enoch, and make either of
part (1-6), consisting of the Doctrine of these suppositions much more probable than that
the Two Ways, inculcates precepts of the he is quoting from Mt. as Scripture.’
Lord, without appeal to his ‘words,’ or Gospel the (6) and (c) In Barn. Christ is said to have chosen as
latter part appeals to both. The Gospel meant is prob- his apostles men exceeding in lawlessness OUF) beyond
ably Mt. The additionof adoxology to prayer, all sin, that he might show that came not t o righteous
and the mention of the Lord‘s indicate for sinners.’ There is nothing to show quotation, but words
the latter portion a date toward, or after, the close of Mt. Lk. inserts ‘to re
or from some document or tradition, used by Mk. Among
the first century. There is no indication that Lk. was several quotations (74 11 12 I) -Barn.
known to the writer, apart from supplements or refers to the New Creation of man thus (613): The Lord saith,

passage twice : once embodying in his own remarks (with- Did. I though at first sight suggesting Lk. 12 35 is
out Lk. 633; an ’allusion to Mt. 25 I amplified by a n (to
once with the preface ‘saith the Lord,’ quoting ‘loins girt’ in the first Passover) which became
almost exactly as The variation may indicate that, current in the Church ( I Pet. Eph. 6 14). The latter part
in the latter instance, he is borrowing from some earlier tradition more like a blending of Mk. 13 and Mt. 44, than like
from which also borrowed (as above, in the saying Lk. 12
about to them that are holy ’). Similarly omission all the blessings pronounced on positive
when he asserts (377) that the Scripture says, My son, be not virtue (‘meekness, ‘peacemaking ‘purity,’ and ‘mercy’ [or
a liar, for lying leadeth to theft,’ is probably not giving the name ‘almsgiving’]) is perhaps dictated b y some doctrinal considera-
‘Scripture’ to Hermas 3) ‘They therefore who tion. Th e same cause may explain why, in his parallel to Mt.
.. . have defiled the the Lord and become 548,
gave (Lk. 6 36)
he he preferred a tradition that
pitiful’ (possibly a synonym, for a
of him,’ but is quoting (what Hermas trying to
spiritualise) Did. 3 5 ‘ My be not a liar, since poetic or form of corruption of
leadeth to theft,’ or
The words ‘better
utterance about
...book on which Did. 3 5 is based.
horn’ occur only our Lord’s
a t the Last Supper. I t seems very
wrongly gives
(for which the Hatch -Redpath Concordance
occurs thrice in Dan.
The Latin substitutes ‘Daniel’ for ‘Enoch’and takes the
unlikely that even though he combines passages words ‘for to this,’ etc., as comin from Barnabas.
in a very arbitrary way, would apply such words to quite a 4 Charles pp. who traces its influence in
different matter, and that would follow him. almost every book of and in Heb. 4 (Enoch
authority of some collection of the Logia seems needed to explain 9 5, ‘All things are naked and open in thy sight, and thou
it, and to justify the two authors. all things and nothing can hide itself from thee’), some
‘The Lord’s Day ’ occurs in the Apocalypse (1 IO), which- suppose to have been written by Earnabas. I t has also In-
a t all events sn far %? concerns the passage including the term- fluenced Irenaeus, Justin and other early writers. The tradition
was probably written (as Irenaeus asserted) in, or a little before, of Papias about the branches comes, directly
96 A . D . indirectly, from Enoch 10
1828
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Behold make the last as the first.’ This may possibly he The Gospel 9, 7) is said to contain the Passion
akin Synoptic (Mk. ‘The last shall or Resurrection and also 5 ) the flesh and ‘(personal)
be cp Mt. will give unto this last even as unto presence of brings Christ before us as
thee. in the flesh. But when he of the Incarnation. does
(d)In and the author probably, but not not appeal to the Gospel, but speaks in his own describ-
certainly, assigns to Jesus words not in our Gospels. ing, for example, the in the east in ’language
incompatible with any sober acceptance of account, and
He regards the Ascension as taking place on the actually saying almost in the language of Simon Magus that
day of the Resurrection.‘ the Logos 8) ‘came forth f r o m Silence’-a
Anticipations of in Barnadas.-The special expression, hardly for any one who devoutly accepted
the Fourth
points of interest in this epistle are that ( I ) it was written The Ignatia; passages commonly alleged to prove
(Lightf. BE 91) ‘before the Fourth Ignatius recognised Jn. as a Gospel simply prove that he knew
Gospel the latter resembles it in the substance of some traditions incorporated in (a)
many points :- (a) (Barn. 7, The Spirit
goeth, and
... it and whither it
the things that are secret is closer in
the juxtaposition of baptism and the brazen serpent,’ thought (though not in word) to than to 38. I t is
and the parallel between the serpent and Christ ( b ) a tradition from Gen. 168, quoted by Philo 1576 (and
(66) the application of Ps. to the casting lots over ‘Conviction therefore. to the soul. saith unto
her Whence thou thou Ignatius
Christ’s vesture (c) the ‘piercing is dloser to Philo than to ‘the door of the
of Christ ( d ) (11 the connection between Father,’ may be traced to 48 and back to Ps. 118
the Cross and Water, followed by a connection between it being a natural tradition that the ‘gate of righteousness’
is ‘the a t e in Christ,’ and that this leads to ‘life’ and to ‘the
the Cross and Blood ( e ) (11 Whosoever shall eat Lastly such variations as (c) 7 bread of God’
of these forever.” This means, Whosoever,” (only once in Jn 17 I , etc. ‘prince of this age,’ and
saith he, shall hear these things when they are spoken (e) Magn. 5 living is not in us’-instead of the
and shall shall f u r ever.” It will be seen familiar bread of ‘prince of this His is not
in us’-would be Impossible, if the Gospel were
below that many of the so-called ‘imitations familiar to the author as a gospel, hut quite natural if he had a
of Jn. by Justin’ might be called, less inaccurately, recent acquaintance with the substance of it as a recent doctrine.
imitations The conclusions are that Ignatius ( I ) recognised Mt.
... SIMOofNBarnabas.‘
MAGUS. - The Great of and probably Mk. as a written gospel, did not
Simon Magus (Lightf. BE ‘probably composed some- recognise Lk. or Jn. The latter is confirmed by the
where about the of the first century, perhaps fact that 29, 30) in order to demonstrate the reality
before the Gospel of John was written, or at of the Resurrection, he appeals, not to Lk. or Jn., but
least circulated ’) twice uses the phrase (Hippol.
6 14) ‘remain alone in potentiality to an apocryphal tradition. The gospel of Ignatins
and once ‘but if a tree abide alone does not appear to have contained account of the
to denote, as in that Incarnation as we have it. The deficiency in
which remsins barren and which will perish with the world
because it is not made fruitful by being ‘likened to the (divine) account of the Resurrection he supplies from apocryphal
of the Simon’s doctrine of three divine beings Though he does not acknowledge Jn. as a
‘there are three that stand,’ his allegorising of the gospel, he accepts a rudimentary Logos-doctrine, and
Pentateuch in connection with the regeneration of man, the has an acquaintance (but not a familiarity) with Johan-
general tone of his materialism, and the wide scope of his influ-
ence, make it probable that Jn. had Simon in view when he nine thought.
Gospel. X. A.D. see 87) has
ix. (before mentions a
Gospel ’-which he compares with the Law’ and the
. - similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount
(Phil and to the words of the Lord
Prophets in such a way as to Mk. Mt.
that it was 5, 8, The former may be from a version of
7. He quotes short sentences found in Mt. but the latter indicates that, like Ignatius, he knew
(once a phrase peculiar to Mk. 943 ). H e the gospel of Mk. and Mt. ( a ) His omission (Phil. 2)
never quotes of ‘in the spirit,’ in quoting Mt. 53, ‘poor in
Herein he appears to anticipate Jn. See the spirit,’ resembles Lk. 620, but may only indicate
and that Polycarp and Lk. herein agreed in adopting the
J Rev.
Cp 63 ‘ H e that my word same version or interpretation of the Logia. (6) 7)
and him sent me hath eternal ‘If an ‘Every one that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has
eat of this bread, he shall ever,’ come in is Antichrist,’ resembles I Jn. 4 3 , every
that spoken you are spirit and are
The similarity is striking ; still it would be a mistake to say spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God and this
Jn. from Barnabas.’ Barnabas borrowing from is the [spirit] of the Antichrist’ but it much more
Ezekiel, has previously been alluding
calls the land Jacob (Ezek. 206) ‘praised’
to the who
var.
resembles Jn. 7 ...they that confess not that
Hebr. glory’), continuing as follows (11IO), Next Lk. 8 pleasures of life ’). But the phrase had been made
what saith he? “and there was a river winding from the popular by 383)
right, and there went up from it fair trees and whoso eat Of the two marked as ‘quotations,’ one 14 tree i s
mer.”’ The words are not in manifest from its fruit is more Mt. 12 33 From the fruit
Ezekiel but they were (doubtless) in the writer’s version of the tree is known’) than like Lk. (‘Each tree is known from
Ezekiel or in some Christian Manual of prophecy containing fruit ’) the other 3 ‘ Take handle me, and see
extracts from Ezek. 47 from which also that I am not a bodiless demon has been to be not from
comes probably Rev. 22 (‘a river of water of life,’ etc.).
The tradition, then, was common to the Church at the close
Lk. (see
Cp Cor.
. ‘his bodily
of the first century, and may be quite independent of presence.
Barnabas. The latter generally regards the Cross a ‘tree The statement that as a martyr, he will be ‘God‘s
and the crucified Jesus as the fruit of the tree (cp Lightf. Logos,’ but otherwise a mere ‘sound is based on a distinction
Ignat. Smym. I) planted the side of the baptismal stream. common from Aristotle downwards ; similarly
The former regards the ‘fountain for sin and uncleanness’ as distinguishes between ‘sound’ and ‘name.’ Such
flowing out of Jesus himself but of Jesus on the Cross, a play on ‘Logos’ would be possible while the Logos doctrine
his throne’ to which he is up. was plastic ; scarcely possible (because scarcely reverent) for one
4 Jn. applies the phrase to a grain of wheat, Simon to a tree. who had received as apostolic the Logos-doctrine of Jn.
It looks as though Simon had misunderstood Christ’s doctrine 3 See Hegesippus (Eus. ‘What is the door of Jesus
in such a way as to induce Jn. emphasise it. The union of to which James replies apparently that ‘the Saviour is the door
the ‘grain‘ with the earth is intelligible the union of a ‘tree cp Epb. 2 18 Rev. 38 Hebr.
with influences affords a far less natural and forcible (saying Christ ‘raised up seems
metaphor. The Logion of Behnesa indicates that Jesus may incongruous with account of the descent of an angel to
have taught a systematic doctrine about ‘abiding alone.’ roll away the stone, but agrees better with Pseudo-Peter who
Tatian‘ (‘ If it [the soul] live alone says (9) that ‘the stone rolled away of itself;’ implying,
it inclines downward to matter, dying with the flesh but if it perhaps, that Christ caused it to roll away arose by his
has obtained union with divine Spirit, it is no own power (so that the angels descended merely to carry
longer without an ally’) is closer to Simon than to Jn. up to heaven). The more orthodox account is that of Paul, and
index contains several ‘resemblances to I Pet. quoted by Polycarp Phil. 2 ‘believing on him who
Lk. One of these is of this life’) resembling raised our Christ the head.’
1829 1830
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Jesus Christ cometh in This is the deceiver A . D .) fre-
and the Antichrist.’ Now Epistle, quently alleged to have quoted from Jn but (owing to the
so that if Eusebius believed it to be a quotation, he culty of between quotations
97. Basilides. from Basilides and quotations from his
would be bound to attention to But he makes followers, and the fact that Hippolytus and
no mention of it, though he tells us that Polycarp differ from in their expositions of his
(iv. quoted I Pet. It is probable, therefore, that doctrine) the only ground for the allegations is in an extract
expressly quoting the hook of his
he regarded the words, not as a quotation, but as a which teaches that all suffering proves the sufferer
use of Johannine traditions in vogue during the conflict .
to have sinned: Against this doctrine-not any means
against Docetism. peculiar to protests when it states that the
The conclusion, so far as any can be drawn from so man who was born was not horn so because he had
sinned. With that protest before him Basilides could hardly
short a letter, is, that Polycarp knew Mk. and Mt. but have accepted Jn., in its entirety, as
not or Jn., though he used a Johannine tradition So far as it goes, then, the evidence indicates that
embodied in a disputed epistle.’ Basilides did not accept Jn. as an authoritative gospel.
xi. 30 A. D. ) is probably
(Lightf. BE 67) recorded by Irenaeus (v. 361 to have xv. MARCION.-Marcion is mentioned by Justin Martyr
preserved a tradition of a saying of the after the two very early
Lord, ‘ I n the region of my heretics Simon Magus and Menander, as
Cp Jn. even now teaching and as having-gained followers in
‘ In my Father’s house are many every race.
The context indicates that Papias had one meaning and Jn. This implies that Marcionism had been flourishing for several
Papias (taking the word as used x. 31 7 years, and points to A.D. as the date for Marcion’s
encampment,’ ‘ halting-place’) means are many stages gospel. Rejecting the O T and the God therein assumed, he
on the the New Jerusalem Paradise was forced if he adopted any of the four gospels to make many
and Heaven. This explains why Papias has ‘in the region,’ changes in ‘ I have not to the
while Jn. has ‘in the house.‘) means ‘stages’ in the law hut he ‘fulfil’ and ‘destroy. His
Apocalypse and (pp. 1003, gospel is shown extracts to agree largely with Lk. hut to
645, 794) who also (p. 797) speaks of the at omit many passages peculiar to Lk. H e did not call it by
‘the three numbers in the Gospel. The name, may have regarded it as hut one of many ‘interpreta-
three numbers are explained by Papias as the ‘thirty,’ ‘sixty,’ tions’ of the Logia of Mt. more authoritative than most and
and hundred of the Parable of the Sower. better adapted than our Mt. to express his anti-Jewish
The conclusion is that Papias is not quoting and misin- The omissions and alterations that he would have had to make in
Jn. are trifling as compared with those which he was forced to
terpreting ,but quoting, and interpreting in accordance introduce into Lk., and Marcion’s alleged Pauline predilections
with tradition, a Logion (illustrating the Synoptic Parable hardly afford a satisfactory reason for his not selecting Jn.
of the Sower) of which Jn. gives a The conclusion is that, A . D ., Lk. had
And this leads to the inference that, if Papias had Jn. in come into prominence as a recognised gospel in Marcion’s
his mind, did not recognise it as a n region, but that Jn. was not yet equally prominent.
xii. to in its
former portion (Lightf. A.D.), while accepting a Logos- xvi. VALENTINUS. A. D. )
doctrine accepts it (ch. ?) in a non-Johannine use our gospels.
96. Epistle form Lightf. on Col. : hut phrases in says that his followers freely used the Fourth.
ch. 10 indicate a familiarity, if not with 99. Hippolytus (635) gives as from
as a a t all events with lohannine himself, a quotation ‘All that
doctrine and of are come before me are thieves and robbers.‘ But Tatian has
The latter portion (Lightf. A.D.) short though it is, yet thrice a somewhat similar allusion (calling it on one occasion a
contains (ch. 11)an apparent allusion to 1629 Now speakest saying of ‘the most ’)(chaps. 12 14 18) referring
thou clearly which makes it highly probable that to demons ’ who have been of deity and ‘taken
the author had read The late date, however, makes this men captive.’ As has been shown above 57 n.), it is
testimony of little importance. probably the Synoptic tradition about the contrast between the
xiii. HERMAS.-The Shepherd of Hermas ideal ruler and the of this world, thrown into a Johannine
contains no traces of recognised authoritative Johannine form, which found its way into Christian tradition before Jn.
thought. The alleged similarities of language was generally recognised as authoritative.
96. Hermas. may generally be traced to common tradition xvii. S UMMARY OF T HE EVIDENCE BEFORE JUSTIN.
based on the Rock and the
Gate, the Son a Fellow-counsellorwith the Father in creation -Thus, up to the middle of the second century, though
(cp Ecclus. with Is. 96); 56) ‘showed them the paths there are traces of Johannine thought
of has no connection with Jn. 2 27. and tradition, and
T h e Logos-doctrine (cp I ‘That Spirit is the Son of God
tions to the Johannine Logos-doctrine, some
and see 56) is so strikingly unlike that of Jn. that the
would seem either not ,o r t o as writers Barnabas and Simon) we find rather what
Jn. develops, or what Jn. attacks, than anything that
imitates Jn., and in others Polycarp, Ignatius, and
See 66 ahove. Eusehius’s omission here is the more Papias) mere war-cries of the time, or phrases of a
noteworthy because (though not bound to do it) he tells us that
Papias and Much more would he feel doctrine still in flux, or apocalyptic traditions of which
bound to tell us that Polvcaro. earlier than either of them. Jn. gives a more spiritual and perhaps a truer version.
quoted Goth and could it have escaped him There is nothing to prove, or even suggest, that Jn. was
so short an epistle, Polycarp’s only extant work. ’ recognised as a gospel.’ Many of these writers, how-
Besides the instances above-mentioned, Index
mentions, as a ‘resemblance’ to Jn., ‘that your fruit ever, are known to by extracts so short and slight that
may manifest among all. n. 15 has ‘that may inference from them is very unsafe it is otherwise with
I Tim. bas thy progress may be manifest the writer next to be considered.
to the notions of ‘fruit’ and are both Pauline
(cp 622 ‘your fruit’). xviii. JUSTIN.-Justin Martyr A. D .) has been
has (69) to describe a saint’s citizenship found above ( I )quoting freelyfrom Mt. and Lk.
in tke of the Father. The primary meaning of
is ‘at a man’s ‘at his home’ is sometimes appearing to use a harmony
only a secondary meaning: of the two (3) adopting Lk.by preference
Cp the Enoch (Charles 61 For in the world to as to the Miraculous Conception and the Passion (4)
come ... there are many mansions prepared for
the good, evil for the evil, many without number. This may
good for quoting (apparent) interpolations in Lk. and (5)
be one of several instances where the language of Euoch appears showing a disposition to maintain the claims of Lk. as
in the doctrine of Jesus. a new but authoritative version of the Memoirs of the
5 No many early authors (such as Tatian and Theo- apostles. The instances given 75-77) to prove these
though accepting Jn., may have retained for a long
time traces of an older Logos-doctrine-sometimes more like conclusions will suffice to show Justin’s attitude ‘toward
that of Philo. But Hermas hevond anv hounds consistent the Synoptists. It remains to consider his attitude toward
with acceptance of Jn. in v. 6 Spirit which pre- Jn. as deducible from alleged quotations, or types,
existed, which created all the creation, was caused God to
dwell in flesh which he desired [it to dwell]. That borrowed from it abstentions from quotation agree-
therefore ... along with the Holy Spirit, he chose as a partner.’ ments, or disagreements, with doctrine or statement.
1831 1832
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
(I ) Minor apparent potations. him, How can a man be begotten when he is old?
(a ) Tryph. are called and are the true children of Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb
we should he the children of God (so) we are.
and be begotten? Jesus answered ...
Except a man
Both Justin and Jn. are alluding, (I) Jewish tradition begotten of water and (the) he cannot enter into
ahout God‘s ‘calling’ Isaac to thereby causing him to the kingdom of God.’
(Gen. Isaac shall thy seed be Rom.417 Justin is here meeting heathen misrepresentations of the two
the things that are not as though they were sacraments, hy showing that they are on Christ’s com-
[is to the tradition that Isaac was ‘called’ from mand and on reason and that the heathen themselves have
the dead (Heb. 11 ‘that God was t o raise [him] from the imitated them. As’to the he gives ( I ) Christ’s
to be compared with Josephus’s comment on the sacrifice Words of Institution. the Pagan As to
of Isaac [Ant. ‘that God was able to bring men into since he gives the imitation later (62 64) he is
abundance of the things that are not and to giving here what he regards as the of Institution
take away the things that are’); partly (3) to Philonian traditions (for he gives no others).‘ That they are derived from Jn. is
ahout God‘s creative ‘call’ (Philo 2 367 ‘ H e calleth the things improbable for many reasons. ( I ) Justin’s tradition is thrown
that are so that they are : Philo into the form of an indirect precept thou shalt be baptized or
2 ; and (4) to a Stoic phrase I a m and I a m called’ thou shalt not enter’); is a statement of a law. Justin
(Philo 1 E ‘they both and were omits the two elements mentioned in full form of the
divine’ i6. ‘Heracles was nine utterance-viz. ‘water’ and ‘spirit.’ Justin, though
to he the son of and he was [so] ’). So, here Justin first familiar with the of to mean ‘from above,’ and
shows that God was to (Jer. 3127 and Is. 19 up a though he once uses here has
seed’ to Israel ; then asserts that he this people Israel (4) That Justin agrees with Jn. in connecting
and declared it his inheritance: lastly, in answer to Trypho’s the doctrine of regeneration with words about the impossibility
‘Are you Israel?’ he replies, ‘We both are called and ofre-entering the womb, is not indeed a n accidental coincidence
are the children of (6) Apol. 6 reason and is a n y more than the somewhat similar connection in an
a n allusion not to Jn. ‘spirit and truth,’ but t o what Justin of Simon Ma us ‘How then and in what
has just said about the temper of ‘in reason, manner doth shape (in the to which
reasonableness,’ and is a play on the word Logos. (c) Simon ‘Admit that Paradise is and that
17, ‘the ess and righteous [one], sent [as]light from this is true Scripture will teach thee,’ afterwards entering
God to a recognition of Christ as (Is. 426 Lk. into minute materialistic details about ‘the It is a
232; Enoch ‘light to lighten,’ not only Gentiles,’ connection so natural in controversy that it is easy to understand
the world ; and an allusion to Jewish traditions 2 that it became a commonplace in Christian doctrine.3
226) based on Ps.433
I
of the
60 If ye .. . out thy
ye
thy
he saved’), treating
serpent, differs so much from Num. 21 (‘that
( 3 ) Other
this [man]was
Tryph. 105,
only-hegotten of the Father of the Universe
That
every one that is bitten, when he it, that it is having become
urged (Lightf. BE 87) that the writer had in his mind Jn. from him in a special’way Word and Power
3 that whosoever may in him have eternal 4) and
But Barn. (12 7 ‘let him hope an d
he saved’)
...
from Num.
and immediately
is
the
as we learned the Memoirs I have shown
closer to Bqrnahas than to Jn and a p ears to be the ahove.’ Lightfoot (BE , omitting the words
former or some kindred accuses the Jews infers that Justin as Memoirs for
of cancelling 73) ‘H e shall reign from the tree in Ps. ‘special’ antemundane birth. But the words
96 and some might infer that he borrowed this thought from omits indicate that Justin refers to where he ‘shows
Jn., regards the Cross as a on which Jesus is ‘lifted thisfrom Memoirs, as an inference from peter’s confession.
up ’ ‘exalted.’ But see Barn. 85: the reign of Jesus This resort to the Memoirs to prove what they cannot prove
tree. hut Jn. could prove, indicates that Justin did not
The close and numerous resemblances between authoritative; (6) Justin, against is to have
Barnabas and Justin in respect of prophecies and types
prove that Justin followed either Barnabas or some (3 19 and from Philo 482 443 498 (and cp Menander
in Eus. 326 and Simon Magus in Hippol. and from
tradition used by Barnabas, and g o some way towards Epict. is ir-
proving that, if he knew Jn., he preferred Barnabas. resistibly in favour of the rendering ‘from above. may
Except ye begotten again. 61, For mean ‘again but only where the context to that
in the name of God, the and Lord of the meaning, does in Artemidorus (see Grimm’s Lexicon), who
says that a man who dreams of being born over again
Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they then will have a son, because having a son is, as it were, a second
receive the washing with water. For indeed Christ
said, Except ye be begotten again ye not Justin himself never uses the word to mean ‘again,’ hut ( I )
‘fromahove,’ ofthe Incarnation,
enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Now that is rai and also probably (against
absolutely impossible for those once born to re-enter Tryjh. 63
the wombs of those that bare them is evident to all.’ ... with or
Jn. ‘Except a man be begotten from he Tryph. 24, ‘from of old.’ If Justin were here
quoting Jn., he would he a phrase that he himself
cannot kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto uses.
Justin’s words, In’the name of the Father,’ etc., show that
The antithesis was naturally common after the he the formulary of Mt. 28 as binding in practice.
of Nero. It may he illustrated by Mt. 22 14 Many are called the recogiiises (but does not quote) it.
few chosen,’ hut also by Epict. ‘When we see a Justin nowhere quotes f o r the fa c ts of Christ’s
trimming, we are wont to say H e is not a Jew but pretends. but only And Lk. omits the to
But when he takes on the condition of and If it be urged that Jn. states the doctrine in two forms, and
chosen(& the elect ”), then that Justin may have preferred the (‘begotten from
he is
a : where ‘is
called and is.’
... called
and is called’ seems parallel to Justin’;
above’), then
altered
form.
‘from above’ into ‘again,’ he has
which occurs only in second
Justin (Tryjh. ‘theonlyspotless It may be worth noting that Barnabas (168) as well a s
man and then repeating the phrase ‘man Simon Magus, introduces his explanation of (which
says that he was ‘sent into the world. Cp Wisd. he bases on the metaphor of a temple) with a ‘How?’ (Cp
IO ‘Send her forth from the holy heavens, send from n. can these things be?’) In these two authors
the throne of thy glory ’ where ‘her refers to Wisdom 7 is rhetorical, in Jn. it is not; hut the usage perhaps
25) ‘the pure of the glory the the traditional way of stating and answering a perplex-
of the Both Jn. and Justin ing question. Barnabas (like I Pet. 1 3 23) regards the ‘be-
adapt Jewish tradition to the Incarnation ; hut Jn. (1246 I am as ‘again’ (not ‘from above’), $.:
a into the world.’ 3 soeaks of the as ace does not permit of showing the
‘the of it as ‘sent.’ - (The doctrine, which tacitly protests that
rendering ‘spotless light’ is an error ; nor is there a play on the ‘second birth’ is not the question. The question is ‘Is it from
double meaning of ‘man ‘and ‘light.’) For the construc- or (like some of the second births of mysteries)
tion (‘sent [as] ’) cp I Jn. 4 IO
For other passages in Justin and Barnabas resembling one
aiiother, and found also in Jn., see the connection of the Cross
‘from
4 cp I 22, ...
Jn. would not apply the verb
or ‘tree’ with water (mentioned ahove. and to the Logos except in Connection with (174) ‘flesh’.
frequently draws a marked distinction between the of
:he Logos of man or matter (1 I 6 8 58).
in I The words, the only-hegotten,’ etc., may be those of
Pet. 1 3 (RV) again.’ commenting on what he has quoted from Justin.
5 The evidence from use of the word Eusebius (4 quoting, from Justin, this extract, stops
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
written (Iren. iv. ‘ I should not
only-begotten Son came to us. . .. believed . ..
This Lightfoot (BE
‘proclaimed the and taught him (Christ).
this Westcott (Ju. says that the Synoptists
asserts to be based on Jn. But, besides the objection anywhere declare his pre-existence,’ apparently inferring
many authorities as W H, read in Jn. 1 ‘God for ‘Son, that Justin must have Jn. in mind, though he never quotes
this assertion that Jn. must have invented this applica- But the italicised words (cp 8 IO) simply indicate the
tion of ‘only-begotten,’ whereas in fact it followed general continuity what taught as the Logos,
fro m the Logos-passage Wisd. describing the Wisdom through and what he taught as Jesus in
of God as containing a Spirit might be When Justin ‘shows‘ the pre-existence of Christ from a par.
gested by Ps. ‘Deliver my the sword, mine it is from the Memoirs, but in a most unsatis-
from power of the dog. Now in the Apologies factory manner (see last footnote). ( d ) Tryph. 86 says that ‘the
an d Dialogue Justin (so far as Otto’s Index shows) never uses rod in OT is a type of the Cross, and that Moses, ‘by means of
the word ‘only-hegotten’ except in referred to this, saw water the fr o m
above (a) where he supported it by Ps. 22 and professed to 103) applies to Christ Ps. 22 like water.
have shown’ it, the ‘showing’ really a These words seem absolutely to demand some reference to that
inference from the Memoirs. All this far from indicating a stream (if he knew of it) which the author of the Fourth Gospel
borrowing from Jn., proves that, he alone records himself to have ‘seen’ flowing from Christ on the
to base any statement on (c) T ry j h . 88 has simply Cross. Yet Justin (ib. instead of quoting Jn., quotes the
the Synoptic tradition of Baptist, developed as in Acts interpolated Lk. 2244, omitting mention of so
(with a tradition of Justin’s own twice that the quotation accords with the Psalmist’s ‘poured out like
repeated in connection with the Baptist with water.’ (e) 97 follows Barnabas applying part
ada trd from Is.); and 57, as to the of Ps. 22 18 to the ‘casting of lots for Christ’s garments. But
instead alluding to Jn. is a ,quotation from Ps. 78 25 goes farther, by quoting the whole which mentions
with an allusion to Ps. (cp Cor. 10 3 and also Wisd. ’dividing’ as well. also quotes the whole verse, but goes
representing a stage of tradition earlier than Jn. ; farther still, seeing in it two distinct acts. It is
69, ‘those who were from birth and according to the highly improbable that, if Justin had known, as apostolic, this
flesh defective [in vision] is alleged to warrant for a fulfilment of prophecy he would have
refer to the healing of the man ‘blind from mentioned omitted to refer to it. But he neither to it, nor even
only by But Justin speaks of these people in the recognises two says that the Vine is
plural, Jn. 32 states that the unique, unheard God‘s people, planted and pruned for its good by Christ, without
‘from the the world. Justin was probably reference to 15 describes himself as pruning
quoting from some tradition earlier than Jn. ; hut in any case the Church that the fruitful branches may bring forth more fruit.
this instance tends to show that, if he knew Jn., he did not I Apol. 63, ‘The Jews are justly charged ... by, Christ
regard it as authoritative.3 himself, with Knowing neither the Father nor the Son. This
Other alleged quotations, if examined, might be ought to refer to ‘charges’ as Jn. 8 ‘Ye neither Know
shown, even more conspicuously than those treated me nor Father. Yet Justin quotes it nothing but an
ancientversionof Mt.1127 Lk. but
above, to fail to prove that Justin recognised Jn. as an or in Mt. and Lk.] the Father, save the 3
authoritative gospel. nor the save the Father, and those to whom the Son will
(4) Quotation.-It is generally reveal [him] which is merely a general statement of the con-
ditions of (h) ‘The well-known lamb
recognised that the Synoptists do not teach, whereas Jn. that was, to be roasted whole was
and Justin do teach, Christ’s pre-existence, a type of the Cross. Jn. alone describes the rovidential inter-
the feeding on Christ’s flesh and blood position by which ‘not a bone was broken’ of the Paschal
lamb. Yet Justin, instead of referring to this, refers t o’ the
(as in those precise words), the roasting of the two lambs on two spits, one across the other,
application of the term to Christ, and which typified the Cross !
the Logos-doctrine. When, therefore, we find Justin ( 5 ) Inconsistencies with mostly concern Justin’s
either not appealing to any authority in behalf of these views of the origin of Christ, and the
doctrines, or appealing to pointless passages in the Logos - doctrine ; but they also affect
Synoptists instead of pointed .passages in Jn.. it is a his views of God, and of theology
legitimate inference that Justin did not recognise Jn. as generally.
on a level with the
(a) I
both the flesh
66 ‘ W e have been taught that the food ...
the blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
Justin’s view is that
that the came
6) God has no ‘name’;
declare the Father’s ‘name‘ and to kee
them that ‘name. The notion of a Trinity in a Unity of
is

I n support of this, instead of quoting Jn. 654 along with the or love, is from Justin. Generally Justin shrinks from
Synoptic words of Institution Justin quotes ‘the interpolated the phrase ‘begotten of God.’ According to him it is the Logos,
Lk. 22 ; (6) Tryph. 105, (see 101 [a]); (c) or the who ( ‘the new (26.
48, the belief in Christ’s pre-existence is based on what is the Church, his also
Elsewhere he allows
short before ‘but the only-begotten’; the part omitted by himself to say that God has begotten from himself
a kind of Logos-power Yet when he
Eusebius contains words common in Irenaeus hut not in Justin eaks of the Father as begetting the Son, he always inserts
and (3) has two allusions to Epistle: (to which his or ‘coming forth by the power and
; (4) elsewhere Justin never uses counsel’ of God, or, speaking of birth of Jesus he
apart from prophecy that justifies it. On the other hand, uses the middle ‘cause to be begotten. In his
Justin might quote, to a Christian, authorities that he would
...
not quote to a Jew, to whom everything needed to be proved.
venit a d nos ... . ...
(In the words omitted by Eusehius [‘. . nos plasmavit
est mea ad eum fides utraque Deo
Justin’s may be the earlier form, to which ‘of blood’
may be a later addition. But in any case the argument remains
nobis praebente’] the intrusion of the sing. [‘mea’] would be that whereas Jn. fulfils Justin’s requirements exactly, and the
strange, whether Justin or Irenaeus were the writer; but interpolated Lk. does not, Justin quotes the latter and not the
may have been misread as On the whole, former.
.the words are probably not Justin’s. I t may be replied that Justin understanding the nature of
Acts Justin Acts Hebrew poetry, perceived that ohly one action was ;
Justin but 53 and ‘ass’ though
Not, however, by BE. by the other Evangelists. The real explanation is that
After quoting Is. 85 the deaf lame, represents a later and more developed tradition than that
dumb,’ Justin asserts the healing of adopted by Justin.
.. ‘ N o one knoweth the Son save the Father,’ but quoted
Clearly includes if it is not restricted to, those who as by Justin again and by
Inhisearlier work Origen, and
scribe appears to have corrected into (I Apol. Thus according to Justin the Church (Ecclesia) and Man
22 I t looks (Anthro are both by Logos. the Valentinians
as though Justin interpreted in the’ but taught Anthropos and Ecclesia were the children of Logos
literally the Dialogue, some old tradition about Christ: acts and Zoe.
of healing. Hence the strange addition ‘in the flesh. H e If means ‘containing Logos,’ means
seems to ,mean ‘not, as some say, but ‘a Power containing Logos.’ What is this ‘Power’? Surely
defective. ‘Thought Hence Justin implies that the Father
On this point I Apol. 46 is a key-passage, ‘We were taught begot ‘Thoiight as the or Beginning and that
Christ is the God, and we that in this or there was But is formal
h e is the Word wherein every race of men participated. The
doctrine of the First-born is authoritative leaching,’ the Logos
doctrine is the indication the writer. On the rare occasions
when Justin asserts (Tryph. that he has ‘shown’ that heretical-doctrine
Johannine doctrine is in the Memoirs, his ‘showing,’ when Cp Jn. 1 1 3 ‘were begotten of God where Irenaens and
analysed, amounts to ‘we have other insert voluntate and apply it not t o
supported by references to OT Tertullian (D e Chr. 19) accuses
1836
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
anxiety to emphasise the supremacy and ineffability of the no darkness’-would accept the latter half of this antithesis.
Father, he speaks of one (meaning the Logos) who is (Tryph. Paul’s saying that Christ (Phil. 3 ‘comprehends or ‘catches
56) not God and Lord, under the (for its human soul is very different saying that
Maker of the universe ; ( I 32, and the light ‘comprehends’ the Also
The first Power, to the Father of all. This conveys the -which applies to any saying, and not specially to Scripture-
notion that the Logos is hut one of many subordinate Powers. combines with the naturalness of such a ‘ saying’ in Christian
Also the multiplicity of names given to the Logos 56 controversy to make it probable that Tatian is quoting a common
Wisdom, Angel Day East Sword tradition, and not Jn. ; Renounce demons and
(1 that follow the only God. All things by him
of Jn. ; and when Justin quotes Dan. to lay stress on the the Father), and without him hath not heen made
‘as’in Christ anything ; cp Jn. (1 All things were made
76) the word him the Logos), and without him was not made
seems anti-Johanniue, and bordering Docetism. anything.’ The two sayings are quite distinct in meaning but
(6) evidence appears, the likeness makes it certain that Tatian must have known
Jn., though he has either misinterpreted it altered it (possibly
then, that ( I ) when Justin seems to be alluding to Jn., to avoid polytheistic inferences).
he is really alluding to OT or Barnabas, ( a ) Truces of as a recent interpretation.’ Though
or some Christian tradition different from the teems with subtleties (alien from Jn.) about matter
Jn. and often earlier than Jn. when and the Logos and shows no recognition of the Johanniue view of
.Justin teaches what is practically the doctrine of the the spiritual of the Father and the Son, yet the above-
mentioned allusions or quotations-occurring as they do in a
Fourth Gospel, he supports it, not by what can easily very short treatise that contains hardly a single allusion to the
be found in the Fourth, but by what can hardly, Synoptists-indicate that Tatian attached considerable import-
ance to a of stating the Christian such as he
any show of reason, be found in the Three; (3 ) as found in Johannine tradition or writing. Such passages
regards Logos-doctrine, his views are alien from Jn. 5) God the beginning : but the beginning, w e have re-
These three distinct lines of evidence converge to the ceived is a Logos
conclusion that Justin either did not know Jn., or, as is indicate what may be called an attempt to
on Word was in the beginning,’ so that we
more probable, knew it but regarded it with suspicion, hardly call them recognitions of Jn. as an authoritative
partly because it contradicted his favourite Gospel, gospel. the following passage perhaps in the same
partly because it was beginning to be freely used by his direction. Supporting his theory evil springs from the
the Valentinians. (4) It may also he fairly inferior of kinds of spirits,’ Tatian says These
things it is possible to understand detail for, one who does
added that literary evidence may have weighed with not in empty conceit reject most
him. He seldom (as many early Christian interpretations which, in having been
writers do) from apocryphal The title he gives in for
have made those who give heed to them acceptable to God
to the Gospels Memoirs of the Apostles shows the Now the only passage in N T that definitely and
value he set on what seemed to him the very words of fully recognises Tatian’s ‘two kinds of spirits’-bidding the
Christ noted down by the apostles. Accepting the reader ‘not believe every spirit,’ giving him a test by which he
.Apocalypse as of theapostle John, may ‘know the spirit of God’ and discern ‘the spirit of truth
and the spirit of error’-is I Jn. 4 I t seems probable, then,
he naturally have rejected the claim of the Gospel that Tatian is here referring to the Johannine Epistle and Gospel
to proceed from the same author. This may account for which are obviously connected and are generally supposed
:a good many otherwise strange phenomena in Justin’s have been published together.
writings. H e could not help accepting much of the This would fit in with a good many facts. The word
Johannine doctrine, but he expressed it, as far as possible, interpretations was applied by Papias to the various
in non-Johannine language; and, where he could, he versions of Matthew’s Logia. Mark was called Peter’s
went back to earlier tradition for it, such as he found, interpreter,’ so that Mk. itself might be called an in-
-for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas. terpretation ’ of apostolic tradition. There is evidence
xix. gives evidence A . D . ) of to show that the Johannine Gospel was long preached
special value because, being a pupil of the recently orally before being published and Tatian’s words seem
ceased Justin who does not quote Jn., he to hint at a deferred publication in course of time hav -
wrote an which apparently does ing in writing’). If it was interpreted
Jn., Johannine tradition and, later, after by an Elder of Ephesus, such as John the Elder,
he had become an Encratite heretic, he composed a be to Tatian as an ‘interpretation. Also, the
Harmony of the Four Gospels, thereby accepting the clause about rejecting implies that some had rejected,
Fourth as on a level with the Three. His Apology or were disposed to reject, the work in question-and
may throw light on the date, and perhaps on the this with contempt. Justin may not have gone so far
reasons, of acceptance. this. Tatian’s respect for the admirable Justin
The alleged BE quotations in the Apology are the is quite consistent with the hypothesis that he already
-following: (a) 4) ‘God is a spirit, not one that dissented from his former master’s cautious avoidance
matter This is of Jn., especially if Tatian himself did not yet rank
His simply of
Apology. 699) that God is ‘a spirit,’ but ‘one that interpene- it with the Synoptists.
trates being (and (6) The gives little help beyond the
Orig. 13) this, you see, is the assurance that, when it was composed, Tatian ranked
meaning of the saying The darkness
not the ;for the soul did not itself Jn. with the Synoptists. As handed down
preserve the spirit, but was reserved by it, and Arabic, it differs, both in text and in
the It is doubtful arrangement, from the text commented
whether says that (I Jn. 15) ‘God is light and in him on by Ephraem and both of these differ from the text
commented on by
the of substituting ‘were
Cp perhaps ‘If some were to
The fact appears to be that, whereas preceding writers had God,’ yet Israel received a revelation, ‘having
laid stress on being again,’ laid stress on the nature been comprehended’ (read for
of birth describing it as (113) ‘from 3) ‘from grasped and drawn towards God, because God to
Many offence at this, as suggesting that his own being.
is of the same as Christ’s incarnation (which In N T is not used to introduce Scripture except
indeed may have been meaning). Therefore, in the first when (Lk. 2 24 Acts 2 16 13 accompanied some
passage where states the doctrine (re-stated in the Epistle too in the Law in the Prophets!’ etc. not
often to be changed), some ventured to change it. thus it must be) rendered ‘said spoken etc. (cp
18 By a n act of will he brought us forth. This Rom. 4 18 ‘according to that which been
thegeneral mistranslation 3) ‘from though to Abraham-not ‘according to that which hath been said
it must mean ‘again.’ in Scripture).
1 H e uses it is true a corrupt text of the L X X and refers to the 3 A complete collation of Aphraates Ephraem and the Latin
Acts but never quotes Enoch does), version of the Arabic shows that are not than three
the Gospels of the Hebrews, Egyptians etc. Eusebius, who or four passages-and these of little importance-where these
bestows such praise on Justin’s 18 I) three alleged representatives of Tatian’s work agree against the
.‘cultivated intellect. modern text (as represented by WH): Mk. 923 Mt.
1838
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
This indicates-what ‘of itself is highly probable-that a t a little to our knowledge, for the time of its composition (about
very earlyperiod the was revised in the interests of A . D .), Irenreus regarded four gospels’ as no less essential1
orthodoxy so as to leave few traces of the author’s Encratite and four than the ‘four zones of the that in Gaul the
other What may be the correct inferences must have been recoenised much earlier. But the im-
from Theodoret’s account of Tatian’s excisions and of ‘the mis- portance of Tatian’s testimony following on Justin’s is that the
chief of the composition and what ought to be inferred from two appear to fix the in sceptical
Eusebius’s ( H E statement ahout teacher favouring Lk. but rejecting Jn whilst his pupil at first
the work, are that do not affect Tatian’s recognition apparently took up Jn. as a ‘divine ’interpretation’ specially
of All agree that before the end of his ahout adapted for a appeal to the Greeks, and before long
recognised the Four Gospels as bbing of placed it in a of the Four Gospels.
special authority, although his notions of authority may not From this date investigation is rendered needless by
have prevented him from handling them with considerable
freedom. the practically unanimous acceptance of the canonical
As regards the date of recognition, Tatian’s adds Gospels. E. A.

-HISTORICAL AND SYNTHETICAL.

What remains of the present article will be devoted tendency appears also in another direction, the political
to a brief statement and discussion of the principal the desire to make the Roman authority as little
hypotheses which have been at various times put for- responsible as possible for the death of Jesus (Mk.15
ward as tentative solutions of the Synoptical problem. 1-14 Mt. 27 1-23 and very specially Mt. 27 24 most
On the fourth gospel see J OHN , SON OF ZEBEDEE. strongly of all in Lk. 23 1-23, where Pilate even invokes
the judgment of Herod, an
I. TENDENCY I N THE of which there is no hint in Mk. or Mt.
The question of tendency deserves the first place, for § 43 §
the more tendency can he seen to have been at work in The very widely accepted view, that Lk. is of a
the composition of the Synoptic gospels, specifically character, can be
the less room is left for the action of maintained only in a very limited
. merely influences and the like.
of one kind or another The mission to the Gentiles is
in the Synoptists are conceded even by brought into very distinct prominence by the evangelist
the most conservative scholars. Thus they find not only in his own narrative but also in report-
that Mt. wrote for Jewish Christians, or for to ing the words of Jesus.
prove to them from the O T the Messiahship of Jesus By Jesus, partly in express utterances partly in the
choosing and sending forth of the seventy (10 I ) whose numher
this appears from numerous O T quotations, often corresponds to that of the heathen nations in Gen.
even prefaced with the words, that it might be fulfilled 10, partly in his interest in the Samaritans who were not re-
which was spoken : 1 etc. ). garded hy the Jews as compatriots who i; the Third Gospel
Jerusalem is spoken of as simply the holy city ( 4 5 are, to all appearance, the of the Gentiles. The
word ‘stranger’ used to designate
27 Much space is given to the polemic against the the cleansed Samaritan leper (Lk. 17 IS), is the tech-
Pharisees and Scribes. The contrast to Mt. used for all Gentiles in the well-known inscription marking
sented by Lk. is striking. Here many speeches, which the limits in the temple precincts which non-Jews were pro-
hibited from passing, under penalty of Lk. has no
according to Mt. were directed against the Pharisees,
are addressed to the nation in general (Lk.
parallels to Mt. 7 6 (pearls before swine), 10
way of the Gentiles
of Israel’). I n
23 15 24 (‘not sent but unto ...
Go not into any
(‘even sinners love those that love
house
639 43 as against Mt. 38 15 15-20). In Lk.
3 7 (contrast with Mt. 37) we have the (surely impossible) them’) the persons spoken of with depreciation are not, as in
Mt. 546f ublicans and heathens but sinners. In Lk. 5
story that the Baptist addressed the masses who desired (call of the mission to the is hardly mistakable
to receive his baptism as a generation of vipers a, 32, last footnote) : the other boat which is summoned (5 7) to
a). The fact, too, that Lk. carries the genealogy aid Peter in landing the multitude of fish, is that of and his
companions, whilst James and John (according to 5 IO) figure as
Jesus back to Adam points to the conclusion that, in the comrades of Peter and the astonishment and apprehension
writing, he has Gentile Christians, or Gentiles, in his they share with him signify that until now they had not
mind. The same inference can be made for Mk., grasped thedivine of an extended mission. That they
who is at pains to explain Jewish words or customs
34 and byfrequently Latin
nevertheless took part in the mission to the Gentiles at the
divine command (5 5 , ‘a t thy word cp ‘repentance . ..
in nnto all the nations’) is in entire agreement with the
words ( 5 6 27 74 39) and forms of expression ( 36 5 23 representation in Acts 10 (see Acts, 4).
1465 1515)and even explaining Greek by Latin phrases The reverse side is seen in the rejection of the
1516) shows that he was addressing readers who Jewish nation, in great measure, or indeed, if the words
spoke Latin. Again, from the relatively small number be taken literally, ‘altogether.
of discourses of Jesus reported by Mk. we may perhaps Cp
.. .
first and first
saved?
last ’),
.. . Strive to enter ... last ...
(‘cut it down’), where the Jewish
conclude that he attaches less importance to the teaching nation is intended by the fig-tree (see 4 (Nazareth
than to the person of Jesus. It is the person that he The rejection of Jesus in his native city means
desires to glorify. that he met with no recognition in his native the word
Further, each evangelist in his own way is influenced native place’ being ambiguous. The mention of
works in (4 23) where according to
by, and seeks his narrative to serve, the apologetic Lk., Jesus had not yet been (he reaches for first time in
interest. To meet particular objections, such as those makes it evident that the narrative has purposely been
preserved by Celsus (cp Mt. 28 we find, for ex- given the earlier place the narrator, though not in agreement
ample, an assertion so questionable as that of Mt. with his sources, as a sort of programme expressive of the relation
of Jesus to the Jews a s a whole 39, 127 a, y).
(the watching and sealing of the tomb, of which I n an entire group of parables the whole point lies in
the other evangelists know nothing), or that of the the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles to
bribing of the watchers (Mt. 28 11-15-a charge which, salvation.
if actually made and believed, would certainly have Thus the Gentiles are indicated by the third class of those
involved their death cp Acts Once more, invited to the royal supper-thosecompelled to come in from the
highways and hedges (14 ; cp Again, (25
Dr. Rendel Harris says on ‘Bar
Salibi seems to intimate that Tatian gave no harmonised
of the Resurrection. Every reader of Ephrem’s text, current See TEMPLE.
in the Armenian will have been struck by the poverty of the Exceptions such as 199 (‘daughter’ or ‘son’ of
Commentary at this part of the Gospel.’ But there is no Abraham) 133 (‘reign over house of Jacob for ever ’), 54 holpen
‘poverty’ now in the Arabic Israel servant salvation unto his people’) 2 326
In particular (see for Greekapeaking Jews. I t of thy Israel’), 38 (‘redemption of
ought to be added however, that Gentile Christians also were which doubtless come from the author’s sources, do not invalidate
interested, or at of being interested, in the evi- the above observation-all the less because they agree with what
dences of Christianity derived from the O T prophecies. has already been under ACTS, 4.
840
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
14-30) ethical parable of the talents receives in 19 parable of the Unjust Steward, the Rich M a n and
(‘far country ‘receive kingdom’), 14 (‘citizens him ’), 27
(‘these ‘slay them’), additions which give it a Lazarus, the Importunate Friend and the Unjust Judge,
wholly different complexion. Here, the nobleman who goes may be specially mentioned end). Indeed, the
into a far country and whose people, for declining his rule, are in writer does not seem to have accepted them in their full
the end put to death, was suggested by the well-known story of extent, for by his appendix to the Rich Man and Lazarus
Archelaus son of Herod the Great (see 8) but in the
intended of the parable the him. question of sending warning) he has given the
self and the ‘far’ country into which he travels is the region of parable quite another meaning 6) similarly in
the Gentiles; cp the similar use of ‘far’ in 15 73 the case of the Unjust Steward by the appendix 16
(:prodigal’), Acts239 (‘promise to all .. . afar off’) 2221
send thee [Paul] far hence unto Gentiles’), Eph. 2 (little and much, one’s own and another’s) d)
were far off’), 17 (same). Even Lazarus who in Lk. and even in the last parable mentioned above, atten-
comes into poor and as must, the tion is directed from the Judge’s unrighteousness by the
addition in be regarded as representing the Gentiles addition of 188 6 ( faith on earth?
the rich man and his brethren being characterised in the word:
‘fhey have Moses and the prophets’ as representing the Jews. In Lk. great care is taken to warn readers against
Cp also expecting the coming of the kingdom as imminent
Against the work-righteousness of the Mosaic law (219, immediately; ‘before
we have the saying about the unprofitable servant all these things until times of
7-10), and the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican Gentiles fulfilled ‘not with
with regard to which, however, there is no observation 19 parable because
reason to doubt that it was spoken by Jesus. supposed kingdom immediately ’). The ‘ straightway
( d ) In we have a specifically Pauline expression preserved in Mt. has disappeared in Lk.
-the designation of the Publican as ‘justified’ (2125) ; sa also the statement in Mt. that
another in 8 lest they believe and be the days preceding the end shall be shortened for the
saved : cp I Cor. 1 elect’s sake, and (2269) the announcement of the speedy
‘to save them that believe’) also 188 the claim that appearance of the Son of Man coming on the
should return he would be entitled’to find clouds of heaven (Mt. 26 64). The idea in Lk. (21
faith on the earth lastly the formula, thy that the premonitory signs of the end cannot appear
faith has saved thee dusts ae) : 7 ! until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled rests upon
(woman house), (Samaritan leper), 848 the belief of Paul that before Christ’s parusia the gospel
(woman with issue), (blind The same must first be preached to all nations (Rom. 11 25
formula, however, occurs also in Mk. 534 (woman with See, more fully;
issue), Mt. (woman with issue). (a)Just as in Lk. Ebionitic and Pauline ideas are found
It is therefore not specifically peculiar to Lk. and in juxtaposition and contrast, so in Mt. are universalism
moreover a careful survey of all the passages cited does and Jewish particularism (15 24, lost
not show that Lk. has appropriated any specific doctrine sheep of Israel twelve thrones
of Paul, but only that he has made his own in all their not into way of Gentiles;
I.‘”.
generality the gains of the great apostle’s cities of Israel, as against from
dom from the law, and the assurance that salvation is east and west 21 two sons wicked husband-
open to all. men ; royal marriage ; teach all nations; 2414,
The same conclusion is reached by examination of another preached whole world 2 6 13, wheresoever
parable-which also certainly was spoken by Jesus- that of the preached in whole world), legal conservatism and free-
Prodigal Son who is taken back into favour by the father with-
out anything being said of any sacrifice on his behalf such as dom from the law not destroy but fulfil;
Paul would certainly have regarded as necessary. The woman what they bid you d o ; pray not on a
who was a sinner (Lk. 747 jo) is saved not of her faith Sabbath ;-as against 532 1 9 8 , divorce; 534, swear not
alone but quite as much by reason of her love-just as Abraham 39, resist not; new patch, new wine;
and Rahab are in I Clem. Rom. 10 I.
Over against what has just been pointed out we must Sou of Man lord of Sabbath).
set those ideas which Lk. has in common with what is (6) On further is manifest, in the case
usually called the Ebionitic side of of two parables especially, that the rejection of the Jews
primitive ( a )The poor and the call of the Gentiles to salvation was introduced
are blessed because of their poverty, only as an after-thought.
the rich condemned because of their riches 6 j
the case of the royal supper, those first invited, after reject-
Blessed ... , Woe unto .. rich man
ing the invitation and slaying the messengers, are conquered
war and their city burnt (Mt. but in the original form of
and Lazarus cp Jas. let brother of low degree the parable their place was in the king’s own city. . After the
glory, God ... choose poor, 5 6 ye have killed . .. military expedition the preparations for the supper remain just
as they had been (224 others’ too in 226
the righteous one Clem. Hom. possessions are bas a strange look coming after 22 5 they went their ways ’).
in all cases sin loss of them any way is a taking The insertion points unmistakably to the destruction Jeru-
away of sins salem in 70 A.D. as a punishment for the of Jesus and
his apostles, and serves to indicate the whole nation of the Jews
(6) as signified by those first invited. Had this been the original
Beneficence wins salvation (Lk. give for alms ... intention of the parable, it mould not he easy to understand why
all things are clean [but see 130 635, do good and Lk. should have enumerated three classes of invited
lend; make friends by mammon cp Ecclus. 330, persons of whom of course only the third can signify the Gentiles.
But conversely it would be equally incomprehensible how Mt.
alms an atonement Tob. 1 2 8 Clem. Rom. 16 4, could have reduced the number of the classes to two had three
Clem. ad beneficence the ground of classes been already mentioned in the original form of the
salvation, (c) God is to be parable as in Lk. Since there the heathen are the third class, if
omitted that class he was obliged to transfer explanation
stormed by earnest importunate prayer 1 8 , because of to the second class, which he could do only by inserting
importunity’ 18 judge and widow). Such thoughts,
however, do not through the entire texture of Lk. These remarks do not in any way contradict the fact that in
they are confined to definite portions, among which the Acts community of goods is an ideal with the author ; for the
idea of OF GOODS is indeed related to the
Other coincidences are seen also in 8 (‘eat such things as Ebionitic ideas of the Third but is not identical with
are set before 11 46 (‘yourselves touch not the burdens’), then,. Further, it must not be that, though with Lk.
20 386 (‘all live unto him when compared with I Cor. 10 27 this community was indeed an ideal for the past it is quite
(‘whatsoever is set eat’) Gal. 6 bear own another question how far he wished to see it his own
burden’), die, the Lord’s’). Cp time.
Hawkins, 160 . also (but with caution), Evans, Paul the The whole journey of Jesus into foreign territory (Mk.
author Third Gospel, 1884.
It is necessary here to give a note of warning the woman came out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon to.
usage of the Tiibingen school, which simply made Ebionitism meet Jesus. Far-reaching consequences follow from this sea
identical with uncompromising Judaism.
1842
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
The two forms of the parable are in no case of his own people and even as regards these the task he had in
independent of each other, for of the three excuses of the first band was a one. Mt. (lost 26 (children’s
invited two agree very closely in Mt. and Lk. We must there- bread) as his first word to the Canaanitish woman (not as
fore assume that the parable in its original form-in which we his last) is by no means incredible. H e may very well
can, without any difficulty, attribute it to Jesus-distinguished actually bidden his disciples restrict their preaching to the Jews
only two classes of invited guests, as is now done in but 5f: 23) on account of the nearness of the end of the world.
that these were intended to denote, not the Jews as a whole and Mt. 19 (twelve is perhaps only a somewhat modi-
the Gentiles as a whole, as in hut the esteemed and despised fied form of one of his own utterances, even if assuredly it was
classes respectively, among the Jews themselves, as in Lk. Each not spoken by way of answer to so mercenary a question as that
of the evangelists, therefore, has judged it necessary to bring of 19 27 (‘what shall we have?’). In the of Jesus perhaps
some reference to the Gentile world into the words of Jesus difficult saying to understand will be the expression of
which, as originally uttered, did not look beyond the Jewish friendliness to the Pharisees in Mt. 23 (Moses’ seat), to
nation, but each has carried out his object in a quite independent which the words of 16 (‘beware of the doctrine of the
manner end). With regard to the parable of the Pharisees ’), 23 4 (heavy burdens), 11 (‘my yoke i s easy ’)
wicked husbandmen we are expressly told in Mt. 21 45, as well are so directly contrary.
as in Mk. 12 and Lk. 20 that the hearers understood it as See, however, in general, At all events it
referring to the chief priests Pharisees. Clearly therefore,
it is a later addition when Mt. (21 43) tells us that Kingdom is necessary to assume that the last redactor (who was
God shall he given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof friendly to the Gentiles)-in other words, the canonical
-that is, to the Gentiles. Moreover had it been genuine this Mt. -dealt much more gently with his particularistic
verse would have found its place before, not After,
(‘Did ye neverread. . On the other hand source than Lk. did with his.
( e ) In spite of the ‘straightway’ of Mt.
Mt. 20 has been left unchanged. The fact that here
classes of labourers in the vineyard are distinguished is is not altogether exempt from the tendency we have
to show that the reference he to the Jews as a whole on already seen in Lk.to postpone the date of the parusia
t h e one side and to the Gentiles on the other. The distinction
of two classes within the Jewish nation without any reference to cp (my lord tarrieth), 25 5 (the bridegroom tarries),
the Gentiles, which has been shown above to have originally 25 (after a long time).
underlain the parable of the royal wedding has heen expressly Of the three Synoptics Mk. is characterised‘least by
preserved in the of the Two (Mt. 21 28-32), as definite tendencies. The traces of which some
also in that of the Pharisee and the Publican in Lk. (18 9-14).
In two places in Mt. some critics have even de- critics have found in Mk. are of the
tected a polemic against the apostle Paul. slightest. For example, time is
(a) In Whosoever shall break ...
and teach fulfilled’... ‘believe in gospel’: Gal.
.. shall be called the least (Paul having called himself
faith ’), 9396
44, fulness of time’
Cor. ( I Cor.
through
are remini-
i n I Cor. the least of the apostles,
scences of Paul but they are not Pauline ideas. The
in (the enemy,’
who sows tares among the wheat). mission to the Gentiles finds its place in 13 IO (‘gospel. ..
unto all nations ’), (‘ wheresoever the gospel’) cp
‘Enemy’ with or without is, in
Recognitions and Homilies, a constant designation also all the nations in 11 17 (house
for Simon Magus by whom is Paul (see SIMON MAGUS). of prayer for all the nations), unless indeed this be
Perhaps Paul in Gal. 4 16 (‘am I become your enemy? merely a filling out of the citation from the LXX. Some
is already alluding to the term ‘enemy’ as having been aversion to Jewish particularism may be seen in the
.applied to him by his opponents. At the same time
however, it must not he overlooked that the First Evangelist toning down’of the answer of Jesus to the woman of
self does not share this view of the ‘enemy’ : Canaan children first inserted) as compared
according to enemy is the devil it is only the author with the form in Mt. Mk. also, like the others,
the evangelist’s source, therefore, that can have been following
a n anti-Pauline tendency here (cp As for Mt. 5 seeks to postpone the date of the parusia. Instead of
heaven and earth pass ... shall be called great in the the ‘straightway’ of Mt. he has ( 1 3 2 4 )
kingdom of heaven it is almost universally recognised that these ‘i n those days,’ and in 9 1 he does not, like Mt.
verses interrupt the connection,’ and it therefore remains a say there be some standing here that shall ‘see the Son
that they were not written by the author of the gospel
placed on the margin by a later hand (see e). of Man coming his Kingdom,’ but only that they shall
As regards the remaining legal and Jewish par- see the Kingdom of God come with power.‘
ticularist passages in Mt. (see above, a,a), on the other On the whole, then, it would seem that such tendencies
as have been spoken of manifest themselves only in a
hand, it is not probable that they were first introduced
after those of a universalistic character. ... few parts of the three gospels. A
warning must be given against
They are neither so few as to admit of being regarded merely
as isolated and indeoendent nor vet seeking to find too confidently any
tendencies in the way in which the
original apostles arementionedwhetheras implying praise
.
Moses’ seat all . .. yon, do), and (with special facility) or blame.
It would be in accordance with the general character of Lk.
‘neither Sabbath’ in admit of re-
moval without injury to the connection ; hut not 15 24 (‘ unto if some aversion to the original apostles were held to underlie
lost sheep’), (children’s bread), or 19 (twelve thrones). the censure of James and John for their proposal to call down
But precisely the ‘neither on a Sabbath’ fire from heaven upon the inhospitable village (Lk.
is quite certainly original if it comes from the ‘little Apoca- 9 and it would he in accordance with the opposite char-
lypse’ As for the substance, we can more easily acter if it made no mention of hardness of heart with
refer back to Jesus those utterances in which salvation is re- which the original apostles are charged in Mk. 6 52 8 But
stricted to Israel. far as the principles of Jesus are con- Mt. is precisely the one gospel which chronicles Peter’s faint-
cerned, they most assuredly contain within themselves no such heartedness on the water and Mt. as well as Mk. has the speech
limitation. Purity of heart, compassionateness, the childlike in which Jesus him as ‘Satan’ (Mt. 16
spirit, can he shown by the Gentile as by the Jew. The outlook Mk. On the other side, it is precisely in Lk. 32) that
of Jesus, however, seems still to have directed itself but little we find the passage which, along with could be in-
towards the Gentiles. H e felt himself to be primarily a child scribed in golden letters on the Church of Peter in Rome.
In another matter (should we be inclined to see here
(‘For I . .
serve a s giving the grounds
. exce t your righteousness’) would
5 (one jot or one tittle)
any tendency’ at all)-theenhancement of the miracles
of Jesus in number and character-all the evangelists
only if the Pharisees were open to the charge of denying validity have a share Thus, of the tendencies
t o the minor precepts of the law. On the other hand we have discussed are followed, not in the interest of a
would serve admirably as a ground for 5 17 (not to but
t o fulfil) if by the word ‘fulfil’ Jesus wished to give party, but in that of the church which was ever more and
t o the law a fuller and more perfect meaning, far beyond the more approximating catholicism in character. But,
mere letter. Were 5 actually the ground (ydp) for 5 the further, the tendencies affect only a limited portion of the
of ‘fulfil‘ could only be that Jesus desired
in his to follow the law down to its minutest details, and gospel material, and by far the larger part of this material
enjoined the same in others also. But this disagrees not only does not admit of explanation by their means. In the
with 5 but also with 5 21-48 (‘Ye have heard’); 227 sections referred to there are but two instances in which
(‘Sabbath for man’); 7 1-23 (washing, corban); 10 (divorce), it has been claimed by the present writer that ideas have
a word, contradicts the whole attitude of Jesus towards
Mosaic law. been clothed in narrative dress-those of Peter’s draught
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
of fishes a n d of th e tares a m o n g th e wheat th e other ’97) has even found himself driven to
places in this b e alleged a r e b u t few 142, the assumption that Jesus his teaching t o his
disciples catechetically, in the form of continually repeated
a n d C LEOPAS ), a n d even in these th e symbolical questionand answer, as was the custom with the Rahhis.
mean ing b o r n e by t h e narrative arises almost always
fro m a n originally figurative man ner of speaking being
T o m a n y this hypothesis co mmen ds itself as an
I t dispenses with th e necessity of
mistakenlynn dersto od as literal expression of a fact, not
assuming th a t original docu ments from which o u r
fro m deliberate a n d conscious invention for purposes of
gospels h a d been drawn - writings of
edification.
have p e ri sh e d ; also with th e necessity of supposing
A TTEMPTS T O SOLVE THE PROBLEM th a t evangelists h a d deliberately- in other words, with
BY L ITERARY CRITICISM. tendency - altered th e written text of their predecessors
th a t lay before them. But such advantages a r e only
In considering the attempts t o solve t h e Synoptical a p p a re n t, not r e a l ; th e variations a r e present, a n d
problem b y literary criticism we begin most conveniently they d o not admit of explanation as d u e to mere
with what, in appearance a t least, is t h e accident.
hypothesis : th a t of a primitive Nevertheless, inadequate th ough t h e
gospel h a n d e d do wn solely by oral tradi - hypothesis b e as a complete explanation of th e pheno -
tion. By continual narrating of th e gospel m e n a displayed b y o u r present gospels - and of course
history, it is held, there came a t last t o b e formed a we have been here dealing with it in its purity and as
fixed type of narrative, in Aramaic. U p o n this each unassisted by a n y other assumption - it is a t the same
evangelist drew directly without a n y acquaintance with time equally certain th a t it contains a n essential element
t h e written work of a n y other. of truth. Unquestionably t h e formation of a gospel
( a )T h i s hypothesis is a n I t spares narrative was oral in its beginning. T h e opposite
t h e critic all necessity for a n answer t o th e question theory th a t a creative writer freely composed th e entire
wherefore it was th a t o n e evangelist wrote in this man ner material without a n y previous oral currency ( Rr u u o
a n d anoth er in that - although th e question presses for, Bauer, Volkmar) m a y b e regarded as n o longer in th e
and very often admits, a solution. If th e Synoptical field. further, th e propagation of th e gospel
o ra l narrative was really so firmly fixed as t o secure story by oral tradition continued to b e carried o n for
repetition of entire verses in three authors a considerable time even after t h e first written docu -
writing indep end ently of o n e another, th e n th e varia - ments had taken shape, a n d th u s was capable of
tions between th e three become all th e more mysterious, exerting a n influence even up o n gospels of a com -
o r else all th e manifestly d u e t o tendency. T h in k paratively la te d a te end ).
only of th e variations in th e Lord‘s Prayer, in th e words T h e next hypothesis t o re ly upo n very simple mean s
of institution of th e Eucharist, i n th e accounts of th e is t h a t t h e evangelist who wrote second in ord er m a d e
resurrection of Jesus. T h e coincidence appears, how - use of the work of t h e first, a n d th e
ever, n o t only in t h e discourses of Jesus, where it would, third used th e work of o n e o r both of
comparatively speaking, b e intelligible, b u t also in n a rra - his predecessors. To g ra s p this hypo -
tive, i n quite indifferent turns of expression in which t h e thesis in its purity we must put aside all idea of a n y
s a m e writers often also diverge very widely. o th e r written sources th a n th e canonical, a n d must
.The doubly augmented form of the in keep o u t of account as far a s possible th e idea of a n y
Mt. 6 I O cannot indeed be adduced as an
example, for the augment is met with also not only in o ra l sources.
Mk. 25 but often elsewhere outside the NT in the Of the six imaginable orders, Lk., Mt. Mk.,
case of this verb 7). compare, for example Lk Mk been abandoned. A
how Mt. 27 in the before Pilate, and Lk. 23 also he regarded as no longer the field. I t
has no parallel), in the hearing before Herod, the specially on the that Mk. often makes use of
middle aorist-met with in Mk. 1461 in the hearing before the two expressions for the same thing, for which in the parallel
hut very rarely elsewhere in the NT- ‘he answered passages only one is found in Mt. and the other in Lk. But
nothing though immediately afterwards this phenomenon admits equally well of another possible ex-
(Mt. 27 14) we have the Mk. also in the planation-that the diffuseness observable in Mk. ($ 4) gave
parallel passage (15 5) having this form ; or the ‘Lord, Lord Mt. and opportunity for Hawkins
in the vocative of Lk. 6 46, retained from Mt. 7 also Wernle, Woods
his source), though in modified form of the sentence at
why call ye me’ only the accusative T h r e e orders still continue t o b e seriously a r g u e d
would be appropriate. In one pair of parallels (Mt. 2661 Mk. f o r : Mt . Mk. Lk . Mk. Mt. Lk. ; Mk. Lk . Mt. In
1458) the words of Jesus are reported as being t o the effect that
lie would build the (new) temple ‘in the course of three days spite of t h e fact th a t every assertion, n o matter ho w
in another ‘in three evident, as t o th e priority of o n e evangelist a n d th e
days’ or Mk. 11 (cleans- posteriority of anoth er in a n y given passage will be
ing the temple) coincides in the first half word for word with
Lk in the second almost word for word with Mt. 21 found t o have been th e other way by
Further examples are abundantly in Hawkins, quite a num ber of scholars of we nevertheless
42-52 or Der h o p e t o gain a large measure of assent for the following
How far this agreement goes, in the discourses of Jesns, can be propositions :-
observed, for example, in Mt. Mt.
Mt
Lk At the same time even when these are assumed as sub-
Mt. 11 or, for instances of coinci- sidiary to the the remarks we have t o make will
dence between all three evangelists Mt. 23 6 12 still apply of course at all points where borrowing as between
2046; the three evangelists comes into the question.
Between Mt. and Mk. this close The hypothesis of called the
agreement is met with elsewhere mainly in the OT quotations hypothesis, hut not happily, for evidently Mk. or Lk., if either
IO, and in had been the third to write, could also have combined the data
Mt. sn plied his two predecessors.
of agreement between Mk. Lk. Mk. In the passage most frequently cited (Mk. 132) it even
he taken as examples. Instances of deliberate divergence in the necessary, after at even,’ to add, when the sun did set for
midst of the closest verbal agreement can he pointed t o in Lk. according to Mk. it was the Sabbath day and before it
(cast devils) as against Mt. or in Lk. 11 would have been unlawful to bring any sick. Yet Lk.
give good gifts) as against Mt. 7 c). The artificiality could omit the first of the two clauses without loss, and Mt.
and improbability which are seen t o be necessarily inherent in as with him the events did not on the Sabbath,
the hvnothesis under discussion as soon as one tries to it could drop the second.
in come very clearly t o light in Arthur 4 Probably the most conspicuous example in point here is
the Four (‘go), A Synopsis the ‘the carpenter’ of Mk.6 3 as against the carpenter’s
in Greek to Luke SOU ’ of Mt. 13 55, or of Joseph’
Veit, the most recent German advocate of the hypothesis (Die of Lk. 422. On the one side it is held that Mt. and
Lk. are here secondary, because they shrink from calling Jesus
an ; on the other, the secondary place is given to Mk.
Consult further, Wernle, Die 81 because he shrinks from calling Jesus the son of Joseph.
1846
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
( a ) A very stron g arg u me nt for th e priority of Mk. stylistic changes h e makes while retaining individual
is th e fact that, with the exception of some thirty words. L e t a single example suffice.
verses, his entire material reappears bo th in Mt. a n d in According to ‘the of other things’ enter
o r a t least in on e or other of them, a n d th a t the man and choke the word of God. This ‘entering in
does not suit the figure for the explanation of
what is even m o re important - in both, or a t least in one, which it is used-the figure, namely, of thorns choking the
in th e sa m e order as in Mk. T h e absence of th e thirty ood seed. Lk. accordingly avoids the expression
verses adm its of a satisfactory explanation ‘entering in,’ yet does not fail to bring in the word (‘going
using it now, however, of men who in their
whilst o n th e other h a n d th e absence from Mk. of so
(RV ‘as they go on their way’) are choked cares and
m u c h matter contained in Mt. a n d Lk. would be un- riches and lusts as if thorns. The participle had in fact laid
accountable. F o r details as to this, a n d especially also such hold on his memory as he read his model, that it came a t
for th e explanation of th e m ar ke d divergencies in th e once to his pen though in a new connection. Many other
examples will be found in Wernle, ; Krenkel,
order of Mt. 8-12, we refer th e reader to W o o d s , 63-78 35-49 (‘94). . One can also make use of the collections
a n d Wern le , in Hawkins, 53-61, though he himself prefers to infer from
For on ee xa mp le, see (speaking them ‘oral. transmission.‘ But in order to furnish also from
Lk. an instance of a materially important and clearly intended
in parables) comes before Mt. (treasure, pearls, if not quite deliberate distortion of an expression in his
etc. ) instead of after it. into a very different as has already been done in the
T o Mk. there is no parallel in Lk. In 15 above case of Mt. (19 12 23 ; see above, b), and will be done in
this section of. Mk. is derived from a tradition whicd that of Mk. see a‘), we point to his
he did not wish to include in his gospel. Reasons for the omis- with the word ‘Galilee’ (Lk. 246 ‘when he was yet in Galilee
sion in Lk. are in fact conceivable ; for example, the discussion as compared with Mk. 16 7 ‘goeth before you into Galilee’;
of the ceremonial law in 1-23 (washing, corhan etc.), it may Mt. 7 ; see beginning).
have been thought, had little interest for Christian ( d ) Wh ile th e preceding pa ra grap hs seem t o speak
readers, or in the narrative of the Canaaiiitish woman Jesus for th e order Mk. Mt. Lk. (o r Lk. M t . ) we must
may have seemed too Jewish ; in other sections the omission
is less easily explained. Others have accordingly conjectured nevertheless g o o n also to say that Mk. is secondary t o
that in the copy of Mk. which lay before Lk., 6 45-8 were Mt. On (children first), ( ‘ i n those
accidentally wanting. This suggestion cannot be set aside by da ys after th a t tribulation ’), 9 I (some not taste of
showing that in Lk. 11 38 (Jesus not first washed) 12 I (beware of
leaven) we have echoes of Mk. 7 (disciples’ unwashed hands) d e a th ) , see above, 113.
8 (beware of leaven) for Lk. may have derived these from I n the parable of the wicked husbandmen Mk. mentions, on
other sources. The mbst important point is that a t each occasion only one messenger as been hut
(Whom do the multitude- say that I am?), where after omission finally, 5, quite unnecessary and even disturbing manner
of Lk. again begins to follow Mk., he gives an says that there were yet many others (in agreement with
introduction which embodies distinct reminiscences of the Mt. 21 35). Mt. says (12 32) that blasphemy against the
beginning of the portion omitted, 6 45-47 (praying alone, : son of man shall be forgiven and only that against the Holy
If, therefore, the section Spirit shall not be immediately before 31)
of Mk. was wanting in copy, that must at least have that every sin and blasphemy shall he forgiven to men, hut
contained three first verses or the single words just cited blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. In place of
must at least have been still legiblk in it. Through the immediate these two sentences Mk. has only one (3 ; all their sins
sequence of Peter’s confession (Mk. 8 9 18-21) on the shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies
feeding of the five thousand (Mk. 9 it has only not those against the Holy Spirit. Thus he has retained
also come ahout that Lk. the scene of the confession the word ‘Son of Man,’ but made it plural and thereby set
to the locality of the feeding, that is, to Bethsaida (so accord- aside the sense which seemed offensive from the point of view
ing to 9 ;somewhat otherwise, Mk. 6 instead of placing of a worshipper of Jesus, that blasphemy against Jesus
it a t (Mk. 8 27 ; cp can be Cp, further, the examples in
Mt. is secondary to Mk.
If what has just been advanced is correct, it shows
th a t th e borrowing-hypothesis, unless with th e assistance
In Mt. 14 5 Herod wishes to put the Baptist to death, and is
restrained only fear of the people. Mk. 6 f on the of other assumptions, is unworkable, if only for th e
contrary, it is Herodias who wishes death of whilst
Herod hears him gladly. With this it agrees that in Mk. 6 26 The attempt has often been made to invert the relationship
sorry because he is bound by his oath to order the of the two passages and make out that Mt. 1 2 31 is taken from
execution. But the same sorrow is ascribed to him also in Mk. 3 and that Mt. 12 32 says the same thing and comes
Mt. In Mk. the Baptist is by his disciples; from or rather from source. I t argued
in Mk.6 30 the disciples of Jesus return from their missionary that the expression ‘Son of Man’ meaning any
journey and report the miracles they have wrought. T h e man whatever, as in Ps. 8 5, is rendered justice ad
connection of the two verses is quite casual the account of the in Mk. by the plural, but in source
Baptist’s end being episodical. But in ’Mt. 14 it is the erroneously applied to Jesus. But since Son of Man
disciples of John who not only bury their master but also is the only, or almost the only, Aramaic expression for the
their report to Jesus-the report, namely, of this burial. T h e idea ‘man,’ it is impossible that the first writers of Greek in
report the disciples of Jesus of their own return would, in primitive Christendom should not have had occasion, a thousand
fact, come in too late here, as they were sent as early a s times over, to render it by ‘man‘ All the more
1 0 5 and their presence with Jesus again has been already inconceivable is it that precisely here they should have under-
presupposed in 12 I ; hut in 14 Mt. would not have had the stood Jesus alone to be meant by it, if such an interpretation
least occasion to mention a report the disciples of John to had not been absolutely certain. I n their worship of Jesus it
Jesus had it not been that the report of Jesus’ own disciples must have appeared to them in itself the greatest possible
had been mentioned in Mk. 630. In the blasphemy to say that blasphemy against Jesus could he
answer of Jesus to thequestion, ‘Good Master what shall I do forgiven It is precisely Mk. who has allowed himself
that I may inherit eternal life?’ is ‘Wh y thou me good? to he influenced by this consideration. H e alone it is, further
None good, save God only.’ I n Mt. 19 the question who in 3 adds the remark that the reason why Jesus spoke
: Master, what good thing shall I do that I have blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was because they had spoken
eternal life?’ and the first part of the answer correspqnds : Why of himself as possessed by an unclean spirit (322). But the
askest thou me concerning that which is good? Very in - accusation in 3 is not, as Mk. makes it appear, a blasphemy
appropriate then is the second part : ‘ One (masc.) there is against the Holy Spirit, hut rather a blasphemy against the
who is the Had not Mt. here had before him person of Jesus. Thus the saying to the effect that one
such a text as that and Lk. he would certainly, following blasphemy can be forgiven, another not, does not at all fit
his own line of thought, have proceeded ‘one is the the context in the form it receives in Mk., and 3 30 is only an
qood all the more because the immediate con- unsuccessful attempt on the part of Mk. to justify his addition.
tinuation also the exhortation to keep the command- Mk. in so doing presupposes that Jesus had identified himself
ments, would have suited so admirably. The question of with the Holy Spirit. But the opposite view, that of Mt. and
Mt. 1 93 contains the words ‘for every cause’ Lk., that he distinguished between himself and the Holy Spirit
merely because Mt. wishes to introduce ‘fornication can have come only from Jesus himself. Moreover, it is to he
as an exception (u. But in this form the question observed that in Lk. this .saying of Jesus stands in quite a
would have had no ‘temptation’ in it, for an authority so different place IO) from that of the accusation by
great Schammai had already laid down restrictions on Beelzebub, etc.), which according to Mk. (3 and Mt.
the freedom of divorce. On the were amazed (12 24-32) furnished the occasion for it. Now, precisely here
of Mt. 1223 as coming from the ‘is himself’ of Lk. is drawing from the same source as Mt.
Mk. 3 see 8, middle, and ACTS, i. On the first journey 30). I n that common source, therefore, the two por-
of Jesus’into foreign parts, see a, cp further a, tions referred to were not yet in connection with each other
and e also Wernle, for in that case Lk. would certainly not have separated
secondary character in relation to Mk. is here. We can attach all the less importance to their connection
in Mk. if even their connection in Mt., though so much more
shown with extraordinary frequency, especially in th e is not original.
1848
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
reaso n that it is compelled in on e a n d th e sa m e breath without regard to th e limitations demanded b y
to say contrary things a s to th e relative priority of Mt. 1276) leads to insuperable contradictions here also as
a n d Mk. Nevertheless it is impossible to do ubt that th e question of th e interdependence of Mk. a n d Mt.
th e evangelists did borrow from one another th e only T h e hypothesis - especially associated with the n a m e
question is whether here it is only our present gospels, of Eichh o rn (from one Aramaic gospel, in
.or not also other written sources, that have been m a d e which a s far back a s 1778
use of. For this reason we have hitherto refrained recognised th e ‘Gos pel of th e
from expressing t o th e effect that Mt. (o r L k . ) ebrews,’ is in m a n y points open to th e
was dependent on Mk . (o r vice versa), con ten ting sa m e ob‘ections a s that of a n oral original,
ourselves with saying th a t th e on e was to th e only with th e difference that it explains the
other we a r e th us led to consideration of th e hypothesis agreements in our gospels better, their divergences in
of a written source o r sources. th e sa m e proportion worse. Even th e fnrther as sum p-
( e ) Before passing from the borrowing-hypothesis, tion of various translations into Greek with addition of
however, it will be well to illustrate by a definite new material a t each translation is far from supplying
example th e various linguistic changes to which refer- th e needed explanation of th e divergences, for it is not
ence has been m a d e in the preceding pa ragrap hs (a to by a n y means th e literary fo rm alone th a t differs th e
d). W e select for this purpose th e parable of th e matter also, even th e representation of th e s a m e matter,
Sower a n d interpretation it receives. T h e circum- varies widely. T h e sa m e thing has to b e said of th e
stantiality a n d diffuseness of Mk. ap pea r in 4 1 ( t h e hypothesis recently forth anew b y Resch (Die
thrice repeated sea a n d th e pleonasm b y who has even sought to restore to their
t h e sea, on th e l a n d ’ ) , in ( ‘ h e ta ught them , . . presumed original Hebrew (no t Ara maic) form th e
a n d said un to them in his te a c h in g ’ ), (th e repeated sayings of Jesus, along with a great number of narra-
and’ times - and because it h a d not ’- tives, including a history of the passion, th e resurrec-
twice), 4 7 ( ‘ a n d it yielded no frui t’), (‘others are tion, a n d th e ascension of Jesus (thus even going beyond
they th a t a re sown a m o n g th orns these a r e they th a t B. Weiss, see 12 6 e n d ) , a n d moreover maintains that
. . a n infelicitous m an n er of expression is in this original gospel was already known to Paul. T h e
these a re they where.’ I t is L k . who h a s d on e most t o hypothesis of a n original written gospel contains a
smoot h a n d tu rn it into idiomatic Greek. kernel of truth, only in so far a s it is certainly undeni-
For sentences Lk. substitutes participial a b l e that some on e writer must have g on e before th e
constructions (Lk. or a gen. abs. (Lk. others in committing to writing the gospel tradition.
4 I ) ; also he substitutes better Greek words (Lk. 88 a
instead of Mk. 48 8 But the fact of his having been first did not by any
of Mk. 415; Lk. m ea n s necessarily secure for him exclusive, o r even
of Mk. 4 ; Lk. 8 for of preponderating, influence over those who c am e after
Mk. 4 17 Lk. 8 for of
Lk. 8 is In Lk. 8 14 h im his production may have been promptly followed
he drops the Hebraism [cares] of the world ; he b y equally impo rta nt writings fro m other pens.
prepositional phrases in Lk.84 ‘of every city’ A special form of the hypothesis of an original written gospel
and ‘by a parable and in Lk. is that set forth above in according to which the
inserts the relative clause ‘which, when they have heard Triple Tradition was written and often ambiguous
the
. . immediately after the antecedent ‘Those upon
instead of at the end of its
form, somewhat after the manner of a discussion on the Mishna
or of a modern telegram, and was variously expanded and
sentence as in Mk. 4 dependence upon Mk. is shown supplemented by the several evangelists. ,
the ‘good ground’ of notwith-
standing the substitution of a different adjective in Lk. T h e agreement of Mt. a n d Lk. against if th e two
similarlybyhis (418 ‘on former were not acquainted with eac h other, leads to
to,‘ and his in Lk. th e hypothesis th a t each of had
4 r g ‘choke in spite of the ‘amid for
‘into’ substitution of a different verb for ‘choke’ before him a Mk. in one a n d th e sa m e
for in Lk. 47. I n v. form though different from that which
Lk. reverts to the construction of Mk. which - he had w e now possess this was used both by Mt. a n d
avoided in H e is not felicitous in his sub - whilst the canonical Mk. diverges from it. T h e superior
stitution of ‘rock’ (86) for ‘ stony for the
hare rock nothing can grow a t all. a g e of th e form of Mk. postulated by this hypothesis
Mt. (131-23) also smooths a n d would gain in probability if th e canonical Mk. were found
Mt. (v. the second ‘sea’ of Mk.41 and to be secondary to Mt. a n d Lk. (see e,
lace of the third adopts a turn of expression with ‘beach for th e other view see 3, a n d , with t o it,
In 6 he makes use of the gen. abs. in wh a t is said in 126 a ) . Hawkins App. B)
substitutes other connectives for and for The
‘make fruit’ cp Gen. he alters to reck ons some instances of agreement of Mt. a n d
‘give fruit At the time Mt. 13 23 shows against Mk. Ea ch individual case m a y b e unim-
his dependence on Mk. by retaining ‘make alongside p o rt a n t a n d might in other circumstances admit of th e
of ‘produce fruit’, and in (just as Lk. exp la nation of his own proper motion chose
two of Mk. turns of expression of Mk. 47 and
as in 4 or in 26 the sing. crowd th e alteration of the canonical text of Mk. a s Mt.
c p Mk. 4 I ) , although immediately before he has used his favourite h a d but their large number forbids such a n explanation
form ‘crowds (6 That Jesus was sitting Mt. has already here.
(u. and he has therefore to repeat the expres-
sion in from Mk. 4 after Jesus has entered the boat. In AS for th e extent of th e original Mk. now conjectured,
v. rg Mt. has an infelicitous alteration to the effect that by the th e with which th e hypothesis can be m a d e t o
first sowing are intended those who do not understand word, work is increased if with Beyschlag we suppose it to
whereas we should think rather of those who easily allow them-
selves to be again robbed of it. h ave been nearly equ al t o th e canonical Mk. in
T h o u g h , from what h a s been said, Mk. app ears to particular, it then becomes difficult to understand why
have lain before bo th Mt. a n d Lk. it is not possible a new book differing so little fro m th e old should have
to assign to him th e priority a t all points. been produced a t all. If, a g a in , th e original book is
held ( s o Ho ltzm an n) to have been longer than th e
hearken’ before behold’ in 4 3 is superfluous and
disturbing; in 45 Mk. (and with Mt.135) introduces an canonical it becomes possible to assign to it a con-
amplification of the description which has the effect of siderable number of pa ragrap hs (now preserved to us
for the explanation of the parable ; it is absent in Lk. (86). only in a n d Lk.) not so easily explained a s derived
The O T expression of the heaven’ which all three
evangelists give in the parable of the mustard seed (Mk. 4 32 from and other sources If finally
Mt. 13 32 Lk. 13 rg) i n the present case been preserved only we of th e original Mk. (so Weizsacker) a s
by Lk. (8 as also the fruit’ of 88. shorter, then th e additions of canonical Mk. th a t
On the relation of dependence a s between Mt. can be to a re merely th e verses (some thirty
a n d Lk. see If th e contention a t th e close of or so) peculiar to him, together with such individual
is correct, th e borrowing-hypothesis when taken expressions as have no parallels either in Mt. o r in
1850
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
individual expressions a r e partly for t h e sake of meaning of any parable he is not to keep his discovery a
m o r e g ra p hi c description (17 bowing down, 14 secret. but this application of the two sayings is certainly
not original (see, 134). In Mk. when the
sh e b ra ke the cr u se ’ see also statement that Jesus appointed the twelve is repeated, the
a n d t h e like), partly they give greater precision b y designation of Simon as the first apostle is omitted, only his
giving n am e s (2 14 3 1 0 46 15 40 16 I ) o r n u mb e rs surnamed Peter is mentioned. In the expression
‘they which are accounted to rule
637 cp on t h e whole of this h e a d Hawkins, instead of the simple ‘rulers’ of Mt. 2025-is a
We rn le , 45-47, They d o n o t give mitigating reflection of the same kind as is frequently met with
o n e the impression, however, of being interpolations also in Lk. (the closest parallel in ‘that which he
he hath’). Mk. 12 34 the statement that ‘no man
of later d a t e t h a n th e rest of t h e work, a n d they c a n after that durst ask him any question’ is introduced at a quite
m o r e easily be supposed t o h av e been d rop p ed b y t h e inappropriate point (namely immediately after the commenda-
writers who c a m e after Mk . as hardly interesting en o u g h tion of the discreet scribe) is met with in its right place in
(W ern le , or fitted t o ca u s e offence (so for Mt. 22 46 immediately after the discomfiture of the Pharisees by
the telling answers of Jesus to their ‘tempting‘ questions. In
example 6 4 Jesus had no honour a m o n g Mk. 11 we find ‘the father who is in heaven
his o wn kin a n d in his own house, and that they even the only instance in Mk. of an expression which
said, ‘ H e is beside himself,’ see 131). T h e entire is in Cp also 9 3).
verses, or narratives, on the o th er h an d , which are (6) I t is op en to us, no d o ub t, t o try t o account fo r
peculiar t o Mk. a r e m u ch too inconsiderable t o m a k e these secondary passages b y assuming that after the
it likely th a t a new book should h av e been ju d g ed canonical Mk. h a d been used b y Mt. and it w a s
necessary for their incorporation here too their altered b y copyists.
omission b y Mt. a n d Lk. ad m its of so m e The additions in Mk. 14 (‘made hands do not, in
or it is possible to find traces of them in Mt. a n d point of fact reappear in (‘railed a t him, saying’); Mk.
If th e original Mk. is conceived of as having b ee n 9 (‘how it written, falls into place after 9 (‘Elijah
is come and perhaps was originally a marginal note on this
materially shorter t h a n t h e canonical Mk ., the point verse an early reader. 1 (quot. from Mal.) or even 1
a t which this comes into consideration is when t h e from have often before now been to have been
origin of the latter rather t h a n when th a t of Mt. at later date-especially 1 since 3 comes
from Isaiah while on the comes from Mal. 3 I and
a n d Lk . is being discussed, for we h av e no m e a n s moreover coincides in spite of original Heh. and LXX,
of determining with precision t h e extent of t h e sup - with Mt. 11 7 27 (5 4, n. I). Should we be prepared to go
posed original Mk. Particularly unpromising of and agree to treat as the work of a later hand everything
that could any possibility be so explained we should regard
useful result m u st be a n y at tem p t (such as th a t also the end of Mk. 12 (‘and many some, and
m ad e , for example, Scholten) to construct a n ori- in and the mention of the
ginal Mk. th a t shall be devoid of miracle. If of in 3’32 (against 31, as having been introduced
Jesus d id an y th in g th a t seemed to m e n wonderful it a n old reader (3 in anticipation of 35 ‘whosoever shall
etc.); so also (‘whereon man yet sat‘) and even
would naturally b e reported a s in the fullest sense 11 13 (‘for it was not the season of ; see ‘And
miraculous on t h e very d a y on which it occurred. In gospel’s’ 8 35 may also he an addition; the words
Acts t h e eye-witness - that h e w as an eye-witness for sake’ make it superfluous. the other hand, after
‘prophesy’ in Mk. the words which
is n o t doubted - relates th a t Eutychus was taken up and Lk. (2264) agree in giving, who is he that smote
d ea d , th o u g h h e also knows a n d tells us that P a u l had thee,’ may have dropped out 3, perhaps also
sa id the y o un g m an ’ s life w as still in him. know’ after given’ in Mk. 4 ; is both
If L k . was acquainted with Mt., o r Mt. with Lk . , (13 and in Lk. (E Cp Hawkins Henceforth
on the other hand, can have into 2664 from
the n ee d for an Mk . which has divergent oral tradition, the existence of which alongside of
been spoken of the preceding written sources must always be taken into especially
section seems to disappear ; in when dealing with such important utterances of Jesus
point of fact H olt zm a nn when he ( c ) On t h e o th er h an d , there are m a n y places to
acouaintance with Mt. which this explanation (later alteration of canonical
PT,‘78, ’78,553) seemed M k . ) does n o t ad m it of being applied.
fo r a time t o ab a n d o n t h e hypothesis of an original Mk. (‘children first’) (some standing by), (in those
T h e hypothesis nevertheless continues t o b e re - days after that (lamp), (accounted to
co m m e n de d b y a n u mb e r of secondary traits in canonical are much too well conceived to allow of our resolving them into
marginal glosses; so also Mk. 330 (‘because they said’)
Mk. which d o not indeed, like those mentioned i n and the weakening the statement in as compared with
prove dependence of Mk. on Mt. or on Lk. Mt. 268 (that ‘some but not ‘the disciples,’ complained of
b u t still render it inconceivable th a t the canonical Mk. waste of the That the cock crowed a t Peter’s
of Jesus is stated not only in but also in vu. 68
could have been t h e work which served Mt. or Lk. a s 7 2; and even if the statement must be traced to a misunder-
a source. Of course there co m e into consideration h er e standing (as in 5 14) the misunderstanding must be imputed to
those places also in which Mt. and Lk. show n o agree- the author not to a who would hardly be so very care-
ment against Mk. ful as to insert his note in three separate places. We should
not be justified in setting down Mk. (fire not quenched ;
To this category belong such additions as ‘made with hands salted with fire ; salt is good) as a later addition simply because
and made without hands (Mk. in this passage sayings are strung together without any
14 Mt. 26 not Lk.), a s also the sense-disturbing connection with each other ; for the same phenomenon can he
parenthesis 9 Mt. 17 ; not in Lk ) ‘And how is it observed elsewhere in the gospels
. .
written . set at nought?’ ... (d)I t avails little t o seek to find in Codex D a n d t h e
the remark, based on Roman Law (Mk. 10 after
19 Lk. omit), that the woman also can put away her allied an older text of Mk. as compared with
husband, and (1 Mt. 3 3 Lk. 3 the quotation from Malachi which t h e present h a s been corrupted by tran -
wrongly to Isaiah. Conversely in 14 62 the ‘hence- scribers.
forth’ (&’ which Mt. (26 64) has, is omitted. /’ 27a
(children first) 9 I (some standing 13 (in those days In the first place, D rarely presents different readings in
after that tribulation, see 5 have’ been recast; and in those places where and Lk. offera better text than canonical
1462 ’I ani’ is an elucidation of the obscure ‘thou Mk. Moreover, when, for example, Mk. D has the ‘to
sayest of Mt. 2664. In 4 the sayings about know’ the absence of which was noted above, this may
the lamp and about the hidden thing which must he brought be due quite as well to insertion from or Lk., or even to anti-
to light are, by the introduction of ‘in order that’ cipation of the ‘how shall ye know?’ of 4 In D
adapted to the object for which they are here intended,- there are manifold traces of a very independent mind. this
namely, t o say that if one to have found out reason we cannot be perfectly confident that D’s reading 16,
was clothed in a camel’s skin’ is the
Mk. (stages of growth) finds its parallel in Mt. original one, although the expression in Mk. is
(tares) (see 5 Mk. (deaf and dumb) in cult : ‘John was clothed with camel’s hair. The ‘camel’s skin
Mt. 15 (multitudes Mk. (answereth may be a deliberate rectification of the text quite as as that
and saith ... . how hard) in Mt. 1924 (and again I say . , . adopted in 34, ‘h e had his raiment of camel’s hair. For the
easier for camel) the amazed of Mt. 12 23 same reason it would not he safe to lay stress on the fact that
arises from the ‘ beside himself’ of Mk. (see 5 8 for Mk. D has only these words : ‘Rut I say unto you,
middle, and the touching of the eyes of the blind the Son of Man is Lord also of Sabbath or that Mk. 9 35
(Mt. 20 34 from Mk. 8 23 (spat on his eyes, (if any man would he first) is (cp 5
1851 18
 GOSPELS .GOSPELS
( a ) From the statement of Papias given above in that in the parallel with Mk. not only the occasion but
65, Schleiermacher in 1832 first drew the inference also the text is in agreement with and in the parallel
the apostle Matthew had made with Lk. occasion and text are in agreement with Lk.
Aramaic a collection only of the Similarly, wherever there is a doublet, is found t o
sayings of Jesus. Whether this is agree in the one case with Mk. and in the other with Mt.
what Papias really meant is question- If it must be conceded that in many cases the agreement
able, for undoubtedly he was acquainted with the of text is not very manifest, this is easily accounted for
canonical Mt. and had every occasion to express by the consideration that the evangelist (Mt. or Lk.)
himself with regard to this hook as well as with regard in writing the text the second time would naturally
to If he was speaking of Mt., then he was as recall the previous occasion on which it had been
much in error as to its original language as he was The passages, however, in which the observation made
as to its author (see this, however, is con- above holds good are many To account for
ceivable enough. That by his logia Papias intended them without the theory of two sources would, even
the whole gospel of Mt., although this contains not apart from these special agreements, be extraordinarily
discourses merely but narratives as well, is not by any difficult,-indeed possible only where an epigrammatic
means impossible (see 65, n. 3). In Greek, logia, saying fits not only the place assigned to it in what is
it is true, means only things said the angel assumed to be the one and only source, but also the
which spake Rom. 32 oracles,’ etc. ) but if Papias other situation into which the evangelist without follow-
took fhe word as a translation of Heb. ing any source will have placed it.
which he readily have done, on his assumption of I n some places indeed this would seem to be what we must
suppose to have actually happened, as we are unable to point to
a Semitic original-then for him it meant ‘events in two different sources. So
general.’ self shall be abased’) ; or the quotation from Hos. 66 (mercy not
( b ) The actual state of the case in Mt. and Lk., how- sacrifice) in (which, moreover ‘is not very ap -
ever, furnishes justification for the hypothesis to which propriate in either case). It must be with intention
that the preaching with which, according to Mk. (the time ;
scholars have been led by the words of Papias, even Jesus began his ministry is in already
though perhaps only by a false interpretation of them. assigned to Baptist or the binding and loosing 136) to
A great number, especially of the sayings of Jesus Peter. On the other hand, the answer I know you not’ which
follows the invocation ‘Lord, Lord’ in (many will
which are absent from Mk., are found in Mt. and Lk. say) and 25 (five virgins) is associated with a different narra-
in such a way that they must be assumed to have come tive in the two cases and cannot therefore, properly, he regarded
from a common source. If these passages were found as an independent so also with the threatening with
in absolute agreement in both gospels it would be fire
possible to believe that Lk. had taken them But, in other cases, such a repetition of a saying, on
Mt., or Mt. from ‘Lk. ; but in addition to close general the part of an evangelist, without authority for it in
agreement the passages exhibit quite characteristic some source in each case, is all the more improbable
divergences. because Lk. often, and frequently also Mt. (see,
(c) I n point of fact the controverted question as to or the omission of Mk. 8 38 9 26 after
whether it is Mt. or Lk. who has preserved them in their Mt. 1626 on account of Mt. 1033). avoids introducing for
more original form must be answered by saying that in the second time a saying previously given, even when
many cases it is- the one, in many other cases the other. the parallel has it, and thus a doublet might have been
Secondary in Lk for exam le are : 1 2 4 as against Mt. 10 expected as in the cases adduced a t the beginning of
this section.
(prayer for the Holy Spirit), Lk. against Mt. 2323 (the Were this not so, we should expect that Lk.,
generalisation ‘every herb or 1144 the mis-
understanding that the are like‘ because before him ex hypothesi the same sources as Mt., would
they not,’ and not because, as in Mt. 23 they are in every case, or nearly every case, a doublet
outwardly beautiful but inwardly noisome. I n Lk. wherever Mt. had one and vice As a matter of
Mt. 5 38-48 Lk. makes love of one’s enemy the chief considera- fact only three or sayings are doublets in Mt. as
tion and introduces it accordinglyat the beginning He
betrays his dependence, however, by repeating it in 35 because well as in Lk. ; on the other hand, although the
in the parallel passage Mt. in source), it is met with derivation of a passage from the logia is not always free
in that position. Cp a. On the other hand from doubt, we are entitled to reckon that Lk. has seven
in 1326 (we did eat and fits better with the
in which Jesus lived Mt. (Lord doublets peculiar to himself, and Mt. many.
ord we not prophesy?). I n Lk. the (6) W e are led to the same inference-that two
‘respect the person’ lit. ‘accept sources were employed-by those passages common to
the face ’)is retained, whilst in Mk. 12 22 16 the
changed. On Lk. 8 6 (other fell on the rock) see end on the three Gospels in which Mt. and Lk. have in common
a. I n the Lord’s Prayer the text of Mt. certain little insertions not to be found in Mk. as, for
has is distinctly the more original on the other hand example, Mt. as compared
the clauses which are not found in Lk. may have been with Mk. or Mt. (baptize with
afterwards (see and the maxim in also
LORD’S PRAYER). as compared with Mk. at the close of which
A conclusion-the existence of a source used passage both even have in common the words and with
in common by Mt. and Lk. but different from fire Another very manifest transition from
indicated by the doublets, that is to one source to another is seen in the parable of the mustard
say the utterances which either Mt. or seed. This is given in the form of a narrative only in
Lk., or both, give, in two separate Lk. in Mk. on the other hand, in the
two sources. form of a general statement. Now, Mt. has in
( a ) In the majority of cases it can be observed that For example Lk. 11 33 (lamp under bushel) agrees much
in Mt. the one doublet has a parallel in Mk. and the more closely with 8 16 (under bed) with its proper parallel
other in Lk. I n these cases it is almost invariably found in Mt. 5 1 5 ; but Lk. agrees just as closely with its proper
parallel in Mk.421 as it does with Lk.1133. C p further,
I n what follows, we use the word ‘logia’ (because it has especially, Mk. 35 (save life, lose 9 24 from
become conventional) in both senses (‘sayings’ alone, and ‘say- which the other two parallels, Mt. 17 33, are
ings and narratives’) throughout, even if the authors to guised common only by the use of instead of
we have occasion to refer, prefer another word. This is specially (whosoever
desirable when they simply say ‘the source,’ we must allow everyone
for the possibility of several sources for the synoptic gospels. Mt. or
In Mk. there are only two passages that can be called Mk. (last. or’ 11 :
(‘if any man would be first and (‘who. (faith‘as 17 6 or Mt. 21
soever would become great on which see ; for 9 I Mt. 7 (ask) = Lk. 11 or Mk. 4 Lk. 12
there be some and (‘gospel first preached’) can (covered up or Lk.129
hardly be so classed. For doublets cp Hawkins 64.87, Wernle (denieth, 1624;
(in neither is the enumeration complete). Lk. 1427 (bear
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
the one half narrative, in the other general state- come into consideration ,here. According to
ment. Lk. derived them from some source. Now, this source
In short, the so-called theory of two sources,-that is must have had many in common with the
of the employment by Mt. and Lk. of Mk. (or original logia pre-eminently, the beatitudes, as also Lk.
Mk.) on the one hand, and of the logia on the (lend, hoping for nothing again); 11 41 ('give for
ranks among those results of gospel criticism which alms') ('sell... and give alms'). In
have met with most general acceptance. it has further been shown to he probable that it was
If the original Mk. was more extensive than the not Lk. himself who was enamoured of Ebionitic ideas.
canonical, possibly it contained things which, on All the more must they already have found place in
another assumption, Mt. and Lk. the edition of the logia which he had before him.
might he supposed to have taken ( b ) The hypothesis of a special source for Lk. must
from the logia. In particular has not, however, be stretched to the extent of assuming
this been asserted of the centurion of that everything Lk. has from the logia had come to
Capernaum (Mt. 85-13 Lk. of the detailed him only in Ebionitic form. Much of his logia material
of the temptation (Mt. 41-13), and is free from all Ebionitic tendency, yet it is not likely
also of the Baptist's message (Mt. 112-19 Lk. that the Ebionitic editor who often imported his ideas
the logia being held to have been merely a of into the text so strongly would have left other passages
discourses. At present it is almost universally con- wholly untouched. Slight traces of an Ebionitic
ceded that in any such collection the occasions of the perhaps can be detected in Lk. whosoever
discourses included must also have been stated in nar- renounceth not all'), (bring in the poor) (cp 13
rative form. This once granted, it is no longer possible bid the poor), 6 36 ( merciful, 18 ( sell
to deny that, in certain circumstances, even narratives all,' 19 8 (half of my goods). But that Lk. had
of some length may have been admitted, if only they access to, and made use of, the unrevised logia also
led up to some definite utterance of Jesus. B. Weiss can hardly be denied.
and, after him, Resch have (c) All the more pressingly are we confronted with
even carried this thesis so far as to maintain that the the question whether Ebionitic source of Lk. con -
logia formed a complete gospel with approximately as tained also those passages which are peculiar to Lk.
many narratives as discourses. This is at once probable as regards the parables
A definite separation of the portions derived from the in fact, for the parable of the
logia might be expected to result from linguistic investi- Rich Man and Lazarus, a t least its Ebionitic shape
gation. B. Weiss has in point of fact sought with without the appendix vv. 27-31 see
great care to determine the linguistic character of the it is possible to conjecture an original form of
logia hut his argument is exposed to an unavoidable a purely ethical nature which characterised the Rich
source of error, namely this, that the vocabulary of the Man as godless and Lazarus as pious, and thus a
logia can be held to have been definitely determined place (along with the beatitudes) the logia, and
only when we have already, conjecturally, assigned may have come from the mouth of Jesus. On the other
definite passages to this source. I n so far as hand, such pieces as the parable of the Prodigal Son
this provisional assignment has been a t fault, the of the Pharisee and the Publican of
resultant vocabulary will also have to be modified. the unprofitable servants on account of their
Such a can never be accepted otherwise wholly different theological complexion, cannot possibly
than conditionally-for this reason, besides the reasons be attributed to the same Ebionitic source. For this
indicated above, that it would be necessary first to de- reason alone, if for no other, it becomes impossible to
termine whether it is Mt. or Lk. that has preserved the suppose that Lk. had a special source for his account
logia most faithfully. The task, moreover, is rendered of the journey of Jesus through Samaria (9 14)
difficult, by the fact that Mt. and Lk. by no this narrative, too, has some things in common with
means adopt their sources without modification they Mk., others with Mt. W e are led to the con-
alter freely and follow their own manner of speaking clusion, so far as Lk. is concerned, that he had various
instead of that of their source, or allow themselves to other sources besides Mk. (or original con-
be influenced by Mk. even in pieces borrowed from the clusion that is, moreover, in with his own
logia and vice versa. preface.
It is specially interesting to notice that Titius, a disciple of B. Short Narratives. -Going much beyond the
Weiss, expressly acknowledges the unprovahleness of his results embodied in the foregoing section
master's hypothesis as a He calls it 'an equation with Schleiermacher, as early as 1817, assumed
many unknown quantities. Nevertheless he thinks he can
prove it 'quite irrefragably' if it he restricted to the discourses. a series of quite short notes on detailed
This has theappearance of sounder method, for greater unanimity events which, founding (incorrectly) on
prevails as to the extent of the discourses which belonged to Lk. 1I n. he called 'narratives'
the logia (Wernle, 91 187). At the same time, even when this
restriction has been made, the difficulties that hare been urged On the analogy of OT s i n this might be called the
hold good, and all the more so since at the outset assigns fragment-hypothesis.' That present gospels should.
too large an extent to the logia and also, what is more serious, have been directly compiled from such fragmentary
in his verbal statistics makes a number of assumptions of a kind sources, as Schleiermacher supposed, is not conceivable,
that are quite usual but also quite unjustifiable. It was there-
fore an exceedingly hold step when (amongst others) B. Weiss when the degree in which they coincide in matter and
Wendt (Die First arrangement is considered 116 a). As subsidiary
Part, Resch (Die and Blair sources, however, or as steps in the transition fi-om
Gospel, 1896) printed the logia, or a source similar to them
Hawkins came to the conclusion that merely oral tradition to consecutive written narrative,
linguistic methods no trustworthy separation of the logia- The two forms in which these are found admit of explanation
portions could he made. See further most easily if we assume that ' in spirit' ; Mt. 5 3)
The divergences between Mt. and Lk. in the and 'righteousness Mt. 56) were originally
. - common to the two but not shared bv Mk.
(I a) are often so great that it be-
absent. The Ebionitic source-and, with it,
case preserved the tenor of the words with the greater fidelity
in this
hut Mt., his insertions, has better preserved the religious and
Special comes a question whether both have ethical meaning in which unquestionably Jesus spoke the words
been drawing. from one and the same -perhaps also by the addition of unambiguously moral utter-
ances such as (pure in heart, peacemakers) which with
source. If it be assumed that they were, then one or equal certainty can be attributed to Jesus, and 7 (mourn
other of them, or both, must have treated the source merciful). Both these are wanting in Lk., although they
with a drastic freedom that does not accord well with the capable of used in an Ebionitic sense if he had chosen to
verbal fidelity to their source elsewhere shown by them take meek in the sense of Ps. 37 and ' merci-
ful in that of Lk. 1141.
It is the Ebionitic passages, chiefly, that [Cp
1856
 GOSPELS
the possibility of such brief notes can by no means be older than the Christian must be regarded as irre-
disregarded (see d ) . Still, to show that they ex- fragable.
isted is by no means easy. The Problem is so complicated that
(6) The '-Nevertheless, the belief few students, if any, will now be found who believe a
is continually gaining ground that into Mt. 24, into solution possible by means of any one
Mk. 13, and (only with greater alterations) into Lk. 21 of the hypotheses described above with-
a work often called the 'Little Apocalypse' has been out other aids. The need for combining
introduced. several of them is felt more and more.
The evidence of this is found the first instance in Most frequently, we find the borrowing-hypothesis com-
the want of connection. bined with the sources-hypothesis in one form or another,
'These things' in Mt. 2433 21 and, over and above, an oral tradition prior to all written
coming as the phrase does after 71.31, refer to the end sources assumed. Instead of attempted detailed accounts,
of the world; yet originally it must have the pre -
monitory signs of the approaching end, for it is said that when we subjoin graphic representations of some combina-
the beholders see 'these things,' then they are to know tions which are not too complicated and which bring into
that 'nigh. characteristic prominence the variety that exists among
Lk. 21 29-31) is not in its proper place here. On the other hand
Mt. comes appropriately enough after Mt. the leading hypotheses.
Mk. 13 speaking as does of a tribulation,' does not come ( a ) Hilgenfeld combines with the
in well after the discourse about false Messiahs and false prophets thesis the further assumption of a
in Mt. parallel to which in Lk. is
actually found another chapter 23 would be ap- original gospel in two successive stages,
propriate after Mt. 24 13 where Hebrew and Greek (so also Holsten, only

\
the connection is excellent. with omission of the first stage),
21 occurs also in Mt. in a form which, a s suiting (6) The simplest form of the
Jewish circumstances better (10 'in their synagogues they will
scourge must be regarded a s the more original ; it is to hypothesis was argued for
be regarded a s of place in chap. 24. On the other hand, by Weisse in 1838 in \
abomination of desolation,' Mt. comes 1856, however, heassumed
fittingly after 7171. As for 71. 5
it belongs, so far a s itssubstance a t least an original Mk.along with
concerned, to the passage, 23-28, which we have already Mt
seen isoutofplacehere. original Mk. alongside of the
not fit well with 15 Mk. 13 14) where only a desecration, Z. Weisse
not a destruction, of the temple is thought of (otherwise in Lk. logia was postulated as a source in
21 20- 'when y e shall see Jerusalem compassed'-on which simple form by Holtzmann down to
see Regarded a s a unity, accordingly, the passage The borrowing-hypothesis
would consist of Mt. 15-22 14-20 in its purest state-the theory,
As adiscourse of Jesus it is prefaced by v. namely, that one canonical gospel
21 introduction which anticipates v. go-and if
you will h y v . and is brought to a had been used in the preparation
close in 35 ( = Mk. 21 33). Of the
In contents, however, the passage is quite alien from - c (a). Holtzmann
Jesus' teaching as recorded elsewhere, whilst on the was thus (before 1878).
hand it closely related to other apocalypses.
It will, accordingly, not be unsafe to assume that an As a more complicated
apocalypse which originally had a separate existence form we single out that of
has here been put into the mouth of Jesus and mixed up (as described by Feine,
with utterances that actually came from him. The '85, p. Inaddition
most appropriate occasion for a prophecy concerning to Holtzmann's scheme he
a n abomination about to be set up in the temple assumed a borrowing from
(24 would be the expressed intention of the emperor canonical Mk. by and
in 40 threw the whole Jewish also an Ebionitic redaction
into the greatest excitement-to cause a statue of of the logia 123).
himself to be erected The origin of this apoca- (d) Weiss reverts al-
lypse will best be placed somewhere between this date most to the hypothesis of
and'the destruction of Jerusalem, which is not yet pre- an original gospel. He
supposed in Mt. 24 Whether it was composed by a postulates for the logia
Jew or by a Christian is an unimportant question (see, (which he therefore prefers
however, to call the
(c) other minor sources that
have been conjectured mention may here be made
of the so-called anonymous gospel found by Scholten
in 19-22 ratives as discourses 126 c).
.other words, in the main, the passages mentioned at ( e ) Simons essentially simplified the
the beginning of of the book which is held Lh theory of two
to be cited by Lk. under the title of 'Wisdom' e. Simons. sources by(what

( d )Buddhistic ( all the hypotheses hitherto enu-

1882; '84; '97) has not actually merated had avoided doing) a
attempted to draw up a gospel derived from Buddhistic borrowing by Lk. from Mt.
material but the parallels he has adduced from the
life of Buddha are in many places very striking, at least Holtzmann from 1878
so far as the story of the childhood of Jesus is combined this last with the Lh
and his proof that the Buddhistic sources are hypothesis of an original Mk. Holtzmann (1878).
59; 10; a).
8 See ISR AEL 96. (g) The latest form of the two-source-theory is ihat
I. end, p. propounded by Wernle. Whether Mt. and Lk. severally
To the (Mt. 1IS), the annunciation to Mary
(1 the star (2 the gifts (2 (Lk. Only the parable of the Wicked Servant (Mt. and,
the incident a t twelve years of age (Lk. 2 must be added indirectly, the narrative of the end of the betrayer (Mt. 27 3-10)
also the presentation in the temple; and here it is worthy of are affected the resemblance to the story of Ahikar; cp J.
remark that such a presentation was not actually required either Harris The 'Did commit
by the passage (Ex.13 cited in Lk. (2 22-24) or yet by in and
the passages Nu. 3 46 18 Ex.22 see I.
1858
 GOSPELS
used one or more subsidiary sources he leaves an open
question. With regard to the logia he assumes that
before they were used by Mt. and Lk. they had under-
gone additions, transpositions, and alterations-yet not
to too great an extent-at the hands of a transcriber
or possessor. The copy which Mt. used had been
worked over in a Judaistic spirit that used
by Lk. was somewhat shorter. Mk. was acquainted
with the logia, but did not use them; he merely took
them for granted as already known and on that account
introduced all the fewer discourses (against this see
g. Wernle.
148). Our present Mk. is different from that used
by Mt. and Lk. but only by corruption of the text,
not by editing.
It is the agreement between Mt. and Lk. as compared
with Mk. that tries any hypothesis most severely, and
it is with reference to this point that
all the most important modifications
in the various theories have been
made. W e proceed to test the lead-
ing hypotheses by its on the presupposi-
tion that neither Mt. was acquainted with nor Lk.
with Mt.
(a)The hypothesis of an original Mk. is in a general
very well fitted to explain the agreement in question
in so far as canonical Mk. is secondary to Mt. and Lk.
if, on the other hand, our Mk. has elements of
originality, as we have seen to be the case with
of his exact details, then one will feel inclined, in
accordance with 3, to suppose that it was a younger
copy of Mk. that Mt. and Lk. had access to. In actual
fact, however, sometimes the one condition holds good,
sometimes the other. It is in this textual question, over
above the question already 118) spoken of as to
its extent, that the difficulty of the original-Mk. -hypo-
thesis in its present form lies.
If certain passages which are found in Mk.
occurred also in the logia, then Mt. and Lk. may have
derived their representation, in so far as it differs from
Mk., from the logia, provided that the logia was unknown
to Mk. That there were passages common to Mk. (an
original Mk. is not required when we approach the
question as we do here) and the logia is at least
shown by the doublets, and is by no means excluded
even where there are no doublets (see 6 and
Wernle, One, however, can hardly help think-
ing that the great degree of verbal coincidence which
nevertheless is seen between Mk. on the one hand and
Mt. and Lk. on the other comes from oral tradition. Thus
a very high degree of confidence in the fixity of the oral
narrative type 115) is required, and this marks one of
the extreme limits to which such hypotheses can be
carried without losing themselves in what wholly eludes
investigation. But, moreover, the logia must be con-
ceived of as a complete gospel if we are to suppose that
it contained all the sections in which Mt. and Lk. are
in agreement against Mk. Hawkins (pp.
reckons that out of 58 sections which almost in their
whole extent are common to the three evangelists there
are only 7 where Mt. and Lk. are not in agreement
against Mk., and in of the remaining 51 he finds
agreements which are particularly marked and by no
possibility admit of explanation as being due to
chance.
(c) According to B. Weiss not only Mt. and Lk. but
GOSPELS
also Mk. made use of the logia over and above,
drew upon the oral communications of Peter and was
again in his turn used by Mt. and Lk. This hypothesis
has the advantage of accounting for the secondary
passages of Mk. as due to a more faithful reproduction
of the logia by Mt. and and the fresher colours of Mk.
as due to the reminiscences of Peter. It still remains
surprising, doubtless, that Mt. and Lk. should have
omitted so many of these vivid touches if they lay
before them in Mk. The supposition that they did
not regard Mk. as of equal importance with the logia is
not in itself inherently impossible; but it does not
carry us far, for they elsewhere take a great deal from
Mk. Still more remarkable is it that Mk. should have
omitted so much from the logia. The suggested ex-
planation that in writing down the reminiscences of
Peter he regarded the logia as only of secondary value
is, in view of the number of passages which according
to Weiss he took from them, still more improbable
almost than that already mentioned.
As regards the coincidences between Mt. and Lk.
against Mk., a very simple explanation seems to be
found for them in the hypothesis of Weiss, that
Mt. and Lk. drew upon the logia with greater fidelity
than Mk. did. however, can of course be
claimed by Weiss only for those sections which he
actually derives from the logia. Yet for one portion of
the sections in which such coincidences occur (see
above, 6 ) he finds himself compelled by his principles to
regard not the logia, as the source of Mt. and Lk.
In this way, of the 240 coincidences enumerated by
Hawkins, some inconsiderable number-remain
unaccounted for. Nor can we overlook the
ability that the logia, as conceived of by Weiss, should
have contained, as he himself confesses, no account of
the passion.
In so as the various hvuotheses referred to in the
preceding section are found to be in-
sufficient, in the same degree are we
compelled to admit that Llc. must
have been acquainted with Mt. (or
vice
(a) Each of the two assumptions- partly without any
thorough investigation and partly under the influence of
a tendency’ criticism-long found support but the
second Ai. c) has at present few to uphold it. T h e
other has for the first time been taken up in a thorough-
going manner with use of literary critical methods by
Simons ($125e).
We begin with arguments of minor weight.
(a) Out of the selection of specially strong evidences in sup-
port of it given in Hawkins we have already (#
ointed out that 13 11 Lk. 8 IO (as against Mk. 4 and
t. 2668 Lk. 2264 (as against Mk. 1465) admit of another
planation. Similarly, the ‘Bethphage and Bethany’ of Lk.
may be sufficiently explained by assuming that originally
only the first word stood the text (as in Mt. 21 I ) or only the
second (as in Mk. 11I), and that it was a copyist who, of
own proper motion, introduced the name he found lacking.
Possibly we ought to trace to the source of Mt., rather than to
the canonical Mt., such material divergences as we in Mt.
21 17 Lk. 21 37 (that Jesus the night outside of Jerusalem
a statement not found in Mk. 11 ; in Mt. 21 23 Lk. 20 I
Jesus taught in the temple, as against Mk. 1127 ‘he was walking
in the temple’); in Mt. 2650 Lk. 2248 (that Jesus spoke to the
betrayer in the garden-a statement not found in Mk. 1445); in
288 Lk. (that the women reported to the disciples the
angel’smessage, whereas according to Mk. 168 they said nothing
to any one ; on this last point however, see e). Similarly,
the representation, the of which has already been
referred to in which the Baptist is made to address the
penitent crowds flocking to his baptism as a generation of vipers)
is either due to an infelicitous juxtaposition of Mt. 3 5 (where it is
said that the multitudes went out to him) and Mt. 3 (where
the words in question are addressed to the Pharisees and Sad -
ducees); or it may be due to use of source. Lk. appears
to be dependent at once on Mk. and on Mt. (or source)
when in 4 2-13 he represents the temptation in the wilderness
during the forty days (as in Mk. and also
as happening after their expiry (as in Mt. 42-11).
Greater importance belongs to the verbal agreements. In
Lk.537 ‘spilled’ is used of the wine
‘perish’ only of the bottles; in Mk. 222 ‘perish’
1860
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
is used of both. I n 9 Lk. 8 44 the woman This is in very deed quite conceivable, if only he
touches the hem of the garment of Jesus in Mk. 5 27 simply the knew the logia, and was in a position to observe how
garment. I n Mt. I Lk. 9 7 Herod is correctly called
tetrarch, in Mk. 614 and also inexactly freely Mt. had dealt with that material.
‘king’ Mt. 19 29 Lk. 18 30 have (c) Soltau sought to improve the hypothesis of
Mk. 10 30 ‘a hundredfold’ In dependence on Mt. by the assumption that it was with
Mt. 26 75 Lk. 22 it is said of Peter ‘he went out and wept
in ‘he began the penultimate form of Mt. that Lk. was acquainted.
to weep’ In Lk. 2353 it is That Mt. was still absent from Mt. when Lk. used
‘he wrapped it in a linen cloth . . .
said of Joseph of
and laid
wound him in a linen cloth
..
...
.
and laid’
Mk. 46
it is an old conjecture. The pieces from the middle cf
the gospel which Soltau reserves for the canonical Mt.
Mt. 28 I Lk. 23 54 have, are of very opposite character (to it he reckons the
as against Mk. ‘it began to dawn’ highly legalistic saying in and the strongly
indeed, in a different connection. In Mt. 28 3 Lk. 244, Judaistic one in and are attributed by him lo
Mk. 16 5 , the countenanceof the angel, or the apparel of the two
very various motives. This indicates a great
in his hypothesis. Nevertheless the suggestion is always
worth considering that O T citations of the latest hand
which are adduced to prove the Messiahship of Jesus
and perhaps some other portions besides, did
A material divergence from Mk., but at the same time an not yet lie before Lk. That there is reason to shrink
approach to coincidence of expression is seen in Lk. where from a hypothesis of this kind, see
the answer of Jesus to the high given in this form : ‘Ye
say that I am.’ T he first two words are a paraphrase of the ‘thou Let us now proceed to consider whether the possible
said’ of Mt. 26 64 ; the remainder of the sentence origin from still earlier written sources of those con-
is a repetition of the paraphrase in Mk. For another secutive books which were the last to
material divergence from Mk. see Lk. 1117 = 12 25 as against precede our present gospels can
Mk. 323 (Jesus knowing the thoughts of his enemies).
) Specially important are cases which a casual expression raised above the level of mere con-
of is laid hold of. for example, in Lk. 9 34 while he jecture. This of course can be done, if at all, only at
said these things as compared with 17 (‘while be was yet a few points. T o show that it has not
speaking’), and as against Mk.97. Similarly Lk. (4 16-30) was
able to find a justification for his erroneous that Jesus been affirmed, even though no very thoroughgoing con-
had come forward in the synagogue a t Nazareth at the very sequences were drawn from the affirmation, we shall
of his activity (cp 39, in Mt. 4 begin by giving three examples well known in the litera-
where it is said that Jesus before coming to Capernaum left
Nazareth (in Lk. he comes to Capernaum from Nazareth). ture of the subject.
The scribe’s question as to the greatest of the commandments is (a) Johannes Weiss (on Lk. 5 17,in Meyer’s says
described not by Mk. (12 but only by Mt. (22 35) as having that the exemplar of Mk. used by Lk. underwent, after it had been
been asked for the purpose of ‘tempting’ Jesus. According to so made use of, another revision, which we have in our Mk. and
Lk. 10 25 the questioner asks what he must do to inherit eternal that had been previously made use of by Mt. before
life. Nevertheless he too is represented as having sought to into the hands of Lk. H ere and in the following paragraphs
‘ tempt’ Jesus. Lk. 16 would be specially convincing on the let A, B, and C he necessarily different hands, and Aa,
present point if here a sentence had been taken over from the Ac, on the other hand, be such portions as may perhaps
latest hand of Mt. (5 But the original text of Lk. probably he due to one and the same hand but perhaps also
said the opposite (see On the other hand, we really from different hands ; similarly also with Ba, Bc, etc. tben
have a sentence by the latest hand in Mt. with which Lk. 7 I view of Weiss can be stated as follows. A is a written
betrays connection, for with the formula ‘When Jesus had source on the healing of the paralytic without mention of the
ended all these words,’ Mt. concludes his circumstance that he was let down through the roof. This
not only here, hut also in four other places (11 I 13 53 I source was drawn upon, on the one hand by Mt., on the other
26 I). Moreover, Lk. also shares with the statement that by B who introduced the new circumstance just mentioned.
the multitude heard the preceding discourse, though this is con- was drawn upon on the one hand by Lk on the other by Mk.
tradicted by the introduction to it in Lk. 6 as well as in Mt. It is in this way at the same Weiss explains
Mk. says in 1218 correctly ‘There came unto him Sad - also how Mt. and Lk. coincide in many details as against
ducees, who well known] say that there Mk. B thus takes the position which original Mk. has in the
is no resurrection Mt. 22 23 infelicitously reproduces this as usual nomenclature not however-and this is the important
‘there came unto him Sadducees saying that etc. point-being the oldbst writing, but being itself in turn dependent
Lk. 2027 seeks to improve this: ‘There came to him of on a source. For our own part we cannot regard this view
the Sadducees, they which say that there is no as being sufficiently firmly since it has been shown in
resurrection, and they asked him, saying. ought that is Mt. who has greatly curtailed the narrative of
to have been in the genitive In the nom. death of Herod ; it is therefore conceivable also that in the
we seem to have an echo of passage before he should have left out the detail about the
Lk. rightly inserts the article missing in Mt. roof also his interest being merely miracle itself as prov-
reference, however, must he to the Sadducees, not to certain ing the Messiahship of Jesus, not in any special detail of it
T he formula, while he was saying these things (see such as this Hawkins and also Wernle, for
above, Lk. 9 is met with also in Lk. 11 37, where Jacohsen similar passages).
would derive it from Mt. 12 46 as also he would derive the state - (6) 86-88, assumes for the narrative of the Mission of
ment in Lk. 12 ,‘When the myriads of the multitude the disciples two sources -one (which we shall call A) relating
gathered together insomuch that they trode one upon another to that of the twelve the bther (B) to that of the Mk.
(which indeed does not fit well with immediately follows : 67-11 and only from A. A and B were both
‘he began to say to his disciples’) from Mt. drawn upon by a third document (C) which was used in Lk.
considers that when he wrote these passages Lk. had reached, in 10 as the sole source, hut in Mt. 10 1-16 along with A. I t
taking what he has taken from Mt., exactly the neighbourhood will create no difficulties if we recognise in A an original Mk.
of the two Mt. passages just cited (1246 13 This, however, (according to Woods ‘ the tradition ’), in B logia.
cannot he made evident. Whilst. critics as Bernard Weiss and Holtzmann
10 were drawn direct from the logia
(6) On general grounds, on the other hand, the (as Lk. 9 was from Mk., or original Mk.), Woods has found it
dependence of Lk. on Mt. (and, equally so, the con- necessary to interpolate an intermediate stage (C ) in which both
verse) is very improbable. In each of the two evan- these were already fused. One might even feel inclined
to go a step further. Lk. in 107 would certainly not have
gelists much material is absent which the other has, given the injunction to ‘eat such things as are set before you,’
while yet no possible reason can be assigned for the first in speaking of a house, and then in speaking of a city, un-
omission. Nay, more, the representations given in the less the one form had come from one source, the other from
another. I t happens, however, that neither of the two
two are often in violent contradiction. Even agree- found either in Mk. or in Lk. 9. Lk. therefore apart from
ments in the order, in so far as not coming from the Mk. source (A), which is made use df, for in 10 I
almost always can be accounted for as derived from a ‘two and two’), would seem to have had two other
second source- the logia. Simons has, therefore, in sources. In any case Woods’ observation in correct that
Mt. has fused together all the sources that can be in
agreement with Holtzmann, put forward his hypothesis Mk. or in Lk. Whilst passing over the rest of Lk.
only in the form that Lk. regarded Mt. as a subsidiary introduces the ‘city‘ into 10 11 at the place where Mk. 6
source merely, perhaps, in fact, only knew it by frequent
hearing, without giving to it any commanding import- The main point is not affected if it be assumed that B also
dealt the mission of the twelve, and that the seventy were
first introduced by Lk. a).
1862
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
a n d Lk. 9 4 speak of the ‘house’ ; the ‘house’ he introduces very little is unrighteous also in much.’ And yet in
into 10 in the parallel to Lk. 10 5 which is absent from Mk. and 1 6 8 he is called ‘t he unrighteous steward.’ In
Lk. 9. In 10 Mt. has ‘silver with Lk. 3
and also ’ as (with Mk. G 8). Similarly, 16 we read further If ye have not been
with Mk. and Lk. he has ‘twelve’ in 10 I , though he had not faithful in the unrighteous mammon and so forth. By
hitherto given the number of the twelve and has to enumerate the very little’ which one is to show fidelity we
them for the first time in T he injunction laid on the
missionaries in 10 9 to ‘acquire’ no money is to he must accordingly understand Mammon. Where then
explained from 108 as meaning that they are forbidden to take are we to look for the steward’s fidelity as regards
a n y reward for their or healing on their journey Mammon? According to the parable, in this-that he
(‘freely ye have received, freely give ’), whereas 10 (‘no gave it away. Unfaithfulness accordingly would
the way,’ we are to interpret it as a
on against taking anything with them when they set manifest itself if one were to keep Mammon to oneself.
The steward, however, did not keep Mammon to himself
(c) Loman ( Th. ’69, traces back to one original and yet was called ‘unrighteous’ (which of course is
parable those of the Tares in the Wheat Mt. and of
the Seed growing secretly in Mk. However different not to be distinguished from ‘unfaithful‘). W e see
they may he apparently, he urges, and however possible it accordingly that the terminology in 16 is in direct
might he to show that even such in which they agree a s opposition to that of the parable itself. Further, the
‘man ‘spring ‘fruit corn,’
belon ed to two quite contrast in the parable is not in the least between
distinct parables, a common original form is by the fidelity and its opposite. What the steward is com-
word sleep Mk. would never have introduced mended for is his cleverness the opposite to this would
any touch so self-evident a s that of the man sleeping and rising be want of cleverness. Thus are an appendix
night and day had there not lain before him something in which
the sleep was spoken of. By the addition that the man awoke to the parable by another hand. Taken by
again daily the original meaning of the sleep is obscured. their meaning would be simply an exhortation to fidelity
If the two parables cannot he supposed to be of independent in money matters. Here, however, they are brought
origin, it is a t the same time only with great violence that we
could derive from Mt. or from Mk. lacks into connection with the parable of the steward, whose
the quality of a trne original in so far a s it is not a n incident of relation to Mammon is represented as one of fidelity.
ordinary life that any one should sow tares in another’s Their fundamental idea accordingly is just as exactly
a n d the other parables of Jesus are conspicuously taken from Ebionitic as that of the parable itself. Thus two
affairs of every day. lacks the character of a n original in
so far as its fundamental idea-that the kingdom of God comes Ebionitic hands can be distinguished, and distinct from
to its realization without the intervention of God or of the both is that of Lk. himself who has added yet another
Messiah (in other words, the precept of transformation of the where he
quite a modern one, directly inconsistent with the
conceptions of Jesus a s disclosed elsewhere in the gospels. declares the parable to have been directed against the
Loman therefore supposes that Mt. 13 24 26 alone stood in a Pharisees and their covetousness.
source A : after the seed had been sown, the tares grew up with (e ) According to we may ta le it that the
i t and the servants asked their master whence these came. T h e
he takes from Mk. 4 hut in the form : ‘the earth final redaction of Mt. was made in a sense that was
brings forth the tares of itself,’ With this the parable ended. friendly to the Gentiles thus attached no value to
T hat such a saying would be eminently in the compliance with the precepts of the Mosaic law.
mouth of Jesus he proves very aptly by Mt. 15 19 (out of the Unless then Mt. 5 be a marginal gloss (see
heart proceed evil thoughts). An anti-Pauline form of the
parable, however B a took Paul a s the sower of the false it must have been introduced not b y the last, but by
doctrine which to he denoted by the tares. I t the pennltimate hand, and its context comes from a
therefore introduced Mt. 13 25 saying that the enemy (on this source of an antepenultimate hand.
designation for Paul see had the tares,
it also, for the conclusion of the parable in A, substituted 5 18 itself rests upon, Mt. or the source in which this
Mt. 13 master’s answer that the tares were sown originally stood. The close of 5 18 ‘till all things he accom-
by the enemy. then added Mt. 13 that plished does not amalgamate with the beginning of the
nevertheless no attempt should be to the false verse heaven earth pass away [onejot or one tittle shall
doctrine of that it should be left to the Final Judg- in pass away]. Moreover, is difficult to see why the
ment. The polemic against here is thus milder than that law should cease to have validity the moment it is fulfilled its
of Paul against his Judaistic adversaries in Cor. 1113’15 ; entirety. But the closing sentence in 2434 is perfectly intelli-
1 5 Canonical Mk., further, was acquainted gible : shall not pass away till all these things
with A and Ba. I n order to avoid the anti-Pauline meaning he accomplished.’ All these things’means here the premonitory
of he left out the whole of the enemy and signs of the 24 35 proceeds :‘Heaven earth shall pass
consequently also the tares. H e had therefore to take the away; hut my words shall not pass away. Marcion has the
answer of the master from A, not however of course in the form same thought in his redaction of Lk. 16 17 : ‘ I t is easier that
that the tares sprang up of themselves, hut in the form that i t heaven and earth pass away than that one tittle should
was the good seed that did so. This last very modern idea fall from my words. For this, canonical Lk. has ‘than for one
accordingly did not find expression here out of the inde- tittle of the law to fall.’ But this can hardly have been what
pendent conviction of an ancient author hut arose from the Lk. intended to say, for this verse stands between two verses
difficulty in which Mk. found himself. The sleep of the master which accentuate the greatest possible emphasis the
lost its original when the daily waking was added. abolition of the law. T h e conjecture of therefore is
From 42 it is clear that Mk. had also B6 hefore him, for he very attractive-that Lk. wrote ‘than for one tittle of my law to
speaks the harvest. Canonical Mt. expressly says the fall’ Here on account
interpretation of the parable attributed to Jesus (13 39) that the of his antipathy to the idea of law, Marcion subdtituted (hut
enemy is the devil. Either, therefore, h e no longer perceives without altering the sense) ‘words‘ for ‘law’
the anti-Pauline tendency of or like Mk. he deliberately But a very old transcriber of Lk. took
seeks to avoid it, though he takes a different way to do so. the word ‘my’ for a wrong repetition of the second syllable
There remains a possibility that he may have understood the of he therefore omitted it and thereby changed
Pauline doctrine to he meant by the false teaching introduced the meaning of the sentence to its opposite. This mean-
by the devil ; but it is equally possible that he was thinking of ing is reproduced in Mt. 5
form of heresy.
This hypothesis of Loman combines with a literary criticism One sees how many the intermediate steps must have
which has far its object the elucidation of the mutual relations been before these two verses have received their
of the various texts, also a tendency-criticism which postulates present form. Still, as already said, 5 may possibly
a n anti -Pauline tendency in Ba. Even should one he unable to
adopt the latter criticism, it is not necessary on that account to be a marginal gloss.
reject the former ; it is open to any one to suppose that the In Mk. and parallels 18 1-6
‘enemy’ may have been a t the outset some very diverse things are brought into combination. First,
form (as already indicated) of heresy.
the account of the disciples disputing with one another
To the three examples given above we purpose to precedence then the story of Jesus
to add a few others which, so far as we are aware, have little child in their midst with the exhortation to receive
not been previously employed in this connection. in his next, the exhortation
In Lk. the Unjust Steward is commended. not to forbid other miracle-workers ; further, the promise
H e accordingly must be in the commendatory that even a cup of water given to a follower of
clause (v. which follows-‘ H e that is faithful in Christ shall by no means lose its reward; and lastly
a very little is faithful also in much’-not in the the threatening against those who cause any of
words of censure 106) ’he that is unrighteous in a the little ones that believe in Christ to stumble.
 GOSPELS
The dispute ahout precedence is answered according to Mk.
(v. 35) by the saying of Jesus ‘ If man would be first, he
shall be last of all and all. This is not found in Lk.
except in the (22 26) where it occurs as a parallel to Mk.
in thesameparallel
Mt. has it again, only in a quite different place (23
and yet neither nor Lk. would have omitted it the parallel
to our present passage Mk. 9 35, had they found it there. For
indeed it is very to the matter, whilst the mention
of the child no means serves to settle the dispute, for the
child is not brought forward as an example of humility hut as a
person to he ‘received,’ and not for the sake of his as
a child but for the sake of the ‘Name of Christ.’ Mt. felt this
want of connection and in order to represent the child as an
example he says v. that the disciples did not discuss the
question among themselves hut referred it to Jesus who
by the little child in their midst. Between this act and
the exhortation based upon it he inserts further his third verse,
Except ye be converted and become little children ye shall
in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. This he borrows from
Mk. 10 15, as is made unmistakably clear by the fact that in the
parallel to this passage, viz., in Mt. 19 13-15, he omits it, so as
to avoid a 183 is also in substance a very fitting
settlement of the dispute between the disciples, and would not
have passed over by Lk. had it lain before him. The ex-
hortation to receive such a child is in Mt. 185 in the same
degree inappropriate to the context. Mt. therefore interpolates
between the two distinct thoughts his fourth verse : ‘Whoso-
ever shall humble himself like this child, the same shall he
greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But even this insertion
does not fill the hiatus between and 5.
The exhortation in Mt. 185 to receive the little child is
immediately followed (v. 6) the But whoso shall
cause one of these little ones to stumble. This fits well enough
on the assumption that children are intended by the ‘little
In Mk. and Lk., however, the two thoughts are separated very
unnaturally by the account of the miracle-worker who followeth
not with us,’ and in Mk., too by the promise of a reward
for the cup of cold water-a promise which Mt . (1042) gives
in a quite different connection, and there, moreover, using
the expression these little ones,’ whom, however, he
stands (differently from grown - up persons of low estate.
T o this promise there is appended in Mk. 942 the threatening
against him who shall cause one of these little ones to stumble,
quite fittihgly-only, however, the assumption that ‘these
little ones’ we are to understand grown-up people of low estate,
children, as in
Let us now endeavour to trace, genetically, the origin
and growth of this remarkably complicated passage.
In a source A were combined only those two parts which
are common to all three gospels-to wit, the statement
of the dispute among the disciples and of the placing of
a child in the midst with the exhortation to receive him.
But no connection between them had been as yet
established. This (primitive) form is found with least
alteration in Lk. in Mk. it is represented
Mt. by added to it the
promise of reward for the cup of water to a disciple
(Mk. Bb further added the threatening against
him who shall cause a little one to stumble (Mk.
C interpolated the story of the miracle-worker who
followed not with the disciples. Its distinctive character
forbids the obvious course of assigning it to Bc. Now,
in Mk., only 938 39n 40 answers to the form of the story
in The form of the whole pericope which
arose through addition of this piece (without Mk.
thus takes the place which in the usual nomenclature is
given to original Mk. Bot on this occasion ‘original
Mk.’ has had not one literary predecessor merely, but
two, or, should be separated Bb, three; and
these write not, it is to be noted, independently of each
other the one was continually making use of the other.
Canonical Mt. rests upon A + B (or at least but
Since Mt. 18 offers parallels only to what we have
to one might be inclined rather to attribute to the
addition Mk. and to that of Mk. If this were
done it would have to be presupposed (what was left open, above,
under a) that Ba and B6 mean two different authors. We
should then have the advantage of being able to suppose that
was acquainted with Ba, hut not with A t the same
time, however, we should have to attribute Mk. in that case
rather to C, for on the previously mentioned presupposition it
must remain equally possible that and B6 together mean
only one author. T he hypothesis would, therefore, only become
more complicated. Further, it is not probable that Mk. 9 42
should have been introduced earlier than I t is simpler,
therefore, to suppose that knew other words
Mk. as well as Mk. but that he dropped
he had himself already reproduced the same thought in 10 42
(cp
1865
GOSPELS
surely also : see last footnote). Mt. then, as
above, changed the introduction in v. I , and added his
own 3 , so as to bring into mutual connection the
dispute about precedence and the precept about receiving
the child. 6, through its direct contiguity with
v. (instead of with 1042 which here ought to have been
repeated as parallel to Mk. underwent a change of
meaning, to the effect that children, not grown - up
persons, were meant. L k . rests on A + C. He added
he that is least among you all, the same is great.‘
This does not, indeed, come in appropriately after the
precept about receiving a child it would have found a
with greater fitness before this precept and after
the statement of the disciples’ dispute, in other words
between and v. a t the very point where
Mk. v. 35 introduces the same thought. Mk. rests
upon He adds on the one hand his
which Lk. would certainly not have passed over
had he known it, and on the other hand his 35,
containing so excellent a settlement of the
dispute. Neither Mt. nor Lk. was acquainted with the
verse or (as already said) they would not have omitted
it or introduced something like it at a later place, as
in Lk.
It is certainly worthy of notice that M k . , by the in-
sertion of 35, has produced the only doublet which he
has 121 a , n. I ). The circumstance that Jesus calls the
disciples to him in 35 whilst in he has already
been questioning them, points also to the conclusion that
the passage is composed from various pieces.
The successive contents of Mk. 4 1-34 and parallels
(Mt. Lk. 84- 18) cannot possibly have been set
down in any one gospel in their present order a t one
writing. Let us examine them. After the parable of
the Sower, Jesus is alone with his disciples (Mk.
Mt. 89) so also when he explains the par-
able 13 Lk. 8 11-15). Nor is any
hint given of his again addressing himself to the
people yet we read in that he spoke openly
to the people parables (so also Mt. .and
that he gave his explanations to the disciples in private.
There is ground, therefore, for supposing that in one
source, A, there stood an uninterrupted series of parables,
all those which have parallels in Mt. (Mk.
26-29 30-32-in an older form as regards 26-29 see
above, also the conclusion 33$ Bn, on the
strength of the concluding statement that when they
were alone Jesus expounded all things to his dis-
ciples, introduced Mk. 4 14-20 Bb the 21-25
to the effect that one ought not to keep hack know-
ledge once gained of the meaning of a parable, but
ought to spread it freely. C introduced These
verses to the effect that the parables were interded
to conceal the meaning they contained from the people
are in contradiction alike to v. and to 21- 25,
and are, moreover, impossible in the mouth of Jesus.
What pleasure could he have had in his teaching if
he had to believe his God-given task to be that of
hiding from the people the truths of salvation? It
is, therefore, utterly futile to make out forced con-
nection between Mk. and Mk. 4 $ , by inter-
preting to the effect that Jesus, when asked as to the
meaning of the parables, in the first place, said, by
way of introduction to his answer, that to the disciples it
was given to apprehend the meaning, and then went on
to tell them what it was. Moreover, Mk. 413 does not
fit in with this connection. The verse is clearly a
question in which Jesus expresses his astonishment a t
the small understanding of the disciples : How? you
In 4 I O the disciples ask concerning ‘the parables.’ T h e
plural carries us back to what is said in Mk. 42 that Jesus spoke
several. The therefore, can very well he that which Lk.
9) expresses more clearly though with reference to one parable
only: they asked about the of these parables. Were
it the intention of Mk. to say like Mt. (13 that they asked
about the of the parables then we must suppose that
only Lk. rightly preserved thought of the source
 GOSPELS
do not understand this parable; how then shall you use of two sources. Now, we are not inclined to carry
know all the parables?’ This astonishment again is back Mt. to two sources from which the logia
out of place if Jesus in has found nothing to be drew, but prefer to regard the repetition as an express
surprised at in the circumstance that the disciples needed and deliberate accentuation of the statement upon which
to have the meaning first of all imparted to them. The stress is here laid. But we do in all seriousness adduce
question is appropriate, therefore, only as a direct reply (‘m ore tolerable for
to v. IO, and furnishes a aery good occasion for Jesus to (the tree and its fruits), as well as the utterances of
decide to give them the interpretation (cp, further, John which are also afterwards put into the mouth of
129 n.). Here also, as C takes the position Jesus ‘ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye
which elsewhere is appropriate to original and here escape’ ‘every tree that bringeth not forth
also there are two or three antecedent literary stages. D good is hewn down and cast into the fire‘).
inserted the (Mt. What has been said above as to sources of sources has
Each of the three canonical gospels then rests upon far-reaching consequences.
Mt., too, upon D. Mk. did not (u)If it holds good even partially, then most of the
change the extent of vv. (perhaps it was he who left hitherto forward as to the of the
out the from cp RV with AV), on the other gospels can no longer be maintained.
hand he gave to a form which suits the applica- 129. Inferences For, in that case, in original Mk., or
tion here made of the saying better than does that of Mt. for gospel- the logia, or whatever be the name
and Lk. (see u). Mt. and Lk., on the other hand, criticism. given to the sources immediately pre-
in order to be able to retain from C, Mk. deleted ceding our canonical gospels, we are no longer dealing
the surprised question of Jesus in Mk. (from Ba), with the earliest written compositions each produced
because it was inappropriate after this insertion. by a writer working independently without written
Moreover, Mt. has also so altered the question of the sources, the canonical authors were not dependent
disciples (who in Mk. and Lk. ask as to the (as used to be supposed) on these writers alone, but
meaning of the parable) as to make it suit the answer had at their disposal also the of these sources.
which was first brought in from C : ‘ t o you it is given It is no longer possible to control them in every detail.
to understand the parables, but to the multitude it is not to ask what exemplar they had and why they made this,
given.’ It now runs in Mt. (13 IO) : Why speakest thou that, or the other change. On the other hand, the
to them in parables?’ But such a form of the question thesis that an ancient-seeming saying if it occurs in a
cannot have been the original one-for this reason, if writing that can be shown to be relatively young can have
for no other, that according to it, Jesus would have had no claim to an early origin, must be wholly given up.
no occasion to expound the parable to the disciples. (6) The first impression one derives from the new
Further, Mt. has in introduced a saying which in situation thns created is, that by it the solution of the
at first came after the interpretation of the first par- synoptical problem which appeared after so much toil
able. W e further see that he must have found difficulty to have been brought so near, seems suddenly removed
in the assertion that the purpose Mk. 412) of the again to an immeasurable distance. For science, how-
parables was to conceal the meaning they contained. ever, it is not altogether amiss if from time to time it is
H e substitutes therefore : For this cause do I speak to compelled to dispense with the lights it had previously
them in parables they see not and hear considered clear enough, and to accustom itself to a new
not.’ H e thus puts in the foreground the defective investigation of its objects in the dark. Possibly it may
understanding of the multitude as a fact with which then find that it has got rid of certain false appearances
Jesus must reckon. By what follows, however (v. under which things had formerly been viewed. In this
taken from Isaiah, he gives it clearly to be seen that he particular instance, it finds itself no longer under com-
had before him an exemplar in which their not being pulsion to assign a given passage to no other source
understood was alleged as the of the parables than either to the logia, or to original Mk., or to some
(see the lest perchance,’ in 13 Finally other of the few sources with which it had hitherto
perhaps it was Mt. himself who added the interpretation been accustomed to deal. The great danger of any
of the parable of the Tares (not immediately after the hypothesis lies in this, that it sets up a number of quite
parable, but at the end of the whole section that is general propositions on the basis of a limited number
parallel to cp and also the other of observations, and then has to find these propositions
parables 1336 - 52 ; possibly also 35. justified, come what may.’
Still it is also permissible to suppose that only Mk. 4 (c) On the other hand, signs have for some consider-
stood in A but this makes little change in our construction as a able time not been wanting that scholars were on the
whole ; it bnly becomes necessary in that case to postulate that
Bc added Mk. 4 26-32. way to recognition of the new situation just described.
On the other hand, the mutual relation of sources can become It is not only Scholten and Wittichen who have postu-
still somewhat more complicated if hypothesis regarding lated a tolerably complicated genealogy for the gospels,
26-29 (see above be combined with what has just been
elahorated about 4 Yet it is possible to do this without with Deutero-, and the like even
multiplying the number of sources. We therefore refrain from those critics also who are confident in the adequacy of
introducing the hypothesis in question, all more because it the usual hypotheses are often found reckoning with the
might, as being of the nature of tendency-criticism, call forth
special objections. possibility -or even probability - that writings
( h ) Finally, it has to be pointed out that even the original Mk., or the logia, whether in the course of
doublets might be used to give probability to the com- transcription, or at the hands of individual owners, may
posite character of the logia. In they have heen have received additions or alterations whenever any one
employed to show that Mt. and Lk. alike draw from believed himself to be acquainted with a better tradition
two sources. For the most part these were, on the one upon any point. The possibility is taken into account,
hand Mk. (or original Mk. and on the other the logia. in like manner, that canonical Mk. in particular does
Only, happens by no means infrequently that both not lie before us in the form in which it lay before those
places which Mt. has the same saying are generally who came immediately after him ; possible corruptions
traced to the logia. What would seem to follow for Let one example suffice. verse which was
this would be that the writer of the logia himself made found so helpful in regarded by Feine and others as
an addition by canonical Mk., because it is in point of fact in -
tosupposethat consistent with and these two verses, since they occur
Lk. may have because he already had it all three must he ascribed to the ‘ source is to
38, and that Mt. may have omitted all these verses hecause he say, to the only with which one allows oneself to reckon
also had them all elsewhere in one place or another ( 5 15 whether we it with Feine, ‘original Mk.,’ or, with
6 last, in particular, in the very pericope with which Weiss logia. If one could only tell how it was that canonical
we are now dealing (13 12). to add this verse !
1867 1868
 GOSPELS
of the glosses and the like, have to be
Another element in the reckoning is that already our
oldest MSS of the gospels have latent in them many
examples of transference from the text of one gospel
into that of another, examples similar to those which
we can quite distinctly observe in many instances when
the T R is confronted with these same witnesses.
It may be that an older form of Mk., or of original
Mk., or of the logia, whose differences from our
present gospels are so limited in range and so little
intended, can hardly, strictly speaking, deserve the
name of a special source, the general contents and
arrangement being so much alike yet the effect, in its
bearing on the character of the text in its details, is pre-
cisely the same as if we actually were to assume such a
source. For in particular cases it is not possible for
us to rely upon a text as lying before us or as capable
of being more or less easily reconstructed, and so to judge
of the changes that have been made by the canonical
evangelists we have to reckon with an immense range
of possibilities and thus security of judgment is lost.
Lastly, scholars are also beginning to remember that the
evangelists did not need to draw their material from books alone,
but that from youth up they were acquainted with it from oral
narration and could easily commit it to writing precisely in this
form in either case-whether they had it before them in no
written form, or whether they had it in different written form.
I n this matter again we are beginning to be on guard against
the error of supposing that in the synoptical problem we have
to reckon merely with given quantities, or with such as can he
easily ascertained.
From the point reached to the recognition of
sources of sources differing not only in text but also in
extent, order, and tendency is always, it is true, a real
step. Yet. the distinction is after all but a. fluid one. By
mere additions it is possible to give a writing a tendency,
which without these does not exist in it 6,
It is essentially by the introduction of additional
touches that, as we have seen in 128 a-g,the highly-
complicated production, the disentanglement of which
now causes so much difficulty, was produced out of a
simple combination of related, or at least not mutually
inconsistent, pericopes. And each intermediate stage in
the process at one time had currency as a gospel writing
and served as a basis for further developments. But if
this consideration is taken seriously, it becomes in-
creasingly impossible to hold-what any one occupying
the standpoint of would wish to hold in spite of every
concession to the actual state of the facts-namely, that
the man to whom, whether by tradition or by voice
of some scholar, the authorship of the latest recognisable
form of such a pre-canonical writing is ascribed, can
also be regarded as the author of the earliest of these
forms. Of the man who has made such manifest
changes in the few places that still allow us to follow
him in the process, it will be only safe to assume that
he treated other passages also in the same way, only
that we no longer have the means of detecting it. In
that case, however, and still more certainly where there is
individual tendency,’ his writing must be regarded as
a new work in so far as in this class of literature new-
ness’ can be spoken of a t all ; it cannot be treated as
merely another form of its predecessor. From
this point of view we shall be able to give its full
force to prologue, according to which many authors
had already in an independent way to draw
up in writing (this is the force of the expression
cp n. an account of the life of
Jesus. But Schleiermacher’s view of the narratives
124 a ) also in this way comes to its rights
for doubtless there must have been quite short notes also
as well as narratives of a more comprehensive character
37, 64, and yet these also can have had their
influence on the subsequent form of individual pericopes.
The reconstruction of original Mk. and of the logia, of
Forexample, that Lk.
still read in Mt. of present
while Mt. already, on account of this last reading, regarded Mk.
6 16 as a mere repetition and therefore left it out.
1869
GOSPELS
their arrangement and even of their very words-to
which so much acuteness has been devoted- loses
greatly in interest as soon as these writings are regarded,
not as the earliest, but only as intermediate steps. In
the same measure does one gain insight into the diffi-
culty of the problem, and the lesson of caution in dealing
with it. For further reasons for the view here taken of
the situation see
( e ) On the other hand, however, certain difficulties
become easier to deal with. W e can now, for example,
offer an explanation of the passage in so
friendly to the Pharisees, and of all the
passages in a, which it is impossible to
ascribe to Jesus, and also even, whatever the inter-
mediate stages may have been, of the legalistic Mt. 5
128 e ) they are attributable to a Judaistic redaction
which the logia underwent before they were made use
of, and (according to altered to an opposite
sense, by Mt. The character of the original logia
becomes in this way more uniform and more in accord-
ance with the free attitude of Jesus towards the law, and
one can understand better how it was that this attitude
of his was successfully transmitted, whereas all record
of it might very easily have dropped out of sight had the
first transmitter already been so minded.
By way of appendix the question of late so keenly
as to the influence which the undeniable
fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic may have
had upon the formation of the
may here be appropriately considered.
( a ) If Papias was right in his assertion regarding Mt.
(see this influence would have been very great.,
But our gospels were from the first written in Greek
-even the genealogy in Mt. 1 as well as that in
Lk. 323-38, which contains 36) the name of
(y. met with only in the LXX. In fact, even in what
we find reason for tracing back t o the logia, the quota-
tions are, at least in a quite preponderating number of
cases, taken from the LXX (cp especially 4 4 where the
original in Dt. 8 3 supplies no basis for It is
precisely the author of canonical Mt. who oftenest
gives the quotations from the Hebrew (Hawkins,
and who could not have given such quotations as,.
2 23 after the LXX at all but the.
allegation that his book is a translation from a Semitic.
original breaks down on the fact that it also nevertheless
follows the LXX, and that, too, exactly in passages.
which would not have been available had the Hebrew
original been followed.
Only mistranslation ‘virgin cp M ARY [MOTHER
OF made possible to adduce (in Mt. 1 Is.
the omission of the second member to ‘in the desert’
in the Hebrew parallelism in Is. 403 (@)made it pos-
sible to these words, in Mt. 33, into relation with what
precedes instead of with what follows and thus to find in the
words a prediction of one crying in wilderness, though in
Isaiah the crier is of course not in the wilderness where no one
could have heard him but in the midst of Israelites
in Babylon. In Ps. is only the LXX that speaks of ‘ praise
in the sense in which Mt. 21 finds it here. Further Hosanna’
in 219 with the dative is regarded as a cry of devotion
- Praise.’ is not reconcilable with the true
understanding of original passage (see H OSANNA cp
man,
The of Mk. Hebraizes still stronelv
does Nevertheless, the combinations
of Allen 1900,1436-443) do not prove that the
evangelist wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind
of Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of
the LXX. Lk. also has Hebraisms, not only in chaps.
but elsewhere as well, and not only where he is
dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where he had no
exemplar before him (as, for example, often ‘and it
came to pass,’ see Hawkins, and yet
no one holds writing to be a translation of a
Semitic original. Is. (Mk. could not possibly
be cited in an Aramaic writing (see above, a).
See Allen, ’99, pp. Against further
assertion that the genealogy was constructed by the author
of the entire Gospel, see, however, M ARV (M OTHER OF JESUS).
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Just little can the very small number of variants-partly to be introduced into the gospel But Dalman in his
character-in D and old Latin translations, which turn disputes the of the words ‘not the son
Blass Gospels, ‘98. pp. does not regard as but only the Father’ cp on the ground
traceable to transcribers, he held to show that the entire gospel that in the time of Jesus these expressions were not customary
of Mk. was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek in without additions such as ‘my ‘of God ‘my [Father].
different ways, or even-as Blass formulates the As if the meaning they express could not nevertheless
that Luke the companion of Paul, himself before he wrote the have come from Jesus, and only the form of expression
third gospel, revised and published a bad Greek translation of t o the later use assumed by Dalman (cp
the Aramaic Mk on which account it was that afterwards he
omitted much from his own book, not wishing to exceed 111. C REDIBILITY OF THE S YNOPTICS.
the ordinary limits of a papyrus roll. Elsewhere (see ACTS,
$3 it has been shown with what independence the text has T h e investigation of the relationships between
been dealt with in D and its allied MSS. Least of all can the synoptic gospels has in itself a scientific interest
hypothesis seek support the that Lk. and can therefore be carried on with
shows little verbal coincidence with Mk. fact (so far as it
is a fact) can of course he sufficiently explained by the linguistic interest even by the student for whom
character of Mk which Lk. regarded as admitting of improve- the credibility of the gospels is a matter
ment. linguistic imperfections are due to comparative indifference. Still, in
translation from the Aramaic is a quite separate question.
Finally, there are no grounds for the conjecture of Blass that the end the answer to this question is the goal of every
the Aramaic original document dealing with the earliest his- research in this field. The question is often, however,
tory of the church in Jerusalem which is held to have heeu used still handled unscientifically. Thus, many still
by Lk. in (on this see ACTS, 17 col. 56)
was written hy Mark, and that he will on this account havewritten think themselves entitled to accept as historically true
the gospel also in Aramaic-notwithstanding that, according to everything written in the gospels which cannot be
Papias, he was Peter’s interpreter and that he has so many Latin shown by explicit testimony to be false. Others pay
words deference a t least to the opinion that a narrative gains
(c) A written source still older than the logia or Mk. in credibility if found in all three gospels (as if in such
(or original Mk. : 148, end) may have been a case all were not drawing from one source) and
written in Aramaic. A writing in Hebrew 117) is with very few exceptions all critics fall into the very
not wholly impossible but certainly quite improbable. grave error of immediately accepting a thing as true as
There seems to have been a Hebrew original in the soon as they have found themselves able to trace it to
case of the Psalms of Solomon (see APOCALYPTIC, source.’
83). But here the ruling pattern may have been Once we have freed ourselves from the dominion of
that of the O T psalms, and perhaps also in Pompey’s such fallacies it cannot but seem unfortunate that the
time Hebrew was somewhat more generally in use than decision as to the credibility of the gospel narratives
it came to be years afterwards. It is not very should be made to depend upon the determination of
helpful to suggest that people would have been a problem so difficult and perhaps insoluble as the
naturally inclined to treat of the sacred subjects of synaptical is. It would accordingly be a very im-
the gospel history in the sacred language. The masses portant gain if we could find some means of making it
did not understand Hebrew (see A RAMAIC , and in some a t least independent of this. Such
yet gospel writings, they were to miss the purpose means have already been hinted a t above 27, n. I ,
for which they were written, had to be adapted to the and 34, n.
even of the least instructed. The examination of the credibility must from the
(d)The gain from recourse to the theory of such an beginning be set about from two opposite points of
original is in the first place this, that certain Greek view. On the one hand, we must set on one side every-
expressions will then admit of explanation as being thing which for any reason arising either from the
errors of translation. Once made, such errors could substance or from considerations of literary criticism
very well pass on without change from one Greek has to be regarded as doubtful or as wrong; on the
writing to a second and to a third. But it will be at other hand, one must make search for all such data, as
once obvious that such an explanation can have im- from the nature of their contents cannot possibly
portance only in regard to particular passages, not in any account be regarded as inventions.
regard to the origin of the gospels as complete books. When a profane historian finds before him a historical
Nor even for this purpose is it necessary to aim at document which testifies to the worship of a hero un-
of whole sentences a process which will always offer known to other sources, he attaches and fore-
room for new error; all h a t will be required will he that we
should discover the individual words or expressions from which most importance to those features which cannot be
the error can possibly have As a n instance we may deduced merely from the fact of this worship, and he
to Wellhausen’s (Lk.11 which may equally as well does so on the simple and sufficient ground that they
mean ‘give alms,’ the sense will woiild not be found in this source unless the author had
then he the same as in Lk.1139, and in the parallel Mt.
and thus the character given to the passage in will be met with them as fixed data of tradition. The same
changed. fundamental principle may safely be applied in the case
( e ) Another advantage will be that the consideration of the gospels, for they also are all of them written by
of an Aramaic or Hebrew original will aid in determining worshippers of Jesus. W e now have accordingly the
as to the meaning and use of important or difficult advantage-which cannot be appreciated too
words and ideas in the NT. A very familiar example of being in a position to recognise something as being
occurs in the which Jerome found in the gospel of worthy of belief even without being able to say, or even
the Hebrews for in 611, and which is being called on to inquire, whether it comes from
assuredly right (see 16, 3 6 ; and cp LORD’S original Mk., from logia, from oral tradition, or from
P RAYER ). But it must be said that the recent recourse any other quarter that may be alleged. The relative
had to Aramaic in this field of research has already had priority becomes a matter of indifference, because the
some very infelicitous results. absolute priority-that is, the origin in real tradition-
Thus Wellhansen 3 and others assert that Jesus is certain. In such points question as to credi-
used the word ‘ sob of Man’ in sense of man bility becomes independent of the synoptical question.
(cp $3, hut did not apply it to himself in that of Here the clearest cases are those in which only one
Messiah in this last sense, they maintain, it was only taken evangelist, or two, have data of this class, and the
by the evangelists from the Apocalyptic literature, and so came
second, or third, or both, are found to have
occasion to alter these in the interests of the reverence
Cp Wellh. in Nachr. Wissensch. due to Jesus.
pp. I T ; Arnold Meyer, If we discover any such points-even if only a
Nestle ’96.
96‘ also aus See on the other side Schmiedel, Prof.
neue Folge Hft. ’99. pp. Nov. 62-65
381 and u. 6, Dalman, 1
1871 1872
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
they guarantee not only their own contents, but also recorded in the gospels (Mt. Lk.
much more. For in that also hold as asked of Jesus to be admitted to the number of his
credible else which agrees in character with these, disciples, all presented themselves at one and the same
and is in other respects not open to suspicion. when he was about to take ship across
the thoroughly disinterested historian must recognise it the Sea of Galilee, or, according to Lk., at one and
as his duty to investigate the grounds for this so great the same point in the journey through Samaria? Coni-
reverence for himself which Jesus was able to call forth pare, further, the wholly different in which t he
and he will then, first and foremost, find himself to events in Mt. 8-12 given as compared with
recognise as true the two great facts that Jesus had Mk. and with the result that ) the choice of the
compassion for the multitude and that he preached with apostles comes to be placed immediately before their
power, not as the scribes (Mt. Let us, then, sending-out and the series of miracles before
proceed to test in the two ways indicated some of the the arrival of the messengers from the Baptist a).
leading points in the synoptic gospels. (c) In many cases it is not so much for the sake of
The chronological framework must be classed among the order, but simply for the sake of a word, that
the most untrustworthy elemerits in the gospels. Not certain sayings of Jesus are brought into contiguity with
only are the data often quite vague-a others thus, Mk. are brought together only by
defect for which we conld not blame the the idea of stumbling-block' 48.
evangelists if they had no precise in- and only by that of fire, 496 and only by that
formation; often also it is impossible of salt, only by that of light, only b y
to have any confidence, when Mt. so frequently says that of the door. But what is with regard
't he n' 'on that da y' or the these things is in each case quite different, and he does
like, or when Mk. says straightway' that the no honour to Jesus who believes himself in duty bound
event really followed on what immediately precedes it to prove that the Master gave forth in one breath utter-
in the narrative. Were we to take the evangelists ances so utterly disconnected.
literally, an enormous number of events would have ( d ) In other places there is manifest lack of clear
to be compressed within the limits of certain days appreciation of the situation. The prohibition-which
Mt. 12 and there would be only a very certainly comes from Jesus himself and is no mere in-
moderate number of days of the public ministry of Jesus vention of the evangelists-against making known a
with regard to which any events are recorded a t all. Of deed of healing wrought by him, a prohibition still
the six time-determinations in Lk. 3 I -manifestly found in Mt. 84 930, wbuld be utterly futile if, previously
brought together with great care-only the first three ) and simultaneously Jesus had healed whole
can be regarded as free from exception. Philip ruled crowds of sick persons. In 1 2 the prohibition is
over Trachonitis and other territories, but only over a even upon a multitude of persons healed at one and
portion of The office of high priest was the same time. But we find same thing also in the
never filled by two persons a t the same time; it is parallel Mk. 3 and even in 1 3 4 Lk. 4 41 and here
Caiaphas who ought to have been named, whilst Annas also follows the same prohibition laid upon individuals
held the office from 6 to 15 A. On see that Mk.826).
article. The statement about the census of ( e ) In Mk. one is very willingly disposed to recognise
21 is quite erroneous (see a n appropriate arrangement of the events of the public
also above, 22, last footnote). But the ministry of Jesus as a whole. It is certainly the fact
data are often even in direct contradiction to each other. that his first chapter gives the impression that the public
8-12 especially, matters stand i n a quite different activity of Jesus may actually have in the manner
chronological connection from that which they have in here related. But so far as the rest of the gospel is
Mk. and Lk. 116 a ). Or the mother and brethren of concerned, little confidence can be placed even in
Jesus come, in Mk. 331 and Mt. 1246, after the discourse order. In saying this, we lay no stress on the assertion
about Beelzebub, in Lk. after the great parable- of Papias (see 65) that he set down the deeds and
discourse (see further $ 18, begin.). words of Jesus without order for Papias may very
The case is no better with the order of the narratives. have been judging of that order with Mt. as his standard.
( a ) A large number of sayings of Jesus have been placed Nor can we accept the view of B. Weiss, that Mk. in-
together by Mt. in five tended by his frequent use of the imperfect to convey
courses which on each occasion he that he is narrating not individual deeds of Jesus but
closes with the formula referred to in only the sort of things that he in the habit of doing,
127 (a, Among these are included, for example, as for example in The whole sum, however, of
a series of seven woes upon the Pharisees, a separate events in Galilee (miracles, discourses, and the
series of seven parables, a series of six like) has so comparatively little that is characteristic,
theses in correction of the law 34, I and their order-for a writer who wrote only for the
Hawkins, Lk. has arranged in two similar glorification of Jesus and not for a laboriously exact
large groups-the so-called small and large interpola- account of his biography-was of so comparatively
tions, and 951-1814-material partly the same little importance, that it would not be safe for us to rely
as, and partly different from, that of Mt. on them with confidence whatever. In one point
The greater interpolation-the narrative of what is known as Mk . has a superiority over Mt. and Lk. in 24 31 h e
the Samaritanjourney-can make n o claim to historicity. In the records a journey of Jesus to Tyre and in other
midst of it we find and the mission of the seventy and
their return, the warning against the plots of Herod words, a distance abroad. So also the journey t o
who ruled over Galilee only, not Samaria, a feast Philippi recorded by him ( 8 2 7 ) in common
in the house of a Pharisee, who can hardly have lived in with Mt. signifies for him a noteworthy epoch
Samaria, and (17 the statement that Jesus was on the
borders of Galilee and Samaria, which yet he had already in the public life of Jesus See further
passed in his journey to Jerusalem. The alleged situations in which the recorded
But even outside of these compiled discourses the ances of were spoken can by no means be implicitly
order of narration is often such as to suggest the sus- the Lord's Prayer
picion that it has been determined by the nature of given the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.
the contents. The rubbing of the ears of corn and 69-13), or at the request of the
the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mk. 11 Did de-
223-36) are related the one immediately after the liver the Sermon on Mount to his disciples (Mt. 5
other, only because both occurrences showed Jesus in
conflict with the law of the Sabbath. Or are we to As this view of B. Weiss see '87, pp.
45-57, 88, pp. Holtzmann, ibid., 78,
believe that the or three men-the whole number with reply, pp.
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
or was it heard by the multitudes (Mt. Lk. still less a church. It was therefore also in the lifetime
For a whole series of utterances of Jesus Lk. has of Jesus hardly possible that his followers should be
assigned occasions of which Mk. and Mt. nothing expelled from the synagogue in the manner spoken of in
918 37 Lk. and still less so that they should be expelled on
19 Even where an utterance of Jesus recurs more account of the name of Christian’ (see CHRISTIAN, I ).
than once in the gospels-and we may be certain that The graduated order of procedure against an erring
he repeated himself much oftener than is recorded brother (Mt. is much more easily explained
145 a)-they yet afford us not the slightest guarantee when transplanted to a later time. In the of
that the repetition took place precisely at the point a t Jesus it is, a t all events, intelligible only if by
which they place it. we understand not the Christian but the
The about the light under a bushel is found in three Jewish local community. But also the authority con-
different connections. In Mk. 4 and Lk. 8 16 t he light is th e ferred in the verse immediately following
interpretation of the parables Jesus had spoken (see
manifestly a very special application of a thought of very much ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
wider scope. In Lk. 11 33 the saying comes after the sentence heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
which affirms that in the person of Jesus a greater than Jonah is loosed in heaven,’ could never have been given by Jesus
present; here, then, the light can only be Jesus himself. I n either to the apostles or, what the context leaves open,
this connection. however. it is to carrv the
most obvious meaning the that one t o his followers in general, still less to Peter to whom it
the light under a Moreover we in 11 34 a saying is limited in (cp BINDING A N D LOOSING). Still
added only on account of the verbal suggestion more 1618 is open to serious question, quite apart from
the light of the body is the eye. Once more, then, it is not
likely that the saying belongs to this place. In Mt. 5 14-16 two other reasons, on account of the word and
different representations are the disciples are ex- because the verse is wanting in Tatian’s
to let their light shine, the city on the hill on the other Into the discourse on the occasion of the mission of the
hand shines of itself. By the the disciples are here meant disciples special precepts have been introduced, of a sort
hut the opening words, ‘ye are the light of the world,’ can
have been framed on the model of the preceding sentence, ye which canonlyowe their origin to later missionarypractice
are the salt of the earth,’ and that, too, for the first time by Mt., taught by painful experience Mt. 10 13). The
for the two sentences can hardly have stood together in one baptismal precept to baptize in the name of the Father,
source since in Mk. and in Lk. they are given in two quite dis-
tinct places. Thus in no one passage have we any security that the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt. is questionable,
we are in possession of the originalconnection of the saying, and it not only because, according to the older accounts, the
would be just as conceivable that it may have been spoken by risen Jesus was only seen, not heard 138 d),but also
Jesus when one of his followers, concerned about his safety, had
besought him, as Peter on one occasion (Mt. 16 did, to spare because, according to the N T throughout, baptism was
himself and not expose himself to danger-in fact very much as only in. the name of Jesus (Rom. 6 3 Gal. 327 Acts 238
i n Jn. only without the specifically Johannine meaning of 816 1048 even in also;
the word. See, further, Hawkins, Wernle, Vis. 7 3). The Trinitarian formula is met with first
In the case of an eye-witness the recollection of an in Justin and in the So also,
event associates itself readily with that of a definite if Jesus had enjoined the mission to the Gentiles the
place, but for those who are not eye- original apostles, as is stated in Mt. it would be a
witnesses this has much less interest. I n practical impossibility to understand, how they, or their
Lk. 9 Peter’s confession is not made at followers, could have withstood Paul so hotly upon this
Philippi indeed, the evangelist knows nothing very point.
about a journey thither at all end). The It would clearly be wrong, in an investigation such as
leper was cleansed according to Mt. 8 after Jesus had the present, to start from any such postulate or axiom
finished his Sermon on the Mount, but according to as that ‘miracles’ are impossible. At
Lk. a considerable time before that, when Jesus the same time, on the other hand, some
was ‘in one of the cities,’ similarly as in Mk. 140. doubt as to the accuracy of the accounts
On the return from his first journey (to Tyre and cannot fail to arise in the mind even of
Sidon) esus, according to Mk. 31, arrives at the eastern shore
of the of Galilee according to Mt. 15 (if we are to take the stoutest believer miracles when he observes snch
the most obvious meaning of the words), at the western. After points as the following :-(a) How contradictory they
the feeding of the 4000 evangelists agree in saying that he are. In Mk. 1 3 2 34 the sick were brought to Jesus
crossed the lake ; hut according to Mk. 8 the crossing is to the
west shore according to Mt. 15 it is to the east. Then follows and he healed some; in Mt. 8 they brought many and
a new after which the apprehension ahout want of he healed in Lk. they brought and he healed
bread arises in Mk. 8 on the eastern shore, in Mt. 16 5 on the as also in Mt. In Mk. I O a great multi -
western. The two coalesce according to Mk. 827 Mt. tude followed him and he healed many; in Mt.
only when is reached-unless we are to assume
that Mt., in what precedes, means the same localities as Mk. many followed and he healed According to this the
and has only expressed himself misleadingly (cp a). view of the evangelist must have been that he was
As for persons-neither the names of the women a t followed exclusively by sick persons. According to
the cross (see nor even the names of the what is said in d not only the early date but the
twelve disciples (Mt. Mk. Lk. 6 are historicity altogether of those healings en masse must be
given in two places alike (see APOSTLE). On the held to be doubtful. Before the feeding of
divergence between Mt. on the one hand and Mk. 2 the in Mk. (634) Jesus teaches the multitude in
and Lk. on the other, see and MATTHEW. Mt. he heals their sick; in Lk. he does
Several of the reported sayings of Jesus clearly bear both. At the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem,
the impress of a time which he did not live to see. T h e according to Mk. Jesus teaches the multitude;
precept ahout taking up one’s cross according to Mt. he them. According to
and following Jesus (Mt. 1624) Lk. Jesus heals a number of
is certainly not to be explained by and blind-in the presence of the messengers of the
pointing out that the sight of con- Baptist, and immediately before this he raises the
demned persons carrying their crosses to the place of widow’s son a t Nain Mt. knows nothing of
execution was a familiar one for in that spectacle the this, Mk. as little (the message of the Baptist is
most important element of all was wanting-that of wholly wanting in Mk.). But on the other hand Mt.
innocence. The words in question cannot have taken records as before this date not only the healing of a
their present shape till after the death of Jesus. Ex - leper and of a paralytic as does Mk.
hortations as to how to behave in times of persecution 2 = Lk. 5 12-26, also the raising of the daughter of
(Mk. he can hardly have found it necessary to Jairus and the healing of two men
give so early, for, however numerous his followers may and of a dumb man possessed with a devil :
have been, he formed in his lifetime no definite com- which in are all brought in as
munity outside the bonds of the Jewish religion, and having been wrought after the message of the Baptist
1876
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
1835-43 Thus each of the two evan- to believe in miracles would find it difficult to a
gelists secured that the messengers of the Baptist should narrative of this kind on account of the time to which
be able to hear of miracles of various kinds as it is assigned. (a)Lk. expressly, and Mk.
wrought by Jesus (Mt. but each has Mt. also to all appearance, allege an eclipse of the
done so in a djfferent way. After the cleansing of the sun, a celestial phenomenon which, however, is pos-
temple, Jesus, according to Mt. heals blind sible only at the period of New Moon-Le., shortly
and lame there; of this Mk. and Lk. know nothing. before the of Nisan-and cannot happen on the
Similarly in he alone reports the resurrection of or 14th of a month. To save for the narrative some
many dead persons on the death of Jesus. On the relic of credibility the suggestion has even been made
other hand, Mt. describes the preparation of that it is in fact an eclipse of the moon that is re-
the Passover meal without presupposing any super- corded. But in offering this explanation it was for-
natural knowledge on the part of Jesus as is done in gotten, not only that at midday such an occurrence
Mk. and Lk. Lk. alone knows not would not produce darkness, but also that the shadow
only of the miracles reported but also of of the earth falling upon the moon is visible only from
the healing of the woman with the spirit of infirmity, of the side of the earth that is turned away from the sun,
the man with the dropsy, of the ten lepers, and of the in other words, during the night, not in the middle of
high priest’s servant’s ear, as also of the fact of the day from to 3.
Peter’s miraculous draft As for the fig tree (Mk. 1112-14 Mt. 21 18-22),
51-11). In the last two cases the silence of Mt. and it is certainly the fact that its fruits begin to form before
Mk. is all the more significant as they give a quite the leaves unfold-approximately about Easter tide.
precise account of the very occurrences in the midst But at this early stage they are still exceedingly small
of which a miracle, according to Lk., was wrought, and quite uneatable. The first ripe figs are gathered
and in Gethsemane all the apostles, and at the call in the end of June, most of the rest in August, and
of Peter at least he and some others, were present some not till so late as February. Some do not reach
(Mk. Mk. cp their development at all in the year of their formation,
32, n. 42). Only Mk., again, knows of the but only in the following spring. Fruits of this
healing of a blind man in two successive stages, by named class might therefore have been found by Jesus
application of spittle and by laying on of hands (822-26). on the tree but they are in no sense a characteristic mark
Instead of the one man, deaf and with an impediment of a good tree the characteristic of such a tree is its
in his speech, who is healed by Jesus in Mk. by young freshly-produced figs. But with figs of this last
the same means, a wholemultitude kind Jesus could not have satisfied his hunger the nar-
blind, and dumb are healed. At Gerasa Mk. (5 and Lk. rative would have been possible a t any time from June to
(827) make mention of one demoniac, Mt. (828) of two, February but, placed at Easter, it is not so and yet it
and that too with clear divergence from Mk. belongs so definitely to the Easter season that it would be
and dependence on the words of the indeed abold thing to true initselfbutwrongly
demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mk. dated. The only really pertinent remark is that of Mk.
Lk. 4 all mention of which has been wholly omitted (11 : it was not the season of figs. This is so contrary,
by At Jericho Mk. (1046) mentions one blind man however, to the whole of the rest of the narrative that
as Jesus was leaving Lk. 1 8 3 5 one as he was Scholten thought himself justified. in setting it down as
entering, two as he was leaving. The man a marginal note by a foreign hand 119 b ) . Thus,
who in Lk. is dumb is also blind in Mt. even where there is not the slightest shadow of aversion
According to Mk. 5 23 the daughter of Jairus is at the to miracles as such, there is nothing to surprise us when
point of death, according to Lk. 842 she is a-dying in these two narratives are declared to be unhistorical.
Mt. 9 18 the father’s statement my daughter is See FIG TREE.
even now dead,’ whilst in Mk. 535 and Lk. 849 this Taken as a whole the facts brought forward in
announcement is brought to Jesus only after the healing the immediately preceding paragraphs show only too
of the woman with the issue of blood which has been clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision
wrought in the interval. T o the number as well the evangelists write. The conclusion is inevitable that
as to the 4000 of those were miraculously fed Mt. even the one evangelist whose story in any particular
adds in each case ‘besides women and case involves less of the supernatural than that of the
children.’ In Mk. the fig tree is found to be others, is still very far from being entitled on that
withered away on the morning after the curse has been account to claim implicit acceptance of his narrative.
pronounced according to Mt. 21 it withered away Just in the same degree in which those who came after
immediately. Whilst in Mk. 1 it is Jesus who sees him have gone beyond him, it is easily conceivable that
the heaven opened and the spirit descending and hears he himself may have gone beyond those who went
the voice, so that one is able, if so disposed, to take the before him.
whole passage as describing an inward mental experi- With reference to the resurrection of Jesus ( a ) the
ence, with regard to which the disciples had derived most credible statement in the Synoptics is that of Mt.
their knowledge from himself alone, Mt. repre- (and that the first appearances
sents the opening of the heavens as a n objective occur- were in Galilee. The appearance in
rence and gives the voice in the third person and thus Jerusalem to the two women (Mt. 28 gf.)
not as for the hearing of Jesus alone, whilst according to is almost up-not
Lk. the Spirit even descends ‘in bodily shape.’ only because of the silence of all the other accounts, but
As for the narratives of the nativity and childhood see also because in it Jesus only repeats the direction which
M ARY (M OTHER OF J ESUS ) and N ATIVITY . We pass the women had already received through the angel. If
over the numerous other minor differencesin the accounts the disciples had seen Jesus in Jerusalem as Lk. states,
of miracles the gospels, in order to touch upon :- it would be absolutely incomprehensible how Mk. and
Two cases in which even one strongly predisposed Mt. came to require them to repair to Galilee before
I t must be granted that Mt. means a dumb, they could receive a manifestation of Jesus. The con-
and in 11 a deaf erson. But the two infirmities so often go verse on the other hand is very easy to understand;
together that of meaning cannot be held to in- Lk. found it inconceivable that the disciples who,
validate the statement in the text, which in all other respects is
absolutely exact. according to him, were still in Jerusalem, should have
These passages must be regarded as parallel because in been unable to see Jesus until they went to Galilee. In
each there follows this detailed examination of the that actual fact the disciples had already dispersed at
Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub (Mt. 12 11 Gethsemane (Mk. Mt. 2656); this Lk. very signi-
A second parallel to Lk. 1114 is Mt. 9 which agrees in
its details with Lk. more exactly. ficantly Even Peter, after he had perceived,
1878
 GOSPELS
when denied his Master, the dangers he incurred,
will hardly have exposed himself to these, gratuitously,
any longer. At the cross only women, not disciples,
were present. Whither these last had betaken them-
selves we are not told. But it is not difficult to con-
jecture that they had gone to their native Galilee. The
angelic command, therefore, that they should make this
their rendezvous, may reasonably he taken as a veiled
indication that they had already gone thither. The
presupposition made both by Mk. and by Mt. that they
were still in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection is
accordingly erroneous. It was this error of theirs that
led Lk. to his still more erroneous inversion of the actual
state of the facts.
The second element in the synoptics that may he
accepted with confidence is the statement that it was
Peter who received the first manifestation of his risen
master. All the more surprising is it that it is only Lk.
who tells us so, and that only in passing (2434). It is
the chief point in the statement of Paul, I Cor. 15
This passage must be regarded as the earliest
of the appearances of the risen Jesus unquestionably
it goes back to the communications made by Peter
during the fifteen days’ visit of Paul, three years after
the conversion of the latter (Gal.
(c) Not only is it a mark of inadequacy in the gospels
that they have nothing to say about the greater number
of the manifestations here recorded it also becomes
necessary to withhold belief from what they actually do
relate in addition. Paul would certainly not have left
it out had he known it the duty of bringing forward
all the available evidence in support of the truth of the
resurrection of Jesus as against the Corinthian doubters
was of the most stringent kind.
( d ) Thus, on the one hand, the statements that
Jesus was touched, and that he ate (Lk. are seen
to be incredible. But these are precisely the statements
which make it possible to understand why the evangelists
should pass over the mere appearing of Jesus to
which the statements of Paul are confined, inasmuch as
they believed they could offer proofs of a more palpable
character.
I n criticism it was a great error to believe that the expres-
sion ‘was seen’ Paul was characterizing the appearances
as unreal. I t is indeed true that in the N T this expression with
one exception (Acts is applied to visions but, unless he be
a thoroughly modern person well versed in philosophy and
science, the visionary under a psychological necessity to
regard as real the things which he sees in vision even though he
distinguishes between them and the objects of ordinary sight.
T h e only thing that would prevent him from doing so would
if the vision offered that which according to his ideas was utterly
impossible. But in the case before us this is far from being so.
I n the N T the resurrection of a of the Baptist or of
Elijah- is supposed to be thoroughly possible (Mk. 6
11
What the expression ‘was seen’ proves is,
accordingly, rather this-that in no description of any
appearances of the risen Lord did Paul perceive any-
thing by which they were distinguished from his own, re-
ceived at Damascus. With reference to this he uses the
sameexpression he therefore characterizes it as a ‘vision’
and, as he still distinguishes from this the
revelation in Cor. 12 I , we shall have
to take the word literally and interpret it as denoting
seeing, not hearing.
( e ) The statements as to the empty sepulchre are to
be rejected; Paul is silent regarding ‘them, and his
silence is very strongly reinforced by Mk. 1 6 8 which
says the women told no one anything of what they had
seen. This failure to carry out the angel’s bidding is
quite unthinkable, and one readily understands why Mt.
and Lk. should say the opposite, though this is probably
the most violent change they have anywhere made on
their exemplar. (The word ‘fear,’ in Mt. 288
shows that he had before him the were afraid,’
of Mk. ) The statement of Mk. is intelligible
only if we take him to mean that the whole statement as
to the empty sepulchre is now being promulgated for the
GOSPELS
first time by the publication of his gospel. He cannot.
intend to say that the women held their peace for
short time only, for the general belief is that Jesus.
appeared very soon after his resurrection, and every
delay on the part of the women would have put back
the time at which the disciples could arrive in Galilee-
and behold the promised appearing of the Lord.
Mk. is understood in the sense we have indicated, then
in him we have a virtual admission, veiled indeed, yet
clear, that all Statements as to the empty
were innovations of a later time.
Nor, as against this, will it avail to urge
inherent likelihood that the sepulchre must without fail
have been visited.
Here the assumption is that forthwith on the resurrection day
the tidings of the empty sepulchre became known in Jerusalem.
this supposition has been shown to he groundless. Yet even
had the tidings been brought forthwith to the Christians in
Jerusalem, and even if they had thereupon at once visited the
sepulchre, their evidence would not have proved more than did
that of the women. Only an examination by opponents could
have claimed greater weight. But it is hardly likely that the
tidings reached their ears forthwith. Yet, even had this
happened and the sepulchre been found empty the fact would
have been capable of heing explained by as due to a
removal of the body. The (unhistorical) statement of Mt. as to
setting a watch over the sepulchre 108) had in fact just this
very purpose in view-to exclude the possibility of any such
removal. But after the visit of the women the watch was not
continued even in Mt. Further it has to be borne in mind
according to Jewish belief a body did not remain
for more than three days (see S ON OF ZEBEDEE
H a d a body, therefore, really been found, it would
have been possible t o identify it as the of Jesus.
This comes yet more strongly into view if we
to ourselves the order of events in the way in which, in
all probability, they actually happened. The first belief
in the resurrection of Jesus arose through the appearances.
in Galilee on the third day after his death, or later.
T h e disciples believed in them and therefore felt them-
selves under no necessity to assure themselves by ex-
amination of the sepulchre. Even if the tidings of
appearances had brought to Jerusalem
forthwith, not even so would they have given occasion
for such an examination. It was unnecessary:
followers of Jesus believed them without further evi-
dence his enemies laughed them to scorn. knew
that the emptiness of the sepulchre after so long a
time could prove just as little as could the
production of a no longer identifiable body. It is
unnecessary to enter more fully into the almost incred-
ible variations in the accounts of what happened at
the sepulchre, after what has already been said (see, for -
enumeration, § 27).
(g)The conclusion of Mk. is admittedly not.
genuine (see W. and H., Appendix, and above, 4,
n. 2). Still less can the shorter conclusion printed by W.
and H. lay claim to genuineness. Should it he found that
thelonger, in accordance with an Armenian superscription
found by Conybeare ’93 pp. was.
written by the name in the inscrip-
tion i s a very unfavourable light would
be shed upon this disciple the Lord,’ as Papias calls.
Almost the entire section is a compilation,
even from the fourth gospel and Acts. At the same time-
the words ‘ for they were afraid’
cannot have been the close intended by the author,
especially seeing that appearances in Galilee are an-
nounced (167). The suggestion that the author was.
interrupted as he was finishing is a mere makeshift.
It cannot be urged in support of it that in Mt. and
Lk. no traces of the conjectured genuine conclusion of‘
Mk. are to he found. W e could not be sure.
whether at least Mt. has not drawn from it, especi-
ally as he coincides entirely with Mk. But.
deliberate divergence from the (supposed)
sion of Mk. would also be very intelligible, for Mt.
and Lk. have already, as against Mk. 168, said the-
opposite of what lay hefore them in their exemplar..
The fact that the last leaf of a book is always the most
1880
 GOSPELS
liable to get lost can suffice to explain how the close of
Mk. should have disappeared without leaving any trace.
Yet a deliberate removal of it is also conceivable,-if
it did not answer the demands which had already come
to be set in the time of Mt. and Lk. Nothing can
be conjectured with any certainty, except that it
described an appearance of Jesus to the disciples. The
fact that Peter is also individually named in may
perhaps be held to indicate that the conclusion con-
tained also an appearance to Peter alone.
The foregoing sections may have sometimes seemed
to raise a doubt whether any credible elements were to
be found in the gospels at all all the
, moreemphatically stress
be laid on the existence of passages of
the kind indicated in 131. Refer-
ence has already been made to Mk.
10 Whv thou me
none is good save as also to Mt.
(that blasphemy against the son of man can be forgiven),’
and to Mk. (that his relations held him to be beside
himself; cp 1166 d). T o these, two others may now
be added : Mk. (‘of that day and of that
knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither
the Son but the Father the words neither the Son
are absent from Mt. in many MSS and
the whole verse from Lk. cp and
Mt. 2746 (‘My God, my God, why thou forsaken
m e ? ‘-an utterance which Lk. has wholly omitted).
These five passages, along with the four which will
be spoken of in might be called the
pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus. Should the
idea suggest itself that they have been sought out with
partial intent, as proofs of the human as against the
divine character of Jesus, the fact at all events cannot
be set aside that they exist in the Bible and demand
attention. In reality, however, they prove not only
that in the person of Jesus we have to do with a com-
pletely human being, and that the divine is to be sought
in him only in the form in which it is capable of being
found in a m a n ; they also prove that he really did
exist, and that the gospels contain at least some absolutely
trustworthy facts concerning him. If passages of this
kind were wholly wanting in them it would be impos-
sible to prove to a sceptic that any historical value
whatever was to be assigned to the gospels he would
be in a position to declare the picture of Jesus contained
in them to be purely a work of phantasy, and could
remove the person of Jesus from the field of history,-
all the more when the meagreness of the historical
testimony regarding him, whether in canonical writings
outside of the gospels, or in profane writers snch as
Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, is considered.
( a ) According to Mk. Jesus emphatically declined
to work a ‘sign before the eyes of his con-
temporaries ; ‘ there shall no sign be
given unto this generation. In Mt.
and Lk. this saying is
given in the enlarged form, ‘there
shall no sign be given to this generation but the sign
of Jonah (the prophet).’ Unless here the meaning
intended be the exact contrary of what is said in Mk.,
the ‘sign of Jonah’ cannot be really a ‘sign,’ but
rather the opposite of one.
To illustrate how notwithstanding it was possible for Jesus
to express himself let us put an parallel case. A
conqueror, without receiving any provocation, invades a country.
I t s inhabitants send an embassy t o ask of him what justification
he can show for his aggression. He gives the answer: You
ask me what I can allege in justification? I shall you no
other justification than that which my sword gives. The
situation in the gospel is quite similar.
The one thing which Jesus has hitherto done, and,
if he refuses to work signs the one thing which
Lk. also as well as Mk. has his share in the weakening of
this sentence the verse he gives immediately before it heing
9), ‘he denieth me in the presence of men shall he denied
i n the presence of the angels of God.’
61 1881
GOSPELS
he can continue to do, is to preach. The main activity
of Jonah also in like manner consisted in preaching.
By the sign of Jonah accordingly is meant the opposite
of a preaching like that of Jonah. This is
shown also by the immediate sequel: ‘ t he men of
repented at the preaching of Jonah.’ Next
follows the example of the Queen of Sheba who came
to hear the preaching of Solomon (Mt.
It is only in that this good connection is by
the interpretation that the sign of Jonah means his three days’
sojourn in the belly of the whale and that by this is signified
the three days’ sojourn of Jesus heart of the earth. But
even apart from its breaking the connection this verse which
rests only on misunderstanding of the utterance in
Lk.11 is quite unsuitable ; for a ‘sign’ of course makes its
impression only when it can be seen. T h e people of Nineveh
could not observe the emergence of Jonah from the place o f his
sojourn, nor indeed is it even stated that he told them of it ; all
that is said is that he preached to them.
(6) According to Jesus was able to do no
mighty work (save healing a few sick folk) in
and marvelled at the unbelief of its people. This then
is the reason why he was unable. Mt. 1358 is a
manifest weakening of this : he did not many mighty
works there because of their unbelief.
(c) In Mk. 8 the disciples, in the crossing of the
Lake, which has been touched on in are re-
presented as having forgotten to take bread with them.
Jesus says : ‘Take heed, beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of Herod’ (in Mt. : ‘of the Pharisees
and Sadducees ’). This exhortation the disciples
as a reproach on them for their forgetfulness.
Jesus rebukes them for their little understanding, and
reminds them of the feeding of the and of the
4000. The conclusion is given fully only by Mt.
but unquestionablyin the sense of Mk., How
that ye do not perceive that I not to you
...
concerning bread? then understood they how that
he bade them beware of the teaching of the Pharisees
and Sadducees.’ evangelists have previously
related the feeding of the and the 4000 as facts.
If Jesus reminds them of this, the consequence must of
course be that they should think of material loaves as
being what they are to beware of. In reality, however,
the deduction is quite the opposite. This is possible
only on one assumption-if the feeding of the and
the 4000 was not a historical occurrence, a parable
having this as its point that the bread with which one
man in the wilderness was able to feed a vast multitude
signifies the teaching with which he satisfied their souls.
On this view the closing statement of the narrative first
finds its full explanation; more bread remains over
than was present at the beginning; truth is not con-
sumed when it is communicated to others, but only
serves to awaken in them ever new thoughts and an
ever-growing power to satisfy in their turn the spiritual
hunger of others. It is exceedingly surprising, yet at
the same time evidence of a reproduction of earlier
materials, that Mk. and Mt. should give the present
narrative at all-a narrative which in their understand-
ing of the miracle of the feeding is so meaningless.
Mt. has made some attempt, albeit a somewhat feeble one, t o
bring the two narratives harmony. With him Jesus (16 8) re -
proaches the disciples for their little faith. Similarly Mk. a t a n
earlier place the wording of which recalls that of the
present passage alludes the miracle of the loaves and implies
that the ought to have learned from it implicit faith in
the supernatural power of Jesus even in the storm. All the
more important is it to notice that the passage of Mk.now
before us 14-21) Jesus blames them, in the only fitting (and
therefore the only original) way, for their little undersianding
and by taking this reproach in shows that the
other, that of unbelief, is not the original one.
In Mt. 5 7 2 2 Jesus sends an answer to the
Baptist that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and
the poor have the gospel preached to them. As has
been shown above a ) , both evangelists have seen
to it that all the miracles. mentioned have taken place,
either at an earlier date, or before the eyes of the
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
Baptist’s messengers. All the more remarkable there- mand the storm and it will obey, and ye shall be able
fore is it that the list should close with what is not a to walk unharmed upon the troubled sea (of life).’
miracle a t all. It would be impossible to counteract Indeed even the words which actually stand in the
the preceding enumeration more effectually than by the passages last cited might have given occasion to the
simple insertion of this final clause. The evangelists formation of miraculous narratives. If ye shall say in
therefore cannot have added it of their own proper faith to this mountain, Re thou cast into the sea, or to
motion. Neither could Jesus have neutralised the the tree, Be thou transplanted into the sea, so
force of his own words-if we assume to be shall it be done.’ But literalism of this sort even
intended - in such an extraordinary way. On the those days had its limits.
other hand the clause question fits admirably, if (6) The same explanation is capable of being applied
Jesus was speaking not of the physically but of the also where deeds or words attributed to Jesus himself are
spiritually blind, leprous, deaf, dead. This is not concerned. It is very easily conceivable that a
the meaning, too, which these words actually have in preacher on the death of Jesus may have said, purely
the O T passages, Is. 611, which lie at the root figuratively, that then was the veil of the temple rent in
of this, and it also fits very well the continuation in Mt. twain (Mk. Mt. Lk. What he
116 Lk. which reads, ‘Blessed is he who is not meant to say was that by the death of Jesus the
offended in me’ in my unpretentious simplicity). ancient separation between God and his people was
Here, therefore, we have a case, as remarkable as it is done away. By a misunderstanding, this saying could
assured, in which a saying of Jesus, though completely easily be taken up as statement of a literal physical fact.
misunderstood, has been-in its essence at So also, if another preacher said, using figurative
incorporated with verbal accuracy in the gospels. language, that at the death of Jesus the graves had
Jesus, then, declined to work signs and that, opened (Mt. or that darkness (of sorrow) had
too, on principle. Mk. 8 (and parallels) is not a spread over all the earth (Mk.
saying of a kind he ‘could have also 26, n.
uttered one day and broken the next ( a ) In the present connection we need not do more
moreover he exuresslv that no than allude verv to what bv Strauss was
sign should be given to ‘ this [whole] generation,’ because as almost the only source of origin for
as a whole it was wicked and rebellious against God. such miraculous narratives as had no
Now, the word does not denote any kind of real foundation in fact - namelv.
wonder, but only a wonder of the kind which serves the passages of the OT. These may very well have con-
end of showing the power of him who works it-as, in tributed to the shaping of such narratives, even though
the present case, the Messiahship of Jesus. But, so we do not assume that they originated them. For the
far as the reported miracles of Jesus have this end, of the dead cp I K. 1 7 for
they are, if this saying of his is to be accepted, no the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, cp Ex. 16
longer to be taken to be credible; either they never Nu. 11 K. for the walking upon the water
happened at all or (at least), if historical, they were Ps. 77 Is. 43 16 Job 9 8 for the stilling the storm,
not miraculous. 107 for the healing of the withered hand
This applies very conspicuously to the withering of the fig-tree. I K. 136 for the healing of the dumb Wisd.
Apart from the motive mentioned in 6, this particular Apart from the miracles, there is one OT
miracle is rejected many theologians on the ground that such
a deed having no manifest saving purpose, appears to them passage which has very clearly influenced the form of
worth; of his character. The same principle will apply also at the gospel narrative in 21 7. It is impossible to
least to the stilling of the storm and the walking upon the deny representation here to be that rode into
water, and likewise to the stater the fish‘s mouth even
though, strangely enough, it is not expressly said Jerusalem upon two asses. Even if one chooses to
that this miracle was actually carried out. interpret the words as meaning that he sat upon the
( a )As for the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000, so also garments and not upon the animals the sense is
for the withering of the we still possess a clue to stantially the same, for the garments were laid upon the
the way in the narrative arose asses. The misunderstanding rests only upon a too
out of a parable. The narrative in literal interpretation of the prophecy in Zech. which
question is not found in Lk., and this is not shared by Mk. and Lk. So also the number
is, doubtless correctly, explained from thirty (unmentioned in Mk. 1411 Lk. given to the
the that Lk. considered his sum received by Judas, as also the casting away of the
of the fie-tree - or money into the teniple (Mt. 2615 would seem to
rather the to the parable, the tree not from tradition but from the passage in Zechariah
had at last to be cut down after all-as identical with (11 expressly cited in Mt. Upon
the narrative. By the fig-tree, in this view, was meant Bethlehem, as the birthplace of Jesus, the virgin birth,
the nation of Israel, and that which we have seen to be the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the massacre of the
impossible if the story is taken as a relation of actual innocents, see M ARY [MOTHER OF JESUS] and
fact 6, becomes very effective as soon as the NATIVITY.
symbolical interpretation is adopted. At the close of According to Mk. (see we are to under-
his ministry, at his last festival, Jesus utters his stand that Jesus healed where he found faith. This
curse upon the nation that has borne no fruit. power is so strongly attested throughout
rative forms of expression, which could give rise to the the first and second centuries that, in
story of the feeding, are also to be found in Mt. view of the spiritual greatness of Jesus
56 : ‘blessed are they that hunger,’ for they shall be and the imposing character his personality, it
filled,’ and the verse which in Mk. (634) stands before be indeed difficult to deny it to him. Even the Phari-
the miraculous narrative, to the effect that Jesus sees do not deny his miracles of healing, though they
the multitude, embodies in reality the substance of that trace them to a compact with Beelzebub (Mk. Mt.
narrative. For Peter’s draught of fishes, cp Mk. 934 Lk. According to Mt.
and Mt. It is not difficult to the disciples of the Pharisees also wrought such miracles
expressions made use of by Jesus out of which the man who followed not with the disciples of Jesus cast
the narrative of the walking on the water and the still- out devils (Mk. the same is said of
ing of the tempest could be framed, somewhat after the those whom in Mt. Jesus rejects in his final judg-
analogy of Mk. 1122-24 and Lk. 1 7 6 : if ye have faith as ment. Paul asserts that a like power was possessed by
a grain of mustard seed, then shall ye be able to com- himself Cor. 12 Rom. 15 and by other Christians
( I Cor. Justin mentions castings-out of devils
On the earliest text see 123 a,n. 26 35, 39, 76, 85) so also
1884
 GOSPELS
Irenaeus Eus. and Quadratus
(Eus.
That Jesus demanded faith is frequently stated (Mk.
Mt. as also that he was approached with
faith (Mk.25 Mt. Lk. ; Mt. 810 Lk.
Mt. see d), and that he
prayed.
Many of the accounts contain particulars that could hardly
have been introduced at will merely for effect. Thus in Mk. 5
the devil does not leave the demoniac of Gerasa at the first
adjuration Jesus must first, just like a modern alienist, enter
with the man into a conversation in which he elicits from him
what his hallucinations are. In Mk. all the symptoms
shown by the boy, except the falling into the fire, can he
paralleled from the descriptions of epilepsy in ancient medical
writers (Krenkel, u.
Of course we must endeavour to ascertain how
many, and still more what sorts of cures were effected by
Jesus. It is quite permissible for us to regard as
historical only those of the class which even at the
present day physicians are able to effect by psychical
methods,-as, more especially, cures of mental maladies.
It is highly significant that, in a discourse of Peter
the whole activity of Jesus is summed
in this that he went about doing good and healing
all those that were oppressed of the devil. By this
expression only demoniacs are intended. Cp also Lk.
It is not at all difficult to understand how the
contemporaries of Jesus, after seeing some wonderful
deed or deeds wrought by him which they regarded
as miracles, should have credited him with every other
kind of miraculous power without distinguishing, as the
modern mind does, between those maladies which are
amenable to psychical influences and those which are not.
It is also necessary to bear in mind that the cure may
often have been only temporary. If there was a relapse,
people did not infer any deficiency in the miraculous
efficacy of the healer they accounted for it simply by
the return of the demon who had been cast out. On
this point Mt. 12 43-45 is very characteristic. Perhaps
also Lk. 82 may be cited in this connection, if the seven
devils were cast out of Mary Magdalene not simul-
taneously but on separate occasions.
Most obscure of all are the two accounts found only in Mk.
(7 32-35 8 22-26) according to which Jesus use of saliva to
effect a in these two cases it is extraordinarily
difficult to believe in a cure whether by this or by psychical
methods.
( a ) Even if the public ministry of Jesus had lasted for a
few months he must have uttered a thousandfold
more than all that has been recorded
145. Conclusion in the gospels. His longest discourse
as t o discourses would, if delivered in the form in
of Jesus.
which it has come down to us, not
have taken more than some five minutes in the delivery.
However self-evident, this has been constantly over-
looked by the critics. They are constantly assuming
that we possess the several words of Jesus that
have been reported approximately in the same
ness with which they were spoken. For the parables
perhaps (apart, of course, from the manipulations
pointed out above, in c d)this may
be to a certain extent true. Of other utterances, we
have traced in Mt. 11 Lk. and Mk. 8 = Mt.
one or two which must have been
preserved almost In what remains, however,
it can hardly be sufficiently emphasised that we possess
only an excessively meagre of what Jesus said,
namely, only so much as not only made an immediate
impression when first heard, but also continued to survive
the ordeal of frequent repetition (for much of it possessed
too little interest for those who had not been actual
witnesses). In this process not only was an extra-
ordinary number of utterances completely lost ; but a
As for Josephus cp 86 6 3 Ant. 113 viii. 2 5
and c. 1 3 1 ; for for 16
According to Tacitus 4 Vespasian effected several
wonderful cures (cp above, 1456).
GOSPELS
large number of the sayings of Jesus now received for
the first time that consecutive and pointed form which
made them seem worthy of further repetition. Without
doubt Jesus must very often have repeated himself;
but what he assuredly often repeated in many variations
has been preserved to us only in a single form. One
may perhaps venture to compare the process with that
of a photographer who prints from many negatives of
the same individual on the same paper. There is pro-
duced in this way an ' average ' likeness which when
viewed from some distance seems satisfactory enough,
but when it is more closely viewed the vagueness of its
contours is at once discovered.
The context in which we now find the sayings of
Jesus must never (from what has been said in be
taken as a trustworthy guide in determining what the
original meaning may have been. In every case the
context tells us only what the evangelists, or their pre-
decessors, found it to mean indeed in many it is
impossible to believe that even for them the place where
they introduce the saying is intended to convey any hint
as to the meaning. A source like the logia laid
naturally very little stress upon this point. The greater
number of the utterances of Jesus are like erratic blocks.
All that one sees with perfect clearness is that they d o
not originally belong to the place where they are now
found. What their original position was is unknown.
The observer has to rest satisfied if in spite of its removal
to a new site the real nature and quality of the stone
can be made out ; and this is happily very often the
case.
On the other hand a wholly mistaken line is taken when for
example, the is niade to base consequences on any
as that Jesus was apt to give forth parahles or say -
ings pairs. The parable of the leaven which in Mt.
and Lk. immediately follows on that ofthe mustard-seed
is still wanting in Mk. 4 In source as well as
the sayings about the salt and about the light were still separate
(not connected as we now see them in Mt. 5 Equally
are discussions a s to the order in which Jesus may have
spoken the beatitudes. If any one were to try to repeat the
beatitudes after hearing once he would not he sure of re-
taining the original order. We cannot expect more of those who
heard Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount not only is it needless
to ask whether it was heard the disciples alone or by the
multitude as well it is equally needless to ask whether it
was intended for the one or for the other. I t is a conglomer-
ate. Little of what is found in Mt. 5-7 recurs in Lk. 6 On
Mt. 5 13-16 see on 5 see In chap. a really
good connection is found only within each of the following
with 16-18; not between
these groups reciprocally, nor yet between them and the other
sayings contained in these chapters. Nay, there is not the least
ground for supposing, because they are three in number, that
Jesus enumerated immediately succession those things in
which according to Mt. 16-18 hypocrisy is to be avoided
quite apart from the fact that the enumeration is disturbed and
broken by vv.
Words of such pre-eminent importance as the
Lord's Prayer or the words of institution of the
Eucharist, or the description of a scene so unforgettable
as that in which the sign is given by which the betrayer
is made known (Mk. Mt. Lk. 2221)
are given in a very conflicting manner. Of the words
uttered on the cross, Mk. and Mt. have only one, which
in turn is omitted by Lk., who, however, gives three
others. In this last case, however, one may be
that Mk. and Mt. are in the right and to the
three previous ones one safely apply the maxim
that additions are more likely than omissions omissions
would in fact be difficult to account for Mk.
accordingly, with omission of take
may be regarded as the relatively (not absolutely) oldest
form of the words of institution of the Eucharist.
(Against the deletion of Lk. 22 196 see Schmiedel
in Hand-cornmentar on I Cor. 1 1 3 4 . )
( d ) While the case of the Eucharistic words only
Lk. is dependent on Paul, Mt. and still more Mk. avoid-
ing his novelties, Paul in I Cor. as against all the
synoptists, exhibits the earlier form of the prohibition of
divorce. This we infer from the fact that it is he who
gives the strictest form of the prohibition. Subsequent
 GOSPELS
relaxations in view of the difficulty in working the
severer form, are intelligible, increases of stringency are
not especially would these be unintelligible in the case
of Paul, who actually finds himself constrained ( I Cor.
7 on his own responsibility to introduce a relaxation
the law. Even the Epistle of James, although it
.already omits Jerusalem as an object by which
one can swear gives an older form of the precept
.against swearing than is found in Mt. 5 37 ; namely, Let
your yea be a (simple) yea, and your nay a (simple)
nay.
( e ) As for the substance of the sayings of Jesus, it has
:already been pointed out in 109 6, 136
how little credence we can attach to the historicity of
the sayings attributed to Jesus about the call of the
Gentiles, the baptismal formula, the later conditions of
t h e primitive church, and the postponement of his
parusia. Here it may be added that in Mk. a say-
ing which certainly was originally the closing remark
.of a preacher on the anointing at Bethany is given
.as a word of Jesus. In Mt. (2663) it is still further
.altered by the addition : Wheresoever gospel shall
be preached, that also which this woman hath done shall
be spoken of.' As regards a passage of such great
as Mk. ( ' t o give his life a
'ransom for many'), judgment can be given only in
accordance with the following considerations. It can
be accepted as genuine if Jesus spoke of his life as a
in no other sense than that in which he did so
a t the last as an offering not for sin but
for the immunity of his followers, after the manner of the
Passover lamb in Egypt, or for ratification of their
with God as in Gen. Jer.
if he did so at a date not too long before his death.
Otherwise the doubt will have to be expressed, that the
sentence comes from the Pauline theology. In any case
it is noteworthy that it is absent from Lk. 2227.
That Jesus had in view the possibility of his death some
time before it came upon him is unlikely. But
the very precise predictions of it with their various details are
open to the suspicion that they took shape at a later date in
.accordance with the facts of history, and least of all is it credible
that Jesus should have put forth such a prediction directly after
Peter's confession 831 Mt. Lk. This confession
must have been one of the supreme moments in the joyous con-
sciousness of Jesus-the discovery that he was finding recog-
nition as the Messiah and was winning his battle. Suffering
.and death are the very opposite of all that is looked for in the
Jewish Messiah, and of what Jesus at that moment could have
looked forward to for himself.
the eschatological discourses disappears
specifically apocalyptic concerning the signs
of his parusia, if the separation of the little Apocalypse
as made in 6 is correct. This does not, however,
by any means imply the elimination of all eschatological
utterances whatsoever. On the contrary, there still
remain to be attributed to Jesus the words in Mt.
(ultimately also ; see
which he prophesies his return with the clouds of heaven,
and the like. This is in fact quite intelligible, and even
necessary, if he held himself to be the Messiah in such
.acase it would have been impossible for him to believe
that God would allow him and his work to go to ruin
through the persecutions of his enemies. The failure of
these prophecies to come to fulfilment ought in no case
t o lead to any attempt to make out that they were not
uttered Jesus, or to interpret in such a sense
.ascauses their inconsistency with the facts to disappear.
As has been shown in 111, e, the evangelists
found that much trouble was required in order to tone
down this inconsistency they had not the least occasion,
therefore, to invent such predictions or to heighten them
the prophecies must have lain before them as quite fixed
elements of tradition.
Another question is whether Jesus foretold the destruction of
the temple as in Mk. 13 Mt. 24 Lk. 21 6. If the little
(Mk. 13 Mt. 24 or Rev. 11 I is from a Christian
hand the answer can hardly be affirmative, a Christian writer
could have Dresumed the continued existence of the
temple in to Jesus' own prophecy. Both these
1887
GOSPELS
pieces, however, may be Jewish ; and Jesus could have foreseen
the destruction of Jerusalem even without supernatural know-
ledge. I n no case, however, we to lay weight on the
circumstance that he connects it with the end of the world for
this arises from the fusion of the (certainly vacillating) tradition
regarding his own words with the 'little Apocalypse'
Therefore, also, we must refuse to entertain the conjecture that
in reality he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem only, and
that his alleged prediction of the end of the world on a
misunderstanding of the disciples. According to the same
mode of reasoning, he cannot have prophesied his resurrection
alone without adding a prediction of his second coming from
heaven for this, according to the general and most ancient belief,
which makes no mention ascension also Cor. 1 5 Bom.
Rev.
I Pet. 3 Eph. carried him direct to heaven ; but
there was quite as general a belief that as Messiah his of
setting up the kingdom of God upon earth required his presence
here.
Of all these predictions it is possible to deny that they
were uttered by only if it be at the same time denied
that he held himself to be the Messiah. But in that
case it be impossible to explain how the disciples,
who had been thrown into the utmost depths of despond-
ency his death, nevertheless came to be able to believe
in his resurrection. Those theologians who go so far as
to remove all the utterances of Jesus to the effect that
he was the Messiah, hardly continue to hold that the
belief in his resurrection rests on anything more real than
the visions the disciples which arose out of their sub-
jective mental condition. All psychology, however,
affirms that visions arise only when that which is seen
in the concrete has previously taken firm and living hold
on the soul of the visionary. The belief is therefore
inevitable that the disciples had already, in the lifetime
of Jesus, held him to be the Messiah. They could not,
however, have done so without acquainting him with
this of theirs ; and if he had denied it, it is im-
possible how their respect for his authentic
declaration should have permitted them to go on believ-
ing the opposite. As regards the date of his
coming, the statements in Mt. (that it would be
before the then living generation had passed away) and
in 2664 (that it would be immediately, have a
like claim to probability. Whatever he may have said
as to this, it is certain that he also declared
that none knoweth of that day or of that hour (Mk.
13 Mt. 2436).
It would be quite out of place to look in the
gospels for direct statements as to any development in
Jesus during the period of his public activity. The
latest date at which reverence for him would have allowed
a conception of anything of the kind to be assigned is that
of his temptation (Mt. Lk. 41-13) before his ministry
began. It could only be from unconscious touches of
theirs that we could be led to conjecture any develop-
ment later than this. Yet such a conjecture we
venture to make, for example, as regards Jesus' freedom of
attitude towards the Mosaic law. What he says in Mt.
about murder, or in about adultery, may
be easy enough to reconcile with his declaration that he
is not come to destroy the law ( 517 ) but the case is
otherwise with the sayings immediately following, upon
divorce upon swearing upon
retaliation upon love of one's 43-48), as
also upon the laws about foods (Mk. 1-23 Mt. 15
and about the Sabbath (Mk. and parallels). If
the first-mentioned conservative saying (517) is to be
held genuine, we must assign it to the first period of the
public activity of Jesus. It is in fact quite credible that
Jesus, who unquestionably was a pious Jew, at first saw
in the Mosaic law the unalterable will of his Father, and
regarded the errors of the Pharisees as consisting only
in a too external apprehension of it. But it is equally
intelligible that in the course of his controversy with them
he should have become convinced how many precepts
the law in point of fact embodied which were antagonistic
to the spirit of religion as it had revealed itself to him.
It was one of his greatest achievements that he sacrificed
the letter of the law to this and not this to the letter of
1888
 GOSPELS
the la w; but we may be sure that it cost him many a
hard struggle.
( h ) Another point in regard to which we may venture
to conjecture some development in Jesus during his
public life is his Messiahship. As late as on the occasion
of Peter’s confession we find him commanding his dis-
ciples to keep this a secret (Mk. 830 Mt. Lk.
With this it agrees that in Mk., before this date, he
applies thd designation Son of Man to himself only
twice’ (21028). In Mt., on the contrary, he does so
very often, and, besides, the significance of Peter’s con-
fession is completely destroyed by where already
all the apostles have been made to declare him to be the
Son‘of God. In accordingly, this trace of develop-
ment in Jesus’ thinking is obliterated.
It is when the purely religious-ethical utterances
of Jesus come under consideration that we are most
advantageously placed. Here especially applies the
maxim laid down in 131 (end) that we may accept as
credible everything that harmonises with the idea of
Jesus which has been derived from what we have called
the foundation pillars ) and is not otherwise
open to fatal objection. Even though such utterances
may have been liable to Ebionitic heightening, and
already, as showing traces of this, cannot lay claim to
literal accuracy- even though they may have been
unconsciously modified into accord with conditions of
the Christian community that arose only at a later
date- even though they may have undergone some
distortion of their meaning through transference to a
connection that does not belong to them- the spirit
which speaks in them is quite unmistakable. Here
we have a wide field of the wholly credible in which to
expatiate, and it would be of unmixed advantage for
theology were it to concentrate its strength upon the
examination of these sayings, and not attach so much
importance to the minute investigation of the other less
important details of the gospel history.
AUTHORS AND DATES OF THE GOSPELS AND
MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES.
means originally (and still continues to do
so in 4 the reward for a of news.
late classical Greek the good news
Itself, for which the LXX has the
in For religious.
tidings we have the verb in Is. 611,
cited in Lk. 418. The N T has the substantive also in
this sense. It was a serious error on Origen’s part when
Eus. HE vi. he took the Gospel of Lk. to be
meant where Paul speaks of my Gospel (Rom. 2
Tim. 28). In the also, still
signifies the substance of the gospel history without
reference to the book in which it was written so too in
82, the Lord says in his gospel so too in Irenaeus
when he describes the gospel as fourfold
so too even in the Muratorian fragment (1. :
But here we already find also 17)
similarly Justin 76) speaks of the
of the apostles which are called gospels,’
and Claudius Apollinaris says in the
(cp JO HN , SON OF
42, ‘the gospels seem to contradict one
another.’ Thus it was not till the middle of the second
century that the nord came to signify a book, and,
after that, till the end of the second century, it continued
to bear its original meaning as well. The titles Gospel
according to Matthew,’ ‘ to Mark,’ etc., accordingly do
not, linguistically considered, mean the written Gospel
of Matthew,’ etc. still less, however, ‘written Gospel
based on communications by Matthew,’ as if theverytitles
We firmly hold that by this name he means to designate
himself as the Messiah-and that too even in Mk. 2 IO although
these are the two places in which there is most justification for
the attempt to make it ‘man‘ in general. Cp
also SON OF
1889
GOSPELS
conveyed that Matthew, Mark, and the others were-not
the authors, but only the guarantors for the contents of
the hooks. The inscription means simply ‘Gospel
history in the form in which Matthew put it into
writing.‘ In Mk. 1 1 the expression ‘ t h e Gospel of
Jesus Christ’ seems already to designate a book but
at the same time it teaches us that the writer of these
words cannot have set down as title to the whole book
the words Gospel according to Mark
Thus also in Mt. and Lk. etc. the titles
do not come from the authors.
In fact the writings bore no superscription at Every
one who possessed any book of this sort will have called it
‘the gospel as in the case of Marcion
the gospel of Lk. which he caused to be used in his
congregations was called simply ‘ gospel
The additions with according to ( became neces-
sary at a later date when people began to possess several
such books either separately or bound together in one
volume. If, therefore, it should prove not to be the
case that our gospels were severally written by Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, the statements that they were do not
arise from falsification on the part of the actual authors,
but only from error on the part of the church fathers,
such as Papias or the person upon whom he relied.
Besides the statements of Papias at most those
only of the church fathers of the close of the second and
the beginning of the third century
referred to in 75-82 can come into
consideration here. How small, how-
ever. is the confidence that can be
placed in the authors of these will at once be evident
when it is remembered that Irenaeus (and similarly
Tertullian, 4 z ) declares Luke to have com-
mitted to writing the Gospel preached by Paul. The
details of the life of Jesus had so little interest for
Paul that, for example, in Cor. in order to induce
the Corinthians to contribute liberally to the collection
for the poor in Palestine he is able to adduce no other
feature in Jesus as a pattern than the fact of his having
become man. As his explicit declarations in Cor. 5
I Cor. Gal. 31 tell us, he preached extremely little
to his congregations about the earthly life of Jesus. The
whole attribution to Paul of the gospel of Lk., which,
according to Origen, the refers to in
216 as ‘m y Gospel’ is only an expedient which
the church fathers adopted to enable them to assign a
quasi-apostolic origin to the work of one who was not
himself an apostle.
For this reason suspicion attaches also to the state-
ment that the gospel of Mk. rested upon communica-
tions of Peter especially as it is accompanied
with an elaborate apology for Mark’s undertaking.
The statements of the church fathers, moreover, are
not in the least consistent among themselves. Accord-
ing to Irenaeus, Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter
and Paul were preaching in Rome-thus somewhere in
the sixties,-while according to a tradition in Eusebius
iii. 246) he wrote it before his departure from
Palestine into foreign parts, that is to say, much earlier.
Again, according to Irenaeus, Mark wrote after the
death of Peter and Paul, while according to of
Alexandria, Peter lived to see the completion of Mark’s
gospel. Nay, more,- the two statements as to Peter’s
attitude to this gospel which Eusebius ( H E and
vi. takes from Clement are in conflict with
each other, quite apart from the question whether
Clement did not also regard the Gospels that had
genealogies as older than those which had not. In
short, all that can be said to be certain is this, that it is
vain to look to the church fathers for trustworthy in-
formation on the subject of the origin of the gospels.
Mt. I could, at a subsequent date, be
as such after the analogy of 2 4 ; after that of
5 I it originally referred only to the genealogy of Jesus,
Mt. 11-17.
1890
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
According to Papias (see and also his authority, in Aramaic-becomes also possible, which cannot be
the second gospel was written by M ARK Mark said of the logia according to Rut there
is known to us from Acts remains this that according to the prologue
There is also an inclination to identify of Lk. no eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus took pen in
him with the young man who left hand- none at least appear to have produced any
his garment in the hands of his pursuers in the garden writing which Lk. would have called a narrative'
of Gethsemane (Mk. ). This conjecture. how-
ever, has no value, of course, in the wdy of proof In Mt. the Jewish judicial procedure is still
either that the young man was Mark, or that he was the presupposed in the sacrificial system and in
author of the second gospel he need only be one of the 535 Jerusalem is referred to as still a city
chief for its contents. In what Papias says the while in Jas. 5 the swearing by Jerusalem
important point is not so much the statement that Mark is significantly omitted it was certainly
wrote the gospel as the further statement that Peter no longer in existence then. While it is not practicable
supplied its contents orally. If the student interprets to prove by means of these passages that Mt. was com-
the narratives of the feeding of the five thousand and posed before 70 A. D . (see they strongly tend to
of the four thousand, of the stilling of the storm, of the establish that earlier date for the logia.
walking upon the water, of the withering of the fig-tree, Mt. 23 35 is in the highest degree remarkable. Zachariah the
and so forth, in the manner that has been indicated in son of Berechiah is the well-known prophet of the O T who did
preceding sections of this article not suffer martyrdom. Hut, according t o
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada did so suffer. This was about
then the supposition that the gospel is essentially a re- so that he certainly cannot be called the last martyr, and
petition of oral communications by Peter, will at once least of all can he be so called merely because Chronicles is the
fall to the ground. Rut even apart from this, the last book in the OT. From Josephus 5 4, we learn
compass of the entire work is far too short. that in Zechariah
was put to death The
It is hardly felicitous to say to this that Mk. repeatsso conjecture is a very obvious one that the author had event
few of the words of Jesus because he was aware that the others in his mind. If it be correct, the date of will
were already known through the logia Why, in that have to be placed considerably later than 68 A.D., as the writer
case, then, does he fill some seven of his sixteen chapters with could not, very shortly after this event, easily have confounded
these? As for what Mk. tells ahout Peter personally it this Zechariah with some other who had lived before, or in, the
certainly is true that the statements concerning him in time of Jesus. I t must not he overlooked, however that accord-
Mt. is richer than Mk. (his walking upon the water, ; ing to Lk. the source of this narrative is of
the promise given him, 16 the stater in the fish's mouth, God, that is to say, according to the most probable conjecture,
17 make no claim to historicity. But the statements a hook distinct from the logia which either on its title the
e. Wernle (p. recognises the leading position of words 'Wisdom of God or introduced the Wisdom of God as
Peter it necessary to add also of the sons of speaking. It is doubtful therefore whether the passage is to be
Zehedee'), are found with trifling exceptions in Mt. and Lk. assigned to the logia.
also. Only Mk. 136 13 3 16 7 are wanting both the others For the earliest instance in which a passage is quoted
Mk. 3 76 537 is wanting also in only, and Mk. 1433 37 in
Lk. only. Peter's leading position in the gospel, any case which now is to be found in our canonical Mt. (Epistle
corresponds to the actuality. But precisely for this reason the of Barnabas) see 89. It is not per-
statements regarding it are all the less conclusively shown to be missible to infer a date earlier than 70
derived from Peter personally.
A . D . either from the straightway
Whether it was original Mk. that arose in the manner which Mt. has retained from the 'little
described by Papias will be differently judged according Apocalypse' (see 1 1 1 , 1246) or from the other in-
to the various opinions that are held regarding that dicia adduced in § In Mt. 2 2 7 the. destruction
writing. No answer to a question of this sort, however, of Jerusalem is clearly presupposed as already past
can be of any real service to gospel criticism, for we no (see The church-conditions also, as well
longer possess original Mk. Mark have written a s the postponement of the parusia (see 136,
in Aramaic then he cannot be held to have been the point to a later date. It is not practicable
author of canonical Mk., which is certainly not a to separate these passages as later interpolations,
translation (see nor yet, in view of the LXX and thus gain for the Gospel as a whole the earlier
quotations which have passed over into all three gospels; date. They are much too numerous, and many
can he be held to have been the author of original Mk., of them -- as, for example, precisely - much
but only to have been the author of the source from too closely implicated with a tendency which pervades
the last-named writer drew. the entire work On the other hand, it is quite
The employment of various sources (amongst others, of open to us to regard some of them as interpolations :
or original Mk. the characteristic difference of the for example, 16 or the baptismal formula 28 or
quotations from the LXX and the original the appearance of Jesus to the women or also
the indefiniteness of the deter- chaps. Substantially, these are the leading pas-
minations of time and place (§§ sages on account of which many are disposed to bring
the incredibilities of the contents down the date of the entire gospel as late as to 130 A. D .
108, the introduction of later conditions T h e fact that it was used, as well as Mk. and Lk.,
as also the artificial arrangement by the author of the Fourth Gospel would not
and so forth, have long since led to the conclusion that forbid this late date (see J OHN , S ON OF Z EBEDEE,
for the authorship of the First Gospel the apostle Probably, however, its main contents must
Matthew must be given up. have been in existence at an earlier period if they were
All the more strenuously is the effort made to known to Lk. 127, and even the most of chaps.
preserve for Matthew the anthorship of the logia. is presupposed to have been in existence if it can be
From the contents it is clear that one must assign to shown that in 119 A . D . a final addition was introduced
the logia many things which no ear-witness can have into it. This has been suggested as regards the story of
heard from the mouth of Jesus. This is the case the Magi : a Syriac writing, ascribed to Eusebius of
even if only discourses (for examples, see 136 which was published by William Wright in
and also 150) are sought in the logia, or if it is
the Sacred Literature, 1866, pp.
assumed that the legalistic and Jewish-particularistic and discussed by and Hilgenfeld in
passages were first introduced in the course of a revision pp. pp. makes the statement,
If one derives most of the narratives also which can hardly have been invented, that this narrative,
from the logia, the considerations against their apostolic committed to writing in the interior of Persia, was in
origin already adduced in 148 became still more
cogent. That the apostle Matthew should liave been The heading of the whole tractate is, according to Nestle,
den Stern : wie und was
the author of a still older writing is not excluded. On den Stern und Joseph
this supposition the statement of Papias- that he wrote
1892
 GOSPELS
during the episcopate of Xystus of Rome,
made search for, discovered, andwritten in the languageof
those who were interested in it (that is to say, in Greek).
As regards canonical Mk. we possess a datum for
fixing its date only if we assume it to have been the
book that was by Mt. and Lk.
find ourselves unable to do this
it is open to us to suppose that it may
have received its final form later than and Lk. It
is not, however, justifiable to find a proof of this in
the fact that in it designates the public appear-
ance of the Baptist as the beginning of the gospel of
Jesus. Some scholars have detected here a silent polemic
against those gospels which begin with the narratives
relating to the nativity of Jesus. The significant
anceof the ‘straightway’ Mt. 1324
certainly points clearly to the period after the
destruction of Jerusalem. On Mk. see
If the companion of Paul, cannot have been
the author of Acts (see ACTS, 9 neither can he have
been the author of the Third Gospel.
That both works are from the same
pen may be regarded as quite certain.
The weightiest evidences of the employment of
Josephus by Lk. seen in Acts (see 16) yet
tolerably many are found in the gospel also. I n that
case the year will be the superior, and some-
where about the inferior, limit of the date of
its composition, since there must have been a considerable
interval between the production of the gospel and that
of Acts. The very precise description of the destruction
of Jerusalem in Lk. is in full accord
with history and, in language, with Josephus. It cannot
exactly be pronounced absolutely impossible that it
should nevertheless have been written before 70
for a lively imagination acquainted with the localities
could hardly have presented them very differently.
Only, the prediction of the little Apocalypse b)
which is still rightly interpreted in Mt. and Mk. in ac-
cordance with Daniel (see DAN IEL, ii.) as referring to
the setting up of a foreign image in the temple has been
made by wrongly yet very in accordance
with the expression to refer to the destruction
of Jerusalem Upon this event, he says, will
follow (v. 24) the times of the Gentiles 111) during
which Jerusalem is to be trodden under foot. Not till
after these times are the signs in heaven to appear and
the Son of Man to come with clouds (vv. 25-27), and
not till this point does he promise to the followers of
Christ their redemption and the coming of the
of God (vv. Had Lk. written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem we have expected him to have
thought of this event as connected with the second
coming of Jesus. That instead of this he should re-
present the judgment day (v. and the beginning of
the kingdom of God as being separated by so long an
interval is, ascomparedwith all prophecyand apocalyptic,
something quite new and admits of only one explanation
-that the destruction of Jerusalem could at the time
of writing be no longer regarded as a recent event.
In his prologue Lk. distinguishes himself not only
from the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus but also from
the many who before him had written comprehensive
and from the number of these, he again seems
to exclude the eye-witnesses.
in Dan. (cp 9 27 1131) is simply a veiled ex-
pression for ‘Lord Zeus, altar
(or was erected upon the altar of burnt-offering in
December B.C. (I Macc. 154 The Syriac Bible actually
gives in Macc. 6 in connection with this event as a
rendering of the Greek word Thus Daniel had not desola-
tion in his mind in the least. See A BOMINATI ON OF D ESOLATION .
Further information as to similar veiled designations of heathen
deities is given in $5, n. 56.
The verb (EV ‘set forth in order’) denotes
andbecause, words ‘alsotome’
applies it also to his own performance)the composition of a
GOSPELS
Lk. makes a quite clear division : the eye-witnesses have
handed down and that by word of mouth
no purpose would have been served by adding to
the further predicate ‘ministers of the word
others have composed gospel writings; and
seeks to excel these last by accurate research (or taking u p
the narrative from an earlier point) and by correct arrangement.
That he himself had direct intercourse with is
therefore not very probable, and it is not at all expressed by the
word (1 ‘they delivered them unto us which from the begin-
ning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,’ for immedi-
ately before he speaks of ‘the things which have been fulfilled
among us,’ a phrase by which he obviously cannot mean himself
and his contemporaries, h ut only Christendom generally
similarly therefore in Cp 37 64.
The discussion of the dates of the gospel yields, it
will be seen, but few definite results. W e have
ately refrained from making use of
certain arguments which could be
more or less easily applied otherwise. All the more
would we the proposition, that our uncertainty
on the chronological question by no means carries with
it any uncertainty in the judgment we are to form of the
gospels themselves. The chronological question is in
this instance a very subordinate one. Indeed, even if
our gospels could be shown to have been written from
50 A . D . onwards, or even earlier, we should not be
under any necessity to withdraw our conclusions as to
their contents we should, on the contrary, only
to say that the indubitable transformation in the original
tradition had taken place much more rapidly than
might have been ready to suppose. The credibility of
the gospel history cannot be established by an earlier
dating of the gospels themselves in any higher degree
than that in which it has already been shown to
especially as we know that even in the lifetime of Jesus
miracles of every sort were attributed to him in the most
confident manner. as the transformation has de-
parted so far from the genuine tradition, it is only in the
interest of a better understanding and of a reason-
able appreciation of the process that one should claim
for its working out a, considerable period of time.
By way of appendix a few words must be said here on
the question, postponed from AP OC RYPHA 26, I ) to
this place, as to whether the gospel of
the Hebrews is to be reckoned among
the sources of the
ing to the church fathers this gospel was the Hebrew or
Aramaic form of canonical Mt. If this were correct,
it would not ,have been necessary for Jerome to
make .a separate translation of it. According to
Nicholson (The Gospel according the Hebrews, ‘79)
it was a later Hebrew edition of the gospel of Mt.,
issued after the Greek had already been published by
Matthew himself. Since Lessing’s time 117) it has
often regarded-especially in the Tiibingen school
-as one of the sources, or even as the most ancient, or
even as the only, source of our synoptics. Handmann,
again in 5
identifies it with the logia. That it may have been,
in some older form, one of the sources of the Synoptics
cannot be contradicted but neither can it be proved,
for we no longer possess the older form. Among the
fragments preserved to us there are ,only a few which
are not open to challenge on the score of their late date.
Many on the other hand are unquestionably late legends
James, the brother of Jesus, swore at the last
supper (where according to our evangelists he cannot
even have been present) to eat nothing till he should
have beheld Jesus after his resurrection Jesus accord-
ingly appeared in the first instance to him, brought
bread, broke it, and gave it to him. Or, again, at the
death of Jesus the superliminare or lintel of the temple
was broken. Or, Jesus is reported to have said : even
prehensive work in accordance with literary aims.
(AV ‘declaration,’RV ‘narrative accordingly must also mean
Lk. this, and not a mere statement about a particular occurrence,
without pretension to literary art (cp
 GOSPELS GOSPELS
now has my mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one employ, and partly according to the views they main-
of my hairs and borne me to the great mountain Tabor : tain.
and more of the like.
Mainly tendency-criticism.- (a) Mt., Mk. :
It is almost universally conceded that the fragments Krit. die 47
of the so-called gospel of the Ebionites can claim Gesch. ('67) ;
antiquity in a much less degree still than can the gospel i.
of the Hebrews to which it is related. (6) Mk., Lk. : Hilgenfeld, Die
(n) Other gospel- so- Evangelien, '54 ; from '58 onwards. Holsten, Die
Evangelien, '83 ; Die '85 ;
called logia of Jesus found at Oxyrhynchus, first pub - cp 125a.
lished by Grenfell and Hunt. Lk Mt. : Bruno Bauer, der Gesch.
These contain besides an (almost) verbatim repetition of der Evangelien,
Lk. 6 which go far beyond the Johannine theology, mar, Die Evangelien die Synopsis, 70;
and have absolutely nothing analogous to Marcus der '76
them in the canonical gospels. I t would be Schulze, '61, '86.
a great error to see in them a portion of the
gospel logia of Mt. But the hypothesis also, that Mainly, or entirely literary criticism.-(a) Mk Lk.
they are excerpts from the gospel of the Mt. : der '38. Pfleiderer,
Egyptians, has its strongest support only in '87.
the fact that according to accounts this gospel itself was (6) Schleiermacher die des ;
of an equally mixed character. Moreover the identification Stud.
cannot he made were it only for this realon-that we cannot cp
know whether these seven or eight sayings were excerpted Theory of two sources (Mk. and the logia): Weisse,
wholly from one hook or whether they were compiled from a Evangel. Gesch., '38 '56 (but see
variety of sources. in fact, the principle on which such a Wernle, Die synopt.
heterogeneous variety of sayings has been brought together is
quite obscure to us (cp 86). Original gospel of Philip, with the logia: Ewald, Die 3
'71
(6) 1900) (e) Original Mk. with the logia: Holtzmann, Die
has published a Coptic fragment which, amongst other '63 ; 1878, pp.
things, touches upon the scene in Gethsemane. Theol. from 125
I n character this is the same mixture of Synoptic and die evangel. Gesch., 64 ; Das
Johannine or even supra-Jobannine ideas as has been observed '86 Johannes Weiss u. pp.
in the Oxyrhynchus logia. Its derivation from the gospel ; pp.
of the Egyptians is just as questionable as is that of those Wiederkunftsrede in Meyer's
logia. I f then we read in it-what, according to the con- Beyschlag, pp.
nection, it can hardly he doubted, notwithstanding the frag- 1883, ; cp . Feine, '85-'88 ;
mentary character of the piece, we ought to read- that des Lk.,
the words 'The spirit is willing, hut the flesh is Apostolic logia : Bernhard Weiss,
weak, with reference' to himself and not with reference to pp. 1883, 1864, pp.
the disciples, if we should feel inclined to regard this a s 140; pp.
the more original we must not do so merely on 72 ; '76 in Komm.
account of the source in which we find it. '83, Mk. '85, (Mk. only),
The case is quite similar with the gospel accord- Theol. Stud. Weiss, ('97); also
ing to Peter (see P E TER). separately under the title, Das der
den Logia des C p above,
( d ) The fragment, first published by Bickell in the
Theol., 1885, pp. which has (g) Theory of two sources with borrowing from Mt. by Lk.
been dealt with by (amongst others) Harnack : Simon?, Hat der Evangelist
Untersuch. 54, pp. and Resch Stockmeyer des in
Theol. der 1884, pp. Wendt
Lehre '86. Soltau, der synopt.
This fragment contains in a somewhat divergent form the Wissensch., Combined
predictionof Jesus that all his disciples would he offended in with hypothesis of an original Mk.: Jacohsen, die
him and that Peter would deny mentioning also that the Evangelien, ' 8 3 ; 1886,
cock crowed twice it agrees most strongly with Mk. 14 26-30
but also with Mt. 2631 the words 'in this night since More complicated hypotheses : Wittichen
these words in Mk. do not occur in v. 27 hut only 30.
That we have here before us a pre-canonical form of the text ; pp.
cannot be proved with certainty from the divergences in in-
dividual words. A stronger argument is supplied hy the fact that Scholten, 68 (Germ. transl.,
69 Evangelium)
i n the present fragment v. of Mk. 32 of de de van der
wanting-a verse which has long been recognised as disturbing '73 (German translation of both, under title
the : I am risen again I will go before you Evangelium).
into Galilee. At the same time, we must not forget
may have been omitted preciselyfor this reason, if dealing English.- It may be well to notice that the
with a free excerpt. Neither does this fragment, then, supply efforts of recent English students have been
with an irrefragable the existence of written sources devoted to collecting and arranging the material for the
for our gospels.
( e ) The so-called that is to say, solution of the critical problems under consideration, as
a preliminary to the critical hypotheses which may,
sayings of his which are not met with in the gospels,
have been collected with great care by Kesch in unforced, suggest themselves in the future.
(a) Books helpful to students :-Rushbrooke's
u. Untersuch. 54 , '89. and Ahbott and Rushbrooke's Tradition of the
Resch's judgment of these his readiness t o recognise genuine ('84); A. Wright, of the Gospels('96)
sayings of Jesus preserved latest church fathers and and Luke's Sir J.
his employment of these for his Hebrew original gospel F. H.Woods in 2 ('go).
have, however, met with very just criticism in the same series Special treatises, etc. :-A. Wright, The Composition
(142) a t the hands of Ropes (Die die i n den the Gospels ('go), and New
nicht sind '96). At the The ed.
same time Ropes in accepting so many as io Matthew ('97); E. A. Abbott, A
as probably genuine has perhaps gone too far. A somewhat Guide Hebrew Scripture and The
richer selection, without pronouncing any judgment as to
their genuineness, is given by Nestle in
'96, pp. 89-92 where hesides a collation of Codex Important articles :-E. A. art. 'Gospels' in
D, the extra-canonical as a whole will he found very Sanday in '91, '93, and art.
conveniently brought together. Gospels' in Smith's ; V. H. art. 'Gospels'
in Hastings' vol. Behb, art. 'Luke,'
Literature. In German. - For facility of refer- F.Salmond art. ' Mark,' ibid. J. V. Bartlett,
ence we group the present selection from the German 'Matthew.' W. C. Allen in and
literature on the problem
partly according to the methods they The following hooks hear upon the subject :-Westcott
Introduction t o the Study ('60 ; Salmon'
I t is applied in the Roman Missal and Breviary (see t o N T ('85) Plummer, on Luke
Office for Palm Sunday). P. w.
1896
 GOSPELS

SOME T H E PASSAGES REFERR ED TO I N T H E PRECEDING ARTICLE.

the right the Gospel citations indicate the (or

MATTHEW. MA RK. LUKE.

28 3a, 1844
n. I, 128, 1870
11-17.

n. I,
7877
IAA .

9
9 128, 1864

2749, n. I, 1807
142, 1884
27 S 26. 1782

28 108, 1839
28 6 1782
28
19, 136, 1876
1842

1536, n. I, 1807
1884
16 27, 1783
138,
9
1777 138,
18 15-17, 136, 1876 16 n. 3, 1767
8. 138,

LUKE.

39,

1898